text:
- Mike Adams
- Los Alamos, NM
- United States
IT - Business Analyst, Los Alamos County
This conversation is closed.
Atheism as a Spiritual Path
I have been an atheist for a few years now, but I continue to feel the need for a spiritual path and to live with spiritual principles.
I do have a spiritual path, which has found expression in my atheism. It lies in the unimaginable creative evolution of this incredible universe, in the complexity of our ecosystem and the incredible far fetched chance that with all the twists and turns that evolution took along the way, humans evolved and luckily for me, I somehow was born. I experience gratitude that despite all odds to the contrary, I get to experience this crazy and beautiful, yet challenging life, that I get to be a parent and try to make a difference for my fellow humans.
I definitely have a spiritual path. It includes and is largely based on science, on quantum mechanics and theory of relativity. It allows me to sit in awe at the wonder of a developing human fetus, which goes through the stages of evolution in it's mother's uterus. That we are all spawn from matter created from super novas and transformation of energy into matter and back again millions or billions of times until today. We look around and see this mass of diverse matter and life, but it is all star-dust, created by exploding stars and the transformation of energy.
Evolution continues to unfold unbidden and undirected, but incredibly beautiful!
Linda Taylor
Jun 14 2012: In my humble experience, all humans are spiritual beings. Theism varies and a wide variety can be seen. Some people have a theism based in a higher power or powers external to themselves. Some people have a theism based on a higher power within themselves. Some have theism based on money, science, nature, etc etc. It's just a matter of finding the basis of each individuals spiritual self and having enough knowledge to speak the language from which their belief system is based.
- +2
daniel hehir
Jun 13 2012: Mike Robinson,
- +2
I move my comment up her Mike. I hope you'll find it here
Yes indeed all creatures are "spiritual" creatures. Animals of all kinds.. and even the plants have aspects of their being that are spiritual. Not many people are familiar with the following ideas but I can run through the basics very quickly to give you the general idea.
Even the stone has aspects of the spiritual. It simply depends on the way one sees the reality around us that is the key to understanding the spiritual in relation to the physical world.
From "above to below" in terms of consciousness. What lies in the non -physical existence we won't get into here.
First we take a look at man. He is put together of a physical body, a life body, a soul body and a spiritual body.
The animals share the three lower aspects of our being on the earthly existence as we experience it.
Thus, the animal consists of a physical body, life body and a soul body. While the "spiritual" element of its being is not "incarnated" on the physical plane.
The plant reveals to us only the physical body and the life body. While its soul and spirit are not, generally speaking, incarnated.
The purely physical, the stone consists of nothing other than the material substances that build it up. Here the other three aspects are not .... again... "incarnated"
While the human being has it's individual spirit active within the physical world ( the spirit being the self-conscious ego part of our being the "I" or the "I am"
The animals consciousness lives on the "soul plane". By this I mean the realm of "feelings" which is also shared by the human being. They do not have the same degree of self-consciousness that we as humans do.
The plant is mainly on the 2 lower planes of existence, the physical and the "etheric" or life element that we and the animals share.
While the material / physical is without any of the 3 higher elements "within it"
You may recognize here the 4 elements of Fire, air, water and earth...
Jun 15 2012: I like your response Daniel! Assuming that we aren't precluding other animals from evolving upwards.... Evolution while normally incremental can also occur in leaps and bounds. Our uniqueness may only reflect that we are the first species to reach this level of sophistication, but others may be close (relatively) behind. Dolphins, whales, primates, octopus, ravens and parrots, are examples of other animals that may be close behind and about to reach the plane of sentience. We need to be willing to recognize and even assist them, if only by allowing them the space and security to blossom. Some theorists have suggested we are approaching the technological ability to "uplift" some animals to sentience. A few tweaks of the genetic code and we won't be so special anymore, though the very act of doing so would make us even more amazing in many ways!
Would sentient animals have gods? What shape would those gods be imagined as? Would we be gods at that point? A whole new can of worms is opened....
Jun 15 2012: Hi Mike R,
Yes! An incredibly interesting can of worms!
To try to understand this little blue evolving planet through eons of time is no simple task !! Ask a traditional thinking Christian about the animals and heaven and hell and see what kind of answer they can come up with... ;-)
I have to admit that this is not my own theory. I have been reading a good deal of esoteric literature that have pointed me in this direction. So I don't take any credit for it myself.
I'll try to say a little more...
The animals share what is called a "group consciousness" or group "I" .. each to its own species, they do not have their "individuality" or "ego" or "I" fully present on the physical plane as we humans do. They have however the soul aspect of their being present. (we can get back to this)
The following may sound a little weird, I know, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
To observe one expression of this phenomenon in the animal world we can look at several things.
We could take a flock of birds for example ... or a school of fish...it is the degree of simultaneity they have that I am getting at here. They seem to be able to move in a flock as "one being" .. this we have all observed with great wonder. How can they do it..??
Now without providing any "evidence" that the birds aren't sending a sound to each other or the fish aren't sending some or another signal to each other, what I am getting at is that the "flock" is in fact *"one" .. "being" .. * (Strange! .. your thinking..)
Now, think of the following example.
If I stuck my ten fingers through ten holes in a cardboard box or wall, where you couldn't see the back side. "I" would be fully in control of all ten fingers, moving them either individually or together. My "I" or consciousness if you will, is in control of all 10. Now, although the birds have no shared "visible" neural connectors / receptors, they are sharing what we might call an "astral connection" (google astral)
Out of characters :-(
daniel hehir
Jun 11 2012: Mike,
- +2
I'm all for the scientific method. All for questions, questions and more question. And one certitude today must always be allowed to be challenged tomorrow. Curiosity and wonder are so much a part of my way of seeing the world that it has happened that my friends have actually made fun of me when I spend a few moments to look at a little spiral formed flower by the driveway.
I'm sure there are many scientists who can see the whole cosmos reflected within the little flower.... But what is it that creates the border between the sciences and the spirit. Does there really need to be such a sharp line between the two..? I mean, the scientific method has to be the only way to go forward to gain real knowledge in the world. But, should it ever be proven that the spiritual world is quite real, then, it would make perfect sense if we (scientist as well as layman) must also apply the scientific method to the world of the invisible.
You may say that this is not possible. But if the world of the spirit is real, then it must be within the grasp of the scientific methods and principles to do research and discover the nature of it.
Jun 11 2012: If there was some other plane of existence reasonably shown to exist I would have no issue using the scientific method to understand it better. Science has discovered much that is weird already. To think we are 99.9999% space, made of atoms that are mostly empty space. etc etc.
I guess science at this stage is indicating most perceived spiritual experiences are products of the material mind. Pray or meditate and a part of your brain activates as seen in an MRI.
Damage the brain and you damage the mind, consciousness etc.
Current metaphysics is simply organising ideas about what is most likely an imaginary realm dreamed up by our ancestors.
Jun 12 2012: Obey,
The physical brain is like an antenna. If you destroy the antenna, the signal to the TV will not get through. Its a simple analogy but it works. What you are saying is that the picture, the sound all come from within the TV itself. We know this is not true. The MRI shows the activity of the thinking feeling spirit within the brain.
