From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 15:20:05 MDT
FutureQ wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>>FutureQ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Personally I don't think China is that far from religion. Looked at a
>>>certain way communism is the twin of Taoism. Think about. In Taoism you are
>>>born into your lot in life and that just as nature is unchangeable. Sound
>>>any different than the state prescribing one's profession and station? I
>>>think the chinese so readily accepted communism because to them it was
>>>little different than what they knew for thousands of years.
>>
>>Quite a bit of religion is certainly not about accepting one's
>>current situation as divinely ordained.
>
>
> I wasn't referring to any other religion here but Taoism. You seem to feel it
> necessary to appologize for all religion period. It falls upon deaf ears here. I
> have studied several and when weighing the good they do with the bad they do the
> bad has it hands down every time. We'll be far better off without it and that day
> will come.
You seem to feel it necessary, judging form your having done so,
to attack all religion period. That is unnecessary and actually
loses credibility imo. I disagree strongly that we will ever be
without some aspects of spirituality/religion. Although I do
fervently hope that the majority of sentients will get beyond
their rather limited understanding and practice of today in
these matters to the extent religion/spirituality is part of
their lives.
>
>
>> Whether one agrees with
>>the packaging or not, there is a strong push for transcendence
>>of the status quo at the heart of many religions. There are
>>also twisted variants of most of them that put off real
>>trancendence to the heareafter or one's next incarnation.
>>
>>I don't think religion per se is an enemy.
>
>
> You are certainly intitled to your opinion and I to mine. I'll take reality over
> false hope.
>
Well, I do too. But our views about what reality includes may
not be fully matching.
>
>>I think human
>>inertia and serious programming not to rock the boat is the real
>>difficulty.
>
>
> And how is religion not empowering this inertia? It's always the crutch to fall
> back upon, the justification for misdeeds. Can you really deny that belief in an
> afterlife impedes life affirming science, medicine and peace?
>
Many things are used as a rationalization for this inertia.
That does not mean any of them are the cause or that removing
any of them will remove the inertia.
I see no logical necessity that belief in an afterlife should
impede life affirming science or medicine. Much has been done
for peace by religious people and religious memes just has much
has been rationalized under the rubric of religion. So I don't
believe religion per se impedes peace. What does impede peace
is a belief that one has the truth, the whole (or sufficient)
truth and that those who think sufficiently differently are a
dangerous threat at best and should either be converted or
destroyed at worse. Relgion has no monopoly on that sort of
opinion or the highly unpeaceful and inhumane actions that often
grow out of it.
>
>> Sometimes that has a religious wrapping or
>>rationalization but I believe it is a confusion to confuse the
>>wrapping with the root problem.
>>
>>
>>>They could easily slip back into Taoism if the communist state failed as I
>>>see coming anyway. Look how quickly the Orthodox Russian church gained
>>>ground when the USSR fell out of favor. Weak people need their crutches
>>>either religious or governmental.
>>
>>Here we go again. The old religion is for "weak people" line.
>>Sigh.
>
>
> An atheist must stand upon ones own strengths. If that is not strength than what
> is it? The opposite of strength is weakness. An inabilty to take responsibility
> for ones own life and actions, to me, is weakness. If not to you then call it how
> you like. For me going from xian to atheist was a struggle and took some decided
> strength of character and will. Much easier to have kept the crutch.
>
Strength does not need to denigrate others who believe
differently. Strength does not need to puff itself up. Strength
is needed whenever one stands on one's own judgment in the face
of significant others who believe differently and in the face of
what one would prefer to be so versus what to the best of one's
ability actually does appear to be true. Atheists have no
monopoly on strength. Religious people are not known to be
missing such strength.
I do acknowledge the strength your struggle (as well as that of
others and my own) required. But that by no means implies that
those who hold different conclusions are "weak".
>
>>>The trouble with Taoism is that it's the
>>>ultimate luddite religion. The chinese could have developed rocketry to the
>>>point of world conquest and even perhaps taken humanity to space several
>>>thousand years ago but they didn't because Taoism teaches that nature is
>>>unchanging so why try? It would be interesting to see how readily or not
>>>transhumanism takes in China.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, the highly intellectualized and rigid Imperial Chinese
>>court grew more from Confucianism as I understand it. Thousands
>>of years ago?
>
>
> And Taoism had no influence on Confucius? How confusing. To witt, I quote,
> "Taoism is a Chinese philosophy that first began, scholars believe, sometime
> around the time of Confucius, perhaps the most infamous Chinese philosopher, who
> lived around the years 500 to 600 B.C.E.". Available here:
> http://users.ntplx.net/~bbarrett/intro-tao.html#2
>
Taoism is actually much older from my understanding. But I bow
to the scholars of such things present on the list.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:33 MST