BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?

Subject: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 05:10 PM

SO many threads to choose from that MAYbe it should have one of it's own?

Inspired by what I consider common sense of a man grown wise with age. The Dalai Lama.

The only thing he said that I had not considered is in regard to grandparents. I have thoughts on this but the floor is open. Lets see where it goes, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 05:38 PM

In other words, it's important who you are, not the label people stick on you.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Kenny B Sans Kuki
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 05:45 PM

Interesting ---- Ill drink to That

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 06:03 PM

Good stuff gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 06:38 PM

Wise words indeed, and a confirmation of what I have instinctively always believed.

A word of caution Gnu. In the UK the terms "Spiritualism" and "Spiritualist" relate specifically to those who claim, often though not always falsely and for monetary gain, to be clairvoyant, or to contact the dead.

I mention this only to forestall responses which you might not be expecting.

Perhaps the thread title, only if you agree, should be "Spirituality as opposed to Religion".

Don T.

---

I've been waiting for gnu to ask me to change the thread title. Some things we changed, some things we wait to be asked.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 06:44 PM

I enjoy my spirits on the rocks ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 06:45 PM

Well, it seems clear as a bell to me that the minute you take the live energy of the spirit and condense it into an icon, a fixed image, a rule, a stricture, a moral code, an authority or a building with someone in charge o fit, you are walking away from the spiritual and into the mechanics, stops, solids, and jiggery pokery of the material universe. This is often done in order to control others, thus undermining their own self-determination with the very stuff of which their self-determination is made. This is a terrible offense, in my opinion.

Organized worship strikes me as a bad investment, in its traditional form, with an anthropomorphic receptacle from which answers rarely return, and to which a trillion requests a minute are funneled. From the point of view of the individual free spirit, a very bad investment.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 06:58 PM

Look where organized worship of this icon led to:
Organized worship on an an icon

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 07:02 PM

From the Wikipedia article on Spiritualism:

Spiritualism is a belief system or religion, postulating the belief that spirits of the dead residing in the spirit world have both the ability and the inclination to communicate with the living. Anyone may receive spirit messages, but formal communication sessions (séances) are held by "mediums," who can then provide information about the afterlife.

Not to be confused with Spirituality.


Which,unfortunately, you seem to have done, Gnu--

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 07:11 PM

Yeah, here in California, the spiritualists are the ones with the crystal balls and tea leaves.
http://www.spiritualist.tv/churches/us/california/ - this website makes me think there's more to "spiritualism" than commercial fortune tellers, though.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 07:19 PM

Further proof that the Dalai Lama truly is an evolved, wise, holy man.

A bit more lowbrow, but also deep:
The bad news: There is no key to happiness.
The good news: It's not locked.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 07:39 PM

Joe... no shit. Kinda odd about all the nastiness a short while back about labels. But, that's what happens when people are right and EVERYbody else is wrong. When one is accosted for the transgressions of others who are associated with one's "devotion" or beliefs, they don't see YOU. They are blinded by their own ignorance and hatred in self-righteous bullshit.

I reall don't think The Big Lama says anything wise outside what a wise old man would say but he said it and I think it applies to everyone. Even those who will decry it... the truth blind.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 07:48 PM

He says a lot of wise things.
But it is not a surprise
Its his job.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 08:26 PM

That's a very good message in that video, gnu. Spirituality can come naturally to people with or without belonging to a given religion, but there isn't necessarily any opposition between spirituality and religion. Religion, at its best, is very much in harmony with spirituality...while at its worst, it is utterly at odds with spirituality. Anyway, the Dalai Lama's answers were extremely wise and to the point.

The Truth is very simple. And very direct. A study of the world's major religions will reveal the same simple and direct truths at the heart of all of them, and the Dalai Lama summed those up in a few simple words.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 08:47 PM

Stim... that`s interesting. To say the least. Please view the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Janie
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 09:17 PM

Thanks gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 09:54 PM

JtS... it's everyone's job. Save a few. No?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 10:46 PM

I did view the link, gnu. Even if I hadn't, though, I am pretty familiar with what the Dalai Lama has to say, and also pretty familiar with Spiritualism, and know that they have nothing to do with each other. I was letting you know that "spirituality" and "spiritualism" are not the same things.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 10:59 PM

JtS... it's everyone's job. Save a few. No?

Do you get paid to say wise things?
I don't.
He is the ONLY person I know of on this Earth that is a professional wise man. I think he is very very good at it. He is the Wayne Gretzky of old wise men.

But that is just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 11:39 PM

The Dalai Lama's job is to keep in the Western public's awareness the plight of the Tibetan people, who have been under the yoke of Chinese invasion and suppression for 62 years.

Let's not lose sight of that fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 12:39 AM

And he does it by sitting in front of thousands saying wise things.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 02:55 AM

Hey Little Hawk:

'A study of the world's major religions will reveal the same simple and direct truths at the heart of all of them,'

What about the minor religions? What about Scientology - do you think that is a religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 04:50 AM

I think the suggestion that the thread title badly needs altering is a very good one.

In some definitions Scientology is a religion. Religion is essentially a matter of structuring the way people deal with various aspects of their lives, most of which aren't much to do with spirituality, but including those which are.

Labelling something a religion doesn't in any way mean it is necessarily a good thing. Human beings are capable of turning even good religions into something terrible. And it can happen the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 05:13 AM

"Human beings are capable of turning even good religions into something terrible.


And it can happen the other way round. ???"


People can turn "something terrible" into a good religion?

Interesting. Very interesting. Do you have an example?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 06:34 AM

Our Spirituality, like our Sexuality, is common to all yet unique to each and every one of us in terms of the empirical experience of the beauty of the thing. Religion is to Spirituality what Pornography is to Sexuality - it exploits that which is perfectly natural and best experienced in all wonder, love, passion, mystery, awe & innocent reverie.

It gets so bad that some find they need Religion and/or Pornography to get off, but I think most of us still prefer the real thing. Far from being mutually exclusive, Erotica & Religiosity combine at a very base & ancient level giving their fundamental significances in our lives - Birth / Biology / Death and our attendant hopes & fears / joys & sorrows. But, as with music, there is no truth, just a matter of personal & individual taste & myriad diversities arising, which will always give the lie to notions of God and Absolutism.

They can't all be right, but they CAN all be wrong, and if one is wrong, then, quite simply, they all simply must be wrong. All Religions were made up, just like every other aspect of human culture; wondrous concepts indeed, but not one as wondrous as the simple joys of holy communion with a lover or the loving living light we see in our children's eyes or else the tears we weep in mourning the passing of a loved one.

Daily we experience the sweet Epiphany of Empirical life made all the sweeter by the fact that MAN that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live, an is full of misery. He cometh up and is cut down like a flower; he fleeth as it were a shadow, and never continueth in one stay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLoQ-sNvhec

Daily we experience the ranting of those who claim have the answers. To them, it must be said, we haven't even figured out what the questions are yet. Personally, I doubt we ever will.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 07:37 AM

"Daily we experience the ranting of those who claim have the answers"

And here, today we experience another.

The answer provided is phrased in the ugliest imaginable way.

"Religion is to Spirituality what Pornography is to Sexuality" Wow!

but if it does the following, it is best for you.

makes you
more compassionate,
more sensible,
more detached,
more loving,
more humanitarian,
more responsible,
more ethical.쳌
The religion (or spiritually)
that will do that for you is the best.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 08:13 AM

the-dalai-lama-and homosexuality

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 08:22 AM

Monks are not normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 08:32 AM

""In 1963, a group of British Friends published, Towards a Quaker View of Sex'. This radical look at the sexual mores defined sin as "actions that involve the exploitation of the other person" and chastity as "the total absence of exploitation." They recognised that exploitation could occur within marriage as well as without, and called for "a morality that will enable people to find a constructive way through even the most difficult and unproductive situations."

Much of the publicity that surrounded its publication of Towards a Quaker View of Sex focused on what it had to say about homosexuality. "An act which expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both does not seem to us to be sinful by reason alone of the fact that it is homosexual," the authors wrote. Rather it should be judged by the same criterion as any heterosexual relationship.""

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 08:48 AM

The religion (or spiritually)
that will do that for you is the best.

The point is there are no answers, Jack. We're all in this life together (all 7 billion of us, and counting!) yet we must each of us die alone even as life goes on rejoicing. Even as I write : 208,000 births, but only 88,0000 deaths. This much is self-evident, and inescapable - unlike religion. The only self-evident thing about religion is that it was made up by the powerful to pacify & dis-empower their prey by removing from them the potential for self-actualisation. It does not operate to make us more ethical, compassionate, sensible, loving, or humanitarian - on the contrary, it engenders a mawkish sanctimonious reaction to secular common-to-all-7-billion-of-us reality which is, self-evidently, and very wonderfully, the whole of the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 10:36 AM

Spiritualism or Spiritism is an attempt to reclaim religion without religious icons or institutions and I see it as this. Some people have been so addicted to religion that they try to replace it with other terms and philosophies. This may sound harsh, but I see no reason to embrace Spiritualism as another makeshift religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 10:47 AM

Les, I don't really know enough about Scientology to evaluate it. My general impression of it is not too positive, but that's mainly due to general impressions of it that I've gotten from a lot of other people (gossip and rumour, that is)....so again, I don't know enough about it to comment.

Is it a minor religion? I guess it is to some people. Maybe to others it's a major religion. (shrug) To me it's a minor cult or religion or philosophy that I'm not very knowledgable about.

What you should maybe do is get in touch with Tom Cruise and ask him about it. ;-)

Blandiver - Self-actualization is a given, both in religion and outside of it. As a matter of fact, I'd say that self-actualization is the very crux OF religion, if you bother going into it to any degree of depth. If you're totally shallow about it, though, maybe not. The totally shallow aren't very good at self-actualization. (not implying that YOU are shallow...I'm just saying, in general terms)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 11:04 AM

I wouldn't ask Tom about it. I doubt he understands the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 11:14 AM

Blandiver said above.."They can't all be right, but they CAN all be wrong, and if one is wrong, then, quite simply, they all simply must be wrong."

I know there are huge differences of opinion on this, but the statement is crucial enough to need explication and/or slight rephrasing.
The important word in the quote is *IF*.

I have tried on various occasions to make the point about philosophic logic that says: "From false premises, anything follows." By itself, it doesn't prove or DISprove anything... it is merely a reminder that in order to have a TRUE conclusion (as distinct from a 'valid' one), it is necessary to start with TRUE premises. So... why such a pedantic point? Because, if one takes it seriously, it serves as a- for want of a better term, a warning about how to categorize and analyze the myriads of assumptions and claims that we encounter about our existence.

When one encounters a statement that makes a claim, it is good practice to ask: "what is this based on?". (Yes... this is similar to the scientific method.... not quite as rigorous in this formulation, but crucial.)

Now, 'spirituality' can mean different things to different people, and can lead to either specific areas like 'spiritualism' or 'religion' or to less focused ideas like just appreciating the awesome " sweet Epiphany of Empirical life " and the positive feedback we encounter from encountering love, art, nature, etc.
But *IF* we contemplate taking certain claims of 'spirituality' literally, we risk basing our decisions and actions on possible false premises, which puts the whole system on shaky ground.
The thing about humans is that they have the ability to 'reflect' on their own thought processes and invent, imagine and create ideas- a wondrous thing, but one which also allows them to totally ignore any distinctions and flawed reasoning which doesn't comport with what they wish to believe. It is easy for most of us to see this in the area of politics, for example, where rhetorical devices are used to avoid awkward truths,(especially among out opponents) but somehow the same logic escapes us in other areas.

When we study history and the immensely varied aspects of human culture(s), we can find many ideas and creations to guide and inspire us... art, poetry, literature, ... as well as much to shudder at and avoid. The trick is sorting the good from the..... other... and then integrating the good in positive ways.

If all this seems just too vague and pedantic, I'm sorry... but sometimes it is necessary to 'get at' the underlying mechanism that our strange human thought processes works on. I am simply (or not simply, if you insist) trying to suggest that the basic truth about "false premises" being a real danger can help us to appreciate various ideas of various 'spiritual' sorts without implicitly endowing them with ^metaphysical characteristics.

So it IS the case that "They can't all be right, but they CAN all be wrong, and if one is wrong, then, quite simply, they all simply must be wrong."... because they are all based on one basic assumption about reality, and the final answer about the truth or falsity of that premise/assumption is beyond our capacity to explore.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 11:17 AM

Trust yourself
Trust yourself to do the things that only you know best
Trust yourself
Trust yourself to do what's right and not be second guessed
Don't trust me to show you beauty

When beauty may only turn to rust
If you need somebody you can trust
Trust yourself
Trust yourself

Trust yourself to know the way that will prove true in the end
Trust yourself
Trust yourself to find the path where there is no if and when
Don't trust me to show you the truth
When the truth may only be ashes and dust
If you want somebody you can trust
Trust yourself

Well, you're on your own, you always were
In a land of wolves and thieves
Don't put your hope in ungodly man
Or be a slave to what somebody else believes

Trust yourself

And you won't be disappointed when vain people let you down

Trust yourself

And look not for answers where no answers can be found

Don't trust me to show you love

When my love may be only lust

If you want somebody you can trust

Trust yourself

BOB DYLAN - TRUST YOURSELF

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 11:49 AM

Good song. It is because I trust myself that I trust my own instincts when it comes to spirituality and everything else. I rely on my heart, not on a book, not on a dogma, not on an organization, a government, a hierarchy or a tradition. Just on what my own heart tells me. That's the best thing I have to go own, and no one else knows my heart but me.

Could I be wrong about one thing or another? Sure! ;-) But I can live with that possibility, because life involves risk and uncertainty at all times, and I know it. Therefore, I can live with the realization that I am sometimes mistaken about something. (just like everyone else in this world is)

And I go on managing as best I can, trusting in my own heart to tell me what to do next.

The mind is clever. The mind can perform wonderful tricks to impress itself and others. But the heart is wise. That's why I trust the heart far more than I do the mind........having grown up in a family where the mind was worshipped like an idol...and the heart was buried under a hundred miles of material debris, pretense, and denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 12:04 PM

You are, indeed, a perfect Being, Mister Hawk! ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 12:13 PM

I'd say that self-actualization is the very crux OF religion, if you bother going into it to any degree of depth

I'd agree, only the deeper you do go into it, the more it cancels itself out. What you're left with is the human need for belief & collective delusion and the equally human capacity for seemingly boundless invention with respect of myth & metaphor.

Times I might momentarily lapse from Atheist conviction & find myself pondering the possibility of God & concluding that if God there is, It bears no relation to any God religion has come up with and that I can have as much concept of It as our kitchen slugs have of Cybermen*.

because they are all based on one basic assumption about reality, and the final answer about the truth or falsity of that premise/assumption is beyond our capacity to explore.

