Is God a dork or is Dawk a God?

[Vashdaman]

Whoa, that was bad thread title, even for my standards.

Anyway this thread will act as a continuation of the discussion me and Ayase were having in that other thread in the general anime section. Basically I don't think very much of the Scientist/ wannabe philosopher Richard Dawkin's and Ayase didn't think he was too bad, cue an exchange in beliefs.

I chose to start this thread rather than PM as I feel it seems less personal this way, and if anyone else wants to throw their 2 cents in, it's very much welcome.

OK

'm all for self improvement. Wanting to become a god

To be more accurate- to become one with god, and we are already(as is everything) part of God/tao/creator kami ect (in my definition, influenced by various teachings as previously stated) we just aren't all in complete unison with god, in other word's we're so caught up in the illusion that most of us have lost touch with our never changing true self/spark of god/soul/whatever you wanna call it.

Just thought I'd make my views a bit clearer.

Why can't that be purely scientific?

I would argue that it is scientific, very in fact. This belief should be based primarily on nothing other then personal experience- is that not the most scientific thing in the world, better than any theory? This is probably the reason why in Zen anecdotal stories they sometimes say things like "If you see the Lord Buddha himself, kill him at once!" To emphasize the point of personal experience being more important than the theory of any spiritual leader. Without this experience of course we can believe whole heatedly in nothing.

What you've said there, I could put another way by saying "we should work at improving ourselves through learning and better understanding each other and the universe". I don't see why that necessitates any kind of belief at all. Anyone can strive for that, religious or not.

Of course, that's all great and important. But what I was referring to was more the discovery of inward knowledge and wisdom rather than outer wisdom. Going inwards and discovering your "true self", once you discover this I believe everything else becomes much clearer. Also this may be presumptuous of me, but I do believe that each and every one of us want's on some level to cultivate this connection, without which how can we ever discover true peace pf mind? Without this connection it's all too easy to let our senses and monkey mind take over and lead us by the nose.

And it would be fine to say "Dawkins, you shouldn't be trying to convince people to abandon their beliefs, be more open minded" if it weren't for the fact that almost every major religion in the world has some kind of programme to convert other people! That needs an atheist countermeasure otherwise all the gullible people will end up religious. As I know you're a spiritual person I understand your anger with people attacking the whole idea of "belief without proof" but I do despair when I hear people like you rail against Dawkins.

As I said before it's not so much that Dawkins is a atheist and expressing his view, I'm friends with many atheists and while I don't share their opinion, I can respect it. No, as I stated it's that Dawkin's frequently comes across like an utter egoist with no real in depth understanding of what he is categorically dismissing as being "deluisional". Yes we are all aware of the hideous side of religion- the Hindu Caste system, the bloodshed warring Muslim sects have caused fighting one another just as Christians have done, the repression, ect, ect. But just because these people have forgot the truths their faith originally taught it doesn't mean that all knowledge of God or the supernatural is tosh.

Two wrongs surely don't do the world any good, as you said, Dawkins is seemingly the atheist equivalent of a raging religious fanatic. And I don't agree that this kind of cheap writing is needed to defend against the potential evil of religion, as lets face it: organized religion in the west and much of the modern world has already long been in a state of declining influence. Dawkin's work won't change the mind of a fanatic and doesn't in any way help mankind come closer to true unity. All it stands to do is paint a shallow picture and criticism of the idea of God to an already spiritually un-concerned person.

This is a fight between opposing ideologues for the backing of the easily manipulated and strategically important majority, like politics. I don't want all those people religious because they'll start to demand laws based on their religion which will then affect me

I agree, I don't want religion to have anything to do with law/ politics either, but I still don't think it makes Dawkin's stuff any more worthy. As I said for quite a while now people have already been steadily moving away from the organized religion, and have instead created various New age movements or on the negative side harmful cults, which surely demonstrate people's spiritual hunger. Simply denying it altogether will do the world no good. surely it would be better to encourage people to make healthy spiritual development and teach of the universal truths which by no mere coincidence recur in spiritual teachings from nearly every part of the world (and from times where there would have been no cross pollination)?

