patrick.net

marcus says

leo707 says

a vague undefinable "mature" godish/unknowable supreme-being

Interesting that you combine undefinable with "supreme being." Supreme being or even "being" goes a long way towards defining.

Haha, OK...a supreme "maybe-something."

marcus says

I'm not so sure. What about prayer?

I've been to church before. A lot of people put their hands together and think of something else after 2 mins. Or if they talk mentally to God, I wouldn't describe that as particularly 'spiritual'. Maybe I don't give enough credit to people.

marcus says

Who am I to say that a belief is incoorect for someone else ? Even if factually not true, as you discussed above, myth as metaphor (understood as such on a deep level), that is a metaphor for something that is beyond description, is often what modern religion is.

If they believe the metaphor is a fact even when clearly it's not, what's the responsibility of others to correct them?
I'm not sure.

But if they start teaching the metaphor as a fact/dogma to other people, starting with their children, then I think they are doing something very wrong and probably they should be stopped.

It's not a question of ego. The respect of truth is the basis of all morality. There is nothing to be gained by spreading false beliefs, even if benign. (And worse is the bad thinking where self-correction can't happen.) It's damaging to other people who are taught this.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's not a question of ego. The respect of truth is the basis of all morality. There is nothing to be gained by spreading false beliefs, even if benign. (And worse is the bad thinking where self-correction can't happen.) It's damaging to other people who are taught this.

What if they have a strong belief/faith in something that is beyond human understanding and they believe that the myth/metaphor is the bast way or the only way that they know to exercise or give meaning to that belief ?

Who am I to say they are wrong and to tell them how they should live. It is arrogant to "know" that they are wrong, to the extent that I feel I need to help them be more like me.

marcus says

they believe that the myth/metaphor is the bast way or the only way that they know to exercise or give meaning to that belief

If you believe the metaphor as a fact, not only you believe in something false, but you miss the whole point of the metaphor. i.e. You miss the whole spiritual content.

This is why I quoted Jung saying religion is "a defense against a religious experience", and Jesus's warning against dogmatism: "Woe unto them, the dogmatists—for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen. For neither does he eat, nor does he allow the oxen to eat." (Thomas Gospel). i.e. Those that believe in metaphors as facts (or dogma) are not only not accessing the spiritual content but they are preventing others from accessing it.

As an example take the typical example of such metaphor: Genesis. If you believe that God created the world in 7 days and women out of a rib of man, in what way does it make you a more spiritual man? It doesn't. You need to go beyond the surface to understand this.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you believe the metaphor as a fact, not only you believe in something false, but you miss the whole point of the metaphor. i.e. You miss the whole spiritual content.

I guess there's a complexity and subtlety to this that I can't address really well here.

I'm not advocating believing it all as fact (as fundamentalists do). But the way that many of the traditions work is they are taught to children as fact, and later often dealt with as if they are fact, when many understand that taking them literally isn't the point.

Yes, this is almost like an invitation for many to leave if you think about it. And it's why many such as Jung for example find ways to have spirituality in their lives that works better for them.

Heraclitusstudent says

Those that believe in metaphors as facts (or dogma) are not only not accessing the spiritual content but they are preventing others from accessing it.

In my opinion, this is not as a generalization true, although it may be at times. In my opinion most non fundamentalists Christians and also Catholics, that is as adults, treat much of the gospels as metaphor and certainly most of the old testament as not factually accurate.

But, and this is important - many of these people don't experience major conflict over this and don't seriously analyze it. That is they take it as metaphor or simile with out consciously obsessing over whether it's true or not. By definition a parable(for example) is intended to be a 'story' with some kind of instructive message.

leo707 says

It does bother me that I am sure they agonize over it trying to guess what they did wrong; spending an untold number of hours in prayer hoping for god to inspire me back to the "true" path; and sleepless tear-filled nights...

I have also wondered if my parents do this.

My mom still accepts me, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure if my father even knows that I'm no longer "on the side of truth."

My father believes the Christian god saved him from a riptide back in the 80's. He has actually said that "no amount of evidence could convince him otherwise." No, he would never consider the possibility that it was the Muslim god or Zoroastrian god that actually saved him...or the possibility that it was pure coincidence.

He quit his job as a chemist and became a pastor/minister in the far-right Lutheran sect we grew up in. With 3 kids and a wife. He put his wife and kids through hell...4 moves in 4 years. But who cares right? "Anyone who loves his family more than me is not worthy of me" says Jesus.

