Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion

[wynn]

realization born of application

That is a truism, of course, I can't argue with that.

The point I have been repeatedly making is that for an ordinary atheist to apply any of the theistic teachings (and apply them as theistic) is impossible, or would require a giant leap of faith.

Anyone can mechanically go along with some instruction - but only for a limited amount of time. Once the going gets hard, brute force or sheer will don't work anymore: then, one needs some good reason to continue.
Typically, theists do not provide such reasons.

 

[wynn]

Then the endeavour doesn't persist

Of course it doesn't persist. And theists typically blame it on people, claiming "it's because you're jaundiced that you don't like this" as if this accuse alone would make the theistic instruction sensible.

enough to be spat upon by one.

That makes me suspect you didn't have the proper attitude toward it.

its all about the modes of nature one cultivates - which in turn dictate things such as happiness and distress. The point of the descriptions is to isolate which happiness's are superior to others or how they might compare. Generally they aim at pointing out how happiness born of the pursuit of animal propensities (eating, sleeping, mating and defending - or the entire scope for materialistic pursuit) are uniform throughout all species so it doesn't really pay to make them the be all and end all in the human form of life (since the human form of life offers something unique and practically unavailable in any of the other millions of species)

Those descriptions are mostly just examples of humans bitching about animals, and in uninformed ways. I'm not going to go along with claiming that ostriches bury their heads in the sand, and stupid things like that.

If you have a point to make, make it analytically, accurately, and not with misinformed comparisons.

without it there is the guarantee that there will be no result

One cannot "just have faith."
That's psychosis.

You miss the point.

Its the gate to downplaying material desire to a less fevered state (which in turn makes transcendental pursuit a possibility somewhere down the track).

For instance I just watched a documentary about a young somali born super model (who was brought up in britain) returning to her homeland. One can note how the experience broadened her comprehension of priority and value (and even ends with the note that she lessened her modelling workload so she could work on advocacy issues for the somalis) - IOW you could say that the act of charity gave her a taste for higher values that she was otherwise outside of experiencing in the modeling world.

Given that you theists typically look down on people like her anyway, what is your point?

 

[The Marquis]

Even if we conceptualize religiousness as one big defence mechanism, then, given the complexity of defence mechanisms, the issue isn't simple at all.

Which is why we're here writing simplistic responses rather than a book. If I was to try to write about my entire opinion on the subject, Wynn, I'd be here for months and probably wouldn't be due to the possibility I could make a decent amount of coin writing said book.
I believe I've spoken more than once about the inadequacies of a a place like this, and quite simply this is one of the more annoying if one happens to be serious about a topic.

I was just quite struck with the fact that LG could conceptualise something like that, and not even see how it might apply to him in terms of what faith actually was. Staggering.

Which is why I mentioned that most atheists are also capable of logically demolishing the idea of god and then never take the next step, which is to consider the ramifications of there not being one. The satisfaction in their perception of themselves having demolished someone elses belief is in no way a precursor to them questioning their own. Thinking further is dangerous.

I think this is simplistic, and refuses to look into the complex nature of what we consider to be our "selves" and "reality."

His argument, I was merely going along with it and pointing out what he obviously hadn't considered.

The fact that we say "my body" and believe this phrase makes perfect sense, suggests that we at least implicitly believe we are more than just our bodies.

I like the statement, but then we don't all walk around consciously aware of our beliefs in this regard all day either.
Not thinking about things consciously is one of those defence mechanisms. Most spend far more time in that state than otherwise, and don't often delve too deeply when they do. Human intelligence is finely-balanced thing.
Having said that,

In short, throughout history of philosophy and religion, the notion of selfhood has been one of the most addressed topics, it's complexity acknowledged.
So we can't just gloss over it.

Can too. Just did.

 

[The Marquis]

You miss the point.

Its the gate to downplaying material desire to a less fevered state (which in turn makes transcendental pursuit a possibility somewhere down the track).

For instance I just watched a documentary about a young somali born super model (who was brought up in britain) returning to her homeland. One can note how the experience broadened her comprehension of priority and value (and even ends with the note that she lessened her modelling workload so she could work on advocacy issues for the somalis) - IOW you could say that the act of charity gave her a taste for higher values that she was otherwise outside of experiencing in the modeling world.

