Patheos Watch, check regularly for more missinformation, will be adding new stories when I catch them.
Posted on: March 9, 2013 - 8:16pm
Offline
Patheos Watch, check regularly for more missinformation, will be adding new stories when I catch them.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2013/03/atheist-governments-of-the-20th-century-the-death-toll-of-godless-goodness/
NEW UPDATES will be added as I find them,
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
It is well known that Hitler was Christian and Pavelic's Ustase were Catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase#Religious_persecution
The Ustaše aimed to create an ethnically "pure" Croatia, and saw the Serbs that lived in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina as their biggest obstacle. Thus, Ustaše ministers Mile Budak, Mirko Puk, and Milovan Žanić declared in May 1941 that the goal of the new Ustaše policy was an ethnically clean Croatia. The strategy to achieve their goal:[66][67]
Suharto was a theist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancasila_Indonesia
The New Order administration of Indonesia's second president, Suharto, was a strong supporter of Pancasila. In a July 1982 speech which reflected his deep infatuation with Javanese beliefs, Suharto glorified Pancasila as a key to reach the perfect life (ilmu kasampurnaning hurip) of harmony with God and fellow mankind.[8]
After initially being careful not to offend sensitivities of Muslim scholars who feared Pancasila might develop into a quasi-religious cult, Suharto secured a parliamentary resolution in 1983 (Tap MPR No 11/1983) which obliged all organisations in Indonesia to adhere to Pancasila as a basic principle. He also instituted Pancasila indoctrination program (Penataran P4) that must be regularly attended by all Indonesians, from primary school students to office workers. In practice, however, the vagueness of Pancasila was exploited by Suharto's government to justify their actions and to condemn their opponents as "anti-Pancasila".[8]
The name General el-Haj Mohammed Suharto is also a clue.
The murders attributed to Tito are also dubious and are presumably associated with the expulsion of the Nazi supporting Danube Swabians in WWII.
In North Korea, Juche pretty much is a religion and Mao was also treated like a deity.
After the initial purges, Stalin formed an alliance with the Orthodox church.
Of course the main issue is that the people quoted didn't kill people because of their atheism.
A bit Off-Topic :: More from the Title
Let me say I am running out the door and do not have time to read the OP's links today.
A remark all the same. Either feverishly feeble minded or haters go in for this bull-dust, all-atheists are killers like Joseph Stalin equivalent. You may know a few, that actually have implied as much. Stalin in no more typical of the average UK and North American atheist than Ivan the terrible (1530) was typical of your average Russian Orthodox or Wacco's Wacko (in the states) was typical of your average Protestant christian. This floated from the diseased notions or mind assuming to be atheistic is to be devoid of ethics or morality (of any kind).
i disagree with that, or at least with putting it that way, since the idea of a deity in chinese culture has almost none of the same connotations as it does in western culture. mao was not "deified" in the way the emperors were. he was not the son of heaven. the kind of adulation he experienced was not atypical for (human) chinese leaders all through the centuries, and we have no evidence he was considered anything more than a very remarkable human. the hundred flowers campaign revealed just how much popular animosity there was, both toward the party and mao himself, and the cultural revolution was whipped up as much to quell internal party opposition as to crack down on popular dissent. mao always faced some degree of opposition, both internally and externally.
we in the west see pictures of images and incense and chanting--not only in china but throughout all of asia--and think, "oh, they're worshipping a god (in our european sense)." it's not that simple. i mean, look how mao was embalmed: that's completely on the lenin/stalin model. a traditional confucian/taoist/buddhist chinese would not be able to relate to that.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
My knowledge of Chinese culture is quite limited and I take your point that he was not a full-blown deity in the Western or Chinese Emperor sense. I still feel though that Mao was a borderline case, especially during the Cultural Revolution as it depends where one draws the line between a personality cult and a religion and how one defines deity.
I was speculating that there isn’t much difference if the cult leader is seen as having supernatural powers and this may often be how some types of deities are created.
Do you think that Kim Il-Sung is treated like a deity?
My opinion on this was influenced by:
http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=19565
The cult-like admiration of Mao Zedong shows one important aspect of traditional Chinese propaganda, since it built upon the historical notion of the emperor’s role as mediator between heaven and earth, and, thus, as a quasi-divine figure. In fact, one of the terms used to refer to the Emperor was traditionally tianzi, or Son of Heaven. Mao Zedong, always a charismatic individual, expanded his image over time as an object of reverence; subsequently he encouraged what some call a faith, Maoism, based on personal dedication to Mao with often religious overtones.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/07/china.features11
Mao Zedong has clearly entered the pantheon of Chinese folk deities, along with the Yellow Emperor and other legendary sages and heroes in Chinese history. And Shaoshan, visited by millions over the years, is the Lourdes of his cult.
http://chineseposters.net/themes/mao-cult.php
Under Lin Biao, the PLA increasingly was employed to bolster the personality cult around Mao, and thus to produce art that would contribute to the construction of Mao's god-like image.
