Depressed about the New Atheism

Maybe nobody's wrong.

Maybe it's all good...

Hi Deva,

It is what they WANT to see.....May be you feel better, if you focuse more on topics You want to see in the world?

I tell this to myself..... Gisela   :-)

It is very short sighted of these people to ridicule the idea of Consciousness existing outside of the brain. The assumption is that if it is a subjective experience that cannot be tested objectively then it is a delusion. This is in itself unscientific.

Why do people believe there is a Consciousness outside of the brain? Because experiences have taught them this. What are those experiences? If this were true scientific enquiry then these scientists would replicate the situations where the experiences happened and test it for themselves.

If I say that years of prayer or meditation enable me to reach serenity and an inner knowing, or even visionary experiences, then as a scientist before I rubbish that as a delusion I, too must spend years in prayer or meditation and see what happens.

I would challenge each one of these atheists to test the assumptions of the believers and see what happens.

Similarly, however religious people should also test their beliefs and not just follow dogma because sooner or later that will be tested also and if faith is based on stories that is as bad as Dawkins and co.

Live the life. Test and see!

Well, we are reacting against Dawkins but Dawkins is in turn reacting against the stuff that he doesn't like. He doesn't like the old religious dogma -- and actually neither would we here. We don't like the Church telling people that using condoms is a sin and that sex is for procreation, not for pleasure. The problem is that Dawkins categorically says that "religion turns good people into evil people". He makes no allowance for religion, and no allowance for anything good that might be in religion. He's a fundie Atheist, in other words. 

So just know that the sort of religion and spirituality that you're talking about is not visible to Dawkins. He will try his utmost to dismiss it -- and given that most science studies are open to some interpretation, he can always find a way to dismiss them.

From an integral perspective, Dawkins is a sort of extreme orange and whilst that is better in a way than extreme amber, it is still just one 1st tier altitude versus another 1st tier altitude. 

On the plus side, those who wish to leave extreme amber can perhaps find Dawkins' stuff useful, in that it encourages people to reject fundie religion. At least, until religion itself starts to incorporate more orange in a mainstream way, the orange will have to come from outside religions. Dawkins and the Pope are sorta like Batman and The Joker; one is supposed to be good, the other is supposed to be dark, but both are so twisted that often you're not sure which one is more crazy, and in the end, both need each other. 

Also, Dawkins is famous doing what he's doing, so there must be a sizeable market audience who wants his message. I find it very funny that in the bookshop, Dawkins books are in Religion, right next to Buddhism, under "Atheism". Yes, it is a religion too! So people are interested in spirituality, just from various altitudes. So maybe that's a bit less depressing.

As long as they can't stop us having out of body experiences I'm OK with it.  I also like to wave at UFOs, which last I heard, is still legal.

Since you're not telling us up front, I'm going to guess that you're repeating this post in order to gain more opinions. 

When will you have enough opinions? 

You told us in the first post that our responses were helpful. Helpful to what end? You are not interacting. You are merely observing. 

--

For just $14.95 a month, YOU TOO can reduce your Karma Footprint by becoming a Member of Integral Life!

[has that already been done?]

These guys are reactionaries and unbeknownst to themselves -and us, it seems- is what they've been railing against for so long is not religion itself but the various interpretations we have of them.

In Christianity, for instance, and according to Wikipedia there are reported to be approximately 38,000 Christian denominations. So the question arises: among so many, which one brings forth true awakening?

And the real question is: has our respective faith in Christianity truly transformed us in ways that makes a tangible difference in the immediacy of our lives? If the wisdom contained within Christianity comes from God why is it that it has not been able to manifest in our heart and mind even though our faith in it has been sound?

It seems to me that our interpretation of Christianity remains insufficient in addressing the complexities of being human and the world today. As a result, we have people interpreting the Bible in far too many archaic and mythic ways that keeps us dis-empowered and we end up controlling and killing others in the name of God. 

THIS is what upsets the atheist and I share that sentiment. I gave up my Christian upbringing long ago. Mainly because Christianity -you would think- is suppose to have the benevolence, the depth of wisdom and compassion that transcends all forms of political and social thought and therefore would know how to resolve human suffering and injustice. I mean, if the Bible is the word of God -who is understood as a supernatural deity, mind you- with a mind that transcends the universe and beyond, why in the world did God write only two freaking books!? Give me a break! Didn't God know we would misinterpret them hence end up killing each other because of it!? What a cruel God this is! God ought to have made an entire encyclopedia-at least.

I have no doubt the Bible contains profound truths but I believe they are not written from some divine being called God -that is, the Christian God we were lead to believe. If there is a divine being and if he really cared for the future of mankind, the world would not be as it is with so much suffering. George Carlin's brilliant comedic analysis said it best, www.youtube.com/watch

"the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize something is fucked up. War, disease, destruction, hunger, poverty, crime, corruption, and the ice capades. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong in the resume of a supreme being. This is the kind id shit you'd expect from a office temp with a bad attitude" 

Keep in mind here, he is not criticizing God but the interpretation we have of God which I believe is impairing us in so many ways unknown to us. I believe this is the atheist biggest gripe. Rare it is to find someone who really knows how to interpret the Bible in tangible and transformative ways.

It seems to me that the moment we use the word God or Love, we set ourselves up for disappointment because we inevitably lose sight that any definition we ascribe to them is merely an approximation of what they really are. I'd rather focus on my shadow and learn from Confucianism that becoming a sage does not arise by some superhuman endowment, but by being truthful to your own humanity.  

Hey, Deva, I know what you mean. And I just read an interesting take on the New Athiests: the possibility that they are actually hurting their own cause. This is a quote from Robert Wright, taken from a blog about the subject at EnlightenNext magazine:

The New Atheists' main short-term goal wasn't to turn believers into atheists, it was to turn atheists into New Atheists -- fellow fire-breathing preachers of the anti-gospel. The point was to make it not just uncool to believe, but cool to ridicule believers.

And this year doubts about that mission have taken root among the New Atheists' key demographic: intellectuals who aren't religious and aren't conservative. Even on the secular left, the alarming implications of the "crusade against religion" are becoming apparent: Though the New Atheists claim to be a progressive force, they often abet fundamentalists and reactionaries, from the heartland of America to the Middle East.

If you're a Midwestern American, fighting to keep Darwin in the public schools and intelligent design out, the case you make to conservative Christians is that teaching evolution won't turn their children into atheists. So the last thing you need is for the world's most famous teacher of evolution, Richard Dawkins, to be among the world's most zealously proselytizing atheists. These atmospherics only empower your enemies.

So too with foreign policy: Making "Western" synonymous with "aggressively atheist" isn't a recipe for quelling anti-Western Islamist radicalism. [1]