• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Agreed. The concept of the supernatural as a separate reality from the natural realm yet able to affect it while remaining undetectable even in principle is incoherent. It's an invention to give the nonexistent the status of the existent by claiming a one-way causality from a place which can be found nowhere in time or space.
I wouldn't go so far as to say what is undetectable to us, is non-existent. I was pretty clear to say that Reality, or "ultimate reality", is beyond the grasp of both current and future sciences and reason as well. There's a good reason to say this. But this doesn't mean it's "supernatural", other than in the sense of beyond what we can comprehend, or ever will be able to comprehend using reason and rationality.

This is simply to say that Reality is stranger than anything we can now or ever imagine. The greatest minds have said just this very thing, including Einstein. And that does not therefore at all mean, the Bible's images of the Mystery are the actuality of it, as some religious apologists would errant conclude. They are just as much metaphors as anything else we have to say about it is. They're just not scientific metaphors, and shouldn't be mistaken as such. ;)

That's what organized religion is for. That's why there is a priesthood and a church hierarchy, and why the priests align with kings where possible.
I disagree. What is for, in its most basic function is both preserve and transmit information in service of spiritual growth and transformation. Having an organizational structure of course can be fraught with problems, not the least of which is a corruption of power, but those become sadly necessary in order to maintain some semblance of functionality.

Think of this as an example. I study and practice the internal martial arts form of taijiquan (T'ai Chi). There are lineages of knowledge holders who master these things and transmit the knowledge to qualified disciples. If you don't have this structure of master and disciple, and just anyone who watches a few YouTube videos, begins teaching Faux Chi, as I like to call it, the art become diluted and distorted. It may look all flowery and such to the novice, but is nonsense and devoid of merit and benefit.

Likewise with a religion, having structure keeps it a legitimate practice. Without that, it can easily devolve into illegitimate nonsense, like your fundamentalist preachers of every flavor on the radio and television. Glory-seekers always find their ways into any organization and turn into a cult of personality, whether its martial arts, businesses, or religions. This is not a religion problem. It's an organizational problem.

This is what the concept of an eternal soul is used for.
No it's not. That's not what it is "for". It may be abused by those seeking to control other by taking advantage of it as a concept. But as a concept, that is not its intended purpose. It's a device of langauge to speak about some deeper level of existence beyond just what goes on in the thinking mind. It's an existential question. It's part of the big questions of life. It's not just made up to scare people, even though evil people take advantage of it to do that with it.

This is what the doctrine of original sin, damnation, and salvation through Christ alone is for.
Same as above. All of these are metaphors to speak about what I see as the same thing as Enlightentment versus illusion, spoke of in other religions. These are expressions of the highest and deepest relizations of human experience. They are metaphors to talk about those. But again, they are taken advantage of by those seeking power over others and turn them into objects of fear in order to manipulate them. Remove that from it, and they are perfectly fine and useful metaphors on their own.

Just because someone abuses these, doesn't mean that they are inherently wrong or evil. I liken it to the Sufi saying, "A knife is neither good nor bad, but woe to him who grasps it by the blade!" Myself, I know which end of the knife to hold on to. ;)

This is what the Sermon on the Mount is about - controlling people. Be meek, suppress your spirit and will, stand down, for your reward will come later if you do.
Whoa. Not at all how I read this or understand this. I've never understood it in that light. It's about authentic humility, and being of service to others. Not making yourself a doormat for others. There is a whopping big difference between suppressing your spirit and will, and being humble. The former is inauthentic humility. It's false humility. It's not genuinely setting aside your own self seeking for the sake of others.

As with all these things, I have learned that there is this dividing line between an authentic understanding of spirituality, and an inauthentic, ego-driven interpretation of these things by those in religious communities. I've found it to be quite remarkable, and it's like the continental divide type reading, where one flows to the Pacific and the other flows the Atlantic. They end up in completely opposites ends of the continent. It's hard to explain this, but it's a night and day difference.

People who care about you don't talk to you like that.
That really depends on that person who explaining it. Explained in a spiritual light, it makes sense. In a controlling sense, it's counter to the spiritual sense and it is poison. The way you explain how you have learned to hear that, is that poisonous sense.

The fact you denounce that sense, says something quite positive about you. As you can tell, I denounce that sense as well. But I don't read that as the intended sense at all.

That's what people who want to exploit you and for you to not rise up about it say. This is the top-down view of religion.
What I see with religion is this. They began from the bottom up. They typically start with some authentic mystical vision or realization of some individual. It's later on as that vision spreads and takes hold and become popular, that it gets organized in some fashion in order to keep the community and teachings intact. And now it's at this point that it gets dumbed down by administrators, and outright corrupted by power-seekers and egotists. Again, back to group dynamics.

Once the spiritual meat of the original movement because diluted into the kinds of social control systems you speak of, and new vision arises out of spiritual necessity, and the whole process begins again. This is exactly what Christianity began with, breathing a new vision into a stale and corrupt religious system. And then it too became a religion, which it never was really intended to in the first place.

Being a priest is a great gig compared to manual labor and outdoor work.
I suppose you could say being a psychologist is a great gig compared to manual labor, but I think that takes its toll on them and they consider it difficult and challenging work as well. So in reality, what is a priest? Aren't they essentially a psychologist, family therapists, administrators, etc.? I don't think I'd slight it as an easy occupation. People come to you for advice and direction in their lives, and if you are a genuine person, that's quite a responsibility.

Unfortunately, then you have narcissistic hacks who try to control people with religion. They are inauthentic. I know pastors who are exactly that. But there are others who are not. As I said, there is a watershed point, at that point is the Ego.

For the average adherent, that's not the purpose of the religion at all, and not his purpose - to be controlled. He's trying to control his life through prayer and then his afterlife, not other people. That's the grassroots side of this - people looking for answers, comfort, and protection. But the priests are not his friend. They will sell him false promises for income, easy work, and social status.
There are those who do this. And there are those who don't. This is a people problem, more than it is a religion problem. The only thing bad about it being religion, is because it can be quite easily abused to manipulate people with.

