Santa V God

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Tao, me dear mate, if we all become atheists this site will lose its raison d'être. Where will we all go?

s.

Small chance of that Snoopy, people tend to stick to whatever continues to make them feel comfortable.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Ok. I define spirituality as the belief or sense that there are powers or forces or agency around us that are intelligent and purposeful. Anything to add or subtract from that?

Yes, that we are part and parcel of that power. It is not separate from us. (my belief)

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Tao, me dear mate, if we all become atheists this site will lose its raison d'être. Where will we all go?

s.

lol.... I do not think that something you will have to worry about any time soon.

I do not want to convert anyone to atheism. For me this is about really understanding faith to be a part of the human experience and recognising that we are all essentially sharing the same set of feelings. I am a creative person myself but I think I am dual-hemisphere. I want my creativity to have integrity. I want it to have a sound and testable basis. You know of my soft spot for Gaia Theory so it is not like I have no belief that there are things working away that we do not ordinarily perceive. But what I am tired of seeing is human agency represented as divine. Thats the top of that slippery slope into dangerous ideologies. I do not want to deprive people of their personal modes of creative thought, but I would like to see laws enacted to prevent charlatans cashing in on peoples fears. If religion was entirely benign then I would have no issue but it is not. And I feel the religious community does little to face the rot within it.

The rise of Islam for example is full of apologists that call it a peaceful religion when it is patently a supremacist ideology. I hate this intellectual dishonesty. PC gone mad. If Islam were not dressed in the clothes of religion but solely declared a political ideology we would call it fascist. But that is precisely what Islam is. Islam is 100% about law. Islamic law. It is openly expansionist, claims divine sanction and most importantly for me, it denies individuality a legal respect. Some people get off on having their every decision made for them but to me this is anathema and further it is retrograde to human progress. So if we do not have the intellectual honesty to face what causes religious belief in the individual, and continue to have it defined by the various religious leaderships we cannot counter their power games. Of course as a species we are nowhere close to mature enough to face the demon of true enlightenment. And that is why in years to come millions will die, and 100s of millions will suffer loss and deprivation while the popes, preachers and imans of this world sit on thei gilded thrones dining on caviare with the presidents.

tao

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The rise of Islam for example is full of apologists that call it a peaceful religion when it is patently a supremacist ideology. I hate this intellectual dishonesty. PC gone mad. If Islam were not dressed in the clothes of religion but solely declared a political ideology we would call it fascist. But that is precisely what Islam is. Islam is 100% about law. Islamic law. It is openly expansionist, claims divine sanction and most importantly for me, it denies individuality a legal respect. Some people get off on having their every decision made for them but to me this is anathema and further it is retrograde to human progress. So if we do not have the intellectual honesty to face what causes religious belief in the individual, and continue to have it defined by the various religious leaderships we cannot counter their power games. Of course as a species we are nowhere close to mature enough to face the demon of true enlightenment. And that is why in years to come millions will die, and 100s of millions will suffer loss and deprivation while the popes, preachers and imans of this world sit on thei gilded thrones dining on caviare with the presidents.

tao

So what happened in the 60's when Cassius Clay became Muhamed Ali and Lou Alcinder became Kareem Abdul Jabbar and many others who were anti war, anti killing, and Muslim? What happened centuries ago when the Islamic world was the only scientific world? When their art and society were incredible while we were in the dark ages?

I could be totally superficial but to me what we have is the same as we had when the KKK was a legitimate organization interpreting the bible to justify lynchings and segregation to Americans who were satisfied with that and would support them in our streets and our justice system. We've got a faction of Islam that has run amok of its roots and history and has taken foothold. But I can see your point as it appears it is Christianity that has created this...

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Tao, me dear mate, if we all become atheists this site will lose its raison d'être. Where will we all go?

s.

We could start threads such as... I don't believe in god! Three times!

OH YEAH!? We'll I don't believe in him as one!

The possibilities are endless.... ¬.¬

[wil]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Small chance of that Snoopy, people tend to stick to whatever continues to make them feel comfortable.

Interesting that. I'm comfortable in discussion, and in learning. I've been to a couple of atheist sites trying to do both, but have been banned because I do not litterally believe in the bible, don't fit their paradigm of a Christian, don't believe leviticus is law. So my beliefs don't fit their beliefs of Christians so I can't talk to the atheists there...

Like Penn of Penn and Teller. His proof that the Atheism is right is because all 10,000 species of worm or ant couldn't get on the ark. If you say it is metaphor he indicates you are blasphemous and heretical much like a orthodox or literal or fundamentalist would.

It appears to me that these folks give atheism a bad name. They are running the sites, they are on the radio and television, yet are they truly atheisms best representatives?? hmmmm seem like those in the public eye for most any religion are often not the best representatives....

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

So what happened in the 60's when Cassius Clay became Muhamed Ali and Lou Alcinder became Kareem Abdul Jabbar and many others who were anti war, anti killing, and Muslim? What happened centuries ago when the Islamic world was the only scientific world? When their art and society were incredible while we were in the dark ages?

Then if they thought that was what Islam was then their vision was rose tinted and their knowledge incomplete. Early Muslim expansion was done with the cutting edge of the scimitar. That science flourished is no compensation to all those that died and what they destroyed along the way we can only imagine. Although the older scholars works were preserved by a few Islamic schools their actual contribution to its progress was slight. Their real contribution was in the arts but again these are borne on the back of untold suffering. Great art was in the palaces and mosques as reinforcements to the unquestionable authority of 'great men'. Enslavement was the reality for the peoples of conquered nations. Not enlightenment.

