Atheist!

[Guest]

Great. I'll go find something we can use for a table.

Laughing -

 

[slippedhalo]

Thanks. (pulls up a chair)

 

[NoJo]

Laughing -

I'm laughing too, because I just saw the episode in series one where there's a continuity mistake, and the tricorder jumps from DeForrest Kelly's left hand to his right.

 

[rgraham666]

D'oh! Where are my manners?

Welcome to the AH, halo.

 

[CharleyH]

My own belief abut religion and warfare is that if you got rid of all religion over night, they'd still be fighting tomorrow, because really, very few wars are really about whether we should worship one god or three-in-one or eat pork or not.

I cannot agree with this, and I respect you much, Doc, but I really defer to SJ here. Most major wars are not anything else but a war over pissing rights- call it Christian, Judaism or Muslim - but I do know (and I also know I will eventually have to find my proof) that Pagans never warred religously because there were multiple gods in a State. Since Christian religion? Well, another talk.

We argue philosophy and religion and dog territory in the 21st century. Religious and land claim wars often come down to this: "I pissed here first - so therefore it is my territory ,and even if I did not piss here first? Well, I have more nukes than you do so - nana nana nana

 

[CharleyH]

Edit to add? I missed the comedy routine! lol

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think most of us can recall learning about Egyptian, Norse, Greek and Roman gods and goddesses and look upon that as mythology. Interesting, maybe fascinating, maybe literature, maybe just a collection of stories, fiction, old beliefs that mean very little to us in our present day since we weren't taught to worship sun gods and gods of war and goddesses of love. To me, ALL religion and religious beliefs are like that. Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Taoism, Islam, Buddhism...it's all just an interesting set of stories, no more.

I know. I think that's the way most of us look at religion, as a bunch of stories people made up because they didn't know any better and we don't need anymore. Like Thor was just a crummy first=draft version of the Marvel Superhero and the Egyptian gods were just badly drawn people with weird animal heads on their shoulders who probably had some super-powers. But I don't believe that. To me, that's like saying that neolithic cave art is worthless because we know how to draw better than that now and their pictures weren't very accurate.

I'm really sorry all that mythology you read just came off as a bunch of different stories to you. To me, that's kind of looking at a book of art from all these different cultures and saying they were all just a bunch of pictures. Quiet honestly though, I've always had trouble with Greek and Norse religion and mythology myself. I just don't see how the Greeks could cobble together a meaningful religion out of that odd collection of stories and myths (maybe that's why they turned to philosophy so much. They also did have a lot of local mystery cults too). And we must be missing great chunks of information on Norse religion in my opinion. What we have is more like comic-book fodder than a religion or belief system.

The Egyptians, by the way, didn't think of their gods as people with animal heads. What they were trying to express was the spiritual quality of that animal as a divine force. When you think of it that way, you see that what they were doing was creating a kind of spiritual mathematics with which to express concepts we can't even grasp anymore. These were not just stupid people who didn't know any better than to think their gods might have crocodile heads.

Anyhow, that's how I understand it, and that's the kind of stuff I think you lose when you look at all this as just a bunch of stories. People have spent thousands of years trying to come to terms with the transcendent, and some of them were surprisingly successful. Or maybe just surprising, which is almost just as good.

I took my BA in English, a humanity, and floundered around in all these soft concepts like beauty and meaning and truth and all that, and it all felt so useless and nebulous. I eventually ended up getting a Master's degree in a hard science, which felt much more comfortable and relevant and pragmatic. At last I was dealing with hard answers and the objective world rather than the subjective world inside my head. It felt much more important. Much more productive and useful to society. More materialistic and real. If life has secrets, I figured I had a better chance of getting close to them in a hard science rather than in a humanity.

It was only after I got older that I realized that the humanities are more important than the sciences. Science can tell you all sorts of facts, but what we make of that information and what it does to us is the provenance of the humanities. Science can tell us that the atoms in our bodies were formed in the hearts of stars billions of years ago through nuclear fusion, but the emotional effect that has on us and the wonder we feel at that fact is basically a religious feeling as far as I'm concerned, and that's the provenance of the humanities

Like Joe said, you don't have to believe in God (or Brahma, or the Great Spirit, or whoever) to feel that kind of awe, but at the same time, when I stumble out into my backyard with my mouth open looking up at the stars, just astonished by all this, the last thing I want to hear is someone telling me, "Ah, it's all a bunch of hooey! It doesn't mean anything."

