Blog

03-04-15 3:15 • Fanaticism Defined

Ms. KeeKee: This is the dictionary definition of fanaticism:

fa·nat·i·cism

(f?-nat'i-siz'?m)

n.
Excessive, irrational zeal, especially in politics or religion.

1. wildly excessive or irrational devotion, dedication, or enthusiasm

fanatical character or conduct.

Noun 1. fanaticism - excessive intolerance of opposing views

Ms. KeeKee: Agree? Disagree? Please explain and share.

I agree that this is a dictionary definition of fanaticism.

Ms. KeeKee: Do you have your own definition of what it means?

Fanatic is the root of the word "fan," and I admit I was something of a fangurl (albeit before that word existed. We just called ourselves "geeks.")

I knew people who took it to pretty extreme levels. I attended a Klingon wedding officiated by a member of Starfleet. I didn't stay in line for three days to get tickets to see The Phantom Menace...but I knew people who did.

Ms. KeeKee: It sounds like your are describing The Big Bang Theory lol

Very much like that, except much lower tech. Back in the day we didn't have laptops, so we all sat hunched over our Amigas, waxing our 300 baud modems to make them go faster, lol.

Ms. KeeKee: What do you think it means when related to religion?

I think that it is a great advantage to the group to have a few people in the group who take things to extremes. When people get thoroughly serious about a subject, enough to immerse themselves in understanding all the details, what sometimes arises is innovation. This brings the kind of benefit to the group that makes this personality selected for, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the technical wizardry which runs our society is adminstrated by fanboi personalities.

For many centuries, in the West anyway, the Church was practically the only subject there was to be fanatic about and so of course produced its share of zealots and what not. Also, recent twin studies suggest there is a hereditary component to religiosity, or how religious a person stays over their lifetime, essentially saying some folks are born that way.

So that at least suggests that various types of fanaticism play an overall positive role, which is why it occurs. However like a lot of things which are extreme, it also creates its share of problems.

Ms. KeeKee: The way I interpret it, its when a person takes a belief or interest to the very extreme and that belief or interest dominates their life and how they live day to day. IMHO it is not a very positive why to live a life.

Oh, I don't know if it's necessarily a negative way to live. If it wasn't for obsessive musicians taking their interest to the very extreme and letting it dominate their lives, we wouldn't have classical music today, or many other kinds. If it wasn't for obsessive programming geeks, we wouldn't have Microsoft Word or World of Warcraft. Some people have to take an interest to the extreme to push the limits of what can be done. All of society benefits.

And it's not so bad for the individual either. Sitting hunched over a screen pounding code, or over a piano, or over a workbench turning tiny screws, etc., can be a spiritual experience for the one doing it. Steeping oneself very deeply in the intracacies of a craft, getting to know all the little details, learning new ways to arrange the parts, and watching the results arise is transportive. Spending one's days immersed in that kind thinking is a feeling of uplifting adventure.

Does this sound like I'm speaking from experience? As an artist, musician and programmer, I would say that sometimes only a fanatical attention to a subject lets you get that deeply inside it, that you can break new ground. And that is important - and fun.

Ms. KeeKee: Surely it is a life with great personal sacrifice. Although there is satisfaction with a life filled, I wonder if it is a life completely full filled i.e. what needs to be given up to lead such a life.

Probably sometimes, other times perhaps not. People have different needs to be fulfilled, and it doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice at the time to do what you love.

Ms. KeeKee: and let's not forget fantacism that causes harm, if not globably but simply on a small scale. I am thinking here ISIS (globally) and WBC (small scale). Unless you do not consider this an example of fantaticism.

I think some members of these groups are probably fanatical about it and others probably less so. People have different reasons for joining groups like this and fanaticism about the subject matter is only one.

I would say that the fanaticism is not the worst part of what they are doing. The content of what they are fanatic about is at least as responsible for the harm.

Ms. KeeKee: Kathy gives the example of isis who have clearly lost their way- they are not true followers of their faith (even though some think they are).

I would agree they have lost their way as far as being moral human beings goes, but I can't agree that they are not "true followers of their faith," on either of two counts.

First of all, I have no doubt that some members of ISIS sincerely believe that they are doing what God wants. Since that is what they believe and have faith in, they are literally practicing their faith by doing it.

The second count is more than semantic. Do you mean, they are not true followers of Islam? People who are horrified that anyone could act so barbarously are quick to exclaim that this is not Islam, it couldn't be, because Islam is a religion of peace.

But peaceful people do not "own" Islam, any more than violent people do. No one does exclusively. Some in ISIS may say they know what Islam is "supposed" to be according to Allah, and others say they are wrong. But this is like if Quakers and Catholics each claimed the other was not really Christian, over any difference of opinion. Is the Quaker way or the Catholic way a better reflection of Christianity? Is Quakerism or Catholicism more pleasing to God? Is Christianity or Islam? How can we tell?

There is no way to check with God to see which version of Islam He prefers. Maybe He does want everyone to be Islamic, or else. Plenty of people have believed that the gods love war - maybe They don't, maybe They do.

It's just not possible to claim that any one religion is what God really wants, or any one set of ideas is the correct interpretation of a text. It's just he said, she said - there is no one to ask and nothing to check to settle the question. The differences are unresolvable.

That is why it is so important to figure out what to do based on observation instead of what people thousands of years ago said. What people say can be wrong, but what happens IS what happens.

Ms. KeeKee: IMHO I beleive relgion is being used for political/social causes.

Of course. That is what it is for.

Ms. KeeKee:To keep the masses under control and in-line.

Not quite; religion predates "the masses." It arose in tribal culture, which would have consisted of smallish bands where everyone knew each other and the distance between the highest- and lowest-ranking members was not great.

At its heart, religion is a narrative tradition, which people started keeping because the stories provided a standardized explanation for two key questions - what this life is, and what is important. By creating stories about gods, humans provided a foundation for both, by revering gods who are the creators of this world (what is) and the authors of the moral order (what is important.) Explanations for these provide not only personal wholeness, but a very high degree of social cohesion, which is tremendously important for ingroup relations in small tribal bands.

Later as humans developed civilizations, our gods and religions became more sophisticated, and so did many of the individuals creating and controlling them. From that point on at least some of the religious elements seem to be deliberately engineered for crowd control, but much is still organic - arising naturally from people as an aspect of their culture and mores, rather than tyrannically imposed top-down. So, religion is being used for social and political causes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing since that's what it's for.