You're dealing with people's hopes and fears. And isn't this exactly what lying politicians do too? So it's not just religion, it's politics too. It's anything that deals with people's core beliefs and values that are so powerful and easily abused by the unscrupulous.

Assumes? We see it. Doesn't this describe about half of the American people now - lack of empathy and a lack of a sense of community?
But why then is it assumed about anyone who speaks of God or religion, like me? What about that other half? That was my point. It is a big assumption. And that was my point to begin with. You are the refreshing exception to the rule in my experience. :)
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
(had to split my response in two. I always seem to do this in conversation with you! :) )

What was all of that mask tantruming about? Karen is everywhere. People walk through Wal-Mart with assault weapons strapped to them. Mothers everywhere are crying for their fallen and severely traumatized children to the tune of "I don't care what you want, just what I want: guns." One Trump meme was "**** your feelings" What is owning the libs all about? And most of these people will tell you that they have God on their side against the godless Communist Democrats and atheist abortionists.
But this by no means describes all people of faith. It describes predominantly White evangelicals with high school level education or below. And as of 2020, Mainline, liberal Prostentats are greater in number than evangelics. White Evangelicals Now Outnumbered by Mainline Protestants in U.S.

I say it describes White Evangelicals mostly, because 81% voted for Trump. And let's be really clear about something. These "Christians" who are Trumpians, are really Christian Nationalists, and that is not considered Christianity by mainline Christians. Now, while I don't identify myself with any religion, and I sympathetic to authentic Christianity, and what I see in Christian Nationalism, is the reason I left the church, in no small part. I started a thread on this here, which I have yet to begin responding to people in.

"Christian Nationalism is Not Christianity"

That's a religious notion. God condemns people to eternal suffering for no purpose other than to make them suffer.
Again, it's a metaphor that describes something of the suffering of life when we walk out of true with the Tao, or the Way, or Buddhamind, or Nirvana, etc. That people who literalize these things and manipute them to exploit people's fear, well, that's just the danger of anything that can be exploited like that. Not everyone understands those things at that level.

The humanist vision of justice rejects this, which is to prosecute and incarcerate to remove dangers from the streets, to serve as a warning to those who would otherwise commit crime, and someday, to rehabilitate offenders. Retributive justice is Old Testament stuff.
Personally, I believe Christianity was very much a humanist perspective in its inception. Not that it remained that way of course as the religion trappings of it took hold, but the teachings when understood from a spiritual and psychological metaphoric perspective, do embrace those humanist values.

As far as the Old Testament being about retributive justice, that's not entirely true. It's there for sure. But there is also the voice of distributive justice expressed by the priestly vision. Both voices are there, doing battle with each other, so to speak. They reflect the same swings in vision we see in our culture today, from progressive social, to conservative isolationist. The Bible is just a mirror of us. :) (Clearly, I don't see scripture as a dictation from God).
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That is just a bunch of terminology bducking and weaving.
Um, no. That is very specific language to speak about very specific things. To speak of pre-rational thinking, has very specific meaning. It is hardly "just a bunch of terminology". Rather than asking for an understanding, you just simply choose to assume it's nonsense? You seem to be underscoring the very point I make.

What it comes down to is that theists present assertions, provide poor reasoning and evidence in support of those assertions; then accuse the people who recognize and point out the reasoning flaws and lack of evidence as making baseless assumptions.
I don't present any such things. Yet you make this assumption without any evidence that I do? Why is this? Explain. If this assumption of yours is not based upon any evidence from me, then where it it coming from? Is it emotional?
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why do you think that a wold without gods is necessarily nihilistic?
I didn't mean to suggest that. I don't believe that is necessarily true. What I was referring to nihilism about was simply than when you die that's it, the end. It's just an annihilation. That's not to say that that believe leads to a pessimism about living and life.

Exactly. The whole concept of hell is about vengeance on those who may otherwise "get away with it". Of course, the problem is that hell also punished people who simply think differently.
I think that's one way people may choose to think about if, if they are prone to wanting to see others suffer our a sense of vengeance. Myself, I see hell as a metaphor for suffering in life and missing out on the actual living of it. There is a spiritual component to this, that I would relate to Maya, or "illusion". Living life with the blinders on, caught in the snare of self-suffering, is the experience of hell. Hell is a state of mind, a condition of being, not some place some angry god sends you.

Not so. Religion serves other purposes, not just the control of the masses.
It's good you recognize and acknowledge this. There are plenty who think that is all it is about. It's that view I call cynical, in that it's not really a fair or rational understanding of its many functions and roles. It's like saying the purpose of love is to make you feel loss and heartbreak. :) That's of course a cynical view of it, just as much as saying the purpose of religion is take away your freedom.

Hardly "low-hanging fruit" though. That is essential what drives religious belief in most cases.
It's not that people start their religious journey's with self-interests that I call low-hanging fruit. Hell, pretty much any endeavor we embark upon begins with the ego leading the way. That's the immaturity. But what I call the low-hanging fruit is picking on literalism as the sum of all religious thought. Noah's Ark can't possibly be real, so therefore religion is just a bunch of pre-rational twaddle, and those who believe it is real are idiots.

To me, that's like a 5th grader picking on a 3rd grader for being so silly. In reality, they're both still in elementary school, relatively speaking. And they don't seem to bother with arguments from kids in 9th grade, or in college. That's what I mean by the low-hanging fruit. It's the easy targets that justifies one's current chosen views, but that's not really doing due diligence and being fair to other points of view about these things.

