Atheist corner (or, Religion after the holocaust)

[Coa]

Its probably total waste of life to comment here about this but... I think that name of this topic Atheist corner - that is Atheist corner (or, Religion after the holocaust) - implying that holocaust changes something about religion or way we perceive it - is totally false. There is no any kind of aftermath there.

[SpookyDread]

Quote Originally Posted by Coa

Its probably total waste of life to comment here about this but... I think that name of this topic Atheist corner - that is Atheist corner (or, Religion after the holocaust) - implying that holocaust changes something about religion or way we perceive it - is totally false. There is no any kind of aftermath there.

How is weapon capable of destroying all of humanity and a near total genocide of God-fearing people not an event that should deeply question our beliefs in monotheism?

Of course it changed everything .

Akira (アキラ) Japanese Theatrical Trailer 1 - YouTube

It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma...

[gveranon]

Quote Originally Posted by SpookyDread

Quote Originally Posted by Coa Its probably total waste of life to comment here about this but... I think that name of this topic Atheist corner - that is Atheist corner (or, Religion after the holocaust) - implying that holocaust changes something about religion or way we perceive it - is totally false. There is no any kind of aftermath there. How is weapon capable of destroying all of humanity and a near total genocide of God-fearing people not an event that should deeply question our beliefs in monotheism? Of course it changed everything .

The horrors of the holocaust apparently caused some to lose religious belief, or to be unable to entertain it in the first place. I wouldn't dispute the emotional/doxastic impact of the holocaust on individuals -- or, for that matter, the emotional/doxastic impact of other events on individuals. Some have said they lost belief because of the death of a child, for example.

Nuclear weapons were first used in WWII, by Americans against the Japanese, but I don't think this can be adduced as evidence that the holocaust changed everything. Anyway, the mythical God was himself a world-destroyer (the Flood) and an en-masse destroyer of peoples (too many biblical passages to name). Some people decided they couldn't believe in this deity because He "permitted" humans to do the types of things that He himself had prolifically done, according to sacred history? Or because it was the chosen people whom themselves were exterminated? Again, I wouldn't dispute the emotional/doxastic impact of this on some individuals, but surely it didn't categorically change everything, for all ethically concerned people.

Earlier destructive events had also been interpreted as making further faith impossible or at least more difficult. See, for example, the debate about theodicy after the destruction of Lisbon by an earthquake in 1755. This is mostly forgotten now, but it was widely known at the time.

In considering the question of whether modern science had harmed belief, G.K. Chesterton wrote "The materialism of things is on the face of things; it does not require any science to find it out. A man who has lived and loved falls down dead and the worms eat him. That is Materialism if you like. That is Atheism if you like. If mankind has believed in spite of that, it can believe in spite of anything." I disagree with Chesterton about many things, but surely he was right about that. Similarly, war and genocide and lack of divine intervention have been known since ancient times. The holocaust was larger in scale than earlier events, and more shocking to many, but what new knowledge did it give us about the human condition and the ease or difficulty of belief in benign monotheism?

[SpookyDread]

Quote Originally Posted by gveranon

Quote Originally Posted by SpookyDread Quote Originally Posted by Coa Its probably total waste of life to comment here about this but... I think that name of this topic Atheist corner - that is Atheist corner (or, Religion after the holocaust) - implying that holocaust changes something about religion or way we perceive it - is totally false. There is no any kind of aftermath there. How is weapon capable of destroying all of humanity and a near total genocide of God-fearing people not an event that should deeply question our beliefs in monotheism? Of course it changed everything . The horrors of the holocaust apparently caused some to lose religious belief, or to be unable to entertain it in the first place. I wouldn't dispute the emotional/doxastic impact of the holocaust on individuals -- or, for that matter, the emotional/doxastic impact of other events on individuals. Some have said they lost belief because of the death of a child, for example. Nuclear weapons were first used in WWII, by Americans against the Japanese, but I don't think this can be adduced as evidence that the holocaust changed everything. Anyway, the mythical God was himself a world-destroyer (the Flood) and an en-masse destroyer of peoples (too many biblical passages to name). Some people decided they couldn't believe in this deity because He "permitted" humans to do the types of things that He himself had prolifically done, according to sacred history? Or because it was the chosen people whom themselves were exterminated? Again, I wouldn't dispute the emotional/doxastic impact of this on some individuals, but surely it didn't categorically change everything, for all ethically concerned people. Earlier destructive events had also been interpreted as making further faith impossible or at least more difficult. See, for example, the debate about theodicy after the destruction of Lisbon by an earthquake in 1755. This is mostly forgotten now, but it was widely known at the time. In considering the question of whether modern science had harmed belief, G.K. Chesterton wrote "The materialism of things is on the face of things; it does not require any science to find it out. A man who has lived and loved falls down dead and the worms eat him. That is Materialism if you like. That is Atheism if you like. If mankind has believed in spite of that, it can believe in spite of anything." I disagree with Chesterton about many things, but surely he was right about that. Similarly, war and genocide and lack of divine intervention have been known since ancient times. The holocaust was larger in scale than earlier events, and more shocking to many, but what new knowledge did it give us about the human condition and the ease or difficulty of belief in benign monotheism?

