TALKING TO ROBERT?

Robert–Reminds me of what wise old king Solomon once said, “there’s a time for everything under the sun” etc. – from Ecclesiastes 3. He goes on to include things like laughter and sorrow, war and peace…

rawgod–I don’t think there is ever a time for war. Having “god,” or Solomon, suggest war is okay is anti-life.

Robert–So war against the Nazis is wrong?

rawgod–The nazis starting a war was wrong. If Hitler had not started the war, if he had not been “given the power” to start that war, there would have been no war.

Robert–So you deny “god”‘s existence when convenient, and blame Him for “giving the power” when convenient. Does God exist in your mind or not?

rawgod–I never said the power came from god. The power, in this case, came from the German people. You want to belive in your god, Robert, that is your right. I do not believe in your god, and that is my right.

rawgod–To restart. Robert, you said, “So you deny “god’s” existence when convenient, and blame Him for “giving the power” when convenient. Does God exist in your mind or not?”
First, I do not deny your god’s existence when convenient, I deny his existence, outrightly, completely, entirely, for eternity. THERE IS NO GOD, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.
But thank you for attemting to put words in my mouth that I would never speak. No god or other all-knowing, aĺl-powerful superbeing exists in my life, not just in my mind. Where did you read that the power Hitler took to do what he did came from your god? That power, as I said, came from those German citizens who were either blind to his intentions, agreed with his intentions, or did not stand up to prevent his intentions from ever happening.
In fact, I find it pretty astounding that you could think your god would grant anyone the power to do not only what Hitler did, or any other mass murderer has done since the beginning of life on earth, whether 6000 years ago, or 6 billion years ago. No one should ever have such power! Yet how many times has it happened in just the last 150 years, not the 4.5 billion years life as we know it has existed. I know some names of mass-murderers in the last 150 years, but actually lets go back to when Columbo arrived in the western hemisphere. Pizarro in South America; the leaders of what is now America who tried to commit genocide on my ancestors whom they called inhuman savages, giving them the right to slaughter them in the name of christianity; Canada, same thing; Hitler; Stalin; Pol Pot. They murdered on larger scales, but America has had how many postal shooting, and school shootings, and crowd shootings, terrorist murder plots, etc? Even Trump, who ordered the murders of Kashoggi, and Soleimani. These (above) are all people who were given the power, or took the power upon themselves, to destroy other living beings. I will only mention the murderers of the Dodos, or the buffalo, in passing, except to say those people who slaughtered the bison for their skins, leaving the meat to rot on the expanses of the prairies, billions upon billions of completely unnecessary and useless murders, all of them by mass muderers. (The ones who slaughtered the Dodos did it for the sheer fun of it. Dodo meat was inedible. What was the purpose of that?) You want to put all these murders on the non-existent shoulders of your all-powerful all-loving god? You should be ashamed of yourself, but if that is how you choose to live, sobeit. It’s your right.
I choose to blame the murdering people themselves who did these deeds, and lay some of the blame at the feet of the nations, the cutures, and the societies who bred them, including the religions who blessed their works. Funny how both sides of many conflicts claim their god’s approval in what they did, when they both worshipped the same god. And you wonder that I chose to stop believing in such deities, and theities? Who is the insane one here?
How, Robert, did you ever come to the conclusion the power I spoke of was coming from your god. Those were not my words, but it WAS your assumption.

I know you want me to appear to your friends and fellow-belivers as the flip-flopper, but I am cherry-picking nothing, while believers in the “One True God” cherry-pick the bible for those parts which they choose to accept, and ignore the parts they don’t like or believe. (Why else are there so many denominatons of so-called christian religions?) You are doing exactly that in this conversation. You opened the discussion to “beliefs of convenience,” sir, not me. Don’t get all upset over your opponent for using against you the weapons you brought to use against him.

Meanwhile, you used them under false pretences, not arguing against what I said, but against WHAT YOU CHOSE TO BELIEVE I SAID. Do you think I am just going to sit back and let you walk over me and be the good little boy you want me to be, or are you going to fight the fight you started, instead of running and hiding behind your mother’s skirts, and the fatherly robes of your religious leaders? I’ll tell you right now, you can only lose this fight, because you are dishonest, and you choose to obfuscate, but mostly because you do not know anything about your chosen enemy. This is the problem with the so-called war between theists and atheist, “you choose to believe what you have been told about your enemy,” while I, whom you think is your enemy, and while I may not be a friend, though I am not ruling a friendship out, I am just a living being, hoping you will give me the respect you demand I give to you, whether you deserve it or not. At this point you do not. You, as I was saying, think you know me. I do know you, to the extent that I used to be you. As a child, I believed all the things I was told, even as you still do. I believed there was a God, because I was told there was a god. I even believed that this god loved me, though he/she/it never told me that, always I was told by someone else, someone representing this god, but never by God. So, eventually, I asked, “Where is God?” I was given such answers as everywhere, in churches, in my heart even (how could anyone but me know what or who was in my heart), and the most common answer of all, in Heaven. What did someone in some heaven know, or care about little young me here on earth? He didn’t speak directly to me, he wasn’t willing to meet with me, have a conversation with me, or take a walk with me–not even through the Valley of the Shadow of Death. He never even bought me an ice-cream cone. Well, nor have you, Robert. (Is this where you got the idea, as expressed in your “next” comment, that I am “raging” against your god? Where is the rage? I find no rage here. Just reasoned discussion. If you see rage, or hear rage, or read rage, then you have a very pleasant, but wrong, image of what rage really is. Rage is never pleasant, to the ragee, or the rager. Yup, you seem to be wearing your rose-coloured glasses.)

