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.
Thanks for sharing. A lot of psychologists are also indifferent and some are very harsh on religion. I think it depends on the person and circumstance as to whether it's a net benefit.
I agree with you regarding religion, however, I believe we all are spiritual. Psych-ology root word meanings imply "study of the soul." To acknowledge and study one's soul does seem to have benefit, no matter who the person or circumstance.
Yes, I got that. The De Botton initiative (and others like it) talk of finding value or use in religious practices, without the Belief -tackle. Some of these are already in place, like Agnostic churches and support groups for those who left religion. When only has us being accused of being a religion . There is also the use of Mediation and Yoga which carries no religious clutter at all, though one vicar refused to allow Yoga classes in his village hall as he thought it was a false religion ( I trust it was explained to him).
I could write quite a bit about the war on Christmas, but I won't, just mow, but will mention that we goddless bastards are a bit paranoid, I'm sorry to say. And when someone rolls up suggesting adopting religious stuff...not with any intent to suck us into religion..no, of course not..w.e tend to be a bit wary.
I am simply not going to impressed by anyone talking of 'spiritual progress, by eclecticism, selectivism, invenctivism, reflectivism or deflective -hypostasis -redivergiencianism, because to me 'sportual progress' means either the most advanced humanist thought we have, which (for me) needs no religious clutter, and is better off without, or it relates to some unproven and Faith based belief in a higher cosmic guiding principle, which I as a concrete -thinking, materialist, physicalist, humanist, Darwinist atheist and co -author of 'The Baby cookbook", have no time for.
For the record, I never accused Agnostic "churches" of being religions. I accused Atheist groups as being illogical herd-mentality. I actually think that Agnosticism is the most logical approach, though some spiritual faith is more beneficial (logic isn't everything).
I'm not suggesting you adopt religious stuff as much as I'm suggesting you realize that some of us have found spiritual/psychological truth in some parables, as you may find something inspiring in Star Wars stories etc. You have a right to find inspiration where you will, as do others. I realize that some people try to really push religion on you - and we probably agree that that can be annoying. But it can also be annoying when you say what you find inspiring, and people try to mock it or put it down without even understanding what you said was inspiring about it.
I like the idea of spiritual progress as being the most advanced thought. As with Carl Jung, I don't see a dividing line between psych-ology and spirituality.
For the record, I never accused Agnostic "churches" of being religions. I accused Atheist groups as being illogical herd-mentality. I actually think that Agnosticism is the most logical approach, though some spiritual faith is more beneficial (logic isn't everything).
I'm not suggesting you adopt religious stuff as much as I'm suggesting you realize that some of us have found spiritual/psychological truth in some parables, as you may find something inspiring in Star Wars stories etc. You have a right to find inspiration where you will, as do others. I realize that some people try to really push religion on you - and we probably agree that that can be annoying. But it can also be annoying when you say what you find inspiring, and people try to mock it or put it down without even understanding what you said was inspiring about it.
I like the idea of spiritual progress as being the most advanced thought. As with Carl Jung, I don't see a dividing line between psych-ology and spirituality.
I didn't ascribe the talk of atheist churches to you- theists always take posts so Personally; they don't seem to understand general observations.
And I'd forgotten the 'herd - mentality' accusation, which I needn't comment on as it is Dead Wrong and no more need be said.
Still talking Generally, I have come to see some practical use for religion- shorn of the trappings, and some use for the trappings as entertainment/Art - shorn of any claim to impart truth. And any who want to believe in the Force or Klingon culture as Real, can do so. They may even be allowed to vote, drive a car and have offspring.
I didn't ascribe the talk of atheist churches to you- theists always take posts so Personally; they don't seem to understand general observations.
And I'd forgotten the 'herd - mentality' accusation, which I needn't comment on as it is Dead Wrong and no more need be said.
Still talking Generally, I have come to see some practical use for religion- shorn of the trappings, and some use for the trappings as entertainment/Art - shorn of any claim to impart truth. And any who want to believe in the Force or Klingon culture as Real, can do so. They may even be allowed to vote, drive a car and have offspring.
That was certainly true in my case. I still have trouble with it. I thought I was doing pretty good then the election happened. What's weird is that I heard people right of center accusing "liberals" of the exact same thing I saw them being like being unable to accept responsibility for themselves. I realized they had some nonworking caricature model of the liberal position and were arguing with that and not me. I also realized I was probably doing the same so I stopped.
I was thinking about all that the other day and how when I was a kid if you asked me who I was the very first thing out of my mouth would have been Jehovah's Witness and the other things I used to identify myself (like my age, sex, marital status, where I live, ethnicity) would have seemed like footnotes. I would have answered with what I believed not who I was. Now those footnotes are my identify and my beliefs are the footnotes.
The ideas through Christian is God has a son through Jesus and the followers are His family , so any social ideas are of God`s family ...... Other religions don`t believe in the family of God as they would say ``God had no son ``
Who told you that God has a family?
And where did you hear these words?
Really? You're calling me something I'm not in the same sentence as telling me not to take it personally? LOL
I am saying i wasn't ascribing it to you personally and noting -also generally - that taking arguments as a personal accusation is something I note.
if you insist on getting offended by that, than it's tough because it's clear that you are determined to take it personally, and I wil only explain why it wasn't and not allow it to be a stick for you to beat atheism with.
