Renlund attempts to slam the door shut on Heavenly Mother

[Kishkumen]

One example that comes to mind is the agnostic Neil deGrasse Tyson, in criticising the idea that God created the world, he says in contrast, “The universe is trying to kill you!”

I thought this part was particularly enjoyable, Free Ranger. It reminds me of something William Irwin Thompson wrote about science and its mythological narratives. The mythological frameworks remain even as the gods recede from view. Here Tyson's language suggests that the universe has volition and intention. It is "trying to kill you!" Fun stuff.

[Free Ranger]

Thanks Kishkumen,

It is validated to see that you picked up on that, which is exactly what I'm trying to do: be less critical and more constructive and exploratory. I spent 20 years as a hardcore critic and skeptic, deconstructing, analyzing, and debunking. Now that I have attempted to shift gears, I sense a change in my existential mood and I'm happier. Although, my inner debunking analytical side is still there and comes out as you can see in this thread. But my goal is to move even more to a place where I am more creative, humorous, artistic and exploratory philosophically. I don't want to be only Anti things anymore, I want to be for something. I discuss this in an article I basically wrote to myself; but am now sharing it with whoever is interested. The article is about changing from a critical skeptical filter to a more spiritual and optimistic filter. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2P ... i7lnDJ/pub

I shared it with an exMormon sibling and he said it was very helpful.

Peace

Your article is titled The Divine filter versus the Atheist filter.

I can appreciate that for you, the atheist “filter” is critical while your divine filter is considered optimistic, but it reflects a very narrow viewpoint. There are many with an atheistic mindset who do not couch it in terms of a “Negative Triad,” such as the one that made you “existentially depressed for several years.”

…Atheism does seem to speak of nothingness spontaneously becoming something which is actually nothing, as matter and energy is absent any kind of metaphysical soul or divinity or conscious substance. So essentially they are arguing for Nothing.
The key difference between Christianity and Atheism is that apart from the mocking memes on the web, the fact is that Christianity is a doctrine of SOMETHING.

I don’t think you understand the full idea of atheism here, as others engage it. Your misunderstanding is further shown in this quote:

In the atheistic filter there is nothing to repent of, i.e. no reason to re-choose the better way because there is no better way, no higher ethical standard one ought to live by; and there is no such thing as transgressions of any Moral Law and thus there is no such thing as redemption. In the atheistic worldview, there is not even a soul nor an objective right and wrong….

You are equating “redemption”, and the idea of a “soul” with the concepts of “right and wrong” and an “ethical standard.” in my opinion, those are only equated within your limited context of a religion and a god. Those who don’t believe in religions and god still have every ability to discuss and evaluate “the concepts of ‘right and wrong’ and an ‘ethical standard,’ “ and do so, regularly and vigorously.

While I can appreciate your enthusiasm for returning to an lds methodology, I disagree entirely that “… Life is difficult enough at times, but it is not helped by atheism in my view,” a point from the beginning of your paper. If it works for you, great, but your assumptions about the concepts are not universally held, and many of the statements in your paper reflect a very stereotypical and inaccurate understanding of atheism.

Hi Marcus,

I'm always open to constructive criticism. I agree that different atheists might experience their atheism differently than I did. As I said in the thread, I initially wrote it to myself. My atheism was at first liberating and intellectually stimulating but ultimately eventually existentially unfulfilling. That is my experience. I'm not saying that every atheist or agnostic is going to perceive the existential void and a lack of ultimate meaning, same way I did. And I did not begin to experience existential depression until about 10 years in to my atheism. It was then that I began to experience what Nietzsche's "madman parable" describes. If you have never experienced The Dark Night of the Soul, or existential angst, or found ways to deal with it, then I'm happy for you. As for me, Bertrand Russell's quote on his atheism as a philosophy of unyielding despair, is how I experienced it eventually, see: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/654503 ... ich-had-no

Like I said, I wrote the article to myself but decided to share it with those who might benefit from it. Clearly you don't benefit from it. To each his own. So it's probably not written for you and your particular sensibilities and the way you experience atheism.