Says a lot about your capability of thought, LG, that "a" gate to you becomes "The" Gate.

Glad you watched a documentary once. That's nice. There are probably thousands out there, and let's all wonder for a minute or so how much time you'll spend trying to find one that says something completely different.

 

[lightgigantic]

Which is exactly why it's a complete and utter waste of time arguing with religious nut jobs.

as opposed to the value of arguing with atheistic/gross materialist nut jobs?

Faith is exactly that.

Faith is precisely the basis of all activity, religious or other wise.

The problem is that gross materialist nutjob insists that by calling the exact same phenomena by a different name (such as "educated guess" or "inductive knowledge" or even "axiomatic foundations for knowledge") they are now dealing with a distinctly different thing
:shrug:

One could make quite an argument that in 300 years or so we will indeed have the technology to be able to do more or less precisely that, but that doesn't represent much in the way of eternal hope for those living here and now. Odd, though, that the religious types often have as little faith in man with regard to his potential than the atheists can sometimes appear to do. That could be construed as being rather disrespectful to god himself, should he be paying attention to the finer details. I suppose that might put some of them into a state of confusion, really... what if we do? I only wish I could be around long enough for the various churches to begin the debate on immortality, should it ever become possible. I would imagine, though, that religion would suddenly become a rather less attractive proposition should the churches decide that immortality is a sin.

So what are you going to call this ...errr .. "anticipation" of what science is capable of instead of "faith" in order to maintain a facade of credibility?

The various religions and beliefs allow a more immediate gratification, which is obviously far superior a technique in keeping people on their feet, and therefore is far more attractive to those who might be looking, subconsciously or otherwise, for an easy way out rather than having to contemplate things too deeply.

On the contrary, religion cuts straight to the essence of the essential, difficult problems of life - namely temporary existence with a temporary identity in a temporary world - as opposed to merely fine tuning the animal propensities afforded by all species

If a man's beliefs are the only thing preventing him from opting out, he isn't going to let go of them very easily. A man being logically argued out of his faith is usually going to convince himself he doesn't have enough of it, or that he does. It's the same mental safety net an atheist uses when considering what it actually means for him not to believe in god.
A little like a 20 year old blonde marrying a 60 year old billionaire for the security, and then convincing herself that she did it because she was in love with him. Man will do all sorts of things to make himself comfortable.

its kind of silly to think you can present an argument of logic (regardless whether it is pro-atheist or pro-theist) without being underwritten by some issue of value (which is in turn always underscored by issues of faith)

This LightGigantic fellow appears to have convinced himself that any atheist who fully understands mortality is simply going to roll over and die.
It doesn't appear to have occurred to him that a total faith in god should theoretically have the religious types doing more or less the same thing. After all, there is no point to any progress if we're all going to end up in some kind of after life anyway.

rolling over and dying (along with absolute obliteration of all and any of your materialistic contributions at the hands of the time factor) is not a choice.

The only distinction is that a theist has a few other options while the value system of the atheist relegates them to a necessarily inferior/reduced scope for thought and action

There are, however, several other checks and balances nature has put in place to ensure we don't usually do off ourselves. Certainly not much more often than the religious types, and in either case it's not likely to be for religious or non-religious reasons. Point is, that man will find any reason not to die... and every last one of them has very little to do with logic or reality.
Including religion.

The notion of all things (including ourselves) being governed by a superior individual is only demoralizing and depressing for an atheist. Far from it being an invitation to lay off and mope around and do nothing, its actually an inspiration and basis for action for a theist

Few arguments regarding whether or not god exists rarely get as far as discussing the ramifications of him not doing so. That particular tangent forces believer and non-believer alike to think about consequences.
Neither of them particularly want to. Checks and balances.

On the contrary the material world is primarily about inundating the conditioned living entity with a godless view. It doesn't really matter which species of life we are talking about, I think we can all agree that the issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending are very popular. The tragedy of the human form of life (at least in this contemporary age) is that the intelligence has been hijacked by these animal propensities with the result of an (apparently) unprecedented level of global environmental chaos.

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course it doesn't persist. And theists typically blame it on people, claiming "it's because you're jaundiced that you don't like this" as if this accuse alone would make the theistic instruction sensible.

and this is a necessarily incorrect way to analyze a situation because?
people never make incorrect decisions/develop inappropriate attitudes due to approaching a subject matter in a partial or incomplete manner?

