Spirituality, Atheism, Religion, and Saving the World:

[Wildfire]

Thank you for the compliment! Ya, true spiritualiy is hard to hide. Franciscan revolution was a very beautiful thing... I'd get along well with that guy. =)

You’re very welcome. But you didn’t answer my question, and it wasn’t meant to be rhetorical. I would very much like to understand your perspective. So in instances like these, where there is this kind of overlap, can you be more specific about what it is you want to eradicate? For example, do you feel you can leave Franciscan monks to their religion, and why or why not?

Your last paragraph is rather deep. I'm a fighter, a spiritual activist... I'm not a spiritual leader. I'm trying though... That's one reason I'm hanging out with you guys! You do great as southing my savage soul. My problem with religion stems directly form what it has done to this world. I didn't think anything was wrong with it for most of my life. -Not right, but whatever, it didn't seem detrimental, so, peace. But it's not like that. Religion is why this world is so fucked up! This is war.

I think you misread me and my level of understanding. I'm a science geek who was born in love with the universe. God is a big question and I've been looking for answers my whole life. I'm inherently spiritual and I've exposed myself to every expression of it i could find. I should probably chlll out a bit, I could be a spiritual leader. If you disagree, let's talk about it. I'm down for a little insight from INFJs. Let me know what you see. What I see is humanity rejoicing thanks to being set free from the bonds of mental slavery.

Earlier today Ken Wilbur came up in a conversation with somebody else, so his name is in my head. But whether you read his version or another’s, it might benefit you to look into and better understand states and stages of consciousness as they pertain to individuals and their approach to religion. You might find that it’s not so much the religion, as it is the individual approach. And you might get a better idea of what you can and cannot do, when it comes to helping evolution along.

 

[Rift Zone]

But as a spiritual atheist, you don't believe everyone is equal. The sentence before that demonstrates that.

The sentence before demonstrates my problem with religion. The most capable species known to exist, reduced to quietly accepting this sad sate of affairs. This world has been in a terrible state for millennia. Where is our nature when we need it? Where is our inspiration? Where is our innovation? Our identity is to improve upon EVERYTHING! -And things get worse, and worse. It is incomprehensible. This world is not a reflection of the character of humanity. Being in this state makes no sense unless you factor in religion. This world, is in fact a reflection of the bible. The bible is the most depraved book i have ever come across. It is the most vile thing i ever tried to read. It is a precise reflection of the world we live in. That's more than coincidence! That's causality.

You're generalizing a few sects of Abrahamic religion to all of religion.

I'm generalizing all Abrahamic religions as the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity. Even the best of them teach group superiority=racism... You're still a subordinate.

Again...this is not what all religion, or all religious believers think.

That's what religion does. You want to pick and choose. Oh, this guy didn't have a bad experience... His religion ain't so bad. And, this particular faith is not as bat shit crazy as Catholics, so they must not be so bad. And that's fine. But i'm not doing that. A single guy and a single faith is just a drop in the bucket of the scope here. I'm talking about humanity. This is what religion does to humanity. I'm describing the net result. This is a macro view. I have perfectly sane, well adjusted, awesome christian friends too. Point at who ever you like and will you immediately miss the point! We live in a fucked up world and religion is the cause. The forest is screwed and you see no problem because there are some healthy trees. -we are not talking about the same thing.

Your post is your opinion. Just because you believe in your opinion fully, does not mean it's irrefutable- nor does it induce causality. Causality is extremely difficult to determine in topics like this. In physical sciences, you can control external variables- eliminating confounding factors - to test a x to y relationship. Anything involving humans and social constructs, is exceptionally difficult to understand - as there is almost an unlimited number of factors that influence an individual's perception, choices, and actions. To say that religion is the cause of a certain action, is an extremely naive and under informed opinion and understanding of how our social world is constructed. Moreover, just because you say your opinion is irrefutable, doesn't mean it is. You haven't provided anything to substantiate what you're saying. Opinion, while interesting, creative, potentially correct, and profound - is still opinion. Nothing these days occurs because of an individual's opinion. Movements happen by generating evidence and proof that opinions are valid. In fact, the idea that Christianity is based on the Bible, which some believe is the opinions of man, is what you're essentially doing. I only make this connection to help show you that the credibility of what you're saying would be far greater if you provided more than just your opinion.

