1939 Newsreel Shows US Pledge of Allegiance Was Once Godless

Post Reply New Topic

You claimed that, in order for you to change your mind in regards to what you think is Christian stubborness, the Pope must declare himself an atheist. Please excuse me for thinking that that means you've decided that your beliefs are inherently right because you say so.

Exactly. And I say so by careful study and evaluation of what I consider reality. We obviously have divergent views on what that might be. If you cannot trust yourself to be confident of your opinions then I suggest you look around at the world more carefully.

It is a fact that people convey ideas with words. That is what words are for. And they work. Using the words that you just used, you conveyed an idea to me. A self-contradictory idea, as it happens, since the fact that I understood the idea behind the words you used contradicts that idea, but an idea nonetheless.


Words are not a cage. They are pointers to the ideas they represent. They are not themselves the ideas, but they represent ideas. Hence, when you use words, I understand the ideas you are trying to convey.


I may have overstated slightly when I said "virtually everyone", but still, it is quite common to find a rejection or debunking of Christianity that is really just debunking a straw-man. People who use evolution against it, for example, not understanding that not all Christians interpret the creation story in Genesis literally, and that even for those who do, it isn't considered the most important thing. People try to talk about the 'numerous contradictions', but can rarely come up with one specific one. People talk about 'so many translations', not realizing that the translations came after the originals and didn't change them. People try to hold us to a strict literal interpretation, which many Christians reject.

That was not a non-sequitur at all. Your arguments against words assume that people are confusing the words and what the words represent, clearly analogous to confusing a map of China with China itself.

People don't make that mistake. Everyone knows that the word 'China' represents China, and a map of China represents China, but that neither of these things is actually China.

Einstein was not a devout Jew (although he was culturally Jewish). Newton subscribed to the Arianist heresy. If his real views become known while he was still alive he would have been fired on the spot and perhaps even imprisoned.

ruveyn

The point is that you assume that there can be no other answer but your own, and you feel disdain for anyone whose view diverges from your own. Your arguments are meaningless because they are made from a point of complete bias, without the possibility of even considering a different point. You claim that Christianity refuses to consider other views, and yet you do it yourself!

Not even Stephen Hawking thinks that there's no chance that God exists.



That's... actually not what we were talking about when he made that argument.

Also, for the record: With the argument against words, we're not talking about conveying ideas. You cannot convey ideas that go beyond words, but the reliance on words make a person unable to obtain the ideas. Instead of communicating with words, the idea is that you bring about these ideas.



Einstein was not just culturally Jewish. Many of his quotes point to the fact that he believed, utterly and completely, in the Jewish God. One of them at least seems to indicate that one of the ways he practiced his Jewish faith was through physics. Newton actually had a number of religious views that, combined, show a Unitarian view.

And what are these ideas brought about with? Words. That's what zen koans are made of. That's what the Tao Te Ching is made of.

How can we know that these wordless ideas exist? If we can describe their effects, then we know something about them, and can put it into words. If they have no effects, why do you say they exist?

Except that a koan is not about the question or the answer. Neither are all that important, because each are made with words.

Try this: Describe, in words, the feel of a feather. You cannot. The ideas exist without words and cannot be expressed in words. The very first thing that is said in the Tao Te Ching is this:



So to put the Tao in words would mean that it is not the Tao. The same is true of wordless ideas. The ideas are never expressed in words, because these words are cannot describe these ideas.

Go tear up some scriptures, and then answer me this: What is the meaning of life? The idea of this question being answered, in words, by a Tibetan Monk is laughable. There is no wordly answer to this question. This question is a betrayal of itself, even, for it is expressed in words! The question goes beyond words, and can only be asked and answered outside of the realm of words. It exists within yourself and must be answered within yourself.

I guess it would be helpful to point out that there are six senses in standard Buddhist thought. The basic five are there, and then the other sense is thought.

The only way this makes sense is if the koan isn't meant to be taken literally, but thought about. However, the koan is still words. The meaning of a koan might be subtle, and it might even need context, but it is still there, in the words.


In a word: feathery. You might think this is some sort of cop-out, but it isn't. Words are pointers, not the things themselves. They are like a finger pointing to the moon. They are not the moon, but they can show you where it is.

In a few more words: soft, silky, smooth, if they get frazzled sometimes fuzzy, if they're large feathers almost papery, and the central stalk is like a stalk of a leaf, only a bit firmer and smoother.