As a consequence of these creative rules governing the depiction of Mao, the more god-like and divorced from the masses he became to be portrayed, often hovering above those masses.
As the Cultural Revolution unfolded, Mao became a regular presence in every home, either in the form of his official portrait, or as a bust or other type of statue. Not having the Mao portrait on display indicated an apparent unwillingness to go with the revolutionary flow of the moment, or even a counter-revolutionary outlook, and refuted the central role Mao played not only in politics, but in the day-to-day affairs of the people as well.
The formal portrait often occupied the central place on the family altar, or at least the spot where that altar had been located before it had been demolished by Red Guards in the early days of the Cultural Revolution.
The days were structured around the ritual of "asking for instructions in the morning, thanking Mao for his kindness at noon, and reporting back at night". This involved bowing three times, the singing of the national anthem, reading passages from the Little Red Book in front of Mao's picture or bust, and would end with wishing him 'Ten thousand years'.
In the mornings, everybody would announce what efforts they would make that day for the revolution. In the evenings, people would report on their accomplishments or failures and announce their resolutions for the next day. The rituals were often accompanied by dancing the 'loyalty dance' (zhongzi wu 忠字舞), which did not involve much more than stretching one's arms from the heart to Mao's portrait.
as someone with a degree in religion and who has never ceased studying it in the eight years since i graduated, my definition of religion is that it offers us a way out of a metaphysical problem. that is why, for example, buddhism and jainism, which are atheistic, should still properly be called religions. a religion should have some sort of soteriological method. a deity is common but not necessary.
your second point is correct, and this is why i argue that almost every deity probably has a historical antecedent: i argue there probably was a "historical odin/hercules/krishna," etc. however, i see no evidence that mao ever was, nor is now, attributed supernatural powers on any mass level. of course there may be multiple fringe movements in which he is, but this does not permit us to speak generally of mao being "treated as a deity"--not yet, anyhow.
i can't speak definitively on this, as my knowledge of korean culture is extremely limited. however, i will tentatively say he is much closer to being deified on a mass level than mao. in general, koreans seem to be much more emotional and prone to religious fanaticism than the chinese. look how successful evangelical christianity has been in south korea.
without examining the context (i don't have time), this passage seem irresponsibly cavalier to me, especially coming (i assume) from a scholarly publication. then again, i argue the current state of mao scholarship in general is irresponsible. no doubt mao's leadership style was influenced by the emperors--it would have been funny if it weren't--but to draw a one-to-one parallel, which this writer seems dangerously close to doing, is just irresponsible. also, the only people who would call maoism a "faith" are those who have no clue what that term means. it is a branch of marxist thought, directly descended from stalinism, nothing more. it is a political ideology. if the writer really wanted to call anything associated with mao a "faith," then "mao zedong thought" would have been a much better choice.
since this is from the guardian, i'm assuming there was no source given, nor do i suspect one exists apart from this reporter's vague impressions. first of all, china is an enormous area: you're not going to find one established "pantheon." second of all, i have no doubt some chinese somewhere view mao on a par with the yellow emperor or yao and shun, but this is not, nor was it ever, official ideology, nor would i guess (i have no data, nor do i think such data exists) that the vast majority of chinese consider mao a "folk deity." second of all, to equate shaoshan with lourdes is asinine and misleading in so many ways that it should be obvious to even a remotely critical reader.
all of this is true and fairly presented, but a cult of personality do not a god nor a religion make. for one thing, these practices did not survive the cultural revolution by more than a few weeks in most places, and the chinese were ready to tear lin biao apart after mao's death.
i don't want to accuse you of anything, but i'd like to close by making a general observation. through the years i've been on this site, i've seen a trend for many to try to skirt the issue of communism's atheistic nature by pointing to historical cults of personality and/or the often irrational behavior of people in communist countries and say, "see, it was actually a religion after all!" number one, no, no, it wasn't. by definition, it just flat out wasn't. number two, religions can be atheistic.
in closing, mao was an atheist, stalin was an atheist, lenin was an atheist, ditto pol pot, ceausescu, the kims, etc., and their official ideologies were by defintion a-theistic. my response is, so the fuck what?
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Then you should have some one change the definition of religion.