Jun 12 2012: Thanks daniel. Do you have any evidence that shows the brain is a spiritual antenna and not just a brain/processor?
I heard someone else say that pschadelic drugs gave them spiritual experiences. The loss of ego/self, feeling one with everyone. Apparently there is a part of the brain that is responsible for this sense of self. I guess some drugs impact this. I guess some non drug related experiences play around with our minds and consciousness.
Trance is not that unusual for humans. We get into a mild trance when watching movies and lose awareness of the surrounds and our selves.
I'm not saying you might not be right, but the material brain can probably explain most of the spiritual experience stuff. No need to add complexity unless you have some evidence.Jun 15 2012: Hi Obey and Daniel:>)
Obey, you say..."Science has discovered much that is weird already".
With my experience of the NDE/OBE, I've discovered a lot that would have seemed weird to me prior to the incident too! After the fact, however, it seems very natural.
Obey, I disagree with your statement..."Damage the brain and you damage the mind, consciousness etc."
My brain was badly damaged (there IS proof of that fact - scans, MRIs, x-rays, craniotomy, etc.) and my mind/consciousness seems to be working at a higher level. When I say higher level, I mean more perceptive, aware, mindful, open minded, etc. Although I was not expected to live, then not expected to ever function "normally" again...here I am, enjoying a full life:>)
I percieve the brain to be a carrier of energy, and the energy is a carrier of information. Science recognizes the energy flow in the body/brain. So, I agree with Daniel that the brain is like an antenna, and I don't percieve Daniel saying it is a "spiritual antenna"...simply an antenna, which may also be considered a carrier of energy....yes?
It seems very simple and natural to me, although scientists (medical professionals) I was involved with years ago are not often in tune with this idea yet, so they give it the label of miracle. To me, it is simply a natural scientific happening, and when people do not understand the science, they sometimes put it in the spiritual/supernatural realm.Jun 15 2012: Good point Colleen.
I would suggest that some damage can be worked around and other damage can not. The plastic brain, natural healing, the extent of the damage etc.
I'm glad you recovered. Others have been brain damaged from lack of oxygen or trauma or disease.
A relative of mine had severe dementia, a disease of the brain. It did damage their consciousness etc. The personality faded as well before the end.
A friend of mine got hit by a bus and damaged his brain. He is physically and intellectually handicapped. He's not quite the same person. Maybe some of it is trapped. I don't know.
Another friend has used too many recreational drugs. He has mentioned he feels hollow. Like some of his memories and personality has been erased.
Assuming the metaphysical spirit exists - I accept that if the spirit needs a working brain to project into the real world properly - this could fit the assumptions. I guess you would assume the spirit is not damaged by brain disease or trauma. Perhaps it is. We don't know. Which is central to my comments. We don't know if spirits exist. There is so much additional speculation about where they come from, how they work, where they go etc.
A close relative of mine had an NDE. It was quite comforting for them. She was not a Christian or religious at all before. So even if there is an afterlife I'm assuming you don't need to be a Christian to go to a pleasant place. I didn't debate her, but it seemed just like something a mind might make happen as it drifted away.
I don't know enough about how the brain copes with a life threatening situation to assess NDE. I have a few speculative ideas only. I could imagine ways these profound experiences might happen without requiring a spirit and spirit world. I would not be surprised if there were similarities and also some experience/cultural specific aspects - a mix of the material mind and the information in it.
When the energy in the brain stops, when it decays, what then from your perspective?
John Dunbar
Jun 15 2012: Paul Zak has run numerous studies on the relationship between oxytocin and trust. What he has come to understand is that trust is the product of oxytocin and without oxytocin you are less likely to trust. His work has been able to demonstrate that oxytocin is the CAUSE of trust. Yes the brain is plastic and oxytocin is created by the subjective experience of trust. However if you were to remove oxytocin from your brain and bloodstream then trust could not be realized.
- +1
So upon further examination you have the brains chemistry allowing for subjective experience. To repeat myself, yes the brains chemistry can and is altered by subjective experience and interaction with environment.
I have to say as humans we lend far too much credence to subjective experience. Im not trying to diminish subjectivity, but it can be misleading. People have hallucinations and other such experiences that are subjective and are not real. We now know that hallucinations are not real(or it wouldn't be a hallucination) but if we wind back the clock to midivil times hallucinations would take the form of a jungian archetype and most commonly were understood as a vision from the gods. However a hallucination is subjectively real. We also understand that hallucinations are a product of malfunctioning dopamine levels. So my point is that you have the brain determining trust, reality, and subjective experience.
You have the subjectivity as a product of the brain so then why not consciousness as well. When we have a dreamless sleep we are not conscious but we wake up and we are. this leads me to believe that consciousness is not a result of an outside force but more likely a state of the brain.
Of course I cannot prove one model true or untrue. However when taking the above points into consideration the antenna model seems unlikely and dominated by spiritual motives.Jun 16 2012: Obey,
Yes..."Some damage can be worked around and other damage can not". New neural pathways are formed...or not. There are many factors involved. I know that many do not have the same results I had, and I also know that many others HAVE had similar results....again...there are many factors.
When I was unconscious, according to the medical model, the part of the brain that allows communication as a human was disabled. There was something else functioning, because I was experiencing several levels of consciousness. I equate it to a computer...some programs can be open and running, while other programs may be turned off or disabled for some reason.
I experienced the NDE as very comforting as well. I was not practicing any religion at the time, and still do not practicing a religion. The NDE was totally beyond my belief system at the time. My belief is that we all go back to spirit/energy form, and no, we do not have to embrace a particular belief to experience the spirit/energy form....in my perception.
You ask..."When the energy in the brain stops, when it decays, what then from your perspective?"
I believe that the energy leaves the body when brain activity stops. The body, including the brain, goes back into the earth...buried....cremated....whatever one chooses. The energy returns to the "pool" of energy to be recycled. My experience was that although the energy that powers my body was seperate, it was also connected to the rest of the energy.
I agree with Frans Kellner, who said in a comment the other day... trying to explain this stuff is like peeling an apple with an ax!!!
I am very sorry about your friends that you mentioned above. Life is not easy. I lost 2 friends in the last couple weeks. One finally died from a brain tumor he's had for awhile, and the other one was fatally injured in a car accident...severe internal injuries, including traumatic brain injury. After 10 days in ICU, her family agreed to unplug life support systems last week.Jun 16 2012: Thanks Colleen.
I'm glad there have been some positives from what must have been a traumatic situation. I can see how your view fits your experience intuitively. Similar to my Aunt.
For me NDE is an unanswered question. Great quote from Franz.
Yes, life can be brutal even in a rich modern country. Our bodies are quite easily broken and none of us last for ever. That is a tough decision for your friends re the ICU.
I'm not surprised by the array of beliefs in regards to the afterlife when you mix in NDE, centuries of religion and spiritual ideas, and increasing scientific understanding. It is an inevitability facing us all.
Usually I'm all for the contest of ideas, but it would be nice if death was something that brought us all closer instead of being another point of contention. Perhaps it does if we pause for minute and reflect. Thanks for the discussion.Jun 23 2012: Obey,
Death CAN bring us all together rather than seperate us, because it is another similarity that we all share. You insightfully say..."perhaps it does if we pause for a minute and reflect".
