Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity

[Greatest I am]

I'm done attacking anyone, for any reason, especially over something as insignificant as moderate religiosity, as long as they keep it to themselves. Life's too short to go around with chips on my shoulder.

 

The problem is they do not.

 

I am not so much anti religion as I am anti literal readers and fundamentals.

 

My reason you can glean if you Google killing African witches and Jesus camps.

 

Moderates I do not mind and even support but will speak to this when i catch up.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

Wow! Ouch, this is pretty much me right now. I'm stuck between my logical and emotional halves. I need to step back and see if/how I can reconcile the two. Thankyou very much for this.

Not sure you can, I tried and failed. But maybe you will be more successful then I.

 

To me, logic leads emotion and need not produce a conflict.

 

Regards

DL

[Vigile]

That’s sounds like a loaded question. I’ll put it this way, growth, maturity, is always towards a more inclusive worldview.

 

Hmmm... This grabbed me as I was skimming. I haven't had time to read the thread but this strikes me as, and correct me if I'm wrong, one of the main underlying principles in your views or motivations. Somehow I think this may be the heart of where we disagree on these types of issues. I need to ask why you think the bolded is true? I think you make an attempt to balance this with the need for truth, reality, whatever you wish to call it but it seems to me that oftentimes the two are mutually exclusive. And isn't this just a value statement that is purely subjective?

 

I'm really not trying to be patronizing or being intentionally abrasive here despite how I know these types of questions can come across when they are merely written in black and white on a message board.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Hmmm... This grabbed me as I was skimming. I haven't had time to read the thread but this strikes me as, and correct me if I'm wrong, one of the main underlying principles in your views or motivations. Somehow I think this may be the heart of where we disagree on these types of issues. I need to ask why you think the bolded is true? I think you make an attempt to balance this with the need for truth, reality, whatever you wish to call it but it seems to me that oftentimes the two are mutually exclusive. And isn't this just a value statement that is purely subjective?

 

There's a difference between thinking you're right and thinking everyone who disagrees with you is either delusional and inferior or an enabler of immorality.

[Vigile]

 

 

Hmmm... This grabbed me as I was skimming. I haven't had time to read the thread but this strikes me as, and correct me if I'm wrong, one of the main underlying principles in your views or motivations. Somehow I think this may be the heart of where we disagree on these types of issues. I need to ask why you think the bolded is true? I think you make an attempt to balance this with the need for truth, reality, whatever you wish to call it but it seems to me that oftentimes the two are mutually exclusive. And isn't this just a value statement that is purely subjective?

 

There's a difference between thinking you're right and thinking everyone who disagrees with you is either delusional and inferior or an enabler of immorality.

 

I agree but when someone believes in Santa they are clearly deluded (I wouldn't use the word delusional as it implies not just fooled but the state of utter foolishness. There's a difference).

[Antlerman]

That’s sounds like a loaded question. I’ll put it this way, growth, maturity, is always towards a more inclusive worldview.

 

Hmmm... This grabbed me as I was skimming. I haven't had time to read the thread but this strikes me as, and correct me if I'm wrong, one of the main underlying principles in your views or motivations. Somehow I think this may be the heart of where we disagree on these types of issues. I need to ask why you think the bolded is true?

Interesting distinction of views between us you are making here. I think as I explain you may find we really don't see it differently, just maybe how far we extend it. I think I may have touched on this in here already, but it doesn't hurt for me to put into words again anyway.

 

The reason I say that as we mature our worldviews become more inclusive is because if you look at a child's stages of cognitive development you will see an opening up of themselves to the world, and a lessening of egocentrism. The developing child goes through a progression of moving:

 

 

• from an undifferentiated stage of consciousness from his physical environment
  
• through differentiating between self and the external world (though the emotional self still in a state of indissociation from other emotional objects)
  
• through being able to take the role of another, not just realize they have another perceptive, but put self in others shoes, from their perspective. This is a "decentering" of the ego where they can stand aside from the egocentrism of the earlier stages, and can place ones self outside oneself into others
  
• through further lessening of egocentrism and not only being able to take the perspectives of others in ones group, but take the perspectives of others outside ones group and see it from their perspective from their group.
  
