Death is Not Final

Mr. Mark:"Rajan Zed offers an opinion based upon...nothing."

This is where you are mistaken. Zed is simply explaining what he perceives the Hindu position on life to be. This is FACT. Hindus do believe in reincarnation. On the other hand, as several Hindus after have stated, it is a belief they hold, and are not forcing it down your throat as THE TRUTH.

You would do yourself (and the rest of us atheists) a huge favor by showing some civility in your posts.

For those quantum mechanics enthusiasts that want to wade through some dense but interesting stuff regarding 'the new paradigm' represented by quantum logic, try 'Wholeness and the Implicate
Order' by David Bohm.

Physicists agree that physical reality exists only 'potentially' until an act of observation causes phenomena to manifest or appear (variously, according to the particular constitution of the observer and/or observing mechanism). Bohm postulates that the Implicate Order represents an infinite potentiality - where all manifestations/phenomena remain 'enfolded' until they are brought forth in the 'explicate' order by observation and/or selection.

Buddhism has long said that consciousness or pure awareness at the most fundamental level is responsible for the manifest universe in all it's variety and multiplicity. In this metaphysic, everything in it's entirety is manifest from instant to instant, with no real past or future to be found, other than as a mental construct.

We've all heard there is only 'now' and this appears to be true - otherwise nothing would be possible. In this view nothing has inherent independent existence or self-nature (emptiness) and there can be no 'solid' reality as common-sense indicates. As Nagarjuna says, all is mere appearance and emptiness - that is the fundamental nature of reality. At present, this can only be intuited as true - eventually science will probably find a way to prove it unequivically.

I wonder if the Dalai Lama will share this revelation with our illustrious president???

PBS had a special on called The Elegant Universe...It is still on their website. It is an amazing production and so beautiful. Another wonderful window into Quantum Machanics is "What the Beep do WE Know." And a small movie that gives much to ponder is "Mind Walk."

All Witches need to watch "What the Bleep do We know. You will understand why things work...lol. It's exciting.

Now I have no idea if all this info is the last word in science, I doubt if it is. Science never claims to have the last fact...that is why science "guess-timation" is a Hypothesis and the last best known fact is a Theory.

As a Witch I can attest to some unusual occurances happening when the Consciousness is changed..The definition of Magick," "The art and science of causing change to occur in conformity with will." All this leads to Quantum Machanics.

terra

Thor's Child:

The following are excerpts of an interview with Dr. Amit Goswami, a theoretical physicist who wrote the book, “The Self Aware Universe”.

“How it started happening first was that quantum objects—objects in quantum physics—began to be looked upon as waves of possibility. They are not waves in space and time. They cannot be called waves in space and time at all—they have properties which do not jibe with those of ordinary waves. So they began to be recognized as waves in potential, waves of possibility, and the potential was recognized as transcendent, beyond matter somehow.”

“In quantum physics objects are not seen as definite things, as we are used to seeing them. Newton taught us that objects are definite things, they can be seen all the time, moving in definite trajectories. Quantum physics doesn't depict objects that way at all. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves. So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality? Because, when we see, we only see actual events. That's starting with us. When you see a chair, you see an actual chair, you don't see a possible chair.”

“Now this is called the "quantum measurement paradox." It is a paradox because who are we to do this conversion? Because after all, in the materialist paradigm we don't have any causal efficacy. We are nothing but the brain, which is made up of atoms and elementary particles. So how can a brain which is made up of atoms and elementary particles convert a possibility wave that it itself is? It itself is made up of the possibility waves of atoms and elementary particles, so it cannot convert its own possibility wave into actuality. This is called a paradox. Now in the new view, consciousness is the ground of being. So who converts possibility into actuality? Consciousness does, because consciousness does not obey quantum physics. Consciousness is not made of material. Consciousness is transcendent. The material world of quantum physics is just possibility. It is consciousness, through the conversion of possibility into actuality, that creates what we see manifest. In other words, consciousness creates the manifest world.”

A-Gnostic,

Which recent findings/interpretations of quantum mechanics are you referring to?

The essence of most “religious” teachings is that consciousness is the ground of being instead of material. Of course, with the Popper-esque paradigm dominating most of the current scientific thought, materialistic science views consciousness as merely an epiphenomenon of the material brain and no more. Clearly, this perspective limits the interpretation of phenomena such as near death experiences, out of body experiences, telepathy, etc. With the recent findings in quantum mechanics, however, this purely material paradigm is becoming outdated and lacking in explanatory theories. Consciousness appears to be much more than merely the epiphenomena that materialist scientist claim. To determine if there is an afterlife one must extrapolate and theorise from different findings and theories not merely rely on one type of method of inquiry, I.e. material science.