You have spoken the magic words that could bring us together more and more in many ways..."pause for a minute and reflect".
I think/feel/observe that many times, people are so caught up in their own beliefs, there is no pausing and reflecting on the words they are speaking, the beliefs they are fighting for, how it impacts themselves, how it impacts others, or the world we all share.Jun 12 2012: Obey,
the complexity of the brain is, I agree, something that science is delving deeper and deeper into. Thousands of kilometers with microscopic neural connections. But what we see as the connections firing are always in response to an asked question or a requested thought or feeling that is asked to the subject under the MRI. It always has to come from the individual(ity) who is actively thinking. What reveals itself in the form of "lighting up" in the various areas of the brain, are the footprints of the spiritual activity going on in these neurons. They are not the actual "thoughts" It would be a mistake to say so. And neither would I guess that an honest truth seeking scientist would even say. ... as ... How can one convert the MRI's flashing lights to real thoughts.....?
Now, because physical science is at the limits of it's material explanation, it can go no further. But it must. It must ask the next question honestly to itself. How does this lighting up reveal the activity going on from within the neurons. . The answer so far is this.. Our tools of measurement are not sensitive enough to capture what is "really" going on here.. There must be something more. As we see this activity occurring only in the "conscious" mind of the person under the MRI. The person must first take the sense impression, sound, color or physical stimulation before the MRI can register activity. If the activity is measured, it is of course because the person is thinking of this or that thought or feeling of stimulation.
Even dreams are "objects" of our own perception, as much as we can remember them. I ask how can this be? As we are very little conscious in the dream state. This says that there must be an "observer" somewhere within our being. Had it not been so... then how could "I" relate the dream to my reality in waking life?
This "observer" is what I would call our "spirit" or our "ego" The eternal part of our being that rests, lives, exists within our thoughts.
Jun 13 2012: My recall is 100 Billion neurons with 100 trillion connections.
I agree to the extent that seeing brain activity does not mean there is also an internal spiritual dimension.
But there is no way of knowing. You are simply asserting there is a spiritual element to all this. You don;t know and offer no evidence.
Again the natural explanation could suffice for most experiences deemed spiritual. It could all simply be brain based.
Our minds are amazing. An event such as having a vision is not that much more profound than having a dream.
You seem to be flitting in and out of a naturalistic view and a mystical speculative view.
You don't explain how the ego, sense of self observer etc part of our mind is anything more than a product of our mind/brain. Simply calling an element of our mind/consciousness/self "spirit" doesn't make it an immortal spirit that survives beyond. Its just another word for something that occurs naturally and most likely dies when our brain dies.
Again, noting offered to show that a spirit that is ultimately not reliant on our body. Just because the idea or derivatives is popular doesn't make it true.
Supernatural assertions require reasonable proof otherwise they are just guesses, wishful thinking or unsubstantiated dogma with origins in a time when we had much less understanding about brains and the universe in general.Jun 13 2012: All animals have brains as far as I know. Mammals have more developed brains than birds or reptiles. Brains seem pretty important to the effective functioning of animals. As far as I know the Bottlenose Dolphin have highest brain to body ratio after humans and are capable of empathy, tool use, mirror recognition, numerical values, etc.
Are all animals "spiritual" creatures? Just mammals? Just animals with convoluted prefrontal cortexes? Or just humans (monkeys in pants). When did this happen in our evolution? 200,000 years ago? 35,000 years ago? July 20, 1963 during the total eclipse of the sun?
As I wrote in another forum thread, "Spirit is a metaphor for currently unexplainable phenomena, or intuitions, of matter and energy".Jun 15 2012: Obey,
To make the assumption that our ancestors simply dreamed up the realm of the spirit is to disregard a possibility that you may not have considered. If you look a little further down on the comments, you will find another way of looking at our ancestors relation to the spiritual world that you may find interesting. I make a comment to Mike Adams which may give you another perspective on this matter.
What appears to us as simple "dreamery and superstition" may be looked at in another light.
Could it be that in ancient times the human being had a more direct access to the spirit realm? If you could take into consideration this possibility, there may present itself another interpretation of what at first sight appears to our modern intellectual mind to be a naive world view of demons and gods. But on second consideration, we have to ask ourselves the question ... Maybe the ancients experienced something that we no longer experience so easily today in 2012.
Consciousness has evolved. We today are highly developed in certain intellectual capacities ... but maybe this development is at the cost of another older stage that has been put aside. Something that has been lost.
Not to say the one is better than the other. I simply state that this is an interesting possibility that one must honestly consider. Our spiritual evolution has many facits.
Jun 15 2012: Hi Daniel,
I'm not surprised our ancestors saw agency behind floods and lightening. I'm not surprised that dreams and visions were treated as portents or communication from a supernatural entity.
We take for granted now that disease is from viruses and bacteria. To the ancients these were magical plagues sent by gods. Many cultures before monotheism had a rich spiritual belief filled with animist entities and spirits. Some still have shamans.
My guess is that goblins, fairy and demons and magic and curses were the explanations developed in a time of relevant ignorance about how the universe worked. The must have been brought up infused with these beliefs. Some still are.
I doubt that our brains have changed much over 50,000 years. The information we put in them has more science. So maybe we are not primed the same way as the ancients so belief paradigms are more restrained by this knowledge. But still our intuition and supernatural ideas persist. For some though the need for evidence and reason comes into how we explain things and what to believe. People believe they see ghosts. They believe they were abducted by aliens. But what has really happened. I woke up once feeling a weight on my legs when I looked I saw small creatures standing on my legs clear as day. I moved my legs and the toppled over, then I rushed out of bed and turned the lights on and their was nothing.
Could be real. Or could be the tale end of some dreamlike state with my eyes open. No evidence for it to be anything else but a product of my mind.
I guess wet dreams were considered visitations by succubus. Epilepsy = demons.
What do you mean by consciousness when you say it has evolved?
I guess only our knowledge and culture has developed not our physical brains for the last millennia. I can understand that having a belief in a spirit world you would intuit a subjective picture of spiritual evolution. I suggest just ideas and culture, We may have lost Zeus, but might we be better offJun 15 2012: Daniel, my rambling ran out of of space.
I was wondering if we might be better off now with medicine rather than the mythical explanation for disease. That we may be better off understanding storms and earthquakes as natural events rather than punishments from gods. That kids with epilepsy are not possessed.
I'm glad we don't go around killing witches or our neighbours for supposedly cursing us. They still use this as a defence for murder in some countries.
I'm glad this world paradigm has been questioned and helps us avoid theocracies. I'm glad kings are just men by accident of birth now not our rulers by divine right.
I'm glad our laws are constrained by perceived human rights and we are not stoning adulterers in my country because some supernatural god got humans to write this down in a book.
Actually the more I think about this superstition does exist still. There are people that believe in demons and gods and crystals etc. It is just in a more advanced society.
I get your point about losing some richness to the human experience or actually being less in touch with the invisible hidden world if it actually existed. But for me it removes the fear and pitfalls of superstition.
For me organised religion is just codified and organised superstition at heart.
