The end of theism.

[guillaumeb]

I have read posts here talking about the end of theism. Common to many of these posts is that education will slowly erode the foundations of religion. These foundations, of course, are supposed to be a basic ignorance of science and a lack of critical observation ability. The poor theists are mired in their superstitions, often immune to the reason that non-theists often claim to possess in abundance.

The fact that there are many scientists and critical thinkers who are in fact theists is avoided, or explained as a mutation from the norm for theists.

But in all of this talk of the death of religion, talk that has been going on for well over a century, what is ignored is that the vast majority of humans are, in fact, theists. This death of theism is much like the horizon. One can see it as one walks, but one never actually gets any closer. That horizon, like mirages, is never reached.

Theism is a glue, one of the bonds that holds humans together. Like tribalism, or language, it is a social foundation. Humans need belief systems and to assume that a belief system that has accompanied humans out of the trees and into cities will vanish is wishful thinking.

[greymattermom]

1. I think theism is tribalism

and replaces the formal tribes that used to exist. That's why there are so many subgroups.

[guillaumeb]

2. Belief systems are common to human society.

Tribalism, or its modern equivalent of patriotism, is a belief system also.

And theism, a belief in gods, has apparently existed since human society arose.

[Act_of_Reparation]

3. Citation needed.

[guillaumeb]

5. Elaboration needed.

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. The following unqualified assertions require qualification:

Tribalism, or its modern equivalent of patriotism, is a belief system also.

And theism, a belief in gods, has apparently existed since human society arose.

[guillaumeb]

32. Perhaps in another post.

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. Or perhaps not.

[Angry Dragon]

50. You started this OP ....... the responders deserve to see you support YOUR OP

[yallerdawg]

57. Wiki - "Evolutionary origin of religions." Anyone can respond, right?

Many citations from multiple sources:

The emergence of religious behavior by the Neolithic period has been discussed in terms of evolutionary psychology, the origin of language and mythology, cross-cultural comparison of the anthropology of religion, as well as evidence for spirituality or cultic behavior in the Upper Paleolithic, and similarities in great ape behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

[guillaumeb]

63. Yes, anyone can respond.

There was a recent post at DU, I believe in religion, about suggestions of religious rituals among the Neanderthal as well as Homo sapien.

[Act_of_Reparation]

82. Which doesn't really answer the question.

The assertion has been made that theism is a universal human behavior, that it has existed for as long as societies have existed. Evidence of "spirituality or cultic behavior in the Upper Paleolithic, and similarities in great ape behavior" does not support this claim, as "spirituality or cultic behavior" are not the same as belief in god or gods. Neither does this support the claim that these beliefs are universal, cross-cultural behavior.

Atheists exist, so theism is evidently not universal.

And that is part and parcel the problem with evolutionary psychology as a field. It's practitioners observe current behavior, assume it is biological in origin, and construct a completely unfalsifiable evolutionary explanation for its existence. We cannot go back in time and observe the development of human social behavior the way we can observe shifts in the frequency of alleles over time. There's nothing biochemical or molecular to observe and test, and there is no way to exclude sociological explanations for the same behaviors. There's very little hard science involved in the field and many are understandably skeptical of its conclusions, and wary of its potential applications (read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man for a thoroughly depressing examination of biological determinism in practice).

The fact of the matter is we don't know when or how theism first emerged and, given our most ancient ancestors' unfamiliarity with writing, we are unlikely to find out. What we do know is a lot of people believe in deities, but also that those beliefs are largely informed by cultural or familial traditions.

[yallerdawg]

83. "Many citations from multiple sources."

What you glean from the 'headline' as a failure to answer the question is an example of just one thing:

"A closed mind is a bar to any argument."

This is one of the oldest representations in human history, and it is theistic. And we all know it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

89. You're proposing a deterministic explanation for the origins of religion.

If I were a theist, I wouldn't be pulling that thread.

[yallerdawg]

90. A psychological, evolutionary predisposition towards theism...

only indicates the search, not the result.

Including the result of atheism.

The argument remains, the death of 'theism' is greatly exaggerated.

[Act_of_Reparation]

91. Pretty ass-backward reasoning.

Biologically predisposed theism indicates a tendency towards curiosity?

Is it not more sensible to say it is the drive towards curiosity that is innate, and that theism is simply a convenient means of satisfying this drive when information is incomplete?

[trotsky]

92. Not to mention we still have this shifting of the goalposts going on.

What's been posted in this group are articles and statistics indicating that non-belief is becoming more common.

This frightens some believers, enough to make them lie and claim that mean old atheists are celebrating the "end" or the "death" of theism.

I, for one, doubt that theism will ever disappear. Like you say, it's a very convenient means to put a mind at ease when it is unable to pursue its innate desire of finding a reason or a cause for an apparent pattern.

But it's a simple fact that it IS declining, and there are more atheists and non-religious people in the world today than there have been at any known point in human history.

[Act_of_Reparation]

105. To be completely fair to our opponents, it is hard to keep the goalposts in one place...

...when one doesn't know what one is talking about.

[IamFortunesFool]

108. Are you familiar with Julian Jaynes theory of human psychological evolution?

It provides my favorite dismissal of religion and gods by thoughtful reasoning and empirical evidence. His book (his life's work) is called: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

[Act_of_Reparation]

144. Only passingly.

I know he believed the hemispheres of ancient peoples' brains were not acting in unison, and thus they experienced the world in a manner drastically different from us. His work, while important at the time, doesn't have much mainstream acceptance today.

[yallerdawg]

93. "Curiosity."

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

In the wiki link and the sources, I don't see the "evolutionary origin and psychology of religion" as a function of 'curiosity.'

In fact, the benefits of religion and religious belief could be simply a result of 'natural selection' - a trait codified in the gene pool through the success of the trait.

Hence, not a "curiosity" but a "characteristic" of the successful human species.

[Act_of_Reparation]

104. Really.

What gene codes for theism?

Just curious.

[yallerdawg]

110. Brown hair and blue eyes have gene codes.

Can't spirituality as a successful trait not have a prevalent genetic code?

Even non-believers and atheists are rejecting "something" - else, why raise a fuss?

[Act_of_Reparation]

152. See, that's where you're wrong.

The genes don't code for "color". That's not their function. They code for a protein that protects superficial cells from ionizing radiation. It just so happens that protein affects how our skin, hair, and eyes reflect light.

Genes may code for specific personality traits that may dispose a person towards theism, but the idea that your genes would code for theism or atheism specifically is like saying your genes code for PC or Mac.

[yallerdawg]

153. This is like 'debating' gun humpers!

We are speaking of generalities, and they want to get lost in the weeds.

Everyone "knows" genetic code determines traits.

But you want to point out how we perceive color and reflectivity of pigments?

[Act_of_Reparation]

154. I was going to say it is more like debating creationists.

But continue. You obviously know a lot about genetics.

