Santa V God

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

It's easy to reject mediocrity. But, can you reject this?
Bwahahaha!

lol...well done!! You found a superstition that I would happily drink deep Maybe there is one for everyone after all

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I see them quite often. They usually involve the same flawed arguments.


Oh really? You're not looking very hard. A case of selective inattention perhaps?

Then kindly link me to a post that is between theists asking the question of how to stop religion being perverted.

All religionists are totally lacking in moral sensitivity and have never objected to the imperfections and absurdities of those who pretend to be religious. I see.

Well if you want to interpret it that way there is nothing I can do.

The fact that you have indiscriminately lumped New Age philosophies with traditional monotheistic religion (even though the former do not include the monotheistic G-d concept that was your original focus for this thread) would suggest that you don't care for spiritual interests in general. Indeed, based on several of your posts, you would also stamp out even the most benign New Age philosophies.

Then perhaps you need to re-read and decipher where I refer to specific elements and where I am drawing generalisations.

I'm no expert on comparative religion, but a quick glance at the major world religions reveals a common element: ethics and personal responsibility. By equating the belief system with the imperfect human culture you are in effect obscuring the real substance of religion, which deals with moral perfectability.

It is actually easy to differentiate ideology from individual and cultural applications. I'm sure you've heard of the difference between theory and practice. I'm puzzled why you insist on confusing the two when it comes to religion.

Most of my posts here have been responses to yourself and others. I am not driving the direction but am clarifying particular areas and broader ones where requested. I have in my own mind a clear differentiation between the individual and the institution and to my mind it is you who seeks to confuse the two and not me.

Further, you have no reason to believe that the eradication of religion will improve the human condition. Indeed, the dismantling of traditional belief systems is not always a form of progress. Consider atheistic communism, which in terms of body counts and destruction of culture has been the bane of civilization. Perhaps you would like to see all ideology banished, including communism and atheism?

Weak premises and lack of precision are rarely useful in reasoned agreement. It is hard for the fashionable atheism of the day to avoid being compared to the irrational theistic fundamentalisms that are among its targets. Perhaps lack of self-scrutiny is a universal problem??.....

Yet all atheists are clear what they are saying. It is the theists who are determined to label atheism a dogma when it is nothing of the kind. For example for the second time in as many pages we find communism linked to atheism as though atheists were responsible for the dogmas of politics. The reason the Russian Orthodox Church was persecuted by the Bolsheviks is because of precisely the reasons I stated many times already. It was an instrument of state power. The usurpation of one dogma with another has nothing what so ever to do with atheistic thought. Atheism deals with the question of whether or not a God exists, if religions are genuine and the psychology of religious belief. It is not a political movement but a scientific one. I know this will make no difference to you and you will continue, along with the other theists here, to try dragging me into a parcel that you wrap and label, sorry but I will not come quietly.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So then likewise Tao, if you do NOT know that God exists... then don't teach it. Don't become a preacher. But if you teach something... anything... then you have some explaining to do. For example if you teach that God does NOT exist then you might someday owe an explanation to God and all of those who you convinced. You believe as I do that a person is responsible for what they teach... so then will you likewise own that responsibility.

I have already stated more time than I care to count that I cannot prove God exists. What I can prove is that there is no evidence that he does and more importantly absolutely zero evidence that if he does he gives two hoots about humanity. I am fully prepared to take responsibility for my words and deeds.

tao

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

lol...well done!! You found a superstition that I would happily drink deep Maybe there is one for everyone after all

Joey: That Sam-I-Am! That Sam-I-Am! I do not like that Sam-I-Am!
Joey: I do not like green eggs and ham! I do not like them, Sam-I-Am!
Sam-I-Am: Would you like them here or there?
Joey: I do not like them here or there! I would not like them anywhere! I do not like green eggs and ham! I do not like them, Sam-I-Am!
Sam-I-Am: You may not like them, so you say. Try them. Try them once today.
Joey: Sam, if you would let me be, I will try them, and you will see.
~Dr. Seuss, Green Eggs And Ham

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Thomas

You're free to do so. Hardly likely you'd get much support on a 'Comparative Religion' website, though. One would assume that people here can perceive the benefits of religion — or at least be even-minded — but as is becoming evident, 'secularism' is the new fundamentalism, 'live and let live' as long as it's the way we say it should be.

