All Comments (145)

Oh "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Even most New Yorkers would know the first four flaws in Islam i.e.

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies,

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Hello Daniel in the Lion's Den,

America is the hinterland of Big Apple, no? Those Manhattanites who have never been to Brooklyn or the Bronx and look down on Neeu Jooisee! Those Upper East Siders who have never been to Harlem!

Yes, New York is fabulous. It has everything. Museums, theatres, fashion, art, food from everywhere, though London has better and more Indian restaurants, New York has better Italian ones, and Paris has better North African and Vietnamese ones.

London and Paris is right up there with New York City, but both cities can't compete with New York in autumn with the crisp cool air, taking the Staten Island ferry from NJ coming into the city, passing by the Statue of Liberty. What a sight.

Pssst...don't tell New Yorkers but Hong Kong is also most impressive to behold from the water, and more spectacular for some with the skyscrapers wedged between the hills and the sea.

Best regards as ever.

"J"

The comment above was meant to be a joke, like, "cake is just a delivery system of icing.."

Jihadist

You mentioned all the places for people to go to satisfy their primary interests. What about New York City? Have you ever been there? I think that would satisfy many interests, except perhaps dairy farming. I have only been there a handful of times, the most recent, in November.

Wow! (I man that in a good way).

I think that America is just a "delivery system" for New York City.

Generation Faithful
Violence Leaves Iraqi Youth Doubting Clerics
By SABRINA TAVERNISE

Many young Iraqis, exhausted by constant exposure to the violence of religious extremism after five years of war, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders.

Article continues on Page 1, of today's New York Times.

Gideon;

The 9/11 terrorists, who are now having a wonderful time in Paradise with 72 virgins, blew themselves up for the great sky god who is now rewarding them for their faith and courage with life everlasting, and the best of everything, for ever and ever and ever.

Like you, these brave and well educated young men had no doubt at all that the sky god is an actual god who loves them and requires them to behave in certain ways. And they gladly killed themselves for him, and at the same time removed 3000 infidels from the face of the earth, which is of course what the great sky god wanted of them.

I can't help wondering if you have the same kind of faith as those gutsy young men, or is your faith a different kind of faith?

Maybe the suicide bombers had it right. Maybe this is what the sky god really wants us to do. Kill infidels. If you agree with this, then why don't you martyr yourself? If you don't agree with this, then what is it that says your beliefs are the correct beliefs, and the suicide bombers the wrong beliefs?

I myself believe in cute little fairies. They only appear when I'm stoned, which is why I keep smoking dope. To each his own.

Gideon,

If what you say has any objective merit whatsoever, why does it take faith to believe it? Why hasn't the Bible ever accurately predicted anything BEFORE the fact instead of "predicting it" after the fact?

Gideon,

Superstition and religion differ by quantity and historical origin. Both leave the realm of reason and ignore the chain of cause and effect. They construct cause-effect connections where there are none and replace the rifts by their "faith". The fact that billions of people believe in some religion only proves the plasticity of human minds which are inclined to obfuscate wishes, fantasies and reality and stir the three elements into an unrecognizable mixture, where anybody can "believe" just anything.

The bible did not prophesy anything: There are so many unproven stories to be found in the bible that after the fact you can connect any real event with the "prophesies". To which degree such "belief" can poison a human mind and can create real danger can be observed by "genetic disasters" like John Hagee: He and his fellow demented followers even intend to create the cataclysm they think have been "prophesied". They want to destroy the earth, just to confirm their specter of self-fulfilling prophesies.

Solange:
"Gideon;
Your gullibility reminds me of those poor gullible fools who followed the Rev Jim Jones down to Jonestown back in the seventies, drank his Koolade and accompanied him to Paradise. People can be made to believe the most ludicrous propositions. It pays to be more skeptical and to examine ideas with the light of reason. Superstitious propositions just don't cut it."

Religiosity and superstition are not one and the same. You do violence to the English language to suggest that they are.

I am far from gullible [(adj) : easily deceived or duped; naive, easily cheated or fooled
synonyms: fleeceable, green, naif, naive.]

I studied all the major religious texts in the world without being persuaded to any belief. It was only after a religious experience that I gained faith in God.

The Bible is the only prophetic book in the world and it is unerringly accurate. Having studied International Relations at the undergraduate and graduate level, I had sufficient background in history to see the truth of that salient fact on the first reading.

Of dozens and dozens of prophesies, three are particularly pertinent to our times: 1. Israel would again be on the world stage after 2,000 years of non-existence (and in the year 1948 as predicted). 2. There will be a great war in the Middle East (only the tinder has been lit so far). 3. John said, "I saw as it were a mountain burning with fire cast into the sea."