My point of view is a very simple one: even if there were gods, for all the harm that's been done in their name they are worthy of neither worship nor obedience.

Yeah I understand your frustration Ayase, but if you tried looking at it from a different perspective it would seem a lot less unfair. I think- well so what if it was done in God's name? It was done by people who had very little actual understanding of "God" and if not in Gods name those people would still be led by their sense's and desires and would still be killling for something else whether it's oil or a women or power or whatever egotistical desire. And I do believe in Karma so when I try and look at things from a more detached perspective I think: people die suddenly every day, rather than see it as some cruel event I think- we're all ultimately responsible for everything that happens to us and even though it might seem tragic, it was an important experience for that individual to go through. Tomorrow some nut case might come out of the blue a chop off my legs, but it would surely help me no end to know that that was a direct manifestation of karma due to something I once did either in this life or a previous one, and that now I can take full responsibility of myself striving to eliminate my Karma rather than drown in grief. I find this to be very empowering, which ultimately all spirituality should be.

 

[ayase]

Ha! Actually I approve of the cheesy thread title.

Okay, I'll be back once I've digested all that. Y'know, this could get very interesting indeed if CG decides to put in one of his increasingly rare appearances... I'd love to see what you two would make of each other.

 

[Vashdaman]

Interesting as this CG guy is an affable, free thinking, eloquent debater who radiates with knowledge? Or interesting because he's the kind of person who has Quackometer.com bookmark as a favourite on his computer and becomes enraged with violent anger when his holiness Dawkins is fairly criticized?

I don't believe I've encountered the chap yet though, so here's hoping for the former.

 

[ayase]

This belief should be based primarily on nothing other then personal experience- is that not the most scientific thing in the world, better than any theory? This is probably the reason why in Zen anecdotal stories they sometimes say things like "If you see the Lord Buddha himself, kill him at once!" To emphasize the point of personal experience being more important than the theory of any spiritual leader. Without this experience of course we can believe whole heatedly in nothing.

Personal experience is an absolutely fine way of creating a belief system all your own. I wouldn't say it's scientific (in fact it does border on delusion ;P) but I think we all do this to some extent. Our experiences in life make us the people we are and play a large part in determining our beliefs, whether the things we believe are accurate or not. I'm incline to think that they often aren't. I hold beliefs some would dismiss as delusional (I'm probably going to state some of them below) and I formed those beliefs through personal experience, but the important thing is that I don't expect other people to believe them as truths. I'm not even sure I believe them myself; it's just habit, which I think accounts for a lot of people's beliefs. And I'm actively involved in the process of trying to break my own beliefs, which I believe hold me back. I think beliefs hold a lot of people back, be they religious, psychological or otherwise.

...what I was referring to was more the discovery of inward knowledge and wisdom rather than outer wisdom. Going inwards and discovering your "true self", once you discover this I believe everything else becomes much clearer. Also this may be presumptuous of me, but I do believe that each and every one of us want's on some level to cultivate this connection, without which how can we ever discover true peace pf mind? Without this connection it's all too easy to let our senses and monkey mind take over and lead us by the nose.

See, I don't quite understand what this "connection" you're referring to is; connection with what, our inner selves? I've spent a lot of time (believe me, a lot of time) looking inward and I think if you strip away all the outer layers of a human you're left with a rather primal core that just wants to fight and f*ck and do little else (here come my beliefs). Those seven deadly sins Christians talk about? Those are the kind of things that I see in there, and most of us do well to keep them under lock and key. Our "monkey mind" is what we really are; probably a lot worse than monkeys, actually. Psychopathic, thieving rapist monkeys in suits. For me, looking inward isn't where the future and betterment of humanity lies: It's in civilisation, the process of learning and discovering more about the universe we inhabit and not giving in to our innate desires. Building, learning, doing. These are the things which make us great and give us a sense of pride and achievement and make us happy with who we are. We might be civilising more today if the people in charge still gave a toss about advancement of humanity rather than giving in to their own base desires; hoarding all the power and wealth for themselves whilst farming other people for their labour in debt servitude. And that doesn't have a positive effect on containing my monkey mind, let me tell you.

