The Demonization of New Atheism and the Relative Desensitization to Religious Extremism

[Windwalker]

My delusions are for me to overcome but I think we shouldn't impose any on children, which was why I started the other thread.

Without jumping over to that other thread, I'll just quickly state that if someone has a delusion, they are not aware of it generally speaking. To them that delusion is not a delusion, but actual reality. All parents teach their children what they believe is reality, even if to others that reality is seen as delusional. Are you suggesting there be a central authority to decide what is truth and reality for people to rightly believe? Isn't that your central complaint about the church?

Besides, everything we believe to be true ultimately is a delusion anyway, even what I am saying right now. At best we humans come together and create a "consensus reality," as shared truth that we collectively agree upon and put all the mechanisms of socialization to work to keep that vision a cohesive whole.

What you have then is functional truths, not absolute truths. And those functional truths shift and grow as culture as a whole moves along its path, like an organic blob feeling its way through the environment. Meanwhile, culture spreads its mass delusion to all its children though its stories and media, the arts, etc. So, parents teaching their kids their delusions is just being part of how that cultural organism sustains itself.

Of course one can live with as many delusions as seem appropriate, but not when they seem to affect others so much - which undoubtedly many religions do.

Religion is an extension of culture. Like Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park famously said, "John, the kind of control you’re attempting simply is… it’s not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it’s that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously,"

Just substitute culture for life above, and, "I’m, I’m simply saying that culture, uh… finds a way." Honestly, changing the guard, changing the narrative, changing the delusion, is all part of it, and doing the very same thing religion is accused of imposing on us. We impose our realities on ourselves. Culture always finds a way....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The fact that these are "prominent" figures does not negate what I said. They in fact, according to how I understand the nature of beliefs, faith, and doubt, consider them "true believers", means they have no faith, or "fake faith", as it were. Faith welcomes knowledge, whereas the "true believer" blocks their ears with heavy wax, letting nothing change their minds. I reject quite a lot that calls itself Christian, and these are examples of this.

This sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy. Their faith isn't the real thing.

I'd bet that they'd argue that it is, more so than those with less certitude.

There is plenty that religion can do that no other can do as well.

Not to my knowledge.

As I define religion, what distinguishes the religions from their alternatives is the supernaturalism - the promises of gods and afterlives. How does that help? It creates a need that it fills, one that would evaporate if one were raised in secular humanism. People call it comforting, but they wouldn't need that kind of comforting had they learned to accept that there may be no gods or afterlives, that we may never be reunited with the departed, that there is nobody listening to our thoughts or prayers, nor protecting us.

It isn't hard, but it appears to be something that must be done in the first half of life, since when it happens, that seems to be the time, as if a window of opportunity closes later in life.

So, let's say I'm on a path of Enlightenment? Where would you recommend I go to help me on my search? Richard Dawkins? A good science book? What advice would you offer to someone seeking to grow spiritually? Get over it? That answer is not doing something better than religion can do, IMO.

Humanism won't answer that question, but neither will religion. I read philosophers in my early thirties, right after I left Christianity. That was very interesting and very helpful, but not in this department.

Most of my enlightenment came from testing life and noting what worked and what didn't, not from books or other people. That's when I learned what money will and will not buy, what love was, and how angry outbursts were hurting me, for example.

Non-supernaturalistic philosophies can do as well or better as the religions. I find atheistic Buddhism to be very compatible with my present position, although it played no part in my arriving at it. The Four Noble Truths sound a bit like my belief that a key element to happiness is to be content with what you have if basic needs are met. The Eightfold Path seems like the conclusions easily arrived at if one approaches life with courage, industry, beneficence, integrity, and the like. We really don't need religions for any of that. Literature can do it - tales of mistakes made and how to avoid or correct them.

I would say they [white evangelical Americans] would make lousy humanists as well. These are people with character defects.

That was my point. They were raised in the cradle of Christianity, and look at them.

