Atheism has finally found its spiritual leader

How does atheism control minds?

A belief in karma is religion.

Yet, while karma is in theory specific to each individual, many aspects of Indian religions reflect the widely held belief that karma may be shared. For example, the doctrine of the transfer of merit, whereby one person can transfer his good karma to another, is found in both Buddhism and Hinduism.
karma | Indian philosophy | Britannica.com

Also my definition, informal
destiny or fate, following as effect from cause.

Karma berng one's destiny, subscribes I thought, to the spiritual belief that we have a life script to fulfill. That is religion, so to speak. Even pantheism, without a western concept of God, still fulfills the spiritual needs of many.

The related belief to Karma is the belief in a divinity that is very involved in one's daily life. I can't be so presumtuous. But Karma's nice, with a smear of cream cheese and some tea and lemon.

Fact.

Yeah! And you old people get off my lawn.

What lawn?

(Kidding, don't know if you have one, but I don't)

Heh, see my present signature.

It's should be well understood that spiritualism need have nothing to do with superstitious mumbo-jumbo such as karma, reincarnation, Abrahamic mythology, new age gibberish, etc. In fact, a logic-based / evidence-based approach can most certainly be used to support spiritualism.

Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion
https://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Spirituality-Without-Religion/dp/1451636024

Slight confusion here between 'spiritualism' and 'spirituality' ?
The first assumes the manifestation of spirits of the dead -the second assumes transcendence of 'self' beyond worldly attachments. It is certainly the case that atheists can commune with such 'spirituality' since all things (from 'gods' to 'selves') can become subject to the rationality of a transcendent holistic position which negates separation of subject from object.

BTW, from the 'scientific' point of view, this transcendent position is related to the Copenhagen convention as advocated by Niels Bohr (whose coat of arms was the Yin-Yang), and to subsequent interpretations of the relationship between 'observer and observed' sometimes deemed analogous to the 'I Ching'.

First of all, you can't have spirituality without religion. The word "transcend" means that you are leaving the realm of science and reason into some other realm where mundane rules don't apply. That is the core of any religion.

Second. I have studied the Copenhagen interpretation while I was getting my Physics degree. Quantum Mechanics is science based on reason and tested by experiment. It has nothing to do with religion.

What I mean by trancendanc is to incorporate (not leave) the realm of science into the realm of theism. One aspect of theism the acceptance that there is a coherent answer tying the science we do know to the mysteries we don't, and that answer involves an intelligent creator. If that makes it a religion - ok.

The idea that it requires you to abandon logic, reason and science is just - wrong, at least if you are trying to universally apply it to all believers in God.

Atheists rightly refuse to be put in the same box. Give theists the same courtesy.

see, thats what we call a worldview. Your "science" requires a head guy incharge as a given. (Youll probably never be able to figure it out one way or the other so your worldview is safe)
Real science starts with an assumption that all things are naturally connected and the "Great causational" events are explainable by laws of chemistry, physics, and their derivative sciences of biology, geology, and cosmology.

I dont think anyone here , fo the atheistic leaning gives a darn about the worldview base you profess. I think, speaking for me, that you merely stay away from on going reserch and schooling of our kids in the laws of science. THATS WHATS NOT RIGHT>

I am guilty , every so often, of non empiricismic thoughts (As Harris said)

Right you are fresco, as to 'spiritualism' and 'spirituality' I overlooked that, and as to your second point, I'll have to read up and think about it some. I am obliged!

They clearly care enough to want to define what my (by proxy) beliefs are. I was merely pointing out that they were wrong about them.


There's what I mean. You are simply wrong about that. I spend a lot of time following the latest research in all fields of science. If you don't care about how I fit that research into my world view there would be no need to comment.

As far as your perceived threat to the children you can rest easy, I'm not a school teacher or board member nor do I advocate teaching God in the classroom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcKbpMIelMo

I don't trust Hindus or Taoists talking about Quantum Mechanics any more then I trust Christians talking about Evolution.

Religion and Science should be kept separate. I-Ching doesn't need Quantum Mechanics. It can be usually solved with a little hydrocortisone.

The courage and will to suspend that very I which 'trusts' or otherwise, is the starting point !...not the bandying about of labels like 'Hindu' or 'Daoist' which carry with them additional religious connotations. Note that the speaker in the video also refers to philosophical post-modernism which is not only the epitome of atheism, but also gives a rational approach on the problems of 'local thinghood' identified by qm.

First of all, "local thinghood" is a religious term. It is not a scientific term. It is not part of quantum mechanics. In all my studies of the science of Quantum Mechanics while getting a actual Physics degree, the term never came up.

Second of all you are confusing the terms "Atheism" means the belief that there are no gods. "Religion" means the belief in some order of things that provides meaning to human existence. Many Atheists are religious.

Third of all. Quantum mechanics is science, specifically it is a set of mathematical models, developed and tested by careful experiment and measurement, that have proven to be accurate in predicting the behavior of sub-atomic particles. It is useful in explaining phenomena related to the behavior of materials and in developing new technology. It is as useless as any other set of equations in explaining the meaning of human existence.

These Mathematical models have no more bearing on philosophy or the meaning of human existence than any other mathematical models.

Science and religion should be kept separate.

Yes, of course atheism is the negation of one sort of religion, but certainly Hindu 'gods' come under that heading.
And when I use 'thinghood' I am merely trying to coin a term which partially identifies that the focus of what we call 'observation' on 'an object having location'. (Observation and objectivity both being philosophical quagmires)
But your apparent claim that the status of mathematical models has no implications for philosophy is breathtakingly simplistic, as indeed is your casual use of the word 'existence' (human or otherwise) since you presumably see it as relating only to 'independent existence of things'.
Also, as a published scientist myself, I am aware that so called 'success' of any paradigm /model is ultimately open to revision, and that a loose consideration of Godel's incompleteness theorem reminds me that axioms are ultimately based on 'faith in continued success' rather than 'logic'. Hence your attempt to separate 'science' from 'religion' tends to be a rhetorical posture, indeed a weak act of faith in itself ( protecting that hard won
degree), rather than a strength.

BTW The Feynman adage which you tend to imply... ' forget philosophy...just shut up and calculate'... is good for countering many critics of scientism, but can hardly be a fallback position on a thread on 'atheism' and 'spirituality'.