Why else do you suggest people adhere to religious doctrine?
People have lots of differencing reasons. Some are seeking meaning in life and looking for direction. Are are looking for belonging to a group and finding themselves in group identity. Some are looking to develop spiritually. Others are looking for escape. And so forth. But I don't think that everyone is looking for a "massive reward", or something.

For myself, I was just looking to be less miserable in life, as I had tasted a bit of that liberation of genuine spiritual freedom. Religion was secondary to that. I was not at all interested in having a mansion in the sky with golden driveway for my heavenly Mercedes. I never got that crap. :)

The conversion has to be sincere, but yes. Under Christianity (and Islam), terrible people can not just avoid all punishment but also gain massive reward. That is the simple fact of the matter.
I don't think that's all there is to it. I tend to think that in Christianity, you don't escape the consequences for your actions, but the whole "you are forgiven" is about you learning how to accept unconditional love and not live under the guilt of self-condemnation, which is a form of your own damning of yourself.

Certainly there are those who understand that as escape the consequences of their actions, but I don't see that. But I will say that choosing a positive direction in life and doing good, living well and true, does offset negative actions to a good degree. It's just the law of karma, or 'reaping what you sow', in Christian parlance.

I'll finish my thoughts on the rest tomorrow. Thanks.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Um, no. That is very specific language to speak about very specific things. To speak of pre-rational thinking, has very specific meaning. It is hardly "just a bunch of terminology". Rather than asking for an understanding, you just simply choose to assume it's nonsense? You seem to be underscoring the very point I make.
The whole "assuming" thing is the foundation of the your ducking and weaving. It is a red herring. What I do or do not assume does not matter.

I can assume that you have a reprobate, reptile brain. I can assume that you are subtle, learned, and wise.

It doesn't matter.

Even if I were to assume that you are subtle, learned and wise, I would not begin to consider your claims until you
1) take the time and energy to define your terms in a manner that your interlocutor understands;
2) accept that there may be flaws in your thinking; and
3) understand that the assumption of competence is not owed. It is earned.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I wouldn't go so far as to say what is undetectable to us, is non-existent.

How do you define nonexistent? What are the qualities of the nonexistent that distinguish it from reality? Undetectable in this context means undetectable in principle, not merely contingently undetectable waiting for the right machine in the right place to detect it.

What [religion] is for, in its most basic function is both preserve and transmit information in service of spiritual growth and transformation.

Religion is not needed to maintain a cultural lore. America does it with its patriotic lore. Patriotism is just a secular religion, but without gods and afterlives, sin and redemption, souls and hell - the aspects of religion that give it psychological control over those who will believe the priests. American lore has its own myths (cherry tree and log splitting presidents instead of babes in the reeds and virgin births), symbols (flags, eagles and Uncle Sam instead of Jesus, Mary and the cross), precious documents (original parchments for each). Patriotism or faith. Traitor or infidel. The Ten Commandments and The Bill of Rights. Santa Claus and Paul Bunyan. Manifest destiny and American exceptionalism vs. the Chosen People. The Pilgrims and the Exodus. Godless Communists and suicide bombers. "I pledge allegiance" and "Our Father who art in heaven." "Communism is my enemy" and "Islam is my enemy." Honor vs righteousness. He died for your rights or he died for your salvation.

What's the difference in terms of transmitting cultural values apart from the supernaturalism, which makes all the difference in how these stories can be used.

That's not what it [the concept of an eternal soul] is "for". It may be abused by those seeking to control other by taking advantage of it as a concept. But as a concept, that is not its intended purpose. It's a device of langauge to speak about some deeper level of existence beyond just what goes on in the thinking mind. It's an existential question. It's part of the big questions of life. It's not just made up to scare people, even though evil people take advantage of it to do that with it.

Once again, the difference between a psychological (scientific) approach to the self and a religious one gives the religion a hostage.

It's about authentic humility, and being of service to others. Not making yourself a doormat for others. There is a whopping big difference between suppressing your spirit and will, and being humble.

It's not about humility. It's about meekness. One can be humble yet strong, assertive, passionate, and courageous. He just isn't bragging about it. You seem humble, but not meek. And I don't see the Sermon as being about service to others except in the sense I explained - a call to stand down when others demand that you be of service to them, or, as I explained it, stand down to those who would exploit you. Look at the language there. Longsuffering. Your reward will come later. You will be equal in heaven. These aren't words to encourage one to be of service. These are words spoken to those who would object to their low station and poor working and living condition while others have more. In the words of Napoleon:

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."

One can easily see the appeal of this advice to a Roman emperor like Constantine.

I think you reject these cynical interpretations out of hand. You don't rebut them, you just contradict them. Please explain why this interpretation isn't correct and yours is. I've given specific reasons to prefer mine.

Unfortunately, then you have narcissistic hacks who try to control people with religion.

Yes. You seem to think that they are rare and don't characterize the religion, or that they are successfully opposed by a larger contingent with a more virtuous agenda. What I see from so many is a faith-based belief that this religion is basically good and well-meaning with a few bad apples. The evidence suggests otherwise. It speaks of love but has a very deformed version of love. The same with justice. And mercy. And what is its fruit? It talks of its charity, but that's just crumbs. It's a business.

why then is it assumed about anyone who speaks of God or religion, like me?

Why is it assumed that anybody who talks about religion lacks empathy? It's not. I don't assume that you are like the people I just described. Nor are all Christians. Liberal Christians seem to be empathetic people, but not this white evangelical strain that characterizes politicized American Christianity.

it's a metaphor

I had written, "God condemns people to eternal suffering for no purpose other than to make them suffer" as a description of damnation. It may be a metaphor to you, but to millions or billions of believers, it's the way it is. You keep deflecting back to an idealized version of Christianity in the hands of well-meaning and enlightened believers. Those are the metaphors. The ugly reality is on the streets and in the news.

That people who literalize these things and manipulate them to exploit people's fear, well, that's just the danger of anything that can be exploited like that. Not everyone understands those things at that level.

