Owning the young mind

[Skybird]

Religions do it, increasingly children books do it, too: trying to form and manipulate the young mind as long as it is that formable. Like cigarette indsutry knows that if it failed to turn a teen into a smoker before the age of 18, the probability that said teen ever will become a smoker later on drops by over 80%.

https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/books/children-s-books-are-drowning-in-a-sea-of-contemporary-ideology-20180621-p4zmv3.html

I know of people in Germany who want to prohibit the classical and much loved books by Enid Blyton due to their "anti-feminist" women-contemptous role modelling. They also want to ban Asterix comics due to their inhumane, violent content, and want to rewrite Grimm'S fairy tales to enter gender-neutral narration styles, prevent sexisim and female discrimination and protect the young sweethearts from depictions of sadism and cruelty that could violate and severely injure the child's psyche.

Fanatized, brainless retarded bullcrap like this drives me furious and makes me the angry man I have become.

[Rockstar]

Religions do it, increasingly children books do it, too: trying to form and manipulate the young mind as long as it is that formable. Like cigarette indsutry knows that if it failed to turn a teen into a smoker before the age of 18, the probability that said teen ever will become a smoker later on drops by over 80%.

https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/books/children-s-books-are-drowning-in-a-sea-of-contemporary-ideology-20180621-p4zmv3.html

I know of people in Germany who want to prohibit the classical and much loved books by Enid Blyton due to their "anti-feminist" women-contemptous role modelling. They also want to ban Asterix comics due to their inhumane, violent content, and want to rewrite Grimm'S fairy tales to enter gender-neutral narration styles, prevent sexisim and female discrimination and protect the young sweethearts from depictions of sadism and cruelty that could violate and severely injure the child's psyche.

Fanatized, brainless retarded bullcrap like this drives me furious and makes me the angry man I have become.

It may be due low testosterone levels too (a certain moderator should take note as well :03:)

The reasons behind Grumpy Old Man syndrome :D
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/aug/05/were-grumpy-for-a-reason/


Just havin' fun.



I feel your pain though. Its like humanity never learns to just let things be. Instead some push their ideals, culture, system of government, religion,etc etc on others until they cant take it anymore and slowly and surely conflict ensues. Its seems an endless cycle.

The invitation still stands Skybird, though the U.S. has the same problems everyone else has, it's BIG, lots of land. You can always find solitude here in any climate.

[em2nought]

Whatever you do, don't dare display a fear of "Injuns" in your children's books. :doh:

[Platapus]

I have often wondered how popular religion would be if children were prevented from being exposed to it until they were 18 years old.

[JU_88]

Enid Blyton really? the gender stereo types are there because they were written in the 40s and 50s. But also.... The Author is a woman, half the main characters are girls or women, they participate in the adventure /mystery solving and often have their moment of brilliance just as the boys /men do.
occasionally they get told to stay behind because its 'not safe' or something like that, but usually they get their hands dirty.


People are stupid.

[August]

I have often wondered how popular religion would be if children were prevented from being exposed to it until they were 18 years old.


I'd say the answer depends on what is used to fill the gap. Something has to because young minds DO need some form of guidance if for no other reason than to prevent them from becoming savages.

Now while it has numerous downsides religion has provided that life guide for nearly all of human existence. There are many here who would say it is obsolete, ok then. So what replaces it? Nihilism and teenage emotions are a volatile mix.

[JU_88]

@August.
Yeah there is much debate over how well western civilisation is able to sustain itself in the absence of the Abrahamic Religions much of it was founded on.

The Jury is still out on that one tbh…. We are not exactly in great shape at the moment with all the division.

[Platapus]

I'd say the answer depends on what is used to fill the gap. Something has to because young minds DO need some form of guidance if for no other reason than to prevent them from becoming savages.

Now while it has numerous downsides religion has provided that life guide for nearly all of human existence. There are many here who would say it is obsolete, ok then. So what replaces it? Nihilism and teenage emotions are a volatile mix.

We can always ask atheist families who raise well socialized children.

[August]

We can always ask atheist families who raise well socialized children.


We should, assuming their methods do not rely on the presence of a local religious social structure and is applicable on a general scale.

[ikalugin]

I have often wondered how popular religion would be if children were prevented from being exposed to it until they were 18 years old.
More, as often forced indoctrination of a specific teaching during childhood produces atheists. The reverse, as USSR shows, is also true.

[ikalugin]

We can always ask atheist families who raise well socialized children.
We can always ask the adult converts to Islam.

[Skybird]

Morals were there before religion. You do not need a religion to get moral behaviour handed from one generation to the next.

In principle ,the most profound essence of what is needed, is the golden rule. Which all too often gets violated by religions' greed for power and influence and control. Some of the most immoral acts and episodes of barbary were triggered by morals told according to religions, mono- and polytheistic alike. The argument that it takes religions to get moral behaviour else the beastly nature of man breaks out, has been proven wrong by history so very often.

Man does not like to face the fact that in this giant universe his presence is unimportant, and that he has no total control and power over his fate, that is life is easy to break, and that he can all to easily get lost in the abyss of this void, and one day finally will. Man needs to form at least an illusion of some minimum control and influence he has, to make life bearable and add his existence a meaning that else he fails to see. These religions then function to a principle of: I offer a donation to the deity, and deity then does something for me. In the end, religions basing on this, are a bartering place where the devout is not that devout at all, but has power over his deity - by bribing it he can make it to do what he wants it to do. :) Great god that is, eh?

The most complete system of explanations of the human psyche that I know of, is not the Western tradition of modern psychology, but Buddhism. It is because it is not only radically empirical, but also combines a precise description of how the psyche, or say: the ego, functions, and why and how it comes into existence in the first, it combines this with a cosmological model of explaning mind and space, their relation to forms (matter) and what we - falsly - consider to be our ego. That is something that the Westrn tradition of psychology usually igores: the hunger for meaning, the crave of man to get answers when yelling his questions out into the void out there. The dualistic separation between mind and matter we have in the Western tradition, has a lot to do with that as well. It has enabled the western temporary conquest of parts of nature by science and engineering - but also has led to a deepening split inside our inner being (to call it like that in absence of a better idea of how to express what I mean), that has the dramatic consequence of us now perverting these capabilties of ours into tools of destroying the very basics of our natural survival in this planet's environment. We are, I have no better word, we are hopelessly "splintered". Some of us who hungrily search in the philosophy of the far east for something that eases their hunger, even take these Western patterns and enforce them onto for exmaple the Eastern symbology on Yin and Yang - then interpreting it as the Asian way to express a battle between the forces of the Light trying to defeat the forces of the Darkness, a monumental conflict. But the early taoists in china had a very different view of it, and that is the real reason why the round Yin-Yang-symbol is so harmonic and gentle and round. They thought of Yin and Yang not as Heaven and Hell, Light and Darkness entangled in bitter hostile fighting, but as two kids friendly wrestling with each other in a child's play. No bitter conflict in an eternal struggle for power and dominance, but a light-hearted playing around, and as a result of this play the myriads of forms emerge from the void and come into existence for some time, before they dissapear again - like kids sooner or later get tired of playing always the same game.

The real idea behind taoism is something very different than what many Westerners think it is. It is absoutely no surprise that early taoism and early Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism entered a mutually so very fruitful symbiosis once a long time ago in China. They complement each other quite well.

Okay, long lecture again, sorry. What it comes down to: Golden Rule. If we would learn to play by that alone, already more would be won than all religions together have ever acchieved in all their history. The world would be a very different one. And a much better one, you can bet your life on that.

[Skybird]

You guys have a very erratic view of what an atheist originally is. I would recommend to stop thinking of an atheist being somebody who is something explicitly special: being atheist, that is. Better think of an atheist as someone who is somethign not: a theist believer. If you are atheist, its not as if you claim a certain characteristic that you have subscribed to, its just that you refuse to do right that: to subscripe to the characteristic feature sets of theism. Seen this way, atheism is a natural state of man, while every religious state of man is an un-natural, an artifical, an "added" state of man.