Ideas have consequences. Vague personal "spirituality" might be harmless. But the delusion of conservative/Biblical-literalist Christianity is *not* harmless.

marcus says

But the way that many of the traditions work is they are taught to children as fact, and later often dealt with as if they are fact, when many understand that taking them literally isn't the point.

I think you are saying that the myth conveys its message whether it is taken as fact or not.

Maybe it does, but stories that worked in a Hebrew tribe 2500 years ago, are not really adapted to the 21st century. They don't really work for us today. For us, it's just dead ink. Childish stories that don't really resound and are preserved as an artifact of past, like the bones of a saint.

freak80 says

But, and this is important - many of these people don't experience major conflict over this and don't seriously analyze it.

I agree, most people don't think about it too much, either because they don't care, or because if they tried to build a consistent set of beliefs, they might be forced to revise some of their core beliefs and this is uncomfortable.

marcus says

But the way that many of the traditions work is they are taught to children as fact, and later often dealt with as if they are fact

The religion I was raised in was taught as fact. If it was meant to be just a metaphor, I wasn't made aware of it. Can young children even grasp the concept of a metaphor at such a young age?

Funny, I just read this article and it reminded me of this conversation:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-07-the-humanism-of-adventure-time-a-cartoon-for-kids-an

"By giving Starchy a scientific cure while indulging him in his delusions about magic, Bubblegum recognizes that some people will always believe in things that are unproveable, and that their delusions should be tolerated so long as they do not negatively impact the rights or health of themselves or others. In doing so, Bubblegum shows us that our desire to know the nature of reality should not outweigh our sensitivity to the beliefs of others, no matter how ridiculous or incorrect they are. Bubblegum therefore teaches us two important lessons: how to better understand the world we live in, and how to interact with those who are set in their ways and prone to belief in superstition and magic."

Go, Adventure Time!

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so a couple of brief replies are in order...

SoftShell says

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. We still have the middle east and their upcoming nuclear capacity to deal with.

Dan8267 says

Luckily this has happened in the nick of time. Another century of religious bullshit and we'd all be dead in WWIII.

Unfortunate, but true. However, I am optimistic that the chance of nuclear war today is far less than it was in the 1960s-1980s.

freak80 says

Isn't the term "fundamentalist" a kind of weasel-word for "anyone who is more religious than I am"? I hear it used often by "liberal" religious denominations to give cover for their own bullshitting.

To the first sentence, yes. It's like saying anyone who drives slower than me is an idiot and anyone who drives faster than me is a maniac. Especially since it doesn't matter who's doing the talking.

To the second sentence, no. You hear the word fundamentalist often used by liberals leftists to give cover for their own bullshitting.

Christopher Hitchens was a liberal. That college professor who said that hate speech on campus cannot be tolerated is a leftist. Although most people use the two words interchangeably, especially conservatives, they have completely different meanings.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

Mythology is a lie.

Campbell would say it's not a lie. It's a metaphor.

The lie is presenting the metaphor as a fact. Examples:
1. Jesus was an immortal deity and walked on water.
2. Heaven is real.
3. There are divine commandments that we should follow.
4. Homosexuality is an abomination.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

Either there would be nothing left, in which case the religion served no good purpose, or there would be something left. In the later case, that something is called philosophy.

Where did that come from?

There is no logic in that.

It is not logic, it is a simple fact. A bowl of water without the water is simply a bowl. A religion without the religious mythology and rituals is simply a philosophy.

leo707 says

Religious people often claim that their own myths are not metaphors, but literal truths.

Yep, Leo beat me to it. Christians do not believe that Jesus was a metaphor of divinity, but actual divinity. Christians do not believe that the resurrection was a metaphor -- which it actually is and predates Christianity by over a thousand years -- but is literally the truth. And that is the lie. Even benevolent lies ultimately lead to suffering when the masses accept them as truth. And there are quite a few non-benevolent lies in all religions including Christianity. Homosexuality being an abomination comes to mind.

Heraclitusstudent says

Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all.

Did Joseph Campbell actually measure that or is that statement just a metaphor? In any case, I'm subscribe more to the Bruce Campbell school of philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/IUdvcrFUiYs

Heraclitusstudent says

There are religious people who accept that a myth is a metaphor, and some who think it is a fact.

There are atheist people who accept that a myth is a metaphor, and some who think it's a complete lie and nothing of value can be rescued from it.

A person who thinks all the myths of a religion are simply metaphors rather than actual facts is not a religious person. Also, a person, atheist or not, can figure out that some myths were intended by some of the writers and preachers to be understood as myths and by other writers and preachers to be understood as facts.