A deity appears to be needed.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=religion&searchmode=none
well, then all i can say is that i and every professor i've ever had strongly disagree. once again, buddhism and jainism have no deities in any meaningful respect, and many branches of hindu thought do not either--they are all nothing more than psychological constructs. yet we still refer to these as religions with good reason: they address a metaphysical or eternal problem, in this case samsara, with definite, methodical solutions. austrian-born hindu monk agehananda bharati, who was professor of anthropology at syracuse university, stated in his 1987 M.N. Roy memorial lecture (you can find it on youtube) that a religion has therapeutic value in a metaphysical, or dare i say even soteriological, sense. no other sort of ideology has that, nor does philosophy.
it is very rare for the idea of a deity to exist without an accompanying religion (i don't know of any example), but religions can exist without deities. theravada buddhism, for example, doesn't even use deities in a conceptual sense, as mahayana traditions do, nor does it contain the notion of any sort of eternal principle like citta (in the tantric sense), alayavijnana, or buddhadhatu, yet to say theravada buddhism is not a religion is just plain wrong.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
btw, we very rarely equate the meanings of words with their etymologies, nor do i think we should. a word should be assigned a definite meaning that is helpful in current discourse. in this sense, i contend that buddhism and jainism, despite being atheistic, should be placed in roughly the same category as theistic hinduism, sikhism, judaism, christianity, and islam, and that maoism (or stalinism or any type of materialistic ideology, however irrational or authoritarian) should not. that is my whole point.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Or you simply need a new dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
No deity needed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious?show=0&t=1363009558
Religious
Or from Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t
iwbiek's definition is quite consistent with modern usage of the term.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Yeah, we should never pay attention to the origin of words, what a waste of time and effort. While we are at it, let's redefine words like marriage so that they only fit a narrow definition which suites one small group of conservative people in power so that they can abuse it and discriminate against other liberal groups in society which don't fit their ideology.
[sarcasm aside]
The source of a word has every thing to do with its meaning. When we warp words so much that they lose their original meaning then we are forgetting history. Religion has every thing to do with gods and supreme beings. Disconnecting it from that meaning disconnects us from history.
did i say that? i'm an esl teacher. i reference etymologies all the time. my point is, words change their meanings and that's ok, but their relevant meanings should be reasonably pinned down.
aren't you above bullshit rhetorical tactics like this? i thought you were.
once again, buddhism, jainism, and several hindu traditions are atheistic, and they predate most of the theistic religions still practised today, including judaism in any recognizable form. i am certainly not disconnected from religious history. it is my intellectual passion. so do you subscribe to such rubbish notions as buddhism and jainism are "philosophies"? and i mean buddhism and jainism as they have been and are still practised historically by the vast majority of their adherents, not as sanitized and remodelled by western syncretists.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marriage&allowed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=matrimony&allowed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry&allowed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wed&allowed_in_frame=0
For "wed"
Considering that "marriage" has its root in "mother" it is pretty clear that the etymology lies in a man taking a wife and originally was an English branch off of "wedlock". A female is required if we rely on your sources and your absurd insistence that we stick to the original meaning of a word.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I completely understand your opinion. You and I both know that people, even in the far east, practice buddhism as a religion. They think of the dalai lama as a living god. They basically worship buddha by making sacrifices of some sort or another.
Yet I do not adhere to any one teachings or worship any god. I view all of it as one great big pot of soup and we are all in it together trying to figure shit out. None of us are better or worse even though some people will think of it that way. I reject the term religion based on every definition given. If you want to say I follow religion then I follow the religion of me.
I wasn't using the word 'wed'.
And you are missing the point. Marriage is being used to discriminate against gays. The religious right have claimed that marriage was between a man and a woman and a gift from god. It was god who married Adam and Eve. It was god, god, god.
BULLFUCK.
Marriage comes from the term for dowry. It was an agreement between a father and the interested party, giving away his daughter for some livestock.
Back then fathers didn't give away their gay son in marriage. Gays were not "out of the closet" in any way shape or form. I suspect if they were caught they were murdered.
Not sure where you are getting 'mother' from....
Languages evolve, and meanings change. Getting hung up on it is pointless. There's nothing anyone can do to prevent it.
The simple fact is that etymology is irrelevant comared to actual useage. The church figured that out centuries ago and started defining words themselves, forever increasing the difficulty of communicating with theists. Unfortunately for them some other people started producing dictionaries, or it might have worked.
History is it's own subject. We don't need to preserve a language to remember history. Which is good, because you can't preserve a language. Not without killing everyone who uses it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
From your fucking site- I posted the links.