Indeed. But in trying to subject my polemic to pedantry you reach the conclusion that the 'truth' of any religion is based on that very lack of capacity. What we can say is that human beings are very inventive but in lacking the capacity to explore beyond well established limits all we can do is tell stories, be it about God or Cybermen*, both of which are human constructs and have no place outside of their respective myth-systems. They may inspire us and terrify us, but that does not make them real.

* Sorry for banging on about Cybermen but I harbour a lifetime's fondness for them on all sorts of levels. I recently bought a vintage trio which now have pride o' place on our mantelpiece having briefly cavorted on the CD shelf. Here's a pic I took upon their arrival: My new Cyber friends find their natural groove

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 12:19 PM

""You took a coloured ribbon from out of the sky,
and taught me how to use it as the years went by.
To tie up all your problems and make them believe.
And then to sell them to the people in the street.

It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack""

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 12:28 PM

"But the heart is wise. That's why I trust the heart far more than I do the mind....."

I don't suppose you want ME to explicate the contradictions and complications inherent in phrases like that... ;>)

I know what you're getting at L.H.... instinct & feeling rather than that old, cold reason. I also don't suppose you'd be interested in a list of historical problems brought on by various others who used the same argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 12:38 PM

I just thought of a quote from that old book "The Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran:

"Let your reason and your passion be the rudder & sails of your seafaring soul."

Sailors who use just one or the other end up in strange places.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 12:39 PM

Perfectly imperfect, Amos! ;-)

Blandiver, how do you define "God"? Whether or not you believe in God, you obviously have some definition (vague or otherwise) that comes into your mind when you hear the word "God", and if you say you don't believe in God, then it is that definition of God against which you are arguing. That definition may in no way resemble what someone else thinks of when they say "God"...therefore your argument may be quite irrelevant to their idea of God.

"the human need for belief" is obvious, because everyone believes in something...actually, in many things. That gives them a foundation upon which to stand. We both, for example, believe in numbers...one plus one equals two, etc.... Why do we? Because we've been taught about numbers and we've experimented with what we've been taught, so we know about it and believe in it, based on experience.

We also believe that we exist. Why? Because we're experiencing it.

We believe that what we say matters! ;-) Or do we? Maybe not. If so, then why are we saying it? Just for lack of anything else to do at the moment? They say that even a fool will be thought wise, if he remain silent.

Do you truly know yourself? Does anyone here truly know himself? If not then why bother insisting upon or denying the existence of God?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 01:14 PM

...makes you
more compassionate,
more sensible,
more detached,
more loving,
more humanitarian,
more responsible,
more ethical.쳌
The religion (or spiritually)
that will do that for you is the best.

Who needs either to be the above? What about the Intelligence You Have which can do all the above? What about just doing it because it is right? Why do you need anything except yourself to be thus? Stand up on your own two feet already!

The religious claiming to be spiritual doesn't bother me nearly as much as atheists who say they aren't religious but they are spiritual. Barf. Why not just say you like to contemplate infinities?

In French, being spiritual means being witty, as in, il se trouve spirituel (he thinks he's funny). I try to pretend that is what they mean

(Sorry. I am easily annoyed about this kind of stuff these days, going through a move from the house the landperson tried to evict us from, and failed, and now they are saying we didn't ask nicely enough to be let out of our lease early... and they are Catholic and found out we were atheists which is why they tried to evict us in the first place.)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 03:29 PM

I think, perhaps, Little Hawk, that belief in something is a very different thing to the empirical demonstration of its existence. I don't just believe in numbers, or bugs (or even myself) though I accept my concept & understanding of them are culturally derived, or not. For instance, I have little concept of number, but I know how far a bundle of fivers is going to go in ASDA; I am no dietician yet I know which food is good for me, and which isn't, or what's going to happen to my brain when I sink those beers I bought earlier. This is Gnosis. I don't just believe that by banging on these keys in a certain order I can write these words, I KNOW. Just as I know these words are themselves the product of 50,000 years of human communication, each enshrined by concept and ordered by seemingly innate & ancient structures of grammar and syntax. I also KNOW people are WRONG if they mistake these STRUCTURES for RULES, unless, of course all rules are defined by exception. There are few absolutes when it comes to opinions and perspectives - this much is self-evident too.

It is, I think, an old gaff to say such things are a matter of faith, and to then put them on the same plain as things that DO require faith - UFOs (in the ETH sense at least) / Folk Music / God etc. etc. - simply because without a strong consensus of what is REAL, our whole world view wouldn't just fall apart, it wouldn't have existed in the first place. Imagination is a wonderful thing - collectively, individually - but it is toward objective falsifiable enlightenment that the road of learning leads and the religious invariably fall off along the wayside onto stony ground and fail to thrive in the hapless realm of their own parables wherein there is no difference between what is, and what ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 03:54 PM

Humanity is filled with people acting on "gut" feelings. On what science scale are they measured?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 03:57 PM

Mrzzy, I think we all tend to instinctively battle against whatever we were oppressed by in our youth.....and we instinctively battle for whatever we were convinced of in our youth. One or the other. And both.

I don't know what you were oppressed by or convinced of in your youth. In mine I was oppressed by my parents' materialism, their social-climbing pretensions, their greed, their blind egotism, and their deep insecurity...but never by religion (because I grew up as an atheist). And I was convinced of science, reason, and literature and art...all things which are quite wordly and obvious.

I continue to believe firmly in science, reason, literature, and art. I continue to battle against the utter loneliness and ultimate despair that results from materialism, social pretensions, greed, blind egotism, and deep insecurity.

And the thing that has most effectively enabled me to battle against those is my sense of spirituality (not necessarily tied to any specific religion...but finding helpful echoes in all of them).

Since I have received nothing negative from spirituality in this life, but found only positive things in it, I cannot relate to your hostility to the very notion of it. (And I suspect you cannot relate to my view of it either.)

****

Blandiver - Yes, quite so. There are things we KNOW. Plenty of them. And we know them by direct experience. There are other things we consider probable, very probable, not very probable, highly improbable, etc.....but in no case can we say we KNOW for certain about those things, because we don't. We merely have a view based on our assessment of the probabilities.

I don't view spirituality as based upon any kind of empirical knowledge, because it's not a matter of phenomena. It's not objective, it's subjective. It's not exoteric (outer), it's esoteric. It's not measurable, but is experiential. (I could say all these things of Love too.) It's a matter of how one applies one's consciousness to one's own life and the lives of others and how one unites it with action.

Can one do all this without belonging to a religion? Of course! But if a religion seems to help one to do it, then the religion is in no way an impediment, and belonging to a religion by no means requires that one must literally believe every single word attributed to that religion in some specific book or books.

To give another example of this: although I am a Canadian, and quite happy to be so, I do not necessarily agree with everything Canadian, I do not necessarily agree with everything my government and country have ever said or done, and I don't think Canada is perfect, and I don't have to agree with everything Canada does! I reserve the right to disagree with Canada on various points while yet remaining Canadian. ;-D

The same goes for belonging to a religion. Spirituality must be accompanied by freedom of thought and freedom of choice or it is not real spirituality.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 04:16 PM

"They can't all be right, but they CAN all be wrong, and if one is wrong, then, quite simply, they all simply must be wrong."

That's not exactly a logical statement. Apply it to a pile of fruit. Just become one of the fruits isn't a banana it doesn't mean none of them might be bananas.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 04:17 PM

When there's a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain (the gut), does not feelings more frequently win?


The gut?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 04:36 PM

...makes you
more compassionate,
more sensible,
more detached,
more loving,
more humanitarian,
more responsible,
more ethical.쳌

Those are values, and, sorry to break it to you all, but there are a lot of people who reject them, and not just in practice--I have heard them decried by strident intellectuals as "bourgeois values" and by certain others as 'decadent" and "weak"--

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 04:38 PM

Given my own upbringing, Ed, I already believed in evolution by the time I was 6 or 7 years old. I even drew pictures at that age demonstrating the scientific view of evolution of species. I took it completely for granted, because it was conventional science and ours was a science-minded household.

I don't find that evolution conflicts with spirituality or religion. (unless one is a literal-minded fundamentalist of a certain type)

Neither do I find that it succeeds in completely explaining everything we need to know about life and the origins of life nor does it completely give meaning to life. It does help explain part of the process, but it doesn't provide any complete or final answers. It's just one aspect of the process that we recognize as life.

I've never found a conflict between gut feelings and fact. Fact is indisputable or it would not BE fact.

I have often found a conflict between gut feelings and conventional opinions based on the interpretations OF various facts. Unless one knows and fully understands ALL the relevant facts regarding any given subject of concern, one's opinion based on some of the facts may still be in error. You can have a huge headfull of facts and STILL be wrong. ;-) History is full of people who had a head full of facts and were still wrong anyway...usually because they interpreted those facts to suit their own personal desires.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 04:48 PM

Spirituality must be accompanied by freedom of thought and freedom of choice or it is not real spirituality.

Religion does not engender freedom of thought - on the contrary, it regiments and punishes according to myth, dogma and shibboleth. So - religion is not spiritual, it is something else. Being Canadian, OTOH, is what you are by default. It defines you empirically, individually & collectively. As they say, you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy.


*   

Just become one of the fruits isn't a banana it doesn't mean none of them might be bananas.

Well - we can say they're all religions anyway, and they are all, each in their own special way, bananas.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 05:19 PM

""I've never found a conflict between gut feelings and fact. Fact is indisputable or it would not BE fact.""

Unfortunately, what some term "a fact" can be, "in fact" be somewhat loosey-goosey in a more universal perspective.

What, at times,is defined as "a fact" can be perceived differently by different people, and what is seen as "a facts" does chage over time.

As Jerry Rubin stated in "just Do It" what one person sees as an ashtray, another may see as a candy dish. So, who is wrong, based on fact?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 05:22 PM

BTW, LH. I think you got too caught up on the "evolution" portion of the article and missed the broader points being made. Maybe you have been captured too much by the ever so many religious thread debates - this (IMO) not being one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 07:19 PM

Though I don't remember every word of the slideshow, I am pretty sure this is it. Please feel free to read it if you want to stay near the original topic.

The text of gnu's link

Your religion is not important

Yesterday friend of mine sent me an email with a a brief dialogue between the Brazilian theologist Leonardo Boff and the Dalai Lama, which deeply touched me. Here is what Leonardo, one of the renovators of the Theology of Freedom, recounts of this remarkable encounter:

In a round table discussion about religion and freedom in which Dalai Lama
and myself were participating at recess I maliciously, and also with interest, asked him: 

“Your holiness, what is the best religion?â€쳌

I thought he would say: “The Tibetan Buddhismâ€쳌 or “The oriental religions, much older than Christianity.â€쳌

The Dalai Lama paused, smiled and looked me in the eyes …. which surprised me because I knew of the malice contained in my question.

He answered:
 “The best religion is the one that gets you closest to God. It is the one that makes you a better person.â€쳌

To get out of my embarrassment with such a wise answer, I asked: “What is it that makes me better?â€쳌

He responded:
“Whatever makes you
more compassionate,
more sensible,
more detached,
more loving,
more humanitarian,
more responsible,
more ethical.â€쳌
“The religion that will do that for you is the best religionâ€쳌

I was silent for a moment, marveling and even today thinking of his wise and irrefutable response:

“I am not interested, my friend, about your religion or if you are religious or not.

“What really is important to me is your behavior in front of your peers, family, work, community, and in front of the world.

“Remember, the universe is the echo of our actions and our thoughts.â€쳌

“The law of action and reaction is not exclusively for physics. It is also of human relations. 
If I act with goodness, I will receive goodness. 
If I act with evil, I will get evil.â€쳌

“What our grandparents told us is the pure truth. You will always have what you desire for others. Being happy is not a matter of destiny. It is a matter of options.â€쳌

Finally he said:
“Take care of your Thoughts because they become Words.
Take care of your Words because they will become Actions.
Take care of your Actions because they will become Habits.
Take care of your Habits because they will form your Character.
Take care of your Character because it will form your Destiny,
and your Destiny will be your Life

… and …

“There is no religion higher than the Truth.â€쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 07:25 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 11:14 AM

??? Am I wasting my time? I thought I was on topic.

(leaving town for 4 days on Friday morning, so I guess I can't fret about it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 12:29 AM

"Religion does not engender freedom of thought - on the contrary, it regiments and punishes according to myth, dogma and shibboleth. So - religion is not spiritual, it is something else. Being Canadian, OTOH, is what you are by default. It defines you empirically, individually & collectively. As they say, you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy."

You and I have very different views on religion and spiritually and especially on being Canadian.

I'm as Canadian as Little Hawk and our upbringing, our families, our education, were very very different. As far as I recall the other Canadians on this forum are as different from us as we are from each other. Not to mention all of the Canadians so different from us that they would never ever appear on this forum.

It is in my experience that people's religious views are as varied as our Canadianism. Your mileage may vary.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 12:30 AM

The thing about being a Canadian was simply an analogy to demonstrate a point...the point being that you don't have to agree with every last detail of any given system of thought, philosophy or doctrine to find much of good value in it.

Bandiver - "Religion does not engender freedom of thought"

Blandiver, that you would say that simply demonstrates how very little you actually know about religion...or about a great many people who belong to religions and ARE free thinkers. Your belief that religion forbids freedom of thought is mere wish fulfillment on your part....kind of like a hardcore Nazi believing that "all Jews are greedy and evil"....or a religious fundamentalist believing that "all agnostics and atheists and pagans will burn in Hell". It's on that level of sheer ignorance.

This doesn't mean you're stupid! Not at all. Your writing ability makes it quite clear that you're intelligent. It just means you're ignorant of the actual nature of a great many religious people. You don't know who you're talking about. Some of the freest-thinking and brightest people I've ever known have also been religious people, highly educated people in the sciences in some cases....and they believe in science and logic just as much as you do. They question many of the root assumptions of their religion....just as I question, for example, the root assumptions of my culture. I've never stopped questioning. Don't assume that religious people hold all the rigid, primitive, ancient beliefs you imagine they do just because it's written that way in some Biblical passage. A great many of them do NOT hold those literal beliefs at all....but they do believe that we live in an existence that has a deeper meaning and purpose to which we can better shape our lives. The Dalai Lama touches on that in the video at the top of this discussion.

You don't need to worship "a God" to be religious, by the way. You just need to think there's a lot more to life than mere survival and competition games with other people and the environment. You need to start caring about others as much as you care about yourself. That's not easy! For most people who even bother to attempt it, it's a lifetime learning process and they repeatedly struggle with it and fall short. But at least they try.

And, yes, you can undertake the very same learning process without being connected to any religion. (if you are so inclined) Just thought I'd add that for Mrzzy's sake. ;-)

To dismiss all religious people as some sort of deluded morons, Blandiver, is as silly as dismissing all Black people, all Jews, all Gays, all women, all Frenchmen, all Southerners, all New Yorkers or all atheists in a similarly offhand and stereotyped fashion. As if they were all the same!!! ;-) It just shows you don't know who you're talking about, and probably have never bothered to get to know any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 12:32 AM

No Bill, I just thought seeing it print would help us all after I found it for myself! If you were asking me.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:03 AM

You don't know who you're talking about.