In this post, as in the previous, I am not trying to convince anyone. I am simply warning everyone. If the cataclysmic event fails to materialize, shame on me. If it does and catches you unawares, shame on you.

It is only in recent times that scientists have become aware of the belt of millions of asteroids that the earth passes through routinely, and the evidence of collisions of these in the past with the earth, wiping out most life on earth. How did John know about it? Not because he was superstitious, but because he believed God who revealed these things to him. BTW there's one headed our way which is calculated to pass between the earth and orbiting satellites. Just a slight error in calculation and...

If it doesn't happen, call me anything you like. If it does, I'll be the last thing on your mind.

Oh, "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

And where would Americans seeking freedom and truth and a listing of the flaws of religions go?

The On-Faith Blog:

e.g. The first four flaws of Islam:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies,

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Hello Gerry,

Thanks for the clarification on what you mean by "proportionally".

Pardon me if I do seem to be hair-splitting on words sometimes, but it is important for me to know so I will be clear in what context you or anyone is coming from. As you know, words means different things to different people and cultures, including in intellectual and religious traditions and usage.

Greenpeace is not a religion, but have a deep, passionate and committed belief that the environment is degrading incrementally every day due to industrialisation, deforestration, global warming etc. They are effective activists in the creating awareness on the environment and taking actions that draw the world's attention.

Got to go.

Thanks and best regards

"J"

Jihadist,

Would never have suspected you to be a Trekie...
Seven of Nine....OHMYGOD.....ooooooooooo....drooool

Arminius

Hello Chris Everett,

Thanks for the elaboration on Ethical Culture.

Actually, the first time I heard of Ethical Culture is from a book on J Robert Oppenheimer, called American Prometheus.

Deed not Creed is a good credo, a good motto of it. Actions speaks louder the words. Who can argue with that?

And yes, that benchmark of countries - "How Much I'd Like to Live There" is a good one. We have the Human Development Index, and now your Human Desirabily Index of a country to live in.

Most others in the world see the US as the land of freedom and economic opportunity judging by the number of people trying to get in there legally and illegally.

Where would Americans would want to go?

I think Americans who desire better health care would want to live in New Zealand.

For gay rights, in Scandavian countries.

For food and culture, France or Italy.

For spiritualism and mysticism in India.

For interesting sex in Amsterdam and Bangkok.

For good hashish in Kathmandu.

For private and secret banking in Bahamas, Switzerland, Monaco, Singapore and Dubai.

For stoning, hanging and beheading in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

For heroin, in Afghanistan.

For stolen church art, in Moscow.

For "hope" and "change", in USA.

For ridiculous politics on race and religion, in Malaysia.

...and the list goes

Thanks and regards
"J"

No, no, no, no, no.....Noooo!

Kirk was an impulsive twit.

Picard was a pompous brain cell.

Sisko was a bombastic moralist.

Captain Katherine Janeway was the best captain of them all in the Star Trek universe.

Janeway was in that quandrant where the Borgs originate.

She was in that quadrant where no man has gone before, especially Captains Kirk, Picard, Sisco.

She brings the rebels and the Star Trek pursuers together in one ship and work as one.

And she got the Voyager "family" home by one of those sci-fi wormhole shortcut while being pursued by Borgs.

...and Mr. Spock who? Data who?

Seven of Nine is so cool and so hot. Don't tell me dorks, nerds and geeks don't have flaring nostrils and heaving biceps for her - Resistance is futile the the Borg collective said.

I object to Seven of Nine being forced to switch specie/beliefs from human to Borg to human again against her will. Where is her free choice on this? Where is her lifeform rights on this?

Down with the Borgs! Down with humans!
For not giving free will and free choice to Seven of Nine!

Go ahead, I'm a Trekkie of the Voyager Denomination.

Seven, beam me up.

Jay Bernstein wrote:

"I converted to Christianity, because I enjoy the idea of Christian forgiveness and love. On a more pedestrian level, I never enjoyed the Hebrew language and have always preferred religious services that were in English."

With all due respect, those reasons seem kind of frivolous. I am not religious so it is hard for me to judge, but it seems to me that if you start off really believing in the Old Testament jealous God who killed all those people after they strayed to the Golden Calf, then you wouldn't want to turn your back on Him just because you "enjoy" an idea, or because of the language of the sermon. And if you didn't really, fully believe in the Jewish version of God, why believe any other? Neither of them seems more convincing. Is it just a matter of taste? I should think it would take some powerful, traumatic feeling of revelation -- a road to Damascus flash of light.

I think these comments illustrate why Americans change religions so often and easily, but I find them a little mystifying.

Regarding Jacoby's original comment: "These are not people who want to get up for temple on Saturday or church on Sunday morning, but they like to watch television shows about angels and teenagers who talk to God."