Well it seems to me that this thread and others where I have discussed similar veins are busy, vibrant and popular. Even if Tao-Bashing is all people come for these threads are a rich source of branching trains of thought that have given me , and I would hope others, nuggets of thought that are valuable. Trying to label atheism or secularism the new fundamentalism is the first tactic of the theist, somewhere along the lines of "bring them down to a level we understand". But I and other atheists know what we are on about and whilst your efforts in this regard may give you a sense of security we can see precisely how scared you are of facts over delusion. Atheists do not deal in dogma, superstition, faith or blind belief. We deal in hard science.

Perhaps because the idea is that if people adhered to the message of religion, then such things would not happen?

For my part, I strive to correct errors in interpretation which can give rise to just the kind of conduct we both deplore. If religion was lived in its fullness, the world would be a much better place. Much, much better than without, but then that's my bubble.

The "if's" are everything. 1000s of years of religious ifs have brought nothing but misery, delusion and bloodshed.

And how welcome your attention to our errors are! Constructive debate might be more beneficial, and more welcome. A negative message is rarely well received.

You are right. Especially if it is a negative truth.

But I do have such debates with atheists. I am obliged to regard you not as a-theist but anti-theist — most atheists I know do not plough the anti-religion furrow you have chosen. It seems to me as if you require religions to be dismantled and you'll fasten on to anything towards that end.

No not anything. Anything that can be fairly called a fact.

So anyone who holds a belief in God is dishonest? Everyone ... and that doesn't seem to you to be somewhat excessive, indiscriminate ... dare I say fundamentalist? it seems we are either with you, or against you.


OK. So now we're dishonest and delusional ... whereas you comment above is entirely balanced and reasonable?


Comments like that chill my blood ... invariably they are intended to excuse what happens next ... Are you reaching for your gun?

Perhaps this is how you would now paint me. Again you wish to drag me down into something you can recognise. Something that is well understood within the Catholic paradigm. Your posts are in general the sugar coated sweetness and light idea of Catholic doctrine, you continually paint a false representation of what the Catholic Church really is/has been. In your assault on me here it is worthy to note again you completely failed to address the truths you would rather see brushed under the carpet. Even though they are pivotal to the argument I make on this thread. You can try an rubbish my views as those of an extremist but there is nothing extremist about me. Unlike yourself I am trying to present a wholly honest debate. The Catholic Church has still made no apology for its actions in Croatia during WW2, admitting they can be wrong is not really what you would call a Catholic trait. But yeh lets divert from that and call me the dangerous extremist.

Who, precisely, is waging this war and where?

lol where have you been?

As the ancients used to say 'take care ... you become what you think about' ...

You would do well to listen to that.

PS — It may surprise you to know that more Christians have died for their faith in the passed 100 years than the total recorded in the 1900 years prior.

Where? When?

tao

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Atheism deals with the question of whether or not a God exists, if religions are genuine and the psychology of religious belief. It is not a political movement but a scientific one.

This is meant entirely neutrally, but I really can't see that atheism is a scientific movement.

Now you think I'm nit-picking. Hey, at least I'm on topic!

s.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Atheism deals with the question of whether or not a God exists, if religions are genuine and the psychology of religious belief. It is not a political movement but a scientific one.

Atheism is a doctrinal belief system. The existence of G-d is not a scientific question because it cannot be addressed on the basis for current criteria for scientific truth.

You admitted some time ago in this thread that G-d's existence is not subject to disconfirnmation. Being able to disconfirm the hypothesis under consideration is central to the scientific method of hypothesis testing. You are (still) operating at the wrong level of analysis, friend Tao.

I know this will make no difference to you and you will continue, along with the other theists here, to try dragging me into a parcel that you wrap and label, sorry but I will not come quietly.

Is this your way of letting me know you're stubborn?

kindly link me to a post that is between theists asking the question of how to stop religion being perverted.

The perversion of religion is one of the most commonplace subjects in religious discourse and ethical discourse informed by religious principles. I think it's partly because such discussions serve to clarify the framework for moral judgments.

These kinds of discussions date back literally thousands of years and are subsumed by what is referred to as the Prophetic Tradition, which deals with criticisms that are often driven by concerns about losing one's religion to imperfect or false practices of those who presume to represent the religion in their (mis)conduct.

Muslimwoman has posted numerous things on the subject in relation to Islam. There are literally hundreds of Muslim scholars who have condemned Osama bin Laden for being a perversion of Islam.

There are contemporary social activists who directly deal with what they perceive as perversions. For example, there are Buddhists who want to ban Buddha statues from Buddhist temples. I guess that doesn't really count because technically Buddhist aren't theists. But there are the likes of Swami Agnivesh in India who oppose nationalism fueled by Hindu fundamentalism ("Hindutva").