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I cannot agree with this, and I respect you much, Doc, but I really defer to SJ here. Most major wars are not anything else but a war over pissing rights- call it Christian, Judaism or Muslim - but I do know (and I also know I will eventually have to find my proof) that Pagans never warred religously because there were multiple gods in a State. Since Christian religion? Well, another talk.

Love you, Charlie, but I believe the Egyptians, the Babylonians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Greeks, Romans, Huns, Goths, Vandals, Franks, all those other wild Germans, Normans, Vikings, Aztecs, Toltecs, Olmecs, Incas, all the tribes of Africa and warlords of China, all qualify as pagans and polytheists, and they fought plenty.

The biggest Religious military campaign that comes readily to my mind is expansion Islam, and I really don't know enough about that to comment on whether religion was truly the impetus behind it, but I rather think religion had no more to do with that than it had to do with the Crusades, in which it was no more than a moral excuse to go pillaging and grab some new land.

 

[past_perfect]

Love you, Charlie, but I believe the Egyptians, the Babylonians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Greeks, Romans, Huns, Goths, Vandals, Franks, all those other wild Germans, Normans, Vikings, Aztecs, Toltecs, Olmecs, Incas, all the tribes of Africa and warlords of China, all qualify as pagans and polytheists, and they fought plenty.

The biggest Religious military campaign that comes readily to my mind is expansion Islam, and I really don't know enough about that to comment on whether religion was truly the impetus behind it, but I rather think religion had no more to do with that than it had to do with the Crusades, in which it was no more than a moral excuse to go pillaging and grab some new land.

Well, I think what Charley meant is that most of these warring factions didn't do it in the name of their religion, or in order to spread their own - although where human sacrifices were involved, to sacrifice enemies was much better received than those sacrifices coming from their own "stock" by their own population.
Islam is a bit of an exception as there was a clear agenda of uniting and structuring a rather diverse and complex tribal society. The background of the crusades is a little more complex too, but your point certainly is valid.

Many religions (not all) have been used and abused for power issues. That is escpecially true of those which have been institutionalized in some fashion, as the perpetuation of those institutions and all the benefits for those involved there became an imperative. That applies to a tribal shaman as well as more complex institutions.

What seems to be at the root of religion is the sense of awe and wonder the universe manages to instill on us - which has not been challenged by our scientific progress, but rather deepened, the more we manage to "peel the onion" the more complex each layer seems to be. Another factor certainly is the sense of community beyond the vagaries of changing political power struggles, the wish to feel some sort of moral certitude and see an order transcending the chaos we create or discover.
And then there are those who did live the precepts of their religion radically, so radical that their life was inspiring to others - take Gandhi for instance, or St. Francis, apart from actual founders of religions - in a fashion they showed what mere humans can be capable of.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=dr_mabeuse]I don't know why this topic always attracts me and affects me so strongly, or why my posts always leave me kind of dissatisfied and slightly embarrassed. Probably because I can see both sides of the argument very clearly and argue either one, and so end up arguing both. Being able to see both sides of an issue seems to be some terrible moral failing these days.

I'm infuriated by the Creationists and Biblical literalists, and I hate the ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel who want to see all the Palestinians killed because they believe the bible says the land belongs to them. I hate demagoguery in any form, and demagoguery is such a natural part of organized religion.

But at the same time, I fear the tyrrany of reason too. Reason has its place, But there's a big, wide, area where it doesn't, and there's a lot of damned good stuff out there. Most of the stuff that makes life worth living, in fact, like dream and emotion. Sometimes I want to live in a world where a thing either exists or it does not. But most of the time I prefer fooling around in the land of maybe.

So I guess I resent being told by either side what I'm allowed to believe or not believe.

I know we're talking about different ideas of God and religion here, that what Joe's mostly talking about is the Judeo-Christian idea of the patriarchal Old Man In The Sky. That God was originally a kind of nebulous Semitic sky or mountain God who was filtered through Greco-Roman eyes to give us the images on the ceiling of Cistine Chapel. But there are other ways to go, just as there are other ways to worship other than getting on your knees and begging the Old Man for favors and forgiveness.