It's either extremely naive or it's extremely innovative. If it is extremely innovative then history shows most of the world's population wouldn't know the difference. -Fact, check it out.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck

I actually find this very similar to Christianity in that humans are above all other living things. And much of what you say in the rest of the paragraph could be taken from papers on Christianity and ecology. I have read this in them. I think you refuse to see that a lot of what you are saying, has been said before, and are actually being practiced in religions. That's not to say they are exclusive to them, but you speak as if they don't exist within religion- when in fact, they do.

That's awfully convenient. You're picking and choosing some traits that you can find in Christianity while completely ignoring the underlying themes of religion. Show me were racism exists in atheist spirituality and i will be much more receptive to the notion christianity is similar to atheist spirituality. None of the good you speak of above had origins in religion -none!

It saddens me that you can't see that what you're suggesting people do, is the same thing you dislike in religion. You want everyone to drop what they believe, and jump on your bandwagon. What if someone's natural identity is to believe in God? Why is that wrong? This person can still hold the values you suggest, while believing in a higher power. To say they can't, is to impose the same restrictions that you condemn religion for.

It is a known scientific fact that religious people do not engage their reason and logic centers of the brain when considering the validity of deity. Religion really does behave like a "mind virus" in that once it takes root, it often takes hold deeply. Religion exists in more primitive areas of the brain that are subject only to instinct. It doesn't matter how irrational or unreasonable one must become to support deity, their more primal being is forced to support deity at all costs else their entire identity collapses. -It would actually be a healthy thing for them and the planet, but whatever. So then, I gives a damn what theists think. My focus is on the next generation... You severly misunderstand me if you think I want to convert anyone. I know I cannot. But I also know if any spiritual seekers read my words, they will see religion for what it really is. My mission gets accomplished through them.

The definition of the universe is not consistent- but you want everyone to believe in your definition. Yes, there are a lot of people out there that do...but there are a lot of people out there that hold other ideas of what the universe is, and what it means to them.

Okay. Now how is that relevant. Spirituality is about the relation to the universe, not about the definition of universe. If this were a science thread, the nature of the universe might be more pertenent. But here? Please tell me how that matters. It changes what? It matter why? You seriously lost me.

This is where the issue is. You want people to abide by your definition of spirituality, yet you want people to accept their true identity...in fact, you're forcing your identity on them. If your goal is for people to be free and find themselves, then you can't limit or condemn them from doing that within religion. You're contradicting yourself.

Abide by my definition of spirituality? Lets use yours then. Anyone have a better definition? Anyone think of anything that may be remotely more appropriate? Let's face it, Webster has not, could not have done better. I think that's a bit shady on your part to insinuate anything of the sort. The identity given to us through atheist spirituality comes straight from science. Scientific fact is the basis of your identity. I'm forcing nothing. I'm telling it like it is. Self consistency is one of my strong points. I'm hardwired that way. If you perceive contradictions I submit it's born of not being clear on where I'm coming from.

I also think you refuse to believe that people who don't believe in religion might have a different opinion of it...you also feel that anyone that has a different opinion of you is wrong. I actually spent time finding you resources to help expand your understanding of religion and offer a different perspective- but you refuse to education yourself on something that might be in opposition of your claims. If you truly believe you had the ability to attain a doctorate, you would recognize that the first true lesson in this journey is that you know very little about a very small subject...and that there are many opposing arguments and theories that deserve your respect and time. Coming at anything with a singular and narrow perspective is not creating a well educated and formed argument.

My apologies. I did not give them a fair chance. Perhaps I should have. Please forgive me but I tire of going over the same old ground. The only developments I've seen within spirituality in the 20 years is presented right here. The rest of what I've seen is a bunch of repackaging of some very old BS. It would nice to know I'm wrong about that but I'm not gonna get my hopes up. Those approaches have had my attention and that's what led me here. You seem inclined to think I "know very little". That necessarily blinds you to what I may know. We both know I have the capacity to achieve doctorate in any/every field of my choosing.