As I said before it's not so much that Dawkins is a atheist and expressing his view, I'm friends with many atheists and while I don't share their opinion, I can respect it. No, as I stated it's that Dawkin's frequently comes across like an utter egoist with no real in depth understanding of what he is categorically dismissing as being "deluisional". Yes we are all aware of the hideous side of religion- the Hindu Caste system, the bloodshed warring Muslim sects have caused fighting one another just as Christians have done, the repression, ect, ect. But just because these people have forgot the truths their faith originally taught it doesn't mean that all knowledge of God or the supernatural is tosh.

But I don't think people need to take such offence. As I said earlier, I accept that some of my beliefs probably are delusional - I have no doubt that with your much more positive outlook you would probably class them as such! I think the important thing for people to do is to examine their beliefs rationally and decide for themselves if they are doing them good or harm. Personally, I think if most people did that they would find that they are doing more harm than good. Thing is, people tend to examine their beliefs emotionally and decide that they are doing them good (because without something to believe in they would feel lost, or have to admit they might be wrong). As for the "truths" of faith? Come on vash, by it's very nature faith can't be truth, so there's no possible way you could back up that claim. It might not all be "tosh" but it sure as hell is a complete stab in the dark without a shred of evidence.

I don't want religion to have anything to do with law/ politics either, but I still don't think it makes Dawkin's stuff any more worthy. As I said for quite a while now people have already been steadily moving away from the organized religion, and have instead created various New age movements or on the negative side harmful cults, which surely demonstrate people's spiritual hunger. Simply denying it altogether will do the world no good. surely it would be better to encourage people to make healthy spiritual development..?

I think what faith appeals to is not a spiritual hunger, but a sense that people need a reason for their existence. From the moment people are able to think for themselves, they ask themselves the great questions: Why do I exist, Why am I in the situation I am in, What is the purpose of my life? And faith, belief in something which requires no proof, is a very easy way to provide yourself with a reason for your existence. You don't have to back it up with anything and you don't have to explain it to anyone (even to yourself, I would argue). I see this time and time again, mainly in converted Jehovah's Witnesses who come to my door. They explain how they were going through a bad period in their life, how they didn't understand why there was so much suffering in the world etc. And the answer for them was to accept that there's a divine plan. Everything happens for a reason. And we can have this same peace of mind as well! Isn't it great to not to have that existential angst any more! Yeah, I'm sure it is. It will keep you from being depressed, make you feel like you have the answers to those currently impossible to answer questions... but if you take a step back and look at what you actually know to be truth rather than what you are choosing to believe, I think you'll find the word delusion does fit that picture quite well.

I understand your frustration Ayase, but if you tried looking at it from a different perspective it would seem a lot less unfair. I think- well so what if it was done in God's name? It was done by people who had very little actual understanding of "God" and if not in Gods name those people would still be led by their sense's and desires and would still be killling for something else whether it's oil or a women or power or whatever egotistical desire. And I do believe in Karma so when I try and look at things from a more detached perspective I think: people die suddenly every day, rather than see it as some cruel event I think- we're all ultimately responsible for everything that happens to us and even though it might seem tragic, it was an important experience for that individual to go through. Tomorrow some nut case might come out of the blue a chop off my legs, but it would surely help me no end to know that that was a direct manifestation of karma due to something I once did either in this life or a previous one, and that now I can take full responsibility of myself striving to eliminate my Karma rather than drown in grief. I find this to be very empowering, which ultimately all spirituality should be.

