Tinker ... continuing with the examination
However, as I stated before, using Occam's Razor, if the Hindu ( or any other theology ) are met with the same inconsistencies that is faced in the Christian religion, then I don't see any need to further invistigate said religions
And that's a powerful
if that is not necessarily achieved. I had, in a prior post pointed to
this topic, and it serves as an excellent example. To wit:
The main thing i don't understand is why everyone even most atheist seem to think that there is no evidence disproving god. The fact is that a being with infite power that sees everythig would be easily detectable
Now, while I have no beef with
Neutrino Albatross, I did point out in that topic what I refer to here:
You're confusing the notion of god with a specific God. As a theist, I can easily say that my conception of God has nothing to do with a being of infinite power that sees everything.
An atheist who rejects God rejects a specific form of God, and thus
a God rather than God itself. The infinitely-powered, all-seeing God is an exceptionally limited notion. History shows that the Greek monotheism limited the conduct of the diverse gods, submission to a blind, overriding, insensitive concept.
It is especially ironic since the Christians, wo brought one of these infinitely-powered, all-seeing gods to power were considered atheists by pagans in their foundling period because of the incredibly ridiculous conception of God the Christians put forth.
I have, before, used Genesis as an example here. Consider the debates that go on both in Sciforums and society pertaining to the book of Genesis. Most familiar to us in the United States is the Creationism debate. People often focus on the days of creation or the presence of two creation stories in Genesis. And I'm not immune from spending words on that topic when it's necessary, but considering the importance of the idea of Original Sin in Western thought I find such an examination more important than arguments of seven days, numbers of ribs, and so forth. We know, truly, that creation stories are broader myths that cannot be taken literally.
And that's where we enter into the idea of
why anything? What, for instance, is so important about seven days or the number of ribs that it really matters? To that end, what is the purpose of spending effort refuting the unsupportable, least educated, most superstitious part of any religion?
So such as we see in terms of atheists' tendencies to focus on the most apparent and superficial aspects of a religion, and applying Occam's Razor as you have pointed out, I would invite any atheist to enter that discussion with a Buddhist monk or a Sufi. The Sufi
might actually laugh in derision at being asked to consider an infantile expression of God; they've laughed at less before.
Furthermore, sticking to the superficial aspects of a religion (e.g. seven days, number of ribs) leaves out much about the God. The God of the Bible is not merely derived from the Bible. I would invite
any atheist choosing combat with this God to spend some time among Qabalism and other sorceries related to the Judeo-Christian experience. Watch what Qabalism does to God, what Dr Dee and E. Kelley do to God, what Barret does to God, what Crowley and the Dawn did to God (devotional incantations involving the Christ do, in fact, appear in entry-level instruction texts. It may seem odd, but what these magickers have done is seized upon specific aspects of the godhead and dissected them. Discovering a little bit about what they did and putting that back into the context of vulgar Christianity brings light to the notion of the infinitely-endowed, all-seeing godhead.
Just as an example.
Humanism is very different then atheism. I feel I have to remind you, that atheism is not a philosophy, not any sort of moral doctrine. It's simple a position.
So what we see, then, is that the common-sense "atheism" that people raise and which they have such difficulty defining or accepting is, in fact, atheism plus accretions.
Think of how inappropriate it is to say that atheism (negative), because atheism is not a philosophy or moral doctrine. Well, is it any more appropriate for an atheist to say that atheism (positive)? Or is that, in fact, humanism, transhumanism, psychology, ad infinitum, combined with the atheistic presumption?
To wit: I see a number of atheists throwing their hat into the ring because they've chosen to stand with other atheists, and because they've chosen to include themselves in the criticisms of atheism discussed. There is, often, a selfish tendency among people of any paradigm, to cling together despite their differences. I used to point out some of the worst foibles of Christians only to have people I had thought intelligent decide that I must be talking about them and step in to undertake an untenable position that, had the word Christian not been involved, they would not have taken. I see this among atheists, too. A general rejection of any criticism of
atheism because people are attaching too much to it in order to criticize, yet a general praise of atheism that does not recognize that the individuals praising are not, in fact, praising the same concept. As we've noted, atheism is merely atheism, and anything beyond that is it's own. It seems that there is a tendency to identify positively through a mechanism that is unacceptable for the critical voice. I do find that base scrambling both puzzling and amusing. But I don't feel the atheists are doing much to clarify their position.
Humanism however, is a philosophy. It bases itself on reason, and logic. The only "truths" that it purposes is that which can be scientifically found, or reasonably brought to. Athiesm, is simply a characteristic, as God(s) have (yet) to be reasonable proven.
Such as this. The atheistic position can merely say that the atheist does not believe in God. Anything beyond that is other philosophy.
I would, instead, ask about the comparative values of Humanism. I guarantee you that any philosophy in the abstract relies upon
a priori constructions and cannot be shown to be wholly or purely objective. The starting point is arbitrary, though it may be acknowledged as responsive to observable limitations.