[yallerdawg]

155. 'Climate deniers' use this tactic, too.

'Hillary Haters' do the same thing.

Now, we've explained - and offered sources and documentation backing the explanation.

Instead of acknowledging a fact that has transpired since humans have appeared on earth - theism is part of our inherent nature - you want to belittle and argue genetics?

That's fine. I will never understand why something as meaningless as 'theism' from a non-believer's position is of such critical importance!

I just find it to be another wedge issue, another level of intolerance, another divisive attack with no true purpose or goal other than divide!

[Act_of_Reparation]

157. I assume you're talking about the tactic where they greatly overestimate their expertise?

Because yes, that's certainly happening here.

[sprinkleeninow]

169. What y'all are posting could be applied

to youse guys! 😤

[Act_of_Reparation]

173. Here are some things that *could* also be applied to us:

Sun tan lotion
Petrolium jelly
Minwax
Vick's Vape-o-Rub
Varnish
Peanutbutter
Marshmallow Fluff
Tampons
Shellac
Olive oil
55 gallons of personal lubricant
Scotch tape
Latex-based eggshell finish Tru-Value brand paint
Worcestershire sauce

[sprinkleeninow]

182. In that order? 🙃 You had to include PB and marshmallow fluff, dint ya. 😋

This is turning into The Lounge.

Some levity takes the edge off a tad.

[trotsky]

159. Hmm

I will never understand why something as meaningless as 'theism' from a non-believer's position is of such critical importance!

Would you like to? Instead of just reflexively mocking and insulting those who are trying to explain to you why?

Hint - it might have something to do with things like this:

'You Should Recognize the Sovereignty of God.' - Roy Moore on How the Constitution Is Based on God
http://time.com/4987125/roy-moore-alabama-interview/

Theism, religion, and belief affect us. Usually negatively. That's why we care.

I don't expect any kind of apology or contrition from you - I've given you multiple chances in the past to act like a "real" Christian and own up to the hate and condescension you display - but I just thought I would offer this up.

Feel free to reply with your trademark flippant response, and maybe an insult. You know, like Jesus would do, right?

[yallerdawg]

164. That's what Roy Moore believes.

He has an absolute guaranteed right to believe in the religion of his choice, same as you have the right to 'believe' in nothing.

All I'm suggesting is acknowledging other people's rights - not just your own.

Does that sound like Jesus? Maybe it does!

[trotsky]

165. I'd like to discuss with you how you're still missing the point,

but it's not worth it. You just keep being the kind of Christian you are, showing everyone what Christianity is really all about - laughing at people with concerns about actual politicians preaching religious intolerance, mocking their fears of theocracy and loss of rights, insulting and smearing them, reminding them that it's the rights of people like Moore that we really need to "acknowledge" and accept.

You go right on siding with Roy Moore over non-believers like myself. At least everyone knows where you stand that way.

[sprinkleeninow]

170. Ut-oh.

Cue Kojak: "Who luvs ya, baby?"

I do, I do! 😍

(In all sincerity.)

If I utter what I truly feel about the decrepit *roy*moore*, it would def be a long 'confessional'.

[sprinkleeninow]

194. The tone of this reply seems somewhat different

than your others.

This thread made me dizzy. [Moreso than my normal state.😁]

I'll get back to you in dribs an' drabs.

[trotsky]

156. 'Everyone "knows" genetic code determines traits.'

http://knowgenetics.org/common_misconceptions/

Genes are typically not the only determinants of traits. Although a few traits, such as blood type, are determined strictly by genetics, most traits are influenced both by genes and the environment in which we live. We do not inherit a disease, instead we inherit susceptibility factors that increase risk for a disease. For example, recent studies suggest 50 to 60 percent of alcoholism risk is genetic (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism). This means the other 40 to 50 percent of the risk is environmental. A person may be genetically predisposed to alcoholism due to previous family history. However, certain healthy lifestyle choices, like minimizing alcohol intake, will help prevent that individual from becoming dependent on alcohol. The environment can have the same effect on those predisposed to obesity. Obesity has a genetic component caused by the action of multiple different genes. However studies report dramatically different results on the degree of genetic contribution. If obesity runs in a family, but an individual chooses to make healthy eating choices and exercise regularly, he or she can prevent obesity. Genes do not set in stone what traits we will and will not possess. Ultimately, a person making healthy lifestyle choices and educating themselves on which diseases they are genetically predisposed to can help reduce the risk of certain diseases.

You're way out of your league on this one, buddy.

[Act_of_Reparation]

158. Everyone knows that's just epigeneticist propaganda!

You must be in on the conspiracy.

[trotsky]

161. You got me!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

151. It *may* be theistic. It may be an idealised representation of a mother

which doesn't have to be "theistic". So, no, we don't all "know" it. Your remark about a 'closed mind' is ironic.

[Lordquinton]

166. No we don't "all know it"

We assume it's theistic. Like many ancient things, we don't know the full extent, and the further back we go, the less we know, and the more we assume. And archaeologists get it wrong very often.

[yallerdawg]

167. We're tossing out genetics and psychology, so far.

Let's go ahead and toss out archeology and anthropology while were at it.

Pretty soon there won't be any scientific basis for anything we know.

Then what do we have left?

[Lordquinton]

189. Not tossing out

Correcting where needed. You seem to be starting with a conclusion and attacking anyone who questions your findings. Im surprised you don't know the trouble spots of archeology, it's been primary whitr, Christian males in the profession making the findings. When they didn't know what something was they declared it either religious or a children's toy.

I'd dig up an article, but I just can't be bothered right now, plus you've already had it pretty rough in here.

[yallerdawg]

190. Trust me!

You all are not anymore entrenched in your rigid dogma than the 'Gungeon Folk' and the 'Hillary Haters.'

At least, you're not getting paid.


Right?

[Act_of_Reparation]

191. You nailed it.

We're all getting checks from Big Epigenetics and Big Atheism. You sussed us out. Congratulations. I award you .0255554 Internets.

[trotsky]

49. "theism, a belief in gods, has apparently existed since human society arose"

This is a completely unsupported AND unsupportable claim.

[marylandblue]

59. Three lines of evidence support it

Last edited Tue Oct 17, 2017, 07:41 PM - Edit history (3)

One is ancient writings. We see discussions of gods and rituals in some of the oldest writings in cultures around the world. Two is anthropology. Anthropologists have encountered religious practices in traditional societies everywhere in the world. Do you know of an exception? I don't. Three is archeology. We have apparently religious artifacts and cave paintings from tens of thousands of years ago.

The only thing we can't answer is when and where these practices first began, but based on the evidence we do have, they go back a long time and spread to every place humans went.

[guillaumeb]

62. Well put. eom

[trotsky]

84. Oh I agree with you, but what you're saying is not what g is claiming.

Religious belief is indeed very old and very common. I am in no way disputing that.

