Dear David (AFA),

Sorry for the delay.

It was my mistake to use and take-for-granted the phrase, "God haters", which while part of my (and some others') common and intuitive experience and vocabulary, others may not share, thus is meaningless on a pure objective level.

I therefore must first clarify some terms:

1. When I speak of God, I don't refer to any of those "3000 gods purported to have existed", or anything else that may exist. If "it" may even possibly exist, then I label it "god" with a small-g (some people may use small-gods as a temporary aid, crutch or ladder-step on their religious path, but that's technical rather than of philosophical value).

2. When I speak of religion, I don't refer to any organisation or institute, teaching or doctrine. Religion is simply the process of coming closer to God. There are teachings and institutions which claim to promote and assist in bringing individuals closer to God: these may be rightly called "religions" (plural) only to the extent that they in fact achieve that purpose.

3. Hating is a feeling which need not be conscious. One may, for example, avoid walking through a certain street, detouring around it, without being conscious that the reason is their aversion to the smells emanating from a fish-shop on that street.

I have not mentioned "existence" in a word in my post that you were referring to, but in your post you mentioned the word "exist" and its derivatives 7 times. I consider this a red herring. I also wonder why this excessive emphasis on questions of existence.

Just because bugs-bunny does not exist, for example, hating bugs-bunny is not nonsense: if one holds the attitude of hating bugs-bunny and someone approaching at night SEEMS to that person as bugs-bunny, or REMIND him of bugs-bunny, which he therefore shoots, then that's serious business!

Having that out of the way, I admit that since God is not an object, I cannot define "God haters" either. I may only try to informally convey what I mean, just hoping you may get the feeling:

(continued...)

(...continued)

While religion often consists of conscious efforts to come closer to God, I believe that everyone occasionally and spontaneously experiences coming closer to God. While these religious experiences are not always conscious, some love them while others hate them (because they challenge their sinful mode of life, which deep inside they intuitively know is wrong).

Whether people love or hate the religious experience, some notice patterns of circumstances, such as being in certain places, doing certain things, avoiding others or associating with certain people, that increase the chances of those experiences occurring. Those who love religious experiences will therefore try to increase those circumstances while those who hate them will try to avoid those circumstances.

Among those who try to avoid religious experiences, there are people who desire to justify their avoidance - and one way to do that is to discredit, marginalise and silence religious people who love those experiences. These I call "God haters". They cannot suppress their own conscience indefinitely, yet they try.

Among those who love the religious experience, some try, for the benefit of others, to codify those circumstances that increase the chances of religious experiences. This gives rise to doctrines and "religions". While born of sincere, almost-scientific, attempt to identify "what works" on the path to God, some codes are more accurate than others while others are more speculative (and others yet were more accurate ages ago, but deteriorated since having parts lost and/or added and/or distorted). In any case, doctrines and "religions" are statistical in nature because no two people have the exact same experiences and religious path.

What more can delight haters of God than to find faults and weaknesses with codes, doctrines and "religions", some indeed faulty or weak, then generalise and claim with glee that ALL religions are false and should be outlawed?

Now that I explained this, I don't think you will any longer find it difficult to identify those people on this forum.

Dear Pericles,

The choice of etymology for 'religion' depends on one's attitude towards religion. Now as this sounds circular, I clarify: The choice of etymology for 'religion' depends on one's attitude towards the way-of-life of those who call themselves 'religious'.

The etymology I use is from inside the circle of religious people. I don't think you will find many people who call themselves 'religious' by any other etymology: other etymologies are generally imposed from the outside by people not following this way-of-life, and some are even derogatory in nature.

Now tell me, whose etymology is fairer to use for X - that of the group practising (or at least trying to practice) X, or that of those who wish to denigrate X?

---
Dear Banjo,

<<Kindness, politeness and fairness are my standards.>>

Then you are well on your way to God. God bless you!

<<A regrettable paradox of religion is that while it was designed to eliminate immorality it actually creates the conditions for fostering it. Its purifying action of washing the sins away and leaving the soul as white as snow is a process which can be repeated ad infinitum. This represents an irresistible temptation for some to take advantage of the facility in order to commit as many sins as they please, in complete impunity, before heading back to the laundry to wash their sins away once again.>>

This is an example of religious-degeneration, not of religion. Washing away of sins can only occur with true and profound attrition. How can a priest possibly declare with confidence that your sins have been washed away unless they are clairvoyant and know your heart-of-hearts?

Yuyutsu,

>>”It was my mistake to use and take-for-granted the phrase, "God haters", which while part of my (and some others') common and intuitive experience and vocabulary, others may not share, thus is meaningless on a pure objective level.”<<

Apology accepted. We all make mistakes verbally and in the written word when we allow our subjective thoughts to take control.

The rest of your explanation is overload to cover that subjectivity and I do not intend to address it. However, it does demonstrate the principle that anything can be argued to the nth degree, as in this case, but still remain subjective waffle.

I’m sure you have learnt the lesson that equating what you would like to think of others with what others actually think are not one and the same. I’m also sure you will not use that phrase again. Let me restate that with a variation. I’m also sure that you ‘shouldn’t ‘use that phrase again.

David

Perhaps the Atheist Foundation of Australia could define the difference between subjective and objective? This has been a philosophical conundrum for centuries and I am amused that the writer thinks there is such a sharp distinction. All perception involves the subject even if that perception is of a definable object. Of course in science one attempts to place purely subjective, that is projection, aside to get at the objective. That is one of the disciplines a scientist has to learn.

However, when we get to the humanities things are not so clear cut, if they are clear at all for science. An insistence on the objective over the subjective when listening to music will not get you very far. There is here an insistence that all knowledge and experience must pass through the filter of scientific epistemology. What you get when you apply this to the humanities is reductive nonsense. What you also get is an impoverished humanism that cannot cope with tragedy, does not know what constitutes good action and is subject to fad and fashion. As Chesterton remarked, the world is a trap for logicians. Thankfully very few people live by the constraints of scientific rationality, those who do are poor wretches indeed.

Nature is obviously more fundamental than creation. Nature has existed ever since anything existed. Creation myths are a human invention and didn't exist until humans invented the creation myths. When the human species dies out the creation myths will die with us, but nature will continue to exist. Nature is more fundamental than life itself - far more fundamental than a creation of one life form.

The statement that "Creation is a more fundamental notion than nature." is complete rubbish.