Santa V God

[juantoo3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Almost, the only difference is that I am right Muhahahahahaha

Suit yourself.

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

 

[seattlegal]

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

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​

 

[Netti-Netti]

... 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.

The central tenet of atheism - that there is no G-d is mere dogma. Where is there a place for "evidence" with regard to this issue?

Religions have wreaked havoc, but how dare these dirty little atheist heathens point it out!!

Atheism has wreaked havoc, especially in the 20th century. Are you saying atheism should't be held to the same standard you are holding religion to?

 

[17th Angel]

Cannot escape

 

[greymare]

Im sorry, Netti but how has Aetheism wreaked havoc?? (Im not being a smart arse, im just ignorant to this particular theory)

 

[Netti-Netti]

You try to impose a restriction of definition that suits your purpose.

Again, you agreed with me (and Thomas) that the existence of G-d cannot be disconfirmed. Has that changed?

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

How is this different from saying that one should convict people of crimes with nothing more than flimsy circumstantial evidence or even made-up evidence?

It is you who makes arbitary decisions about what evidence matters. Here is another example:

books like the Celestine Prophecy or Tao te ching may very well be still sells millions of copies.

Isn't Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" a best seller in the UK? (And don't you have a copy?)

The Celestine Prophecy or Tao te ching have nothing to do with a monotheistic G-d concept. Likewise, the fact that there is a market for them has nothing to do with the cultural transmission of doctrines concerned with a traditional monotheistic G-d (the focus of your original question).


New Age philosophy is not religion. In fact, that is a common criticism of the newage movement in general and the Celestine Prophecy in particular:

Through the teaching of New Age spirituality and moral relativism, we've removed God from the potential answers to the ultimate questions of life. Without God, we lose any transcendent purpose for the universe in which we live. Without God, we lose any transcendent purpose to give meaning to our individual lives. Without God, we also lose any possibility for life after death. When you remove the hope of heaven, you remove the ultimate value and purpose of life.​

Source: Celestine Prophecy


People explore their spirituality in many ways. I suspect there are several people on this board who dabble in the occult in the sense of reading about it. That does't mean they practice divination or sorcery. Nor does it mean that occult philosophies become their religion.

My point, friend Tao, is that you see "evidence" where you want to see it.

 

[17th Angel]

Im sorry, Netti but how has Aetheism wreaked havoc?? (Im not being a smart arse, im just ignorant to this particular theory)

You think only half of mankind is to blame for the worlds ways?

 

[Netti-Netti]

Im sorry, Netti but how has Aetheism wreaked havoc?? (Im not being a smart arse, im just ignorant to this particular theory)

Communism, an atheist ideology, is responsible for millions of deaths (according to one estimate 150 million) and the wholesale destruction of culture.

 

[greymare]

You think only half of mankind is to blame for the worlds ways?

so, is half the world athiest??? Did they do a poll and I missed out??

Lives have been lost because of religion and because of greed and because of power and because of humans being evil enough to think they can control everything.......................can we agree on that??

 

[seattlegal]

so, is half the world athiest??? Did they do a poll and I missed out??

Lives have been lost because of religion and because of greed and because of power and because of humans being evil enough to think they can control everything.......................can we agree on that??

Greymare, check out this chart:
(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:.

How many can be described as religious? How many can be described as irreligious? How many involve institutionalized religion? How many involve institutionalized atheism? Look at the body count numbers, and compare the counts that can be ascribed to institutionalized religion, to institutionalized atheism, and the irreligious ones. Look at the dates the atrocities took place, and compare the 20th century counts to the rest of history, then come to your own conclusion.

 

[Tao_Equus]

The central tenet of atheism - that there is no G-d is mere dogma. Where is there a place for "evidence" with regard to this issue?

Like I said there are more ways than one to approach proof. You still doggedly try to stick to proving or disproving God despite me now having said several times I do not care about that question. What I focus on, that which can be studied and the facts discerned, is the validity of belief in man himself. This is the last time I say it.

Atheism has wreaked havoc, especially in the 20th century. Are you saying atheism should't be held to the same standard you are holding religion to?

Absolute bollocks. There has never been an atheist fought war in the course of human history. The Nazi's were Catholic, they attended Catholic services, got married and baptised in the Catholic church by Catholic priests who saw nothing wrong with giving the Nazi salute. Stalin, the worst paranoid of that century, had no ideology except holding power entirely for himself. Likewise with Mao, it was about absolute power for him and not an atheism run riot. A core part of my argument is that it is the cultural acceptance of religion that allows dogma's or ideologies to gain too much power. It matters not whether that dogma is Islam or communism, the tenet of my point still holds the same.

I am getting tired of refuting these same old assertions time and time again.

tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Again, you agreed with me (and Thomas) that the existence of G-d cannot be disconfirmed. Has that changed?

I am not rewriting it all again. Read back through.

How is this different from saying that one should convict people of crimes with nothing more than flimsy circumstantial evidence or even made-up evidence?

You can call the studies of countless scientists working in many fields of endeavour over many decades only capable of 'making it up' or finding only circumstantial evidence. I do not. I trust that those people were searching for truth. I trust that the findings they presented were the truth, and peer reviewed to confirm they were the truth. It is theology that makes things up, not science.

It is you who makes arbitary decisions about what evidence matters. Here is another example:

I made the statement that New Age is big business, so what are you talking about?

Isn't Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" a best seller in the UK? (And don't you have a copy?)

Yes it was a best-seller, and I have little doubt it was theists that made it so. I did have one, terribly written very boring book.

The Celestine Prophecy or Tao te ching have nothing to do with a monotheistic G-d concept. Likewise, the fact that there is a market for them has nothing to do with the cultural transmission of doctrines concerned with a traditional monotheistic G-d (the focus of your original question).

So why did you bring up new age religions?

New Age philosophy is not religion.

Perhaps not yet, as I already said, but it is still tantamount to one.

My point, friend Tao, is that you see "evidence" where you want to see it.

My point would be is that I answer your every question but you never listen to the answers.

tao