Why I am not a Christian

[Whaleboy]

Atheism is a faith that doesn't convince me any more than the other strands. Yes- I call it a faith, because I think for most atheists it's an apt term.

I'm not sure it implies faith. For me it's more a scientific position, and in the theistic or atheistic sense I simply lack faith. Think of it as a car without a horn... subjectively you need a horn to be in a state of either beep or no beep. Note the subjective.

It can be a dogma but dogma isn't necessary to atheism, that is to say, if you are atheist, you needn't be dogmatic about it, and I consider myself an example.

Whaleboy: Do you really want to get into the theology of morals? In Orthodoxy, morals are closely tied into the existence of God, by the doctrine of the nous. We are blinded, distracted, confused away from the face of god, and our barbarity stems from that confusion. Trying to reorient on God (and buddhism, from what I've read, is somewhat similar in approach, as are many other religions), is itself part of the "cure." So it's not just any other moral system based on the supposition of a deity.

Yes but other moral systems are not, and needn't be, dependent on deity. As for a refutation of theist-based morality, methinks moral relativism handles that nicely .

You don't just say, "don't lie, don't cheat, don't kill." That's just suppressing the symptoms of the disease. Some part of you, deep inside, still wants to be inhuman even after you suppress it with carefully constructed utilitarian gibberish, and that part makes a mockery of all the systems that say human reason can lead to ethical improvement. If human beings were so rational we wouldn't do this crap in the first place. Granted, we have some reasoning ability; we have a conscience to guide us. That's not enough. It's been about three centuries since the enlightenment, and people are just as horrible as they were before science by all indications.

Science does not give us morality, nor does rationality, it merely describes it in the best sense (which is why I dislike Kant's categorical imperative which is obviously very prescriptive). To be perfectly rational, in my opinion, would result in moral nihilism, but we are not 100% rational creatures, we have emotions, hence moral emotivism (that morality is a subjective emotional reaction, or predicated by that reaction, Ayer + Stevenson for references), which renders morality as subjective as the emotion but avoids moral nihilism. To my mind, it is the best enlightenment-era moral position, with the exception of some of Mill's work. But I digress. And will continue... there is considerable discussion regarding the enlightenment and when, or indeed if it ended. I subscribe to the POV that it ended on 9/11 , but my point is that it is foolish to be so cut and dry about it, an era in philosophy doesn't by its entirity and essence automatically associate itself with one discipline and disassociate from a previous system.

That's just suppressing the symptoms of the disease. Some part of you, deep inside, still wants to be inhuman even after you suppress it with carefully constructed utilitarian gibberish

That, to me, is nonsense. Utilitarian gibberish? Care to elaborate? No of course we are not transparent in ourselves with our rationality, emotivism and egoism see to that, but you call it inhuman, I call it all too human, again I'm concerned you're looking for distinctions where there are none.

He knew existential philosophy, one of the latest trends in though.

That would be Heidegger, who went off at a completely different angle from Husserl and to my mind appears far more essentialist. There are major problems with associating existentialism with the holocaust.

Plenty of thieves, gamblers, pimps, and other riffraff have had access to education and just don't care. And of course there's always plenty of arrogance, spite, gossip, and gluttony among Educated Modern Man. We've been freeing ourselves from the shackles of superstition and fear for hundreds of years now and people are still "irrationally" cruel. What's with that?

Good question, the answer of course is that they're still people. There is a big difference for me from sitting at a desk letting my mind go wander, and living my life. For example, I could argue all day about how revenge is useless, and still hit out at people who threaten me, as I did a few weeks ago as some may remember when I was mugged. People don't live all of their lives as a reflection of what goes on in their head, like I said, intellect has it's limits. Does it make me a hypocrite for not practising what I preach? Yes it does. Is hypocricy inherent to humanity? Hell yes! But intellect has it's benefits, I take Wittgensteins view that philosophy is very much like therapy, and it's helped me enormously, and part of that is the refutation of God. I don't have the common enlightenment view that rationality can solve all ones problems, whether or not it can solve all of humanities problems is a different matter entirely, but that's a different story. Life isn't Apollonian or Dionysian, it's an ad hoc balance between the two, and latter enlightenment thinkers (like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer) realised that.

