"the latter text, after the 10th reading..." An absurd and ignorant statement, methinks.
Then there are other cats that have been let out of other bags, if one has enough integrity and self-discipline for objective historical and scientific inquiry.

jkh

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aye, it's weird to have such respect for Joshi on
> the one point you agree with him, but on
> everything else he's a tool because you don't. I
> wouldn't say the interview was particularly
> revealing or insightful, but then two people who
> broadly agree with each other are never going to
> create the most lively of debates... Equally, I'd
> agree that their dismissal of all religious
> writers as being feeble reeked of prejudice to my
> ears. As for RM Price, while I've not heard it
> myself, I believe that his Bible Geek cast has a
> strong following by God-bods and heretic
> unbelievers alike (or so my ex-Born Again friend
> tells me). I never understand the argument that
> you can't criticise religion or be an atheist
> without having read every religious text under the
> sun first... it doesn't matter what some 2000 year
> old superstitious dogma says (and I'm sure there's
> some pearls of wisdom in there too), it's going to
> require some better evidence than the testimony of
> some long dead zealots to make me believe in stuff
> that there is absolutely no evidence for...
> neither do you have to read the Communist
> Manifesto to be a capitalist...
>
> But anyway, I mainly added it here because Joshi
> is a frequent topic in these forums and therefore
> thought that it might be of general interest and
> the added bonus of some publication details was a
> pleasant surprise.

If Joshi and Price indeed dismissed all religious writers as being feeble, I don't see how you can claim there is "absolutely no evidence" supporting religious faith; after all, this would clearly indicate that they regard Shakespeare, a writer of indisputable genius, as feeble-minded, as well as the authors their idol Lovecraft most respected.

jkh

Apparently you believe that Shakespeare was mentally ill and indolent. Atheism is merely the substitution of ugliness for beauty, in order to gratify the ego.

jkh

Quote:

Aye, it's weird to have such respect for Joshi on the one point you agree with him, but on everything else he's a tool because you don't.

I missed this earlier; is it in reference to me? If so, then I need to make clear that there is much about Joshi and his work that I like and respect, and I've said as much in other threads in this forum. There's also much about him and his work that I do not like, as well. Why, I wonder, does everything have to be black and white, or simplistically binary? One must be either pro or anti Joshi; one is either for religion and against science, or for science and against religion. Such thinking is completely alien to me.

Quote:

neither do you have to read the Communist Manifesto to be a capitalist...

No, but you do need to read it if you are going to criticize Marx. If the New Atheists would simply shut up and live and let live, then their ignorance of the finer points of their opposition would be fine; they would not need to engage theological arguments. If, however, they are going to try to refute Aquinas, as Dawkins ineptly tried to do, then they need to understand the arguments.


Note to Knygatin: I wonder what you mean by "Satanists"? There are many different types, and some, such as Setians, are quite spiritual, in their way. I think you need to learn more about the subject before making such derogatory generalizations. There is also the entire concept of Romantic Satanism, with which CAS seems to have been in considerable personal sympathy, and about which I wrote here some time ago.

Very interesting and revelatory fellows - however - the existence or non-existence of the deity (or deities if you prefer) even as the "gender" of the same is a monumentally irrelevant question to me - an individual's opinion on the subject has no bearing whatever on the reality - either there is or is not such an entity - on the other hand, one's opinion does indeed have a significant affect on one's behavior and attitude to one's fellow travelers on this org - and, I may add from close personal observation, as the bed-mate of an Hospice Nurse, and volunteer worker, dealing with the dying and their families week in and week out - those who profess some faith fare much better at the last than the others - I have seen some who have (as far as they are concerned) gone to the other side and come back filled with terror, and deeply resolved to alter their lives for as much time as they have (usually a few days) - similarly, we worked with a 13 year old black child, the elder sister of 7 siblings, with a terrible cancer in the shoulder and arm, whose passing was astonishing - we heard singing from her room - a song with the words "I will enter his gates with thanksgiving in my heart..." - the mother thought is was the radio - but it was the girl, and when we went back to see, she was gone, and absolutely beatifiic - the 2 year old said, and I quote, "the other mother came to take sister home" -- now whatever one may wish to make of such things (ehtnic conditioning etc) - these things happen with great frequency, week in and week out, and I have been observing them closely for 17 years now - I begrudge no one their opinion - so long as "opinion" is held in its proper place and does not gather about the trappings of secular ritual - becoming a dogma wherein all those of other views are held to be misguided fools - As time has gone on I find myself learning more and more about less and less - mathematically, I expect to reach a point where I know everything about nothing - and "Nothing" as poet says, "is often the wisest thing to do, and always the wisest thing to say">

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see. So the mentally ill and indolent should
> rule the world, with the rest as their servants?


Apparently you feel that Shakespeare was mentally ill and indolent. Atheism is merely a substituting of ugliness for beauty, for the purpose of gratifying one's ego.

jkh

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Nothing" as poet says, "is
> often the wisest thing to do, and always the
> wisest thing to say">


That's a great quote. Who wrote that?

No, you don't see, or you wouldn't consider Shakespeare to have been "mentally ill and indolent"... atheism is merely a short-sighted substituting of ugliness for beauty for the purpose of gratifying one's Ego.

