Atheist.

Originally posted by serigado
One must know all sides before making a reasonable choice.
Or do you think atheists don't believe god just by faith?

Most people who say they believe God are just afraid, or because they were educated like this since very little, and most lack an independent view point from all perspectives.

Christ once said that if one is to come to a faith in God one must come with the child like faith. I think we can both agree with this.

In reality, if there be a God, one is outgunned intellectually by such a God. At some point God will know what is true and we will not. Either we are unable to intellectually grasp what he knows or we are unable to make all the pieces fit. It occurs to me that atheists demand to first intellectually grasp him and/or make all the pieces fit before they would ever consider God to be a reality. However, it is an act in futility. If there be a God, faith is the only construct in which an all knowing God can interact with created finite beings with a limited intellectual capacity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Some of us atheists became atheist a long time ago and since then have had no need to know anything about the Bible for purely personal faith reasons. I do not study the Qu'ran nor many other religious books just to see if I am wrong about my atheism. Do you?

I've looked at the Qu'ran a bit, and I'm always open to a good argument. I haven't spent much time on it though as only the nice Muslims seem to be posting online, and I don't really discuss these sorts of things elsewhere. I only want to challenge the faith of the douchebags who are causing problems for me and mine.

Originally posted by whodey
Ah, this is where you are wrong. Humility is actually a better understanding of reality because in comparison to creation as a whole, you are nothing.

As Christ once stated, those that exalt themselves will be abased and those that abase themselves will be exalted. Think about it. If you put yourself on a pedestal eventually someone will knock you over. ...[text shortened]... later abased.

Go figure. All of this was revealed to me through a silly book of myths. 😛

Christ and Ghandi were both murdered, there are countless millions of people through history who have lived lesser lives because of humility. But I don't want to talk about test cases like Christ, I want to mention what it means to be humble.

There are two ways of looking at this I think: Firstly we can equate humility to a sense of how small we are in the universe, possibly a Sysiphan outlook of the purposes we might have. This humility serves only to remind us that the universe is a very large place, or in the words of Skank from the film adaptation of the Crow; "I feel like a little *%$@ing fish in a big *%$@ing pond". All well and good, but ultimately pointless.

Secondly we can look at humility in the way the Book of Myth would portray it, namely a debasement of humanity in deference to your fellow men. That's what it boils down to, it lowers the state of humanity. To be humble one must give away one's self, one's rights, choices, likes and dislikes, one's desires, passions, sometimes morals and scruples. And what does a man have when that is done? What can a body be when it has no desires, nor choices, nor rights? It certainly is no longer a man. Altruism and humility debase the nature of humanity. We should help our fellow men because of a desire to see all men championed, to see them succeed is to see ourselves elevated also. We should not do so out of some desire to be a lesser creature as if it justifies our position. It's like there's some need for lowering one's self so as not to stick one's head above the clouds for fear of being shot at.

Men such as Hitler used violence to meet their own greed, this is not what I mean by abandoning humility.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Exactly.

Agreed. I have no problem with you reading ancient religious literature, but I don't see why I should be criticized for not doing so. By my standards there are better things to do.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So you have a closed mind; why object when I say so?

Because what you actually said was:
You have as much of a closed mind as the fundies.
which is not true.
A fundie will keep his opinion whatever the evidence. I would change mine if presented with sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

EDIT: Some atheists here have used the definition I gave; I believe it is the standard one.
No, it is not the standard one. Whoever gave you that definition should admit that anyone who does not believe in God for whatever reasons even those who are 'atheist fundies' are still atheists. You are implying that they aren't. So what would you call them?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Agreed. I have no problem with you reading ancient religious literature, but I don't see why I should be criticized for not doing so. By my standards there are better things to do.

Quite so...sacred texts are quite likely as incomprehensible to you as computer science to me...not that I don't make an effort to understand how the damn things work...To be honest, the bulk of my reading consists of surrealist fiction and anti-philosophy...It's less costly to my health than drugs.

Originally posted by Starrman
[b]Christ and Ghandi were both murdered, there are countless millions of people through history who have lived lesser lives because of humility. But I don't want to talk about test cases like Christ, I want to mention what it means to be humble.

