Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

[Windwalker]

continued from previous post...

Yes. You seem to think that they are rare and don't characterize the religion,

I don't think religious abuse in rare. Certainly it does at times overwhelm authentic religion. But I've touched upon this already in the problems of any group dynamics. This isn't limited to religion, but is common in anything. Take politics for instance. Just look at the Nationalists overtaking the Republican party attempt to overthrow Democracy. Same thing with these Christian Nationalists overwhelming the Christian religion. They are corruptions of the system, in equally the same way.

Does this mean that ideal of Democracy should not be held as a positive? Why not the ideal of Christianity then, even those it's become overrun by "MAGA" type religious nationalists?

It speaks of love but has a very deformed version of love.

Not when you read it through the eyes of Love. But yes, I do agree. That's why I left them. "By their fruits you shall know them". They used the right words, but what the produce was was rotted garbage, full of egotism and violence. That doesn't mean though that as an ideal, it's not worth fighting to redeem from those corruptions, right?

Nor are all Christians. Liberal Christians seem to be empathetic people, but not this white evangelical strain that characterizes politicized American Christianity.

Exactly. You and I share the same disdain for that. I don't call that Christianity anymore. It's Nationalism, wolves in sheeps' clothing. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their Christian bumper stickers or buildings with crosses on them.

I had written, "God condemns people to eternal suffering for no purpose other than to make them suffer" as a description of damnation. It may be a metaphor to you, but to millions or billions of believers, it's the way it is.

Sure, but as you will recognize, if Trumpism overcomes American Democracy, does this mean that Democracy is the same as Trumpism? Isn't it worth standing for the truth against the lies? I kind of feel the same way about Christianity. Isn't there a true spiritual Baby in that bathwater of egoist religious muck?

I have a feeling this could become a whole discussion in itself.

Here's that answer again. You've repeated what I've said about organized religion but then dismiss it because it's not 'how everybody thinks.' That wasn't the argument. It doesn't need to be how everybody thinks for it to become institutionalized. It shouldn't be how everybody thinks, or it won't work. There needs to be a large body of believers who don't think in those terms, who have no idea that their fears are being manipulated and exploited.

With anything like this, it's the few voices of reason and calm and wisdom and knowledge, who eventually make a difference upon the whole. Hell, there's even metaphors that Jesus used to say this exact same thing; the parable of the mustard seed; the leven, etc. Again this is true in any group dynamic situation. It's the grassroots that become powerful voices and the masses in the middle seek a voice for themselves.

These things ebb and flow, swing in cycles, and so forth. It's a complex, yet well-recognized dynamic. I just think that "get rid of religion" is a reactive approach, more a symptom of emotional frustration, rather than a careful and realistic understanding of the situation. Not that I'm not sympathetic towards that view myself either.

It isn't hard to do. They believe what you call metaphors literally.

Yes, and but no. Maybe cognitively they make take them as factual matters, but symbolically they still have a non-rational, or spiritually transformative effect at some subconscious level. It's only when the subconscious begins to become consciously self-aware, that transformations begin to really happen.

But yes, "mythic-literalism" is in fact a normal stage of faith-development, academically speaking. That doesn't make it bad or wrong however. The same is true for any line of human development as well, until what is being learned becomes more integrated and internalized.

I'll leave it here for now, as my fingers are tired typing. By all means if I missed some important point for you, bring it to my attention. I'm not intending to overlook anything.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The challenge I see, as I said at the outset, is you appear to be conflating all these different aspects of religion under the "skeptic's" umbrella, which dismisses or disallows any valid, legitimate, or authentic use of religion. It's that that I take issue with, from a rational, critical thinking, and academic perspective. That's why I put "skeptic" in quotes. Because it's really not truly rational. It's simply fault-finding which has to explain away or minimize aspects of religion that don't fit that negative view of it. I compare that on some level to evolution deniers who downplay the fossil evidence.