I think that many enlightened mystics of human history have attempted to teach other people the methods necessary to be enlightened but their teachings have been co-opted by the “followers” who are self interested, egocentric and greedy people. The result of these organizers of religions is a “belief” system instead of a pure “practice” as you see in Zen. Simply “believe in this dogma and you will be rewarded” is the resulting misconception of many religion’s teachings. Jesus Christ seemed to be teaching his followers that they should be one with God and give up their entity of self in each moment. (See Matthew 6:28, Luke 17:21, John 15:13 and John17:21-23) This view seems to be similar to Buddhist thought (except the concept of God which could be interpreted as a personification of ultimate reality). Of course the followers of Christ misinterpreted his teachings in order to fulfill prophecy and to create a self-interested entity of “church”.

Can we integrate the modern theoretical physics and the essence of the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Great Buddha, etc.? If the recent interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, then the integration has begun!

Mr. Mark,

You present a wonderfully mobile target ;)

First: 'presented as objective reality' is exactly what creationists do when they point to the earth and say: "See! Obviously real and obviously created!' You chose to focus on 'objective,' and missed 'presented.' You cannot define away the issue.

Second: "I'm not 'demanding proof'..." What part of 'Got any proof of that?' is not a demand for proof? 'Absence of proof is not proof...' Lovely (and pointless) tautology.

Third: 'it comes down to what you accept as proof' For now, anything you have to offer will be a good starting place. So far, you haven't given us *anything* to justify why we should accept that proof is necessary. Perhaps we should just trust you? It seems like a fundamental tenet of anti-theism, why avoid it? Dive in! Show us!

Paganplace and Terra,

Thank you for your answers, they've generated a bunch of new ideas for me to explore. There is quite a gap between our scientific understanding of the brain (neurons firing in patterns) and the wave nature of the universe as described by string theory or even quantum mechanics. Some have tried to describe consciousness as a continuously collapsing quantum wave front. I'm not sure there is more to that description than merely saying the words 'collapsing wave front' in the context of brain function. Perhaps when that gap is closed a bit, a more scientific connection will be found which corresponds to your idea of connectedness. I'm aware that you do not require such validation, but it would be a nice achievement nonetheless, even if it is just idle speculation at this time.

Well said Gaby! Thanks Mr Mark and others, I enjoyed the discussion we have been having so far.

Although I do not subscribe any to form of religion, I instinctively know that we are part of a whole. As such we can never die, we are being recycled.

As Paganplace so aptly put it: "Spirit is all things. There is no seperation from what is Oneness."

And as Terra said: "Faith is a feeling, an inner knowing that does not translate. I can not take what I feel and know at my altar and prove it to you...nor do I need to."

Everyone has a right to believe as they wish in this country, and, yes, Mr. Mark, atheism is a belief, for beliefs are things that you do not know.

My dear dad who passed away several years ago always said: "Believing is not knowing."

And that statement fits both believers and non-believers.

Dear Thor's Child -

Thanks for the comments.

I would think that a definition of proof that is "presented as objective reality" stands in stark and utter contrast to "proofs" that are "presented as SUBJECTIVE reality." Of course, that does beg the question of whether or not reality itself is subjective, or if it's only our assessment of reality that is subjective.

As far as demanding proof: I'm not "demanding proof" as much as I'm averring that the absence of proof is NOT proof of whatever reality one wishes to assert. I take the position that - to date - the OBJECTIVE proof does not support your position. Will a Deus ex machina "proof" exert itself at some point down the road to "prove" the claims of the religionists? Based on the millenia of silence we've had from "god," probably not. Would you be willing to bet your house on such proof? Didn't think so.

As far as your comment, "Since you clearly think that proof is the only way to truth, prove it." That's a very broad comment. Indeed, many of the great scientific truths were initiated as hypotheses that ran counter to received opinion - ie: beliefs that were held to be truths. One can assert anything with no proof at all (religion), but the road to truth doesn't begin and end there. The road to truth is paved with proof. Again, it comes down to what you accept as proof.

I would posit that you would not accept as valid proof your local waiter asserting that he was qualified to perform the gall bladder surgery you were about to undergo. On the other hand, if you wish to apply religion's *subjective* standard of proof to your upcoming surgery, then maybe you'd believe that your waiter was the man for the job because the cross he was sporting on his necklace "proved" to you that he had the goods to perform your gall bladder surgery. Or, perhaps his dad is revered in the community and his family has a reputation for "being honest." Others might wish to see more objective proof of his skills as a surgeon before going under the knife.

