Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Please note: I am using "anti-theist" as opposed to "atheist" for a reason. A simple disbelief/lack of interest in religion is fine in and of itself and I don't see why anyone would care about what someone else believes. I am talking about the minority within atheism who hate religion yet ignorantly go on and one about it ad nauseam and bash it at every turn that I am referring to)
One of the many, MANY arguments that one can make against the anti-theists is that GOD is a very broad term. It need not refer exclusively to the "big man who lives in the sky and created the world in literally six days". One of the many fallacies of these "fedora boys" is that they build a straw God and throw obvious and tired arguments at it and then think they've won.
And whenever someone brings up the other conceptualizations of GOD, they usually have two statements to make about it:
1) said non-personal/non-Abrahamic conceptualization of GOD is "useless" or
2) Said non-personal/non-Abrahamic conceptualization is modern/new age stuff that is one would tell a child.
Well, this fallacy has been whipped out so often, I guess I may as well destroy it.
First, the idea that GOD as a concept and not a literal deity is in fact FAR FROM NEW. Actually, the current incarnation of the Abrahmamic God is probably newer than the other conceptualizations.
For example: the Isha Uppanishad, written sometime around 1,000 BCE, starts with a word that is hard to translate into English. It basically means "the unknowable absolute", which is the Vedic concept of Brahman. It starts out praising a GOD beyond the personal that is not necessarily a creator sky-man but is more an unknowable cosmic force...
Here it is: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredsc...parama/isa.asp
So, either A) I or someone else went back in time to write that, or b) maybe, just maybe, the fedora-boys (who rarely do research before they speak) are wrong and that the concept of GOD as transcendent force beyond our understanding is indeed older than modern times. Which scenario is more likely?
And then there is the famous first line of the Tao te Ching:
"The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.
(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven
and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all
things."
So did someone quickly change the definition of divinity in the 4th century BCE because of Dawkins, or is that maybe just a definition that is very old but not well known to the Fedora-boys, almost none of whom have ever studied religion beyond perhaps the Sunday school they were forced to attend as children? (which they are still bitter about as adults)
I could go on and point out similar verses in the Gnostic Gospels, Guru Granth Sahib, etc, but I think I've made my point.
The open, non-personal conceptualization of divinity is indeed ancient and was not just made up by modern "new age" people in response to the likes of Hitchens. That much is proven by the evidence above.
And now for the statement that "it is useless."
Yes, it is...despite there being countless millions of Hindus, Taoists, Sikhs, Buddhists, Gnostics, Wiccans, etc who use that pandeistic conceptualization and, low and behold, do find it useful. Yes, you can create a religion around a divinity that can't be understood intellectually or whose name can even be said out loud and whose nature is admittedly beyond anything we can comprehend. That is why Hindus, Wiccans, Taoists, Gnostics, etc use mythological figures as "models" for the real, unknowable GOD.
Do I as a Gnostic literally believe that there is a redheaded woman in the sky? No. I do understand that there is this divine, innate wisdom inside me and all. I use Sophia as a representation of it that I can work with in ritual. This is similar to Liberty: she is not literally a woman in robes carrying a torch. But there is the concept and human drive for liberty, and that is what Lady Liberty is a representation of.
So, for countless religious people all over the world, "GOD" is indeed a high-concept entity that we admit we can never hope to truly understand, but that we can experience through ritual. And yes, this form of pandeistic mysticism is both useful (to us) and ancient.
And if any of the fedora-boys still want to argue about "new age excuse making" or "that doesn't make sense!", frankly it must be because they just don't understand these concepts, nothing more.
And if any of the fedora-boys still want to argue about "new age excuse making" or "that doesn't make sense!", frankly it must be because they just don't understand these concepts, nothing more.
To be fair to the fedora boys "new age" does not refer to just anything that might have been cobbled together relatively recently like Wicca, but to any of the concepts including those you mentioned that were popularized especially in the 60's and later by people that were looking around outside the religion(s) they had known. Tao is just one of the more interesting ones (at least to me).
Like any other expression of what still might be called "collective unconscious" the value may vary.
(Please note: I am using "anti-theist" as opposed to "atheist" for a reason. A simple disbelief/lack of interest in religion is fine in and of itself and I don't see why anyone would care about what someone else believes. I am talking about the minority within atheism who hate religion yet ignorantly go on and one about it ad nauseam and bash it at every turn that I am referring to)
One of the many, MANY arguments that one can make against the anti-theists is that GOD is a very broad term. It need not refer exclusively to the "big man who lives in the sky and created the world in literally six days". One of the many fallacies of these "fedora boys" is that they build a straw God and throw obvious and tired arguments at it and then think they've won.
