Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Omkara]

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Virus+of+Faith+part+++Virus+de+la+fe&search_type=

Even if you disagree, take this seriously and make a well thought-out response. The video is well made and worthy of any thinking person's thought. I do, however, expect emotional backlash.

RTeacher: If you can make a rational and well-thought out argument which is not merely a re-production of your doctrine and a parroting of authoritive assertion, I, too, will fall upon my knees and worship the supreme personality!

[Justin Hale]

Pretty old news in the Hale household, friendo, but nevertheless a fabulous documentary. I've been having a bit of a think today and I've come to realize that - given the choice between atheist and anti-theist to describe my position - I'm far more an anti-theist.

What I do is (a) totally reject, with 100% certainty, the existence of the biblical and koranic God, (b) totally reject the notion that Mother Nature's manifold works are the product of a supernatural dictator, (c) totally reject afterlife.

Other spiritual and theistic arguments I'm happy to consider. I want to see biblical and koranic literalism burn. It doesn't make any sense at all to tolerate Christian and Muslim literalists and yet not tolerate subscribers to Mein Kampf.

I agree with Sam Harris that atheist is a profoundly pejorative and counterproductive term. Like I said, what we folks do is totally reject the God of the Bible/Koran and their celestial despotism first and foremost. As such, we are primarily concerned with anti-theism and not necessarily atheism.

I had a discussion at lunch today with a Korean Christian and she asked me - knowing of my vehement hostility to religion - am I an atheist. I said no. I'm an anti-theist and I use the figure Satan as my metaphor, since He is the very reification of a godless cosmos, no afterlife, material pleasures of the flesh, perversion, the self as God, drug and alcohol-use, debauchery and doing what one wilt with no rebuke save for those earthly and finite.

[Omkara]

I agree with Harris, too, that the word "atheist" does us little service. There are too many assumptions tied up with the word. People too quickly assume that if you are an atheist you are a materialist, have no sense of profound wonderment, that you are immoral or unethical.

I've recently felt as you, that anti-theist best suits my position, in the sense that I feel hostile to all of the ignorance that parades under the many guises of religion.

Granted, not all religious people are idiots. Some are bright; some are moderate; many are infantile and intellectually deficient.

As to the bright people, I just don't get how they can cling to religion. It makes no sense, though there is much, much interesting and creative thought around the issues, the suggestion that religion explains reality is absurd. About the only conclusion I can reach is that for emotional and cultural reasons they have not been able to follow the logic of there beliefs to its conclusion. These bright people represent to me a kind of infirm character, of a lower breed than the moderates. That is, given the evidence, they should know better.

The moderates, on the other hand, maybe have not had the luxury of reading and reflecting on arguments. Perhaps their lives have lead them to focus more of their attention on practical matters and hence have not had a chance to get to the irrational center of their belief system. Yet, they represent a great danger. They are perhaps the largest number of the religious who are well-intended but under informed. They are intelligent with under formed understanding. They, owing to the form of their life and their religion, cannot see that the propositions and myths they are pushing forward do real harm, even if they forward them with the kindest and best intending hearts.

As for the idiots, well, their ain't much we can do about them. They are a lost cause. Yet, they do express well the inherent irrationality of the religions.

Still, if I were to call myself "anti-theist," though my mood and alarm would be rightly expressed by the term, the term could not by any means convey my philosophy. I would not want to be defined by any such term. Nor by Christian, nor by atheist, nor by any belief system would I have myself known.

The wonder of simply being is too great for me to bring it down to the level of belief. Religion is simply not profound enough to match the wonderment of being. It is too tied up in magic and miracles to grasp the miraculous in the moment.

The dull mind cannot see the miracle that is the moment; and so it borrows an idea and puts that in the stead of the real.

[Justin Hale]

Yeah.

What we need to see is advanced theism. And to be fair, it does exist. When I googled (or youtubed as it were) 'Dawkins: Root of all evil' I found an excellent and lengthy discussion between Dawkins and a very intelligent theist, whose name sadly I forget.

An example of an intellectually superior theistic argument would see:

[visitorq]

[Rteacher]

I watched all five parts, and I remain unimpressed by Dawkins philosophical perspective - or lack thereof.

Of course, the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions he attacks are philosophically weak as well and have flawed conceptions of God, but I don't think that Dawkins offers anything better.

He apparently thinks that everything in nature came about by accident, but we should act very rationally, while enjoying the one life we have with all the gusto we can muster.

Transmigration of the soul - believed in by much greater thinkers than Dawkins, including Socrates, Plato, and all the sages of India - makes much more sense to me.

No one takes birth in a particular family, country, or species by accident - it's all predetermined - including lifespan - by one's karma in the previoius (and present) life.

And sinful karmic reactions for unnecessarily doing hellish things like abortions and slaughtering cows are naturally going to be hellish.

Christian dogma stresses that hell is eternal - I think the truth is that hellish planets exist, but even the greatest sinners spend only one lifetime there (though it may seem like forever...)

Dawkins alternative for sectarian faith-based education freely chosen by parents seems to be Orwellian-esque indoctrination by the unholy alliance of materialistic science and "progressive" government (which will probably resemble a kind of high-tech Stalinism...)

Regarding the obvious fallibility and questionable integrity of religious organizations and scriptures, I think that every bona fide tradition has a core faith that is based on at least some aspect of Absolute Truth. And along with that there are a lot of relative intructions that need to be faithfully adjusted (and revised) according to different times, circumstances, and intellectual capacities.

Basically, I'm convinced that there is a God because of my association with his devotionally perfected representative in disciplic succession.

From a nonsectarian point of view, I consider it offensive whenever God - or his pure representatives - are insulted, but crazy or fanatical followers who act whimsically and do harm to others are certainly fair game for criticism, and they unfortunately reflect badly on their faiths.