I mean, it just seems a shame to me to go to all these pilgrims and worshippers in Mexico and Lourdes and the Ganges and Mecca and hold up your hand and say, "Okay, that's enough of that. Stop. It's all a bunch of nonsense. Go home and forget about it." What do you do with all that yearning and emotion and need for meaning? Teach them to square dance?

Well, that's enough. I'm about to start writing about ancient Egyptian religion and Kabbalah and that's a sure sign that it's time to quit. I'm sure this will be embarrassing enough.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~

Geez..way back on page six...I got behind reading this thread...but I felt the need to say that for once at least, I agree with Sweetsubsarah, and wish to state that Dr. Mab stated some interesting things and raised some very interesting questions.

My usual gig, remains as always, when someone equates 'reason' and rationality to faith, a faith of somekind, I always bristle and hasten to remind that reason is not faith or belief, not in the least.

Many,many, many, science fictions stories, novels and movies have proclaimed the terrible fate of mankind subjected to a 'scientific dictatorship' of one kind or another, really very silly B movies and forgetable novels...but still the apprehension and the fear remains among the unwashed of a reason dominated society founded by scientists who are hell bent to euthenize all aberrants Hitler style and genetically reproduce a master race...all bullshit...

That is not science at all, that is not reason, that is not rationality....that concept is merely a replacement of God, with the State, be it Communist, Fascist or Deist.

Because Mab and Pure don't accept the concept of 'the nature of man', neither will concede that part of the nature of man is the intense desire to believe in something, follow someone, adhere to something, just in order not to have to think and face reality himself...thus the emergence of a 'belief' one can follow.

Have no fear of reason or rationality or the by-product, science, the imperative of all those is a combined quest simply to learn and know.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

slippedhalo]This thread has been such an interesting read. I haven't seen such a well thought out, intelligently debated conversation since...maybe since some of my better literature classes in University. I am always interested to see what people think about religious issues and I have to say reading this topic and the truly interesting posts therein has made my day. Thanks everyone who posted. You gave me a totally different kind of faith, even more important to me than any sort of faith in a higher power or whatever...I have a renewed faith that there are actually intelligent people in this world who can listen to the arguments of those who have differing opinions from themselves and be civilized about the debate instead of lowering themselves to stone throwing and insult flinging. I am so very impressed. I feel much better about humanity now. Thank you, guys.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~

What truly nice things to cast upon the waters of the Author's Hangout, I feel much the same way, many times, when the actual stone throwing and insult flinging ceases for a moment...

(I also enjoyed your art deco...thanx)

amicus...

 

[sincerely_helene]

... ..

 

[elsol]

The problem with science is there's no holy wars...

Sure, there's those eureka moments and the joy of figuring out how to give an 80 year old guy a hard-on.

You know... there's no wild-eyed biologist shouting "THE STREETS WILL FLOW WITH THE BLOOD OF GENETICISTS!"

The closest the scientist gets is cutting remarks about who discovered what first.

Science needs an inquisition to get everyone's juices flowing. I say, scientists band together and start burning Intelligent Design proponents at the stake.

That will bring in the recruits like flies to shit.

 

[slippedhalo]

My Two Cents at the Moment (constantly changing)

My problem with organized religion is, the organization. To organize something means some person or people put thought into it, assigned rules and customs to it, wrapped it up in a pretty package and sold it, usually to those who haven't got the intellectual ability, or will to question it, and then turn it into a set of 'laws' that 'must be obeyed' to stave off some form of eternal damnantion. Organized religion is fear-based and reward-promising but never really seems to give people much more than something to work toward and hope for in the same way a child makes his bed, not because he wants his bed made and likes neat and tidy beds, usually to keep from getting grounded and to hopefully earn his allowance at the end of the week. We use those natural drives to avoid punishment and strive for reward as a way to control masses, and in between we feed them all of these 'laws' and 'rules' and things which were never created by anyone but other men, so how do we ever know that what we're teaching others is the right thing? If there is a higher power, is that really what 'it' intended us to do with those instincts toward morality, with our curiosity, with our natural awe of the universe and fascination with creation? It is obvious to me that we are a learning and adapting animal, and that perhaps we are meant to make mistakes and learn from them, but then do we also need to have another person stare down at us in our attempts to make ourselves better people and shake their head and wag their finger at us and tell us that because of our mistakes we will 'burn for all eternity' and because someone once decided to write something in a book it's the only thing we can believe? On one hand we have in most religions, a rule against killing others, but then it's ok to kill a whole race of people because we think they are on land 'God' gave us? Look, if 'God' wants something to happen it will happen, without our interference and I don't think wars and genocide were meant to be a regular part of the development of ANY religion. That's just mankind being mankind, people always scrambling over one another to be in the seat of power, however fleeting that moment of power may be and whatever the form. Organized religion seems to me like an invention by mankind to control others. I'm a live and let live kind of gal, we usually all accept the same fundamental moralities as far as killing, stealing, lying and cheating goes, why can't that be enough? Why do people have to go and make religions out of that?

