|
28049. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 7:27:39 PM Rather, AC, my experience of religion has been just the opposite...that it stands in the way of and prevents those 'glorious moments of transcendence'. Religions I've had exposure to have been all very stifling. Thus I'm much happier without one. 28050. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 7:39:30 PM As a side note on religion, jon stewart had on a fellow last night...darned if i can remember his name or the name of his book, but it was about all the things that christ didn't say or something like that. He did a study of the early texts of the bible, most of which were scribed during the first 300 yrs a.d. which revealed the various stories and fables that were added over the years by various scribes along the way. He used, for example the story of the prostitute that was stoned...apparently that was not in the earliest texts of the new testament but was added later.
Author went into this being a fundamentalist who took the bible literally and has come out of this with a deeper understanding of the bible and its essence which is not to be taken so literally. 28051. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 7:50:49 PM The problem that we're having with your position, Wiz, is that you seem to be positioning "atheism" as equivalent to the various faith-based belief systems (Christianity, Buddhism, scientology, what have you), as if it were an arbitrary system of beliefs.
Which it manifestly isn't. It is the negation of an arbitrary system of beliefs.
As for the argument that "atheists" are missing out on something, yes, I get that, but I find that one can experience those glorious moments of transcendence without a faith-based rationalisation for them.
First, Alistair, what's with your use of this "we" in "we're having with your position. . . "? Are you a multiple personality or do you presume to speak for the others here?
Secondly, I don't recall holding a position–or mentioning atheism for that matter.
Moreover, I was asked to explain what I meant, so I tried. I understood tful to mean that she only trusted empirical facts which is, to some degree, what Zen teaching is all about.
My point was that any concept that is held in my mind, can prevent one from appreciating the actual experience.
Personally, I create illusions for a living and I have come to a point in my life where Maya (the Hindu idea) is proving itself to be a very good rule of thumb for appreciating and savoring the multiple patterns of energy we call life. That is to say that life is a journey from the illusions of certainty to the certainty of illusions.
So, needless to say, I'm a bit puzzled by your somewhat presumptuous response. 28052. judithathome - 3/16/2006 9:04:42 PM And the believer makes the mistake of quoting the Bible at me without comprehending that I reject the premise that the bible has anything to do with a god. It is as if I would quote Darwin at a convinced creationist or Marx at a libertarian.
THIS!! I can't understand why they do that, either...but too many have done so for me to think it's mere stupidity alone which makes them do it.
28053. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 9:16:18 PM No, it's not stupidity. It's holding a different world view. It's like the shocking things I've had gopers say to me which to them is a given, and the shock with which they've responded to things I've said which to me are a given.
Just like Jen not thinking god is manmade, yet I can't see it any other way. 28054. alistairConnor - 3/16/2006 9:33:17 PM Wiz, I suppose I picked up on Pelle's "we atheists". I am speaking for myself, of course.
To quote you :
Christianity is a concept whereby God is perceived as the Master Potter of the Universe. Science supplants that illusion with a just as phony a concept whereby the Universe becomes an autimatic cosmic pinball machine of cause and effect.
... so yes, you explicitly identified "science" (not atheism, my bad) as being on the same level as Christianity, with respect to phony concepts. Your bad. I strongly disagree with this.
Yes, conceptualising stuff can get in the way of experiencing it. As Thoughtful points out, this is probably more of a problem for those who are bound by religious strictures, than for those who are free of such baggage. 28055. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 10:24:55 PM ... so yes, you explicitly identified "science" (not atheism, my bad) as being on the same level as Christianity, with respect to phony concepts. Your bad. I strongly disagree with this.
There you go with your presumptions again. You're missing my point–or as those who stink of Zen like to say: "If I point to the moon, don't dwell on my finger."
I wasn't saying science is phony, I was implying that one bias replaced by another is just as false. The Enlightenment, became vogue because it allowed humanity to escape the tyranny of an angry, judgemental and (worst of all) a voyeuristic God who destroyed all innocence. Now we're all trapped in a relativistic universe where anything goes. Is it any wonder why Christians are filled with fear and dread and want the judgemental God back?
I'm not advocating any concepts, philosophies or religion. Moreover, I am not advocating atheism. I'm advocating that you dance your dance--once you discover what it should be and finally, to remember that one dances to dance and not to arrive at a specific place on the ballroom floor. The saddest thing to witness are people who imitate other dancers because their heads are filled with concepts and ideas that make them too self-conscious to just let go, drop their illusions, trust in their own equipment and surrender to the universe. Maybe that's just my definition of faith–but I'm not asking anyone else to subscribe to it.
Or as my wife (who just left public service after 27 years of dealing with corrupt politicians and their cronies) likes to say when asked what she will do now: "I don't want to do anything–I just want to be!."
