Santa V God

[Tao_Equus]

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.

I am not used to people agreeing with me so much.... is this a trick ?

 

[cyberpi]

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..."

No, I don't think I have ever experienced your existential angst, especially not with any degree of terror. Can you describe it in further detail? Would a person with their life threatened experience it? Would a coward have existential angst? Would a fear of death be the existential angst? What exactly is this terror of existential angst that you've defined and attributed to others?

 

[Tao_Equus]

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.

This is why I have had a volume of the writings of Lao Tzu for longer than any other book I own. Poetry, wisdom and philosophy combined without religion. (Though there are those that make it one). But it is no panacea and it has to be remembered that from the same origins we also have that textbook found to this day in any military academy of note, "The Art of War".

The reasons I have steered away from western style Buddhism is because (a) I always saw it almost as the bastard child of Taoism (with the addition of icons and the other paraphernalia of religion), (b) it is the reserve of the white middle and upper classes or those aspiring to be so, (of which I do not belong) and (c) it is or has become way too complicated. But I do recognise that of all the worlds major religions this one is the most benign. I know many Buddhists. White, western ones that choose it as a lifestyle along with careful control over their consumerist impulses and all the usual gestures toward environmental issues. That sounds derogatory but it is not meant that way. I'd rather have a world full of people like that than any other. But one thing I seem to sense is how little they really laugh. Its like Buddhism "al-la-west" seems to kill the child in them. But when I was in India and Nepal the laughter there was everywhere. It was completely infectious too. And even when you see the Dalai Lama interviewed he is always laughing and joking. But here in the west... maybe its just my bad luck to have only met a secret sect of Grim Buddhists, I dont know.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

No, I don't think I have ever experienced your existential angst, especially not with any degree of terror. Can you describe it in further detail? Would a person with their life threatened experience it? Would a coward have existential angst? Would a fear of death be the existential angst? What exactly is this terror of existential angst that you've defined and attributed to others?

You know Cyberpi for a bright guy I might sometimes wonder about your ability to comprehend the simplest train of thought. But I do not.

 

[Tao_Equus]

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?

Not if you are being beaten, coerced or bribed at too young an age to comprehend. A book of botany does not use devices of trickery. It does not promise salvation or hell. It is about observable facts not about inherited superstitions. The text book is clear and unambiguous and prevents the teacher from adding fanciful interpretations. The Bible is confused, contains contradictory 'advice' and can be perverted to say whatever any crazy wants it to say. So books can be causal but they do not have to be. Usually they are tools.

But why do you keep asking me questions to which you already know the answer?

 

[cyberpi]

You know Cyberpi for a bright guy I might sometimes wonder about your ability to comprehend the simplest train of thought. But I do not.

So you have judged that I might not be bright enough to comprehend this terror of existential angst? If you are, then surely you are able to clarify for Paladin what this terror of existential angst is. Put it into more words to give it greater definition. Have you experienced it too? What exactly is it? I wish to learn more about it, so please put it into words and provide examples so that I, or someone else who has never experienced it, might comprehend it... without false assumption.

But why do you keep asking me questions to which you already know the answer?

I often have a different answer or understanding than you... so I am interested in your answer. With a terror of existential angst, I have no answer... I have not experienced it. Hopefully you or Paladin can better describe it.

 

[Tao_Equus]

So you have judged that I might not be bright enough to comprehend this terror of existential angst? If you are, then surely you are able to clarify for Paladin what this terror of existential angst is. Put it into more words to give it greater definition. Have you experienced it too? What exactly is it? I wish to learn more about it, so please put it into words and provide examples so that I, or someone else who has never experienced it, might comprehend it... without false assumption.

Well you appear to have failed to comprehend what I was saying there.

Existential angst. Well you know that certainty that you have that God exists and the comfort it brings you? Well it is like the polar opposite of that. The certainty that there is no God and death means the end. For people brought up under religious influence, and that is everybody, realising this with a profound depth of perception can be a cold, dark, hopeless place. This is that angst.

But again you ask a question to which you already knew the answer. Most curious.