Ms. KeeKee: As far as humans have come in evolution, we really are just neanderthals scrapping our knuckles against the pavement.

Yes and no. In terms of how long we have been around, we only just got civilized the day before yesterday. However once we discovered understanding by methodical observation, it was sort of a tipping point, and the advancement of knowledge has only ramped up since.

03-03-15 3:15 • What do you want from Death?

MissDaMeaner: I hear people talk about Heaven, but I don't think it sounds that cool. So I'd like to think of something else. What would you want from Death, if you could have your choice?

I used to hope that dying would be kind of like graduating to Star Trek. Here in this kindergarten life we are stuck in on this one dopey planet and can't get out much. I figured after death I would be able to travel the stars as pure energy unleashed from the limitations of matter.

But, life without a body didn't sound too interesting after awhile, and the idea looks in no way possible, which is another big drawback.

So I decided the only thing I really want is to survive until the Singularity. Then I plan to have my personality backed up onto a hard drive and ported to a holographic or android body capable of sensation. While still technically impossible, the race is on to see if computers get good enough to back me up before I die.

MissDaMeaner: That sounds really cool.

Hey, did you notice there is a similarity between Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists? Yet they don't agree on the afterlife.

Unreason lies at the heart of it all. Accepting reality for what it is erases all these imaginary boundaries.

2-22-15 2:15 • Why is ISIS like this?

Kathy: I just see the Jews to be 100% blind about Jesus. The Jews don't have any belief in Jesus, who I love, who I am so very thankful to for his death and resurrection. They are impossible to relate to.

They say they are Chosen. I know I am not in the elite. So I take more offense towards Jews. Because they don't see Jesus be the Messiah. If there was man named Jesus that died... He just died for nothing.

I can see 100% blindness.

1-2-15 12:12 • New World Order Plus Swearing

Dearla: World leaders are meeting at the G20 to forge a "New World Order." Do you think the New World Order is a good thing? What of our sovereignty?

"New World Order" could mean anything. The United Nations represented a new world order compared to what came before. The spread of democracy was a new world order compared with the domination of hereditary monarchies. European colonialism was the new world order of the Renaissance. The world has already been through a number of "New World Orders."

The phrase itself is meaningless. What are the specific plans? That's what we would need to know.

As for sovereignty, it's not hard to figure out. People need good ways to work together on the things that concern everyone. Groups should work together with a level of autonomy for things that concern only that group. People should be free to work out their own solutions for the things that concern them only.

The reason we're divided into cities, counties, and states is to order the things that concern these geographical partitions. There are also things that concern everyone, worldwide, and having a means to deal with those concerns collectively is becoming more important. As long as it is done democratically, through negotiation and compromise rather than by force of arms, I think we could work together to figure out a way to handle "the world" well.

Dearla: What about a one world currency? A one world government? A one world justice system? Would you be OK with any of that?

It would depend on what form it took. I don't have any problem with a "one country government" from the east to the west coast of this continent. It seems to have worked okay for the last couple of hundred years.

Why don't you explain what you think the problems are with those ideas.

Dearla: Why do we need to be associated with those countries? What do we have in common with Russia? China? Africa?

Well, we have children that we love and they have children that they love. We like music and art and they like music and art. We like to make things and do things and they like to make things and do things. We like to work hard and accomplish things and provide for our families and they like to work hard and accomplish things and provide for their families. We sing songs. They sing songs. We dance. They dance. We like to make choices for our future and they like to make choices for their future. We like to live in safety and comfort and they like to live in safety and comfort. Our culture has gods we worship and folktales we tell. Their culture has gods they worship and folktales they tell. We like to laugh and they like to laugh. We cling together for comfort in grief and they cling together for comfort in grief.

In fact I'd be pretty hard pressed to think of much we don't have in common with our fellow humans. We are people. They are people too.

Dearla:Would we be allowed to keep our own customs or would we have to follow NWO customs and traditions?

Well, they haven't been forced to stop celebrating Mardi Gras in New Orleans, and we haven't been forced to take up the celebration anywhere else. Do you mean like that?

Dearla: Who gets to decide what laws to change and what laws to keep?

How do you figure out what laws they get to keep in Nebraska and in Oregon, and what laws you get to keep where you are? There are city, state, and federal legislatures who work it out, acording to the will of the people.

Dearla: How would our NWO leaders be selected? Would we have a global vote?

Why not?

Dearla: I think that this New World Order sounds nice in theory, but so do many things that we have learned are not good ideas. I'm sure slavery and the holocaust seemed damn skippy at the time for most people....

Do you really think the New World Order sounds like slavery and holocaust? No one has even described what it is yet. Why do you think it would not be democracy?

Dearla: Besides, the world would get very boring if we had a common culture.

A common culture is already happening. Who didn't see "Gangnam Style"?

It doesn't mean the old culture disappears. Cultures are always growing, blending and merging.

Anna: If by "new world order' you mean a common language, currency etc, it would not work without bloodshed.

I think a common language is inevitable. It won't be mandated, it will just happen. We already have much more language in common than would have seemed possible a few centuries ago.

Sadly, I think it will be quirky, clunky English. French traditionally the language of love, German the language of science, and English the language of business. Guess who wins?

It's not at the point of a sword, though. It's happening naturally.

As for currency, the various types of money are just insane. People need to be able to travel around without having to pay exchange fees at every border - not to mention the fluctuating exchange rates which change the purchasing power of your money whenever you switch it.

I really don't see why it would be a problem. The Italians weren't so crazy about the lire and the French weren't so nuts about the franc that they couldn't get together around the Euro.

It could be a long time before that comes together for everyone, though. Maybe the Eartho?

Anna: People get funny about their culture and history and go to great lengths to protect it.

Some do, some don't. But culture is always changing, merging, growing. A common earth culture is inevitable also. It doesn't have to do away with the previous culture. But there is nothing we could do to prevent it at this point even if we wanted to. Global communication means we are sharing world experience. Shared worldview will equal shared culture, at least in some respects.

Dearla: Oh, if only we could just sit around the camp fire and sing kum bah yah..........

I can. Do you think you can't?

Anna: I agree that there will be an assimilation of languages and the diversity will lessen, but i dont think we will get rid of them any time soon.