And this is where I'm afraid you've lost me completely. I find it very difficult to argue against something which is obviously someone's strongly held belief (but to me just seems so bizarre) without seeming condescending. Don't get me wrong, if that's what you believe then I'm happy for you to believe that, but again it seems like a manifestation of what I've described above: Looking for a way to explain away the parts of life we don't understand or find unpleasant. And I have to admit that I don't find that particular kind of belief (that people get what's coming to them, whether in this life, the next or in the afterlife) remotely empowering. You talk about responsibility, but believing that things happen to people because of how they have behaved is in fact a very useful one to the powers that be for keeping people in their place. If people accept what happens to themselves or others as being rewards or punishments for their behaviour from a higher power, then there is no injustice in the world, so why fight against it? And on that note, I think it's appropriate to finish on a song.

 

[Vashdaman]

Thank you for your considered response Ayase!

Personal experience is an absolutely fine way of creating a belief system all your own. I wouldn't say it's scientific (in fact it does border on delusion ;P) but I think we all do this to some extent. Our experiences in life make us the people we are and play a large part in determining our beliefs, whether the things we believe are accurate or not. I'm incline to think that they often aren't. I hold beliefs some would dismiss as delusional (I'm probably going to state some of them below) and I formed those beliefs through personal experience, but the important thing is that I don't expect other people to believe them as truths. I'm not even sure I believe them myself; it's just habit, which I think accounts for a lot of people's beliefs. And I'm actively involved in the process of trying to break my own beliefs, which I believe hold me back. I think beliefs hold a lot of people back, be they religious, psychological or otherwise.

But if personal experience is delusional,Ayase, then tell me what is not delusion? Is the belief of someone else or multiple other people's belief less delusional then yours? Is the belief that this material world is all there is less delusional then the belief that it isn't? If you don't have confidence in your own experience's then you must only have confidence in other's experience's. I believe that to be very foolish indeed. However this is not to say that one should just blindly have faith in what could potentially be just a false experience or belief of the ego. No, one must be very careful to evaluate and analyze such "divine" experiences, and even every thought we have. But I believe that as one strives vigilantly to overcome the negative modifications of the mind we will naturally come closer to great understanding. Of course, your right that some beliefs can hold us back and those ones need to be eliminated, but many beliefs can be very liberating. And if ones lives with no confidence or belief in anything, how can they enjoy their existence?

See, I don't quite understand what this "connection" you're
referring to is; connection with what, our inner selves?

Yes, one's true self. To explain more clearly- It's the idea that you are not really who you think you are, or not what you identify yourself as. So, I am not my name, I am not my body, I am not short or tall and I am not my ethnicity or race. I am none of these anymore than I am my avatar and user name on this forum. Those things are just temporary, but my true self is permanent and never changing, the true source of individuality and everyone's is just like it, connection with this that I was referring to, what people might call the soul or the spark of god. You can see how this idea could destroy racism, allowing people to understand that really we are all the same. And how much harder it is to rid ourselves of racism and prejudice when we believe that we are those superficial things.

've spent a lot of time (believe me, a lot of time) looking inward and I think if you strip away all the outer layers of a human you're left with a rather primal core that just wants to fight and f*ck and do little else (here come my beliefs). Those seven deadly sins Christians talk about? Those are the kind of things that I see in there, and most of us do well to keep them under lock and key. Our "monkey mind" is what we really are; probably a lot worse than monkeys, actually. Psychopathic, thieving rapist monkeys in suits. For me, looking inward isn't where the future and betterment of humanity lies: It's in civilisation, the process of learning and discovering more about the universe we inhabit and not giving in to our innate desires. Building, learning, doing. These are the things which make us great and give us a sense of pride and achievement and make us happy with who we are. We might be civilising more today if the people in charge still gave a toss about advancement of humanity rather than giving in to their own base desires; hoarding all the power and wealth for themselves whilst farming other people for their labour in debt servitude. And that doesn't have a positive effect on containing my monkey mind, let me tell you.