Regarding you saying you don't think I understand atheism, when I refer to it being a doctrine of Nothingness. I think I do understand it; but to clarify, by atheism I mean the philosophical theory of metaphysical naturalism which is how I was defining Atheism in my article. Perhaps I need to word it better but what I'm getting at is the Sciences I have read basically keep breaking down matter into smaller and smaller "stuff," and then it makes the point that between this "stuff" or matter, there is mostly space. In an atom for example there is actually more space than stuff. What is that space, if not nothing (or no thing)? From there, on atheism, we do not have a metaphysical soul, and our concept of a self or selfhood is an illusion (I can send you more information on this from neuroscientists and those like Steven Pinker); and if we evolved and will evolve into a separate species eventually (unless technology prevents that), then I don't see how you can see it any other way than we are essentially walking No-things (as transient flowing forms). In the TV show True Detective, Season 1, the character Russ Cole (sp?) has a good scene using beer cans where he explains the illusion of the self as a person (on atheism). Richard Dawkins says we are simply gene machines, basically soul-less copy machines, which if you were to dismantle us we just break down into parts and between those parts is space or nothing. Like I said in my article, the atheist Dan Barker basically equates humans with broccoli ontologically.

The opposite view, the view of constructive mythologies, as Joseph Campbell would put it, or of Possibilianism, is openess to the belief that there is Something: there is some Divine something, some concept of ourselves as an actual entity with an objective ontological identity, an actual self, a person, a soul; and thus we have intrinsic worth and we are not just gene machines but have souls and thus there are objective human Rights and courts of law can objectively decide the guilt or innocence of someone. As apes, we don't go into a jungle and judge other species of apes when they don't practice the same moral concepts like our notion of Human Rights. They don't have courts of law and expectations of civility but will instead rip of each other's limbs and slaughter each other, and then sit down, yawn, and enjoy a banana. If morality simply evolved then other Apes would have their own demonstrations of morality similar to ours. And they do. But we have more empathy and less cruelty (though some might debate that), and less beastly irrationality than they do; because of our capacity for language and religion/mythos which led to us being more civilized. I'm simply summarizing many atheistic scientists themselves here, whom I have learned this from.

Nietzsche probably is better at explaining this than I am, so I recommend reading him carefully so at least you can see the potential problems when it comes to "atheism and morality."
Because much of Nietzsche's attack on traditional theistic Christian morality was picked up and utilized by the Nazis. I am halfway through the following book and it does a good job covering this: Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman: Unveiling the Nazi Secret Doctrine by Abir Taha.

I agree with you that

"Those who don’t believe in religions and god still have every ability to discuss and evaluate “the concepts of ‘right and wrong’ and an ‘ethical standard,’ “ and do so, regularly and vigorously."

I just don't think they have any objective grounding for their ethics. I agree with Tom Holland, author of Dominion, that they are already essentially gold fishes in the fish bowl of Christianity. This is obvious if we were to entertain a thought experiment: imagine if we put these same modern atheist ethicists into a time machine and sent them back into the times of my Viking ancestors or the Greco-Romans. In fact, what if we were able to erase their memory too and place them in these times as children where they grow up in these other pagan cultures. Do we really think that they would grow up to write the same stuff they do now as atheist ethicists today after two thousand years of our group consciousness being g influenced by Judeo-Christian morality?

I think in the West there are basically Christian Atheists and there are Nietzschean Atheists and Ayn Rand Atheists. The Atheists who try to argue for a theory of ethics (that just so happens to align closely with much of Christianity), without an appeal to metaphysics, are simply Christian Atheists in my view. Note that in a recent debate, Matt Dillahunty essentially agreed with Tom Holland, that much of our ethics comes from Christianity, but Dillahunty just avoided that fact by kind of just saying, "yeah, but so what." Note, I am paraphrasing and going off memory but that is basically what he said if memory serves me correctly.

I think its obvious that our ethics in the West comes largely from the Christian tradition. I went through a phase where I was curious about my Viking ancestry and so I decided to read some of the Norse "scriptures," and let me tell you, my ancestors did not follow the same morality that we to do today as civilized people. But they converted to Christianity and now in Scandinavia they are basically "Cultural Christians" in how they behave; and are generally respectful of their Christian Heritage, despite most of them being non-theists, though many are still supernaturalists forming alternative spiritualities.