the scale of the destruction?

no other event in human history had so threatened the continuation of life on planet earth.

you're comparing floods to nuclear raditation? radiation on those levels is the end of life itself . it is the end of god himself.

the single activation of one nuclear weapon, and the potential use of thousands of them within minutes of each other?

unless you believe God to be wholly alien, beyond human understanding, non anthropomorphic, this literally dehumanizes god.

god died on the cross as jesus christ who dies within the life of the church who dies with the detonation of atomic weapons from which there can be no human life .

a quote from Consuming Bodies out of the Gothic Ireland book I have been reading,

Yet I, least of all souls,
Take Him in my hand,
Eat Him and drink Him,
and do with Him what I will!

from Mechtild of Magdeburg

[SpookyDread]

Quote Originally Posted by With Strength I Burn

Quote Originally Posted by SpookyDread Sexual ritual in Catholicism and whatever else. It's explicit I think in every religion as a function of eros connected to creation and energy in the human body, but most religions are simply wont to admit to it. Sexual rites are not explicit in every religion. You can't speak behalf of EVERY religion, man, and neither can I. Maybe it's more common than we originally think, but to say it's in every religion is false. I know for certain Han Shan (Cold Mountain) and Shiwu (Stonehouse) remained celibate for the majority of their lives on the mountains. Also, the Chinese patriarchs such as Hui Neng and many Japanese Buddhists like Dogen (from looking at his journals) had no sexual rites. I agree Puritan repressive approaches towards sexuality can be just as destructive, if not more, than Hedonist approaches. Granted, I think all of it depends on one's goals, traditional practice, and etc. Ch'an Buddhists, for example, generally encourage either celibacy or monogamy in practitioners while Asatru practitioners are known to have lots of sexual rites and polyamory. I don't want to speak on behalf of other people' traditional practices, but I don't like it when people claim what Ch'an is all about after reading horrible figures such as Alan Watts (honestly, he just distorted Ch'an's teachings - read Thomas Cleary or Red Pine instead). Also, in regards to gnosticism and Japanese artwork, check out the video game Xenogears. It's one of the best Japanese RPGs. It's one of the few Japanese RPGs with decent dialogue and a well-thought-out story. Xenogears Soundtrack - One who Bares Fangs at God - YouTube

all of those cultures you're lifting particular thinkers from also had a firm belief in demons and hungry ghosts

you're really stretching if you cannot see that in games like Metal Gear Solid, or Super Metroid , consider the falling into nihil of films by Mamoru Oshii , or those by Yoshiaki Kawajiri

I hear what you're saying. A lot monks like to speak openly about doctrines closer to do with vegetarianism and straight up earth energy and geomancy

a great S.Korean television show playing up on this [dichotomy] has been The Night Watchman's Journal . I will also add that sleep paralysis inflicted by sorcerers has been something I have seen in just about every single one of those shows that I have ever seen .

it exists just as much in Japanese or Vietnamese or Khmer culture

ever seen/played Mortal Kombat?

the locus of the power I am talking about erm is from people

like

Monsters University Final Trailer - YouTube

[SpookyDread]