I've learned that I don't tend to trust people whose only proof offered to gain said trust are the words, "trust me." That's religion's argument for faith in a nutshell - trust me. If it works for you, then good luck with that. You'll excuse me if I chose to be a bit more circumspect in these matters.

Mr. Mark,
All you have done is begged the question. There is no requirement in your dictionary definitions that truth be proven. In fact, a couple of your definitions lend themselves quite nicely to truth being subjective: 'accepted as true' and 'presented as objective reality' are both definitions easily met by faith of any stripe.

It is interesting that when confronted by the same question, the same answers are forthcoming (paraphrased, of course):

Q: Can you prove a)your faith in the supernatural or b) the need for proof.
a) Dave: Matters of faith are not provable by definition.
b) Mr. Mark: I don't have to prove it by definition.

Dave's argument I concur with, since he is not asking for proof from anyone else. Mr. Mark's on the other hand is subject to a different standard. Since he's demanding proof from others (in an irritating way) on the fundamentals of their arguments, he should be subject to his own standard for his argument.

So, Mr. Mark, the ball is still in your court. Since you clearly think that proof is the only way to truth, prove it.

Gandalf -

As far as dictionary definitions of atheism, I prefer that given in Merriam-Websters:

"a disbelief in the existence of deity"

As we atheists are already defined by society by what we are NOT, rather than by what we ARE, at least allow me to choose my own dictionary definition of how I wished to be so defined.

Thanks! :)

Dear Gandalf -

Let me see if I've understood what you just wrote. You're saying that non-belief is a belief? Do I have that right?

Another thing Mr Mark:

here is what the Oxford American dictionary says:

a•the•ism (noun) The theory or belief that God does not exist

Another thing Mr Mark:

here is what the dictionary says:

a•the•ism (noun) The theory or belief that God does not exist

You say: "You make the mistake of believing that all beliefs are equal....I can offer PROOF for what I believe about this world based on those things that science has revealed and proven as fact"

And Mr Mark, that I can too and in great details after spending most of my life in science. But that is not what we are arguing about, are we now? We are really talking about faith. And of course, you are a perfect example of "holier than thou" attitude, Mr Mark! "Just because I do not believe, others believeing in it is stupid, childish and immature."

Moreover, you can argue about atheism not being a belief and your analogy of stamp collecting. But it does not work here, it is flawed logic. Using this analogy as comparison indicates that you assume your view to be the only correct view and hence think of yourself as superior and smarter which is pretty condescending and again just a belief (that you are smarter!!).

Just because YOU do not have evidence for X does not mean X does not exist. Now if YOU believe X does not exist, it is still ONLY A BELIEF. You could "sugar-coat" it by saying it is not a belief, it is non-belief!!! It is common for atheists like you to use this argument to say a non-belief is not a belief (and your analogy goes along the same lines). It is just a weak attempt at trying to distance yourselves from "the others"!

Dear Gandalf -

Of course we all have beliefs. You make the mistake of believing that all beliefs are equal.

I would say that my beliefs comport with the dictionary definition that says, "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence." The important phrase in that definition is "examination of evidence." The important word in that definition is "evidence." I can offer PROOF for what I believe about this world based on those things that science has revealed and proven as fact. I can't prove "everything" in this world because much remains to be explained.

Your beliefs are based on faith, which means that you tend to believe things in the absence of - and sometimes, in defiance of - evidence.

The difference between a realist's view of the world and the religionist's is that the realist can provide SOME level of proof for their beliefs while the religionist can provide NO level of proof for their beliefs. That's quite a difference when you think about it.

Here's a test for you: the next time you're ill, whose "proof" are you going to trust to get well? The realistic proofs of science and medicine, or your proof in some supernatural being to get you well? When push comes to shove, what do you REALLY believe?

And, you make the usual theist mistake of saying that atheism is a belief. Right, as if your not being a stamp collector makes you a "believer" in not collecting stamps.

You are correct in saying that there's no use arguing with someone like me, not as long as you defend ideas and concepts along the lines of believing the Earth is flat and that unicorns existed, both "truths" of the Bible, BTW. It's especially useless if you can't even understand simple concepts - like atheism not being a belief.

As far as having an "open mind": is your mind open to the idea of succubi and unicorns? If not, how can you accuse me of having a closed mind?

