Wu Wei-- Heathen Conference

I have said this a few times, and thought it seems to go against my own point here, it's what I feel I should say. This is directed more towards those who are atheist-agnostics, non-believers, et cetera. It's all the same to me, we don't claim to know everything, just what we can surmise on the best evidence.

And we are, in the SB, I believe, good-intentioned. At least, the very most of us. The good many of us argue against organized religion and the ideas that are so tossed around in these threads that I could only wonder at the amount of brain-sweat that has been expelled.

And, of course, the theists have been hard at work as well, and if they didn't have their thinking caps on concerning their ideas all the time, it is certain you wouldn't still be doing this at the very moment I am typing this post. I have been very impressed with it.

Now, to my point. From an atheist's point of view, religions have a mix of each of these in them, according to our point of view that they are man-made constructs.


-Psycho-Social Stability & Emotional Comfort
-Sense of Externally-Placed Worth
-Tribalist Norms & Values For Symbolic Or Hygenic Effect

Others I'm missing can be addressed, but that is not the main point. Point is, there are benefits. And good science is out there now, educating students all over America about the modern theories of things and not holding them totally to what we might consider more primitive ideas of knowledge. And these are interesting times to live in, to see all of this clashing.

I do not believe in God more than I do as a concept. But at the same time, I feel anger at what this concept can do when it has outlived its usefulness in ways but not in others. People need reassurance. And though it sickens me at times to see people cling to the idea of an ancient world flood and a big boat full of animals just to hold these ideas together, I know that...that's not what they see. They aren't trying to spite me. They just want to get by. They're just in the processes of something started ages ago. And I still hate the thing. But I have to live with knowing I'm in a delusive state when I hate it.

If we have schools getting the proper notion to the children out there, who cares about the Creationist Museum? Religion, fundamentalism, whatever picks at you. I know you want to help people. I do, too. But really, if people cling to it so much, they must not be ready to let go. The older generations fall, and so will we.

Religion is often a conditioning that can be found in many layers of a person. It is the heart of a culture, and picking at it, we sometimes can create a bigger mess, a torn person. That's where Wu Wei comes in. Wu Wei is a Zen Buddhist concept that originated in Taoism. It means to let things go their own path and to know when to act and when not to act.

My main issue here is to debate whether these ZU religious discussions are truly fruitful or not. Whether it is worth the effort we are making, if there is more good done than ill. We keep going over the same things. And though it is strange to say, knowing is not everything. You don't need to know a cup is called a cup to drink from it.

Those who trust the pious Creationists are not going by science to validate their claims.

Those who trust the studious scientists are not going by religion to validate their claims.

These are dualistic opposites as long as the arguments come from these sides. Both sides have simply been conditioned by their ways of thinking, regardless of stimulus, to make the conclusions that they have. There is no Absolute Truth sensory-organ. There is a brain for storing and organizing DATA.

So, really, how futile is it? Is this Wu Wei-or not? I merely ask you to ask yourself what progress has been made as far as you have seen it. And if this is all for fun, for just passing the time, that is fine. I am not trying to judge you all by asking this. I am asking myself now. It is Serious Business about Serious Business.

And with that, I end the post with a quote from the Tao Te Ching:

The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.

Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.

Originally Posted by Master Shade

If we have schools getting the proper notion to the children out there, who cares about the Creationist Museum? Religion, fundamentalism, whatever picks at you. I know you want to help people. I do, too. But really, if people cling to it so much, they must not be ready to let go. The older generations fall, and so will we.

Why do I care about the Creationist Museum? Its because its not good science, what would happen to the future of science and academia, if less and less people don't have a good understanding of science.

What would happen to the future of humanity in general, if more and more people have a distrust of science and medicine. Or if they believe prayer is much more beneficial than medicine.

For example, a little girl died of a curable diabetes because her parents, instead of taking her to the doctors, prayed instead.