Take prayer as an example. Pretty much all religions advocate praying to their god. Well, prayer clearly isn't a metaphor. It would be completely pointless to pray multiple times every day, especially for important things like overcoming an illness, if prayer were simply a metaphor for getting in touch with your inner moral compass. And the people who pray most certainly believe they are literally communicating with a supreme being though telepathy. That's the difference between metaphors and religion. Or to put it another way...

Star Wars is a mythology. The Force is a metaphor. I can be a fan of Star Wars and appreciate the beauty of the story and its relevance to actual life and that's simply appreciating the art of story-telling as it reveals human experiences and moral choices. However, if I think the Force is literally real, I'm a retard. [Granted, I have occasionally tried to Force chock people, but I never expected it to work.]

Finally, whether or not some good can come out of a lie does not mean the lie is justified. Any lie told long enough, often enough, and that is as influential as the lie of religion will ultimately cause more harm than good. Even more importantly, whatever good can come from the lie of religion could also come out of truth without all the evils of religion.

leo707 says

Anyway, I disagree with Campbell's quote on why people classify themselves as atheists.

I classify myself as an atheist because I am just like I classify myself as an American because I am. However, I do not have any choice in being an atheist. Logic and knowledge dictates that I disbelieve in every god just like logic and knowledge dictates that I disbelieve that anyone claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte today actually is.

I could no more choose to believe that someone's god is real than I could choose to believe that the sky is yellow with pink polka dots. Conversely, if the evidence or a priori reasoning clearly showed that one or more gods existed, I could not disbelieve in them any more than I can disbelieve in the irrationality of the square root of two.

Of course, what makes me vocal against religion is the entire history of the world up to and including right now. Religion and superstition have always cause great harm and destruction and today is no different. Furthermore, every day religion does great harm to civil rights, education, and social justice both within American and across the world. And yet, there is absolutely no good that the lie of religion might produce that cannot be obtained without religion: charity, compassion, acceptance of death, etc. There is always a better way than continuing the lies that have caused the rape, torture, suppression, and murder of billions throughout history.

Dan8267 says

Yep, Leo beat me to it. Christians do not believe that Jesus was a metaphor of divinity, but actual divinity. Christians do not believe that the resurrection was a metaphor

Dan8267 says

A person who thinks all the myths of a religion are simply metaphors rather than actual facts is not a religious person.

Dan8267 says

Take prayer as an example. Pretty much all religions advocate praying to their god. Well, prayer clearly isn't a metaphor. It would be completely pointless to pray multiple times every day, especially for important things like overcoming an illness, if prayer were simply a metaphor for getting in touch with your inner moral compass. And the people who pray most certainly believe they are literally communicating with a supreme being though telepathy. That's the difference between metaphors and religion.

Agree.

The whole "religion is just metaphor" idea is popular in some circles, but they don't seem to understand what it's like to actually *believe* in a religion.

Or at least they don't understand what it's like to believe in the religion I was raised in (conservative Lutheranism).

I *really believed* that Jesus was God, that he rose from the dead, that I would go to heaven if I was a believer, and go to hell if I ever fell away.

I actually had panic attacks during my whole "de-conversion" process. I was literally terrified of an imaginary being!

http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/terror.htm

My de-conversion was a lot like "taking the red pill" in the first Matrix movie. Everything that I thought was real turned out to be false. There was real physical sickness in addition to all of the psychological trauma.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/IpNRw7snmGM

http://www.youtube.com/embed/t5gm9hoTw6Y
Now, I'm suggesting we've made an advance.

Well said.

Dan8267 says

Christians do not believe that Jesus was a metaphor of divinity, but actual divinity. Christians do not believe that the resurrection was a metaphor -- which it actually is and predates Christianity by over a thousand years -- but is literally the truth.

I'm not interested in revisiting this argument with you. In fact I just yesterday took you off ignore. It's your call.

But I'll say this, I've posted videos from Bishop Spong several times. Who knows, maybe you've listened to him. There are a huge number of Christians that see Jesus as symbolic or are unsure of his literal divinity, or even how true his existence was, and aren't troubled by that. They still may prefer to think of jesus as being real and the son of god, but if you were to pin them down,..it's a different story. Spong says that at the most respected divinity schools and seminarys they do not take the bible anything close to literally.

Many priests are from rigorous academic backgrounds. They studied a lot latin and greek and are relatively intellectual. They had Jesuit teachers that helped them navigate a lot of the difficult questions.

