Atheist Can't Make the Leap

[Doreen]

let me give an example....

Oh, yeah. I gotta be an atheist. My life is empty without party hats and weekends screaming at mosques.

It not funny, even delivered in the most snide tone, because it makes no sense.

This was the problem with the OP.

As catharsis, only you can judge its merit.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I am sorry you have detractors.

Further, to me, one can be sarcastic and point out the illogic of something. In fact to simply be sarcastic and random carries little punch.

I do?

It does?

 

[Doreen]

I do?

Apparently.

It does?

Yes.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Yes.

What if you don't recognize it?

 

[Doreen]

What if you don't recognize it?

If I don't recognize the small amount of punch present? But I did.

 

[wynn]

Surely there is something more attractive for each that sets them apart from one another.

Things are attractive to people or a certain person. The quality of being attractive is not a universal quality in the religion.

Actually, PE is coming from a similar absolutistic position as myself.

Except that I have moved a milimeter past merely flirting with absolutism, while he hasn't.

 

[Doreen]

Actually, PE is coming from a similar absolutistic position as myself.

Except that I have moved a milimeter past merely flirting with absolutism, while he hasn't.

Yes, his mock seeking is similar to your serious seeking. Though the wording

Surely there is something more attractive for each that sets them apart from one another.

could imply that each one has a certain specific quality that would be attractive to some and not others. So it would be hard for us to answer for him.

If there is a universally, absolutely attractive religion it will scoop you both up sooner or later. If each of you is not part of the equation - if its truth is IN it - then it bears full responsibility for your conversions.

If, on the other hand, it is the intellect that will be the skill that finds the one religion with THE absolute truth - iow intellect is the capability that will recognize absolute truth - you have a tremendous advantage over most souls. God seems to not have blessed the vast majority of souls out there as much. I find PE's communication confusing, so I can't be certain he is so blessed.

 

[wynn]

If there is a universally, absolutely attractive religion it will scoop you both up sooner or later. If each of you is not part of the equation - if its truth is IN it - then it bears full responsibility for your conversions.

If, on the other hand, it is the intellect that will be the skill that finds the one religion with THE absolute truth - iow intellect is the capability that will recognize absolute truth - you have a tremendous advantage over most souls. God seems to not have blessed the vast majority of souls out there as much. I find PE's communication confusing, so I can't be certain he is so blessed.

I think neither is the case, though.

I think the really deciding factor is that one has some understanding that
1. one is dependent on the Absolute Truth,
2. one is subservient to the Absolute Truth,
3. there is nothing bad, wrong or evil about 1 and 2.

If you look at the seekers of Absolute Truth, in which ever form or shape they come, they can be divided into two groups: one who accepts the above three points, and one who rejects them.

 

[Tiassa]

Shrinking truculence

Really? A lot of people do it. It's just a pain in the butt to write out "christian" all of the time. It's just shorthand.

I thought I would add that "Xtian" seems a deliberate offense. The old shorthand for Christian and Christianity are, "Xn", and "Xnty". Even those, many Christians disdain.

But there seems something symbolic among the number of atheists, pagans, and others who make a point of writing extraneous letters in their shorthand, a context of deliberate insult. It's almost as if one is petulantly putting more effort into slighting a people than necessary, suggesting an underlying irrational belligerence.

 

[Doreen]

I think neither is the case, though.

I think the really deciding factor is that one has some understanding that
1. one is dependent on the Absolute Truth,
2. one is subservient to the Absolute Truth,
3. there is nothing bad, wrong or evil about 1 and 2.

If you look at the seekers of Absolute Truth, in which ever form or shape they come, they can be divided into two groups: one who accepts the above three points, and one who rejects them.

To me 1-3 sidestep the issue I was addressing. Which truth are you subservient to, Signal? Which truth are you dependent on? How did you decide these were the truths to be subservient to and dependent on?

The ones who do believe in 1-3 seem not to agree with each other on much else. Their Absolute Truths seem not to be the same. Their routes seem not to be the same. Their language seems not to be the same.

But there are a number of traditions that will tell you you should be subservient to the truths they put forward and they add to this the expectation that you and your intellect will resist and suffer when following their practices - or experience suffering that is already present. They also say that one will not understand everything from the beginning. How does one choose one of these? Subservience is also commonly coupled with another metaphor, that of surrender. What is stopping you from surrendering to one of these traditions and the truths they are offering?

And also, I was not saying there was not a single absolute truth or set of truths, I just have no idea if everyone is seeking that same set or if their routes and the language used to describe those routes will look anything at all alike. I am not sure if I need to know what must work for everyone before choosing a direction. In fact I am pretty sure this stops the process dead in its tracks.

Last, the formulation in 1-3 seems to posit an absolute truth that is separate from the seeker. IOW the seeker is subservient to something 'out there'. That hardly seems absolute to me, since it does not really include me. But then I am in the latter camp.