0

Whatever floats your boat.
And you think that if atheism were the norm rather than theism that there would be none of these heavy emotions or negative associations?
It seems to me that much of what you say about religion doesn't come from an in-depth study of religions so much as a background with things like Christianity, Islam and some Native American religions which you then use as the lens to analyze other religions through. So what you consider to be semantics I consider to be a very relevant point because there is a difference.
Stating that these barbaric, ancient religions existed without the "higher teachings" (as you call them) being the standard is simply not true.
This is where I have problems following you. You talk about "higher" religion and spiritual practices being a minority, then fail to acknowledge that the Buddhism you revere is hardly a religion with a tiny following. You make it sound as if the entire planet is dominated by Christianity and Islam while the Buddhists, Taoists and NA religions are fringe groups. Not so. Liberal religion is the MAJORITY, not the minority. The fringe groups are the fundamentalists.
Further, your terminology of "higher" religion/spiritual practices seems fairly biased towards "whatever religious belief is closer to atheism." Much of the eastern religions that you speak so highly of have many problems, especially in the sense of loss of individuality. There is greater emphasis on the place one holds in the Order of All Things, rather than the western emphasis on personal development/responsibility towards a higher power. Different, but still troubled.
One of my sister-in-law's friends has a child that falls into this catagory.
Yes. But how do you propose we combat the standard in the psychology field to treat every mental deviation from a predisposed "norm" as if it is a horrendous disease?
The friend of my SIL is not hearing right now how her son possesses so much "higher" understanding. She is hearing that he is a freak of nature that will never be "normal." They aren't in awe of what he can do. They are frightened by it and by extension, frightening her into treating her son as if he's damaged.
How exactly will we access these faculties naturally when we continue to drug the hell out of our children before they ever reach adulthood? How exactly will we make this progress if people that have such access TODAY are treated as if they are 1)lying, 2)freaks of nature or 3)told that they must use various therapies to erase their abilities to make them more "normal"?

I'm familiar with these texts. I'm still puzzled as to what non-theistic spirituality has to do with combating global warming, pollution and other problems on our planet. For example, was the UN founded because everybody was a theist or did theism have nothing to do with it?

But this, too, is based on an assumption that "higher" Buddhism is the solution for everyone. It isn't. If we as a species should not seek or have expectations then where is the MOTIVATION to do anything?
This assumes that people are chained by a belief in God rather than liberated. In your experience perhaps this was true. But can you honestly speak for everyone on this planet this way?
Then what is the point of debating?

My two cents,
Tangie

0

How is this statement any different from a fundamentalist telling an atheist that with further spiritual development they could wean off atheism?
Why is there a need to even characterize my point of view as delusion in the first place? Please reference where I have stated that anyone that doesn't agree with my worldview is in need of "weaning off their delusions."
Then please expand on how thinking that "higher Buddhism" addressing the needs of every single individual on this planet fails to qualify as deluded.
I think I'm fairly fortunate that I don't state that people who don't think as I do are automatically deluding themselves. If I thought in this manner about atheists, my husband and I would never have gotten married and vice versa.

Your link was interesting. It basically comes down to: "They can't help it that they are irrational. It's a survival mechanism that you the enlightened skeptic must combat." What a nice way to inflate one's own point of view.

My two cents,
Tangie

0

No offense taken. I certainly think of the atheistic perspective as interesting and definately worthy of respect, which is why IIDB is a second home for me.
At the end of the day, though, to each his own.

My two cents,
Tangie

0

I'll go a step farther and say that some of it has to do with the fundamentalist versions of the great faiths also, which are guilty not just of historical distortions but crimes against humanity itself.
For example, It is not uncommon to be accused of being a Christian in this forum if you shed any positive light on Christianity.

I believe that our belief in God is profoundly related to ourselves and our understanding of how the world operates.
Which is why I make clear that I am a theist by choice. Where I differ from some of the notions that are being applied to me is that I do not attempt to personify All That Is/the Tao. That literal personification is what has led to so many problems with religion throughout the ages.

My two cents,
Tangie

steamer

That's good, your original post led me to believe that these sounds and this life were saying something to you. The sound of a babbling brook does convey information that there is water nearby, but there is no personality trying to convey it. It is just you deciding that there is meaning.

Ok, some things are difficult to describe, this doesn't mean that they are beyond description or that there is some mystical reason they are beyond description. Green is very difficult to describe to anyone that hasn't seen it. Most people though have seen it so we have common reference points.

If you do not enjoy this pastime then perhaps you should find another, life is very short. I suspect though that you believe this has other advantages to you. What you learned on your "path" is simply to say what you've learned. It sounds as if you've probably done some self-searching and meditation, but I do not see why you've given nature some sort of mystical personality to explain this very mundane kind of thought.

By what measure do you think you've grown? Which of us knows less today than we knew yesterday? We have all grown. What answers are you seeking that are found in quiet environments? Change is inevitable, do nothing you will change.