Such people also seems kind of frivolous, but harmless. Since they do not make a deep commitment to a jealous God in the first place, I wouldn't compare them to Bernstein. I see no harm in these people enjoying a little escapist religion on the side. Perhaps they take these television programs seriously, or perhaps they don't, but anyway, this level of religious sentiment will not cause them to fly airplanes into buildings or burn people at the stake. At worst it is a little irrational. We are all irrational about one thing or another, and it causes little harm. You might compare it to buying a $1 lottery ticket several times a year, which is a mild case of escapist irrationality (and nothing like a harmful gambling addiction).

Jihadist,

"proportionally" means: If the number of prisoners in US jails would mirror the percentage of atheists (8-15% is generally accepted), it would have to be FIFTY times more than it actually is.

Religion affiliation, by logic, thus increases crime (at least as represented in jails) by a factor of 50.

Again, Jihadist, I observe that you are approaching the question of religious truths by an operational, even opportunist measure, when you compare religion to Greenpeace and similar organizations.
Greenpeace never claimed to be a religion. Are you becoming worldly? My sincere congratulations to you!

Jay Bernstein:

"I converted to Christianity, because I enjoy the idea of Christian forgiveness and love. On a more pedestrian level, I never enjoyed the Hebrew language and have always preferred religious services that were in English."

With all due respect, those reasons seem kind of frivolous. I am not religious so it is hard for me to judge, but it seems to me that if you start off really believing in the Old Testament jealous God who killed all those people after they strayed to the Golden Calf, then you wouldn't want to turn your back on Him just because you "enjoy" an idea, or because of the language of the sermon. And if you didn't really, fully believe in the Jewish version of God, why believe any other? Neither of them seems more convincing. Is it just a matter of taste? I should think it would take some powerful, traumatic feeling of revelation -- a road to Damascus flash of light.

I think these comments illustrate why Americans change religions so often and easily, but I find them a little mystifying.

Regarding Jacoby's original comment: "These are not people who want to get up for temple on Saturday or church on Sunday morning, but they like to watch television shows about angels and teenagers who talk to God."

Such people also seems kind of frivolous, but harmless. Since they do not make a deep commitment to a jealous God in the first place, I wouldn't compare them to Bernstein. I see no harm in these people enjoying a little escapist religion on the side. Perhaps they take these television programs seriously, or perhaps they don't, but anyway, this level of religious sentiment will not cause them to fly airplanes into buildings or burn people at the stake. At worst it is a little irrational. We are all irrational about one thing or another, and it causes little harm. You might compare it to buying a $1 lottery ticket several times a year, which is a mild case of escapist irrationality (and nothing like a harmful gambling addiction).

"And Ben Sisko, who was the best Captain of them all"

Blasphemer!!

"As for Star Trek; Kirk was a womanizing swashbuckler who didn’t really know anything. He was the best caveman in space and it worked for him.

Picard was the smart philosopher. More brains than brawn.

Kirk grew into T J hooker and Denny Crane.

Picard became head of the X-men who was no body and all brain."

And Ben Sisko, who was the best Captain of them all, was viewed by the Bajorans as the Emissary to their Gods (the Prophets).

I converted to Christianity, because I enjoy the idea of Christian forgiveness and love. On a more pedestrian level, I never enjoyed the Hebrew language and have always preferred religious services that were in English. After all, it's my native tongure.

Jihadist,

Nice to see you've done some research on Ethical Culture. Yes, it was founded by a Reform Jew and rabinnical student, Felix Adler, in the late 1800's. It's a case of religion being the historical vehicle for ethical cultivation and social cohesion. The genius of Felix Adler was that he realized that THAT was the essence of religion, NOT supernaturalism, and that by decoupling religious experience from the supernatural, the supernatural became moot but the ethical cultivation and social cohesion remained. I recommend reading "The Humanist Way" by Erickson, which presents the history and philosophical background behind the Ethical Culture movement.

As to my statement about religion being a net negative and a trap, of course I haven't conducted a poll, nor do I think a poll would reveal it. The relevant quantity is the OPPORTUNITY COST of religion, which isn't possible for a religious person to quantify. It requires an objective basis for comparison, but religion, by its nature, DEFINES the basis by which its adherents assess value. Not surprisingly, the scales are always tilted dramatically in favor of religion (e.g. Pascal's wager).

To get a feel for what I'm talking about, imagine making a plot of the world's countries in terms of "How Much I'd Like to Live There" versus "Degree to Which Political Power is in the Hands of Religious Authorities". I suspect you'd see an inverse relationship (with outliers, of course - maybe China, for example). Where would the US be on that plot, and how would it be moving, particularly when compared to the nations of Europe?

"Most rabbis still refuse to participate in ecumenical marriage ceremonies because they know that every intermarriage weakens traditional Judaism."