Atheism is no belief in itself, atheists do not believe in "something" that just is different from Christian or Islamic belief. It is no conviction. It is the rejection to take over theists' beliefs and concvictions on the basis of hear-say. Its healthy empirism, so to speak, and a non-membership for the theistic club. Does something like a "non-membership" even exist, does it make sense to think in such a term? Hardly. Atheists are people who have not joined the club of theism and thus reject to follow the house rules of the theistic club home. Simple as that.


The relation between political leadership and religious leadership is very old. Both, politics and relgions, always have used each other to mutually autorize themselves before the people and then claim power and control over that people. Its a cooperation in abusing the people, and keeping them locked in slavery.

[Rockstar]

"If all men were friends, there would be no need of justice". - Aristotle

[Skybird]

^ Could have been by any socialist as well. "If only man were this or that, then socialism would function". :D

[August]

Morals were there before religion. You do not need a religion to get moral behaviour handed from one generation to the next.


Says who? Humans have lived under various forms of religious mandated morals ever since the stone age. You can't claim to know what existed before nor you claim to know what behaviors would be handed between generations in its absence. It's true absence not just rejected by a minor subset of the population that nevertheless benefits by religions existence.

The truth is religion is an integral and historical part of human society. None of us knows what would happen in it's absence. Maybe everything would be sweetness and light but then again maybe it will just set the stage for a bloody resurgence as religions role is filled by radical cults all fighting for dominance.

[Sailor Steve]

...maybe it will just set the stage for a bloody resurgence as religions role is filled by radical cults all fighting for dominance.
And how would that be different from the way it's always been when religions have ruled?

[August]

And how would that be different from the way it's always been when religions have ruled?


Maybe it'd be like the difference between a lone car crash and a multi car pile up. All I am saying is that eliminating religion means removing the good it does along with the bad and nobody, including you, knows the consequences of such a massive disruption to human society.

[Skybird]

The fearmongering of religion. C'mon, August. Even little children of pre-school age usually all by themselves arrange their playful interactions according to golden rules and fair bartering. And I bet it was not that different with the 5 years old a thousand years back, two thousand and four thousand years.

Heck, even Bonobos, when seeing one ape of their group suffering, or sitting aside, come and look at him, check his injuries or whatever it is, touch him, stroke him gently, show signs of compassion, caring and tenderness. And there are many other higher animals doing similiar things as well. Do they do this for religious reasons?

You do not need a religious framework to see people showing social acting, seeking justice in their relations, and behaving according to what we describe in this motto: "what you do not want to get done to you, don't do to somebody else". The Golden Rule, that is.

But quite often, religion has and still does violate this golden rule, in the name of its own "moral" dogma. History, until the present, is full of examples for this.

And quite often, when religion wants to define what is moral and what not, in the end it wants only one thing: control over the people and its actions.

As I explained, there is a hunger in man for adding meaning to his life, many people cannot stand to not have that, become mentally deranged, ill at their heart, desperate, whatever. Any artificial conception of a belief system serves them the purpose to achieve this: seeing a meaning in their lives, a kind of control they have over their fragile, short, vulnerable existence. Viktor Frankl, founder of the Logotherapy school of psychotherapy and survivor of the KZs (his complete family was murdered by the Nazis), put it plain and simple in words: "He who has a Why to live for, is able to bear almost every How." ("Wer ein Warum zum Leben hat, erträgt fast jedes Wie.") Its a fact known in research since long, that in the KZs those who had not such a goal, aim, belief, sense of meaning even in this horror that surrounded them, that these people died earlier and at dramatically higher rates than those who were able to keep somethign in their heart that made them wanting to live for it, or due to it. Or as Jesus has put it: "Man does not live by bread alone."

Its highly subjective, of course. The hunger for meaning however does not automatically mean that just any belief system and what it claims, tells the truth, states facts, is right. It only means that for the believer, it serves his subjective purpose. He falls out of his belief, when it does not serve its purpose anymore (=spiritual crisis).

This all is more about psycho-hygienics than about anything else. Some years ago they erratically wrote in the media that a gene was found that made people believe in God. That is Quatsch, the results were not claiming such nonsense. What they meant and what often intentionally was misinterpreted is that due to the psychological base function of adding an imagined order to the world as we perceive it, the brain may be genetically predetermined to favour the forming of artificial mental orders/structures into which we sort in our witnessing of the world, and this categorizing, to name it as that for the moment, create these "illusions" of religious beliefs and then make people prone to take them for real.

It may be an illusions - but it may be one that keeps us from getting insane, desperate, feeling lost; it may fulfill a function vital for our mental and biological survival. It may be essential for maintaining a psychohygienical homeostasis.

[August]

Like I said people come up with all kinds of reasons why religion is bad but nothing about what will replace the human need for it. That scares me because if we just leave it to chance it we could easily end up worse off.

[Skybird]

But I think you are wrong there, August. Religion - the systematical effort to believe in something that somebody else has imagined and turned into a cult and a theoretical system, all this added up under the label "belief" - is just one way to answer that fundamental craving of man for meaning. There are many other ways. Some "flee" into excessive consummerism and enjoying material pleasure, calling it hedonism: they may not care for religions. Others may be as atheist as I am, but crucify themselves in a bid to be extremely ego-less and totally altruistic. And others again try to find out for themselves by exploring their mind and the key determining factors and conditions of it, calling that meditation, which is the path that I have used for long time. While all this can be done with varying degrees of passion, even fanatism, it nevertheless does not qualify for the real meaning of the word "religion". Religious cult is a very popular attempt tried by people, yes, because it is the easiest one: you make yourself simply believe that if you follow the rules you will get saved. It takes no courage, no responsibility for checking it out yourself, it takes no self-exploration, and you must not confront your most existential fears and tormenting doubts when staring into the universe's abyss that nevertheless refuses to take note of you, and all responsibility is handed over to the Big Boss in whose eye Christians for example claim to have been build (what does that tell us about this God'S own nature, I ask, and why then could we nevertheless be assumed to be responsible for the choices, errors and flaws of ours ?) . The popularity of religions can be explained. But belief of this kind, is just one strategy amongst many others to meet the craving hunger for sense and meaning. And it has many dangers and risks by itself, has done a lot of harm in the world.

To me, self-experience and self-realisation, realisation of one'S own mind, is empirically more valid, and leaves the responsbility for my choice and fate where it belongs: me. Because to me it makes no sense to just believe in an idol that man just imagines, a just imagined god dies when the mind imagining it dies. What mind actually is and how it functions - from the point of view presented by Christian mysticism, or Zen, or comparable traditions, learning about the illusory nature of the ego and the natural essence of mind and space, and this by my own experience, is an apparently far more precious alternative. At least so far nobody was able to show me a better one.

Because if you consequently, really consequently think it to the end, we never do touch that "world outside". We cannot. We only get sensory feedback by our senses. Neural bioelectrical energies racing down our nerves and stimulating our brain to make something of this endless storm of electrons - electrons that are just empty space in themselves, and so are their particles that form them, and so forth. We do not touch matter in a material way, we cannot, we take the illusion of matter the way we take the illusion of a solid disc when there is a fast rotating propeller. And this leads to only one posssible conclusion: the world as we perceive it, is only our brains conception. The world is an idea. It is not like we believe to see, hear, taste, and feel it. Which leads to the ultimate question of this:

What is this mind holding this idea, forming this conception?



If the world is just a dream, who is the dreamer dreaming the dream? The Hindus's idea of Brahman breathing the universe in and out over unimaginable long eons, is a poetic visualization.


Some people say the brain's activity is the reason for there being a mind. I say its the other way around: because there is mind, so there became a brain. What the brain's activity brings to life, is something different: the ego. And it is up to us how big or small this ego is, whether we allow getting fooled by it and mistaking it for our self, or not. Nevertheless, it is illusory. Like a Fata Morgana, it exists as a phenomenon, but like what the Fata Morgana shows you, it is not real, is unreal, is an illusion. The ego is our brain's habit of how it forms images about an "outside" world.