That makes me suspect you didn't have the proper attitude toward it.

lol
feel free to go to rajastan and engulf the camel population with your innate benevolent disposition ...

Those descriptions are mostly just examples of humans bitching about animals, and in uninformed ways. I'm not going to go along with claiming that ostriches bury their heads in the sand, and stupid things like that.

If you have a point to make, make it analytically, accurately, and not with misinformed comparisons.

those examples exist to make analytical points ... especially for people who have a strong resistance tor receiving analytical points

One cannot "just have faith."
That's psychosis.

Even more crazier is "just having a result" without it

Given that you theists typically look down on people like her anyway, what is your point?

wtf?
Look down on people who make spiritual advancement?

 

[lightgigantic]

Says a lot about your capability of thought, LG, that "a" gate to you becomes "The" Gate.

Glad you watched a documentary once. That's nice. There are probably thousands out there, and let's all wonder for a minute or so how much time you'll spend trying to find one that says something completely different.

get back to us when you have something to contribute to the discussion

thanks in advance

 

[wynn]

Which is why I mentioned that most atheists are also capable of logically demolishing the idea of god and then never take the next step, which is to consider the ramifications of there not being one. The satisfaction in their perception of themselves having demolished someone elses belief is in no way a precursor to them questioning their own. Thinking further is dangerous.

It's dangerous only from the perspective (taken either by theists or atheists) of identifying with one's mind.

His argument, I was merely going along with it and pointing out what he obviously hadn't considered.

The thing is that traditional Buddhism - which for all practical intents and purposes is atheistic - makes in roundabout the same argument as theists when it comes to the unsatisfactory nature of life as it is usually lived. So it's not like the theists are giving an argument here that would be specific to theism.


And in general, in the Eastern conceptions, theistic or atheistic ones, eternal life is not something that would specifically be seen as desirable or something to look forward to; instead, eternal life, in the form of repeated birth and death, they think of it as a given of existence.

It's only mainstream Christianity that brought about those lovey-dovey notions of the afterlife, with its idea that once this life is over, it's all over and settled and we'll be happy forever.

In comparison, the Eastern view is grim: samsara literally means 'aimless wandering' - aimlessly wandering on from one life to the next, which is what "life as it is usually lived" is like. So in the Eastern conceptions, the aim is to stop samsara, to stop wandering aimlessly.

I like the statement, but then we don't all walk around consciously aware of our beliefs in this regard all day either.
Not thinking about things consciously is one of those defence mechanisms. Most spend far more time in that state than otherwise, and don't often delve too deeply when they do. Human intelligence is finely-balanced thing.

You seem to think that a negative view, a harsh view, one in which humans come out the losers, is the right one, the real one.
Just like some people think that if one isn't frankly brutal, then one isn't being brutally frank - brutally frank being the desired outlook.

Can too. Just did.

Of course you "can" do it. Whether that is good or not, is another matter.

 

[lightgigantic]

That is a truism, of course, I can't argue with that.

The point I have been repeatedly making is that for an ordinary atheist to apply any of the theistic teachings (and apply them as theistic) is impossible, or would require a giant leap of faith.

faith is definitely an prerequisite for any sort of value ... and doubly so when we start talking of value systems changing.

You do a lot to intellectualize the aversion you have to faith, but you never really explain why you are capable of the same value/faith judgments in identical issues (except by giving inadequate explanations of how god is unique ( unlike say the north pole or the practice of buddhism) ... or that you are inadequate to analyze a theist (yet more than eager to go on for paragraphs about their bad points and make blanket statements about them as a creed).

Anyone can mechanically go along with some instruction - but only for a limited amount of time. Once the going gets hard, brute force or sheer will don't work anymore: then, one needs some good reason to continue.
Typically, theists do not provide such reasons.

as already said, it comes from experience. I guess (as it is with any activity) there is a window period where one can blunder along simply in a state of it being a novelty or out of some attraction to some secondary aspect, but sooner or later attachments rise and different paths present themselves.

Therefore much of the insurance in going about things adequately and avoiding the pitfalls is accepting guidance - This general principle applies to a wide range of activities, not just spiritual life.

