Hi Dragan

>>>You once tried to pin this sort of spin on me, but you weren't this blunt. If there's an equivalent of the word "blasphemy" in the non-believer's world, this would be close to it. One of the major points in deciding that the existence of deities is to be irelevant is that that those who chose so take the responsibility. There's no more excuses, there's no upper hand whom you can blame when you fail, it's just you against the universe, with the rest of your kind on your or other side. How you fare is your own doing
>>
>>Well, it seems to me that the emphasis should be "a god".
>
>"Existence of deities" is a purely logical notion here - the number is irelevant.

Perhaps, if this is a purely intellectual pursuit. I'd suggest it is not.

> If one exists, or more than one exist, the existence is there. So it's more a "zero or non-zero" question here, not "one or more" - which is also irelevant for my POV. I didn't say "one god doesn't exist" nor did I say "gods don't exist" - I just stated that I chose that the whole question of their existence in general is unimportant for me. The only way that this question matters to me is through its influence on people - i.e. why do we talk about it, and if the question was eventually answered this way or another, which group of people would become harder to live with.

I suppose we talk about this )in the general sense of humanity) because there is a need to so do. There's no question that this need is universal and consistent, by virtue of all the various and assorted methods man has devised to assuage this god.


>
>>>IOW, telling a non-believer that he still does believe in a god despite his own preference, is probably the same as if someone told you that you don't, even though you may imagine you do.
>>
>>Perhaps, but the fact remains that every single human being ever to live is guided or has been guided or will be guided by some 'master passion'. Call it what you will but that is their 'god'.
>
>You chose to believe that this is a fact.

I do indeed. However, given the evidence it seems quite reasonable. <g>

>
>>>Trying to fit myself into your definition of "master passion", I'm probably a one-member church, serving as a complete hierarchy (from the uppermost deity to the lowest acolyte) within my mind, but that wouldn't be a true picture. I don't have a master passion, unless the desire to have had a full life counts. And I surely don't serve it, far less obey. It's just something that may or may not come along, depending on too many factors, including my moods, coincidences, random events etc etc.
>>
>>I doubt you realize that there are many prople who worship their own minds. And you certainly do 'obey it', if indeed that is your particular 'highest internal driving force'. An honest examiniation will uncover this very fact.
>
>:)
>Just tried to imagine myself (aka my mind) as "worshipping" my mind (aka myself), and still can't find the dividing line between the worshipper and the object of worship.

*chuckle*

There may be more truth in what you just asserted than you realize... <s>

>
>Obedience... well in that case, it becomes quite ridiculous; if I do what I want to do, does that necessarily mean I can't disobey my own wish? Probably I can, but then I actually obeyed my second wish, which was to disobey the first.

Ahh.. Good point. One of the difference you may not be aware of is the difference between the Historic Christian position and that of most all religious systems. They all seem to want to impose from outside what turns out to be an onerous set of rules; do's and don'ts if you will. Usually those seeking to impose those sets of rules don't follow them themselves but rather use them as a means of subjegating, humiliating and controlling others.

The Historic Christian position is quite the opposite and it seems to me, based upon the kinds of response I usually get, that most folks confuse the two. I find myself having to repeatedly remind others that there is a huge difference. The Historic Christian position essentially asserts that man cannot make himself better, but God can, and will, if man places himself in a position to receive that help.

Obedience is then a pleasure, though I confess I'm about the most stubborn person I know <g>, and is driven by love, not fear, as the typical religious system uses. I think I hate these religious systems more than you might or might be aware of...

I don't do anything I don't want to do and, candidly, there aren't any rules I have to follow. However there are many things that I now do not want to do as I have changed. The difference is that I now want to do other things, most of which would make absolutely no sense to many here, which I'll be happy to grant. <s>

But, you see, that's the whole idea.. God changed me when I couldn't do so for myself. It's wonderful and a thrill to know I can be rid of the garnage that had been inme for so long. Just to be able to let the burden go and experience the relief of being forgiven, in spite of still being a horrible creep. <s>

People need forgiveness.

>
>Or if I was to say I'm worshipping my "highest internal driving force" (which would probably turn out to be my wish to sleep, eat, do something interesting in my time etc, not necessarily in that order), I'm probably the lousiest church on Earth. My rituals are miserable - they happen at irregular intervals, I'm not summoning the faithful (me) to gather in any sort of congregation, I'm not even preaching to them (me), not asking them to rethink their life (mine) nor to repent or stop doing that or to start doing something else - I'm just washing myself, eating, rolling my cigarettes, typing at the keyboard and that's about it. I'm not really taking myself that seriously to care to define my driving force. Unless that counts as one of the deities whose names must not be uttered?

