[person3]

some people adhere to philosophy and do so against spirituality...

and it seems to me to be like "i have the answer, i figured it out all by myself, i don't need to depend on a higher power to help me, i dont' need to trust something which i don't know won't betray me".

some people adhere to spirituality along with philosophy or without it...

and it seems to me like they are saying "i dont' have all the answers, I don't know, I can't do it all myself, I need someone else to help me, I trust that even if i don't know this being well enough or their intentions they can still help me"

and looking at who is so deeply divided in all the arguments about religion and spirituality and philosophy and logic...etc...

it seems that a lot of our arguments over these issues are actually about things more personal. look above at the first few paragraphs: you have some people that refuse to acknowledge their lack of control, some people who refuse to trust something because it's NOT them and because they don't know it inside out, some people who claim not to need such a thing.

and I'm not trying to say that religion or faith or spirituality is the right thing for us. when applied in the wrong way (like depending on god in a magical-thinking type way or trying to decipher some kabbalistic code or numerology) that stuff CAN hurt us. We do need our reason and logic and intuition, yes. but what i'm saying is look at WHY you hate religion or spirituality, or why you love it, or why you're on the fence...if it's because of personal convictions you reached and you have established a code for yourself, that's one thing...but if it stirs violent rage, if you have a sudden outrage at the idea of having faith in the unknown, ask yourself WHY does that PARTICULAR aspect of it all bother you so much? could it be you have a problem jumping into the waters of trust with a person you hardly know? could it be that you can't trust yourself and your own intuition to make the right decisions and you have to constantly think and reason everything to the point of near OCD? Could it be the reason you are so prepared for all of life's disasters is that you're afraid to live in the first place, or is it because there is a true and proven threat of, say, a nuclear attack? Where does the logic end and the obsessing begin? Where does the intellectual talk end and the violent reaction towards concepts like unconditional love and trust begin?

Just stuff to think about. I know i am.

 

[CECIL]

when applied in the wrong way (like depending on god in a magical-thinking type way or trying to decipher some kabbalistic code or numerology) that stuff CAN hurt us.

This is the only part of your post I had a problem with. Namely because I'm beginning to explore these possibilities. Please explain.

 

[Monkeydust]

If you're insinuating that in some way adhering to rational beliefs based on actual evidence, as opposed to religion, dogma or mere superstition, is in some way a result of personal failings or a neurotic personality, then I don't agree at all.

You might have a point with regard to some people going too far in "needing" to explain stuff, but beyond that it seems to be a bit of a misrepresentation of the issues at hand.

In particular, this dichotomy annoyed me:

some people adhere to philosophy and do so against spirituality...

and it seems to me to be like "i have the answer, i figured it out all by myself, i don't need to depend on a higher power to help me, i dont' need to trust something which i don't know won't betray me".

vs

some people adhere to spirituality along with philosophy or without it...

and it seems to me like they are saying "i dont' have all the answers, I don't know, I can't do it all myself, I need someone else to help me, I trust that even if i don't know this being well enough or their intentions they can still help me"

The truth is actually the opposite to that. The people who don't commit to spirituality or theism are the ones saying "we don't know, and we don't have the answers". It's the people that do adhere to religion and spirituality who claim to have all the answers "from the sky", and claim certainty in that.

I just think it's going a bit far to suggest that some of our opinions on religion and the like are rooted in some psychological "fear of the unknown".

 

[person3]

it depends.

I guess to clarify it I am talking about EXTREME atheists who are the same as EXTREME religious fanatics. Both would have that "I have all the answers" thing going on.

I have gotten into an argument with an atheist friend who was being really awful to me just because I said something about meeting a rabbi who allegedly works miracles. I only believed it because of the way he happened to be around at the exact point my step-grandfather's terminally ill condition made a complete turnaround. So I thought "hm there might be something there". and she just went off like "people who believe are stupid"

and it's like...hardcore atheists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists. I guess the people who admit to NOT having all the answers would be a non-fundamental religious person or an agnostic.

I'll look at the rest of hte reply later....

CECIL...i'll get to that sometime later too...

 

[person3]

oh i don't believe superstition or dogma are good things at all. I think faith and surrender of control are helpful (not that i use those things like I should)...but I don't think that organized religion or magical thinking are helpful...that was not what i meant...