Here's that answer again. You've repeated what I've said about organized religion but then dismiss it because it's not 'how everybody thinks.' That wasn't the argument. It doesn't need to be how everybody thinks for it to become institutionalized. It shouldn't be how everybody thinks, or it won't work. There needs to be a large body of believers who don't think in those terms, who have no idea that their fears are being manipulated and exploited. It isn't hard to do. They believe what you call metaphors literally. They assume that they have been forgiven because they know that God forgives sins if one apologized to God for it. They think God created Adam and Eve and that therefore science is not to be trusted. They believe that God hates homosexuals, who deserve punishment for their iniquity.

One can argue that those are not the intended meanings or the loftiest ways to read scripture, but most of these people, like people everywhere, are neither philosophers nor contemplative. You tell them that God considers unbelievers an abomination, that not one does good, and then that's what they believe, as we see all too often on these threads. That's the religion rendered, which is very different from what it claims for itself.

This is the discussion I often have with believers, who are the ones typically making your argument. Critics point to the news and their actual experiences with Christians being unloving or duplicitous, and the apologist keeps deflecting back to the book. I just had that discussion with InChrist in this thread regarding the loophole comment from Dillahunty. She argued that his idea of celestial justice was flawed and gave her corrected theology in its place - what God really requires with repentance and to achieve forgiveness according to her understanding of scripture. That only matters to whomever think like she does, not to the people who think like Dillahunty described. We know what they think. They tell us here in RF and they tell us on the Atheist Experience, which Christians were also marginalized as not being representative of what this religion teaches. It doesn't matter what others think it teaches. What matters is what people are learning and how it informs their actions. Like I said, it's the rendering of the religion that matters to the rest of the world, not the words on paper. Ask Marx about how that can go, how far the rendition can vary from the theory.

Maybe you know the Atheist Experience episode where Tracie Harris explains that the difference between her and the caller's god is that while it would stand idly by while an innocent child was raped, but she would intervene. The caller's answer was that nobody is innocent: "True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you." One can hear the chorus of apologists objecting to that interpretation, or more urgently, to saying it out loud, but this too is the fruit of this doctrine, and if you listen to the show, it's much of the fruit. That's the value of watching and of participating in RF - seeing not just what Christianity claims for itself, but what effect it actually has on its adherents and what kind of people it actually generates.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes. It is unfair if people get paid the same for one hour as people who have worked for twelve hours.
This to me shows that we are dealing with an authentic spiritual teaching. It turns on its ear conventional thinking of what's "fair" in a system of rewards and punishments. By contrast to a system of rewards and punishments, the system of Love does not discriminate in these ways. The same amount of sunlight shines upon the wicked as it does the good. I think that was his point in this parable, as well as the parable of the prodigal son.

There is the way of the world, where you have to earn your love and acceptance and rewards. And then there is the way of God, or the way of the Spirit, or the way of Love, when love and acceptance is unconditional.

In my experience, especially in online discussions, I am often astonished how many people there are that literally have no concept of the reality of what an unconditional love looks like or is experienced as. It's a complete fiction to them. It is outside of their lived reality. It's not outside of mine, or others' experiences however.

That to me is the whole point of the spiritual. It's to break that "world system", that you have to compete and earn acceptance and love, to the natural Way where it is available to all without condition. Spiritual teaching is not about control of others, but about liberation of the Self. That's why I say that makes this parable ring true as an authentic spiritual teaching. It turns that world system on its ear to what is inherent in Life itself.

No. Those people have a perfectly valid point.
From the system of the world's ideas of fairness, yes. But that's not what the spiritual is about. So, where they are wrong is to try to superimpose that world system upon God. That's what Jesus was challenging with the parable. And superimposing that system upon God, is what those in religion who err try to do all the time. Let's talk about the "prosperity gospel", shall we? :)

Again, correct. Although we all know that those people wouldn't be murdering if there was no god. It is a meaningless argument.
I agree. Considering they really wouldn't do that themselves, them making that as an argument is disingenuous.

Not sure how that is "low hanging fruit".
If religionists say "this is my position", then sceptics can only address that position.
Where the problem is is where the "skeptic" uses that error to paint all of religion as that. That's what is looking at the low-hanging fruit, and ignoring anything in the branches higher than that level. What you have is the most vocal saying "this is my position", and then not doing the due diligence of a rational argument and critical thinking to question if that is all there is to religion.

Let me underscore this with a favorite quote of mine that's in my signature. "Religion is like a swimming pool. All the noise comes from the shallow end". That's the low-hanging fruit. It's like saying, "I hate swimming because it's just a bunch of loud children splashing and making noise!" Well, to that I say, "have you tried swimming out past all the shallow end where the water is deep and the adults swim in the quite?"

(I swim out a lake and spend all my time out where it's 30 feet deep, far out and away from the children and novices enjoy the shallow waters. It's quite beautiful, peaceful, and refreshing to the soul. This has it's direct parallel in religion for me).

Not sure what point you were trying to make here.
The same point I just made above in the swimming pool illustration.

Why do you assume there is such a thing as "spiritual transformation"? And why can it only be achieved through religion?
Two things here. I don't assume there is such a thing as spiritual transformation. Not only is it a direct personal experience for me, it is also well documented and researched from academic disciplines. I could point you to several names such as Maslow, Fowler, James, Jung, etc.

Secondly, I did not claim, nor do I believe that it can only be achieved through religion. Religion at its best can be a good guide and teacher. At its worst, it's everything the 'skeptic' decries, and I join hands with them myself in their complaints.

I subscribe to a perennial philosophy, that at the core of all religions is this spiritual impulse to self-transcendence, into a spiritual awakening beyond egoic-self identification, or the world of Maya, or illusion, or sin, or whatever other metaphor captures that for you.

But spirituality is not owned by religion.