I'm not talking about fundamentalists. I'm talking about Catholicsm, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbytarians and a few other major (non fundy) protestant religions. The clergy and many of the parishioners or members are far more mature about their faith than you give them credit for.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6AfFcAmx-Ro

marcus says

There are a huge number of Christians that see Jesus as symbolic or are unsure
of his literal divinity, or even how true his existence was, and aren't troubled
by that. They still may prefer to think of jesus as being real and the son of
god, but if you were to pin them down,..it's a different story. Spong says that
at the most respected divinity schools and seminarys they do not take te bible
anything close to literally.

So what's left then? Just a vague personal faith in some incomprehensible gobble-de-gook? I suppose that's relatively harmless, but what's the point? Isn't life too short for bullshitting?

As far as I can tell:

Conservative (or "Fundamentalist") Christianity = Wrong*
Liberal (or "Mainline") Christianity = Not Even Wrong

*(factually, scientifically, historically, logically)

Dan8267 says

A person who thinks all the myths of a religion are simply metaphors rather than actual facts is not a religious person.

That is my thought as well, however...

I have read writings of "Christian" Unitarian Universalist that pretty much boil down to looking at everything in the bible metaphorically, yet they still call themselves Christian. They take the stories in the bible to heart, try and follow the lessons, observe Christian rituals and traditions, etc. Hmmm...sounds a little bit like someone who realizes the force is not real, yet still goes through the motions of the occasional force-choke. ;)

Who am I to argue and split-hairs with how someone who wants to define themselves even if I disagree. It is kind of like the people who identify as straight, yet have the occasional same-sex encounter. I would call that bi-sexual, but *eh*...

Then there are the people who never have experienced spiritual ecstasy, and don't believe any of the superstitious mumbo-jumbo but believe in the community surrounding a particular religion and identify as a member.

Dan8267 says

A person who thinks all the myths of a religion are simply metaphors rather than actual facts is not a religious person.

The pope thinks Genesis is metaphorical.

Dan8267 says

Well, prayer clearly isn't a metaphor.

Prayer is not a myth either.

leo707 says

I have read writings of "Christian" Unitarian Universalist that pretty much
boil down to looking at everything in the bible metaphorically, yet they still
call themselves Christian. They take the stories in the bible to heart, try and
follow the lessons, observe Christian rituals and traditions, etc. Hmmm...sounds
a little bit like someone who realizes the force is not real, yet still goes
through the motions of the occasional force-choke. ;)

Yeah that's my take on most of the "mainline/liberal" Christian denominations I've encountered. It's a lot of "beliveing what you know ain't so" as Mark Twain put it.

I've never had the ability to "believe what I know ain't so."

When I was a young child I had to have blood drawn. The nurse wanted to give me a "magic rock" that would make everything ok if I just held it in my hand. But that just made me angry and I refused to hold it.

Dan8267 says

And the people who pray most certainly believe they are literally communicating with a supreme being though telepathy. That's the difference between metaphors and religion. Or to put it another way...

Religion, in a way, is how the right brain rationalizes what the left brain is saying. In that framework, "praying" is the right brain getting in tune with and experiencing the left brain. In that sense, praying, "talking to God" can in fact still be a metaphor of what is actually happening.

Jung described the role that myths played. It's not that this is better than knowing exactly how the world works, but people who didn't know any better needed that. It just so happens that rationalizations made 500 yrs before Christ are a bunch of toxic crap for us now.

freak80 says

I actually had panic attacks during my whole "de-conversion" process. I was literally terrified of an imaginary being!

Rational people must leave their religion, abandon all faith, give up the dogmas, the rituals and the rules.
Then they can look back and find what it is actually about.

See Karen Armstrong for example. She was a nun, had a crisis, abandoned her faith, but then studied other religions and experienced a spiritual awakening. Campbell also abandoned his faith. You can't adhere to a dogma and experience spirituality.

Heraclitusstudent says

experienced a spiritual awakening. Campbell also abandoned his faith. You can't
adhere to a dogma and experience spirituality.

But that's what I don't get. What is "experiencing spirituality"? Is it an emotion? Is it simply another word for "joy" or "happiness?" Is it "loving a free and feelin' spirit, hugging a tree when you get near it?"

I remember that NPR had an article titled "Is This Your Brain on God?" a few years ago:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741

freak80 says

But that's what I don't get. What is "experiencing spirituality"? Is it an emotion? Is it simply another word for "joy" or "happiness?" Is it "loving a free and feelin' spirit, hugging a tree when you get near it?"

It can't be told in words.

That's why metaphors are needed.

