To the atheists...

[iceaura]

perhaps you could almost describe poetry as a sub-religious principle

Or alchoholism (I am familiar with the linked article, having a subscription to the magazine).

The interesting thing about her account, to me, was the match with male alchoholics' accounts. I had wondered whether the AA principle - that alchoholism was a closed loop control fight within a split authoritarian personality, only dissoluble in a higher authority than the self - applied to women. By her account, it did to her.

Eliot converted to Anglican belief, after years of spiritual misery.

needless to say, having a non-godless household certainly didn't strike me as a prerequisite for making his writing intelligible

Intellectually intelligible at a schoolwork level, maybe - but swooning over Eliot as a teenager takes a certain frame of mind.

It looks to me that >80% of respondent atheists would not support the government forcing religion out of the public domain.

What does this suggest? ”

they are not actively involved in politics

Bad guess.
What it marks is atheistic reluctance to bring governmental power into such matters. Atheists are traditional victims, whenever the government gets around to this kind of oppression. Commonly, it will be directed at all the religions except one, and all the non-religious together.

So atheists tend to be ready to go to the wall over civil liberties such as public displays of religious faith. Not that we get any gratitude for it.

It's an interesting hypothetical situation, btw: a government that favored science and coercively discouraged any and all publically visible religion. How did it get power ? How would it square the scientific approach with the irrationality and damaging unreasonableness of beating on people's rituals and traditions ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura

Originally Posted by light
perhaps you could almost describe poetry as a sub-religious principle
”
Or alchoholism (I am familiar with the linked article, having a subscription to the magazine).

you mean AA?
sure.
I'm not sure how that helps your case

The interesting thing about her account, to me, was the match with male alchoholics' accounts. I had wondered whether the AA principle - that alchoholism was a closed loop control fight within a split authoritarian personality, only dissoluble in a higher authority than the self - applied to women. By her account, it did to her.

you've never stumbled across the phenomena of women benefiting from AA?
probably as easy to venture in to as atheists feeling a lightness through the confession of poetry

Eliot converted to Anglican belief, after years of spiritual misery.

hardly to be held as a prerequisite for deriving pleasure from his work
“

Originally Posted by light
needless to say, having a non-godless household certainly didn't strike me as a prerequisite for making his writing intelligible
”
Intellectually intelligible at a schoolwork level, maybe - but swooning over Eliot as a teenager takes a certain frame of mind.

let me guess?
a deeply religious household?
“

Originally Posted by light
It looks to me that >80% of respondent atheists would not support the government forcing religion out of the public domain.

What does this suggest? ”

they are not actively involved in politics
”
Bad guess.
What it marks is atheistic reluctance to bring governmental power into such matters.

if they weren't politically active, you could just leave it as "reluctance"

Atheists are traditional victims, whenever the government gets around to this kind of oppression.

Commonly, it will be directed at all the religions except one, and all the non-religious together.

So atheists tend to be ready to go to the wall over civil liberties such as public displays of religious faith. Not that we get any gratitude for it.

the traditional victims of a government depend entirely on its values
for instance in some parts, race is an issue
in other parts it is financial earnings

presenting the presence of religion as commonly focusing on victimizing pro civil liberty atheists certainly requires a skewed vision of history and a simplified reduction of human nature since its easy to indicate fanatical atheists and fanatical theists

It's an interesting hypothetical situation, btw: a government that favored science and coercively discouraged any and all publically visible religion. How did it get power ? How would it square the scientific approach with the irrationality and damaging unreasonableness of beating on people's rituals and traditions ?

we could study communist russia or china for a few hints

 

[Michael]

they are not actively involved in politics

Actually I am positive, that for most secular states such as the USA or Japan, Euro etc.. most people that are religous agree that they don't' want the government religous. It's really the only way it's going to work really. Just look at Afghanistan, everyone thought that as soon as they were democratic the people would have religous freedom and just like that a Xian convert was sentenced to have his head cut off. Which as Baron would point out - Is the Law and the guy shouldn't have broken The Law...

