Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My crazy dream of the atheist council
The bottom line, John, is that you are actively trying to demonize Richard Dawkins, seemingly *for no other reason than that he is an atheist and won't stop talking openly about his lack of belief the way you want him to*. That's what comes through your every post on this subject. You're trying to poison the well by portraying him as only in it for the money, such that no one pays attention to Dawkins' arguments. This strikes me as pretty lame, considering all you'd have to do to take the opposite approach and make a case for God's existence is...uh...make a case for God's existence. What your many, many, tirades against Dawkins seem to have in common is that you are trying to divert people's attention so that they don't notice that you CAN'T make a case for God's existence. For the record, I don't care what fairy tales you choose to believe in. What I'm pointing out is that you're reacting to mentions of Dawkins the exact same way TM cultists reacted to Judith Bourque's book about Maharishi. They didn't like her message -- that Maharishi had sex with her and with quite a few other women -- so they attempted to shoot the messenger, saying she was only in it for the money and doing anything they could to destroy her credibility in the eyes of fellow TM cultists. I see you attempting to do the same thing with Richard Dawson. And for the exact same reason -- you don't like his message, so you're trying to shoot the messenger. From: jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2015 11:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My crazy dream of the atheist council Salyavin, Dr. David Bentley Hart would agree with you that the new atheist movement started because of the 9/11 incident. And, Dawkins may or may not have started this movement. Nonetheless, it is apparent that he struck a nerve in many people around the world. And, undoubtedly, he's made a lot money through the sales of his book. But Hart states that Dawkins is making arguments, regarding atheism, that are weak and stupid as judged by the philosophers in academia. He states that Dawkins is not qualified to make such arguments. Specifically, the discussion of Darwins theory, whether it's justified or not, does not prove the existence or non-existence of God. Also, even if he discussed the current theories about quantum string theory or about the Big Bang, he would not be able to prove the non-existence of God. Why? Because science is limited to things that are physical and measurable. As such, science cannot prove the non-existence of God, which is considered to be non-material and absolute. Dawkins is a biologist and has not invoked any philosophical arguments that would address the issues about Being and God's existence. These questions are addressed in arguments using logic and metaphysics. Hart believes that God's existence can be proved through such methods. IMO, Hart is correct. However, even if a logical proof can be justified, IMO it would not be enough to convince most people. They would prefer to see a physical proof that they can understand through the senses. But obviously this would not be possible. Therein lies the dilemma. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Just remember that Richard Dawkins agenda is to sell you his books and become a millionaire by proclaiming atheism, when in fact he's actually an agnostic. I think this quibbling over terms is a way of shifting the argument onto something irrelevant to avoid what they really should be talking about. Which is that the human race continues to follow iron age faiths with their attendant cosmologies in the face of the overwhelming evidence that says they are in error as explanations. This is one of Richard Dawkin's agendas. He decided to start the debate after 9/11 simply as a way of making everyone think whether we should still be following fundamentalist creeds when a bit of thought and compassion means we could come up with better ways of running society. As holder of the Simonyi chair for the public understanding of science at Oxford University it was probably part of his job description. Some would say that he wasn't the best man for the job as all he's done is annoy sincere believers but Dawkins rightly sees all beliefs as memes that can change and grow, his hope was that a more logical meme would replace irrational religious views that end up with people flying planes into buildings. Or bringing children up to believe fairy tales. There's nothing wrong with making people think. Deeply questioning the actual point of religion was unthinkable before the God delusion came out. Everyone had to tip toe round the believers as though the mere suggestion they were in error was a greivious insult and their delicate sensibilities
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My crazy dream of the atheist council
From: aryavazhi no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Dawkins is not undecided. He says he is 6.9 out of 7 that god does not exist. An agnostic is undecided at 50/50 percent. Well, that's not fair IMO, I would definitely give the agnostic a bigger cut. How are the chances, that you have exactly 50/50, then being either before or after? But apart from putting yourself on a scale, I think, that there are also various parts within yourself, who tackle this differently. For example, there may be a more emotional part in yourself, which is higher on the scale as the more rational intellectual part within yourself. Or, as Derrida says it, he can pray like a child to a father figure, obviously very consciously, and at the same time use it as a philosophic reflection or meditation. Still trying not to get involved with abstract speculations for which there is no answer, but I question Derrida's claim that he can do this. I don't believe that one can believe in something strongly enough to get down on one's knees and pray to it and yet later that day treat it as merely a philosophic reflection. I honestly believe -- based on the people I've met who claim that they can do this -- that they've come up with the latter claim (mere philosophical reflection) to hide how strongly they believe the former (all-powerful God, someone one prays