Marriage http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marriage&allowed_in_frame=0
Husband & wife would be by definition male and female.
...
Marry- http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry&allowed_in_frame=0
So to understand the terms "marriage" and "marry" at that time it is important to also understand the terms "matrimony" and "wedlock" so
Matrimony http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=matrimony&allowed_in_frame=0
and
Wed- http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wed&allowed_in_frame=0
It is quite clear according to the site that you used as a source yourself that the terms marry and marriage were referencing the marriage of husband and wife. Not surprising since the terms were created during a time when there was no such thing as gay marriage and marriage was controlled almost exclusively by Christian churches. Remember, you are the one who decided to start getting all pedantic and insist we use a 13th century definition of "religion" as if that is somehow the "correct" definition and using a more modern use of the term is somehow wrong. Personally, I think it is ridiculous to use definitions that are 600-700 years old, but if you are going to insist that other people do, you should at least practice what you preach.
I find it ironic that within the same post you argue against "warping" the definitions of words because it means we are "forgetting" and becoming "disconnected" with history immediately after you take a decidedly non-historical definition of marriage. Since the terms originated in the 13th and 14th centuries, a time period where same sex intercourse was illegal and brutally punished (often death), it is absurd to think that the definition encompassed same sex marriage. To claim that it did is to forget and be disconnected with history for no apparent reason other than you don't like it.
And to top irony with irony you say
Which is nowhere near the use of the original term. Not even the same ballpark. You must really be forgetting and disconnected from history.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay&allowed_in_frame=0
If you are going to be pedantic and critique people on their use of language, you should probably be more punctilious with your own use; otherwise you risk being pecksniffian.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
i'm not saying you follow anything. i'm just defending the definition of religion as used by the majority of scholars today, in order to further the point i was making in my dialogue with x, i.e. that no state-sponsored cult of personality, unless it somehow develops a solution to a metaphysical problem common to all humanity, can properly be called a religion. hero-worship is not religion, nor is any sort of worship in and of itself religion.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I'll accept that the definition of religion I was using was quite loose, so I'll need to think and read more about this, which is good.
I've been meaning to get around to understanding exactly what a religion is, so now is as good a time as any.
So, I'll get back to you on the boundary between personality cults and religions.
Yes, I've already agreed with this. My points were initially that the Patheos poster couldn't even get her facts right about some of her so called evidence, let alone her conclusion and I then wandered into the personality cult topic which I found much more interesting.
Wow. Is "pecksniffian" one of those words of the day for you? Good for you! You used it in the proper context.
OK. What about the marriage of two men and one woman? Is it still marriage? or better yet, what about one man and twelve women?
And I responded that religion requires a god. While the scholars are redefining the term religion based on their research, observations and opinion, if you asked a thousand people what religion was defined as I suspect that 95% of them would say it involved a higher being, a god, a creator or some other form of deity.
and that same percentage of people wouldn't be able to find bhutan on a map, what's your point? the general public are ignorant on most issues. when it comes to how knowledge should be handled and classified, sorry, but i'm 100% elitist.
once again, if religion requires a "god," what are jainism and theravada buddhism? what are the sankhya and yoga darshanas in hinduism? these indian traditions are by definition moksha-shastra, i.e. methods devoted to liberation from samsara and dukkha, yet they contain nothing resembling a "god." what are they?
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
If you are using etymology to determine the definition of the word as originally created I think it is quite clear that the term originally did not include polygamy of any stripe. Again, the word comes from the 1300's, a very socially oppressive time when such practices were not legally recognized anywhere in the English speaking world so it would not make sense for the original meaning of the word to include such relationships. I hate to break it to you, but the English word "marriage" originally meant one man and one woman just like the Christnuts say. To deny that is to deny reality.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The term marriage comes from an agreement between two men. It has nothing to do with a man and a woman committing to each other. The fact that it happens to include a woman and a man is a side effect of a business transaction.
Enough said on that subject
Not religions.