As far as "growing wiser" - there is no "wiseness" in religion. Religion is, in fact, the enemy of "wiseness." History proves it as do the words of religion and the religionists. Is my saying so being arrogant, or just stating the obvious?

Terra: I would not waste my breath arguing with the likes of Mr Mark. His arrogance makes him no different from the crazy fundamentalists (be they islamic or evangelical) and his unwillingness to have an open mind. It is funny (AND ironic) how someone with an atheistic "belief" would criticize the "believers" and say believing is stupid! Grow wiser, Mr Mark, your is just another belief and you cannot prove your belief to be right in any way!

Mr. Mark,

Words are only sounds without the meaning of those words. Would you say that Chinese does not exist because you do not understand it? That China does not exist because you have never seen it?

Not believeing can be as blind as believing the unseen. First off you take a lot for graqnted that you know what we believe, or if our beliefs translates to what you think they are.

You seem to think that our beliefs coincides with the Christian belief, only with more gods. Or that the fairy tales or tales of the inquisition are correct. Have you bothered to get the real story and to put aside your bigotry long enough to learn the truth?

But never the less, children are often not as blinded by loseing pure sight. We grow old and are blinded by what society tells us is real and what is not...we learn to not trust our vision.

terra

Terra writes:

"And as far as words go..Pagans tend to have words that create confusion to the Cowans. Akasha is understood by us that you as a cowan would not ken. So to talk about the Four Cornerstones would only make you scratch your head."

Yes, the same confusion I felt when my daughter tried to explain her invisible friend, Jerri, to me when she was 6 years old. There was a whole backstory to Jerri that I had no idea about until my daughter told me.

The imagination is a wonderful thing...most of the time.

Mr. Mark,
You would be right if I was trying to convert anyone to my view, I'm not.

I was trying to explain MY view. What I know is only important to me, I really do not care how you believe as long as you show me the respect any human deserves.

Many years ago I got into an online tiff with a youngster...he made a statement that I had to earn his respect to start off...I said that I will respect him until he proves he has not earned it.

I will respect the right you have to your view...even your view of my faith. Because it is my faith...and so not provable to be The One and Only Way...even if to me it has proven to be My One and Only Way.

And as far as words go..Pagans tend to have words that create confusion to the Cowans. Akasha is understood by us that you as a cowan would not ken. So to talk about the Four Cornerstones would only make you scratch your head...

Io EVOHE
terra

Mr. Mark,
You would be right if I was trying to convert anyone to my view, I'm not.

I was trying to explain MY view. What I know is only important to me, I really do not care how you believe as long as you show me the respect any human deserves.

Many years ago I got into an online tiff with a youngster...he made a statement that I had to earn his respect to start off...I said that I will respect him until he proves he has not earned it.

I will respect the right you have to your view...even your view of my faith. Because it is my faith...and so not provable to be The One and Only Way...even if to me it has proven to be My One and Only Way.

And as far as words go..Pagans tend to have words that create confusion to the Cowans. Akasha is understood by us that you as a cowan would not ken. So to talk about the Four Cornerstones would only make you scratch your head...

Io EVOHE
terra

Terra -

You make valid points about religion being what it is. I would disagree with you and say that, "Faith is a feeling, an inner BELIEF that does not translate." You can't "know" about these things. You can only believe.

It's an important distinction that must be made if words like "evidence," "facts" and "opinion" are to have any meaning at all. Indeed, if you wish to have any chance to translate these feelings to non-believers, then you must approach such translation with a respect for language and what words mean. Otherwise, black is white, up is down and we've just entered a relativist nightmare.

Mr. Mark,
If there were truths proven about any religion, it would be called science and not faith.

Faith is a feeling, an inner knowing that does not translate. I can not take what I feel and know at my altar and prove it to you...nor do I need to.

You need to be able to prove that you are correct, that my faith is less then your logic.You are the one stateing we are fools.So it is up to you to prove your statement.

I got interested in quantum machanics and String theory (M-Theory), "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio..."

terra

Thor's Child,
What PaganPlace said is correct.

Spirit is all things. There is no seperation from what is Oneness. Pagans have a different concept of the Creator.

People think of the Abrahamic idea of God and religion...One God seperate from Creation.That if you did something wrong that God would turn away from you. As a Wiccan I can not understand that concept...all things are part of what created us..how can what is a part of us, turn away? It would be like our breath turning away from us.

We are all part of the Creation, made by the same life force...we call it by many names, but what's in a name?