 

[Paladin]

Exactly Tao. You see Cyberpi without the idea of there being a comprehensible order to life, without the concept of self and other there is a terrific void that most people don't like to face. The nice thing about religion is that it panders to the individuals sense of self and its continuity. Even the idea of "meaning" in itself is arbitrary at best. So as long as you can come up with a story in which there is a self and that self continues if it does the right things and that in the end everything will be just swell, deus ex machina as it were, you will be just fine. And, since you claim immunity you have obviously accomplished just that. Nothing wrong with that if it works for you.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

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.

I don't think that the religious can even contemplate existential angst in any personal way. You don't find out about it until you're well outside the box looking back in. You know, philosophy has a cutting edge just like technology. And philosophy, just like science, has moved beyond religion and it's medieval functionalism.

I think that a comparison analogy between fans of professional wrestling and religionists would be more accurate. I was never allowed to believe in Santa. I corrected that when I had kids!

Chris

 

[Paladin]

I dunno Chris, it would be unseemly to group people like Bishop Spong, or Thomas Merton or Br. David Steindl Rast into that group, but I hear what you're saying. I do find it hard to believe that any educated Christian would not have read Paul Tillich though.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I can't say that I really understand other people's motives when it comes to the nuts and bolts of belief. I can extrapolate from my own experience, but I'm pretty sure that most people aren't all that much like me, so I really don't know. I don't think that religion, as a set of cultural or intellectual drivers, is unique in the way it programs emotional impulses. Deconstructing the religion meme only gives us the teensiest tiny little glimpse at the clockwork of the power structure. What's truly frightening isn't the potential loss of the self and it's continuum beyond death, but rather the loss of the illusion of control.

Uh, I lost my train of thought due to my wife asking me twenty questions while I was trying to think.

Chris

 

[seattlegal]

I dunno Chris, it would be unseemly to group people like Bishop Spong, or Thomas Merton or Br. David Steindl Rast into that group, but I hear what you're saying. I do find it hard to believe that any educated Christian would not have read Paul Tillich though.

I usually stick to reading scriptures when it come to my Christianity.

When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of edu---cation
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall

Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away
~Kodachrome--Paul Simon​

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here's a quote that relates to what I was thinking.

Consider the seeming paradox of the First Cause. Science has traced events back to the Big Bang, but why did the Big Bang happen? It's all well and good to say that the zero of time begins at the Big Bang - that there is nothing before the Big Bang in the ordinary flow of minutes and hours. But saying this presumes our physical law, which itself appears highly structured; it calls out for explanation. Where did the physical laws come from? You could say that we're all a computer simulation, but then the computer simulation is running on some other world's laws of physics - where did those laws of physics come from?

At this point, some people say, "God!"

What could possibly make anyone, even a highly religious person, think this even helped answer the paradox of the First Cause? Why wouldn't you automatically ask, "Where did God come from?" Saying "God is uncaused" or "God created Himself" leaves us in exactly the same position as "Time began with the Big Bang." We just ask why the whole metasystem exists in the first place, or why some events but not others are allowed to be uncaused.

My purpose here is not to discuss the seeming paradox of the First Cause, but to ask why anyone would think "God!" could resolve the paradox. Saying "God!" is a way of belonging to a tribe, which gives people a motive to say it as often as possible - some people even say it for questions like "Why did this hurricane strike New Orleans?" Even so, you'd hope people would notice that on the particular puzzle of the First Cause, saying "God!" doesn't help. It doesn't make the paradox seem any less paradoxical even if true. How could anyone not notice this?

Jonathan Wallace suggested that "God!" functions as a semantic stopsign - that it isn't a propositional assertion, so much as a cognitive traffic signal: do not think past this point. Saying "God!" doesn't so much resolve the paradox, as put up a cognitive traffic signal to halt the obvious continuation of the question-and-answer chain.

Of course you'd never do that, being a good and proper atheist, right? But "God!" isn't the only semantic stopsign, just the obvious first example.

Overcoming Bias: Semantic Stopsigns

 

[seattlegal]

Here's a quote that relates to what I was thinking.

<...>
Jonathan Wallace suggested that "God!" functions as a semantic stopsign - that it isn't a propositional assertion, so much as a cognitive traffic signal: do not think past this point. Saying "God!" doesn't so much resolve the paradox, as put up a cognitive traffic signal to halt the obvious continuation of the question-and-answer chain.

Of course you'd never do that, being a good and proper atheist, right? But "God!" isn't the only semantic stopsign, just the obvious first example.

