Santa V God

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Bandit,

... and thanx for a post that had I not started the thread, and so play devils advocate, I may have posted myself. If there were a poll with this thread on keeping Santa my vote would without hesitation be yes. And for all the good reasons you stated. In truth I do not think the connections between Santa and any religious belief are particularly striking. I think the question really centres more on adults and the belief they have in deity. As children we can be excused for believing in the implausible but as adults to believe in the God that the religions invent is frankly ridiculous. I think it a sad indictment on not only collective human intelligence but more profoundly on human maturity.

do you mean like those religions that put bumper stickers on their car that say HONK if you are saved? & HONK if you love Jesus? or the mary mother of god statue on the dash board? then they cut you off & give you the middle finger?

Yes exactly that. And idiots like Tony Blair that go on about their religion but can so openly and obviously be seen to have been bribed into sanctioning the deaths of so many innocent people. And flag waving Republicans that swoon and go weak at the knees when Bush points to the sky and says the Big Guy Upstairs is on 'our' side. All the insidious rot that belief in deity brings. All the hypocrisy, deceit and manipulation that people give their sanction to by simply not thinking for themselves, by being too chicken to challenge the status quo and standing on their own feet. It is depressing, thoroughly depressing. It is all fair and well to say some people need a God to believe in, but is that right? Would they not be far better off believing in themselves, that they have the answers to their problems, hopes and ambitions and that they do not have to recite mumbo jumbo and pay a tax to the clergy to do so. Religion is in so many respects for the lazy, for the self pitying and for the cowards who want it all but are unwilling to face reality. Reality is beautiful and dangerous but in facing and in overcoming the dangers the beauty gets multiplied, life rewards those that go out and live.

Most of all for me this is about the children. Our children. Our children's children. We all want them to enjoy a happy childhood but surely we all want them to go up strong, truthful, ambitious and to not repeat our legion of mistakes. So why the hell do we indoctrinate them to be destined to be nothing but clones of ourselves. I want my children to have a realistic hope that their children will inherit a better world. Of all the things that are contrary to that aim religion stands out tall.

You dont reach 42 years old without a number of people having described their spiritual experiences to you. I grew up in a Christian society too, with all its crazy sectarian divisions, and I know what people are describing to me because I have had identical experiences. For most of my life I was unsure as to whether they were truly indicative of God or not and I was open to that possibility. But I have now recognised that the human experience includes feelings of a spiritual nature but they are just that and no more, part of the human experience. As I said earlier in the thread, the Universe itself may be a living thing, but that does not matter. To me Gaia is undoubtedly a living organism, but that too has nothing to do with religious deity. Neither care one flying fig for any individual. Thats just not how any living system works. You can pray an icon till your gills are green it will make no difference. So religion is fraudulent. Pure and simple.

Well I did not mean to turn this into a rant, started out as a quick reply...but there we go. I've said my piece, again.


Tao

 

[Paladin]

What I'd really like to see is a thread that talks about the rich inner life that an atheist can lead. For the most part I get the feeling that those with religious leanings think that deep inner experiences come only to those who believe in a God or gods.
So toward that end let's hear from the agnostic/atheist crowd and start some understanding of what it means to simply be human and the experience of actuality as it is.

 

[cyberpi]

That we do not need religion. We do not need God. And that we need to take responsibility and kudos for and encourage human kindness.

The word 'need' reveals to me selfishness. The word 'we' reveals to me a lack of respect or understanding that the will and the values of myself or others can be different. It is a feeble assertion, and unintended perhaps, but it still reveals to me the underlying architecture of those words within the mind. Where you might claim virtue in the absence of God, I see the evidence of a lack of it.

Whether or not I or anyone needs God, I have seen that there is a will present among us that is not confined to the flesh, and that has a power that exceeds people. I refer to that will as God. I have consciously interacted with that will only a little. Am I comforted by the fact that the will exists... yes, but only as God is good. If the will were not then I would be somewhat opposed in protest. That you say you do not need God seems to me an assertion in itself, kind of like a child saying that he does not need any parents or friends or neighbors. I suppose that it could be possible, but I question the authenticity of the remark if it were truly believed that they do not even exist.