Having a global language doesn't mean getting rid of the local language. Most of the world speaks a local language and at least some English right now.

Anna:Quite a few countries resisted the euro and culture and history were the forefront of the argument.

I think they saw the logic of it eventually.

Anna: I can see some peopel getting on the "american" culture bandwagon like so many Japanese youth have but even in their quest for "All Things American" they have a culture that is NOT american.

I don't expect world culture to be American. Brand America is down the tubes and I don't think it will ever really recover. I don't even expect the world culture to be "western" or "northern". It will be a culture that we all share.

Anna: Like i said, it wont be in our lifetime. I dont think so anyway.

I agree, I don't think it will be in our lifetime either. Maybe not in our kids' lifetimes. But eventually a world culture is inevitable.

Anna: There will always be a controlling group of people and no one really realizes that they are in charge.

Sure, that is exactly how it is now. But there is one very important thing that they have discovered, and it is that there is a far easier way to be in charge than by forcing people at gunpoint to give up the freedom they love. It's much easier to dangle shiny bits in front of people and get them to hand you their power at the cash register.

I agree it's not a true power of the people. But it sure beats hereditary monarchy, dictatorship, and other brutal forms of single power rule. At least with oligarchy people choose which politicians get bought. We have a historically unprecedented level of control over our civic affairs. We can influence the guys in charge by eschewing whatever dangly bit they are waving in front of us.

And we can use the leverage we have for some concessions. Full education is far from undoable, and it would gradually shift some of the power back downward.

Look at it this way. In the last thirty years the oligarchy has manipulated the economy and the politics to amass unbelievably and unimaginably huge piles of money for themselves. They have used those piles to amass even larger piles of money and control the supply chains we depend on. But, they depend on us too.

When their greedy machinations became so egregious that they threatened to collapse the system, the greedy fuckers backed off. They admitted that they crippled the banks and asked us for help. They lowered the price of gasoline so that people could afford to drive and eat too. Their unbelievable concentration of power threatened them too and so they gave some back.

Having us as willing consumers is far better for them than having us as unwilling slaves. And they know this.

Dearla: I think we would lose our vote.

We don't have to lose our vote. We can fight for our vote the way we always have.

Dearla: Didn't you read those New World Order quotes? [about microchipping,etc.]

Fuck the "quotes." People can say anything. However blathering a quote and getting people to go along with it are two very different things.

Dearla: It's actually rather scary that some people think that the press and the government should just take over and do what they want with us.

Stupid people think a lot of stupid things. However, if we don't like what is actually proposed we don't have to go along with it.

Think about it. With the mightiest military in the world, with the world's most expensive weapons and the world's best trained soldiers, in five years we haven't been able to force the Iraqis to do doodly-squat. In sixty years the Israelis have not been able to subdue the Palestinians. In four centuries of colonialism, the great powers of Europe have had to relinquish almost all of the colonies to self-rule.

People will always struggle against subjugation. We can fight, we can resist, we can fail to yield. If we don't want that new world order we don't have to go along with it.

Dearla: If there was ever a NWO (one government for whole world) don't you think we would lose our voice in the way things are done?

Why should we? People in this world have far more voice in how things are done than any other people in any other time in history. The arc of history bends, however slowly, toward self-realization.

Look at it this way. Have you ever examined a dollar bill?

This is the Great Seal of the United States. The words "Annuit Coeptis" mean, "with approval of the beginnings" and "Novus Ordo Seclorum" means, "The New Order of the Ages."

When the United States won its independence from Britain, they vowed to create a new kind of world that had never been seen before. And this they have done. For all its faults and failures, the U.S. has moved inexorably towards greater equality, freedom and opportunity for all.

If there is to be a United World, we can strive for this same ideal...struggle, fail, keep trying, and eventually succeed. With our approval on its beginnings, the New Order of the Ages can be the kind of world we want to live in. We just have to make it so.

Dearla:You make it sound great but I just don't believe that it could ever happen the way you describe.

Who would have believed that women would ever be given the vote? Only men got to vote on the issue. Why would they ever agree to franchise women when they could control them?

It was because the suffragettes agitated and marched and raised hell and made headlines. They engaged in civil disobedience and staged hunger strikes. Women demanded that this nation treat us fairly and the bastions of male superiority could not withstand us.

Dearla: Man is power hungry, greedy and violent.

If that is all "man" is, then how come we live in a country that was conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal? How come most of the hereditary monarchies in Europe are now constitutional democracies? How come we don't have slavery anymore, if there is nothing to "man" but power mongering, violence and greed?

It is because people are not just power hungry, greedy and violent. They are also fair, generous and caring. These qualities we have in at least equal measure, and the strongest feature of modernity is our newfound tendency to let these qualities carry the day slightly more often than not.

Additionally, it is because the will of each person to have power of their own lives is equal or greater than the will of a few to control the many. And there are way more many than there are few. We do not have to submit to any order that is not what we want. If "they" try to impose it on us they will fail.

Dearla: when the new world order happens, it won't be as you describe it.

So, what alternative kind of new world order are you proposing instead?

StepMamma: your use of the F-word really offends me. Can you please stop using it?

If that is the only objection you can raise to what I wrote I must have been in top form. That's great to know, thanks.

StepMamma: I don't agree with your use of the women's vote as an example of new world order as you describe it.

That's fine, but that's not what I was using it as an example of.

I was using it to demonstrate that oppression is overcome by resistance. If some force tries to impose an oppressive "new world order" they will not be able to succeed because they will meet resisitance.

StepMamma: For all of us to become one world order as you have described it goes against human nature.

No more so than establishing the United States or the European Union does. These are large groups of seperate states organized into a whole to address situations that affect them all. They are democratic, generally egalitarian, and for all their troubles, they allow citizens the greatest freedom and self-determination that any human societies have ever experienced.

What can be done once or twice can be done again.

StepMamma: I don't think we will be forced. We will be deceived.

You can't fool all the people all the time. Bush used deception to sell his mass murder, but there were people, even back in 2002, who saw right through it. And, only six years later, the entire enterprise has been laid bare, and repudiated, because a) enough people have learned the truth, b) an enterprise which is not based in reality cannot succeed.

StepMamma: i will be watching from heaven.

If that's the kind of thing you enjoy watching, have at it.

StepMamma: So, about my comment to you on your use of the F-word.

What about it?

StepMamma: Actually, I was just seeing if you were going to stay true to your buddhist beliefs.

