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.
I think of sexed up as adding spirituality and religion to it. Adds drama and that special something to simple no-deity.
It is possible to add spiritual ideas and religious practice without introducing god belief. Several religions have already pulled that one off (some flavors of Buddhism, Taoism, etc). Pantheism ... Spiritualism ... New Thought ... things of that nature could also be done in a godless sort of way even if they aren't always promoted in a god-free manner. I'm not sure why one would want to, but I don't have an inherent problem with it.
It is possible to add spiritual ideas and religious practice without introducing god belief. Several religions have already pulled that one off (some flavors of Buddhism, Taoism, etc). Pantheism ... Spiritualism ... New Thought ... things of that nature could also be done in a godless sort of way even if they aren't always promoted in a god-free manner. I'm not sure why one would want to, but I don't have an inherent problem with it.
Spiritual practices such as meditation, voluntary diet restrictions, perceiving nature in a particular way, gazing at an image of say Buddha, Mary, Shiva, and see it as a manifestation of one’s sense of Oneness are all pathways to realization of that Oneness. Eventually one would not need any of that. This requires faith in teachings as well as in experiencing it. This is not evidence based, there is no proof, no matter how much one says there is. It is belief.
If atheists who have turned away after being burnt by organized religion, turn to spiritual practices, all power to them. I cannot help but think this is bound to create a split loyalty to atheism, because the idea of a presence of divinity within, that can be accessed, is internal, no matter what kind of poor indoctrination organized religions have imparted. All teachings in fact proclaim that, including Buddhism. To have to somehow find a way to deny divinity in order to be atheist, is an unnecessary disturbance to one’s spiritual faith.
Besides Mystic, has any former atheist turned to spiritual practice with a sense of divinity and the full force of belief in it? It would be interesting to know that.
Spiritual practices such as meditation, voluntary diet restrictions, perceiving nature in a particular way, gazing at an image of say Buddha, Mary, Shiva, and see it as a manifestation of one’s sense of Oneness are all pathways to realization of that Oneness. Eventually one would not need any of that. This requires faith in teachings as well as in experiencing it. This is not evidence based, there is no proof, no matter how much one says there is. It is belief.
If atheists who have turned away after being burnt by organized religion, turn to spiritual practices, all power to them. I cannot help but think this is bound to create a split loyalty to atheism, because the idea of a presence of divinity within, that can be accessed, is internal, no matter what kind of poor indoctrination organized religions have imparted. All teachings in fact proclaim that, including Buddhism. To have to somehow find a way to deny divinity in order to be atheist, is an unnecessary disturbance to one’s spiritual faith.
No one is denying divinity (that presumes it exists), nor do we somehow have to find a way. We do not accept divinity is real because you can not provide the evidence because, as you admit, you do not have it.
Spiritual practices such as meditation, voluntary diet restrictions, perceiving nature in a particular way, gazing at an image of say Buddha, Mary, Shiva, and see it as a manifestation of one’s sense of Oneness are all pathways to realization of that Oneness. Eventually one would not need any of that. This requires faith in teachings as well as in experiencing it. This is not evidence based, there is no proof, no matter how much one says there is. It is belief.
If atheists who have turned away after being burnt by organized religion, turn to spiritual practices, all power to them. I cannot help but think this is bound to create a split loyalty to atheism, because the idea of a presence of divinity within, that can be accessed, is internal, no matter what kind of poor indoctrination organized religions have imparted. All teachings in fact proclaim that, including Buddhism. To have to somehow find a way to deny divinity in order to be atheist, is an unnecessary disturbance to one’s spiritual faith.
Besides Mystic, has any former atheist turned to spiritual practice with a sense of divinity and the full force of belief in it? It would be interesting to know that.
I really have no objection to any of this because you acknowledge that it is belief and there is no proof.
There is a qualitative difference between concepts of "the Divine" and actual deities. I think that a sense of the mutual interdependence between persons as well as the animal kingdom and indeed all of creation is a supportable idea. It is to me less a mystical thing than an acknowledgement that every action I take effects everything around me in at least some small way. Both apart from and because of that sense of connectedness and the grounding that can come with such realizations, I think that meditation has some value for management of anxiety and the pervasive sense of alienation that some feel. I have gone through a secular meditation class. I haven't found it all that useful to me personally, but I can see where it would be very helpful probably to more people than not.