Well with regards to things needing a cause, I suppose you could say that they don't, and things just happen. Typically though when giving natural explanations of things, you like to try avoid saying "It just happens"

True, but there are limits to that, one of those is potential contingents (at every point in time up to now) relative to the universe in its actuality both at those points and now.

As I understand it(could be wrong here), particles coming into being for some reason, inflation occured, and from there you have the big bang.

Not quite. The big bang occured, matter and anti-matter (slightly biased in favour of matter hence all the "stuff" today) mutually annihilated, the universe went from about the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit in the blink of a proverbial eye.

But the problem is, why is it the rules of physics allow for this to take place. What created the proces of particles coming into being? And moreover, once these particles are here, why do they interact the way we do. We can give explanations relating to the physical forces acting on the particles that led to the big bang, but we can't give an explanation as to why those physical forces are there. What is the cause of the weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces?

May I rephrase? We can't *yet* give an explanationas to why those physical forces are here, nor is our limited understanding cause to infer God.

Not really. Actions can be more or less in accordance with God's nature. Evil is not an independent force, rather, it imples something not at all in accordance with God and his nature.

Yes but God is supposedly independent no?

That is actually the contemporary Catholic view on Hell, which has been increasingly held by Theologians and recently endorsed by the Holy father; that Hell is the place for the radically impenitent who have totally closed themselves off to God's love and utterly refuse anything to do with it. Of course, just because Hell is a place of choice, does not mean it is not an incredibly painful state to be in, as it means seperation from God who is the source of all good and happiness.

So not quite the Jewish view. In Judaism, there is no "place" akin to heaven called hell, hell is merely a figurative state of being far from God. I personally consider the idea (of hell, mostly the Christian sense) woefully inconsistent.

It's not an arbitrary line at all. It's a line between the natural world, which is subject to the laws of nature as we know it, and the supernatural world, which is not. While our physical universe is not eternal, there is no reason why a supernatural (above nature) being can't be eternal.

But there is cause to hold that the latter cannot interfere or communicate in any way with, or predicate the former. By that logic, God *could* exist, but there is no way we could know about it.

Now, if these values have not been determined by anything, there doesn't seem to be any reason why these values are what they are. There would be infinite values which would lead to no life possible, and only the select few we have that lead to life. The chances that we got so lucky by pure chance would be infinitely small, the values we have are so perfect for our universe that is fine tuned for life that it might suggest the possibility of a creator.

Getting back to the argument by design, no matter how small the odds at the time, the universe as it is is actual, and so odds are irrelevant, there is no implication of a creator. As for what determined the values, lack of information there is no cause to infer God.

There won't be one, as this isn't hard science we are dealing with, it is beyond the realm of what can be experimented on or proven, and so wouldn't be in a scientific paper. Rather, it is making a judgement over whether it is more reasonable to judge based on what we know of the universe and how it was formed to view the universe as being createed by a supernatural cause or by purely natural forces.

I don't have the physics background to give a full answer to that, but I do know that many physicists have taken the view that a supernatural cause is more likely.

A physics background is not good enough to be able to comment properly on the issues, certainly most of what I have ever read in modern metaphysics implies no supernatural cause, the reason is that those read in philosophy and metaphysics are aware of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, scientists are not, which to me is a shame and indicative of a flaw in the logic that separates science and philosophy... again clear cut thinking tends to leak.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Yes but other moral systems are not, and needn't be, dependent on deity. As for a refutation of theist-based morality, methinks moral relativism handles that nicely .

Science does not give us morality, nor does rationality, it merely describes it in the best sense (which is why I dislike Kant's categorical imperative which is obviously very prescriptive). To be perfectly rational, in my opinion, would result in moral nihilism, but we are not 100% rational creatures, we have emotions, hence moral emotivism (that morality is a subjective emotional reaction, or predicated by that reaction, Ayer + Stevenson for references), which renders morality as subjective as the emotion but avoids moral nihilism. To my mind, it is the best enlightenment-era moral position, with the exception of some of Mill's work.

Well, if your emotions are sabotaging your reason, how can you trust in reason? "Emotions" are in some cases perfectly rational. Like the fear or anxiety associated with an adrenaline rush. Animals are purely emotion as we usually think of the term, but they never act without purpose. There is a primitive rationale underlying all instinctive actions. Irrational "emotion" is all but unique to the higher primates, isn't it? If squirrels were people, would they pretend to kiss and make up over a trivial squabble and then use the incident to hold grudges and for leverage to score points with, the way people do? And would they shroud their selfishness under the simplistic but apparently perfect logic we have aptly labelled "rationalization"?

