How Oxford and Peter Singer drove me from atheism to Jesus

[bitterross]

119. Yep! Just More Will B. Will Be Will B.

Last edited Sat May 18, 2019, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

LOL, you seemed to have had a lot of time yesterday to bother with this. Will B. does throw a lot of shit on the wall to see what sticks.

I was sincere in my post. This behavior does appear to me like the many, many "I found God/Jesus who saved me" stories I ran into in rehab. So the post was somewhat of a trigger for me.

The people with those stories were really freaking annoying. They had found THE answer to everything and then, because it was the Christianity cult that implores their members to spread the gospel, they HAD to preach about it. All the freaking time. Since I was in a "safe space" I couldn't tell them what I was thinking because of rules.

I can think of nothing more annoying than an addict who has changed their drug of choice from meth to Jesus. They want to use it and sell it to others very passionately. Just as much as they wanted the meth.

You are, of course, correct. There is nothing remarkable in her story - whoever she is. She is just another drop of self-deception in the bucket of delusion.

She seems to me to be just one of billions of delusional people who buy what the Christian churches are selling. I do mean selling. To buy a product for which there is no proof is rather ignorant, in my opinion.

Oxford is a remarkable place known for its status as an institution of higher learning. I'm sure that its name was thrown in simply to give some sort of appearance of credibility. At no point in the article did I see Oxford endorsing this person's story. At no point did I see any reference as to how Oxford lectures influenced this person. A book in the library takes center-stage. A book which is likely available in many university libraries and local bookstores or on Amazon.

I'd never actually heard of Peter Singer until the OP. From the little google-ing I've done he seems to hold a view with which I cannot agree.

If I'm reading the summaries correctly, then his philosophy is we are obligated to prevent every pain of every living being within our scope of influence. While that SOUNDS noble, it is not. I do not believe that I, or anyone else, is responsible for every other living being within my scope of influence. To assume this is true is to weigh down every person with the concerns of every person. This is a bit circular and gets ridiculous very quickly. When do my own personal concerns get to be weighed and by what standard do they preempt the concerns for others?

I'm a bit more of the Sam Harris type of atheist. I can only control my own actions. I believe that my actions should be in accordance with respecting the well being of others. If I act with respect to maintaining the well being of others then I have done my best to do no harm.

Being responsible for my personal inaction is a slippery slope upon which I do not wish tread. There are, of course, instances in which I feel I am obligated to act and my inaction is a failing. Yes, I will perform the Heimlich Maneuver on a person who is choking. My inaction in that case would make me a horrible person - Mitch McConnell excluded.

At what point though, do I stop being responsible for my inaction? If you decide to go hike Everest and I know that will likely kill you should I be responsible for not stopping you? For not making the arguments against it, that I certainly would, convincing enough? Should I physically intervene? No, of course not.

One is limited in what one can do.