First, I would rather you be honest with yourself and with me. You are not an atheist. There are none. At best (worst?), you are among a group of people who knew God perfectly well, but didn't treat him like God, refusing to worship him, and have descended into silliness and confusion so that there is neither sense nor direction left in your lives. You pretended to know it all, or claim to not be able to know anything definitive, but are illiterate regarding life.
The first point, a red flag if you will allow, assuming atheists are not being honest then following that with presenting his opinion of what we are not, as fact. Then he denies, I as an Atheist, exist. The psychological properties in those three sentences alone might be symptomatic of a delusion known as grandiose complex otherwise known as that "holier than thou" syndrome. Then in the very next sentence he claims to know a supernatural entity, that I have also known said entity - but deny it and don't subjugate myself properly to it. Then he purposely claims I am not sincere, while accusing me of claiming something I would never claim only to follow that up with saying I'm ignorant of about life. Though I live a life not too dissimilar from his, though I would argue that my life has been one of contemplation of facts rather than blind belief in the absence of knowledge.
bigot
Noun: 1. A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
To the charge of bigotry I would also like to add arrogance. Furthermore, I think this qualifies for the word 'hate' or at least denial, because it is the opposite of love (total acceptance), something that the Abrahamic pundits profess is there motivation, even though there is centuries of historical evidence to the contrary. But the above, isn't the end of it. Mr. McCray follows this with a quote from Paul, which serves in the same vein as the above paragraph with all the bigotry and arrogant delusional assumptions an illiterate iron age desert dweller can muster. Even if redacted by literate pious pundits with political ambitions countless times throughout history, it is still arrogant bigotry. In the first place it denies that there were many different beliefs in the Near East (not to mention the world) at the time of its writing. The strong Platonic influence on its writers is glossed over because apologists wish this work to be understood in the context of our understanding of reality not the Platonic version of reality of that time. When it was written with the idea that, as Plato understood it, the corporeal was not the most real part of reality. In other words, few if any today believe in the god(s) of biblical times. If you wish to read it: An Answer for Atheists
And my response follows:
To be honest, I feel pity for [Mr. McCray]. It is obvious from multiple clues that you have been inculcated, indoctrinated and habituated into an extremely narrow world view replete with fallacious strawman depictions of people with differing views than your own; in short - you're a bigot. And you may yet learn that there are many people in your life that are atheists which you have overlooked. I hope it opens your eyes.
One day, soon I hope, you will be awakened to the acknowledgement that your hate of atheists is based on your fear that the doubt they represent will be actualized in time for you to realize it.
As for your post, as a Theologian, I can note that you are creating a god in your own image as evidenced by the Bible you choose to quote. Please, in the future, cite only authoritative biblical tomes; Not NIV, Living Bible, The Message Bible etc. for these are fabrications, not translations or transliterations of the text.
Now, just because you cannot see around this image that you have created in your mind, this imagined deity, doesn't mean others have that same mental deficiency. Have you forgotten that you learned of your god at your mother's knee, so to speak? Telling atheists that they are not being honest with themselves shows your primitive mindset, an inability to realize that there are independent minds from your own that are at least as viable, if not more so, as your own. It is truly a shame, for it evidences that your faith is based on baser human interactions like xenophobia via stigmatization, leading to abhorrence based on ignorance. That's the look on the Neanderthal's face the first time he encounters those recent immigrants from Africa he has heard so much about, that is when he sees us.
The reason religions still exist is because people like you still exist. I know this is going to be hard for you to grasp, but I will give it a try: There are people in this world, still, (eg. you and many other religionists) that need the motivation of reward in the hereafter, the security of fatherly guidance, or the inhibitions produced by an all seeing eye in the sky to be good and decent people as I'm sure you yourself have read, maybe even expressed in the past. Atheists, have moved beyond those needs, evolved if you will, to a point of independence of thought, an ability to utilize critical thinking to minimize emotional influence of interpretation, to a point of philosophical self sufficiency and self determination, while motivated by the knowledge that our culturally innate morality is a reflection of individual good and bad being reciprocated by those in our own and extended families, (i.e. clubs, city, state, country) as the premise of Confucius; Treat others as you wish to be treated, says. In short, religions still exists because religious, superstitious, people still exist. But as evidenced by atheists being a growing demographic, our society is evolving beyond the need for such an emotional crutch. Maybe, someday soon, we can all be good for goodness sake.
One more point, so as to not waste 45 yrs. of theological study. You quote Paul who never acknowledged the historicity of an Earthly crucifixion. He recorded twice that JC was hanged from a tree (i.e. Acts 5:30 & 10:39 NRSV), and this would have been in his Platonic sense (see, Revelation 12) but not crucified in the corporeal sense. This, I'll call him pseudo-Paul for no Hebrew was named "Paul," was engaged in converting Hellenistic gentiles to Hellenistic Judaism. Learn something about Philo Judeaus of Alexandria (20BCE - 50CE) and his Platonic anointed savior. Which is totally obfuscated by the forged, redacted, interpolated, rewritten, and repurposed writings of Roman fascists attempting to control primitive plebes with their "Jesus" narratives. Roman scribes rewriting these Platonic myths lost the plot so many times the NT is a literary example of schizophrenia, why else would a god humanize himself to impregnate a girl with himself so as to sacrifice himself to himself as a scapegoat for sins he, himself, inflicted on a mud man and rib woman but argue that he was not interested in converting or even helping non-Jews (see Matthew 15:24-27 & Mark 7:27 where this JC character calls the Greek woman's people dogs). So much for regaining the throne of David, or the Great Commission forged by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early fourth century. Explaining the extensive reworking, repurposing, and redaction of this sectarian, apocryphal, political treatise is an intensely involved pursuit I haven't the time for now. But all the same, "the fool says in his heart" Psalm 14:1 is not the only lie in that book.
So, before you try to denigrate any particular worldview with that "holier than thou" attitude remember that religions (superstitions) are a very old and primitive human contrivances from which critical thinking grew in opposition to, and to the detriment of, many years ago. Though, on a brighter note, while it may be too late for you (I would like to think not), your descendants may know the freedom of thought and power of intellectual independents our Founding Fathers had envisioned for the citizens of this great country, and, in their turn, shed the shackles of dogma and fear.
Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment