Owning the young mind

[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.


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





“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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

“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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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."

Originally Posted by Dowly

Gotta keep those goalposts moving.

Now I feel - Neymarized.

[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!

[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