I had learned this in my college days, but I recently picked up a history book at the bookstore and ran across a chapter on the sexuality of the Greeks and Romans, on how it was considered normal and morally acceptable for adult men to [fill in the blank] with children. Which is considered morally wrong and/or "evil," and abhorrent, and illegal today. I can send you some scholarship showing that it was actually the Apostle Paul that helped us change our moral consciousness on this issue. And in fact on exMormon Jonathan Streeters' YouTube channel, he has a recent video showing that some on the extreme political far Left are actually trying to undermine this Pauline ethic regarding children. See: https://youtu.be/qAP4czG3DjE
I think this is inevitable with anti-Christian atheisic nihilism, that rejects certain cultural moral values instilled in us by Christianity.

A lot of my points of view are based on my reading of Nietzsche (and reading the sciences and philosophy). If you have not fully engaged with Nietzsche and his attack on Christian morality, then you may not understand where I am coming from.

When I was an atheist (or Agnostic Mystic) I used to say that ethics and morality is simply defined as "avoiding unnecessary harm." Then I would make the argument that we can quantify harm, for example slapping someone in the face for no good reason at an award show can cause pain and trauma, which can be quantified. I then would argue that we should not harm people unnecessarily. But I realized I had no justification for the should. Nietzsche made me realize that I was, as Hume put it, forming an Ought from an Is. . Nietzsche was like, on atheism, why should we not harm someone if there is no objective metaphysical Good and Evil? As he says, to paraphrase him, Nothing is true/static (all is soul-less), so everything is permitted on atheism. As he famously says in one part, to paraphrase, the lion does not care if he brutally attacks and harms the little sheep, even if he should not do that because it is against the sheep's morality and causes the sheep harm. It's just the Law of Nature, wherein Life's forms kill and eat other life-forms in this Amoral Cycle of Pain & Death; as the lion attacks and eats the sheep along with his tablets of morality. As Nietzsche convincingly explains through the lens of Atheism, though he does it better than I do, if on atheism, we are in Nature and of Nature (only Nature ontollogically), then we can't deny Nature. We can only pretend to be separate from nature as supernaturalists.

According to Nietzsche, if we're really going to call ourselves just animals, just mammals, same as broccoli ontologically; then what we really have with morality is the domestication of the human animal. Morality is simply putting man in a make-believe cage. Or simply training him like we train our pet dog.

Nietzsche's alluring (to many, not all, atheists) concept of the free spirit, is the uncaged man, the unhindered man; the higher men, the elite men; the man beyond Good and Evil or Right and Wrong. They may or may not choose to do what a Christian finds moral and immoral, but whatever they choose to do they decide of their own accord as uncaged amoral men, forming their own "morality"/values themselves regardless of culture/the herd; and live more in harmony with amoral evolving Life/Nature; and whether they choose to be a law-abiding introverted artist or an amoral conqueror like Napoleon, or act like an ancient Viking, all is permitted on atheism, and afterall, its in accord with the unbridled Wild Widom of Nature.

These higher men who return to the earliest, authentic, Way of Undomestcated Ancient Humans, up to the Way of the Greco-Romans (who basically preached Might makes Right), will live beyond notions of Good and Evil and through their amoral daring lifestyles will reverse the Evolutionary-Life-denying ethic of Christianity, as Nietzsche saw it, and lead to the organic growth of the Superhuman species, that will replace and/or subjugate the Morally Christian species of today. In the book by Abir linked above, she explains how this was implemented by the Nazis.

Some atheists try to argue that the Nazis were simply influenced by pagan cultism, another form of religion. This is true, but when you really study the lives of these atheist leaders that accomplished so much atrocity, you will find that in their core they believed that the sky was empty and all was permitted.

That is a super brief summary, but it's a snapshot of what can happen on atheism, and why the general morality of Christianity is still so very important today

Okay wow, I know that's a lot. I kind of getting into analytical mode and just keep going. I will stop now.

[Free Ranger]

One example that comes to mind is the agnostic Neil deGrasse Tyson, in criticising the idea that God created the world, he says in contrast, “The universe is trying to kill you!”

I thought this part was particularly enjoyable, Free Ranger. It reminds me of something William Irwin Thompson wrote about science and its mythological narratives. The mythological frameworks remain even as the gods recede from view. Here Tyson's language suggests that the universe has volition and intention. It is "trying to kill you!" Fun stuff.

Yes, exactly! That is what I'm getting at. We can't pretend that we can stop this tendency. So if we are going to do it anyway, like seeing faces or shapes in the clouds, then why not embrace our pattern seeking, meaning-making nature, and at least use religion or mythology as a tool for feeling better existentially.