To keep with the thread premise: "Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. "

leo707 says

Who am I to argue and split-hairs with how someone who wants to define themselves even if I disagree.

Exactly. Even if you "disagree," it isn't that you disagree with how they define themself and their frame of reference on spiritual matters.

(speaking of splitting hairs)

Rather than "disagree" it's probably more accurate to say that your experience and the way you interface with the world and experience the spiritual aspects of life is different then how they do.

If you listen to nothing else of the Bishop SPong video, I would recommend 17:00 - 24:00. He even talks about Dawkins.

I can understand not being able to comprehend Spong's point of view, and I can understand if one has never had the kind of spiritual experience he has. But what I can not comprehend is an atheist that condemns his point of view.

Heraclitusstudent says

To keep with the thread premise: "Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. "

+1

marcus says

In fact I just yesterday took you off ignore

Please put me back on ignore.

Does anyone else get the impression that Marcus never actually puts people on ignore and just says that he does as a way of whining? It seems that he's constantly responding to the people he's ignoring and it's just an amazing coincidence that he took them off ignore the day they post something.

Either really ignore a person or respond intelligently to his posts with well thought out counterarguments.

leo707 says

I have read writings of "Christian" Unitarian Universalist that pretty much boil down to looking at everything in the bible metaphorically, yet they still call themselves Christian. They take the stories in the bible to heart, try and follow the lessons, observe Christian rituals and traditions, etc. Hmmm...sounds a little bit like someone who realizes the force is not real, yet still goes through the motions of the occasional force-choke. ;)

Sounds more like people who dress up as Jedi, Storm Troopers, and Klingons while not at Comicon.

I find it highly illogical that someone would sit, stand, kneel, pray, and go through rituals for an hour a week with others if they didn't believe in an imaginary supernatural being watching them do this. Do these "Unitarian Universalist" pray to a spirit they don't think literally exists but simply symbolizes good? Are they praying ironically?

leo707 says

Who am I to argue and split-hairs with how someone who wants to define themselves even if I disagree. It is kind of like the people who identify as straight, yet have the occasional same-sex encounter. I would call that bi-sexual, but *eh*...

What I don't get is all the butt sex in prison by alleged heterosexuals. I know there are no women, but going without a woman for ten years isn't going to make me want to play naked leapfrog with other guys. Does anyone have an explanation for that?

Or is the whole prison rape thing a myth?

leo707 says

Then there are the people who never have experienced spiritual ecstasy, and don't believe any of the superstitious mumbo-jumbo but believe in the community surrounding a particular religion and identify as a member.

Ecstasy is the perfect word. Just like with the drug, the experience you get from religion is fake. Sure it feels like the whole world or some unseen being loves you, but it's just a delusion brought on by the drug ecstasy/religion. It's not real and not knowing that is dangerous.

Before the War on Drugs, religion and drugs went hand in hand. Somehow I suspect there's a connection between all those spiritual visions and mind altering drugs. Didn't hippies in the 1960s call LSD a spiritual experience?

Speaking of drugs. Someone should found a church that uses pot as a sacrament. That would make the War on Drugs unconstitutional.

Heraclitusstudent says

The pope thinks Genesis is metaphorical.

When he thinks that the resurrection of Jesus is a metaphor, we can talk.

Heraclitusstudent says

Prayer is not a myth either.

But it is a lie. Praying for a cure to a terminal disease isn't going to help. Western medicine can.

Didn't South Park do an episode on this with Mexicans posing as Native Americans? Same idea. Snake oil is snake oil.

freak80 says

It's a lot of "beliveing what you know ain't so" as Mark Twain put it.

It's not a lie if you believe it. - George Cantstandya

Well, actually lying to yourself can be very dangerous. It leads to making important decisions on false information. And why lie to oneself anyway? What can you gain from it that you could not gain through a better way?

Heraclitusstudent says

Religion, in a way, is how the right brain rationalizes what the left brain is saying.

Not sure I buy that, but in any case, as Penn stated, reality is not affected by your own personal desires and perspectives. The tree is still there if you look away. And this is important if you happen to be driving straight towards it. Another example... Looking away isn't going to make that train heading towards disappear. Better to acknowledge reality and get your ass off the track.

Heraclitusstudent says

Jung described the role that myths played.

I have no problem with myths as long as people understand that they are myths, not historical facts and not unquestionable doctrine for driving laws.

I happen to enjoy many myths from Star Wars to Harry Potter to Legend of the Seeker to Xenomorphs to Skynet to zombies. However, I'm not going to advocate using the military to round up and execute Death Eaters or make FEMA set up zombie refugee camps. And I'm sure as hell not going to elect politicians to make witchcraft a capital offense.

