1
   

What separates the religious from the non-religious?

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 10:09 am
Wilso wrote:
neologist wrote:
Wilso wrote:
Eternal life v's Rotting in the ground. Which do you think the weak minded will choose?
Tell us. Which one will you choose?


We're both going to rot in the ground pal. The difference between you and me is that I'm not scared of it.
First, I don't believe in an immortal soul.

Second, I am not afraid of death.

Still, there are some things left to free will.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 10:15 am
Asherman wrote:
. . .
Neologist,

"Eternal life v. Rotting in the ground. Which do you think the weak-minded will choose?"

There is no choice between the two. "Dead is dead", in the immotal words of Young Frankenstein. The result is the same no matter what an individual might choose. A better wording of your second sentence might be, "Which do you think the weak will choose to believe in?" Choices like this one is equally available to the person regardless of whether they have a wall filled with degrees, or is so feeble-minded that nothing more than minimal literacy is ever possible. At both ends of the intellectual capability spectrum the result is the same ... a matter of personal belief that is ultimately meaningless.

I choose to believe that death is as illusory as life. To "die" is to have a moment of awakening that holds the potential for total extinction and merging back into that from which we never left.
What few seem to realize is that the bible says the same about death. When you're dead, you're dead.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 11:32 am
I would like that, Ash, but let's try not to talk about Buddhism and politics: we are too close on the first (no need for talk there) and too distant on the second (talk would spoil the visit there). I'd love to hear your thoughts on painting and everything else---and just eat, drink and do zazen together.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 11:49 am
Hopefully next year we'll have the finances for a visit to Texas. We have some old friends who are building a house in Austin, and I have a nephew that I should visit somewhere over there. The lad has had a hard life, and he's been out of touch with me for awhile. As head of family, I need to check up on him. Oh well ....

I no longer sit in the Lotus. The important thing isn't sitting on the floor, but maintaining correct posture and even more important, remaining focused. Every moment is meditation. We lose focus sitting and go to sleep; we lose focus typing a post, and fail to communicate clearly. Lose focus driving and someone ends up suffering in the hospital. Still, sitting is how we were trained and it certainly is the very best way to introduce discipline to those just starting on the Path.

If you should be traveling in this direction, know that you have a guest room here at Corazon for as long as you like. We are an unofficial B&B. I think you might enjoy a visit to Acoma, a Pueblo west of here that retains much of its traditional culture. The ladies love shopping, and eating well. Come on down, if it pleases you. Just let us know when, and whatever we might do to make your visit a pleasant one.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 12:35 pm
Half of the people in our sangha sit in chairs. I no longer sit the half lotus; I use the very comfortable burmese posture.
I recently deceased archaeologist friend of mine, Ed Dittert, studied Acoma for many decades. The place, one of the oldest in the New World, was virtually his sacred center.
Thanks for the invitation. Sounds very "inviting."
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 12:50 pm
One of the things I'd like to discuss with you is what we can do to foster the birth of an American School of Buddhism. How can we better bring the Buddha's Teachings to folks in the Western cultural tradition? I agree that we are very like minded in our understanding of Buddhism, and that over-rides any political differences ... which are ultimately non-existent anyway. I doubt that if/when we meet that politics will raise its ugly head.

Where are you in Texas? I thought, don't know exactly why, that you lived over around San Anton. No hurry. We have all the time in the world, and it still amounts to zero. I'd like to meet your local Sanga.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 01:16 pm
Ash, I don't live in Texas. Dys and Osso know where. They have my permission to tell you.

Actuallly, I live close to where I think you were raised, i.e., your parental ranch. (I wonder how much I have of that memory distorted).
0 Replies
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 02:19 pm
^Everything starts with the kids in these cases, the internet is a powerful tool too, the information, ideas and discussion is alive and readily available in this sense. You need a spark of some sort. I'd like to see some sort of ethics/philosophy/religion class replace typical religious education in the U.K, which might discuss the ideas presented in a religion, like love thy neighbour and the wider implications for such an idea etc (as opposed to a simple review of what a religion says without the free flowing discussion which COULD take place if allowed). All the historical elements could be used to provide a basis, but subjects covered in eastern thought would be well received by many in my honest opinion.