I think we are discussing different things. You are discussing how religion can be of value as a symbolic language for the contemplative seeker. Yes, that is correct, although a religion need not be involved. In fact, religions like Christianity tend to impede the process. Better to do that as a humanist or dharmic. That's a description of one of the bottom-up reasons for people creating stories about the history of the world and means of controlling it using sacrifice or prayer or whatever.

My cynicism for religion addresses the top-down side of it, the organized aspect of it, the church hierarchy and its political and financial aspirations, and how the kings and priests view religion - selfishly in both cases. It's nothing like the bottom-up view, and returning to that after a dismissing the importance and harm done there as a few bad apples isn't helpful. Those people aren't the problem. Their church is. Antitheism isn't directed at adherents. It's directed at the religion's shakers and movers and their toxic effect on secular society.

How so?

I had written, "the difference between a psychological (scientific) approach to the self and a religious one gives the religion a hostage." In psychology, the self is an intuition of the conscious observer arising from neural mechanism, dependent on them, and dies with the body and brain - not the immortal ghost that some religions imagine enters then leaves a body. If you have one of those, it is in fact who you are, and it can't go to sleep forever or at all, and if you don't toe the line you (it) will be punished, and one believes this, then the self as soul becomes a hostage to the dogma. He cannot refuse to participate, and he can be manipulated. Isn't this why old people give all of their money away to TV preachers? If they thought that they were close to eternal sleep, they wouldn't. But they expect to be transported as a disembodied soul and stand judgment. Couldn't hurt to grease the process a bit, since one can't escape Judgment Day.

Now regarding the scientific approach of psychology, the same can apply to religion as well. When you understand that religious symbolism does in fact touch into human psychology, as is intimately entwined with spirituality, to the point you should rightly call it "psychospiritual", then you are not just jettosing reason and "just believing". In fact, that is my very point. When I speak of religion, I am looking at it very much from a rational understanding as a "psycho-spiritual" technology, so to speak.

Yes, but I don't see the relation to my point, which is that in psychology, the self is mortal, whereas in some religions, it is immortal, and this belief can be used to manipulate people. Sure, the religions use psychological techniques such as coercion through the threat of damnation, but that's a different idea than the one I offered.

The word "meek", really means being gentle, or non-aggressive. Be non-violent, in other words. It does not mean being a submissive pushover, or a doormat for others.

The definition I found Googling the word was, "quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive," which is my definition. It's not meekness without the easily imposed upon part. Meek is different from gentle, humble, and polite. Those three are all virtues. You seem to possess them all, but you don't come off as easily imposed upon. Meekness is a poverty of spirit, an inability to stand up for oneself or others when it is justified and important to do so.

Have you seen the movie Office Space? There's a character in it named Milton, who is meek. If you're unfamiliar with the character, here's a bit of him in a video. Like I said, poverty of spirit - just the way those exploiting him like him:

It's easy to refute such an misunderstanding of this, by simply looking at the portrait of Jesus the gospel authors created. He directly refers to himself a "meek", but clearly his behaviors with others was anything but submissive and complaint, and easily ruled over by them!

That's a different context. The usage of the word meek in the Sermon on the Mount is in association with a variety of other admonitions there to accept one's station without objection or strife - words like longsuffering, reward, and turning the other cheek. I looked for the scripture where Jesus refers to himself as meek, but found none.

if Trumpism overcomes American Democracy, does this mean that Democracy is the same as Trumpism?

No, but I don't see the relevance of that comment. How about, if bad religion drowns out good religion, does that make religion a net negative?

it's the few voices of reason and calm and wisdom and knowledge, who eventually make a difference upon the whole.

I'm still waiting. The difference that organized, politicized Christianity makes on the whole does not come from voices of reason, calm, or wisdom, and is a net harm to society even if a few enlightened souls are using it for good. Once again, this is the difference between top-down and grassroots religion. Their purposes and methods are very different.

Good discussion. Thanks.

