Wilco and atheism

[Spawn's dad]

if I were to start a religion it would be around Sir Stewart. Or pussy.

[M. (hristine]

You are so reported.

[Spawn's dad]

You are so fucking retarded.

 

the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable here are kind of hard to follow lately.

[M. (hristine]

pwned!

[Central Scrutinizer]

Every human being is after something, every human being strives for something. Even an atheist/agnostic seeks things that bring pleasure, things that will improve their existence. Some of the most vehemently anti-religious people I know are, ironically, avid sports fans, or avid partiers, or avid music fans etc. The act of watching a sporting event for enjoyment is itself a connection to "god." It is a connection to a power that they are after. It doesn't really matter what the power is called. Some may call it "happiness", or "love", or "God", or "truth." The fact remains that no matter who we are, we are after something, we strive to attain something: a feeling, a state of mind, a possession, etc. And even the most "atheistic" among us knows the feeling when we connect to what it is we are after. A bum strives for a meal and a warm bed, a songwriter strives for that magical mixture of chords and melody, an alcoholic strives for a drink. I don't reject any religious teaching or belief because I realize that organized religion is the way that some people use to connect to their happiness/truth/love/God. We're all in this thing together, we are all after the same thing. Maybe I go to shows, maybe you go to church, maybe someone else goes to a soccer game, someone else makes love, someone else goes for a bike ride. If one calls it God and another calls it something else, it doesn't matter. Its all the same thing.

 

 

 

Well, I'd say that the Bible (or the Koran, the Torah, et al) was one person's (or a group of people's) view of life. Life was, is, and always will be complicated, unexpected and radical. I'd say its certainly not impossible than an enlightened person could create something so resonant to help us deal with this existence. To say that a human is incapable of such things is to greatly underestimate humanity. All that any organized religion does is attempt to quantify existence, which is what we all do on a daily basis. To think that an enlightened few came up with a method of explaining our existence seems pretty reasonable to me.

I understand what fireartoflife was saying, but I think this is very well put. However, as far as the bible is concerned, if you consider that it has 66 "books," others that were "thrown out," that these stories have gone through rewrite after rewrite, editing for personal, political and spiritual reasons, I think it's something that has a history in and of itself; by its very nature is not the work of an enlightened few.

[Central Scrutinizer]

If you think Christianity (and by extension, (or would it be reversion?) the Bible) is complicated, pick up Thomas Pynchon

[Spawn's dad]

But the devine need not be ruled out unless it can be truly proven, which it can't.

 

Ava Devine? I don't think she can be proven.

 

[Good Old Neon]

But the devine need not be ruled out unless it can be truly proven, which it can't.

 

But there is zero evidence for it, so, like invisible dragons, we can say, with a strong amount of certainty, unless empirical evidence to the contrary comes to light, the bible is no more divine than a John Grisham novel. The cosmic teapot TheMaker alluded to could be out there as well, filling cosmic cups with righteous tea, but given that we have zero evidence in support of its existence, the rational, reasonable response is extreme skepticism. Provided we never meet in person, or you never see me in a photo, I could claim to be over 700 feet tall and breakfast on telephone poles, you have no real way of disproving it, but I suspect you wouldn

[Good Old Neon]

And it is the ubiquity and persistence of these stories throughout human history that is so very interesting to me.

 

 

I

[Sir Stewart]

if I were to start a religion it would be around Sir Stewart. Or pussy.

 

That's redundant.

[Spawn's dad]

sigh. There is religion and the religious experience. The religious experience is personal and experential. Anything short of experential may have value as practice and as a moral system, but it is still not quite the same. The books and teachers you rail against are merely the proverbial finger pointing at the moon. Having spent my adult life as a student and teacher of Buddhism I know intimately the difference between the two. I also know that I can not prove my experiences to you in any way that would satisfy you. More importantly, the effort and energy to goes against the very religious experience. You can not see with my eyes, nor do I have an interest in you being able to. If you or the maker were to suddenly agree with me what would I have gained? I can be right? BFD. In what ways does that enrich an insight that is already in the past? My present moment would be one set on trying to convince, not on living from a place of truth or insight. There was a great quote I read years ago....some woman in talking about her family's experience of her becoming a Buddhist said "they hate me when I'm a Buddhist, but love me when I'm a Buddha."