So you can see how I would fundamentally disagree with you that our money minds is all we really are. The fighting and *******, maybe we do have those instincts, but those are just biological functions of our bodies and once again not really what we are. I see it like this, I am never hungry or horny or angry, my body is or in the case of angry my mind is, but I am not my body or even my mind. This may seem strange at first but I think it's quite important. Building and learning about our universe can be great, but I think if we don't understand our "true selves" first this activity may just come from the ego and can just be a representation of these base desires and trouble may be come from it. For example the splitting of the atom- a miraculous achievement to be sure, but it was then used irresponsibly to cause great harm. So while these things are great and should be encouraged as well, I think we have to be careful about getting too caught up in the intellectual mind.

But I don't think people need to take such offence. As I said earlier, I accept that some of my beliefs probably are delusional - I have no doubt that with your much more positive outlook you would probably class them as such! I think the important thing for people to do is to examine their beliefs rationally and decide for themselves if they are doing them good or harm. Personally, I think if most people did that they would find that they are doing more harm than good. Thing is, people tend to examine their beliefs emotionally and decide that they are doing them good (because without something to believe in they would feel lost, or have to admit they might be wrong). As for the "truths" of faith? Come on vash, by it's very nature faith can't be truth, so there's no possible way you could back up that claim. It might not all be "tosh" but it sure as hell is a complete stab in the dark without a shred of evidence.

As I've already stated some beliefs are harmful however some are very helpful. As for faith, why can't it be truth? Something that we feel to be true we will naturally have faith in. In fact I would go further and state that to experience/discover the truth a certain amount of faith is actually required, but I guess that's what separates me from a conventional scientist.

And faith, belief in something which requires no proof

As I've already described I feel that you should not and cannot truly believing in something without doubt unless you personally experience it, this is the only worthwhile kind of proof.

but if you take a step back and look at what you actually know to be truth rather than what you are choosing to believe, I think you'll find the word delusion does fit that picture quite well.

Again, not at all if you have actually experienced what you believe in, then you would know it to be truth. Of course, there would not necessarily be a way to prove it to somebody else nor would there be any way for that person to disprove you and falsify what you have experienced (at least fairly).

And this is where I'm afraid you've lost me completely. I find it very difficult to argue against something which is obviously someone's strongly held belief (but to me just seems so bizarre) without seeming condescending. Don't get me wrong, if that's what you believe then I'm happy for you to believe that, but again it seems like a manifestation of what I've described above: Looking for a way to explain away the parts of life we don't understand or find unpleasant. And I have to admit that I don't find that particular kind of belief (that people get what's coming to them, whether in this life, the next or in the afterlife) remotely empowering. You talk about responsibility, but believing that things happen to people because of how they have behaved is in fact a very useful one to the powers that be for keeping people in their place. If people accept what happens to themselves or others as being rewards or punishments for their behaviour from a higher power, then there is no injustice in the world, so why fight against it?

Of course this idea is very much a way for explaining the aspects of life that seem hard to fathom. But this idea of action and consequence is very much one that seems to make a lot of sense to me, I don't believe the universe is just one giant ball of chaos and I think the way the universe works is actually vastly more intricate than many realize. I suppose an idea like karma could potentially be misused to control people, but that still doesn't convince me that it's any less true or anybody is exempt from it. But I think it is different from the idea of Heaven and Hell as Karma should not necessarily be seen as a negative, I see it as a learning process for the soul. But if you see someone living homeless on the street it does not mean it's OK to ignore them, it may be their karma but nonetheless one should still feel compassion for that person and try your best to help, but if you know there is absolutely nothing you can do to help equally should not feel depressed over the situation. But yes, essentially I do believe that there is no real injustice in this world.


Of course this is all just me expressing my opinion in response,I'm not trying to preach or anything. Although we seemed to have strayed from the topic of Dawkins somewhat, but I guess that was inevitable lol

 

[ayase]

So I had a free morning and a lot of coffee. Better late than never.