And now to something a bit more useful.
I think I saw this some time ago, and maybe posted it. I remember the anecdote about the church in Oban.
So this is old Pew news and the next result may be seizmic (1) but even then it was startling , and it's worth seeing again because of the ongoing efforts by the religious to argue away what is happening.
I pushed for more secularist exposure on the forum, and not playing defence anymore. So where I might not have posted this last yeat, this year I do.
But mainly because of Why. various reasons, but the Internet - what we are doing here (2) is (for me) the main reason. religion has got by for so long by being the only game in town, with politicians even if not religious themselves paying lip service to it, giving it support, so long as it supports them.
Education, too, perhaps. But education, ideas and another and better case is being disseminated through the Internet. And there is really nothing they can do about it. This, despite their best efforts, is going to get worse for them.
(1) or it may be a shock. Trump and brexit and the rise of Nationalism is worrying. I am hoping this is an anomaly (I won't speculate why) and trust that the next results will make irreligion an equal if not dominant force , in Europe, Globally and the US. And when the politicians and those with products to seel have to Woo the irreligious - change will be profound.
(2) and while we may not be the atheist thinktank, people browsing here may pick up a lot of stuff to use in argument outside.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-28-2018 at 08:04 AM..
I am saying i wasn't ascribing it to you personally and noting -also generally - that taking arguments as a personal accusation is something I note.
if you insist on getting offended by that, than it's tough because it's clear that you are determined to take it personally, and I wil only explain why it wasn't and not allow it to be a stick for you to beat atheism with.
Although I do see some symbolic truths in scripture, I do not accept it all as God's word. I acknowledge that biblical canon has a controversial past and that writers, editors, etc. were not Gods. Considering all of that, I'm not really a "Theist." But I'm definitely NOT Atheist!
Quote:
But mainly because of Why. various reasons, but the Internet - what we are doing here (2) is (for me) the main reason. religion has got by for so long by being the only game in town, with politicians even if not religious themselves paying lip service to it, giving it support, so long as it supports them.
Education, too, perhaps. But education, ideas and another and better case is being disseminated through the Internet. And there is really nothing they can do about it. This, despite their best efforts, is going to get worse for them.
(1) or it may be a shock. Trump and brexit and the rise of Nationalism is worrying. I am hoping this is an anomaly (I won't speculate why) and trust that the next results will make irreligion an equal if not dominant force , in Europe, Globally and the US. And when the politicians and those with products to seel have to Woo the irreligious - change will be profound.
(2) and while we may not be the atheist thinktank, people browsing here may pick up a lot of stuff to use in argument outside.
Politicians tend to want money and don't care where it comes from - so it's not right to single out religion as if it's unique in that regard.
Why would patriotism/nationalism be worrying? I find it worrying that you find that worrying. I'm just serious. Aren't you more concerned with free-speech being limited? Have you considered life where there was no free speech?
I admire your desire to educate others - I do too! Still, wouldn't it be good to really explore something before teaching it? Not that you must be PhD qualified, but have you considered that maybe Atheism isn't the best, most logical route? What about Agnosticism - at least admit you're not omniscient?
... have you considered that maybe Atheism isn't the best, most logical route? What about Agnosticism - at least admit you're not omniscient?
I made a considered choice some years ago whether to self-identify as atheist.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Atheism does not require that one be omniscient. It is a belief position, not a knowledge position. I simply see no valid reason to believe theism is likely to be true. I do not KNOW that it ISN'T true. I can't, because its standard formulation is non-falsifiable to begin with. No supportable knowledge claim can be taken either for OR against theism.
Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. I am an agnostic in the original, Huxlian sense: I not only don't know if there's any deities; I don't believe it is knowABLE. For two reasons. First, the above-mentioned non-falsifiability. Secondly, the lack of a coherent definition for "god". No one has yet proposed a definition for a god that can really be examined, or indeed, distinguished from the definer's imagination.
I made a considered choice some years ago whether to self-identify as atheist.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Atheism does not require that one be omniscient. It is a belief position, not a knowledge position. I simply see no valid reason to believe theism is likely to be true. I do not KNOW that it ISN'T true. I can't, because its standard formulation is non-falsifiable to begin with. No supportable knowledge claim can be taken either for OR against theism.
Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. I am an agnostic in the original, Huxlian sense: I not only don't know if there's any deities; I don't believe it is knowABLE. For two reasons. First, the above-mentioned non-falsifiability. Secondly, the lack of a coherent definition for "god". No one has yet proposed a definition for a god that can really be examined, or indeed, distinguished from the definer's imagination.
This dodge is bogus. We have a reality that for all intents and purposes is our God since it is responsible for the existence of absolutely everything. We do not know WHAT the source of our reality is, but we do adopt a default view. Atheists adopt the "No God" default and theists adopt the "God" default. Pretense using semantic nonsense tries to obscure this definitive adoption of a default position. There is no objective basis for adopting EITHER position so each position is Faith-based. I tire of the disingenuous and asinine posturing of atheists. Your choice of default establishes your Faith-based position.
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.
. There is also the use of Mediation and Yoga which carries no religious clutter at all, though one vicar refused to allow Yoga classes in his village hall as he thought it was a false religion ( I trust it was explained to him). 