But what he is claiming, is absolute knowledge about something that no one can know, namely that religious belief has existed since human society arose. We don't have enough information about the first human society (or even what that was) to make such a conclusion.

[IamFortunesFool]

106. Julian Jaynes theory of human psychological evolution provides a beautifully elegant yet obvious

Solution to the origin of religion as a function of social order as human civilizations became more complex and our language increasingly metaphorical. I highly recommended his book: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

[trotsky]

112. That's a pretty interesting theory.

And a fascinating explanation for schizophrenia.

[IamFortunesFool]

122. Jaynes makes an incredibly compelling case.

He was a gifted writer and intentionally wrote the book to be accessible outside the halls of academia. It has proven to be an indispensable piece of the puzzle for me; tying together and answering so many questions with a wonderfully simple proposition. Occam's razor is sharp...

[trotsky]

127. I should read the book of course, but physiologically our brain structure hasn't changed much...

in several hundred thousand years. Does he argue the changes happened solely due to social conditioning/learning?

[IamFortunesFool]

128. He doesn't argue for any physiological changes.

Think of our brain, the actual physical matter of it, as the hardware of a computer; motherboard, video card, processors, etc... Subjectivity is the current software program that we are running on our biological hardware. Jaynes description of what he calls the "bicameral mind" was the program our species previously utilized before the complexity of metaphorical language created the internal mind space for the subjective experience to arise. While Jaynes does not address it, you can easily extrapolate his theory to postulate an even more ancient "software" program that predated and evolved into bicameralism, and ever onward into our primal past; all progressing through processes of natural selection to eventually begat our modern hyper-subjectivity...driven now ever onward by the abstractions our communications media age.

[pennylane100]

4. As Ironic, and true, your statement is about theism being a glue that bonds,

It is also complicit in the many episodes of genocide that have occurred over the ages. The split in Christianity has caused many wars and millions of deaths over the ages. Islam is also in the same boat. While I am no expert on that particular religion, it seems that the two main groups will never be able to find peace any time soon and they both seem to be against smaller groups.

I grew up as a catholic, educated in a convent school. My mother was a true believer and it broke her heart as her children grew up and left the church. She handled it very well, saying only that it placed a larger burden on her because now she would have to pray even more for the saving of our souls.

While belief can be a great comfort for millions, it is also brings much hatred and suffering to others.

[guillaumeb]

6. True, all belief systems can be, and are, used in service to power. eom

[trotsky]

16. I'm glad you agree that religion is just another human idea,

and not in any way reflective of reality outside a human mind.

Welcome to atheism, g-man!

[guillaumeb]

21. What are you claiming exactly? eom

[trotsky]

24. That religion is just another human idea,

and not reflective of reality outside a human mind. I kinda thought that was clear, but...

[BigmanPigman]

45. I understood and agree.

[Lordquinton]

74. It was Crystal clear

Couldn't have spelled it out simpler.

[mitch96]

15. " saying only that it placed a larger burden on her"

So the problem is you left the church and now she has a greater problem... Sounds like my mother when she was guilt tripping me....
m

[pennylane100]

51. I never felt that she was guilt tripping me.

That was not her style. She was just trying to come to terms with what to her was the unthinkable, her children no longer believed in her god. She was always making using a joking manner to let us know that it was upsetting to her. The same tone she used when she asked us to pick up after ourselves.

[mitch96]

65. "I never felt that she was guilt tripping me."

That's good, guilt tripping a person is not fun...
m

[Cartoonist]

7. It's a slow death

It will take centuries, but the movement is toward enlightenment. Why don't you hop aboard?

Of course, it will never die completely. I'm sure there are people today who think the sun orbits the Earth.

[guillaumeb]

8. Ah yes, the ever-receding horizon of freedom from theism.

I understand that this belief is common, and I have my thoughts as to why some non-theists might believe this.

[Cartoonist]

9. Ever-approaching

You haven't been keeping up. All studies show a decline in religiosity.

[guillaumeb]

10. Scientists also predict that the sun is cooling.

So eventually we will need flashlights when walking during the day.

[Cartoonist]

11. Did you really post that?

Or did your cat?

[guillaumeb]

12. My cat prefers cat videos to politics.

And, for others here, it was intended as humor. The last sentence.

[Igel]

67. Last I heard

it was to increase in brightness for the next billion years or so, then cool. By the time of maximum luminosity, global warming or not, all the seas would have long since evaporated just from increased insolation.

[guillaumeb]

71. Many in my family are quite long lived, but a billion years is probably out of reaach.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Not to worry. As it cools, it'll get closer to us.

Again, not keeping up with the relevant literature, I see.

[trotsky]

14. Yet it is a fact there are fewer theists today than there were 25, 50, 100, or 300 years ago.

I wonder why that is?

And I wonder why it bothers you so much, that you need to post over and over and over about how the majority (in most countries, used to be all - odd, that) of people are theists?

[guillaumeb]

17. There are fewer?

In gross numbers, as a percentage of the population? What exactly are you claiming?

As to why it bothers, it must bother some non-theists that the vast majority of people are, in fact theists. So that fact must bother those making the predictions of the demise of theism.

[trotsky]

18. I don't really care, myself, how many people believe in god.

Most of them were indoctrinated to, from a very young age. Like myself.

You seem to make a huge and wholly unsupported jump from "most people believe X" to "X is true and people who don't believe X are wrong."

In other words, argumentum ad populum. You refuse to look at the details of how "most people believe X" came to be, and simply continue to humiliate yourself.

Please proceed.

[guillaumeb]

20. What are you claiming exactly?

When you wrote:

You seem to make a huge and wholly unsupported jump from "most people believe X" to "X is true and people who don't believe X are wrong."

[trotsky]

23. I am claiming that you are guilty of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I thought that was clear, having stated it multiple times.

[guillaumeb]

30. O know thta you are fond of making the claim,

but we are not discussing right or wrong, correct or incorrect. We are discussing the fact that most people are theists.

[trotsky]

48. Yes, exactly.

I'm glad you are able to confirm you are engaging in the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I feel like we've made some progress today. Just a bit. You should be proud of yourself. But only just a bit.

[sprinkleeninow]

77. Indoctrination. What, like an injection or something?

Forcefully injected?

So, 'most' people were indoctrinated to and then forcefully made to 'eat up' the tradition of a faith that they really wanted to get out/get away from?

What about 'many people' that were introduced/given exposure to a tradition of Faith and they became strongly drawn to that sans coercion or force or guilt? In which manner 'many people' are drawn and choose of their own volition to partake of or embrace.

[trotsky]

85. Yeah, it's a forcefully injected idea.

A child is not able to distinguish fiction from reality as readily as most adults, and religious indoctrination begins even earlier than most schooling. There's a reason it's so successful.

There are indeed some people who are exposed to a religion later and gravitate toward it. But they are the minority.

Let me know if you are still having trouble understanding.

