COMMENTS: 221
Do Atheists Have God All Wrong?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Belief headlines via email.
This article first appeared on TruthDig.
"We are talking far too much about God these days," writes Karen Armstrong, author of "The Battle for God," "Visions of God," "The Changing Face of God" and "A History of God," at the outset of her new book, "The Case for God." Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
Still, I think I understand: If the rest of us are suffering from a touch of God Fatigue, surely Armstrong, whose readable, literate books on particular religions and religion in general have earned her a respectable reputation, might well be sick to death of the topic.
But there is no avoiding the topic of God: It’s all the rage these days. God is under attack, and God’s attackers under counterattack, everywhere you look. Anyway, Armstrong’s real complaint is not that we are talking too much about God, but that there is too much talk of the wrong sort. We have misunderstood the very concept of God, and as a result "what we say [about God] is often facile." She isn’t referring only to the so-called new atheists here -- well, primarily she is referring to the new atheists, because they are the ones that really get her goat, but she is careful to assure us that the central modern misunderstanding of religion, which is to see it primarily as a matter of belief, is one shared by most religious adherents, and isn’t just a creation of their critics.
The complaint that the new atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc.) are theologically incompetent, and that a subtler appreciation for the finer points of theology would expose the shallowness of their attacks, is by now a common one. But few defenders of religion attempt actually to spell out the theological details; and the results of those attempts that have been made are, in my experience, deeply unsatisfying.
Can Armstrong’s ambitious survey of the history of Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious thought do better? She is entirely correct that atheistic critiques aimed at naive strict literalist readings of holy texts can take us only so far. Mocking the angry, cruel, unjust deity of the Old Testament, or reminding literalists that the world is considerably more than 4,000 years old, has little force against the moderate, nonfundamentalist faithful. More powerful skeptical critiques, though, do not presuppose Scriptural literalism. They rely on the Darwinian view of how complex life evolved on this planet, or the existence of serious evil and injustice -- things that are well-established and pretty much impossible reasonably to deny and, at the same time, extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with any view of God-as-designer/caretaker, or with any other traditional form of theistic belief.
Pointing out that sacred texts are not meant to be read literally, then, is not enough. Armstrong’s more radical strategy is to de-emphasize the role of belief in religious life altogether: Practice, she writes, is more important than belief, and we misunderstand references to "belief" in the Bible, the Quran and elsewhere if we interpret them in accordance with our modern understanding of belief. (The correct sense, she writes, has more to do with " ‘trust,’ ‘loyalty,’ ‘engagement,’ and ‘commitment.’ ") Critics who focus on the absurdity or implausibility of so many religious beliefs, then, or on the fact that religion encourages people to accept these beliefs uncritically and to hold them in the face of any countervailing evidence, are missing the point: It isn’t believing certain things but rather living a certain sort of life that makes a person religious.
One might well worry, though, that it is not as easy as Armstrong assumes to separate belief from action or practice. Indeed all intentional voluntary action presupposes some set of beliefs. Armstrong may perhaps make a plausible claim in asserting that faith, as understood by mainstream religious traditions before the advent of modernity, involved more than "mere" belief in the modern sense; but if the problem with religious life is that it encourages false, absurd, unjustified beliefs, showing that it does other things as well is not sufficient. What must be shown is that religion does not involve belief, and not merely that it involves other things in addition to belief. So long as religious worldviews differ in certain important ways from that held by the nonreligious, one can still complain that that worldview is poorly founded and, to a large degree, implausible. (Of course, it is open to the faithful to attempt to formulate a worldview that is both plausible and recognizably religious in a meaningful sense. Again, though, reassurances that such a picture can be articulated are far more often encountered than are actual and convincing attempts at doing so.)
Stay up to date with the latest Belief headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: stellabloo on Dec 7, 2009 12:12 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was it worth reading 5 pages to get to the comment section? The problem with unrelenting intellectualism is that we don't live in an ivory tower. Let's talk about facts.
Christianity is sharing that same tower when it ties itself into apoplectic knots over the fact that "son of man" is a phrase used over 200x in the bible - as an ancient semitic expression meaning of "human" or "Self" - but (really!)means something completely different in the new testament.
Speaking of subversive subjectivists I've been to the After Life - kind of like flying through a mandelbrot animation but not really - and of course I've also put in my 40 days in the wilderness and my time in jail "til the sun go down" - but that's not the point.
The whole point of existence is to do something with it.
Here is a slightly more interesting read:
Mathematics and the Psychedelic Revolution
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And thank you for that link...
Posted by: batmagoo
» RE: didactic garbage
Posted by: stellabloo
» GET A LIFE
Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: GET A LIFE ... was directed at a comment that was removed
Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Great link. Thanks! n.m.
Posted by: surfreality
» RE: Ok ok ok I get it - save yourself some money this christmas ...
Posted by: Bronxboy47
» RE: What a snobbish dismissal of a well-written, closely reasoned argument.
Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Everyone should spend some quality time discovering their reason for existence.
Posted by: Bronxboy47
» RE: highly presumptuous (dare I say fascistic)
Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Ok ok ok I get it - save yourself some money this christmas ...
Posted by: Richardsievert
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Plenum on Dec 7, 2009 1:50 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--------
Aside from the article, let me get a shot in against Christianity ((but really, most religions, too...))
Christianity historically, has been by FAR, a warrior's religion - which belies (or, contradicts) it's own premise of PEACE!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What a yawner of an article...