Anyway, secular governments fit well with developed nations.
Wouldn't you agree?

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually I am positive, that for most secular states such as the USA or Japan, Euro etc.. most people that are religous agree that they don't' want the government religous. It's really the only way it's going to work really. Just look at Afghanistan, everyone thought that as soon as they were democratic the people would have religous freedom and just like that a Xian convert was sentenced to have his head cut off. Which as Baron would point out - Is the Law and the guy shouldn't have broken The Law...

Anyway, secular governments fit well with developed nations.
Wouldn't you agree?

depends what standards you have in mind when saying "making things work"
Is there more to life and standard of living than economic development?

having spent a bit of time in first and third world cultures I have two points

1 - Given the political history of the region, to argue that since it didn't happen in Afghanistan it can't happen anywhere is misleading (If a secular region had a long long history of being diddled with by foreign super powers you would probably also have a few funky things going down in the name of forging national identity)

2- progress of civilization simply has popularly come to mean "adopting problems of the first world - unfortunately many third world countries are buying into this (and losing valuable aspects of their culture which haven't existed in most parts of western society for at least 40 years - like family unity for example)

 

[Michael]

I just don't see how adding Scientology or Raëlism to the Governmental structure is going to in any way, shape or form, add value to good governance.

If you can explain how this could be then please do so because I am not seeing it.

Really, the more I think about it the more preposterous it seems.

I agree, 3000 years ago as civilization was taking root yeah sure. Worshiping the Pharaohs seemed to work well for Egypt. I'm sure a 5000 year stretch of regular climate and flooding helped out a hell of a lot more. I can't help but wonder what the Egyptians would have been able to accomplish had they progressed towards a secular form of government - with Religion taking on a personal role. Instead of spending 100s of thousands of man hours building religous temples they could have entered the industrial revolution. Maybe there'd be pyramids on Mars by now???

Secondly, Afghanistan was diddled with ---- but who hasn't?!?! Korea was bloody split in half and look at how well the South Korean Republic is doing versus the North Korean Dictatorship. Korea is a good example because about 30 years ago they had the exact same GDP as Afghanistan has now.
It's quite obvious that Japan was diddled with - hell, we occupied them for 50 years (and kind of still do). Also, the USA was a colony once and we were diddled with as we tried to become a separate nation.
Everyone is diddled with

Anyway, I agree I don't want to see all countries become "Westernized" because I treasure distinct culture but in terms of government, when we see that millitant Japan went from being run by a millitary dictator aka Shogun and worshiping and Emperor to a secular democracy and I think everyone will agree they still retain their culture then I see it's possible to have the cake and eat it too.
India is a democracy (a western concept) yet I don't think Indians have suddenly forgotten what it means to be Indian. Have they?
Doesn't the Dali Lama advocate a secular representative government in Tibet - to SAVE the culture?

 

[Michael]

RE: "I just don't see how adding Scientology or Raëlism to the Governmental structure is going to in any way, shape or form, add value to good governance."


So?? Does a single theist here think that adding the precepts that Scientology or Raëlism is founded on is going to "add value" to good governance?

 

[iceaura]

It's an interesting hypothetical situation, btw: a government that favored science and coercively discouraged any and all publically visible religion. How did it get power ? How would it square the scientific approach with the irrationality and damaging unreasonableness of beating on people's rituals and traditions ? ”

we could study communist russia or china for a few hints

Nah, we need a plausible government that favored science, and took a scientific approach to things.

It would probably help if it didn't advocate essentially religious systems of its own, also.

you mean AA?
sure.
I'm not sure how that helps your case

I meant, as I said, alchoholism.

the traditional victims of a government depend entirely on its values
for instance in some parts, race is an issue
in other parts it is financial earnings

But "this kind" of oppression - religiously based - was specified.

you've never stumbled across the phenomena of women benefiting from AA?