Religion rather, is an extension of human spirituality, and an attempt to focus it into teachings and symbols and practices that aid in spiritual development. It comes from human spirituality. It does not create it. And that is to me, it primary core function in service of human spirituality. But then there is all the rest that comes with that, which can be a distraction to it. It's not a simple thing. These are all interpenetrating and interrelated relationships within any religious system.

But at the peak of spiritual transformation, even religion itself must be overcome. You even need to transcend beliefs about God itself. As the Buddha said, "To insist upon a spiritual practice that has served you in the past, is to carry the raft upon your back after you have already crossed the river". Or as Meister Eckhart says, "I pray God make me free of God that I may know God in [his] unconditional being". These are about realizations. Not about beliefs and practices.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The whole "assuming" thing is the foundation of the your ducking and weaving. It is a red herring. What I do or do not assume does not matter.
I'm not ducking and weaving anything at all. I have no need to. You're not engaging in anything I have said. You're tilting at windmills, fighting straw soldiers of your own creations. :)

Even if I were to assume that you are subtle, learned and wise, I would not begin to consider your claims until you
1) take the time and energy to define your terms in a manner that your interlocutor understands;
2) accept that there may be flaws in your thinking; and
3) understand that the assumption of competence is not owed. It is earned.
I'm not using any excessively esoteric jargon that you shouldn't be able to follow. The two other posters aren't having any issue with it, so don't lay whatever difficulty you are having with it at my feet. If you are unclear about something, then simply ask. I'll be happy to explain.

In the meantime, please take the time to read my posts and do your due diligence to understand them. The come to me with specifics we can discuss. Deal? So far, it seems your posts are just general poo flinging about religion that doesn't address any specifics about what I am saying.
 
Last edited:

ppp

Well-Known Member
How about this? You take the time to read my posts and attempt to understand them, then get back to me with specifics from what I have said myself? Deal?
I have read your post since #13 on this thread, and you literally spend all of your time appealing to the assumptions that you allege to exist as your reason not to present evidence.

I'll tell you what. You go back and reread #13 where you laid out your position, and extract some block of text where you are not (in context) attempting to justify your refusal to present definition, argument and evidence based on the (alleged) assumptions of others.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
I'm not using any excessively esoteric jargon that you shouldn't be able to follow.
There are phrases and terms that have simply never been defined. Such as spirit or spiritual. Others may be willing to overlook that telling fact. I am not

The obvious next step after defining your terms with other defined terms is to demonstrate that the definition connects to objective reality. As opposed to an unjustified assumption.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have read your post since #13 on this thread, and you literally spend all of your time appealing to the assumptions that you allege to exist as your reason not to present evidence.

I'll tell you what. You go back and reread #13 where you laid out your position, and extract some block of text where you are not (in context) attempting to justify your refusal to present definition, argument and evidence based on the (alleged) assumptions of others.
This is nonsense. The only time I've actually laid out some of my views themselves has been the last few posts to the two other posters in the last couple days. If you have a challenge to what I lay out in those, please present it. I'll be happy to address your challenges, if any.

The only thing I offered in post 13 is this:

I know from personal experience debating with neo-atheists proves to be very much of the time, the same as debating with religious fundamentalists. It doesn't matter if they are bible-beliefs, or science-beliefs, they approach and hold and defend those beliefs with the same "believerism". The old saying holds as true for them as any true-believer, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still".
If you are asking for evidence, it's right there in that paragraph. I'm stating my personal experience. The evidence is what I have experienced. I'm just reporting it as I experienced it. End of story.

If you have an actual challenge to anything I have said, please offer it. So far, what you've been demonstrating has not challenged my observations in the above paragraph.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There are phrases and terms that have simply never been defined. Such as spirit or spiritual. Others may be willing to overlook that telling fact. I am not
Oh for god's sake. I thought you were talking about technical terms. Aren't you familiar with the different ways people use these common terms in English? Please just try to understand by the context in which people use them to glean the meanings they intend. I explain my uses in my discussions. Everyone else deals with these things that way. Can't you?

The obvious next step after defining your terms with other defined terms is to demonstrate that the definition connects to objective reality. As opposed to an unjustified assumption.
Why don't you first present something I have said and we can take it from there. Otherwise, honestly, you're just offering nothing other than your assumptions of what you think I must think. So the ball is in your court. I'm waiting for you. I have no need whatsoever to dodge your imaged "hard questions", as I sincerely doubt they are that.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
This is nonsense. The only time I've actually laid out some of my views themselves has been the last few posts to the two other posters in the last couple days
This is why I don't take you seriously. You spend 164 words expositing about how other people assume stuff, then claim that you were not expressing your views.

This cheesy backpedaling is not worth anyone's time. Including yours.

When you finally, one day compose a post that you are both willing and able to stand by; let us know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How do you define nonexistent? What are the qualities of the nonexistent that distinguish it from reality? Undetectable in this context means undetectable in principle, not merely contingently undetectable waiting for the right machine in the right place to detect it.
Not to get too thick into the weeds on this as a side discussion, I would define nonexistent as non-reality. I only make a point about something not being detectable in reference to the tools of science and reason, which some seem to decide is the only one true measure of truth. I see that as a hangover from religion seeing itself as the final arbiter of truth through scripture. It's the same line of reasoning, just finding better tools to accomplish that goal with.

I believe that the "transcendent", to be in reference to the tools of our sciences and reason's ability to penetrate. That does not mean it is nonexistent because it transcends reason. Nor does that make it technically "supernatural", meaning it actually violates reality itself. It is only supernatural to our given point of reference, not to Reality itself. Would you agree with this, or do you believe that science alone is the true measure of all reality?