Back to where were we, all I get from you are meddling, accusations, lies, and challenges, and I get no respect. You would rather believe the lies other people tell you, other people who do not know me either, than come to the horse to learn what is in his (my) mouth, than to listen to my truth. As I said, I’ve been you. I know how you operate.
Finally, now that I have calmed myself down from the outrage I aĺlowed you to make me feel, I will continue. But, first, tell me, please, Robert, if other people tell lies about you, or try to diminish you in front of your friends, how does that make you feel? Outraged? I don’t doubt it.
So, do you wish to continue this discussion, person to person, not theist to atheist, or even theist to atheist but still person-to-person, I am more than happy to oblige. (You agreed, so the conversation will contunue here, where other people can participate if they feel the urge.)

Robert–For someone you don’t believe in, you seem to have a lot of rage towards “god”. And for someone I thought was pacifist, to talk of a “war” between atheists and theists seems a bit strong. I would rather a conversation than a war, but I’m happy for to visit and comment on your blog, and I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings. I come in peace, not war! Robert

rawgod–Please read what you write, sir. Everything you have written above is a question, or a negative statement about me. You misinterpret me, on purpose I am sure, to try to enrage me, to make me lose my cool and say something else you think you can jump on me for. I quote, “And for someone I thought was pacifist, to talk of a “war” between atheists and theists seems a bit strong.” “War” is but a synonym for conflict, it does not mean battle with weapons of destruction. How could you take my words, “so-called war between theists and atheists” and turn them into “talk of a “war” between atheists and theists.” That is an intentional misquote. You cannot even respect my intentional order of word placement. Atheists have no war with theists, but theists feel the need to war on atheists. You fear us, because we refuse to believe as you do. That creates doubt in your mind. How can anyone not believe in something so obvious as your god is to you? WHAT IF… No, don’t go there. There is no what if. Of course god exists. My mother wouldn’t lie to me. Would she? I mean, there is no Santa Claus, but, she wasn’t lieing, she was just enhancing my belief in my right to be entertained as a child. I mean, I always knew she was the Tooth Fairy. It was just another one of her many names. And she told me many stories about princes marrying princesses. She never once mentioned princes marrying princes. But I’m not a prince, I’m just her son. No, she never lied to me. Did she?

Where did you hear me “rage” against your god, Robert? Please send quotes. I raged against you, for believing lies about me, lies “other people” told you. But you’re not god, are you. At another time in my life, after I had stopped believing in religion but while I still maintained the possibility there might be a god, I would have said, yes, you are god. All of us are god. But that was another time, in another place. In my “now” world there is no place for god, or time for god. I am too busy being me.

As for thinking you can hurt my feelings, you don’t have the power, or the right to hurt my feelings, without my permission. For awhile I allowed you to make like you hurt my feelings. This was necessary, for I needed to TRY to show you how you were disrespecting me, but that was a waste of ten minutes of my life, because you will never understand how you are disrepecting me. I am an atheist, you have to disrespect me, or I might start to become human to you. Only Christians are human, everyone else is a savage beast, so to you I am a savage beast, yet one who can reason and even use the same language as you, written and spoken, but that is meaningless. I am a savage beast.

For now I will let you go on thinking you come in peace. You need to have some fantasies, after all. Take care. I will await your response in my “comment” area, and if I can figure out how to add it right into my post, I will do that.

For now, Robert, adeiu, and sweet dreams.

Author: rawgod

Still a Hippie, and proud of it. Have my BSW, now retired. Would have preferred to be a Dr. of Philosophy, but the university I went to wouldn't let me study my own philosophy. Your gain, their loss. I live on the edge of society with my partner, five cats, a broodmare, and a three year-old filly who might make her racing debut this coming summer or fall. Remember the name, Tricksy T Clanton.

39 thoughts on “TALKING TO ROBERT?”