Not having met most rabbis, I'm not qualified to say. It is possible that a Reconstructionist might.

That said, "ecumenical" is rather an odd word choice in this context. Also, how many priests, ministers,imams, et al, will perform intermarriages? Back off a bit on the christocentricsm. The world no longer belongs to you. Check facts first. They always help to make arguments more convincing.

"Most rabbis still refuse to participate in ecumenical marriage ceremonies because they know that every intermarriage weakens traditional Judaism."

Not having met most rabbis, I'm not qualified to say. It is possible that a Reconstructionist might.

That said, "ecumenical" is rather an odd word choice in this context. Also, how many priests, ministers,imams, et al, will perform intermarriages? Back off a bit on the christocentricsm. The world no longer belongs to you. Check facts first. They always help to make arguments more convincing.

Anonymous:

Even if some things remain forever unexplained, I see no reason to just skip over to Step Z and slam a supernatural explanation into the gap.

Tonio:

Some have speculated that the apparent need to believe is actually an evolved survival tactic. http://csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html explains it far better than I can.

Aloha x 2

Oh, "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Distracting yourself with elections, philosophy, ethics, Shakespeare and Proverbs will not make the flaws in Islam disappear. Once again, the flaws that continue to create such a great theological stench and a major threat to world peace:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Er, quick, light and the kitchen sink too response as I'm getting interested in elections in other countries, Russia Now is interesting, and ours coming this weekend ..

Hello Gerry,

You : We don't need any "holy books" to lead a rich and meaningful and responsible life.

Moi : Yes for atheists. And for believers, why not if it does give meaning? And there are atheists who are listless, wasted and lead a meaningless life too, no? Just as there are happy gays, and there are morose gays.

You : For me, as a "spiritual atheist", "spirituality" is the quest for the ideals necessary to live a life of dignity, curiosity, openness, and respect together.

Moi : If I did not know you are an atheist, I would have thought what you said about "spirituality" is from a spiritual religious believer's mouth - from a Sufi to a Buddhist to Arminius.

You : Religion has never "lifted" anybody from the "baser" human nature (50 times as many religiously affiliated criminals in prison than atheists, PROPORTIONALLY!),

Moi : It helps to put the fear of temporal and afterlife hell in some monotheistic believers who sinned, make them feel remorse, to repent and ask for forgiveness and do good afterwards.

Some stats also seem to indicate quite a number or those in the slammer found religion there. Take Mr. Charles Colson. He found religion in prison.

Proportionally as in percentage of all prisoners? Why not in percentage of the total number of atheists and believers?

You : Has religion "raised" the crusaders, the Inquisition, the 30 years' war parties or the 9/11 killers above the "baser" human nature?

Moi : We have learn nothing apparently. We are still on crusades against this and that - war on drugs, war on terror, war on theists, war on atheists.

Where there were once Inquisition as - "Why don't you believe in our own one and only true faith?" Now we also have an Inquisition as, "Why do you believe at all???"

9/11 is reminder of the consequence and cost of hardened heads and hearts, of willful blindness and deafness, of fanaticism, of extremism, of blowbacks, of non-communication and miscommunication, of rage and pride in full throttle.

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Chris Everett,

You : Religion contains many noble ideals, but it suffers from so many flaws that on the whole, in the modern era, it is a net negative.

Moi : You do know that belief is personal, and institutionalised/organised religion derived its credibility from the appeal of its creed as well as its power from the support of its adherents.

Religion/denomination/sect switching is a borometer of how people regard faith and organised/institutionalised religion in their life.

If you must go on again on "flaws" in religion, so again:

(a) individual belief - which many believers would not recant even under pain of death.

(b) organised and institutionalised beliefs -
by authorised state religious authorities or acknowledged and recognised leaders of religious entities and organisations

(c) formulated and institionalised dogmas, creeds and interpretations which some believers also questioned, want to change or do away with, or which believers may endeavour to promote in the public square or impose in state policies.

Is it so difficult to differentiate the individual believer from the group or the head of religious entity, no?

There is a "religious test" that believers have for anyone pursuing a public office. He or she has to believe in the "G" or to be spiritual at least. But there is also a "religious test" some atheists have - one can't speak of one's faith in public, utter the "G" word or even have it inscribed in buildings and currencies etc.

You : In the first place, the ideals it contains are not what we value today. They are those of barbarian tribes, for whom slavery, subjugation of women and warfare were the status quo.

Moi : That would contradict with what scientists says on man a slightly more evolved animal and closest mamalian cousins of the apes as a specie. What was and is call tribes, is also ethnic groups, national groups. We still have slavery (cheap and forced labour), we still have subjugation of women (either by law or by social norms and expectations), we still have wars with better and more efficient killing tools. As you do know, one don't need to believe in God or be an adherent of any religion to wage war.