 

[Tao_Equus]

What I'd really like to see is a thread that talks about the rich inner life that an atheist can lead. For the most part I get the feeling that those with religious leanings think that deep inner experiences come only to those who believe in a God or gods.
So toward that end let's hear from the agnostic/atheist crowd and start some understanding of what it means to simply be human and the experience of actuality as it is.

That is a good idea but I have the suspicion that such a thread would be very short. When you strip that aspect of the human condition of the superfluous trappings of religion you come down to love, wonder and awe. More the realm of the poet than the philosopher.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

The word 'need' reveals to me selfishness. The word 'we' reveals to me a lack of respect or understanding that the will and the values of myself or others can be different. It is a feeble assertion, and unintended perhaps, but it still reveals to me the underlying architecture of those words within the mind. Where you might claim virtue in the absence of God, I see the evidence of a lack of it.

Whether or not I or anyone needs God, I have seen that there is a will present among us that is not confined to the flesh, and that has a power that exceeds people. I refer to that will as God. I have consciously interacted with that will only a little. Am I comforted by the fact that the will exists... yes, but only as God is good. If the will were not then I would be somewhat opposed in protest. That you say you do not need God seems to me an assertion in itself, kind of like a child saying that he does not need any parents or friends or neighbors. I suppose that it could be possible, but I question the authenticity of the remark if it were truly believed that they do not even exist.

You can pick it apart and define my words how you see fit. But beyond that I think you know what I mean. Religion is holding us back in the dark ages, not pushing us toward new horizons. Religions have traditionally been about just that, tradition. Old fashioned conservative ideologues. If we cannot learn from our mistakes then we are doomed to repeat them.

Tao

 

[Bandit]

Hi Bandit,

... and thanx for a post that had I not started the thread, and so play devils advocate, I may have posted myself. If there were a poll with this thread on keeping Santa my vote would without hesitation be yes. And for all the good reasons you stated. In truth I do not think the connections between Santa and any religious belief are particularly striking. I think the question really centres more on adults and the belief they have in deity. As children we can be excused for believing in the implausible but as adults to believe in the God that the religions invent is frankly ridiculous. I think it a sad indictment on not only collective human intelligence but more profoundly on human maturity.

I must agree. It really is amazing in certain ways how each religion has invented its own god & then through that invention goes on to define it, something that cannot be defined. Then continue to make up their own rules with an ounce of charity to make it look right. Time has changed the way people are viewing religion & more & more people want out of it all together so that is a good thing, IMO.


I wonder to a degree if everyone wants to believe & continue to believe in something like Santa because it seems so perfect & though fairy tale land and superheroes have one glitch where they can fail, it still always ends perfect & happy ever after (and maybe that is what we really want?), however relgion does NOT end happy & actually leaves you to drown if you are not careful.

Maybe people hide behind their fairy tale religions because they do not know any better & like you have said before, they are told to believe it as a child so they go thru all of life without actually thinking or realizing just whatever the pope says yet the popes never agree & just make it up as they go along...should we keep feeding the staues & painted stone dolls communion bread? and should we keep kissing them as if they are really hearing us?

eek!

Yes exactly that. And idiots like Tony Blair that go on about their religion but can so openly and obviously be seen to have been bribed into sanctioning the deaths of so many innocent people. And flag waving Republicans that swoon and go weak at the knees when Bush points to the sky and says the Big Guy Upstairs is on 'our' side. All the insidious rot that belief in deity brings. All the hypocrisy, deceit and manipulation that people give their sanction to by simply not thinking for themselves, by being too chicken to challenge the status quo and standing on their own feet. It is depressing, thoroughly depressing. It is all fair and well to say some people need a God to believe in, but is that right? Would they not be far better off believing in themselves, that they have the answers to their problems, hopes and ambitions and that they do not have to recite mumbo jumbo and pay a tax to the clergy to do so. Religion is in so many respects for the lazy, for the self pitying and for the cowards who want it all but are unwilling to face reality. Reality is beautiful and dangerous but in facing and in overcoming the dangers the beauty gets multiplied, life rewards those that go out and live.

