We are but Fractals (1)

was just sitting here, thinking of things i think a lot.

a while back, i had posited "Define your god." Although i had conversed with many about their "g/God(s)," there were no takers to print, which was cool because it gave me more time to refine mine ...and create this run-on sentence.

it would be completely unwarranted for me to claim, really, any sure amount of intelligence, yet i am about to spew. What proceeds is by no means attributed to fact, or at least not currently, and i make no claim to be absolutely certain, or even certain enough that what i type next is presented factually. i make no attempt to dissuade or persuade save what's sensible. if i make any sense at all. i would welcome any critique of the presentation of this essay ...constructively, of course.
___________________

as many know, i'm an agnostic/atheist when it comes to the g/God(s) question, and as many have found, i enjoy being asked. Probably because of the dichotomy i see in my story. *hopefully i'm using that word right* The story, especially in its whole is quite tangential ...tangentuous, if you will.

NOTE: there is purpose in my grammar and punctuation, but that's a whole 'nother story.

when the question comes and the opportunity for discussion is presented, i love answering 'what made you [me] a non-believer?' ..."an answer to prayer." I attribute my disbelief in any of the g/God(s) to an answer to prayer. kinda odd, i know.

before my second year in the air force, i got this roommate. i had been quite comfortable after a good while without a roommate, and really wasn't keen on it ...but i didn't have a say anyway. *please picture a smile on my face as i tell this bit of background to the prayer* Well, during that time solo i was balancing new money (not well, i may add), a pretty cool job and training, a certain amount of freedom, and a seedling of faith in Jesus Christ (please note the capitalization).

given the inevitability of the occupation, i made sort-of a plea, with God (again, capitalization). "I want to know if You are real. Please, Lord, give me a roommate that can help me understand You ...and not a dick about it." When it came time to meet the guy, as i strolled into his room, there lying at the foot of his bed ... i smiled. new guy is fresh outta tech school ...and he's a christian ...with a Student Bible. lo, that wasn't the answered prayer in reference, but it was convincing enough then to what became my rebirth. not right then, it took a bit. my new roommate and i hit it off pretty well. to this day, and for many more i can safely assume, i consider him one of my best friends, and respect him greatly for being the man that he is. He's a Christian, along with his family ...and a respectable, honest man. it wasn't long before our circle of friends was pretty much the same, and attending the same bible studies and 'pizza parties.' we were both hungry for the Word and the Will of God. of course we had our slips, and i'm blessed beyond measure that some of my slips didn't cost me certain life-long friendships, or even my career.

Jump forward; Join a local church (non-denom, semi-charismatic), a good church with good people, and get baptized. i also came to believe in the Holy Spirit and believed i was baptized in such. my "church" experience was actually quite good. i grew a lot ...and fucked up a lot. after about a year of (at least in my opinion) accelerating growth in my faith, and involvement with youth and prison ministries, my constant prayer was to be able to "have an answer for my faith" through the truth. i would all but beg just to understand truth. and then, it happened ...a renewed vigor for bringing the Word of God deeper into my soul, as i saw things line up that tested well with the Word. but it was also then that the Word started to seem inadequate ...and conflicting. that didn't sway my solid faith at the time, though. there were so many things, all that i had read before, studied before that were coming more real; feeling as if i could put myself in the shoes of each character that was being "revealed" to me. My favorite book became 'Esther' of all things. the zeal had me believe that those seemingly inadequate and conflicting things would soon be understood, and the Word of God refreshing its credit as inspired and infallible.

the growth continued with sputters of life here and there. this 'essay' isn't supposed to be a biography, so i'll save you the 'sputters.' Yet, despite the sputters, i felt a relative steady climb in my faith ...definitely more than a mustard seed.