You : Those who disagree are merely projecting their own, more modern ideals, onto the ancient texts. In that case, why even bother with the texts?

Moi : Well, I hear that a lot - this projection thing. When one reads any book, say Toltoi's "War and Peace" or Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" or Fanon's "The Wretched of the Earth" one does not project one's modern ideas or ideals in the text.

One recognise, if one does, the "truth" being said in those text on the human condition, human nature, human failings, human desires, human needs, human aspirations etc.

So do the holy books, the ones which first relate on man's eternal desire for "hope" and "change" and tabulation of what is good and what is evil in case some of us can't tell right from wrong, what is ethical and moral and what is not. We do bend, spindle and manipulate even lies - white lies is good.

You : Second is the superstition. I've gotten in to that enough. Corrodes the rational faculties. Third is the factual ignorance.

Moi: "Superstitions" as in tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus etc? I can see why some American believers are really irate with some American atheists in characterising and comparing their belief in God with such - implying that they are childish or childlike in believing in God.

Till the end of time, atheists will say to believers - prove there is a God. Believers will say to atheists, disprove it.

Knowledge acquired by science is limited to it as "facts" we know now and to then build up acquire new facts that may disprove old "facts".

The evident truth is that, there is still much we don't know, even whether Obama is the messiah bringing peace and prosperity as many hope for, or the end of days of economic well-being.

You : Fourth is the absolutism and the stifling of learning.

Moi : Well, looking at the reactions of believers, some of us must really be reading quite a bit on evolution to come up with creationism and now "intelligent design".

We chose to learn what is useful to us and what interest us most. Just because one got straight "As" in all science subjects back in secondary school does not mean one wants to pursue them at tertiary level.

From the posts of some atheists, one would think that all they read on are books by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins. And all they watch is Star Trek TV and movie series and Discovery Channel.

You : Fifth are the organizations of religion and their exploitation of the believers. And so on.

Moi : Sects and denominations, especially the local church, were and are the community unity centre for group mutual support and community action. Now we have secular NGOs and clubs to chose from and be members of in areas of concern and of interest to us in developed countries.

Churches in developing countries still serve the purpose for communities. There is a cost, a price for admission of membership, but the tithes is worth it for many. The churches are only ones giving education and health services. Is this really exploitation? And.....

...are evangelical groups and megachurches really exploiting believers in the US? Or do people saw in them a vehicle, a mechanism, a body of like-minded people to pursue what they all agree at the personal level and for public action?

These religious entities as NGOs. We can't say someone who is contributing to, and active in, say, Greenpeace, is because Greenpeace exploited them as environmentalists. It is all freely joined and participated.

One may disagree with the antics of Greenpeace and support staid and sober World Wildlife Fund instead. Likewise, there are faith-driven and faith-affiliated organisations with different focus, strategies and tactics. And they do cover everything from human rights to the environment unlike the secular NGOs which focussed on specific areas.

You : So religious texts must be cherry picked for whatever valuable nuggets they might contain, and must be unequivocally understood as the products of man.

Moi : This is an oft repeated complain by atheist - cherry picking. Is one only limited to quoting from approved texts and authors?

So, believers don't cherry pick and chose "nuggets" from everyone from Marx to Einstein to Hitchens. What is quoted are what resonates with us, what reaches us, what they mean to us.

Argue against the quotes, but to dismiss the quote because the source or text is deem to be "tainted" with "supertitious" claims and orgins is a wee far.

The Proverbs of the Bible has more truths and reason, and do stand better than some pronouncements such as, "I am an anti-theist".

You : Evidence shows that it is only a minority of people for whom contact with religion is a net positive. For the vast majority it is a trap.

Moi : Was there any survey done on this? Of course if Pew did a survey, and it turns out many say their belief is a positive force in their life, some atheists will not accept that, countering that these believers are so deluded and trapped that they don't even know it. What was it George Orwell wrote in 1984? Ah, "Nothing is your own except the few square centimetres inside your head." There I go, cherry picking on quotes.

You : Nowadays, a much safer, truer and deeper reservoir of wisdom exists in the world's great literature (Shakespeare et al). So why turn to religion at all?

Moi : Shakespeare is one of the thousand authors in the world. Just reading him is not enough. He represent a literary benchmark in the Anglo-Saxon world,but his themes is universal. One would also learn much to read, say "The Tale of Genji", "the Arabian Nights/One Thousand and One Nights etc.

But not even Shakepeare can come out with the debate/dialogue as between Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. Is this a literary or spiritual or religious text? Or just a text on ethics and values?

Nor did Shakespeare came out with verse spirituality and spiritualism as such:
"Light upon light! God doth guide whom It will to Its Light."