3/14/13
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/03/recommended-atheist-reading.html
"Recommended atheist reading", Is the title.
but equates Dawkins to "bag lady screaming in traffic". Also calls atheism a "boring philosopy".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
No, the woman was the central part of the transaction. It was never a term used for any random financial transaction. Do you have any evidence to support your absurd position? Because the website you linked to before clearly states that the word marriage requires a wedding.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
then the only thing we can do is make up a new term for them and a dozen other things we call religions. confucianism and taoism are only very marginally theistic, and neither focus on whatever deities they choose to talk about at any given time (there is no consistent pantheon). taoism is about finding immortality. confucianism is about lining humanity up with the way of heaven to reverse humanity's decline. there is no god that can or will help us with either. so these are not religions, i suppose. we also cannot include the largest, most popular hindu tradition, advaita vedanta, since brahman cannot be equated with god in any meaningful way. ditto sankhya-yoga and vaisheshika-nyaya.
pretty much all we're left with are the three monotheistic faiths, zoroastrianism, sikhism, various primitive religions, and some branches of hinduism (vaishnavism, shaivism, shaktism, and ramanuja's theistic vedanta).
so we come to find that damn near half the world is completely irreligious. what the fuck are we griping about on here?
is it really that hard to just admit you're using the term improperly? i do it all the time on here.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Before further examining the personality cult issue, I'd better make sure I understand this definition of religion.
Let's say a person has beliefs as follows:
There is no free will, Naturalism is true, metaphysics is not possible, the universe is indifferent to humans.
By believing this things this person has found a way out of these metaphysical problems and has found salvation as the person not longer has existential angst about the possibility of ultimate purpose and gods and souls and metaphysics.
The soteriological method used is reading a chapter of Sartre or Camus at 6 p.m. every day and then peacefully contemplating this with no distraction. The ritual ends with him saying aloud 'existentialism is go' then chuckling.
This person's beliefs don't seem like a religion, but they use a soteriological method to find a way out of metaphysical problems, so I must be missing something.
no, coming to the conclusion that the problem does not exist is merely negation, it is not soteriology. soteriology is only possible if the problem really exists universally. the problem no longer exists in a pragmatic sense for one who has successfully completed a soteriological method, but the identical problem still exists for those who have not. however, if we come to the conclusion that it does not exist period, then no soteriology is necessary or possible.
being "saved" from one's psychological or emotional problems is not soteriology, regardless of the methodology, as these problems are neither metaphysical nor universal. we're taking metaphysical here to mean outside or above the pale of the physical realm. psychological or emotional problems may not be tangible, but they are subject to the laws of the physical realm nonetheless, which research into biochemistry is continually showing us.
the method you described is indeed therapeutic, but not soteriological. soteriology is a very specific kind of therapy for a universal, metaphysical problem that, at least in a conceptual sense, objectively exists (it's touchy to use such terminology with mahayana buddhism, particularly those traditions whose theoretical foundations are madhyamika).
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I am misunderstanding what you mean, so I'll first try to pin down some examples of universal metaphysical problems that conceptually objectively exist, before worrying about soteriology.
The definition you give for metaphysics (outside the physical realm) sounds like the definition of supernatural, but I presume you mean this as a quick and dirty definition rather than the far messier sort of definitions found at places like:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Anyway, do you consider the following to be universal metaphysical problems?
What is being?
Dualism. Is the mind / are thoughts immaterial?
What is consciousness?
Is there free will?
What is time?
Are there gods?
Does the supernatural exist?
Is metaphysics meaningful and/or testable?
i admit, i have been using the term "metaphysical problem" as a stopgap until i find something better, which i know must already exist but right now i haven't the time to find it. i don't really care for the term "supernatural" either, mainly because it's become so mangled over the last century or so.
those are not problems that require soteriology, though they may in fact be properly called metaphysical. i do not consider them "universal" in that they have no direct effect on somebody who doesn't care about them. according to the indian religions, we are all adversely affected by ignorance, suffering, and rebirth, even if we don't realize it. the same goes for our sinful nature according to christians, or our (often unconscious) rebellion against god according to muslims, etc. the problems you mention only require knowledge that may or may not become available to us one day, and that knowledge would only bring relief to those who are interested in the problems--for those who are not interested, no relief is necessary. soteriology, however, is a fundamental change in our existential status. it is not merely acquiring knowledge.
if we realize brahman, we are free from rebirth, and indeed, according to advaita vedanta, our past epistemology, which was valid at the time, becomes invalid: "the table is there" is a valid cognition until one attains brahman-knowledge, then it is not. in mainstream christianity, one is a thoroughly sinful human, separated hopelessly from the presence of god for all eternity, until we partake of the body and blood of christ (whatever that means to any given tradition), then we become adopted children of god. so once again, a fundamental in status occurs.
examples of problems requiring soteriology, addressed by actual religions:
how do i spend eternity with god in heaven?
how do i make sure this life is my last?
how do i attain earthly immortality?
you will notice these problems contain obvious presuppositions: god exists, eternal life exists, earthly immortality is possible. presuppositions are also an essential feature of religions.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I’d say that one can’t call this term a 'universal metaphysical problem' because it isn’t universal since it has no effect on those who don't care about things beyond the material realm (which I’ll call supernatural until we have a better term).
