Spirituality, Atheism, Religion, and Saving the World:

[say what]

I think what [MENTION=10605]Wildfire[/MENTION] was getting at (and I may be wrong- so I apologize) is that approaching your work through a phenomenological perspective (e.g., studying peoples' experiences of the world around them) may help highlight the complexity of spirituality. Additionally, recognizing that your own experiences of spirituality naturally inform your own understanding of it, and how you believe others experience spirituality. Or do you believe spirituality is the same for everyone?

I'm not certain if I agree with that. My spirituality never had anything to do with a church.

It has nothing to do with a church now, but it's most certainly been influenced by it- the fact that you has such passion and dislike for the church, says that your own individual spirituality, in ways have been influenced- perhaps not by exact teaching, but influenced non-the-less.

I guess the idea of isolating spirituality seems wrong to me. Spirituality is dynamic, not static, and multi-contextual- you can't say 'this is what spirituality is', because for me, it changes completely. How I relate to something influences my spirituality. Who I meet. Where I visit. The emotions I experience. While spirituality for you might be your connection to the universe, it might be something different for another person...and I think that's what Wildfire is saying.

I think you defining 'religion' would help me too.

Also, can you list 3-5 author's and/or theories that support or help substantiate this? I'd like to know more about where this has come from

 

[say what]

Proving any of that will more or less amount to proving I know the structure of the universe better than any human. NASA, ESA, JAXA and the meanest pack of post Docs on the planet are incapable of refuting anything I say.

You're a nice guy [MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION] and I hope this is true. I think I'm going to peace out from here for now

 

[Rift Zone]

I think what [MENTION=10605]Wildfire[/MENTION] was getting at (and I may be wrong- so I apologize) is that approaching your work through a phenomenological perspective (e.g., studying peoples' experiences of the world around them) may help highlight the complexity of spirituality. Additionally, recognizing that your own experiences of spirituality naturally inform your own understanding of it, and how you believe others experience spirituality. Or do you believe spirituality is the same for everyone?

I fully agree! You are entirely right. The disconnect here the presumption I'm not aware of all this. I may be a science geek but let's face it, modern science doesn't give one very much access to spirituality. I've personally defined spirituality -the endeavor to understand and identify one's self with their origin and relation to the universe. Please understand I would incapable of getting anywhere close to a decent definition if I did not understand what spirituality is on the deepest of levels.

What makes you think I don't understand what spirituality is? Spirituality has been monopolized by religion. Thanks to millennia of religious propaganda, I was born in a world where atheism was presumed to be the path of spiritual denial. That's what the world tried to teach me! -that religion was the the sole realm of spirituality. How can you pretend I'm unaware of what spirituality is when I was the one to recognize that it wasn't the domain of religion? It is, in fact, a fundamental human trait. Those most fundamental questions: who are we? where did we come from? what are we doing here? -That is spirituality and I was the first to identify is as such. Carl Sagan's love for the life, love, sentience, and the universe is spiritulity. I was the first to identify that fact as being fact. I made it this far because I know precisely what spirituality is.

I will hereby assert that I have more exposure to the vast expressions of spirituality than any of you do! Potentially, many of you combined. Some may have gone to church every sunday for their entire lives. I did not do that but I went to church! I was raised in a Baptist environment. As an atheist, I attended Christmas Mass in a Catholic Church. I've checked out nearly every denomination of Christianity. I've attended events in mosques and synagogues and I've discussed spirituality with their leaders. I've studied crossover faiths like Universal Unitarianism and The Center for Philosophical Enlightenment. I've studied the tenets of the Baha'i faith. I've been the token atheist in countless pagan rituals. -They wanted me to participate in very significant ways during their rituals knowing how spiritual I was, atheist or not. I have books on Sufism and Christianity. I have books witten by the Dali Llama. I've studied the Tao Tu Ching. I know Hinduism, Buddhism and Hari Krishna. I've looked into the beliefs of Inuits. I've studied the perspectives of the Bush "men" in Africa as well as the cultures deep in the Amazon Jungle... If there is any expression of spirituality out there I have not come across and studied it is only because it's very, VERY well hidden. So then, I'm not a scholar in any of these faiths because I never when there to learn about their religion. I went there to learn about spirituality. I am a scholar in spirituality, no attempt to say otherwise will ever be successful.

What we do with spirituality is as different and unique as every one of us. It does not mean the same thing to every one. It does not occur the same way to any two people. But yes, what spirituality is does not change. It is the attempt to know what's up with all this. That remains common for all.

It has nothing to do with a church now, but it's most certainly been influenced by it- the fact that you has such passion and dislike for the church, says that your own individual spirituality, in ways have been influenced- perhaps not by exact teaching, but influenced non-the-less.