Quote Originally Posted by With Strength I Burn

Quote Originally Posted by SpookyDread Quote Originally Posted by With Strength I Burn Quote Originally Posted by SpookyDread Sexual ritual in Catholicism and whatever else. It's explicit I think in every religion as a function of eros connected to creation and energy in the human body, but most religions are simply wont to admit to it. Sexual rites are not explicit in every religion. You can't speak behalf of EVERY religion, man, and neither can I. Maybe it's more common than we originally think, but to say it's in every religion is false. I know for certain Han Shan (Cold Mountain) and Shiwu (Stonehouse) remained celibate for the majority of their lives on the mountains. Also, the Chinese patriarchs such as Hui Neng and many Japanese Buddhists like Dogen (from looking at his journals) had no sexual rites. I agree Puritan repressive approaches towards sexuality can be just as destructive, if not more, than Hedonist approaches. Granted, I think all of it depends on one's goals, traditional practice, and etc. Ch'an Buddhists, for example, generally encourage either celibacy or monogamy in practitioners while Asatru practitioners are known to have lots of sexual rites and polyamory. I don't want to speak on behalf of other people' traditional practices, but I don't like it when people claim what Ch'an is all about after reading horrible figures such as Alan Watts (honestly, he just distorted Ch'an's teachings - read Thomas Cleary or Red Pine instead). all of those cultures you're lifting particular thinkers from also had a firm belief in demons and hungry ghosts But I wasn't talking about demons and hungry ghosts in that particular post... I was talking about your claim of how every religion has sexual rites. Also, Ch'an Buddhists encourage not dwelling on such "otherworldly" phenomena because it can induce delusions or so.

then what the heck do they know?

sexual potency and sharing of intimacy is inherently electrifying

you won't have more intense sexual experiences outside of a night-mare

that was supposed to be reason for monks to be celibate

[SpookyDread]

I spoke to Vietnamese mediums they believe in celibacy for cultivation of spiritual energy . Sex discharges your potency . But it is absolutely sexual. at least it should be. i also think there is something ridiculous about spending your whole time of your life cultivating sexual potency, all that does is make you more horny .

it's more to do with the manner of contact someone is doing , which has to do with touch . You're going to get more intense contact if you can create a homunculus or astrally project, one preceding the other.

i find interest in these things but seriously , just play video games, getting involved in this sort of thing is really just more of a hassle, and literally limits your freedom. so anyway.

Trojan, Anchises' son, the descent of Avernus is easy.
All night long, all day, the doors of Hades stand open.
But to retrace the path, to come up to the sweet air of heaven,
That is labour indeed. (Aeneid 6.126-129.)

[SpookyDread]

Quote Originally Posted by With Strength I Burn

Quote Originally Posted by SpookyDread Quote Originally Posted by With Strength I Burn But I wasn't talking about demons and hungry ghosts in that particular post... I was talking about your claim of how every religion has sexual rites. Also, Ch'an Buddhists encourage not dwelling on such "otherworldly" phenomena because it can induce delusions or so. then what the heck do they know? sexual potency and sharing of intimacy is inherently electrifying you won't have more intense sexual experiences outside of a night-mare that was supposed to be reason for monks to be celibate That just sounds like misappropriation to me. It seems you're just re-interpreting everything to conform to your negative space framework without providing sufficient reasons why. Also, I can't quite understand what you're arguing for. Do you want all these religions to have sexual rites like the Asatru practitioners who use staffs, with unique ornaments, to "electrify" the female disciples? I honestly don't think the Cao Dai practitioners will respect you imposing your polyamorous-like preferences onto them, and I don't see why you'd want to join them in the first place. Why don't you just stick to something like neo-paganism? I'm pretty sure they'll gobble up your word salads.

Mediums don't do anything

Secondly,

That's a reconstructed movement, they have no idea what it was like in real life . Is this real life?

I recommend reading Rime of the Ancient Mariner, it has everything I am talking about, and I could recommend other stories , like A Strange Manuscript Found In A Copper Cylinder, Coleridge is not reconstructing anything , they created a new mythology , highly critically received, they were the real thing

If people into Asatru are satisfying their bodies then what do they know about spirituality? shouldn't that be within their imagination, within myth?

Rime of the Ancient Mariner Orson Welles - YouTube

[SpookyDread]

Rime of the Ancient Mariner is a new, Christian, atheist, myth

it establishes a creation story. it's an Ur text .

like Lovecraft

it has all of that stuff in there . its all about potency, i also really like David Lindsay , but anyway

It'd be interesting to belong to a religion part of my own cultural values. Wishful thinking.

[SpookyDread]

the talk about the Psychomanteum by Dr . Arthur Hastings is really interesting fyi

I find all this stuff like ESALEN, Human Potential, Spiritualists societies, and so on… fascinating

but I find their lack of appreciation for the English language and the elegiac to be absolutely disgusting , and potentially damaging to the extremely fragile nearly extinct state of these traditions themselves

if you don't use the right colours, the right timbre, and so on, you literally kill the power out of the tradition , and you attract the wrong people, with the wrong ethics

I am very conscious of this as someone who can channel dead people , it's not something that makes me super happy .

I'd be curious about any recommendations. Provided they are edifying the language I speak and not another