• to the next stages of inclusiveness, of lessening of egocentrism and the emergence of a strong rational ego, not only standing outside itself and its own group, but globally-minded and beyond
  

 

The parallels in social development are in there as well, moving from:

 

 

• a primitive archaic existence where we are part of the ecosystem as undifferentiated selves. They are a primitive social group, a herd, a troop, etc.
  
• to early social systems of interacting with their environments though worldviews of magic where there hidden linkages that egocentrically create, control, and govern the world
  
• to developing social systems where they come to the realization that they do not control the world through hidden linkages to themselves and transfer the linkages to other objects, shifting from learning the right type of word magic to directly alter the world, to learning the right rituals or prayer to get the gods to intervene. They are now differentiating from the environment, moving from tribal to mythic systems, which is a lessening of egocentrism (closed tribal magic systems) to ethnocentric thinking (beyond simple kinship, into a wider more inclusive mythic-membership system).
  
• to further development and lessening of ethnocentric/sociocentric systems (egocentrism) into a wider, more inclusive, non-ethnocentric, worldcentric or gobalcentric reality.
  

 

Each one of these stages shows a differentiation from the environment, a development of a stronger and more rational sense of self through decentering and gradual lessening of that early egocentrism into a fully differentiated and integrated self. Hence why I say, "growth, maturity, is always towards a more inclusive worldview". Growth, personally and socially (which fully interact with each other), is being able to first define yourself, then move out from yourself to include others in ever widening circles, to the point of full integration. Exclusiveness is the domain of the mythic systems, inclusiveness the domain of the Rational systems; integration the Future systems. In my beliefs.

 

I think you make an attempt to balance this with the need for truth, reality, whatever you wish to call it but it seems to me that oftentimes the two are mutually exclusive.

I would agree with you here that oftentimes things may in fact be mutually exclusive, and there simply is no reconciliation. I would say I began trying to see if there is a way to reconcile Reason and Faith. I will say I have. But it could not be done on the level of thinking that makes them mutually exclusive because of how they are treated, how they are framed, how they are perceived. I don't see it as a balance, but rather a transcendence and integration into something beyond it (something essential through them all and beyond them, without being defined by them).

 

I won't get into that here, but only to acknowledge that it is valid to see them as mutually exclusive, in very much the same way as ethnocentric and sociocentric systems are incompatible with tribal systems; globalcentric or worldcentric systems are incompatible with ethnocentric systems; etc. Each one takes what the previous offered, transcends it, and integrates it into some new level. Each level becoming more and more inclusive. But they have to be transcended into a new level, not reconciled down at an earlier stage, an earlier level of development.

 

I build on what I learned as a three-year old, but I could never reconcile my thinking today with that earlier stage of development. I moved it upward and transformed it into something higher, more developed, more mature, a more enlightened and integrated self. I can never be three again, but who I was at three is integrated into who I am as a maturing human being.

 

I'm really not trying to be patronizing or being intentionally abrasive here despite how I know these types of questions can come across when they are merely written in black and white on a message board.

I'm not taking it that way and why I take the time to explain. I'm interested in discussion of thoughts, and perhaps they may be meaningful to you in some way. It's all part of that process of development I talked about above, not just for the individual but our world as well, IMO.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I agree but when someone believes in Santa they are clearly deluded (I wouldn't use the word delusional as it implies not just fooled but the state of utter foolishness. There's a difference).

But even many adults who no longer literally believe in the Santa Claus myth will still participate in the symbolic traditions of Christmas by giving gifts to each other and decorating the house with rituals and symbols of Christmas. Some adults who no longer literally believe in Santa Claus will still even pass down the tradition of the myth down to their children. And there is a real Saint Nicolas that lies beneath all of Coca-Cola's propaganda myth.