Religion is not needed to maintain a cultural lore. America does it with its patriotic lore. Patriotism is just a secular religion, but without gods and afterlives, sin and redemption, souls and hell - the aspects of religion that give it psychological control over those who will believe the priests. American lore has its own myths...
Yes, I understand all these roles that religion can and does play in culture. What we need to understand in talking about religion is actually what aspect or definition of religion are we talking about here? What I see happen in discussions like this is conflating all of these definitions with each other, such as "the beatitudes are about controlling the masses", interpreting the word meek to mean submissive to others authority and rule over them, and such.

I put this together a while back to help facilitate a better understanding of what we are exactly talking about in our use of the word religion. I compiled it from the philosopher Ken Wilber's book, A Sociable God. We can use this as a point of reference here:


1. Religion as non-rational engagement:
- Deals with the non-rational aspects of existence such as faith, grace, etc.

2. Religion as meaningful or integrative engagement:
- A functional activity of seeking meaning, truth, integration, stability, etc.

3. Religion as an immortality project:
- A wishful, defensive, compensatory belief in order to assuage anxiety and fear

4. Religion as evolutionary growth:
- A more sophisticated concept that views history and evolution as a process towards self-realization, finding not so much an integration of current levels, but higher structures of truth towards a God-Realized Adaptation.

5. Religion as fixation and regression:
- A standard primitivization theory: religion is childish, illusion, myth.

6. Exoteric religion
- The outward aspects, belief systems to support faith. A non-esoteric religion. A potential predecessor to esoteric religion.

7. Esoteric religion
- The inward aspects of religious practices, either culminating in, or having a goal of mystical experience.

8. Legitimate religion:
- A system which provides meaningful integration of any given worldview or level. A legitimate supporting structure which allows productive functionality on that level, horizontally. The myth systems of the past can be called "legitimate" for their abilities to integrate. A crisis of legitimacy occurs when the symbols fail to integrate. This describes the failure of a myth's legitimacy we saw occur with the emergence of a new level of our conscious minds in the Enlightenment. Civil religion is one example of an attempt to provide legitimacy to this level, following the failure of the old legitimate system.

9. Authentic religion
- The relative degree of actual transformation delivered by a religion or worldview. This is on a vertical scale providing a means of reaching a higher level, as opposed to integrating the present level on a horizontal scale. It provides a means to transformation to higher levels, as opposed to integration of a present one.​

Full disclosure here regarding where I am at personally in regards to religion. I do not participate in any formal religion anymore. But I do see religion as a vehicle for those on a spiritual path as a guide to higher Self-realization, through symbols, metaphors, myths, principles or philosophies, and practices. I internalize many of these as spiritual attitudes for living, which lead to fuller Self-realization, or spiritual awakening or connectedness with that ultimate Reality, or Ground of Being.

But I have my issues as well with organized religion. It's not for me in where I am at at this stage of my journey for me. It's experienced a bit like trying to put a size 10 foot in a size 5 shoe. But perhaps at some point I may find a shoe store for larger sized feet. :)

That said, how I believe the anti-theist, anti-religionist, such as one finds in the popular atheist communities online, in reference to the above definitions of religion is focusing on religion as,

R3: Religion as an immortality project - a wishful, defensive, compensatory belief in order to assuage anxiety and fear​

R5: Religion as fixation and regression: - A standard primitivization theory: religion is childish, illusion, myth.​

R6: Exoteric religion - The outward aspects, belief systems to support faith. A non-esoteric religion. A potential predecessor to esoteric religion.

R8: Legitimate religion: - A system which provides meaningful integration of any given worldview or level. A legitimate supporting structure which allows productive functionality on that level, horizontally. The myth systems of the past can be called "legitimate" for their abilities to integrate. A crisis of legitimacy occurs when the symbols fail to integrate. This describes the failure of a myth's legitimacy we saw occur with the emergence of a new level of our conscious minds in the Enlightenment. Civil religion is one example of an attempt to provide legitimacy to this level, following the failure of the old legitimate system.​

What you are talking about largely in your comparisons above to the myths of a culture, be those religious or secular myths, fits right in with R8 above. He even specifics Civil Religion as an attempt to fill this role.

For sake of further self-disclosure, while I do certainly recognize all of the above as a legitimate understanding of religion, I do not ignore the other aspects of it as I feel is what is being done in the "skeptics" approach to religion. Ignoring the other aspects of it, moves from genuine critical skepticism into cynicism, which I feel is basically another form of believerism claiming to have the one real truth over others. When I speak of religion, while not ignoring those other aspects of it, my more favorable, hopeful aspects of it from that list are:

R1 Religion as non-rational engagement: - Deals with the non-rational aspects of existence such as faith, grace, etc

R2 Religion as meaningful or integrative engagement: - A functional activity of seeking meaning, truth, integration, stability, etc.

R4 Religion as evolutionary growth: - A more sophisticated concept that views history and evolution as a process towards self-realization, finding not so much an integration of current levels, but higher structures of truth towards a God-Realized Adaptation.

R7 Esoteric religion - The inward aspects of religious practices, either culminating in, or having a goal of mystical experience.


And also add R6 and R8 in there as well.​

The problem I have with these online discussions, that last group is ignored or dismissed as all R3 and R5, wishful thinking and childish illusions.

In other words, the genuinely authentic transrational, spiritual, esoteric, transformative, and transcendent aspects of religion are cynically dismissed as prerational twaddle. And that is my first and foremost complaint against these who pride themselves as critical thinkers and skeptics, while simply hand waving the rest away as prerational twaddle.

I'm going to pick up the bulk of my response a little later, so you can hold off on replying until then. I just wanted to lay this out as a groundwork and reference point, as I think it will make it easier to unpeel this complicated nut that we are dealing with here. As always, I enjoy your stimulating insights and thoughts.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
The only time I've actually laid out some of my views themselves has been the last few posts to the two other posters in the last couple days.

I know from personal experience debating with neo-atheists proves to be very much of the time, the same as debating with religious fundamentalists. It doesn't matter if they are bible-beliefs, or science-beliefs, they approach and hold and defend those beliefs with the same "believerism".