  1. For the Allies, the Nazis were anti life. To not war against them would be to allow them to kill all the Jews. That is anti life. And while we’re on the subject of anti life, we can include abortion…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. No, we cannot include abortion. Life starts at birth, and not before. What day is your birthday. Not the day your mommy and daddy had fun. That’s sick to even contemplate.

      Like

      1. Fun is sick to contemplate? So just because you can’t see a baby, you don’t believe it exists? My wife is pregnant right now. I’ve seen the scan pictures and I’ve felt my baby kick: I know she’s alive!

        Like

        1. I am not going to argue with, you have your interpretations, I have mine. We can argue till we are blue in the face, but neither of us will change the other’s opinion, because that is all we can have. But, neither can either of us FORCE OUR OPINIONS DOWN ANYONE ELSE’S THROATS. You are right for you, I am right for me. If we cannot agree with that? We will never agree with anything.
          Nice to see you brought one of your friends along. Strength in numbers are and all that rot. He’s next up. I will enjoy.

          Like

            1. Your words were, “And while we’re on the subject of anti life, we can include abortion…” Your words were merely suggestive to me, but then, I’m a man. I cannot have a baby. Tell me how you would say that to a woman going into an abortion clinic? Tell me how your anti-abortion crowd would calmly say to a woman, “Do not enter that place of sin. If you abort that child growing in you, you will go straight to hell, if you don’t mind my saying. Oh, please listen to me. Come home with me, and I will provide for you until your baby is born. I will give you nourishment, and shelter. I will pay your dictor’s fees. And pay for any tests you need. If you need a C-section I will pay for that too. Oh, you poor girl, you’re still a baby yourself. And, by the way, as soon as you birth the brat, both of you can get the fuck out of my house. Go live in a homeless shelter! I don’t care!”
              If that is not forcing your beliefs on someone, I don’t know what is. As long as a baby is in the womb, it might be alive, but it is not conscious. It cannot reason. It is not yet a person. In fact, if you want to go farther, it isn’t a person for the first couple years of it’s life. How many times have you heard a new mother say, “He (or she) is just a fucking eating, pooing, and whining/crying attention-seeking machine!” Sure sounds like a person to me.

              Like

      1. So if people wanted to turn your town into an Islamic State, you’d simply let them? Or would you actually be glad if people fought to prevent that? Time to get over Hitler, but you can’t get over the fact that people died in Bible times too, thousands of years ago?

        Like

        1. People die everyday, with more than usual dying these days because of Covid. Of course people died in “Biblical times” times too, a lot of extra deaths because of your god’s supporting his “chosen race” over others of his “creations.”
          I have no idea what you mean about someone turning my town into an Islamic State (Where did that idea come from?), but if they brought an end to racism and hatred I would welcome them with open arms. Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheist, and everything in-between, what other people want to do or believe is not up to me, it is up to them. Have you ever had a Muslim person try to force you to become Muslim, promising you all kinds of fantastic things will happen, (like going to paradise, where I will have 72 virgins to attend to me? What good are virgins, I want sluts!ļĺĺ?.) if only you will accept Mohammed as your saviour.
          Thought not. Me neither. But then, your mind is closed. You look at maybe 100,000 terrorist types in the Muslim world, and ignore the 1,999,900,000 who are peaceful. Does that make sense? Maybe to you.
          Meanwhile there are about 2.5 billion Christians in the world, of which there are probably 500,000 terrorists (Neo-Nazis, White Supremicists, KKK, Skinheads, White Militias, etc.) throughout the world. Oh, they’re not terrorists? Please tell that to people of colour! (Have you noticed, there are more people of colour than whites in this world? Approximately 6.5 billion people of colour compared to i.3 billion whites. Yet whites consider themselves the most advanced people by race. I doubt that.)
          And that leaves how many people who are not Christans or Muslims. Let me do the math, 7.8 billion people in the world, give or take, minus 2.5 billion christians, minus 2 billion muslims. Gee, that leaves 3.3 billion on the non side. That’s the biggest of the 3 groupings. Where do they fit in? Oh, they don’t count. It’s Christians vs Muslims, who cares about anyone else. Yeah, sure.
          If I had $1 for everytime I’ve had someone or some group pray for me, try to save my soul, or otherwise proselytize to me, play homegrown missionary to me, thinking I’ve never heard the word of god ever before in my life (How blind can they be?), I’d have a tidy little sum to live on for the rest of my life. Here’s a thought, to all you young atheists out there, anyone comes to your door, or approaches you anywhere, and tries to talk to you about letting their god into your heart, tell them you will isten to them after they give you a dollar for your time. Yeah, you’ll be a cheap whore, but you will be a rich one. You’d prefer $10 a shot? If you can get it, go for it.

