Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One more sermon and then, alas, I must relinquish the pulpit and return to my legal work.
An immature spirituality can to some extent be identified by the True Believer’s insistence he is right and you are wrong. (At the other extreme, we have those who spirituality is in the vein of “Whatever you want to believe, dude; whatever is true for you works for me as long as you stay out of my face.” At some ultimate level, however, there is Truth. If your spirituality is 180 degrees off-base, it is simply Wrong.)
While I am a mainstream Christian, there are two prongs to my belief system that keep me out of the True Believer camp. First, I acknowledge that my understanding of Christian doctrine is surely and inevitably flawed.
I grasp what a human is capable of grasping about the transcendent, eternal and divine. If 50% of what I now understand proves to be the Truth, I’ll be delighted; if 75%, I’ll be astounded.
I thus describe Christianity as the “template” for my spirituality. Of the available templates I've studied (including, of course, atheism), Christianity meshes the best with my experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition. I thus live my life as though my understanding were basically correct.
Which brings me to the second prong: While I have a level of conviction Christianity is true, I acknowledge it might not be. Perhaps my understanding is 0% correct. Perhaps atheism is true, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or some other ism no one has yet stumbled upon. This is at least a possibility.
The reason all Christian forums, as well as forums with broader names like Religion and Spirituality, descend into name-calling and ridicule is that many posters - often the most active - fail to acknowledge they are talking about mere templates and not Truth.
Partly this is due to psychological factors. Part of convincing myself I am right is convincing myself you are wrong. At some level, I know I cannot possibly have the certainty I pretend to have and fear I might not be right. This is as true for fundamentalist atheists as for fundamentalist Muslims or any other species of True Believer.
Some of it is more well-intentioned. True Believers see proselytizing as a key part of their mission. Attempting to convince you they are right is doing you a big favor. With Christians and Muslims, this is obvious. Atheists do their proselytizing for exactly the same reason; some day (they believe) you will thank them and society will be better off if they can dissuade you from your magical thinking.
The danger of accepting that your belief system is nothing more than a template is that it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking, “Since we all have mere templates, tolerance for others’ templates is true spirituality.”
Well, not exactly. The objective of a spiritual quest, I believe, is to get as close to the Truth as you can in this lifetime, for reasons that are important in the context of this life and very possibly in the context of eternity. If you reach a level of strong conviction, this conviction must carry with it a conviction the other possibilities are farther from the Truth. I think it is entirely appropriate – and for Christians mandatory – to share this in a way that takes into account the two prongs I’ve discussed and that avoids slipping into a True Believer harangue.
Some may note that I’ve been rather dismissive – even haranguing, if that’s a word – of what I call Christianity Lite. My dismissiveness has nothing to do with the Lite beliefs, which are as appealing at the human level as most New Age theologies. My objection is to deceptively attaching the label Christian to something that is manifestly not Christianity. I’d expect a similar harangue from a Muslim if I were to parade my Christian beliefs as “the real Islam, what Muhammad was really talking about.”
"The reason all Christian forums, as well as forums with broader names like Religion and Spirituality, descend into name-calling and ridicule is that many posters - often the most active - fail to acknowledge they are talking about mere templates and not Truth."
Wrong again. The problem begins when some posters recognize the actual harm to others caused by someone's "template" and try to mitigate it by showing what is wrong and harmful in that "template." Most often this is not an attempt to show the OP or opponent his error, but to expose it to those with the capability of discerning the difference.
You've been a blessing in that way. Enjoy the law.
One more sermon and then, alas, I must relinquish the pulpit and return to my legal work.
An immature spirituality can to some extent be identified by the True Believer’s insistence he is right and you are wrong. (At the other extreme, we have those who spirituality is in the vein of “Whatever you want to believe, dude; whatever is true for you works for me as long as you stay out of my face.” At some ultimate level, however, there is Truth. If your spirituality is 180 degrees off-base, it is simply Wrong.)
While I am a mainstream Christian, there are two prongs to my belief system that keep me out of the True Believer camp. First, I acknowledge that my understanding of Christian doctrine is surely and inevitably flawed.
I grasp what a human is capable of grasping about the transcendent, eternal and divine. If 50% of what I now understand proves to be the Truth, I’ll be delighted; if 75%, I’ll be astounded.
I thus describe Christianity as the “template” for my spirituality. Of the available templates I've studied (including, of course, atheism), Christianity meshes the best with my experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition. I thus live my life as though my understanding were basically correct.