How many books have been written on Christian church history by Christians that deal with the Church's absurdities and wrong doings? Countless.

People do reflect on their religions and they do question whether its practitioners are giving the religion a bad name. Arguably, it is the religionist's duty to do so.

I can't imagine you'll have any trouble finding numerous books and articles on controversies within religious organizations concerning matters of human rights, social justice, and internal contradictions.

If you get stuck, let me know and I'll see what I can find with a 20-second Google search.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

This is meant entirely neutrally, but I really can't see that atheism is a scientific movement.

Now you think I'm nit-picking. Hey, at least I'm on topic!

s.

Its opinion is justified by science, but you are right it is not really a movement.

tao

[Ciel]

In simple terms God is proved by peace of mind and reciprocal love.

Tao I dont expect an answer to this post...............

- c -

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Atheism is a doctrinal belief system.

Anytime you put a bunch of ideas together they can be technically be called a doctrine whether they be based on fact or not. Your pejorative tensing of the word does not appear to me to reflect this.

The existence of G-d is not a scientific question because it cannot be addressed on the basis for current criteria for scientific truth.

But this is the criteria you impose as being the only which way the subject can be tackled. It is not. What I state is that we can study the validity of the claims of those who claim things of God, the evolution and historical dynamics of religion and the psychology or religious belief. Putting all these things together it is possible to put forward a more than reasonable hypothesis that even if God does exist he does not appear to live anywhere near planet Earth.

You admitted some time ago in this thread that G-d's existence is not subject to disconfirnmation. Being able to disconfirm the hypothesis under consideration is central to the scientific method of hypothesis testing. You are (still) operating at the wrong level of analysis, friend Tao.

Quite the reverse. You try to impose a restriction of definition that suits your purpose. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Is this your way of letting me know you're stubborn?

No its me letting you know that I am perfectly able to provide everything you need to understand my point but that I will not let you try to narrow down the definitions of what does and does not constitute provable. I must ask myself why you try to pull off such a trick. The answer I get back is, well what else do theists ever do but try to justify the parameters of truth.


MW's apologetics for Islam are indeed a good example of someone at least making some effort in that direction. Both in sincerity and effort she is likely unique on this site in that regard.

However in general and in life the institutions, sticking to Christianity, never admit a mistake until they are dragged almost into court. They never actually get into court though, they dont like that kind of scrutiny. There is no system of accountability within their structures from the outside to balance them. The internal scrutiny is far more worried about image than justice. And I have never come across a grass roots campaign to change, apologise for, or even discuss any injustice carried out by any religious institution.

I have no right to compel people to discuss anything in any particular way here. I stand by my assertion though that on the whole theists almost never discuss the issues I would like to see them discussing. And I dont mean particularly on this thread but in the wider debate.


tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

... I have never come across a grass roots campaign to change, apologise for, or even discuss any injustice carried out by any religious institution.

Maybe read up on church history, for example of internal dissension concerning the Crusades:
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~msc/downloads/MSC_research-derksen1.pdf.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Maybe read up on church history, for example of internal dissension concerning the Crusades:
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~msc/downloads/MSC_research-derksen1.pdf.

Is that the last time then?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Is that the last time then?

The pope's infallible, you know.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Well Chris, there are those who have mapped out that kind of progression. The trouble is, people take offense if they perceive that progression in terms of "better than" or "less than".

Yeah, I thought about that. It's possible that an era of utter religiosity awaits me after I dispense with this phase. I'm certainly not confident that my condition is inevitably superlative to anyone else's as far as my, your, or their process and progress is concerned. I don't think it works like that.

I mean, lets face it, enlightenment could be just this, right now with everything just as it is. Wouldn't it be a real kicker if it turned out that there was no path, nothing to live or die for, just this.

It doesn't seem like that to me either. What if there's no inherent benevolence and we only get this one life? Aside from destroying the commerce of religion, how does that really hurt or change anything?

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Then kindly link me to a post that is between theists asking the question of how to stop religion being perverted.

Good friend Tao, I've kinda laid back from this discussion, it seems you quite have your hands full as it is. But I do think this comment unfair and inaccurate. There are plenty of discussions around here between theists about how to un-"pervert" religion. Besides myself, there are frequent posts by the likes of Seattlegal, Ciel, Paladin and in their own ways even Alex and China Cat. And many, many more. Even our friend Thomas and I have held many discussions about propriety in regard to religion.

Simply, I think this statement of yours serves little more than to advertise your own selective view of things; you see and hear what you want and disregard the rest.

Pots and kettles.