          Like

            1. Survival of the fittest disappeared for humans the day the first man agreed to provide for a woman as long as she kept him fed and had his babies. Then, as soon as he saw a sexier woman, it was “Bye, bitch, gotta go. The kids, they’re yours, not mine! Not my problem!”
              Let’s see, the Nazis killed 6,000,000 Jews, 1 or 2 million “christians,” and a bevy of others. And you care only about “true Christians.” I think you need to reset your priorities. All people are people, all of them living beings. Each one is as important as any other one. I thought you were supposed to “love thy neighbour as thyself.” I guess I’m missing something in the translation.

              Like

                1. You said it on August 10, please allow mevto show you:

                  Robertsays:

                  August 10, 2020 at 11:27 am 

                  The Nazis killed true Christians, and were social Darwinists. Why do you care about war, isn’t it survival of the fittest?

                  I don’t care about war, I care about stopping war. Is war not survival of the fittest. Has not been since we lived in caves or in trees . As I replied to you, on Aug. 10, 4 weeks ago.

                  Like

                  1. just because I care that Nazis killed Christians, doesn’t mean to say that I don’t care that they killed anyone else. I’m not interested in your strawman arguments.

                    Like

                    1. Ah, you care, but you don’t say you care, and there is a difference.
                      But what are these strawman arguments you accuse me of having, the only strawman I am not seeing, is your theity. He’s being rather untalkative in the midst of not only the pandemic and it’s ultimate mishandling by the so-called Leader of the Free World, but neither is He showing any leadership for anything
                      but First Place in their various empires. Your god does not ask politely to be worshipped
                      before all others, He demands it!
                      Your Human He refuses to take resposibility for screwing up in front of the entire world, he shamelessly blames everyone but himself for his own his inadequacies while he demands his STθθPID STθθGES vote for STθθPID.

                      The whole problem, as I see it, Robert, is all your arguments, strawman or not, argue form over content. You cannot understand the meaning of the ideas I present, so you attack how I say them. You are trying to destroy the messenger without ever even trying to discussing the message. The only commandment you obey is the 11th Ccommandment, Go forth and multiply! your mistakes…

                      Like

                    2. Anyone with a bit of basic Bible knowledge would know how error laden and strawy your comments are and I would encourage you and others to make sure you’re not misrepresenting and erroneously writing stuff. Bible commandments in summary are to love God and to love others.

                      Just as a rebellious son cannot blame a good dad for his rebellion, so we can’t blame God for our sinfulness.

                      Like

  2. Man, you have issues dude. If this piece is typical of all your writing, your entire blog is a cry for help. I can’t imagine going through life with all the anger and hostility which comes out in your tone. I’m also atheist, but we couldn’t be more different.

    Your rant to Robert was ineffective. I can’t imagine what you were trying to achieve when all you did was attack. Your atheism is so militant it’s become just another religion being pushed on a street corner. The only thing missing is a book to shake and wave above your head.

    This is just my opinion of course, but if you want to make a positive difference with your blog, I think you should reassess your mission and your message.

    I’m not going to hang around for your reply because I really couldn’t care less.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I can’t help but react to this as much ado about nothing/something (atheist/believer). Anyone can believe or not believe what they will — the question is, what do we know? The reality is that no one KNOWS if there is a God. For what it’s worth, I believe (with a certainty just short of knowledge) that the God of religion is man-invented, but I don’t KNOW if there is a creator-God and neither does anyone else, no matter how strong their belief one way or the other. That is why agnostics have it right, and atheists and believers are (in my opinion) so ‘baked in’ to their positions that they can’t face the ‘not knowing’ which agnostics admit.

    Like

    1. Not to argue with anything you say, sir or ma’am, but the joy is in the doing. The thing is, I KNOW FOR ME THERE IS NO CREATOR GOD, and that every god out there is created by man. This is where the rubber hits the road. There is no speculation “Maybe yes, maybe no.” There is no “”What if?” I have searched every nook and cranny of my being. I did not find anything akin to god or a god. What I found was LIFE. If anyone so desperately needs me to have a god, then I will allow them to say “LIFE IS MY GOD!” but that does not either mean life is a god, or that life is god. All it means is I love live above all else, including love. Love does not make my world go round, life does.
      But for all other purposes, this conversation is a work of joy for me. I get to expose my beliefs. What Robert gets out of it, I cannot say for sure, I am not Robert. I doubt he would tell me if he could, but I assume he gets some kind of perverted satisfaction defending the undefendable. I personally do not on the grand scale of things care what anyone else thinks of me, even though I sometimes claim I do. I have ulterior motives. A believer focussing on me is not bothering someone else. Megalomania?. You caught me, though I prefer to think I confessed. I just confessed.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I commend you for having “searched every nook and cranny of my being” — as have I. One of the hardest things for humans to live with, it seems to me, is uncertainty….which is why most of us have a hard time living with it and become certain in beliefs, however come to. All I can say is that I have come to accept “not knowing” if there is a creator-God (as distinguished from man-invented/religious gods) because it is impossible for humans to know, no matter how much we search (or how strongly held our beliefs), one way or the other. I am open to being convinced otherwise, but who but that possible, unknowable God would be in a position to convince me (and He ain’t talkin’).