Do believers need Enligtenment? Too much reminders in the holy books already to seek and be Enlightened in learning from others, in questioning what to do and the consequences of one's acts. And there is a sign by a road I once saw in the US : "Walk with light." Very apt - to have a torchlight for the dark and unlit road. To have the inner light of humaneness/spirituality in the path of life.

You : I think one of the challenges with spirituality is that it ultimately isn't about ideas, but about lived experience. Maybe it's just about cultivating good habits - avoid obsessive thoughts; cultivate empathy; help out.

Moi : As you are an adherent of Ethical Culture, surely you would agree that ethical culture is really ethics and values derived from religion to do good with the belief in God thrown out.

Ethical culture sprang from Reform Judaism. The key words here is "reform" as in change, and Judaism, which is a monotheistic religion. The history of of the origins of Ethical Culture is telling in that it was forged due to awareness of and experiences of discriminations because of race/religion, and the desire to be mainstreamed and assimilated. It was in the second half of the 19th century that Ethical Culture started. Right?

Surely a believer or atheist can be ethical without subscribing or even knowing of and about Ethical Culture or in attending an ethical culture school? Surely we don't have to insist people give up their beliefs in a deity/deities to be inbued with an ethical culture? After all, non-believers do complain that there is too much talk of ethics and morals and values in the holy books, and stringent ones too.

Spiritual secularism? Spiritual atheism? Looking at the history of Turkey and America respectively and currently on seperation of church and state..... the last Sultan, the last Caliph of the Ottomans, seeing what Kemal Ataturk is doing to Turks and Turkey, noted, "It is not the Constitution that form souls, it is souls that form the Constitution."

What does that mean to you?

It would be interesting if On Faith pose this question - "Salman Rushdie noted there is a God-shaped hole in modern life. What does that mean to you?"

Thanks and best regards

"J"

Good point, Neal. It's unclear why anyone would assume that "consciousness, emotion, intuition, cognition" would involve the supernatural in the first place. There's nothing about these that seem supernatural.

Hi Arminius,

As I said before, there's no pressure. Putting something THAT personal on a site like this can be really disheartening if people decide to pick it apart. There are some really angry people out there. If you do put it here I hope that won't be the case. Please don't feel you have to if it doesn't feel right.

Blessed be. :)

Priver,

I'll see what I can do. It ain't exactly earth-shaking. No conversing with burning shrubbery, no Road to Damascus, no stone tablets, or anything like that.

Actually, it might do me good to recount it.

Arminius

HI Neal,you said this:

"Until consciousness, emotion, intuition, cognition and other such concepts can somehow be demonstrated to exist without dependence on the proper functioning of one's noodle, I'm compelled to assume they're natural phenomena and can be eventually explained without appeal to the supernatural. "

I agree with you and I'll take it one step further- that what if even those phenomena that are currently called 'super'-natural might be just aspects of nature that science hasn't figured out yet?

Just my opinion.

Hi Arminius,

Then I shall await with bated breath.. the story of Arminius.

Told as are all great stories in the shadows of the Bards of old, complete with music. (I don't have a harp, will an almost professional singing voice do?) :)

Exuberance is a good word. It seems to be missing in a lot of places these days. We call it 'reverence and mirth'- and it's a huge part of it for us.

And afterwards, the feasting will begin!

Bring your own ale. ;)

I don't know where in Italy my father's folks came from so there *may* be a little bit there if they're from the North. I have no idea where my grandfather's parents were from- he doesn't either. Making the research hard to follow.

I've got Italian, Russian, Polish and who knows what else. Go figure.

In an effort to surrender to the actual topic for once...

Until consciousness, emotion, intuition, cognition and other such concepts can somehow be demonstrated to exist without dependence on the proper functioning of one's noodle, I'm compelled to assume they're natural phenomena and can be eventually explained without appeal to the supernatural.

I agree with others that the term "non-religious spiritualists" seems to be not so much a contradiction as it is a statement of degree. By sharing a belief in the supernatural, many spiritualists seem to be religious people at heart...just without the leaders, dogma and hats.

Aloha

the spiritual and not religiouos crowd isnt just looking for an out, hedging out bets.

personally, i believe in some sort of higher power. i belive that it took some divine act to create everything. i cant believe it just is, i need to belive in something more.

its a need and desire to belive in something, and also part of human nature. we fill in blanks in our knowlegde with divine beings, higher powers.

but as an educated person, i cant belive in any religion ive been exposed to. the specifics are to often ridiculous or contradictory. but i cant help but belive in sommething.

thats human nature.

the spiritual and not religiouos crowd isnt just looking for an out, hedging out bets.

personally, i believe in some sort of higher power. i belive that it took some divine act to create everything. i cant believe it just is, i need to belive in something more.

its a need and desire to belive in something, and also part of human nature. we fill in blanks in our knowlegde with divine beings, higher powers.

but as an educated person, i cant belive in any religion ive been exposed to. the specifics are to often ridiculous or contradictory. but i cant help but belive in sommething.

thats human nature.

loco_moco:

Some good stuff there! "When the student becomes receptive, the teacher appears." Perhaps that is what happened to me. I did not know I was receptive, but I certainly was.