It's not religious propaganda. Considering everything that suggest an alternative view to yours as propaganda is absolutely ludacrus. Honestly...if you gave enough respect and time to check them out, you would see that there is a lot of information out there, from non-religious individuals, that suggest there are benefits to religion. You want people to read your work, yet you won't give others the time of day? What makes your work so special? Why are you the sayer of all in the world and what will happen? Why should someone take the time to hear you, when you won't listen to people who spent their lives researching, learning, and understanding religion? We're not your mom, we won't have this innate bias towards your work, and love it.

I have spent my life researching, learning and understanding every facet of our existence. Including, and during many times, especially religion. It's not religious propaganda? There are actually honest looks at our existence and the factors involved to be found there? Or is it a sales pitch that blabs on about some philosophy that has no legitimate association to reality? My philosophy is embedded in known, proven fact. I have an innate bias toward reality. What I'm saying aligns better than anything else. Thus, the traits that make my work special are self evident.

You always want me to be frank with you, and I am. I honestly feel bad, but I am approaching this how I would if I were at a defense for a student. You are not able to refute anything, and haven't so far, because you are not willing to consider or even read the evidence. I have provided you with a variety of redeeming qualities of religion, and all your response has been is "I'm not going to look at them." "I'll refute them". If you want to have a serious conversation, where knowledge and growth is exchanged, then you must reach out from your opinion and listen to others. Listening does not mean agreeing. But in order to further your claims, you have to listen to others and learn something.

I am more than willing to have this conversation with you, but I don't think you truly want that. I think you want people to just agree with you and support you- and that's fine...but it'll do nothing to help you further your own understanding of spiritual atheism.

You feel bad... lol I've been wanting this type of response from you the whole time. I told you you wouldn't hurt my feelings by telling me like it is. It's unfortunate you're not so candid or analytical when your not upset with me. Sorry for hurting your feelings.

I would refute them. There are no redeeming qualities of reigion. Making me responsible for the content of a bunch of links is a bit ridiculous. You drop a library on me, all about: refute this. I'm afraid I have better things to do with my time than correct some papers. Those guys can get clued in after I've published this project. If you think they have something relevant, please share the noteworthy parts. I'll be happy to address them. Within science and spirituality, I have unusual perspectives. None of these perspectives have been successfully refuted! -None. What makes you so sure I'm the one who needs to learn something here? Your statements possess profound wisdom! I don't deny them. Only, they are not the only thing around here that possesses profound wisdom. I would love to have a conversation about all this. How far we get is up to you. You can falsely presume I need to learn about spirituality you can find out what I know.

 

[barbad0s]

Every single opinion in this thread is wrong

 

[Rift Zone]

Every single opinion in this thread is wrong

Fine example of that. =)

 

[Rift Zone]

@riftzone you say"Some people have like zero inclination toward spirituality. Some invest everything they are in it. You are of the former camp. We will never agree. Your input will remain just as irrelevant to me as mine is to you. We have nothing to talk about, as far as spirituality goes. Namaste."

That's a laugh. You have obviously never read my blog....​

I'm sorry about that. I obviously misunderstood. It seems we have very different takes on spirituality. I'm gonna stick to my definition. =) I firmly believe spirituality is a fundamental human trait. It is the mark of sentience. If you ever wanted to know who you were in the big scheme of things. Or where you came from. What's this all about... -That's all spirituality. It's a lot more substantial and relevant than Santa Clause.

 

[barbad0s]

@riftzone you say"Some people have like zero inclination toward spirituality. Some invest everything they are in it. You are of the former camp. We will never agree. Your input will remain just as irrelevant to me as mine is to you. We have nothing to talk about, as far as spirituality goes. Namaste."

That's a laugh. You have obviously never read my blog....​

Ur blog sux

 

[Rift Zone]

Evidence of the value of religion for some individuals:

This article (1) shows that there is correlational relationships and not causal (see my above points on using 'causal', and (2) lists a range of benefits seen in individuals who are religious. This is also from a publication not founded in theology or religion.

