Comments on: The Giver http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/ an undercover atheist at a christian college. Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:07:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Dave Zehm http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/#comment-251 Dave Zehm Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:52:51 +0000 http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/#comment-251 Makes sense. I think, though, that not only is all thinking socially derived - all thinking is evangelistic. Everyone wants to convert or subdue the other person into his/her understanding of truth. That, of course, makes it difficult for everyone to be reasonable and just get along. But it's a goal worth pursuing. Good luck finding a Christian who just wants to be your friend, without an agenda to covert your materialistic being into a soul for eternity. Makes sense. I think, though, that not only is all thinking socially derived - all thinking is evangelistic. Everyone wants to convert or subdue the other person into his/her understanding of truth.

That, of course, makes it difficult for everyone to be reasonable and just get along. But it’s a goal worth pursuing. Good luck finding a Christian who just wants to be your friend, without an agenda to covert your materialistic being into a soul for eternity.

]]> By: leavingeden http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/#comment-249 leavingeden Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:13:27 +0000 http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/#comment-249 Actually, he didn't include spirit, because he didn't believe that humans have an immaterial spirit (most Christians, or Wheaton students at least, use "soul" to be synonymous with "spirit" anyway). There are Christians who are materialists when it comes to human beings, and "soul" is used only in a material sense. As long as we agree on that point, I don't see any reason why atheists shouldn't be able to adopt a framework that also might be adopted by Christians. I am a materialist and I don't believe in God. That makes me an atheist. I thought the point of atheism was that there is no tradition or doctrine to have to adhere to. Actually, he didn’t include spirit, because he didn’t believe that humans have an immaterial spirit (most Christians, or Wheaton students at least, use “soul” to be synonymous with “spirit” anyway). There are Christians who are materialists when it comes to human beings, and “soul” is used only in a material sense. As long as we agree on that point, I don’t see any reason why atheists shouldn’t be able to adopt a framework that also might be adopted by Christians. I am a materialist and I don’t believe in God. That makes me an atheist. I thought the point of atheism was that there is no tradition or doctrine to have to adhere to.

]]> By: Dave Zehm http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/#comment-248 Dave Zehm Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:31:51 +0000 http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/#comment-248 Right. That's a patently Christian understanding of soul - from your Wheaton Pysch prof. He/she would define it as soul = mind, body, spirit - some sort of fully integrated being. You leave out the so-called Christian part - the "spirit" - but I guess I don't see much difference. You use the same framework. Whatever. You need to do more reading in the atheistic tradition. You definitely know the Christian one. Right. That’s a patently Christian understanding of soul - from your Wheaton Pysch prof. He/she would define it as soul = mind, body, spirit - some sort of fully integrated being. You leave out the so-called Christian part - the “spirit” - but I guess I don’t see much difference. You use the same framework. Whatever. You need to do more reading in the atheistic tradition. You definitely know the Christian one.

]]> By: leavingeden http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/#comment-240 leavingeden Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:11:11 +0000 http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/#comment-240 On the definition of "soul", I'll defer to my Wheaton Psych 101 professor: "I don't believe we have souls. I believe we are souls." Soul = mind + body. Colloquially, when I say that pretending to be a Christian, etc. is killing my soul, I mean that acting against my beliefs (or nonbelief) is so contradictory to some fundamental part of me that it feels like I am losing that part of me by shutting it away. Accompanied by an almost-physical sickening sensation, like a very small carnivore is eating me from the inside. On the definition of “soul”, I’ll defer to my Wheaton Psych 101 professor: “I don’t believe we have souls. I believe we are souls.” Soul = mind + body.
Colloquially, when I say that pretending to be a Christian, etc. is killing my soul, I mean that acting against my beliefs (or nonbelief) is so contradictory to some fundamental part of me that it feels like I am losing that part of me by shutting it away. Accompanied by an almost-physical sickening sensation, like a very small carnivore is eating me from the inside.

]]> By: Dave Zehm http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/#comment-239 Dave Zehm Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:29:19 +0000 http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-giver/#comment-239 I'm interested in LE's new philosophy of spirituality. I noticed that LE used the word "soul" - that seems out of sync to me with good old fashioned, crisp atheistic thinking. I resonate with much of what LE writes, but I don't understand "spirituality" language and "soul" language - it doesn't seem to fit for me. That's the purview of religion. Maybe not. Perhaps LE could frame that for us. Perhaps it's simply left-over language from his bygone religion. Or, perhaps he is using it his new context? I’m interested in LE’s new philosophy of spirituality.

I noticed that LE used the word “soul” - that seems out of sync to me with good old fashioned, crisp atheistic thinking. I resonate with much of what LE writes, but I don’t understand “spirituality” language and “soul” language - it doesn’t seem to fit for me. That’s the purview of religion. Maybe not.

Perhaps LE could frame that for us. Perhaps it’s simply left-over language from his bygone religion. Or, perhaps he is using it his new context?

]]>