I read this differently from you. I think it is trying to imply that merely memorizing words about the Tao isn't really knowing the Tao. Kind of like the bit about new wine in old wineskins in the new testament, and "to obey is better than sacrifice" in the old. Words merely as words are dead, but that doesn't make them meaningless.


No thank you.


The orthodox Christian answer would probably be along the lines of "to glorify God and serve him forever". An answer following Jesus' words would probably emphasize giving to the poor and helping the weak. In my own words, I would say something about being the best person you can possibly be, and making sure to enjoy life along the way.

I think all of these things really mean the same thing.


Not being a Tibetan comedian, I don't care what makes Tibetan monks laugh.

Give the boy a prize! An example koan and the answer the master gave follows:





Yep. I can affix in my mind the feel of a feather now perfectly. /sarcasm

(Edit: The problem with words-as-guides is that they're a piss poor substitute for experiential knowledge, as is evidenced quite well by this problem. You cannot tell me that you think that a person who's never felt a feather before would be able to get an accurate feeling from reading your description.)



No, because to call it the Tao introduces concepts into it that do not exist naturally. In the case of the Tao, it introduces differentiation. It is merely called Tao for convenience. This part should be enough to explain that, but you have come down to justifying your views.



Do you see now why words do not work? That is not the question I asked. You thought it was, but it was not.

Hmmmm.....

If that's the case, then I know what state is the best one to live in....

Good 'ol Texas!

I do, however, find it ironic that the capital of one of the most conservative states is one of the most liberal and progressive cities in the country.

It's really weird...much like Austin.

That's exactly my point. You do know what a feather feels like, so you only have to say the word 'feather' to get it across. For someone who didn't, words would do fairly well, if not as well as an actual feather.


That isn't an example of words not working. That's an example of you not expressing yourself well. So what did you mean to say?

My point is that, for someone who hasn't felt a feather before, your words are completely unable to convey the sensation. Try this: Find someone who's never felt a feather before. Give them your description of what a feather feels like, and then give them a feather. Ask them if it's the same for them.



I said exactly what I meant. Words just do a pretty poor job of dealing with things beyond the everyday. Words were created out of a necessity of being able to tell people where the nearest shelter is or whose turn on watch it was. Basic actions and commands of life are hard-wired into words, and they aren't very useful past that. There have been courageous attempts to expand the realm of language beyond these basic levels, but they all fall short.

In order to expand our ability to communicate beyond the realm of necessity and wants (into the realm of the unknown, such as some form of communication that can go into the realm of the spiritual or philosophical), we must re-write the code behind them. That is what Zen Buddhism does. It does not use words, not in the way we think of them. It has its own sort of language, but one that is not recognizeable by your or I as such. In fact, it goes beyond the realm of what we would normally think is possible. I've practiced this language in my own time, but I cannot communicate with it as they do. I am also not nearly as advanced as they. They have the advantage of having practiced this language and communication for over two millennia. This is why I wish to, one day, go to a Zen monastery and study under these monks. They are the undisputed masters of this art.

You might understand it if I explain it like this: Words are spoken, but the communication is not the words at all.

You are perfectly correct in that there are severe limitations on the power of words. One cannot convey the sense of color or the taste of any particular food on words alone to someone blind from birth or who has never experienced vanilla or chocolate. But it is a professional skill that must be developed (or a good natural talent) to be able to be cogent with words. They are limited, but extremely useful in many more subtle ways than rough commands of awareness. To deny the effectiveness of poetry and song is to be blind to huge sectors of human culture.

Poetry is about the highest level that can be attained from words. Even that does not come close to describing things like God, Heaven, or the Tao. As I said before, there have been efforts to expand the possibilities of words, but that doesn't mean that they are capable of going to the lengths necessary to describe experiential matters.

In fact, to feel what a poem tells you about love, don't you need to have loved before? If you've been in one of Harry Harlow's experiments, wouldn't you not understand Eternal Flame at all? You might understand Hallelujah, but certainly not, say, The Power of Love. It is certainly more powerful for conveying emotion, but not much better than simple words.

You are fairly close. Rarely can words evoke in a mind what has not been experienced. Since all experiences of God are pure fabricated fantasy it is no surprise that God cannot be evoked by words.