So I'm not as opposed to such things as you might imagine. I just draw a line at obtaining alleged truth or valid information from any source other than actual data and understanding that is actually there to work with. You speak of belief or a preference for the benefits of certain practices without passing judgment on how or why those practices work for a person -- I don't really have an issue with that. My issue is just with unsupported (and, generally, unsupportable) truth claims. If you believe in a god, and don't do things like stating the claim (eg the Bible) is the proof, when it's not -- then knock yourself out. You are entitled to your own private beliefs, just not to your own private facts, particularly those which are to be foisted on others.
I really have no objection to any of this because you acknowledge that it is belief and there is no proof.
There is a qualitative difference between concepts of "the Divine" and actual deities. I think that a sense of the mutual interdependence between persons as well as the animal kingdom and indeed all of creation is a supportable idea. It is to me less a mystical thing than an acknowledgement that every action I take effects everything around me in at least some small way. Both apart from and because of that sense of connectedness and the grounding that can come with such realizations, I think that meditation has some value for management of anxiety and the pervasive sense of alienation that some feel. I have gone through a secular meditation class. I haven't found it all that useful to me personally, but I can see where it would be very helpful probably to more people than not.
So I'm not as opposed to such things as you might imagine. I just draw a line at obtaining alleged truth or valid information from any source other than actual data and understanding that is actually there to work with. You speak of belief or a preference for the benefits of certain practices without passing judgment on how or why those practices work for a person -- I don't really have an issue with that. My issue is just with unsupported (and, generally, unsupportable) truth claims. If you believe in a god, and don't do things like stating the claim (eg the Bible) is the proof, when it's not -- then knock yourself out. You are entitled to your own private beliefs, just not to your own private facts, particularly those which are to be foisted on others.
I really have no objection to any of this because you acknowledge that it is belief and there is no proof.
There is a qualitative difference between concepts of "the Divine" and actual deities. I think that a sense of the mutual interdependence between persons as well as the animal kingdom and indeed all of creation is a supportable idea. It is to me less a mystical thing than an acknowledgement that every action I take effects everything around me in at least some small way. Both apart from and because of that sense of connectedness and the grounding that can come with such realizations, I think that meditation has some value for management of anxiety and the pervasive sense of alienation that some feel. I have gone through a secular meditation class. I haven't found it all that useful to me personally, but I can see where it would be very helpful probably to more people than not.
So I'm not as opposed to such things as you might imagine. I just draw a line at obtaining alleged truth or valid information from any source other than actual data and understanding that is actually there to work with. You speak of belief or a preference for the benefits of certain practices without passing judgment on how or why those practices work for a person -- I don't really have an issue with that. My issue is just with unsupported (and, generally, unsupportable) truth claims. If you believe in a god, and don't do things like stating the claim (eg the Bible) is the proof, when it's not -- then knock yourself out. You are entitled to your own private beliefs, just not to your own private facts, particularly those which are to be foisted on others.
People are entitled to their beliefs AND to their facts. It is a fact to me that when I meditate on the image and concept of Shiva, I feel his presence in a tangible way, tangible according to my definition. It is MY truth.
Facts are temporary until proven false. We should know that by now. Facts are manufactured all the time for profit and greed. To have such a childish, bordering on Mania, faith in facts is not a mature way of thinking. Yes we conduct our life based on certain facts, that the sun rises in the east, and there is an east and a west. But time itself is a construct. We just make these up because it is convenient, otherwise we will have chaos. But let us not be like children clinging to the imaginary Santa Claus. It is cute in a child, mania in an adult.
People are entitled to their beliefs AND to their facts. It is a fact to me that when I meditate on the image and concept of Shiva, I feel his presence in a tangible way, tangible according to my definition. It is MY truth.
But your are claiming your feelings about a certain practice are factual. And of course they are.
You aren't claiming, to my knowledge, that Shiva is objectively an actual being, at least for anyone other than yourself. And that's the critical difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Facts are temporary until proven false. We should know that by now. Facts are manufactured all the time for profit and greed. To have such a childish, bordering on Mania, faith in facts is not a mature way of thinking. Yes we conduct our life based on certain facts, that the sun rises in the east, and there is an east and a west. But time itself is a construct. We just make these up because it is convenient, otherwise we will have chaos. But let us not be like children clinging to the imaginary Santa Claus. It is cute in a child, mania in an adult.