And whenever someone brings up the other conceptualizations of GOD, they usually have two statements to make about it:
1) said non-personal/non-Abrahamic conceptualization of GOD is "useless" or
2) Said non-personal/non-Abrahamic conceptualization is modern/new age stuff that is one would tell a child.
Well, this fallacy has been whipped out so often, I guess I may as well destroy it.
First, the idea that GOD as a concept and not a literal deity is in fact FAR FROM NEW. Actually, the current incarnation of the Abrahmamic God is probably newer than the other conceptualizations.
For example: the Isha Uppanishad, written sometime around 1,000 BCE, starts with a word that is hard to translate into English. It basically means "the unknowable absolute", which is the Vedic concept of Brahman. It starts out praising a GOD beyond the personal that is not necessarily a creator sky-man but is more an unknowable cosmic force...
Here it is: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredsc...parama/isa.asp
So, either A) I or someone else went back in time to write that, or b) maybe, just maybe, the fedora-boys (who rarely do research before they speak) are wrong and that the concept of GOD as transcendent force beyond our understanding is indeed older than modern times. Which scenario is more likely?
And then there is the famous first line of the Tao te Ching:
"The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.
(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven
and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all
things."
So did someone quickly change the definition of divinity in the 4th century BCE because of Dawkins, or is that maybe just a definition that is very old but not well known to the Fedora-boys, almost none of whom have ever studied religion beyond perhaps the Sunday school they were forced to attend as children? (which they are still bitter about as adults)
I could go on and point out similar verses in the Gnostic Gospels, Guru Granth Sahib, etc, but I think I've made my point.
The open, non-personal conceptualization of divinity is indeed ancient and was not just made up by modern "new age" people in response to the likes of Hitchens. That much is proven by the evidence above.
And now for the statement that "it is useless."
Yes, it is...despite there being countless millions of Hindus, Taoists, Sikhs, Buddhists, Gnostics, Wiccans, etc who use that pandeistic conceptualization and, low and behold, do find it useful. Yes, you can create a religion around a divinity that can't be understood intellectually or whose name can even be said out loud and whose nature is admittedly beyond anything we can comprehend. That is why Hindus, Wiccans, Taoists, Gnostics, etc use mythological figures as "models" for the real, unknowable GOD.
Do I as a Gnostic literally believe that there is a redheaded woman in the sky? No. I do understand that there is this divine, innate wisdom inside me and all. I use Sophia as a representation of it that I can work with in ritual. This is similar to Liberty: she is not literally a woman in robes carrying a torch. But there is the concept and human drive for liberty, and that is what Lady Liberty is a representation of.
So, for countless religious people all over the world, "GOD" is indeed a high-concept entity that we admit we can never hope to truly understand, but that we can experience through ritual. And yes, this form of pandeistic mysticism is both useful (to us) and ancient.
And if any of the fedora-boys still want to argue about "new age excuse making" or "that doesn't make sense!", frankly it must be because they just don't understand these concepts, nothing more.
Great to see a victorianpunk post! Always top-notch stuff!
They have to limit "G-O-D" to the "straw-God" they can argue does not actually exist, and never acknowledge a manifestation of GOD outside of that. If they don't...the illogical and biased concept they embrace is rendered null and void.
To be fair to the fedora boys "new age" does not refer to just anything that might have been cobbled together relatively recently like Wicca, but to any of the concepts including those you mentioned that were popularized especially in the 60's and later by people that were looking around outside the religion(s) they had known. Tao is just one of the more interesting ones (at least to me).
Like any other expression of what still might be called "collective unconscious" the value may vary.
I understand what you are saying, but at the risk of sounding like an SJW, I must say that they have a very Western-centric outlook.
These concepts are established in religion...just not "western religion" in the traditional sense.
Vedic philosophy and Taoism are hardly "new age" as they've been around for longer than the English language.
Great to see a victorianpunk post! Always top-notch stuff!
They have to limit "G-O-D" to the "straw-God" they can argue does not actually exist, and never acknowledge a manifestation of GOD outside of that. If they don't...the illogical and biased concept they embrace is rendered null and void.
Great to see Veep being patted on the back by one of the most prolific and persisted repeaters of debunked nonsense on the board. He needed yoiur endorsement like the White house needed Donald Trump.
The whole of Veep's post is a valuless snarling at atheism for not believing unvalidated faith -claims. No wonder you approve it.
For me it is so unhelpful, pointless and downright well -poisoning that I don't even propose to address it.