[Greatest I am]

 

 

I agree but when someone believes in Santa they are clearly deluded (I wouldn't use the word delusional as it implies not just fooled but the state of utter foolishness. There's a difference).

But even many adults who no longer literally believe in the Santa Claus myth will still participate in the symbolic traditions of Christmas by giving gifts to each other and decorating the house with rituals and symbols of Christmas. Some adults who no longer literally believe in Santa Claus will still even pass down the tradition of the myth down to their children. And there is a real Saint Nicolas that lies beneath all of Coca-Cola's propaganda myth.

 

I like Santa for children. strange that they will come to know on their own that it is a myth but when it comes to religion, adults still believe in talking animals and water walking.

 

He does not offer eternal punishment for not believing that he is real.

 

Regards

DL

[Neon Genesis]

But even when we grow up and realize there are no literal flying reindeer or magical fat men, we don't discard the myth of Santa Claus entirely. Instead many adults will embrace the new de-literalized Santa Claus myth and apply a new meaning to the Christmas traditions that gives us more precious memories than when we believed the stories were literally true.

[Greatest I am]

...It is a matter of answering questions. ...

Science and technology will never provide all the answers.

Maybe but I have a hard time believing that people 2000 years ago have any good answers.

 

Then you do not know much of history.

 

You might remember when democracy was thought up for one and all of the true science and engineering that the ancients used.

We have certainly added to their beginnings but they began it.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

But even when we grow up and realize there are no literal flying reindeer or magical fat men, we don't discard the myth of Santa Claus entirely. Instead many adults will embrace the new de-literalized Santa Claus myth and apply a new meaning to the Christmas traditions that gives us more precious memories than when we believed the stories were literally true.

 

As we should be doing with literal reading of scripture.

Take out the literalism and try to glean the moral message that the writer was trying to covey.

 

All Bibles and Words are good for thought but none should be read literally or taken too seriously.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

To the issue. Let moderates be the sober second thought for dignities sake.

 

I have no problem attacking with firmness the silly notions of literalist and fundamentals.

They all hurt their parent religions and literal reading leads to fanaticism.

 

As proof of this just Google Jesus camp or killing African witches.

 

I recognize the good social impact that churches contribute to community and I see those as the moderate believers who may have some belief in the dogma but are mostly there out of tradition and convenience. I hate how they teach of their Gods but the institutions had a large hand in developing both the U S and Canada. Just look at any small town for proof of this.

 

They promote spirituality as opposed to religion. A huge difference to me.

 

As Deist is my closest label, this makes me a moderate religionist and frankly attacking me is a waste of time. I do not particularly push the Godhead that I know and prefer to show off my morals in discussions.

 

God, all Gods are un-provable including my own so do not ask for any.

 

If non believers ever eliminated all believers we would be living in a pure secular world and to me, because of the freedoms associated with secularism, I feel that man would be at peace, yes, but without dignity.

 

By this I mean that the secular small town will look like this.

A cat house on one corner. A drug den on the other. A bar/strip joint on another corner. An abortion clinic on the other. Prostitutes will abound. A gambling casino on the next.

 

You should know that I am fairly liberal in my views and do not believe in making prostitution illegal as I see most of them as victims of circumstance already. I would not prevent any woman from having an abortion. It is an individual and personal choice. The same with gambling and intelligent use of freedom of choice with drugs.

 

The lack of dignity comes from society ignoring the fact that about a third of prostitutes are victims of home abuse and to just legalize prostitution without trying to end the abuse in homes is wrong. Further, prostitution shows that we have lost the knack of socializing to a point where prostitution is minimal within our society. This speaks to men never truly becoming civilized or socialized. This is not good for any society.

