Religion is not About God

[Reflex]

Whew! With uwot parroting the ideas of a thoroughly discredited Joseph Atwill and Hobbes positing who-knows-what and the general unreasonableness other atheists, I have to I seriously question the sanity of some, indeed, most, of the atheists posting here. Their inane musings are not merely shallow, but illogical, confused and truly cringe-worthy. Maybe they've grown tired of making themselves look stupid and look to rage and churlish rebukes to soothe their battered egos.

The manner in which the non-religious here engage the religious-minded looks like a bad joke gone sour. But that's not a bad thing: nothing can serve the advance of religion better than highlighting the utter folly of the non-religious. They stir things up without proof, logic or reason, and they do it without rationality or lucidity. The non-religious here do prove one thing the Bible says beyond any shadow of a doubt, and that's this: "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly." (Proverbs 26:11)

Philosopher Thomas Nagel writes, “In every area of thought we must rely ultimately on our judgments, tested by reflection, subject to correction by the counterarguments of others, modified by the imagination and by comparison with alternatives." The critics of religion have neither counterarguments or alternatives. Religionists have a narrative that make them feel at home in the universe, the non-religious here have ...what? Bitterness and scorn? Having lived with "memes" that alienate them from Totality, why should we expect anything else?

So, I'll ask my critics one last time: what "myth" or narrative give your life direction and, at the same time, is both comforting and intellectually satisfying? What's your directionalizing and in-depth narrative or philosophy of life -- I mean besides one of the five previously listed?

• Promissory materialism ― the answer will be forthcoming when science achieves a fuller understanding of the way things are
  'Why' is a nonsense question ― things are as they are just because. Any supposed answer is an unjustifiable belief.
  I don't know, therefore, no one else does or can
  I don't know, but not that (God)
  Anything that can happen does (with God being the soul exception), so God isn't necessary.

[Lacewing]

Reflex, are you a fan of Donald Trump? Because all of your inane posturing and cowardly name-calling while providing a whole lot of words with little balance, substance, or truth... would seem to suggest that you would admire the similarities between you and he.

You can repeatedly spew all of your short-sighted garbage opinions about atheists and people you don't agree with, and all it does is show your vast deficiencies. Your lack of respect and integrity demonstrates that you have nothing of clarity to offer, nor are you worth exchanging ideas with.

[Lacewing]

on its knees sucking my nob

You don't seem to need any help doing this continually for yourself.

[Reflex]

Religion is not about God, but about us.

A human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, and Freedom and necessity — relating to itself and that the work of unifying the synthesis is forever recommencing

These posts are not an effort to establish the fact of God's existence or what he must be like, but rather about formulating a narrative or “myth” consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live, a narrative that is goal-oriented, intellectually satisfying and consistent with science, even if not evidenced by it.

There is plenty of evidence to the point that there has never been a coherent human culture without a religious tradition.

Religion is not about God, or even what is factually true, but about formulating a satisfying narrative consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live.

No self-respecting critic will opine against something about which he or she knows nothing or without positing a viable alternative. 

• 1) The power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal and
  
  2) it is what one believes rather than what one knows that determines conduct and dominates personal performances. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence upon the average person unless it becomes emotionally activated.

Whether we call it 'God' or the 'quantum field,' it is "the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere." 

The philosophical Zeitgeist that has all but determined the discussions and debates about God for the last 50 years is theistic personalism.

As human beings, we have fears, loves, hopes, dreams, aspirations and a longing for something more than the belief that all this is but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter.

You don’t have to be a believer to see that religion genuinely offers something to its adherents (often when nothing else is available) and that what it provides is neither inconsequential nor silly.

By contrast, the New Atheists engage with religion purely as a set of ideas [Gads, how many times have I said the same thing?], a kind of cosmic rulebook for believers. On that basis, it’s easy to point out inconsistencies or contradictions in the various holy texts and mock the faithful for their gullibility.

But what happens then? You’re left with no explanation for their devotion other than a susceptibility to fraud. To borrow Dawkins’ title, if God is nothing but an intellectual delusion then the billions of believers are, well, deluded; a collection of feeble saps in need of enlightenment from their intellectual superiors.

That’s the basis for the dickishness that so many people now associate from the New Atheism, a movement too often exemplified by privileged know-it-alls telling the poor that they’re idiots.

