Governments Using Atheism by Force

[Penelope]

Saffron:

What has become of Ralph?

He asks about you also, Saffron, and asked me to send you his love.

Ralph just wasn't comfortable with the atheist input (I think). But we struck up a friendship. Some sort of telephathy between us. Well, I used to 'guess' all the answers to his quizzes!!!

He is doing fine. Opened a Cafe.....very successful....selling American Junk food to the tourists. He'd punch me if he knew I'd said that.

We email back and forth often.

[realiz]

Penelope

And 'The Force' seems supernatural......but it will probably just turn out to just be 'God' after all.

This reminded me of a book I read when I was young, "Are you there God? It's me Margaret", where a twelve year-old girl has everyday conversations with a god that she is really not sure exists. She tries to discover God through a school research project and visits various churches and a synagogue.

[Penelope]

realiz:

"Are you there God? It's me Margaret",

I haven't read this book but it wouldn't be much of a 'Force' if we couldn't communicate on our own terms and in our own words, now would it?

I have been much influenced by the book 'Mr.God, This is Anna' because that book is full of science. About a little child prodigy who understands science on her own terms and 'God' also, on her own terms. One of those books which lives with you for the rest of your life.

[Robert Tulip]

"Stalin was number one in world history at enforcing atheism."And he committed atrocities in it's name? HA! Atheism wouldn't exist without a religion to be a-theistic of. The bottom line is religion is an exclusionary enterprise, same as racism and nationalism.

A key difference between Stalin and Dawkins is that Stalin was a practical atheist while Dawkins is a theoretical atheist.

Stalin actually applied atheism as a social doctrine, and came up against the reality that people need something to believe in as a collective way of understanding reality in simple terms, hence the cult of personality where Stalin himself was treated like God. It gets back to the old idea that when people stop believing in something they don't believe in nothing but rather in anything.

Dawkins by contrast presents a theoretical atheism that is suitable for an elite who are above the popular need for simple images. He gives no sense of purpose or direction, just a bleak picture of a meaningless universe. His ethical views could well be Christianity minus the metaphysics.

This contrast suggests to me that a much better strategy to achieve the atheist goals of a humanistic and evidence based world is to reform religious faith to make it compatible with atheist knowledge. Opposition to faith is a useless and elitist path. In fact, Christianity got its purchase in the Roman Empire precisely because it was inclusionary, and not exclusionary.

An interesting model is John Lennon, with his vision of a world without religion where love is the answer, as in his songs Imagine and Mind Games:

We're playing those mind games together, Pushing barriers, planting seeds, Playing the mind guerilla, Chanting the Mantra peace on earth, We all been playing mind games forever, Some kinda druid dudes lifting the veil. Doing the mind guerilla, Some call it the search for the grail, Love is the answer and you know that for sure, Love is flower you got to let it, you got to let it grow, So keep on playing those mind games together, Faith in the future outta the now, You just can't beat on those mind guerillas, Absolute elsewhere in the stones of your mind, Yeah we're playing those mind games forever, Projecting our images in space and in time, Yes is the answer and you know that for sure, Yes is the surrender you got to let it, you got to let it go, So keep on playing those mind games together, Doing the ritual dance in the sun, Millions of mind guerrillas, Putting their soul power to the karmic wheel, Keep on playing those mind games forever, Raising the spirit of peace and love, not war,
(I want you to make love, not war, I know you've heard it before)

[Penelope]

Thank you Robert, for that Lennon quote:

And for explaining the difference between Dawkins and Stalin.

I began to read Dawkins, and then became sympathetic towards him because he was a close friend of Douglas Adams. What a silly reason.

Given the choice, I would read nothing but 'Hitchhikers Guide' over and over again, because it cheers me up.

A mutual love for another person is a binding force. As is a mutual hatred of a person or people, unfortunately.

[Penelope]

Robert:

Awhile ago, you said that you had been reading, Carlos Castaneda? What were your conclusions?

I read four books, in order some years ago. I remember I liked 'A Separate Reality' but I really didn't quite know what to make of them. Couldn't figure out whether he was relating the truth, or wrapping truth up in fiction. There seemed to be some drug-taking involved, so I was not as impressed as I might have been otherwise. Interesting though.

[Robert Tulip]

Robert: Awhile ago, you said that you had been reading, Carlos Castaneda? What were your conclusions? I read four books, in order some years ago. I remember I liked 'A Separate Reality' but I really didn't quite know what to make of them. Couldn't figure out whether he was relating the truth, or wrapping truth up in fiction. There seemed to be some drug-taking involved, so I was not as impressed as I might have been otherwise. Interesting though.

Hi Penelope, yes I am a fan of Castaneda. In fact, I even think it is somehow relevant to this thread because his ideas strongly influenced my concept of God, and illustrate the benefits of a diverse and pluralistic range of ideas, which would be destroyed by enforced atheism. I was attracted to his work because I have always felt a powerful sense of the numinous spirituality of Australian Aboriginal culture.

The key idea Castaneda presents is in the book Tales of Power, where the yacqui sorcerors Don Juan and Don Genaro explain their philosophy. Their worldview, as I understand it, is that everything that we can understand and relate to is defined as 'the tonal', but beyond the tonal exists a deeper reality which they call 'the nagual'. The hidden reality of the nagual is the basis of authentic spiritual identity. I find it interesting as a non-Western approach which is coherent and persuasive.

I found these ideas quite congruent with those of Martin Heidegger, the German philosopher on whom I wrote my MA. Heidegger deeply infuriates scientific thinkers for his perceived obscurantism and irrationality. One of the founders of logical positivism, Rudolf Carnap, saw Heidegger as the epitome of meaninglessness for his examination of the concept of nothing. In my view, Castaneda's nagual is the same as Heidegger's nothing. It eludes and underpins our control, suggesting a beyond in the midst of the world. The need for this mysterious metaphysic is seen in the claim that only by including the nagual/nothing can we orient towards the whole in love.

That's what I think anyway. Robert

[Penelope]

Robert:

One of my favourite conversations was when Carlos was walking along a dust road with Don Juan and they pass a group of people coming towards them. The other people were in the 'nagual' and were what my Mum would have called 'spirit friends'. Anyway, the group completely ignore Carlos and Don Juan as though they are not even aware of them and Carlos, in bewilderment, says to Don Juan, 'But what are they doing there?' and Don Juan replies, 'I have no idea. What are we doing here?'