Religion as a story?

[lostsheep]

psychodiva wrote

Star Trek never made sense! Serenity (oops I meant Firefly) did tho and Farscape

I love Joss Wedon (sp?)! Buffy and Angel also rocked. Not familiar w/ Farscape.

[lostsheep]

Whisper wrote

Don't know if anyone saw this, but it's an article by Greta Christina that I just read and found rather interesting.

An excerpt:



What if People Actually Treated Religion as Just a Metaphor (Like Trekkies and Secular Jews)?

It's an interesting read and I'm with her - if other religious folk treated their religion like this, I really would have absolutely no problem with it, I'd even happily join in with some of it (my best friend's UK-Baptist church is quite fun, when all told and they do some great work, I've attended it with her a few times, mostly on her personally important occasions, like her baptism/confirmation when we were sixteen) and probably thoroughly enjoy it. I already thoroughly enjoy looking at the trappings of the Catholic church, and listening to the music of the US-Baptist's.

So - what do you guy's think?

I like it...kind of like parables, myths. You still get the cultural and social unification thing w/o all the fanatical oppression thing.

[thomastwo]

calpurnpiso wrote

It is relevant ( at least to the mentally healthy aka atheist ) because YOU & other folks ACCEPT irrational fairy tales of resurrecting zombies, demonic possession, Hell, Sin & other SCHIZOPHRENIA type beliefs as if they were reality, so NON of her books would be acceptable by SANE PEOPLE unless they are titled FICTION.

Just want to make sure I understand your point. You are saying that if a person has epilepsy then no non-fiction book they write is worth reading or considering?

[calpurnpiso]

thomastwo wrote

Just want to make sure I understand your point. You are saying that if a person has epilepsy then no non-fiction book they write is worth reading or considering?

Of course they are wroth reading...just do NOT accept them as REALITY, otherwise you are as NUT as the author.

Can you please answer my question?

[thomastwo]

calpurnpiso wrote

Of course they are wroth reading...just do NOT accept them as REALITY, otherwise you are as NUT as the author.

OK, so no epileptic ever wrote a book that is acceptable as reality? How about Thomas Edison? Or Alfred Nobel? Or possibly Isaac Newton? What about the biochemist Don Wiley? Are their writings not acceptable as non-fiction?

calpurnpiso wrote

Can you please answer my question?

You had a question? Is it one you asked me before?

[Sternwallow]

ubs wrote

Well, as pathetic as our meat robots may be, they're us. You never get to arrive on the planet. You tell engineering to kill you and then someone else who thinks they are you, and who everyone else treats as you carries on.

So, what is the big deal. This happens to virtually all of us every night. We lose the continuity of personality every time we lose consciousness.

Also, we change all of our atoms every 11 or fewer years. You are definitely not the same person you were 15 years ago.

[Sternwallow]

Choobus wrote

that could happen every time you go to sleep, when the n-dimensional beings change your sub-sub-consciousness for their own purposes (don't believe me? Just ask sevens).....

Sorry, you beat me to the sleep thing.

[Sternwallow]

thomastwo wrote

OK, so no epileptic ever wrote a book that is acceptable as reality? How about Thomas Edison? Or Alfred Nobel? Or possibly Isaac Newton? What about the biochemist Don Wiley? Are their writings not acceptable as non-fiction?

Don't be deliberately obtuse, T2. Cal is referring to temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), you know, the affliction that generates religious experiences in otherwise sane people.

[Philboid Studge]

Whisper wrote

Don't know if anyone saw this, but it's an article by Greta Christina that I just read and found rather interesting.

...

So - what do you guy's think?

I think Greta's central premise is off. She says that "progressive" religious believers are on board with the idea that their beliefs are metaphors, and she sees a contradiction when those same people get upset if the godless point out that their beliefs aren't true.

In my experience, the just-a-metaphor people don't get upset. The ones who do are not "progressive" in any sense, and they do not think their beliefs are mere metaphors. To the extent they accept that any part of their beliefs are metaphorical, they still think there are ultimate truths behind them. They get upset when we point out that these ultimate truths are really happy horseshit.

thomas wrote

Have you read "The Case for God" by Karen Armstrong? She makes a pretty good case for exactly this view of religion. And she is summarizing the views of many liberal Christians.

I take my marching orders from the Holy Fathers of New Atheism, and in the Gospel according to Myers, Ms Armstrong is "a mess of goo and vapor," who is "giving us another reason why religion is bad for people and for nations: it turns good brains to mush. And that's a condition that can only make toothless zombies happy." (From an evisceration of Armstrong's Foreign Policy article, not Case for God.)