[sprinkleeninow]

147. I haven't 'trouble' understanding as your so 'eloquent' sentence puts it.

I'm being a bit of a wise acre. That's not apparent?

I am one of 'many' who was exposed to a Faith at a young and impressionable age without brainwashing techniques from anyone. I embraced it, and continue in it to this day voluntarily. Decades. Not out of fear from suffering eternal damnation or how corrupted by sinful sin I am.

The One Who woos me is Eternal Beauty and so reveals His Everything as well.

I sometimes picture myself casting my Faith aside, giving up on it, deliberately finding fault with it, denigrating it, abandoning it in totality. That vision becomes immediately foreign to me. Can't and won't do it.

I have no condemnation for any outside. If I have no love for another of His creation, I am a hollow banging instrument of din.

[trotsky]

149. I'm glad you think you weren't indoctrinated and that you freely chose the faith...

that you were raised in and taught since infancy.

That's great. Take care.

[sprinkleeninow]

172. Word. And I yam not wanting to contend.

But, I have a knowing, not a thinking.

My 'thinking' is off the beam a lot and open to adjustment, but my 'knowing' is experiential and unmovable. (?)

[AtheistCrusader]

54. I gave you specifics in post 46. Have fun reading.

[trotsky]

13. Where are the posts that predict "the end of theism"?

Please link to them.

The rest of your post is based upon your favorite fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Thanks for your input!

[guillaumeb]

19. The posts are numerous in the many comments at DU in the Religion Group.

And as you mentioned on another matter where you made claims, use your talent to research the posts.

[trotsky]

22. You made the claim, you need to support it.

If there are "numerous" posts it should be very simple to support your claim.

This is the demand you make of anyone else who makes even the suggestion of having seen something on DU before - why do you insist no one can hold you to the same standard?

Please proceed. Or just continue to humiliate yourself. Either way, it'll be fun.

[MineralMan]

28. Wait. He just said there were 'numerous posts."

What more evidence do you need? I mean, do you expect him to post links to those posts?

Oh, wait...

[guillaumeb]

29. That was nearly thre identical resposne that I amde over your previous claims

of numerous posts attacking non-theists. I asked for proof, and you responded in almost the same words as you just used.

Deja-vu, anyone?

So does your same logic here apply to your previous claim?

[trotsky]

47. I will await proof of your claim.

Until then, it's utter unsupported nonsense.

[guillaumeb]

61. Similar to your own earlier claim?

Good to know.

[trotsky]

87. Ah, so it's true that you hold others to higher standards than you hold yourself.

Let me know when you have those links. Until you present them, your OP is based on fiction and your ranting just that. Unsupported ranting against an imaginary foe.

[guillaumeb]

94. So it is true that you yourself hold to a different standard.

Good to know that I do not have to wait for your missing links to all of the posts you claim exist showing theists attacking atheists.

[trotsky]

100. Nope dude, this is YOUR standard.

The one YOU insisted on.

The difference this time, of course, is that others DID provide posts when you challenged them, AND you based your entire screed of an OP on a falsehood that you still haven't proven.

Keep digging. I'm loving this display of your hypocrisy.

[guillaumeb]

102. So when you refused to provide the links to your previous, unsupported claim,

and stated that it was my obligation to find them, does that mean you are admitting that your earlier claim of theistic intolerance for atheists at DU was unfounded?

Good to know. I like this display of your consistent standards.

[trotsky]

103. I can see you're struggling with this.

I'm sorry.

But everyone is still waiting for your proof that there are "posts here talking about the end of theism."

Are you saying now that no one has any right to hold you to the standard you insisted for others? (Even though they DID provide links for you?)

Please answer Yes or No.

[guillaumeb]

107. Your evasion is transparent, and understandable.

1) You previously made a claim.

2) You refused to provide links.

3) Now, you insist on proof when you failed to provide your own proof.

Amazing display of consistency.

We are all still waiting for you to prove your earlier claim. So after you do, I will provide mine. That simple.

[trotsky]

111. Despite my better judgment, based on ALL your past history...

...let's do this.

Refresh my memory. Link to my claim so I can prove it, and then you will be forced to prove yours.

[guillaumeb]

114. You cannot remember what you posted about theists attacking

non-theists at DU?

Use your skills and research it.

[trotsky]

115. FFS

This has stuck in your craw, but you can't even remember what I claimed or where I did it.

You lose.

Again.

[guillaumeb]

116. I understand your reluctance.

I really do. Perhaps you should pivot back to your default response about victory and humiliation.

[trotsky]

117. Well yeah, you did humiliate yourself once again.

You demand I defend a claim that you can't even show that I made.


So where are we, then? You don't need to back up your claims, but everyone else does? Is that where things stand?

[guillaumeb]

118. Certainly.

It shows that you demand of others what you will not do yourself.
Simply that.

[guillaumeb]

119. Read post #7 in this link. Your own response.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218142514#post7

I can provide more, but it is pointless to continue. But this is one example.

[trotsky]

121. Fucking sweet!

I'm on it!

[guillaumeb]

123. I also provided another link to another post by you

repeating the same claim. And again, a request from other posters in the thread for links or other proof. Which, coincidentally enough, you failed to provide.

It certainly is nice having the ability to research these old posts.

I found other similar posts by you also, by the way, but I will not bother to link to them.

Now all we need is your proof of what you alleged.

[trotsky]

126. Oh and here's another link proving my claim.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218141702#post6

I eagerly await the proof of your claim. Please proceed!

[guillaumeb]

129. I am happy to help you:

If you are referring to this:

No, not specifically when it comes to religion or religious beliefs.

I just think that ostracism may be the only workable solution for some individuals.

Who related demons and demonization to non-believers? Certainly not me.

it helps you not a bit.

[trotsky]

131. LOLOLOL

Oh that's right, you never knew cbayer and her shtick. That's the game she played. "Who, me?!?" was her thing. Read the whole thread to see others calling her out for the exact same thing.

Needless to say, I provided two links to support my claim.

Where are your links?

I'm waiting. The music is still playing.

[guillaumeb]

132. You proved nothing.

You claimed that there were posts wherein theists were attacking atheists. And you were asked numerous times to link to those posts.

You have not.

[trotsky]

135. I responded to your challenge.

I provided links.

When will you do the same?

[guillaumeb]

133. And if you will:

please link to the posts supporting your claim (#7) that atheists have literally been called demons at DU.

[trotsky]

137. Cbayer literally used the word demons.

"Is it possible that some people really are demons and deserve demonization?"

Starboard Tack literally used the word demons.
"I'm always happy to entertain and I enjoy exorcising demons"
"I think we kicked some demonic butt today."

I have fully met your challenge.

Provide your links.

Everyone is watching, and waiting, for you to respond in kind. Or just humiliate yourself again.

What will it be?

[guillaumeb]

139. Carefully reread her reply.

And show me where her question referred to atheists, and show me where she claimed to be a theist.