That is wrong. My spirituality developed completely independently of any church like thing. My spirituality developed exclusively through the natural world, through wilderness. The only thing the church did for me was give me some terminology. It occured to me one day that "spirituality" was exactly what I had. I've been commandeering religious language ever since. I'll redefine soul, divinity and a lot of other things before I'm done with this.

I guess the idea of isolating spirituality seems wrong to me. Spirituality is dynamic, not static, and multi-contextual- you can't say 'this is what spirituality is', because for me, it changes completely. How I relate to something influences my spirituality. Who I meet. Where I visit. The emotions I experience. While spirituality for you might be your connection to the universe, it might be something different for another person...and I think that's what Wildfire is saying.

I hate to say it but your perception is wrong here. You need to isolate spirituality from EVERY expression of it you wish to know what it is. Spirituality is the endeavor to understand and identify one's self with their origin and relation to the universe. It's an inclination, a compulsion, a passion... Sentient species want to know about this suff. <-- and that is all it is. that desire to know. It says so in the definition: "the endeavor"! You confuse the term "spirituality" with YOUR spirituality. YOUR spirituality is all you say. You have another step to go before you understand what spirituality actually is.

I think you defining 'religion' would help me too.


Also, can you list 3-5 author's and/or theories that support or help substantiate this? I'd like to know more about where this has come from

Ask me about Abrahamic "religion" and will be happy to define that for you. You will have to talk to me of you want support or substantiation. I'm apparently 2 steps ahead of the game in spirituality just like I am in science. I'm setting the precedence in this realm.

You're a nice guy @Rift Zone and I hope this is true. I think I'm going to peace out from here for now

Thanks! =)

and Thanks. I care about saving the world. I would be pure spiritual activist if I was a patient sort. But innovation is hard won! The best access to getting paid attention to is through fame. That's fine. I'll rewrite science too if I have to. That's what it's coming down to. I share something with the world and I get told I need more education, or something. Hey, that's cool. History of all major advancement tells the same story. Humanity never was really quick to recognize significant advancement. Very sad, very true. I've left text laying around online claiming it would take about 200 years for humanity to prove black holes don't exist. I felt that was a decent guess. I guessed because I was an activist who wasn't going to prove it myself. Well fuck that! This world wants fame? Is that what you pay attention to? Fine. We can play that game. I will prove black hoes do not exist. I will prove quasars are lasers. I already have redefined time. I'll make that more official. When I reconcile my understanding of the universe with mathematics I'll take down the Big Bang Theory and correct Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. When I'm finished with that, I'm take a good look at what I have left. I'm going to have a pretty good idea of how far I am from the Theory of Everything in a little while. I might nail that bitch down! (Anyone who has any snide comments about that better check the links I left before they make a fool out of themselves.) I will get us closer! You can bet on that! I'm gonna earn a Nobel Prize. -at least one. I'm going to change science and then i'm going to change the world. Fame, bah. Fucking humans. But that's cool. I'll play your game. And win.

That's disappointing. I was hoping you would continue to share your insight because growing is something I need. You could help with that if you were so inclined. Whatever. I bet being known as the modern Einstein will get the point across better than fine tuning my language.

 

[Eventhorizon]

[MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION]
Consider that you can know everything there is to know but if you can’t explain it to someone else, what is the use other than to you alone? If Einstein could not communicate in a way others could understand, how would he ever have collaborated in a way that allowed him to bring his ideas to life? If all I ever do is stare at a wall but I have the universe in my head, what am I?

 

[Rift Zone]

@Rift Zone
Consider that you can know everything there is to know but if you can’t explain it to someone else, what is the use other than to you alone? If Einstein could not communicate in a way others could understand, how would he ever have collaborated in a way that allowed him to bring his ideas to life? If all I ever do is stare at a wall but I have the universe in my head, what am I?

I'm trying. Very little of my knowledge exists in language. Getting anything out there means framing it in language in the first place. Then I have to contend with my not so common thought processes and approach to communication. Your points capture my difficulties with that well. I'm trying. I'm paying attention to things you, @Wildfire, and @say what are telling me! Very close attention! I argue against them because my perspective differs but I realize most of the problem is I'm not effectively communicating everything. I'm looking for insight in all that. I'm trying to communicate more effectively.

In all honesty, the responses I get are not helping me much in that regard. Spirituality is a huge topic! Huge! I didn't lay out the whole thing thus far because I'm not trying to write an encyclopedia. I posted an outline so we can discuss all this. For the most part, there is no discussion about atheist spirituality here. The discussion is based around what I don't know. Pardon this but how would any of you have any concept of what I know/don't know if you don't ask? I get more presumptions about the nature of my education than I get inquiries about it. WTF is that? Even if I did know everything, this type of environment would never get the benefit of that wisdom mostly because my knowledge looks foreign. Foreign to conventional wisdom must mean wrong somehow. -It must mean I'm not considering this, and I don't know that and If I only bla bla. So, I'm trying. But don't expect me to get very far! -Not as it stands now.