 

[Martinelv]

I guess to clarify it I am talking about EXTREME atheists who are the same as EXTREME religious fanatics. Both would have that "I have all the answers" thing going on

That's simply not true Person3. As an atheist, I 'lack faith'. End of story. However, I do have strong views on organised religion which has nothing to do with my atheism, at all. It's a point of view. Atheists do not assert (or they shouldn't) that 'there is no god', because it is (as the religious delight in pointing out) that it is impossible to disprove. I'm open to that the idea that there 'might be' a god, might be, but I really really really really doubt it. In the same way that I doubt that there is a leprachaun under my bed. Why don't people understand this? Why don't they understand that it is the religious who are totally and utterly set in their beliefs, not atheists. I'm going to say it for one last time - Atheism = A-THEISM = Lack OF BELIF. That's all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Atheism might lead to a strong hatred of organised dogmatic religion (as in my case), but not neccessarily so. I could fall into your catagory of an EXTREME ATHEIST (although I don't like the term, and it's meaningless really), as I despise religion, for personal reasons and otherwise. What's wrong with that? If relgion didn't cause so much suffering on behalf of their imaginary friend, then I wouldn't hate it, but it does - so I do.

I don't understand why people are allowed, ney - encouraged to despise all manner of things that cause people harm, yet whenever an atheist dares to criticise religion, he's booed and hissed. I don't understand and never will. I'm not talking about personal spiritual beliefs here, I don't give a damn - I'm talking about organised religion. If organised religion were a drug, it'd be class A, I tell ya.

Cocaine makes you feel good for a while but I don't see anyone in a rush to sing it's praises.

 

[Monkeydust]

I guess to clarify it I am talking about EXTREME atheists who are the same as EXTREME religious fanatics. Both would have that "I have all the answers" thing going on.

I woudn't say that's true.

"Extreme" Atheists are the same as all other atheists in they say that it doesn't make sense to believe in a God when the sum total of evidence for his existence is zero.

They only differ from others who believe this view in that, because of the conviction that you need evidence to back up some kind of faith, or because faith should not be imposed by those who are not themselves infallible, they have strong views against organized religion.

They don't say "I have all the answers" at all. They merely say the religious fanatics that they don't have the answers and therefore they should be fought at every turn when they try to act as if they do.

I can see where you're coming from. There is a superficial similarity between the two viewpoints. But the comparison breaks down. Here's the difference as I see it:

- On the one hand, religious fundamentalists dogmatically and stubbornly pursue a belief, and very often compel others to do the same, even though it is based on what amounts to "blind faith", without incontrevertible evidence.

- Atheists don't have any "blind faith". They simply have no faith in areas where the matter hasn't been proved with any certainty at all and with no substantive evidence to back it up. They don't claim to have all the answers, they just claim to know that the religious people don't have all the ansers either.

 

[person3]

guys...I used to be very much atheist. I totally understand the standpoint.

The only reason i'm NOT an atheist right now is because I don't FEEL it to necessarily be right for me. It doesn't make the sense that it used to. It's hard to explain. Once I got DP i couldn't be atheist anymore, sounds reverse of everyone else.

And Martin it's not like you get booed and hissed for saying comments about religion without throwing in a few sarcastic punches yourself. If you're going to argue these things the way I've seen you do, you're gonna get hit. And it's not because you have a few qualms with the church.

And I guess we could talk all day about all the bad things religion has done to people, but

a) one doesn't have to be part of an organized religion to believe in something

and

b) i think a lot of us forget that a lot of GOOD things come out of organized religion. People have it in their nature to form tribes based on SOME kind of common ground and are willing to fight the other "tribes" to near death over it. Religion just happens to be one of the particularly strong bonding grounds...but it also forms secure, safe socieites for some people; it gives them a sense of identity, existence, and a past and importance (which are good things to have psychologically especially in a world with billions of people), it brings families and friends together and at times can help keep kids out of trouble.

I don't think religion is ALL great...when religion enters politics it's quite awful. But the major organized religions are kind of like political parties anyway.

I just wonder why some people in this world are so ADAMANT about everyone hearing their viewpoint, be it religious or atheist. I have seen both sides of it and I don't think it has much to do with spirituality at all. Examining my own reasons why I chose to be Atheist I think there were other factors playing a part besides the philosophy of it. I think there were a lot of personal hangups involved.

If that's not the case for you, though, fantastic, and I apologize for assuming otherwise. But I know it's not that way for everyone out there.
And I just wonder because of the motivations in OTHER atheists I've seen, if it has something to do with personality traits that make people prone to psychological disorders.

 

[Martinelv]

If you're going to argue these things the way I've seen you do, you're gonna get hit.