Which brings me to the second prong: While I have a level of conviction Christianity is true, I acknowledge it might not be. Perhaps my understanding is 0% correct. Perhaps atheism is true, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or some other ism no one has yet stumbled upon. This is at least a possibility.
The reason all Christian forums, as well as forums with broader names like Religion and Spirituality, descend into name-calling and ridicule is that many posters - often the most active - fail to acknowledge they are talking about mere templates and not Truth.
Partly this is due to psychological factors. Part of convincing myself I am right is convincing myself you are wrong. At some level, I know I cannot possibly have the certainty I pretend to have and fear I might not be right. This is as true for fundamentalist atheists as for fundamentalist Muslims or any other species of True Believer.
Some of it is more well-intentioned. True Believers see proselytizing as a key part of their mission. Attempting to convince you they are right is doing you a big favor. With Christians and Muslims, this is obvious. Atheists do their proselytizing for exactly the same reason; some day (they believe) you will thank them and society will be better off if they can dissuade you from your magical thinking.
The danger of accepting that your belief system is nothing more than a template is that it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking, “Since we all have mere templates, tolerance for others’ templates is true spirituality.”
Well, not exactly. The objective of a spiritual quest, I believe, is to get as close to the Truth as you can in this lifetime, for reasons that are important in the context of this life and very possibly in the context of eternity. If you reach a level of strong conviction, this conviction must carry with it a conviction the other possibilities are farther from the Truth. I think it is entirely appropriate – and for Christians mandatory – to share this in a way that takes into account the two prongs I’ve discussed and that avoids slipping into a True Believer harangue.
Some may note that I’ve been rather dismissive – even haranguing, if that’s a word – of what I call Christianity Lite. My dismissiveness has nothing to do with the Lite beliefs, which are as appealing at the human level as most New Age theologies. My objection is to deceptively attaching the label Christian to something that is manifestly not Christianity. I’d expect a similar harangue from a Muslim if I were to parade my Christian beliefs as “the real Islam, what Muhammad was really talking about.”
I have posted many times that it is all "Belief" and "Faith"...because no info, data, or knowledge is absolutely infallible...but some things are more "probable" than others.
I am a Pantheist (ALL = GOD). The only of all the Beliefs/Faith (that have ever been of any note), that comports definitively, and provides for a God Entity that objectively exists (The Universe exists with as near absolute probability as it gets) unequivocally and irrefutably.
I don't think others are necessarily "wrong", and do not object to anything others want to believe, or not believe.
Some type of Belief in the Abrahamic God is so common it covers half the world population. That certainly counts for sumthin...IMO.
One more sermon and then, alas, I must relinquish the pulpit and return to my legal work.
An immature spirituality can to some extent be identified by the True Believer’s insistence he is right and you are wrong. (At the other extreme, we have those who spirituality is in the vein of “Whatever you want to believe, dude; whatever is true for you works for me as long as you stay out of my face.” At some ultimate level, however, there is Truth. If your spirituality is 180 degrees off-base, it is simply Wrong.)
While I am a mainstream Christian, there are two prongs to my belief system that keep me out of the True Believer camp. First, I acknowledge that my understanding of Christian doctrine is surely and inevitably flawed.
I grasp what a human is capable of grasping about the transcendent, eternal and divine. If 50% of what I now understand proves to be the Truth, I’ll be delighted; if 75%, I’ll be astounded.
I thus describe Christianity as the “template” for my spirituality. Of the available templates I've studied (including, of course, atheism), Christianity meshes the best with my experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition. I thus live my life as though my understanding were basically correct.
Which brings me to the second prong: While I have a level of conviction Christianity is true, I acknowledge it might not be. Perhaps my understanding is 0% correct. Perhaps atheism is true, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or some other ism no one has yet stumbled upon. This is at least a possibility.
The reason all Christian forums, as well as forums with broader names like Religion and Spirituality, descend into name-calling and ridicule is that many posters - often the most active - fail to acknowledge they are talking about mere templates and not Truth.
Partly this is due to psychological factors. Part of convincing myself I am right is convincing myself you are wrong. At some level, I know I cannot possibly have the certainty I pretend to have and fear I might not be right. This is as true for fundamentalist atheists as for fundamentalist Muslims or any other species of True Believer.
Some of it is more well-intentioned. True Believers see proselytizing as a key part of their mission. Attempting to convince you they are right is doing you a big favor. With Christians and Muslims, this is obvious. Atheists do their proselytizing for exactly the same reason; some day (they believe) you will thank them and society will be better off if they can dissuade you from your magical thinking.