To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness", of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. When it comes to their own areas of expertise -- and INTJs can have several -- they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know.

-Emphasis theirs! So let me tell you all this: They are not joking about that! I precisely know the depth and breadth of my knowledge. I know it's limitations. I, in fact, am keenly aware of what I don't know. I'm here to tell you I know what I'm talking about. I know what spirituality is. I know what it means to humanity. I know it can and will save the world. You guys can fight me on those facts or you can gain similar insight. It really is up to you.

I'm trying. If I'm the only one then I try for nothing.

 

[Eventhorizon]

-Emphasis theirs! So let me tell you all this: They are not joking about that! I precisely know the depth and breadth of my knowledge. I know it's limitations. I, in fact, am keenly aware of what I don't know. I'm here to tell you I know what I'm talking about. I know what spirituality is. I know what it means to humanity. I know it can and will save the world. You guys can fight me on those facts or you can gain similar insight. It really is up to you.

I'm trying. If I'm the only one then I try for nothing.

Ive been testing as an INTj as well, in fact more often now than when I first tested as an INFj. So I also "Know what I know." Why do not more people want to know what I know? :tongue1:
I offer a perception. I am fairly knowledgeable on all of the most recent theories concerning our Universe. I believe I have a good map in my head whats going on. Yet when you put forth your ideas, they are long and dont seem to follow a pattern that is easily recognizable to me. If you want people to listen, try relating it to something they already know. Why is light cool? Light is cool because the second its created, it reaches its destination. Question: "But wait, it takes light 8 minutes to get from the sun to here thats not right." Answer, its OUR perception it takes that long... but even here, the person you are talking to has to have the interest.

I run into this a lot myself. The desperate need to talk to someone I can bounce ideas off. People that will understand what I am talking about when I say, hey has anyone considered "x" about the double slit experiment. What if we are living in the reflection of energy given off the real universe.... Like the light from a projector. But I dont know any scientists like this and if I did, I would most likely have to talk to them in their language, math. A language I just happen to suck at.

 

[say what]

[MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION]

You know a lot about your own spirituality. You know nothing about my own...or 99% of the people's in this thread. This is the issue - you expect us to all have the same spirituality that you have, and this is not the case for me, so I would imagine it's not the case for others.


Also, in regards to defining religion, you simply told me that you could define one religion...not religion in itself.

Claiming you know everything and more than everyone is not an attractive stance to exhibit in a discussion. If you know more than us, then why have a discussion with us? You want us to help you expand your horizon, but you believe we don't hold knowledge on this topic that you don't already have. Saying that this demeanour is simply a trait of INTJs is not good enough...I just find it to be really difficult to engage in conversation with it, because there's no growth. Why should I spend my time discussing with you if you simply tell me I'm wrong and you're right? It seems to me that you don't actually read what we're saying, you just automatically go into a defensive stance.

I especially take offense to this:

In all honesty, the responses I get are not helping me much in that regard.

You're choosing to be combative to them, and not consider some of the excellent insight and experience people have listed in here (I'm not trying to talk about myself, but there's been a lot of great points made, that could expand this topic, but you just disregard them as having no value).

I want to discuss this with you, but tell me why I should? Why should I share my own insights with someone that tells me their wrong and they know more than me?

 

[Rift Zone]

Ive been testing as an INTj as well, in fact more often now than when I first tested as an INFj. So I also "Know what I know." Why do not more people want to know what I know? :tongue1:
I offer a perception. I am fairly knowledgeable on all of the most recent theories concerning our Universe. I believe I have a good map in my head whats going on. Yet when you put forth your ideas, they are long and dont seem to follow a pattern that is easily recognizable to me. If you want people to listen, try relating it to something they already know. Why is light cool? Light is cool because the second its created, it reaches its destination. Question: "But wait, it takes light 8 minutes to get from the sun to here thats not right." Answer, its OUR perception it takes that long... but even here, the person you are talking to has to have the interest.

I run into this a lot myself. The desperate need to talk to someone I can bounce ideas off. People that will understand what I am talking about when I say, hey has anyone considered "x" about the double slit experiment. What if we are living in the reflection of energy given off the real universe.... Like the light from a projector. But I dont know any scientists like this and if I did, I would most likely have to talk to them in their language, math. A language I just happen to suck at.

I did the math on that once... Divide Astronomical Unit (average distance of earth to sun) by the speed of light and it [our perception of it (hmm. umm... =)] comes out to 8 mins 19 seconds.