This is an article that goes into religion and spirituality - and their definitions: http://www.psychology.hku.hk/ftbcstudies/refbase/docs/zinnbauer/1997/34_Zinnbauer_etal1997.pdf


This suggests that the social support attained from the religious community, such as church, has significant impacts on health.

Again, this is from a non-theology based publication- so no 'religious propaganda'.

There's tons of it out there.

Okay, I'll concede some minor, anecdotal benefits to religion exits. Not that I actually agree with that crap but I can't refute it so I concede.

1) That's a cultural thing. Values can be learned anywhere and community is known to exist in religion. I maintain the communities that grow out atheist spirituality will be of far greater quality.

2)Pure community.

3)this piece of crap planet is supposed to be wrought with hardship and misery in the religious perspective. In my perspective, we are living far, far below our capacity because my people have been enslaved. It's kinda depressing.

I'll concede. I'll claim religion to have questionable value. Being that we can't test against atheist spirituality, it's value is unsubstantiated and subject to getting revoked. hehe But whatever... I'll concede.

 

[Rift Zone]

The impression that I am left with is that you believe religion is best explained by reference to the extreme elements within it. You assume that religious conviction imposes a particular understanding on others. "There is a spectrum of religious understanding and commitment, in which extremists commit themselves to destruction and chaos, and others seek to bring healing and value to the poor and destitute, it is clear that it is impossible for belief systems to be defined by the actions of a few individuals within them, in much the same way that it is inaccurate to define the attributes and workings of the human body by reference to a single freckle that appears on the skin." (Bob Eckhard). To see the extreme elements within religion as characteristic of the whole, is a narrow and misinformed view. This is a point worth making because you use gross generalisations within religious groups.

"Take serial killer Dennis Nielsen, who murdered fifteen people in the late seventies and early eighties. We do not presume that all people called ‘Dennis’ are likely to become a serial killer. We might hope that there are far more instances of people with the name ‘Dennis’ who are involved in doing good work or carrying out altruistic acts as there are criminals with the same name (although we would never know for sure…). Neither do we presume that the arrest and conviction of a mother found guilty of murdering her son, heralds a new wave of women psychopaths who cannot be trusted to safeguard their children. Similarly, we do not condemn all Germans as Nazis because at one point in history fanatics with extremist ideas committed atrocities in pursuit of their Arian ideology. We are reasonable enough to ascertain that this sort of behaviour is not indicative of every German." (Bob Eckhard)

Extremist activity is by its very nature at odds with the norms of society - the action is considered extreme because it does not fit with normal behaviour. Religious belief is poorly defined by selecting as a sample the extreme minority.

You fail to recognize the net affect of religion on humanity. Focus on that and you will see exactly why I must destroy the enterprise.

 

[say what]

Okay, I'll concede some minor, anecdotal benefits to religion exits. Not that I actually agree with that crap but I can't refute it so I concede.

1) That's a cultural thing. Values can be learned anywhere and community is known to exist in religion. I maintain the communities that grow out atheist spirituality will be of far greater quality.

2)Pure community.

3)this piece of crap planet is supposed to be wrought with hardship and misery in the religious perspective. In my perspective, we are living far, far below our capacity because my people have been enslaved. It's kinda depressing.

I'll concede. I'll claim religion to have questionable value. Being that we can't test against atheist spirituality, it's value is unsubstantiated and subject to getting revoked. hehe But whatever... I'll concede.

You can. People have tested atheism, the articles in fact mention that. Your definition of atheist spirituality has yet to be tested- this doesn't mean it's not of value. You're black or white- you need to view a social construct, such as spirituality and religion on a scale of grey.

You're bringing a physical science perspective to a social science domain- you can't do this. In social science things aren't right or wrong, they're different and separated by degrees of difference. I'm not saying your theory is wrong or incorrect, what I'm saying is that your perspective of spirituality and religion is narrow and bias towards your own ideals. If you're going to try and expand peoples understanding of this topic, you also have to do so yourself and be respectful that there might be value (not right or wrong value) in other beliefs.

