------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May
There is no better, value for money, guest house.
Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for your detailed explanations. Here are my responses to each of the
three paragraphs. Hopefully my questions, and answers from you and others may
help clarify many issues for me and others like me. This may also help
sort-out some aspects, that those with religion have on atheists / agnostics.
So please pardon my questions, responses and comments.
Kind Regards, GL
----------- Kevin Saldanha (KS) wrote:
KS: Dear GL and other 'seekers of the Truth': In your query below, you have
touched on a fundamental difference between what I consider 'mature' and
'immature' atheism. The 'bebdo' falls into the latter category together with
the many others who see no need for an overseeing supernatural deity out of
convenience. These so-called atheists will scurry back to the 'fold' at the
first sign of distress or coincidental improvement in their situation via
submission to the lord and will become 're-converted, born again evangelists'
who are put on a pedestal by the rest of their sycophants.
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/aneelaranha/returnoftheprodigal
GL Response: Kudos for lumping the terminologies - agnostics, atheists, free
thinkers, skeptics, non-believers, secular humanists, Theosophists. And the
category should also include Marxism, Communism, Maoism and all the other "
isms" that do not believe in a "Supreme Being". To make it murky, according to
Santosh's post, they are also include Buddhist and Jains. So now that they
appear to be synonymous, we are into: the extent these individuals are
"mature". As you point in your paragraph below, this is a "process" and a
"personal investigation" and not a social group effort. There is no training
with a certificate to say you have "arrived" and one is now qualified to make
"moral judgement decisions".
Thanks for appreciating my analogy about the "bebdo" and the valid point I was
making. With your further clarification, I am sure others will also understand
the point. Yet, the distinctions evolving from "immature" to "mature" are
rather very subjective. As you point out the distinctions are also
provisional. Atheists / agnostics change their positions depending on the
circumstances. Today's "full blown" or "self-acclaimed" atheist / agnostic may
be tomorrow's "born-again" individual. Who is to decide, when did the person
have more wisdom? and Who was a fool to the very end?
As in your link, there are many "Aneel Aranha spent twenty five years in the
atheistic wilderness". Some live to once again see the true light. While
others for a variety of reasons are not so lucky. I guess both these groups
were represented at the Crucifixion by the two robbers. In fact the
unrepentant robber also saw "the true light at the end of his tunnel". It's
just, he did not have the wisdom or the courage or the heart, like his
counterpart, to make the switch / change.
------------------
KS: The former category of atheism is arrived at through personal investigation
and study with a reliance on the power of the human brain to comprehend certain
evolutionary facts of life and the natural and acquired history of mankind.
There is absolutely no doubt about non-existence of ANY supernatural deity the
at the end of this 'soul' searching expedition (using the term 'soul' to denote
the sum total of neuronal activity pertaining to a single individual and the
impression that makes on others). Many agnostics have not yet reached the end
of that journey, some never do.
GL: Response: Do you think it is fair for only selected humans to have "the
power of neurons"? And then, even fewer to reach their conclusion in this (one)
life time? What if one member of the family has the "agnostic power" and the
remainder of the person's family are not in sync with the individual? Who makes
the rules in the home and on what basis? Is that not a bummer to the other
family-members and a source of constant disconnect? What happens if the child
instead of the father or mother is agnostic? Whom does this family (even if all
are atheists /agnostics) go for the answers for all members (of the family) to
be on the same wave length? Is there, let's see what Papa or Papi has / have
written on this or that issue? OK, the Buddhists and Jains have 2500 years of
relevant texts to read.
I remember your rather interesting response to the question I had posed about
being visited by a relative with a live-in (non-wed) lover. Your response was
to the effect, "it depends on the age of my kids, whether the two visitors
could share the same bedroom in my home." The cut-off on the age of your kids
was arbitrary, like twenty years. I remember the reply because I found the
response very strange. There was absolutely no reasoned basis. Practical -yes!
Consistent and Logical - No!:=)) Think about it! And this perhaps may reflect
the changing thinking of an agnostic / atheist or someone with
yet-to-be-finalized "family values."
-----------------
KS: Most atheist groups (skeptics, freethinkers, etc.) are content to debate
the meaning of life but the Secular Humanists are really the only organization
that feels that our duty in this life is to care about others outside our
immediate influence and share our resources with the less fortunate. It is
that empathy that drives our 'moral compass' towards the 'True North' and not
some imaginary pole that has been devised by theologians and inscribed on stone
tablets.
GL Response: Is not the "moral compass towards the True North" also imaginary
for agnostics, atheists, freethinkers and Secular Humanists? Does each of
these groups have their own "True North"? Since this "moral compass toward the
True North" is very individual based, there is no verification and consistency
but rather a "decide as you go along" philosophy which varies with one's state
in life. So pre-marital sex may be the "True North" when one is twenty; But
"no way" when one is forty with three teenage daughters and sons. Similarly
pre-marital live-in relation is great if you are the boy; Yet not so cool if
you are the father of the girl. And casual sex with others by married men or
women on vacation is just liberating as per a self-acclaimed agnostic on this
net. This individual now in the USA should have been the spokesperson for the
nudist colony in Anjuna. Yet the same when in Goa may be gung-ho about
preserving the "Goan way of life." These are mere examples of
"yetha o
r vetha ree?" thinking.