So, what is the result of your experiment?

StepMamma: you have said that is something causes hurt to another that you stop doing it. and if you are unaware that it cause hurt, when you find out, you try to correct it or at least not do it again.

I did at least not do it again.

StepMamma: So what say you?

What do you want me to say?

1) I wasn't speaking to you.

2) This is hardly the first instance of the f word in this discussion. You certainly never seemed to have a problem with it before.

3) I joined a group called Heated Debate because I thought I would find adults here who could handle it. I would hope that the other people who have chosen this group are looking for the same thing.

4) Offense does not equal harm. If there is some harm that has come to you please describe it and I will address it. However I am familiar with the use of language and I feel fairly certain that I did not do anything harmful.

I wasn't talking to you. I did not use offensive language against or describing you or anyone here. My use of this kind of language is precise and sparing. And if you couldn't handle the f-word you wouldn't still be here in this forum. I don't see how you could be damaged by this, but if there is a way, please explain.

StepMamma: I am really hurt by your use of the F-word. it really really bothers me. I take high offense at it.

That's kind of a waste, but hey, it's your outrage.

If it bothers you that much we can discuss it. Maybe we could work something out. I can certainly refrain from using the f-word at will. But I would need to know, are you asking me to never use it when speaking to you, or never use it anywhere you might see it, or never at all?

Are you asking everybody who participates here to refrain from the using the f-word, or just me? If the former, just with you or all the time? If the latter, why me?

Anna: Do you really think that any nation isn't more than 5 years away from being the same as nazi germany? Things can turn on a dime.

Of course they can. Before 9-11, who would have thought that America would be occupying, torturing and spying? One bad leader can take things down a terrible path very quickly.

But look what happened. We are turning back. People are rejecting the torture and the occupying and the spying. We don't want to live like that and we are working to change it.

I said, we can strive...struggle, fail, keep trying, and eventually succeed. There are no guarantees that we can teach the world to sing, in perfect har-mo-nee. But there is no reason to think that a United World would be more like Nazi Germany than the United States. People have created vast unions which improved the life of the citizens. Why do people think we could not do it again?

Nazi Germany lasted only ten years. Communist Russia lasted forty. The United States has been here two hundred years, and slowly getting better - ending slavery, sharing equal citizenship with women, creating the social safety net, establishing civil rights. Freedom has more staying power than oppression.

Yes, we took a quick turn for the crappy, and our dominance on the world stage may fade, but we are still freer than most humans who have ever lived, and we are using our freedom and what leverage we have to turn away from the path of oppression. Most of the western European countries learned this lesson decades ago and have been unifying peacefully ever since.

Just the idea of world unity is nothing to fear. We should not use ghosts of Nazi Germany frighten us into not striving for a good unified system. We don't have to do it like they did. We can do it so it works.

We have a lot of issues that concern us all. We need to work together on them.

Anna: You asked what kind of world order I would propose? A proper international council that actually has teeth and doesnt just pay lip service to the worlds inequities.

Sounds great. Let's do it.

StepMamma: What do you mean, what are the results of my experiment? It reinforced my thoughts that Buddhism has a relative morality.

You said you were trying to see if I was being true to my Buddhism. Did you find that I was or that I wasn't? If not, please explain in what respect.

StepMamma: I am not asking you or anyone else to stop using it.

That is not what you said. You specifically stated, "your use of the F-word really offends me. Can you please stop using it?"

You are now backpedaling. What's up with that?

StepMamma: I am not back pedaling - when I made that statement, there was a point to it. But in truth, i dont feel it fair of me to ask anyone to stop using bad language simply because it offends me. this is a public debate group, so it is not fair for me to expect people to change just for me.

I'm glad you agree.

StepMamma: As for whether you stayed true to your Buddhist values, well... you seemed to start to think about it, that if using the f-word bothered me, you were generally concerned and didn't want to cause me "harm" which is true to your beliefs. but then, you seemed to start to defend it and perhaps thought that my request was silly.....so at that point, i guess then you didn't stay true. but in reality your response was very real and i appreciate that about you.

i enjoy our debates (even though i get annoyed sometimes) because you seem to always remain real and rarely rarely use bad language. i respect you for that actually.

1-1-15 11:11 • Why Belief Seems Wrong

Kathy: What does it matter that scientists agree? There is a whole group of church people who will agree with this statement. The statement is - all things were created by God. There was no "Big Bang" that brought everything into existence at all.

Do you know what the difference is between church people agreeing with ancient claims about gods and astrophysicists agreeing with descriptions of how the universe began?

Well, the astrophysicists are studying the matter and radiation in the universe. They are examining real things and measuring the directions the things are moving and how fast. They are using the data that they obtain by this observation to calculate where everything came from. The calculations were published in journals, examined and tested by other astrophysicists. Some of them were found to be imprecise, so they were re-examined, compared again with the observed data, and corrected. After decades of this, the description of where the matter and energy originated became more accurate. Later finds in the field - such as the discovery of the cosmic background radiation - confirmed that the origin of matter and energy in our universe was from a singularity which underwent a massive expansion event, or "big bang."

In other words, they checked.

On the other hand, the people sitting around in church blathering about "gods" did not get the information from examining and measuring real things. They got it from an old folktale. They are not comparing their information to the information of other people and trying to reconcile the discrepancies. They are simply insisting that their origin folktale is right, while the conflicting origin folktales of other cultures are just myths. After centuries of this, their descriptions are again and again found to be inaccurate claptrap, but they don't ever change. Later finds which show the folktales to be false are simply ignored.

In other words, they did not check.

Kathy: Somebody is right, and somebody is wrong.

That is why we invented checking, so you don't just have to scratch your head and say, Gee, which one, guess we'll never know. You can check to see which answer is right and which is wrong.

Checking has revealed that the "big bang" description of the origin of the universe is very accurate and the "god did it in intervals of six" explanation of the universe has no merit whatsoever.

Kathy: If I am right. Then there is A Creator who actually cares about us.

If the average American four year old is right, then there is a jolly old elf living at the North Pole who will bring them presents if they are good. Isn't that wonderful!? What a lovely thought!

However just because it's nice to think of a magic being who blesses them with gifts, that is not enough to make there actually be one. You can't make gods really exist by thinking about how great it would be. And longing for what is not the case is a fast trip straight to suffering.