Regardless, there is, if you will examine closely, some 'final authority' you assiduously obey. As a matter of fact you'll find out that you cannot help yourself at times. It could be the bottle or drugs or knowledge or a thousand other passions and drives that absolutely control you. I just recognized that man does this and consciously chose the particular god i wanted to obey. Everyone obeys their god. There really is little free will. Only the God you choose to obey is within your choice. Once you've made a choice that god you serve. You may think you do not, but you do, even if it is the deification of your own will, you serve your god faithfully.

>
>So let's say you win - you've come up with a definition that anything can fit, which probably tells more about its total lack of precision, which in turn makes it quite useless.

Hmm.. Only if there wasn't anything to contrast against perhaps.

>
>Hey, how about defining it as the wish of "what do I want to make of my life"?

Sure, that works. At that point I'd say it was yourself that you worship. You're trying to make god in your own image, or elevate yourself to that place in your own life. It's rather common you know. <s> And, candidly, it's where most folks end up.

> Well, that may count, except that I'm better off than you.

I'd disagree I'd think. <bg>

> I'm shifting my gods as time passes, choosing goals which can be achieved, and inventing new ones as I approach the completion of old ones. I'm definitely not stuck with the one I have to share with innumerable other people, it's custom tailored for me and isn't worn out after centuries of use.

Not so. The trouble here is the finiteness that's built in. There's an end to you and I but not to God.

>
>>It could be nothing more than run-of-the-mill hedonism. In that case you (and your desires) are the 'master passion' of your own life. If this is the case it willbe found to be utterly empty at some point.
>
>Hedonism as l'art pur l'art is pointless, but that's more of a psychological thing. Enjoying life - that's a different matter, but then it can't be limited to the classic traits of
hedonism. I personally don't feel pleasure in many things unless I know I have done my share of work; it's my privilege that I enjoy the work most of the time :).

I have no argument with you here. If you read the book of Ecclesiastes Solomon ends up by asserting: Ecc 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.
Ecc 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil."

Seems like you're not far off.

Like you I enjoy working hard and take a great deal of pleasure in it. Perhaps you think that I believe that it is somehow wrong to take great pleasure from life. I absolutely do not in any way, shape or manner!!! Rather, I take great pleasure in knowing that God loves me, expects me to work hard and personally grow and mature and enjoy the life He's given. But.. I have also discovered that if God is first in my life's priorities that ALL other duties gain far our delight and pleasure than before - they now have purpose...

You see, I don't live a crabby, grouchy life. Rather it is absolutely full to overflowing, all because the priorities are in their proper place. That's the difference IMO.


>
>>Now, you may 'feel' a sense of resentment that someone would 'dare' to label you. I have no desire to make you feel badly but the fact remains that all of us fit within some label or another.
>
>Forget the quotes around the word feel. It really ticks me off. You're basically saying that I'm not what I think I am. The only resemblance between faith and the principles I'm using to rely on is that I'm really not questioning them all the time. But I never had to do the leap of faith and to promise myself that I'll believe in them forever and never question them. My principles are on permanent probation, and whenever any of them may prove to do harm, it will be rethought. No dogma, nothing permanent. Panta rhei.

*shrug*

Your view of God is rather harsh it seems. And 'panta rhei' is really just another expression of existentialist thought. "Go with the flow" and all that.

If you re-read your first sentence you're eseentially saying that you are 'ticked off' because I don't buy into your view of yourself ie. I don't bow down and worship the image you've constructed of yourself in your own mind. You are absolutely correct, I do not. It strikes me Dragan that you have just proved my point with astounding clarity. Thank you.

Now, I certainly rspect your right to take any position you'd like; I just don't buy it as reality.

'I', 'I', 'I'.. Look at the words again...

Now, if it angers you that this is pointed out I'd be curious as to why you think this is?

That is, why do men become angry at being open and exposed? Look at the people around you. They are all alone in their own artificially (in most cases) constructed realities and woe to the individual who points this out!

All I'm suggesting is that life can be so much more incredibly rich and full!

Regardless, I do enjoy you and your thoughts. I hope you take as much pleasure out of our discussions as I do.