Yes, but in different ways - and the issue of the unsuitability of the standard AA approach for most women is common feminist fodder.

probably as easy to venture in to as atheists feeling a lightness through the confession of poetry

Which, for most, involves a rejection of traditional religion. Eliot was unusual, in that regard. His swooning acolytes are as well.

The incorporation of the secular arts into institutional religion - the cooption, even to the extent of taking credit for their inspiration while coercing and limiting their practitioners - is one of the least forgiveable features of the big religions. It's very common for writers and poets to be either converts or forceful rejects of societally powerful religions, for musicians to adopt odd or intense religious beliefs, etc. The religion then takes credit, and often takes over. The similarity there with drugs and booze is undeniable - although that's not what Marx meant.

We can state as general principle that religion comes after, the artistic creativity comes first, as with our poet example. If anything, the art is founder and foundation of the religion, not the other way around. This is especially obvious with theistic religions, which have personified the source of the gift and the inspiration.

The cynical amorality underlying that kind of usurption is hard to forgive.

 

[Frud11]

If you're going to worship something, it might as well be SF
(don't think much of Ron Hubbard's stuff but -mind you I started on Heinlein's Farmer on Ganymede when I was 7, went on to Blish, Niven, and Asimov etc, from there)
saw Space Oddyssey several times in various states of consciousness, and my big bro had a tape, too. Maybe I could start a 'Odyssey:2001' thing, does it sound catchy, you reckn?

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura
“

Originally Posted by light
It's an interesting hypothetical situation, btw: a government that favored science and coercively discouraged any and all publically visible religion. How did it get power ? How would it square the scientific approach with the irrationality and damaging unreasonableness of beating on people's rituals and traditions ? ”

we could study communist russia or china for a few hints
”
Nah, we need a plausible government that favored science, and took a scientific approach to things.

aka - marxisim

It would probably help if it didn't advocate essentially religious systems of its own, also.

you mean like lenin's tomb?

“
Originally Posted by light
you mean AA?
sure.
I'm not sure how that helps your case
”
I meant, as I said, alchoholism.

so what is it then?
the opiate of the masses or the religion of the masses?

“

Originally Posted by light
the traditional victims of a government depend entirely on its values
for instance in some parts, race is an issue
in other parts it is financial earnings
”
But "this kind" of oppression - religiously based - was specified.

hence - specified value
arguing that atheism equals equipoised values is also a value btw
“

Originally Posted by light
you've never stumbled across the phenomena of women benefiting from AA?
”
Yes, but in different ways - and the issue of the unsuitability of the standard AA approach for most women is common feminist fodder.

hmmm - conflicting theologies

“

Originally Posted by light
probably as easy to venture in to as atheists feeling a lightness through the confession of poetry
”
Which, for most, involves a rejection of traditional religion. Eliot was unusual, in that regard. His swooning acolytes are as well.

its not clear what are the prescriptive descriptions of "eliot swooners"

The incorporation of the secular arts into institutional religion - the cooption, even to the extent of taking credit for their inspiration while coercing and limiting their practitioners - is one of the least forgiveable features of the big religions.

thats a strange statement since any renaissance era of art/culture/music has strong religious settings

It's very common for writers and poets to be either converts or forceful rejects of societally powerful religions, for musicians to adopt odd or intense religious beliefs, etc.

it seems for an atheist, any sign of religiosity is intense (which in itself, gives a certain class of atheist an "intense" quality)

The religion then takes credit, and often takes over. The similarity there with drugs and booze is undeniable - although that's not what Marx meant.

if you keep agitating me like this I may start watching the entire series of star trek

We can state as general principle that religion comes after, the artistic creativity comes first, as with our poet example. If anything, the art is founder and foundation of the religion, not the other way around. This is especially obvious with theistic religions, which have personified the source of the gift and the inspiration.

The cynical amorality underlying that kind of usurption is hard to forgive.

rather it seems to be a more simple case that some people are just creative/talented by nature - thus art can exist in or outside of theistic values