Great to see Veep being patted on the back by one of the most prolific and persisted repeaters of debunked nonsense on the board. He needed yoiur endorsement like the White house needed Donald Trump.
The whole of Veep's post is a valuless snarling at atheism for not believing unvalidated faith -claims. No wonder you approve it.
For me it is so unhelpful, pointless and downright well -poisoning that I don't even propose to address it.
Well, it IS a bit of a misunderstanding of the use of a somewhat vague term, but there might be some value to be mined from the idea of expressions from the collective unconscious My feeling is that in general the denigration of "New Age" comes from hard line religious adherents far more than any such expressions from atheists. I'd be wiling to bet that atheists might just support and get more out of say random posting of some of the most succinct expressions of the human condition from those faith traditions.
Still musing.
However, the point that atheist "debunkers" focus on specific manifestations of belief systems for ridicule is valid. Personally, I think it is usually valuable to look that way at some faith expressions that cause problems in our society, but to class faith in general on the basis of those problems is also a stretch.
Great to see Veep being patted on the back by one of the most prolific and persisted repeaters of debunked nonsense on the board. He needed yoiur endorsement like the White house needed Donald Trump.
The whole of Veep's post is a valuless snarling at atheism for not believing unvalidated faith -claims. No wonder you approve it.
For me it is so unhelpful, pointless and downright well -poisoning that I don't even propose to address it.
You won't address it because it is based in logic, reason, and evidence....like my arguments.
All you have is ad Populum and your personal opinion in support of a Belief Position that contradicts the facts-on-the-ground.
You've never debunked anything...and support a bogus concept that has no legitimate basis.
You won't address it because it is based in logic, reason, and evidence....like my arguments.
All you have is ad Populum and your personal opinion in support of a Belief Position that contradicts the facts-on-the-ground.
You've never debunked anything...and support a bogus concept that has no legitimate basis.
More garbage and denial and flogging long dead horses, just to get attention. You just aren't worth the bother, mate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Well, it IS a bit of a misunderstanding of the use of a somewhat vague term, but there might be some value to be mined from the idea of expressions from the collective unconscious My feeling is that in general the denigration of "New Age" comes from hard line religious adherents far more than any such expressions from atheists. I'd be wiling to bet that atheists might just support and get more out of say random posting of some of the most succinct expressions of the human condition from those faith traditions.
Still musing.
However, the point that atheist "debunkers" focus on specific manifestations of belief systems for ridicule is valid. Personally, I think it is usually valuable to look that way at some faith expressions that cause problems in our society, but to class faith in general on the basis of those problems is also a stretch.
Atheists are not all the same, and some I have to say use arguments or indeed methods I may not approve of, let alone use myself.
If any atheists have taken umbrage at the 'New Age' costume religion has adopted to try to smuggle itself into credibility city, I for one don't mind, as it is a move in our direction and towards irreligious theism, and 'agnosticism' which is the last stage before atheism.
I know that some atheist apologists have said they would more respect Bible literalists who insist that it is all literally true. I don't mind. Different methods are required in dealing with each, and I have always said i could share a flat with an agnostic.
What is more important than atheists pointing the finger at "New Age" Christianity is the more fundamentalist Christians. We'll let them do the finger -pointing.
as a btw. I don't think more time need be spent on the semantics of 'New Age' any more than on 'New atheism'. Which is more a continuation of old atheism (what's New is not being afraid to speak out). It all seems to be traceable back to the hippy era and the Age of Aquarius stuff (1) . And I don't mind. Some atheists may mind it or find something to criticize, but are more likely I think to be positive about it, if only because it seems likely to attack heavy flack from the Bible literalist fundamentalists.
(1) given of course that a conclusion will look around for "Facts" to support it and may find them in Taoism or Zen or Tantric Shamanism for all I care. Let 'em have their fun.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-05-2017 at 11:06 AM..
...
First, the idea that GOD as a concept and not a literal deity is in fact FAR FROM NEW. Actually, the current incarnation of the Abrahmamic God is probably newer than the other conceptualizations.
For example: the Isha Uppanishad, written sometime around 1,000 BCE, starts with a word that is hard to translate into English. It basically means "the unknowable absolute", which is the Vedic concept of Brahman. It starts out praising a GOD beyond the personal that is not necessarily a creator sky-man but is more an unknowable cosmic force...
Here it is: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredsc...parama/isa.asp
...
I accept the idea of god being a concept and not a literal deity. This is fine by be.
It's when all kinds of fantastic claims are made that it gets a bit strenuous. Followed by the excuses and dancing around to try and explain thing and make things fit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