The danger of accepting that your belief system is nothing more than a template is that it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking, “Since we all have mere templates, tolerance for others’ templates is true spirituality.”
Well, not exactly. The objective of a spiritual quest, I believe, is to get as close to the Truth as you can in this lifetime, for reasons that are important in the context of this life and very possibly in the context of eternity. If you reach a level of strong conviction, this conviction must carry with it a conviction the other possibilities are farther from the Truth. I think it is entirely appropriate – and for Christians mandatory – to share this in a way that takes into account the two prongs I’ve discussed and that avoids slipping into a True Believer harangue.
Some may note that I’ve been rather dismissive – even haranguing, if that’s a word – of what I call Christianity Lite. My dismissiveness has nothing to do with the Lite beliefs, which are as appealing at the human level as most New Age theologies. My objection is to deceptively attaching the label Christian to something that is manifestly not Christianity. I’d expect a similar harangue from a Muslim if I were to parade my Christian beliefs as “the real Islam, what Muhammad was really talking about.”
"This is not Zorro!" (the Gay Blade) This is not Eusebius. Or not the one I knew. This is an eminently reasonable post. I of course don't agree that the best template that fits the observations is the Christian one. I could be wrong there, and maybe as an atheist I'm tending to select the observations.
But the reliable basis has to be validated evidence and logical reasoning and they seem to provide the secular view as the best template - or to put it another way - "The best model of reality that explains he observations".
This is generally the view of atheism and not the often -touted fundamentalist atheists who is convinced they are absolutely right.
If there is some valid idea behind that other than simply atheist -bashing, it is relying on scientific data as valid and rejecting unvalidated 'templates' that fit or seem to fit the unexplained observations. I need hardly add - or rather I badly need to add - that other, better, but less welcome secular template explanations just get dismissed.
But the reliable basis has to be validated evidence and logical reasoning and they seem to provide the secular view as the best template - or to put it another way - "The best model of reality that explains he observations".
Everything is a duality. Atheism, science, validated this or that deals with the outer. And it is good, as it is needed.
Faith, religion, spirituality deals with the inner. And it is good, as it is needed also.
There is no contradiction in them both being and both utilized. Contradiction, a chasm, appears in one when one follows only one path and denies the other one, as non-existent.
GldnRule. You are not pantheist. You are panentheist. Just saying.
He ought to be, since his Pantheist "God" is just nature with a different label. But since he reckons that disproves atheism, his God ought to be an entity with intelligence beyond the mere workings of physics.
Now Mystic, concedes that point and he is a pan -en -theist. but Goldie here, after first admitting that 'God" had to be intelligent, and then trying to wriggle out of it with an amendment (1), now just bangs on with a semantic trick and a lot of cat-calling and posturing, abuse and denial. Best left to it, as I doubt anyone is fooled. I doubt that even he is himself.
(1) as I recall "Intelligent to the degree necessary..." or something like that. Of course meaningless as Intelligent to the degree necessary to be just nature, not really intelligent at all and if necessary to be a god, then intelligent at least to human level -which is invalid unless he proves it. So clearly he is reverting to nature with the 'God' label. Pantheism. Which is ok - if he were to admit that makes him effectively atheist; and so saying it debunks atheism is simply a semantic cheat.
P.s I sometimes wonder why...I have a theory..might be wrong, but I don't think it's political, like Arach's dislike of atheist activists. I suspect he likes to try to beat us because we're good...so stumping us makes him very good. Might be wrong as I say.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-21-2017 at 08:26 PM..
No, he's panentheist. Panentheists, which I am likely to be also, though I do not follow the 'god" path, knows, belief has none to do with this, that creator, in whatever form it should be, is in everything. It is a "motive force", an organizational principle, alpha and omega of everything. He said - everything=god. That's exactly what it is. Hindus are pantheists, or many - godded. But pan-theism is just a form of pan-entheism. Simple logic. If everything is god, then it does not matter what you worship. Then stone becomes a god. River. Lief or a tree. For a simple human mind, it is easier to bond in worship with an object, than with entirety. hence, in Hinduism, there is no limit to gods number. It is not what is worshiped, it's the act of worship itself, object of worship is secondary.
It is said that ancient race had one faith - panentheism, or animism. Race knew that everything is creation in progress, creativity, continuous creat-ing, perfecting perfect. Then all this was broken into pieces, into kaleidoscope of religions, bringing bondage onto humanity in forms various yet, still a bondage.