Posted by: odds
Comments are closed-
Posted by: batmagoo on Dec 7, 2009 2:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religions are social systems designed primarily to organize communities, power grids, and narrative control.
All sensations of identity are defined by narrative --
Oddly, religions seem to have very little interest in Mysticism which seems to exist outside of systems of thought and definition, and clansmanship; and here lies the whole conundrum: Mystics are the inspiration behind all religions and religions seem to be designed to prevent the individual mystical experience from being realized.
(Put it another way: whether or not Jesus existed, one thing is sure - he did not create Christianity.)
Carl Jung described the concept of God as "the perfect invention of the mind to prevent humanity from spontaneously reaching mystical transcendence."
We need to move the whole debate about Atheism far beyond the puny and unsophisticated regions in which it currently dwells; this business about whether or not there is a God is for the birds.
The morons controlling the discussion are keeping everyone in the dark, and the reality facing us is far more complex and mind-boggling than these pro and anti-faith gibberish-mongers would have us know.
Humanity needs to leap into discussions about consciousness and its mind-bending looking-glass parameters, and be done with the meaningless nonsense.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: On the terribly unsophisticated "God vs. no God" discussion...
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: the reality facing us is far more complex and mind-boggling ...
Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: On the terribly unsophisticated "God vs. no God" discussion...
Posted by: olita
» Best comment I have read on the subject! Bravo!
Posted by: Paul_C
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thornwolf on Dec 7, 2009 2:26 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Everyone is God ... how true!!!
Posted by: wagner
» RE: Everyone is God ... how true --- well....
Posted by: batmagoo
» RE: veryone is God ... how true --- well....
Posted by: red porch
» On a request to elaborate...
Posted by: batmagoo
» RE: On a request to elaborate...
Posted by: red porch
» Very beautiful comment.
Posted by: sirios
» RE: Very beautiful comment.
Posted by: batmagoo
» RE: Very beautiful comment.
Posted by: red porch
» RE: veryone is God ... how true!!!
Posted by: cary
» RE: veryone is God ... how true!!!
Posted by: wagner
» RE:Everyone is God ... how true!!!
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii
» RE: veryone is God
Posted by: bubbleburster04
» RE: Everyone is God
Posted by: Bronxboy47
» This comment carries the most weight
Posted by: sirios
» And therein lies the responsibility
Posted by: thornwolf
Comments are closed-
Posted by: phindrup on Dec 7, 2009 3:25 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And doesn’t that open a can of worms?!
But the really fascinating thing about ‘christians’ is that they believe that god made the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh.
Now I don’t know about anybody else, but the thing that really gets up my nose is being disturbed on my day off. So if we assume that this god is a creature of habit, why the hell would you set about annoying him on his day off?
The sabath. And if you think that well, he can just tune we christians out, collectively so as we do not disturb him, then why bother in the first place?
I would think the time to god bother would be on any day but the sabath!
Of course I find the concept of their being a god, loving, caring, vicious, brutal, indifferent or anything else, absurd.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The "Sabbath" is Saturday, not Sunday
Posted by: moloko velocet
» RE: whether your god be he, she or it
Posted by: solrev
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Dec 7, 2009 3:30 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you denying the existence of a Personified Supreme Being? Or are you denying the possiblity of a Supreme Connective Force?
Atheists in their own way admit they 'beleive' in a Supreme being by making such a fuss about 'His' Non existence.
Instead of outright dismissing the assumption, Atheists concede this point, many times without even thinking.
Others play into it because it is the easist method of attack- laying in wait for the Santa Clause believer.It's Not just intellectually dishonest,but cruel.
An Honest and Intellectually fair Atheist would first begin their debate by stating they do not accept the Personified Concept. Then see if the 'Faithful' is capable of discussing the topic beyond that limitation. Otherwise youmight as well be debating a six yr old on the existence of Santa, or boogymen. To them they exist.
And any person who has a sense of Reverence for 'all that is' should be able to move on and debate the topic on that level as well.
Science has not provided a Clear definition, nor has the 'Holy' book really.
Debate in it's most pure sense, begins with Logic and logic hinges off the requirement that the statments be considered True or accepted by both, to begin with. No doubt this can lead to some false conclusions- but at least the components leading up to it are correct.
As much as a 'Faithful' should be able to 'prove' their concpet of 'God' existence without this assumption, so should the atheist.
I'm a Monotheist, One Supreme Force connecting all the various elements in the Universe and that keeps things operating in a functional manner. String Theory to you scientific types.
So do I have any Atheist ready to discredit my belief in "God" (my anagram, my nickname)?
Just because some one uses a personifiying term to refer to something does not mean they actually Believe it possesses Personhood. How many people refer to their Genitals in some personifying manner "He/She", even give it a name. Would you bother entering a debate over it's Conscienceness and 'powers', if you had to agrue with this intellectual arm behind your back? You would be considing that the penis/vagina had power of the person.
And Socrates did not have answers, he taught his student the art of mental dissection and gymnastics on unanswerable topics- Mind/Body which controls the person? What he did not tell his students was that they are unaswerable because it was never a matter of Either/Or, but both.
so tell me Atheist What 'plunks' the strings on the Instrument,and what is the 'instrument'(Dark energy/Dark matter)?
And To ask "Where did the elements of the Big Bang come from" of the atheist is as legitmate as asking a 'Zeus' believer, where did "He/She"?