        Like

        1. Nor am I trying to convince you of anything. I guess, though, my question would be to wonder why you want to use the concept of a “god” in combination with the word “creator,” and why you feel it proper to honour them with capital letters? That immediately, for me at least, makes me harken to “the One True God” of the “Christian New Testament” as added to the Jewish “Bible”?
          For me, knowing or not-knowing do not even enter the equation. The question for me becomes, how does one ask this question in the first place. We agree, at least to a point, that religion is a man-made invention. To me that means gods or Gods or other super Beings are all related to that invention in the first place, as in the invention raised the concept, ratheĺr than the concept raised the invention. Am I splitting hairs? Only you can tell me that, for you. For me, I am not. For me, any kind of superBeing comes from a combination of human fears and the human need to not be responsible for oneself. My viewpoint is diametrically opposite: I am resonsible for. what I do, what I say, what I think. Having accepted this responsibility for myself, why should I then look to find someone to take this responsibility away from me.
          I just realized, I must apologize, because I do not know what you intend when you state the the idea of a “Creator God.” On my behalf, I immedistely default to my personal concept of what a Creator God might be. Are you able to define your concept, or otherwise describe to me what you see when you use these words. It could be we are trying to discuss cranberries and dinosaurs, or mushrooms and meat sandwiches. Therefore I will close my side of this discussion until I have a better understanding of your side.
          Toward future understanding.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I’m glad you understand our ‘back and forth’ as a discussion, because anything less would serve no purpose.
            My idea of a possible Creator God is, I confess, confoundingly simple: I simply can’t get my head around the concept of creation without a Creator “God” (I was raised Catholic, so I suppose the capital G is ingrained, if no longer consequential) — any more than I conceive of a work of creation (such as your or my writings) without you or I having created them. Of course, this raises the question of who created the Creator — to which my thinking is again simple: the creation buck has to stop somewhere, and I see it as stopping here.
            I might add that my allowing for the possibility of a Creator is not what I see as something necessarily to be hoped for. Humans were obviously made to suffer to greater or lesser degrees, no matter how arbitrarily or imperiously or immorally, or by whom or how, inflicted. If there is an afterlife, how could we live with such a monster (and vice versa)? Thus, an afterlife is very problematic, even given a Creator. In the end, then, atheism or believing is a moot question because death means we will never know.

            Like

            1. Ah, so many openings, which one to take first?
              I’ll start where you did. I try to take all my conversations as ‘back and forth’ discussions. Unfortunately there is a disconnect between how I write and how I am read. I have a sarcastic streak that is hard to detect in spoken English, complete with body language. If I were in a comedy team I would be the ultimate straight man, which is why I think Abbot and Costello’s “Who’s on First” is the best and most hilarious piece of comedy ever written, and enacted on stage before live audiences. The down part is if you do not have a firm grasp of the English language, or a decent understanding of the game of baseball, it fails like a lead balloon. (Which means there could be better comedy skits told in other languages that are hidden to me because I only converse in one language.) A longterm hearing problem has prevented me from properly hearing subtleties not common to the English vocal system. (Did you notice I also love to go on unnecessary but hopefully amusing tangents.)
              Anyways, calm, reasoned conversation from myself is often thought to be vicious attack by others, for example if you read the comment left by Ohio Realist. I thought I did a good job staying reasonable while Robert did his best to force me into a passionate debate where I would lose my cool. I didn’t IMO, and at least for now, he has gone away!
              So, agreed that we are just talking.
              Having said that, and having a lot of Catholic friends growing up (I am Metis, and 99% of Metis are brought up Catholic.) I understand some of what you were burdened with if you were taught by Catholic nuns. And this is why you still believe humans were born to suffer. (Evidence does point in that direction, but I, for one, am not convinced. IMO, we are taught to suffer, and Catholic nuns are the perfect teachers. But so are Jewish mothers and grandmothers from the Bronx (not that I had one, but a friend did)? Have you heard about the Jewish Baba who gave her grown son two shirts for his 40th birthday. When his mother comes to visit for Sabbath, he proudly puts on the blue shirt she bought him. At the door she looks him up and down, thinks for a minute, then says a little loudly in front of his entire family, “What, there is something wrong with the green shirt?”) No, I don’t believe we were born to suffer, and even though I do suffer badly some days because my body was never as healthy as those of my friends, I refuse to let that get me down. I am happy 99% of the time, and I would not change my body for a perfectly healthy one. (Unless you make it a 25 year-old body gleaming with virility, but while leaving me mentally intact. What would it be like to actually hear the world around me? But then, according to my life partner, she says there are times she wishes she did not have perfect hearing. She wishes she could unhear a great number of things she would prefer to have never heard.)
              Okay, I will try to cut out the tangents. (If I succeed, please feel honoured, and be amazed. lol.)
              Why do you retain the notion of creation? Is it not possible that the energy that runs the universe and the matter that gives body to the universe had never previously met, until one moment in time they did, or the force just came around the matter by inertia, they could not avoid each other, and the result became a living multiverse. When you get right down to it, this is no more unbelievable than the concept of creation. Just asking for argument’s sake. And trying to take both science and religion out of the cosmic equation. And there is the third possibilty that some tremendously giant male ejected his sperm into an equally giant womb, and our universe was not so much created as it was a truly big bang (a 60s slang term for sex, not meant as a tangent but as a passing on of information you may or may not already have.) Now take that out of a womb, and put it in a petrie dish somewhere, and suddenly we become part of a prohibited experiment. Scientists are, after all, not supposed to experiment with actual life, according to some old ethical codes.
              Meanwhile, if there somewhere is a creator (just speculating), what would it be like. An absent landlord would be my expectation, start the fire burning then leave for greener pastures, never looking back. This would explain why no one can see, speak with, or otherwise provide proof of a god’s existence, and this is all just the dream of an abandoned child in search of a father that either does not exist or plain does not care that the child does exist. This could give rise to the idea of a cosmic rape.
              The possibilities are endless, if you stick to a belief in creation. I do not.
              But in closing, you brought up the word afterlife. I do not believe in a religious afterlife, call it heaven, hell, paradise, nirvana, or a cosmic disneyland with all kinds of “worlds” to be explored and tested for preferability. Yet, depending on how deeply you have read my work, you might already know I do not believe death is the end to life, but just a door into a different dimension. But that would be a discussion for another time if you are interested in having it. (For now, I just need to say, I passed up at last count eleven tangents I could have went off on. That took some discipline to not go theres.)