That, to me, is nonsense. Utilitarian gibberish? Care to elaborate? No of course we are not transparent in ourselves with our rationality, emotivism and egoism see to that, but you call it inhuman, I call it all too human, again I'm concerned you're looking for distinctions where there are none.

That would be Heidegger, who went off at a completely different angle from Husserl and to my mind appears far more essentialist. There are major problems with associating existentialism with the holocaust.

I'm not trying to imply that existentialism is "associated" with the holocaust, though I guess it sounded that way. Hitler was probably aware of Mill's utilitarian philosophies. He just didn't give a rat's arse. My impression of utilitarianism is that it's about what does the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But on a case-by-case basis, looking out for number one, moral nihilism, is as you sort of said the most effective, rational way of doing things. Crime does pay. Nuts to the greatest number of people, if there's no reason to care beyond the greatest good to me, right?

More specifically, something vaguely Machiavellian would be the most efficient philosophy. Talk about morals to get others nice and self-sacrificing for you, then screw 'em till they bleed. That's what works best. A utilitarian philosophy is bound by the conscience alone. It does nothing to explain why you should care in the first place. There is an assumption that there is something called "good" which we ought to follow, and a set of rules is established based on ironing out the contradictions in one's own instinctive feelings about it. Which is why I call it a cardboard god. It's just idealizing your own private yearning under a noble name. If you're going to worship a God, you should be honest with yourself. Moral questions aside, it's a more effective way of working, isn't it?

Good question, the answer of course is that they're still people. There is a big difference for me from sitting at a desk letting my mind go wander, and living my life. For example, I could argue all day about how revenge is useless, and still hit out at people who threaten me, as I did a few weeks ago as some may remember when I was mugged. People don't live all of their lives as a reflection of what goes on in their head, like I said, intellect has it's limits. Does it make me a hypocrite for not practising what I preach? Yes it does. Is hypocricy inherent to humanity? Hell yes! But intellect has it's benefits, I take Wittgensteins view that philosophy is very much like therapy, and it's helped me enormously, and part of that is the refutation of God. I don't have the common enlightenment view that rationality can solve all ones problems, whether or not it can solve all of humanities problems is a different matter entirely, but that's a different story. Life isn't Apollonian or Dionysian, it's an ad hoc balance between the two, and latter enlightenment thinkers (like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer) realised that.

Whoa, I never said reason is worthless, only that it's insufficient, on which point you seem to sorta-kinda agree with me. But what do you put in its place? You sound like you're just living with the problem of evil. That, to me, is unacceptable. Experience has taught me that it is possible-agonizingly hard, and momentary, but possible-to tame my own evil nature, to focus on God. Kill the disease at its source, germ by filthy germ, so to speak. The problem comes back, and there are theological explanations as to why, but hesychia, or nirvana, or whatever you want to call it, happens.

Willing self-improvement seems the only true answer to the flaws in human nature, and an effective answer at that. I think it's irresponsible and dangerous not to try, no matter how hard it is. It's not about self-esteem, or fulfillment, or some other new-age yarn. That's just egotism dressed up as high-mindedness. Morality needs deliberate self-discipline. If your moral system somehow provides that without a God, I have no beef with you. In fact, I'd like to hear it.

[Whaleboy]

Well, if your emotions are sabotaging your reason, how can you trust in reason?

Ah no you misunderstand. Emotions are the motivation for morality, in other words, say we have a choice of one argument over another, we may choose on the basis of our emotional reaction to one or the other. That says nothing about the arguments themselves, and to say so amounts to ad hominem, reason remains unaffected... indeed if subjective emotions creep into the arguments themselves that usually results in weakness (invalid assumptions and necessary/sufficient confusion are the usual ones imo).

But on a case-by-case basis, looking out for number one, moral nihilism, is as you sort of said the most effective, rational way of doing things. Crime does pay. Nuts to the greatest number of people, if there's no reason to care beyond the greatest good to me, right?

It could be argued to be the most rational conclusion (cogito ergo sum -> solipcism -> egoism -> moral nihilism). The core of what separates that from, say, existential utilitarianism is the presumption that other people of equal validity exist (thus ignoring solipcism), not that good or god exists.