to like a father figure). They're *uncomfortable* with revealing the extent to which faith runs their lives, so they choose to cloak it in claims of mere philosophy. This is all Just My Opinion, of course. I'm not claiming to know the truth of *anything*. And yes, I occasionally allow that to enable me to feel superior to those who claim they know things. Mea culpa. :-) One question not usually gone into in detail is when a person uses the word 'god', just what are they referring to? Exactly my point as well. For examply, if you believe in an absolute, or a transcendent, according some people it qualifies as belief in god. It's even more complex, when you think that within Advaita, you believe in an absolute beingness, but that it also allows for an projection of that beingness within maya, as a personal kind of god, who is not real though, as maya (and certainly not a creator god, as there is no creation in advaita). The word is common but people have very different senses at to what that word signifies. What does that sound as thought conjure up in the mind? Another question: Is it necessary to know the answer? Not in my opinion. For me it does not matter if someone calls himself atheist or theist, I could be on either side of the dividing line, according my mood of the day. But I am saying exactly this at the end of my story. Why would it be important? Would knowing the answer (if there is one) make any difference in the state of the world? In the way we are discussing it here (or for anybody who is here on this forum): No, it makes no difference. But I do think, that people with a very simplistic concept about it, who are literalists and fundamentalists, do indeed pose a problem to the world, and make the world a less nice place to live. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Just remember that Richard Dawkins agenda is to sell you his books and become a millionaire by proclaiming atheism, when in fact he's actually an agnostic. So, where does that leave you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Caveat 1: this is just about a dream.Caveat 2: any persons mentioned in the following story, are justtheir dream versions, and not their real counterparts. Caveat 3: thisstory is just the result of random neuron activity in the brain.There is no deeper meaning or sense. ;-) I had a crazy dream the other night. Itwas just a dream, and crazy at that, have this in mind.In my dreams, I finally decided, that Iwould submit to the atheist world-view, being finally tired ofdefending a personal god, I thought to find a final and cleanresolution. But in order to become an atheist, and not onlyan-atheist-by-self-proclamation, I had to visit a council, where Ihad to submit my views, and which would finally check on all myhidden assumptions, and if there was still a trace of theism left inme.So I summoned all my courage and wentto the high-court of atheism, there was a panel of 3 people, sittingbehind a desk, and, in my dream as it was, I thought the chairman wasRichard Dawkins himself. To his right, there was his own book, TheGod Delusion, and to his left, it's ancient ancestor, the book byCharles Darwin himself. Richard first asked me, if I was surethat I would like to become an atheist now, an approved and certifiedatheist at that, as he emphasized. I said yes, this is why I washere. He nodded in agreement. He said, we just like to ask you a fewquestions, so that you can still think about and check your resolve.I nodded. So, he
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My crazy dream of the atheist council
Interesting, I didn't even think, that he could be make it up, because why would he do so? His great hero, Heidegger, was a beliefer of god, and so was Kant, they are both well reputed philosophers, much more reputed them he himself, so why would he have to disguise his religiousness under the cover of an alledged atheism? It certainly points to a sort of compartmentalization. But then why not? No, I think he is honest. He sometimes seems to be a bit strange, did you see the vid where he said until age so and so, he never allowed his photo or video to be published? But this was more with a sort of communist attitude, an anti idolization. I actually quite like him, but when I posted one video on my FB, it got no likes, so I guess I must be some kind of freak for liking him. ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Still trying not to get involved with abstract speculations for which there is no answer, but I question Derrida's claim that he can do this. I don't believe that one can believe in something strongly enough to get down on one's knees and pray to it and yet later that day treat it as merely a philosophic reflection. I honestly believe -- based on the people I've met who claim that they can do this -- that they've come up with the latter claim (mere philosophical reflection) to hide how strongly they believe the former (all-powerful God, someone one prays to like a father figure). They're *uncomfortable* with revealing the extent to which faith runs their lives, so they choose to cloak it in claims of mere philosophy. This is all Just My Opinion, of course. I'm not claiming to know the truth of *anything*. And yes, I occasionally allow that to enable me to feel superior to those who claim they know things. Mea culpa. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My crazy dream of the atheist council
I didn't mean to offend. I don't know anything about the guy, and don't care
to, because his type of crazy and mine just don't get down and party together.
:-)
I'm just saying that if someone tells me they can get down on their knees and
pray fervently to someone and then an hour later treat that same someone as if
he were a mere philosophical construct, then they're lying. Either to me, or
(FAR more likely) to themselves.
From: aryavazhi no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My crazy dream of the atheist council
Interesting, I didn't even think, that he could be make it up, because why
would he do so? His great hero, Heidegger, was a beliefer of god, and so was
Kant, they are both well reputed philosophers, much more reputed them he
himself, so why would he have to disguise his religiousness under the cover of
an alledged atheism?
