Religion is not About God

[Reflex]

Reflex quoted:

We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.

This is the kernel of the mystery of our being-as-persons. The roots of our being lie beyond ourselves, in God. The fulfillment of our being lies in God, through others.

I've read and have come to believe that the potential for Man's being is enormous. However living in Plato's cave, most reject this potential in favor of glorifying the Great Beast which is a dead end. However technology has advanced and methods of killing have become much more sophisticated making our survival a serious question.

That's something I've alluded to myself in this thread. My feelings about it actually happening is, "What, me worry?" I laugh in derision at the folly of humankind.

[uwot]

On second thought, I'm going to forgo the other thread and respond to your obnoxious and simple-minded comment,“We're not the ones that need a comforting narrative.” That in itself is your “comforting narrative” — a self-serving, alienating, circular, incoherent and anything but comprehensive narrative — but a narrative nonetheless.

So what does it give me comfort from?

The presumption is that a fully functioning human being can, or should be, satisfied living in a hostile and relentless universe of matter which has decreed that the grave shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire that is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good; satisfied with the knowledge that his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter; satisfied with the knowledge that life must bow to “unyielding despair” or live in denial of one's innermost nature.

The presumption is that a fully functioning human being can deal with reality independently of mollifying stories, without which they cannot cope.

It can be argued that religion was necessary in order for early man to “get it together,” but now that we have all the tools in place, religion is an unnecessary burden. Yeah? How is that working out? The non-religious are as divided in their opinions as the religious...

It's not so simple that people's opinions can be neatly divided into religious and atheistic. The only meaningful differentiating factor is that some people are sufficiently persuaded by a religion that, as a minimum, they celebrate festivities, Christmas, Eid, Diwali and whatnot, in the name of their god, rather than just having a knees-up, like the rest of us. Beyond that, there is no particular cosmological, political or ethical belief, doctrine or behaviour that is exclusive to either the religious or the atheistic, and neither confession, in my experience, is more or less characteristic of a loudmouth twat, or a shining example of humanity, than its opposite.

...but are without religion's basic hope, forbearance and directionalizing influence.

I have no need of "religion's basic hope". If three score and ten is the limit of my experience in this astonishing universe, so be it; it is infinitely more than nothing at all. I don't particularly want to live forever, and certainly not subject to the conditions set by any religion I am familiar with.
As for forbearance, if anything, it is the atheists of my acquaintance who display it better. Among theists, there are some for whom the hope you refer to is driven by fear of their mortality; they cower not before god, but before death.
My beef with religion and the reason I call myself an atheist, is precisely its "directionalizing influence". The suggestion that the mythology of iron age nomads is a better guide to how I should conduct myself, than anything mooted in the subsequent two and a half thousand years development is simply preposterous.

All you've shown is nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing.

What you show is projection.

[Dontaskme]

Reflex wrote:

It's not a question of a deficiency in education, but a difference of perspective. Dontaskme seems to be coming from a kind of idealism found in the book Ask the Awakened. It's a good book and very appealing because it's full of wise sayings and deep insights. For all that, though, I found it to be rather it empty for the very reason Pascal cited in the link you posted.

Maybe Dam is being influenced by a book. All I know is that this "I am God" belief is common in New Age philosophy. In reality it is an empty glorification of egotism. You create your own reality, you are God. You can elevate yourself to the god status by tapping into the force. Sun Myung Moon: "Man is incarnate God", Yogi: "Be still and know you are God." Satanist Michael Aquino says, "We are not servants of some God, we are our own gods!" Shirley MacLaine shouts, "I am God! I am God! I am God!"

People celebrate ALIVENESS using concepts, any concept will do as long as it means something to them..big deal, why take their verbal expression literally?

The good news is the ''I am alive'' experience cannot be denied by any one. But just about any one can deny their non-existence.

In life the ego is not present, and yet the ego says I can do, speak, think, allow, let go, permit, resist, demand, create etc.

Knowledge informs illusory reality. Wisdom understands reality as illusory.

[Reflex]

So what does it give me comfort from?

Your true self.

The presumption is that a fully functioning human being can deal with reality independently of mollifying stories, without which they cannot cope.

Really, take a course in reading comprehension. That's what I said.

It's not so simple that people's opinions can be neatly divided into religious and atheistic. The only meaningful differentiating factor is that some people are sufficiently persuaded by a religion that, as a minimum, they celebrate festivities, Christmas, Eid, Diwali and whatnot, in the name of their god, rather than just having a knees-up, like the rest of us. Beyond that, there is no particular cosmological, political or ethical belief, doctrine or behaviour that is exclusive to either the religious or the atheistic, and neither confession, in my experience, is more or less characteristic of a loudmouth twat, or a shining example of humanity, than its opposite.

Learn how to better organize your thought before making a fool of yourself. Or at least try to think them through. Here again for your consideration is the excerpt from an article written by one of your fellow atheists:

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, 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 have no need of "religion's basic hope".

