0

zWhy is it so hard to believe that one can hold a belief and have a boundary with it at the same time?
I'm not saying there is a restriction. You gave a specific example to which I responded.
Here's my own example: I personally don't restrict myself when it comes to medicine. I explore alternative avenues. The reason? Conventional medicinal treatments for asthma "management" almost killed me twice.
Doing yoga and meditation, on the other hand, has allowed me to stop an asthma attack in its tracks without medicine of any sort. All that is required is concentration. Had I continued to listen to them rather than myself, I would be six feet under at this moment.
Perhaps they seem to lack usefulness to you, but my life is enriched because of them in myriad ways. Perhaps you will never understand or respect the way I approach the world, Yahzi. But I certainly understand and respect the way you do.
I do make rules based on observations of reality. Yet within that same reality I exist as an individual, just as you do. This is where our limitations within this reality will be different...because we are different people with different experiences and different minds.
See above. I take the opinions of others into consideration. But at the end of the day, I know what I can do and what I am capable of. Nobody will ever know me better than I know myself.
I've already stated that I seek verification. My ways of gathering knowledge, however, extend beyond just reason alone.
You keep stating that I "abandon reason." I do no such thing. The proposition is there. I examine it with reason and with intuition. I reach a conclusion whether or not the proposition holds true. If it does, I keep it. If not, I discard it. If I don't know, I seek further information.
Perhaps in your experience it isn't a great guide. In my experience, it has been. It's not that I don't do the hard manual labor. It's just that my way of deciding the best approach in carrying out that labor is different.
Slippery slope, eh?
Walk your talk and live by these same rules you have just dictated. Then tell me what I must do. I strive to "live and let live." Nothing about what you have stated here does that. Instead, it puts me into a box that you are more comfortable with. Where have I boxed you in during this discussion or made demands of what you must do to keep your worldview?
Again, nowhere have I stated that I abandon reason. I use both reason and intuition. There is an important difference there that you are not acknowledging.
And yes, I find the middle path applicable. That's why I walk it.

My two cents,
Tangie

0

:rolling:

Thank you for the compliment.
I enjoy a good debate, but I am more than willing to "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.

My two cents,
Tangie

TomboyMom

TAngiellis:
I want to thank you for this very thoughtful and thought provoking post. I have meant to reply for some time, but among other things have been having difficulty finding enough time to respond with the thoughtfullness and care it merits--so I'll just go ahead anyway.

I can tell you have thought/meditated/prayed about this stuff a lot. It is clear that you have given years of attention to these questions. I agree that they merit that much attention. In my own more cerebral/concrete/skeptical way, I have also devoted years to these questions, and I guess many people on these boards have as well.
I have a feeling that I would enjoy a chance to stay up late and talk about this stuff with you, with or without chemical assistance.
My strong sense is that you are trying to express the ineffable, which brings to mind something from the Tao Te Ching about the Tao that can be expressed not being the Tao...or something.
Another thing is that my hunch is that you are not really trying to present assertions, or defend positive statements, so much as maybe sharing your journey, in the hope of finding some people with common interests to further explore these question.
Unfortunately this forum for the most part is about arguing, and certainly that's what I usually do here. So I think some readers dove right in with an opportunity to do that. That's certainly permissible and appropriate, but as I say possibly not what you had in mind?
I would maybe possibly tentatively agree with everything you say, in so far as anything positive or certain can be said about these subjects. It's very hard to explore these kinds of truths, a sense of truth which is other or beyond facts...nor can this kind of truth really be disputed...
Would it be accurate to characterize your spiritual beliefs primarily as an attitude of reverence, wonder, amazement at this world, what we know of it and how much we all realize we cannot know, which you can best capture as a religious or spiritual practice?
I think that anyone of us, even the most scientifically minded, shares this amazement, and would have to agree that there is more we do not know than we do, more we cannot know than we can, and that this will always be the case, but the glimpses we get of everything beyond the searchlight of our present knowledge always seems to hint at an order to the universe itself which must inspire an attitude which could be characterized as religious or spiritual.
Where I differ, though, would be in using the word "theist." That is because this word conveys for me the idea of believing in the existence of a divine being, an individual or consciousness, which cannot be known or perceived, but which is nevertheless believe to exist. I find this unlikely, or maybe it would be best to say inadequate as a way to refer to the order and magnificence greater than I can perceive, but which appears to be present in the nature of the universe. That is, to tag All That Is/Tao with the label of "being" I find both limiting and probably inaccurate.