The religious, by contrast, greatly lobby politicians to use the violence of the state to impose their will and ideology on others. Just look at the marriage equality debate. Only those whose minds have been corrupted by religion want homosexuals to have fewer civil rights and financial opportunities and a higher tax burden than straights. These aren't arguments about nomenclature, but extremely important rights and legal powers and tax codes.

Such things should not be based on someone's mythology. It would be like me demanding not to pay real estate taxes because I practice force chocking in my living room and that my neighbors can't get married because I had a vision that it would cause a great disturbance in the Force.

freak80 says

What is "experiencing spirituality"? I

Whenever people say they had a "spiritual" experience, what they really mean is they had an "emotional" experience. It all happened in their mind whether or not they believe that. And quite frankly, it is both more honest and more productive to acknowledge that such experiences are psychological not supernatural.

Heraclitusstudent says

It can't be told in words.

That's why metaphors are needed.

1. Just because you cannot express something in words, does not mean it cannot be expressed in words. Great poets and playwrights have expressed emotions and experiences that others said could not be expressed in words.

I am highly skeptical that there is anything humans can experience, or anything in the universe, that cannot, in principle, be expressed in language. I would suggest that people consider that language might be far more powerful, extensible, and wonderful than they currently realize.

2. Most metaphors, and all metaphors in religious texts, are composed of words.

3. Even if something could not be expressed with language, even in principle, that would not make it supernatural. Nor would a supernatural substitute for the truth be any less of a lie.

Heraclitusstudent says

"Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. "

Except, of course, you can be told what the Matrix is using words.

Not to get to sci-fi, but the entire human brain could be represented by an XML file. Granted, it would be a big ass XML file, but it would be finite and we certainly have sufficient storage space available for it today.

So, one could build any human brain that has every existed or will ever exist from an XML file that describes the current state of that brain. This is just like taking a snapshot of a virtual machine.

Thus, anything that a human brain could experience, can be rendered in XML. I just made a constructive proof that anything you experience can be rendered by language. Think about that.

Dan8267 says

Please put me back on ignore.

Okay. I took you off because I read (in chrome incognito window (easiest way to read an ignored post if you are curious from the front page - or from partial quotes of ignored comment in thread I am active in)**. I actually agree with and liked some of the points you made in another thread (regarding race)).

But I got you, and you're right. You prefer I ignore you and I understand what that means. As I have shared before, I understand your point of view on religion very well, as I was where you are some 40 years ago as an adolescent. Well, never quite to the degree you are. You have no idea where I'm coming from, and interestingly don't want to or dare I say, even arrogantly need to not understand where I'm at.

Heraclitusstudent says

Religion, in a way, is how the right brain rationalizes what the left brain is saying. In that framework, "praying" is the right brain getting in tune with and experiencing the left brain. In that sense, praying, "talking to God" can in fact still be a metaphor of what is actually happening.

This makes sense, but will not be comprehended by some, and also maybe it's backwards, ie how the left brain rationalizes what the right brain is saying.

Protip: Never argue religion with an atheist that is excessively left brain dominant to such an extent that either the right brain barely exists or where the communication between the hemispheres is somehow retarded compared to normal.

Note: Edited because I had right and left reversed above.

** Dan: It's fine if you don't believe this it about me taking you off of ignore yesterday.
It wasn't just because I liked what you said in that other thread, it's also because this thread had come back up, and from the incognito window, I saw that you had not been in it. But I get it. Hey, people come to these forums for different reasons. In your case one of the reasons is something I can't relate to. And I'm not talking about religion now.
Hint: I'm not a teacher and I don't have a masters degree in Math, and you're so much smarter than me because you learned what a priori knowledge or reasoning is etc etc etc.

marcus says

I actually agree with and liked some of the points you made in another thread (regarding race)

I think that if you two could learn to act civil on the topic of religion you would agree on many topics.

leo707 says

marcus says

I actually agree with and liked some of the points you made in another thread (regarding race)

I think that if you two could learn to act civil on the topic of religion you would agree on many topics.

There's no need to be insulting. :)

Actually, I don't really care whether or not I agree or disagree with someone on a topic as long as it's not a deal killer like:
- honor killing rape victims is good
- slavery was justified
- the lives of foreigners are worthless

What I don't stand for is
- trolling
- disingenuous arguments (Straw Man, deliberate misrepresentation of facts, twisting a person's words to mean something you know they don't, etc.)
- complete lack a emotional maturity

I can't stand those things even if the person is agreeing with me.