My main issue here is to debate whether these ZU religious discussions are truly fruitful or not. Whether it is worth the effort we are making, if there is more good done than ill. We keep going over the same things. And though it is strange to say, knowing is not everything. You don't need to know a cup is called a cup to drink from it.

ZU's religious debates may not be fruitful, but I doubt they are causing ill. I certainly think the effort we are making is worth it, my goal of debating is to not change the other persons mind, but, so that we may learn from each other.

I go into every debate as a new learning experience, not to prove that I am smarter than any one, or that I am right or they are wrong (though I may think it at times, )

I also find debates fun, as a sort of pastime.



Hey Shade, you seem knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know of any good websites that help explain Taoism? I've found an online translation of the Tao Te Ching, but, that book isn't the easiest to understand.

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

Why do I care about the Creationist Museum? Its because its not good science, what would happen to the future of science and academia, if less and less people don't have a good understanding of science.

What would happen to the future of humanity in general, if more and more people have a distrust of science and medicine. Or if they believe prayer is much more beneficial than medicine.

I don't think science has anything to really worry about. The people who go to that museum usually have already bought into the ridiculous ideas. It's up to them to pull themselves out. Only the fringe believers will be converted from their path. And even that path is no path different than ours. That leads to a discussion about reality and ignorance.

Christianity, for example, has numbers that are falling, and only the scarce few would go so far as to do that anymore, concerning your example. And ignorance is their armor, and they wear it around their heart. That's why they see it as so important. Reason doesn't work there. Therefore, force is required and these discussions still bear little fruit. When a tree is barren, we cut it down and make fertilizer.

And science is still important. Whether people like it or not, 99% of all schools teach that which has been observed through evidence (Evolution and other sciences) as facts. While facts are important to know in most cases, they aren't sentient. People are. I think that, if the arguments aren't fruitful, they are probably wasting energy by eroding more and more a definitive line between believers and non. For example, I think the sigs I see so often with Christian symbolism or Bible verses would be a lot less prevalent if there WASN'T always a big religious controversy in the SB...and wise ones know people have argued over religion since the most ancient of times. Disputing it hasn't gotten us that far, you know that. I feel they need to take their own paths, and so they can change harmoniously to complement each other as humanity becomes more and more intelligent.

Originally Posted by E.P.

Hey Shade, you seem knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know of any good websites that help explain Taoism? I've found an online translation of the Tao Te Ching, but, that book isn't the easiest to understand.

CenterTao: Taoist Thought, Discussions, and more
Tao Te Ching Commentary Index
Taoism Information Page

These should do you well, friend.

Originally Posted by Master Shade

Those who trust the pious Creationists are not going by science to validate their claims.

Theists.

Those who trust the studious scientists are not going by religion to validate their claims.

Atheists.

Logically following, what about adding in;

Originally Posted by omitted

Those who trust their own common sense, listen to arguments put forward by both of the aforementioned groups and support whichever appears to be most accurate, arguing against weak arguments, and in favour of strong arguments?

Agnostics.

I don't argue that science is totally right about everything and that religion is totally wrong. For a start, I have often argued that the scientific view of the origins of the universe are wrong. And I use a mixture of scientific and philosophical ideas to do that.

I pretty much agree with everything Eternal Paradox said.

I do think though, at times, these debates are fruitful. For one thing, I think debating difficult concepts like religion and science are good for our psychological development. I may be wrong about that though.

I am not wrong in thinking that people can learn a lot from these debates. I have learned quite a lot of things, in particular from people such as GDwarf, that I am certain I would never have learned otherwise.

And I do seem to remember you mentioning this at least once before.

Yes, after some checks, you said it in the atheism thread. You advised GDwarf and I not to waste our time.

GDwarf had this to say:

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I believe I said this earlier in this thread: My goal is not to convince any true believers, that would indeed be futile.

Rather, I try to counter their arguments so that I can convince the fence-sitters, or those who only believe somewhat. After all, people can be convinced that Christianity is right by, say, the ontological argument. However, that argument is such a massive fallacy that it takes very little time to show it to be false. After that it is, of course, up to them if they want to keep believing, but at least I've removed one false thing tying them to belief.