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Appreciate your comment.
                Actually, I wasn’t taught by nuns — I went to public schools but was raised Catholic by my mother (she and my father divorced when I was a boy and I didn’t see him again for many years — he had no interest in religion and was probably an atheist, though we were not close and never talked about it. In any case, I remained a practicing Catholic until beginning to see the light in my 40s and gradually freeing myself from its brainwashing.
                As for being taught that humans were born to suffer, I can’t ascribe that conclusion to anyone but myself. It strikes me as self-evident. I suppose there is a sense in which being taught to suffer is possible, but that’s a bit too esoteric for me. Infants suffering from cancer, for example, aren’t taught to suffer. Their suffering is real, and so is mine (and, I assume, yours) when we’re in pain.
                As for the “notion” of creation, one can see the creation (or realm, if you prefer) of time and space (and, yes, “the energy that runs the universe/matter that gives body to the universe”)” as having a beginning and eventual end, conceived into being by an eternally existent creative force outside of time and space and energy and matter. Or one can believe that the later always existed as you indicate. If there is no absolute proof of either of these, you can believe which of them you will, or you can accept not knowing (uncertainty) as our reality, which is the agnostic position favored in my initial comment of Aug. 10?
                You raised a number of points, but I think I’ve responded to your main ones (besides, my old brain needs a rest at this point).

                Like

                1. Not to worry, Sir. All I hope I am doing is brainstorming out loud. I am not intentionally trying to push one viewpoint over another, though my own “belief in almost nothing” is bound to come out one way or another. The problem, FOR ME, is I don’t really see your position as agnostic. I see it as wise. What you said, “If there is no absolute proof of either of these, you can believe which of them you will, or you can accept not knowing (uncertainty) as our reality, which is the agnostic position favored in my initial comment of Aug. 10?” I find as only partially true–if you live in a black/white, true/false, zero/one universe (for the life of me I have lost the name for such a “BINARY” [at last] universe)!. The choices you are giving me are basically theist, agnostic, or atheist which are the three most obvious choices in a religious world. I would like to add at least one more choice, and if we can agree on that fourth choice, it will make many other choices possible. So, while I describe myself as a “no god”, atheist, I also believe in life being capable of having purpose, in the truth of reincarnation, in multiple levels or dimensions of life, and even in the ego/mind/spirit (not “soul”) triumvirate, and all of those together in the grouping I call spiritual atheism–which is, at best, for me, a grouping of one, me. So, basically said, I keep myself out of the religious threesome, and keep myself open to other possibilities. In a nutshell, I don’t care about the religious box so many many many humans find themselves in. (My partner is also “not!” in this box but for much different reasons–she somehow grew up in this society, this culture, without ever being confronted by being forced to join one group over any other. She is the ultimate anomaly, in my mind. She was somehow born and grew up free of the question of belief!)
                  So, after all that, can I just say I don’t care about the atheist/agnostic/theist/ deist/crestionist debate. It holds no sway over me except as I choose to put myself into it. AND FOR THAT I SUFFER, but only as much as I choose to.
                  The “fourth choice” alluded to above is ignoring, or not caring. Bypassing the debate altogether. (I even got lost in those tangents. They can be dangerous things…)