[Sir Stewart]

sigh. There is religion and the religious experience. The religious experience is personal and experential. Anything short of experential may have value as practice and as a moral system, but it is still not quite the same. The books and teachers you rail against are merely the proverbial finger pointing at the moon. Having spent my adult life as a student and teacher of Buddhism I know intimately the difference between the two. I also know that I can not prove my experiences to you in any way that would satisfy you. More importantly, the effort and energy to goes against the very religious experience. You can not see with my eyes, nor do I have an interest in you being able to. If you or the maker were to suddenly agree with me what would I have gained? I can be right? BFD. In what ways does that enrich an insight that is already in the past? My present moment would be one set on trying to convince, not on living from a place of truth or insight. There was a great quote I read years ago....some woman in talking about her family's experience of her becoming a Buddhist said "they hate me when I'm a Buddhist, but love me when I'm a Buddha."

 

This is what I've been trying to say in this thread.

[Central Scrutinizer]

That out-of-body experiences and the presence of the divine can be produced in a lab by tricking or stimulating certain parts of the brain points to an extreme likelihood that these sorts of experiences are chemical or electrical in nature.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...icle2317316.ece

Then why do we have them? You can explain what they are, and that's enough for you. But why? Why are we wired -- literally -- to experience the devine?

[Central Scrutinizer]

sigh. There is religion and the religious experience. The religious experience is personal and experential. Anything short of experential may have value as practice and as a moral system, but it is still not quite the same. The books and teachers you rail against are merely the proverbial finger pointing at the moon. Having spent my adult life as a student and teacher of Buddhism I know intimately the difference between the two. I also know that I can not prove my experiences to you in any way that would satisfy you. More importantly, the effort and energy to goes against the very religious experience. You can not see with my eyes, nor do I have an interest in you being able to. If you or the maker were to suddenly agree with me what would I have gained? I can be right? BFD. In what ways does that enrich an insight that is already in the past? My present moment would be one set on trying to convince, not on living from a place of truth or insight. There was a great quote I read years ago....some woman in talking about her family's experience of her becoming a Buddhist said "they hate me when I'm a Buddhist, but love me when I'm a Buddha."

But don't we, in life, seek validation? Confirmation? That what you see, think, hear, feel, touch, taste resonates outside of your single soul?

[Spawn's dad]

you can do whatever you want. I simply suggest you're honest with yourself about the mind state behind it.

[M. (hristine]

Uh oh.

[Central Scrutinizer]

you can do whatever you want. I simply suggest you're honest with yourself about the mind state behind it.

Understood.

[Spawn's dad]

Uh oh.

 

What?

[EL the Famous]

invisible dragons, cosmic teapot, righteous tea, breakfast on telephone poles, the church of sir stewartism and an apperance from the lovely ava devine. this thread is fantastic, no joke.

 

You

[M. (hristine]

What?

[Good Old Neon]

Then why do we have them? You can explain what they are, and that's enough for you. But why? Why are we wired -- literally -- to experience the devine?

 

Because the brain and the way it interprets the world is imperfect and can often deceive itself? What you call a divine out-of-body experience may just be the result of a few misfiring synapses. We

[EL the Famous]

Because the brain and the way it interprets the world is imperfect and can often deceive itself? What you call a divine out-of-body experience may just be the result of a few misfiring synapses. We

[Central Scrutinizer]

Because the brain and the way it interprets the world is imperfect and can often deceive itself? What you call a divine out-of-body experience may just be the result of a few misfiring synapses. We

[Spawn's dad]

This is what I've been trying to say in this thread.

 

No need to suck up, I already said I'd build a religion around you.

[Good Old Neon]

So your theological mantra is "why ask why?" ?

 

If these synapses have been experienced time immemorial, through natural selection, you're saying they're mistakes and deceptions? The rational lens of science should surely explain these errors then. What is the purpose for them, for if there is no scientific purpose, wouldn't our wiring and chemicals have removed it from our system a long time ago?

 

And why then is the brain imperfect? Again, your science bores into the what. But you're bored by the why?

 

No, I