If anyone has another 50 minutes or so to watch a documentary, I strongly recommend this video bio of Bhaktivedanta Swami...
http://www.prabhupadaconnect.com/YourEverWell-Wisher.html

[Justin Hale]

[bovinerebel]

[Omkara]

That great thinkers have believed in a God is no sufficient grounds on which to accept the proposition. Only the thinking itself does count.

Plato is a great teacher. But he hadn't the same evidence as we. Moreover, he made important distinctions between belief and knowledge, sufficiency and insufficiency.

Still, Dawkins greatness or lack thereof aside, do his criticisms, RTeacher, deserve some serious attention? Does teaching our children that Adam was a fact, or that Noah actually loaded animals in twos aboard his ark not represent a serious problem? Perhaps even a kind of child abuse?

You may have very good reasons for believing and practicing as you do, and I know you are not Christinan; but would you raise your son or daughter to weigh evidence independently, or just take it on authority? Are you humble enough as either an actual or potential parent to admit of the possibility that your belief system may be mistaken? Or, are you so certain that you are correct that you would deny your child access to all that modern scholarship has generated to offer a young and curious mind?

[Rteacher]

I think that Dawkins is too dogmatic, but atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett's call for compulsory teaching of all world religions in all schools (including public, private, and "home schoolers") - aside from being impracticable - is a better idea than banning religious teachings that may contradict modern scientific theories.

That especially applies to materialistic evolution theories that imply that everything - including conscious life itself - can evolve from matter without being guided by an infinitely intelligent non-physical source (aka God)

However, I think that religious schools that teach hatred of other groups should be stopped from doing so - or outlawed - based on their being a corruption of real religion (and violating applicable laws.)

My idea of real religion is that which focuses on the spirit-soul within all beings - not on material bodily designations such as race, gender, and nationality.

Any religion that helps develop a person's dormant love of God is good, and any religion that increases unnecessary material attachment, hate and envy is bad.

I think scientific ideas used to promote atheism/loss of faith should not be universally instituted in a totalitarian manner - just as sectarian religious ideas shouldn't be either.

Promotion of nonsectarian religious ideals (which I think is consistent with core "American ideals") would be more beneficial for people in general, in my opinion, than unbalenced promotion of scientific theories based on "blind doubt" and pure materialism.

[Justin Hale]

I�m in favor of religious education � think it's essential actually � because it's impossible to teach the Holocaust, the war on terror, the Iraq war, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Reformation, the Enlightenment � without an appreciation of the miserably base and vulgar ideas the religious subscribe to. It�s essential because our civilization is largely a total victory of scientific fact (evidenced statements about reality), social progress, democracy over the baseless conjecture, guesswork, deliberate cruelty, fantasy and complete misunderstandings about reality of the religions. Kids should be taught facts and nothing more.

Your foul conjecture about Karma, whereby those born to abusive parents or born with a heritable desease are responsible for it thanks to previous deeds in a previous life, is precisely the kind of thing to be not taught, at all costs. It is offensive to basic ethics and demonstrable truth. That�s why it�s not taught. It�s not taught because it�s incredibly primitive and repugnant to moral sense and good taste.

Only evidenced discourse should be taught in science classes, since those are the rules of the discourse. This is, and should forever be, compulsory. Religious education should be compulsory also as part of historical studies. To not teach religion compulsorily would be to totally miss the point of the anti-theists� agenda. The latter seeks to expose how dangerous, baseless and inferior religion is.

[crash bang]

i dont call myself an atheist. why should i define myself by something i dont believe in or is relevant to me?

people who dont believe in the easter bunny arent called abunnyists, right?

[Rteacher]

"Justin Hale" is just hoping there's no karma so he won't have to suffer reactions for his sinful deeds - eg: he admits to killing a neighbor's cat because it was "noisy".

With superior persons like him in charge of education, schools would become even more like slaughterhouses for the mind then they are now.

[Omkara]

I've yet to meet someone who can give an account of Karma which is not either absurd, superstitious, or both.

This is not to say that there is no karma.

Science can clearly show that there is karma. You shit where you eat, you get sick. But that is impersonal.

The superstitious concepts of Karma are too attached to ego-identity. It is the equivalent of the concept of Hell. That is, it serves a similar social function. It is one way of controlling people in accord to a world view.

Science has shown, through systems theory, that there is no real separation between one and another organism in the context of an ecosystem. Therefore, the correctly understood causal relationship between ourselves and our ecosystems is a better basis for understanding "karma."

As for Justin, I think you'd make stronger arguments did you try to understand the position of your interlocutor, no matter how absurd their position may appear.

[Rteacher]

Religion has always served a social-control function, but real religions have always believed that an all-knowing God is the supreme controller.

Krishna explains that we all have existed as individuals since time immemorial, but we generally can't remember because of all the times we've changed our bodies and experienced birth and death traumas.

Krishna never changes his original transcendental body (though He can expand it unlimitedly) so he perfectly remembers everything.

Since we are all part of God, He expands within us all as the Supersoul to monitor our thoughts and activities.

Just as our limited consciousness spreads throughout our entire body because of the presence of the spirit-soul in the heart region (and the circulation of blood) the consciousness of the unlimited Supreme Soul, Vishnu, spreads throughout the entire body of the universe.

Nothing is left to chance - unless that's part of the plan...

All knowledge, facts and histories are recorded on the spiritual plane - via like an intercosmic hard disc (referred to by theosophists and New Agers as the Akashic Records.)

We transmigrate to our next births according to the arrangement of higher-dimensional authorities who tap into those records and place us in particular families/species according to what we really desire - modified by what we actually deserve.

On the other hand, you could theorize that everything materialized out of absolutely nothing, and might (and a good PR machine) makes right...