Kathy: If you are right, then there is nothing.

Wrong. There is a universe, and there is us. Those are not nothing.

Kathy: I stand for God's righteous that lives inside all us. I don't believe my righteousness is the best way. My way is good, but God's ways are so much better.

So, you stand for being an inferior failure. That's a shame, but it's certainly very convenient for those who want to manipulate you.

Kathy: Maybe I am right.

You are one of the ones who is not checking. So I don't see how you could conclude that you may be right. Being right comes from checking.

Kathy: The Big Bang theory is void of the word of Love.

So what? It is meant to describe the behaviors of matter and energy at very low levels of organization. Emotions are an expression of a much higher level of organization, which comes into being very much later.

Love is a function of mammalian evolution. It arose as a behavioral adaptation to ensure that parents provided sufficient care for their offspring to raise them to reproductive age. It intensified among social animals because sympathetic understanding gives them a reason to cooperate and work for the survival of others in their own in-group.

Anger, hate, antagonism, xenophobia, or what have you, also came into being, to give individuals and social groups a reason to compete against other individuals and social groups of the same (or different) species.

Neither love nor hate come to humans from magical superbeings. They are ours, which we created ourselves for specific purposes of survival.

Kathy: You make things out of love. Like dinner for your family. You are driven by love, not nothing. God is love.

Way to rob humans of the credit for the great things that we do ourselves.

Kathy: God is love. I really believe all will be forgiven, all will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Gloria: Do you really think people like Hitler or Saddam can be forgiven?

And did they have coins for the Ferryman?

Kathy: Christians are good! They want all to come to Heaven.

MyMy: What about people like Gloria, who want others tormented forever in hell?

Gloria: How does that pertain to what I said earlier?

You seemed to be one of the people who wants this.

Gloria: I'm not going to go by what Kathy or anyone else says.

People were telling me my entire childhood, I had to believe God is what they say God is. Because of that I have so adamantly made the choice that God is to me whatever I want God to be to me. I don't have to follow guidelines or books or other's people beliefs. I can choose whatever I want, because that is the freedom I have been given.

What of the truth?

Gloria: So because I believe in hell, I must want souls tormented there forever?

How long do you want them to be tormented there?

Gloria: There is no truth where this matter is concerned because there are no facts about God, only beliefs.

There is a truth. The truth is that there are no facts.

Gloria: We don't know, we just choose to believe.

Why not stop at the truth?

Gloria, thanks for speaking of this with me. It is an honor.

Gloria: I know I've provided a lot of maybes but even I am able to say I don't know what God does.

If you don't know then where did you get all those maybes from?

Gloria: I fully acknowledged that there were no facts to prove my beliefs but there are also no other facts to disprove them either.

You could make up things which can't be disproved all day, each one more wonderful (or awful) than the last. But why believe them if you just made them up?

If the truth is that you don't know, and no one knows, why make stuff up?

Gloria: I don't really think there is a wrong or right answer here.

There is a right answer. I'm not just trying to be disagreeable; I am trying to explain something important about human knowledge.

The right answer is that humans do not know anything about gods.

They don't know if there are one or many or none. They don't know if gods like or hate humans, if they are just or fickle, if they prefer humans to take Friday, Saturday or Sunday off. People are simply pretending to know something about gods when they claim that there is one, and that it prefers a certain day off, and that it enforces moral justice. There is no evidence of any of this.

Pretending humans know anything about "gods" is ignoring this truth. Ignoring the truth is dangerous.

Gloria: You (general) don't know what my God is.

I know that your ideas about gods were made up by humans who did not know anything about gods.

Gloria: At some point in time, there were no facts to prove many of the ideas that we accept now, like gravity.

All the more reason not to jump the gun and start believing something made up now, with zero facts.

Gloria: Not knowing what gravity was or how it worked did not make it any less true.

"Gravity" is not "true." Truth is comprised of statements.

"Objects in Earth's gravity well fall at 32.2'/sec²-drag" is a true statement, in that it is extremely accurate.

Statements are true if they correspond accurately to what they are describing.

Statements about gods, afterlives, souls, etc. do not correspond accurately to anything. They appear to have been made up long ago by people who did not understand very much. There is no evidence of them and there is nothing that can be examined which suggests them. Reason and evidence suggest a very different reality, with very different mechanisms of cause and effect.

That is the truth which describes the situation and all conjecture to the contrary is wishful thinking.

And human actions based on wishful thinking instead of the truth (however uncomfortable) create a lot of problems.

Thanks again Gloria!

Hello there Gloria, great to speak with you again!

I'm really glad you raised this point because I wanted to address it separately from my previous post.

Gloria: You don't agree with what I believe, therefore my beliefs must be wrong.

That is not the reason.

Actually, it is a direct examination of reality which suggests that your beliefs are wrong. Here is why:

1. There are no apparent gods. Every single idea or argument humans have ever put forth concerning gods are all just words. There is no actual substance or observation or part of reality which can be examined which is a god. There is no effect that can be examined which shows a god. As far as can be determined, gods are no more a part of this reality than unicorns or Santa. Upon examination, every human suggestion of or about gods is comprised entirely of conjecture.

2. There are no suggestions of gods in nature. Everything that can be observed, from the motions of galaxies to the behavior of insects to the dreams of humans, can be seen to be arising from natural systems with mechanisms that can be examined and apprehended. Nothing that can be observed suggests any kind of supernatural agency in its creation or maintenance, and nothing has been examined which is inexplicable enough to admit a supernatural component. There is nothing in the universe which a god would have had to interact with for it to be like it is now.

3. Everything supernatural has been debunked. It is easy to understand why ancient humans believed in gods, fairies, ghosts, magic, etc. It was because they had not yet learned to apply observation and reason to understanding what is the case. Almost as soon as the system of reason and observation was put into use, the old supernatural claims began to fall apart. All of the magical things people used to believe in were found to be superstitions and just-so stories with no basis beyond confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

Almost all of the previous claims about gods have been debunked as well - that gods magically created the earth, that gods designed life, that gods cause plagues/cure illness, that gods caused a world-wide flood, etc.

Only claims completely outside the ability to be examined (like "afterlife justice") can continue to be associated with gods because any and all things which could be examined showed no gods and no supernatural agency.