                  Suffer is a word I find very problematic. In our so-called three-dimensional world,,g the argument can be correctly made to call pain “suffering.” Pain makes me, you, a baby with cancer, feel bad. But does it really make us suffer? Does a baby cry because it feels bad, or does it cry because it is sufferingĺĺ? Does it matter whether that baby was born with cancer, or whether the baby developed cancer after birth? Either way we adults choose to believe the baby is crying because it is feeling discomfort. It does not matter to the baby what word we call it, pain, agony, or suffering, it just wants relief, or comforting.
                  FOR ME, suffering requires a level above pain. Again, for me, humans do not physically suffer, suffering is created in the mind, not the body.
                  It is all a matter of semantics, and unfortunately I am a king of semantics, IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! (And, for me, it always comes back to the language. English is the only language I can comminicate in [short of telepathy, which is not an option for most, and which again is another story not for now] in this physical reality. Therefore, we need more definition of terms which too often we take for granted that we all understand the same word the same way when we so obviously don’t!)
                  I do hope I am not muddying the water when I am trying so hard to clarify it. I admit I overthink many situations, and this can become a hindrance to understanding, but so can assuming we are talking the same meaning when we are not. To try to simplify this point, I do not think babies “suffer” from pain, nor am I even sure babies can suffer. But, yes, they sure as hell can feel pain. That I will agree to.
                  So when I discuss suffering, mostly I am talking about a mental, or “psychic” malaise that eats away at one’s ability to live happily, or even just live comfortably. (Does this at all help to clarify my position? If not, the failure is mine, for which I apologize.)

                  You:
                  “As for being taught that humans were born to suffer, I can’t ascribe that conclusion to anyone but myself. It strikes me as self-evident.”

                  Before I address this point, let me express my joy for you that you escaped being taught by nuns (as did i, but then I wasn’t catholic. My biological father was taught by nuns. I believe I mentioned how his life was filled with the need to be violent, and to feel hatred, particularly self-hatred. I put that on the nuns, but also his incapabilty to fight those nuns. In his favour, I doubt they let him know he could fight them.) Nonetheless, I would still think someone influenced you to believe you were born to suffer. For myself, I cannot see suffering being “a priori to life.” But that is as self-evident to me as suffering is self-evident to you, lol.
                  Anyways, however we each came to our conclusions about suffering, these conclusions affect our lives. If I may ask, do you at all have happiness in your life? It would seem to me that if you must suffer, happiness is impossible. And that to me is a sad and untenable condition. Indeed, I believe we need happiness, even JOY, in our lives. Not always, but at least occasionally, and preferably more often than not.
                  I don’t really know how to ask this question, but I cannot wrap my head around it, in order to suffer, do you have to look for ways to suffer, or is suffering so pervasive ?that you cannot get away from it. If you could help me to see life the way you live, to understand how you live it, maybe it would not be so confusing to me.
                  You always give me much to think and write about, Sir. It is so antithetical to the way I choose to live. I almost picture you as one of those ancient jews or romans who used to walk around all day beating themselves with lashes. I highly doubt you do this, at least not literally. I could not live that way, I think.

                  Like

                  1. I certainly don’t have a problem with your tendency to overthink things. Needless to say (as they say), that is preferable to the far more common tendency to underthink things. Shallow thinking is the easy way out….which I suppose is why it’s so common.

                    I apologize for not having time to address everything in your comment, but I would like to correct any impression I may have given that I’m an agnostic (despite my advocating for that position in my previous comments), although I’d certainly be one if I could weren’t convinced of what I said before about creation requiring a creator. As it is, I suppose I’m a deist (if I must be labeled) because I pretty much agree with deist beliefs that the God of religions does not exist. Beyond that, I must live with uncertainty because I am left with no other choice.

                    Take care.

                    Like

                    1. Deism: belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

                      Agnosticism argues that God’s existence cannot be proven or unproven—that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.

                      I think you are actually an agnostic.

                      Like

                    2. I love how you just pop out of nowhere, Nan. When I am thinking this is become a private conversation, though I do not mean it to be, along you come (“Along Comes Nannie”) to remond me it is not. Thank you for commenting. Hope you have more to say.

                      Like

                    3. That’s my M.O. — popping in, leaving a quick comment, and disappearing. 😁

                      I do read your posts and comments (unless they get too long 😛), but some of your topics aren’t always on my radar. It’s kinda’ like what’s been going on at Jim’s blog … a bit too esoteric for me.

