Santa V God

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Good friend Tao, I've kinda laid back from this discussion, it seems you quite have your hands full as it is. But I do think this comment unfair and inaccurate. There are plenty of discussions around here between theists about how to un-"pervert" religion. Besides myself, there are frequent posts by the likes of Seattlegal, Ciel, Paladin and in their own ways even Alex and China Cat. And many, many more. Even our friend Thomas and I have held many discussions about propriety in regard to religion.

Simply, I think this statement of yours serves little more than to advertise your own selective view of things; you see and hear what you want and disregard the rest.

Pots and kettles.

Hi Juan!

You have to get angry to take the position Tao is taking, otherwise there's no point bucking the enormous bleating noise of the "saved." Well, you don't, but it's a cinch you're gonna sound angry one way or another. All hail the giant balls of my friend Tao! We're not worthy...

Chris

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Yeah, I thought about that. It's possible that an era of utter religiosity awaits me after I dispense with this phase. I'm certainly not confident that my condition is inevitably superlative to anyone else's as far as my, your, or their process and progress is concerned. I don't think it works like that.


It doesn't seem like that to me either. What if there's no inherent benevolence and we only get this one life? Aside from destroying the commerce of religion, how does that really hurt or change anything?

Chris

Now I don't often use the "you" form of communicating an idea Chris so don't take this personally.

Stand back a bit and notice the frame of your questioning as it assumes the continuance of what you already know and understand. I mean, what can really be hurt? What can really be changed, except that which is in your own mind, the mental constructs of how things are and what they mean.
If everything is as it is rather than as it seems to be then everything is as it should be, and it is our thinking that gets in the way.
So, whatever the universe is, is exactly what it is.
I wonder what kind of life would be available to humans who concerned themselves with life as it is. Maybe people would have to pay attention to what is right in front of them and leave behind everything else.

Oh I know that man has had his progression, he needed to be controlled and taught at one point as we all did as children lest we burnt ourselves with matches or ran our bikes off the ramp over at Jeff's house but we built it too high and nobody was really good at landing and then.....
But I digress...

Anyway, if all the isms and ideas and texts and all that are eventually left behind its because we have learned their lessons and have moved on as a species. Notice you no longer need your ABC book to read the NY Times.
But Man as a species isn't there yet, though perhaps individuals are, those that have understood the lessons of right behavior, Right Thinking, Right Livelihood and have reached the end of the spiritual path, only to find that what they sought was never hidden.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I think that religion is a convenient scapegoat. Politics is no longer the vehicle of religion- if it ever really was. Religion can be the creature of politics, but religion itself is a relic, and it's political, cultural, and social control mechanisms were long ago made redundant by purely political forms of propaganda. Getting rid of religion won't change anything because there are now comercial-cultural layers of coercion as thick as shark's teeth which simulate the religion effect.

Chris

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Good friend Tao, I've kinda laid back from this discussion, it seems you quite have your hands full as it is. But I do think this comment unfair and inaccurate. There are plenty of discussions around here between theists about how to un-"pervert" religion. Besides myself, there are frequent posts by the likes of Seattlegal, Ciel, Paladin and in their own ways even Alex and China Cat. And many, many more. Even our friend Thomas and I have held many discussions about propriety in regard to religion.

Simply, I think this statement of yours serves little more than to advertise your own selective view of things; you see and hear what you want and disregard the rest.

Pots and kettles.

You mean somebody's reading my posts? When did that start happening?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that religion is a convenient scapegoat. Politics is no longer the vehicle of religion- if it ever really was. Religion can be the creature of politics, but religion itself is a relic, and it's political, cultural, and social control mechanisms were long ago made redundant by purely political forms of propaganda.

That may well be true. But those political, cultural, and social aspects may be seen as separate from the central core of religion. They are the outward "expressions" or applications of faith or perhaps just the skin. Being able to see those in perspective -- or even setting them aside -- may actually be an advantage as far as rediscovering the religious substance of religions.... for some people anyway. I wonder if others have lost interest in religion precisely because it no longer has the cultural influences it once had. My own theory on the decline of religion is that it's byproduct of industrialization.

Getting rid of religion won't change anything because there are now commercial-cultural layers of coercion as thick as shark's teeth which simulate the religion effect.

Considering that most people in the UK - and Europe a s a whole - don't have a religion, it seems it's already on its way to being got rid of without help from atheists. But maybe atheists want to stay in the forefront because they have their own ideas for a theocracy of sorts in which they get to play at being morally superior to the theistic religionists who have wreaked havoc.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

You have to get angry to take the position Tao is taking, otherwise there's no point bucking the enormous bleating noise of the "saved." Well, you don't, but it's a cinch you're gonna sound angry one way or another. All hail the giant balls of my friend Tao! We're not worthy...

Tao has my greatest respect for standing his ground.

At what point though does standing ground give way to obstinance and stubborness? I realize this works both ways and applies to me as well, the difference being I have looked at his side (perhaps not as deeply) and have not been convinced. Therein I see a difference, coming to a reasoned conclusion and coming to a determined conclusion. The former by weighing *all* evidence, the latter by dismissing and ignoring contrary evidence.

It is one thing to understand one is viewing through a selective lens...it is another to maintain a myopic focus at all costs.