That is well put with good examples. When there are 5 billion people who want your leader dead & 80% of your own country want him dead, yet the Bush failure still believes he & his god are on track. LOL! That is how the religious right & the 'moral' majority of the falwell and robertson klan and let us not forget the royal cheney, who somehow think they are it, when they are not it at all, but choking on their own greed, lies & power hungry nobles who need to be taken the same gallows they take the enemies they create. Maybe that particular crowd is simply using the god idea as a crutch to get their personal agendas accomplished? well of course. When the lies are stacked up so high that books cannot contain them.....

Most of all for me this is about the children. Our children. Our children's children. We all want them to enjoy a happy childhood but surely we all want them to go up strong, truthful, ambitious and to not repeat our legion of mistakes. So why the hell do we indoctrinate them to be destined to be nothing but clones of ourselves. I want my children to have a realistic hope that their children will inherit a better world. Of all the things that are contrary to that aim religion stands out tall.

They will make the same mistakes just because that is what humans do. I don't see any way of stopping that. Some people do what you say & make clones but I know some who just feel that everyone needs a belief of some kind (because human nature requires it) (?) & if they change to a different belief then it is ok. For some reason I just dont see a better world on the horizon & it will probably just be the same as it ever was in all of history, that is if humans do not destroy the globe first, which is increasingly possible.

You dont reach 42 years old without a number of people having described their spiritual experiences to you. I grew up in a Christian society too, with all its crazy sectarian divisions, and I know what people are describing to me because I have had identical experiences. For most of my life I was unsure as to whether they were truly indicative of God or not and I was open to that possibility. But I have now recognised that the human experience includes feelings of a spiritual nature but they are just that and no more, part of the human experience. As I said earlier in the thread, the Universe itself may be a living thing, but that does not matter. To me Gaia is undoubtedly a living organism, but that too has nothing to do with religious deity. Neither care one flying fig for any individual. Thats just not how any living system works. You can pray an icon till your gills are green it will make no difference. So religion is fraudulent. Pure and simple.

Some say deity, others call it love, others call it something else & define it as whatever.... I dont call it anything any more because nothing & no man can explain it. Sometimes it is there & sometimes it is absent. I find it in nature & often in repentence & worship but Gaia can reveal itself in many ways or not at all. Humans try to define something that cannot be defined and along the way create fraudulent religions, some of upmost lies, fear & greed to feed the religion. They really do bounce off of fears & superstitions to keep the religion alive. Is it love? Not my idea of love.


Any honest person will tell you that there have been times when they question if it exists. I question the character of such & rightfully will continue that. They will say God is Love yet I wonder how such a loving powerful thing continues to do as it wishes with no regard for the innocent leaving the Boosh type religions all through history to rule while harming millions. Maybe you are right, there are times when neither care one flying fig for the individuals. Perhaps that is sovereignty & why Boosh Balognas do what they do? Pretty sad but that is reality.

What if this Gaia broke off into many pieces & each human is one piece of the Gaia? Kind of like mass smashing into billions & billions of pieces & keeps trying to collect itself back together into one piece? And maybe one day that will happen? In the meantime it is still trying to figure out how to do that as to why we see so much corruption and inconsistency along the way and at other times, far and few between, we make real connections with people. Just something I have wondered about.

Well I did not mean to turn this into a rant, started out as a quick reply...but there we go. I've said my piece, again.


Tao

Me too.