When asked about the mysterious parts of their 'working hypothesis,' the atheist invariably responds in one of several ways ― all of which expresses blissful ignorance and the absence of a moral compass:

• Promissory materialism ― the answer will be forthcoming when science achieves a fuller understanding of the way things are
  'Why' is a nonsense question ― things are as they are just because. Any supposed answer is an unjustifiable belief. 
  I don't know, therefore, no one else does or can
  I don't know, but not that (God)
  Anything that can happen does (with God being the soul exception), so God isn't necessary.

[Nick_A]

Reflex wrote:

So, I'll ask my critics one last time: what "myth" or narrative give your life direction and, at the same time, is both comforting and intellectually satisfying? What's your directionalizing and in-depth narrative or philosophy of life -- I mean besides one of the five previously listed?

The trouble as I see it is that people can find it comforting and inellectually satisfying to fly planes into buildings. That is why I distinguish between exoteric and esoteric beliefs

Central to the distinction between Esoteric and Exoteric is that of states of consciousness. An Exoteric philosophy or religion as one which is based on the normal waking state of consciousness, or a modified state of consciousness which is still pretty close to the normal waking state. Any aspiration beyond the ordinary state of existence is discouraged. For example, according to the religious person, "God created/loves you just as you are", so who are you to question what God has ordained for you by striving for some higher state of consciousness? While according to the skeptical Materialist, there is no higher state beyond the rational mind anyway (all non-rational states of consciousness being delusionary)
.
In contrast, all true Esotericism is Gnostic. That is, it is based on Higher Knowledge, or Gnosis, to use the Greek term. Gnosis is a much superior way of understanding than Reason. Reason stumbles around with premises and logical arguments, and uses these in its own way, without regard for higher truth. With reason alone, you can equally prove or disprove any statement. Certainly, used properly, reason is an invaluable aid to understanding and approaching the Truth. But used improperly, it can cunningly justify any statement or argument, no matter how patently false. It is through this negative use of reason that the inferior religious and skeptical materialistic philosophies are able to flourish.

The direct experience of gnosis is what Plato called soul knowledge. Esoteric religious practice seeks the experience of gnosis. Exoteric religious practice deals with conditioning. A conditioned belief is not necessarily wrong. Since it isn't "felt" it can easily turn into its opposite. Religion isn't about defining God but rather how to open as a human being to the conscious God/Man connection.

[Reflex]

Reflex wrote:

So, I'll ask my critics one last time: what "myth" or narrative give your life direction and, at the same time, is both comforting and intellectually satisfying? What's your directionalizing and in-depth narrative or philosophy of life -- I mean besides one of the five previously listed?

The trouble as I see it is that people can find it comforting and inellectually satisfying to fly planes into buildings. That is why I distinguish between exoteric and esoteric beliefs

Absolutely! People can and do rationalize the most horrendous acts imaginable. BUT "Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning. but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gate." (Tarthang Tulku) It's a long, drawn-out process called "evolution." It's why Francis Bacon was right when he said, "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." That's why atheistic philosophy is little more than an aberration in the long history of philosophy.

[sthitapragya]

Religion isn't about defining God but rather how to open as a human being to the conscious God/Man connection.

And how do you propose to do that? If you cannot define God, you have no way of knowing that there is a possibility of a connection with him. The problem with this whole issue is the humongous number of inconsistencies like this one. On the one hand you cannot define God. Yet you somehow know that one can have a connection with him. That is a definition. God is a being with which one can have a connection. Okay. Is there anyone you know who has a connection with God? The only way you can know that is to believe someone who says so. Now how do you differentiate between those who are faking it and those you are actually telling you the truth? You have no idea what a connection with God does to a human being. There are no records of that. Attofishpi and Bob both claim to have a direct connection with God. Do you believe them? If you do, I have never seen you ask them any question about how they achieved it. So it appears you don't believe them. So why don't you?

Dontaskme claims to have a connection with Oneness of something like that. You don't believe him either. So how do you really know that someone has a connection with God? Have you met anyone who has it? If you have, why are there so few people who do have it? Do you think Mark Zuckerberg or Obama have it? Or the Dalai Lama? If you do, why aren't you listening to them? If they don't do you think they have not led richer and more fulfilling lives than you? What does one get out of the connection with God?