You missed, again.

I had numerous exchanges with cbayer, who never claimed any belief in a deity that I read. But you have been here much longer, so feel free to enlighten me.

But remember, you claimed that theists literally called atheists demons.

[trotsky]

141. I'm sorry that you are not aware of the context and history.

If you read posts from others in that thread, you will see that MULTIPLE people took it the same way, because they understood the context and history.

But remember, you claimed that theists literally called atheists demons.

FALSE. I did not.

7. This is greatly appreciated.

Especially by many of us who have literally been called "demons" because of our more vocal approach to criticizing religion.

Where did I say that THEISTS did it?

Exposed again. Humiliated again. Don't you get tired of this? I sure don't!

[trotsky]

124. Here you go!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=118200

[guillaumeb]

120. From the same older thread as above,

This one:
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218142514#post7

you repeated your remark in #20.

And you were asked for links, which you refused to provide.

Interesting how easily one can research these things, is it not?

(Imagine the theme from Jeopardy playing now)

[trotsky]

125. And you know why I didn't provide links when asked?

I had that poster (since banned) on ignore, so I never saw his demands. I accept your apology for your false accusation.

Too bad that Jeopardy music didn't have to play very long. I like it.

YOUR TURN! *Cue the music!*

[guillaumeb]

130. A weak deflection.

Examine your response and try to see why I said this.

[trotsky]

134. The only deflection going on now is what you're doing.

I provided links as you demanded.

You promised you would do the same.

Do it.

Or just humiliate yourself more, your choice.

[guillaumeb]

136. You provided nothing showing any posts that support your dual claims

that atheists were literally called demons, nor any posts showing theistic intolerance of atheists at DU.

They are unsupported allegations, nothing more.

Good luck in your search.

[trotsky]

138. So self-humiliation it is.

Duly noted.

No one needs to take any of your claims seriously ever again.

[guillaumeb]

140. Ironic indeed.

Your response that is. Basically, at this point, you have provide no links to support your actual claims.

[trotsky]

142. Feel free to repeat it, if it makes you feel better.

Won't make it true, though.

I've provided links, and I'm perfectly fine letting any readers of this thread judge if they support my claim.

Now it's your turn. Do the same. I made an effort. Be a fucking decent human being and reciprocate.

[sprinkleeninow]

78. Unsupported udders. 😆😘

Hay, weren't you the dude back in the day of Shrub, (that 'selected' guy inflicted with Mad Cowboy Disease), who had residences on the East and West Coast and I remarked that seemed Bi-Coastal?🆒 🍻

[trotsky]

86. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Know any lawyers in Pennsylvania?

[sprinkleeninow]

148. I had tee many martoonis last nite and too much to dream.

Sorry 'bout thinking you and I conversed on DU way back. Circa early 2000's. Whoever it were, it was real.

You posted something was 'utterly unsupported' and the likker made me silly! Didn't mean anything to offend.

I know steelworkers and farmers in PA....

[trotsky]

150. Considering that your profile says you've only been a member of DU since March 2017...

I wonder how we were able to converse about anything back in the early 2000s?

[Act_of_Reparation]

160. Maybe they were time traveling martoonis.

[trotsky]

162. I gotta try me one of those, then. n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

163. I hear they only sell them in PA.

[sprinkleeninow]

174. My steelworker ancestors liked them some 'boilermakers' made with Old Grandad.

A Rolling Rock, a Pabst Blue Ribbon or a Schlitz fit the bill for lighter fare. 😋 Caint hep ourselves! 🤣

I just revealed my chronological. 😮
[Is this a chick inna babushka?🤶]

[sprinkleeninow]

175. "Na z'drovje!" "Mens sana en corpore sano!" "A votre sante!"🍻

[sprinkleeninow]

178. Heh, heh.

[sprinkleeninow]

168. Hello my companion in humanity,

They were a member that went by a username also ending in 'sky'. I lost my head thinkin' it were you. Apologies.

I previously joined up when the 'Clearer of Texas Brush', Dubya II The Incompetent , was disgustingly selected by FLA supremes that resulted in treating us to two terms of his crap.

Imagine if The Albert Gore landed in The Peoples' White House!

I was at ease during my Real and True President Barack Obama's tenure. Eight breezy years. So I took a sabbatical from DU then. Also, my mom had a serious medical emergency and we had to get her up here with us. I don't want to envision if that had happened now with what we got for a sham of an administration.

Was then I had a different screen/user name. Changed it this year bc the previous one reflected that point in time. This current one I made up is a play on 'Spring Cleaning Now' (or Ow!) having great hopes that this past spring the 'infestation' and dirt would be remedied by thorough decontamination. Now it's autumn. I can't keep changing my username! 🤗

Peace.

💖󾓦💪🗽

[trotsky]

171. Pray tell, "stranger," what was your username previously?

Perhaps it will help me recall a possible past conversation.

[sprinkleeninow]

176. That would be a kinda Pandora.

Potential act of self incrimination. 😉

[NeoGreen]

179. Are your legal briefs...

...showing?

Hmmm...

[trotsky]

184. Fascinating.

So by revealing your past name, I guess that means you'd be admitting to circumventing the DU "flagged for review" process?

[sprinkleeninow]

186. You mb reading too much into this.

Using Pandora illustration was me 'thinking needing adjustment'.

Admitting and circumventing? I wasn't 'flagged' for anything then.

I saiddd I got a new username because the one I had back then corresponded to my 'gentler' time, if you will. I could've called admin. and gotten it back. BUT I DIDN'T.

My laundry is calling.

[trotsky]

187. Possibly. Hard to know when your specific choice of words was:

"Potential act of self incrimination."

Seems to be an admission of wrongdoing. I shall be appropriately guarded in my interactions with you. Or perhaps you could just admit what the name is, if you weren't flagged or "tombstoned" as it used to be called. I mean, what is there to hide? I've kept my same username since I signed up in 2002. I'm not ashamed of anything I've written.

You could privately message me your prior username, too. I promise I will not mention it in public.

[sprinkleeninow]

188. I should've added a googly eye silly kooky smilie?

Pandora was a bad dumb choice.

Stuff is posted and sometimes taken not in the manner intended.

First and foremost I am a Democrat. And will do my level best to fight for what's beneficent, decent, proper for and deserving by a multitude of our country's inhabitants. And who just happens to embrace the way of my Faith. I can't undo that. It is what it is.

We're in this together, yes?

[Lordquinton]

75. Proof of this claim?

[DetlefK]

26. Theism started dying 300 years ago. We can wait.

It's not knowledge that's killing theism. It's a mental attitude towards critical thinking.

At the end of the Renaissance came a change in mentality: It was now thinkable to criticize ideas that had been off-limits forever.
This, the ability to criticize and to ponder without prejudice, that was what kicked off the Age of Enlightenment.
That was what caused materialism to replace theism as the leading philosophy of the natural sciences.