I don't see myself as "right" so much as convinced, by weight of circumstance and experience. I am fully aware I may be wrong; but I am convinced that where I may be wrong is in the details and interpretation, not the overall construct.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Paladin

You mean somebody's reading my posts? When did that start happening?

Along about March of 2005.

I think you really got everybody's attention with the Logical Fallacy thread...

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that religion is a convenient scapegoat. Politics is no longer the vehicle of religion- if it ever really was. Religion can be the creature of politics, but religion itself is a relic, and it's political, cultural, and social control mechanisms were long ago made redundant by purely political forms of propaganda. Getting rid of religion won't change anything because there are now comercial-cultural layers of coercion as thick as shark's teeth which simulate the religion effect.

Chris

Speaking of scapegoats: isn't scapegoating a technique employed to hide unskillfulness?
AN 3.69: Mula Sutta

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

At what point though does standing ground give way to obstinance and stubborness? I realize this works both ways and applies to me as well, the difference being I have looked at his side (perhaps not as deeply) and have not been convinced. Therein I see a difference, coming to a reasoned conclusion and coming to a determined conclusion. The former by weighing *all* evidence, the latter by dismissing and ignoring contrary evidence.

It is one thing to understand one is viewing through a selective lens...it is another to maintain a myopic focus at all costs.

I don't see myself as "right" so much as convinced, by weight of circumstance and experience. I am fully aware I may be wrong; but I am convinced that where I may be wrong is in the details and interpretation, not the overall construct.

Hi Juan, this is my take,

At what point though does standing ground give way to obstinance and stubborness? I realize this works both ways and applies to me as well, the difference being I have looked at his side (perhaps not as deeply) and have not been convinced. Therein I see a difference, coming to a reasoned conclusion and coming to a determined conclusion. The former by weighing *all* evidence, the latter by dismissing and ignoring contrary evidence.

It is one thing to understand one is viewing through a selective lens...it is another to maintain a myopic focus at all costs.

I don't see myself as "right" so much as convinced, by weight of circumstance and experience. I am fully aware I may be wrong; but I am convinced that where I may be wrong is in the details and interpretation, not the overall construct.



tao

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

That may well be true. But those political, cultural, and social aspects may be seen as separate from the central core of religion. They are the outward "expressions" or applications of faith or perhaps just the skin. Being able to see those in perspective -- or even setting them aside -- may actually be an advantage as far as rediscovering the religious substance of religions.... for some people anyway.

Isn't 'Santa Claus' just the 'outer skin' or 'outward expression' (or mask) created to keep anonymous giving anonymous?

I wonder if others have lost interest in religion precisely because it no longer has the cultural influences it once had. My own theory on the decline of religion is that it's byproduct of industrialization.

Well, industrialization might have helped to distract people away from Santa's central core of anonymous giving and more towards the material side. However, the central core is still there (as demonstrated by such simple, yet precious things such as finding candy in my shoes in the middle of summer.)

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Considering that most people in the UK - and Europe a s a whole - don't have a religion, it seems it's already on its way to being got rid of without help from atheists. But maybe atheists want to stay in the forefront because they have their own ideas for a theocracy of sorts in which they get to play at being morally superior to the theistic religionists who have wreaked havoc.

lol That is funny! Of course it is nothing to do with the peoples of Europe having had enough of ideologies telling them how to think, leading them to terrible wars and deprivations. Look at the rise in the standard of education combined with the popularity of Liberal Socialist values of equality and you might find the reason. And where is this atheist vanguard you allude to? Where is its doctrine and who are its leaders? Atheists do not claim moral superiority, as I observe, but they do object to theists claiming moral authority. There is no substance to the claim that faith gives morality. Religions have wreaked havoc, but how dare these dirty little atheist heathens point it out!!

It is beginning to get lost now in a more personalised series of posts but I did set out why I believe what I believe. I was challenged about what I stated and I provided qualifications. But I know you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I will leave you with this one statement to ponder, just because I think all theists buy into a self- delusion does not mean I am claiming superiority any more than a non smoker can over a smoker.


tao

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hi Juan, this is my take,

At what point though does standing ground give way to obstinance and stubborness? I realize this works both ways and applies to me as well, the difference being I have looked at his side (perhaps not as deeply) and have not been convinced. Therein I see a difference, coming to a reasoned conclusion and coming to a determined conclusion. The former by weighing *all* evidence, the latter by dismissing and ignoring contrary evidence.

It is one thing to understand one is viewing through a selective lens...it is another to maintain a myopic focus at all costs.

I don't see myself as "right" so much as convinced, by weight of circumstance and experience. I am fully aware I may be wrong; but I am convinced that where I may be wrong is in the details and interpretation, not the overall construct.



tao

So what is the argument, then?

We are right back where I suggested you were seeing the same things I was, merely using different terms to describe it.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

So what is the argument, then?

We are right back where I suggested you were seeing the same things I was, merely using different terms to describe it.

Almost, the only difference is that I am right Muhahahahahaha

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Almost, the only difference is that I am right Muhahahahahaha

Suit yourself.

Of course, that doesn't preclude me being correct. *Too.*

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

So what is the argument, then?

We are right back where I suggested you were seeing the same things I was, merely using different terms to describe it.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Almost, the only difference is that I am right Muhahahahahaha

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Suit yourself.

Of course, that doesn't preclude me being correct. *Too.*

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.

*and*

There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.

~Niels Bohr