Sharing is not a desperate need. It's a compulsion. I love to discuss the intricacies of existance. It's kinda sad that this relates to a comment I made in the "Validation" thread: "I would have serious issues if I needed validation. I would appreciate being appreciated but I don't get to share my personal triumphs or what's new and wonderful in my world." I've grown accustomed to being the only one who cares about what I'm up to. Worse yet, it's a an uphill battle every step of the way. I'm not just alone in all this, I'm typically violently opposed. It's the same scene when I address scientific principals. I am truly alone in virtually every sense of the word. It is my station in life. Why don't more people want to know what I know? -Because that's how humanity operates! If it bothered me in any significant way, it probably would have broken me already. As you can see, I'm not really too concerned about it. There is absolutely nothing in my psyche that cries "if only they would listen". I have a pretty good idea of what people pay attention to. I am more than happy to operate within those parameters.

I'm sharing this here/now for a couple of reasons. First, I'm a geek. I love to geek out on just about everything. Dissecting atheism, religion, and spirituality to find their most fundamental properties would make my day. Specially considering I only have one perspective, being pushed in directions I wouldn't have gone alone has always been one of my greatest teachers. More importantly, I'm trying to get a head start here. I sincerely hope a few spiritual seekers come across some of these concepts and find wisdom in them. Having a few murmurs about this proliferate through the populace might make it a little less foreign when the time comes. I think that would help the situation a bit.

Nothing about this world is a linear system!

Yet when you put forth your ideas, they are long and dont seem to follow a pattern that is easily recognizable to me.

I am wholly and irrevocably inferior to you in countless ways. We each have our strength and ours are not the same. You are capable of easily accomplishing many, many things that I will struggle with. All of you. It is a thing of beauty. You all bring things to this world I cannot. It would be a pretty fucked up place if I lived in a world built exclusively upon my strenghts. I wouldn't want to live there, or visit. So please allow me to sing praises for all that you are. And please allow me to share that this realm is my strength. This is not a linear system. I cannot list point A, Point B, Point ... and then put an equal sign at the end. This world does not work that way. We are not dealing with a linear progression here. This is an exceptionally complex system that interacts nonlinearly. I mentioned above that I cannot weave a web for you in an instant. This subject is a web with intricacies that rival the works of any spider. -And I can see it. That may be my only strength. Most people don't operate that way. The vast majority of humanity does not take to nonlinear too well. It doesn't make me superior, it make me a freak. Whatever. =) I can walk you through it, a piece at a time, but it might take more than a few posts before the big picture is clearly visible. That is, if you have interset. If you don't, that's cool. Like I mentioned above, I have a pretty good idea of what people are inclined to pay attention to. I can work with that.

 

[Eventhorizon]

[MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION] I have had conversations with people about many things. A long time ago I used to landscape. I could tell immigrant workers who did not speak English what needed to be accomplished and do so in a short amount of time. When speaking to others who only have ever known English, incapable of explaining to them in a way they understood. Is this lack of ability my fault or the fault of the other person not to understand? Is it that some minds simply operate differently than others, understand differently?

In your position, if you want the world to know what you know, you will have to have someone in your court that can help you or get your ideas to the scientific community in a way they can understand. Spending your time on me, would honestly be wasted because I cannot help you in this goal. While you may enjoy potentially getting me to understand, it does not further your cause.

I don’t envy you. Having something to say and not having learned yet the best way to say it to have maximum effect is not a comfortable existence. I know.

As another note, there are scientific forums and communities I am sure you can find that would be more receptive to your ideas \ truths. While you may encounter much resistance (I understand many scientists with new ideas encounter this) persistence is undoubtedly key. Don’t give up.

 

[Rift Zone]

@Rift Zone

You know a lot about your own spirituality. You know nothing about my own...or 99% of the people's in this thread. This is the issue - you expect us to all have the same spirituality that you have, and this is not the case for me, so I would imagine it's not the case for others.

I am keenly aware of how my spirituality is expressed. Separately, I know exactly what spirituality is. I know how it occurs to humanity. I know it's breadth and depth. I'm not familiar with your specific brand of spirituality. I do not know precisely how you express it or how deeply it matters to your being. I have seen it all before. Your depth and breadth of spirituality will not exceed the depth and breath of humanity's. You are bound within parameters set by your species just like we all are. I have seen those bounds. I know where they are placed. -Those bounds do get a bit fuzzy as you get closer to the edge so existing slightly beyond my understanding of spirituality is a distinct possibility, I'll grant you that. Still, I do know 99% of spirituality, including yours.

Also, in regards to defining religion, you simply told me that you could define one religion...not religion in itself.

What does that mean to you? Lets address that. You already have a blanket definition of religion: religions are expressions of spirituality. Collectively, they are very, very diverse. What they are individually differs. I'll tell you what Abrahamic religion is but you'll get a different answer if you ask about Buddhism or Anasazi.