Anderson is absolutely correct- "I dont' know" is a perfectly valid answer by both Believers and Atheists. In fact it shows a higher level of reverence for 'God' and/or Science. so the quest continues to understand as much as we can about bothwhich may very well be One in the same. Mind and Body work together thus they are One entity comprising a Person.The mind is the Unseen that animates the physical, and the physical is the means by which the Metaphysical is able to interact with it's surroundings. Otherwise both would be in a state of inertia.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Not a valid answer, by EITHER
Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Agnostic Question
Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: Thou Protest too much
Posted by: roy f
» RE: I wasn't debating the destructiveness of Religions
Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: Thou Protest too much
Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Still didn't answer my Question
Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: Still didn't answer my Question
Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Thou Protest too much? We are put upon too much!
Posted by: Changling
Comments are closed-
Posted by: s.duplantier on Dec 7, 2009 4:01 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Armstrong is a worthy opponent for atheist apologetics. Although she is far from the hordes of unsophisticated believers and rabid religionists, she still must be confronted.
Troy's disputations with Karen take the debate about god/belief/religion to a high level.
We're far from the imagery of two sweaty wrestling hulks in the arena: The Atheist vs. the Believer.
Troy's polite Cambridge Faculty Club-style smackdown of Karen's views nonetheless makes him the anti-Tertullian of atheism and gives more aid and comfort to non-believers like me.
Apophaticism as a defense of theism is the last clever, but desperate trope of the losing side of the Grand Debate. That Troy administered the coup de grace with decorum makes it all that much sweeter.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» nice vocabulary
Posted by: aislinnluv
» RE: Armstrong's books and life are fascinating. And what's the deal with tropes?
Posted by: Balance40
» RE: Armstrong's books and life are fascinating. And what's the deal with tropes?
Posted by: mjglow
» RE: Armstrong's books and life are fascinating. And what's the deal with tropes?
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: xcellent atheist apologetics
Posted by: cary
» RE: xcellent atheist apologetics
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: xcellent atheist apologetics
Posted by: masthead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Dec 7, 2009 4:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hitchens Is A Hack
Posted by: Doubtom43
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Dec 7, 2009 4:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm beginning to think that the surest sign of a closet conservative is the displayed desire to control others. Conservatives think that they know better than most people, even down to how people should handle their diets, their votes, their religion. This is a big problem in our culture, but it is obviously not limited to Republicans. When Americans see difference, too often we're making it synonymous with inferiority, and a need to straighten out the different one, because we think they so obviously need it. A mountain of false presumptions needs to exist to make that wrongheaded urge possible, and it's all arrogant. Believers aren't dumber than you, atheists. Bill Moyers is inferior intellectually to the blogger who openly wants to program her thoughts into others through her blog and articles here? She's smarter than Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or Ralph Waldo Emerson? Too bad in her endless "conversations" with believers (or tropes?) she doesn't pick a terrific adversary. And one with the passion she has.
Believers aren't dumb and in need of control. Omnivores aren't ignorant. Democrats don't vote thoughtlessly. Of course, what fun is it to assume all other beings are, at least from an initial standpoint, equal, thoughtful, having researched the important topics in ours lives, and live in an informed manner? If that's the assumption, facile arguments are ruled out immediately. Do we actually prefer facility, and stick with it out of our own preferences?
Anyone remember the part in Steinbeck's East of Eden where the dowser's son goes off to college and writes letters to his mom about his new-found atheism, and how she needs to embrace it? The father responded something to the effect that he'd have been disappointed if his son (the only lazy, rather useless member of a large, enterprising family) had not discovered atheism at college, but he was wasting his time on his mother. Something to the effect of, "Her faith is a mountain, my son, and you don't have a teaspoon yet."
Thinking you arrived at the final, correct place isn't enough. You have to become worthy. It's a huge task to think you can straighten out people. You need way more than a teaspoon. Maybe a medieval-type quest should come first; you know, tests and challenges and service. Maybe a few years of tests and challenges and service would be education enough to cause one to give up the zeal, and live and let live.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "what we say [about God] is often facile."
Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: "what we say [about God] is often facile."
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: seazen on Dec 7, 2009 5:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All we have to do is observe the joy and wonder of children as they simply ask "why?", "how?", "what?" and ponder the variety of responses they get. Watch how quickly they learn and then how this deteriorates as we stifle the curiosity about life with insistence they simply repeat the correct "answers" supplied by a religion, ideology, or bureaucrat (or talk-show host.)
Thou shalt ........... or you will be forever condemned to some form of Hell or another. And I know! Fer sure!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 7, 2009 5:28 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet Jollimore's insistence that the appeal to apophanticism is nothing more than a last attempt to weasel religion’s way out of the corner it has painted itself into is at least as wrong as is Armstrong in her account of the critics of science in philosophy of science. (What she attributes to Einstein, Heidelberg, and Popper, if this writer is to be believed, is less than the full truth but it is not a deliberate distortion of their positions.)
And why can’t we have one conception that is exempt from the slings and arrows of outrageous analysis? That’s what Derrida calls for when in ACTS OF RELIGION he exempts the God conception from his vast repertoire of literary criticism. His knife of literary analysis applies to all forms of literature that I am familiar with. Yet still he exempts, not religion to be sure, God as symbol from such analysis. That seems to come from him in a spirit of reverence. So, tell me, again, what’s wrong with reverence?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The moment after believers say that God is too vague to be disproved...