So you just directly contradicted the first claim with your risible view that atheism is a belief, and of course without even pretending to justify the false claim.

The old saying holds as true for them as any true-believer, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still".

Except atheism is not a belief, and no one and nothing has forced or coerced me to my lack of belief in imaginary deities. Unlike you of course, as all the deities you disbelieve have nothing to do with the lack of evidence, or the one you've been coerced into believing is real would have to go the same way, since you can't demonstrate any objective evidence for yours either.

If you are asking for evidence, it's right there in that paragraph. I'm stating my personal experience. The evidence is what I have experienced. I'm just reporting it as I experienced it. End of story.

So you literally can't demonstrate anything beyond the subjective claim you have experienced something? Yet this standard is not good enough for you to believe others who make that identical claim for other deities, religions, or anything rather tellingly.

If you have an actual challenge to anything I have said, please offer it.

Demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity or deities, anything beyond your unevidenced claim to have experienced one. Which of course you yourself would not and cannot accept from others who make the identical claim to have experienced an entirely different deity.
So far, what you've been demonstrating has not challenged my observations in the above paragraph.

A closed minded fundamentalists clinging doggedly to their subjective bias, is hardly a sound argument they are justified in doing so.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Churches welcome everyone. They aren't there to argue... they are there to offer salvation to those who choose to respond.
Except for the Catholic Church I was just in last week for a wedding.
When it came time for communion they told us that if you ain't Catholic, you can't take communion - just stay in your seat and wait til all the Catholics are done eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood. I remember thinking, but what if I were suddenly struck by God at that very moment and filled with the holy spirit? I guess I'd be out of luck. :shrug:
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Except for the Catholic Church I was just in last week for a wedding.
When it came time for communion they told us that if you ain't Catholic, you can't take communion - just stay in your seat and wait til all the Catholics are done eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood. I remember thinking, but what if I were suddenly struck by God at that very moment and filled with the holy spirit? I guess I'd be out of luck. :shrug:
That's hardly the same as being unwelcome in the church.
Communion is a Christian sacrament, after all so why would a non-Christian want to partake of it?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I would define nonexistent as non-reality

I had written, "What are the qualities of the nonexistent that distinguish it from reality?" in response to your comment, "I wouldn't go so far as to say what is undetectable to us, is non-existent." Do you think this answers that?

I'll answer. The characteristics of existent (real) objects and processes are that they can affect and be affected by other existent things in space and time. Reality is defined as the collection of such things. Unreal things lack all of those qualities.

I only make a point about something not being detectable in reference to the tools of science and reason, which some seem to decide is the only one true measure of truth

I excluded that with, "Undetectable in this context means undetectable in principle, not merely contingently undetectable waiting for the right machine in the right place to detect it."

That does not mean it is nonexistent because it transcends reason

Nothing transcends reason regarding what is true about the world. Nonrational conscious experience is important, such as sensing beauty or brightness, or passion or fear. But in the area of deciding what is true about the world, it is counterproductive. We want to stick to strict empiricism, or the process of applying valid reasoning to the evidence of the senses to arrive at sound conclusion. Any other path to a belief yields unsupported belief, or faith, which is not a path to truth. I should add that I define truth as the quality all facts and only facts possess, facts being sentences that accurately map some aspect of reality.

Would you agree with this, or do you believe that science alone is the true measure of all reality?

Empiricism, or the rational evaluation of the evidence of the senses, is the only path to demonstrable truth, which is redundant as I define the word truth. If it isn't demonstrably true, one shouldn't call it true in any sense. This need not be done in a laboratory or observatory. Daily life does this. We learn about reality from experience, knowledge that can be used to predict outcomes. Once again, if an idea can't do that - say creationism or alchemy - it shouldn't be called truth, fact, or knowledge.

1. Religion as non-rational engagement:
- Deals with the non-rational aspects of existence such as faith, grace, etc.

Faith is not a path to truth, nor a virtue, and grace in the religious sense has no demonstrable referent, just like angels. These are among the tools used to ensnare those willing to believe without sufficient evidence. Faith is the words used to ask you to believe something that can't be demonstrated, and to imply that such thinking is a virtue. Grace is the loophole, and the implication that one needs forgiveness just for being born human, also part of the faith-based pronouncements that altogether are intended to increase the wealth and influence of the church.

Regarding the rest of that list, is this an argument by the source or you that religion provides a valuable societal function? I don't see any benefit to religions like Islam and Christianity except to kings and priests and their modern counterparts. It is my opinion that if both of those religions were not taught again and they disappeared from the world as believers died and were replaced by unbelievers, that there would be much societal benefit and no loss.

But I do see religion as a vehicle for those on a spiritual path as a guide to higher Self-realization, through symbols, metaphors, myths, principles or philosophies, and practices. I internalize many of these as spiritual attitudes for living, which lead to fuller Self-realization, or spiritual awakening or connectedness with that ultimate Reality, or Ground of Being.

What does that have to do with religion, or god beliefs, or holy books? Those things are generally impediments to self-awareness and self-actualization. Christianity teaches that you are born spiritually sick and fit for perdition, and that one is entirely dependent on its gods - the opposite of humanism, which promotes human development and celebrates human potential.

I'm curious why you praise religion and assign it such capabilities, but don't participate in it. The reason I don't is because it is of no benefit to me. My needs are met without it, which makes me independent of religion, and prevents me dedicating resources to religious belief. I spend no time reading holy book, or praying, or listening to sermons, and who knows how much money I saved not giving it to churches, which I would consider worse than wasted, since it would be used to support and promote religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What's the difference in terms of transmitting cultural values apart from the supernaturalism, which makes all the difference in how these stories can be used.
Picking up where I left off in my previous response, before taking on your responding to my "Uses of the word Religion" post, which was intended as a point of reference, not a debate topic. To clarify, those are common and accepted uses of the word religion, the areas that religion itself touches into and deals with, etc.. So in a discussion, it is useful, practical, and wise to differentiate what exactly we are using the term religion to speak of.