So, it is presumably a metaphysical problem of some type, but only for those who believe in and care about the supernatural. Maybe it could be called a supernatural metaphysical problem (SMP).
This gives:
Religion: something that offers a way out of an SMP.
The way out is a soteriological method.
A soteriological method seems to be something that provides a theoretical solution that is believed to change the existential status (in a supernatural sense only) of those who presuppose gods and/or immortality and/or the supernatural.
It seems a bit self-referential and seems to depend on the presupposition of gods and/or immortality and/or the supernatural.
precisely. a soteriology is presuppositional, and one of those presuppositions is that the "problem" is universal, even for those who don't care about/are unaware of it.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2013/03/thomas-nagel-an-atheist-loved-by-creationists-yet-hated-by-his-kin/
And more bullshit from Patheos.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The following is their Idea of calling us fools. You know I do get jokes between friends, but this wasn't even funny. I laugh when my believing friends at work joked about it, but this article was a really pathetic attempt at April Fools humor.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2013/04/happy-national-atheist-day/
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
They are literally idiots. Why do you bother reading their tripe.
Quote from article . .
Go ahead and hug an atheist today. They need it. They live lives of sad desperation caught in a meaningless universe and protest that they’re happy because they see things “as they really are” and are free to enjoy life as it is, and then disappear into the dust and relieve an already overcrowded world of yet another sentient meatbag.
I am keying on the word : meaninglessness. This quote gets right up my nose. Once upon a time a few years ago I knew alot of christians. NONE of them had a scripted "life plan" all mapped out for them, absolutely none!! The only people who I have EVER run across with a "life plan" mapped out for them were the ones who at the age of five purposed they were going to be a lawyer, a cop, a Airforce fighter ace, a fireman, a veterinary or what have you. Then took all the necessary steps to make it happen. I am at a loss for words . . .
i'm not happy because i see things "as they really are." in fact, most days it fucking sucks. no, i'm generally happy because i'm lucky enough to have all those things that make for a happy life: good health, clean running water, enough food, temperate climate, a warm house, loving wife and son, generally nice in-laws, loving parents, good friendships, fulfilling job, leisure time to pursue hobbies and interests, democratic society, internet connection, etc., etc.
i'm well aware all these things could disappear, and assuredly most of them will over time. then i probably won't be as happy as i am now, but i think i'll still find life mostly pleasant, because above all i'm lucky enough to have a good perspective.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
He doesn't debate anyone because he has no case, so when you have no case, when an atheist calls you out, you call them fundy and militant to demonize the person telling you the moon is not made of cheese.
When someone tells you the earth is not flat, you don't condemn them, you thank them.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2013/04/its-raining-fundie-atheists-today/
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
But we should kill ourselves Dana, we are scum and "meatbags".
See here is how you do it if you are going to demonize atheists "YOU ARE FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT". Thats how you demonize an atheist. But "meatbags"? I love how this fucking idiot pretends to feign moral superiority by censoring himself with "meatbag".
And "militant". That is another bullshit tactic used by theists. "Militant" is slamming planes into buildings. "Fundy" is shooting abortion doctors. Merely saying "you are full of shit" is not anymore "militant" or "fundy" than saying cars don't run on pixy dust.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well there is no point for a Christian to have a life plan or really a plan for anything because god plans everything out for them. I wonder if I go around wearing a t-shirt that says "Hug me, I'm an atheist" if I get extra hugs? Nothing wrong with hugs whether you are happy, sad or something in between.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7km4EHgkQiw
godandthemachine blog
It pays to remember this man's lingering doubts might have fueled his overall rhetoric. You see, I spent an hour reading back on the bloggist, from his words. He mentioned thrice he wanted to get back to the faith of his childhood. I can only surmise he must consider Atheism as a threat to faith in general. So No hugging I m thinking.
Not much faith in Science:
Thomas L. McDonald says:
March 28, 2013 at 7:03 pm
About the dating of the Shroud of Turin he comments: Given the vast amount of nonsense that passes peer review, you’ll excuse me if I don’t share the scientific community’s touching and childlike faith in the process, which they treat like some kind of secular sacrament rather than something overseen by fallible human beings. If the material is garbage, it will sort itself out soon enough.
:
Mr McDonald acquainted with mortal sufferings
Psoriatic Arthritis
He writes: Oh dear, does it suck. Yes indeed. It’s agonizing. It crippled me. It left me broken and wounded. And in that broken state, I finally crashed through my own pride and hubris and was able to touch the face of God. Pain is, as CS Lewis said, God’s megaphone. In my utter ruin, I was finally able to find the way back to the faith of my childhood. I had an encounter with the living God that left me with no doubt at all about His existence.