That's because you're not a fully functioning human being: you're either with "unyielding despair" or in denial of your innermost reality.

My beef with religion and the reason I call myself an atheist, is precisely its "directionalizing influence". The suggestion that the mythology of iron age nomads is a better guide to how I should conduct myself, than anything mooted in the subsequent two and a half thousand years development is simply preposterous.

So, your narrative is that you don't need one. Well, neither does a cockroach.

What you show is projection.

You've been hanging around with Lacewing too long.

[Dontaskme]

You've been hanging around with Lacewing too long.

Lacewing is an excellent communicator of the human condition. I love what she writes, which always makes sense to me a lot.

dontaskme comes here to the forum to keep a check on what condition my un-condition is in .. .. amending where necessary .. in equilibrium...I am.. disernment is the key. Just out to keep the peace and restore sanity to an insane world. (just kidding) LOL

I note that LW is doing a great job of empowering the human psyche by her inspiring artistic writing talent and capacity to understand what it means to be a nobody inside some body that doesn't want to be a nobody.

[Dalek Prime]

I never claimed it as a fact, I said it was my understanding based on what scientists have theorized about the universe. And they would be the same scientists who have come up with the theories about the universe.

Do you not recall my recent thread regarding an argument with a lecturer of philosophy? By your logic, I should not have argued with him, because he's the 'expert'. Look, physicists can theorize all they like. They can't see it though, or prove it either. So, what do you want me to do? Cave?

Sometimes "experts" get it wrong, but usually they have access to equipment that I do not have, so I need to trust that they know what they have observed and have made the correct interpretation of that data. The example you quoted was an opinion that could not be verified through observation or experimentation, or the interpretation of data.

What lies one metre outside peak expansion has no data either, and therefore has nothing to interpret by experts. Just like one second before the big bang. But yeah, I'm not an expert, and get your point, though I don't accept it.

[uwot]

So what does it give me comfort from?

Your true self.

This is projection. Whatever my 'true self' I am entirely at ease with it. It is you that needs comfort from your probable extinction.

The presumption is that a fully functioning human being can deal with reality independently of mollifying stories, without which they cannot cope.

Really, take a course in reading comprehension. That's what I said.

Here are your actual words:

The presumption is that a fully functioning human being can, or should be, satisfied living in a hostile and relentless universe of matter which has decreed that the grave shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire that is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good; satisfied with the knowledge that his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter; satisfied with the knowledge that life must bow to “unyielding despair” or live in denial of one's innermost nature.

This too smacks of projection. If you can't spot the difference, it is perhaps you that needs the course in reading comprehension.

Learn how to better organize your thought before making a fool of yourself. Or at least try to think them through. Here again for your consideration is the excerpt from an article written by one of your fellow atheists:

Whatever. This is an example of an argument to authority fallacy. I am no more committed to every belief expressed by an atheist, than your are to every word written by a theist.

...you're not a fully functioning human being: you're either with "unyielding despair" or in denial of your innermost reality.

And this is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. You are claiming that I am not a fully functioning human being, because I have no need of "religion's basic hope".

So, your narrative is that you don't need one. Well, neither does a cockroach.

This doesn't follow. The fact that I don't share all your values doesn't mean I have none.

You've been hanging around with Lacewing too long.

I'm not sure how often, if ever, I have responded directly to Lacewing, but clearly it has escaped your attention that she hasn't been hanging around this thread since she said this of you:

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.

Evidently she is more discriminating about who she talks to than yours truly.

[thedoc]

Do you not recall my recent thread regarding an argument with a lecturer of philosophy? By your logic, I should not have argued with him, because he's the 'expert'. Look, physicists can theorize all they like. They can't see it though, or prove it either. So, what do you want me to do? Cave?

Sometimes "experts" get it wrong, but usually they have access to equipment that I do not have, so I need to trust that they know what they have observed and have made the correct interpretation of that data. The example you quoted was an opinion that could not be verified through observation or experimentation, or the interpretation of data.

What lies one meter outside peak expansion has no data either, and therefore has nothing to interpret by experts. Just like one second before the big bang. But yeah, I'm not an expert, and get your point, though I don't accept it.

Thankyou, I don't ask that you agree with my ideas, I only ask that I be allowed to state them and you try to understand them, and not try to twist them into something that I didn't say. There are many others on these forums that do just that, and I usually just give up on trying to communicate with them.

As I have said, I don't have much of the high tech equipment myself, and need to accept the interpretation of those who do have that equipment, and not the opinion of someone who is trying to publish some off-the-wall theory, just to make money from the gullible.

[Dalek Prime]

Sometimes "experts" get it wrong, but usually they have access to equipment that I do not have, so I need to trust that they know what they have observed and have made the correct interpretation of that data. The example you quoted was an opinion that could not be verified through observation or experimentation, or the interpretation of data.