[Free Ranger]

,

[Morley]

< post snipped>

As I said about your website, you put a lot of work into this and it's a fascinating read--but I think you're a mile wide and an inch deep here, FR. You misrepresent the thoughts of almost everyone you reference.

Ha! It's too bad the Greeks and Romans didn't have any philosophers and are only known for "might makes right" and pedophilia.

[Free Ranger]

< post snipped>

As I said about your website, you put a lot of work into this and it's a fascinating read--but I think you're a mile wide and an inch deep here, FR. You misrepresent the thoughts of almost everyone you reference.

Ha! It's too bad the Greeks and Romans didn't have any philosophers and are only known for "might makes right" and pedophilia.

I disagree I misrepresent anyone. But I'm always open to constructive criticism and editing my views where I might be mistaken or off the mark.

I think you are forming a straw man of what I said above. I never said the Greeks and Romans were only known for those things. That is a really unfair and uncharitable interpretation of my post.

If that is how it felt to you, keep in mind that I can only say so much in one post you know. For example, as to your point, yes I am aware of a lot of the philosophical contributions of the Greeks and Romans. For example, I'm aware of how much Stoicism had an effect on Christianity. I think if we were sit down and have a cup of coffee and a long conversation, I think you would better understand where I'm coming from rather than just thinking you get me based on the limitations of the words I use to express myself in one post on a particular topic.

[Morley]

The Greco-Romans didn’t “basically preach Might makes Right.”


(It’s hard to quote you. Your post has had a few edits since I last read it.)

[Morley]

I think if we were sit down and have a cup of coffee and a long conversation, I think you would better understand where I'm coming from rather than just thinking you get me based on the limitations of the words I use to express myself in one post on a particular topic.

Yet here we are. And all I have are your words, my friend.

[Gadianton]

When I was an atheist (or Agnostic Mystic) I used to say that ethics and morality is simply defined as "avoiding unnecessary harm." Then I would make the argument that we can quantify harm, for example slapping someone in the face for no good reason at an award show can cause pain and trauma, which can be quantified. I then would argue that we should not harm people unnecessarily. But I realized I had no justification for the should. Nietzsche made me realize that I was, as Hume put it, forming an Ought from an Is. . Nietzsche was like, on atheism, why should we not harm someone if there is no objective metaphysical Good and Evil?

I can appreciate your line of reasoning here, FR. But seriously, how is the word of God any more of an "ought" than by definitional fiat? Have you solved the Euthyphro Dilemma?

When I was at the Lord's University, a philosophy teacher I had was a big fan of Kierkegaard. He taught us that Kierkegaard, and existentialism, is the basis of the Book of Mormon. When we got to Nietzsche, a professor buddy of his was apparently the Nietzsche expert, and so he had that guy come in and teach that part of the class. This uber-TBM was nearly in tears over the connections between Nietzsche and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He agreed with Nietzsche that Western values artificially prized weakness, and the root is envy of the strong. The true strong are grateful, basically high on life. Nietzsche's supreme teaching is gratitude. You may be handicap, or whatever it is, but you can still get in there and participate your best. In the Eternal Return, you must be grateful for what you have to relive that broken life again and again and say, "One more time!". In a huge ironic twist, DCP, who every other post castigates atheism for being nihilistic, every now and again plugs one of his favorite movies, Groundhog Day, which teaches this Nietzschian lesson.

There may be no right and wrong in the way Christianity has come to believe in good and evil, but Nietzsche did nothing if not make value judgements, and aspire to a better way forward.

I'm a little surprised that you advance such traditional moral framework since I believe you a fan of Terryl Givens, who is knee-deep in postmodernist defenses of the Church. Anyway, I guess my main point is that there is no history of philosophy you can teach that ends up with a clear divide between atheists and Christians, because for every atheist philosopher there is a long list of Christian defenders who think that person is the one to make real sense of Christianity.

[Free Ranger]

The Greco-Romans didn’t “basically preach Might makes Right.” ...

How did most of their gods act (which mirrored their morality)? Was Zeus known to rape women? Are you aware of the philosophy of Caesar in regards to war for conquest?

If that was not basically their ethic, what was it, peace and hippie love and Live and Let Live?