It's a great point. I don't think religion is necessarily false, but then, I also don't think people should be brought into religious beliefs solely because they are unaware of the existence of any alternative explanations for things. If you are religious, it should be after consideration, not a religious person says "jump", you say "how high?".

You yourself responded thus:

Originally Posted by Master Shade

Well, in that case, forgive me for misunderstanding. No problem, here. Fence-sitters need to be reached, I agree with that. Christianity is not for everyone, and yet, it's been placed on nearly everyone.

And as I said then:

Originally Posted by Myself

And my agenda is even different. I will argue against anything I feel does not hold up, in order that we may all be able to further our knowledge, particularly, but not limited to, me. At the moment, I am arguing alongside GDwarf, because we have been debating against the beliefs of people we both feel are not able to provide sensible responses. On the other hand, if somebody else argues points I feel are good, and GDwarf gives counter arguments I do not agree with, I will argue alongside the newcomer and not GDwarf.

My point still stands. So does GDwarf's. I'm learning from this. And if (sensible, considered) scientific arguments against (nonsensical, result-of-indoctrination) religious arguments prevent fence-sitters from turning into religious fanaticals then I shaln't lose any sleep over that. And by the same token, if (sensible, considered) religious arguments against (nonsensical, result-of-indoctrination) scientific arguments prevent fence-sitters' transformation into fools who can see no further than the end of their nose, even if I had been involved in that, I would lose no sleep over it.

These are dualistic opposites as long as the arguments come from these sides. Both sides have simply been conditioned by their ways of thinking, regardless of stimulus, to make the conclusions that they have. There is no Absolute Truth sensory-organ. There is a brain for storing and organizing DATA.

I disagree. Yeah, we may be conditioned by our ways of thinking. But what conditioned our ways of thinking in the first place? Some ways of thinking are productive, some counter-productive. It is a counter-productive way of thinking to use an argument such as "the Bible says so, ergo it is true" or "a scientist said so despite the fact that it was based on since-disproven evidences, ergo it is true". But it is great to use arguments such as "x could not happen without God, x happened, therefore there is a god" or "x could happen without God, therefore x happening proves nothing".

And the very statement "There is no Absolute Truth sensory-organ. There is a brain for storing and organizing DATA" seems like a problem to me. How can you know that? You only come to that conclusion because of your conditioned ways of thinking, as do I come to this one, so how can you argue it?

Originally Posted by Master Shade

Christianity, for example, has numbers that are falling, and only the scarce few would go so far as to do that anymore, concerning your example. And ignorance is their armor, and they wear it around their heart. That's why they see it as so important. Reason doesn't work there. Therefore, force is required and these discussions still bear little fruit. When a tree is barren, we cut it down and make fertilizer.

It happens. It doesn't have to happen a lot to make it a tragedy.

And science is still important. Whether people like it or not, 99% of all schools teach that which has been observed through evidence (Evolution and other sciences) as facts.

What alternative do you suggest?

While facts are important to know in most cases, they aren't sentient. People are. I think that, if the arguments aren't fruitful, they are probably wasting energy by eroding more and more a definitive line between believers and non.

Wasting energy? What activity can we engage in that can not be described by any as a waste of time and energy?

Disputing it hasn't gotten us that far, you know that. I feel they need to take their own paths, and so they can change harmoniously to complement each other as humanity becomes more and more intelligent.

I think the disputes have been worth it, at least for myself. But really, what has ever been said on this forum, even outside the I:SB which you would consider worthy? The Zelda forums are just for discussing our views on a video game. That doesn't matter, if someone prefers WW to OoT it won't change my view. General Chit-Chat? Really, why bother? Oh do you hate haircuts? How messy is your room? What was your first car? Do any of these randomly selected from the GCC threads have any point beyond discussion itself? Doubtless not. Yet people consider it worthwhile, or they wouldn't post. Which brings me on to the next point - nobody who posts here is forced to do so. If they don't want to see arguments against religion/science there are two measures they can take to ensure that; 1) Do not create an argument in favour of religion/science, because it is natural for someone who disagrees to argue against it, and 2) do not open a thread with a pro/anti-religios title, such as "why God exists/why there is no God" because obviously you will find both sides in the argument. It's common sense really.