___________________

after a bunch of trials and tribulations, bandwagons and circles, actions and consequences, it wasn't life that was deteriorating my soul. when i would get on my knees ...when i opened the book, the answer for the faith was inadequate ...more and more, infallibility was becoming a worthless claim. inspired remained on the table for a long time, but infallibility fell. even one inconsistency throws the whole of the faith into quakes. My prayer still remained, "i want to know truth."

long story, shortened (a bit), i felt "lead" to back up and take in a wider view.   there was a time (in the really good growth days) i had felt lead to try to understand the other faiths, like i was being 'prepped' to meet and be available to witness to those of other faiths. understanding where they are coming from makes great strides in communication.  and, there were such encounters.  well, that 'leading' prepped me ...to begin seeing a MUCH bigger picture.  Something a lot closer to the truth i had been praying for.

for the sake of certains who may read this, i do understand and am willing to accept what consequences befall me doubting your g/God(s).  if eternal separation from [he/she/it/them] in perpetual torment is my destiny, then at that time i would have no choice but to accept it.  but i am willing to place my existence (and afterlife) on the table that no g/God(s) presented for belief is worthy of that faith.

but, i do have a pet theory ...

____________________

i'm supposing, by now you're wondering, "is he ever getting to the point?" or that i'm just rambling, or this is getting a little too long, but there is reason for backstory.  i'm sorry.  i did warn the 'whole' story is "tangentuous."  i'm cuttin' out a lot (obligatory 'lol').  and i'm breaking the whole thing up.

____________________

grew up kinda typical upper-central states, small towns surrounded by agriculture ...christian by claim.  we pretty much had a belief in the christian god, read the bible here and there (i actually enjoyed it and read it quite a bit), went to church, did the good neighbor thing, behaved (generally), etc. etc.  Had influence from a good general range of denominations.  we prayed, many times as a family, but we weren't "begging" for anything from God ...just bless the food, help so-and-so, sorry for being a dumbass.  but, we meant it.  we believed in Him and we're supposed to pray to talk to Him, and he gave us the Lord's Prayer.

i digress ...my mom, who grew up on a farm, loves the stars and she loves sharing that with us kids.  it was a common 'mom-and-kids' thing to go out in the country (which was really easy when we lived in Granville) and stare at the stars ...watching for shooting stars ...and, of course, u.f.o. stories.  My Mom planted a seed in me early on ..."keep watching."  she was a big, big fan of Carl Sagan, also.

it was my mom's inspiring awe for astronomy (other sciences included) that sparked my love for science, and it was that 'leading' for a panoramic view of the truth that now leaves me nearing forty.

^to be continued^

Mentally Ill?

I recently read an article on the site Atheism Exposed , entitled "Are Atheists Mentally Ill?"  I would recommend reading that particular article before reading my response that i emailed to the author, but that's up to you.  If anyone finds discrepancy in my response, please feel free to comment on such.

_________________________________


Just got done reading your article "Are Atheists Mentally Ill" on your site, Militant Atheism Exposed.   I plan on reading more of your articles as time allows, but i felt a need to address this one.


I am afraid you are misguided in your attempt to 'prove' your premise.  You were definitely correct in your opening of that article that both camps [i would say all camps] suffer populations of mentally ill/crazies/nuts/psychos to varying degrees, but i feel you failed in your overall claim that "atheists rely heavily on the psychological defense mechanisms of denial, rationalization, repression, suppression and displacement" to reject the existence of God.  It seemed to me that instead of general psychological attributes to show possible mental illness, you did more to say they are mentally ill because they don't believe in God.  Understandably, you are approaching this from a Christian perspective, but in making claims about another group of people (especially if you're going to claim they are 'ill') it is not only prudent but essential to define the group correctly, else-wise your entire claim is null.

"The mind of many atheists protects itself from these realities by rejecting God’s existence."

First, you base your article on the idea that your (Christian) perspective is reality and atheists are rejecting that reality with "mind games," assuming that it is an already founded fact and not providing any examples to back your claim except to say "It is the view of this author that the existence of a Creator is the most provable of all realities and that the proofs are 'many' and 'sufficient.'"  You also didn't sufficiently explain the atheist rejection:  they do not believe in ANY god (not just yours) because there is NO evidence to support the existence of any deity.  Throughout history, man has given a god the credit for the unexplainable.  History is replete with stories of various gods from multitudes of cultures and societies, many of which are extremely similar to others and most claiming sovereignty and superiority.  There is absolutely nothing different coming from the judeo-christian belief, so there is no reason to accept one over another if accepting any at all.

defense mechanisms to block out the pain.