But if personal experience is delusional,Ayase, then tell me what is not delusion? Is the belief of someone else or multiple other people's belief less delusional then yours? Is the belief that this material world is all there is less delusional then the belief that it isn't? If you don't have confidence in your own experience's then you must only have confidence in other's experience's. I believe that to be very foolish indeed. However this is not to say that one should just blindly have faith in what could potentially be just a false experience or belief of the ego. No, one must be very careful to evaluate and analyze such "divine" experiences, and even every thought we have. But I believe that as one strives vigilantly to overcome the negative modifications of the mind we will naturally come closer to great understanding.

Personal experience is not delusional; how each individual chooses to interpret their experiences can be. As someone who knows fairly regular depression, I believe I am sometimes prone to delusional thinking. But I'm pretty good now at recognising that and snapping myself out of it. And that's what I (and, I think, Richard Dawkins) would encourage religious people to do. Recognise what you're thinking as delusion and snap out of it! As for having confidence in the experiences of others, no, I don't. Not blindly (you're right, that is foolish, and also exactly what a lot of religions do). But I can have confidence in other people's ideas, as long as they can actually prove the validity of those ideas to me. If they can't do that, or if their ideas require a leap of faith, then I'm not going to have any confidence in them. Indeed, that almost seems to be a view you're endorsing there were it not for the vagueries at the end.

Of course, your right that some beliefs can hold us back and those ones need to be eliminated, but many beliefs can be very liberating. And if ones lives with no confidence or belief in anything, how can they enjoy their existence?

I'd really like to hear some of these liberating beliefs. A man in the sky constantly watching and judging me? Horrible. The thought that I'm going to have to go through all this again? Horrible. The idea that I'm not in control of my own destiny? Horrible. You know what is liberating for me? The thought that it's very unlikely any of those things are true. That no-one with any more authority than myself is judging me, that this is my one and only life and that it's mine to do with as I see fit. Brilliant. And I can enjoy the physical world! I can enjoy the fact that I am a human being with the capacity to think and learn! I can enjoy watching the sun set on a warm summer evening with a beer in my hand quite well on it's own without having to believe some beardy weirdy put it there - or even that there is any more to life than that at all.

Yes, one's true self. To explain more clearly- It's the idea that you are not really who you think you are, or not what you identify yourself as. So, I am not my name, I am not my body, I am not short or tall and I am not my ethnicity or race. I am none of these anymore than I am my avatar and user name on this forum. Those things are just temporary, but my true self is permanent and never changing, the true source of individuality and everyone's is just like it, connection with this that I was referring to, what people might call the soul or the spark of god. You can see how this idea could destroy racism, allowing people to understand that really we are all the same. And how much harder it is to rid ourselves of racism and prejudice when we believe that we are those superficial things.

Is there not more value to be had in accepting the truths of physical reality and admitting that actually yes, you are the person you are, in the situation you are in; how do you feel about that and what can you do to change it (if you wish to do so)? Belief cannot solve social or political problems by itself - these things require action. If you can't abide racism don't stand for it. Get beaten up by skinheads but afterwards smile and know you were right. If you think social mobility is declining then get out there and protest, and start encouraging people to vote all these major party f*ckers out at the next election. There are plenty of people doing these things who have no religious beliefs, so it's hard to see how religion can be held up as a force for good or for change and atheism not. You can hope that everyone will just evolve to a higher plane all you want, but without action it isn't actually going to do any good.

Building and learning about our universe can be great, but I think if we don't understand our "true selves" first this activity may just come from the ego and can just be a representation of these base desires and trouble may be come from it. For example the splitting of the atom- a miraculous achievement to be sure, but it was then used irresponsibly to cause great harm. So while these things are great and should be encouraged as well, I think we have to be careful about getting too caught up in the intellectual mind.

But the only reason humanity makes a lot of the progress it does is due to those same base desires. Would the atom have ever been split if we hadn't had a horrific war to win? Would we have half the tech we have today if investors didn't think they could make a shed-load of cash out of it? I don't think it's a stretch to say that we know a lot more about the world and actually, have a much higher standard of living as a direct result of greed, envy and pride (and probably lust - also pre-empting any FMA jokes) than we would have done if we didn't have those traits. What would we really accomplish without them? Very little, I imagine. We'd probably live in a kind of blissful ignorance, which might suit some people, I suppose.