 

[cyberpi]

You can pick it apart and define my words how you see fit. But beyond that I think you know what I mean. Religion is holding us back in the dark ages, not pushing us toward new horizons. Religions have traditionally been about just that, tradition. Old fashioned conservative ideologues. If we cannot learn from our mistakes then we are doomed to repeat them.

Tao

Education is likewise tradition, passed down from generation to generation. If you consider religion a tradition of mistakes, and you wish to learn from mistakes, then best it is kept around so that you can learn from them. Yet you wish to abolish it.

What is very interesting to me is that you claim the information of a religion is causal... yet you claim that people learn from mistakes. So which is it, the people or the tradition... that is causing?

What I'd really like to see is a thread that talks about the rich inner life that an atheist can lead. For the most part I get the feeling that those with religious leanings think that deep inner experiences come only to those who believe in a God or gods.
So toward that end let's hear from the agnostic/atheist crowd and start some understanding of what it means to simply be human and the experience of actuality as it is.

Inner life? It seems to me the common claim is that those who seek God have a richer external life... and more lasting.

 

[Snoopy]

So toward that end let's hear from the agnostic/atheist crowd

We have crowds here Paladin?!!

To link together atheism and agnosticism is a common enough thing but I wonder if it’s appropriate? I’m reminded of the words of Stephen Batchelor on the subject (which I’ve referred to before). It’s a bit of a lengthy quote but it makes up for my general inability to write long posts. As you might expect there are references to Buddhism but that does not detract from the relevancy to this thread I think.

(PS Don’t even get me started on ignosticism and nontheism…!)

s.



“For TH Huxley, who coined the term in 1869, agnosticism was as demanding as any moral, philosophical, or religious creed. Rather than a creed, though, he saw it as a method realised through the rigorous application of a single principle. He expressed this positively as “Follow your reason as far as it will take you”, and negatively as “Do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”

First and foremost the Buddha taught a method (“dharma practice”) rather than another “-ism.” The dharma is not something to believe in but something to do. Historically, Buddhism has tended to lose its agnostic dimension through becoming institutionalised as a religion (i.e. a revealed belief system valid for all time, controlled by an elite body of priests).

Consequently, as the dharma emigrates westward, it is treated as a religion – albeit an “Eastern” one. The very term “Buddhism” reinforces the idea that it is a creed to be lined up alongside other creeds. Christians in particular seek to enter dialogue with their Buddhist brethren, often as part of a broader agenda to find common ground with “those of faith” to resist the sweeping tide of Godless secularism. At interfaith gatherings, Buddhists are wheeled out to present their views on everything from nuclear weapons to the ordination of women and then scheduled to drone Tibetan chants at the evening slot for collective worship.

This transformation of Buddhism into a religion obscures and distorts the encounter of the dharma with contemporary agnostic culture. The dharma might well in fact have more in common with Godless secularism than with the bastions of religion. Agnosticism may serve as a more fertile common ground for dialogue than, for example, a tortured attempt to make Buddhist sense of Allah.

An agnostic Buddhist would not regard the dharma as a source of answers to questions of where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death.

An agnostic Buddhist is not a “believer” with claims to revealed information about supernatural or paranormal phenomena, and in this sense is not “religious.”

An agnostic Buddhist eschews atheism as much as theism, and is as reluctant to regard the universe as devoid of meaning as endowed with meaning. For to deny either God or meaning is simply the antithesis of affirming them. Yet such an agnostic stance is not based on disinterest. It is founded on a passionate recognition that I do not know.”

 

[Tao_Equus]

They will make the same mistakes just because that is what humans do.


.

This is true to a large degree but the reason I would be rid of religion is that I believe it to set a precedent for doing nothing to correct this. Religion is if you like a handicap to true social evolution that is imperative if we want to replace the medievil (sic) power structures that only reward the liars and corrupt. Our world is now truly a global village with its distant corners able to talk in real time together. Religions despite their, as you put it so well, modicum of charity are far more divisive than cohesive, far more the prop of the powerful than of the people. I am not so green as to imagine that religion is the only problem or that being rid of it would solve all others but being rid of the biggest conditioner for accepting lies would benefit us. In some ways it reminds me of cigarette/nicotine addiction. We know that it is harmful but we set up structures of justification anyway.


tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Education is likewise tradition, passed down from generation to generation. If you consider religion a tradition of mistakes, and you wish to learn from mistakes, then best it is kept around so that you can learn from them. Yet you wish to abolish it.

