|
fergus -> RE: The Atheist Delusion"The Atheist Delusion" (12/7/2006 1:14:22 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
quote:
ORIGINAL: fergus
Well, as it was in response to something I had said, I wanted to be clear ;)
Again, I think you are looking at a specific example of people who confuse mythology with fact. Also, consider how you are framing it in terms of facts as well .... you are framing it terms of facts proven wrong. Mythology is not in the same catagory as right or wrong. The early Christians you speak of - I belive many were positioning it as fact. Those who position it as fact to be proven wrong are probably going down the same road. It does not exist one way or the other in the realm of facts.
In regards to the 'look around' argument of the nature of deity - namely, how can a benevolent omnipotent God exist and allow such a world to continue - that is a seperate issue. First you would have to accpet that this particular mythology WAS fact to make or disprove this arguement. Since it does not operate in that realm, I don't know how a person could successfuly argue one way or the other. Next, you would have to show that THIS vision of deity was the one true and only vision to prove it true or disprove it false (also a sticky bit with me). Then, I suppose, you would have to examine what is meant by benevolent and omnipotent and that it would have to agree with your interpretation. - This sort of thing has been philosophised over for centruies - usually not to either sides' satisfaction as one side says "how can the God you talk about exist in this kind of world" while the other says "It is God's plan that decides what is or is not benevolent" etc. All circular, and not very gaining in the area of 'truth'.
fergus
Any diety would do but of course that won't happen. I don't expect any diety to jump out of the hedge row and shake his snake. People who believe in god can't produce any objective evidence that their god/s exists. As far as I can tell it all exists in their head. Now I know people who have been certified for hearing strange voices in their head telling them to behave in a certain way, yet when a person declares they have a god delusion, no, when they claim to have conversations with god, somehow it is accepted as normal. Shouldn't we be considering treating people who claim to believe in a supernatural being without any objective proof of existing in the same way we think of people who have devil delusions or people who claim they have witnessed a pink elephant copulating with a mouse or that their wife is a hat or many other weird and wonderful experiences of people that have been recorded?
People who claim to believe in god appear to like to have it all ways. For the most part they appear to function satisfactorily in a rational world while harbouring irrational beliefs in beings they can not prove exist. The remarkable thing about these people is that they never seem to question that their beliefs are learnt and not revelations. People tend to believe in the diety they were indoctrinated into believing in when they were children. If people believed through genuine revelation you wouldn't expect dieties to belong to cultures or geographical blocks. I find it strange that Jesus confines himself to christian countries where it is taught that he is the son of god. The same goes for any other diety. The mere fact that dieties are cultural should set alarm bells ringing in any intelligent person's head.
Yes, there are cultural gods. The cultural vaneer p[ainted over spiritual experience is as much of an illusion as trying to prove or disprove a person's mythology. I think you are still approaching it as 'prove god exists' when that is a game for the conscious/rational mind, and not where myth exists. Myth is an outgrowth of the collective unconscious. The cultural vaneer is how we relate to your subconscious need in a conscious 'rational' way. It is part of the shared human experience and part of how we bond emotionally. Yes, many take it too far by placing the importance on the NAME of FACE (i.e. the cultrual vaneer) of the archetypes. This is as dangerous as suggesting that it does not exist at all - the subconscious mechanisms of our shared human experience DO exist, and the name for the archetypes are only important as a vehicle for relating to one another. Once they have become something that divides us, then it is not serving its function.
Now, atheist, Hindu, Christian, Jew, what have you .... we all function in 'irrational' ways from time to time because that is how we are built. Our rational minds are at best 100,000 years old which pales in comparision of the millions of years of subconscious instinctual development. We act and react in far greater concert with our subconscious than ever we are even aware of. Part of our myths and dreams are an outward expression of that. The reason it is often seemingly irrational is because it is not meant to be. Nor is it meant to be a universal truth! Hence, the religious zealots take it to extremes and atheist zealots take it to extremes as well.
For sincere research into the matter I recommend the Works of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell (plus a goodly dose of comparative mythology). There are others, but that is a good place to get going.
fergus
|
|
|
|