------------
GL Comments:
Religion and Moral code is not merely an individual issue. It is the code for
their society - present, past and future. In agnostic /atheist society, one's
person's "True North" is another person's "imaginary pole" (both real and
figuratively). This is just like a Goan's delicious sorpatel and feni is a
non-Goan's "Yem kitem?". But for all Goans, that taste is ingrained and is
termed "the roots". One root system is not superior than another. Yet all
plants need a root system RELATED TO its ecological environment.
At some point, one may ask one's self. Am I a real Goan or a real Catholic? Not
to be disparaging, but to help you and others understand, I will personalize
it. Clearly you will admit, with a name "Kevin Saldanha", being an agnostic,
one does not get what one sees. Perhaps you will say, "One gets more and even
better." That may be very true! But still one is not getting the advertised
deal. It is like getting a "rose plant" when one wants is a "mango plant."
Your relatives' and in-laws' perceived "North Pole" is very likely your "South
Pole". As you describe it, "Some imaginary pole that has been devised by
theologians and inscribed on stone tablets." While this may be "imaginary"
from your perspective, it is a direction all of you know and is not "just
figured out" individually, and may vary from day to day, and year to year.
I am sure you followed my responses to others on this thread to appreciate my
perspectives and qualms. Santosh considers Buddhists and Jainism as atheists
in spite of their 2500 year-old religion. And Santosh puts Theosophy in the
same thought-process and paragraph as "an immoral philosophy such as that of
Charles Manson." OK, he was getting silly and .... as he usually does, when he
is loosing.:=)) Yet his point is well taken; which is: Every nut can claim to
have a well-thought-through philosophy. Is this how logical the agnostics and
atheists get in their deliberations, explorations and search for the truth?
Yet, I do have to give you-all credit for your personal search, and convictions
of your moral evaluations.
I would NOT like to take my car to a learn-it-yourself mechanic. Neither would
I take my pet to a train-as-you-go veterinarian. Nor would I want to be treated
by a self-taught doctor; even though many doctors in medicine have made, make,
and will continue to make many mistakes. To someone trying to figure out
something, out of their professional field, on their very own, I'd sincerely
question the efficient use of their time, talent and good judgement. Nothing
personal! Very likely you have the same qualms!
I like it when a veterinarian, neurologist, homemaker, professor (on education)
opines on Theology and Philosophy and Theosophy. Yet as per one of you, a
radiation oncologist cannot be a history buff. That's a real in-depth logic
for a brain scientist.:=)) Yet, all power to you folks in your journey of
abstract thinking. This is after you have finished sh*ting on the religion you
belonged to. But then again as you well put it, "Most atheist groups (skeptics,
freethinkers, etc.) are content to debate the meaning of life" and no more.
Remember more than a century ago, Karl Marx went through the same
"contemplative" and "deep thinking" of "No Supreme Being" that all the
agnostics and atheists of today go through. In their time Marx and Lenin had
the imagination of more than half of the world. Tested with time, today we
know that was an intellectually hollow and economically bankrupt philosophy
that caused much suffering and death. And of course Nazism was the other
extreme atheist philosophy.
In all sincerity, instead of very piously beating up on the Catholic church
(while proclaiming, "No virtue in chauvinism and
self-righteousness") I would suggest that you-all should, for your own benefit,
write (not meditate or contemplate) an essay on how and why your brand of
atheism is a "new and improved" or a "very different" version of Karl Marx's
Marxism. Or else, all your "insights / philosophy / deep understanding" is
based on negative criticisms of those philosophies which believe in a "Supreme
Being". Thus you can present your "raw data" of your beliefs; rather than
play Santosh's usual game of zapping others with demands for "raw data" of
their beliefs. And if Santosh will not do it, since I have never read any
original article of his, I suggest, Cornell take the lead. Common guys show
your stuff for a change.:=)) Or else, let the lady give you-all the lead.
Keeping the bamtos aside and even excluding those endless-talking agnostics (as
opposed to those who practice their humanism), the more I analyze this
dialogue, I wonder why do you-all compare atheism /agnosticism with Catholicism
or any religion which believes in a "Supreme Being"? This is comparing apples
to oranges. It perhaps explains the endless debate and confusion. With due
respects, should not you be comparing your (different) brands / labels of
atheism with another brand of atheism? The best know of which is Marxism.
Surely now there may be a new atheist-guru on the scene - perhaps the old wine
in a new, fancy, TV-appealing bottle.
Recard tumcam ani soggleank.
Regards, GL
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