You have a very flowery way of writing but I find that it doesn't add anything like precision to what you are trying to say. What do you mean when you add these purposefully vague pseudo-claims such as something is "beyond those concepts"? If you sat down and made a list of what is "beyond", you'd find a very mundane list of descriptive words which adequately describe this mystical "Beyond".

Well, I was just pointing out that when veiwed externally there are plenty of paths which actually are wrong, at least as far as men know what wrong is.

I agree with this actually. When I say the wind is howling like a madman. I never mean to imply the wind has a personality. It is descriptive. Yet people are sometimes easily confused. This is how religions are probably born.

One wonders if the irresponsible use of metaphore isn't partially the cause of the confusion. I agree though that when metaphores are used it presents the audience with a choice of how it should be interpreted. Such as when you say it is "beyond" words to describe them. This is metaphore, the words exist it's just that you don't know how to use them to describe certain things like love or green when there is no common point of reference.

Is it? There is such a thing as true information. If I say "the door is blue" and you interpret that as meaning the door is sad, then you've merely made a mistake in decoding what was pretty obviously my meaning.

It's not a contradiction.

The work of a huge number of specialists only adds to what the populace can know. A lot of new knowledge has been attained. It is simply not realistic to assume that any one person can be an expert at everything. It is in no way limiting.

No, I never even hinted at this. Were you reading my literal message with some mystical metaphorical "beyond" to come to this conclusion?

That people can lie is a simple fact that we all know. We depend on specialists because we have no other choice other than to become specialists ourselves. This paragraph frankly seems to be completely out of place to what we were talking about.

If humanity progresses in anything at all then it has progressed as a whole. I suppose I need you to define what "true progress" is or we will forever experience the "no true progress" fallacy.

We can only do what we can do. We most often do pass knowledge back and for to each other in an adequate fashion. How does sitting around in the woods taking metaphorical meaning from nature improve this situation?

It seems very much to me that you seek to gain insight from mystical sources when you state why you are a theist. I do not see that there is any other way to interpret this.

Perhaps you find that communing with mystical sources is a much slower way of gaining new insight than simply learning what insights others hold.

Here is yet another way to think of religions as a whole. They are memeplexes. Find where false ideas are assumed to be true and eventually the whole thing collapses. I have no problem at all with anyone's delsusions as long as they keep them to themselves. Truth is valuable, but so is happiness. Do whatever it is that makes you happy and harms no one else. Truth though, does not correlate to happiness. You may not be ready to drop the mystical shit for the reality.

epepke

I'll just quote (from memory) Stephen Jay Gould's response when he was asked a question about the Gaia hypothesis at a speech I attended:

As for the OP, it's a poetic description not dissimilar from the kind of thing that Spinoza, Einstein, and Hawking tried to get at. But as has been pointed out, words have to have some meaning in order to be useful (though perhaps not in poetrty). Even the dictionary defines "theism" as belief especially in a personal God as creator and ruler of the universe. "God" also is defined with baggage from religions.

I'm pretty sure that Carl Sagan had similar feelings, but he called it "the Cosmos." The Taoists probably had similar feelings, but they call it "Tao." Animists may have similar feelings, but they use other words, too.

Of course, we can have endless debates on whether Deists are considered Theists (they're usually not), or Pantheists or Taoists or whatever. I don't see much point in such debated. Nor do I see much value in taking a baggage-laden term like "God" and apply it in a case where the baggage is specifically not to apply, unless it be to draw attention to that fact, such as was done with "queer."

0

Some things are beyond description and it has nothing to do with mystical reasons of any kind. You can’t articulate the death of a child or a loved one. As someone who handled memoriums for a newspaper: words will never, ever encompass all that such an event entails. They will always fall short of the actual experience. That is why we must use indirect examples to attempt to better convey our thoughts because of language limitations: simile, metaphor, personification and so on. And even those fail at times.
First I am clinging to my worldview out of comfort. Now I should give it up because I don’t enjoy it. :huh: My worldview is not a buffer that keeps reality out nor it is a barriar that keeps me restricted within it.
Chalk it up to my personality and the fact that we are talking past each other.
This doesn’t address my point. You stated that I am in my worldview because it makes me happy and that I don’t wish my delusions to be dashed on the rocks of reality. I stated that my happiness is not contingent upon what belief structure I hold. My mind is not closed to new information. At no point have I stated that what I believe is the ultimate truth, above all others.
My measure of personal growth is the way I successfully meet the challenges that I face in my life.
As for change being inevitable, I say change can also be a choice. There are plenty of people that are stuck in their ways and resistant to change.