It matters not that such a class might well mean little to many, merely that it provokes more of a reaction than it currently does. My impression of current R.E education in the U.K is that it's generally seen as a very boring and meaningless waste of time by too many, simply a means to an end with the end being a mere grade. Hopefully that can change in the future.

As for the differences between the religious and the non religious, I agree with those that have suggested the difference is minimal. There's an advert doing the rounds in the U.K at the moment (I can't remember of the top of my head what it's advertising Razz ) but it involves a man who is presenting this image of a happy, contented, confident, free-flowing persona, when, inside, away from prying eyes, he's lonely I guess. Anyway, my interest in football and my local club, at times in the past was very much tribalistic, I've been seeing it all through different eyes over the past several years, appreciating the actual sport and slowly distancing myself from the media circus and gossip that surrounds it, including the fan bickering.

I guess we all hold these links to things which provide us with a basis for who we are, in respect of this advert I mentioned, I'd like to encourage a few more people (myself included) to be a bit more open with ideas and opinions, instead of looking for things to support myself, resting places (groups of people) that I can hide amongst, confident that "my" opinion matches up adequately with a sufficient amount of other people, just be happier with what is somehow (I'm not certain how to promote this though), instead of looking for the next something to bolster my image with. Holding these ideals up for everyone to grasp at, whether religious or otherwise, sometimes it all suddenly seems outrageously insane.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 08:08 pm
Asherman wrote:
Define what you mean by the term "spirituality".

JL and I are Buddhists who don't believe in either a "soul' or "god" as most often described in the West. The Preceptive World is without substance, it is an illusion that we exist, and exist as part of a universe of multiplicity. That which dreams this world is indivisible and indefinable in terms of time and space. That from which the objective world springs is not exactly what someone in the Abrahamic tradition would call "spiritual". To us there is no dichotomy between "body" and "spirit", both alike are illusory....


I guess I can boil spirituality down to being that "inner sense of self". That something inside that causes us to wonder, to question, to reach out, to do things for others, a whole myriad of things really. It's like for the most part as I see it, religions are thought to try to draw this out of someone. They get them in touch with the "inner self" that is in touch with it's "creator". A means of communication I guess.

Which is why so many christians say they can hear god. That god talks to them. It's an inner sensory thing. However, since I no longer believe in a god I would tend to lean more towards just the first part of that statement. I'm becoming really curious if the spiritual side of us is just an illusion... created by the mind. A way of soothing our conscience and making us feel good. Or if perhaps there really is more to us than meets the eye.


rosborne979 wrote:
Treya wrote:
That's a cool way of looking at it rosborne. Did you read the article that Mills linked us to? What do you think about the changes in the brain due to these spiritual experiences?


Hi Treya,

Yes, I read it. I think the changes in the brain are causing the spiritual experiences, just like certain drugs can cause near death experiences.

What did you think about the article?


I think it was fascinating actually. Maybe that's silly, but it has spurred my curiosity about a lot of things now and I think my perspective is starting to change a little bit about stuff.

Ashers wrote:
^Everything starts with the kids in these cases, the internet is a powerful tool too, the information, ideas and discussion is alive and readily available in this sense. You need a spark of some sort. I'd like to see some sort of ethics/philosophy/religion class replace typical religious education in the U.K, which might discuss the ideas presented in a religion, like love thy neighbour and the wider implications for such an idea etc (as opposed to a simple review of what a religion says without the free flowing discussion which COULD take place if allowed). All the historical elements could be used to provide a basis, but subjects covered in eastern thought would be well received by many in my honest opinion.

It matters not that such a class might well mean little to many, merely that it provokes more of a reaction than it currently does. My impression of current R.E education in the U.K is that it's generally seen as a very boring and meaningless waste of time by too many, simply a means to an end with the end being a mere grade. Hopefully that can change in the future.

As for the differences between the religious and the non religious, I agree with those that have suggested the difference is minimal. There's an advert doing the rounds in the U.K at the moment (I can't remember of the top of my head what it's advertising Razz ) but it involves a man who is presenting this image of a happy, contented, confident, free-flowing persona, when, inside, away from prying eyes, he's lonely I guess. Anyway, my interest in football and my local club, at times in the past was very much tribalistic, I've been seeing it all through different eyes over the past several years, appreciating the actual sport and slowly distancing myself from the media circus and gossip that surrounds it, including the fan bickering.