Overcoming Bias: Semantic Stopsigns

Interesting. Consider this Buddhist "stopsign" regarding First Cause:

Acintita Sutta (in its entirety)
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...2

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."​

It seems these "stopsigns" serve the purpose to keep us from going mad...

 

[wil]

What could possibly make anyone, even a highly religious person, think this even helped answer the paradox of the First Cause? Why wouldn't you automatically ask, "Where did God come from?" Saying "God is uncaused" or "God created Himself" leaves us in exactly the same position as "Time began with the Big Bang." We just ask why the whole metasystem exists in the first place, or why some events but not others are allowed to be uncaused.

I think that depends on your definition of G!d. If your definition is some anthropomorphic larger than life Santa that someone can sit by the right hand of, first question is what the hell is he sitting on? If your definition is G!d is all there is, then it better fills the requirement.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Muhammad the warlord and the council of regional power that came after him, and gave us the Q'uran we know today, most definitely fall into the 'corrupt religion' brackets.

Bahá’u’lláh, he founded the all things to all men religion and made a nice dynastic living out of it. I am as cynical about its founding as I am Scientology.

Going through the list we can see that it is only the last two names that can truly have claimed to have started religions.

FYI, Baha'u'llah was a Sufi Muslim. He had differences with Islam, but did he abandon it entirely and start a new religion?

Likewise, did the Prophet Muhammad start a new religion? I think not. Islam is the third of the Abrahamic traditions. It is based on Judaism and Christianity in very obvious ways. In some ways, Islam can be seen as an attempt to promote a renewed commitment to the Judeo-Christians traditions that preceded it.

Btw, Muhammad was originally a trader. He was also an arbitrator and maker of treaties. If you look at his contributions to jurisprudence and social values, you will recognize that he was also a social activitist. Your characterization of him as only a warlord seems a bit incomplete.

To base whole religions on what people hallucinated or made metaphors of 100s or even 1000s of years ago is to put it mildly a bit daft.

Since you weren't there, to suggest it was all just hallucination seems a bit daft. As for metaphors, what is your objection? In a sense, except for very precise scientific discourse, language tends to be rather metaphorical and abstract.

Nowhere amongst any of all these billions of faithful has one been told by God something new, something unique, that he could use to demonstrate he really exists as an entity. If God cannot even manage that then if he exists then he clearly does not care about us.

Oh Blahhrrgagg, Tao. Seriously. To many believers, the proof is everywhere they look. How would you presume to talk them out of their experiential reality? A bit daft on your part, idnit?

And if that is the case any worship is a complete waste of time anyway

Heh, nothing wrong with overstating the case in order to get a response!

Your comment about worth not being worthwhile is highly debatable. If you insist on being reductionistic about it, you could see worship as a way of being mindful of your own higher nature. Further, it has the potential to be an organizing principle for one's entire life and a motive force for a quest for virtue, civility, good works, and permanent accomplishments attesting to what is most sublime in the human heart.

I agree with some of your premises, Tao, but there are others that are either factually unsound or simply out of touch with how religious feeling and faith-seeking understanding are incorporated into human life style and human intention.

The main problem I see with your line of argument is that it involves a tendency to look at religion as an outsider even though it's mostly about the inner life. However, I would recognize that religions may have Creation cosmologies, which tells me that they are to some extent arising from an effort to make sense of the world rather than some deep-seated existential angst.

The certainty that there is no God and death means the end. For people brought up under religious influence, and that is everybody, realising this with a profound depth of perception can be a cold, dark, hopeless place.

Maybe memory fails me, but I don't recall this kind of thing getting much air play in church or cathechism studies when I was raised a Catholic.

Again, many of your comments come across as being those of an outsider.

 

[Paladin]

I usually stick to reading scriptures when it come to my Christianity.

Nice try SG but I happen to know you are very well read

 

[seattlegal]

Nice try SG but I happen to know you are very well read

Regarding Christianity? Aside from scriptures (including apocrypha,) maybe some St. John of the Cross and a smattering of Thomas Merton. I hadn't even heard of Paul Tillich until you referred to him.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Netti,
.

FYI, Baha'u'llah was a Sufi Muslim. He had differences with Islam, but did he abandon it entirely and start a new religion?