I would have to disagree with you and say that they very likely would have been like their non-Christian neighbors had they not been raised in that tradition. Why wouldn't they be? It's a great example of religion not doing something better, and in fact, doing it much worse.

But humanism, for all it's positive contributions, still does not necessarily take one into the deeper aspects of human experience, which of necessity involves spiritual development. Unless I'm mistaken in that statement.

 

[stvdv]

"Spiritual realms of bliss": how has their existence been demonstrated?
Just part of the Great Scam as far as I can tell.

You are claiming that you never experienced this?

I don't care if their existence has been demonstrated.
I only care that I experience their existence myself

 

[PureX]

I'm sure many don't. They might have had the same belief when children were down the mines (Before 1914 in the UK), sold off by their parents in child marriage, deprived of education, etc. Hopefully we advance as a species.

That's a rather easy answer to a complex issue. Why do we have to tolerate the beliefs of those that perhaps cause more harm than any benefit they provide?

 

[Looncall]

Kk

You are claiming that you never experienced this?

I don't care if their existence has been demonstrated.
I only care that I experience their existence myself

In that case, you should leave them out of public discourse as they seem to be all in your head.

 

[Windwalker]

This sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy. Their faith isn't the real thing.

How is that the No True Scotsman fallacy? Is it wrong to point out that someone doesn't know what they are talking about when they claim something, yet do the opposite? Is calling them ignorant a fallacy? When Ken Ham claims the Bible says such and such, and a scholar calls him an ignoramus, is that a fallacy, or just simply an informed opinion which happens to be correct?

There is a lot of stuff Christians claim from them Bible, and are just plain wrong about it. I place my knowledge of these areas as just a bit more sophisticated than where I would place Ken Ham's awareness. Do I sound like I don't have more knowledge and presence of mind than Ken Ham about these things, to you? It really seems as if you're being more than a bit lazy with a reply to me like this.

Not to my knowledge.

As I define religion, what distinguishes the religions from their alternatives is the supernaturalism - the promises of gods and afterlives. How does that help?

And that is an extremely narrow, myoptic understanding of religion, pretty close to Ken Ham's understanding of the meaning of faith.

It creates a need that it fills, one that would evaporate if one were raised in secular humanism.

Or, not in a fundamentalist religion that teaches things like this. You know there are in fact well-adjusted Christians out there?

People call it comforting, but they wouldn't need that kind of comforting had they learned to accept that there may be no gods or afterlives, that we may never be reunited with the departed, that there is nobody listening to our thoughts or prayers, nor protecting us.

Buddhism doesn't teach this. Buddhism is a religion too.

Again, you are describing mythic-literal Abrahamic forms of religion. This does not qualify as defining what religion as a whole is, teaches, or does. There is a whole lot more to what religion is and does than literal beliefs in magical supernaturalism.

All of this is the low-hanging fruit of religions that the neo-atheist derives his self-confidence from that he can easily attack that. So can I. So can other Christians. But that's much, much too easy and simple, as well as intellectually lazy to stop there, pat oneself on the back and say, 'mission accomplished'.

Humanism won't answer that question, but neither will religion.

It doesn't? Have you never read things from the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and so forth? These contain the most profound guidance in these areas. Tibetan Buddhism? They don't answer what is needed for one to follow a path of Enlightenment??? How is anyone supposed to take your statement seriously?

I read philosophers in my early thirties, right after I left Christianity. That was very interesting and very helpful, but not in this department.

Most of my enlightenment came from testing life and noting what worked and what didn't, not from books or other people.

What you are calling enlightenment, is not Enlightenment in the sense of Awakening, beyond the illusions of our minds that we actually know reality. That you found some answers to puzzles here and there you've struggled with is great! But that's not Enlightenment in the sense I said it, or what religions teach as the path to Awakening. These things, will important, and not the same things as opening yourself to the knowledge of Self.

Where outside of religion does someone seek for this then as you claim can be found elsewhere?

That's when I learned what money will and will not buy, what love was, and how angry outbursts were hurting me, for example.