One question Daniel - do you think all interpretations of this supernatural spirit realm are equally valid or is there some streams of teaching closer to the truth?Jun 11 2012: I would say that what has historically been the realm of the spirit doesn't exists. I don't believe in an afterlife or anything metaphysical.
To me, spiritual relates to the human spirit (think of calling someone spirited). Psychological doesn't seem to encompass enough for me.
I don't see a border between science and spirit. My sense of spirituality is based in the incredible wonder and beauty that science reveals.
I'm blown away that scientists have been able to "synthesize" a spiritual experience by using magnetic stimulation directed at certain parts of the brain (I can't find my original source on this sorry). This knowledge doesn't soil my memory of previous spiritual experiences, but it does let me know what was going on, physiologically.
Obey No1 (love the name BTW) has taught us well, in that matter is composed primarily of "empty" space. I quote empty because we don't know for sure. It boggles my mind that every object we see is created of the same basic matter, which came into existence roughly 16 billion years ago. No new matter has been created or lost since then. It has simply changed form from energy into various states of matter millions of times and evolved through this incredible series of events and processes to create life as we know it and possibly life as we don't know it somewhere else in the cosmos.
I don't think it likely that science will find a spiritual realm (in any Judeo-Christian sense) but might there be something to the concept of our personalities being energy and therefore never lost? Possibly. I don't think so, but I won't say no, because I don't know and can't know.
I have no opposition to faith or belief. I don't intend to convert people. I simply like a good conversation! I like to be challenged and to examine a topic from every angle. I am comfortable with my beliefs, but happy to challenge them, because I might stumble on a better idea, which I will adopt. I'm glad everyone has been willing to play along :-)
Jun 12 2012: Thanks Mike.
I've enjoyed the discussion too.
Jun 16 2012: Obey,
I fully agree Obey, you do have a tendency to rambling! .. and repeat yourself. But please don't just argue for the sake of "good conversation" itself. It gets rather pedantic after a while. Your responses seem like you almost have a peculiar unconscious fear of the world "spirit" After reading the little story about the two "beings" sitting upon your legs, it really made me wonder. ...
You come with a question at the very end of you most resent comment. you ask
Daniel - do you think all interpretations of this supernatural spirit realm are equally valid or is there some streams of teaching closer to the truth?
My answer is of course not...
Do you think all forms of science are equally valid or are some streams closer to the truth...
One could point at a lot of "superstition" in science if one wanted to... and one wouldn't have to go back very far in history to do it..
One could point to a lot of immorality in science if one wanted to.. also going on this very moment. Immorality didn't stop when witch burning stopped.
This is not my intention.
My intention is to point out that modern science can and eventually will discover the realm of the spirit and when it does, there will "open up a whole new can of worms" as Mike Robinson said.Jun 15 2012: Mike Adams,
"I'm blown away that scientists have been able to "synthesize" a spiritual experience by using magnetic stimulation directed at certain parts of the brain"
I think your referring to a "forced" OBE / NDE ("Synthesize" a spiritual experience)...
Now to "force" ( in the Bible " to take heaven by force" an OBE / NDE is nothing new. Nothing that has come up in the last few years with sciences new found interest in NDE. This has been going on for hundreds, yes even thousands of years.
I can imagine that some people will find the following claim somewhat controversial.
As far back as the time of Jesus and even much further back in time.
There was a time in our history when people had direct access to the "Akashic record" (google it if you don't know what it means) As our evolution progressed, this access to this "spiritual book" (also referred to in the Bible to those who know their Bible) became more and more limited to
fewer and fewer people. These people were the spiritual leaders or prophets of the different societies throughout the entire world. Some older cultures, not yet strongly influenced by the materialistic culture of the west, still have individuals who have contact with this realm. For example in Nepal. Also areas of deepest Africa. Every society had them. Some people have this ability still but only a few. Here in Norway there are several.
As this ability slowly disappeared in a culture, they then found ways ... "initiation ceremonies" that could lead individuals "over the threshold of death" and then back again. This was also practiced by the Jews at the time of Jesus. This is what "baptism" really was.
This is what John the baptist was doing. He was giving people a NDE by not just sprinkling a little water on the forehead as is practiced today... but submerging the person under water until they actually "drowned".Jun 12 2012: i dont belive that we can prove the existance of spiritual world using science. i think science is a wrong tool to measure spiritual existance. i believe there are limits for the dimensions and size in which we can apply our science, its right that we have discoverd atoms, nucleus and many facts like that. but there will be always something inside everything and how deep we can dig and how can be sure that we reached the bottom even when we think we have? i'm talking about the science that we know... but i do believe that, behind every single incident and phenomena in this universe there is a science...a science that existed even before we defined the word 'science' and even before we existed,. that will be ultimate truth, but i doubt whether, human brains have the ability to process informations at that level or whether we have that much information to even start with.
still we dont know how big this universe is or how small it is..and about the science , that we are going to use for proving the existance of spiritual world, what once proved right in our science have proved wrong other times and the tools we have today, is definitly more than enough for our needs...but for this purpose, think of the difference..how big is universe and how small is spirit/soul??. it will be like a chimp going for the same with his sticks..
also, we shouldn't be thinking of that unless it will improve or make an impact on our lifes here... its a dead end of thoughts where we get lost... i used to have this same feeling in mathematics exams where i used to think too much and equations get bigger and answers goes far away... i would be thinking in the wrong direction.. but the real procedure will always be simple,,and usually i ends up with a 50 marks thinking for a 5 marks question and yet no answer....doesnt suits here, but just saying :D
Jun 12 2012: Pranoy,
I feel just the opposite. I think science will get there one day. 100 years.. a 1000 years I don't know. But as we continually seek the truth, the real honest truth .. and science generally speaking does this, they have no other way out than to come to this conclusion. If we are truly spiritual beings and not just physical beings then science will find this out.
Some areas I would guess might be through the phenomena of NDE's or OBE's or hypnosis, or trances, possibly through medical technology such as organ transplants, or research into sleep. Clairvoyance is also a possibility. In psychology there are things going on in regressive therapy where people are led back into previous lives.... Could there be something in it??
Jun 12 2012: Daniel,
talking about NDE,OBE and trance i think your brain - antenna analogy works there. out of body expiriances makes be believe that consciousness is not brain centered. it is like the signal and can exist without brain. science needs better tools to quantify what consciousness is...and when we discover what consciousness is we will be on the road to provide absolute scientific evidence for spiritual world..but science need material explanation. i have heared that the trance effect can be created in laboratory by a method which actualy confuses our brain and gives us an OBE. but thats all we can do in laboratory...but, intresting thing is that, those who really had an OBE was able to tell where they went and what they saw, which came out as true afterwards. i know some spiritual communities, here in India, which teaches meditation. and what i felt is that, their methods are like self hypnotising to generate a trance..and they seems to be able to do that. they doesnt have any scientific support though. they belive every individual is a soul and souls changes body like we change clothes,,like when one dress becomes not good enough to wear anymore, it chooses another one through death and followed by re-birth.
another thing about proving spiritual existance scientifically is , it appears that a soul is non-physical..then there is no question of a truly scientific explanation having recourse to anything like non-physical souls. also i believe OBE and trance are not hallucinations caused by brains chemical actions...as people frequently learn facts during an OBE that would be very difficult or impossible for them to know on the assumption that it is a pure hallucination...Out of body experiences are real. but to know it, you must have one, and then be able to prove it to yourself..