I've known & continue to know many religious people, a lot of whom are close friends, family members & neighbours. I don't avoid them, much less discriminate against them, and well I know (and understand) the nature of their thinking and faith as well as their points of personal 'crisis' when things don't quite match up, for whatever reason. People are people - the difference being that the religious (by definition) exhibit a willingness to accept a point of potentially divisive superstitious subjectivism over one of a more inclusive objectivism.

I've experienced many examples - from the proselyting antics of the Christian Union which once reduced a very dear friend of mine to a nervous breakdown during her time at university, or the Buddhist bus driver who would leave old people running in the rain on account of Karma. As we travel around the country bringing our music to select discriminating minorities, I routinely throw Gideon Bibles out of Travelodge windows (rock 'n' roll!) in dread of the more pernicious missionary attitudes engendered by religion amongst those who feel their way is the only way. I've seen lives & families torn apart by the Moonies, and I've seen Mormon missionaries reducing once vibrant elderly neighbours to despairing shadows of themselves. I've seen real tragedy in the name of Religion - and I've seen lives as casualties barely recovered having been raised in the darkness of Roman Catholicism or the Jehovah's Witnesses.

This is no mere stereotyping I can assure you. To this day I know Christians who feel discriminated against by science and secularism and yet openly pledge allegiance to questionable political doctrines in order to preserve what they perceive (without question) to be 'their culture' - just I know Catholics who look upon their faith as another person might their ethnicity and so regard any criticism of their faith as being inherently racist. Whatever you say about 'questioning', the core shibboleths of religion remain inescapable, so much to the point that (as I said in another thread) I'm wary when I meet a professed Christian of any persuasion who isn't a right wing, homophobic material ID creationist for whom dinosaur bones and the light of distant galaxies is paving the way for God's ultimate judgement of humanity. When I meet Christians who claim to be so enlightened, I ask them so what's the point? The Mythos of Religion depends on literalism, absolutism, funny hats, heresy and hoo-hah, however so personal the experience of that might be; hell, even I might be moved to tears by the mythic archetypes on offer at the various Masses of the Easter Triduum, but no more than by (say) Cheyenne's death in Once Upon a Time in the West.

Spirituality is common to us all - without exception; it is the human mulch out which Religion has been engineered to exploit some very basic issues & concerns of existence and turn them very much against ourselves by seeding the notion that they are somehow True. What is truth? Even Christ couldn't answer that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:21 AM

Blandiver -

Since there is a very wide spectrum of people who would, at least at some level, define themselves as "believing in a deity" (aka religious people), logic tells me that the term "stereotyping" (of these folks) in your last post cannot be ruled out?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:30 AM

>>>Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver - PM
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:03 AM

You don't know who you're talking about. <<<

I think that LH has some evidence to back that up. LH has said that you do not know what you are talking about. I sure as heck don't know. Can you try to us all what the heck you are talking about?

You call Religion "Pornography" and complain about others choosing potentially divisive beliefs.

You completely misuse the word "subjectivism" and miss the mark on "objectivism" as well.

"This is no mere stereotyping I can assure you. " Unless that you can prove that your opinions apply to all religious people it certainly is stereotyping.

You use a few anecdotes to paint all people of faith with one brush.

For your argument to be credible, we need more than your assurance.

Let me put it this way there are plenty of religious people a lot less subjective and much more than you. Whatever it is you believe.

And don't think that you can coherently explain your beliefs by pointing out the faults of Christianity and saying they are not that.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:05 AM

logic tells me that the term "stereotyping" (of these folks) in your last post cannot be ruled out?

It's self-evident that individual faith often arises from a yearning for belonging which, out of no little necessity, requires a willingness to conform on any number of levels, so the stereotyping is part and parcel of the religious experience.

*

LH has said that you do not know what you are talking about. I sure as heck don't know.

What he actually said was You don't know who you're talking about - a crucial point to understanding both his post and my response to it.

Can you try to us all what the heck you are talking about?

Don't know about ALL, I'm not aware of any ALL here, but I can try and tell YOU anyway...

You call Religion "Pornography" and complain about others choosing potentially divisive beliefs.

What I actually said was Religion exploits Spirituality in exactly the same way was Pornography exploits Sexuality. We are all of us Spiritual & Sexual beings; Religion & Pornography proceed from what we are, not the other round. They are both exploitative constructs designed to manipulate what is integral to our very natures which would, in any case, exist quite happily without them. It is, I think, better to get off on the diversity of reality than the illusory & offensive inhuman myths offered up by Playboy and The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You completely misuse the word "subjectivism" and miss the mark on "objectivism" as well.

Subjectivism is about individual experience & opinion and Objectivism is about collective experience & empirical (i.e. falsifiable, peer reviewed hard won) consensus on the nature of the reality we are all part of by dint of our very existence. If the earth were to crash into the sun tomorrow, we all would have our own subjective way of dealing with the objective crisis, but we'd all die as result. There would be no Rapture; and no exceptions.   If that is misuse, then maybe you'd care to tell me where I went wrong.   

"This is no mere stereotyping I can assure you. " Unless that you can prove that your opinions apply to all religious people it certainly is stereotyping.

What is there to prove? We're discussing the nature of belief and doctrine which out of some necessity involves more than a degree of stereotyping in order to more properly conform to whatever system one chooses to believe in - or has had forced upon you from birth. Maybe Uniformity would be a better word?

You use a few anecdotes to paint all people of faith with one brush.

Like Little Hawk, I'm offering a few personal anecdotes which (to a greater or lesser extent) have shaped the way I feel about the nature of religion & the religious. As with the stereotyping, it is the religious who are painting themselves with your proverbial brush - not I.

For your argument to be credible, we need more than your assurance.

Hey, I'm only one bloke here - if you don't agree then fine, it's not my job to convince you otherwise, much less roundly confront you over the nature of your beliefs as you appear to be doing to me here with your mob-like WE to answer to.

Let me put it this way there are plenty of religious people a lot less subjective and much more than you. Whatever it is you believe.

I disagree - not that I'm saying I'm Mr Objective or anything, just I've never met any Person o' Religion who've demonstrated any degree of objective tolerance for other perspectives because I guess that would cancel out their need for religion, or the credibility of their conviction. To be without religious belief is to appreciate the humanity of religion - the fact that it's all made up, that it's given us some fine buildings and music (and ghastly ones) that all of its spiritual truths derive from basic human nature etc. etc. Once God becomes anything more than a human construct then there's a whole heap of other stuff you must take on board, and its that 'other stuff' that not only precludes humanity but accounts for the darker aspects of religion which are very much with us today.   

And don't think that you can coherently explain your beliefs by pointing out the faults of Christianity and saying they are not that.

Culturally I'm very much a Christian I suppose - I'm of that Judeo-Xtian-Abrahamic tradition though as an Atheist I don't actually believe in any of it. I do however find much therein to delight and intrigue with respect of the folklore & the historical layers, particularly in the art, architecture & music of the Middle Ages & the more secular elements therein - be in the often grotesque (but never pagan) vernacular marginalia of misericord & manuscript, which have their counterpart in the songs of The Cantigas de Santa Maria & Carmina Burana (which are often pagan in a very different sense). I also take a keen interest in the underlying Dualism of Christianity, as manifest in Gnosticism in general and Catharism in particular, though I'd be wary in calling this belief as such, more of personal passion, same as I have for Traditional Song & Balladry, the Indo-European Folktale and the tradition of experimental electronica which begins with Daphne Oram. If faith I have it is an optimistic one in that I see both Anarchy (i.e highly ordered & efficient society without Goverment) and Atheism (Spiritual harmony & enlightenment without Religion) are the inevitable consequence of learning, which is, I guess, what we've been up to these past 50,000 years or so. Escaping Mob Rule and learning to think as individuals in celebration of that freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:21 AM

""It's self-evident that individual faith often arises from a yearning for belonging which, out of no little necessity, requires a willingness to conform on any number of levels, so the stereotyping is part and parcel of the religious experience.""


That is not at all "self-evident" at all to me, as you claim it to be.

I propose that the actual "religious experience" is personal, and should not be confused with social elements of belonging to an organized religion.

Stereotyping not only does a disservice to those who do not conform to your box (there are billions on the planet, whom you have never met), but also tends to limit the perspective of the person developing and imposing such a sterotype box.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:50 AM

Stereotyping is often based on a generalization and involves rigidly-held negative views on a group of people, often based on limited experience. It can leads to elitism, and associated beliefs that one's own group of people are in some way superior to others, (often spawning negative attitudes toward a group). Stereotyping defines what a group is like, prejudice tells one how to feel about that group (normally negatively). Stereotyping can be a barrier to communication, preventing a broader perspective when viewing another's point of view (on the other group).

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:53 AM

The problem with the notion of "spiritualism" is that it is not always defined and agreed with, nor is it scientifically verifiable. It is as vague as the name implies, a misty vapor, a ghost, or a indefinable essence which in my opinion is the hanging on of a religious point of view after leaving an organized religion.

I agree with Ed that there is nothing "self evident" about it but a construct of the brain which by the way can be induced with electrodes applied to certain areas.

Spiritualism also implies in a more limited sense consorting with people that have died.
I see no scientific conclusion for this view and it is "self evident" that there are a lot of charlatans out there who prey on the emotional needs of those who have lost loved ones.

There is a "Spiritualist Church" which means that it is a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 11:07 AM

As usual, part of the turmoil in this thread comes from a conflation of ideas that should be differentiated.

The word religion comes from a Latin word, religio, which means either "to bind" or "to read again" depending on which ety,pologist you ask.

In modern parlance the word has two major shades of meaning. One is "mindful of spiritual truths" and the other is "mindful of the obligations of the organization".

Private and personal seeking for spiritual truths has never harmed anyone. Organized belief has frequently done harm. Totally putting aside the insanity of pederasty and slaughter, one form this harm takes is the tendency of organized believers to try and inject their beliefs into the minds of others, justified by the notion that they are "true".

But they are not "true" any more than S&P stock quotes are "true". They are considerations, opinions, data agreed-upon, and so on. The only nearly-absolute truth there is is the consciousness that is asking the question. THis is an amusing paradox, but not a religion in the organized sense.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 11:12 AM

I agree Stringsinger.

Beliefs, (aka spirituality) even when associated elements are held broadly, tend to be a personal experience and are difficult to define, confirm or refute through traditional avenues.

For example, how would one confirm, or refute a person's personal belief that their partner is beautiful? One could put forward significant data with broad definitions of beauty - but would that register with (or even matter to) the person holding that belief? I suspect not, as it is a personal belief.

IMO, it is much easier to focus on what makes up a religious organization. But, is that what actually defines the god (spiritual) belief? I suspect not. People leave religious organizations, but I doubt that that ends the belief itself in the persons make-up. One could also present oodles of science doubt, that likely would have the same impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 11:45 AM

It would be helpful to the discussion at this point if some 'Mod' stepped in and corrected the title of this thread to prevent further confusion of what we're talking about here. Spiritualism is the sharp practise of exploiting the bereaved & otherwise gullible by means of slight of hand, seance, bells, tambourines, cold reading & unseemly ectoplasmic manifestations. Spirituality, OTOH, is our sense of wonder and beauty in the presence of the numinous - this can be anything from the laughter of a child to the roaring of a stormy sea and all points in between; it's going to be different for everyone & underlies the uniqueness of our life's experience which is underwritten by the yearning innocence that was with us when we were born and will sing the lullaby when at last we finally do drift off into the great unknown in the sure knowledge that life goes on.

Spirituality exists without Religion, but Religion cannot exist without Spirituality. It brings me to this, which sums it up quite nicely I think...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 12:16 PM

Stringsinger,

An additional thought on this matter.

Quite a few years ago, I took a course in the philosophy of science. In the course, the prof. expressed the difficulty of injecting scientific enlightenment into long-held beliefs, whether that be cultural, religious or personal.

He used the example of an area of Africa that experienced starvation when there were plenty of fish to be had olong the coastline. It seems that there was a "belief", for some reason or another, that fish was poisionous. A new white resident decided to debunk the myth, and cooked and ate a fish in the presence of the groups decision makers. After observing him for awhile, with no ill effects,the ruling was that fish was safe to eat for white people, but not for black skinned people.

When faced with threats to important beliefs, people often resist, ignore, belittle, and challenge the threats and those making them. If the threat is significant to membership numbers, and long-lasting, it may be accomodated, in some form or another into the beliefs.

It is interesting how resilient people are in todays world to accomodate or ignore what would once seem to be a significant threat at one time.

As to the numerous debates on here over religion on mudcat (most futile and regressive), IMO, they are bound to be fruitless. To measure anything, there has to be an agreement on the scale to be used (the test). Where this agreement is lacking, it is rare to have agreement. It seems clear to me that the "scientific evidence" scale, often promoted by those challenging religous beliefs is not one that is inappropriate, as it is not commonly accepted by those professing to have religious beliefs. No agrement on a common measure (test), no progress on measuring.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 01:02 PM

Fortunately spiritual insight does not require agreement. It is a restoration of source-hood in the individual, and restores self-determinism; it requires solely that the individual compare his own experience of the universe with data and be as honest as he can about what he has, himself, observed or experienced.

Religion in the organized sense tends to frown on this as it engenders a bit too much self-determination in the individual and makes him hard to control with mere language or cultural guilt trips and the like.

That's another important difference between the two major senses of "religion", the personal and the communal or organized.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 01:26 PM

I'd keep on with this, but my suffering wrists are definitely telling me not to.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 01:47 PM

Basically The Dalai Lama in the slide show said that the best religion for you is what makes you the best person.

I'm not sure the connection to spiritualism or spirituality unless gnu was saying that you can strive for the goals The Dalai Lama laid out without organized religion.

The whole idea of spirituality especialy Blandivers contributions in discussing the original video is very confusing to me.

spir·i·tu·al·i·ty
noun \ˌspir-i-chə-ˈwa-lə-tē\
plural spir·i·tu·al·i·ties
Definition of SPIRITUALITY
1
: something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such
2
: clergy
3
: sensitivity or attachment to religious values
4
: the quality or state of being spiritual

spiritual

: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal
2
a : of or relating to sacred matters
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal
3
: concerned with religious values
4
: related or joined in spirit
5
a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

I

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 01:48 PM

For me, spiritualism is when the beer at party is not worth drinking I so I revert to spiritualism.

G&T if I need to function the next day and whiskey if I want to spend the night arguing religion politics, football and cricket.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 02:33 PM

Do you find that your faith deepens with the number of drinks consumed? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 02:45 PM

The incorporeal definition aspect in the light of science and evidence-based truths is where I think that spirituality is not a tangible element. Supernatural phenomena, not being verifiable is questionable as to its validity.