Anyway, thanks for a great post, and apologies for my response being so slapdash in comparison.

steamer

This sounds really nice and all. I suppose you are aware that all of us have a capacity for pattern recognition and some of us have a tendancy to recognise patterns where none exist? If this is what you are doing then this world you describe belongs solely to you. Emotions are not magic, everyone has them. If I say "The wind made a mournful groan" it is only me interpreting a sound in a way you might recognise. It is not that the wind is actually in mourning.

Ok, you've described life as being ordered and disordered. I"ll buy that I suppose, though I can't say I find it a very valuable thing to state the obvious like this.

Yes language can be difficult, I have no idea what it is you've just tried to say. Nothing in existence can surpass existence so I'm really at a loss to understand what that might mean. If you are making a claim that something surpasses existence I'd like to see the evidence for that claim.

I'm not much opposed to delusions which bring happiness to the practioner and those around them so if this is a delusion, good luck to you, may you never learn of it.

No, you probably do it because it makes you happy to do it. I'm also a bit of a hedonist myself.

Indeed, you seek to remain happy in the belief that you and only you can know what is right for you and you have decided that this solitary world of yours is good enough. You feel comforted in this state and see no reason at all to test the reality of it becuase you believe you'd be less happy if you knew it were mere delusion.

I disbelieve there is anything beyond all things. There is only existance and it exists. What you imagine is beyond that is exactly what you imagine and nothing more. Still, if you are happy with imaginary things I do not see any reason at all that you should trade them for real things.

I agree that this is exactly what gods are.

Well pedophiles and serial killers walk on paths I really object to. Keep your delusions to yourself and don't act on them and we will have no problems.

Meaning you reserve the right to shift the goal posts anytime reality intrudes on your concepts.

If indeed there was ever any meaning there to begin with.

Erm...A lot of words to say that we convey information poorly? Ok, we do the best we can. So?

This seems to be hogwash. Most knowledge is attainable by anyone with a modicum of intellect. Very few bits of knowldege are only understood by mere handfuls of people.

This sounds like the no true Scottsman fallacy. If I say we have progressed in information technology you will say "that's not true progress".

I don't think you need to show us this, there will always be room for superstition wherever ignorance rears it's ugly head.

There will always be those that waste their lives in trying to share their delusions. Isn't it really preferable to just enjoy your delusions in the privacy of your own mind and not risk shattering them on the sharp edges of reality?

0

You are quite welcome.
:rolling: The one thing I absolutely love to do is talk, no chemical assistance needed!
In the attempt to describe a thing, there is a detraction from what the thing itself is. I'm very much in awe of the Tao Te Ching and agree with many of its concepts.
I have been asked repeatedly, both in threads and in PMs, to describe my belief system. So I complied with the request.
Being here forces one to explore yourself and articulate what you mean. I am not here to find people with common interests so much as to learn how others view the world around us.
Oh, I realize what GRD is about. I used to moderate it.
I have no problem debating my beliefs. But I state right out that I'm not here to convince anyone of anything or declare that the way I see things is the only way to do so. That usually takes the wind out of the sails of some posters, especially when they find out that my husband is an atheist.
I'm not controversial enough.
Yes. But the main reason why I embarked on my journey is to learn more about myself and my abilities. This was sparked by a vision/dream I had when I was 15. It led to my deconversion from Christianity and was the start of other such occurances. I have been looking for answers to their enigma ever since. I have found many of those answers in the symbolism and explanations in the religious sphere, particularly Paganism, Taoism and Buddhism.
In truth, there is no one term that sums up everything I believe. I say theist because I do believe in God and worship God. What separates me from a Christian is what I believe God to be.
I agree, which is why I parted ways with Christianity as a teen.
You are welcome. I don't think your response was slapdish at all. It was very direct and straight-forward.
Thanks for taking the time out to post.