If one has problems with the individuals offering guidance (or even if one has problems identifying such individuals) it tends to show up in the aspirant's practice (what to speak of if they hate the people offering guidance).

 

[wynn]

and this is a necessarily incorrect way to analyze a situation because?

It doesn't help.
It's inactionable criticism.
It's an attempt to get the upper hand over the other person.


Calling someone stupid doesn't make you right. And it certainly doesn't help the person that you are calling stupid, nor does it help the relationship between the two of you.

lol
feel free to go to rajastan and engulf the camel population with your innate benevolent disposition ...

I think it's sad you say this.


I often see this in theists - it's as if they lack empathy and practical aspects of what it takes to help someone. It's as if they simply want to have things done their way, and even if this means destroying those they claim to want to help.

those examples exist to make analytical points ... especially for people who have a strong resistance tor receiving analytical points

A person may be "resistant" to analytical or any other points because they don't trust the speaker, not because they would lack intelligence.

I see this often - theists assuming that they are authorities on intelligence, and that people should just trust them.

wtf?
Look down on people who make spiritual advancement?

Of course you look down on everyone who doesn't "perform at your level of expertise."

 

[lightgigantic]

What about teaching various forms of intoxication?
Involving intoxicating substances of various kinds (from heroin to chocolate) as well as intoxicating activities (for example, cultivating sports fan culture)?

Intoxication is intended to "nullify these five different statuses of life—pa, pha, ba, bha and ma—one achieves apavarga, /to bring/ liberation from the punishment of material existence",
so those who teach intoxication actually fall into the category of "When one attempts to nullify these five different statuses of life—pa, pha, ba, bha and ma—one achieves apavarga, or liberation from the punishment of material existence"!!

using intoxication to solve problems is kind of like an unskilled businessman who turns off his phone to avoid having to worry about all the bills they are accruing

You find CrunchyCat to be an example of "the second type /who/ tend to be a bit more intellectual or knowledgeable of the nature of conditioned existence"?

push his buttons a bit and you find all his arguments revert to "identity doesn't exist"

 

[wynn]

using intoxication to solve problems is kind of like an unskilled businessman who turns off his phone to avoid having to worry about all the bills they are accruing

My point is that your formulation allows for intoxication to count as an attempt to nullify these five different statuses of life, and thus as a means for liberation from the punishment of material existence!!

push his buttons a bit and you find all his arguments revert to "identity doesn't exist"

Uh. The question was whether you consider CC as an example of the second, more intellectual kind of atheist or not.

 

[wynn]

faith is definitely an prerequisite for any sort of value ... and doubly so when we start talking of value systems changing.

You do a lot to intellectualize the aversion you have to faith, but you never really explain why you are capable of the same value/faith judgments in identical issues (except by giving inadequate explanations of how god is unique ( unlike say the north pole or the practice of buddhism) ... or that you are inadequate to analyze a theist (yet more than eager to go on for paragraphs about their bad points and make blanket statements about them as a creed).


as already said, it comes from experience. I guess (as it is with any activity) there is a window period where one can blunder along simply in a state of it being a novelty or out of some attraction to some secondary aspect, but sooner or later attachments rise and different paths present themselves.

Therefore much of the insurance in going about things adequately and avoiding the pitfalls is accepting guidance - This general principle applies to a wide range of activities, not just spiritual life.

If one has problems with the individuals offering guidance (or even if one has problems identifying such individuals) it tends to show up in the aspirant's practice (what to speak of if they hate the people offering guidance).

You don't seem to understand where I am coming from.

And you are definitely resistant to my explaining my stance.

 

[lightgigantic]

My point is that your formulation allows for intoxication to count as an attempt to nullify these five different statuses of life, and thus as a means for liberation from the punishment of material existence!!

"attempt" being the operative word - professional drug users hardly constitute for being problem free

Uh. The question was whether you consider CC as an example of the second, more intellectual kind of atheist or not.

the notion of "identity doesn't ultimately exist" requires a bit more introspection than the notion "material happiness ultimately exists"

 

[lightgigantic]

You don't seem to understand where I am coming from.

And you are definitely resistant to my explaining my stance.