The wonder of the universe can be appreciated greatly by scientists without it being incorporeal. As humans, we all are edified by laughing children, etc. etc. We can experience wonder and awe without the notion of a vague "spirituality", an incorporeal essence or an unverifiable mist. The term has its problems.

The definition in the current use of the term has not been sufficiently established to give it credibility. "Spirituality" defined as being a product of a "spirit" is a tautology that doesn't help its understanding.

If a religion is therefore personal, can it be made up personally by the individual without being institutionalized? Can the worship of money or war constitute a religion?

Was Soviet Marxism a religion? How about fascism?

It appears that the dictionary definition above seems to tie "spirituality" to institutionalized religion.

The idea that it is self-evident and everybody knows what we're talking about here is pretty misleading.

So in order to define what it is (spirituality) we would have to know how each person thinks that it is and compare notes.   I think it's a substitution for institutionalized religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 02:55 PM

I think it is what the dictionary says it is.
There are several meanings in the dictionary.
If the one you are using is not evident from context.
Tell people what the flock you are talking about.

Is it an error to spout self-referential because you are using words that sound good to you rather than words that express your thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 03:08 PM

""Supernatural phenomena, not being verifiable is questionable as to its validity"".

Maybe when it comes to establishing such validity under the current the scientific method. So, there lies the dilema and the source of the differing perspectives (no ageeement on how to verify). Good luck on getting more from the mudcat discussion merry-go-round :)


Ever consider quantum mechanics, interconnection and the law of Non-Locality in the universe?

"..a scientist can have, almost approaching a religious experience, as to realize that we are children of the stars, and that our minds are capable of understanding the universal laws that they obey."
Michio Kaku

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 03:11 PM

Conflating institutional religion with spirituality is like conflating ballet with refuse-collection. Sure there are some specious similarities, but the differences are far more important.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 03:29 PM

LH. My faith deepens with every game since January. Sheffield Wednesday are the in form in the division at the moment.

Alcohol doesn't strengthen what was never there. Mind you I have been known to shout Oh My God before now. My self faith used to strengthen if I could manage others to make a similar proclamation but time heals all wounds. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 03:46 PM

Just as well I didn't say Religion is to Spirituality what Folk is to The Tradition. ;-]

There are many things in life that move our hearts & souls beyond dictionary definitions & the commonplace and yet unite us on a level that if often described as Spiritual in a none religious / supernatural way. These are the things that make live worth living, the numinous everyday things like love, sorrow, joy, music, inspiration, poetry, death, beauty, good food, wine, beer, fags & mountaineering* which, owing to their subjective abstract nature, can't readily be rationalised and even defined, let alone adequately described - just experienced. There's no accounting for taste after all. That we have these things in common (to a greater or lesser extent) is pretty well established, and that we experience them subjectively is in the nature of being human beyond which - who knows? Who cares?   

This thread seems to be predicated on such a dichotomy anyway - that Spirituality is opposed to Religion. Amen to that. Spiritualism, OTOH, is opposed to good sense.

(* A friend of mine used to claim smoking cigarettes was sacred in that it brought you closer to the creator by hastening one's death; mountaineer friends have made similar statements. One chap I knew & discussed this with actually fell to his death a few weeks later whilst climbing in the Grampians - seemed a novel enough way of committing suicide, and I was actually quite happy for him in a way, though it was a bit of a bugger for those he left behind.)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 06:50 PM

Amos, please post your definition of spirituality.

Blandiver, I am having a lot of trouble seeing the difference between your definition of spirituality and mine of emotion.

I'm tempted to say that your version of spirituality is easy to explain.

Chemicals in the brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 07:18 PM

I agree that the "things in life that move our hearts & souls beyond dictionary definitions & the commonplace and yet unite us on a level that is often described as Spiritual........are the things that make life worth living".

Quite so. Those are the things that I have sought....through music, through art, through relationships, in Nature, through prayer and contemplation, through books, through work and play, through a million different pathways. I don't insist that everyone else should use precisely the same pathways I do, but I think we are all ultimately in search of the same things.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 07:46 PM

I agree here that chemicals in the brain can produce an emotion known as "spirituality" by no means everyone feels it or if they do, feels it the same.

I don't agree that everyone feels the same about abstract concepts such as love, sorrow, joy, music, inspiration, poetry, death, beauty, good food, wine, beer, fags & mountaineering*. I assume by fags, you mean cigarettes?

it must be "self evident" that on Mudcat, people do not agree about music at least.
This attempt to "universalize" feelings and call it "spirituality" is futile.

Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson have articulated the sense of unity that comes from knowing that the chemicals in our bodies and earth come from outer-space bodies such as meteors. Kaku said "approaching a religious experience" which is not necessarily having one.

Dictionaries change from year to year as the meaning of words change. They are not Absolute. As language evolves so do meanings of words. The word "spirituality" for example has changed its meaning over the years. Now, there is great ambiguity as to what it means and Funk and Wagnall or Webster do not have a corner on the market as to a final meaning of every word. Definitions however can be expressed by individuals and if they are agreed upon by others do more to facilitate communication then a slavish reference to a dictionary. Also, as shown in the above dictionary example, sometimes the meaning of a word such as "spirituality" is at odds with different definitions. That's what this thread is about.

Having just witnessed a documentary movie about "Waiting for Armegeddon" made me understand just how delusional some beliefs in a god can be. "Spirituality" is open to the same problem, can it also be delusional?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:59 PM

Spiritualism/spirituality is a notion that is about as useful as a turd in a spacesuit. It is a idea manufactured by religion or quasi-religion to attempt to let people know that one is, somehow, in a way you riffraff can't be expected to understand, on a higher plane than the common fellow. "I'm a spiritual fellow and I can't expect you to comprehend the rather esoteric, transcendent flights that my mind is rather good at adopting, unlike you, you poor, earthbound soul". Well I'm neither religious, quasi-religious nor spiritual. But I can (and do) listen to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, privately, and my mind can wander into all sorts of wonderful places. But those wonderful places are here on planet Earth, and they are here on planet Earth because Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, most decidedly, were here on planet Earth. The most wonderful of Beethoven's late quartets is, in the end, a very earthbound vision, the very opposite of mystical. Mother Nature produces glory after glory, and you can lie down in a field of wild flowers (I often do, and I have photos to prove it) and revel. But those glories, even with your eyes shut and your imagination running riot, are incredibly ordinary, beautifully, and so normally, commonplace. No spirits, no mysticism. Put that superfluous layer on it for yourself if you really want to, but don't try to pretend that this lazy conception puts you above the hairy-arsed, wonderful realities of real life. If you do, you're full of bullshit and empty of reality. Get off your spiritual, dreamy, (cannabis-fuelled?) high horse and just look around at how those earthy hairy-arses are having such a great time while you're wasting yours hoovering out you spiritualistic, self-regarding navel!

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 09:13 PM

Whatever pulls a fella's string has no argument from me, Steve Shaw. What's important is it gets you to that special inner place (regardless of where you perceive it to be). Thanks for sharing your personal experiences. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:54 PM

"I agree here that chemicals in the brain can produce an emotion known as "spirituality" by no means everyone feels it or if they do, feels it the same."

No one has said that. Brain chemicals enable our emotional responses. You look at a sunset, you find it pretty, your brain floods with chemicals, not spirituality. Emotional response.

Of course not everyone has the same emotional response. People vary as individuals.

Frans de Waal speculates that when some atheists become atheists, their basic personalities do not change, that if they were dogmatic and argumentative before their conversion then they would remain so afterwards. Frans De Waal said that Hitchens missed his convictions like a severed limb.

With all due respect to stringsinger this seems to make way more sense than what he has been hinting at for a while that Atheists are logical and have special knowledge and believers do not. I mean come on! you were a believer at one point and thought one way, according to stringsinger, then you change your mind and your whole thought processes are revamped. Seems dubious.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 11:04 PM

It is easy to see how Steve Shaw channels his religious and spiritual impuses. What would Mr. Shaw want with a "puny made up God," when he has his magnificent, mind reading, smarter than Beethoven about music, self to worship? :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:03 AM

Exactly. ;-) And what use is a God you can't look at in the mirror each morning while you're shaving His face?

I know all about this, because my father acted like he was God for his entire life, and he didn't believe in God either. Not for a moment. No sir, no spirituality was going to be permitted in His space! It would have gotten in the way of him being the most important guy in the room...which status he remained quite certain of until, I trust, the actual moment of his death.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 04:48 AM

You look at a sunset, you find it pretty, your brain floods with chemicals, not spirituality. Emotional response.

The problem is here that our understanding of such things goes a long back before we came up with the notion of 'chemicals in the brain'. You don't look at a sunset and dispassionately conclude that what you are experiencing isn't, in fact, a sunset at all, but an optical illusion consequent on the ever rising western horizon of the third planet in the heliocentric scheme which results in the atmosphere becoming a light filter until the sun appears to be red, casting its light on the sea and clouds.

It's like sex and death - how do we rationalise desire & fear? They are primal, instinctive, impulsive, powerful and define pretty much everything we are no matter how much we think we know the mechanisms, chemicals, stimulus & responses. Sex is nature's way of conning us into reproduction, itself a random by-product of a procedure many of us regard as Holy Communion given the transcendent vastness of its significance, potency & influence upon our culture. And yet people dare to say homosexuality is somehow 'unnatural'.

Emotional response is only one small part of the Spiritual equation; it prefigures the notion for sure, but it doesn't define it. This has nothing to do with The Supernatural or the Mystical. Mystery there is, for sure, and Weird Shit happens all the time (ghosts, phantoms, UFOs, meaningful coincidence, visions & other such Forteana) but Human Beings are the only creatures on this planet who have come up with Religion, likewise the notion of a Creator. Religion derives from our Spiritual sense as we engage with our inner Nature vs Nurture debate (the classical dilemma between the head & the heart) and realise that Myth and Rationality are born from the same alchemical egg and are not (and never were) mutually exclusive. From whence our capacity to fear ghosts if there are no ghosts to fear? Oo-er...

I don't agree that everyone feels the same about abstract concepts such as love, sorrow, joy, music, inspiration, poetry, death, beauty, good food, wine, beer, fags & mountaineering*.

Absolutely, we all experience them uniquely, and most of us have specialism, be it an allotment or model railway or melodeon. I personally get nothing out of poetry (with few exceptions) and the very idea of mountaineering terrifies me, but whatever floats your boat.

I assume by fags, you mean cigarettes?

I do indeed. Sorry for the confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 11:47 AM

You don't need a tortured definition of a word lie spirituality to define the feelings evoked by a sunset. It is the simple emotion of pleasure. It is a baby smiling at a bright red ball. It is a dog wagging its tail after being petted. It is a thief grinning when an ATM give him someone else's money. It is an addict getting his next fix. It is dopamine and serotonin telling your brain "This is good."

"Spiritual equation; it prefigures the notion for sure, but it doesn't define it."

I think my question to you is what the flock does define it? You are using words the way Jackson Pollack used pigments spewing them over the canvas like piss over snow with barely a hint of intelligent design, thought or control.

Are the words on this thread meant to be abstract art or thoughtful communication. Because if you want to communicate, you need a common point of reference and norms and standards of meaning. I find dictionaries to be of use in that endeavour.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:00 PM

Emotional response is only one small part of the Spiritual equation

Why should emotional response be anything other than a very human, earthbound way of reacting to things? Why does it need to be glamorised by any notion of mystery? Or shall we call it "spiritual" until the day we discover those exact chemical pathways, then just call it "ordinary"? I don't want my emotional responses to be in any way divorced from the everyday, thank you. Just because we don't completely understand their biochemical basis there's no need to stick mysticism into the space. That's exactly what religion does. Hey, have I just spotted something? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:09 PM

No. ;-) You have not. You're like the sound of a piece of tin siding clattering in the wind. You are the antithesis of all that moves, breathes, and has sentient life, Steve. Before one like you, even the gods despair. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:27 PM

Stop agreeing with me Shaw!

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:31 PM

Well you agreed with me to here.

Why should emotional response be anything other than a very human, earthbound way of reacting to things? Why does it need to be glamorised by any notion of mystery? Or shall we call it "spiritual" until the day we discover those exact chemical pathways, then just call it "ordinary"? I don't want my emotional responses to be in any way divorced from the everyday, thank you. Just because we don't completely understand their biochemical basis there's no need to stick mysticism into the space.

Then you demonstrated your lack of knowledge of and your stereotypes about religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:32 PM

You are using words the way Jackson Pollack used pigments spewing them over the canvas like piss over snow with barely a hint of intelligent design, thought or control.

Why the insults, Jack? I come here in good faith & humour, not to be belittled because you don't get what I'm saying. I've done you the good grace of addressing your various points by way of good natured discussion. So please, take a deep breath and stick to the positive before letting rip with your vituperations. Otherwise... I love Jackson Pollock, and regularly feature the Pissing in the Snow anecdote in my storytelling sets, whilst the very idea of Intelligent Design gives me the horrors - though I'm sure that's not the sense in which you use the term here.

So... once again, in good faith...

I think my question to you is what the flock does define it?

Nothing does I'm afraid. It's akin to Art and Music - very abstract concepts with no clear parameters as to what they are, except for those small minded few who are forever trying to tell us what music is, or, for that matter, what it isn't. Spirituality is even wider, it rushes into places that simple dictionary definition can't reach. It is fluid, mutable, organic; it is different things to all people. Maybe it's easier to say what it isn't? It's not mystical, supernatural or religious - but all these things proceed from it as we attempt to fathom the fathomless in terms of empiricism and intuition. It is that which makes it all worthwhile, and, like love, it belongs to every one of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:56 PM

Emotional response is indeed an artifact of the spiritual equation. The answer to your question, Steve, is that emotional response is intricately connected to mental imagery of present and past vectors, imagined scenes, aesthetic consideration, and individual decision points about what is true and what will be. The origin of all these things is not mechanical. Obviously the nervous system is intimately connected as well. But when you get down to sources you run out of mechanical links.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:01 PM

"Why the insults, Jack? I come here in good faith & humour, not to be belittled because you don't get what I'm saying. "

You did?   You came here in good faith? When you say "not to be belittled" do you also mean that you came here NOT to belittle. Because it looks like to tried to do some major belittling.

You said this.

" Religion is to Spirituality what Pornography is to Sexuality"

Which is a lot easier to take as a poetic spew than as "reasoned" expression. Am I now to understand that you thought seriously about that before you wrote it and meant to be as vulgar and insulting as it obviously was?

I meant the Jackson Pollack thing as somewhat of compliment. It is clear that you like to think and talk in abstractions. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on the pornography thing.

>>>>I think my question to you is what the flock does define it?