 

[say what]

Your entire reply is simply your opinion. It's as valuable as me believing in unicorns - neither wrong or right, but, in the terms of creating movements, as valuable as any opinion-based perspective.

However, I want to address one issue that, unless you consider/look into, I think you're going to be extremely limited by.

It's either extremely naive or it's extremely innovative. If it is extremely innovative then history shows most of the world's population wouldn't know the difference. -Fact, check it out.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck

As I said above, you're looking at a social construct through a very empirical lens which creates a lot of issues and biases with your perspective. Quoting a physicist only further highlights your belief that you can apply a perspective of the 'physical world' on a 'social' and 'subjective' construct.

When you measure something such as spirituality, you have to define every concept within that definition. Measuring the relationship to 'x' is important, but also how you define 'x' is equally as significant- as how you define your variable ultimately impacts the relationship and how you measure that relationship. Definitions impact measurement, which impact conclusions.

It's perfectly fine to understand spirituality in your context- I imagine that many people hold a very similar definition. But the inherent flaw in this is that you can't take that information and generalize to the population as a whole because you're only measuring 1 perspective, and 1 definition. This is where the issue of nativity vs. innovation comes into play. It's empirically naive to take one single set of definitions and outcomes and apply it to the population as a whole- in sciences such as chemistry, biology, physics, there's less of this issue, as what you are measuring most often has consistent and objective definitions..but if you study and review those definitions, you'll notice that they're not broad (e.g., I'm studying a rock), they are EXTREMELY narrow and specific (e.g., I am studying the geological blah blah blah blah of this fine little type of pebble)- this is because even in the empirical sciences, they recognize that not all rocks are the same, and that the impact of a single variable on one rock, might not be the same as it is on another. Take that to social science, where you're not dealing with consistent definitions, as social constructs means completely different things to everyone (e.g., try defining love...there's MILLIONS of definitions out there, and it means something different to everyone in a variety of contexts)...if you're going to study love on variable "a" you have to define love completely - but this definition, while not wrong, will likely be limited to your own perspective as the researcher.

Innovation isn't naive when it considers the limitations and scope of what it's working on. Recognizing, accounting for, and amending these limitations is what creates success in innovation.


Anyways- you still don't provide concrete examples that can be applied to what you're talking about. Until then, all I'm doing to going in a circle telling you it's just your opinion. I think once you provide information/arguments that go beyond your personal perspective, the conversation will be able to be furthered.

 

[54192&#cmy]

Ur blog sux

My blog sux? How is that?

 

[Rift Zone]

You’re very welcome. But you didn’t answer my question, and it wasn’t meant to be rhetorical. I would very much like to understand your perspective. So in instances like these, where there is this kind of overlap, can you be more specific about what it is you want to eradicate? For example, do you feel you can leave Franciscan monks to their religion, and why or why not?

Sorry about that.


No, I'm not inclined to leave the Franciscan denomination alone. To start with, I'd like to repeat a little from above: It is a known scientific fact that religious people do not engage their reason and logic centers of the brain when considering the validity of deity. Religion really does behave like a "mind virus" in that once it takes root, it often takes hold deeply. Religion exists in more primitive areas of the brain that are subject only to instinct. It doesn't matter how irrational or unreasonable one must become to support deity, their more primal being is forced to support deity at all costs else their entire identity collapses.


So, I would never have interest in taking religion from my monk friend. It just doesn't work that way. He would have to want greater understanding in order to find it. But I would tell his spiritual seeking kids all they wanted to know about atheist spirituality. I would defy deity just as strongly with them as I have here with you. The reason why has everything to do with world view. World view sets our limitations, our realm of possibilities. The underlying teachings of religion are crushing to the dreams and aspirations of believers. Religion is a bunch of fluff on the surface but the true reality of it is disempowerment. And it is insidious! Apparently, you're not a good christian unless you recruit/enslave others. When that doesn't work out you're supposed to crucify them... then it went to burn them at the stake, being drowned... The atrocities against atheists over the years were really imaginative. Now they just thumbs down you for no fucking reason! You've come a long way, theists... Just think, you were barbarians mere generations ago! Their violence and fear tactics against outsiders and toward believers are all part of the evil nature of religion. If there ever was a thing that deserved ridicule and disdain it is abrahamic religion.