Also, you said, "...I likewise feel no need to justify myself by trying to fit my personal experience into anyone else's paradigm so they will accept it as valid."

Exactly. As you say, a personal seeking. The difference here between you and me, a difference which is no problem, is that I have taken the path of Christianity. The difference between me and those who have been in that religion all their lives is that I came back into it from the outside. And I came back into it with a mountain of skepticism. It took four readings of the Gospels before I was convinced. Note that the Old Testament, and the book of revelations, had no bearing on my decision.

Thanks, let's keep up the dialog.

Arminius

That sentence in my last post should be, "Perhaps 'naturalistic' would be a better term/"

Susan, as much as I admire your writings here, I see your point about social disapproval as missing the larger issue. Theistic religion has claimed a monopoly on questions regarding death, suffering, morality, ethics, the nature of being, and so forth. A big part of the mission of skepticism is to break that monopoly, to establish ways of contemplating those questions without any claims or beliefs about things beyond the material.

Priver,

I will consider relating my experience. If you do write a book about such things - and I think that would be a good thing - I will most certainly tell you about it. Funny thing about it - no big thing on the surface, the big thing was its effect on me. I have described it here on 'On Faith' once before. I need to word it better.

Celtic, ah, yes. Where's my claymore and usquebaugh? From my father's side, Irish and Scot. I am of Clan Scott. I have no problem with Taffy's viewpoint, but the history of Celts, that people of poetry, creativity, and exuberant religion, is fraught with spiritualism. I apparently am in thrall by it, to some extent at least.

With respect,

Arminius

I concur with Arminius on the power of personal experience. Perhaps he'll allow me to paraphrase a quote from a different lineage: "When the student becomes receptive, the teacher appears."

Now, naturally, some of those who have not themselves experienced this sort of paradigm shift are likely to respond that this so-called "evidence" is nothing more than anecdotal.

Far be it from me to dispute this, yet I'm not bothered by it in the least; for I have no desire to convert those folks -- believing, as I do, that only their own personal experience could precipitate a similar conversion.

The corollary is that I likewise feel no need to justify myself by trying to fit my personal experience into anyone else's paradigm so they will accept it as valid.

I am one who counts myself as a spiritual seeker and pilgrim who isn't particularly tied to one liturgy or catechism. Spirit is eternal, but these others are fungible. I'm far from the only one who holds this opinion, and I offer it as one quite benign explanation of why Americans are recently more prone to church-hopping.

"Spirituality can be instinctive, but it is mostly a conscious quest for a state of mind, a state of being just, compassionate and caring, a way of being closer to God and fellow men in pursuing the the Rigth Path for one without transgressing on others."

Jihadist, that is close to what I have in mind. That should work in a naturalistic framework, without any claims about supernatural beings. Part of my point is that there are six billion Right Paths, but too many religions insist that there is only one Right Path for the entire human race.

"secular spirituality...does sound like a state promoted project, a state imposed and sanctioned state philosophy for all its citizens regardless of their personal beliefs."

Why does that sound state-related to you? I was simply using "secular" as the opposite of "religious doctrine about supernatural beings." Perhaps "naturalistic" would be a better terms.

"It is really personal to the individual as how he or she regard the human existence, the human condition, the state of society and what to do about it."

Absolutely.

"Humanism as ethics and values would suffice to be applied for all who pursue an ethical and compassionate life regardless of the sources and reasons for his or her ethical and moral values."

While I agree, my definition of "the nature of human existence" also includes the topic of dealing the inevitability of death and suffering. That's somewhat separate from humanism.

"The experience that led me out of non-belief to belief was not a little like a Pagan event, or at least one a Pagan would appreciate."

Now you've gone and piqued my curiosity, but if you don't want to post it here I will certainly respect that. You really might be surprised, dear Arminius. Try me, if you wish. :)

It's the one thing that I am absolutely curious about, too- and hope to base a book around someday with the permissions granted by those who have had such experiences.

A wise person told me once that 'The universe speaks to us in whichever voice will get us jumping off our duffs and making gigantic changes in our lives'.

My path is also Celtic based, thanks to an amazing Celtic shaman and teacher- even though I don't think I have a drop of Celtic blood in me. It's really odd to me how that worked out. :)

If I can, I'll answer any questions to the best of my ability. :)

And Taffy:

Not all Celts have to be superstitious. You are loved just as you are.

