Losing their religion...

[Satori]

Hello my friends.

It's my sincere hope that what I'm about to write will stir some honest discussion. If you have nothing to add to this, other than resorting to heckling and name-calling of course (which I've noted is very much a trend here), then I would ask that you not bother replying to this, as I will just point out the fact that you have nothing to add/rebuttal and it will just be a waste of bandwidth and everyone's time. The same is also true if the best you can do is point out spelling errors or type-o's (another petty tactic I've noted some people here employ). Also, if you are the sort of person who gets his or her knickers in a tangle when someone directly questions the very foundation of your various faith obligations, then you are best to steer clear of this thread altogether, if you don't want to get angry.

Like it or not (and I'm sure many of you here do not, hehe), the world overall IS waking up from the various egocentric/human-centric delusions and various archaic dogmas which are still circulating from earlier and far more ignorant, ethically deficient and savage times. Whether we are talking about the bible belt or even more religiously deluded places like Iraq or Saudi Arabia (so I've heard from people who were born and grew up in these 2 places), the trend is the the same, and it shows every sign of continuing in this direction, just as it has been for the last 100 years or so. Education and increasing multiculturalism are the reasons for this I think, as minds are expanding and people are mixing more and more, it's becoming increasingly difficult and impractical for many people to cling to the relatively baseless ideas instilled in them as children out of a sense of tradition, fear, or selfish desire for immortality and "salvation" (if you happen to buy into such theories, that is). I think that's a very good thing, because I feel that the fear, selifish desire, fragmented world view, and unreasonable human-centricism which is instilled into people by these many conflicting metaphysical theories all too often acts as justification for war, hate, mistrust, and deep-rooted fear, all of which contribute to human alienation and suffering (as we have seen in quite recent events in this world we share).

It doesn't pay to bet against humanity's ability and willingness to choose rationality, open-mindedness, praticality and far less dire/cruel metaphyical theories/philosphies over the worlds many conflicting "faiths". Bravo.

I think people (especially children) simply deserve better than to have their higher reasoning truncated by various unsubstantiated (and often perversely cruel) mythologies which obligate them strongly into grasping far too tightly on a single narrow viewpoint at the absolute negation of all others. But hey, that's "faith", and it's what your various gods and godesses demand of you under threat of some savage punishment of some sort, and that's plenty of reason enough for most people to keep right on clinging to whatever theories were imposed on them when they were children. Whether you happen to be jew, christian, muslim, hindu, etc. or whatever, just keep on up the faith and say your prayers and grovel for forgiveness every so often from your beloved unseen dictator and everything will be just fine, you'll be safe and preserved by your beloved faith in whatever dogma is fashionable in your society and/or household (and that's typically the case regardless of which religion you happen to subscribe to, so don't worry, you are ALL safe). I just hope that some day some of you will come to the stark and obvious realization that thinking you hold the correct metaphyiscal theory, while everyone else is somehow "wrong", is the absolute height of human ignorance and arrogance and a symptom of being so tightly wound up in a web of your own subjectivity that you can't even see how much your perceptions, interpretations, and particularly your pre-existing obligations, skew your ability to think rationally and honestly.

in loving reason,

Satori

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/Canadiana/2003/05/13/86385-cp.html

[greyphilosophy]

Satori,

Have you ever stopped to think about your own dogmas? From what you have said I could surmise that you follow the dogma of otherness. If you are not familiar with this dogma, I suggest you read David Brin's book, Otherness (though you can flip forward to the section "Dogma of Otherness"). Basically it states (in my opinion) that all ideas are equal in value. No one culture is right or wrong. All theories are equal.

http://hsv.com/editorials/davidbrin/dbrin2.htm

Throughout history cultures have survived by forming dogmas and passing them on to their youth. In American culture we formed this dogma to help a country of immigrants be able to live side by side in peace. We had to view other cultures as equal, where most other cultures viewed themselves as superior. Our dogma was certainly unique, however it was applied exactly the same way other dogmas are. We hear in our youth about Martin Luther King, Jr, and how African Americans are equal with Caucasians. We are told that we should question our teachers, and that there are many possible ways of looking at things. Teachers are discouraged from telling students that they are wrong, because somehow that fosters a negitive learning environment. In other cultures teachers are revered, and while some questions may be asked for purposes of understanding, you keep your disagreements to yourself.