Earlier today Ken Wilbur came up in a conversation with somebody else, so his name is in my head. But whether you read his version or another’s, it might benefit you to look into and better understand states and stages of consciousness as they pertain to individuals and their approach to religion. You might find that it’s not so much the religion, as it is the individual approach. And you might get a better idea of what you can and cannot do, when it comes to helping evolution along.

I've crossed Ken Wilbur's path before. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with all his works. There does seem to be a fair amount of insight there but our scope is distinct enough to give the impression we're working on entirely different things. I should dig deeper in to that. There is a strong possibility our works could benefit another.

The way you’ve defined religion in your opening post might be a valid description of your own experience, but it’s not going to resonate with everyone. This is already reflected in the majority of the responses to this thread, and in the end it is going to limit the effectiveness and reach of your stated mission. I think you’d do much better saying something like “This is how I encountered this religion at this time in my life and this is why it didn’t work for me…”

I did try to address your points. My apologies for not doing a very good job of it. I was raised in a Baptist environment. It was in California so it was pretty benign as far as religion goes. My take on the relationship religion has with humanity wasn't born of my personal experience with religion. Those feelings came much later, while I was trying to figure out why this world was so messed up. My views don't involve any particular individual. The relationship I describe is between the whole of humanity and religion.

And I want you to know that I think your spirituality is very beautiful, but it is also consistent with Franciscan spirituality for example, which is alive and well within “the religious confines of the Catholic tradition”. So in instances like these can you be more specific about what it is you want to eradicate?

Thanks again. I'm humbled and honored.


The Franciscan tradition wasn't religion's idea. Religion damn near killed him. They did take out his makeshift church for the crime of giving a damn about the natural world... All that was born of pure spirituality! Catholicism was forced to adopt those perspectives or face extinction. St Francis knew a lot more about spirituality than the church did. The church adopted those perspectives only for it's own survival. Catholicism was not born of spirituality. It aligns with spirituality only enough to persist its charade.

In all honesty I have to say that your us against them approach just doesn’t work for me. From my perspective, your problem with religion needs to give way into broader understanding and I suspect that you actually have a problem with the level of consciousness at which members of the human race interact with, or engage in, their religion. Have you ever considered this?

I don't deny I would benefit from broader understanding. Then again, I feel as though I have a decent amount of understanding as it is.


I aspire to be a spiritual leader. That is one of the motivating factors for me being here. I'm kinda rough around the edges and a more enlightened approach to things would likely serve me well. Just the same, I acknowledge I may never be a worthy spiritual leader. Growing is always an option but we all have our inherent strengths, not sure if spiritual leadership can be among mine. I'm might be better suited as a spiritual leader's thug, intellectually and otherwise.


I will make every effort to answer your questions! If I miss something or you would like some elaboration, please let me know. I will do my very best to satisfy your curiosity.

 

[Rift Zone]

You can. People have tested atheism, the articles in fact mention that. Your definition of atheist spirituality has yet to be tested- this doesn't mean it's not of value. You're black or white- you need to view a social construct, such as spirituality and religion on a scale of grey.


You're bringing a physical science perspective to a social science domain- you can't do this. In social science things aren't right or wrong, they're different and separated by degrees of difference. I'm not saying your theory is wrong or incorrect, what I'm saying is that your perspective of spirituality and religion is narrow and bias towards your own ideals. If you're going to try and expand peoples understanding of this topic, you also have to do so yourself and be respectful that there might be value (not right or wrong value) in other beliefs.

My definition of spirituality has yet to be tested? Pardon me for saying so but that is the most astute and complete definition of spirituality that humanity has EVER produced! Ever! I defy anyone/anything in this cosmos (the entirety of existence) to tell me otherwise. Much like Archaic Crust Theory, our progeny will be reading that in their books as well.


There currently is no community developed around atheist spirituality. You cannot test anything related to atheist spiritual communities. They don't exist yet. Whatever comparisons you are drawing is inherently flawed because of this.