Our understanding of facts are always subject to refinement, revision or outright correction. That is inherent in rational inquiry. Although I have to point out that explanatory frameworks (scientific theories) which are the highest level of "proven" have never been reversed since the dawn of the modern scientific era. No one is going to repeal the theory of gravity (or of evolution), only refine them.
As to the things we generally debate here -- deities and religious cosmologies -- science doesn't even address those, it just happily develops and tests hypotheses and draws whatever conclusions the facts point to, and the bone of contention in places like this is that sometimes it contradicts religious assertions (e.g., the world was created in 7 days, 6,000 years ago).
So IF you are hoping that eventually science will "come around" and admit to some of the things you believe, it is not even really in opposition to you fundamentally because it doesn't address things about which there is zero information (e.g., the supernatural). It probably won't even come around on the things it discovers that are inconvenient to your assumptions, either, though. Nor will it endorse your beliefs, likely.
But here again ... believe what you will. That is not a problem. But you cannot assert random things as fact either, unless you are stating them as a personal belief, applicable to you alone. Those asserted facts will not be accepted, however, by people who are following an actual methodology for verifying facts.
People are entitled to their beliefs AND to their facts. It is a fact to me that when I meditate on the image and concept of Shiva, I feel his presence in a tangible way, tangible according to my definition. It is MY truth.
Facts are temporary until proven false. We should know that by now. Facts are manufactured all the time for profit and greed. To have such a childish, bordering on Mania, faith in facts is not a mature way of thinking. Yes we conduct our life based on certain facts, that the sun rises in the east, and there is an east and a west. But time itself is a construct. We just make these up because it is convenient, otherwise we will have chaos. But let us not be like children clinging to the imaginary Santa Claus. It is cute in a child, mania in an adult.
People are entitled to their beliefs AND to their facts. It is a fact to me that when I meditate on the image and concept of Shiva, I feel his presence in a tangible way, tangible according to my definition. It is MY truth.
Facts are temporary until proven false. We should know that by now. Facts are manufactured all the time for profit and greed. To have such a childish, bordering on Mania, faith in facts is not a mature way of thinking. Yes we conduct our life based on certain facts, that the sun rises in the east, and there is an east and a west. But time itself is a construct. We just make these up because it is convenient, otherwise we will have chaos. But let us not be like children clinging to the imaginary Santa Claus. It is cute in a child, mania in an adult.
Yet here you are, NOT living in a cave, because of actual facts you need to ignore, whereas your reliance on 'truth' is not a mania .
Your need to attack reality because it makes more sense than your imaginary 'truth'.
But your are claiming your feelings about a certain practice are factual. And of course they are.
You aren't claiming, to my knowledge, that Shiva is objectively an actual being, at least for anyone other than yourself. And that's the critical difference.
Our understanding of facts are always subject to refinement, revision or outright correction. That is inherent in rational inquiry. Although I have to point out that explanatory frameworks (scientific theories) which are the highest level of "proven" have never been reversed since the dawn of the modern scientific era. No one is going to repeal the theory of gravity (or of evolution), only refine them.
As to the things we generally debate here -- deities and religious cosmologies -- science doesn't even address those, it just happily develops and tests hypotheses and draws whatever conclusions the facts point to, and the bone of contention in places like this is that sometimes it contradicts religious assertions (e.g., the world was created in 7 days, 6,000 years ago).
So IF you are hoping that eventually science will "come around" and admit to some of the things you believe, it is not even really in opposition to you fundamentally because it doesn't address things about which there is zero information (e.g., the supernatural). It probably won't even come around on the things it discovers that are inconvenient to your assumptions, either, though. Nor will it endorse your beliefs, likely.
But here again ... believe what you will. That is not a problem. But you cannot assert random things as fact either, unless you are stating them as a personal belief, applicable to you alone. Those asserted facts will not be accepted, however, by people who are following an actual methodology for verifying facts.
There is no conflict between science and spiritual faith and belief. You insist on taking metaphorical statements that are part of religious texts and hold it up as what EVERYONE who is not you believes, and they need to be educated and become smart just like you..
Just as you claim facts are refined, religious texts are refined as well. We show a picture of an apple to a child and spell apple. That picture is not apple and the child comes to realize that, and that process is the refinement. It is the same with religious texts. When the Bible begins with First there was word and the word was with God (i may be misquoting but the Vedas says the same thing differently ) it has a depth of meaning that needs to be plumbed, refined. While you are a smart guy, and know this, you can hold up this sentence and find all kinds of things that are not factual. And why would you do that?
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.
.