But is our american dogma really better than any other cultural dogma? You could say it is, but then you would be propagateing the fasionable dogma of the time, and saying that america's dogma is better than other dogmas. My personal opinion is that it is a step forward, but incorrect. We all have different areas at which we excel. We come from different countries with different climates which we are accustomed to. Perhaps overall we are equal, but when you break it down to specifics, we certainly are not. Some races have shown themselves to be stronger (on average) than other races. Other races have shown themselves to possess higher dexterity (on average) than other races. Even still there are races which have shown the ability to survive in incredibly cold environments, and others who have shown the ability to survive in incredibly hot enviornments. We are not all equal in these catagories.

I think someone else can address the epistomological question of whether or not we can know truth.

~Greyphilosophy

[Warcraft3]

Satori:
I just hope that some day some of you will come to the stark and obvious realization that thinking you hold the correct metaphyiscal theory, while everyone else is somehow "wrong", is the absolute height of human ignorance and arrogance and a symptom of being so tightly wound up in a web of your own subjectivity that you can't even see how much your perceptions, interpretations, and particularly your pre-existing obligations, skew your ability to think rationally and honestly.

But if you believe that YOUR view is the correct one and my view is not (and since I hold the Christian view you obviously think I am incorrect), then you are displaying the same kind of ignorance and arrogance you so easily claim others are displaying.

Even the article you cite does not support your assumed "reason" for a statistical decline in religion. In fact one of the "experts" in the article said "It could mean anything." So the article really does not support your conclusion.

Your post is little more than you giving us your opinion and telling us how you "hope" that some day we will be as enlightened as you are.

I can not really debate your opinion, and since there are not many actual facts given in your post (or good solid evidence) Im left to comment on your personal opinion.

And I disagree with it, so that is all I can say until your post something with more substance.


Russ

[Satori]

Hi guys, I'm sorry that I have to leave for the weekend now just when things were starting to get good. I'll definitely pick this up at a later date, so I ask for your patience (while I enjoy my 3 day weekend computer-free). I feel you have raised some great points which I will address.

One thing I will point out however, I don't think that "I'm right and everyone else is wrong". I simply feel that I have chosen the path that is right for me personally.

As I have said before, I think that everyone should have the right to choose whatever metaphysical theories best suit them, or, if they so choose, not be obligated to adhere to ANY of them, and I feel they should have this liberty without being made to feel that some sadistic god is going to enact heartless and perverse violence upon them for simply being true to themselves with what they actually think. It's this truncation of the liberty to decide for one's self which I feel is completely unethical and unjustifiable. Of course, some of you will claim "but we do have the freedom to choose!" . Please. If someone is hold a blowtorch to your face, threatening to ignite your soul for making the "wrong" choice, that's not freedom, not even close.

I feel that complete open-mindedness and the admission that I just do NOT know all the answers to the most perplexing questions (ie. not adhering to "faith") is also a path of sorts that most people would take if they had the chance. However, religions, imo, truncate that freedom to simply choose open-mindedness, to innocently conclude that religion is a divise of humanity which grew out of the need to political social structuring.

In short, I don't think anyone should be made to feel afraid about what comes after death or the sick wrath of various creator gods because we just don't know, and we don't even know if we are immortal for that matter (and it certainly seems, but all accounts, that we are tied to and derived from our physicality).

anyway, take care guys, and I'll see you again real soon.

best wishes,

Satori

PS: Imo, we don't directly see reality, what we see is a reflection of reality, and our psyches are the mirror, and our mirrors aren't perfect, they limit and skew what we see. In other words, the map is not the territory. That's my subjective opinion, which I can back with numourous examples which clearly indicate that of course. It's not absolutely true, it's subjectively true. I hope you can all make that distinction.

[Satori]

Russ: I think it's pretty evident that the world is becoming increasingly secular. Think about 1000 years ago. Think about 100 years ago. Think about 30 years ago. Think about right now.

When I was a boy, if someone said they were athiest it was met with shock, and now, athiesm is pretty popular and not nearly as shocking. It's simply something I've noted, and many people have noted, and I feel that the trend is going to continue, and that makes me happy because I feel such barbaric dogmas belong in the distant past from which they were derived. My 2 cents.

Satori

[dizzle]

Isn't this exactly like his other thread? If so, they should be merged.

[greyphilosophy]

Satori writes:

In short, I don't think anyone should be made to feel afraid about what comes after death or the sick wrath of various creator gods because we just don't know, and we don't even know if we are immortal for that matter (and it certainly seems, but all accounts, that we are tied to and derived from our physicality).