Posted by: leafsong2
» Yes and no.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Yes and no.
Posted by: mjglow
» P or not p still rules the roost, as does its traditional logic among those who do *real* philosophy
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: P or not p still rules the roost, as does its traditional logic among those who do *real* philosophy
Posted by: red porch
» I believe the denial of death is a hindrance to lucid appreciations of the meaning of life...
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: I believe the denial of death is a hindrance to lucid appreciations of the meaning of life...
Posted by: red porch
» RE: I believe the denial of death is a hindrance to lucid appreciations of the meaning of life...
Posted by: Sojourner
» Whats wrong with reverence?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Curious how your ascriptions of motives to Derrida repeat your entrenched belief system.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Curious how your ascriptions of motives to Derrida repeat your entrenched belief system.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» You wrote, "Its not reverence you see in Derrida there... its either cowardice...
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Whats wrong with reverence?
Posted by: Doubtom43
» No problem at all. Reverence is emotive, not sensory by definition
Posted by: Paul_C
» Reverence is like "taboo." Hands off. Appreciate. Let it be.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: What, exactly, is your problem with reverence?
Posted by: Livemike
» RE: What, exactly, is your problem with reverence?
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rinkle47 on Dec 7, 2009 5:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gideon Planish on Dec 7, 2009 6:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurrJxfi5OI
Zeitgeist Part 2 of 14 - new version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oub69ZHtA5Y
Zeitgeist, The Movie (free dvd download)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dipconsult on Dec 7, 2009 6:19 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Holy. That The Holy may be unknowable or largely unknowable is accepted as inevitable by devotees of The Holy given the finite nature of Man and the infinite nature of The Holy. That is not a problem for those who claim to have glimpsed The Holy, even to have some relationship with it.
According to the Catholic and Orthodox churches we come closest to such knowledge of the Holy as is possible for humans in the person of Jesus of Nazareth - however badly, and at times shamefully, even the highest representatives of these churches may have behaved.
Reflecting, or representing the Holy, in this world, this Jesus requires humility, contrition and forgiveness in those who would know the Holy - and more than that, that these people must (or rather will feel an imperative need to) devote themselves to doing good in alleviating the sufferings of their fellows.
I hope I have put as succinctly as possible this form of religious thinking and practice. Whatever one may think of it, it is surely one that should not be left out of today's "God/no God" debates.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So you agree that religion is bullshit
Posted by: leafsong2
» RE: So you agree that religion is bullshit
Posted by: Doubtom43
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dave268 on Dec 7, 2009 6:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» True "that" n/m
Posted by: 2dogarage
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drosera on Dec 7, 2009 6:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author is wrong about that point. Zen Buddhist practice involving focusing on the breath, counting the breaths, focusing on the passing of ideas through the mind does not involve belief. Of course, you might start out believing that such a practice will "get you somewhere," but the real point is to explore consciousness. There is the belief that such practice can be transformative, but that belief actually inhibits transformation. Perhaps the reason Buddhist practice is attractive to modern people who are suspicious of belief-dominated religious systems is its lack of reliance upon faith. You don't practice to attain anything, not even good health, but to understand how things work. A fairly healthy basis for a religion.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» doesn't this include the belief...
Posted by: mjglow
» RE:Zen
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Zen
Posted by: drosera
» RE: religious practice without belief
Posted by: Bronxboy47
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Douglas_Wilson on Dec 7, 2009 6:54 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm very interested in whatever is found out about anything. I really don't like it when people tell me what to conclude from the findings. I don't know if some "Lucy" was my ancestor or not. Neither does anyone else. So why say it?
Everything I've read, seen and heard leads me to believe, at the moment, that we were built by people from other planets (or dimensions). I just look at all the available physical evidence and make that temporary conclusion. I don't necessarily want this to be the origin of mankind.
On the other hand, It won't bother me whatever the truth winds up to be. I see the biggest problem with religion and science to be one in the same. People are looking for evidence to support their preconceived notions. People look at the things they find as proof for their belief. That gets in the way of good studies, whether one is studying the gross physical or the subtler energies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Belief
Posted by: masthead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leafsong2 on Dec 7, 2009 7:00 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saying that religion is a practice instead of a belief is a way of capitalizing on the real selling point of religion: it keeps some weak people on the straight and narrow. Yes that's a good thing, but that's not all religion does.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Apophaticism is the essence of soft-position atheism
Posted by: jingles
» RE: Apophaticism is the essence of soft-position atheism
Posted by: masthead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bjandresen on Dec 7, 2009 7:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Joseph Campbell
Posted by: Doubtom43
» That is the only true definition. Spirituality is the antithesis of reality by definition
Posted by: Paul_C
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on Dec 7, 2009 7:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The true Tao is not the Tao I am talking about."
That is a spiritual and emotional acknowledgment
that we do not know everything, that it is not possible to know everything and we must accept what is. In a similar sense, the ancient Hebraic refusal to say the name is embedded in the idea one can't have power over something without naming it. On the other hand, naming an object means one has power over it. Therefore the attempt to name the deity is false because ab initio we cannot have power over it.
If the book teaches us that logical truth, then the project has been worth while.
One might pray to God, talk to God as some therapists sometimes recommend, but we shouldn't talk 'about' God in the same sense we shouldn't talk 'about' our neighbor because the 'about' posits an object.(Wittgenstein's term)
That which is sacred and holy cannot be an
'object'. (First sentences in Decalog)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cannot be an object
Posted by: Ocean tides
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Dec 7, 2009 7:40 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously, whoever buys it from me will make a fortune showing it around.
