i thought irony was over

[JackRiddler]

I'm reminded of that scene in Hannah and Her Sisters, the Woody Allen movie... Woody's character is suicidal, and tries every path to wisdom, every religion. Eventually, he winds up in a theater showing a Marx Brothers movie and realizes, "you know, it's not *all* that bad" and finds his reason to live.

Reasons for living don't get much more pathetic than that, IMO.

cf. http://www.mr-agreeable.net/story.lasso?section=Reaper&id=56

Strip Woody Allen of his cleverness and education, and what do you get? Seinfeld. Meaning the comedian, not even the show (which is funny).

Or, worse: The increasingly zombified Woody Allen of the 30 years since Annie Hall and Manhattan.

[Telexx]

Great thread thanks. More Lao Tzu:

"Heaven and Earth last and last.
Why do they last so long?
Because they are not self-serving"

Cheers,

Telexx

[Canadian_watcher]

great discussion, enjoyable reading. thanks to all contributors.
I'm going to post the last three verses of this fairly trite but really moving Jackson Browne song "The Rebel Jesus"

Posting it because this thread has brought it to mind & every time I hear it the tears come. I don't belong to any religion but do appreciate the story of Jesus.

Well they call him by the Prince of Peace
And they call him by the Savior
And they pray to him upon the seas
And in every bold endeavor
As they fill his churches with their pride and gold
And their faith in him increases
But they've turned the nature that I worshipped in
From a temple to a robber's den
In the words of the rebel Jesus

We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when Christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why they are poor
They get the same as the rebel Jesus

But please forgive me if I seem
To take the tone of judgement
For I've no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure
And I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel Jesus.

[JackRiddler]

.

That is a great song!

I think Jesus is great. Even though I'd bet he's more fictional than Odysseus (figuring the latter was based on one guy who actually lived, and Jesus on several). I've wished I could make a movie about him. I wish Kubrick had - can you imagine?

.

[Canadian_watcher]

I'm glad you liked it, Jack

yes, Kubrick's take on Jesus would have been something to see on screen.
I think I've watched all the 'jesus movies' except Mel Gibson's. can't bring myself to it. I also love some of the music from jesus christ superstar.

The Jesus story has all the epic themes and really, it's the ULTIMATE sibling rivalry tale when you think about it. God's one son versus the rest of god's children in a fight to the finish. the original Sophie's Choice.

[smiths]

i went to a wedding two weeks ago and at the party afterward one of my wifes cousins spent over an hour harassing and ear-bashing the lovely and intelligent catholic priest about how god did not exist and how the priest was irrelevant, which really upset the priest,

the funny thing is the cousin is the most lost person i know, and his ultra materialist atheism looks like such a cry for help,

personally i am agnostic, dont believe in a historical character called jesus, think organized religion dose as much harm as good,

but i think this sick corrupt culture screaming atheistic mantras at the sky looks like desperate sadness and loss of love and place

[JackRiddler]

.

smiths, your points and wedding story are well taken, although I don't think your neurotic in-law's beef with Catholic priests is necessarily a product of his neurosis, although you'd know better.

But seriously:

this sick corrupt culture screaming atheistic mantras at the sky

What culture would that be? The six designated Officially* Televised Atheists around Dawkins and Hitchens? (Or should that be "Occasionally Televised"?)

Funny. Everywhere I turn, I see a sick corrupt culture singing "God Bless America," always accepting the hypocritical religious intonations of politicians and preachers at face value, its media celebrating the bogus Pew Research polling on faith, its people going nuts about the dirty Mooslims.

.

[slimmouse]

.



Funny. Everywhere I turn, I see a sick corrupt culture singing "God Bless America," always accepting the hypocritical religious intonations of politicians and preachers at face value, its media celebrating the bogus Pew Research polling on faith, its people going nuts about the dirty Mooslims.

.

Excellent observation Jack.

One which I would argue confirms just how clever the creation of the Abrahamic faiths was ?

Theres a universe of difference between spirituality and religion. Being the ultimate "conspiracy theorist" that I am, I see this as a deliberate move by the firm.

And of course, I dont believe for one moment that Dorkins (SIC) and co have it right either.

The major problem AFAIC is working out which is the lesser of the two evils ? Dawkins or the 'faux faiths' ? In terms of human destruction on the material plane, I guess Dawkins and co are clearly the lesser of the two. But I still think its a real close call.

And I also think that both serve the empire equally well. One has acted as the perfect divide and conquer tool. Whilst the other might lead people to act on the grounds that if this is all there is , you might as well grab what you can while you can right ? Survival of the fittest and all that.

Which empire you ask ? Well, I guess you can please yourself. Theyve all been run by the same bunch of inbreds for the duration of the last 2000 years at least.