All the more I can say is that we should find a healthy medium, an argument somewhere in the middle, between philosophy and science, rather than rage on about just one of them.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

I don't argue that science is totally right about everything and that religion is totally wrong. For a start, I have often argued that the scientific view of the origins of the universe are wrong. And I use a mixture of scientific and philosophical ideas to do that.

Guy, I respect you. But I'm sure that if the origins of the universe had a beginning that is more "rational" than what scientists are saying now, they would have just said it or we will know it. I mean, I believe you're intelligent, but that is not your field of expertise. Laws that apply in other places may not apply elsewhere. And I share a similar view that religion is not totally wrong, and that there is a margin for scientific error. But I also know that in terms of concrete things like science, I'm out of my league. That goes for you too, you aren't a quantum physicist.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

I do think though, at times, these debates are fruitful. For one thing, I think debating difficult concepts like religion and science are good for our psychological development. I may be wrong about that though.

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss science and religion. I'm saying there are topics of it that may be better off left for the individual to decide on. For example, we could have an archive of arguments for an atheist's perspective and those of a theist's perspective set up on the site and indexed. If a person wishes to make an argument against these patented points they can make a thread. But there should be a list of things that can't be contested, like faith. So, the suspension of disbelief should be something a person by rule cannot use in an argument. They can only go by points on what to think, which are added as debates go along. That might be more productive, and less repetitive.

There is simply a lot of repetition.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

My point still stands. So does GDwarf's. I'm learning from this. And if (sensible, considered) scientific arguments against (nonsensical, result-of-indoctrination) religious arguments prevent fence-sitters from turning into religious fanaticals then I shaln't lose any sleep over that. And by the same token, if (sensible, considered) religious arguments against (nonsensical, result-of-indoctrination) scientific arguments prevent fence-sitters' transformation into fools who can see no further than the end of their nose, even if I had been involved in that, I would lose no sleep over it.

So what if a fence-sitter becomes a religious fanatical? A few might or will anyway. Their minds might "need" something like that. I already said the numbers are declining. And besides, we all have mindsets we transition through, and no religion has been shown to change brain chemistry significantly enough that it can be said to have some real power. Religion is a tribal thing, a mentality. It's not evil, even if ignorant. Just misled. Over time, the generations will take care of themselves. That's why I'm saying it's not that vital we be so religion focused and that some limitations and points of redundancy should be made. That way, more progress can be made.

Originally Posted by Guy

I disagree. Yeah, we may be conditioned by our ways of thinking. But what conditioned our ways of thinking in the first place? Some ways of thinking are productive, some counter-productive. It is a counter-productive way of thinking to use an argument such as "the Bible says so, ergo it is true" or "a scientist said so despite the fact that it was based on since-disproven evidences, ergo it is true". But it is great to use arguments such as "x could not happen without God, x happened, therefore there is a god" or "x could happen without God, therefore x happening proves nothing".

I say our conditioning of mind arises out of utility. Yes, some modes of thinking are counter-productive to those that disagree. But it's still dualism, still a false view, regardless if it is objectively proven, in a larger sense. Because, every word you speak is just a symbol for what you can never experience. Everything you see, an illusion made of light. So, even the truth is a lie on another level.

Originally Posted by Guy

And the very statement "There is no Absolute Truth sensory-organ. There is a brain for storing and organizing DATA" seems like a problem to me. How can you know that? You only come to that conclusion because of your conditioned ways of thinking, as do I come to this one, so how can you argue it?

From what we can tell from observing human behavior, nothing gauges ultimate truth. The brain sorts information. Scientifically, we cannot say anything is absolute, except that nothing is absolute, everything is subject to decay or change. And it's not a conditioned statement. I am not saying this out of some fanciful desire. Evolutionarily, there was no need to know this idea of Absolute Truth. Just to survive and perpetuate the species.