This claim that "the latter text, after the 10th reading, will begin to yield great rewards, to the incisive reader" is absurd and pretentious, methinks. There are other bags and other cats you'd do well to consider, as well, for what good is doubt if further information is not sought?

jkh

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why, I wonder,
> does everything have to be black and white, or
> simplistically binary? One must be either pro or
> anti Joshi; one is either for religion and against
> science, or for science and against religion. Such
> thinking is completely alien to me.

I take it you do not recognize a distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad?

Quote:

I take it you do not recognize a distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad?

I don't believe in black-and-white, all-or-nothing, simplistic dichotomies, especially in areas involving subjective, personal value-judgments. For instance, that Joshi is all bad, without a single redeeming feature.

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "the latter text, after the 10th reading..." An
> absurd and ignorant statement, methinks.
> Then there are other cats that have been let
> out of other bags, if one has enough integrity and
> self-discipline for objective historical and
> scientific inquiry.

If you have mastered the master's works (Robert Graves) in one reading - then, Mr. Kipling, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din" - but I seriously doubt it.

Geoffrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> calonlan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Nothing" as poet says, "is
> > often the wisest thing to do, and always the
> > wisest thing to say">
>
>
> That's a great quote. Who wrote that?


Mark Twain, with variations by myself -

If I had been wise, I probably whould have stayed quiet like Calonlan suggests. But that is only for the fully matured. So here it goes on. :)


The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "where? show me?"

There is no outside proof for you. The spiritual is a personal, inner experience. It's an ability to "see". An elite privilege. Either you have it, or you don't. (Although I believe it could potentially be developed in everyone, . . . at least theoretically. :/ )

Well, if we look aside from ghosts and spirits, demons, telekinesis, and other such spectacular stuff. . . . I won't try to argue for that. And instead focus on "spiritual" sensitivity, of "seeing reality in a wide perspective", there is nothing strange or unnatural about that mental condition. Spirituality, to one degree or another, is a subtle part of reality, that affects most or all people, even if they be not aware of it and deny the signals. It's simply a tool for the wise, a developed sensitivity, to better handle daily life, through a balanced mental stance and harmony. An inner process, of the mind. And too subtle and non-material for science to measure in a laboratory.

It is a fact that narrow-minded persons who only look upon things from their small perspective of private interest, will more easily become emotionally upset and out of balance when an incident goes against them, than a person who has a wider perspective and therefore is better able to keep an emotional equilibrium to individual events, since he sees that they only are passing incidents in a greater context. Now, a scientifically educated person, who has the same incident go against him, may start to reason, to put things in perspective and try reduce his emotional upset, but he isn't likely to fully succeed very well, unless he is also spiritually developed. (In spite of all his knowledge, he may be just as narrow-minded from a practical personality standpoint.) The difference between scientific knowledge, and spiritual wisdom, is that the former must rationally mentally argue his ideas, while the latter has the knowledge integrated in him, like riding a bicycle.

Just like there are people whose minds are gifted, for example at sports, running after a puck on the ice or trixing a ball, or at being sensitive to grasping musical harmonies, or a talented artist's ability to grasp proportions and the overall as when painting a portrait (in contrast to the amateur who gets stuck in details, forever doodling over an eye or mouth, refusing to understand the importance of proportion), there a people whose minds are gifted in the way that they more easily have an overlook on Life, putting individual incidents in perspective, "seeing" or having an equilibrium stance from a broader space/time perspective, stretching out towards Eternity. But those who can't see in this way, or are rigidly steeped in materialistic science, can't comprehend such an ability, and therefore deny it.

Spiritual development, (explained as concretely as I find possible) is basically about getting past the surface layers of mentally and emotionally conditioned thought-patterns that force us into compulsory social- and decision-making- behaviours. Shedding these conditioned layers that make us look out on reality through heavily colored lenses, to reach at the deeper untainted mind. It's like peeling away an onion, layer after layer. To increased conscious purification. Being a scientifically educated person, reading books, and gathering scientic knowledge, improve our ability for reasoning and arguing, but doesn't automatically remove such layers of compulsory behaviour, that have been built up from early age, because we continue to build upon the old. It may instead require meditation, . . . prayer, . . . deep reflection, . . . that goes beyond mere rational reasoning, to reach at the subtly devious unconscious states that have been conditioned into our persons and are blocking us from a pure outlook, and become consciously aware of them like drawing trolls out into the sunlight.

The spiritually enlighted person (rare), has gotten past all such conditioned compulsions, and is clean, looking out on life completely openminded, and without compulsory judgment. Therefore he has inner peace. He is in contact with his pure inner core, and therefore with the Whole, as the microcosm reflects the macrocosm. (Mind you, he hasn't lost his education of scientific knowledge because of this, but has a healthy perspective on it, like an observer, freed from being compulsively hamstrung.)



If you didn't somewhere inside you have a spark or seed of respect for and belief in the spiritual aspect of life, even though not consciously aware of it, denying it with scientifically conditioned surface thinking, I don't think you'd be interested in this kind of literature in the first place.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Note to Knygatin: I wonder what you mean by
> "Satanists"? There are many different types, and
> some, such as Setians, are quite spiritual, in
> their way. I think you need to learn more about
> the subject before making such derogatory
> generalizations.

I admit I am not well read on Satanism. I am aware of the LaVey form of atheistic philosophic Satanism which aims at promoting the ego's desires, and religious Satanism which believes in devils and demons as actual entities. I was generally referring to the former, or my own loose definition of satanists, people who only look to satisfying their own egostic desires and lack sensitivity and empathy for life outside themselves. (The latter, religious form, at least stimulates the imagination a bit. :) )