Moral questions aside, it's a more effective way of working, isn't it?

See above. However I commend you on your thinking. I may not agree with you or think you have a valid argument but you have a *sound* argument (note the difference, we disagree on assumptions but your reasoning is sound), and furthermore you're being sharp with it and engaging with my points , consider yourself encouraged to continue!!

Whoa, I never said reason is worthless, only that it's insufficient, on which point you seem to sorta-kinda agree with me. But what do you put in its place? You sound like you're just living with the problem of evil. That, to me, is unacceptable. Experience has taught me that it is possible-agonizingly hard, and momentary, but possible-to tame my own evil nature, to focus on God. Kill the disease at its source, germ by filthy germ, so to speak. The problem comes back, and there are theological explanations as to why, but hesychia, or nirvana, or whatever you want to call it, happens.

Ah I don't really see things in myself as opposition. I understand where you're coming from, indeed I have sides to me another person might call "good" or "evil", but I don't, because I hold those terms to be absolute and thus useless to me. I suppose I take an Apollo + Dionysis view of things, consideration and excess. I see things also in terms of the self, whereby the self-improvement thing as I'll later address isn't so important.

Willing self-improvement seems the only true answer to the flaws in human nature, and an effective answer at that. I think it's irresponsible and dangerous not to try, no matter how hard it is. It's not about self-esteem, or fulfillment, or some other new-age yarn. That's just egotism dressed up as high-mindedness. Morality needs deliberate self-discipline. If your moral system somehow provides that without a God, I have no beef with you. In fact, I'd like to hear it.

Well again see my Cartesian sequence above, that sidesteps the need for God, hence it could well be called existential utilitarianism, in terms of human nature and a philosophy for all, well we could debate the rights and wrongs all day but as you rightly point out, reason is insufficient. It's been something that's troubled me for a number of years, and lately I've just concluded that I don't *really* give a damn, I'm not out to save the world, I'm out to express myself and that's my own subjective position, it cannot be universalised in the Kantian sense. Which leaves us with a problem of how I create a moral system not reliant on God with a proper balance of "Apollo" and "Dionysis". Answer? Objective (in context) recognition of emotivism, or what you might call meta-morality. I had something like that in the Mill Limit. I'm aware that sidesteps the question of morality somewhat, but the concept itself is self-defeating unless you consider it universally absolute, which I cannot do in good faith.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The propensity to seek for answers to the big questions, to believe and to have faith, is a key part of what makes us human. It's one of those traits we picked up (as far as anyone can tell) some 60,000 years ago or so alongside abstract thought. It manifests itself in many ways and can be a wonderfully enriching experience. Beats me why we have so many zealots attempting to foist their interpretations on others, however.

I suppose that is merely a reflection of temperament. Nothing could seem more natural to me than the wish to make others accept my interpretations. Feel that strongly enough, and using force should seem justified. Particularly if your interpretation lets you see its use as for the objective benefit of the other party.


Tangentially, I've always found ideas about the redemption of "righteous heathens" repugnant. It, quite irrationally, makes me feel trapped; if I merely ignore them to live a tolerably constructive life, they, from their POV, "get" me, and if deliberately set myself up to get away, I'm basically a believer. "All unbelievers go to Hell" feels alot more fair.

[Whaleboy]

I look at that as more intellectual dishonesty than anything LC . I agree I find it repugnant.

[bayraven]

Originally posted by molly bloom


As disappointing as it may seem, there isn't an atheist book of rules, club, special keyring, or codewords, and no secret meeting place late at night for rambunctious laughs.

Knowing there were people qualified to answer, I thought it a useful question. I did get several answers, including yours
the key ring sounds like a good idea, though.

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Last Conformist




Tangentially, I've always found ideas about the redemption of "righteous heathens" repugnant. It, quite irrationally, makes me feel trapped; if I merely ignore them to live a tolerably constructive life, they, from their POV, "get" me, and if deliberately set myself up to get away, I'm basically a believer. "All unbelievers go to Hell" feels alot more fair.

I'm not sure i see the difference, unless you're saying that when they just condemn you it's tolerable, but when they try to convert you and then denegrate your choice, it becomes repugnant. If that is your point, I can see the logic, but it's probably not your point, so I'm curious what you mean.