Comment deleted
Jun 15 2012: Hi Adriaan,
I just wrote a longer comment to Mike Adams a few comment windows up. It would be interesting to hear what you think about this. Swedenborg has surly spoken about it.
Greetings from DanielJun 16 2012: Adriaan,
thanks for the link, i think Bible have had influenced Swedenborg's views of spiritual world. i came to know that, most of his belives was based on the experiances he had during his trance. as i believe, whatever you feel during trance will be based on the believes you had and deeply believe till then, more like hallucinations.
also, here on earth, good and bad peoples live together, so i dont believe there will be seperate places for good and bad souls (heaven and hell) after life in the spiritual world. and also, Swedenborg seems to belive that angels, which are souls of people ealier lived on earth, effect the enviornment on earth. which i find hard to understand.. soul is non physical and how can it effect the physical world.
one thing i found intresting is the description of judgement day. it says, on judgement day period, souls exibit their true nature.. i have the same believe that souls show their true nature, because logical thinking is not possible without brain...or after death. just consciousness exist. (and hence we cant lie, if we are subjected for a trial). i haven't got a chance to read that book completely, so pardon me if i misunderstood things :)
Comment deleted
Jun 15 2012: Hi Adriaan,
I'm interested in everything... either alive or dead.... Walking or crawling.... Athiest, Christian, Agnostic ... everyone's struggling along the path towards the / their own light.
I'm off to bed now. 1.10 here... catch you later.
Yes, I've checked out Swedenborg. Very interesting I agree!
IJun 10 2012: As long as you know that at the end of the day, you lived a good life physically, emotionally and spiritually.Jun 9 2012: Dear Mike,
I doubt whether atheism and spiritual path are divorced from each other and that these two make polar opposites. But the real issue lies at how we define atheism and spirituality. Philosophically, some people i meet do no like to categorize themselves either as atheists or theists.
Jun 10 2012: Hi Teja,
Agree definition is important..
I guess everyone either believes in gods and goddesses or doesnt.
But that doesn't make all atheists the same in terms of personality, interests,other beliefs and how they live. There is no other dogma with atheism - just a shared lack of belief in one thing.
If you don't have a belief in gods or goddesses you are an atheist.
Doesn't mean you know for sure, you can be an agnostic atheist.
Gnosticism is about knowing.
I understand not wanting to say you are an atehist because it can lead to social alienation by those who don't really understand what atheism is or have been programmed to hate atheism and misrepresent it as it challenges the power and influence of religious traditions. Simply not having a belief in god leaves everything else open.
Jun 14 2012: Dear Obey,
I have left a response to you latest comment to mine. I hope it is the latest comment on the topic, and if it is so you will find it at the top. I hope Ted would allow us to have more threads of comments, so that the conversations can have flows.
Regards :DJun 10 2012: Teja and Obey,
TED is the first experience in my life adventure, where I'm meeting people who want to catagorize in this respect. Prior to my interaction on TED, I've had lots of conversations with people about god/no god, and they have not needed to catagorize themselves, just as I do not catagorize myself.
Not wanting to catagorize myself has nothing to do with social alienation, or not wanting to challenge religious traditions. I challenge religious traditions a LOT! It is, as you say Obey, I like to be open to possibilities, and once we take on a certain identity by catagorizing, or labeling ourselves, sometimes that stops the exploration of the life adventure. Once people accept a certain religious dogma without question, it seems "stuck" to me.
I've found that here on TED there are a few folks who seem to need to convert everyone, and their religious beliefs come into EVERY conversation as the one and only "cure" for the worlds challenges. It feels like they are "programmed", as you say Obey, and cannot step out of that program to express their own thoughts, feelings and ideas.
In my conversations on TED, I percieve those who call themselves atheists, as much more open to possibilities, and less likely to try to convince me they are right. This is simiply my own observations regarding this topc of course. I personally do not see a need to catagorize oneself, feel it is limiting, and it is a choice each individual makes for him/herself.
My observations of people and the life adventure show me that practicing a certain religious or philosophical belief does not necessarily make one a better person. In fact, in my perception, it often serves to disconnect people from the whole.
Jun 10 2012: Dear Obey and Colleen,
Thanks a lot to both of you for your beautiful comments. But Obey, the way i grew up and the people around me do not care that much whether one is atheist or a theist. Such terms almost are never used. As Colleen Mam has said, it is not a categorical necessity to categorize oneself. Also, even if I call myself religious, atheist or whatever, that need cause alienation as long as one's practices and perceptions do not harm oneself and others. My best friends have diverse beliefs, cultural origin, etc. But i love them thinking they are same as me: human beings with common aim of happiness, common dislike for suffering, and common thing called "struggle" (although our forms of struggles differ).
As to categorizing, let's assume that it is similar to identifying. Although our ideas of spirituality differ, here i think it spiritual not to identify oneself. Identifying is a convention, socially created. Who is this Teja, Obey or Colleen. Why are we called so? Is it the hand, the leg, the body, the ear, the consciousness, that is called Teja, etc. We just give ourselves names to identify, to follow conventions. Atheists, theists, spiritualists, American, Sri Lankan. etc. These are all conventions. Even if I do not like my national identity, i have to bear my passport, etc. The society wont allow us to do otherwise.
Besides, think of the whole of human existence: friendship, relationship, poverty, happiness, etc. To give a helping hand to someone need not require an identity. For us to eliminate poverty, we need to work hard, and other nations and related agents and phenomena need to play a helpful role. It is like creating a structure, a fabric, a building. A building a such cannot exist itself, but as a structure of interconnected things: bricks, iron, etc. We exist in an interconnected world, and our conditions depend on our interconnected roles. There is no categorical necessity of identity. But we identify.Identifying is not the end but a means
Jun 10 2012: Well said Teja:>)
We are all more the same than different. We are all interconnected, and when we recognize this, the labels don't mean a thing AS LONG AS how we use the labels does not adversly impact others.Jun 11 2012: Hi Teja. I'm also weary being labelled, particularly when it is used to misrepresent or limit who I am and what I believe.
Labels can both help and hinder communication and understanding.
We are so much more than a theist or non theist etc. Although I suggest atheism is more narrow than most religions in terms of defining a person. Not believing in gods leaves everything else open. Whereas being an evangelical christian or jehovahs witness often implies a shared set of beliefs, interpreted by each individual. But even a theist is more than their religion.
Agree many important things can be shared across all humanity and the degree that these are shaped by religious or spiritual beliefs depends on the individual.Jun 13 2012: Hi Teja,
Atheist, theist etc also wasn't part of my childhood vocab until I was born again in my early teens. Thankfully sanity prevailed even though I wanted and tried to believe. Reading the bible helped me realise what it really was. I see the same flawed arguments I learnt all the time which is, well, repetitive. But good to have the xperience.
You can not believe what you don't believe - its not a choice. If you eventually grow to see as nonsense and social/psychological manipulation with bogus science and logic etc no matter how hard you try you know in your heart it is false.