Humans by nature fear the unknown. What you think should be, and what actually is are completely different, and there is pleanty of documentation to back up the fact that humans fear the unknown. I deal in fact, and the evidence points to a man who about 2000 years ago was thoroughly killed, three days later the body was missing, and for many days after that many people claimed to see him. This same man claimed that there was an afterlife. He seems to be the best authority on the subject of life after death there has ever been.


I think it's pretty evident that the world is becoming increasingly secular. Think about 1000 years ago. Think about 100 years ago. Think about 30 years ago. Think about right now.


What is your definition of secular? As long as there is culture there is religion.

Also I think there was a clear trend that during the 50's, 60's and 70's church attendance declined greatly, and it has only been since the 80's where we have seen younger people voluntarily going back to church.

~Grey

[Bob Jenkins]

From Satori
... I feel that the fear, selifish desire, fragmented world view, and unreasonable human-centricism which is instilled into people by these many conflicting metaphysical theories all too often acts as justification for war, hate, mistrust, and deep-rooted fear, all of which contribute to human alienation and suffering (as we have seen in quite recent events in this world we share).

I agree and would add to your list a diminished capacity to achieve the freedoms held out in our system of secular rule. England has, if not a propensity at least a potential for abuse of thier form of democracy in having the elected or appointed secular rulers also head the state religion. In America, it is exampled by the "chipping away" of a woman's right to her own body. A futher example, from your list, is the "going to war to conquer evil" in which our ultimate freedom, life, was put at risk for those who were ordered to fight.

It doesn't pay to bet against humanity's ability and willingness to choose rationality, open-mindedness, praticality and far less dire/cruel metaphyical theories/philosphies over the worlds many conflicting "faiths". Bravo.

Certainly not in the long run! But any decisive movement in that direction requires a social leader of great magnitude and scope. Current leaders, either through conviction or "polls" or political "markers", foster the entrenched mythology.


I think people (especially children) simply deserve better than to have their higher reasoning truncated by various unsubstantiated (and often perversely cruel) mythologies which obligate them strongly into grasping far too tightly on a single narrow viewpoint at the absolute negation of all others. But hey, that's "faith", and it's what your various gods and godesses demand of you under threat of some savage punishment of some sort, and that's plenty of reason enough for most people to keep right on clinging to whatever theories were imposed on them when they were children.

Children will cling to whatever mythology is presented to answer the difficulties of thier development. Until adults have been exposed to another mythology, the one of thier subconscious will still prevail especially if it is re-enforced by society and/or instilled and enhanced by fear. To formulate a new mythology that values the individual is difficult to say the least. Atheists have none in thier back pocket as the realm of the Atheist is science, physcology and, to a lessor extent, philosophy. The most likely scholarly tool to develop a "pseudo" or "neo" mythology is physcology, in my opinion.

... I just hope that some day some of you will come to the stark and obvious realization that thinking you hold the correct metaphyiscal theory, while everyone else is somehow "wrong", is the absolute height of human ignorance and arrogance and a symptom of being so tightly wound up in a web of your own subjectivity that you can't even see how much your perceptions, interpretations, and particularly your pre-existing obligations, skew your ability to think rationally and honestly.

Bravo! Here, here! (or is it hear, hear! - either seems to work).

I respect spirituality but too often I see spiritualty overrule reason. I feel that reason must be on an equal or greater basis with the spirit in order to actualize the full human potential.


From greyphilosophy
Humans by nature fear the unknown. What you think should be, and what actually is are completely different, and there is pleanty of documentation to back up the fact that humans fear the unknown. I deal in fact, and the evidence points to a man who about 2000 years ago was thoroughly killed, three days later the body was missing, and for many days after that many people claimed to see him. This same man claimed that there was an afterlife. He seems to be the best authority on the subject of life after death there has ever been.

“ (Santori's post)
I think it's pretty evident that the world is becoming increasingly secular. Think about 1000 years ago. Think about 100 years ago. Think about 30 years ago. Think about right now. "


What is your definition of secular? As long as there is culture there is religion.

Also I think there was a clear trend that during the 50's, 60's and 70's church attendance declined greatly, and it has only been since the 80's where we have seen younger people voluntarily going back to church.

I certainly agree that the unknown is a causation of fear. But additionally, to perhaps a much greater extent, real danger either perceived or actual causes fear in an individual. In child developement, the fear of the unknown can be seen in the infant's desire to return to the womb; the fear of the powerful father in competition for mother's love can be seen as more risk to the male infant. The competition can continue in other areas with less effect but the original fear remains sublimated.