What lies one meter outside peak expansion has no data either, and therefore has nothing to interpret by experts. Just like one second before the big bang. But yeah, I'm not an expert, and get your point, though I don't accept it.

Thankyou, I don't ask that you agree with my ideas, I only ask that I be allowed to state them and you try to understand them, and not try to twist them into something that I didn't say. There are many others on these forums that do just that, and I usually just give up on trying to communicate with them.

As I have said, I don't have much of the high tech equipment myself, and need to accept the interpretation of those who do have that equipment, and not the opinion of someone who is trying to publish some off-the-wall theory, just to make money from the gullible.

I hear ya. No prob.

[Reflex]

This is projection. Whatever my 'true self' I am entirely at ease with it. It is you that needs comfort from your probable extinction.

You're not very good at this. You say you are entirely at ease with you know not what. You sound like a friend of mine who said he was entirely at ease with his pet raccoon -- until it ripped half his face off.

This too smacks of projection. If you can't spot the difference, it is perhaps you that needs the course in reading comprehension.

Anyone with the intellectual depth of a worm can see that the difference is the difference between catsup and ketchup.

Your missing the point of the excerpt, the two things I've learned (see OP) and what it is to be truly human. The non-religious approach to religion, your approach, is through rigid ideas and beliefs; the religionist's approach is via relationships and acknowledging their humanness (recall that a human human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite; Eternal and and temporal; Freedom and necessity — relating to itself) notwithstanding that the relations, too, can become fossilized. (In which case the religionist becomes less than a fully functional human being.)

Whatever. This is an example of an argument to authority fallacy. I am no more committed to every belief expressed by an atheist, than your are to every word written by a theist.

I never appeal to authority. The fact is, he wasn't wrong.

And this is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. You are claiming that I am not a fully functioning human being, because I have no need of "religion's basic hope".

No, I said you are not a fully functioning human being because you are not a fully functioning human being. You are committed to finite/temporal/necessary without taking into account your humanness and the possibilities that accompany the Infinite/Eternal/Freedom aspect of reality.

This doesn't follow. The fact that I don't share all your values doesn't mean I have none.

Of course, but it does mean your values are unintelligent.

I'm not sure how often, if ever, I have responded directly to Lacewing, but clearly it has escaped your attention that she hasn't been hanging around this thread since she said this of you:

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.

LOL! I didn't see that (I ignore Lacewing). Lacewing is so full of her(?)self that she doesn't realize that she's the one projecting.

Evidently she is more discriminating about who she talks to than yours truly.

If you call fingernails being dragged across a chalkboard "discriminating, sure. I had a teacher who did that to get the class's attention. Worked every time.

[Reflex]

Lacewing is an excellent communicator of the human condition. I love what she writes, which always makes sense to me a lot.

dontaskme comes here to the forum to keep a check on what condition my un-condition is in .. .. amending where necessary .. in equilibrium...I am.. disernment is the key. Just out to keep the peace and restore sanity to an insane world. (just kidding) LOL

I note that LW is doing a great job of empowering the human psyche by her inspiring artistic writing talent and capacity to understand what it means to be a nobody inside some body that doesn't want to be a nobody.

Meh. It's your bag of bones. I don't fancy sanctimoniousness myself. I had enough of that crap in the church I grew up in.

[uwot]

You're not very good at this.

If by 'this' you mean what you are doing, lobbing impotent slights and pointless barbs in lieu of philosophical debate, I admit I lack your talent.

Anyone with the intellectual depth of a worm can see that the difference is the difference between catsup and ketchup.

Ah, I see your problem. You'll have to take my word for it, those of us with slightly more intellectual depth can tell the difference between despair and dignity.

Your missing the point of the excerpt...

I've lost track, which one are you referring to now?

...the two things I've learned (see OP)

I have already acknowledged and agreed with those.

...and what it is to be truly human.

The thing is, you choose your definitions they way choose your god:

In the end, however, God is what I want God to be.

Quite.

The non-religious approach to religion, your approach, is through rigid ideas and beliefs...

You're not the first to recognise that gods are tailored to specific requirements:

The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind.

So no, I don't have rigid ideas and beliefs about religion, because I know perfectly well that when someone is describing their 'god', they are projecting their personal wishes and dreads. Or indeed, their politics, as you say here:

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.

It's a point I've made before: what Xenophanes didn't mention is that egomaniacs and right wing nuts also create gods in their own image. Your religion only has to satisfy you; the rest of us should be free to treat it as the narcissistic bullshit it clearly is. But, of course, people get very cranky when their 'religious' beliefs are challenged, precisely because it is not some god or prophet that is talking bollocks, it is them.

[Reflex]

I'm sorry, uwot. I can't stop laughing long enough to respond.

[uwot]

I'm sorry, uwot. I can't stop laughing long enough to respond.

You just did, but I' m flattered that you find my writing so rewarding.

[Sacrifice]

Reflex, would you not say that there are many dimensions to religion and that what religion is about might change from one to another?