4. People are known to invent gods to explain what they don't understand. Even in recent times, people invented a whole belief system - the "cargo cults" - to explain a sudden inexplicable interaction with strangers. Given this human propensity for invention, it is easy to see where the old god stories come from and why they are not a basis for understanding what is really happening.

5. There is no apparent moral order outside of humans. Morality was invented by humans as a social evolution strategy. Proto-moral behavior can be observed in our closest relatives and many species, so it is clear to observation that morality was devised as a means for creating social cohesion. However proto-immoral behavior can be observed as well, serving different purposes. The origins of both are rooted in the biological.

So, there is no reason to think that there is a supernatural component to "good" and "evil." These are judgements our species learned to make, among many, based on trial and error and how things worked out. It is an ongoing process and still underway. This is also why our moral arc slowly bends toward justice - it is a form of error correction.

6. There is nothing in nature which suggests any kind of afterlife. There is no observable mechanism by which an afterlife could occur. A very close examination of the foundation of being and personality show that they arise from physicality, from the mechanism of a functioning biosystem with a complex neurology. Everything that can be observed about these systems suggest that they are only temporary emergent properties of complex patterns which are not maintainable beyond the dissolution of the pattern.

There is no suggestion at all that humans could encounter a fate different from anything else that lives and dies, and certainly no suggestion that some humans meet different fates "after" death.

7. Given the utter lack of examination, evidence and plausibility, there is no reason that any one utterly arbitrary projection - for example, single god, binary afterlife - makes more sense to believe than any other projection - like binary god, single afterlife, or multi-god multi-life, or leprechauns, or what have you. With no suggestions of gods and no need for gods and nothing to go on, fixing on one and investing it with truth is nonsensical.

As you can see, simply looking at the reality that we find ourselves in very strongly suggests that we are naturally occurring biological organisms who rely on finite biological systems. Looking at our biology and our history it is clear that we are learning creatures who have only very recently learned to distinguish reality from fantasy and apply reason to our understanding.

So I hope you will see that for some, challenging your unfounded beliefs is not about disagreement. It is about the fact that they do actually appear to be incorrect.

Gloria: As far as where the ideas came from, that would be all the sources of information I have come across since I was old enough to understand them.

In other words, it came from other people. However, other people do not know any more about "the afterlife" than you do. If you can't tell anything about it, they couldn't either. So you know what they said about it means nothing.

Gloria: I kind of feel like that is all religion. For the most part it was made up by someone at some point and accepted by many as a belief system.

Yes. But we know better now.

Gloria: It might seem odd to you for a person to believe in something that is made up, but I can't give you a reason that you would find acceptable. I like the idea of believing in God. I like the faith I have.

I understand, but I was wondering if you might consider thinking of something beyond what you personally like.

I can see now that you do understand the truth. So, as people who understand truth, I feel we have a moral obligation to promote the truth, and the system of truth - reason - because understanding what is really going on is the only way to deal with reality well.

Perpetuating unreason is a really big problem for the human race right now. Being a voice for reason, and for accepting the truth, in a world where so few do, would be a much greater contribution than simply doing something that you happen to like.

Gloria: I have only stated my beliefs. I understand that there are loonies out there who use their beliefs to justify wars and genocides, but I am not those people.

Of course not. But unreason - believing things which don't seem to be true for no acceptable reason - is a problem everywhere, in every system. Part of why it is so hard for people to use reason is because religious beliefs systematically dismantle reason by dismissing it and degrading it. That's a big problem.

Gloria: I truly beileve in doing onto others as you would have done onto yourself.

You are a beautiful person. But you don't need gods for that.

Gloria: I only believe religious beliefs are dangerous when they are used as an excuse for hate.

This is where I disagree. Unreason and refusing to understand the truth creates a lot of error. The greater the distance between what is claimed and what the reality is, the bigger the error. For most religious beliefs, this distance is a chasm.

And right now, refusing to look at the truth isn't just happening in religion. It is happening in economics and business and politics. As a result, we're blowing it.

Generous estimates give the biosphere maybe twenty years before it starts to become completely unhinged from runaway warming. Whether lifekind can even be maintained beyond that point is not a guarantee.

Do we really need more delusion and believing nice things that aren't true and refusing to face reality? Or do we need truth?

Gloria: My logical brain says you are right. The spiritual side of me disagrees. You perceive faith in the unseen as wishful thinking. I do not. Faith is a state of being. It's a force inside you.

Again, I understand. What I would like you to understand is that you don't have to ignore the truth about reality to have those feelings. The most spiritual people I know are all non-theists, because at the heart of their spiritual quest was a desire to find out what is really going on, and be true to that spiritual quest, and this is where the truth in that quest inevitably leads. You have arrived there already yourself.

I am neither atheist nor theist, but I can tell you I have a vibrant spiritual life, and I feel a magnificent creative force inside me which animates every moment of my awareness. I feel a deep connection to all of reality knowing that the particles that make up my being are the stuff of stars. I feel a great reverence knowing the incredible age of the universe, and the unlikeliness of evolution to sentience. I feel wondrous awe at each sunrise knowing that matter and energy can become shaped into patterns that come alive and rejoice. And I feel profound respect for the greatest things of life - humans, who have made beauty and discovered truth and, despite our differences, have created great oceans of love for each other.

Understanding all of that, based on the truth about what is happening, does not detract from spirituality. My spiritual side and my logical brain are both in perfect agreement, because they are both telling me the same thing. That is what appreciating the truth does.

If you don't believe me, ask a buddhist. Buddhism does not even posit a god, or a soul , or an afterlife, or a supernatural. But this reality-based system is giving people spiritual awareness and experience and skill enough to measurably increase their well-being. Studies have shown that Buddhists really are happier than people in other religious categories.

Gloria: Describing faith in God to someone who doesn't believe in it, is like trying to describe the sky to a person who was born blind. It's just not possible.

This is where I very strongly disagree. Comparing people who use reason and observation for understanding reality to the "born blind" is getting it exactly backwards.

Gloria: Why should I abandon the beliefs I like to take up the Atheist cause? I don't want to convince someone that their spiritual beliefs are untrue. I don't really feel that is my calling.

I'm not talking about convincing others, I'm talking about you valuing reason and accepting the conclusions of reason because you understand that they seem to be true. The truth matters, and sometimes it matters more than what you personally like.

Gloria: I'm sorry, I just don't buy the whole idea that people who believe in God are so out of touch with reality that they can't distinguish between fantasy and reality.