You're choosing to be combative to them, and not consider some of the excellent insight and experience people have listed in here (I'm not trying to talk about myself, but there's been a lot of great points made, that could expand this topic, but you just disregard them as having no value).

I want to discuss this with you, but tell me why I should? Why should I share my own insights with someone that tells me their wrong and they know more than me?

As far as your perceptions go: you do the exact same thing. You are equally reactionary in that regard. Furthermore, you are wrong about your perceptions. You were born in a world that taught you atheism was the path of spiritual denial. I know that because I exist in the exact same world. Well, the world is wrong about that! The world is wrong about a lot of things that I have been able to identify. There is a possibility your conventional wisdom about spirituality is also wrong. -Scratch that, I have demonstrated this world's conventional wisdom pertaining to spirituality to be wrong. There is a possibility I know more than you. It might be worth considering the possibility that you are referencing philosophies that I will soon supersede -definitively.

I came here to learn from you guys! You have strengths I don't and I would love to for my being to benefit from them. If sharing my strengths pisses you off then cool, I'll keep quiet and you won't have to deal with my blasphemy. I'll learn in the background and stay the fuck away from the religion and science sections. But make no mistake about this: I'm going to rewrite both.

 

[Rift Zone]

In your position, if you want the world to know what you know, you will have to have someone in your court that can help you or get your ideas to the scientific community in a way they can understand. Spending your time on me, would honestly be wasted because I cannot help you in this goal. While you may enjoy potentially getting me to understand, it does not further your cause.

On the contrary, getting a feel for how and where we lose eachother is a very useful tool for me. Of course, what I hear you say is no, your not interested. lol You have a lot of company, like everyone. It's cool man. No offense taken at all.

 

[Eventhorizon]

On the contrary, getting a feel for how and where we lose eachother is a very useful tool for me. Of course, what I hear you say is no, your not interested. lol You have a lot of company, like everyone. It's cool man. No offense taken at all.

Not that at all. Can you try this. You clearly want people to understand what you have to say. Can you put it into a single paragraph, not more than say 10 sentence long and do your best to frame it in a way you think I can understand?

 

[Rift Zone]

Not that at all. Can you try this. You clearly want people to understand what you have to say. Can you put it into a single paragraph, not more than say 10 sentence long and do your best to frame it in a way you think I can understand?

The clearest and most concise summary I've produced to date is outlined in Post #158 of this thread:

World view directly affects our world. That is a causal relationship.

Abrahamic world view represents over 90% of this world and our world is built from it.

Abrahamic world view is crushing to the dreams and aspirations of the population. We live far below our capacity because of it. This world has serious issues thanks to that world view.

Atheist spirituality provides a world view that will inspire humanity like never before. It will inspire us to build a world worthy of our profoundly beautiful and capable selves. Atheist spirituality will save the world.

 

[Matt3737]

Where is this inspiration you speak of?

Also, a spider's web is built with spider silk linearly. Spider's are considered metaphorical weavers. Text comes from the same root word as textiles do.

You are going to have to develop whatever it is you wish to say. I think you should take a break from posting here and set out to do your work if you ever wish to publish it, have it evaluated, and win that Nobel Prize you seek.

 

[Rift Zone]

Where is this inspiration you speak of?

Also, a spider's web is built with spider silk linearly. Spider's are considered metaphorical weavers. Text comes from the same root word as textiles do.

You are going to have to develop whatever it is you wish to say. I think you should take a break from posting here and set out to do your work if you ever wish to publish it, have it evaluated, and win that Nobel Prize you seek.

Take a break from posting here? Let's not get snippety with each other again! If you don't want to talk about this, or see any of it, then there is a clear option for you. (pro tip: stay the fuck out of this thread if you don't like it.)

You have to know who you are before you can be inspired more than what this world provides. We haven't gotten that far yet.

You mean get it down on paper. What I have to say is developed. If you care to listen, you might learn something.

I'll leave this thread alone when everyone else does. If even one person is curious about any of this, I'll share it with them.

I'm going to get a Nobel prize in physics. Humanity is capable of evaluating that. I'm setting the standard in spirituaiity. There will soon come a time when everything "spiritual" will be evaluated against atheist spirituality.

 

[say what]

The clearest and most concise summary I've produced to date is outlined in Post #158 of this thread:

World view directly affects our world. That is a causal relationship.

Abrahamic world view represents over 90% of this world and our world is built from it.

Abrahamic world view is crushing to the dreams and aspirations of the population. We live far below our capacity because of it. This world has serious issues thanks to that world view.

Atheist spirituality provides a world view that will inspire humanity like never before. It will inspire us to build a world worthy of our profoundly beautiful and capable selves. Atheist spirituality will save the world.