We had discussions about this stuff at university and with friends from time to time, but if you don't go looking for it it doesn't really come up in a non religious household.
I guess if you go looking for philosophy etc, as you experience different things, from meditation to living in a buddhist infused country, have Muslim colleagues and friends, as you live through 911 etc and can access learning sites such as TED, then labels are part of the communication and argument,
You'd think atheism would be fairly straight foward in terms of how people define it but the variety is impressive.
Then you have a word like god that means something different to everyone. Something that can mean nearly everything in a way means nothing in communication terms unless you define it. I never cease to be amazed at the variety of meanings for god or gods or goddesses. Or the certainty and conviction and behaviour that flows from these conflicting beliefs.
Lots of fun.Jun 10 2012: I wonder Colleen, if perhaps Atheists tend to be more interested in questions than in answers, so rather than trying to convert you to their answers, they're trying to convert people into looking for nuance and giving up certitude. I never thought of this before and I'm not saying that all atheists, like me, are more interested in questions than answers, but your comment made me wonder about that possibility.
Jun 11 2012: Mike,
As much as I dislike labeling, I also dislike generalizing certain groups of people....as in atheists/theists. There are many different thoughts, feelings, ideas, opinions and beliefs within these catagories, and we never really know what a person's intent is unless s/he shares that information with us, in one way or another. I agree with Teja and Obey, in that we are much much more than theist/non theist.
I observe, generally, that people who are secure in their own beliefs, do not need to convince the world that they are "right". When we are secure, we can have a discussion about almost anything, that will be an interesting exploration, with questions and perceptions of answers going back and forth to build on the topic.
When we are secure in ourselves and our beliefs, it doesn't matter if everyone in the entire world has different beliefs. We "know" in our heart what our truth is, and we feel no need to convert or convince anyone of anything different.
Those who tell us we will go to hell if we do not embrace their beliefs, those who violate the rights of others, or try to push their beliefs onto others, are simply demonstrating how insecure they are with their own beliefs. Those who are insecure in themselves and/or their beliefs, generally do not like questions because it threatens something they are already insecure with.
I am not aware of atheists ever involved in a "holy war"....are you?Jun 11 2012: "Those who tell us we will go to hell if we do not embrace their beliefs, those who violate the rights of others, or try to push their beliefs onto others, are simply demonstrating how insecure they are with their own beliefs. Those who are insecure in themselves and/or their beliefs, generally do not like questions because it threatens something they are already insecure with."
I have to disagree with this statement. My Grandfather was a devout and steadfast Catholic until the day he died. There is nothing in my life long experience of him that would lead me to believe he or his beliefs were threatened by my atheism or my Mom's turning away from the Catholic church. Rather, he was confident that if he failed to convert us back to Christianity, two people he loved would spend eternity suffering in hell after we die. His point of view was thought out and included logic (starting from the premise that the Bible is God's word on earth).
I am secure in myself, but based on my choice as a Unitarian Universalist to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of all people, I do feel that I need to convert people from being homophobic to being inclusive, that I need to participate in changing aspects of this world, which deny people their basic rights. I want to convert people who practice genital mutilation to believing that is wrong and that they need to stop, not because I am insecure in my beliefs, but because I believe it is wrong to do that to people.
There hasn't been a "holy war" exactly by atheists, but Stalin was responsible for nearly 30 million people dying in the USSR and one aspect of his persecution was against religion. The communist revolution required that people give up religion and devote themselves to the welfare of the state and others. That wasn't entirely done in the name of atheism, but there were massive atrocities committed in the name of atheism in that part of human history.
Jun 11 2012: That's ok Mike...I agree to disagree. You notice I said "generally":>) Kudos to your grandfather. My mother, a devout catholic until the day she died was not disturbed when I abandoned that religion. She was secure in herself, her beliefs, and in addition to teaching me some very valuable lessons, based on her beliefs, she also encouraged me to open the heart and mind to seek my own beliefs, which happen to include some of what she taught me:>)
My intent in the life journey is also to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of all people, and I encourage inclusiveness. I like to plant the seeds, through example, that violation of rights in any way is not useful to the individual who violates the rights of others, nor is it useful to the whole. It is only an insecure person, and one who does not recognize the connectivity of all people, who can violate the rights of others. One of my life philosophies is that if I am not part of the solution, I am part of the problem. I like the idea of "planting seeds", rather than trying to "convert".Jun 12 2012: Most atheists I know support freedom of and from religion.After all we are a minority in many places. No issues in the battle of ideas and debate, but I'm not aware of anyone suggesting forcing atheism these days.
Stalin, Mao etc was a particularly nasty person with a nasty perspective in many areas including in regards to religion.
I guess they saw religion as a threat and supporting the status quo e.g divine right of the Tzars etc.
Forced atheism is as evil to me as forced theism. Communism was kind of like a particular totalitarian atheist theocracy.
Having no belief in gods does not automatically lead to forcing the same on others. Atheism does not support communism or democracy - it is neutral. Atheism was just an element of stalinism. Not the cause of it.
But I note you said not exactly, and one aspect only, not because of.
I'm an atheist but don't have any dogma encouraging me to suppress religion within a secular society. Whereas religions are filled with pointers to do bad stuff - e.g. homosexuality is wrong, suppressing women is okay, killing in the name of god is okay etc. And this is seen as an absolute truth by many.
Atheism is not an excuse for doing harm to others. It just means you have to figure out what a good life is for yourself and not rely on this or that religion.Jun 11 2012: I had to go all the way back up to your first comment to respond...Ted responses seem a bit quirky! Don't get me wrong, I didn't appreciate the way my grandfather acted. It saddened me, when he died, I was the only person there. He and my mom hadn't spoken in nearly two and a half decades. This was due to his belief regarding her religious choices. He and I discussed the situation often and his pride got in the way of his being able to express his love for her in any way other than railing against her choices, which he thought would send her to hell.
I know what you are saying in "planting seeds" I periodically find myself at odds with members of my congregation because I often take a more head on approach to things that I think need to change in society. In the end, however, I believe that for change to take place on the scale necessary in this day and age, a diversified approach is necessary.
I do admire MLK and the nonviolent civil rights movement he spearheaded. I also admire Malcolm X. My empathetic tendency would lean towards favoring MLK, but my sense of urgency for justice might push me towards Malcolm X.
Have you ever read any of Star Hawk's books? I read "Webs of Power" a while back and it made me pause and think (not sure I ever stopped after that though LOL) Sometimes I wonder if I'm the guy who stopped to think and then never got around to starting again!
Anyway, she has been involved in the anti-globalization movements since the late 90s and discusses how decisions were made in the field...affinity groups. She discusses the idea that peaceful protest and the so called "black block" might both be necessary to foment change.
This might be making excuses for my personality, but it has given me room to be more of who I am, which is someone who is passionate and sometimes a bit "in your face" about things I really care about. I've quit fighting that and quit trying to be some other way. It has been liberating
Jun 12 2012: Mike,
LOL...you had to "go all the way back up to your first comment to respond...Ted responses seem a bit quirky".