Just as obviously - you absolutely must believe me because you can't prove I *don't* have a unicorn...
... I await your payment. (Cash only, small bills, please)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unicorn for sale
Posted by: Doubtom43
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doctorsquared on Dec 7, 2009 7:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Orthopraxy?
Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Orthopraxy? Look up the word parts Ortho and praxis
Posted by: Changling
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Dec 7, 2009 7:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Infidels,Heathens, And Goyim
Posted by: Doubtom43
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dboy on Dec 7, 2009 7:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
dboy
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, now it is about immortality.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: scott balogh on Dec 7, 2009 8:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Dec 7, 2009 8:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This, of course, has nothing to do with the answers to questions such as the origin of the universe, the meaning (if any) of life, the problem of good and evil and that old pot-boiler - is there a life after birth? ... Whoops, sorry, I meant after death ... or did I?
Best advice?
Follow the lead of the late Kurt Vonnegut. He said somewhere (probably in the later pages of Fates Worse than Death) words to the effect that God is unknowable and therefore unservable. The troubles of our fellow humans are, however, obvious. We should therefore do what we can to help out people who are in misery.
God, of course, should be left alone to take care of herself.
For anyone interested in pursuing the ultimate answers to the ultimate questions, I can only quote the great scientist Haldane: "The universe is not only queerer than you imagine, it is queerer than you can imagine."
End of story.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Dec 7, 2009 8:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anna
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xmvince on Dec 7, 2009 8:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I think she's a bit confused
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: I think she's a bit confused
Posted by: Doubtom43
» Spirit
Posted by: clresu
» RE: Spirit
Posted by: Doubtom43
» Construct
Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Closets on Dec 7, 2009 8:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: seems more like most people do NOT end up the religion they grew up with
Posted by: red porch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: geometeer on Dec 7, 2009 8:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Insistence on specific Truths is not a modern deviation, though it would be pleasant to imagine that.
At any given time there have indeed been Christians who celebrated reverence or benevolence over belief, but to regard them as the only true representatives of Christianity is to put oneself in the firing line of a very violent family quarrel.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mapmanic on Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That's a great book!
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bertvan on Dec 7, 2009 8:56 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Freedom of ideas is the only concept worth fighting for
Posted by: Doubtom43
» Armstrong entered a convent in her teens, and left it 7 years later, under extreme duress.
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sasha40 on Dec 7, 2009 9:01 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When "atheists" (I think "secular materialists" is more accurate) like Richard Dawkins and Greta Christina talk about their sense of awe and wonder when they attempt to comprehend the universe, guess what? They are attempting to express their admiration for existence itself. Take away the universe, and does existence still exist? If there can be existence without manifestation, then God does exist, whether we refer to it as "God", "Nature", "Jehovah", "Allah", "Brahman", "Atman", "pure spirit", etc. Or perhaps more accurately, existence without manifestation is what we are referring to when we say "God".
However you can conceive it, it's still less than what it really is. Yet the only thing anyone can really be certain of is their own existence. You can't be 100% certain that life isn't a dream or an elaborate computer simulation. In fact, you can't show me any proof at all even for your existence. I know for a fact that my imagination is powerful, and that my senses can be easily fooled. I can't say I have access to every part of my mind, or know how accurately I interpret the stimuli my senses receive. I can't prove that I exist to you, beyond all doubt. All I can really know is my own existence.
But what does that depend on? The existence of my body? When I faint, I lose all consciousness of the outer world; anything could be happening to my body during those seconds. But my sense of existence remains with me, away from the body. So the body is not the ultimate me. It's more like a suit I wear to interact with the world.
What about my identity? Is that what my existence rests on? Amnesiacs continue to experience their existence the same way, whether they know their names and can access their memories or not. I exist whether or not I realize I am so-and-so doing such-and-such.
Same thing for the mind itself. For those stricken with mental illnesses, dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other situations where the mind is unable to process information and retain it, the experience of existence is unaltered. We feel we exist under any condition: waking, dreaming, sleeping; even in a coma, perhaps even after death- does anyone ever fail to experience existence?
The deeper one explores the question of "What is the nature of my own existence, the only thing of which I can be absolutely certain?", the more clear it becomes that existence itself, and not matter, is the foundation for the universe.
Existence without diversity = God.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just reordering the deck chairs of materialism
Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Just reordering the deck chairs of materialism
Posted by: sasha40
» Panpyshcism
Posted by: clresu
» What's interesting and substantiated is "Biocentrism" by Robert Lanza
Posted by: clresu
» RE: Just reordering the deck chairs of materialism
Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Just reordering the deck chairs of materialism
Posted by: sasha40
» Yes and no.
Posted by: Paul_C
» While swimming with sharks, stop your own bleeding first
Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Comments are closed-
Posted by: counterpoint on Dec 7, 2009 9:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”
Theological sophistry has had nothing on Epicurus: End of that story.
On the evidence for god side: nothing. Especially nothing that would make an sincere and open minded person say: Gee, your god proof is logical, substantiated, and irrefutable - what took you so long?!
Remains the postulate of a something mushily called god as the initiator of the universe or life who hasn't been seen or heard from since, being indistinguishable from evolution or nature at work.
Of course anyone is welcome to believe or ignore such a possibility but the important part is that NOTHING OF ETHICAL RELEVANCE DERIVES from such a first mover god.