We think more in poetry then scripture, what is more blessed then thou shalt not.

terra

Dave, I agree completely. Thank you.

I like Nivedita's comment. One of the basic tenants of Hinduism is not to shove anything down anyone's throat. I would only add that there is a Hindu sect that includes atheistic beliefs. According to this paradigm, the existence of God is not necessary to have a moral compass or to add meaning to life. Atheists coexist peacefully with believers in India. In fact, my best friend (and his family for that matter) are confirmed atheists from Mumbai.

So Mark is welcome to his views and there is no need to gang up on him.

When it comes to matters of faith, mathematical or logical proofs are almost impossible to come by. In fact, such expectations are also illogical.

Also please note that Buddhism is NOT a theistic religion.

I like Nivedita's comment. One of the basic tenants of Hinduism is not to shove anything down anyone's throat. I would only add that there is a Hindu sect that includes atheistic beliefs. According to this paradigm, the existence of God is not necessary to have a moral compass or to add meaning to life. Atheists coexist peacefully with believers in India. In fact, my best friend (and his family for that matter) are confirmed atheists from Mumbai.

So Mark is welcome to his views and there is no need to gang up on him.

When it comes to matters of faith, mathematical or logical proofs are almost impossible to come by. In fact, such expectations are also illogical.

Also please note that Buddhism is NOT a theistic religion.

I like Nivedita's comment. One of the basic tenants of Hinduism is not to shove anything down anyone's throat. I would only add that there is a Hindu sect that includes atheistic beliefs. According to this paradigm, the existence of God is not necessary to have a moral compass or to add meaning to life. Atheists coexists peacefully with believers in India. In fact, my best friend (and his family for that matter) are confirmed atheists from Mumbai.

So Mark is welcome to his views and there is no need to gang up on him.

When it comes to matters of faith, mathematical or logical proofs are almost impossible to come by. In fact, such expectations are also illogical.

Also please note that Buddhism is NOT a theistic religion.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental tenents and rituals irrational, archaic and more importantly when it comes to matters of humanity’s long-term survival, mutually incompatible. There are names for people who have beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad,’ ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’ ‘’ To cite but one example: ‘’Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?’’ The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.’’

Criticizing a person’s faith is currently taboo in every corner of our culture. On this subject, liberals and conservatives have reached a rare consensus: religious beliefs are simply beyond the scope of rational discourse. Criticizing a person’s ideas about God and the afterlife is thought to be impolitic in a way that criticizing his ideas about physics or history is not.’’

A zippered-lip policy would be fine, a pleasant display of the neighborly tolerance that we consider part of an advanced democracy, if not for the mortal perils inherent in strong religious faith. The terrorists who flew jet planes into the World Trade Center believed in the holiness of their cause. The Christian apocalypticists who are willing to risk a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East for the sake of expediting the second coming of Christ believe in the holiness of their cause. Such fundamentalists are not misinterpreting their religious texts or ideals. They are not defaming or distorting their faith. To the contrary, they are taking their religion seriously, attending to the holy texts on which their faith is built. Unhappily for international community, the Good Books that undergird the world’s major religions are extraordinary anthologies of violence and vengeance, celestial decrees that infidels must die.

In the 21st century when swords have been beaten into megaton bombs, the persistence of ancient, blood-washed theisms that emphasize their singular righteousness and their superiority over competing faiths poses a genuine threat to the future of humanity, if not the biosphere: ‘’We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation,’’ he writes, ‘’because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.’’

I have a particular ire for religious moderates, those who ‘’have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths’’ and who ‘’imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others.’’ Religious moderates are the ones who thwart all efforts to criticize religious literalism. By preaching tolerance, they become intolerant of any rational discussion of religion and ‘’betray faith and reason equally.’’

The human need for a mystical dimension to life like mysticism and other forms of knowledge, can be approached rationally and explored with the tools of modern neuroscience, without recourse to superstition and credulity.

At this time Islam is the reigning threat to humankind. Much like a gruesome, Inquisition-style Christianity of the 13th century only leads us to believe not all cultures are at the same stage of moral development,’’ I couldn’t help but think of Ann Coulter’s morally developed suggestion that we invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert their citizens to Christianity.