What is very interesting to me is that you claim the information of a religion is causal... yet you claim that people learn from mistakes. So which is it, the people or the tradition... that is causing?

Our textbooks teach empirical knowledge for the purpose of broadening the mind. Religion teaches fanciful supposition, suppresses logical scrutiny and imposes a top down dogma. If the people are poisoned and given the addiction from birth then they know nothing else. We put age restrictions on tobacco and alcohol to protect our children, yet we are allowed, nay encouraged, to give them the opium of the masses. Go figure.

Inner life? It seems to me the common claim is that those who seek God have a richer external life... and more lasting.

Smokers claim they enjoy it, their lives are not richer or longer lasting for it.

tao

 

[Bandit]

This is true to a large degree but the reason I would be rid of religion is that I believe it to set a precedent for doing nothing to correct this. Religion is if you like a handicap to true social evolution that is imperative if we want to replace the medievil (sic) power structures that only reward the liars and corrupt. Our world is now truly a global village with its distant corners able to talk in real time together. Religions despite their, as you put it so well, modicum of charity are far more divisive than cohesive, far more the prop of the powerful than of the people. I am not so green as to imagine that religion is the only problem or that being rid of it would solve all others but being rid of the biggest conditioner for accepting lies would benefit us. In some ways it reminds me of cigarette/nicotine addiction. We know that it is harmful but we set up structures of justification anyway.


tao

I understand and am in complete agreement. It is really a horrible thing. You have good insight to what is really happening that can only come from actually seeing all this from a distance & in this particular case, distance is good! The only thing is what we both see and just want to make sure, is it has to happen on its own & not with force because doing it through a communistic approach is just as bad. Yes?

I am not sure why it takes the public so long to figure out they have been lied to (in both religion & politics) but do you think it has to do with many of us being raised to not be able to distinguish fact from faith? IN other words, the religions preach/brainwash their beliefs as absolute fact & therefore they do not know how to acknowledge or understand there is a difference between fact & faith?
Or do you think they just keep using all that to keep their global powers?
I mean you have to be a very good double talking liar these days if you want to win an election because it is as if people are not interested in honesty & will believe anything but the facts. ROFL!

I totally see where you are coming from with religion being the biggest conditioner to accept the lies. This is the second beast that gives power to the first beast & has been going on since forever. Funny how that works.

It is like an addiction or handicap, a crutch that so many do not know how to walk on their own, a very hard habit to break, but first the people have to ackowledge its stronghold, as we both have. It kills & divides people while all along thinking train wrecks are good for us. Those removing the structures as in rejecting the religions are more prominent & at large numbers than ever before (approaching the 4th largest group). While these still hold beliefs they do reject the structures and have abolished them for themselves. More will figure it out in good time, so we are making some progress for the better in that respect. Cutting off the second, two headed beast is not easy and each person will have to do it for themselves.

I do think we are on the same page with all of this, but express it a little different.

 

[Snoopy]

More the realm of the poet than the philosopher.

Yes, perhaps more the realm of the poet rather than the Western philosopher. Given that reality is not something abstract and so cannot be grasped with words, it is surely appropriate for a philosopher to use whatever means possible to try (and ultimately fail) to “get the job done.” This is why I think one finds that in Eastern philosophy you may find subjective, objective and poetical approaches, often within one paragraph.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

That is a good idea but I have the suspicion that such a thread would be very short. When you strip that aspect of the human condition of the superfluous trappings of religion you come down to love, wonder and awe.

Yet somehow this site has struggled to (currently) over superfluous 145,000 posts

s.