We do not owe shit to anything that is billions of years removed. More importantly, we can not divine (sic!) ethical guidance from such an event or 'action'.
If it's ethics and values people desire: we have been creating our own codes all along. It's a work in progress. It involves choices and determinations. And they appear to be situational. Peaceful nations turn imperialistic invaders when there ecology changes, when their resources are dwindling, or when psychopaths gain the upper hand. Whatever the driving forces, the ethics change, like it or not.
The fact is that no rule book was ever dished out. If there was one true one it would be incontrovertible and would long have been implemented.
The fact that a plethora of totally contradicting religious edicts and holy books have been spilled all over the place throughout history proves that religions are all man made and are not godlike.
Get over it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: sophistry has nothing on the key arguments against god
Posted by: riffraff2001
» RE: Epicurus: End of that story.
Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Golden Rule?
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Golden Rule?
Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Golden Rule?
Posted by: red porch
» RE: Golden Rule?
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: The Platinum Rule
Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: The Platinum Rule
Posted by: red porch
» RE: Does anger & hatred rule your life ?
Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Golden Rule?
Posted by: red porch
» RE: sophistry has nothing on the key arguments against god
Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: sophistry has nothing on the key arguments against god
Posted by: s.duplantier
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Dec 7, 2009 9:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AlterNet lately is more songs about God (bad) and food (also bad)... with an occasional riff thrown in about wonderful marijuana is.
Hey, today we got all three at once!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: riffraff2001 on Dec 7, 2009 9:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that's a scientific reason. How's this though: God doesn't exist because... well duh. The idea of religion is one of the stupidest ideas out there. Seriously! Open your eyes!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: God is impossible...
Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: God is impossible...
Posted by: clresu
» I think the relevant point about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
Posted by: clresu
» Unless everyone and everything is god
Posted by: thornwolf
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tap17x on Dec 7, 2009 9:56 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Armstrong was once a nun, and I think she gets more than you're inferring. She does not attempt to
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Earon on Dec 7, 2009 10:12 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For me, then, to try to take away one's religious beliefs carries some substantial modicum of sadism. Is it not meanspirited to wrest a person's crutch away from them? If we are to treat people with dignity, we must allow that they have a right to believe that which they believe. Crawford reframes religion as belief systems that will not inevitably result in irrational violence and wars, sort of an inoculation against fundamentalism and fanaticism. This is a great service to our culture.
Of course, religion is far more than a defense to depression. Its institutions serve as the central cultural focus for many millions of people in their communities and neighborhoods. Religious congregations form the social structures and opportunities of many parts of the country. Yet, when those congregations are ethnocentric or ideological and deny access to others based upon litmus tests of belief and doctrine, they serve to divide communities, also.
Social structure and culture are not simply crutches, but are a basic human need. So, what are we to replace them with? Science? Give me a break! I can see the need to prevent the crutch of religion from being used as a club, and this is a function of the separation of church and state. This is what Crawford endorses.
Yet, some atheists assert that "science" and rationality should replace religion. Perhaps that is what happens in social and economic elites, but people who are poor, or otherwise in crisis, seem to require a lot more in order to hold on to their sense that tomorrow will be better than today.
Today, we live in a world where people have immense hope and faith in science. Their belief system is capitalism. As a result, we are destroying our planet. Perhaps we need to hang on to religion for a while . . . until we get a better hold of this whole tendency to worship science and technology. In removing a cultural intermediary that can be used to temper the attitudes of humans towards each other, we had best be certain that there are deeply engrained ethical systems in place for maintaining appropriate conduct and social cohesion.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: God is a cause of Depression
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: God is a Defense to Depression
Posted by: Doubtom43
» So, religion is antabuse for 12 steppers?
Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Dec 7, 2009 10:17 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A rematch is out of the question. Where the hell would the Atheists find a home field? Now a wild card would have to be the officials and video replay. Can't think of anyone that would be impartial in this game and how the hell do you video vapor?
Looks like a bummer to me....better left to intellectual venues such as sports bars. Can get some good tshirt sales going there.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Atheism vs. God-- and God forfeited
Posted by: s.duplantier
» RE: Atheism vs. God-- and God forfeited
Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueKansas on Dec 7, 2009 10:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are hundreds of gods currently being worshipped. All of them have equal proof: NONE.
All the theology in the world can't provide a single microscopic specimen for analysis. How very stupid, theism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Gods Lack Proof
Posted by: stellabloo
» Dogs! Lacky! Poof!
Posted by: Aposterioriperception
» RE: Appeal to Ignorance
Posted by: stellabloo
» You are the tissue sample
Posted by: thornwolf
Comments are closed-
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Dec 7, 2009 11:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question always is, what God is like.
The only way I can answer the question is to say that God is not like anything that can be named, numbered, categorized, cataloged, or described. The only thing like God is God. A map or a model of God would be God. The closest I can come to stating what God is is to say that God is the awareness that informs all of creation.
Somehow, this First Cause causes the chaos to coalesce into knowable forms and patterns to be interpreted by sentient beings. Without this information, nothing would be knowable.
Does this information exist a priory to the consciousness experiencing it?
Best I can come up with is that the entire Universe exists inside of my own consciousness. I have no direct experience of the Universe except through my own senses - which includes instruments, sensors, and other devices. They all give feedback to us by using one of the six senses.