I don't mean it that way - I don't care about people using religion to attack me, in fact I encourage it. Adds fuel to the fire. I know I'm a sarcastic bastard so I accept it in return. What I really mean is that religion is still a taboo subject, and it pisses me off when the faithful hide behind a screen of 'offence'. That really gets my goat.

i think a lot of us forget that a lot of GOOD things come out of organized religion

Yes - in the same way that a car crash provides work for paramedics. I'm sure that communities of faith gives comfort, identity (is that a good thing ? needing others to provide an identity for you?), security and an opportunity to have a nice cup of tea and a sing-song on a Sunday, to their followers only of course, but what else? If we could divide up the amount of altruism that people provide, you will find that only a very small slice comes from organised religious groups. They are too busy either reinforcing each others faith or blindly discriminating against others who don't believe in the 'right' imaginary friend. Even now, in this day and age, the less fortunate and more vulnerable people of the world are preyed upon by religious missionaries - with the offer of a bit of food and water in return for life-long obedience to their imaginary friend. Great swathes of indigenous culture are wiped out in a single stroke - it's a f*****g tragedy.

Average Joe on the street keeps evil at bay, or at least tries to, because of simple good human nature, without the shackles and dogma of organised religion. Some people make the astonishing claim that you have to be part of a religious 'group' to perform acts of kindness. Incredible.

I've seen, if it has something to do with personality traits that make people prone to psychological disorders.

That's very foxy of you Person3. If only dear Herod were here to enjoy this.

 

[Sojourner]

"Yes - in the same way that a car crash provides work for paramedics."

Oh, yes, we all know of the schools and hospitals atheists have established throughout the world. Their contribution is just astounding.

 

[Scattered]

Atheists don't have the sway over the masses needed to extort large sums of money to advance their viewpoint or influence.

 

[Sojourner]

That's because the ones that get to have sway are the ones that do good things.

 

[CECIL]

Unless you count McDonald's as atheists

Look past your logical mind for the answers. Faith cannot be quantified nor measured just as you can never prove the existance or non-existance of god. By the same token blind faith cannot help you understand mathematics - the two are mutually exclusive in their current form in our society.

 

[Sojourner]

Of course in today's world atheists do good things; when speaking of long-term attitudes, however, one generally looks to historical realities and trends, and the facts there are both self-evident and clear to an unbiased viewer.

The facts of the historical reality are always going to be the facts of the matter when one looks at long-term attitudes.

Atheists doing good things is just a blip on the radar screen -- it's so new that it is quite properly perceived as only a recent occurrence. That's because it IS only recent.

The provision, of course, of medical services that kill unborn human creatures, however, can never be seen as good, except by people who are delusionary.

 

[person3]

wow, sojourner, you must seem to know everything. what a genius! oh my god you sould have like totally won a nobel peace prize!

idiot.

 

[person3]

The provision, of course, of medical services that kill unborn human creatures, however, can never be seen as good, except by people who are delusionary

well you can wheel me to the god damned asylum then!

btw something is not alive if it is not conscious, which it is NOT for the duration in which the VAST majority of women terminate it.

 

[Homeskooled]

Hmmmm.....I dont think we want to start using that as a medical definition for death-"Not alive if not conscious." Currently, the medically accepted definition of dead is total brain death with no hope of recovery. If someone has the ability to regain consciousness, which happens all the time with head injuries and most certainly will happen with a baby, you cant "pull the plug on them". Not that this matters much. I believe its by week five that an unborn baby has brain waves, making it by your own definition alive. A great deal of women dont know they are even pregnant by week five. Terminations usually happen around the third and fourth month, I believe. To be honest, science is making it harder and harder to rationalize abortion. We really have to play around with the definitions of alive or dead, conscious or unconscious, human or inhuman to rationalize it, and it always seems to fall short. Any argument you can use to negate a baby's humanity can be used against a full-fledged adult or an infant outside of the womb, and they eventually begin to sound like arguments that the German eugenics movement used. I've even heard people argue that since unborn children dont have a normal IQ, they really dont qualify as humans. Well, that doesnt bode well for people with Down Syndrome now does it?

Peace
Homeskooled

 

[Sojourner]

Without the heartless, selfish, abominably evil, and satanic violence of some alleged humans against innocent human life (probably with better working brains than the psychotic monsters who kill them), a fertilized egg would develop into a baby.

All who support the unjust killing of innocent human life have a special place waiting for them unless they stop following the father of lies.

 

[Monkeydust]

I'm drunk but...ah shut up.

Christians like you annoy me.

 

[Sojourner]

I know, Monk, but that's my mission (or at least part of it) :lol: