Owning the young mind

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

"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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

.... 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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel B.

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...?


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. 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

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Catfish

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]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel B.

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.wordpr...pher-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]

Originally Posted by August

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".