Nothing does I'm afraid. It's akin to Art and Music<<<<

I have no trouble defining Art or Music, or spirituality for that matter. I posted some dictionary definitions of the word, you didn't like any of them and wouldn't provide your own. You didn't try. But whether good or bad, you have communicated about as much about spirituality as Jackson Pollock has communicated about female canines in his painting

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:08 PM

Sorry... I hit submit rather than "make a link."

This She-Wolf

Some might think you have said something profound. Some might say you have said nothing.

I have not made up my mind. But I think a road side neon painting on black velvet has more to say than the any painting of Pollock's.

But I like my art to be pretty and communication to be clear.

Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:12 PM

If you want to insult Jack back, just say something intelligent. It often confuses him.

LH. Im rather concerned about something you posted above. Are you saying that you need a god otherwise you think you yourself to be too important?   I doubt lack of belief in fantasy is a sign of over inflated self belief. Not believing means not believing. It doesn't mean you place yourself where others place a metaphorical boss.

You know there is such as thing as not needing to believe. A bit different to believing in yourself in terms of self esteem. In that case I hope my track record fits with my achievements and failures.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:15 PM

Et tu Musket??

C!

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:53 PM

Musket, I am serious here. Little Hawk has made a very good point about you and Steve. " It doesn't mean you place yourself where others place a metaphorical boss. "

Everybody does place something or someone there. My militant atheist friend from the UK certainly put himself there. He ended up hanging himself. It goes back to Gnu's original point about the what the Dalai Lama said.

"I am not interested, my friend, about your religion or if you are religious or not.

What really is important to me is your behavior in front of your peers, family, work, community, and in front of the world."

In my mind this is the number one must beneficial function of Religion and

I am glad that His Holiness, has the good sense to agree with me. (Joke!!!)

To be a good person you have to place someone or something else "where others place a metaphorical boss" other than yourself.

In Freudian terms, putting yourself there, gives to much power to the id and allows it to dominate your Super-ego.

That is not to say that you have to put Jesus there. Little Hawk doesn't, he is well grounded spiritually. I'm pretty sure Bill D puts philosophy there. Amos places something I don't fully comprehend there but it seems to be a mixture of poetry and metaphysics.

But there is always something "where others place a metaphorical boss" And the person reflects whatever that is.   

Again, back to the original post for wisdom.

What our grandparents told us is the pure truth. You will always have what you desire for others. Being happy is not a matter of destiny. It is a matter of options.

Finally he said:
Take care of your Thoughts because they become Words.
Take care of your Words because they will become Actions.
Take care of your Actions because they will become Habits.
Take care of your Habits because they will form your Character.
Take care of your Character because it will form your Destiny,
and your Destiny will be your Life


We all should consider this carefully. Be very mindful and deliberate of what you place "where others place a metaphorical boss."



BOB DYLAN LYRICS

"Gotta Serve Somebody"

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Might be a rock'n' roll adict prancing on the stage
Might have money and drugs at your commands, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high degree thief
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a state trooper, you might be an young turk
You may be the head of some big TV network
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame
You may be living in another country under another name.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a construction worker working on a home
You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome
You might own guns and you might even own tanks
You might be somebody's landlord you might even own banks.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side
You may be working in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk
You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread
You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may call me Terry, you may call me Jimmy
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy
You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray
You may call me anything but no matter what you say.

You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 02:31 PM

I serve my wife my sons my daughter in law and my granddaughter. I try to serve the 1.2 million population who use the hospital services I recently became a director of.

I am served by the bar maid of my local pub.

The serious point is not very serious from where I am sitting. If serving is altruistic then serving a metaphysical comfort blanket is rather self serving.

Ok I shall be serious too. When you don't buy in to something and in this case religion, it is a bit galling when others try to understand it. I know people who cannot understand when I tell them I have never seen the popular television shows the media rattle on about.

So when you agitate people by giving them labels and put forward a stance on their position, don't be surprised when they come out fighting.

Being concerned at how belief is used as a tool for more temporal gain is not an immoral stance. Speaking up to question how religion affects people with no interest in the subject is not persecuting Christians. Decrying how superstition is used to fill the gaps in understanding is not showing ignorance. Agreeing with Dawkins is not putting him on a pedestal and following him.

As you quoted Dylan, I refer you to Dylan. Only I can't be arsed to print out the words to God on our side.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 03:03 PM

"With all due respect to stringsinger this seems to make way more sense than what he has been hinting at for a while that Atheists are logical and have special knowledge and believers do not. I mean come on! you were a believer at one point and thought one way, according to stringsinger, then you change your mind and your whole thought processes are revamped. Seems dubious."

First of all, studies of the brain have shown that feelings of spirituality or transcendence can be shown by placing electrodes on the brain.

Second, I'm not hinting that all athiests are logical. Dawkins is one who is logical, an accomplished scientist. Thought processes can be revamped and religious believers from articles in Scientific American have shown that believers who are devout have a different brain chemistry than those who don't. It's not just a simplistic matter of changing your mind.It entails a great deal of thought and examination of your belief system and whether it conforms to a reality picture. Psychological therapists know this and use it to help those who are entrenched in emotional problems.

I've learned that Bob Dylan is no great shakes as a theologian and to take his songs seriously doesn't seem edifying.

"Are the words on this thread meant to be abstract art or thoughtful communication. Because if you want to communicate, you need a common point of reference and norms and standards of meaning. I find dictionaries to be of use in that endeavour."

Not if you challenge those common points of reference and norms of meaning. Dictionaries don't always agree. Abstract art is thoughtful communication if you understand the intention of the artist.

As for metaphorical bosses, this is the problem when people don't think for themselves and rely on sources they think are better informed. Bosses are for those with authoritarian mindsets that haven't given up on depending on Big Daddy to think for them. This goes also for Big Daddy in the Sky.

"Agreeing with Dawkins is not putting him on a pedestal and following him."

Absolutely. The problem is that some people who have experienced religion as an absolute regulator of how a person thinks, can't climb out of that box to see another point of view. They are entrenched in their own religious bias.

There are others with an abiding deeper "faith" that no matter what is said to them will not react with brickbat throwing or insults. I would consider these folks delusional but admire their integrity nonetheless. Nothing shakes their "faith" and so hurling epithets is unnecessary.

"It is easy to see how Steve Shaw channels his religious and spiritual impuses. What would Mr. Shaw want with a "puny made up God," when he has his magnificent, mind reading, smarter than Beethoven about music, self to worship? :-D"


This isn't funny, it's a remark that shows a sign of hostility. It makes you wonder just how much the "faith" of the deliverer of this remark has. I respect Steve Shaw and don't make light of his comments. He is entitled to respect whether you agree with his ideas or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 04:12 PM

But you DON'T come out fighting.

You come out taunting and moaning and spouting atheistic dogma like "there are no Christian Children."

If you were having this discussion like an adult you would not feel the need to brandish your credentials. Your words would speak for themselves. Or are you just trying to say that your are in a position of responsibility and not always as childish as you are here?

"Agreeing with Dawkins is not putting him on a pedestal and following him. "

Spewing his dogma is far worse. Maybe you came to the conclusion that "there are no Christian children" on your own, but your words when you argue that point are oddly similar to his.

Now how is "there are no Christian children" dogma you may ask?

Most people rarely if ever use the phase "Christian children". It is not in a dictionary but pretty much know what it means. If you go to a nursing assistant or a custodian in one of your hospitals and say "what does 'Christian children' mean?" Depending on their background they will say different things a Hindu, Jain or an atheist willing to admit their atheism might say "the children who go to Christian schools." of "kids who go to church." or if you want "the children of parents who make them go to church. My cousin the registered nurse on a maternity ward would say "my children." I can guarantee you that her three teenaged children would say "we are!"

So if you went in front of those people and said. "there are no Christian Children are they going to think "Wow! Mr. Musket is so wise" Or are they going to think "What has gotten into him? I KNOW what Christian children are! I see them every day!"

The people of this forum are on average, more literate and have better language and debate skills. Do you think you are making any more ground with them when you say "there are no Christian children." they might think "interesting idea" but their estimation of your thought processes with drop mightily when they realize that you believe it.   


"So when you agitate people by giving them labels and put forward a stance on their position, don't be surprised when they come out fighting. "

You "came out fighting" when I called Dawkins a militant atheist dogmatist. Why shouldn't I be surprised when a man who claims to be an atheist comes out fighting about that? Look how upset you ad Steve got after I posted and article calling Sam Harris an Islamophobe. You both were so upset you did not even mention the contents of the article. To this moment I don't know what your beefs were. It was an article expressing opinions about and author. It wasn't blasphemy.

Or was it?

I'm not trying to preach to you. I am really not. I am just exploring some ideas about why you and Steve are behaving (or not behaving in the vernacular of your land --joke --) as you are. I am not buying the explanations you are giving. There are way too many contradictory behaviors.

" Decrying how superstition is used to fill the gaps in understanding is not showing ignorance."

You seem to be decrying that in me, and Joe Offer and Brendan and Little Hawk. If you are then you are showing ignorance. You are also showing a great deal of disrespect for our minds, for our intellects, for us as people. Mockery is not an adult debate tactic. Mockery does not win over hearts and minds. Mockery builds resentment and makes enemies. That is why I lost respect for Dawkins when abandoned reason and debate and opted for decrying and mockery when he chose to call his book The God Delusion.

Finally, you totally miss Bob Dylans point when you bring up your family and work.

He means somebody or something has to be your master, That you have to look to some higher authority. He is saying that everyone does. Bob is saying that it is Jesus or the Devil. Little Hawk said for his father, the higher authority was himself. Obviously that makes ones moral compass over reliant on variable magnetism.

The Dalai Lama says that it doesn't matter what you look to as long as it makes you a better person. I choose Jesus, because his words are all laid out for me in red in my bible and I like to read them myself rather than have a religion tell me what it thinks they mean.

I don't know what you place where other people place God. At times it looks like it is anti-religion, as in anti-matter, as in each cancels the other. It is my experience that attacking religion, especially Christianity with equal but opposite force just makes it stronger.

Look what happened to the Romans. Look what happened to St Paul. I know you don't want to end up like St. Paul.

don't listen to me.

Listen to the Dalai Lama

Find your higher power

listen to Little Hawk. Put YOUR higher power where others place a metaphorical boss.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 04:37 PM

" Dawkins is one who is logical, an accomplished scientist"

He is?

What has he accomplished in science?

Name one scientific accomplishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 05:15 PM

>>> Thought processes can be revamped and religious believers from articles in Scientific American have shown that believers who are devout have a different brain chemistry than those who don't. <<<

So you are hinting that believers have something wrong with their brains and believers do not? I feel so much better about that!!

Luckily, that is also nonsense.

Does it show that the brain chemistry changes when that devotion is switched from religion to something else? I do not think that it does. I think that is what Dr de Waal is hinting at. He is saying that Hitchens didn't change. His passions changed. With a choice of de Waal's opinion and yours on brain science, I'll always choose his.

>>>It's not just a simplistic matter of changing your mind. It entails a great deal of thought and examination of your belief system and whether it conforms to a reality picture.<<<

I do not believe that is the case. Here is how it happened with Dr. de Waal...

I never felt any attraction to religion and never talked to God or felt a special relationship. After I left home for the university, at the age of seventeen, I quickly lost any remnant of religiosity.

I don't know of a single person who has done this >>>It entails a great deal of thought and examination of your belief system and whether it conforms to a reality picture.<<< to get religion out of their life. The idea of doing that just does not make any sense. How do religious people decide that they need to these self audits if they have not already decided that they don't want to be religious?


>>>Psychological therapists know this and use it to help those who are entrenched in emotional problems.<<<

I do not think it is useful to cite what unnamed "Psychological therapists" know as a reference in a debate that has nothing to do with Psychological therapy.

If you are implying that I am entrenched in emotional problems. I can assure you that I am not.

I am happy that you do not make light of Steve's comments. Even happier that he does not make light of you. Steve gets at least as much respect as he gives. Whether he gets the respect he deserves is another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 05:40 PM

Curious, GUEST,Musket sans cookie.

What happened to your "cookie"?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 06:25 PM

I wonder why he always includes "sans cookie."

Hmmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 06:30 PM

I think he ought to use "Musket avec Cookie" when he logs in and just "GUEST,Musket" the rest of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 06:36 PM

Phone messages can be replayed by pressing electronic buttons on a smartphone. This is NOT evidence that the smartphone is the origin of messages, is it? The dependence on circular logic is no more valid for materialists than it is for those inclined toward spiritual explanations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 06:51 PM

Yeah Amos, Ed T posted a cool quote from a French guy about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:18 PM

Emotional response is indeed an artifact of the spiritual equation. The answer to your question, Steve, is that emotional response is intricately connected to mental imagery of present and past vectors, imagined scenes, aesthetic consideration, and individual decision points about what is true and what will be. The origin of all these things is not mechanical. Obviously the nervous system is intimately connected as well. But when you get down to sources you run out of mechanical links.

Amos, I often think we see eye to eye, sort of. But, in this case, I seriously need a translator's note. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:32 PM

WTF?

I get slagged off in ANOTHER thread because you jerked off assholes decide *I* don't know what *I* meant to impart in my thread title????

I haven't posted much to this thread after all that bullshit started and all the thread drift started which sould have been posted to the threads germain to the disussions to which those posts should have been directed.

Oh, have fun with this thread... it belongs to you ENTIRELY now. Nothing to do with my thread because I didn't know WHAT I MEANT TO SAY.

Fuck the lot of you. I am not amused and far less impressed by your childish behaviour.

I would ask that my thread be closed but that would stifle the posts that reveal your true nature which should remain in cyberspace forever as a testament to your....

"Spirtualism". It's sooo simple to understand what I meant... How could you not embrace that and discuss it?

Youse amaze and enthrall me sometimes. And, sometimes, youse really fuckin piss me off. Getting slagged off on ANOTHER thread for this thread's title and having the intended discussion(s) given YOUR meanings? WTF????????????

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 03:01 AM

If someone can override how my phone refuses to store cookies I would be grateful. However, it is a price I pay for having access to a corporate VPN. I could log in every time but as with most things can't be arsed.

When I am logged in it just means I have lit a fire in the study and fired up the desktop.

Long answer Sailor Boy. But who are you trying to convince? seems like you are reverting to waffle and I recognise that. . It would help if your points reflected reality but when you say Musket said this and that, quote trawling and context stripping means you may convince others but those you misrepresent fail to be impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:23 AM

ANd the chorus of boos continues... let me say, again...

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu - PM
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:20 AM

spir·it·u·al /ˈspiriCHo͞oəl/
Adjective
Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

ism [ˈɪzəm]
n
Informal, often derogatory an unspecified doctrine, system, or practice

No, I don't own the thread. So WTF do all of you think YOU own it? Why do all of you want to tell me what I think? Give your heads a shake and see if they rattle.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 10:00 AM

This is from the National Association of Spiritualist Churches, who, at least presumably, know what they believe--and, as you might have guessed from the fact that they are churches, they consider themselves to be a religion.