 

[rgraham666]

I'm a live and let live kind of gal, we usually all accept the same fundamental moralities as far as killing, stealing, lying and cheating goes, why can't that be enough? Why do people have to go and make religions out of that?

Because, despite the name we've assigned our species, many people are not comfortable with thought.

Honest to God thought is a damn uncomfortable thing. The more thinking you do, the less sure you are that you know anything. Living in constant doubt and uncertainty is kind of a pain.

And so people sink into a mode of belief, not necessarily religious, but something, that allows them to stop doubting, provides a certainty about how the world works.

Also actual thought is dangerous to those with power, so the people in power organise the structures they have authourity over to eliminate thought save for those that don't endanger their power.

That's my read on the subject anyway.

 

[slippedhalo]

I agree. The problem with power in leadership is that usually the people who want it are the people who should never have it because it's dangerous in their hands, and addictive to those sorts... and those who would best serve the interests of the people they could help don't want the power and usually are only leaders by pure accident, they'd usually rather work from the background or from a smaller venue where they can affect change only where it matters to them most.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Apology to Charlie

Well, I think what Charley meant is that most of these warring factions didn't do it in the name of their religion, or in order to spread their own - although where human sacrifices were involved, to sacrifice enemies was much better received than those sacrifices coming from their own "stock" by their own population.
Islam is a bit of an exception as there was a clear agenda of uniting and structuring a rather diverse and complex tribal society. The background of the crusades is a little more complex too, but your point certainly is valid.

Many religions (not all) have been used and abused for power issues. That is escpecially true of those which have been institutionalized in some fashion, as the perpetuation of those institutions and all the benefits for those involved there became an imperative. That applies to a tribal shaman as well as more complex institutions.

Yeah, I misunderstood Charlie's argument until after I'd posted, and then was unable to edit my reply last night for some reason.

I was saying I thought that religion was more often an excuse for wars than a cause of them, and I misunderstood and thought she was saying that pagan societies never made war, which is of course, not true. Then I realized what she was saying was that pagan societies never used religion as an excuse for war, which I think is probably pretty true. In general, polytheism is more tolerant and flexible than the monotheistic creeds, and it's pretty easy to see another people's pantheon as corresponding to your own only with their names changed. That happened with the Greeks and Egyptians and the Romans and the Germans.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

...If there is a higher power, is that really what 'it' intended us to do with those instincts toward morality, with our curiosity, with our natural awe of the universe and fascination with creation? It is obvious to me that we are a learning and adapting animal, and that perhaps we are meant to make mistakes and learn from them, but then do we also need to have another person stare down at us in our attempts to make ourselves better people and shake their head and wag their finger at us and tell us that because of our mistakes we will 'burn for all eternity' and because someone once decided to write something in a book it's the only thing we can believe?...

No. Wherever you're coming from, doubt is the beginning of wisdom. That's why that rabbi was so happy when his student told him he's decided he was an atheist, because now at last he was ready to start figuring things out for himself.

When I was reading your post, I was playing a game, substituting the word "government" for "religion". It works pretty well. Most people don't want to mess around with figuring out how their government works or whether all the laws and taxes are just and all that. They just want to be comfortable and have the trash picked up and the streets safe. They listen to what their leaders say and don't question it and feel like good citizens.

In the same way, most people don't want to have to figure out all this religion business. They just want someone to tell them what they have to do to feel like good, upstanding, right-with-God people, and they do it.

In any case, religion to me is not so much what you believe, but the process of trying to figure things out.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Because Mab and Pure don't accept the concept of 'the nature of man', neither will concede that part of the nature of man is the intense desire to believe in something, follow someone, adhere to something, just in order not to have to think and face reality himself...thus the emergence of a 'belief' one can follow.

I never said I don't believe in a nature of man. In fact, I do. I just don't think it's the same nature you think it is.