And this is the meaning of "spiritual" as I have reached to understand it. Not just believing some hearsay because the elders whisper it, and our forefathers have written it down on scripture, and everybody does it. All that means nothing. Or in the wording of Zen:

Form is space/void, and space/void is form. No trace of holiness.

Quantum physics, anyone? :)

In India, China, Japan and other regions of Asia, they like to compare to this metaphor: Imagine the empty space, and in it floating an infinite number of soap bubbles. You can see them floating, their spheres' glittering in patterns of vibrant colours and light, and every bubble thinks the space it embraces with its sphere makes it unique, separate, an individual entity, what it embraces of space is its individuality, its ego, and now there is inside and outside space, two kinds of spaces, and there is "me" and there is the "outside world" . But sooner or later the bubble bursts again, and then is gone. What then is left of two different spaces, inside and outside? There is not two kinds of space, and never were, there is just one space and always has been, and there is just one mind, and what the bubbles showed in glitter and colour, was just transitory, unreal, an artificial separation between inside and outside world.

Our idea of our ego - is an illusion. Nevertheless, like any Fata Morgana we take for real, it can lead us into deep confusion, and trouble. We do not suffer because the world is not in order. The world is what it is, is our conception, but we separate ourselves from it as if that would be possible, and we want to make it "real" and everlasting so that we live as long or everlasting as well. But that is a misunderstanding of who we really are. In other words, we do not suffer because the world is not in order, but because we are not in order. And since we are not in order, so is not the conception of the world we create in our idea and imagining. The world, outside - just mirrors the state of our selves "inside". We project our own ego, and then complain about the world being out of order? Really? Do we...?

And what we really are, can be said in many different ways which all mean the same, I use the words of Meister Eckhart for a closing:

In my eternal birth all things were born, and I was the cause of myself and all things, and if I had so willed it, I would not have been, and all things would not have been. If I were not, God would not be either. I am the cause of God's being God: if I were not, then God would not be God.

And in another text by him, nevertheless complementing the above:

The eye with which I see God, is the same eye with which God sees me: my eye and God'S eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, and one love.

Form is space and space is form. No trace of holiness. There is just One.



:)

[Rockstar]

It could be said science has discovered God, they just don't know it. :D


God/Quantum Fluctuation
1. Created something from nothing
2. Is non-physical
3. Acts upon the physical
4. Predates the universe

:hmmm:

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/060915_CMB_Timeline75.jpg

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” - Max Planck


“As long as you are occupied with the mathematical sciences and the technique of logic, you belong to those who walk around the palace in search of the gate… When you complete your study of the natural sciences and get a grasp of the metaphysics, you enter into the inner courtyard and are in the same house as God the King.” - Moses Maimonides

[Skybird]

The only reason why I oppose the use of the word "God" is because the term has been associated so much now with a separate divine entity actively creating by its own will and being separate form its creation and creation being subordinate to it, that it is almost impossible now to use this term now and at the same time not being eaten up by this associative context. When the church and its common dogma speak of "God" and I speak of "God", we do not just talk of two different things, but indeed we are all the universe apart. But the wording used by Meister Eckhard in the above quote should make it clear that even in the mystic traditions of theistic religions - and not just Christian but Jewish and once even Muslim tradition had a mystic lineage indeed - this dualistic nature of things hardly is what it is about. In modern cosmology the empty space, the void gets attributed certain characteristics by theoretical scientists like Hawkings, claiming that nothingness/void is not the philosophical concept of "absence of anything", but is a quality like the vacuum of space, and thus has features and characteristics (at least they can be attributed to it), one of them being that nothing/void/space could not just form matter, but even cannot avoid to indeed create somethign from "nothing", form from space. A good and understandable book on that is by Lawrence Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing", 2012.

However, lets not forget, that is good scientific practice, means: no absolute truth claimed, but a theory. Like always and everything in science.

As I have told you before, Rockstar, I do not differentiate that much between what the christian mystics were after, and Ch'an/Zen is pointing at. It makes no sense to me trying that differentiation.

Mind, space, God, one-ness. It may very well all mean just one and the same. The confusion starts where we mistake the finger for the moon it points at, take the name literal, forget the limited reach of spoken/written language, and ignore the danger that we miss what all this stuff on just the surface really is hiding. All these words, ideas, images, and conceptions are just the veil of Maya that hides the real nature of the world. Leaning on the Jewish saying and LaoTse as well: the name of truth cannot be spoken.

The Kingdom of God does not come with signs to be observed. Nor can one say "Look, here!" or "There it is!" for behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:21-22)

Die, before you die,
so that if you should die,
you will not die.
Otherwise, you may be ruined.
- Angelus Silesius -

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me. (John 14:6)

See: one, not two. One. Not two kinds of mind, just one. Not two kinds of space, just one. Not "God" and "Me", just one. Not "A does B", just one. Not "subject" and "objects", just one.

And now forget all these many words and their playful dancing, for they again hopelessly mislead you. Its about finding that question without words that needs no words to answer it. The only way to find it may be not to search for it.

[August]

Again lots and lots of words describing who God may be and in what form he may take but nothing on how the entirety of the human race will get along without a social institution as pervasive and all encompassing as religion.

[Skybird]

Ach August, try to blow away that cloud above your head that hinders you to see that the sun you asked for to shine, already shines...


I would argue that Buddhism and mysticism are not even "religions". Some profane powerpoliticians turn them into that, yes - forming cults where then the few priests have power over the many people, but that is not what Jesus or Buddha have taught or authorized.



Your answer has been given earlier, and several times. You do not need religious cult to get a humane moral code. Granted, you can also get an in humane moral code without relgion: but then you also get that with relgions at times. One could even argue that the reason to form a religion is explicitly that to destroy and overcome an earlier moral code. That can work both ways: a humane face of religion taming a barbaric morale - or a religion turning draconic to overcome a man-loving, friendly morale to institutionlise it sown claim for power.


Open your eyes, see the sun, enjoy what is laid out before you. This hairsplitting tit-for-tat with me serves you nothing.

[August]

Open your eyes, see the sun, enjoy what is laid out before you. This hairsplitting tit-for-tat with me serves you nothing.


Hair splitting? No Skybird that would assume I am talking just to you and that is not the case. I have not seen an answer to my concern from you or anyone else. You say religion is not needed but that's at best a theory and one unlikely to gain much traction in a majority of the world.


For the last time we're not talking about you, or me, or even anyone here necessarily but rather the billions of religious people who you are offering nothing but nebulous utopian visions in exchange for an extensive social system they have relied upon for thousands of years.

[Skybird]

You can read that I said earlier in this thread that religion might have an important function to keep man's psyche in balance and keeping his self-esteem intact - and still you claim in the above reply of yours that


You say religion is not needed.



I stopped there, I simply suddenly lost any further interest.

[Dowly]

Gotta keep those goalposts moving. :03:

[u crank]

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” - Max Planck


This quote by the famous theoretical physicist is probably the reason that I am an agnostic. I am open to the possibility that there is a 'conscious and intelligent mind' behind the existence of the universe but of course we don't know. That being said, if there is a 'matrix of all matter' I don't think it has anything to do with any of the religions, present and past that exist on this planet.

[Skybird]

This quote by the famous theoretical physicist is probably the reason that I am an agnostic. I am open to the possibility that there is a 'conscious and intelligent mind' behind the existence of the universe but of course we don't know. That being said, if there is a 'matrix of all matter' I don't think it has anything to do with any of the religions, present and past that exist on this planet.
So, you expect contact with Vulcan civilization out there? :)

Karl Rahner, a Catholic German theologist of the last century, put it like this:

"The pious of tomorrow will be a mystic, one who has experienced something, against which conventional religious upbringing remains only a secondary training for the religious institutional."