But I certainly wouldn't dislike a person simply because that person
- believed in superstitions/religions
- thinks Reaganomics is a good economic policy
- is on Team Edward
- thinks Zimmerman is a hero
- loves or hates guns
- thinks Star Wars is overrated
- can't do math to save his life
- thinks Obama or Bush was a good president

Actually, I know I'm friends with people who are at least one of the above (except maybe the Zimmerman thing because I've never discussed that outside of Patrick.net).

My dislike of Marcus is based on his willful refusal to engage in mature, adult debate rather than juvenile name calling. Granted, I've chewed out many a troll in my life (perhaps more than I should), but I consider that different than bucking someone who's willing to engage in an adult debate.

Of course, I'm always willing to give someone another chance if I think there's a decent chance they are willing to play along nicely.

Dan8267 says

The tree is still there if you look away.

I share this assumption.

Dan8267 says

The religious, by contrast[...]
Such things should not be based on someone's mythology.

Agreed.

Dan8267 says

Whenever people say they had a "spiritual" experience, what they really mean is they had an "emotional" experience.

Ok I'll let that stand.

Dan8267 says

I am highly skeptical that there is anything humans can experience, or anything in the universe, that cannot, in principle, be expressed in language.

Since we are talking of emotions, let's take an example: beauty.

Can you describe the feeling of beauty in words? Well you can try.
If the person across has experienced something similar to beauty, she may get a sense of what you are trying to say.

Since you haven't experienced the spiritual "emotion", there is no word that would be meaningful to you to describe it. It's like trying to explain Leonardo to someone blind from birth.

Dan8267 says

Just like with the drug, the experience you get from religion is fake.

In what sense is it fake? Because you don't experience it? Well others do.

Or because it's not something something physical or tangible or shared?
Beauty is not something physical either, or tangible. People don't all agree on where it is.

Or does it mean it shouldn't be relevant in people's life?
Here goes beauty. It's not rational, so the great Dan8267 decided it should be eliminated.
Thank you very much!

Dan8267 says

Thus, anything that a human brain could experience, can be rendered in XML. I just made a constructive proof that anything you experience can be rendered by language. Think about that.

Yeah right.
The problem you are still apparently not getting, is that having this file will never give you experience of beauty you described in it. You can't inject it back neither in you, nor in someone else, and therefore you have failed to communicate it and you have failed to render it in a useful language.

Heraclitusstudent says

It can't be told in words.

I don't know...there is no secret spiritual mystery, only available to cloistered masters. People either experience spirituality or they don't, sure there are triggers -- prayer, meditation, ritual, etc. --, but no order/church/individual has a special truth. It is like being able to see colors, some women's eyes have an extra color receptor and can see colors that we don't even have words for. Others can't see color at all. There are levels of being able to see color.

Some people are just unable to feel the extremes of spiritual ecstasy, for some it peaks at an "emotional" level. We can't (to my knowledge) let the colorblind see colors, but those incapable of spiritual experience can always tryout a God Helmet.

Anyway, I think that we do have the vocabulary to explain it in words.

Dan8267 says

freak80 says

What is "experiencing spirituality"? I

Whenever people say they had a "spiritual" experience, what they really mean is they had an "emotional" experience.

Ummm...maybe...*er*...sort of. I think that it can be just an emotional experience.

Dan8267 says

Ecstasy is the perfect word. Just like with the drug, the experience you get from religion is fake. Sure it feels like the whole world or some unseen being loves you, but it's just a delusion brought on by the drug ecstasy/religion. It's not real and not knowing that is dangerous.

Yeah, drugs and religion often go hand-in-hand, but I believe drug experiences are somewhat different. Drugs can give a somewhat reliable experience, and each drug experience is different. Alcohol is going to put one in a different emotional state than marijuana or cocaine. They all can feel good, but they are different. I believe that some drugs may get close to the religious experience, but it is still different. Kind of like how runners-high is like being on cocaine, yet not quite the same.

I don't think that the religious experience itself a lie-fake-metaphor-delusion, it really does happen to people. But, yeah, I don't think anyone here would argue that it can not be dangerous.

I believe that the full-blown experience can include hallucination (auditory, visual, kinetic), but unlike insanity or a drug one is in-control and somewhat lucid. It comes and goes, but generally not on it's own -- unlike mental illness. I think people can bring it on themselves through prayer, meditation, rituals, whatever (dogmatic or otherwise)...