I guess we all hold these links to things which provide us with a basis for who we are, in respect of this advert I mentioned, I'd like to encourage a few more people (myself included) to be a bit more open with ideas and opinions, instead of looking for things to support myself, resting places (groups of people) that I can hide amongst, confident that "my" opinion matches up adequately with a sufficient amount of other people, just be happier with what is somehow (I'm not certain how to promote this though), instead of looking for the next something to bolster my image with. Holding these ideals up for everyone to grasp at, whether religious or otherwise, sometimes it all suddenly seems outrageously insane.


Hey Ashers. I haven't see you in a while. You been doing ok?

Your ideas about school sound really good. Why not make it interesting? Put a little spark in there? It might actually help people in the long run to get better grades. Who knows.

The more I read here the more interesting I'm finding this topic actually. It seems like sometimes we are so quick to draw a line and say, THIS is why we are so different. But maybe we aren't. Maybe it's just a matter of how we think, meaning what "experiences" we allow ourselves, rather than what we think, meaning there is or isn't a god. If that is the case though, can those types of "experiences" be achieved without a belief in god? Surely they could... Perhaps they are, but are just on a smaller scale because we don't attribute it to "something". Hmmm... I need to think about this a little bit more.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 09:13 pm
But you see, I deny the existence of "self"
0 Replies
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 03:58 am
Hey Treya, I'm doing great, hope you are too. Smile
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 04:10 am
Ok. What does that mean exactly asherman?

Ashers, glad to hear your doing good. I'm doing pretty well also. Smile
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:19 am
At a very early age (teens, I suppose) I began to realize that it just made no sense; all that 'religion' mumbo jumbo about the virgin birth, the resurrection, and all that.
It just doesn't compute in my brain.
I guess I'm just more science oriented; evoluion just makes a whole lot more sense to me. That, and the fact that there are supposedly as many celestial bodies as there are grains of sand on all the Earth's beaches - so why would we be special? I think that we being here on earth is simply the result of our planet being in the right place at the right time in order to sustain life such as ours.
For a long long time it didn't. Now it does. In the far (or not too far) future it won't anymore.
I don't believe in heaven and hell. I think that somehow the our energy continues after we cease to exist....but as far as ascending to a heaven....nah.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 06:08 am
What separates "the religious" from "the non-religious" is partly answered by "the denial of self".

Conventionally some "selves" stand juxataposed to "gods"....they are separate entities such the "religious self" owes reverence/existence/purpose to some "supernatural entity". Thus the integity of such a self and its self perception are dependent on such a juxtaposition. Some other "selves" calling themselves "non-religious" stand juxtaposed to "reality" which consists of "natural things" as opposed to "the supernatural". Such "selves" either see no evidence or have no need for evidence of the supernatural.

However, a third position emerges from the denial of the naive realism of "separate things" including the "reality of self". The segmentation of "things" is merely a reflection of convenient linguistic categories for the relationship of the cognitive species "homo sapiens" with its "world". So "things" are but accidents of human "needs" socially transmitted and perpetuated via language, and different language communities account for different concepts of "selves" and "gods". In essence "all is unity". "We" are "God" but not in any supernatural sense....in the sense of being the definers of an evolutionary process that we call "creation" of which "we" are an inseparable part.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 07:23 am
happycat wrote:
At a very early age (teens, I suppose) I began to realize that it just made no sense; all that 'religion' mumbo jumbo about the virgin birth, the resurrection, and all that.
It just doesn't compute in my brain.
I guess I'm just more science oriented; evoluion just makes a whole lot more sense to me. That, and the fact that there are supposedly as many celestial bodies as there are grains of sand on all the Earth's beaches - so why would we be special? I think that we being here on earth is simply the result of our planet being in the right place at the right time in order to sustain life such as ours.
For a long long time it didn't. Now it does. In the far (or not too far) future it won't anymore.
I don't believe in heaven and hell. I think that somehow the our energy continues after we cease to exist....but as far as ascending to a heaven....nah.



I mostly agree with what you wrote.