I'm a Celt, from Wales; from a long line of Celts from the Welsh coast...Dylan Thomas country.
I'm a happy atheist. Don't believe in gods or fairies. Why you think a Celt should necessarily be superstitious is beyond me.
Reality is interesting enough for this Celt. I don't feel a need to make things up and believe in magic; the real world is breathtaking just as it is.

Priver, Well Met!

The experience that led me out of non-belief to belief was not a little like a Pagan event, or at least one a Pagan would appreciate. I have many Pagan/Wiccan friends on these blogs. And I must confess to an interest in things Pagan. In my blood, maybe, got a fair bit of Celtic in my background. It resonates....

Arminius

MMA Arminius, you said this:

"The third type is someone who has experienced something in his life that can only be explained by the existence of something beyond the material. Something that turned his whole life around, made a believer out of a three-decade atheist. I am one of the third type. No proof. I can't even rationally explain it. I can relate what happened, but it does not really describe what happened to me. All I can do is leave it at that."

I have had experiences that are very similar to what you describe.. and that led me to Paganism.
Isn't interesting that similar events in two different people can lead to differing conclusions?

I think it's wonderful and should be celebrated as an indication that the Divine loves diversity.

Blessed be. :)

Arminius;

If Newton had been into astrology it would not have surprised me; though I'm inclined to accept Chris's view that he wasn't.
The best and wisest of men are often still men of their time, with the prejudices and beliefs of their time.
Most everyone before about 1850 believed in gods,withcraft, astrology, ghosts and all manner of supernatural phenomena. In those days I probably would have believed it all too. The West was, after all, still Christendom in Newton's time.

But these are enlightened times. No philosopher or scientist these days would consider astrology has having any credibility at all. Ditto other supernatural phenomena.

Chris,

I did a short web research on Newton and astrology. It seems you are correct, and I was misled by false reasoning. Alchemy, yes. Thanks for the reminder.

Regarding spiritual. There is a third type of person beyond those who are into signs and portents, and beyond those who meditate, chant, and examine their navels. The third type is someone who has experienced something in his life that can only be explained by the existence of something beyond the material. Something that turned his whole life around, made a believer out of a three-decade atheist. I am one of the third type. No proof. I can't even rationally explain it. I can relate what happened, but it does not really describe what happened to me. All I can do is leave it at that.

Arminius

Arminus,

I'm fairly certain Newton was not into astrology. If you have any sources I'd like to see them. I've read several biographies of him and have browsed around on the Newton Project website, which has all (or nearly all) of his writings on line, and I have never seen any reference to astrology. He was, however, deeply interested in alchemy and spent far more time on alchemical experiments than on math or physics. He also was an arian (sp?) who denied the trinity and spent enormous amounts of time trying to "reconstruct" true religion from the study of a very broad spectrum of different scriptural traditions. He considered it idolatry to equate Jesus with God.

On the topic of "spiritual but not religious," I associate that term with people who are superstitious in that they believe in the supernatural, but do not want their beliefs to be constrained by any particular religious dogma. They want the freedom to develop their own loose dogma based on their own intuitions.

I associate the isolated term "spiritual" with two different types of people. One type ascribes supernatural meanings to concrete events. These are the people who see signs and portents, practice astrology, interpret dreams, or believe they are psychic. Superstition run amok. The other type comes from eastern traditions, and are those who are interested in understanding, observing, and cultivating their conscious awareness. They are the chanters and meditators. They may be superstitious or they may simply be interested in the nature of subjective experience.

Solange:

You said: "Your gullibility reminds me of those poor gullible fools who followed the Rev Jim Jones down to Jonestown back in the seventies, drank his Koolade and accompanied him to Paradise."

My reply: I don't agree with Gideon either, but I submit that your reply was a bit harsh. A reasoned argument would have been more appropriate, rather than a screed.

You said: "People can be made to believe the most ludicrous propositions."

My reply: Indeed, many can. Witness astrology - although Newton was a fan of that, oddly enough. Also witness our current president and the war in Iraq.

You said: "It pays to be more skeptical and to examine ideas with the light of reason. Superstitious propositions just don't cut it."

My reply: It is possible to be spiritual and religious, and also skeptical. I am accepting of the spiritual, but more than a bit skeptical when I approach the religious.

Arminius

Gideon;

Your gullibility reminds me of those poor gullible fools who followed the Rev Jim Jones down to Jonestown back in the seventies, drank his Koolade and accompanied him to Paradise.

People can be made to believe the most ludicrous propositions.

It pays to be more skeptical and to examine ideas with the light of reason. Superstitious propositions just don't cut it.

Lisa:

Agreed on the charm school bit; I, for one, could certainly benefit. If only we could convert Marie Osmond or Vanna White...