[smiths]

the point is that its the extreme forms of both that do damage,

believing in your heart that there is a god, committing time to help others less fortunate than yourself, and trying to live fairly, honestly and well does no harm
and believing that there is no god, committing time to help others less fortunate than yourself, and trying to live fairly, honestly and well does no harm either

i dont live in america and frankly i am glad i dont when i see the role that nutty religion plays in the society
but i think dawkins' crusade against religion is divisive and harmful, and he makes atheists look like extremists and is ultimately bad for the atheist cause,

he and the characters he bashes are cardboard stereotypes that have no value in a world where we need good healthy communities based on respect and love

[JackRiddler]

.

the point is that its the extreme forms of both that do damage,

Well, I don't buy that at all. The damage has come from the organized no-alternative religions and, in recent centuries, the secular ideologies that mimicked their structures. Dawkins's often childish and annoying behavior as a public atheist isn't doing "damage" at all, except in the eternally victimized minds of the religionists who cannot tolerate anyone eating their sacred cows. If anything, it's failing to do the damage the organized no-alternative religions deserve. (Dawkins's reductionist selfish meme-gene ideology, hotly and rightly disputed among evolutionary scientists, is another matter.)

.

[smiths]

Dawkins's often childish and annoying behavior as a public atheist isn't doing "damage" at all, except in the eternally victimized minds of the religionists

this is a cartoonish parody of a huge spectrum of religious belief,
and i dont agree with your sentiment

atheism is religious belief anyway, since the proposition that there is no god is not provable, and it sets someone in a diametrically oppositional stance to religions, thesis, anti-thesis,
now choose your weapon

[JackRiddler]

.

smiths:

By the rules of empiricism and logic, you don't need to prove a negative. Maybe you don't want to argue by those rules, that's fine, but then we won't have much more to say to each other.

Anyway it's not about whether a god (or gods) exists, but whether one should accept the proposition that it does purely because someone else says so, in the absence of other evidence or argument. Now couple that with the evidence that most organized religions are transparent scams to benefit some and keep others in a docile slave mentality, or at best grant relief to slaves ("the opium of the people") and rejecting them becomes easy.

Anyway, just in case we go on: faith in what? How do you distinguish among the various faiths?

A jealous god chose a people and gave them a country? He sent his son via a virgin birth because you're born sinners and you bastards crucified him? He speaks through a pope in Rome? He spoke through an Arabian merchant and told the desert-dwellers to go forth, conquer and convert? He's going to judge your individual soul, which will remain intact after you die, to heaven or hell? He favors the Russian, Greek or Serbian nation? He hates fags and loves free market capitalism? He was an alien who gave Utah to the Mormons and Hollywood to the Scientologists? As far as these types of beliefs are concerned, i.e. those that transparently exist to justify the interests of real-world nations, businesses or authorities: please!

.

[smiths]

well

Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist.
Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism.

some of the more high profile atheists are strong atheists,
that is they state categorically that gods do not exist

on what basis do they make this statement

the problem is that flatly stating that for something to exist it must be provable empirically leads to some strange qaundries,
what is the empirical evidence of love?

do you deny any mystery in the universe? or is everything solvable and answerable

[JackRiddler]

what is the empirical evidence of love?

Almost everyone has experienced love directly and can match that experience with what others say about it, as I said at length above. You seem to be confusing "empirical" with "measurable" (or discreet and quantifiable), which some of the hardcore atheists also do. But that's their problem, and apparently yours.

Also, the experience of love does include measurable physical sensations. Show me these atheists who deny love exists, otherwise this claim is just your canard against a strawman.

Love is real and common, unlike virgin births or gods who choose to speak solely to Arabian merchants and recommend territorial conquest, and I'm not going to credit love to some vague notion of "faith."

do you deny any mystery in the universe? or is everything solvable and answerable

Is this addressed to me? Are you kidding me?

Mystery in the universe does not justify belief in the say-so of a scripture that claims a burning bush told Moses what to do and it was the voice of the one all-powerful jealous and male Capital-G who "made us in His image."

I've posed a question several times here, now I'm wondering if you'll answer it or at least acknowledge it:

How do you distinguish between conflicting claims from faith? Which faith-based propositions are real to you, which are not, and how do you decide?

.

[JackRiddler]

some of the more high profile atheists are strong atheists,
that is they state categorically that gods do not exist

on what basis do they make this statement

Ask them.

Philosophically, I don't see how any position wrt invisible gods can be justified other than agnosticism and awe before the beautiful universe -- tempered and driven by the spirit of curiousity that makes us alive, however.

Politically, I know justifications of a moral order and hierarchies of worldly power stemming solely from "faith" claims without grounding in reason and empiricism are almost invariably fraudulent and need to be confronted by a head-on rejection, i.e. atheism.

Once again: How do you distinguish among conflicting faith-based claims?

.