 

[Windwalker]

When you finally, one day compose a post that you are both willing and able to stand by; let us know.

As I said, any of my posts will do. All you need do is quote something I've said. Why I say you assume what I believe, is because you don't actually quote me and just assume things I believe and say that's wrong. Quote function will do it for me. Thanks.

 

[ppp]

As I said, any of my posts will do. All you need do is quote something I've said

No point in quoting a specific bit of text from #13 when you disavow the entire post. I am not going to chase you around while you run from your own words.

Figure out what you believe, express your own thoughts in a way that you can bear to stand by without flinching, and I will be happy to discuss it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was a while ago now, but remember that lunatic with the Sottish accent, madder than a box of frogs, and they paid his asinine claims due deference. Credit to them for the patience, though I haven't watched it for a while. I never saw a single caller who didn't ultimately resort irrational or unfalsifiable anecdotal claims though, not a one.

Hamish! I had forgotten about him.

 

[Windwalker]

No point in quoting a specific bit of text from #13 when you disavow the entire post. I am not going to chase you around while you run from your own words.

Figure out what you believe, express your own thoughts in a way that you can bear to stand by without flinching, and I will be happy to discuss it.

I don't disavow the post at all. It just doesn't talk about my beliefs in order for you to challenge anything. So here, if you want to be shown where to look, just pick out anything in any of these posts where I do talk about my views about these things a little more. No more excuses or dodging and weaving now. Put your money where you mouth is, as they say.

Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

 

[ppp]

I don't disavow the post at all. It just doesn't talk about my beliefs in order for you to challenge anything.

Unless you are making intentionally false statements, everything that you claim to be true is one of your beliefs. Which is why you are splitting hairs on your own assertions.

So here, if you want to be shown where to look, just pick out anything in any of these posts where I do talk about my views about these things a little more.

I already chose which of your posts I wanted you to address. I even supplied the texts of your assertions.

 

[Windwalker]

I already chose which of your posts I wanted you to address. I even supplied the texts of your assertions.

I'm sorry, help me out here. I've gone back through everything, and I just don't see you quoting anything I've said that I specifically believe, and specifically challenging it. All I have seen you do is talk about how theists have bad arguments, without actually addressing anything I myself have said. If I've missed it, I apologize. Please point me to that post and I'll make sure I respond.

The only "assertion" I recall you questioning was that I used the term spiritual, and you complained that I didn't define what the term meant. Is that what you are referring to? If so, that was just the use of a word, and not me even really getting into what I believe about it. If that's what you really want to discuss, we can do that.

But don't you have anything else? I gave you a ton of posts to choose from. Why are you avoiding those? Contrary to you wildly accusing me of ducking and weaving, I'm standing here inviting you and still waiting, and still inviting, and still waiting...

 

[Windwalker]

I think we are discussing different things. You are discussing how religion can be of value as a symbolic language for the contemplative seeker. Yes, that is correct, although a religion need not be involved. In fact, religions like Christianity tend to impede the process.

I certainly can recognize that Christianity can impede the process. It did for me in its distortion of God as fearful judge whose reading your every dirty thought and barely forgiving you for being human. Yeah, it was the teachings of fearful people seeing through the eyes of fear that polluted that well for me to drink from.

But I also recognize its teachings when seen through the eyes of Love, are actually beneficial spiritually. And it's this point that I believe those who are of the 'debunk religion', skeptic community don't recognize or acknowledge. In fact, most of what you get instead of "spirituality is woo woo nonsense", and reducing all of that down to mythic-literal magical thinking superstitious stuff. That's what I mean by going after the low-hanging fruit, as if that is all that Christianity, or any religion for that matter, is.

Better to do that as a humanist or dharmic.

I'm not sure what humanism offers as far as any sort of 'yoga' or spiritual practice in order to nurture and develop one's spirituality. In my view, humanism is actually the good bits of Christianity in terms of morality and ethics. In fact, early Christianity was very humanistic in its philosophy, seeing the need to help others rather than elevate yourself religiously, for instance.