It is pretty obvious when you look at humanity that a rich life is a life where risks are taken and experiences of LIFE are gained. That is what makes life rich. Look at where connection with God got you. You refuse to accept the father of Jesus as God. How do you expect either Jesus or His Father to connect with you?

And that is yet another problem You cannot define God but Jesus is your God. How did you know that? That is a defined man/ God. How can you point and say that is my God when you cannot define God?

[Reflex]

Looks like we have another person in serious need of a course in reading comprehension posting.

[sthitapragya]

Looks like we have another person in serious need of a course in reading comprehension posting.

Since this is your thread, it would be impolite to ignore you. Let us assume that I have not understood your discussion. Yet I have raised some issues. Would you care to address them?

[Reflex]

Looks like we have another person in serious need of a course in reading comprehension posting.

Since this is your thread, it would be impolite to ignore you. Let us assume that I have not understood your discussion. Yet I have raised some issues. Would you care to address them?

No, you haven't. You can begin by reading the first and last sentences of the OP, the highlighted text of the excerpt and positing your own directionalizing narrative.

[sthitapragya]

Religion is not about God, but about us.

A human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, and Freedom and necessity — relating to itself and that the work of unifying the synthesis is forever recommencing

How do you know this to be true?

These posts are not an effort to establish the fact of God's existence or what he must be like, but rather about formulating a narrative or “myth” consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live, a narrative that is goal-oriented, intellectually satisfying and consistent with science, even if not evidenced by it.

You really don't need to know who you are and where you come from to live goal oriented intellectually satisfying lives. I think we can both agree that neither Obama nor Mark Zukerberg nor Sundar Pichai know where they come from. Yet I am pretty sure their lives are definitely richer than both ours. They have had amazing experiences and done amazing things (maybe even without doing amazing things). You and I would be pretty much in the same boat since we are both here wasting our time instead of achieving something. Yet, I am pretty sure you think you have a goal oriented and fulfilling life just as I do.

The other thing is there is no such thing as "consistent with science even if not evidenced by it."

There is plenty of evidence to the point that there has never been a coherent human culture without a religious tradition.

And that was because we did not have sophisticated societies with controls in place. We do now. So we don't need religion anymore. That does not mean I don't appreciate the role played by religion. But like a great player past its prime, religion is past its prime.

Religion is not about God, or even what is factually true, but about formulating a satisfying narrative consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live.

Again, you don't need to know who you are and where you come from to know how you should live. You yourself are still searching for the answers. So you don't really know who you are and where you come from, but you definitely know how you should live.

No self-respecting critic will opine against something about which he or she knows nothing or without positing a viable alternative. 

Yet you opined " A human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, and Freedom and necessity — relating to itself and that the work of unifying the synthesis is forever recommencing"

• 1) The power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal and
  
  2) it is what one believes rather than what one knows that determines conduct and dominates personal performances. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence upon the average person unless it becomes emotionally activated.

1) I agree. But if you are pointing to religion, then are you admitting that it is the appeal rather than the truth of religion that has the power?

2) Agreed. But I will add "unless he sees practically that factual knowledge works in real life."

the New Atheists engage with religion purely as a set of ideas[/i][/u][/b] [Gads, how many times have I said the same thing?], a kind of cosmic rulebook for believers. On that basis, it’s easy to point out inconsistencies or contradictions in the various holy texts and mock the faithful for their gullibility.

But what happens then? You’re left with no explanation for their devotion other than a susceptibility to fraud. To borrow Dawkins’ title, if God is nothing but an intellectual delusion then the billions of believers are, well, deluded; a collection of feeble saps in need of enlightenment from their intellectual superiors.

That’s the basis for the dickishness that so many people now associate from the New Atheism, a movement too often exemplified by privileged know-it-alls telling the poor that they’re idiots.

I agree. Any unprovoked, aggressive and insulting stance toward religion is tasteless and does nothing to help their desire to promote atheism though why anyone would wish to promote any "ism" confounds me.

When asked about the mysterious parts of their 'working hypothesis,' the atheist invariably responds in one of several ways ― all of which expresses blissful ignorance and the absence of a moral compass:

Now here you are doing exactly what you are complaining atheists do to theists. So you need to tone down your insults if you don't like to get them.

• Promissory materialism ― the answer will be forthcoming when science achieves a fuller understanding of the way things are

Correction. The answer MAY be forthcoming....