My two cents,
Tangie

0

You misunderstand me. Nature has its own sounds and life. I listen to it as it is, not as what I apply to it.
All right. Maybe as an introduction so people can know what I'm talking about?
There are times in live when words fail you. When describing love to a person who has never been in love, those words ring hollow. Thus when I attempt to describe existence, I do so while acknowledging that it is beyond words.
Actually, no it doesn't. Much of what I have learned on my path is not comforting to me because it forces me to know myself and what I want to do with my life. It's far easier for me to just ignore all this stuff and go about my merry way.
My happiness is not contingent upon what belief structure I hold or if I hold any. If this solitary world of mine was good enough, I would simply stand still, no longer seeking answers or gaining new insights.
Instead, I grow, learn and test my boundaries. Change is not comfortable. It never is. But I am certainly open to it everyday.
I said "I walk the middle path beyond the DUALITY all things." This means, for example, that I recognize that the world is neither good nor evil(which are dual, opposing concepts). It is composed of both and simultaneously beyond those concepts. There is nothing imaginary about what I stated.
So we agree on something!
When I stated that there is no right or wrong religion, just an infinate number of paths, I meant in regards to world view.
Actions can be justified by anything we come up with. Religion is just one of them. Hence the MF&P forum.
No. It means that metaphorical concepts should not be taken literally because it hides their meaning. Literalization of religious concepts is what brings about notions like the caste system or mandatory baptism rites and other examples throughout human history. Literalization also walks hand and hand with power. Once a political power adopts a religion, it steamlines it and literalizes the concepts within that religion for control. Before this fusion happens, you see more gnostic and open versions of the religions taking place.That is what I meant.
Meaning is certainly in the eye of the beholder.
You acknowledge that we convey information poorly, yet you then go on to state that "most knowledge is attainable by anyone with a modicum of intellect." Sounds like a contradiction to me.
Are you going to assert that specialization today doesn't limit knowledge gained to the populace? How many people are passably knowledgable about things outside of their current field of work?
Will you argue also that knowledge isn't twisted for political or economic gain on a daily basis to achieve a desire end? How many people were misinformed about Vioxx, for example, not because of lack of information but because of the omission of information which was held by only a few?
This is what my point is with the metaphor of the Tower of Babel.
I'm talking about progression of humanity as a whole, not the specialized realm of information technology. Where are we as a species going and how will we solve the problems that face us if we can't even pass knowledge from one person to another adequately?
I don't believe I have stated anything about superstition. In fact, I have stated quite the opposite: that aspects of superstition and religion are symbols, not literal, tangible things.
Secondly, if I really wanted to enjoy being a deluded individual, I would hardly be a regular member of IIDB, now would I? I would, instead, just sit around with other people all day that will inflate my ego and never challenge what I think.
I've never been one to do that.
One of the men whose writings I have great respect for is Joseph Campbell. I think he shares my delusion because he also dedicated his life to the study of religion and myth and their relevant meanings to humanity. I hardly think it was a waste on his part.

My two cents,
Tangie

Classical

Tangie, this was a very beautiful post and I enjoyed it very much. Thank you for writing this.

Even though I call myself an atheist, I sense something going on. I feel this connection to things like trees and water and animals. I am reading scientific works left and right, but yet I am so deeply curious about so many things.

I had what many would call an "out of body experience" at a Beethoven recital. It was a performance of one of the late Sonatas written while Beethoven was deaf. It was performed by a mad genius who lives in Atlanta. It was the most powerful thing I have ever experienced in my 41 years on this earth.

I am not your typical atheist at all. I reject the biblical god as myth, but I feel like something is going on. I just "feel" it very deeply. I don't know what this could be, but I know that loving others and being kind is a huge part of what I am supposed to do. I feel a connectin to certain people in general. Some people seem to not possess this "feeling" and some radiate it very strongly.

I had a hard time holding back tears at what you wrote. It spoke to me.

seebs

Classical, what you describe is probably why Quakers don't insist on a profession of theism. It is not edifying to argue over terminology with someone who is clearly having the same sorts of experiences the rest of us are.