Definitions

Adopted by the National Spiritualist Association of Churches

October 1914, 1919, 1930, 1950

Spiritualism is the Science, Philosophy and Religion of continuous life, based upon the demonstrated fact of communication, by means of mediumship, with those who live in the Spirit World. (1919)

"Spiritualism Is a Science" because it investigates, analyzes and classifies facts and manifestations demonstrated from the spirit side of life.

"Spiritualism Is a Philosophy" because it studies the Laws of Nature both on the seen and unseen sides of life and bases its conclusions upon present observed facts. It accepts statements of observed facts of past ages and conclusions drawn therefrom, when sustained by reason and by results of observed facts of the present day.

"Spiritualism Is a Religion" because it strives to understand and to comply with the Physical, Mental and Spiritual Laws of Nature, which are the laws of God.

A Spiritualist is one who believes, as the basis of his or her religion, in the communication between this and the Spirit World by means of mediumship and who endeavors to mould his or her character and conduct in accordance with the highest teachings derived from such communication. (1914, Rev. 1938)

A Medium is one whose organism is sensitive to vibrations from the spirit world and through whose instrumentality, intelligences in that world are able to convey messages and produce the phenomena of Spiritualism. (1914)

A Spiritualist Healer is one who, either through one's own inherent powers or through mediumship, is able to impart vital, curative force to pathologic conditions. (1930, 1993)

The Phenomena of Spiritualism consists of Prophecy, Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, Gift of Tongues, Laying on of Hands, Healing, Visions, Trance, Apports, Levitation, Raps, Automatic and Independent Writings and Paintings, Voice, Materialization, Photography, Psychometry and any other manifestation proving the continuity of life as demonstrated through the Physical and Spiritual senses and faculties of man. (1950)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 11:35 AM

Don't know if guest is a regular not signed in or not, but: the thread had no more than started when it was clarified that "spirituality" would have been the word really intended in the title.

I know people who are quite religious, but whose positive open spirituality actually defines them more than any nominal doctrinal stance.

I know people who are so locked into a straitjacket of religious definition that they are virtually immune to any breath of positive spirituality.

I know people who have no inclination whatever to religion, but whose spirituality flows out and nurtures those around them.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 01:19 PM

I am not a bar fighter. I try to present reasonable arguments without rancor or judgements. I maintain that no child is born into the world with a predilection
for any religion or spirituality. It is acquired either through indoctrination or individual searching when a child is old enough to make up his mind.

"So you are hinting that believers have something wrong with their brains and believers do not? I feel so much better about that!!"

I didn't say something was wrong. I said there is a change. A lot depends on the intensity or orientation of the belief. Fundamentalists do measure differently.

" Here is how it happened with Dr. de Waal...
I never felt any attraction to religion and never talked to God or felt a special relationship. After I left home for the university, at the age of seventeen, I quickly lost any remnant of religiosity."

Dr.de Waal did indeed examine his view of religion and found it wanting.


"What has he accomplished in science?"

You would have to read one of Dawkin's books to find out. He is the inventor of the term "meme" which has found its way into contemporary lexicon. He, like de Waal has studied animal behavior and has achieved respect in the scientific community. He is essentially an ecologist and a proponent of Darwin and explains that very well in his books. His newest book "The Greatest Show on Earth" helps the lay person to understand Darwin and interpret "The Origins of the Species".




"If you are implying that I am entrenched in emotional problems. I can assure you that I am not."

I never implied anything of the sort.

"Most people rarely if ever use the phase "Christian children". "

Not true. There are many religious hate groups that have used the phrase as well as many mainstream churchgoers.

"He means somebody or something has to be your master, That you have to look to some higher authority."

I know what he means. If the higher authority is a mystical, folkloric or incorporeal god that can't be verified as to its existence, then to give it authority is delusional.

"With a choice of de Waal's opinion and yours on brain science, I'll always choose his."

This is totally unfair. At no time did de Waal offer any opinion on brain science as to religion except that morality is a natural development from the "ground up"
rather than the "top down" as invested in a god. It's part of the DNA survival mechanisms that predate religion.

"Whether he gets the respect he deserves is another matter."

Everyone deserves respect as a person and a response that is civil, rational and intelligent. That doesn't mean that the ideas of that person deserve equal respect.
Sarcastic, vituperative, smart remarks do nothing to enhance a conversation.

The only higher power worth worshiping is a person's perception and intelligence and moral and social awareness and sensitivity.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 01:54 PM

Stringsinger. There is plenty of judgement in your arguments and in you unsupported opinions. When you are talking to me plenty of rancor too.

Debating with you is like fighting with fog. Your positions, change every time you are touched.

You are obviously a member of the church of neo atheism. Dawkins is your prophet. You accept the dogma of Dawkins without question, including the myths which you repeat religiously.

Such as...
" Dawkins is one who is logical, an accomplished scientist"

He is?

What has he accomplished in science?

Name one scientific accomplishment.

(Hint He hasn't accomplished squat. He was zoology lecturer who got lucky writing pop-science books about evolution.)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:15 PM

"
If someone can override how my phone refuses to store cookies I would be grateful. However, it is a price I pay for having access to a corporate VPN. I could log in every time but as with most things can't be arsed.

When I am logged in it just means I have lit a fire in the study and fired up the desktop"

If we just see "GUEST,Musket" we know that you have not logged in. The "sans cookie" is a waste of your time. Though I would imagine that more than a few besides me think that it is you looking down on us a bit. You know, "Those poor dumb godbotherers would never get that Musket not logged in doesn't have his cookie I MUST TELL THEM EVERY TIME. and to show how WORLDLY I am I shall use a French four letter word EVERY STINKING TIME!!" That seem about right Ed T? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 02:34 PM

"In other words, it's important who you are, not the label people stick on you."

Joe, this is so true. Many people who spout off their ideas betray themselves by their behavior in talking to others. If words and labels don't match up by those who give them to reflect their behavior, then it becomes suspect as to their veracity.

Guest, thank you for clarifying the position articulated the Spiritualist Church.

" I've done you the good grace of addressing your various points by way of good natured discussion."

Blandiver, thank you for your insights. You have upheld a good natured discussion here very well. Also, another good point.

"If serving is altruistic then serving a metaphysical comfort blanket is rather self serving."

When I was a Christian we used to call this "the private elevator to Heaven".

Oh and here is proof of the indoctrination of so-called "Christian children"
"Jesus loves me, this I know, cuz the bible tells me so."



"Just because we don't completely understand their biochemical basis there's no need to stick mysticism into the space."

So true, Steve. As studies of the brain progress, we are able more and more to understand the notion of "mysticism" and this applies to religion as well.

Amos, an interesting statement that could be turned around. "Emotional response is indeed an artifact of the spiritual equation."

A spiritual response is an artifact of the emotional equation.....controlled by the brain.

Ed says and I concur, "Beliefs, (aka spirituality) even when associated elements are held broadly, tend to be a personal experience and are difficult to define, confirm or refute through traditional avenues."

As "spirituality" is not measurable scientifically except to induce it by electrodes to the brain, it is a logical fallacy negative that can't be proven to exist and if it is perceived, it is different for each person.

Blandiver, once again I agree with you when you say "Religion does not engender freedom of thought - on the contrary, it regiments and punishes according to myth, dogma and shibboleth."

This is exactly why it was created, to control the minds of others so that no other thoughts are allowed into the liturgy. This is the history of religion. The notion of "spirituality" is because those who were formerly religious need a substitute for the construct of religion that they left behind. It is elitist as Steve says because it attempts to place those who believe it on a higher plane than those who don't.

There are some smart people on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 05:53 PM

>>Oh and here is proof of the indoctrination of so-called "Christian children"
"Jesus loves me, this I know, cuz the bible tells me so."<<

No one is saying that they aren't taught Christian children you thick headed non- streefighter. Call it indoctrination if you like. Don't call it indoctrination when a Dawkinsite shared the opinion that Christians are deluded if you like that too. You are welcome to your private "delusions."

But kindly please do not try to offer "proof" to counter a point NO ONE SINGLE PERSON on this forum has made.

You are the worst militant atheist on this forum. You read all the books, attend lectures use dishonest tactics all so that you can push your ideas on others. You are proof that militant atheism has become a religion. You are following its prophets. You are spreading its gospel.

If you were simply an atheist, a non-believer you would not take all this trouble. You would not make it your life. You are exactly the type of person de Waal was criticizing for being too dogmatic. You are sleeping furiously as he would say.

Here is an opinion piece on what you are doing. I agree wholehearted with every word of it. He says some things that I have been trying to say clearly and simply. Frans de Waal IS an accomplished scientist with a track record in science. for one thing his current position is as a scientist, not as an educator, which sets him apart from Mr. Dawkins. That does not qualify him as an expert on religion. But his arguments make a lot of sense to me.

The article is short, I'm just going to paste it.


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/the-god-science-shouting-match-a-response/

The God-Science Shouting Match: A Response
By FRANS DE WAAL

In reading the nearly 700 reader responses to my Oct. 17 essay for The Stone, ("Morals Without God?") I notice how many readers are relieved to see that there are shades of gray when it comes to the question whether morality requires God. I believe that such a discussion needs to revolve around both the distant past, in which religion likely played little or no role if we go back far enough, and modern times, in which it is hard to disentangle morality and religion. The latter point seemed obvious to me, yet proved controversial. Even though 90 percent of my text questions the religious origins of human morality, and wonders if we need a God to be good, it is the other 10 percent — in which I tentatively assign a role to religion — that drew most ire. Atheists, it seems (at least those who responded here) don't like any less than 100 percent agreement with their position.

    The issue is not whether or not God exists, but why humans universally feel the need for supernatural entities.

To have a productive debate, religion needs to recognize the power of the scientific method and the truths it has revealed, but its opponents need to recognize that one cannot simply dismiss a social phenomenon found in every major society. If humans are inherently religious, or at least show rituals related to the supernatural, there is a big question to be answered. The issue is not whether or not God exists — which I find to be a monumentally uninteresting question defined, as it is, by the narrow parameters of monotheism — but why humans universally feel the need for supernatural entities. Is this just to stay socially connected or does it also underpin morality? And if so, what will happen to morality in its absence?

Just raising such an obvious issue has become controversial in an atmosphere in which public forums seem to consist of pro-science partisans or pro-religion partisans, and nothing in between. How did we arrive at this level of polarization, this small-mindedness, as if we are taking part in the Oxford Debating Society, where all that matters is winning or losing? It is unfortunate when, in discussing how to lead our lives and why to be good — very personal questions — we end up with a shouting match. There are in fact no answers to these questions, only approximations, and while science may be an excellent source of information it is simply not designed to offer any inspiration in this regard. It used to be that science and religion went together, and in fact (as I tried to illustrate with Bosch's paintings) Western science ripened in the bosom of Christianity and its explicit desire for truth. Ironically, even atheism may be looked at as a product of this desire, as explained by the philosopher John Gray:

    Christianity struck at the root of pagan tolerance of illusion. In claiming that there is only one true faith, it gave truth a supreme value it had not had before. It also made disbelief in the divine possible for the first time. The long-delayed consequence of the Christian faith was an idolatry of truth that found its most complete expression in atheism. (Straw Dogs, 2002).

Those who wish to remove religion and define morality as the pursuit of scientifically defined well-being (à la Sam Harris) should read up on earlier attempts in this regard, such as the Utopian novel "Walden Two" by B. F. Skinner, who thought that humans could achieve greater happiness and productivity if they just paid better attention to the science of reward and punishment. Skinner's colleague John Watson even envisioned "baby factories" that would dispense with the "mawkish" emotions humans are prone to, an idea applied with disastrous consequences in Romanian orphanages. And talking of Romania, was not the entire Communist experiment an attempt at a society without God? Apart from the question of how moral these societies turned out to be, I find it intriguing that over time Communism began to look more and more like a religion itself. The singing, marching, reciting of poems and pledges and waving in the air of Little Red Books smacked of holy fervor, hence my remark that any movement that tries to promote a certain moral agenda — even while denying God — will soon look like any old religion. Since people look up to those perceived as more knowledgeable, anyone who wants to promote a certain social agenda, even one based on science, will inevitably come face to face with the human tendency to follow leaders and let them do the thinking.

What I would love to see is a debate among moderates. Perhaps it is an illusion that this can be achieved on the Internet, given how it magnifies disagreements, but I do think that most people will be open to a debate that respects both the beliefs held by many and the triumphs of science. There is no obligation for non-religious people to hate religion, and many believers are open to interrogating their own convictions. If the radicals on both ends are unable to talk with each other, this should not keep the rest of us from doing so.
Frans de Waal

Frans B. M. de Waal is a biologist interested in primate behavior. He is C. H. Candler Professor in Psychology, and Director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University, in Atlanta, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences. His latest book is "The Age of Empathy."

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 06:39 PM

If you want to insult Jack back, just say something intelligent. It often confuses him.

You got that right.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 06:48 PM

What I would love to see is a debate among moderates.

Translator's note: "What I would love to see is a debate among people who agree with me."

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:30 AM

If I type m in the box, the full title is offered and to remove the sans cookie bit takes action on my part.

And you for one ain't worth the effort.

Here's a catch 22. If I point out the gene hypothesis derived from scientific discovery I will be accused of worshipping at the altar of Dawkins. Problem is Jack, you are too shallow and your bear traps have neon signs warning people not to tread on them. No matter, your lack of intelligence exhibited in your ravings shows they are easily dealt with anyway.

Ha ha. Tell you what, show me a single scientific discovery Jesus gave us. Apples and pears my nautical confused chap. You accuse some, me included, of just quoting Dawkins. Hitherto I have refrained from pointing out most of your contributions bear more than a passing resemblance to the books defending faith written by Betty Swollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:07 AM

Jack the Sailor sez: What I would love to see is a debate among moderates.

Steve Shaw sez: Translator's note: "What I would love to see is a debate among people who agree with me."

Joe Offer sez: Wouldn't it be wonderful to see a discussion among a number of people who are able to see the issue from a variety of perspectives?

Why is it that we have to choose only one perspective? If we could see things through the eyes of many others, as well as through our own eyes, would be come closer to a true perspective of things?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:58 AM

Why is it that we have to choose only one perspective? If we could see things through the eyes of many others, as well as through our own eyes, would be come closer to a true perspective of things?

I think that's because we are each of us only one person and eternally enchanted by subjectivism. In any case, Western Spirituality is founded on conflict and opposition. Whilst the Buddha attains enlightenment sitting peaceably beneath a tree, Jesus Christ does so through the tortured agonies of being nailed to one; in the East they speak of Yin & Yang, in the West we have the Nature Nurture debate; in the East Lau Tzu spoke of the Tao that cannot be told; in the West Karl Marx gives us Dialectical Materialism.