I do agree 100% that world view directly affects our world. But my issue is that Abrahamic religion, while dominant for some time, isn't and hasn't been the only view to impact the world. Additionally, even though someone may adhere to Abrahamic religion, their world view may be different than the person next to them adhering to that same religion. While religion does affect our relationship with the world, it's not the only thing that affects this relationship - cultural norms, gender, historical events - I believe our world views are a social construction of the world we live in, and religion is only one part.

I do agree with you that spirituality also impacts our relationship with the world- but where we differ is that I once again believe our spirituality is co-created from this 'social construction' process, and our own internal perceptions/experiences. This means, for me, that my spirituality is different than yours, and the next person. So, to say you know my spirituality better than me, is to say you know my experiences, perceptions, and life history better than me.

While I don't discount your approach to spirituality, which is what I believe to be a strong positivistic pov, I personally don't believe you can take such a subjective construct as 'spirituality', and define it in overarching terms that captures everyone's experiences. Some, like yourself, would disagree- but this is how I feel.

Abrahamic world view is crushing to the dreams and aspirations of the population.

I also have to disagree with this, as many technological, cultural, medical, and scientific advances have been the creative endeavours of Abrahamic scholars. Here are a few people, to my knowledge, who were great creative minds that much of what we know is based off of, and they were all 'religious':

Leonardo da Vinci
Sir Francis Bacon
Galileo Galilei
William Shakespeare
Rene Descartes
Sir Isaac Newton
Mozart
Charles Darwin
C.S. Lewis

These are but a few people who believed in God and found inspiration in their lives, and were able to meet their dreams. So, to say that as a whole, Abrahamic views stop people from aspiring to their dreams, is a bit of an over generalization, as great people who inspired our civilization defy that statement.

Atheist spirituality provides a world view that will inspire humanity like never before. It will inspire us to build a world worthy of our profoundly beautiful and capable selves.

I don't want you to think that I don't think atheist spirituality is wrong or won't inspire humanity, but how is it different than buddism that also sees profound beauty and capability in humanity? Or paganism? Or taoism?

You already have a blanket definition of religion: religions are expressions of spirituality.

I don't believe this. I see religion and spirituality to be separate things. Religion can be an expression of spirituality, but it's not a must. I believe art can be an expression of spirituality, but that does not mean all art is spiritual. What I'm trying to ask you, is to define religion without just saying 'it's Abrahamic'. That's like me asking you 'what is an apple' and you say 'it's a granny smith'...not all apples are granny smith apples. So, what is religion?

Why I ask this, is because I feel as though atheist spirituality, the way you present it, is a religion. So, from my prospective, when you say religion is bad- it rubs me the wrong way, because from the way you've presented what you're saying, atheist spirituality sounds like a religion- just a new religion.

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION]

If it's developed, then when are you going to publish it? I'm not being snippety; I'm being serious. When are you going to accomplish these things you say you are going to do? I can tell you I'm going to be an astronaut and go out to space and that may be entirely true, but I still have to go through with it.

 

[Rift Zone]

Seems like my values were a bit off. That's progress for you! I think I was a lot closer when Earth's population was less than 6 bil. -It wasn't that long ago. Thanks for the update.

I do agree 100% that world view directly affects our world. But my issue is that Abrahamic religion, while dominant for some time, isn't and hasn't been the only view to impact the world. Additionally, even though someone may adhere to Abrahamic religion, their world view may be different than the person next to them adhering to that same religion. While religion does affect our relationship with the world, it's not the only thing that affects this relationship - cultural norms, gender, historical events - I believe our world views are a social construction of the world we live in, and religion is only one part.

The character of the world was still born of Abrahamic religion. This world, our social structures, have not fundamentally changed since the dark ages. The character of the bible has long since defined the character of society. More accurately, the character of the bible was defined by the character of the archaic and barbaric civilizations of old. Fast forward a bit and we see we have become more civilized. I mean we stopped burning/drowning witches over a hundred years ago. That's notable progress! Our technology has grown up around us! Very notable progress there! Our social systems have not progressed, not notably. Again, we are a little more civil now but fundamentally the dark ages persist. We still have a ruling class, we still have widespread subjugation, we have not fundamentally advanced. The reason why is religion is the richest and most powerful entity on the planet. Religion never stopped it's attack on science and it's not about to loosen it's grip on philosophies. Big Bang Theory = ex nihilo = straight out of genesis. That theory would have been proven wrong already if it were not for religion's grip on academia. -I can definitively demonstrate where modern science ignores data and curtails careers if it threatens BBT. Archaic Crust Theory is the same thing:

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

That is exactly what modern science says about continent formation. I guess the world is supposed to ignore the fact modern theory on crust formation is completely contrary to the laws of physics. Modern theory on continent formation is not only wrong, It could NEVER happen that way. Matter does not behave in that manner! Modern theory on continent formation is a lie, a bold face, completely unsubstantiated lie. And you are meant to believe it because religion makes absolutely sure it maintains controls on how the world thinks. "If you can't beat them, join them" is now religion's approach. They can't deny science outright as they tried to do for ages. Now, they subvert from within to make sure progress occurs only where it's doesn't compromise their position.