I will say this of Faith: it has been the foundation of every religion, every cult, every sect, every religious terrorist organization that desired to gain advocates whose will greatly exceeded their intelligence. When a religion asks that its followers believe all that it declares, and to do so without evidence, it speaks volumes of the intent and meaning of that religion. These churches, temples and mosques, they will keep their followers in the shadows of millennium past. Evolution is still howled as the great enemy of faith. It simply has the greatest following of scientists and evidence. It's not scientifically that any religion has ever tried to debunk Evolution. They brought forth no evidence. They claimed no new discoveries. Their only tactic was to point to tattered and very old scriptues -- to flip through the pages, and read the rancid words, almost as if they were pure gold. Faith does not require investigation, or evidence, or demonstration, or observation, or logical deductions. It simply requires that a person believe, in spite of what evidence may say: it requires that a person blindfolds themselves when demonstration is shown, to use earplugs when anyone speaks of logic, and to turn away at every reason for them to believe what Faith tells them is wrong. Those cults and sects which have utilized violence for the realization of their apocalyptic future -- they required nothing but the willpower and a great deal of Faith.

Nivedita-that's as good a description of a Hindu concept as ever I've seen, and so concise as well!

MR. MARK

Ah so! In full swing alone, and sometimes in tandem with E Favorite taking on theists I see:)

You : "And I thought Nietzsche was difficult reading."

And I thought Voltaire is a brand of hair-dryers.

I can't spell Neetchee much less read the ponderous tomes by this German grandaddy of Aryan supremacy as understood (or misunderstood) by the swastika armband wearing blonde and blue-eyed types.

As you are going to hell as some believers are said by you to desire so, how would like to be roasted - Rare, medium rare or well-done?

Excuse me while I try to make pseudo-sense of strident anti-theist fellows to someone here. Meaning, I'm going to libel and slander you a bit and then claim freedom of speech for it:)

TERRA GAZELLE:

Merry Meet.

About Mr. Mark, let us borrow some terms applied to NGOs - Advocacy NGOs, and Operational NGOs.

Advocacy athiests - Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, Dawkins

Abvocacy types yells a lot, very noisily and dramatically in front of CNN and BBC for Truth! Rights! Justice! Equality! Fraternity! Plight of the gay black, blind atheists!

But alas, they yell a lot about "Your beliefs are dumb! I'm not gonna respect it! I'm going to thrash it? Why not? Nothing is sacred?"

Wasted energy, talent and time there.

Operational atheists - Berlinerblau, Jacoby et al in at least trying to point to atheists the issues and to guide them on ways to get their say in the wider society populated by the terrifying believers.

Effective operational types collect funds, members, network with one another and others, and devise strategy to get whatever they want.

Mr. Mark, our friend, has proudly and loudly announced himself as an anti-theist. This really means he is an advocacy atheist, a "streetfighter" too, that is against and will fight theists in the On Faith threads, in the beaches, in the fields, in the offices, in the schools, in the streets, in the shops, house to house, from the boathouse to outhouse.

Without Mr. Mark in On Faith, it won't be the same don't you think? I getting to be quite fond of him regardless of what that anti-theist thinks of me as a believer.

Best regards as ever

J

Hi, Thorrson. :)

I don't think Terra will mind me answering this:

"I do appreciate the tolerance and patience exhibited by every Wiccan and Pagan I've read on these boards. You describe yourself as a spiritual being living in a material plane. Am I correct in my understanding that you see spirit and body as separate? Or is there a better description of your views that differs from classic mind/body dualism?"

I would actually characterize us as believing in general that in spirit and body are *one* in very profound ways, compared to other points of view.

We commonly believe that every atom in the universe is alive with spirit in profound ways on many scales... when people speak of 'life after death,' they usually speak of the survival of the *personality* that has grown in a given incarnation. ...when you're alive, your soul is fully part of this life, when you die, mortal parts die and the rest is reborn...

...and it's really all part of the same thing.

Some will say that the soul retains all memory and total recall between lives, some will say we get a clean slate out of the Cauldron/River Styx/etc and some karma...

A commonly-perceived Asatru conception of the 'afterlife' actually seems more of a soul/body split to us than some others: the idea you get one life, which determines where you dwell for a very long time until the whole world's reborn...

Neopagan thought often really tends to be about trying to embrace life on the Wheel through many returns, ...not being about trying to escape a life of suffering, 'The Wheel,' but, by embracing it, figuring we'll know darn well when it's time to be somewhere else.

And you can go a lot of places along the way, but there's no real division between this life and the next, this place and another, save what perceptions we bring. Actually much-informed by the 'dharmic traditions,' but maybe more process-oriented than 'goal-oriented.'

I mean, it's an appealing idea, sometimes, but we don't have this idea the 'soul' will attain some place to be in some kind of eternal stasis... it's kind of about embracing change and progress, and even that *soul and spirit is in fact in and part of everything.*

Maybe we can have or want as much permanence as we can want, as long as we want it.