By way of illustration, here's some pics I made of the famous Foliate Passion the cloister of Norwich Cathedral which combines conventional imagery which more vernacular visages from the popular margins of theology, perhaps even referencing the Legend of the Rood in which Christ is quite literally crucified on the wood that grew from seeds planted in Adam's mouth upon his death.

Foliate Passion : Norwich Cathedral March 2013

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:15 AM

Joe Offer sez: "Wouldn't it be wonderful to see a discussion among a number of people who are able to see the issue from a variety of perspectives?

"Why is it that we have to choose only one perspective? If we could see things through the eyes of many others, as well as through our own eyes, would be come closer to a true perspective of things?"

Did you read my post on the "militant atheism..." thread? It's disappointing that you don't at least credit me a little for wanting to see others' points of view. But I do reserve the right to dismiss the views of those believers who believe, eyes shut, in the certainty of their cause, still worse want to shout it as truth to the world, and there are plenty of 'em. My whole argument is predicated on the lack of certainty which everyone, believer or atheist, must acknowledge before we can have a proper conversation. You happen to be one such (if there are others of faith in these threads like that, they are hiding it) and Giles Fraser, one of the very few believers I admire for the way they express their faith, is another. Here's the post again.

"I suppose I could have posted this in one of the Maggie threads, but it contains much that is relevant here. I apologise for my lack of ability to do proper links on this website. You'll just have to copy and paste.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/apr/12/margaret-thatcher-doubt-wimps-human

Giles Fraser, a man of the cloth par excellence, is one of the very few believers who consistently expresses his beliefs in a way I can truly respect. This is an excellent article, scathing about Thatcher's apparent religious certainties and explicit about how true faith cannot have certainties. An awful lot of religion's millions of proselytisers could learn much from him. Here's an excoriating analysis of Thatcher faith, and, unfortunately, it's a brand of faith that is all too common and which is grist to the mill of the Dawkinses (and Shaws, Jack) of this world:

For her, Christianity was all about being on the side of what is right. It was a moralistic version of Christianity that, when crossed with a Samuel Smiles philosophy of self-help, would inoculate her against doubt and criticism. Thus she wore her indifference to objection as a badge of pride. That was what she meant by faith.

And how about this for a novel and focussed definition of faith that will prickle a believer or two:

But what she never appreciated was that faith is fundamentally bound up with doubt. Faith strains to imagine a world so much more expansive than the measure of our own minds and convictions. This is why faith is always a certain sort of loss, the failure to comprehend things in their totality. Faith is the confession of a failed atheism, the suspicion of a constant remainder to the neat equations of life. It begins with an ineradicable "I do not know", continually straining to make raids into this unknowable, continually returning with the wisdom gained by another fresh defeat.

But read the thing. It isn't long, and I have no wish to be accused of quoting out of context."

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:00 AM

Problem is Joe, that would mean my observations would have equal footing and for that I would have to be more serious in case Musket and Ian were stating our view in similar ways. I prefer Musket and his piss taking if it's all the same. Musket can have far more fun. Ian is too bloody polite and that can be frustrating in the face of some self satisfied contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 11:19 AM

Steve, thanks for the info on Giles Fraser. He sounds like one of the few reasonable religionists on the subject.

"But what she never appreciated was that faith is fundamentally bound up with doubt."

What an excellent statement! The arrogance of these know-it-all Christians can be summed up in this. This goes for those who fly the banner of "spirituality" as well.

" Faith is the confession of a failed atheism," wow! Here's one religionist that can think out of the box.

It's significant that the Council of Nicea left Doubting Thomas out of the bible.

It reinforces the idea that you can't know or trust anything that is not scientifically verifiable and even that is subject to change but when it is changed , it stands on the shoulders of logic, reason and that which was known to be true at the time by reliable scientific sources. In other words, there was evidential proof of an empirical nature.

Absolutism is a form of arrogance and an appeal to Authority will never logically win any logical points.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:48 PM

Amazing how many people define words differently from references such as the OED and Merriam Webster's dictionaries.
.
Nothing wrong with Gnu's heading to this thread.

Webster's has a simple, first definition:
"The view that spirit is a prime element of reality."

They add a second subsection, belief that spirits of the dead communicate, etc., but this is not the primary meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:37 PM

"Jack the Sailor sez: What I would love to see is a debate among moderates."

Sigh, Steve,

Jack the Sailor Posted a Quote of Frans de Waal saying that.

If you had only taken the time to read to the end of the paragraph. Look, his name is there and everything!

What I would love to see is a debate among moderates. Perhaps it is an illusion that this can be achieved on the Internet, given how it magnifies disagreements, but I do think that most people will be open to a debate that respects both the beliefs held by many and the triumphs of science. There is no obligation for non-religious people to hate religion, and many believers are open to interrogating their own convictions. If the radicals on both ends are unable to talk with each other, this should not keep the rest of us from doing so.
Frans de Waal

Its time to bring out that other quote again. Of course being a "poor listener" you still don't get it. You don't read to comprehend, you simply skim looking for phrases to snip and attack. That makes it difficult to debate you but pretty easy to demonstrate over and over again that you are exactly the type of militant atheist dogmatist Dr. de Waal is describing.

Dogmatists have one advantage: they are poor listeners. This ensures sparkling conversations when different kinds of them get together the way male birds gather at "leks" to display splendid plumage for visiting females. It almost makes one believe in the "argumentative theory," according to which human reasoning didn't evolve for the sake of truth, but rather to shine in discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:48 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:07 AM

Jack the Sailor sez: What I would love to see is a debate among moderates.

_______________________________

Joe here is that quote in context. Please not the name at the end and how much the totality of the statement agrees with your point about different perspectives.
________________________________

What I would love to see is a debate among moderates. Perhaps it is an illusion that this can be achieved on the Internet, given how it magnifies disagreements, but I do think that most people will be open to a debate that respects both the beliefs held by many and the triumphs of science. There is no obligation for non-religious people to hate religion, and many believers are open to interrogating their own convictions. If the radicals on both ends are unable to talk with each other, this should not keep the rest of us from doing so.
Frans de Waal

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:02 PM

Thanks be to Q. If I had looked up the definition, I wouldn't have been inclined to be one of those dinging at gnu about the thread title. I'm so used to hearing "spiritualism" in a secondary definition, I assumed that was the primary def.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:23 PM

Of course being a "poor listener" you still don't get it. You don't read to comprehend, you simply skim looking for phrases to snip and attack.

You are such a silly man. Did you read my big post below? If anyone's a one-track-minded poor listener round here, Jack, it would appear to be you. Have a good look at that post.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:38 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:23 PM

Of course being a "poor listener" you still don't get it. You don't read to comprehend, you simply skim looking for phrases to snip and attack.

You are such a silly man. Did you read my big post below? If anyone's a one-track-minded poor listener round here, Jack, it would appear to be you. Have a good look at that post. "

The one that says this?

"But read the thing. It isn't long, and I have no wish to be accused of quoting out of context."

Which you wrote right after you quoted De Waal out of context and said it was me?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!!!

Thanks for the laugh. Yes I did read it. But I did not read the article about Thatcher. I wasn't interested. I have no idea how it pertains to your careless quoting other than pointing out the irony of doing something then immediately decrying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:45 PM

I agree with de Waal and I think that people on this website are open to debates if they are not presented with malice, condemnation, judgments or bruised feelings. Accusations of being "poor listeners" do nothing to further the dialogue or debate here.

It's not clear to me who the "moderates" on this thread are. Those who claim to be moderates often seem like radicals with agendas. Perhaps moderation is in "the eye of the beholder".

"Joe Offer sez: Wouldn't it be wonderful to see a discussion among a number of people who are able to see the issue from a variety of perspectives?"

In order to do that Joe, we would have to stop the recriminations against individuals, ad- hominems and focus on the issues. Then maybe a true perspective could be gained on how different people see things. This takes work, though, and it appears easier just to insult others and pick fights.

Mr. Dawkins does have a track record. He is a lecturer in zooology at Oxford (you don't get to speak there unless you have a track record), and a Fellow of New College. He also has eminence as a biologist, every bit as much as de Waal (whom I also admire). He is known and respected among scientists as an ecologist and biologist. In my opinion, one of his accomplishments which is not done much is an elegant defense of Charles Darwin and a lucid well-written book illustrating many of Darwinian principles as well as fine illustrations, "The Greatest Show On Earth". It is worth reading. In a country where only 14% think that Evolution is true, I think Professor Dawkins is doing a tremendous educational service. The biggest detractor of evolution comes from religious commentators who have brain-washed much of the American public.

I have hope that we can all talk about this issue here without ad-hominem brick bat throwing and verbal vendettas against those who disagree with each of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:09 PM

"In order to do that Joe, we would have to stop the recriminations against individuals, ad- hominems and focus on the issues. Then maybe a true perspective could be gained on how different people see things. This takes work, though, and it appears easier just to insult others and pick fights."

Would we also want to leave insults of groups at the door? Calling a group delusional when you know you are talking to a person in that group is no less insulting. It appears to be acceptable it OK when the insults are couched in weasel talk and second hand from Richard Dawkins, lecturer in zoology.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:19 PM

Q, froggy and others (others also by email and by PM). Thanks. It IS amazing to me that people come on this thread and even post in other threads about the fact that they disagree with the thread title (even tho it is quite clear what I meant in the OP), tell all and sundry what the thread should be about, request that the title be changed and then forge on with what they want the tread to be about.

They could easily post their comments to existing threads on the topic they wish to speak to or start their own thread. So, to me, it comes down to this... they are bullies looking for someone to bully or they are self aggrandizing twits attempting to exhibit false superiority by slagging off on others. What I find even more amazing is that, when I protest in reasonable fashion, they seem to see it as a sign of weakness and become more aggressive. Then, when I tell them to fuck off (I figure they might understand THAT???), they say... "Look MOMMY. gnu swore! gnu swore at me! Spank him!!! MOMMY!!!" And such it goes. Even when I post a perfectly good explantion quoting definitions from dictionaries, the bullshit continues because they ignore my posts... after all, children who think they are golden boys don't ever have to apologize.

You children have your dicks tied to tour Mamas' apron strings. You little fucks ACTUALLY read my first post ONE MORE TIME and see if you REALLY do get my FUCKING POINTSSSSS. Think REAL HARD and you might have a chance of getting them... for a change. Wait... who am I kidding? None of you assholes will so I'll give youse assholes a hint about my secondary point which has taken up so much of this and another thread... "Lets see where it goes, shall we?" There. Got that? Good. Fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:15 PM

Would we also want to leave insults of groups at the door? Calling a group delusional when you know you are talking to a person in that group is no less insulting. It appears to be acceptable it OK when the insults are couched in weasel talk and second hand from Richard Dawkins, lecturer in zoology.

If someone is delusional apropos of a particular matter it's hardly an insult to tell the truth about them. What would be far more constructive, however, would be to focus a little more and state that their particular beliefs in relation to God are deluded. Yes, it isn't a nice term (neither is "militant atheist", come to think of it...), but at least it isn't pussyfooting around. The reason believers carry a delusion about the existence of God is that they persist in the belief in the face of having no evidence for and ignoring a massive body of evidence against. In any other walk of life, a position of that kind would be called deluded. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you should be immune from having the truth told about you. Being religious doesn't mean you deserve gentleness. And you clearly have no idea what weasel talk means. Do google it and educate yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:26 PM

There ya go. A good point for consideration, SS.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:03 PM

"They could easily post their comments to existing threads on the topic they wish to speak to or start their own thread"

Seems the easiest thing would be for you to calmly explain what you meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 08:43 PM

There ya go. A good point for consideration, SS.

What is?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 09:11 PM

Some thoughts I once saved from a website on good and effective communications. I post it for consideration only:

""Are you Irenic?
Being irenic in communications means to approach people peacefully. It is the opposite of being quarrelsome. It is admirable when individuals are passionate about their discussion but, ironically, these passions can often make a person so militant and hostile no one else wants to listen to him speak! A good communicator always keeps his cool. He does not let the polemics of others cause him to sacrifice his level-headed calmness. When correction is necessary, tact is defined by gentleness.

Are you honest?
For the communicator this includes the willingness to admit it, when they don't know things. The mark of a good communicators influence is not simply in how much he (or she) knows, but how much he realizes he doesn't know. The good communicator's job is not to have an answer for every question, but to be able to handle questions in an honest way, since he may have wrestled with the issue himself.You don't know that much. You are not that smart. You will never be an expert in every area

Are you adaptabile?
Are you willing to change your position? What if the evidence was not on your side? Are you led purely by your emotional convictions? If you cannot change, what gives you the right to require it of others? Good communicators are always adapting because they know they don't have it all figured out.

Are you transparent?
Good communicators open themselves to others, warts and all. Poor communicators present themselves on a pedestal, polished and clean. Giving off that image is a barrier to good and productivecommunications?

Are you polite? No need to go into this in detail , your parents likely defined it for you way back. Have you wandered from their good advice?""

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:42 AM

"If someone is delusional apropos of a particular matter it's hardly an insult to tell the truth about them."

If it's about what they purport to believe and suggest that the belief should not be criticized then I agree. To not allow discussion based on hurt feelings is not productive.


Ed T the suggestions are laudable. I applaud. Irenic would suggest eschewing destructive and judgmental invectives or recriminations.

Honesty is often "in the eye of the beholder"
but the judgmental invective such as "telling lies" is not an honest way to handle disagreements.

As for adaptability, Dawkins and others have stated with proper scientific evidence, they would change their positions. It has always been the credo of most people who are called atheists. But they can't be bullied into changing, they must be shown credible evidence by science or logic and not from some holy book.

Being polite is often a matter of interpretation. Being rude is a judgement given by those who are often rude themselves. Any controversial opinion expressed can be characterized by those who don't agree with it as "being rude." I'm sure that Martin Luther King had the "rudeness" moniker pasted on him. After all, he was considered "an outside agitator".
Polite to me means sticking with the issues and not personalizing them to the degree that you silence information that may be uncomfortable and it certainly means avoiding ad hominem attacks on books that you haven't read. That's both delusional and rude.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:42 AM

"If someone is delusional apropos of a particular matter it's hardly an insult to tell the truth about them."

If it's about what they purport to believe and suggest that the belief should not be criticized then I agree. To not allow discussion based on hurt feelings is not productive.


Ed T the suggestions are laudable. I applaud. Irenic would suggest eschewing destructive and judgmental invectives or recriminations.

Honesty is often "in the eye of the beholder"
but the judgmental invective such as "telling lies" is not an honest way to handle disagreements.

As for adaptability, Dawkins and others have stated with proper scientific evidence, they would change their positions. It has always been the credo of most people who are called atheists. But they can't be bullied into changing, they must be shown credible evidence by science or logic and not from some holy book.