I write for a living.My terminology remains the same.
To further explain my example: The world is neither entirely good nor entirely evil. It is both good and evil. At the same time, when you look at the world itself rather than it’s parts, it will appear neutral (i.e. beyond both concepts). The BALANCE (neutrality) between the two concepts is beyond (more than) the scope of the concepts themselves. The world is composed of identifiable parts but is more than those parts at the same time.
Better?
I can agree with this.
How is that not a contradiction?
While I understand what you are saying, this still limits the amount that the public can know unless they are specialized themselves. As the rest, what ever happened to the “Renaissance Man�??
Quote:
Manipulation of knowledge falls under “conveying knowledge poorly. That’s my only point.
Which is a limitation because we also have to trust that those who possess that knowledge are not going to manipulate or mismanage it. High stakes, in some cases.
I disagree. I believe the surmounting problems in our society today are directly formed from the failure to convey knowledge to the masses due to ommission, manipulation, and mismanagement.
How does sitting around on a forum debating improve the situation?
I find the viewpoints of others fascinating. It leads me to a greater respect and appreciation for the diversity of humanity and how our world is multifaceted when viewed through so many individual eyes. That’s why I’m here.
I have already pointed out that my worldview is not contingent upon my happiness. If I seem deluded to you, so be it. I don’t characterize you as deluded. We just see the world differently.
To each his own.

My two cents,
Tangie

ComestibleVenom

steamer,
And what about delusions which are valuble precisely insofar as they are public? What then?

Are you under the quaint illusion that truth and utility are identical?

I believe that our spiritual beliefs should have a bearing upon our lives. Insofar as my philosophy is without practical relation, it is not spiritual for me.

It is a very fundamental sort of error to presume that because we cannot describe our spiritual realities (and they are, insofar as they are, very real), they are 'beyond description'. I appreciates, to some extent, how difficult it is to convey the ineluctability of the divine. It is clear to me, in my delusion and faith, that we already have linguistic substrates of sufficient power to profoundly characterize such experiences.

Sadly, given the divide between mystics who insist on the impossibility of such and skeptics who see no problem to bridge, this has not been done to our full capability.

We need many more theists such as tangiellis to challenge our subcultural presuppositions. Did you not see it coming, my fellow infidels? Do you not percieve the brittle doctrines already being incubated in our small communities?

ComestibleVenom

Yes, yes, but it is mundane! Don't let any mystic tell you otherwise. Dreadfully inane. And so sublime it should not be spoken. And they don't. Don't think they don't know how inane it is.

Listen to the lecture of the great mystic who was long sought after by the king. When the monarch finally cornered him and brought him to court, he demanded to be taught wisdom. The mystic took a flute from his coat and blew one short note. He put it back, turned and left.


Do you understand now? But of course not, dreadfully inane. Quite inane. Unique and one of a kind, worth your lifetime.

Murmur

While I am an atheist, I don't think the world can simply be reduced to a bunch of propositions.

You can live life one of two ways:

You can claim to have all the answers in advance & live your life wearing blinders & remain cut off from unimaginable encounters of awe & mystery within life.

OR

You can live life knowing that it is more than that, & so be open to the mystery & the beauty the world has to offer.

What I mean by 'all the answers' is saying that everything can be reduced to a principle & thereby tossing out the importance of actual self-experience. Those self-experiences are what we can learn from (or not) but they can give us personal growth, improve us as human beings, make us realise how precious living really is. And realising this by experience is not the same thing as reading it in a book & nodding your head & saying, 'I can agree with that.'

What I do not mean by being 'open to the mystery...' etc. is opening the floodgates for also sorts of things, like believing in little green men or whatever tickles your fancy.

There are things in life we can really know, like 2+2=4, that the earth is round, that if I hit my foot on a rock it can hurt, plenty of other facts that are out there. But there is another aspect to living which is the actual encounter with life itself, & no mere verbal summary can replace it.

Its like a really brilliant poem-- no amount of summarising, no matter how articulate or how 'accurate' a paraphrase can be, it will never replace the thrill of reading the actual poem. Existential experience cannot be replicated by words-- you have to do it yourself, for yourself, with your OWN experiences. If you don't, you reduce the world to a bunch of verbal propositions & you have cut off the world itself in advance.

This is something that religious fundamentalists do but it is something that ALL people who claim that language can accurately describe EVERYTHING & settle the matter. I put faith in words, but I don't put THAT MUCH faith in words.

But human beings often still feel the need to express these encounters in life & how they deal with it within themselves. That is essentially what poetry does (which is why it may not always make 'sense' to some people), & some people will find this expressed within mythological or religious language.

This is not the same thing as literalism. It is the attempt to find expression in what is essentially inexpressible-- those encounters of mystery, awe, beauty, etc. I would be hesitant to call that 'mystical' or 'spiritual' because of supernaturalist connotations, but it certainly has something to do with a kind of 'ontological shock' of simply existing, or 'Is-ness' as Meister Eckhart put it.

That's basically what Tangie's approach to life is & I applaud her for it. In that context, it really doesn't matter whether she is or isn't a theist-- all that matters is that she knows life can't be known in advance & by being open to things in life that are free & simply waiting to be encountered, she can learn from them & better herself by it. So she happens to use language that is theistic. I see no grave sin in that.

The universe is far more vast & complex that the human mind or the tool of language. We can grasp many things, but the actual lived experience of life itself cannot be grasped. You have to live it for yourself. Otherwise we'd be living in a dull, dull world.

murmur