Gotta keep those goalposts moving. :03:

Now I feel - Neymarized. :)

[Sailor Steve]

Maybe it'd be like the difference between a lone car crash and a multi car pile up. All I am saying is that eliminating religion means removing the good it does along with the bad and nobody, including you, knows the consequences of such a massive disruption to human society.
First, I'd like to point out that I don't believe in "getting rid of" religion. It's not anybody's place to try to control what anybody else thinks. I do think that governments, whose purpose it is to prevent us from harming each other, should be controlled by any external organization. My comment was directed toward yours concerning a bloody resurgence as religions role is filled by radical cults all fighting for dominance.
It's my observation that religious history has been exactly that - radical cults fighting for dominance. You can talk about good influences all you like, but I see the Holy Wars of the Reformation as nothing more than disparate groups killing each other simply because the "other guys" believe in the "wrong" God. I see no difference between that and what you described.

Like I said people come up with all kinds of reasons why religion is bad but nothing about what will replace the human need for it. That scares me because if we just leave it to chance it we could easily end up worse off.
On the other hand, a non-believer might say that it already has been left to chance, and that you are correct, we are worse off. As for myself, I don't care who believes what, as long as they don't tell me what I have to believe.

Again lots and lots of words describing who God may be and in what form he may take but nothing on how the entirety of the human race will get along without a social institution as pervasive and all encompassing as religion.
"Pervasive and all-encompassing." You argue that that is a good thing, but others would argue that those words also mean "Controlling and all-dominating." I have heard many Christians talk about how much better off we would all be if only "their" religion ran everything. Again, believe what you like, but don't tell me I have to believe it too and don't pass laws based on your beliefs.

[Sean C]

Religion [...] is just one way to answer that fundamental craving of man for meaning. There are many other ways.


I'm sure you're aware of this, but I'd like to point it out for the sake of completeness and because I don't believe you've explicitly mentioned it: being a theist (or, more accurately in my opinion, a non-atheist) does not mean one must be religious. I think this is a very important distinction. One can believe in a creator (or the possibility of one) without the need for any ritual, dogma or rules whatsoever. There are potentially as many different ideas of what the word "god" means as there are people on Earth.


Incidentally, after many conversations with people who identify as "atheist", it has been my experience that most have more of a problem with religion than with the idea of a god, per se. For example: if I bring up the possibility of a god who created the universe and has no interest in the affairs of men (a.k.a. deism), the response I usually get is "Meh. What's the point?" I get a similar reaction when pointing out the possibility that god created literally everything including the laws of physics for us to discover on our own and, as such, is beyond said laws and thus comprehension by our relatively feeble minds. This differs greatly from their usual position that religion is anywhere between a hindrance to the advancement of mankind to a downright bane of our existence. Dare I say - an "evil"?



Also, as I hinted at above, one of my pet peeves is the usage of the word "atheist" to describe a person who simply lacks a belief in god. For most of history, the word was used to describe someone who specifically rejected the common belief in god. The word [a-theist] literally means "no-god". That's why Thomas Henry Huxley felt the need to coin the word "agnostic" to describe someone who "...shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." Several dictionaries in my possession which were printed as recently as the '80s define "atheist" as someone who denies the existence of god. It wasn't until very recently that modern atheists began to include what was historically known as agnosticism as an aspect of atheism.


I often pose this question to "true" atheists: "Do you have any evidence of life on other planets?" Of course the answer is always "No." So, I ask if they would then proclaim that life on other planets must not exist. The usual answer is "Of course not." The idea being that they have no knowledge one way or the other and so must reserve judgement until some evidence for or against the possibility is discovered. They are, for the time being, "without knowledge" - or "a-gnostic". This is, in my humble opinion, the only reasonable position to take. But I must note that theists do not have a dilemma here. Why? Because theists generally operate on faith - and faith is the opposite of reason. That is why I can respect the theist more than I can the person who denies the existence of god outright as if it is a fact. The reality is that they have no more evidence than anyone else.



I have a book by one George H. Smith titled: Atheism - The Case Against God. In it, the author attempts to define the many possible types of atheism and agnosticism. Under his rules, I would be labeled an "explicit agnostic theist". "Explicit" because I have heard of the idea of theism, but rejected it. In other words, if I had been isolated from the idea altogether, my [lack of] belief would be implicit. "Agnostic Theist" because I don't profess to know anything about any supposed deity, but believe it is possible (maybe even probable) that some kind of creator exists, but it is pointless to debate because such a being would necessarily be beyond human comprehension.


I find it interesting that you, Skybird, also mentioned Buddhism - as I happen to be a Buddhist and I very much consider it a religion. Just as much as I consider atheism to be a religion for many of the people who choose to label themselves as such. One of the definitions of "religion" is: "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". It has been my experience that, whenever the topic of religion comes up, and if there is an atheist in the group, that person feels compelled to so passionately argue their position that it seems they are trying to convert the rest of the group into adopting their position. Indeed, it seems that many atheists are actively drawn to such discussions in order to "educate" the others so that they may be somehow "freed" from their bonds of religion. That is hardly the type of behavior I would ascribe to someone who simply "lacks belief".


I guess what I am trying to say is that I wish more people would adopt Mr. Smith's method of being more precise when labeling their position. After all, when discussing such philosophical matters, semantics matter. Are we talking about a "lack of belief" or an "outright denial"? Are we discussing a "formalized system of the worship of a deity" or a "general set of principles which guide one's daily life"?


This post ended up being much longer than I intended, but such is the nature of this topic. I apologize - and I thank anyone who managed to read all the way through my rambling.


Cheers!

[August]

.... but don't tell me I have to believe it too and don't pass laws based on your beliefs.


I did not and am not telling you what to believe Steve. Nor did I advocate for any religious laws. If you imagine that I did then you have totally missed my point.

[Sailor Steve]

I did not and am not telling you what to believe Steve. Nor did I advocate for any religious laws. If you imagine that I did then you have totally missed my point.
And in taking it that personally you've totally missed mine.

I wasn't saying you did. I was pointing out that it is prevalent among religions (different ones in different countries, Christianity here in the U.S.) to try to use the government to make their own brand of belief into law, to force others to abide by it, and to lament the loss of the "good old days" when they fail to get their way. They blame other religions, or the non-religious for the lack of morality as they see it, and then cheerfully murder, torture or on good days lock up those who don't agree with them, and cry "persecution" when anybody tries to stop them from doing so.

As I said, I see little difference between the way religions treat each other and the non-religious and what you decried as "radical cults all fighting for dominance."

[Dowly]

Says who? Humans have lived under various forms of religious mandated morals ever since the stone age.
The Romans, that's who.

Their religion didn't offer moral advice or guidance, instead personal morality was based on characteristics of past people that were deemed to be "proper Roman" values that everyone should strive for and what was good for the public and the state.

So, your claim that human moral behaviour has been dictated by religion ever since the stone age is a wee bit incorrect.

[Catfish]

The Romans [...]
Their religion didn't offer moral advice or guidance, instead personal morality was based on characteristics of past people that were deemed to be "proper Roman" values that everyone should strive for and what was good for the public and the state. [...].


And as soon as some former tyrant was dead or fell from grace, there was the Damnatio memoriae, trying to wipe this man and his deeds out of the public conscience.
This has changed, however. Now even the idiots of yesterday continue to be worshipped and praised, 'forever'. Maybe for the lack of better successors.

[Skybird]

I'm sure you're aware of this, but I'd like to point it out for the sake of completeness and because I don't believe you've explicitly mentioned it: being a theist (or, more accurately in my opinion, a non-atheist) does not mean one must be religious. I think this is a very important distinction. One can believe in a creator (or the possibility of one) without the need for any ritual, dogma or rules whatsoever. There are potentially as many different ideas of what the word "god" means as there are people on Earth.
You got pregnant but you never had sex...? :D


Note that it makes a difference whether one writes "God" or "god". The first usually indicates the writer means the deity of the Christian-Jewish or Muslim heritage, the latter means a class of objects, in this case: deities.


If you beleive in a theistic concept, means: a god, then the mere circumstance of hat you take that theos for granted means that this is your religion. You cannot claim you do not care for religion, but take the existence of a god for granted, that is absurd. What you mean maybe is that you do not care for rites, cultist activities and rituals, I mean the show effects of the institution.