There is a lot of evidence suggesting exactly this correlation. The more devoutly religious people are, the less likely they are to accept the conclusions of science, the more likely they are to deny global warming, and the more likely they are to support institutional immorality like war and torture, etc. The countries with the highest levels of social health are the ones with the lowest levels of religiosity.

There is a reason.

Gloria: All I can do is point out that regardless of the lack of evidence for God's existence, that doesn't mean there is no God.

It means that the term "god" is entirely devoid of meaning, and any meaning you choose to assign to it is just you pretending.

The world does not need more people pretending.

Gloria: I don't know how else I can say it. Just as you probably feel there is no other way to express your passion for the truth to me.

Ha! Let me count the ways. I have been writing about this for ten years and I'm still coming up with new ways to express it.

The last thing I would do is shrug and give up and claim you just don't have what it takes to understand.

Gloria: And then you tout Buddhism! But the whole religion [of Buddhism] was created by a man nonetheless. It's just as made up as Christianity the only major difference being there is no gods in Buddhism.

The major difference being that in Buddhism people understand it was created by a human and in Christianity people have to pretend it was invented/revealed by gods. The pretending is the problem.

Gloria: There is no afterlife because they believe in rebirth. Can they prove rebirth actually happens? Can they prove Karma actually exists?

This simply shows that you are not familiar with the actual teachings of the Buddha, but I am glad to explain.

The Buddha did not teach reincarnation. He specifically taught Anatman, or no soul. He said the answer to what happens after death is unknown, unimportant and a distraction from enlightenment.

"Rebirth" was grafted onto his teachings by Hindus as a stand-in for reincarnation, but it is not the same thing. It is a somewhat vague reference to your legacy surviving you through the effects of your actions, not life cycles of an immortal soul.

Likewise, the Buddha did not teach a supernatural version of karma. He taught that effects have causes and how you act is reflected in what happens as a result. Can you prove that is true? Sure, just do something and see the effects.

Gloria: I also don't need a list of teachings from a man to know that you shouldn't harm others, or kill others, or steal from others.

I know, and that is not the point. I am not trying to sell you on Buddhism. I am trying to demonstrate through the example of Buddhism that your contention that spirituality is in conflict with logic is incorrect. They are not incompatible if both are guided by respect for the truth.

Gloria: You don't like my "blind man" analogy? Describing faith in God to someone who doesn't believe in it is not possible. Better?

Nope, still wrong. The feelings you associate with "faith" are experienced by everyone, not just by people who believe in pretend things. Religion has co-opted the feelings all humans experience, the "force inside you" as you put it, and pretended that this is about gods. But that doesn't make it really related to gods or something only godders can experience or understand.

When humans really do have differences in perception - like in color-blindness for example - there is lots of evidence of it and it can be demonstrated. However, there is no evidence and nothing that can be demonstrated to show that religious believers actually experience anything differently from any other human.

So, our disagreement is not because you are trying to describe the sky to blind people who, unlike you, can't experience it themselves. You are speaking to fully sighted humans exactly like yourself who experience the same things you experience.

The error is in attributing "faith in god" as responsible for what you are feeling. Those feelings have many sources and anyone can feel them.

Gloria, thanks again for discussing this topic with me. You are raising important points and I'm glad for a chance to address them.

Gloria: So what is the solution? To get rid of religion entirely ot just the ones with God or gods in them?

The solution is to derive truth from examination of reality and base religion on reality.

Gloria: You claim the word "god" is meaningless, but where do any words get their meanings from? Who decided that love means what it means. Who decided that a cat is a cat.

The concept we call cat (and others call something else) comes from a referent, a furry animal with distinct characteristics which can be described. Love refers to a specific set of emotional reactions with physiological components which inspire specific types of behaviors.

Yes, all words are made up, but some have real referents and some don't. Some words, such as Narnia, unicorn, Zeus and gods do not have any actual referent.

Gloria: It's an assumption to say there is no soul because it is unknown whether there is an after life.

It is an observation that there is no referent to the word "soul."

The point is that is possible to be richly spiritually fulfilled without assigning imaginary referents to words that no have no actual referent.

Gloria: You said that the last thing you would do is shrug and give up and claim I just don't have what it takes to understand you. Well, it's not about understanding. It's about acceptance. I can understand what you are saying and still decide not to accept it as my beliefs.

No, I was talking about about you claiming that non-believers cannot understand something you understand. You are shrugging and giving up and claiming that they just don't have what it takes - faith - to understand.

Gloria: I am speaking specifically to WHAT we have faith in and being able to explain why.

You are talking about NOT being able to explain why.

Gloria: A person who has no faith in God, for whatever reason, is usually unable to understand why a person does have faith in God.

Many people who are atheists used to have faith in God but don't any more. Do you think they used to be able to understand their own reasons but now they can't? This makes no sense.

If you talk to atheists who used to be theists, they can explain that what they thought they understood they later found to be incorrect. It's not that there were valid reasons which can't be explained; it's that the reasons were not actually valid.

Gloria: The difference really is having a belief that something bigger is effecting our lives in some way, which ultimately does affect the way we feel about certain things. It is extremely difficult to express to a person who doesn't believe in having faith in God these beliefs.

Case in point. The obvious reason why this can't be explained is because it's not really happening.

There is zero evidence of anything "bigger" like gods affecting our lives in some way. The evidence suggests that faith believers are simply wrong about this. Studies examining these reported "effects" have discovered they are a misperception, largely the result of natural human cognitive tendencies like agency assignment and confirmation bias.

Believing that effects are happening which don't seem to be happening is one of the biggest disconnects with reality presented by faith belief. It shows a chasm of misunderstanding between what people think is happening and what constitutes actual cause and effect.

I know that making up gods affects the way believers "feel about certain things." That's the problem. Trying to understand reality based on made up ideas which don't correspond to reality is how faith believers end up denying evolution and global warming. It doesn't work.

Gloria: I have enjoyed debating with you, however I've reached the wall.

Yes, I understand. There is absolutely no argument for theism.

Gloria: I can appreciate a person who shows so much passion about their beliefs....

I'm sorry that you have only noticed the "passion" and you can't appreciate the reason, logic and correspondence with reality that make these arguments meaningful.

Gloria: ...but I am just not going to be changing my mind anytime soon.