28056. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 10:45:18 PM see wiz, my inflexible mind has trouble with these 2 statements:
- Now we're all trapped in a relativistic universe where anything goes
- I'm advocating that you dance your dance
In my view these are necessarily contradictory...living to the mantra that one dance their own dance necessarily translates into 'anything goes'.
28057. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 11:05:49 PM Christ! Now I remember why I just like to do drive-bys!
Don't get defensive . . . or literal!
Now we're all trapped in a relativistic universe where anything goes
Ironic exaggeration that allowed for my explanation of the insecurity/fear-based compulsion for rules and dogma.
I'm advocating that you dance your dance
Dancing was meant as a metaphor for intuitively trusting your own intelligence for tapping into one's own unique rhythm and joy to live a life without rules and fear.
And contradictions are okay, tful, trust me. Eastern thought accommodates contradictions quite handily. They call it "the mutual arising of opposites."
You can't have hot without cold, light without dark, love without hate. It's a conspiracy of the universe--this on and off thing (here I'm implying what death is, btw–death is the flip side of life and inextricably linked.
Basta–I'm otta here!
28058. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 11:30:39 PM sigh. 28059. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/17/2006 12:00:03 AM And what, eggzackly, do you mean by that sigh? 28060. thoughtful - 3/17/2006 12:06:17 AM You must remember this,
A kiss is just a kiss,
A sigh is just a sigh.... 28061. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/17/2006 12:21:24 AM HAHAHA! Very good!
28062. anomie - 3/17/2006 12:47:51 AM What is the Buddha?
Three pounds of flax. 28063. Jenerator - 3/17/2006 4:42:48 AM Thoughtful,
Jen, (I'm always amazed at what seems obvious to you is a mystery to me and vice versa.)
Ha ha ha. I know what you mean - we are very different when it comes to this area.
it takes a conscious sentient being to ponder its own mortality, its own awareness of itself and to question the reason for its own existence. dogs, cats, fish cannot and do not ponder such things. they cannot communicate such things with each other. for them there is only now..
I agree and have stated such things many times before. Their inability for higher thinking and spirituality are two areas which set us apart from them.
perhaps, as wiz is talking about, they are in the perfect zen state, being only what they are. they do not think of god, they do not worship god. they do not communicate with each other about god. such a concept is beyond them.
Well, I think that is an insult to Zen. Inability to ponder shows no form of understanding. The mentally retarded, the comatose, the braindead are all Zen in that case.
Man has created the concept of god(s) to help understand and cope with their present and the future, to help understand the why of existence and to give purpose and hope to man's activities, just and injust.
I disagree.
The god(s) man created have changed over the millennia to suit their culture and lifestyle.
I agree.
For example, many agriculturally based ancient civilizations worshiped female goddesses...mother earth, goddesses of fertility as they relied on earth to generate the food for survival. Many hunter/nomadic tribes worshiped male gods for their strength and agility not only for their ability to hunt, but also because in their roaming they were more likely to run into other tribes leading to conflict.
Yes, I know. The same is true of Greek mythology, etc.
What god is and what our concept of god is comes to us from our exposure to words and works of other people.
Not entirely true. You need the clarifier ' and from God Himself'.
Perhaps to translate it into your terms, who wrote the bible? Men wrote the bible. Sure you can argue that their words were inspired by god if you wish, but it's still men's words written down and still men's words interpreting what was written. As such, god is manmade.
On the pedantic level I can agree with you in that a human hand wrote down the words, but you are neglecting thevery nature of the author. If your mother spoke to you and said 'write down what I am saying,' and you did meticulously, you could not say that the book was exclusively your creation.
Take for example, the roman gods. I presume you believe they were false gods and that they do not exist and that there is only one true god.
You presume correctly.;-)
Well, then where did these incorrect concepts come from?
Who knows - man attempting to define the world in his own terms without God? Satan? Who knows.
Were they not manmade?
Yes and no - here's where it gets tricky. I believe that without the head and heart knowledge of God, men are deceived and suceptible to evil.
And in the same way, isn't our understanding of the concept of a monotheistic god also manmade?
Not necessarily. Your assumption is that God does not exist, therefore anything written or recorded about him is a priori false because it is not grounded in a reality. I disagree with your assumption.
What do you mean what about some evidence? Please don't start with the ways in which you feel god or have interpreted certain actions and results as part of god's plan and so on. That is all your personal experience based on personal interpretation.
Well, you're right to basically state that I cannot prove the existence of God to you if you deny the miraculous.
And as I said about faith, if you question it, it necessarily means it is no longer faith.
No it doesn't. Man by his nature questions things. I ask God for more faith all of the time. I question what I believe. I don't understand everything.