Denial:  can't really argue with you on this one.   there are multiple reasons anyone can give for denying something, whether it is sufficient is the question.  yes, many (hopefully not most) deny simply on the premises you propose (i wouldn't go so far as saying mentally ill though).  But for myself, and many others like me, it goes back to no evidence supporting the existence of.  IMO, this is pretty much where atheists/agnostics differ.  Atheists, for the most part, flat out discount the existence, whereas agnostics believe there is no evidence in either direction thus no claim til one or the other has that evidence.  i personally lean more to being agnostic, but i will say with almost certitude that NONE of the surviving, viable faiths of today are correct. 
Rationalizations:  Your argument here, to me, just does not make sense.  Something either is or is not logical.  If someone is fooled by 'logic-sounding' speak, then they just do not know enough to be making a judgement -- period.  The logical reasoning i have heard (by many of the authors you note throughout your site) are not "why God does not exist, or why they cannot accept the existence of God," but rather how giving credit to a deity for something that clearly is not correct is illogical and the definition(s) of given god are negated by the actions of the god and by other characteristics attributed to them ...thus given god doesn't exist and is not worthy of worship.  Atheists (the smarter ones, at least) will use demonstrable, sound rationalizations from across the spectrum of disciplines, whereas religion/faith can ONLY use circular reasoning inside of itself.  The reasoning "because the bible says so" is ludicrous, given how observable evidence, logic and scientific ventures have shown it to be inaccurate.
Repression:  your definition here is correct, but not applicable in this argument because, again, you are assuming you are correct and assuming there is a pain to be blocked.  Projecting your assumption to a subject does not make your argument valid.  Rather, the rest of the paragraph throws it out by claiming 'design' and 'artist' for the existence of what is.  "All of existence yells out 'design.'"  I beg to differ:  All of existence yells out "careful where you step."  This planet is abundant with natural existences that are not 'human-friendly.'  From microbiological organisms to natural disasters, all of existence is up-for-grabs at any moment.  The 'beauty' that you speak of is subjective -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- beauty is only skin deep.  I would recommend understanding what pareidolia is.
"The atheist mind will not stop and observe and see the connection."  Myself, and many others i associate with (and i know we're not alone) love laying out in the yard, or walking through the swamp or trees, or watching birds and bees, or planting and nurturing -- we do stop, and observe the 'beauty' of it all.  But again, beauty is subjective.  We do see the connection, just not the connection that you're proclaiming.  The connections we see (demonstrable evidence) have nothing to do with an invisible deity's magic wand, but with each other ...affecting each other ...relying on each other.  Even, i would say, the unpleasant ones like army ants and wasps.  There is nothing to repress in nature: it's where we learn everything from.  Nature has ALL the answers, and none of them point to a deity ...yet, at least.
Suppression:  again, your definition is correct but your application is not.  There is no rejection on the part of atheists for the "concept of design ...daily being reinforced by all the sciences" because there is no such reinforcement by the sciences, only a projection of one's ideology or, dare i say ignorance (not meant to be derogatory - please refer to the definition of ignorance).  The "fair and sufficient analyses" are out there and are being done, and i would say again, none point to a deity.  Natural cause and effect.
Displacement:  can't really argue with you here, except to say that atheism does not recognize a god, thus 'anger' or 'hurt' cannot be directed toward a god.  Only one who believes in the existence of a god can direct emotion to that god.  For atheists, we don't blame god(s), we blame the arrogantly ignorant actions of those who do or do not believe in a god for certain atrocities. 

"Over-relying on [defense mechanisms] to cope with life and specific pains in life can lead to disjointed thinking and emotional immaturity."  You are correct, but using this to claim that atheism is a mental illness is completely misguided and misleading.

I look forward to your response, if any.

Truth, Knowledge and Humanity