Tyler, you just were anxious enough to be my sacrificial lamb
I'd be more than willing to explore this topic. The thing is, I will gladly accept religious texts as a metaphorical guide on how to live life. I personally believe needing a book to live a good life is pretty sad, though.
Actually, you did fine in this topic, Tyler, and we can explore it as much as you like. I was hoping the deception would hold out one or two posts because I thought I could get you to irrevocably commit to art what you would deny religion. But essentially, I'm satisfied.
Look, you're obviously brighter than the people who need the Bible to get them through each day. Yet you serve as an example that all atheists should pay attention to: you have now identified the key concept to being an atheist or infidel of my nature while dealing with the religious.
And now you can think of it simply: Christians are no different from those idiots we all know who took
The Matrix as some sort of gospel, much less as a good film. (Eye candy and Keanu Reeves makes about as much sense as ... the Book of Job.)
But that's just the thing: examine holy books and their religions as if you were an art critic reading a script and watching the interpretation.
In fact, do think of it that way. Clive Barker's
History of the Devil: Scenes From a Pretended Life is a play that comes with relatively sparse instructions for production. Arthur Miller's
Death of a Salesman is
very heavy on the production instruction. With Barker's play, you have a lot more liberty to interpret.
Think of it like conservative and liberal religious interpretations. As you go from production to production of
History of the Devil, you might say, "That doesn't seem right," but merely accept that it is a director's interpretation of the visual. But as you go from production to production of
Death of a Salesman, there should be much less diversity in the presentation; copious notes are available, and the thin scripts American youths sometimes read in high school are often abridged because nobody needs to read the notes about how wide the wood for the window-frame should be. So as you sit, watching, and say, "That doesn't seem right," you may be correct.
Just remember that this is what you're dealing with when you view, for instance, Christianity. One script, many producers, not nearly enough detail to regulate performance presentation.
And that's why I say to treat religion, politics, and most of life as some sort of performance art. Almost everybody in the world puts on some sort of histrionic façade. As a critic, it is your job to see through the performances, make what observations you can, and offer up advice to improve or stabilize future productions and presentations.
I am, quite frankly, disturbed at the nature of the atheist rejection of God. I find that when God is actively rejected (as opposed to not being a factor in an atheist's life) that rejection is a unique and conditional application of a standard, which seems a little hypocritical. As anyone might know, I'm a fan of the books I had GodSlayer tear apart. That more than anything should have been a clue, but I think Static has a point; I can't fake spelling errors and other ignorance well enough to cover my ass. But when I rejected God for reasons of objectivity, I found that I could not easily return to a subjective lifestyle. My writing collapsed, my interest in literature collapsed, and I spent years mucking around in history and social sciences. But the hitch I threw in my personal integrity by randomly invoking the necessity of objectivity was massive, and one of the reasons I gave up atheism is that it was easier to maintain integrity in the arenas most critical to me. And that's why I pick on this aspect of atheism. I basically applied the same curmudgeon objectivity of an atheistic rejection of God to those books. And, in that sense, I am right. And you were
very helpful in pointing out the absurdity of that objective standard.
Now then, it seems appropriate to ask who is going to randomly invoke objectivity as an argument against God. Given that the atheist argument rejects something that is so vital to human beings, it seems only natural to expect a paradigm of integrity to replace corrupt religious blackmails. As it is, though, invoking objectivity as a matter of will is arbitrary and somewhat hypocritical: it turns out that objectivity is only invoked to the perceived advantage of the atheist.
After about six months of that, incidentally, and having to lie to someone to save their life, I decided there must be a less stressful, less obsessive, more honest way of going about it.
I'd actually like to see rank-and-file agnosticism among people, but I've found that here at Sciforums as well as out in the world, people aren't ... uh ... how to put this ...
grown-up enough to deal maturely with the idea that after all is said and done we still don't know anything.
Come on, man ... I respect people's atheism, but not when it's an arbitrary standard designed to feed the ego and maintain a state of discord. The learning curve among Sciforums' atheists is almost a flatline. I mean, look at it, man ... remember when I was up slinging with Adam and GB, and everything was a muddy mess around here? Take a look around: the quality of debate in the religion forum has gotten even
lower, and it seems like many atheists are happy to be down there.
What can I possibly do to bludgeon some of that atheistic intelligence out of people? I'm running out of tricks, and it's becoming more and more apparent to me that atheism in general has nothing to do with anything, and is not any more or less wise than religion. But I don't see a superior intellect, I don't see a superior ethic, and I don't see a superior foundation. I see, directly, more of the same.
And that's what compelled me to a provocateur identity.
And, for a few short minutes, it worked.
A simple testament: For all the information
Tiassa can offer to enlighten apparently both sides of an argument about the history of a religious concept, why is it that nobody seems to pay attention? Yet you get a two-bit provocateur and the fur can really fly?
So a note to all Sciforums:
Think about it people. What's really important to you? Your words are a testament. Your actions are a testament.
And while we should not believe in God for lack of objective proof, we should accept projections of intelligence and conscience from people who have shown an equal objective lack.
Think about it: Integrity. From top to bottom. It's not that hard. It is, in fact, easier when you stop trying to juggle multiple schema.
Or ... is that the meaning of life? Whatever makes the ego happy at whatever cost?
thanx,
Tiassa