It's kind of like life...is it not? "Quirky" at times, and sometimes, we can explore back to the beginning for information which may help to respond in the present moment:>)
That is very sad that your grandfather and your mom didn't speak for so long because of belief choices they made. That happens way too much in our world, unfortunately.
I agree that to facilitate change, we can all use diverse approaches, because we all act and react to/with different stimuli. To create change in our world, it is important to participate and be aware from many different angles. There is not one approach, belief, idea or opinion that will appeal to everyone.
I agree with your perceptions of MLK and Malcolm X. They both demonstrated a different approach, which led to the same perspectives and resolutions. There are many different paths to the same goals.
I appreciate and respect the differences offered by different people, and I believe that is how we will create resolution and unity in our world...IF/WHEN...all people (I know that's a big stretch..."all people"!!!) let go of the belief that their truth is the one and only truth.
I have heard about Star Hawk's books, but have not read them.....yet!
Being who we are, and being clear about who and what we are, is indeed liberating. Anything else is illusion...in fact...who we think we are could be an illusion as well:>)Jun 14 2012: Hello Mike and Colleen,
Dont want to miss your lovely conversations. To sum up your conversations: beliefs and social life, beliefs and interpersonal relationships, beliefs and world situations, "planting seeds," relativity of truth, and the need to incorporate diverse approaches/perspectives.
For me, it's good to have theories of evaluation that concerns human beings and the world as a whole with its interdependently weaved fabrics of existence. One such theory would be like: neither harm oneself nor others. Any belief that harms oneself and others can be undesirable. Related questions would involve: how can we harm oneself and others? what is one's relationship to others and why should not we harm them? If we harm ourselves, how can that affect others? How can it possible that harming others will involve harming ourselves? (Any more questions?)
These questions may sound out of place, but we dont seem to be sincere in our wish for a peaceful world if we discard such concerns. Beliefs and practices can be evaluated to how much they promote to this cause of peace and happiness, both of the individual and of the society. It's not an issue whether we are theists, atheists, liberalists, secularists, or communists, although these conventions may shape our ways. Certainly, there can be diverse ideas of heavens, utopias and felicities. but can there be a single road? To elaborate: some people find happiness in drinking liquor (one way to happiness?). If it is so let it be. But the undesirable aspects of it can be domestic violence, possible health threats, etc. We believe drinking is a source of happiness, but how can it be if it harms oneself and others, causes social turmoil. etc? It is not bad in itself but how it affects.
Wishes :DJun 23 2012: Teja,
It appears that your exploration of life is similar to mine...questions....questions....questions!
I agree that how we choose to lebal ourselves, is not that relevant. What is important to me, is how I live my life...how do I use the information I gain from the questions?
"One of the great difficulties in the new order of thought is that we are likely to indulge in too much theory and too little practice".
Ernest Holmes - "Science of Mind"
We can call ourselves theists, atheists, liberalists, secularists, etc., as you have pointed out. What does that really mean to us as individuals? Sometimes, we embrace the labels without fully exploring the meaning to us as individuals....too much theory...not enough practice!Jun 10 2012: I choose to identify as an atheist specifically because of society's prejudice against atheism. As you probably read in my UU sermon, I have been a "gnostic atheist" when I was young, meaning I not only believed, but believed that I knew there is no god or gods. Then I joined AA and became a theist and for several years, I was a "gnostic theist" meaning I knew that god or gods existed. Now I'm something of an agnostic atheist. I don't know there is no god or gods, I simply don't believe there are. I may change my mind again some day if a good enough case is made.
Many members of my church, the Unitarian Universalist Church, are uncomfortable with the term atheist. The atheistically inclined prefer the term, "Secular Humanist."
My choice in this arena is similar to Star Hawks choice to call herself a witch. She is reclaiming a word, which in her estimation has been misused. A few years ago, I read a news article, detailing how more than 50% of the US population wouldn't vote for an atheist. My two older kids were cub scouts when they were younger and I seriously objected to the notion that the "Best Kind of Citizen" is someone who believes in a god or gods. I think that statement is patently false!
In terms of spiritual, I find that so many secular humanists get upset by the word spiritual or prayer and this is fine, but isn't, in my opinion, appropriate in a Unitarian Universalist Church, which requires neither belief in god nor disbelief in god. UUs as a class are more concerned with how someone acts and whether we are making the world a better place.
Thank you everyone for reading and for taking the time to make a great discussion on this topic!
Jun 11 2012: Mike, thanks a lot for your explanations and also for starting this conversation. You certainly have great understanding. I admire your flexibility. I'm learning a lot from here.
(I don't know why Ted allows replying only upto the second reply, not a third one or to several steps further. If Colleen Mam and Obey are reading this, i want to thank them for their comments)
Best Wishes :D
Jun 11 2012: Thanks Teja! :-)
I'm appreciating your participation in this conversation.
--maJun 11 2012: Hi Mike, I'm also an technically an agnostic atheist.
Although I'm 100% sure all the human religious belief systems can not be literally correct.
I do struggle with theists who think the interpretation they believe, usually just depending on where and when they grew up, is the truth, particularly if they try force it on others. I just want a secular separation of church and state where people are free to follow or not follow any religion, within limits e.g. no genital mutilation of infants, no stoning homosexuals etc.
The indoctrination of children saddens me immensely.
Adults often fall for the psycho-social tricks in religious and cultist institutions as well, but at least they have had a chance to build to develop critical thinking and skepticism.
At best one stream is closer to the truth than others but I guess they are all just man made.
Pantheism or Deism is less specific and hence less nonsense, but no evidence.
My best guess is the natural universe is weirder than our human senses and intellectual capabilities can grasp.
Who knows for sure? I guess no one.
UU, is quite interesting. There are a couple branches in Sydney I thought of checking out, but I personally don't need or want to strongly. Good for people who want something like that. I guess some reformed theists miss the religious or community spirit. Whereas my little community or tribe is my group of close friends. However, I have enjoyed meditation and yoga in groups. I guess we are social and meaning seeking animals.
To each their own I guess as long as they don't adversely impact others. Also, if people want to make claims about the truth or force them on other people they need to have decent evidence and a non religious rationale, and be prepared to defend their assumptions, as do I.
Interesting topic. Thanks.
Jun 11 2012: I would tend to agree with you about religious belief systems not being 100% correct (and I think that is a generous way to put it!)
I also strongly support religious freedom.
I think the main reason I'm a UU is that it is the venue in which I've decided to try and make a difference. For some stupid reason, I've decided to try and write a book (like I have time for that). Here is the opening paragraph to the preface.:
I am motivated to write a book for Unitarian Universalists, not because I believe myself a skilled author or profound thinker. Rather, my reasons are very personal, they consume my time and energy, they motivate my focus on career and they simultaneously invigorate, and deplete my personal energy reserves. Regardless of any immediate emotional state I may be experiencing, they motivate my efforts to become a better person and provide a continued reason for my identification as a Unitarian Universalist. In short, they constitute the foundation for my unyielding commitment to spreading our message.
My motivations are named, Rowan, Devin and Mikalh. They are my three exasperating, inspiring, draining and beautiful children. To me, they embody humanity's future and they serve as a constant reminder that my generation's legacy, though still unwritten, may prove a burdensome load for its inheritors.