If this thread's shown anything, it's shown that plenty of people have plenty of doubts about what they've been taught about religion. What we don't have is any way of talking about it except in the terms we've been taught as children, so we get all bollixed up trying to discuss the adult aspects and find we have no words to express what we mean. When it comes to religion, we've been reduced to the level of Sunday school and baby-talk, so we give up on it and walk away.

 

[Guest]

No. Wherever you're coming from, doubt is the beginning of wisdom. That's why that rabbi was so happy when his student told him he's decided he was an atheist, because now at last he was ready to start figuring things out for himself.

When I was reading your post, I was playing a game, substituting the word "government" for "religion". It works pretty well. Most people don't want to mess around with figuring out how their government works or whether all the laws and taxes are just and all that. They just want to be comfortable and have the trash picked up and the streets safe. They listen to what their leaders say and don't question it and feel like good citizens.

In the same way, most people don't want to have to figure out all this religion business. They just want someone to tell them what they have to do to feel like good, upstanding, right-with-God people, and they do it.

In any case, religion to me is not so much what you believe, but the process of trying to figure things out.

. . . the process of trying to figure things out.

I like that - I understand that. And the pastor at our church (which I haven't attended in awhile) sends me emails every so often in that same tone.

I wish my mother, who at present despairs at what she believes to be my complete lapse of any faith, would feel the same way.

The pastor insists it's a process. Whenever I toss up something outrageous, say about how much less bullshit there is in Buddhism than Christianity, for instance, he just chuckles and gives me the names of several more books on Buddhism.

Smart guy. But personally, I don't think I'll ever get rid of the doubt.

 

[izabella]

I'm really sorry all that mythology you read just came off as a bunch of different stories to you. To me, that's kind of looking at a book of art from all these different cultures and saying they were all just a bunch of pictures. Quiet honestly though, I've always had trouble with Greek and Norse religion and mythology myself. I just don't see how the Greeks could cobble together a meaningful religion out of that odd collection of stories and myths (maybe that's why they turned to philosophy so much. They also did have a lot of local mystery cults too). And we must be missing great chunks of information on Norse religion in my opinion. What we have is more like comic-book fodder than a religion or belief system.

Hmm, my point was more that ALL religion is a bunch of stories to me, and none of them form a meaningful belief system to me. The story of Creation and the Virgin Birth are just as much myths in my mind as Athena springing forth from Zeus's forehead.

In many ways, I have more of an appreciation for the Greek and Roman mythology than I do for the Bible - their gods and goddesses weren't all powerful and they had flaws...perhaps I can identify with them and the lessons therein more than I can the Christian God who is infallible (yet is still conceived of by man and is therefore angry, vengeful, forgiving, etc., depending on what the flock does).

And I agree that man has always struggled with the transcendent and sought to find meaning. It's fascinating to study, and I can appreciate it, but I think I'm missing that gene that seeks to find meaning through and in god.

The mystical, the magical, the miracle, the meaning lies within us; we create the myths, the music, the art, the poetry, the dance, the emotion. That which is miraculous and exists without us - the scent of lilacs in the spring or the crashing waves of the ocean - is indeed awe-inspiring and astonishing...to humans. To the universe, it's a fact of life. I don't feel the need to attribute it to god. It is meaninful enough just that it exists.

Like Joe said, you don't have to believe in God (or Brahma, or the Great Spirit, or whoever) to feel that kind of awe, but at the same time, when I stumble out into my backyard with my mouth open looking up at the stars, just astonished by all this, the last thing I want to hear is someone telling me, "Ah, it's all a bunch of hooey! It doesn't mean anything."

I promise not to sneak into your backyard and tell you any such thing!

 

[past_perfect]

Hmm, my point was more that ALL religion is a bunch of stories to me, and none of them form a meaningful belief system to me. ad.

In some religions you are encouraged not to believe in anything per se, but rather enquire, doubt and experience. Some precepts make no sense until you practice them.

If you teach meditation for instance, the worst you could possibly do is to tell people what they should expect - as you would be creating self-fulfilling prophecies.

In Buddhism for instance you have the famous phrase "if you encounter Buddah, kill him". Not all religions have what you would understand under a "belief system", but rather work with "manuals", "guidelines" and if available, proper guides, which you have to discard too, once you reach spiritual maturity.

