antitheism — 180 Proof

Don’t really have the gist of this term. Opposed to all theistic concepts?

The idea that religion is useful to rulers is often taken to mean that it is a tool for manipulation. It can be, but it is also useful for benevolent rulers who are aware that the wise are few and people need guidance, both for their own good and the good of the regime. An idea that is as old as religion itself. — Fooloso4

Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders. Anyway, you must be pleased with the results of this wise guidance and the current condition of humanity?

My first Prof. of Religious Studies was old school - religion was a phenomenon to be studied like pinning butterflies to a board. — Wayfarer

Really old school apparently.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger (4 BC – AD 65)

I used to think that consciously using religion like a tool was a relatively new phenomena, but maybe it was like that from the start?

Perhaps my reading skills have declined in my elder years, but I believe the original topic had something to do with this Einstein fellow? — EricH

Einstein’s words have weight. They have the same kind of weight as he described the ‘chains of religious belief’ having. The chains he claimed that fanatical atheists had freed themselves of but still felt the weight of. The truth is that we all feel the weight of religious chains, if it’s part of our culture. It has influence. We can embrace it or push it away, love it or hate it, flow with it or flow against it. We can do this relatively freely or as a slave.

The claim is apparently that fanatically resisting weight, as I now generically refer to it, interferes with any kind of spiritual experience. I’d be the first to agree that high anxiety isn’t fertile ground for spirituality, and a newly freed slave might be disoriented and anxious.

What of the slave who is still chained? Are they immune to anxiety? No, chains can offer comfort and it may only be about that comforting embrace and not about listening to spheres.

Don’t be fooled by weight.

As an angry non-believer I’d prefer to watch pistols at dawn but I guess that’s out of the question.

If "atheist irrationality" is the topic, then arguments can be analyzed as expressions of that irrationality. — Apollodorus

Right, that appears to be the point, sad as it is.

acosmism — 180 Proof

At the briefest glance looks very Eastern.

So, what does that say about atheists and their "arguments" in support of atheism? — Apollodorus

Is anyone discussing atheist arguments? I thought the topic was about atheist irrationality (anger, fanaticism, and unfounded pride).

Perhaps he believes that all languages besides English are of a different ethnicity to your ethnicity, and he resents the implications that he's not stupid.

At least NOS’s trolls have a bit of sophistication.

The comment was aimed more at Amen, but you have been supporting the ad hom towards atheists.

Rather than address atheist critiques you attack their character. They’re angry, you claim, therefore their criticisms are invalid because they’re based in irrational emotion.

It doesn't normally happen in face-to-face situations because people know who you are or it may result in altercations that you may come to regret. — Apollodorus

I’m not scared of you. :rofl:

I also agree that 3017amen assumes a slightly "provocative" tone on occasion. — Apollodorus

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or euphemism. In any case...

Cognitive science 101 says you can't fix the problem unless recognize you have one. Once again, it manifests in things like ad hominem, trolling... — 3017amen

:rage: :lol:

Maybe atheists would benefit from taking up Buddhism or some other religion, seeing that according to Pew many of them do covertly harbor religious and other beliefs. They certainly should seriously consider it. Nothing to lose in any case, aside maybe their unfounded pride. — Apollodorus

You appear to be saying that the cure for atheism (and the inherent anger and groundless pride that comes with it) is cured by religion because atheists have been culturally influenced by religion to begin with, and they have nothing to lose regardless.

What's to lose? Starting with Buddhism, potential losses might be along the lines of this kind of thing, if nothing else. Obviously there are all manner of cults and evangelists of various persuasions who would love to take advantage of "covertly" superstitious people.

I stand corrected.

Veneration for this force — Wayfarer

I knew it, he was a Jedi.

Einstein in a religious context reminds me of the time when some friends and I wanted to play volleyball; we had to divide ourselves into two teams. There was this guy who was an exceptionally good player [read Einstein] and both teams [read atheists & theists]wanted him on their side. Nothing more need be said. — TheMadFool

I don't think anyone here is on team Spinoza.

That Einstein, doubtless an authority on matters physical should be considered an authority on matters relating to god. — Banno

Religious folk require validation by a higher authority, and who's smarter than frick'n Einstein.

This might seem like a straightforward question given how it's phrased; but, is there another classification for emotions that neither labels them as "rational" or "irrational"? — Shawn

Adaptive vs maladaptive.

Maladaptive emotions don't align with the situations that they arise in, like something benign triggering a panic attack when there's no actual threat. Somehow that conditioning developed. Fortunately it can be reconditioned.

Everyone grows up eventually.

I've always said, in my discussion here most Atheists seem somewhat unsophisticated in their thinking. They seem stuck or as Einstein said 'chained' , by religious dogma and other obvious baby v. bathwater stuff — 3017amen

Einstein claimed that fanatical atheists are unchained but still feeling the weight of the chains, like phantom limb syndrome or something, I suppose. Indeed nihilism might be thought of as a kind of religious phantom limb syndrome, where discomfort is experienced in the absence of the superpersonal.

