Owning the young mind

[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

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"Forum Warriors".

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...orum%20Warrior


Steve, Steve, Steve.

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]

Originally Posted by August

Steve, Steve, Steve.

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 (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.