Position on the Old and New Testaments (Sacrosanct):
Literature
Since I began working on a masters, I have had 18 solid months of no reading other than theology. I finally snapped, and made some time for a first love: books ..The written word is sacred. Scripture was a gift of the undiluted guidance of the Holy Spirit. Shakespeare, Yeats, Dickens, Chesterton, Eliot, and others were also given a gift of the Spirit, albeit it in a lesser form than Holy Writ. We find god there as well.
It is hard to find that sweet spot where it is worth the time and trouble to correct them. Or leave them to their own devises and folly. Ironically, Mr. April fools made a reference to a Dickens' Novel, to a very particular reference that says to beware of 'ignorance'.
I did read where he admits to countradicting himself before. This bloggist reminds me so much of Sting's song. Pick up the YouTube Link, when you can, play it
____
My hunch is there is a vast under-belly of inherent contradictions hidden by this pompous way of his!!
Check out the link you might have missed from this guy:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/
Brian IF you 're TRULY serious about keeping a watch on this; you have to follow this link (no choice):
:
Catholic Blogger: ‘Atheism is as Intellectually Credible as Holocaust Denial and Racial Theory’
By Hemant Mehta
He starts: Alright, I hate linking to this, but I can’t avoid it. You have to see firsthand the gall of Thomas L. McDonald, Catholic blogger here at Patheos.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/02/catholic-blogger-atheism-is-as-intellectually-credible-as-holocaust-denial-and-racial-theory/
I suggested some of the possible psychology, I found hard to miss, as I've MORE than hinted at with this Catholic man. It is interesting to me the man refuses to be called out. It makes me start to question all this certitude in what he firmly believes, huh ? The real story about the basis for his belief is not what you might expect from someone who most considered more 'Intellectual'.
Whereas, in the link, ALL the comments (by the many) do only highlight repeatedly what Mr Tom McDonald did done.
Whatever immense satisfaction Mr. McDonald took from his shots. I derived more satisfaction by these comments in the link. It's a guy like this who make Theist / Atheist dialogs fall apart.
I think this quote will clarify 'why' this guy doesnt debate better than any assumptions I may have hastily made.
The Alpha and Omega, (Α) and (Ω), double meaning.
In his own words . . .
He indicates during a fifteen year period he was on some religious oddyssey, where he was experimenting with Gnosticism. Away from the Mother Church.
:
p.s. -- This guy has only blogged so much; if you require more drag him over to the site or approach his mother,.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/04/thomas-mcdonald-pretending-to-be-clever/
" .. in the same way as unicorns existing outside of my azz .."
I have to admit I did begin to laugh when I read this remark. I know I literally shouldnt laugh. Does that laugh make me an evil person? (Be honest). I'm hoping it was only because he used the word azz.
I always knew, when came down to it, I knew I'd be endangering my soul to hell solely on the basis of my sense of humor (laugh with me, laugh with me).
Interest thing about this ..
Mr. Tommy made a major error in this refusal to allow any feedback. In so doing, Atheist bloggers are having the final word!!
..azz
__
Again, all CONSISTENT "atheists" are mass murderers like Stalin, Mao, etc. Hiter was a hardcore Occultist. This has been documented that he and his 5 top men were seriously hardcare Occultist. Hitler did attend Mass on a regular basis and the Vatican did help the Nazi's escape through their undergroud tunnels. Roman Catholicism is also highly Occultic.
How Convenient.
Again, since most agnostics are inconsistent hypocrites by saying one thing in theory on this blog but doing a completely different thing in their life via practice, they by definition are really just idealogical bums walking with their cart of links on the streets near the feminist lesbian hookers.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Re :: Careful with what you insidious will end up undermining, cultist.
Mr. J Chauvin, seems to be actively seeking a mocking or is this the real you?!? Hold ALL in contempt (bleeds out the edges),.