Religion can coexist with any knowledge, but it collapses if you allow too much freethinking and criticism.



Nowadays, the fastest-growing religion-segment of the population is the non-religious. Theism is only kept alive by religion and religion is only kept alive as a tradition. Traditions die.

The current conflict, with the christian religious right in the US or with muslim extremists, stems from the simple fact that they feel under attack. They know that something is wrong with this world. They know that they do not have the standing that their religion makes them believe they should have.

The religious extremists have realized that they are losing. And they are lashing out to reclaim power and respect. In fact, the religious right in the US is so desperate that they are willing to ally with Trump, who's actually an awful sinner according to their religious beliefs. They are willing to ally with heretics and sinners. That's how desperate they are. That's how much power religion has lost.

[guillaumeb]

33. An interesting response. Thank you for it.

There are, of course, scientists who are believers, and that modifies your statement about critical thinking. The main conflict, as I see it, is that literalists are locked into a position where every word and punctuation mark are critical. So if one is of that belief, the earth must be approximately 5800 years old. But if literalism diminishes, the conflict between religion and science diminishes also.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Ah, false equivocation. Never seen this rhetorical trick before.

There is ZERO compatibility between religion and science.
There is plenty of compatibility between critically thinking well educated scientists that work in the lab/field/etc and do so with scientific principles and actually pursue science, while being personally religious.

That a person can be religious AND a scientist that leaves religion out of their work, does not speak to your personal (wrong) estimates of the compatibility or conflict between science and religion.

[guillaumeb]

64. Explain your insight to those scientists who are theists.

I am certain that they will thank you for it.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. I listened to them.

How did you imagine I have any such insight into the minds of people who are professionally a scientist, and personally a theist?

[guillaumeb]

72. I have no imagination.

As a theist, I take orders from my superiors.

[DetlefK]

80. Religion and science cannot coexist. They are philosophically radically incompatible.

Religion holds that if your experiment says one thing and the religous teaching says another thing, then the experiment is wrong.
Science holds that if your experiment says one thing and the theory says another thing, then the theory is wrong.



Nevertheless, of course scientists can be believers. A human is a flawed being and capable of mental disconnect: Capable of believing two contradictory things at the same time because they both make him happy. But in its purest form, without this willful insanity of ignoring things you don't want to be true, religion and science cannot coexist.

[guillaumeb]

95. Another revealing response.

Possibly not as you intended, but revealing.

[sprinkleeninow]

79. They're not busting down my doors to form an alliance

with me, who practices, according to them, some heretical Christianity.

[MineralMan]

27. Really? Do you have links?

I've not read any such posts here. The facts are that the number of people who check "None" when asked about religion is growing worldwide. Is theism dying? No. It's not. Some people are discovering that they don't find religion relevant to their lives, but they're still a minority. Another group checks a box for one religion or another, but isn't really active in religious activities. They're a bit harder to get a handle on, since nobody really asks them any questions about how seriously they take religion.

But, where is "all this talk about the death of religion?" I'm not seeing it. On the other hand, a number of small churches have closed their doors here in my city of St. Paul, MN. The Roman Catholic Church is having tons of trouble finding enough people interested in the priesthood, and that's forcing some parishes to merge with others, just so they have someone to officiate at Mass.

But, it's unlikely that theism is dying. It may be shrinking a bit, and that trend may well continue to grow, as it has in many place in Europe for example. But theism isn't dying. It may be aging and growing more and more feeble, but it ain't dead yet.

Still, if you have links to posts here that are talking about this death, I'd like to read them. Please post a few. I'll wait here.

[MineralMan]

31. OK, I'll post a link, and even a chart:

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).

No religious affiliation in America has grown to 19.6%

This large and growing group of Americans is less religious than the public at large on many conventional measures, including frequency of attendance at religious services and the degree of importance they attach to religion in their lives.

That's from 2012, of course. Maybe it has reversed itself?

[guillaumeb]

35. The words unaffiliated and non-believer are not synonymous.

And we know this. What is interesting to me is the fact that in Russia and China, both nominally non-religious, some studies suggest that the number of people professing a belief in the 2 countries is growing.

This might be a reaction to the suppression of religion that occurred when both countries were ruled by atheistic governments.

[MineralMan]

37. I posted links. When you post links to back up your claims,

we can discuss this further. Until then, I have done my part.

[guillaumeb]

38. #36.

Ironically enough, from this very discussion.

As well as your own links discussing the decline of affiliated believers as counter evidence.

In addition

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/121892112

And

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218254777

[MineralMan]

39. My links do not say that theism is dying.

That was your claim. My links say that the number of people with no religious affiliation and, sometimes, with no theistic beliefs, is rising. Decreasing number are not synonymous with dying. Not at all.

As usual, you are trying to deflect from having no evidence of your own for many posts stating that theism is dying. If you could find any such posts, I have no doubt that you would link to them, so I have to suppose that there are none, having no evidence to the contrary. I've not seen such posts, but am willing to go look at any you can find.

[guillaumeb]

40. What I said:

29 was my response to another DU poster.

So I am applying the same standard previously claimed by that poster.

But, posts 7, 9, 14, and 26 are all predicting, or indicating, the very thing that I referenced in my initial post.

Does that suffice?

And I added 2 links in another post to you. Did you read them yet?

[Cartoonist]

70. Theism is dying

There, I said it. No need to reference my other posts. So what's your objection? Do you deny that religion is in decline?

I realize dying and decline are not synonymous, but the former is a figure of speech while the latter is God's own truth. Your denial has nothing to support it.

[guillaumeb]

73. The universe will also die. Entropy wins.

Proving what exactly?

What does a non-theist mean by the term "God's own truth"?

[trotsky]

113. Careful, you're letting him move the goalposts.

His initial claim was that people have posted about the END of theism. Not that it's declining or dying, which even he can't deny. That's why he has attempted to distract everyone from his initial claim, which he is wholly unable to support because IT NEVER HAPPENED.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. The soviets weren't atheistic. They claimed to be, but they were a theocracy that permitted no rival

s.

Not the same thing. One can be 'officially' many things, but if you copy a template step by step verbatim, it's a credibility issue when you claim to be something else.

This of course, happened to a lesser degree in recent China.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Also, I see your own sleight of hand tricks. They wear thin.

the "end of theism" is not incompatible with a large population of 'nothing in particular'.

Theism does not get to claim "nothing in particular" as members.
You ought to know this. I think you DO know this, though you will not admit it.

the·ism
[ˈTHēˌizəm]

NOUN
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Compare with deism.

You tell me where "nothing in particular" fits into that definition.

I don't need society to become Atheist or Agnostic to satisfy the end of Theism(TM).