So what does the fact that they were murdered say about society at large? It seems they did not fit in, no? Does the fact that they lost their lives mean that there humility was in vain?

I don't blame you for not wanting to talk about test cases like Christ/Ghandi. Especially in light of what they accomplished and the impact people like them had on society at large in comparison to the average pin head drowning in their own pride. It kind of puts a little perspective comparing our own lives to thier, no? Really in light of what they accomplished they should be the ones who are proud but just the opposite was true.

Originally posted by Starrman
There are two ways of looking at this I think: Firstly we can equate humility to a sense of how small we are in the universe, possibly a Sysiphan outlook of the purposes we might have. This humility serves only to remind us that the universe is a very large place, or in the words of Skank from the film adaptation of the Crow; "I feel like a little *%$@ing fish in a big *%$@ing pond". All well and good, but ultimately pointless.

Really for me, it has more to do with just feeling small in comparison to the universe in also has to do with knowledge of that universe. For me, the more I learn the more I realize I don't know. For others, however, the opposite is true. For others the more they learn and understand the smaller the universe becomes in their own mind. I think you will find that those that feel as I do have a greater chance of being open to new ideas as where those who feel the opposite have already figured it all out so why be open to new ideas?

Originally posted by Starrman
Secondly we can look at humility in the way the Book of Myth would portray it, namely a debasement of humanity in deference to your fellow men. That's what it boils down to, it lowers the state of humanity. To be humble one must give away one's self, one's rights, choices, likes and dislikes, one's desires, passions, sometimes morals and scruples. And what ...[text shortened]... r used violence to meet their own greed, this is not what I mean by abandoning humility.[/b]

So you would say that Christ/Ghandi lost their manhood due to their Altruism and humility? Are you suggesting that they should have helped their fellow man without sacrificing their own selfish desires? Is this even possible? Think about it. The more you are focused on yourself the less room you have for concerns for others. It is akin to serving two masters. Good luck with that!!

Originally posted by whodey
So you would say that Christ/Ghandi lost their manhood due to their Altruism and humility? Are you suggesting that they should have helped their fellow man without sacrificing their own selfish desires? Is this even possible? Think about it. The more you are focused on yourself the less room you have for concerns for others. It is akin to serving two masters. Good luck with that!!

This is the only post of the three that actually deals with the issue. You're mistakenly assuming that humilty was the driving force behind Ghandi and Christ, it wasn't it was what others mistakenly saw. And yes I totally believe that their goals could have been accomplished without it. The problem is that people equate a lack of humility to aggression, arrogance and a lack of care for one's fellow man and in no small part to the influence of religion. Instead of championing man's excellence and encouraging strength of character and will, religion has spent two millennia undermining people's perception of humanity to convince them that only self-demeaning subservience can achieve great things. Consequently anyone that rises above the average is put on a cross or shot in a crowd: you label Christ and Ghandi with humility, but I believe it is their lack of it, their selfish desire to see a goal accomplished that gave them their passion for it and their strength to achieve it. You don't hunger for weeks by humility and without that strength of self, they would never have achieved what they did.

Originally posted by Starrman
Christ and Ghandi were both murdered, there are countless millions of people through history who have lived lesser lives because of humility. But I don't want to talk about test cases like Christ, I want to mention what it means to be humble.

There are two ways of looking at this I think: Firstly we can equate humility to a sense of how small we are in ...[text shortened]... sed violence to meet their own greed, this is not what I mean by abandoning humility.

I'm not so sure about this. Humility of a sort is one of the most powerful forces for doing things that there is. I'm talking about removal of the ego as a source of motivation and doing things for their own sake, rather than for the sake of the ego. This is difficult, but to forget oneself in the face of what one is doing can drastically increase what one is capable of. The best presentations of this idea I've seen in literature are Sri Krishna's comments about yoga to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita and the bit in ZAMM (which passage I'd encourage rereading) about mountain-climbing. Actually, I suspect you're pretty familiar with this notion and have chosen not to include it in your definition of humility for some reason.