 

[Paladin]

That is a good idea but I have the suspicion that such a thread would be very short. When you strip that aspect of the human condition of the superfluous trappings of religion you come down to love, wonder and awe. More the realm of the poet than the philosopher.

Tao

Oh I don't know, many threads can go on for some time as they wander away from the OP. And besides, I have a feeling you could hold your own on the poet side as well as philosopher.

 

[Paladin]

We have crowds here Paladin?!!

To link together atheism and agnosticism is a common enough thing but I wonder if it’s appropriate? I’m reminded of the words of Stephen Batchelor on the subject (which I’ve referred to before). It’s a bit of a lengthy quote but it makes up for my general inability to write long posts. As you might expect there are references to Buddhism but that does not detract from the relevancy to this thread I think.

(PS Don’t even get me started on ignosticism and nontheism…!)

s.

As I understand it, you only need three to qualify as a crowd


Thanks for the Batchelor quote, I really enjoy his work along with people like Tony Parsons, Jan Kersschot, and Jeff Foster.
I still maintain that it is in the best interest of the religious to keep the individual from contacting actuality directly without the baggage of a self propped up by dogma. Even Buddhism has a tendency to do this as you point out.
Notice how quickly the religious people are to react when it is suggested that all their religious striving is only to avoid the terror of existential angst.

 

[seattlegal]

As I understand it, you only need three to qualify as a crowd


Thanks for the Batchelor quote, I really enjoy his work along with people like Tony Parsons, Jan Kersschot, and Jeff Foster.
I still maintain that it is in the best interest of the religious to keep the individual from contacting actuality directly without the baggage of a self propped up by dogma. Even Buddhism has a tendency to do this as you point out.
Notice how quickly the religious people are to react when it is suggested that all their religious striving is only to avoid the terror of existential angst.

Say it isn't so, Paladin!

 

[Snoopy]

Thanks for the Batchelor quote, I really enjoy his work along with people like Tony Parsons, Jan Kersschot, and Jeff Foster.

Look, I enjoy reading your posts but just when I've finally beaten my reading list down into single figures...then BAM you come along with some more. Cut it out!!!

In retaliation: Michael Leutchford.

s.

 

[cyberpi]

I am a witness testifying counter to the atheists: God is real, living, and discoverable.

Our textbooks teach empirical knowledge for the purpose of broadening the mind. Religion teaches fanciful supposition, suppresses logical scrutiny and imposes a top down dogma.

My point exactly... do people teach, or do textbooks teach? You've got the textbook as being causal. Do you not choose from the information?

Smokers claim they enjoy it, their lives are not richer or longer lasting for it.

Yes good point: leading a life that feels richer internally may corrupt the life externally.

Notice how quickly the religious people are to react when it is suggested that all their religious striving is only to avoid the terror of existential angst.

I would say intellectual curiosity of existence played a role... I've never had your terror of existential angst. It seems that you really want the religious to merely be avoiding an alleged terror. You would have to describe this terror since you are the one who has experienced and defined it. Or... do you merely define and suggest things that you've never personally experienced?

 

[Paladin]

I would say intellectual curiosity of existence played a role... I've never had your terror of existential angst. It seems that you really want the religious to merely be avoiding an alleged terror. You would have to describe this terror since you are the one who has experienced and defined it. Or... do you merely define and suggest things that you've never personally experienced?

Your swift response seems to validate my point, but regardless, you say you have never experienced existential angst? Then good for you, congratulations on having sufficiently insulated yourself from the idea that you can "strut and fret your hour upon the stage..."

 

[wil]

lookee what I found on interfaith.org

May 16, 2008
Religious Education contravenes children’s human rights

by David Masters

A committee of MPs has released a report contending that forcing school children to engage in religious acts of worship and religious education classes could constitute a breach of their human rights. The report from the cross-party joint committee on human rights states that any child of 'sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding' should have the right to opt out of religious ...