 

[Pure]

reply to ami

Thus you [usual suspects and shereads] remain without a clue to some of the most important things in human life, intra personal relationships, the concepts of morality, right and wrong; even a definition of 'good and evil' elludes you as you reject the rational as it applies to human behavior

P: as good arguments, education and spelling "ellude" you, my friend.

My usual gig, remains as always, when someone equates 'reason' and rationality to faith, a faith of somekind, I always bristle and hasten to remind that reason is not faith or belief, not in the least.

Many, many, many, science fictions stories, novels and movies have proclaimed the terrible fate of mankind subjected to a 'scientific dictatorship' of one kind or another, really very silly B movies and forgetable[sic] novels...but still the apprehension and the fear remains among the unwashed of a reason dominated society founded by scientists who are hell bent to euthenize all aberrants Hitler style and genetically reproduce a master race...all bullshit...

That is not science at all, that is not reason, that is not rationality....that concept is merely a replacement of God, with the State, be it Communist, Fascist or Deist.

Because Mab and Pure don't accept the concept of 'the nature of man', neither will concede that part of the nature of man is the intense desire to believe in something, follow someone, adhere to something, just in order not to have to think and face reality himself...thus the emergence of a 'belief' one can follow.

Have no fear of reason or rationality or the by-product, science, the imperative of all those is a combined quest simply to learn and know.
----
P: What exactly is the argument here? That you cannot have a dictatorship, in the name of reason, because that would be making the State into God? And if indeed the State is a kind of "god"--1984 style, for example-- what exactly is 'irrational' about that (as opposed to dangerous)?

Ami, like several contributors of this thread, seeks to make his position true by definition and selection of facts. Just like some Xtians. So if a good atheist, running an atheist regime, like Stalin, says he's being rational and reasonable, he isn't really.

This is parallel to Xtians argument about, Franco and Samoza, who killed many: "They are not real Xtians."

amicus' said it's just a bugbear a reason dominated society founded by scientists who are hell bent to euthenize[sic] all aberrants Hitler style

he cites no evidence, and give no proof. he simply says, 'if it's evil and intolerant it's not the workings of reason.' this is just a mirror of Pat Robertson: 'if it's evil and intolerant' it's not the workings of Xtianity.'

SUPPOSE I say: I will found a White America, based on JudeoChristian values, purged of all other races. And then i start to carry it out.

Where exactly is the offense against reason? What's irrational about my proposal. Obviously it's an evil, sinister ideal and program, but why 'irrational'?
---

As to the 'nature of man' which ami pretends to know from reading Rand who once read a bit of Aristotle. Ami's claims never have any scientific facts attached to them, and he shows no evidence of studying, among other things, biology, psychology, anthropology, and so on.

That Robert Roark embodies the 'nature of man' is a figment, based on reading a *novel*, for heaven's sakes. That's the proof? Ami's professed knowledge of human nature (that it votes Republican) is based on the 'evidence' of Rand's and his own fictions.

Here's an example bogus 'truth' from Ami's compendium:

Pure putting into his own words, one of Amicus' beliefs: A rational human being, one fulfilling his nature, will never kill another and take his goods.

Stunning fatuity! One might be tempted to say "Oh wise one, what is your evidence of this?" Let me save you the trouble.

Here is ami's 'evidence' and why one doubts *his* reason:

"Because it would be irrational for a such a human being to kill another and take his goods."

When pressed, of course, for further explanation:

"Because it says in Atlas Shrugged that such behavior is only the behavior of scum and 'second handers.'"

---
Ami, like several in this thread, simply ask everyone to 'take on faith' that the society *they* imagine, and perhaps would like to set up, won't have pogroms or make wars, because it's so damn rational and scientific (or pagan).

While there have been good examples of the "inhumanity" (so called) of religions, I've not seen a shred of evidence that the 'rational' nostrums and fantasies, proposed as superior (for instance by Amicus) would be any less bloody. Magically, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim il Sung, and Mao (and others) "don't count."

 

[NoJo]

(Zen) Buddhism is exceptional. It has a great appeal for people of a scientific bent.

It must be pretty infuriating to teach, because it's unteachable.

It seems to be at once the most easy-going and the most rigid of all life disciplines.

The closing line of Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" seems to come close to its essence:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent

 

[NoJo]

But personally, I don't think I'll ever get rid of the doubt.

I hope not. Doubt is good.