You continue to assume I'm the one who needs education. I happen to have one of the finest educations on the planet. You may rightfully tell me I would benefit from even more but don't assume that means I'm the one who needs to learn here. You insinuate, in some fashion, I may not know precisely what I'm talking about. I will outright tell you, you are wrong about that.

 

[Rift Zone]

Your entire reply is simply your opinion. It's as valuable as me believing in unicorns - neither wrong or right, but, in the terms of creating movements, as valuable as any opinion-based perspective.

However, I want to address one issue that, unless you consider/look into, I think you're going to be extremely limited by.




As I said above, you're looking at a social construct through a very empirical lens which creates a lot of issues and biases with your perspective. Quoting a physicist only further highlights your belief that you can apply a perspective of the 'physical world' on a 'social' and 'subjective' construct.

When you measure something such as spirituality, you have to define every concept within that definition. Measuring the relationship to 'x' is important, but also how you define 'x' is equally as significant- as how you define your variable ultimately impacts the relationship and how you measure that relationship. Definitions impact measurement, which impact conclusions.

It's perfectly fine to understand spirituality in your context- I imagine that many people hold a very similar definition. But the inherent flaw in this is that you can't take that information and generalize to the population as a whole because you're only measuring 1 perspective, and 1 definition. This is where the issue of nativity vs. innovation comes into play. It's empirically naive to take one single set of definitions and outcomes and apply it to the population as a whole- in sciences such as chemistry, biology, physics, there's less of this issue, as what you are measuring most often has consistent and objective definitions..but if you study and review those definitions, you'll notice that they're not broad (e.g., I'm studying a rock), they are EXTREMELY narrow and specific (e.g., I am studying the geological blah blah blah blah of this fine little type of pebble)- this is because even in the empirical sciences, they recognize that not all rocks are the same, and that the impact of a single variable on one rock, might not be the same as it is on another. Take that to social science, where you're not dealing with consistent definitions, as social constructs means completely different things to everyone (e.g., try defining love...there's MILLIONS of definitions out there, and it means something different to everyone in a variety of contexts)...if you're going to study love on variable "a" you have to define love completely - but this definition, while not wrong, will likely be limited to your own perspective as the researcher.

Innovation isn't naive when it considers the limitations and scope of what it's working on. Recognizing, accounting for, and amending these limitations is what creates success in innovation.


Anyways- you still don't provide concrete examples that can be applied to what you're talking about. Until then, all I'm doing to going in a circle telling you it's just your opinion. I think once you provide information/arguments that go beyond your personal perspective, the conversation will be able to be furthered.

You presume too much. You think I cannot take that information and generalize to the population as a whole because you never pressed me on it. Hold those presumptions to be true if you wish. But kindly make sure you know what you're talking about before you accuse me of anything.

 

[say what]

My definition of spirituality has yet to be tested? Pardon me for saying so but that is the most astute and complete definition of spirituality that humanity has EVER produced! Ever! I defy anyone/anything in this cosmos (the entirety of existence) to tell me otherwise. Much like Archaic Crust Theory, our progeny will be reading that in their books as well.


There currently is no community developed around atheist spirituality. You cannot test anything related to atheist spiritual communities. They don't exist yet. Whatever comparisons you are drawing is inherently flawed because of this.


You continue to assume I'm the one who needs education. I happen to have one of the finest educations on the planet. You may rightfully tell me I would benefit from even more but don't assume that means I'm the one who needs to learn here. You insinuate, in some fashion, I may not know precisely what I'm talking about. I will outright tell you, you are wrong about that.

We've had many discussions, and I think you have a good heart. But I won't discuss this with you further because I don't think we can have a conversation that doesn't end in someone being offended.

I wish you well on your journey to becoming a spiritual leader.

Unfortunately, I will not be buying that koolaid anytime soon.

 

[Rift Zone]

My blog sux? How is that?