True only is that you can also be religious without basing on a theistic conception or any superstitious quality. Polytheistic religions. Panthesitic ones. And so forth. A term that I cannot imagine, that doe snto make sense to me, is "atheist religion", thats why I say that taoism and buddhism do not represent being religions (where cult and institutions have not nevertheless hijacked it, but abuse is possible always and everywhere).





Incidentally, after many conversations with people who identify as "atheist", it has been my experience that most have more of a problem with religion than with the idea of a god, per se. For example: if I bring up the possibility of a god who created the universe and has no interest in the affairs of men (a.k.a. deism), the response I usually get is "Meh. What's the point?" I get a similar reaction when pointing out the possibility that god created literally everything including the laws of physics for us to discover on our own and, as such, is beyond said laws and thus comprehension by our relatively feeble minds. This differs greatly from their usual position that religion is anywhere between a hindrance to the advancement of mankind to a downright bane of our existence. Dare I say - an "evil"?

The conflict between devout believers and desinterested non-religious people is fought with different intensity in the many places of the world, and the West. In the US, it seems to be quite strong, fans of both camps almost turn militant at times. But I stick to what I earlier said: atheism is not something" in itself, and the word simply means something like "non theism, a-theism". Like the world "liberal" has been deformed and now means in the anglosaxon word not liberla anymore but left, socialist, so it may have been with thr word atheist as well. Possible, maybe. But still not correct. An atheist is nobody who replaces one faith with his faith. He simply refuses to believe in a given theistic faith. You mentioned your experience with atheists you talked to, but those are not mine, and in no way I can confirm what you experienced, i did not make such experiences. Mine were quite different, and I should tell you maybe that for many years, over a decade, I offered guided group meditation to the poublic evey morning nd had people come and go over that time, maybe 300, maybe some more or some less, over the time. And this is how I would characterise them:


There were two main groups, and some "background clutter" :). The first were more young people, students and young adults, curious, open-minded, seekign to experiment and exploring something new, especially the "exotic" :) These usually had eiether no expectations (few of them), or had expectations regarding Asian philosphy, Buddhism, Zen and the like (most of them). The other main group were older people, former church-Christians who were dissapointed from that institution, had their existential doubts and questions not b een adressed by the church, being in some kind of spiritual crisis, having questions due to experiences with detah in their social vicinity, or feeling that their life's time was finite.


Buddhism is an atheist philosophical and psychological system or radical empirism. That means it knows no creator and no central deity, it does not care for just believing in something, but wants to make man relaise in a moment of the "divine" natzure in himself that is the same liek the divine nature "around" him. "All and everything is buddha-nature". Well, compare that to what Meister Eckhard said, i quoted him repeatedly in this thread. Instant, sudden "enlightenment", the realisation of that there is nothuign to be achieved - that is what Chan, Zen, is about. And that is done by experiencing yourself. Training to become an objective witness of yourself and the ways your mind functions in. That is the radical empirism in it: not believing what is beign told to you, but findign out yourself.


Now, being objective, being passive and not automatically reacting to your senses' perceptions, just taking note of things, not more, that is somethign not easily to be achieved. Subjectivity is your second forename :) But different to what science would tell us (the experimentator always feeds back on the object of his experiment and this influences it), and different to what Freud tells us (the link between perception and reaction cannot be broken), one cna learn to break these two locks. It just takes time and a lot of training. Its nothing that can be learned on the fly, or can be assisted by relaxation music, mumbling mantras in foreign languages, or therapeutic talks in group settings. The experience of meditation, or enlightenment, also cannot be explained and passed on in words. Thats why in Zen ther eis a great desinterest for writing clever books and holding long speeches, the classical masters all had in common that they cut all tis mumbo-jumbo short, and often with drastic means. And nothign can be achieved, for we already have it, nothing has to be reached, for we already are there. Its so simply, and at the same time so difficult! Thats why many people on a spirtual journey end up as running mice. The best advice I can give with now 40 years of experience in this: Let it be. Don't do it. Turn off the engine, lean back and throw away the key. The world runs on without you, you'll see. Make your experiences, but do not judge .



Maybe that is or is not religious. Maybe that is or is not spiritual. But one thing it certainly is not: theistic. ;)


What I try to carve out hwere, is just this: you can be atheist and nevertheless be religious (you only reject theist religous concepts), but I prefer to name that as "spiritual". But you cannot be theisic and beleive in theistic conceptions, and then claim you are not relgious, that just makes no sense.



Also, as I hinted at above, one of my pet peeves is the usage of the word "atheist" to describe a person who simply lacks a belief in god. For most of history, the word was used to describe someone who specifically rejected the common belief in god. The word [a-theist] literally means "no-god". That's why Thomas Henry Huxley felt the need to coin the word "agnostic" to describe someone who "...shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." Several dictionaries in my possession which were printed as recently as the '80s define "atheist" as someone who denies the existence of god. It wasn't until very recently that modern atheists began to include what was historically known as agnosticism as an aspect of atheism.

That is all true, but the history of a misunderstanding, or hijacking of terminology.



I often pose this question to "true" atheists: "Do you have any evidence of life on other planets?" Of course the answer is always "No." So, I ask if they would then proclaim that life on other planets must not exist. The usual answer is "Of course not." The idea being that they have no knowledge one way or the other and so must reserve judgement until some evidence for or against the possibility is discovered. They are, for the time being, "without knowledge" - or "a-gnostic". This is, in my humble opinion, the only reasonable position to take. But I must note that theists do not have a dilemma here. Why? Because theists generally operate on faith - and faith is the opposite of reason. That is why I can respect the theist more than I can the person who denies the existence of god outright as if it is a fact. The reality is that they have no more evidence than anyone else.

You can probably imagine my reply here by now. True science doe snot deal in absolutes, always probabilities. And the campaign supported by Dawkins and Hitchens that they had in London some years ago, with busses showing adverts saying "There (most likely) is no god", did rjght that: they said there most probabaly is no god, thy did not claim "There is no god".



The two camps of religious and atheists (in the widest meaning this term now is being used for) have become quite militant at times by now. But I must say there is a clear direction of causality. If the religious would not push so hard to have public life and legislation altered on behalf of their religious convictions, then non-religious would not see a need to defend their freedom FROM religion increasingly iron-minded. Atheists do not care for how pious people live and what they beleive in, perosnally, I do not care that much at all. But when relgious people bend school curricula, threaten doctors offering abortions, when relgious hardliners get called as judges, then it starts to get dangerous. The base attitud ebehidn this is not different from that of Muslim radicals demanding that they must be given special rights, whats more: that all others have to forfeit their rights for freedom just so they do not offend the eyes of said radicals when practicing them. I insist on all religions not being given any free rides, and not any special treatment, and no spcila status before the law. They all have to submit to the law, in full, without exception, and it is not up to these special groups triyng to hijack law-making legislation. We cannot allow for example genital mutilation of children for religious reasons while if any other parent woudl do the same but not claiming a relgious reasoning would be brought to court and loose the right to raise the children. What if next comes somebody whos ays it is his religion to cut of ears and nose of 12 year old, his deity demands it? We cannot allow relgious pracicies that collide with the common law. Animal protection laws versus halal and kisher slaughtering. Sorry. No. The law is not to be rewritten, the laws has not to be complemented with added special rights, the law has to be obeyed.



Beyond this, I just say: keep thy relgion where it belongs: in the centre of your heart, and the privacy of your home. Religion'S freedom ends where it starts to limit the freedom of others or rejects that there is also a freedom FROM religion.



I have a book by one George H. Smith titled: Atheism - The Case Against God. In it, the author attempts to define the many possible types of atheism and agnosticism. Under his rules, I would be labeled an "explicit agnostic theist". "Explicit" because I have heard of the idea of theism, but rejected it. In other words, if I had been isolated from the idea altogether, my [lack of] belief would be implicit. "Agnostic Theist" because I don't profess to know anything about any supposed deity, but believe it is possible (maybe even probable) that some kind of creator exists, but it is pointless to debate because such a being would necessarily be beyond human comprehension.
Well, fine. But that does not help anyone in any way, really, or does it? Dancing words and stamps on the forehead - why?