This question then is true in some respects, false in some respects also, both true and false. And, in the absence of my consciousness to ponder the question, it is meaningless...
Of course, I am not conscious of the entire Universe. I have the "drop's" perspective of the "ocean".
I believe we all share in an individual, yet collective awareness - which is the closest I can come to describing God.
Can I prove this using the scientific method? No. Is it reproducible in a laboratory? No. Is it bulls#!t? No.
Spirituality is not the same thing as religion. Mysticism is not the same thing as religion either. Neither depend on a "Personal Jesus". I have issues with most religions. Karl Marx wasn't entirely wrong (I was never a fan of the opiates either)...
pax...
Pope Urban XXIII
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» VERY NICE
Posted by: sirios
» RE: I'm Just an Old Hippie...
Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: I'm Just an Old Hippie...
Posted by: jingles
» RE: I'm Just an Old Hippie...
Posted by: Richardsievert
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Dec 7, 2009 11:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it looks as though the heart--religion-- is winning. Consider, for instance, Armstrong's hypothesis of ". . . the effect of such nihilism (i.e., atheism) on people who do not have privileged lives and absorbing work?" This is nothing more than a rewording of Marx's "religion as the opiate of the masses" conviction. (Which, unfortunately, is still quite accurate.)
Granted, the "apophaticism" argument is no doubt highly seductive for legions of the tenaciously credulous in search of a rationale to justify their ongoing seduction. But the argument, despite its Thomistic overtones, is more sophistry than defensible philosophy.
What Armstrong does with her considerable intellect, and what Pat Robertson and his confreres do with their appalling ignorance are not the polar opposites they appear to be at first glance. Ultimately, because they all postulate the same shopworn concept, Armstrong is really just a sort of parson-in-the-pulpit for the thinking person.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: As a kicking-and-screaming atheist. . .
Posted by: Doubtom43
» Why dismiss her this way? Why not read her books?
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bkochandco on Dec 7, 2009 12:49 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frantaylor on Dec 7, 2009 1:50 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," Warren told Fox News anchors Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum Monday.
This is because he is TOO LAZY to work things out for himself. He does not have the mental capacity to understand the natural laws of the universe so he needs his doctrine spoon-fed to him.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You May Be Missing The Point
Posted by: garyfee
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gsmiley on Dec 7, 2009 2:12 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well its too short to spend it postulating and arguing the impossible and the ineffable (Does that refer to the F word in some Freudian sense?) just so any and every jumped-up little shmoe can lay claim to centrality, even to 'life eternal'.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on Dec 7, 2009 2:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» indeed: lots of religions don't have the god concept
Posted by: counterpoint
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alfalafal on Dec 7, 2009 2:33 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WHAT A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!
Posted by: Richardsievert
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Dec 7, 2009 3:29 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are NO shades of grey here; you're either one or the other, period.
If you're truly a thinker, you're almost certainly an atheist.
There never has been and never will be any any common ground between the two, except the mandated tolerance in our Constitution.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Two kinds of people
Posted by: Richardsievert
» Two kinds of ignorant people
Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Smiff on Dec 7, 2009 3:54 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That pursuit, in and of itself, is admirable and understandable, and with 6.7 million of us, it is hardly surprising that there is so much diversity in the explanations we develop.
The problem comes from those who see and use our collective uncertainty and fear as the basis for manipulating and exploiting us.
It is the lust and competition for power that creates division and maintains the conditions for endless war.
How/why do they continue to get away with it?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: eligion itself is not the problem
Posted by: Richardsievert
» Religion itself is a problem in need of an intelligent exterminator
Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Comments are closed-
Posted by: garyfee on Dec 7, 2009 5:58 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» May I suggest "I Am That" (n/t)
Posted by: clresu
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jingles on Dec 7, 2009 6:53 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like much religion and warmongers, atheism is a racket, hustling an idea nothing, peddling nowhere. Taking away some people's faith would lead them directly to suicide, drug abuse, and murder; atheism isn't nihilism, but nihilism is exactly what it would feel like to the devout. There is no intellectual argument that will sway deeply felt emotions.
Putting atheism before prosperity puts the relaxation before the massage; put the drunk before the booze, and they will drink, but put the booze before they've drank, with an argument they can thunk, they might not drank so drinkily.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If atheists are so smart, why are they pushing atheism?
Posted by: Aposterioriperception
» RE: If atheists are so smart, why are they pushing atheism?
Posted by: jingles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul_C on Dec 7, 2009 9:04 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The difference here is that external reality reflects our faculty to reason and function, while internal reality is a state of being. Positing a god into external reality is pointless because the latter is an abstraction to the internal state of being - we do not, for example, emotively experience a pile of dirt, a plant or another being (although we can empathize with it, which is to adjust our internal emotive state).
Neither, however, does it lessen the emotive state by analyzing it or claiming to understand it, because it remains what it is, and any such understanding will be contextual at best because the abstraction of understanding can never actually become the emotive state, can never become concrete, and all proofs are based upon axioms which are abstractions.
The difference between Western and Eastern religions is that Western religion confuses external reality with emotive reality in order to exert control over its "flock", i.e. other beings inhabiting external reality. Eastern religion, on the other hand, understands this duality and makes no effort whatsoever to posit an external god. What it does instead is attempt to stimulate the emotive being to behave in ways that provide it stability and contentment, encourage it to embrace reason when dealing with reality and to enter into empathic states to increase harmony among all emotive beings.