From a Christian POV, don't miss the obvious: believing hell exists and awaits all who reject Christ is tremendous motivation to evangelize. Most Christians are secure in their own salvation and ignore the responsibility to bring as many along as possible, while others get condescending / elitist and say God doesn't want you anyway (the God-hates-fags moron)

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The point I want to make is that science has become the new dogma (with all the baggage that entails)- granted there are some who actually test the boundaries through experimentation but the vast majority don't. Likewise, there are theologians who explore what faith and being actually mean, but most believers don't.

I agree with you - there are many out there who accept everything which is "scientific" without thinking of it. They are satisfied in their little world, which doesn't change much, and where others think for them. Debating with such people is usually a pain, since they think they know everything I guess therefore I tend to defend science - all criticism aside science is still something where you can learn more. Surely you cannot be an expert in everything, but you can try to broaden your perspective. And studying something ideally means (at least to me) more than "inhaling" tons of facts specific to a certain field.

I personally have trouble calling science a dogma as long as it changes, and changes itself. But yes I agree in the sense that many people see it as dogma (although ideally it shouldn't be one, and I'd say it often isn't, otherwise there would be stagnation). But to me it is more a general human problem, not something which is esp. religious or atheist.

[Whaleboy]

BeBro: Indeed, and I find the dogmatic stuff to be contrary to what you might consider a "good" scientific attitude, that is, accepting things provisionally. I don't think it's inherently dogmatic, nor atheism, it's just that people get a psychological attachment to certain ideas, which undermines the ideas in this case imo.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by bayraven


I'm not sure i see the difference, unless you're saying that when they just condemn you it's tolerable, but when they try to convert you and then denegrate your choice, it becomes repugnant. If that is your point, I can see the logic, but it's probably not your point, so I'm curious what you mean.

I believe I used the word "irrationally", which should be a hint there's not much logic to be seen.

Rationally, it shouldn't matter one iota to me whether believers think I'm bound for Heaven or Hell; after all, I do not share their beliefs.

But "denigrating my choice" is pretty close to it - they're basically saying "we'll get you in the end whether you want to or not", unless I go out of my way to offend against their God. They're claiming all decent people as theirs, so to speak.

[Elok]

I'm not so much concerned with "saving the world" as I am with saving myself. Experience has taught me that it's impossible for one man to change the world. When we say so-and-so changed the world, we really mean that he changed himself, and the world saw, and thought it was a good idea, and followed suit. I want to change myself. Even if there is no God, which I doubt, I don't like being bound by greed and envy, selfishness and petty spite.

It's not that I view good and evil as equal and opposite forces within me; that's manicheanism. Heresy, heresy, badbadbad, and all that. I think that within all people there is a predilection for good which is continuously subverted and rerouted by something else, and the existence of that something else appears to me self-evident if I think about it for a while.

I don't think of good and evil as consideration and excess either; Apollo and Dionysius, as you put it, isn't just the comparison of an angel of light and a dancing devil. Assuming I take your meaning correctly, that is. It's more a matter of focus and distraction, order and chaos. There's a mood that can come on to you, where you feel nothing but hate and rage, but you're still all but certain that you're thinking more clearly and rationally than you ever have before. It's like demonic possession, but without a demon to blame.

Needless to say, we encounter it a lot on 'Poly, which is why I'm using it as an example. It's pigheaded and self-congratulatory, and even when it's dressed as wisdom it's self-destructive, because in a sufficiently stupid mood you can make yourself immobile in your beliefs with a shell of circular reason. If people argue with you it just proves you're right, because genius is always misunderstood. If people get angry with you it's because they can't handle the truth you speak. But if you get angry with them, it's because you're frustrated by the weakness of lesser minds. Nobody that I know of thinks that way explicitly, but something like that comes on us in our worst moods, in a more subtle way, and it's the heart of irrationality. It's self-sustaining by its nature. And it happens to everybody (no, I wasn't sniping at Molly or Sava, but describing what I've felt myself ). That's what I mean, just a little, by evil. It's not just normal hedonism or selfishness, it's more like some part of our minds has a deliberate self-destructive intent. I want to know why, is all.

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

But "denigrating my choice" is pretty close to it - they're basically saying "we'll get you in the end whether you want to or not", unless I go out of my way to offend against their God. They're claiming all decent people as theirs, so to speak.