Originally Posted by Guy

It happens. It doesn't have to happen a lot to make it a tragedy.

But is it a tragedy in the only sense that we can gauge to matter, i.e. perception? What if someone WANTS to die for some weird belief and would be miserable if they violated those laws? I don't think that it is particularly right or wrong, as my perspective would be a bias. Playing Devil's advocate, wouldn't saving a person from their subjectively apportioned fate be an evil?

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

What alternative do you suggest?

I was pointing out good science is not in danger. Generations are becoming increasingly less fundamentalist, and so, religion is also fine.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

Wasting energy? What activity can we engage in that can not be described by any as a waste of time and energy?

I think the disputes have been worth it, at least for myself. But really, what has ever been said on this forum, even outside the I:SB which you would consider worthy? The Zelda forums are just for discussing our views on a video game. That doesn't matter, if someone prefers WW to OoT it won't change my view. General Chit-Chat? Really, why bother? Oh do you hate haircuts? How messy is your room? What was your first car? Do any of these randomly selected from the GCC threads have any point beyond discussion itself? Doubtless not. Yet people consider it worthwhile, or they wouldn't post. Which brings me on to the next point - nobody who posts here is forced to do so. If they don't want to see arguments against religion/science there are two measures they can take to ensure that; 1) Do not create an argument in favour of religion/science, because it is natural for someone who disagrees to argue against it, and 2) do not open a thread with a pro/anti-religios title, such as "why God exists/why there is no God" because obviously you will find both sides in the argument. It's common sense really.

All the more I can say is that we should find a healthy medium, an argument somewhere in the middle, between philosophy and science, rather than rage on about just one of them.

I guess what I mean is some of the repetition comes off as a bit like ramming your head into a wall repeatedly in the midst of doing work. My suggestion above would probably address my concerns.

Originally Posted by Master Shade

Scientifically, we cannot say anything is absolute, except that nothing is absolute, everything is subject to decay or change.

Except that "nothing is absolute" is itself an absolute statement.

Originally Posted by LadyElvenarcher

Except that "nothing is absolute" is itself an absolute statement.

That's right. The absolute of no absolutes. It's a paradox, seemingly, like anarchy, but technically, all law is also an artificial construct made by man and the truth of the world is therefore anarchy. Understanding by negation.

Originally Posted by Master Shade

That's right. The absolute of no absolutes. It's a paradox, but it makes sense to me.

It's self-refuting, though. If you assert there are no absolutes by making an absolute statement, you've just undermined your entire point.

Originally Posted by LadyElvenarcher

It's self-refuting, though. If you assert there are no absolutes by making an absolute statement, you've just undermined your entire point.

That's right, I have. The point is to refute even that which makes the point. Logic is shown to be limited and useless in true understanding, due to our limitations. Therefore, the only true wisdom is awareness of ignorance, and the whole anarchy thing follows this pattern.

Originally Posted by Master Shade

That's right, I have. The point is to refute even that which makes the point. Logic is shown to be limited and useless in true understanding, due to our limitations. Therefore, the only true wisdom is awareness of ignorance, and the whole anarchy thing follows this pattern.

I agree that logic is limited, yes. But it sounds to me like that's what you'd rather have--logical explanations of things. You know, instead of theists running around spouting off "illogical statements" and whatnot. :/

Originally Posted by LadyElvenarcher

I agree that logic is limited, yes. But it sounds to me like that's what you'd rather have--logical explanations of things. You know, instead of theists running around spouting off "illogical statements" and whatnot. :/

There's a difference between theists and those who think in this vein. While what I say is illogical, I don't apply labels and powers to what I come illogically ad reducto to in my conclusions. When I operate in the parameters of description, function, and form in general, logic becomes an issue, and then the result is an absurdity...at least, to those who haven't committed their suspension of disbelief to it.