Actually I was reading Flaubert on the greater and lesser banalities of life (he thought that was the only choice) and that's what gave me the a propos to reprimand Mozz for instinctual preference for trivial banality. Why chose the pedestrian, vulgar banalities of athesims when you can have all the art and literature and grand banalities that have the additional merit of adding up to who you are?

Quote:


Quite possibly the silliest contention you have ever put forth Soren.

The "vulgar banalities of atheisms", as you so ineptly put it, is in effect life, in it's totality, and that "REALITY" is neither vulgar, or banal, by nature, it is wondrous and awe inspiring, but for the rational man, not so awe inspiring that it requires he invent an imaginary, mystical presence to relate it all to.

Now you may continue on in your delusional world where only those who have bound their psyche to concepts of imaginary deities have the ability to appreciate and enjoy fine art, music, or culture in any of it's many forms, and I will continue in mine, knowing that you are off your freakin rocker.

CS Lewis was an atheist into his 30s. Tolkien and Lewis, both teaching at Oxford, talked a lot and finally Tolkien converted Lewis by appealing to his imagination.
I tell stories to my kids and they know they are not true, but they see that there is something in them, especially fantastic stories. You can read Tolstoy's 23 stories for children and see what you make of them.

Being always stuck in the mud of the moment is unbearably banal.

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:

Tolkein wasn't all that big on witch burning and Jew slaying. He de-Christianised his mission... His mission being - to restore to the British people, their Saxon mythological heritage, up to a glimpse of what it was before the Norman Invasion.

No god, no Jesus... just ancient Nordic myth.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 19^th, 2010 at 9:09pm:



"Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality. Whereas the pagan myths were manifestations of God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their "mythopoeia" to reveal fragments of His eternal truth, the true myth of Christ was a manifestation of God expressing Himself through Himself, with Himself, and in Himself. God, in the Incarnation, had revealed Himself as the ultimate poet who was creating reality, the true poem or true myth, in His own image. Thus, in a divinely inspired paradox, myth was revealed as the ultimate realism.

Such a revelation changed Lewis' whole conception of Christianity, precipitating his conversion.

Lewis was one of the select group of friends, known collectively as the Inklings, who read the manuscript of Tolkien's timeless classic, The Lord of the Rings, as it was being written. This work, which has been voted the greatest book of the 20th century in a succession of polls, was described by its author as "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

Or this:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=gvfl1RMKW-YC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=a+story+sha...


Tolkien's Mythopoeia

http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/mythopoeia.html

I am not saying that atheists are devoid of imagination. Not at all. WHat I am saying is that atheists are devoid of any ethical or aesthetic grounding that is not derived from theism. There is no non-derivative atheist ethics or aesthetics. As with everything else, atheism is inevitably contingent on its theist foundations.
That's all I am saying.

Don't you think its noteworthy that Tolkein never refers to god, deities or theistic worship throughout any part of The Hobbit or the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 12:14am:


Empathy is not sufficient. Something must shape those feelings.
Anyway, ethics is not a biological even like hunger.