That grip they have on philosophies... That's the world view we're talking about. It is alive, strong and pervasive irrespective of individual spiritual paths that exist now. The people of this world went from largely isolated to globalized rather quickly. The people who pioneered that carried abrahamic with them and subsequent missionaries assured those philosophies took root everywhere. Specific individuals may not be greatly affected by Abrahamic religion but their world has already been defined by it. It's not about what the individual thinks anymore. The character of the planet has already been established.

I do agree with you that spirituality also impacts our relationship with the world- but where we differ is that I once again believe our spirituality is co-created from this 'social construction' process, and our own internal perceptions/experiences. This means, for me, that my spirituality is different than yours, and the next person. So, to say you know my spirituality better than me, is to say you know my experiences, perceptions, and life history better than me.

Of course you are right about that. It's a two way street. Spirituality applies to everything. Everything we experience is an expression of humanity, and expression of our kin -other species, or an expression of the universe in which we all live. Spirituality and our universe necessarily informs another. I did not say I knew your spirituality more than you. I said I know what spirituality is. I think we still have a disconnect here: how spirituality is expressed and occurs to individuals is what is does. What spirituality is is much easier defined.

While I don't discount your approach to spirituality, which is what I believe to be a strong positivistic pov, I personally don't believe you can take such a subjective construct as 'spirituality', and define it in overarching terms that captures everyone's experiences. Some, like yourself, would disagree- but this is how I feel. Again, same dissconnect. Spirituality is not a subjective construct in of itself. It is the desire to understand ourselves in context of existence, this universe. It is simply the tool we use to give ourselves context and identity. What you have done with that is a VERY DIFFERENT THING!!!!!! Your spirituality = your answers! It is very subjective. It will never be the same between 2 people and I would have a hard time completely defining mine, much less yours. My spirituality is not the questions I pose: who am i? where did i come from? what am I doing here? Those questions are what spirituality is! MY spirituality is the answers I have. We will continue to not communicate about spirituality at all, yours, mine or defined until you clearly distinguish the question from the answers.

I also have to disagree with this, as many technological, cultural, medical, and scientific advances have been the creative endeavours of Abrahamic scholars. Here are a few people, to my knowledge, who were great creative minds that much of what we know is based off of, and they were all 'religious':

Leonardo da Vinci
Sir Francis Bacon
Galileo Galilei
William Shakespeare
Rene Descartes
Sir Isaac Newton
Mozart
Charles Darwin
C.S. Lewis

These are but a few people who believed in God and found inspiration in their lives, and were able to meet their dreams. So, to say that as a whole, Abrahamic views stop people from aspiring to their dreams, is a bit of an over generalization, as great people who inspired our civilization defy that statement.

Suppressing the population is not a guarantee it will completely stop progress. Some of the most intellectually capable people I know are religious -so? That proves what? Also, it's a possibility most of those people valued their careers and social standings. Back in the day, defying the church was a real bad move.

I don't want you to think that I don't think atheist spirituality is wrong or won't inspire humanity, but how is it different than buddism that also sees profound beauty and capability in humanity? Or paganism? Or taoism?

I really like paganism. Their earth affirming approach is a very beautiful thing. Many pagans don't actually believe in the gods they address. They reference their gods as archetypes that reference individual traits of humanity. They are a minor adjustment in terminology away from atheist spirituality. Eastern traditions are pretty cool too, for the most part. Some philosophies they bear I'm not so certain about but their faiths are also worthy and easily reconcilable with atheist spirituality.

I don't believe this. I see religion and spirituality to be separate things. Religion can be an expression of spirituality, but it's not a must. I believe art can be an expression of spirituality, but that does not mean all art is spiritual. What I'm trying to ask you, is to define religion without just saying 'it's Abrahamic'. That's like me asking you 'what is an apple' and you say 'it's a granny smith'...not all apples are granny smith apples. So, what is religion?

Why I ask this, is because I feel as though atheist spirituality, the way you present it, is a religion. So, from my prospective, when you say religion is bad- it rubs me the wrong way, because from the way you've presented what you're saying, atheist spirituality sounds like a religion- just a new religion.

I'm going out on a limb here for the sake of the discussion. Roughly: The answer you seek is "faith". That's among the most pertinent distinctions I draw. If you are mean to believe crap that cannot EVER be substantiated then you have religion. I'm more inclined to categorize Eastern Traditions, paganism and atheist spirituality as philosophical paths that have substantiation, if only philosophical.