Look at so revered Christianity. You behave, quoting a movie character. Reward will be after. or, in the future. But now - Oh, behave, baby! So they behave. It's carrot in front of a donkey. Christianity offers NOTHING now. Only submission, timidity and being gullible. Oh behave, you'll get it LATER. Is Islam any better? Not really. It 's after death. Houris. Rivers of - wine(?) and honey. And so on. Now? Not much. You behave. Buddhism? Not really either. Some time in the future. After millions of lives. When karma is worked out. Maybe. Some day. On Monday morning. At 4;11 am.. Now? You behave. So keep going through religions and you will find the same everywhere. Behave now. Reward later. Carrot.
Though John the Baptist said - Return the, as the kingdom of god is within your reach! NOW. All it takes. Return to your-Self.
But the reliable basis has to be validated evidence and logical reasoning and they seem to provide the secular view as the best template - or to put it another way - "The best model of reality that explains he observations".
Everything is a duality. Atheism, science, validated this or that deals with the outer. And it is good, as it is needed.
Faith, religion, spirituality deals with the inner. And it is good, as it is needed also.
There is no contradiction in them both being and both utilized. Contradiction, a chasm, appears in one when one follows only one path and denies the other one, as non-existent.
GldnRule. You are not pantheist. You are panentheist. Just saying.
For a long time, it was a fair argument that science did not disprove God because it dealt only with material things and "religion" in a very blunderbuss -term way, dealt with all the Unknown stuff that science couldn't reach.
What it comes down to is Known vs. Unknown. If the believer does not find themselves having to dismiss science because they have some "religious" belief that is contradicted by science, there is no conflict, and mental compartmentalization is not a (practical) problem.
Increasingly, it is a gap for god thing. God becomes invisible and impalpable. Because no god is to be seen anywhere. The 'beyond the universe' nonsense is - nonsense. e.g the 'have you looked everywhere in the universe' fallacy. A god on a far distant galaxy is merely an alien life -form. It is a god that is here with us and interacting with us that is the only god worth bothering about. And the fact is that, despite the best ID and IC arguments, the universe and life does NOT look designed, let alone divinely micromanaged.
In the same way the Bible as evidence for a god has become a dwindling Gap, since less and less looks believable. Genesis long since, Exodus and recently the conquest, has gone west. the prophecies and Daniel, too. And it is only a matter of time (and my work and mission, though it may fall to someone else ) to show how and why the Gospels were written, and thus by whom and thus showing what Jesus was (a failed messiah), and what he was not (a divine being). And Acts and Paul's letters pretty much the same.
So, the science -evidence and scriptural evidence having seriously dwindling gaps, we have the spiritual experience evidence as a remaining gap or gaps for a god.
Again it is the unknown and unexplained -or at least unproven explanations (cosmic origins, abiogenesis (1), human reasoning) that is a Gap for God, or a god or spiritual realm of some kind.
And if there is such a thing, well and good. It is not a problem for science or even the atheist. Because whatever it is, it is nothing to do with with organized religion which (as I just said) effectively debunked .
Thus NDE's (the current flavour of the month Evidence for a spiritual realm/afterlife) are real experiences and, rather like consciousness - which was the flavour of the month evidence for God before NDE's - relies on the Gap in the explanation.
Logically this is no evidence FOR a god (2) but it Is perhaps a useful gap where a god or spiritual realm can still lurk.
The Venomfang fallacy (3) of appeal to unknowns is faith -based nonsense. unknowns are simply unknowns; they are evidence of Nothing whatsoever. But of course the way Faith works is to take the believed thing as true until disproven, and 'Unknowns' are places where the disproofs of science cannot go.
But most theists are aware (deep down anyway) that appeal to unknowns proves nothing. That Faith is not enough - not to make a case you can sell to others! That is why you need some Evidence, and that is why miracles, answered prayers, miracle healings, visions, unexplainable occurrences and a bit more usefully, research into the stuff the brain does, is presented as hard evidence for this spirit realm where science cannot go.
And this is the point - finally - it IS going there. Right from the start I was convinced that the so called spiritual was not a no go area for science but rather - as the old saw goes - 'Magic is science that isn't yet understood'. But I can see how it can be. Stuff like Love, patriotism, hate, despair, fear (fear of death, especially), the need for confidence, a need for community, ecstatic and -yes, indeed -mystical experiences may all be evolved instinctive reactions that the brain and indeed, the bod. does and which, when understood, is not magical or indeed spiritual, anymore.