It certainly points to a sort of compartmentalization. But then why not?
No, I think he is honest. He sometimes seems to be a bit strange, did you see
the vid where he said until age so and so, he never allowed his photo or video
to be published? But this was more with a sort of communist attitude, an anti
idolization.
I actually quite like him, but when I posted one video on my FB, it got no
likes, so I guess I must be some kind of freak for liking him. ;-)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
Still trying not to get involved with abstract speculations for which there is
no answer, but I question Derrida's claim that he can do this. I don't believe
that one can believe in something strongly enough to get down on one's knees
and pray to it and yet later that day treat it as merely a philosophic
reflection. I honestly believe -- based on the people I've met who claim that
they can do this -- that they've come up with the latter claim (mere
philosophical reflection) to hide how strongly they believe the former
(all-powerful God, someone one prays to like a father figure). They're
*uncomfortable* with revealing the extent to which faith runs their lives, so
they choose to cloak it in claims of mere philosophy.
This is all Just My Opinion, of course. I'm not claiming to know the truth of
*anything*. And yes, I occasionally allow that to enable me to feel superior to
those who claim they know things. Mea culpa. :-)
#yiv2338282645 #yiv2338282645 -- #yiv2338282645ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2338282645
#yiv2338282645ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2338282645
#yiv2338282645ygrp-mkp #yiv2338282645hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv2338282645 #yiv2338282645ygrp-mkp #yiv2338282645ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2338282645 #yiv2338282645ygrp-mkp .yiv2338282645ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv2338282645 #yiv2338282645ygrp-mkp .yiv2338282645ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv2338282645 #yiv2338282645ygrp-mkp .yiv2338282645ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2338282645 #yiv2338282645ygrp-sponsor
#yiv2338282645ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv2338282645
#yiv2338282645ygrp-sponsor #yiv2338282645ygrp-lc #yiv2338282645hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv2338282645
#yiv2338282645ygrp-sponsor #yiv2338282645ygrp-lc .yiv2338282645ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv2338282645 #yiv2338282645actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv2338282645
#yiv2338282645activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv2338282645
#yiv2338282645activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv2338282645
#yiv2338282645activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv2338282645 #yiv2338282645activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2338282645 #yiv2338282645activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv2338282645 #yiv2338282645activity span
.yiv2338282645underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2338282645
.yiv2338282645attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv2338282645 .yiv2338282645attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2338282645 .yiv2338282645attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv2338282645 .yiv2338282645attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv2338282645 .yiv2338282645attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2338282645 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv2338282645 .yiv2338282645bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv2338282645
.yiv2338282645bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2338282645 dd.yiv2338282645last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2338282645 dd.yiv2338282645last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2338282645
dd.yiv2338282645last p span.yiv2338282645yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv2338282645 div.yiv2338282645attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My crazy dream of the atheist council
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I didn't mean to offend. You didn't. I don't know anything about the guy, and don't care to, because his type of crazy and mine just don't get down and party together. :-) I'm just saying that if someone tells me they can get down on their knees and pray fervently to someone and then an hour later treat that same someone as if he were a mere philosophical construct, then they're lying. Either to me, or (FAR more likely) to themselves. I didn't think it was possible until that moment, but I think it is now. So, if you do this, a symbolic act of getting down on you knees, while theorizing about it in a conceptual way at the same time, it is done with a different conceptual framework. You could for example, use this as an act to refer to the unknowable and show your own humility in it. Or, you may pray to the Divine within yourself (and in this case don't call it the 'Divine'). Just change the words and the context a bit, and I believe it is entirely possible. He also sees his philosophic thinking about these issues as a constant prayer. Seeing it from a different angle, NOT going down on your knees, or NOT using any religious symbolism or gestures at that, will always stay a symbol of avoiding any religious context, because you want to stay away from religious beliefs. In the same way, for example, the display of the swastika is forbidden in Germany, because of it's association with Nazi Germany, and yet it could be used in entirely different contexts. From: aryavazhi no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My crazy dream of the atheist council Interesting, I didn't even think, that he could be make it up, because why would he do so? His great hero, Heidegger, was a beliefer of god, and so was Kant, they are both well reputed philosophers, much more reputed them he himself, so why would he have to disguise his religiousness under the cover of an alledged atheism? It certainly points to a sort of compartmentalization. But then why not? No, I think he is honest. He sometimes seems to be a bit strange, did you see the vid where he said until age so and so, he never allowed his photo or video to be published? But this was more with a sort of communist attitude, an anti idolization. I actually quite like him, but when I posted one video on my FB, it got no likes, so I guess I must be some kind of freak for liking him. ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Still trying not to get involved with abstract speculations for which there is no answer, but I question Derrida's claim that he can do this. I don't believe that one can believe in something strongly enough to get down on one's knees and pray to it and yet later that day treat it as merely a philosophic reflection. I honestly believe -- based on the people I've met who claim that they can do this -- that they've come up with the latter claim (mere philosophical reflection) to hide how strongly they believe the former (all-powerful God, someone one prays to like a father figure). They're *uncomfortable* with revealing the extent to which faith runs their lives, so they choose to cloak it in claims of mere philosophy. This is all Just My Opinion, of course. I'm not claiming to know the truth of *anything*. And yes, I occasionally allow that to enable me to feel superior to those who claim they know things. Mea culpa. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My crazy dream of the atheist council
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Dawkins is not undecided. He says he is 6.9 out of 7 that god does not exist. An agnostic is undecided at 50/50 percent. I don't understand how anyone can even be *interested* in defining where they stand on an issue that can never be decided. There simply cannot possibly BE a bigger waste of time IMO. Awake or dreaming, as Anartaxius suggests below, what could possibly be the supposed *benefit* of knowing whether there was a God or not? The only people I can imagine this imagined knowing having a value for is people who were brought up being programmed to believe that there was a God and that He would do terrible things to them in the afterlife if they didn't believe in Him. Those kinds of people might IMO find a kind of relief from their ever-present fear of being savaged in the afterlife by a vengeful God by believing that one exists and that it actually *matters* to Him what they believe about Him. The only other reason I can think of for believing in a God is if one imagines Him/Her/It to be that lowest common denominator of most God beliefs -- the all-powerful invisible man in the sky. That is, someone/something who/that can actually intervene in events back on Earth to make them turn out better or differently for those who pray to this God (or commission Maharishi™ yagyas for Him) so that He will make *exceptions* to his already-in-place Laws Of Nature, just for them. This is the one I really don't get. How can anyone believe that the bad things that are happening to them that they pray to God (or try to bribe Him with expensive yagyas) to change are *NOT* part of God's Plan? By praying to change things, aren't they in essence saying, Hey God...I appreciate Your efforts and everything, but really your Plan is all fucked up because I'm not rich and I want to be. Fix that, will you! :-) One question not usually gone into in detail is when a person uses the word 'god', just what are they referring to? The word is common but people have very different senses at to what that word signifies. What does that sound as thought conjure up in the mind? Another question: Is it necessary to know the answer? Why would it be important? Would knowing the answer (if there is one) make any difference in the state of the world? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Just remember that Richard Dawkins agenda is to sell you his books and become a millionaire by proclaiming atheism, when in fact he's actually an agnostic. So, where does that leave you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Caveat 1: this is just about a dream.Caveat 2: any persons mentioned in the following story, are justtheir dream versions, and not their real counterparts. Caveat 3: thisstory is just the result of random neuron activity in the brain.There is no deeper meaning or sense. ;-) I had a crazy dream the other night. Itwas just a dream, and crazy at that, have this in mind.In my dreams, I finally decided, that Iwould submit to the atheist world-view, being finally tired ofdefending a personal god, I thought to find a final and cleanresolution. But in order to become an atheist, and not onlyan-atheist-by-self-proclamation, I had to visit a council, where Ihad to submit my views, and which would finally check on all myhidden assumptions, and if there was still a trace of theism left inme.So I summoned all my courage and wentto the high-court of atheism, there was a panel of 3 people, sittingbehind a desk, and, in my dream as it was, I thought the chairman wasRichard Dawkins himself. To his right, there was his own book, TheGod Delusion, and to his left, it's ancient ancestor, the book byCharles Darwin himself. Richard first asked me, if I was surethat I would like to become an atheist now, an approved and certifiedatheist at that, as he emphasized. I said yes, this is why I washere. He nodded in agreement. He said, we just like to ask you a fewquestions, so that you can still think about and check your resolve.I nodded. So, he continued, you do not believe in any kind of god,not Christian, not Muslim, not ancient greek or Roman, not Hindu orBuddhist either? I said, no, no, none of it. He smiled satisfied, somay I ask you, do you still possess any religious books, you know,like the Bible, or the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita, on any media,like paper print, or as e-books? I said, no, I threw it all away,maybe I had some PDF files somewhere on my computer, or on an oldback-up disc, but I would check everything, and would get rid of it,as I am really determined, to become a 100% atheist. Again Dawkinssmiled, and said: we need people like this, especially in todaysworld, where religious fundamentalism on the one hand, and pseudospiritual superstitions on the other hand, are on the rise again. He then asked, what about new agebooks, channellings, or books