What the hell would you know about what is being said in the blogs ? Is a broad brush about ? You have failed to make comments of any substance or significance; so you lash out spout off about blogs you've never encountered before. With Thomas McDonald I bothered to look up his hobbies, thoughts on What it means to him to be a Catholic and a whole slew of other posts before I made a single comment about his blogs. I could bet you (Jean) didnt even bother to look up the original link that started all the back and forth. Frankly, When he was acting like a gentleman, I found it no chore to read 'through' his blogs. Did you ?!?? You need to both familiarize and learn the most important facts first before you leap to conclusions., no-one is paying attention to your ignorance. 4/5 of your comments dont even belong in this thread, good tip off about how much you know. As for the charges leveled at the 'Catholics'. Importantly? You aren't able to back up the claim of occultism beyond 'idol worship' and Marian fanaticism or is the awkward unsophisticated backwoods ignorant hick the impression(s) you're shooting for in these comments ? If you want to talk about the great divide in Protestant and Catholic orthodoxy (everything from the creeds of christendom to Roman's illegitimacy with a break in Apostolic succession), go nuts. Please feel free to talk about that at any time. Careful with what you insidious will end up undermining, cultist. Those serious discussions are always ones people are willing to have. You acting worse than Mr. Tommy will get you everywhere, muy loco. It would be a welcome change to the cycle of dysfunction with you. So, How so with the occult, they are doctrinally unsound then ? Mr. Catholic is saying to be a true follower of Christ, you must accept the whole, as a whole from reading his individual blog. Care to comment on that, or you're not really here for that now are you ? I am being unfair, you must be very busy with attacking any and everyone. If you pass on weightier matters, a whole discussion was brought up about what makes one happy. You can COMMENT on how truly unhappy Atheist should be if you are neglectful of all else. I read up before you spout off!!
p.s. -- On weightier matters to the christian, every lost opportunity, every missed chance only serves to expose you for what you really are false witness.
___
Unrelated (previous Ad hom):
What must it be like to make stuff up about others, false witness (double meaning) ? ::
Dana quote (follow the link): http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33773
You asked to know more.
A turd by any other name would smell just as putrid. And you sir are turd.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Re :: Always leave them laughing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcxaQKmpzb4&list=PLB5A56E17FF4E57AB
They publicly deny the existence of the RRS (FUNNY)
Okay, okay that's close to killing the laugh w/ ending the video with this remark: "Do they have support or are they just Gripes" retarded ending but fun nonetheless
If problem loading it's Why I dont believe in god by WayOfTheMasterRadio(com) host and staff
p.s. -- I was going to post this on the Morals thread but this was the next best place (I hope).
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2013/05/a-legend-has-died/
May 7th, 2013 Ray HarryHausen died, from Thomas McDonald Catholic blogs at Patheos.
Left of Center is Harryhausen's creation of the Hindu Kali coming to life to fight Sinbad and his crew. Reminds me of the Mata Vaishno Devi Ji which is believed to be an incarnation of all the three Supreme Energies, a third of which would be from the goddess Kali, of three different goddesses of India. Vishnu in his Kalki incarnation, is to merge with Sri or Shri Mata 'Vaishno' goddess, and to (actually) wed in the Kaliyuga, again He is to manifest as Kalki and to marry Her. Shame nobody seems to ever bring up these things, why ever not ? Shame that too. At least nobody who that ever visits, that I hear about
RayHarryHausen familiar works (See :: Image):
Sorry list of actual number of characters created in his long working career TL/DR, many know him from classic films like Jason and the Argonauts and the old Sinbad films he worked on. Sorry to hear that, didnt know he had gone this year!
Havent been able to find the actual blog he wrote. Encase it is unavailable. It generated an interesting side-bar about what was the limitations of Computer Generated animations were in comparison to these stop-motion techniques by the masters,. However, I fear this whole debate will become rather dated in only 3-4 years. Another blogger named Victor wrote: "I disagree that even the best CGI has made things look any more realistic than HarryHausen's effects at their best ("Clash of the Titans" was never representative of truly great Harryhausen for me. Maybe it was the owl, I don't know). In terms of realism, stop-motion puppets have one key advantage which CGI can never overcome no matter how great it gets: the stop-motion puppets actually ARE real. They take up physical space. They have volume. They are embodied and so they are physically present in a way that CGI puppets (even Gollum) can never be. Granted, there is a lot of really crappy stop-motion animation out there, but in the hands of a master, like Harry Hausen and even Will Vinton ("The Adventures of Mark Twain" -- watch the emotions flash across the characters' faces with subtlety Dreamworks will never be able to match) stop-motion animation is being THERE in a way CGI can never be. To use an extreme anology: it's like the difference between falling in love with a real, 3-dimensional, physical person and falling in love with a 2-D image on a movie screen. Because the Harryhausen puppets have a very literal body, even when they are filmed they are infinitely more real than Gollum (not to take anything away from Andy Serkis), in an existential and practical sense..'"
P.S. -- Again, I can't get the link. Dont know if it is just my machine but getting an error messages from Pathos of : Not Found, Error 404, it not important it reports his death is all!
F i n