 

Legalized gambling is said to be a governments admitting that they cannot tax their population further and that they are working over their budgets and is a sign of a nation in decline. Gambling become a tax cash cow.

 

If all moderate religionists disappear then all the above will come to pass and if a family person, you will realize that taking a walk downtown with the kids will become a whole new ball game. You will be walking through all kinds of things that at one time were considered filth.

 

Religion I will admit went too far on the one hand where all things enjoyable were sins but if we swing to a point where damn near nothing is a sin, then man dignity, what is left of it, will disappear.

 

What the final answer is or what our new reality will look like over time I cannot say. I do think we will have to decide, not for us adults what things will be like, but what we think they should be for our children to grow up into a system that has maintained some semblance of dignity.

 

Regards

DL

[oddbird1963]

Greatest I Am (GIA),

 

1. Why do you think that only religion can provide a sense of dignity to mankind?

 

2. What is your definition of dignity?

 

3. Isn't your vision of the small secular town a bit skewed. Though there might not be a religion in place, don't you think thoughtful community leaders would organize a community center with lectures, community service activities and uplifting forms of media and music to respond to the human need to reflect on the moral and ethical concerns of humanity?

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I Am (GIA),

 

1. Why do you think that only religion can provide a sense of dignity to mankind?

 

I do not think that only religion can but at present there is nothing else in place.

When was the last time you heard any politician speak to dignity?

That is not a trick question. I have just never heard one speak to it.

 

2. What is your definition of dignity?

 

To be able to look about and know that man is as good a man as he can be.

 

3. Isn't your vision of the small secular town a bit skewed. Though there might not be a religion in place, don't you think thoughtful community leaders would organize a community center with lectures, community service activities and uplifting forms of media and music to respond to the human need to reflect on the moral and ethical concerns of humanity?

 

That may very well happen. Who can say until religion is dead.

 

"Isn't your vision of the small secular town a bit skewed."

 

I do not think so. I have already seen it.

I was born to the dark side and in my travels have seen exactly that albeit at the underground level. A pure secular government will bring that dark side to light where all the hypocrites can see it.

 

The future is now. That system is now.

 

Have you ever lived or visited a boom town to enjoy it's perversions. I have.

 

Regards

DL

[Neon Genesis]

Have you been to Sweden, Greatest I Am? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?_r=1

[oddbird1963]

I was born to the dark side and in my travels have seen exactly that albeit at the underground level. A pure secular government will bring that dark side to light where all the hypocrites can see it.

 

 

That raises another question, "What is your definition of a 'pure secular govenment?'" Do you equate it with an 'anti-religion' government or a political philosophy where the state = the Ultimate and replaces religion?

 

 

And no. I don't believe I've ever lived in a boom town. By boom town I think of a town where there is an influx of new money and growth that outweighs exponentially any previous money or growth in the local economy. Is that what you mean by boom town?

[Ouroboros]

Secular is not anti-religion. Nominal Christians can be seen as secular Christians. It that context it means "worldly." In another context, like society, it means that it doesn't bother about religious issues. An anti-religious government would be on the opposite side of secular. Secular is the middle ground: live and let live. (IMO)

[Neon Genesis]

In the context of the government, a secular government is merely a government which is neutral to religion, neither endorsing it or banning it which is what the U.S. is supposed to be.

 

Edit: Oops, I just saw Ouroboros posted the same thing. ^^;;

[Ouroboros]

In the context of the government, a secular government is merely a government which is neutral to religion, neither endorsing it or banning it which is what the U.S. is supposed to be.

 

Edit: Oops, I just saw Ouroboros posted the same thing. ^^;;

Well, you said it better, so it was good thing you did.

[Franko47]

 

2. What is your definition of dignity?

 

To be able to look about and know that man is as good a man as he can be.