I find it interesting that you, Skybird, also mentioned Buddhism - as I happen to be a Buddhist and I very much consider it a religion. Just as much as I consider atheism to be a religion for many of the people who choose to label themselves as such.
I insist on the clearing/ordering of words, as Kung Tse called it, the arbitrary use of terminology and names renders language useless, names usually mean a certain object, and you cannot at random replace that without spreading a lot of confusion. Sorry, I respectfully totally disagree.




One of the definitions of "religion" is: "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". It has been my experience that, whenever the topic of religion comes up, and if there is an atheist in the group, that person feels compelled to so passionately argue their position that it seems they are trying to convert the rest of the group into adopting their position. Indeed, it seems that many atheists are actively drawn to such discussions in order to "educate" the others so that they may be somehow "freed" from their bonds of religion. That is hardly the type of behavior I would ascribe to someone who simply "lacks belief".

I assume you mean to point out that contemporary language uses "religious" also in a meaning of "fervent passion", "greta enthusiasm", "fanatism", well I see what you woud, ean that and I am aware that this is beign done, but in these kinds of devbates I try to use these terms tighter as long as I do jto say otherwise, and the word religion comes from Latin: religio, relegere, meaning a concentrated care in considering rules. A wider translation would include the aspect of "return" (to said rules or even their historic origin or object). I avoid using the word "relgious" in the meaning of "with great eagerness" - right to avoid these complications.





I guess what I am trying to say is that I wish more people would adopt Mr. Smith's method of being more precise when labeling their position.


OH YES !!!


After all, when discussing such philosophical matters, semantics matter. Are we talking about a "lack of belief" or an "outright denial"? Are we discussing a "formalized system of the worship of a deity" or a "general set of principles which guide one's daily life"?

Yesssyesssyessyesssyesss!



This post ended up being much longer than I intended, but such is the nature of this topic.
Happens to me all the time and I never apologize. :D Except for my many typos from tpying too fast. Will correct it later the day.

[Catfish]

I must say i tremendously enjoyed reading the last posts :D

:up:

[Dowly]

And as soon as some former tyrant was dead or fell from grace, there was the Damnatio memoriae, trying to wipe this man and his deeds out of the public conscience.Oh yes, that is very much what happened during the Imperial era which makes it rather difficult to ascertain whether some emperors were as bad as they were made to be by writers writing after their deaths.

[August]

Are we discussing a "formalized system of the worship of a deity" or a "general set of principles which guide one's daily life"?


Good question. People seem to want to stick to arguing over the existence of God but that's not what i was referring to.

Religion, at least real ones like the Roman Catholic church, are far more than just a set of principles from a dusty old book. It is an integral part of their lives that few of the forum warriors here understand (or want to). To them religion is only something to be denigrated and it's adherents mocked and belittled as backward hicks.

What they don't want to see is that to its members a Church is far more than a weekly lecture. It is a social center. Churches host everything from festivals to sewing circles, to Boy Scout troops to bake sales. They care for the sick and the elderly and organize charitable efforts among many other activities that benefit the congregation.

You just can't rip this extensive social structure away without providing something to take it's place. So far nobody want's to talk about that, they just want to continue with the insults and condescension.

[Rockstar]

The arguments here about how its religions fault reminds of the story in the garden of Eden. When Adamah and his wife were confronted about their actions they immediately began to blame each other and everyone else but themselves.

I agree with Skybird, throughout history man has used religion to justify his actions, true. But lets not forget about the death and destruction following the state imposed atheism by Stalin, Tito, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. Today the news is littered with reports of politically motivated vandalism and assaults on other people just because of the shirt they wore or point of view.

The criminally minded person group or herd will always try to find a way to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own actions. They'll use religion, politics, environment, science, race, you name it.

The way I see it, I am responsible to my creator, my faith is mine, my belief in God or the great quantum fluctuation if you will ;) is mine. I do not demand you do the same nor would I attempt to impose it upon you. As Skybird suggests open your eyes to the possibilities make your own decisions based on what you have learned yourself not based on what others tell you is truth. Don't get wrapped up in rhetoric or anything that would cause harm to another. If a monkey can offer comfort to its own we should be able too as well. But as history shows we need to be governed over. If my religion has taught me anything its that we, humanity, are capable of doing exceedingly beautiful, good and righteous things and exceedingly, depraved, dishonorable and evil things. Looking at my bible as a history book it must have been utter chaos. I can't even imagine how awful it must have been if laws had to be written prohibiting murder, incest, robbery, rape, eating animals while they're still alive, and human sacrifice. My evil impulse needs to be ruled over and held accountable otherwise as the saying goes all hell would break loose. Teaching right from wrong is necessary and in this regard religion can be acceptable.


"[Religion and] Government must not ever make laws for the simple sake of control; it ought to never interfere with its citizens with a "law" unless there is a public policy reason to do so."

[Skybird]

Hm, Sorry, Rockstar: Veto!


https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/



The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premise and conclusion
depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.


Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all non-figure skaters. Therefore we can conclude that not being a figure skater causes a person to commit atrocities.


None of these three dictators believed in the existence of leprechauns, hence the lack of belief in leprechauns causes people to commit atrocities.



Correlation or synchronicity, and causality, are different things.

[Rockstar]

The criminally minded person group or herd will always try to find a way to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own actions. They'll use religion, [edit: wether their religion] is divine beliefs, politics, environment, science, race, what ever you name it they'll use it.

A dictator may not believe in a divine being but he will have a religion something that he ascribes supreme importance too and use it to justify his murderous actions.

Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

[Skybird]

Still, fallacy of false cause. ;)


I recomemnd to read the full text I linked, it has more points than just this one that I picked.

[Sailor Steve]

Good question. People seem to want to stick to arguing over the existence of God but that's not what i was referring to.
Who, in this thread, has argued over the existence of God?

Religion, at least real ones like the Roman Catholic church...
Real ones? On other forums (not here, thankfully) I see Catholics and Protestants both call each other "not legitimate". It seems the Holy Wars of the Reformation have never really ended. I'm not trying to create a whole new argument, or divert this one, but I have to ask what you mean by "real ones"?

...that few of the forum warriors here understand (or want to). To them religion is only something to be denigrated and it's adherents mocked and belittled as backward hicks.
An interesting way to refer to people considering what you say later. Addressing it directly I have to ask what exactly is a "Forum Warrior", and how does that term not apply to yourself.

You just can't rip this extensive social structure away without providing something to take it's place.
Did you miss the part where Skybird agreed with you on that? As for myself, my main point in coming into this conversation was to point out that, to my eyes at least, what we have now is no better than what you're afraid it might be replaced with. Even with that, several people have said that they didn't want to replace religion, but that it does need to be held accountable.

So far nobody want's to talk about that, they just want to continue with the insults and condescension.
The only insult I've seen so far in this thread is you calling people who disagree with you "Forum Warriors".

[Skybird]

Steve,

we did not always agree on everything in past years while on most things we probably do, but sometimes I just love your nerve-killingly patient, polite style. :D

:up: :salute:

[Rockstar]

I may have been wrong to assume certain dictators were atheist. But I think we're are closer in agreement than what may appear. I think you say religion is the cause. I say its the people who use it as an excuse to carry out criminal acts. We should be smarter than the monkey and know better than to follow leaders or groups which accuse, persecute and kill others because of what some book, political or religious leader says. But the herd is gullible and easily manipulated. Nevertheless they are responsible for their actions.

As for one who does think there is a metaphysical being who put it all together. How we relate to this world and most especially the concern we express for our fellow humans who are all also made in the image of God, vastly affects the quality of the part of our being that persists after the death of our bodies.

Even Buddhists, who dont believe in the divine can be just as manipulative and cruel. But I dont blame Buddhists or Buddhism I blame the individual.