Is there a way a soul can live with that?

I'd guess, if so, there's no hurry getting there. :)

"But, it also takes away in my humble view, the sense of urgency that a finite life offers to shape one's life or contribute to the world in a meaningful and desirable way. Does it not?"

Who taught you it *had* to?

Its like we're all computers
and our religious beliefs are programed into us
throughout our childhoods.
What we end up believing has nothing to do with truth,
and everything to do with the program.
And different religion, different program.
If I had been born and raised in a Muslim country,
today I'd praying 5 times a day facing Mecca:
and would consider Christians to be infidels.
Had I been raised a Hindu,today I might be
burning incense and praying to Vishnu. Had I been
raised in Utah by Mormons,I'd now be a Mormon.
in Ireland,probably a devout catholic.
We all believe what we were raised to believe;
and what our community believes.
Why don't we get it?
Religions are just passed-on customs and beliefs
from ancient times that cannot all claim to be true.
The likelyhood is none of it is true.
If it wasn't programed into our heads as kids,
we'd never believe it as intelligent adults,
hearing about God,or Allah,or Vishnu,for the first time.
It would sound perfectly ridiculous.

Bertrand Russell.

"All the evidence goes to show that what we regard as our mental life is
bound up with brain structure and organized bodily energy. Therefore it is
rational to suppose that mental life ceases when bodily life ceases. The
argument is only one of probability,but it is as strong as those upon which
most scientific conclusions are based".

Bertrand Russell."Why I Am Not A Christian",pp51

THOR'S CHILD writes:
Mr. Mark,

"How about backing up your own belief that truth must be proven? Any proof of that?"

Truth:
(1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality; a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true c: the body of true statements and propositions
3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

Fact:
1: a thing done
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality
4 a: something that has actual existence b: an actual occurrence
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Source: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

Q: do you consider the dictionary to be a bludgeon? ;)

Mr. Mark,

How about backing up your own belief that truth must be proven? Any proof of that?

I'd prefer you used no bludgeon, if at all possible.

I don't know about Mr. Mark and the rest of you, but in MY living room on MY altar table I have Buddha, (more than one!) AND Ganesh and Parvati-I like to have all my bases covered!

Ganesh is my favorite Hindu god-he has the body of a human, and the head of an elephant. I will go to India in a couple of months to pay my respects by giving him an offering-he is the god of good fortune, and most of us can use all we can get of that, from whatever source possible!

Dear Thor & Gandalf -

Rajan Zed offers an opinion based upon...nothing. "Death is not final"? Your proof, please. "Life drifts on to achieve its triumph of the universal"? As opposed to paddling like there's no tomorrow? "Physical death is not final"? Again, your proof for that would be...???

And I thought Nietzsche was difficult reading.

I thought that Mr Zed's bromides got the respect from me that they deserved. They hold no more nor no less "truth" than any other religious musings. Why hold back in my analysis of the same? Why give an opening to the Christianistas to say that I typically use a bludgeon on their beliefs but keep my powder dry when the woo-woo "mysticism" of Hindu belief is the subject at hand.

So, I'm an equal-opportunity skeptic. Big deal.

What Rajan Zed illustrated is the Hindu way of explaining the concept of life after death. It may or may not be true, its one explanation and finally its just a comment. No one is forced to believe in the theory and Hindus don't really care if atheists or anyone else for that matter think its just fanciful thinking. We're not forcing it down anyone's throat saying its the absolute truth. So, in essence live and let live. If some people choose to believe in it, its their choice and if others don't, its their choice / opinion. There's nothing right or wrong about it, its just another viewpoint. Period.

Mr Mark...you know what your rants sound like? Eeriely similar to the crazy islamic fundamentalists. And remember, your "belief" is only a belief too, you cannot prove you are right any more than the other group. So drop the holier than thou attitude.

MR. MARK,

1. So your initial post was a thoughtful interjection of reason into a discussion regarding the Hindu view of the afterlife? It reads more like you wanted to hop in merely to show disrespect to all those who would read this thread, reinforcing the negative stereotype of Atheists. We do not need that kind of publicity.

2. If you disagree with my premise, then you accept that Truth can be illogical, and your demand for proof falls to the ground, making your initial post even less sensible.