And these things are great, but this has to do with your emotional and psychological well being. While important, these are not Enlightenment. Enlightenment all these drop away and you transcend your identification with your ego as what defines what and who you are. All these things are about the ego, not the dissolution of the ego to Awaken to Self.

Non-supernaturalistic philosophies can do as well or better as the religions. I find atheistic Buddhism to be very compatible with my present position, although it played no part in my arriving at it.

I don't consider Buddhism atheistic. To not incorporate God as part of the pursuit, is not the same as denying God exists. They are non-theistic in practice, not atheistic in opinion.

 

[stvdv]

In that case, you should leave them out of public discourse as they seem to be all in your head.

So you are free to claim "All big spiritual questions are bogus"
And I am not free to say "That for me they are inspiration for higher levels of awareness"

I have my laboratory inside of me; I never let that take away by you or anyone

Wish you good luck, finding "The Answers you look for" in an outside laboratory

And just for your information:
You are the one having stuff in your head, not me [head is science and might be fear]
I have them in my heart, that's the difference [heart is spirit and equals trust, love]

 

[Windwalker]

In that case, you should leave them out of public discourse as they seem to be all in your head.

How is saying you have had an experience of Supreme Bliss, something that should be called, "all in your head"? Does the idea that people experience this frighten you somehow?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How is that the No True Scotsman fallacy?

You claimed that doubt is the ally and servant of faith, not it's ally. I showed you two prominent Christians that apperntly disagreed, and yu immediately tried to disqualify their opinions as not truly Christian.

There is a lot of stuff Christians claim from them Bible, and are just plain wrong about it. I place my knowledge of these areas as just a bit more sophisticated than where I would place Ken Ham's awareness. Do I sound like I don't have more knowledge and presence of mind than Ken Ham about these things, to you? It really seems as if you're being more than a bit lazy with a reply to me like this.

You seem to be appointing yourself the arbiter of what is right and wrong here. You're also getting needlessly personal and offenssive. I don't really care what you think of me.

And that is an extremely narrow, myoptic understanding of religion, pretty close to Ken Ham's understanding of the meaning of faith.

I told you already, I'm not interested in what you think of me. I do not accept your presumption of superiority here. I've been clear about what I mean wheen I use the word religion, which is a word that probably has a slightly different meaning for everybody.

There is a whole lot more to what religion is and does than literal beliefs in magical supernaturalism.

Why are you telling me that? Did you think that I implied otherwise? Yes, there's iconography, ritual, often a holy book, a sense of sacred versus profane, a moral code, a tradition, ideas like siin and salvation, etc.. So what?

Supernaturalism remains the sine qua non of what I am calling religion. Philosophies without gods, angels, demons, answered prayed, divine revelation, miracles and the like are fundamentally different from belief systems that incorporate such thinking.

So can other Christians. But that's much, much too easy and simple, as well as intellectually lazy to stop there, pat oneself on the back and say, 'mission accomplished'.

Again?

Alright. We're done here. Thank you for your time. I'll try to find somebody that likes to discuss ideas more than to discuss his perceived shortcoming of his collocutor. There is nothing in this for me but your disparaging comments.

And you've said nothing to dispel my conviction that there is nothing done better with religion than without it, and much made worse because of religion..

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How is saying you have had an experience of Supreme Bliss, something that should be called, "all in your head"? Does the idea that people experience this frighten you somehow?

Unfair for me to jump in, so apologies. But I was enjoying quite a few of your posts. So blame you...
Ahem.

For me, part of it comes down to trust. I trust what I've experienced, and how I'd describe it. I don't trust another person to apply similar descriptions simply due to this being so subjective.

This isn't just true of 'spirituality' but also 'love', 'passion', and basically any emotive response.

Based on my personal experience, naturally limited as it is, we (humans) appear to be wired in amazingly diverse ways when it comes to experiencing such things, and adding in the constraints of human language to describe them only exacerbates this.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Without jumping over to that other thread, I'll just quickly state that if someone has a delusion, they are not aware of it generally speaking. To them that delusion is not a delusion, but actual reality. All parents teach their children what they believe is reality, even if to others that reality is seen as delusional. Are you suggesting there be a central authority to decide what is truth and reality for people to rightly believe? Isn't that your central complaint about the church?