In my experience, this sort of humility is only noticeably beneficial when doing difficult things whose execution benefits from some sort of "flow", but I think it's good to foster the egolessness that can result in that flow in as many activities as possible, in order to make it a more natural state. This is an ideal, and as a person more guilty of pride than all of the other six sins combined, not one I always or even often achieve, which is evidence that this sort of meditative detachment is very closely related to humility of the first sort you describe.

In fact, so autonomous and powerful can an individual become with the exercise of humility that such a person is probably less susceptible than most to debasement by false altruism and false humility, which are sort of pathetic egotistical defense mechanisms.

If you want to see the difference, watch somebody do something really well through intense concentration and then praise them for their skill. More likely than not, they will be sort of nonplussed and mildly embarassed and shrug off your compliment with some pretty factual excuse. They don't need or gain from the praise, because they have concentrated on whatever it is they were doing wholly, without investing any ego in it, and your praise is therefore a non-sequitur to them.

If one doesn't care about feeling big, then there is no need to go to pathetic ends to avoid feeling small, and this humility is the most enviably egotistical state for a human being to be in.

As said before, atheists are interested in the bible, because otherwise we can't convince theists that what they believe probably isn't true. Even on this forum we can see people trying to hold that science is good untill it opposes the views of their religion. If you want to convince these people (almost impossible) it'll have to be through quotations of the bible itself. Moreover, you can convince someone better if you point out to him that what he believes can't stand to reason: if I can show someone that god didn't create the world in 6 days, cause somewhere else in the bible it says that god had to go to his mother-in-law, had to do the dishes, was a bit tired, then the theist will accept it sooner that his views are false than when you say that god doesn't excist because we still haven't found heaven for example. Lastly, the bible is just an interesting book. Surely no theist will try to hold that they don't also read fiction themselves?

I think no-one stated the obvious answer to the question: 'why do you only read the bible?' yet. It is: 'because we live in a world that's predominately christian.' The main contact an atheist has will be with christians. Imagine hypothetically: if in Iran the same discussion was being held, do you think they say to the atheists 'hey, why don't you read the Qu'ran aswell?' ? No, it would be 'hey, why don't you read the bible aswell?'. In an idealistic world where someone will meet the exact same amount of people with different religious ideas per day, the atheist will read more of the religious books.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
[b]I'm not so sure about this. Humility of a sort is one of the most powerful forces for doing things that there is.

Nice post. I would just like to elaborate on this part from a Christian perspective, however. It seems that while Christ came to serve through humility, he was doing so in order to gain power. Here is an example.

Hebrew 2:18 "for since he Himself was tempted in that which he has suffered, he is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted."

This verse implies that had God in the form of Christ not come to earth in the lowly form of man in an act of humility, he would not have the capacity to come to our aid when we are tempted. In effect, he gained power over the source of temptation because he perservered over that source when he was tempted and won while being in our present weakened form. I would even argue that through Chirst's submission all the way to the cross gained him power over death, hell, and the grave for us. Granted, God held the power beforehand over such things except in regards to us because we allowed those things to gain power over us through our own free will. Now he is the intersessor for us because of his acts of servanthood and subsequent victories if we will him to be.

In fact, we are called to humble ourselves in order for Christ to be able to come to our aid as seen in James 4:7 "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he must flee from you." Notice that we are called to submit ourselves to God which is an act of humility all in itself. This would not be required if our power was greater than the devils, however, since this is not the case we must fight using the power of God which can only be done by submitting ourselves to him so that he can fight for us.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
I'm not so sure about this. Humility of a sort is one of the most powerful forces for doing things that there is. I'm talking about removal of the ego as a source of motivation and doing things for their own sake, rather than for the sake of the ego. This is difficult, but to forget oneself in the face of what one is doing can drastically increase wh and this humility is the most enviably egotistical state for a human being to be in.

Good post.
But you (you and starr) are calling humility two different things.
Too much humility can be insulting.

Originally posted by serigado
Good post.
But you (you and starr) are calling humility two different things.
Too much humility can be insulting.

I view humility as simply seeing the way things really are in comparison to the totality of reality. I see it as seeing yourself for who you really are within creation, therefore, it you begin to appear insulting, then perhaps you have lost sight of who you really are?