"Because he was my teacher, I harboured a fear that if I resisted his desires, I would be exiled -- I would lose the Dharma," one woman said in the report, referring to her spiritual teaching and practice.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/buddhist-group-to-investigate-sexual-misconduct-claims-against-spiritual-leader-1.4001578





----



“The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.” - Albert Einstien

[Skybird]

I may have been wrong to assume certain dictators were atheist. But I think we're are closer in agreement than what may appear. I think you say religion is the cause.
No, I don't. I say sometimes it is and sometimes it is not, but since it is a very tempting thing to abuse religion o make yourself more powerful while making yourself unavailable for criticism (thats then called heresy, and on that is death penalty...) , and also since a religion can - but must not always - base on a very inhumane, unfriendly ideology (compare the Aztec'S religion with the teaching of Jesus), I take the safe road and say it must always be kept on a short line, should be regarded as soetnhing of not so much pubölic interest, but poriovate interest only: keep thy relgion in your heart, in your private sphere, keep it away from ruling the state , keep the state secular and not allowing special interests taking over policy building and law creating. Then people can believe in whatever they want, as long as they obey the laws that are mandatory for everybody, without exception.


We should be smarter than the monkey and know better than to follow leaders or groups which accuse, persecute and kill others because of what some book, political or religious leader says. But the herd is gullible and easily manipulated. Nevertheless they are responsible for their actions.

And ideologies and teachings do have a motivational effect, a focussing effect.


As for one who does think there is a metaphysical being who put it all together. How we relate to this world and most especially the concern we express for our fellow humans who are all also made in the image of God vastly affects the quality of the part of our being that persists after the death of our bodies.


That is fine, as long as you do not force others to beleive that or change the rules of living together so that they comply with just your beliefs. The public space has to be neutral territory. Else you would claim your freedom to believe this and live according to it, to have overriding validity over what somebody else may beleive - and if he may believe not more than that you may be wrong. I do not have the impression you would enforce such a policy, but I just describe it as an example.


Even Buddhists, who dont believe in the divine


Thats just a word. You might be surprised. Also, there are Buddhist sects and, as I see Buddha's teachings, deformations that turn it into a superstitious FX show, which of course is just an abuse. You see, thats why I repeatedly over the past times have pointed out the similiarities between Christian mysticism and Chan/Zen. The first are much closer to the latter than many Westerners think, since not many even ever have heard of Christian mysticism. One must not travel to China or India, to find Buddha's teachings. They already have been here, since long, just in other narration, terminology. What the church made of Jesus, imo is an abuse comparable to how many sects and Buddhist lineages turn Buddhism into a ritualised belief system again, into an institutional hierarchy comparable to the church. Unforgivable. I checked out in younger years Tibetan lineages as well, and although I know about the importance for a good, experienced meditation master giving guidance and supervsision, the level of dependency and helplessness created by extreme personal cultism is alarming to me, and also often rang my psychologist alarm bells. The dangers are real.


You can live well of being a Guru, you see. The more followers you have, the richer you may become, or the more your ego feels flattered, or both.


can be just as manipulative and cruel. But I dont blame Buddhists or Buddhism I blame the individual.

It is unwise to never blame the ideology. There are humane and positive ones, there are inhumane and destructive ones. Examine them, learn about them, and then decide. And do not base your judgement on opinions their propagators hold - it is pointless to ask the pope whether the Catholic church is of good or bad for mankind and the world: its the pope, he has his skin in the game. Examine, learn, decide yourself on the grounds of reason, and observation, empiry and logic: they go hand in hand. In Zen they say: Zen spirit: always beginner's spirit. And only when you see that ideological content working for the good of yourself and the good of all, not damaging others for your own good: only then accept it and consider to live by it. The wording, the clothes it comes dressed in then, are unimportant. In principle what you then have: is the Golden Rule, with an empirical fundament.


"Because he was my teacher, I harboured a fear that if I resisted his desires, I would be exiled -- I would lose the Dharma," one woman said in the report, referring to her spiritual teaching and practice.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/buddhist-group-to-investigate-sexual-misconduct-claims-against-spiritual-leader-1.4001578

Exactly this is the problem in quite some Buddhist schooling here in the West: personal cult maintained by the gurus or lamas or Zenshos or however they may call themselves, resulting in dependency, leading to psychological and intellectual bondage. And believe me, I met quite some of them: Zen, Nyingmapa, Kagyüpa.... And only two passed my testing and so I trusted them. The first was in my teen years, a colleague of my father who educated me together with his own son, from him I also learned sword fighting, a bit of archery and all I can do in martial arts, they were Japanese; and the second man I trusted and would call a master indeed was/is a formal Zen master here in Germany. Short time after I started to attend his meetings frequently he chased me away and told me to do my own thing, he could not teach me anything anymore. And so I did. :) Many quotes I gave here and in past threads, are from written collections of speeches by him, I use them since over 20 years when people asked me in the morning on things before I started to throw my tennis ball against the wall to wake up those who fell asleep while chasing Nirvana. :D

Its very, very difficult to find a good teacher. I do not claim I was one, I only say I can teach the basics of meditation well and can lead people as far as I have come on that path, and hint them at the direction of which I think they have the best chance to find their own continuation later on. But you see, it makes no sense if peopel find a good teacher while they are not ready for one. And then, I repeatedly have heard that, read that and in the end saw it happening in my own life: once you are ready, really ready, it is as if the teacher finds you. Its strange, in a way. Like getting a sentence from the I Ging on some issue that is heavy on your mind. And later you find how stunningly perfect the judgement matched. I have no explanation for how that could be, my ratio and logic fails there. I hate and dispise astrology. I give nothing for esoteric and telling-the-future. And still: I cannot reject the empirical experience I have collected with the I Ging, and Tarot, over the past 30 years. It goes without saying, however, that we do not talk about asking for the numbers for the next lottery. A bit more subtle it certainly is, but it is as if these oracles can bite to defend themselves: when you adress them due to being bored, you get ignored, when you ask for something unimportant, they instead may shock you by referring to something importan that really is heavy on your mind, if you repeat your question too often because you did not like the reply as you interpreted it, they let you know, close the shutters and leave you alone. Quite human, I would say. :)

I could imagine this confession comes as a shock for some people here. Skybird, and I Ging. Ouch! LOL.

[August]

"Forum Warriors".


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Forum%20Warrior


Steve, Steve, Steve. :nope:

You could have looked this up yourself but you seem to have entered that nanny moderator mode where you want to chastise me so you pick apart everything I say into tiny little bits believing that the sheer volume of responses required will shut me up. Remember how you explained that tactic to me awhile back? Did you think I forgot? Well sorry but I won't play your game.

To everyone else like I have repeatedly said I believe that the removal of religion, the way of life since the beginning of recorded history billions and billions of people, will leave an enormous hole in their lives that could and has been filled in the past by things far worse than the mainstream religions that the God haters want so much to destroy.


Rockstar mentions the Commies, the most well known athiests in human history for one example but i'd also add the radical "religious" cults that are springing up in more profusion as the mainstreams loose power. They are not so much religious as they are cults of personality.

People have got to believe in something and when those beliefs are taken away or substituted with antiseptic state replacements violence and alienation is the result. Maybe if the perpetrators of these school shootings in recent years had a dose of religion they may not have committed their terrible crimes. Our society has created this spiritual wasteland that allows these monsters to thrive.

[Sailor Steve]

Steve, Steve, Steve. :nope:
Condescension much?

You could have looked this up yourself but you seem to have entered that nanny moderator mode where you want to chastise me so you pick apart everything I say into tiny little bits believing that the sheer volume of responses required will shut me up.
Dave, Dave, Dave :nope: (such an easy game to play - and it is a game)

Yes, I could have looked it up, but, I couldn't be sure that any definition I found would be the one you meant by it. I had a little bit of understanding, being slightly familiar with the SJW pejorative. Enough of an idea to ask whether the term didn't also apply to yourself. I notice you sidestepped it quite nicely - along with all my other questions. It seems like an easy way out, just calling people names.

And no, I don't want to shut you up, or chastise you. I want to have this conversation.

Remember how you explained that tactic to me awhile back? Did you think I forgot?
No, I don't remember. Please enlighten me.