I'm disappointed in Zed's article. Like Mr Mark asks "where's the proof?"
What does the article add to the discussion? Doesn't seem to add much than re-hashed, restated beliefs. Hmm... Maybe that's actually the easter bunny riding that unicorn. :)

Dear Thor's Child -

1. I do show respect to people, but not their crazy ideas. If Terra wanted to argue that bush's Iraq War was totally necessary and justified would I need to show respect for the argument? How many respectful paragraphs would I need to write before positing a counter argument?

2. I disagree with the premise of your second statement, so I can't provide a response beyond the disagreement. But nice try at framing the question.

BTW - I will accept that I am a "strident" atheist the day that I post anything on this blog that equals the stridency of saying "you're going to hell to burn for eternity," a stridency that fairly seethes from many of the posts deposited here by the meek-and-mild of all faiths.

Mr. Mark,

a) You need not have respect for beliefs you disagree with. However it would be more helpful to the Atheist cause if you showed respect for the people trying to carry on with the discussion at hand.

b) Your first post here indicates that you agree with this statement: If it is not logical, then it is not true. Before you go demanding proof from everyone else, perhaps you should set out to prove the truth of that underlying assertion or its (logically equivalent) contrapositive: All truth is logical.

Dear Terra -

I respect your right to believe whatever you want. That's part of my being an American.

However, that respect doesn't extend to the imagined "truth" of those beliefs. If you want to believe in Santa, fine. That doesn't mean that I must also believe in Santa. The same holds true for any god you wish to believe in.

You say that no one is forcing me to believe anything, yet you seem to require that I treat ridiculous, unfounded beliefs - fantasies, in fact - with the same respect that I would proven fact. Why? Because some book written by a bunch of Bronze-Aged nomads says so? No thanks.

If that's strident, fine. I can live with that.

Terra Gazelle,
While I agree completely that some Atheists, and especially anti-theists can be difficult like Mr. Mark, do try and remember that the objectionable ones no more represent all of us than Canyon represents all of Christianity.

I do appreciate the tolerance and patience exhibited by every Wiccan and Pagan I've read on these boards. You describe yourself as a spiritual being living in a material plane. Am I correct in my understanding that you see spirit and body as separate? Or is there a better description of your views that differs from classic mind/body dualism?

I would also pose the same question to Hindus on the list.

Well, all I can say is when I die let me rest in piece. I have no desire to be reborn as myself or someone else.

I don't really care if there is an afterlife or not. Any which way is fine, but resurrection? No way, Jose! Been there done that once, don't want to do it again.

Mr. Mark,
I do not believe anyone is forceing you to believe anything...if you expect to be treated with respect, you need to practice it also.

I used to think that atheists were the easiest to talk to, they would not treat others as morons, but be open minded. Well Atheists are becoming as close minded as any Fundi. It was once possible to be able to have decent conversations with Atheists on philosophical grounds..it was fun and interesting. But now? Your are too strident and that is as much a turn off as it is when Shearer does it.

terra

Yibbidy yabbidy gobbledygook. Got any proof for those statements? didn't think so.

Gotta go...there's a leprechaun riding a unicorn in my yard.

Differing from the Hindu belief, Wiccans do not want off the wheel of life. I want to return again and again...to learn all I can. How can anyone want to put this beautiful earth behind them? I am a spiritual being learning how to live on a material plane.
I hope that in time I will join the godhood...but please not for the next 100's of lives.

And no the idea of reincarnation does not promote the status quo. The early Christians believed in it...the jews believed it. Didn't John the Baptist ask Jesus if he was Isaiah returned? And what is the return of the dead if not reincarnation? Isn't Christianity based on the belief of the return of Jesus...after all he rose from his tomb, then went to his father, and you expect him to come again.
Then you say the belief of Rajan Zed is the cause of stagnation and the status quo?

I haven't seen the Intelligent Design Museum...but I know people that have. They do not harken to the status quo, they go backwards.

terra

Basically you can just spout whatever nonsense you like. Really insightful. Really.

The concept of rebirth is indeed a less morbid thought than vanishing into nothingness through death.

But, it also takes away in my humble view, the sense of urgency that a finite life offers to shape one's life or contribute to the world in a meaningful and desirable way. Does it not?

Is the concept of reincarnation responsible for the status quo of traditional societies of Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist faiths? and for promoting lack of incentives to improve the lots of the suffering, the poor and the dispossessed? In other words, are the lack of economic and social developments (for example eliminating casteism and untouchability) due to the faith in reincarnation, which may instill the hope that if this life is not ideal perhaps the next one would be! I hope the learned Hindu Priest Sri Rajan Zed will comment on it. Thanks.