'Why' is a nonsense question ― things are as they are just because. Any supposed answer is an unjustifiable belief. 

Not really. Any supposed answer insisted upon as being correct without any evidence is an unjustifiable belief. You keep ignoring the bold and underlined part every time. It is time you guys considered this as a valid point.

I don't know, therefore, no one else does or can

Of course someone can. They just need to give evidence to satisfy us. Anyone at anytime can possibly find an answer to any question. The problem is when no proof is forthcoming and the answer is full of inconsistencies, another thing you keep ignoring. Even without evidence, if the answer was consistent , there would be no reason for people to not believe it or agree with it.

I don't know, but not that (God)

Correction: I don't know but the likelihood of that (God) is too remote.

However, the theistic equivalent is:

I too don't know, but definitely and unequivocally that(God)

Anything that can happen does (with God being the soul exception), so God isn't necessary.[/list]

I don't know about God being the soul exception because I don't understand what you mean by that. No Atheist would refer to God as such.

But yes, right now, everything seems to suggest that God is not necessary. What is wrong with that? You might not agree. But life works just fine for me without God. It works fine for you with God. What is the difference?

[Nick_A]

Sthit wrote: Nick_A wrote:Religion isn't about defining God but rather how to open as a human being to the conscious God/Man connection.

And how do you propose to do that? If you cannot define God, you have no way of knowing that there is a possibility of a connection with him.

Do you wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself. –Abba Evagrius the Monk

Sthit, I don’t know why you insist on questioning. You are intent on arguing and denying and refuse to understand that the human condition prevents consciously opening to receive from above. There are many techniques for becoming able to “know thyself” but they are of no value to you since you want to argue. Common sense should reveal that a conscious connection with higher consciousness is impossible when we are governed by imagination. So what sense is there arguing about God when the intelligent concern and the theoretical concern of the essence of religion is for the human condition which denies human consciousness in favor of self justifying imagination?

[sthitapragya]

Sthit wrote: Nick_A wrote:Religion isn't about defining God but rather how to open as a human being to the conscious God/Man connection.

And how do you propose to do that? If you cannot define God, you have no way of knowing that there is a possibility of a connection with him.

Do you wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself. –Abba Evagrius the Monk

Sthit, I don’t know why you insist on questioning. You are intent on arguing and denying and refuse to understand that the human condition prevents consciously opening to receive from above. There are many techniques for becoming able to “know thyself” but they are of no value to you since you want to argue. Common sense should reveal that a conscious connection with higher consciousness is impossible when we are governed by imagination. So what sense is there arguing about God when the intelligent concern and the theoretical concern of the essence of religion is for the human condition which denies human consciousness in favor of self justifying imagination?

Well, I could accuse you of the same thing. You have no proof that the human condition is capable of receiving from above (whatever that might be). You don't even know what the above is. Yet you are certain that there is one and humans are capable of receiving from it. You don't know how the mechanism works. You don't know what you will receive. I can understand that you cannot define God, but I am pretty sure you cannot even define what you receive and how you receive it. Isn't that taking things a little too far with the not defining?

What connection are you talking about? I raised a very valid question regarding this that you ignored. You believe in the higher consciousness. You believe in Jesus. I also think you therefore believe that the higher consciousness in some way stems from Jesus. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that the God that Jesus claims to be his father is your God. How do you expect a connection with the higher consciousness if you reject the father of the son who is your God and who Jesus claims is God?

[Reflex]

In other words, sthit, you don't want to address the topic of this thread; you don't want to posit a your directionalizing philosophy. Oh. That’s right. You don’t do philosophy.

All you want to do is argue. Buzz-off. What you have to say is as irrelevant as anything uwot has said in this thread. You obviously did not read the excerpt.

[Lacewing]

In other words, sthit, you don't want to address the topic of this thread; you don't want to posit a your directionalizing philosophy. All you want to do is argue. Buzz-off. What you have to say is as irrelevant as anything uwot has said in this thread.

In other words, sthitapragya and uwot, if you don't do it in the way that Reflex already believes it should be done, or in a way that glorifies his beliefs, then it is completely invalid -- and this is all a big game to stroke himself, while his aim actually seems to be to devour/destroy others. It is not a genuine or broad-minded effort. It is a deceitful, narrow agenda.