 

[Rift Zone]

@Rift Zone

If it's developed, then when are you going to publish it? I'm not being snippety; I'm being serious. When are you going to accomplish these things you say you are going to do? I can tell you I'm going to be an astronaut and go out to space and that may be entirely true, but I still have to go through with it.

Going full force with this right now doesn't make any sense to me given the opposition (momentum?). Discussing it in smaller circles does me a lot of good when it comes to working out the best way to present all this. My nature empowers me in some ways and leaves me hang'n in others so I might have far more to learn here than any of you. I'll go full force with this after I get a little scientific notoriety. What I'm doing now is learning math.

My understanding of properties of the universe is pretty damn good. It was hard won. Virtually every scientist on the planet learns about the properties of the universe through the mathematics of existing theories. I didn't do that. I don't have the math skills to follow the theories as they are written. But I do know what the theories claim. I'm built in a way that enables me to see what aligns with physical reality or not. I know with confidence much of what modern science teaches is wrong. I can effectively express where modern science is wrong in english. Scientific debates about my views demonstrate I have real good idea of what I'm talking about. Still, mathematics alone is the language in which we express physical reality. Not losing scientific arguments as all fine and dandy but it doesn't really mean shit. I'll have to write it down in calculus to provide proof. So, I'm working on expanding my vocabulary.

My understanding of the universe doesn't exist in language. I didn't throw all this together by picking up arguments and working toward these conclusions. I just see it. All of it. I knew what continents were as soon as I learned about the modern theory on moon formation. It took me a decade to realize I was the only one who made that connection. I guess I have physics embedded in me or something. Any computer generated physics better get their arcs and motion perfect or it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Most movies fuck that up. I can outhike most people not because I'm that much better of an athlete, but because my body mechanics are so much more efficient, I can see efficiency in motion. I can read moving water like a cat in the hat book. I'm really good at math... My skills are only up to precalc so that bites... But still, I have always been the top student in math classes. Producing accurate answers was never an issue for me. I've been hired by my college to tutor math. My tutees love me! I "get" math, inside and out... It doesn't take me long to figure out what concepts they are missing. Then I'll throw it at them every which way till they pick it up. Jumping up 2 grade points is the average my tutees have achieved. I'm a padawan math pup. Hehe. Maybe the force runs strong in this one. Maybe not.

I figure if Steven Hawking or Einstein broke out some crazy shit about bringing about a better world, people might pay attention. By the way it looks, I'm grateful I'm capable of correcting science, this cause depends on it.

 

[say what]

Spirituality is not a subjective construct in of itself. It is the desire to understand ourselves in context of existence, this universe...We will continue to not communicate about spirituality at all, yours, mine or defined until you clearly distinguish the question from the answers.

We see the world very differently. Neither of us is wrong or right, but we will not agree, and likely never will, on what spirituality is.

You still didn't answer my questions: I don't want you to think that I don't think atheist spirituality is wrong or won't inspire humanity, but how is it different than buddism that also sees profound beauty and capability in humanity? Or paganism? Or taoism?

I really like paganism. Their earth affirming approach is a very beautiful thing. Many pagans don't actually believe in the gods they address. They reference their gods as archetypes that reference individual traits of humanity. They are a minor adjustment in terminology away from atheist spirituality. Eastern traditions are pretty cool too, for the most part. Some philosophies they bear I'm not so certain about but their faiths are also worthy and easily reconcilable with atheist spirituality.

But how are they different from what you're proposing? It's okay if you're not familiar with these belief systems in detail...but you might want to look into them as it sounds like they might actually capture what you're interested in.

I'm going out on a limb here for the sake of the discussion. Roughly: The answer you seek is "faith". That's among the most pertinent distinctions I draw. If you are mean to believe crap that cannot EVER be substantiated then you have religion. I'm more inclined to categorize Eastern Traditions, paganism and atheist spirituality as philosophical paths that have substantiation, if only philosophical.

So, you believe religion is faith? Or that to be religious you need faith? Do you not have faith in spiritual atheism?

How is having faith in Abrahamic traditions any different than having faith in Easter Traditions?

You may find this of interest to you in defining spirituality, religion, faith, and sacred: http://www.darc.org/connelly/religion1.html


Also, many people believe there is evidence that God exists- these are scientists as well. To say that religion is 'unsubstantiated' is slightly incorrect, because there is evidence - with evidence being broadly defined - that suggests otherwise. I would say that evidence is just as broad as claims made about the universe and it's existence. For me, broad sweeping statements that lump everything into one category doesn't sit well with me. This is just my background and belief, but I think doing that ignores the individual, unique and complex identities that we have as humans.


Anyways, I think it would be valuable for the discussion if you could show how your ideas are different than other religions or beliefs.