...if you have actually experienced what you believe in, then you would know it to be truth. Of course, there would not necessarily be a way to prove it to somebody else nor would there be any way for that person to disprove you and falsify what you have experienced (at least fairly).

I would argue that I have experienced what I believe in and can prove it exists to anyone: Reality. The actual physical world out there that I can see and touch and, probably bar the minds of women, understand. No, I cannot disprove what you believe (and not just because I don't have a very clear picture of what it actually is that you believe). But you cannot prove it either. And it seems rather appropriate today to finish with a statement popularised by the late Christoper Hitchens; Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur - What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Animefreak17]

i dont believe in any gods

 

[ayase]

Good for you.

...

AF, I have to know - are you really just Aion, making an ironic statement by embodying everything you hated about AUKN?

 

[mangaman74]

Good for you.

...

AF, I have to know - are you really just Aion, making an ironic statement by embodying everything you hated about AUKN?

AF can't be Aion - he makes too many typos and more often than not his posts make no sense because of it. Also if he was Aion he would have written a half page essay stating why he didn't believe in god.

 

[ayase]

Hence my point about making an ironic statement.

Anyway, Vash, there is a substantial post up there for you above this pointless crap.

 

[Vashdaman]

Ah, good stuff, round 3 is it!

But I'm pretty good now at recognising that and snapping myself out of it. And that's what I (and, I think, Richard Dawkins) would encourage religious people to do. Recognise what you're thinking as delusion and snap out of it!

But is it not sheer arrogance to suggest that anyone with a religious/spiritual belief is delusional? Sure, some of them are and I don't think anyone can deny that fact, but what qualifies Dawkins to be able categorically label them all as delusional? Simply the fact that they can't offer him evidence which can be recorded with current scientific equipment? I'm sure Dawkins would think of himself as some kind of open minded, liberated academic fighting righteously from freedom, but the reality of the matter is that his somewhat militant views are incredibly closed minded. Yes I agree that religious fanaticism does much harm, but we're just swinging from one silly extreme to the other. The work of Dawkins and his peers is simply reactionary, and I don't believe this is the kind of action that will help human kind's evolution(as some believe it will). We need more balanced and unifying viewpoints, simply saying "**** em all, their wrong" isn't going to work.

you're right, that is foolish, and also exactly what a lot of religions do

Yes, some do. But not all (and even the ones that currently do may not have always). The crux of many yogic, Buddhist, Taoist and (as I recently discovered) Shinto Faiths is the concept of directly experiencing for ones self and not blindly following and basing everything off another's words alone. This idea is emphasized heavily in each of these unique systems

I'd really like to hear some of these liberating beliefs. A man in the sky constantly watching and judging me? Horrible. The thought that I'm going to have to go through all this again? Horrible.

You've actually hit a nail on the head with this one. Some claim that the only rational explanation of belief in the supernatural or spiritual phenomena is due to the comfort it brings, but I believe the reason that some are so vehemently opposed to such ideas is simply due to fear and an unwillingness to be held accountable for ones actions, as you have illustrated. To many, the idea of being able to wile out do whatever the **** you want in this life and suffer no consequence for it, is much more of a comfort than the idea of karma. However I'm sure the inevitable repercussions this has on humanity is obvious, as it can all too easily lead to that spiritual void being attempted to be filled with empty materialism, which as we all know does not lead to satisfied human race. Sure, I accept Dawkins argument that atheists can still be happy people, but as I said it's too easy for many to simply replace what would have been the mental constraint of dogmatic religion with the constraints of base desire and materialistic want. As far as I'm aware the most secular societies in the world aren't any more happy.

The idea that I'm not in control of my own destiny? Horrible.