Yes he started a new religion, just his material was second hand. Like you say he stole it from all the other Abrahamics and, like I say, made a religion to be all things to all men. Don't get me wrong I'm sure he did so in at least part good faith,(forgive the pun). But I personally distrust career theists and as he tried to establish a dynastic power structure within it I think I have every reason to be sceptical. And when I look at the sites today and listen to them to be honest all I can say is they give me the creeps.

Likewise, did the Prophet Muhammad start a new religion? .

He claimed that Gabrial was giving him a new set of rules at Gods request, new rules = new religion. I dont see the point of trying to pick apart this issue of what is or is not an original religion. It is beside the point.

Btw, Muhammad was originally a trader. He was also an arbitrator and maker of treaties. If you look at his contributions to jurisprudence and social values, you will recognize that he was also a social activitist. Your characterization of him as only a warlord seems a bit incomplete.

Well of course in his role as a warlord he had to arbitrate and form treaties of alliance. In the still to this day tribal heartlands of Arabia you cannot do anything else. What was unique about Muhammad and his band tho were that they had studied what Constantine had done with Christianity and their methods were no less of the sword than Constantine. You can try and pick out the little bits of 'nice sweet Muhammad' if you like but for me I respect another standard. I am much more of the Ghandi camp of "I am prepared to die for my cause, but I will never kill for it". Several of the stories relating to Muhammad's life from him being a rich womans toy boy to his political affiliations speak to me of nothing but a man who wanted to get to the top.. And as there will doubtfully be any more information of a credible nature that comes to light to sway my opinion I can offer no other analysis.

Since you weren't there, to suggest it was all just hallucination seems a bit daft.

Since you were not there it is a bit daft to argue it was anything other?

As for metaphors, what is your objection? In a sense, except for very precise scientific discourse, language tends to be rather metaphorical and abstract.

because these metaphors as used are not truly presented as such, but as hard fact. It is the dishonesty I object to.

Oh Blahhrrgagg, Tao.

Seriously.

To many believers, the proof is everywhere they look. How would you presume to talk them out of their experiential reality? A bit daft on your part, idnit?

Kids have the good sense to ditch their belief in Santa when presented with the truth. How many more religious leaders have to be outed as thieves, hypocrites, fraudsters and paedophiles before the masses get the message they are in it for the cushy lifestyle, the power, the 'respect' or just the 'buzz'?

Your comment about worth not being worthwhile is highly debatable. If you insist on being reductionistic about it, you could see worship as a way of being mindful of your own higher nature. Further, it has the potential to be an organizing principle for one's entire life and a motive force for a quest for virtue, civility, good works, and permanent accomplishments attesting to what is most sublime in the human heart.

Here I can agree with you in part. It can give people structure. But if it was not religion people are inventive enough to find another method. It is just a shame that people feel the need to distract from their purpose by putting so many contradictory ideas in their heads. Being well meaning is not always what it seems. Do I need to start cataloguing the abuses perpetrated by missionaries on communities around the world? I think the average self proclaiming atheist is every bit as meditative and charitable as anyone of faith. And I kind of object to those of faith trying to claim a moral highground on that.

I agree with some of your premises, Tao, but there are others that are either factually unsound or simply out of touch with how religious feeling and faith-seeking understanding are incorporated into human life style and human intention.

The main problem I see with your line of argument is that it involves a tendency to look at religion as an outsider even though it's mostly about the inner life. However, I would recognize that religions may have Creation cosmologies, which tells me that they are to some extent arising from an effort to make sense of the world rather than some deep-seated existential angst.



Again, many of your comments come across as being those of an outsider.

Ohhhhh so I don't have the gnossis!! Thats whats wrong with me!! I see now. Tell you what I'l go down the greengrocer tomorrow and get a pound or 3 of gnossis ....ok?

It is your opinion that what I state to be factually unsound but a reading of the available information from a neutral stance I would hasten to guess would say I have every right to call my interpretation as factual as any other. Of course that does not make it fact. But it is a distinct possibility.

This trying to "make sense of the world" is their remedy for that angst is it not?

Nice try Netti but none of what you say stands up to scrutiny.

Tao

 

[Paladin]

Regarding Christianity? Aside from scriptures (including apocrypha,) maybe some St. John of the Cross and a smattering of Thomas Merton. I hadn't even heard of Paul Tillich until you referred to him.

Really? I thought it a Christian classic. The Courage To Be -Paul Tillich

The Courage to Be - Tillich, Paul - Yale University Press