I figure the ratio of baby to bathwater is about the same in both religious and secular life. Religion isn't about developing virtue, it's about binding a community with shared values, goals, narrative, etc.

Marcus Aurelius (emperor) — 180 Proof

Does standup too...

Link to them, with a reason. — Banno

You neglected to share the reasons you like Plato's Phaedo so much.

You believe that pantheism somehow prevents stoicism from being quietism?

No. You misunderstood. I said it was cool because you did some research and it still proved I was right, and you were wrong.
:razz:
Thanks! — 3017amen

Correction, the worst kind of troll is a childish troll.

Weird, didn’t work for me copying and pasting the title on an iPhone but did work on my desktop when I tried it later.

Search function must be malfunctioning.

No results in a search for “Plato's Phaedo”

Coolio!! — 3017amen

I had to go though the motions of posting a snippet from wikipedia about something that should have been apparent to you from your own postings for you to be cool?

The worst kind of troll is the one who doesn't realize they're trolling.

I reference the premier authority in the matter...

Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever." Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me." He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups. — Wiki Wiki Pedia

I would express regret for bursting your little bubble, Amen, if I felt any regret.

I’ll just wait for the street cleaner to do their work.

..here's a thought...open up another thread and argue that all of life is rational. I'd be happy to participate :blush: — 3017amen

Your participation would be incontrovertible proof that such argument is invalid.

One general observation I would make is that we lack the ability to distinguish religion from philosophical spirituality. Because of the dogmatic attitude of Christianity, everything 'religious' gets tarred with the same brush. — Wayfarer

I think that I know what you mean but disagree. If we sapiens are good at anything it’s making distinctions.

Interesting in that philosophy can develop into a science, it can also develop into a religion.

I was wondering if mysticism has anything to do with the Einstein quote about ‘hearing the music of the spheres’ (musica universalis). @3017amen has been no help and he’s the one who posted the quote.

I’m thinking that you may not have hung out with the folks that 180 was describing on your visit South. Btw, I’m always suspicious of people who “wear their religion on their sleeves” because it feels more like branding than spirituality.

When Master Kyozan Ejaku was master of Tohei Temple, Master Isan Reiyu sent him a letter along with a mirror.

The package arrived at the temple and Master Kyozan took it with him to the Lecture Hall, held up the mirror and said to his assembly: "Students, Master Isan sent this mirror and it has arrived here. Now I would like you to discuss this for a while. Is this mirror Isan’s or is it Tohei’s? If you say this mirror is now Tohei’s, I will say it is a present from Isan. If you say it was sent from Isan, I will say it is now in the Master of Tohei’s hand. If you can show me the truth I will keep the mirror, if you cannot show me anything I will smash the mirror at once."

He repeated this three times. Finally, one of the students got up and ran out of the temple towards the hills. Master Kyozan started laughing uncontrollably and accidentally dropped the mirror. It shattered into a million pieces. Master Kyozan then exclaimed, "fuck".

You're not explaining why. What you're saying only kind of makes sense if we assume that the "music of the spheres" is theism (whatever that entails), since theism is what the atheist objects to, finds dissonant or cannot hear. "appreciate the Harmony in the universe", as you say, appears to mean appreciating God. Note how you capitalize Harmony. We don't need any religious narrative to appreciate the harmony of the universe, do we? Because if we do that seems to mean that we're appreciating the story rather than the actual universe.

Since music may be considered a universally understood, subjective-truth, it also seems sadly apparent that the fanatical atheist might consider that so-called harmony in the universe as sonic dissonance. — 3017amen

I'm sure that Einstein was smart enough to distinguish between deafness and dissonance, and that he knew how to say what he meant. In any event, still no clearer as to why the believer may hear sonance and the disbeliever dissonance.

Ha. Every once in a while you right write something worth reading. Succinct and amusing. — DingoJones

I’ll put you down as an honorary member of my personal fan club. Oh, and I righted your right. Free typo correct is just one of the many perks of being in the praxis fan club. :point:

You seem to be saying you and Daniel have a logical explanation for consciousness... . — 3017amen

Maybe I should backup a bit and go back to what initially caught my interest, the claim that atheists cannot hear the music of the spheres. I don’t know the nature of reality or if god exists and in that way I’m not an atheist. I do hope the story in the Bible, and every other religious story I’ve heard, is not true because... it’s some messed up shit, to be perfectly honest. Rather than the "opium of the masses" I’d rather say something like ‘religion is the glue that binds the masses and helps to control them’.

So given the above, am I deaf to the music of the spheres? If so, does that mean the spheres only play Bible hymns?

you would rather take the side of the fanatical atheist
— 3017amen

Sure, what’s the worst they’ve done? I’m really asking because nothing terrible comes to mind.
— praxis

Depends on the context. — 3017amen

Daniel Dennett alone in a drawing room holding a candelabra.

Meaning there can be consciousness without logic. Critters, for example, are conscious and without logic. One might even argue that you’re conscious and without logic.
— praxis

Oh, I see. How does that happen, I wonder? — 3017amen

Animals don’t have the capability to reason or assess according to strict rules of validity. In your case, who knows.