Being polite is often a matter of interpretation. Being rude is a judgement given by those who are often rude themselves. Any controversial opinion expressed can be characterized by those who don't agree with it as "being rude." I'm sure that Martin Luther King had the "rudeness" moniker pasted on him. After all, he was considered "an outside agitator".
Polite to me means sticking with the issues and not personalizing them to the degree that you silence information that may be uncomfortable and it certainly means avoiding ad hominem attacks on books that you haven't read. That's both delusional and rude.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 11:02 AM

" ad hominem attacks on books"


Is all I need to say :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 01:27 PM

Yes, the solution would be a logical rebuttal devoid of personal "hurts".

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 02:18 PM

"An intelligent person can rationalize anything, a wise person doesn't try." ― Jen Knox

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 02:56 PM

A logical rebuttal?

OK

"but the judgmental invective such as "telling lies" is not an honest way to handle disagreements."

It is when the disagreement is over whether or not the other person is lying.

"As for adaptability, Dawkins and others have stated with proper scientific evidence, they would change their positions. It has always been the credo of most people who are called atheists."

Dawkins stopped making scientific arguments a couple of books ago I agree with most of what he says about evolution and cosmology. But when he diagnoses half the world as delusional it is he who is misusing scientific terms. If you were as unbiased about him as you claim to be, you would see that too.

" I'm sure that Martin Luther King had the "rudeness" moniker pasted on him. After all, he was considered "an outside agitator"." Interesting, you hypothesis is "proved" by the fact that you made it.

Are you sure that you are interested in and knowledgeable about "logic"? I have a better question. Are you really arrogant enough to consider yourself comparable to Dr. Martin Luther King? Are you really stupid enough to think he was rude, with no evidence just because you are? If you had any shred of decency or integrity you would have proof of such a statement before you made it and start from that point rather than baseless speculation. That is very loaded statement for you to just pull it out of your butt.

Dr. Martin Luther King indeed!

"Polite to me means sticking with the issues and not personalizing them to the degree that you silence information that may be uncomfortable and it certainly means avoiding ad hominem attacks on books that you haven't read. That's both delusional and rude. "

Surely you must realize that the issues under discussion are not Evolution or Cosmology or Science but your lack of manners. Surely one who demands logic from others, knows enough about logic to realize that ad hominem means "to the man" and that Books are not men.

Surely a student of logic would not have his head up his arse so far that he would not know that it is quite permissible to criticize THE TITLE of a book or a quote from a book as independent from the book. Surely one can criticize some things that a man has said without reading every condescending illogical, smug word he has ever written.

Not reading a book because you told me to? Delusional and rude? Who are you, a grade school teacher giving homework?

Get over yourself Strings. Using big words poorly does not make you seem wiser.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 06:08 PM

I have taken up study of the spirtualISM of the SKEET religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3tRlFOqPio

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 06:38 PM

But when he diagnoses half the world as delusional it is he who is misusing scientific terms.

And 'tis you who misrepresents him. After years on forums like this, I've noticed that people who misrepresent others are very apt to misrepresent themselves also. He does not "diagnose" half the world as delusional. His remarks about delusion are strictly confined to the matter of religious belief. Musket is severely deluded about Sheffield Wednesday, but that does not make him unqualified delusional. Joe Offer believes in God yet he is an intensely rational man with whom a serious conversation is possible. You do not have sensible conversations, on the whole, with someone who is unqualified delusional. You clearly haven't read The God Delusion. What you say about it and Dawkins simply doesn't make sense. Much of what you type seems meant to suggest that you have read it. A clear misrepresentation of yourself, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 09:43 PM

"Are you really stupid enough to think he [King] was rude"

JTS, Steve Shaw gets on my nerves a bit sometimes, but if you slow down and pay attention, he was in no way saying that he believes that Martin Luther King was rude. In fact the obvious implication is that while Steve surmises quite reasonably that some people considered King rude, he doesn't believe that himself in the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 09:51 PM

...and the Cleverlys do more for me spiritually than most of whut's been on this thread since early on. "The Girl With No Panty Line"...now there's a song with spiritual insight... : )

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 11:52 PM

" reasonably that some people considered King rude, he doesn't believe that himself in the least. "

I'm sorry, so sorry for that error. In my defense I can only say this.

I was so unnerved by the audacity, the unmitigated gall of his assertion that it affected the precision of my words!

OK he wasn't exactly saying that Dr. King was rude. But My Word! He was saying that Dr. King's words were careless enough to be mistaken for rude words. He thinks that his own Dawkins inspired assertions were an equal to Dr. King's God inspired testimonies and speeches, loved and revered by literally millions of people throughout the world, translated into dozens of languages, carved in granite on the walls of schools and libraries. Stringsinger compares his words and how people perceive his words to Dr. King's words and how people perceive Dr. Kings words.

Isn't that amazing? Isn't that astounding!? Isn't that sad?

He thinks that clearly implying that Christians are too deluded to raise their own kids is polite because he thinks that it is true. Did Dr. King utter anything to indicate that racists were too dumb to raise their own kids? I don't think so. I never heard such a thing. Did any of you ever hear such a thing?

Strings just pulled that example right out of his posterior region. Stringsinger has comparing HIM-self to DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR.

Stringsinger can search every archive, can search EVERY archive in every Television station and every RADIO station from Washington to Selma to the cool pacific coast and still not find a clip, a tape or a clipping of Dr. King being called RUDE.

WHY?
WHY DO YOU ASK?
It is because

DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR WAS NOT RUDE. Dr. King didn't start his speeches with insults to his audience or his enemies. He set out to battle racism and inequality. He did not set out to battle mothers and fathers and try to make them guilty for trying to raise their children in their own faith, in their own way.
DR KING WAS NOT THAT RUDE. DR. King was not that stupid. Dr. King was not MISTER RICHARD DAWKINS.

Stingsinger WOW!!! Comparing yourself and your mission to Dr. King's is very telling. It takes a huge lack of self awareness to go on an Atheistic Argumentative Jihad and invoke the memory of one of the greatest Christian leaders this country, no, this WORLD has ever seen.

Being polite is NOT a matter of interpretation. Being polite it a matter of intelligence. Being polite is a matter of empathy. Being polite is a matter of being able to see things from the other person's point of view. Being polite while telling people what you believe they need to hear without insulting their intelligence or their sanity.

DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR was a great speaker and a great persuader.
DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR had all of those qualities.

Mister Richard Dawkins has NONE of those qualities.
Dawkins instead is snide and condescending.
You Stringsinger, half as bad, are condescending but not snide. Good for you!

DAWKINS is no Martin Luther King Jr
Stringsinger YOU are no Martin Luther King Jr

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 12:16 AM

BTW FP, It wasn't Steve Shaw. Steve is way to sharp to Invoke Dr King and imply that he is rude. It was Stringsinger who tends to improvise.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 01:13 AM

Why the word MISTER? It isn't as if he is a surgeon?

Oy, Shaw! Nothing delusional about worshipping at the altar in S6 I'll have you know. Some of us recall the miracle when He came down to earth to save us all. And The Lord came amongst his people. Lo, he had a name. That exalted figure was Trevor Francis who with his son (David Hirst) and the holy ghost (Chris Waddle) saved us all.

It is an article of faith that twenty years on we the unworthy still recall. Chiefly because there hasn't been too much to celebrate since. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:03 AM

Rude?? Dr. Martin Luther King jr Rude???

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 05:39 PM

I was again misinterpreted. What I said was I didn't think King was rude. On the contrary, I stated that he was castigated as being rude by the White South.
This was an attempt to explain why some may find statements rude and others logical.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 05:46 PM

Apparently there is a semantic difference between the term "spiritualism" and "spirituality". The first can be defined as a religious affiliation with a Spiritualist
Church where as the second can't be credibly defined except as a reference to ghosts. The attempts to define "spirituality" are hampered by the fact that not many people agree on what it is and it is entirely scientifically unprovable.

People can offer definitions for "spirituality" but they fall short of meaning since they are subjective experiences that not everyone has. As subjective, they are not testable and are subject to questions of their validity.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 05:51 PM

"I stated that he was castigated as being rude by the White South."

And that was a slur on Dr. King and a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 07:42 PM

Jack, do you in fact know what "castigated" means? If a guy named Joe tells you that a guy named tells you that someone named Melvin has castigated you, do you think that what Joe said is a lie and slur directed against you?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 07:44 PM

I'll try that again:

Jack, do you in fact know what "castigated" means? If a guy named Joe tells you that someone named Melvin has castigated you, do you think that what Joe said is a lie and slur directed against you?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 08:50 PM

Castigated means having yer bollocks chopped off. Thought everyone knew that. Sheesh.

Now Musket. You should know better than to offer me an open goal (a term I use advisedly, in the event...) by mentioning Chris Waddle. I will refrain from embarrassing you further by not mentioning the egregious penalty miss of his that precipitated us out of the 1990 World Cup. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 09:29 PM

From: frogprince - PM
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 07:44 PM

I'll try that again:

Jack, do you in fact know what "castigated" means? If a guy named Joe tells you that someone named Melvin has castigated you, do you think that what Joe said is a lie and slur directed against you?

______________________

I am resisting the temptation to be as condescending to you as you were to me.

CASTIGATE
: to subject to severe punishment, reproof, or criticism

I assumed that stringsinger meant criticism, not punish. If you thought the only definition was punish then I guest your question makes sense.

If not,

Are you telling me that you know of one single case where anyone, anywhere, anytime CASTIGATED. Dr. Martin Luther King for being rude?

Stringsingers point is that I am being stupid for calling him and Mr Dawkins rude. Because I don't like them calling people "delusional" and telling them how to raise their kids.

He is saying that Dr King was severely criticized for being rude by racists. He is saying that I am now better than a hypothetical racist southerner. Stringsinger has a very easy way to prove his case. All he has to do is produce one instance where a politician, a spectator, a policeman, a KKK grand dragon said that Dr. King was rude. Dr. King was a great speaker and a thoughtful speaker, walking on eggshells struggling every day to keep the focus of his movement on love an non-violence. Do you really think his words could be described as rude? Only a fool would call him rude.

Stingsinger in his own little passive aggressive way is saying I am like those racist fools. I don't think those racist fools exist. I am sorry but I do not think it is reasonable to say that people though of Dr. King as racist.

But then I think it is King of loopy to invoke Dr. King in an argument where you are saying it is not rude to say that people like Dr. King are delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 01:19 AM

And I refer you to the goal at Wembley from a free kick in the bigger than World Cup final couple of years later. (Ok Sheffield Wednesday v Sheffield United FA Cup semi final) The nearest the city ever got to religion....

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 10:10 AM

I'm going to have to become a Wednesday supporter to find out what this is all about...

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 10:36 AM

No. You are having to become a Sheffield Wednesday supporter because it is the one true path and heretics will be boiled in a vat of gorilla sweat.

You know it makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 09:26 PM

More to the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 09:45 PM

Oh yeah... let me put my foot in it again. Bluegrass, baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:36 AM

King was castigated and the rationale by many white southerners was that he was "rude" for upsetting the status quo. Rudeness is often in the eye of the beholder.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:45 AM

Having just finished Bob Dylan's Chronicles first book I can say that I don't think Bob Dylan really trusted himself. He was as confused as any human being about what he wanted.

As for interpreting his songs, here's what he had to say on that subject:
"I was sick of the way my lyrics had been extrapolated, their meanings subverted to polemics and that I had been anointed as the Big Bubba of Rebellion."

Who here is qualified to say what Dylan's amorphous lyrics really mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:54 AM

"King was castigated and the rationale by many white southerners was that he was "rude" for upsetting the status quo. Rudeness is often in the eye of the beholder. "

Oh he was castigated for upsetting the status quo. There is no doubt about that. He was called a lot of things. But you won't find an example of anyone calling him "rude."

Obviously you are not letting this get in the way of you repeating that claim. Yet you claim that I am not "logical.

I am saying that Dawkins is rude because he is mocking and condescending and he uses insults that are not applicable and unsupported by science, such as "child abuse" and delusional.

You can still watch his TED talk were he does all of the above and admits to militant atheism. All you have to do is google it and hit "play."

You can also watch many recorded speeches of Dr. King. If there is one example of a rude statement or unfounded insult you can point it out. You can comb through the hundreds of thousands of statements about Dr. King, all you have to do is find one person saying that one of his comments is rude to prove their case.   


Instead you talk about hypothetical southerners and claim to read their minds saying that you know what their unspoken rationale was.

One of the features of zealotry, religious or not, is the failure to look at data that challenges your beliefs, another is the propensity to make untestable and unverifiable statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:57 AM

>>Having just finished Bob Dylan's Chronicles first book I can say that I don't think Bob Dylan really trusted himself.<<

the propensity to make untestable and unverifiable statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:37 PM

the propensity to make untestable and unverifiable statements.

"God exists", for example. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 01:22 PM

""God exists", for example."

Well yes. I freely admit that would be a silly thing to try to argue logically. But the point being argued by Stringsinger is " Dr. King was castigated as rude." If that were so, it would have been much easier thing to prove than the existence of God. But there is no evidence of this castigation.

But is "reasoning" is along these lines

I am being called rude.
I am telling the "truth" to someone too stupid to listen.
Dr King was telling the truth to someone too dumb to hear it.
Someone must have "castigated" Dr. King for being rude.

The above is NOT logical.

I would not bother to pursue this question of logic if stringsinger had not castigated me for not being logical.

But he did. So now I am being logical.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 03:16 PM

Well, knowing many southerners, I know that they would consider King "rude" as well as being threatened by him.

As far as verifiable and testable information, none is coming from the religionists on this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 04:53 PM

>>Well, knowing many southerners, I know that they would consider King "rude" as well as being threatened by him.<<

He's been dead for more than forty years. No one you know feels threatened by Dr. King.
No one you know has said that he was rude or else you would have said so by now.

>>As far as verifiable and testable information, none is coming from the religionists on this site. <<

Well that is true enough, nothing verifiable and testable when it comes to religious faith anyway. But you are the one claiming to have logic and science on YOUR side. You are admitting that you are no better than I am.

On the other hand I have been able to poke holes in your pretend logic and quote back your hero de Waal disagreeing with what you have said about atheism, what you have said about Dawkins and even what you have said about de Waal himself.

Fact is you are not scientific, not logical, not even truthful.

You can weasel around talking about logic and brickbats and whatnot all you like. But the truth will come out.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 08:54 PM

As far as verifiable and testable information, none is coming from the religionists on this site.

They haven't got any, and never will have. That's the whole point of faith. You have to turn your back on all that in order to espouse notions that fly in the face of all logic and reason. There is so much evidence that God does not exist that to espouse faith is to indulge in the ultimate irrationality. I've known people of faith who cheerfully acknowledge this, and they are fine and entertaining people to talk with. Unfortunately, many people of faith would sooner just shut their eyes and ears and tell us to stop being rude to them, even though they're rude enough not to listen to us.