[MineralMan]

34. Here's another link, and a more recent one.

I like links. When I say something, I like to support it with them. So here's another one for you to read:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/

The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion

You don’t usually think of churches as going out of business, but it happens. In March, driven by parishioner deaths and lack of interest, the U.K. Mennonites held their last collective service.

It might seem easy to predict that plain-dressing Anabaptists—who follow a faith related to the Amish—would become irrelevant in the age of smartphones, but this is part of a larger trend. Around the world, when asked about their feelings on religion, more and more people are responding with a meh.

The religiously unaffiliated, called "nones," are growing significantly. They’re the second largest religious group in North America and most of Europe. In the United States, nones make up almost a quarter of the population. In the past decade, U.S. nones have overtaken Catholics, mainline protestants, and all followers of non-Christian faiths.

Now, mind you, I'm still waiting for your links to all those posts on DU saying that theism is dying. Did you know you can search DU from a little box at the top of every page?

[guillaumeb]

36. #29 was my response to another DU poster.

So I am applying the same standard previously claimed by that poster.

But, posts 7, 9, 14, and 26 are all predicting, or indicating, the very thing that I referenced in my initial post.

Does that suffice?

[MineralMan]

41. Oh, dear. But you can't have read those posts before starting

this thread, can you? You said that you had seen such posts on DU. Past tense. Show me, please. I promise I will visit any links you post that support your statement that people are saying that "theism is dying."

[guillaumeb]

42. More evasion?

I understand. And to posit this is ridiculous:

''Oh, dear. But you can't have read those posts before starting

this thread, can you? You said that you had seen such posts on DU. Past tense. Show me, please. I promise I will visit any links you post that support your statement that people are saying that "theism is dying."

I did not start reading at DU this morning. I have previously read many posters who stated that religious belief is dying. Including responses here. Or there are qualified posts that attempt to conflate unaffiliated with non-religious.

And I gave you 2 links already to older posts. Certainly you cannot have read them both already!!

[MineralMan]

44. You added those links after the fact.

I looked at them. They are to news stories reporting factual information. The poster merely posted the information from those links. They support, in fact, the premise that the number of people who have no religious affiliation and sometimes no beliefs regarding deities is growing.

They are not the words of DUers. They are news stories.

But, still, you added those two links later to your reply. They were not there when I previously read that reply. Interesting.

If you are going to add to previous replies, and then pretend that you included that information when you first posted the reply, we cannot have a reasonable discussion. I do not go back through threads to see if someone has edited a post or reply.

[guillaumeb]

60. My fault for not indicating that the replies were edited.

I generally indicate if an edit was done.

[trotsky]

88. Let's remember that your claim is people posted about "the end of theism."

Not that theism is dying, but specifically about the END of theism.

You still have NO evidence.

Keep spinning, and keep humiliating yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. I have had occasion to tell that user that theism is dying/declining/going away.

It is specifically TO that user, not in general terms, and I keep it specifically to the point because I hate squishy wishy-washy stuff.

I realize the decline of theism is more complex than just 'going away' but as I think Trotsky pointed out in the thread about discussion continuity, some posters aren't actually interested in discussion, hence, I do not dwell on nuance when addressing this topic with guillaumeb.

[guillaumeb]

101. I am impressed with your frequent condescension and sarcasm.

No really, it reveals a lot about you.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. I would have been happy to tell you all about it, if you'd asked.

No need to play guessing games.

Your incessant hand-waving away ALL criticism of or negative coverage of theism, is also noted.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. There you go with weasel words like 'many'.

National academy of sciences members, 8% believe in a personal god. 23% are 'unsure'. That's a complete flip from the general public where atheists are about 6-10% depending, and agnostics/nones clock in from 20-30%.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm


There is a CLEAR link between education/understanding, and a lack of theism.

Polls vary, but

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power…Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.[ii]

Pew Research Center. “Scientists and Belief.” Accessed January 31, 2015. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

NASM is WELL under average for any sort of belief. Generally speaking, members do not believe.
Scientists, are at about half. Which is WELL under average for the general public.

But the prime mover isn't necessarily science/knowledge/education. It's more clearly age.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/12/millennials-increasingly-are-driving-growth-of-nones/

Not a lot of mobility in the older generations between nones/believers, but in MY generation and younger, religion is waning fast.

It's a good time to be alive, and young.

[yallerdawg]

66. Waning.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Indeed it is.

It will take a long time yet, but even those single percentage point shifts represent tens of millions of people.

[elleng]

76. Tribalism indeed.

Sorry, likely always with us.

[guillaumeb]

96. It started when proto-humans walked upright.

We are social creatures, as are our cousins the apes and chimpanzees.

[elleng]

99. Yes, social creatures,

so it's always 'US vs THEM.'

[Bretton Garcia]

81. Are Buddhists theists? No god in Buddhism

And? Many old religions, myths, are based more on spirits than gods. Or stories of strongman. Or tales about nature. Or fetishes.

"Venus figures" for instance, may be a god; or a fetish. Or an early version of the playboy foldout.

[guillaumeb]

97. Ask a Buddhist.

But theism implies a god/goddess, or variations.

[marylandblue]

98. These are modern western distinctions

In ancient times, they had temple prostitutes and all sorts of practices we would consider the antithesis of religion today. There wasn't a sharp distinction among gods, spirits and heros. In the east, you can follow multiple religions at the same time, so many Buddhists engaged in ancestor worship or added gods and heros back into Buddhist practice.

[vlyons]

181. Buddhism is nontheistic

See my message down below

[KY_EnviroGuy]

143. The Big Picture

I doubt if theism will ever die because of our limits of human knowledge that will probably outlive us on planet earth. I believe it was Freud that suggested (in the crude form that I can recall) that ever since our species became self-aware, we began inventing external powers to explain the unknown and to help dispel our fears, including that of death. That made sense to me, although we have no way to prove it (unless we figure out a way to resurrect Lucy and her kin, LOL).

Therefore, since there will always be things beyond human understanding due to our being largely restrained to planet earth and other scientific limitations, people will always be inventing theology - or "morphine for the masses". Religion is nothing more than window dressing a tribe of people attach to a belief in an external power, or god. And, we tend to pile it on thick.

Despite my love and respect for science, there are many things science will most likely never comprehend. For example, even at this "advanced" stage of technology, we still do not know what a magnetic field is, nor do we know what the elementary particles are that we are all made of. Nor do we know what lies beyond our universe, or even the exact size, content and restraints of our own universe. A true scientist will acknowledge these limitations.

So, while during my time of divorcing the religion I was raised on, I found myself experiencing the typical scientist's dilemma: because I cannot say with total certainty that there is no external power or powers existent within or external to our universe, can I really say I'm atheist? My personal answer is no, and I call myself agnostic.

[Mariana]

145. Atheists don't have to say with total certainty

that there is no external power or powers existent within or external to our universe.

Atheists can say, "Maybe there are such things as gods, but I don't believe in them." That's what I say.