Niffer, you rock. I bet you have a heart of gold. You are also a bit mischievous. Makes you a lot of fun to be around... She thumbed up my reply to her: "Fine example of that! =)" There is no question in my mind that she was just mixing up the seriousness of this thread by having a bit of fun with it/us. You might get yourself trolled. =) I'd tell her "Thank you very much. =)" Hugs to both of you.

 

[54192&#cmy]

Niffer, you rock. I bet you have a heart of gold. You are also a bit mischievous. Makes you a lot of fun to be around... She thumbed up my reply to her: "Fine example of that! =)" There is no question in my mind that she was just mixing up the seriousness of this thread by having a bit of fun with it/us. You might get yourself trolled. =) I'd tell her "Thank you very much. =)" Hugs to both of you.

I get what your trying to do. Been trying to do a similar thing myself since 2008. I find that it for me has maybe been a waste of time. My original blog on here goes over a lot of spirituality. I deleted my other blog on here today. For all my good doings and helping I find that I have been screwed over and made a fool of. I hope you can do better. As for me I quit. I am just not the person I once thought I was. And for me to dream of anything better at this moment is quite out of my control. Good luck on your quest....

 

[Rift Zone]

We've had many discussions, and I think you have a good heart. But I won't discuss this with you further because I don't think we can have a conversation that doesn't end in someone being offended.

I wish you well on your journey to becoming a spiritual leader.

Unfortunately, I will not be buying that koolaid anytime soon.

I'm sorry to hear that. You know I value your opinion and insight. That never has to mean agreement. We could disagree about everything all the time and I would still greatly value your perspective. The difference between us is I respect your knowledge and education. You think I lack. That is your right. You may assume what you wish. You may ultimately find your assumptions are severely misplaced.

 

[Matt3737]

I happen to have one of the finest educations on the planet.

I'm interested in hearing more about your world class education. How much study have you put into religious studies? Am I able to question you on your [sarcasm] extensive [/sarcasm] knowledge on such topics? Do you have any published work?

How exactly does your spiritual views differ from, say, pantheism?

Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god. Some Eastern religions are considered to be pantheistically inclined.

I am also not surprised by your inablity to answer my last question, so I'll pose it again:

How would you attempt to minimize political manipulations in your idealized religion or alternately, how would you develop a community based on a loose assemblage of overgeneralized, rose-tinted viewpoints?

Your definition of spirituality did not include sapience which is a major factor in human spirituality.

Athena in Greek myth was the Logos. Christ is considered the Logos in Christianity. Iktomi in Lakota. Odin in Norse.
Here is a wiki list of some knowledge deities.

New Thought is centered around sapience as its central tenet with sentience its supporting structure.

New Thought, sometimes known as Higher Thought, promotes the ideas that Infinite Intelligence, or God, is everywhere, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, sickness originates in the mind, and "right thinking" has a healing effect.

You are a fool and a liar.

 

[Rift Zone]

I get what your trying to do. Been trying to do a similar thing myself since 2008. I find that it for me has maybe been a waste of time. My original blog on here goes over a lot of spirituality. I deleted my other blog on here today. For all my good doings and helping I find that I have been screwed over and made a fool of. I hope you can do better. As for me I quit. I am just not the person I once thought I was. And for me to dream of anything better at this moment is quite out of my control. Good luck on your quest....

The most innovative and brilliant minds in history have always been shunned by their contemporaries. Always! That's just how it goes. I wasn't born fringe, society made me out to be that way because that's it's nature. Thus, we walk a fine line that often does lead to isolation and ridicule. The more extreme you are, the more you have to prove. [MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION], you know I'm about a decade or more away from publishing this because I've told you so! You will have all the proof you desire in due time. [MENTION=95]efromm[/MENTION], till then, I mean nothing to this world. It is not a welcoming place. I'm putting everything I am into this. I live to save the world. -And the world is more than happy to kick me to the curb as I do so. Ain't that a bitch? Oh well, I'm not here to win popularity contests. Fuck all those who don't get me or what I'm doing, I honestly have more important things to worry about.

The world need spiritual activists. My species, my planet is more important that my comfort. I will not try to convince you to believe the same but I do hope you'll consider not giving up. I need you; I will get nothing done alone.