Couple this with the word repugnant and it seems you are feeling some real pressure from 'those people'. Do they have faces, or are they collective Christianity? I've been (too) careful to balance the things i've written about my own beliefs with the acknowledgment of a justifiable other side. If 'they' are not a set of real life obnoxious people, could the irrationality be a rational fear of making the wrong choice?

[Whaleboy]

I'm not so much concerned with "saving the world" as I am with saving myself. Experience has taught me that it's impossible for one man to change the world. When we say so-and-so changed the world, we really mean that he changed himself, and the world saw, and thought it was a good idea, and followed suit. I want to change myself. Even if there is no God, which I doubt, I don't like being bound by greed and envy, selfishness and petty spite.

What I mean is nailing ones heart to a banner, such pursuits have no meaning and do not (at least the way I see it) warrant the effort involved in fulfilling them. That's where I differ from most existentialists, since they would rely on the presumption of the self, which I have as a relative term (Want being relative to others, need being absolute to the self, but need also relies upon the premise of want objectively, separating out that context).

Life changes us all in ways far beyond our control, and we will never get anywhere, not even forward if self-improvement is the aim, and where people claim to do so, I pick up intellectual dishonesty in them since ultimately their actions are of no intented consequence.

It's not that I view good and evil as equal and opposite forces within me; that's manicheanism. Heresy, heresy, badbadbad, and all that. I think that within all people there is a predilection for good which is continuously subverted and rerouted by something else, and the existence of that something else appears to me self-evident if I think about it for a while.

An interesting concept. Would you see that "good" or "bad" as something externally verifiable... i.e., could it be canonically recorded as good or bad, or is it merely sides to you that you like/dislike, consider good/evil?

To me, good and evil do not exist, all they are are sides to me, facets, visages. I like some, dislike others, but I tend to deconstruct the reasons why I like and dislike them, and it all boils down to egoism and self-portraiture. That's not a personality trait this is a more human thing. And of course, look beneath your self-portraits, look far enough and you'll likely reach a big nihilistic hole. At this point I should say what I'm not trying to do is refute you, since it's fairly obvious that our positions are more a reflection of self, and we dont know each other, so the best we can do is compare our views in the light of each others.

I don't think of good and evil as consideration and excess either; Apollo and Dionysius, as you put it, isn't just the comparison of an angel of light and a dancing devil. Assuming I take your meaning correctly, that is. It's more a matter of focus and distraction, order and chaos. There's a mood that can come on to you, where you feel nothing but hate and rage, but you're still all but certain that you're thinking more clearly and rationally than you ever have before. It's like demonic possession, but without a demon to blame.

Intriguing... I don't have "Apollo" and "Dionysis" as good or evil, I don't hold those concepts, I imagine that they would manifest themselves in other people as what they perceive as "good" or "evil". One may well often be enslaved to the other however, as you so aptly described in your following paragraph . You could well deconstruct those sides to "love" and "logic". I don't think the situation you described is "evil", or approaching it, it's not conducive to social acceptance and yes it is self-destructive but I can't say that qualifies it formerly.

I suppose this is a difference of assumptions, obviously we cannot use the terms "good" and "evil" when we mean different things by them.

Bayraven: I myself have encountered such people, I don't think they're representative of the Church but shall we say, they're endemic to it and a product of it.

could the irrationality be a rational fear of making the wrong choice?

An interesting question, I would imagine that boils down to Pascal's bet.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by bayraven



Couple this with the word repugnant and it seems you are feeling some real pressure from 'those people'. Do they have faces, or are they collective Christianity?

Christianity? I do not think Christians are the biggest offenders out here, and those Christians I know personally tend to be "free religious" ones, who do not believe that the "righteous heathen" will be saved.

'Those people' are, in the first line, various theological writers whose texts I've read for various reasons.

If 'they' are not a set of real life obnoxious people, could the irrationality be a rational fear of making the wrong choice?

Psychologizing oneself is not known for its accuracy, but I do not believe so.

I suppose its related to my instinctive dislike of "those who are not with us are against us"/"those who are not against us are with us" attitudes.

[Tuberski]

If you don't believe in Christ, then you aren't Christian.

All the rest is, blah,blah,blah

ACK!