It is the passive masses that give the minority of extreme activists their power. When you get some extremist carrying out some abominable act or preaching hate the masses have no reaction. They are not out on the streets demanding these individuals be cast out and dissociated from their religion. You never see a picket outside a church where a supremacist is spitting his hate. It is this passivity amongst the masses who claim faith that angers me. If they were to pro-actively defend their faith from the extremists then I could in turn defend them and support them. My disillusionment with faith is not the need of people to creatively express hope, but their abject failure to really confront what passive faith allows in their name, and to truly work for hope rather than pray for it.

tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

By studying the psychology of religious doctrine you are studying the sale of something that does not exist. If you can sell nothing, you can sell anything.

Some say it's just a matter of how you package it. But the fact is, a product's marketability is the presupposition for any effort to try to sell it. Unless the company needs a tax write-off, it is certainly the presupposition to keep trying to sell it once it's on the market.

I suggest we assess the marketability of the human mythos that presumably pervades our thinking.

Tao, what indicators have you seen that would suggest the demand for human mythos we are continually being sold on?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I do not want to convert anyone to atheism.

I didn't know that was possible. Presumably it's like taking up not collecting stamps?

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Some say it's just a matter of how you package it. But the fact is, a product's marketability is the presupposition for any effort to try to sell it. Unless the company needs a tax write-off, it is certainly the presupposition to keep trying to sell it once it's on the market.

I suggest we assess the marketability of the human mythos that presumably pervades our thinking.

Tao, what indicators have you seen that would suggest the demand for human mythos we are continually being sold on?

They are everywhere. Just look at the adds on this site. The fortunes newspaper and TV astrologers make. The lucrative market for tarot readers and psychic readings. Bookshops with large sections entirely devoted to esoteric nonsense. Everywhere there is a huge market place selling hope, foresight and explanation from alleged supernatural sources. Since not one of them has been proven to use anything but psychology to 'profile' their victims, or should I call them clients?, and as this is a multi-billion dollar industry do I conclude it is about faith or about the the pursuit of money for nothing?

tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

They are everywhere. Just look at the adds on this site. The fortunes newspaper and TV astrologers make. The lucrative market for tarot readers and psychic readings. Bookshops with large sections entirely devoted to esoteric nonsense.

These things are actually discouraged in the Holy Bible, so what you observe tells me the traditional religious indoctrination is not working.

I think you've switched gears here. I thought we were talking about the monotheistic concept of G-d, which presumably compares to the myth of Santa Clause, as per your Post #1.

But as far as the mechanism of transmission, I think you're onto something. It is true that product demand is merely theoretical without access to a sales force to make the marketing happen. Certainly the human mythos we were talking about before has had ample chance of being distributed via cultural inheritance (within family systems) and via cultural acquisition (religious institutions including church-operated schools, pamphleteers, and various other religionist media).

Would you agree that the human mythos has indeed had a very good chance of being replicated via cultural means, such that the average person is very likely to be kind of a trained conformist monkey?

When you say "They are everywhere," that does suggest pervasive influence. Given the extensive cultural and media forces that have been brought to bear on the process of indoctrination, one might reasonably expect both universality as well as continuity over time for the human mythos. Insofar the information gets incorporated throughout society, people spread it about and keep it going. Self-perpetuating even?

If you had grown up in a, (non-existent), culture where 99% of people were atheistic and the remaining 1% were viewed as misguided and delusional then it is highly unlikely you would become religious.

Conversely, if you grow up in a religiously oriented culture, one is more likely to become religious. That makes intuitve sense. The probabalistic view you seem to be espousing woud predict a high degree uniformity in the acquisition of religion, would it not?

I think we should stick to traditional Christian religion in considering these issues given that the monotheistic G-d concept was offered as an analogy to Santa myth.

[Alex P]

I understand you Tao....

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

These things are actually discouraged in the Holy Bible, so what you observe tells me the traditional religious indoctrination is not working.

So I have heard but despite this they have a rich history in the major Christian religions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I think you've switched gears here. I thought we were talking about the monotheistic concept of G-d, which presumably compares to the myth of Santa Clause, as per your Post #1.

As threads go here this one has stayed remarkably on track considering it is approaching 300 posts.

Would you agree that the human mythos has indeed had a very good chance of being replicated via cultural means, such that the average person is very likely to be kind of a trained conformist monkey?

Of course. In the same way as the cuisine of a country is inherited by successive generations so are its beliefs. Creativity and schisms will have some degree of ability to gradually shift tastes and perceptions but we do not see wholesale change very often. Here in the west it has become a bit of a joke that reactionary youth fades to the conservativeness of middle age almost without exception. We spend our youths trying to rebel only to conform in the end. In that truth there is a subtle observation to be made. Rebellion and change are very hard to achieve, very taxing on our mental reserves and make the ability to perform normal functions such as making a living and rearing children much harder and so most people give up the fight.

When you say "They are everywhere," that does suggest pervasive influence. Given the cultural and media forced that have been brought to bear on the process of indoctrination, one might reasonably expect both universality as well as continuity over time for the human mythos. Insofar the information gets incorporated throughout society, people spread it about and keep it going. Self-perpetuating?

Yes. That and the passivity of those that do not agree with it but dont want the hassle objecting to it would bring them. Look at the hate Dawkins gets as an example. The fundamental concepts of belief are universal and there is continuity within the structures but as they are controlled by competitive institutions the small variations are given all the focus. Again it is the passive as well as the active that gives power.

Conversely, if you grow up in a religiously oriented culture, one is more likely to become religious. That makes intuitve sense. The probabalistic view you seem to be espousing woud predict a high degree uniformity in the acquisition of religion, would it not?

And that is what we see.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Alex P

I understand you Tao....

You do!! Could you please explain it to me then, I'm dying to find out where I'm going with this

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The fundamental concepts of belief are universal

You mean like "G-d the Creator," that kind of thing?