 

 

 

 

And we need religion or spiritualism to establish that ? Really ? Somehow, some way, a rational system of philosophy and rational thinking can't help us with that ? There must be some "magical" ingredient ? That secularists and atheists cannot establish or believe in levels of morality that are similar or even better, perhaps, than religionists and spiritualists ? Is this the lofty card you're playing of: "I see more than you plodding materialists" ? Because of idealistic feelings and ideas about how "human culture and humankind" should behave ?

 

It sounds as though you are similar to many religious people I know who fear an world that more and more is separating religious beliefs from how we apply law and respect human dignity. Once again, this seems to be the sentiment we're used to that somehow thinks that non-belief will result in a sort of "anything goes" society. I claim that's bullshit, but we will see what others have to say about it.

[Greatest I am]

Have you been to Sweden, Greatest I Am? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?_r=1

 

They are good examples for sure in some areas.

 

If you read up on what their experience is with prostitution you will get a different picture.

They have excellent information on the continuing inadequacy even under legality.

 

Even a legal prostitution system shows prostitutes to be victims within that trade.

 

I would not make prostitution illegal as those people have enough problems but I do not think it dignified for old men to be fucking each others young daughters.

 

Is that a trade you would wish on your children?

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

I was born to the dark side and in my travels have seen exactly that albeit at the underground level. A pure secular government will bring that dark side to light where all the hypocrites can see it.

 

 

That raises another question, "What is your definition of a 'pure secular govenment?'" Do you equate it with an 'anti-religion' government or a political philosophy where the state = the Ultimate and replaces religion?

 

It would not be anti religion, it would just ignore it.

 

If religious law = rules and government law = rules, secular governments have already become the ultimate and replaced religion long ago. Iraq and such are exceptions quickly going to secularism.

 

And no. I don't believe I've ever lived in a boom town. By boom town I think of a town where there is an influx of new money and growth that outweighs exponentially any previous money or growth in the local economy. Is that what you mean by boom town?

 

Basically yes.

They usually have an influx of male labor and these are quickly followed by prostitutes and drug dealers.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

Secular is not anti-religion. Nominal Christians can be seen as secular Christians. It that context it means "worldly." In another context, like society, it means that it doesn't bother about religious issues. An anti-religious government would be on the opposite side of secular. Secular is the middle ground: live and let live. (IMO)

 

Yes to your first comment and no to your live and let live.

 

An example of not letting religion live as it wants would be the blood transfusion forced onto J Ws.

 

Not that I mind but it just goes to show that secular law is the law of the land and the religious are not allowed to go by their laws. A good thing in my view because in many cases, secular law is more just.

 

Unfortunately we lose dignity with that middle ground.

We throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

 

2. What is your definition of dignity?

 

To be able to look about and know that man is as good a man as he can be.

 

 

 

 

And we need religion or spiritualism to establish that ? Really ? Somehow, some way, a rational system of philosophy and rational thinking can't help us with that ? There must be some "magical" ingredient ? That secularists and atheists cannot establish or believe in levels of morality that are similar or even better, perhaps, than religionists and spiritualists ? Is this the lofty card you're playing of: "I see more than you plodding materialists" ? Because of idealistic feelings and ideas about how "human culture and humankind" should behave ?

 

It sounds as though you are similar to many religious people I know who fear an world that more and more is separating religious beliefs from how we apply law and respect human dignity. Once again, this seems to be the sentiment we're used to that somehow thinks that non-belief will result in a sort of "anything goes" society. I claim that's bullshit, but we will see what others have to say about it.

 

Hmm.

 

Not quite.

I see religionists as the loyal opposition of secular government.

Your system as well as ours has checks and balances.

Take religionists out of it and you lose this check.

 

Regards

DL

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Is that a trade you would wish on your children?

 

Regards

DL

What proof do you have that prostitution is a product of atheism? The Greeks had deities and religions they worshiped yet they also had temple prostitution rituals, so your argument that religion leads to a moral society and that prostitution is a product of atheism holds no historical water.