I also don't believe in leprechauns, bigfoot, or shape-shifting reptilian aliens disguised as human beings, controlling the governments of the world for their own nefarious ends. Maybe all those things exist, but I don't believe they do.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

146. I agree, Mariana

I think many people interpret atheist as being absolutely in denial of any external powers, while many others take to mean we are in denial of the traditional Christian-style god.

I admit to using either atheist or agnostic, depending on whom I talking to, LOL. It depends on the context of the discussion, and sometimes I may even "bait" a theist with my "agnostic" to to engage them in conversation. The problem is, too many people are repelled from the word atheist, almost to the degree of an allergy, so that makes it difficult to present my case.

Thanks for your reply!

[Orrex]

177. That day can't come soon enough

I have no illusions about the time frame, though.

Theism encourages magical thinking in a way that tribalism and language, in themselves, do not. The sooner we as a culture move away from any sort of "it's true if I believe it" mindset, the better.

Yes, I know that someone will quickly leap to tell me "not all religions," and how belief is every bit as valid as actual evidence, and that's super. We can have those discussions in another thread.

[vlyons]

180. Buddhism is a non-theistic practice

It is not a religion, but a practice. A practice in which you can liberate yourself from suffering by understanding how your mind works. You do not need an imaginary parent in the sky to save you. In fact, no one is coming to save you. The only one who can save you is yourself by training in ethical self control and highly acute awareness. Shakyamuni Buddhi was a mortal man, who achieved liberation from suffering, and we can too. For 2600 years, millions of people have practiced Buddhist mindfullness, contemplation of Buddhist teachings, and meditation that looks directly at the mind. Buddhist teachings have been passed down in various lineages from generation to generation in unbroken lines. Buddhists do not proselytize. If you want to know about Buddhism, you have to ask for teachings.

If someone wants to believe in an imaginary god, that of course is their right. But please stop being so arrogant as to tell us that your beliefs are the only ones that are true and worthwhile. And for fundamentalist Christians, instead of trying to convert me, how about putting Christ back in your own Christianity?

[guillaumeb]

183. Post 98 modifies this somewhat. eom

[vlyons]

185. marylandblue (post 98)

marylandblue is mistaken. There are different types and many lineages within those types of Buddhist practice: Specifically hinayana, mahayana, and vajrayana are successive paths. Vajrayana practitioners know that there are no green women or blue men with 6, 12, or 48 arms etc. Those images are merely symbols of certain characteristics and wisdoms that we ourselves can achieve and manifest in the world. We don't talk about vajrayana with non-Buddhists, because it creates all sorts of misconceptions and confusions, especially for Westerners. Anyone wishing to know more about Buddhist practice should read, visit a meditation center, and ask an authentic teacher for some instruction on how to meditate. It's just that simple.

P.S. It's ok with me if someone wants to believe in god(s). I just don't them trying to convert me. I ain'r interested.

[marylandblue]

192. I think I didn't make myself clear

I do have some knowledge of Buddhism, but clearly not as much as you do. My point was that in the West, we equate religion with theism, and commonly there is a sharp distinction between God and creation. But As you pointed out, Buddhism has images that are symbols, not gods. Nonetheless, they have the trappings of gods, which creates confusion in Western minds. Westerners are also confused about things like animism and shamanism, where there may be various sorts of spirits that may or may not be gods.

This thread, and others like it, suffer from this equation of theism with religion and makes too sharp a boundary between religion and other types of practices. But really, if we have an inborn tendency, it's towards certain forms of religions behavior - rituals, symbolism, story telling etc.

Think of what happens at a graduation ceremony. We put on symbolic robes, a crazy square hat with a tassel, and put the tassel on one side of the hat. Then we go through a ritual, people give graduation speeches (which sound like sermons), we receive a fancy document and move the tassel to the other side. Thus we have graduated and we celebrate. If you didn't come to the graduation ceremony at all, you still would have graduated, but most of us go to the ceremony anyway because we, or our families perhaps, would feel like we missed something.

This has nothing to do with belief, but is, in effect, a religious-type behavior and in my view, comes from the same basic psychological processes as religious ceremonies do. I think this is inborn because we tend to find meaning in such ceremonies, even atheists.

Is that more clear? I hope so.

[guillaumeb]

193. Clear to me also. Thanks to Vlyons for the information.

[vlyons]

195. You're describing tradition

and what a tradition symbolizes. As you pointed out, tradition by itself is empty of any meaning. The meaning of what a tradition symbolizes is in our mental concepts, which essentially are also non-existant. That is, concepts have no mass and can't be weighed on a scale. We just imagine that concepts are solid, real things. take the example of the American flag. We cannot actually disrespect the flag, because it's just a piece of cloth that has no inherent value. We can show through our behavior the respect/disrespent what we feel and project onto the flag. But the flag itself is empty of values. The values that we associate that the flag symbolizes are not in the flag; the values are in our very personal concepts that we project onto the piece of cloth. And not everyone has the same conceptual values about the symbolism. Moreover if the flag really had the concepts that we project onto it, then everyone in he world see the same thing, when looking at the flag. But that's not true, is it? Someone in Iran, or Brazil, of Egypt probably sees something different than an American vet. The same can be said of belief in god. Those beliefs are not in an independent solid, self-existent being, who dwells somewhere outside of time-space and the laws of the universe. Those beliefs about god exist only in our mental concepts that we project onto an imaginary being. Moreover not everyone imagines the same god. Ergo, we imagine different gods: of love, vengence, power, forgiveness, wisdom, wealth, etc.

Buddhism has a lot to say about emptiness versus our mental conceptions that things really exist as independent solid things. Emptiness, or "shunyata," is a basic teaching of Buddhism. It takes a little effort to understand this teaching. But it is one of many reasons that Buddhism in non-theistic. And since concepts about the nature of a deity are merely concepts, then it's not a big leap for a vajrayana practitioner to imagine that he has those same god-like qualities and accomplishments. We can imagine and aspire that one day, we too can achieve the wisdom and insight of the Buddha. But we don't worship Buddha as though he were a god, or pray to Buddha that he make our life all better. No one is coming to save me. Only I can make my life better.

I think we are probably saying the same thing.

[trotsky]

196. "I have read posts here talking about the end of theism."

Ready to prove that claim yet?

I gave you posts that proved what I claimed.

It's your turn.

It's the very least you could do, if you expect to be taken seriously by anyone else.

[guillaumeb]

197. No, you did not.

You linked to things that proved the opposite of what you claimed. And you linked to some humorous remarks and expect me to take your claim seriously.

So yes, you did prove something.

[trotsky]

198. Yes, I did.

I provided proof that what I claimed was true.

You put an extra word into my claim that was untrue.

I proved what I said.

Your turn.

[guillaumeb]

199. Have fun with your game.

[trotsky]

200. I did.

I won. Again.

You still need to prove your claim though. I'm going to keep reminding you until you do.