Getting from faith to fact necessarily means that faith is the first thing out the window as it requires questioning and testing that point. If I test it and it proves false than continuing to accept it 'on faith' is not faith but stupidity. If I test it and prove it right, then it is no longer faith but fact.
Well the fact of the matter is that Jesus lived and walked the earth and we have a record of his life and of his miracles. We have 2,000 years of faith, scholarship and archeology that testify to his nature and his claims. Where you and I part ways is in the very assumption that what is recorded is true (or not true.)
You believe Homer existed, Nero existed, and Aristotle existed and you believe what is attributed to them but you deny the veracity of the claims of the NT -a d that boils down to your prejudice against the miraculous and/or the supernatural. If you start your position claiming that no such thing as God exists, I cannot prove God to you because his nature includes the miraculous.
Blazes once said that if Jesus Christ said to her personally to worship Him, she wouldn't.
I honestly don't believe that anything would constitute proof to people who deny the possibility of the miraculous - even the miraculous! For just as the Pharisees plotted against Jesus after observing him performing miracles with their own eyes and in person, I believe you would deny any proof.
That is why so many religions wrap themselves in mystery and faith and teaching their followers to accept without question.
Christianity does not encourage faith without thinking and that really is an insult to presume that it does. We reason through the scriptures, we study them and part of that is naking sense of what they claim.
Many of their points will not stand up to questioning.
Especially if the starting positions are irreconciliable.
28064. Jenerator - 3/17/2006 4:46:11 AM Sorry for typos. 28065. arkymalarky - 3/17/2006 5:31:33 AM I haven't been involved as a lurker in the discussion, though I've skimmed it, but Wiz, is this yours? If not, whose? I really like it: That is to say that life is a journey from the illusions of certainty to the certainty of illusions.
I don't like most of the pithy phrases that are so popular among the pop-psych ed-policy crowd. One of my professors' email signature includes "it is not enough to stare up the steps; one must step up the stairs," author noted in the signature, but I don't remember the name--maybe I could use your phrase as the signature to my emails in course-work exchanges. 28066. judithathome - 3/17/2006 6:14:13 AM I've seen Penn & Teller do some fairly miraculous things but I'm not about to worship them for it. 28067. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/17/2006 7:08:35 AM arky- I think it's mine because I've been saying it for decades, but I'm at an age where I watch a movie I've seen and remember nothing about it. Anyway, I decided to Google it in quotes and wound up at The Mote archive and found it in one of my posts in the political thread.
I also found the following when all of the exodus-neocon supporters were demanding links that buttressed the argument that Bush was not a success in Texas . . .
31212. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/20/2000 12:05:41 PM
"BUSH ADMINISTRATIVE INEPTNESS--POOR APPOINTEES, WEAK OVERSIGHT--FUELS HOUSING AGENCY SCANDAL "For several months, the Tx. Dept. of Housing has been reeling as federal and state investigators probed public corruption allegations against one of its board members (Florita Bell Griffin) and questionable practices of its former executive director (Larry P. Manley)." Manley was "appointed in 1995 by Gov. George W. Bush to run an agency that dispenses half a billion dollars a year to improve housing for poor Texans." By 1996, "state auditors reported problems at the housing agency. Investigators said that year that the department under Mr. Manley had awarded developers tens of millions of dollars in federal tax breaks in an arbitrary and undocumented manner." In 1997, state auditors "uncovered more problems....
They found that the agency had awarded more than 60 percent of the contracts under a new program to people who previously worked with Mr. Manley at Texas savings and loans." Manley resigned last summer. That same week, it was reported that Bell, another Bush appointee, was "accused of using her influence as a public official to approve federal subsidies for low-income real estate deals in which she had a special interest." Bush's replacement for Manley, Daisy Steiner, recently met with the Senate Finance Committee on Feb. 2 and apologetically conceded that her "agency serves only 1.5 percent of the estimated l.5 million low income Texans who need housing help," a poor record, even using the agency's own criteria. The following day, two years late, the state auditors sent their 1997 findings to George's office. (HC 8/28/98, 2/3/99) 2/22/99
How utterly predictable and disheartening to reread this after President Shithead has captained the U.S. America adrift and aground. But that's for another thread.
28068. alistairconnor - 3/17/2006 10:59:26 AM Well, you're right to basically state that I cannot prove the existence of God [Christ] to you if you deny the miraculous.
There's a syllogistic fallacy in here, Jen, and it underlies all of your attempted rational defenses of Christianity. Something like this :
A) The miraculous is real.
B) Christ is miraculous.
C) Therefore Christ is real.
The obvious problem is that, even if (for the sake of argument) we agree on A, then this premise validates Christianity no more and no less than it validates Islam, Shamanism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism or what have you.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