I agree with this. However, every individual's "experience" is obviously subjective. Furthermore, they can't really use "experience" as viable proof, unless he can somehow allow others to share in that same experience.
If he can't, then why am I obligated to believe anything he says? He/she may have very well had an extraordinary experience, but if he can't show it to others, then how can I believe that it points to something outside of his mind?
I see the act of an atheist conceiving of a notion of God, identifying it with a concept, and then objecting based upon perception, conception, and, as a sad result, deception. Only if we expect language to communicate perfectly (which it does not) can we go from an imperfect expression of God to the perfect rejection thereof.
However, if I say one is in the presence of God, how can it possibly be demonstrated to someone who insists on a different definition of the word?
Consider this idea:
•
Theistic assertion: God is greater than that which can be conceived.
This comes straight from the Christians. The statement, when left to itself, is a wonderful moment of philosophical realization that, had the rest of Christianity understood the honesty of it, might have spared us some of the headache of the last few centuries.
To be in the presence of God, though, means a number of things. Specifically, I might be referring to a roomful of art which, taken together in its proper historical context, happens to speak toward a fundamental truth. It is here that "revelation" from "God" might occur, when the pieces of the puzzle, presented such as they are, affirm or explain a fundamental truth.
And toward that end, a slight diversion. I believe it was the fictitious Rabo Karabekian of Vonnegut's novels who was amid a minimalist phase in
Breakfast of Champions. His two most famous paintings in the stories are (A) a massive panel of one color of blue, and (B) a canvas painted dark green with a strip of day-glo orange tape across it. This second idea is more important to me.
The idea being that the strip of tape represented a band of light which, in turn, represented the human essence. I've watched people have revelations examining art, watched something so simple as a few irresponsible brushstrokes, or the arrangement of classic dance postures, or the arrangement of words in a sequence, incite a deeper understanding of the human condition.
To look, as the metaphor has it, at the band of light, the pure characterization of the living endeavor--every once in a while we get to do that. Or, at least, we get to see a facet of it. And this may well be what one means by being in the presence of God.
But nope, it's not possible is it? Because any infinitely-powered, all-seeing God would be easily detectable ...
ad nauseam.
Now, perhaps it's some other behavioral principle that causes this quirk of atheism, but when atheists identify it as atheism, or use their atheism to arrive at that rejection, what am I supposed to say? They're rejecting something that is all their own, and not necessarily what is in front of them.
Now you say that they've lied to you, and have basically done everytihng they could to get on your bad side. Like any accusation, I hope you can provide proof of it.
Sure. There's a women-in-combat topic in World Affairs which contains one of Adam's and my recent exchanges. Xev is a different issue. After Adam picked a fight with Wicca, she advised me to not get into a theist/atheist fight. I asked her then, since I was given to defending atheism, why I would do that. She never answered. And she's been in the trenches with Adam since. But if you'd like a time-frame, look for Kalvin B's last posts (I'm thinking of his "jackass" tantrum). Within days after, Adam and I were at each other's throats. Bashing for the sake of bashing, and then the rest of it that I've had the dubious duty of recounting to you.
Are you suffering a mental illness? I deeply apologize if you are, you have my sympathies. I myself battled with Major Depression for a few months ( and I was hospitalized twice for my...behavior.... )
If Xev has ridiculed you reguarding your mental illness, then yes, she is at fault ( to me ). I don't see any dignity in that, and I would agree with that.
Actually, Xev has a problem with
Sir Loone, and while we all did, I see no reason to continue ridiculing him in such an annoying manner after he's gone. Of course, you did mention the option of ignoring people. I recall that Adam once feigned surprise that I had eventually put Loone on ignore. He found too much entertainment value in Loone's tendency to embarrass himself. I have no problem with responding to posters while they're at it, and I'm admittedly prone to making references to earlier fights with T1 or KB, but I would hope those references serve toward something other than the satisfaction of my own ideological bloodlust. Thankfully, though, there has been a reduction in the marquee-text ranting and idiocy going on around here.
My rebuke was targeted at your condenscending tone through-out this topic. Prehaps it was warranted, prehaps not. If it is, then I apologize for my rebuke. If it isn't, then I stand by it.
Makes sense. If I take the small pleasure that my tone of condescension is that much more powerful than others, it gives me something to think about that might help avoid such nasty flare-ups in the future. And that's actually sincere; you may have noticed that I have several grades of conduct that can be called "condescending". I generally like to think that when I switch into that mode, I am, in fact, attempting to "speak the language of the natives".
No need for flattery. I'd rather not have it.
There is that. You've watched a lot even in this topic merely to be moved to comment on it.
As I said before, I understand your frustration. And if your claims are true, then I will join you in condemning liars and bullies. If not, then I will stand with my previous stance, which is one of ridiculing the hypocrite
A Jedi warning, if I might? Specifically, that's exactly how I used to look at it. Following that course seems to end up with the traveler being accused of hypocrisy. Fair enough, I suppose, but beware of that result on your own path.
thanx much,
Tiassa