Besides, everything we believe to be true ultimately is a delusion anyway, even what I am saying right now. At best we humans come together and create a "consensus reality," as shared truth that we collectively agree upon and put all the mechanisms of socialization to work to keep that vision a cohesive whole.

What you have then is functional truths, not absolute truths. And those functional truths shift and grow as culture as a whole moves along its path, like an organic blob feeling its way through the environment. Meanwhile, culture spreads its mass delusion to all its children though its stories and media, the arts, etc. So, parents teaching their kids their delusions is just being part of how that cultural organism sustains itself.


Religion is an extension of culture. Like Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park famously said, "John, the kind of control you’re attempting simply is… it’s not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it’s that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously,"

Just substitute culture for life above, and, "I’m, I’m simply saying that culture, uh… finds a way." Honestly, changing the guard, changing the narrative, changing the delusion, is all part of it, and doing the very same thing religion is accused of imposing on us. We impose our realities on ourselves. Culture always finds a way....

Well, I will say, you are a lot more pleasant to discuss things with than some others.

 

[Looncall]

So you are free to claim "All big spiritual questions are bogus"
And I am not free to say "That for me they are inspiration for higher levels of awareness"

I have my laboratory inside of me; I never let that take away by you or anyone

Wish you good luck, finding "The Answers you look for" in an outside laboratory

And just for your information:
You are the one having stuff in your head, not me [head is science and might be fear]
I have them in my heart, that's the difference [heart is spirit and equals trust, love]

Bah, hearts pump blood, nothing more. Don't you feel ashamed parroting ancient errors?

 

[stvdv]

Bah, hearts pump blood, nothing more. Don't you feel ashamed parroting ancient errors?

Not ancient errors. So, not feeling ashamed. I never feel ashamed of my own experiences, even if you mock them.
[I feel grateful that my heart pumps blood; nothing more]
IMHO

 

[Windwalker]

You claimed that doubt is the ally and servant of faith, not it's ally. I showed you two prominent Christians that apperntly disagreed, and yu immediately tried to disqualify their opinions as not truly Christian.

No I didn't. I agree that there are plenty of Christians who don't understand what I said, and teach what they believe instead. I'm not saying they are not Christians. Just ignorant ones. Why you cited them was to challenge what I said, but you went straight to lowest common denominator. That guy thinks children rode on the backs of velociraptors for god's sake! How is his opinion on the deeper matters of faith going to be any better, and worth you citing as a challenge to what I said? Why him, and not someone who has a respectable mind? Why not quote Bozo the Clown's opinion on astrophysics as some authority? Ken Ham is a hack theologian, a buffoon with a bible.

That said, however, I am going to modify what I said originally as I have been thinking about what I've been saying about how doubt is the servant of faith. That's not quite right. I am refining that now to say that both doubt and faith are both servants of truth together, equally as important to truth. Doubt tears down inadequate and invalid beliefs and positionalities, and faith pulls one forward through the dismantling of error to truth. Both together works as allies in the service of Truth.

You seem to be appointing yourself the arbiter of what is right and wrong here.

Do you think I can't assess right and wrong here? Why not? Ken Ham says the earth is 6000 years old. Should I say to you you're appointing yourself the arbitrar of right and wrong when you call him an idiot?

Alright. We're done here. Thank you for your time. I'll try to find somebody that likes to discuss ideas more than to discuss his perceived shortcoming of his collocutor. There is nothing in this for me but your disparaging comments.

I love discussing ideas, and that's what my hope was with you. But you insult my intelligence in your replies. I was actually quite nice, relatively speaking, in response. But as you wish, I'll continue discussions with those others who do discuss. This side thread has been an annyong waste of my time, as it apparently was for you. There are others better suited for you to discuss your beliefs with.