We are not special in the grand scheme to things. In our own small worlds we are very special, but compared to the vastness of the universe we are nothing. When you think about it even life on this planet isn't that special. We are mourning those 32 kids that were killed this week, but when there are 6,000,000,000 people on this planet, what impact does 32 people have? Hell, there were probably 10,000 people born yesterday to make up for those 32 and then some. It's not like the human race is dying out. It's not life life is all that rare even on Earth. I wouldn't be surprised if it were not as rare in the universe either.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 07:44 am
fresco wrote:
What separates "the religious" from "the non-religious" is partly answered by "the denial of self".

Conventionally some "selves" stand juxataposed to "gods"....they are separate entities such the "religious self" owes reverence/existence/purpose to some "supernatural entity". Thus the integity of such a self and its self perception are dependent on such a juxtaposition. Some other "selves" calling themselves "non-religious" stand juxtaposed to "reality" which consists of "natural things" as opposed to "the supernatural". Such "selves" either see no evidence or have no need for evidence of the supernatural.

However, a third position emerges from the denial of the naive realism of "separate things" including the "reality of self". The segmentation of "things" is merely a reflection of convenient linguistic categories for the relationship of the cognitive species "homo sapiens" with its "world". So "things" are but accidents of human "needs" socially transmitted and perpetuated via language, and different language communities account for different concepts of "selves" and "gods". In essence "all is unity". "We" are "God" but not in any supernatural sense....in the sense of being the definers of an evolutionary process that we call "creation" of which "we" are an inseparable part.
To quote my friend Trog, who plays cave man #2 in the Geico commercials:

"What?"
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 07:47 am
maporsche - we're not special at all. I even mentioned that on another thread about the Planet Earth series on Discovery. Mankind could disappear and life on earth would continue just fine. Humans are only important to themselves and each other.
And what you said about the 32 killed and thousands being born, well....that's very true. Immensely and profoundly sad in a human sense, but not even important in the overall scheme of things.

What is the most common reason given when someone asks "Why do only people go to heaven and not animals?"
Because people have souls.
Again, it doesn't compute with me. I never got the gist of what exactly a 'soul' is.
I think the only difference between humans and animals is that we have intellect. But animals have instinct, which I think is far more useful and important.
JMHO
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 07:53 am
Interestingly, most bible thumpers fail to understand that humans do not have souls they are souls. And the souls of men and animals are mortal.
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 08:15 am
Back to the original topic question: what separates the religious from the non-religious?
The truly religious will forego common sense in favor or what their religious beliefs are, such as the Jehovah's Witness thing about blood transfusions. They will let their child die rather than get help available to save a life.
The truly religious will fight wars and kill other people because of what a book of their faith tells them.

The non-religious believe, for the most part, that we are all equal - came from the same place, will end up in the same place, and deserve to share in all the earth's bounty and joy regardless of what some old book says, and they take advantage of modern medicine to save lives rather than wasting valuable time praying to an unknown 'god.'
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 09:09 am
happycat wrote:
maporsche - we're not special at all. I even mentioned that on another thread about the Planet Earth series on Discovery. Mankind could disappear and life on earth would continue just fine. Humans are only important to themselves and each other.
And what you said about the 32 killed and thousands being born, well....that's very true. Immensely and profoundly sad in a human sense, but not even important in the overall scheme of things.

What is the most common reason given when someone asks "Why do only people go to heaven and not animals?"
Because people have souls.
Again, it doesn't compute with me. I never got the gist of what exactly a 'soul' is.
I think the only difference between humans and animals is that we have intellect. But animals have instinct, which I think is far more useful and important.
JMHO


That is interesting. Is there any scientific proof for humans having a soul? Religion teaches very heavily on the difference between body, mind, and soul. Many of the bigger preachers have it down to a science. They've dissected this whole theory based on what the bible teaches. If animals don't have a soul yet they are still living it is obvious that a soul is not necessary for survival. Maybe what religions are defining as soul is actually the parts of the brain that are effected the most by these spiritual experiences.

neologist wrote:
Interestingly, most bible thumpers fail to understand that humans do not have souls they are souls. And the souls of men and animals are mortal.


I've never heard it put quite like that before neo. How is it you have come to believe this?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 07:42:31