Atheism: Has the definition evolved?

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

.....
I put it to Mystic, and he first tried to argue that training courses are all over the place, which of course I could show, weren't and that's the last I can remember other the ood old turn up and claim the same thing again, and no doubt claim that the rebuttal never happened.

.....

Jung, Campbell, Graves, Eliade and such may not be "training courses" but they certainly provide material for such training to anyone who is interested. I would be surprised if Universities like Princeton did not offer in something like myth and religion in the development of faithperception. You proved a negative?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by nateswift

Jung, Campbell, Graves, Eliade and such may not be "training courses" but they certainly provide material for such training to anyone who is interested. I would be surprised if Universities like Princeton did not offer in something like myth and religion in the development of faithperception. You proved a negative?

I'm not sure whether I "Proved" anything but the study of all manner of human thought may answer some questions and how and why we think.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Actually, this is not very original either. It is simply adapting science to the Religious theory or the religious theory to the science. It is taking the evidential support of the fossil record for the theory of evolution, and applying it to human social development. Why not then just say 'social development'? Well, that would give the game away, wouldn't it? calling it 'fossil record' takes it out of the sphere of human thoyght and makes it look like a 'natural phenomenon' which is inexplicable by natural causes, so must be directed by God. To complete the smokescreen, you call it 'spiritual' development rather than human ethical and moral thought, and it's got a fair chance of fooling some of those who are either mentally succeptible to being bamboozled or who have been semi-brainwashed into it by religious conditioning.

Even then Mystic is habitually cagey about actually explaining it. Instead he tosses out portentious - sounding terms with a few sciencey -words in, plus a few impudent faith -claims that he hopes people will swallow without question. We already know why - the basis is Faith - as absolutely usual, and then fiddle some ideas to make it sound convincing. Mystic in fact does this very well indeed, but not well enough to fool anyone who troubles to dig into it.

It might be interesting to open a Poll on '

"Do you buy Mystic's Hypothesis?"

"Totally"
"a lot of his own Beliefs. but essentially, correct".
"Interesting, but really quite speculative."
"Total fantasy."

But, is there any need? Is anybody really bamboozled by it?

Originally Posted by fishbrains

+1 to Transponder.

Mystic uses it to sound authoritative, and to sneak in the inference that he is drawing upon an established body of knowledge, rather than pulling stuff out of his ... backside.

Doing a google search for the phrase pulls up all of 7 hits, one of which leads to this forum. The rest of the hits lead either to sermon-style websites or other religious discussion forums.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

It is a bit more sophisticated than that. Mystic is implying that the evolution of different religions (and different versions of God) is simply us getting closer to understanding his version of God.

Originally Posted by fishbrains

Yes, it is clear that he is trying to create an all encompassing synthesis. My objection to this specific phrase is that he throws it around as if such a thing actually exists, and builds upon the implications as if it does.

Using the concept as a premise in a logical argument causes his argument to fail, and he hopes that by using a nifty phrase we will not notice that it is an unfounded assumption.

Originally Posted by wallflash

As T pointed out, it makes cherry picking what you want from any and all previous religious beliefs as support for your claim sound sciencey and all . Despite MPDs claim of routinely meeting God , he seems to need his beliefs to be confirmed in some manner in a semi or pseudo science sort of way .

Originally Posted by phetaroi

They're trying to make religion as verifiable as science, and doing that is a lie.

Originally Posted by gabfest

I've googled it...it's an original concept, originating from Mystic.

So it's bol*ocks then!

[TRANSPONDER]

In a Scrotshell.

[wallflash]

Yes, boll*cks is as good a way as any to put it .