As far as Dharmic practices, sure yes. I'd consider myself as "dharmically informed", as well as informed by my in depth knowledge of Christianity.

Understanding Christianity through contemplative, or meditation practice, makes all the difference in the world to its core message. If all it is, is an exoteric religion, and not an esoteric religion, it's just a shell. And that is the biggest, and core problem of it today. It's all externalized, and not internalized.

That's a description of one of the bottom-up reasons for people creating stories about the history of the world and means of controlling it using sacrifice or prayer or whatever.

I would say that the mystic elements of spirituality is what gives rise to religion, and the mystical, or esoteric aspects of religion, is about not-controlling the world. It's very much the opposite of that. "Take no thought for tomorrow, for tomorrow has concerns for itself", taught Jesus, for instance. Trying to control the world, is by contrast, the system of the "world", or the human egoic project.

But yes, religion, when utilized by the world system, does itself become a system to control, even control God to suit their desires.

My cynicism for religion addresses the top-down side of it, the organized aspect of it, the church hierarchy and its political and financial aspirations, and how the kings and priests view religion - selfishly in both cases. It's nothing like the bottom-up view, and returning to that after a dismissing the importance and harm done there as a few bad apples isn't helpful. Those people aren't the problem. Their church is.

The people are the problem. The church is an extension of themselves. They vote out these pastors who don't tickle their ears and pat them on the back for voting for Donald Trump, for instance.

What has happening in the Republican party, where all these lunatics are taking over the GOP, that already has happened in these Christian churches really taking root in the 80s. But it's the people who have been duped into voting for these nutjobs.

In both their religion and their politics, it's the people who are "heaping to themselves teachers having itching ears", telling them what they want to hear, not what they actually need to hear.

So absolutely yes, religion like this is very much a hindrance to spiritual growth. It's completely devoid of spirituality.

Antitheism isn't directed at adherents. It's directed at the religion's shakers and movers and their toxic effect on secular society.

Then why say that belief in God is crap? Why be anti-theism? If it's anti-religion that's the real thing, then you'll get more than a little sympathy from me. I very much respect atheism for taking a stand against religious abuse. Anyone of good conscience and moral integrity should, when they see the damage to truth, love, and goodness, that these right wing Christian Nationalists who claim the be followers of Jesus inflict upon society and against their own spiritual wellbeing.

Where I fault the anti-theist is when they think that it's belief in a higher power, such as God that is the source of the problem. No. It's the exact opposite that is the reality of it. What they are pointing a finger at is not God itself, but humans who project their own egos upon God for the sake of power and control over others.

You can take away God, but the source of evil is them and their egos, not God. Their egos will remain and just seek another power to justify themselves by, like "country". Hence why they aren't Christians in practice, they are Nationalists who call themselves Christians as a matter of self-identity, not a philosophy of living.

I had written, "the difference between a psychological (scientific) approach to the self and a religious one gives the religion a hostage." In psychology, the self is an intuition of the conscious observer arising from neural mechanism, dependent on them, and dies with the body and brain - not the immortal ghost that some religions imagine enters then leaves a body. If you have one of those, it is in fact who you are, and it can't go to sleep forever or at all, and if you don't toe the line you (it) will be punished, and one believes this, then the self as soul becomes a hostage to the dogma. He cannot refuse to participate, and he can be manipulated. Isn't this why old people give all of their money away to TV preachers? If they thought that they were close to eternal sleep, they wouldn't. But they expect to be transported as a disembodied soul and stand judgment. Couldn't hurt to grease the process a bit, since one can't escape Judgment Day.

Well yes, people can exploit people's fears to be sure. They can do this with just about anything, and likewise prey upon the elder and take all their retirement funds away from them. Isn't that kind what the insurance industry does? "Just in case, you better be prepared. It'll cost you this much per month".