(1) Those invaluable discussions with Eusebius on Abiogenesis flagged up the problem or disconnect. That plausible explanations for abiogenesis existed meant that a natural explanation was not impossible. Thus the Unknown/unproven was no evidence for a god. Eusebius saw it differently - God dunnit until you could prove that it was abiogenesis, and until you could prove it, Goddunnit was the default explanation. It is the fallacious a priori assumption of a god until disproved that is the basis of the disconnect, inability to Get the other point of view and of course Faith as a valid reason to believe.
(2)though with NDE's strenuous efforts are made to try to make it evidence now -before we even know what was actually going on. And I recall a thread where some research was rather Interpreted to look like a claim of life after death, and specifically Interpreted to look like "Atheists" denied it and were proved wrong. So often the idea seems not to make a case for an afterlife or spiritual realm, but just to discredit atheists.
(3) just how I think of it because Thunderfoot's 'laugh at Creationists' video picked Venomfang's appeal to unknowns and frankly trashed Vf's credibility terminally. here....
There is no contradiction between science and spirituality.
Science is for outer. Spirituality is for inner. They are - and +. Of the same existence. Two poles of the same. Only fool will deny one and accept the other. That fool is mentally lopsided.
I can only repeat that this has long been the idea. Science deals with the rocks; spirituality with the soul.
But that's not looking like a valid claim any more - just a way of religion keeping science from showing up what a delusion it is. Not to say a scam.
Worship rock? Why? What does it get you? Worship god through rocks - yes I get that. But you don't reed to wrap it in yellow ribbon and pour ghee over it to show you are worshipping god through the rock.
It is really for the person doing it, not the god. And we are for sure talking about a god that knows and cares whether we are worshipping or not. The only reason to do it is to please the god to get some benefit out of it - usually involving some better next life.
Without that, it is merely what science does - study and fascination. And it is the atheist way - fascination and wanting to know is the rationale for being grateful for the chance to live, not grovelling to a statue or a book or even a set of rules in hopes to get a better life after this one.
This is why pantheism, correctly, is atheism, and only an intelligent god -claim makes atheism wrong. But you have to prove the intelligence.
Now, as I said. Spirituality as a no -go area for science was to stop it being explained. Oh yes, it is also the result of Unknowns as a gap for god, but also it tried to keep it a gap for god by keeping it unknown.
But that's changing. The stuff we humung beans do -emotional -instinctive and ethical/rational - is all coming within the reach of biology and rational ethics. Hippy -dippy is not needed and is merely trying to keep it all vague and fluffy so as to validate Faith.
Faith in one's own Faith, essentially, but I'd prefer to consider the horror of materialist reductivism -you've seen it: 'Love is just a lot of chemicals'. It's shallow and blinkered thinking - no, not the 'it's chemicals' but making that sound like a handful of sand.
It's the science is playing in a sandbox fallacy again. The whole bloody universe and all our instincts, emotions and reasoning is 'chemicals'. It's not that the 'spiritual' is outside the remit of science. But it's that they would like to keep it that way.
Science is as spiritual as one could ever want, especially if ethics becomes companion (as increasingly as we interfere with the brain and genetics, it should be) and to make that 'worship' of the universe and its workings anything more than fascination and art appreciation is simply infantile.
I had to do this: The best template is not science/atheism as kids playing with pretty sand in a sandbox while they ignore or even deny the great unknown out there. the template is science describing, using and even making the adult world, while the theist kiddies play in the nursery in a fantasy world of serving cups of tea to a plastic Mrs Nesbitt.
P.s there were an awful lot of knock -ons like 'interfering with nature' as per the theistic paranoia about science discovering something else to make another gap for god wink out, and 'crossing the line' where showing one's reverence for a god by wearing a funny hat is fine. It's fine even to require anyone coming into their house (or temple) wear a funny hat, too. If we don't want to, we can stay outside. But when they go out into the streets giving everyone a hard time for NOT wearing a funny hat, they are crossing the line.
p. p s "dress codes". Yes, but that is an ethical/social matter. Religion has no valid input into what is suitable street wear.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-23-2017 at 04:58 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"This is not Zorro!"
) to show how and why the Gospels were written, and thus by whom and thus showing what Jesus was (a failed messiah), and what he was not (a divine being). And Acts and Paul's letters pretty much the same. 
-you've seen it: 'Love is just a lot of chemicals'. It's shallow and blinkered thinking - no, not the 'it's chemicals' but making that sound like a handful of sand. 