I do have to strongly disagree with the assumtion of evidence for the " best authority on the subject of life after death there has ever been". Despite the lack of theological labels for those events described, it is Jesus or the Christ that is being referenced. The historical evidence for Christ is either non-existent or tenuous (but that is another thread). The same type of evidence can point to re-incarnation. Within that doctrine the are many more examples of a life after death. I offer this, not in condemmation, but in a suggestion that perhaps you could express it differently (belief and faith come to mind as a much stronger position).

Secularism is the antithesis of religion used today to differentiate from a theocratic world or community. While I agree that "religion" is present in any culture, I'm sure you'll agree that what is sometimes labeled as religion can be quite different from your implied use, i.e., Communism, love of money, hedonism, etc..

I am struck by your statement of trends. I didn't think that the "decline" started as early as you say. But whatever the years, I do not think they are as important as the explanation for those trends. I think that visibility can provide some answer to this.

We have become a more informed society inundated with media coverage. We hear of events that confirm our worldview and note them. Thus the increase in both the perceived strength of Atheism and Christianity. Statistics may bear out both trends or just one or, even, neither.

[greyphilosophy]

I might take the time to address other points later, but I just wanted to point out that the origin of the word cult, and culture, is the same, from the Latin colere.

[Bob Jenkins]

From greyphilosophy

I might take the time to address other points later, but I just wanted to point out that the origin of the word cult, and culture, is the same, from the Latin colere.


Very interesting (and not sarcasticly) that two words of differing definition would have the same root.. I've sensed from TWeb discourse that cult is used in its negative form.. I'm hoping that we can have a cultured discussion.

[Benjamin]

don't think anyone should be made to feel afraid about what comes after death or the sick wrath of various creator gods because we just don't know, and we don't even know if we are immortal for that matter (and it certainly seems, but all accounts, that we are tied to and derived from our physicality).

Okay, one of two things is happening here. Either 1. you are simply stating your irrational emotion-response to certain concepts of truth, a herd-preservation response engendered to you through darwinian and class/culture processes, or you are making reference to some objective standard of morality, ie. "Thou shalt not threaten others with the wrath of sick creator Gods".

If 1, frankly I don't care about your irrational emotion-responses, and I doubt many others do. I deeply despise the taste of Cofee, I don't use that as an argument for wether or not anyone else should like cofee. If 2, before you go any further, I want a justification for your claim to objective authority - where does this authority come from , and why should anyone care?

[John Powell]

BENJAMIN:
. . . before you go any further, I want a justification for your claim to objective authority - where does this authority come from , and why should anyone care?


POWELL:
If I'm understanding Satori as well as I think then I expect he'll deny that he has objective authority, but he'll claim no one else has it either.

Was I close, Satori?

John Powell

[Bob Jenkins]

“ BENJAMIN:
. . . before you go any further, I want a justification for your claim to objective authority - where does this authority come from , and why should anyone care?
”



POWELL:
If I'm understanding Satori as well as I think then I expect he'll deny that he has objective authority, but he'll claim no one else has it either.

Was I close, Satori?

BOB
Where does Satori even use the phrase objective authority - certainly not on this thread.

It's a dishonest practice to put words into his mouth

[JardinPrayer]

Satori reminds me of myself before I was saved...I needed tangible, logical, irrefutable proof of God before I would believe. I thought devoutly spiritual people were somehow deluded. I thought the bible was a collection of stories not many people actually wanted to read, but so many people seemed to believe.

Then there came a day when, after nearly 40 years of unbelief, I heard the still, small voice of God speak directly to me and I knew He was. I'm speaking literally. It was a moment I can point to and say everything changed. It doesn't happen in the tangible. Once I actually began to study the bible - which is MUCH more than a collection of stories - I read about the still, small voice I had not previously heard of...I read Jesus' words to Thomas as the apostle touched the nail-scarred hand of the risen Lord: "You see and you believe...how much more blessed are those who do not see and yet believe."

Religion exists in some form in every culture I'm aware of. It isn't something that spreads like a fungus...it becomes part of every developing culture - even the most isolated aboriginal tribes who couldn't have "picked it up" from others. Sharing your belief system with your community and raising your children with a sense of oneness with their fellows is a fundamental part of being human!