But surely the ideas I outlined in my previous posts would demonstrate that you actually have more control over your destiny than what an atheist would believe. Indeed, the concept of karma puts one in a position of direct control and responsibility over everything that might happen to them. Whereas, if something bad (or good) were to randomly happen (such as an anvil falling out of the sky on to your foot) to an atheist I assuming they would believe it was completely out of their control and just an example of the chaos of the universe. Personally, I find this idea of Karma to be very liberating, as do I find the idea of me being a part of god (rather than separate) and the process of coming into connection with this aspect of myself as opposed to allowing myself to be strung along by my mind.

I can enjoy the fact that I am a human being with the capacity to think and learn! I can enjoy watching the sun set on a warm summer evening with a beer in my hand quite well on it's own without having to believe some beardy weirdy put it there - or even that there is any more to life than that at all.

None of what I am expressing goes against you being able to enjoy such experiences, in fact it ultimately aims to enable you to enjoy such experiences even more. The starting point of many faiths (such as Buddhism) is that life is suffering, but this is only ever starting point. It's to illustrate that everything is transitory therefore even when we are enjoying things they can still bring us pain! An example is if I get a new designer jacket and I'm really excited about wearing it out for the first time, but as soon as I do I'm already worried about it getting dirty or damaged in the back of my mind (I'm not going lie, I still am like this!). It's the same with a loved one, your fearful of losing them an then when you do lose them it causes much pain. Only by achieving a healthy level of detachment from these things can we fully appreciate and enjoy them. Yet how can we achieve this if we believe those things are all there is.
So you see, spirituality is never really about denying yourself anything, but rather enabling one to better appreciate and enjoy, as far as I am concerned anyway.

Belief cannot solve social or political problems by itself - these things require action

But don't all these problems stem from belief of some kind? And anyway all action originates from a belief of some kind.

There are plenty of people doing these things who have no religious beliefs, so it's hard to see how religion can be held up as a force for good or for change and atheism not. You can hope that everyone will just evolve to a higher plane all you want, but without action it isn't actually going to do any good

I agree proper action is essential, but I'm just try to articulate the opinion that atheism isn't necessarily any better for mankind than religion is. I'm not of the opinion that much good can come from the ridiculous religion vs atheism debates we are currently seeing (which is ironic considering I am essentially engaging in one right now ) I'm of the opinion that we need to accept that the middle path is the only one that will lead us to anywhere fruitful. Religious dogma will get us no where fast but then neither will attempting to systematically ignore and deny the spiritual yearning we have, have always had and will always have. There's a nice Carl Jung quote that I can't actually find right now but it goes roughly like this "Indeed, imagine the peace mankind would experience if spiritual concerns were given equal precedence to social ones", I am very much in agreement with this.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that we know a lot more about the world and actually, have a much higher standard of living as a direct result of greed, envy and pride (and probably lust - also pre-empting any FMA jokes) than we would have done if we didn't have those traits. What would we really accomplish without them? Very little, I imagine. We'd probably live in a kind of blissful ignorance, which might suit some people, I suppose.

I don't really agree that all worthwhile advancements have been or could be accomplished solely through greed and similar negative emotions and lets not forget it's those very emotions that have led us to destroy just as much if not more than we've actually gained through them. You say we have more insight of the world due to these emotions, but again to an extent I disagree. We don't necessarily need contemporary and conventional science to have a great insight and knowledge of our universe, in fact we are now seeing that in many ways contemporary science is actually only just catching up to what could be considered spiritual phenomena, however this is not to say that I dislike contemporary science, I actually feel the forces are coming closer to achieving unity and becoming full circle with one another. I do not agree that our negative emotions benefit us in the long run though other than-in the words of Sri Swami Satchidananda- "If you must be greedy, be greedy for your own peace of mind and therefore practice selflessness

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I think this is the perfect opportunity to get all Chuang Tzu on his arse- What evidence does he have that I don't have evidence?


Wow, this has felt like one epic post!