Well sorry but I won't play your game.
But you continue to play your own, which is to avoid what people say, put your own words in their mouths and attack that straw man repeatedly.

What I did do is try to address every one of the points you've made. You reply by coming back with this curious attack, but not actually addressing anything I really said.

1. When you complained about people arguing over the existence of God rather than give solutions, I asked who, in this thread, has argued over the existence of God? You didn't answer.

2. To everyone else like I have repeatedly said I believe that the removal of religion, the way of life since the beginning of recorded history billions and billions of people, will leave an enormous hole in their lives that could and has been filled in the past by things far worse than the mainstream religions that the God haters want so much to destroy.
Yes, you did say that repeatedly. The last time I pointed out that you seemed to be ignoring the part where Skybird agrees with you on that. As I said, ignoring what people actually say and making it into a strawman.

Rockstar mentions the Commies, the most well known athiests in human history for one example but i'd also add the radical "religious" cults that are springing up in more profusion as the mainstreams loose power.
As I pointed out, the "mainstreams" have been just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. As for "The Commies", yes, some of them have been some of the worst. That said, people like Stalin may not have believed in any God, but none of them ever said they were committing their atrocities in the name of Atheism. I would say Stalin did worship something, that thing being his own lust for power. This is the same malady suffered by a great many kings and dictators, many of whom called themselves "Godly Men".

On the other hand the Scandinavian countries boast some of the best standards of living in the world, and they are predominantly non-believers.

People have got to believe in something,,,
Do they really? Why?

There is one thing you seemingly don't understand about me at all. The questions I just asked are not because I like to be contrary, or because I necessarily believe that. I ask questions like that to try to open up a dialogue, to really discuss the concepts. As I've said many times, I don't claim to have any answers. I also tend not to trust people who claim they do. There always seems to be a hidden agenda.

...and when those beliefs are taken away or substituted with antiseptic state replacements violence and alienation is the result.
And yet there are so many examples of violence and alienation caused by the very organizations we have now.

Maybe if the perpetrators of these school shootings in recent years had a dose of religion they may not have committed their terrible crimes. Our society has created this spiritual wasteland that allows these monsters to thrive.
Maybe. On the other hand that leads directly to one of the main pro-gun arguments, which I'll bet you have used at one time or the other. I know I have. That is the simple question "How many Atheists didn't kill anybody yesterday?"

[August]

Sorry Steve, not playing the game.

[Catfish]

Never let anyone burst your bubble, if you already have an opinion ;)

[August]

Never let anyone burst your bubble, if you already have an opinion ;)


There's no bubble being burst Catfish. Just the usual noise from the usual suspects drawn up in the usual battle lines over the usual issues. Haven't you figured it out by now?

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, you are very much playing a game. You raised your objections. I disagreed. You then start talking about what "they" say. I challenged that. Rather than have a discussion, an argument or even answer the questions, you choose instead to accuse me of something I actually try to avoid. Forget moderation, if that's your worry. All I want is to have a discussion. If that's beyond you, say so. If it's not, let's talk about it.

[Skybird]

This all got a bit out of hand. Originally this thread was about the language censorship in childrens book to make these old, sometimes classical works comply with modern special interest groups' ideological goals, gender-new-speak and political correctness. August does what he does since all the years I know him in this forum now, none of his game is new. He will not change, and next time he will not do any different.

Lets go back a bit to the origin of this thread. That topics get left a bit and debate sprays debris to both sides of the main line , is nothing new in General Topics and can even be interesting and/or entertaining, but this personal hick-hack put at focus now leads a bit too far.

Please, just leave it. ;)

[August]

Well gee guys i'm sorry that my opinion is so objectionable to you but it is what it is. I have to wonder what you are so scared of though. That I might be right? I hope i'm that not but I don't think so. I think we're already seeing it with the advent of horrific events like school massacres.

[Sailor Steve]

Contrary to what you might think I don't find your opinion objectionable at all. For all I know you may be right. I disagree with some of the examples you give and I pointed out that the opposite may also be true. I still feel there's a lot of discussion to be had, but discussion involves looking at all sides of the issue, not just insisting on your own.

[August]

Interesting article that deals with what I am talking about:





As churches close, a way of life fades
Minnesota’s mainline Christian denominations face unprecedented declines, altering communities and traditions celebrated for generations.


Excerpt:


La Salle Lutheran Church is much like the hundreds of small churches whose steeples rise above Minnesota’s rural landscape. Most were planted more than a century ago, near dozens of small farms with large families and boatloads of the faithful arriving from Europe.
Those were the grandparents of the people at the church today. About 25 members remain, including Bonnie Viland, 86. She recalls when the church was so full of families that folding chairs had to be set up in the aisle on holidays.
“Everybody who moved into town went to the church — except the family that was Roman Catholic,” she said.
Church was a bedrock of daily life. Its absence leaves a large gap — spiritual, social, emotional — that for many seems almost impossible to fill.
Viland, for example, taught Sunday school, brought desserts to countless church events and funerals, “held every office in the women’s organization,” served as church treasurer and church president. On a recent Sunday, she brought the chocolate chip cookies to social hour.
After worship, every single person in the pews headed to the downstairs social hall for coffee and conversation. Schultz watched the folks sitting around the table wistfully.
“I was confirmed here, married here. I thought I’d be buried here,” Schultz said sadly. “I still don’t know where I’m going.”



http://www.startribune.com/as-minnesota-churches-close-a-way-of-life-fades/486037461/

[Sailor Steve]

That is indeed sad for the people who are watching their way of life fade. On the other hand, what I don't see mentioned are their children. These younger adults have obviously found something to replace that particular social life, something they can relate more to in their own lives. What is it? Where are they going? They obviously aren't sitting bemoaning what they've lost. They have new social functions that interest them more.

Among my circle of friends are two sets of believers who, though they believe diametrically opposite things, both call themselves Christian. They both attend their respective churches regularly, and though they do have a social functionality both will tell you that what they believe is more important than what they do socially. That said, the group also includes people who don't attend church or believe at all. They will also tell you they have rich social lives with like-minded friends. I associate with musicians and gamers mostly. One of my neighbors lives for golf.

The fading of those churches doesn't seem to be the cause of the next generation moving on, but rather the result of it. Peoples lives are not being left empty because of churches closing. The churches are closing because their members' children have found something they'd rather be doing. Yes, for some that may be a bad thing, but I'm sure that most of them would say otherwise.

[Skybird]

The fading of those churches doesn't seem to be the cause of the next generation moving on, but rather the result of it. Peoples lives are not being left empty because of churches closing. The churches are closing because their members' children have found something they'd rather be doing. Yes, for some that may be a bad thing, but I'm sure that most of them would say otherwise.
Or the old ways that got passed on to people now living, hold no convincing attractiveness anymore. As I said, most of those church-christians that attended morning meditation were not "adventurous", but disappointed. They formed the older group, by tendency. The younger ones were those seeking new experiences.

The line between both groups and ages is not static, solid.

That is quite some tie ago now. I assume the internet'ÄS effects on our solcial lives and the way we can get easier any contact, input, information, impression from all over the world, has also changed our old familiar ways of social life. Sometimes for the good (lets face it, the closeness of an isolated village where everybody knows everbyody else can not only be idyllic, but also quite oppressive, if the social constellations and mutual symopathies and family structures are only rigid enough), sometimes for the worse (there seems to be growing indications in social and psychological research that the excessive use of smartphones and social media - which I often call anti-social media - pushes especially young people at greater risk of isolating themselves and/or growign lonely). Also, social behaviour skills (social intelligence) seem to erode.

Its complex processes runnign there, and everythign is in a chnage. Seems to me tht chnages just happens far too fast for a grpoewing number of ever younger people. It were the elder who were left behgind first, then the high mid-ages, now the mid-agers, but increasingly younger ones as well. But that is a wide fields to cover, and it snot exclusive about computer and relgion only. Fear for one's own job education and job future, pressure from mounting financial strains, and much more - so much can come together here. College loans, anyone?