Both religious models are "valid" insofar as they both exist, but I find the Eastern religions to be closer to "truth" (an abstraction) and at the very least more conducive to harmony in both external and emotive states of existence. To see this one need only look at the incessant hatred and violence that surrounds Western religion, its embrace of slavery, genocide and all manner of things in the pursuit of a command-and-control methodology that exists for its own sake. That is, it is an attempt to solidify the external reality into an emotive reality by enslaving the emotive reality to its external abstracted reality. This is a sort of neurosis that can, and does, create great harm to the emotive being and creates a "trapped external reality state" that is no longer responsive or aware. The latter results in the zomby-like cult thinking that gave us Jonestown and other suicide cults as well as primitive sacrificial rites.
peace,
Paul
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LightningJoe on Dec 8, 2009 12:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Discussion is one thing, but when I hear, as I did today, over the Christian radio station playing in Saint Vincent de Paul's, that removing government funds from the funding of church programs constitutes a violation of Christians' right to worship, I get up in arms.
Policy is no sphere for things that don't make sense, that CANNOT make sense, to hold sway over things that do.
As long as Christians attack my right to not have them messing with my government, to not have them garnish my taxes for their own purposes, to not have to pay for their delusions, then I'll continue to attack the views that guide those actions.
If they would see fit to leave well enough alone, to see that their views belong where they are -- inside of their own heads -- then I'll leave them well enough alone and be glad of it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hear Hear!!
Posted by: thornwolf
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Aposterioriperception on Dec 8, 2009 1:46 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With this premise in play, apparently whoever gets in the last word assumes they're the winner of the (debate for us) war for them.
Since no matter how much logic is used to make a point, when the other side is playing with monopoly money "facts" and they own the bank, false narrative carpet-bombing is their preferred tactic, where does that leave the reality based community?
If we respond it gives their nonsense credence, if we ignore them, they will perpetually claim that we "must admit" that they're right and we're wrong, it's a catch-22 in this war on logic by religious "warriors" as some have presciently stated in other comments.
If someone insists on stubborn stupidity and they defend it like it was the only thing keeping them alive, how do you convince them that they're drowning if they've decided that evolving gills isn't so hard if they believe they can breathe under-water, how should we attempt to signal to them a modicum of truth?
At some point futility has to be taken seriously and we should move on to promoting critical thinking, vice Pee-Wee Herman arguing, "I know you are, but what am I"?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thornwolf on Dec 8, 2009 3:28 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No organized religion could possibly have any corner on god knowledge, if indeed it were even possible for a religion to have god knowledge at all (as distinct from the tenets or dogma of the religion).
My personal belief is that everyone is god, that as god no one has any need for religion, and that every organized religion is a pyramid scheme.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MikethePhilosopher on Dec 8, 2009 4:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What are the blatant flaws? The misguided logic?
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Caleb Darkstar on Dec 8, 2009 9:26 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both the atheist and the homophobe posess those in their ranks who profess to know the inner thoughts of their respective targets.
Homophobes cannot fathom a person having thoughts of physical attraction to the same sex and so they opine that it is a mental disorder and "true Homosexuality" simply can't exist.
Likewise, Some atheist are sure that no one "really' hears the voice of God and so they also opine it is false. And Yes I have read many atheist opinions that used the term "Mental Illness" to describe religious belief.
I believe it comes down to anger, fear and resentment. Many people simply fear what they don't understand. A resentment is the result of a fear you are forced to face again and again. Anger is the end result of a long held resentment.
So, as you bash your theistic friends and aquaintances, ask yourself.
Am I only afraid of them?
Or am I Theist Curious?
For the record. I am an agnostic and admitting that I just don't know works well for me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Theistphobes a lot like homophobes...brilliant!!
Posted by: nearblindjames
» RE: Theistphobes a lot like homophobes
Posted by: counterpoint
» RE: Fully indoctrinated believers
Posted by: stellabloo
» a different analogy: classroom bullying
Posted by: counterpoint
» RE: a different analogy: classroom bullying
Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Fully indoctrinated believers
Posted by: Caleb Darkstar
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YANIRA06_66 on Dec 8, 2009 3:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Quist on Dec 8, 2009 11:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From my experience, observation and understanding, most believers of God were indoctrinated into this belief and did NOT come up with this belief by their own freewill or by their own determination. So...unless someone is actually questioning their indoctrination and programming, it is basically futile to have a critical, logical, intelligent, rational, honest, skeptical, reasonable, and/or scientific discussion with people who blindly believe in their indoctrination and programming.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zipflock on Dec 8, 2009 11:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...whosoever believeth..." got that. this key passage clearly ranks belief, not practice, as pre-eminent, at least in armstrong's religion, christianity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Livemike on Dec 10, 2009 4:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tomvincent on Dec 10, 2009 12:20 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quit complaining about people who have tossed off their mental 'god'-chains and think freely.
Either provide evidence for your outlandish beliefs or shut up about them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gucci on Dec 10, 2009 9:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mxcm428 on Dec 22, 2009 4:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Links of London Necklaces Szabo Links of London Earrings wanted Links of London Rings a vaginal Links of London Chain delivery and Links of London Pendants argued with hospital executives
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Why 'Life Had To Have Been Designed' Is a Terrible Justification for God's Existence
Controversy Grows over Study Claiming Liberals and Atheists Are Smarter
Why 'Everything Has a Cause' Is a Terrible Justification for God's Existence