To believe we continue on in some fashion or another beyond our physcial death, is not the source of that problem. It's corrupt people who see they can take advantage of people. You can take away the belief in a soul, but you're not going to take away that problem. It's just going to shift to some other area to exploit.

You see, being anti-God, and anti-spiritual, is misplaced reason. It's like shooting the hostages because the terrorists are using them as human shields. Doesn't it make more sense to try to free the hostages instead? Shooting at God is shooting the hostage.

 

[Windwalker]

continued...

Yes, but I don't see the relation to my point, which is that in psychology, the self is mortal, whereas in some religions, it is immortal, and this belief can be used to manipulate people.

I don't believe that is what religions really teach about the soul. It's not the "self" that you are in your mortality. Your egoic self dies at death, right along with your body and brain. But your "being", or your "spirit", that which animates who and what you are continues, just like in science in the conservation of energy. It can't be destroyed, it only changes form. Certainly, this is how the Dharmic religions look at it.

Now in Christianity, to be sure, many average people, and you probably see that in Dharmic religions too, in their imaginations they take that to mean their egos never die. That is of course, the egoic immortality project (which is one of the definitions of religion I shared earlier). Yes, I see Christians all the time imagining that it is "themselves", who they are today, Mary, or John, who gets new shoes and a better house in heaven with streets paved with gold, and lollipop trees lining the streets.

Obviously, that's a pretty immature understanding of these things..... I'd call that low-hanging fruit. But if it helps them to visualize something transcendent about themselves, let's not knock it, and hope they realize at some point it's about dying to egoic self, not carrying it with them after death.

Sure, the religions use psychological techniques such as coercion through the threat of damnation, but that's a different idea than the one I offered.

No, no. That is not what I meant. The mind needs something symbolic in order for it to allow the human spirit to transcend the rational reasoning mind. We are more than that. But this is where I part company with the atheist, who tends to think that the thinking mind is the height of human reality. When we quit all that thinking, that when we start existing in reality more.

To quote from the Dhammapada, Dhammapada ~ Chapter 26: The True Master

Wanting nothing
With all your heart
Stop the stream.

When the world dissolves
Everything become clear.

The definition I found Googling the word was, "quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive," which is my definition.

Here's the problem, that's not what it means in the context of the language or the time in which it was written, let alone the overall context of the teachings itself. It means being gentle, non-aggressive, or nonviolent. It does not mean to let others take advantage of you, or to never speak out against wrongs or injustice.

While I risk possibly looking like I'm citing an apologists site (which I don't think this is), if it is correct I'll do so if I agree with it.

The Greek word translated “meek” is praeis and refers to mildness, gentleness of spirit, or humility. Other forms of this Greek word are used elsewhere in the New Testament, including James 1:21 and James 3:13. Meekness is humility toward God and toward others. It is having the right or the power to do something but refraining for the benefit of someone else.​

What does “blessed are the meek” mean? | GotQuestions.org

I accept what this person is saying for many reasons. I see no reason to read or understand as you are suggest it is supposed to be taken as. As I said before, I've never thought to read it that way, even as teenager, or even when I was in a fundamentalist church.

Reading the English dictionary is not a great way to try to understand writings originating in Greek from 2000 years ago.

It's not meekness without the easily imposed upon part. Meek is different from gentle, humble, and polite.

No it is not different. It is exactly what it means. See above.

Those three are all virtues. You seem to possess them all, but you don't come off as easily imposed upon.

Very true. In fact, I could probably stand to be a little more gentle with people who ruffle my feathers online sometimes. (not you of course).

Meekness is a poverty of spirit, an inability to stand up for oneself or others when it is justified and important to do so.

I disagree. Meekness, is not timidity. It's gentleness, humility, grace, kindness, etc. Being timid and "This is my red stapler", like in nature, is not humble at all. It's fearful and self-deprecating. That's not humility.

And yes, I love Steven Root's character Milton. That's not the definition of meek.