Yes, I knew that the whole time. But who knows, there may be other people reading this who are not entrenched in dogmatic positions, so it's worth saying anyway.

And, if not today, then perhaps some time in the future you will think about why your beliefs are indefensible. It seems to be because they are not true. And untrue ideas are not a good guide to reality.

Be as irrational as you think you have to be, but society is paying the price.

12-30-14 2:51 • Bible Morally Neutral Continued

This is continued from a previous discussion here.

Hi GingerGale! Thanks so much for responding to my thread. It's great to discuss this with you.

There was an article in Salon recently objecting to the "New Mindfulness Movement." Secular meditation is gaining in popularity, bolstered by scientific studies, highlighted in books like "10% Happier," presented in seminars, etc.

Apparently some Buddhists are not feeling the love. This article suggests that separating mindfulness practice from Buddhism is a problem. They give some reasons for their objections:

1) Mindfulness entrepreneurs are saying that meditation can be practiced secularly, some even going so far as to denigrate the rest of Buddhism, dismissing it as outdated and unnecessary.

2) Extracting mindfulness from Buddhism seems reminiscent of colonialist appropriation, proving the meme that Westerners always think they know what is better for Asians than Asians themselves.

3) Using mindfulness without the safeguards that are built into Buddhism is dangerous.

4) Mindfulness proponents are claiming there is science to back up claims about mindfulness. However these authors feel that a) the science is weak or being overstated, and b) not everything can be reduced to "science".

I do not agree with any of these objections. Here is my reasoning:

1) Mindfulness entrepreneurs do not have a responsibility to "Buddhism." Meditation is not exclusively a Buddhist practice; others have discovered it independently. It is a mental process, which does not require a religion or supernatural components to work. It can be utilized effectively to reduce suffering without the rest of Buddhism. And yes, some of Buddhism is outdated and unnecessary, as you would expect from a system 2,500 years old. I'm not sure why that would be a problem for Buddhists - even Buddhism says that Buddhism is just there to help you until you get over Buddhism. There is no reason this can't apply culturally and institutionally as well as personally.

2) "Colonialism?" Please. This seems like a reach, especially since for the most part the movement is not being directed back at Asians, or at Buddhists, but at Westerners not already doing any kind of Buddhism. In any case, cultural appropriation is natural and unavoidable. Nobody in America complains that Asians "stole" chemotherapy or rap music from the West because they now do those things themselves. People try ideas they see others using, sometimes changing them to suit themselves. There is no reason people should refrain from this.

3) The authors say that meditation can just as easily take one to dark mental places as good ones, and if that happens, "...that 10 percent [increase in happiness] can evaporate in an instant." They seem to be suggesting that Buddhism helps mitigate dark meditation experiences, so without Buddhism there is more risk of bad things happening.

I'm not buying this for two reasons. One, just thinking can take one to dark mental places, as can many other kinds of mental activities, so that is not to be avoided per se, and anyway the whole point of meditation is to learn to deal with such things.

Two, the idea that "all" of Buddhism would be preferable because it contains some way to make this easier or turn out better makes no sense. For one, guidelines that make for successful meditation in Buddhism can also be lifted from Buddhism and utilized secularly. Buddhism is still not required. For two, there is nothing in Buddhism or any religion that will allow you to escape your own head if that is where you need to go, and that is okay. Again, that is the entire point of Mindfulness.

A few minutes with some dark thoughts, learning how to deal with them, and then 10% happier the rest of the time would still be a really good deal. Their suggestion that the emotional gains of meditation would permanently "evaporate" without Buddhism to hold them in place is silly.

4a) The authors talk about "hype phenomenon" and "sounding science-y" to suggest the Mindfulness Movement is outpacing the actual science, which is weak. However there are actually a large number of well-vetted studies showing the gains of meditative practice. This includes well-known gains like lowering blood pressure and relieving stress, but also newer discoveries, backed by MRIs, showing that meditation increases neuroplasticity, or increases activity in the brain areas associated with compassion. So, there is definitely some solid science there and it is suggesting some pretty good things.

Some people may be "hyped" that the science is showing such promise for meditation, and some individuals could be overselling it, but the article presented no actual examples of this happening. They also mentioned fear that over-hype could create a backlash, but showed no examples of this actually happening either.

So at this point it doesn't seem to actually be a problem.

4b) The authors say using science to divorce meditation from Buddhism shows "...a naïve belief in the unassailable authority of science as the sole arbiter of truth, meaning and value."

This potshot at "science" is extremely typical of religious arguments which attempt to show that religion is necessary for human understanding, because "science" - conjure up images of mad men in lab coats and goggles, surrounded by test tubes and rising steam - is not the right tool for understanding "truth, meaning and value."

However I would argue that for anything to have actual truth, meaning or value, then it must be examinable - if not to "science" necessarily, then to the scientific method: observing what is actually the case and what actually works and then accurately describing the observation.

The purpose of striving for truth, meaning and value is to have understanding that guides behavior to positive outcomes. Truth creates understanding by being accurate descriptions of reality. The way you get accurate descriptions is by observing.

Values work the same. We can only figure out what constitutes good values by observing what works and what doesn't in human interactions. If we rely on edicts, we end up with values that cause suffering, like slavery and scapegoating. If we observe what actually works, the moral arc begins to bend toward justice.

What actually is, is the sole arbiter of truth, meaning and value. By showing exactly what is, science gets us a long way in understanding all of them. The rest we only do right when we do it the same way, by reality instead of edict or tradition.

So, arguing that there is some better way - or any other way - to truth, meaning and value is an empty argument. It shows all the more how desperate religions are - even Buddhism - to be relevant in a reality-based world.

Little Texas Gal: Are you trying to bring people down? You say Christianity isn't true, but it's not like you are offering something better. Are you?

Cecilia: I can't believe my stupid mother! I got declined for a credit card yesterday, and it turns out it's because my stupid birth mom, who I never loved, has charged $8000 on my card!

When I confronted her she said, "Families are supposed to help each other. What are you going to do, put me in jail?"

My answer is yes. I am pressing full charges against her. My mom stole my identity and ruined my credit. My husband says once she's in prison, I'll feel guilty about it, but I really don't think so. I cant imagine doing that to my kid.

Marnie: Good for you! I am proud of you for pressing charges - no one should be taken advantage of like that - especially by their own mother!

Ev: That's what I'd do if my mom ever pulled a stunt like that!