Imagine knowing that God(s)/spirits/angels exist...feeling, hearing, seeing...just a surely as you see your own hands, or the clothes you put. There is no empirical proof of the spiritual, but people know the truth they have seen, felt and touched the evidence. People grasp for answers as to what causes this and the religion de jour.

This is what the atheist is up against. There are people that they will never convince that prayer is a waste of time, because prayer does work, just not in the way that the person praying thinks that it does. Through prayer they can see, hear, and/or feel God(s), they know that their prayer holds weight. And...because coincidence is much more common that most people realize they often get real life confirmation of what they already know.

I think that the lie is that the pure joy one can derive from spiritual experience has any greater truth, or makes people inherently happier. People who feel the ecstatic joy of true faith can't imagine living without it, and don't understand why others don't feel the same (Of course you can see colors, you just have not tried hard enough yet!). Plenty of people who's lives are devoid of spirituality are perfectly happy -- or perhaps more happy and fulfilled than that of many people who take religion too seriously. The idea that everyone has a spiritual void/hole that needs filling is a myth.

Ah--anyway that is my first stab at explaining it a bit...

Heraclitusstudent says

See Karen Armstrong for example. She was a nun, had a crisis, abandoned her faith, but then studied other religions and experienced a spiritual awakening. Campbell also abandoned his faith. You can't adhere to a dogma and experience spirituality.

I am not so sure about this. It sounds a bit to me like, “they are not doing spirituality right.”

I don’t think that there is any “right” way to get in touch with ones spirituality. There are many ways one can connect and open the spiritual part of themselves, and I would be willing to bet that the live of a dogmatic fanatic is steeped with intense spiritual experience.

leo707 says

I think that the lie is that the pure joy one can derive from spiritual experience has any greater truth, or makes people inherently happier.

I disagree. There is something about finding a center point in oneself that makes people psychologically more healthy and stress free.
It's been shown people who meditate live longer and control stress better.

leo707 says

Plenty of people who's lives are devoid of spirituality are perfectly happy

Yes - until bad things happen and they are unhappy. Life is such that good things happen, and bad things happen. Spirituality is there to elevate you above the vicissitude of life.

leo707 says

I don’t think that there is any “right” way to get in touch with ones spirituality.

What I meant was that dogma is not a good way to teach spirituality. On the contrary it's a good way to prevent people from accessing it. Once they are stuck with the concepts and rules of the dogma, they never go beyond them.

Heraclitusstudent says

leo707 says

I think that the lie is that the pure joy one can derive from spiritual experience has any greater truth, or makes people inherently happier.

I disagree. There is something about finding a center point in oneself that makes people psychologically more healthy and stress free.

It's been shown people who meditate live longer and control stress better.

From what I understand those studies focus on mindful meditation. This type of meditation is not inherently "spiritual", and can be practiced entirely as a mental exercise. But, yes it is beneficial and can trigger spiritual experiences (some "masters" would view such experiences as distractions to be worked through). There is no "magic" to it. People use all kinds of mental exercises in their daily lives.

Yes, a more balanced stress-free life, but mystical secrets? No.

Heraclitusstudent says

What I meant was that dogma is not a good way to teach spirituality. On the contrary it's a good way to prevent people from accessing it. Once they are stuck with the concepts and rules of the dogma, they never go beyond them.

I agree that it is not a good way to teach spirituality -- particularly for those that disagree with the dogma. However, dogmatic traditions can be very effective at getting people to trigger spiritual experiences. This is why they often can not go beyond the dogma, they begin to believe that the priest-prophet-master...whoever is "guiding" them has the one-true way of triggering the spiritual experience. And they want more...

Heraclitusstudent says

leo707 says

Plenty of people who's lives are devoid of spirituality are perfectly happy

Yes - until bad things happen and they are unhappy. Life is such that good things happen, and bad things happen. Spirituality is there to elevate you above the vicissitude of life.

Yep, life has its ups and downs. Spirituality is one of many coping mechanisms that people can use to deal with this. However, it is not the only -- or I would say even best -- tool in humanity's toolbox to handle (un)happy times.

Okay DAn, I did put you back on ignore.

Dan8267 says

My dislike of Marcus is based on his willful refusal to engage in mature, adult debate

Says the guy who is ignored by 9 people. I'm ignored by one.

marcus says

Okay DAn, I did put you back on ignore.

Dan8267 says

My dislike of Marcus is based on his willful refusal to engage in mature, adult debate

Says the guy who is ignored by 9 people. I'm ignored by one.

So, close!

Dan8267 says

Of course, I'm always willing to give someone another chance if I think there's a decent chance they are willing to play along nicely.