In this above use of religion, you are primarily focused on religion as a vehicle of cultural transmission of values and ideals. That is the R8 definition of religion from that common use list I posted. What makes it religion fall into those other areas beyond just R8 religion, is how it is actually being used that falls outside that general description. When religion is being used for one's own personal spiritual transformation, that is beyond the domain of cultural myths.

While it may use the symbols that are common to the culture, how those symbols are being used is NOT as a matter of group identification, as in shared cultural myths. Rather they are being used, as Carl Jung described them as "symbols of transformation". Archetypal forms has to do with the subconscious of the individual. Now while these symbols permeate our cultures, when one is on a journey of introspection, of self-transcendence, these become vehicles for that subconscious mind to communicate higher level realizations. There is a reason these forms appear throughout human cultures.

Furthermore, aside from the esoteric aspects of religion, the R7 and R9 definitions of religion, it can also be a place for escapism, or not dealing with life and reality or the subconscious mind. It can be used in regressive, spiritually avoidance ways, where "true believerism" replaces authentic spiritual practices, which confront the existential fears of life and death. "God promised me I don't have to face death", is escapism. That too is a way religion is understood and used.

The challenge I see, as I said at the outset, is you appear to be conflating all these different aspects of religion under the "skeptic's" umbrella, which dismisses or disallows any valid, legitimate, or authentic use of religion. It's that that I take issue with, from a rational, critical thinking, and academic perspective.

That's why I put "skeptic" in quotes. Because it's really not truly rational. It's simply fault-finding which has to explain away or minimize aspects of religion that don't fit that negative view of it. I compare that on some level to evolution deniers who downplay the fossil evidence.

Once again, the difference between a psychological (scientific) approach to the self and a religious one gives the religion a hostage.
How so? You know that the tools of psychology can also be used to manipulate and exploit human beings, the same ways that religious symbols and sentiments can? Politics manipulate people all the time by exploiting their psychologies. Ever hear of psychological warfare?

Now regarding the scientific approach of psychology, the same can apply to religion as well. When you understand that religious symbolism does in fact touch into human psychology, as is intimately entwined with spirituality, to the point you should rightly call it "psychospiritual", then you are not just jettosing reason and "just believing". In fact, that is my very point. When I speak of religion, I am looking at it very much from a rational understanding as a "psycho-spiritual" technology, so to speak.


It's not about humility. It's about meekness. One can be humble yet strong, assertive, passionate, and courageous. He just isn't bragging about it. You seem humble, but not meek.
Again, this really surprises me to hear an interpretation of the beatitudes like this. Even though I was part of a literalist, fundamentalist group in my youth, I personally never read being "meek" as submissive to the will of authorities, or governments, or rulers, and such.

The word "meek", really means being gentle, or non-aggressive. Be non-violent, in other words. It does not mean being a submissive pushover, or a doormat for others. It's easy to refute such an misunderstanding of this, by simply looking at the portrait of Jesus the gospel authors created. He directly refers to himself a "meek", but clearly his behaviors with others was anything but submissive and complaint, and easily ruled over by them! :)

I mean seriously. I'm no religious apologist here, but this is just obvious to me rationally speaking. The only "submission" you see Jesus doing, is in regard to the Will of God. And that's not a problem from a spiritual perspective. After all, spiritual transformation is about transcending the ego, your own desires of self-interest and greed, and such.

To submit to that "higher power", is in fact part and parcel with self-transcendence. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with becoming a pushover for others in life. That's just a inconsistent misreading of it. If that's what the authors meant, they sure didn't show Jesus living his life as if that's what he meant by it.

I think you reject these cynical interpretations out of hand. You don't rebut them, you just contradict them. Please explain why this interpretation isn't correct and yours is. I've given specific reasons to prefer mine.
I can and do rebut them, just as I did above about the misuse of the word meek in context of the beatitudes. It really just means gentle, as opposed to forceful. We should be gentle with others, and be non-violent. (Non-violent resistance is what Jesus taught, not pacifism).

I have said that I do acknowledge that someone can interpret these things cynically, of course. They easily lend themselves to that. I made a strong point about that watershed point, the continental divide reference, where a drop of water hits that one point, and can either go to one side of the continent to the Pacific ocean, or the other and the Atlantic ocean. That watershed point is the human ego.

If we look at it from the ego, we hear the ego and see the ego, and then the ego runs with it for the ego and its own self-interests. That is the 'cynical' perspective. And it's not just the anti-theist branch of atheism that does this, but religionists themselves. I consider fundamentalist, Christian Nationalists type believers, to have cynical understandings of scripture too, rather through their self-serving egos.

But the other side of that watershed is the spiritual perspective, meaning transcending the ego. It's a different set of eyes through which one sees and hears, quite literally speaking. Understood in that context, that drop of water heads off in the opposite direction which does not see things like "control of others" to be the message.

Again, both the anti-theist atheist, and the uber-conservative readers see the same thing. A way to control others. The former rightly sees its a negative. The latter selfishly seize upon it as a positive. I say both are a cynical view of the teachings. They are Wisdom teachings, but if the eyes of the ego that seeks self-power, reads them, it sees itself reflected on the pages.

Now to head this off at the outset, I'm am not claiming there is one "right interpretation", as I do not believe there is only one correct way to interpret these things. That in fact is the power of them. That is the power of a good mythology. But I am saying, that the are correct and incorrect approaches to interpreting them.

And even the tool of rationality itself can be used to understand this, without the benefit of a contemplative perspective in hand. They were not written for the purpose of controlling others. That would not stand up to an internal or external scrutiny. They are categorically speaking, Wisdom teachings.
 
Last edited:
Top