People who raise their children in the beliefs they hold themselves are not trying to frighten them, threaten them, truncate their development or in any other way dishonor them. They are giving them the greatest gift they believe they have. Nevertheless...there comes a time when we mature to the point when we realize our parents are not the ultimate authority we believed they were as babes. A great number of teenagers make the decision to step away from the belief system their parents raised them with as they forge their way into adulthood. Some stay. Some rebel. Some seek a fresh revelation. Sure, there are cults and there is brainwashing, and there are unhealthy practices, and there are radicals. But, Satori, generally speaking, having a spiritual belief system is comforting, and gives many in this world a sense of purpose.

Gee...I want to make about a dozen more points here, but I'm brand new to this board and have read the guidelines and I think I'm already over my # of points to make in a post! So, I'll sum up as I began - before I was saved, I needed proof. I now see that need for proof as a symbol of my insecurity about the universe and my place in it. That's all gone now. I have a path to follow, it is straight and narrow and my steps are ordered. I have a divine promise, divine intervention, healing, miracles, and fellowship available to me where they once did not exist. Hallelujah! Satori's hope for us is that "some day some of you will come to the stark and obvious realization that thinking you hold the correct metaphyiscal theory, while everyone else is somehow "wrong", is the absolute height of human ignorance and arrogance and a symptom of being so tightly wound up in a web of your own subjectivity that you can't even see how much your perceptions, interpretations, and particularly your pre-existing obligations, skew your ability to think rationally and honestly." My PRAYER for him is that he has a genuine encounter with the Almighty that will comfort him and remove this desire to fight in the natural what should be embraced in the spiritual.

Blessings to you all...

[Ryokan]

Satori, you say theists have a selfish desire for immortality. What is wrong with selfish? Isn't a subjective moral position, such as the one you hold, inherently selfish? Isn't seeking unselfishness, for yourself, or others, in fact selfish?

[greyphilosophy]

POWELL:
If I'm understanding Satori as well as I think then I expect he'll deny that he has objective authority, but he'll claim no one else has it either.

Was I close, Satori?

BOB
Where does Satori even use the phrase objective authority - certainly not on this thread.

It's a dishonest practice to put words into his mouth


Satori has been taking a very post-modern position. In another thread he denied a philosophical argument on every point because it seems he disagrees with the law of non-contradiction. He has been talking about objective truth, and yet provided nothing to back up his statements. Unless he is an objective authority, with the lack of proofs he has no grounds at all for his statements regarding objective truth.

~Greyphilosophy

[Benjamin]

BOB
Where does Satori even use the phrase objective authority - certainly not on this thread.

It's a dishonest practice to put words into his mouth

This is truly amazing stuff - a thread criticising me for putting words into the mouth of another, yet a thread which totally misquotes me!

Go back and read what I said. Essentially, it was "Either you are making claim to objective authority or not. If not, I don't care about your purely emotive opinion and I don't see why anyone should. If you are making claim, justify that claim."

[greyphilosophy]

ummm.... what?

I don't think anyone was attributeing that quote to you Benjamin. John Powell was the one who was accused of putting words in Satori's mouth.

read post:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=101962#post101962

[Bob Jenkins]

From greyphilosophy
Satori has been taking a very post-modern position. In another thread he denied a philosophical argument on every point because it seems he disagrees with the law of non-contradiction. He has been talking about objective truth, and yet provided nothing to back up his statements. Unless he is an objective authority, with the lack of proofs he has no grounds at all for his statements regarding objective truth.

With due respect, I find that the the use of labels to encapsulate a person's thought is highly misleading. The label is a grouping that lends credence to all the thoughts incorporated in it - which are often not held completely by the one so labeled. We would do better by addressing the particular thought in the context in which it was given rather than sticking a label on it..

[Bob Jenkins]

From Benjamin
"Either you are making claim to objective authority or not. If not, I don't care about your purely emotive opinion and I don't see why anyone should. If you are making claim, justify that claim."

Objective truth can be expressed and proven without the use of authority. To demand such authority and be dismissive without it is wrong.

[Satori]

I see this thread and descended into nonsensical semantics, like so many often do.

That's simply a consequence of this sort of rhetorical discussion, and of the general idea that nothing can be known to an absolutely certainty.

Rest assured that I will return to this thread when I have more time. I sincerely thank you for your patience. After a thread I'm currently involved with dies out, I'll pick up on this one rather than get involved in another.

Satori

[Satori]

I would like to reply to one thing though, which I thought was kind of amusing:

Today @ 10:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103011#post103011)
Bob Jenkins:

From Benjamin

Objective truth can be expressed and proven without the use of authority.