And a demigod in our pantheon, His Holiness Jerry Coyne, cited the Almighty Dennett's disdain for Armstrong, noting that she is the source of some deepity doo-doo. "God is the God behind God," for example. Bleh.

[Eva]

the currency in atheist island will have Myers's face on the one dollar bill. he will be shown holding a cephalopod.

[thomastwo]

Sternwallow wrote

Don't be deliberately obtuse, T2. Cal is referring to temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), you know, the affliction that generates religious experiences in otherwise sane people.

Oh. Does Karen Armstrong have TLE? How about the other people I mentioned?

[thomastwo]

Philboid Studge wrote

I think Greta's central premise is off. She says that "progressive" religious believers are on board with the idea that their beliefs are metaphors, and she sees a contradiction when those same people get upset if the godless point out that their beliefs aren't true.

In my experience, the just-a-metaphor people don't get upset. The ones who do are not "progressive" in any sense, and they do not think their beliefs are mere metaphors. To the extent they accept that any part of their beliefs are metaphorical, they still think there are ultimate truths behind them. They get upset when we point out that these ultimate truths are really happy horseshit.

I agree with this. She's also a bit inaccurate when she refers to "secular" Jews. In my experience secular Jews don't go anywhere near the Torah. But religious Jews do have a tradition of interpreting Torah for their own community and circumstance. Maybe that's what she means.

Philboid Studge wrote

I take my marching orders from the Holy Fathers of New Atheism, and in the Gospel according to Myers, Ms Armstrong is "a mess of goo and vapor," who is "giving us another reason why religion is bad for people and for nations: it turns good brains to mush. And that's a condition that can only make toothless zombies happy." (From an evisceration of Armstrong's Foreign Policy article, not Case for God.)

And a demigod in our pantheon, His Holiness Jerry Coyne, cited the Almighty Dennett's disdain for Armstrong, noting that she is the source of some deepity doo-doo. "God is the God behind God," for example. Bleh.

Yes, the atheist community is a big proponent of shooting the messenger in a flippant way rather than engaging with the message. I think long term that could turn out to be a losing strategy.

[calpurnpiso]

thomastwo wrote

OK, so no epileptic ever wrote a book that is acceptable as reality? How about Thomas Edison? Or Alfred Nobel? Or possibly Isaac Newton? What about the biochemist Don Wiley? Are their writings not acceptable as non-fiction?

You had a question? Is it one you asked me before?

BTW theotard WHO IS TALKING ABOUT EDISON, NOBEL, Wiley or schizophrenic Newton who was PLAGUED by the Zombie Jesus stories and despite his neurological handicap this Christ-psychotic theotard who beat off a lot gave us good science.

Imagine if this man back in the 18th Century hadn't been infected with Christianity? He would have followed in the footsteps of the 2500 year old science of the GREEKS that Christians BURIED when they burned books or created palimpsests (look it up) stagnating the intellect of humanity introducing the DARK AGES.

See? even you a Christ-psychosis infected man is BLIND to the FACTS ignoring the questions that would PROVE your neurological malfunction. You are in denial.
Here are the questions AGAIN, please concentrate on them & do not go off on a tangent answering them with non sequiturs:

AREN'T WE BORN LACKING BELIEF aka atheist? Don't we CREATE the MIND ergo the DELUSIONS of GOD with our BRAINS? Aren't they composed of DNA?

Here:

1) Why do you insist in BELIEVING that the tales written by SCHIZOPHRENICS ( yes ALL RELIGIOUS TEXTS are proof of a malfunctioning brain) aka People of faith must be accepted as true?

2) Can you tell me WHY the Belief of a Christian that a Resurrected Zombie is REAL deemed SANE & the belief as TRUE that aliens place brain implants on people to monitor their thoughts, by a SCHIZOPHRENIC be deemed mental illness?

3) What would be the difference between these two example of deluded thinking? Do you know what PRODUCES them?

[Eva]

[thomastwo]

calpurnpiso wrote

BTW theotard WHO IS TALKING ABOUT EDISON, NOBEL, Wiley or schizophrenic Newton who was PLAGUED by the Zombie Jesus stories and despite his neurological handicap this Christ-psychotic theotard who beat off a lot gave us good science.

Well exactly. As you say Newton had a neurological handicap but it didn't stop him from creating good science or from writing factual books.

Can you even start to see how this invalidates your argument that Armstrong is not worth reading because she is diagnosed as an epileptic?

If you can concede this very obvious point, then I'll address your questions.