I am simply explaining the general principles that prohibits an individual from approaching a (or even "any") value system

 

[wynn]

"attempt" being the operative word - professional drug users hardly constitute for being problem free

You didn't address my point.

the notion of "identity doesn't ultimately exist" requires a bit more introspection than the notion "material happiness ultimately exists"

You didn't answer my question.

 

[wynn]

I am simply explaining the general principles that prohibits an individual from approaching a (or even "any") value system

You are explaining those general principles as you see them.

 

[lightgigantic]

It doesn't help.
It's inactionable criticism.
It's an attempt to get the upper hand over the other person.


Calling someone stupid doesn't make you right. And it certainly doesn't help the person that you are calling stupid, nor does it help the relationship between the two of you.

If one cannot accept another as having experiences more valid than one's self in a respectful manner (ie acknowledging that some one is better than you at something and not being envious about it) all criticism becomes inactionable.

Or alternatively, if one draws the line at anyone being better than one's self (ie we are all on an equal platform) criticism is also greatly diminished (and even then, only occurs if there is a strong bond of friendship between the people)

I think it's sad you say this.


I often see this in theists - it's as if they lack empathy and practical aspects of what it takes to help someone. It's as if they simply want to have things done their way, and even if this means destroying those they claim to want to help.

and .... errr... how many camels have you had experience with exactly?

A person may be "resistant" to analytical or any other points because they don't trust the speaker, not because they would lack intelligence.

I see this often - theists assuming that they are authorities on intelligence, and that people should just trust them.

I explain this point in detail in the post you missed while writing this and you then say I don't understand you and are resisting your stance .....

Of course you look down on everyone who doesn't "perform at your level of expertise."

Are you still beating your wife?

 

[lightgigantic]

It doesn't help.
It's inactionable criticism.
It's an attempt to get the upper hand over the other person.


Calling someone stupid doesn't make you right. And it certainly doesn't help the person that you are calling stupid, nor does it help the relationship between the two of you.

If one cannot accept another as having experiences more valid than one's self in a respectful manner (ie acknowledging that some one is better than you at something and not being envious about it) all criticism becomes inactionable.

Or alternatively, if one draws the line at anyone being better than one's self (ie we are all on an equal platform) criticism is also greatly diminished (and even then, only occurs if there is a strong bond of friendship between the people)

I think it's sad you say this.


I often see this in theists - it's as if they lack empathy and practical aspects of what it takes to help someone. It's as if they simply want to have things done their way, and even if this means destroying those they claim to want to help.

and .... errr... how many camels have you had experience with exactly?

A person may be "resistant" to analytical or any other points because they don't trust the speaker, not because they would lack intelligence.

I see this often - theists assuming that they are authorities on intelligence, and that people should just trust them.

I explain this point in detail in the post you missed ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...any-religion&p=3010975&viewfull=1#post3010975 ) while writing this and you then say I don't understand you and are resisting your stance .....

Of course you look down on everyone who doesn't "perform at your level of expertise."

Are you still beating your wife?

 

[lightgigantic]

(this post will come up on two other occasions probably - can't seem to paste any sort of link in my posts)

It doesn't help.
It's inactionable criticism.
It's an attempt to get the upper hand over the other person.


Calling someone stupid doesn't make you right. And it certainly doesn't help the person that you are calling stupid, nor does it help the relationship between the two of you.

If one cannot accept another as having experiences more valid than one's self in a respectful manner (ie acknowledging that some one is better than you at something and not being envious about it) all criticism becomes inactionable.

Or alternatively, if one draws the line at anyone being better than one's self (ie we are all on an equal platform) criticism is also greatly diminished (and even then, only occurs if there is a strong bond of friendship between the people)

I think it's sad you say this.


I often see this in theists - it's as if they lack empathy and practical aspects of what it takes to help someone. It's as if they simply want to have things done their way, and even if this means destroying those they claim to want to help.

and .... errr... how many camels have you had experience with exactly?

A person may be "resistant" to analytical or any other points because they don't trust the speaker, not because they would lack intelligence.

I see this often - theists assuming that they are authorities on intelligence, and that people should just trust them.

I explain this point in detail in the post you missed while writing this and you then say I don't understand you and are resisting your stance .....

Of course you look down on everyone who doesn't "perform at your level of expertise."

Are you still beating your wife?