There is no objective truth apart from what you perceive as such. As much as you'd love to transcend the inherent limitations of your own subjective nature, you will find that you cannot.

I realize how religious folks feel the need to cling to notions of absolutes, and I feel they shouldn't because it's just so very ridiculous and easily dismantled, particularly when it comes to disucssing things of a paranormal nature. We can only relie up on our limited senses and intellects because that's all we have.

To demand such authority and be dismissive without it is wrong.

You mean, of course, that in your **opinion** it's wrong. In my opinion it's wrong to brainwash 3 year olds with disturbing words, imagery, and threats about god's savage vengeance and highly conditional love/compassion, but I realize that that is just my opinion, to others is the best thing since sliced cheese (as much as that makes me want to wretch in pity and disbelief).

Please try to differentiate between reality and your opinions about that reality. Realize your own subjective and interpretive nature.

Satori

[JardinPrayer]

Today @ 06:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103643#post103643)
Satori:

I realize how religious folks feel the need to cling to notions of absolutes, and I feel they shouldn't because it's just so very ridiculous and easily dismantled, particularly when it comes to disucssing things of a paranormal nature. We can only relie up on our limited senses and intellects because that's all we have.




"Religious folk" is perhaps the grossest generalization I've seen here so far. If I had to label myself at all (and I believe we would all be better off to avoid labels), I would have to say I'm "devoutly Christian." I can honestly say that I do not "feel the need to cling to notions of absolutes." I feel the need to seek God...every day. My strongest objection, however, is to the suggestion that our "limited senses and intellects" are "all we have." What I have that Satori does not is faith. I find that far surpasses the limits of both my senses and my intellect. I shall continue to pray Satori finds the comfort and peace those of us who know God have.

[greyphilosophy]

With due respect, I find that the the use of labels to encapsulate a person's thought is highly misleading. The label is a grouping that lends credence to all the thoughts incorporated in it - which are often not held completely by the one so labeled. We would do better by addressing the particular thought in the context in which it was given rather than sticking a label on it..


What do you know about postmodernism? Has any thought been argued by Satori which does no fall into the catagory of postmodern? Why would it be better to address particular thoughts only in the context which they are given? Why would it not be more practical to compare the data received with data which has already been received to find a greater context?

Human thought and language revolves for the most part around symbol manipulation and catagorization, aka labeling (opinion held by scholars and philosophers, and myself). Although it is trendy to try and reject labels, I don't believe it is possible for human beings. Even if it were possible, it certainly isn't practical.

Also I would hope that it is assumed that variations can fall within a label. A generalization by definition only holds true in most cases, leaving room for exceptions.

[greyphilosophy]

Satori writes:

Please try to differentiate between reality and your opinions about that reality. Realize your own subjective and interpretive nature.


We could enter a discussion here about the numina and phenomena, but before doing so I would like to know if you believe reality exists. Do you believe reality exists? If yes, is it a single reality, or is reality subjective?

~Grey

[Benjamin]

What I find most amusing is that Satori has just quoted Bob Jenkins twice thinking it was me and demolished two arguments in support of him.

Funny Stuff. :cool:

[Bob Jenkins]

From greyphilosophy
Human thought and language revolves for the most part around symbol manipulation and catagorization, aka labeling (opinion held by scholars and philosophers, and myself). Although it is trendy to try and reject labels, I don't believe it is possible for human beings. Even if it were possible, it certainly isn't practical.

Also I would hope that it is assumed that variations can fall within a label. A generalization by definition only holds true in most cases, leaving room for exceptions.

You are right, of course, in so much of what you wrote.

I was thinking of the abuse of labels when I wrote my, hopefully, gentle rant. I feel it is wrong, in the case of a Christian, to boldy label the Christian as an agnostic when he or she expresses a doubt.

Another thought I would like to present is that not every one knows what is really being said. Weak/strong Atheism, open/closed Theism and many of the other "ism's".. Although a dictionary may provide a definition it does nothing to include the finer points within the "ism".

[greyphilosophy]

Another thought I would like to present is that not every one knows what is really being said. Weak/strong Atheism, open/closed Theism and many of the other "ism's".. Although a dictionary may provide a definition it does nothing to include the finer points within the "ism".


Now that is a good point. I admit I was operating under the assumption that everyone here knows what postmodern thought entails. I realize that dictionary.com doesn't provide a definition for postmodern in the context of philosophy. Perhaps it would have been better if I said that Satori has been arguing for subjectiveness in all matters.