Classical

Well then, dear Seebs, I guess I fall into the camp of people who are having experiences. I have a very difficult time with a wholly Naturalist worldview, because I have had continuous experiences all long.

I embrace knowledge, but yet I do not reject my gut instinct. And my gut instinct tells me that science has not even begun to understand what many people sense is all around us.

TruthPrevails

Personally i do not not like/favor the word 'atheism' which carry a lot of negative emotional shiit inherited over the centuries. Just use it as a matter of convenience. I prefer to use 'non-theistic'.
It's the human nature of theists to give greater attention to the negative association of atheism than the positive aspects. Whenever there is any indication of threat to anyone belief in god, it invoke very heavy emotions, the extreme of being killed.
Evolutionary psychology can back this assertion.
I would revise my assertion; that non-theistic, non-god-based ideologies will be the future dominant trait to ensure preservation of the human specie.

I did mention i did not want to stray off from the main point. but since..
If you check i back, i said religion from its evolution, i.e. the moment humanity evolved with self-consciousness (must be millions year ago) to Christianity (2000+) and Islam (500+ but have judaism linkages). The fact of the above timeline is there, ancient, old, new, modern are relative are semantics.

God-based religion started the day(i speculate millions yrs ago), humans were conscious of a knowledge-gap between the known and the unknown amidst a constant primal-emotional fear of mortality hovering in their heads. Spiritual savants (freaks) aka shamans endowed with better insights appeared from time to time to fill the gap, thus god-of-the-gap or otherwise to pacify the masses. These savants would also have invented myths (Joseph Campell) to bridge the intellectual gaps between them and the masses.(Neuro or evolutionary psychology have good explanation for the existence of myths.).

The remnants of the above shaman-based religions are now the minorities of the spiritual practices. Within this minorities, we have the good, the bad and the ugly. Among the good, we have the 'higher' religion/spiritual practices, the mystics, shamans from the various tribes (red indian) and other pagan practices.

I do agree the field of psychology (esp. western) and medical at this moment in time, is inadequate but we cannot deny it's advancement and is still advancing.
Are you aware of one group of people called idiot-savants, who are geniuses/experts in mathematics, musics, memory, spiritual. etc. They are endowed with higher/special mental power due to partial brain damage or accidental brain connections. Now we know such potential in our brains happening by accidents, it is possible for the majority of human to get access to these faculties naturally and normally.

If we go back in time for say 1000 years ago with our current abilities, most of us would be geniuses. So it is possible for the genuises of the 20th centuries to be the average normal person in the 30th+ century and so on. Can you see what i am trying to get at when i talk about our ability to evolve to the higher level of our brains.

In addition to cold hard facts, brain development would encompass every possible aspect of humanity, including spiritual (non-theistic) progress, improving on a continuous progression.

Humanity is now progressing with non-theistic spirituality and we are slowly bonding more as larger groups to be concern with global warming, pollution, animals extinction, etc. without the need to bring god into the picture.
As a basic start, note EQ (Goleman) and SQ (Zohar)
couple with various studies in Human Consciousness.


I will not discuss in the nitty-gritty 'till the cow come home' details with you, but based on the experiences and knowledge i had acquired to date, via books or the Net, i am very optimistic.


'Higher' buddhism is able to provide a solution to this on an individual basis. In the first place we should not be seeking or expecting. Hope we can wean off this instinct as well in the future.

Everything comes in shades-of-grey or degrees. Problems will always be there wherever we go, but our attitude and ability to resolve problems will improve without the 'ball-on-chain' god on our neck.

No problem agreeing with you on this. Humanity is definitely multi-variate and theistic based ideologies will erode as humanity progresses.

Nb: pls note that i have been answering with many tip-of-the-iceberg and generalizations in my replies. Humanity is definitely a very wide subject, especially on religion, brain, mind, consciousness, evolution, etc. There is always a constraint in providing a detailed-research sort of answers. If you find my explanation not satisfactory, pls ignore the whole thing. The last thing i need is for my ego to be stirred and me wasting hours just to prove my point to please the ego.