                      Hope you’re feeling better.

                      Like

                    4. Wish I could say I am feeling better, but into week 7 now without any sign of letting up. I go see my doctor this coming Tuesday. My test results should be in, but as he has not phoned me I ASSUME they show nothing significant. (But now that I think of it, I don’t remember giving any blood. Did I forget do to my bloodwork? I wouldn’t put it past me, these days.)
                      Anyways, sorry for being so esoteric, but thank you for trying to struggle through it. Yeah, Jim’s last post that I remember was a bit spacey. I commented, but I had no idea what my comment even meant. I just opened the door between my spirit and my fingers, and autowrote. If anyone understood me, which I doubt, I would hope they are willing to explain me to me.
                      I grant you, Nan, my Most Courageous Reader Award for sloughing through the brackish Swamp of Immateriality. You are one brave woman. Hell, make that one brave living being!

                      Liked by 1 person

                    5. You also take care. I just hate knowing there are people in the world who feel they have “no choice,” that they are “locked in” through no fault of their own. That makes me very sad.
                      I am taking it we are coming to an end of this discussion. If so, thank you very much for your time and attention. It has been a very enjoyable few minutes in my life. I hope you can agree.

                      Like

  4. P.S. Omit the “pretty much” toward the end of my comment. I started to write something else, and when I changed it, I neglected to remove “pretty much.”

    Like

      1. After yesterday’s comment, I came across this poem (not by me) in one of the many literary journals in which I had poems and short stories published years ago. I thought I’d pass at least the first half of it on to you because I couldn’t have said it any better if I’d written it myself:

        THE AGNOSTICS’ MONASTERY

        In the Agnostics’ Monastery
        The quiet monks at vespers
        Chant The Word That Might Be Holy:
        MAYBE…MAYBE…MAYBE.
        They feast on The Gruel of Hope.
        They celebrate The Eucharist of Contingency.
        They perform stately dances
        Around The Altar of Doubt.
        They sing requiems for The Death of Certainty.
        They send missionaries with glowing faces
        To preach The Conditional Truth,
        To proclaim that The Results Are Not All In,
        To reveal that The Name of God–is Possibility!

        Go to them. Bask in the flickering light of Possibility.
        Meet frowning Brother Dubious–
        Possibly he may guide you to your cell,
        And smiling but silent Brother Rehabilitatus,
        The Master of Novices,
        (His manual The Last Drop in the Cup
        May grow soggy with your tears.)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Nice, but I think written by an agnostic wanting his god to come back to him. The tone definiely states the narrator is inclined to believe, therefore afraid of non-belief, or disbelief. “Woe, that ever I let my mind wander, and wonder. There was safety in belief. Now I am sore afraid the soul that I no longer know is in me might end up in etetnal hell.” This narrator is in desperate need of reframing his unbelief to being thankful his “soul/not-soul” will never be stuck in heaven, kissing the feet of his god every day for eternity. And what kind of god would want that?

          Like

        2. How does the rest of the poem go. Am I correctly past-predicting the latter half of the poem?

          I too am a poet of sorts. The only poem I ever had actually published was “Ruffian, My Ruffian” in the Daily Racing Forum one year after Ruffian’s disasterous death, which I donated.

          If you are at all interested in reading some of my work I self-published some for awhile on this website, and later, after some requests from readers, opened up a second website at wordartbyrawgod.wordpress.com which I occasionally add to, but of late have ignored. Happy reading.

          Like

          1. Here is the rest of the poem:

            And if the Jillion Jackstraws of Contingency
            Are particularly fortuitous,
            You may encounter–
            Relatively Reverend Abbott Existentialius,
            Generally admired for his gravitas,
            Who spent decades face down on the floor of his cell,
            Chanting, in proto-spiritual anguish,
            MAYBE…MAYBE…MAYBE,
            Until he sprang up and proclaimed The Tin Rule:
            We don’t know what we don’t know!

            Go to them, as a tender novice.
            Be anointed with The Brotherly Glue of Sincerity.
            Offer them representative samples of the deeper yearnings
            Of What May Pass in a Dim Light for Your Soul.
            They will do what is possible.

            I don’t see this as “wanting his god to come back to him,” but as an anguished — even bitter — acceptance that the train he’d been on has gone, NEVER “to come back to him.” It may be a cliché, but I feel this poem to my core — to the point where I’ve been left at the depot of deism just a short (but not inconsiderable) distance from The Agnostics’ Monastery.

            Re your second website, I think I came across it when I Googled rawgod to find this site, but when I saw nothing recent and realized it wasn’t what I was looking for, I moved on. I’ll take another look, and I also invite you check out my blog.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s