Debra Smith
Jun 9 2012: Is that like asking if I can over eat to get skinny?
- +2
daniel hehir
Jun 9 2012: Hi Debra,
- +1
What about...
Wash me... but don't get me wet.... ;-)
daniel hehir
Jun 28 2012: Old Atheists never die ... they just... dis-be-liv
- +1
Jun 29 2012: ha ha! :-)Jun 27 2012: I too am in wonder of are universe and it's evolution. Like you I am so greatful to be alive in this mathematical improbability. However, I do not see a need for anything spiritual. When I hear the word (spiritual), Immediately accociate it with religion, soul, and some unseen energy that is us. I am pretty sure this is not how you think of the word spiritual. I Think you are using it in a sense that connects you to are universe in a deeper way. As an atheist I do not want to give any power to religious dogma, because I feel it is infecting and contagious to mankind. For these reasons I will not call atheism a spiritual path. However, I will call it an exciting enlightened journey towards truth, knowledge, and wisdom. I donnot need a God or spiritual connection to appreciate the universe in all it's complexity. All I need is the will to continue towards a path of truth and understanding.
Jun 28 2012: I think generally, you and I probably agree, except in your condemnation of religion. I don't believe humanity will be any better off if religion is eradicated. I believe religion is merely an expression of the human condition (though it is one of many).
I think people tend to be more interested in being right than in embracing the inherent ambiguity of life. If people stop having religion, I think they'll become dogmatic about something else...probably about topics which already carry a heavy load of dogma, like politics or economic theory.
We'll substitute Cambodia's killing fields for the crusades. Well substitute right vs. left dogma for religious dogma. We'll let people starve in service of the holy "free market."
I don't think much would change in terms of how we treat each other. I could be wrong...I often am, but this is my sincere opinion.
Jun 28 2012: Hi Mike, I think Marshall is just saying he doesn't want to reinforce religious beliefs by linking an atheist life journey to a word like spiritual with all its religious/supernatural meaning. No overt condemnation. Just some language like infection, contagious.
I agree an end to religion will not be an end to greed, tribalism, misuse of power, respect for undeserving authority, hateful cultural practices and attitudes, or being dogmatic. Not all terrorists and wars are religious. There will still be bad people, ideologies, leaders.
Atheism isn't an ideology, just a lack of belief in gods. Up to the individual to develop a world view, rather than a cookie cutter religious denomination. Humanism, Buddhism, Nihilism, whatever. Guess there will still be a battle of ideas and conservative versus liberal. Sexist, homophobic versus equality - just not empowered by religion, by claiming an absolute authority.
But suggest there is special power to religion that can be extra dangerous reinforcing tribalism etc. It also supports dumb and harmful ideas making them off limits for review.
Religion intertwines with other aspects of culture. It seems to have a multiplier effect in some situations. Atheism with enlightenment human rights and responsibilities is a good start I suggest.Jun 29 2012: Mike, I apologize if I come off as condemning religion for all of mankinds trouble's and wrongs. Surely this is not the case. However, their is no denying the influence religion has in are daily global events. It is hard for me to accept the absolute power some people give religion without any question or evidence. It seems to me that most, (not all) religions teach people to close their minds to new ways of thought. If we do not evolve are thought processes, how will we ever have a better world then the one we have today. Why do so many people allow these archaic ideas govern and control every aspect of their live's? Look at places like Iran where you can be convicted of blasphemy of the holy spirit and sentenced to death. What is a spirit? And how do you prove it has been blasphemed?
Jun 29 2012: Hey Marshal, no apology necessary, this is a forum for open discussion and agreement or disagreement. I feel your comments were an addition to the conversation and I think this has been a respectful discourse.
Also, I agree with most of what you've articulated, in particular with "If we do not evolve are thought processes, how will we ever have a better world then the one we have today."
I think what I'm really getting at (and it is theory) is that without religion, I firmly believe people will simply find something else to believe completely and without question. I have known people from the far left and the far right, who in either case refuse to acknowledge that scientific knowledge is more likely to point in the direction of truth than a subjective point of view or anecdotal evidence.
I don't see much difference between some of the free market purists or neo-cons with regards to their economic "truths" and my grandfather and his catholic "truths." I have family, who simply want to end petroleum production. I point out that it would devastate our economy and we need a comprehensive plan. They refuse to talk after that. It occurs as an article of faith to me...stop oil production and all will immediately get better.
That is all I'm saying. I'm not trying to defend religion exactly, I just think that if we want to create that just world, the focus will have to be on people's need for certainty in life. I have known many "gnostic atheists" who in conversation would say that they don't "know" there is/are no god/s. But when the topic shifted to something else, they would make statements that firmly imply knowledge of god/s non-existence.
I also know religious people, Christian, Mormon, etc... who embrace the ambiguous nature of life and who are pretty clear that their religious beliefs are beliefs, rather than knowledge.
I'm just think that a focusing on religion, whether pro or con, will likely lead down a tunnel with no cheese.Jun 28 2012: Marshal and Mike,
I don't interpret Marshal's statements as a "condemnation" of religion, but rather his reason for not wanting to "give any power to religious dogma", as he says.
I agree Mike that religion is one expression of the human condition, and throughout history, it is apparent, that many times religion does indeed, become an infection and contagion in a way that often adversly impacts many people.
I agree that some people often tend to be more interested in being right, than accepting each other and beliefs that may be different. I also agree that if some folks didn't have religion, to act out their underlying feelings, they may find another avenue. Those who have a tendancy toward controlling others, violence and abuse, will find a "cause" with which they can use their agressive behaviors. Those who have an argumentative personality, will find something to argue about.
One of the problems with religions, is that they often sanction mistreatment of others. Nothing is done within a religious organization about the molestation of children, the killing of people under the guise of religion, mistreating and rejecting people because of prejudice. These adverse actions, which are sanctioned by churches, need to be recognized for what they are. Many people who say they are devoutly religious and adore their loving god, turn around and abuse people in so many ways.
The molestation of so many children for example...
It was covered up by the leaders of the church and allowed to continue, because they were representatives of god and protected under the rules of the church. If they were in the general population, they would have been convicted of a crime and punished.
I grew up with this hypocracy and contradiction with a father who was known to be violent and abusive to his wife and children, and was honored by the church because he did volunteer work for the church and school, and showed up for mass on Sunday...sitting in the front row of course...to be seen.
Jun 28 2012: Perception and reality.
Its not just what you do.Its who knows what you do.
Jun 28 2012: I agree Obey...that is one perception...who knows what we do is important to some people.
In my humble opinion, it's HOW we do something that is MOST important....what is our intention?
If one truly believes in a religion and a god, and lives the beliefs, like my mother did, then HOW it is done is beneficial to oneself and all of humankind.
The opposite way of "being", is my father's life, in which it was ok, as far as he was concerned, to sit in the front row at church, recieve communion, do volunteer work for the church and school, then go home and beat his wife and kids.
I see this concept way too much with religious fundamentalists/extremists. They say the words...love thy neighbor...treat everyone as we would like to be treated...bla....bla....bla!!!
Then they exclude certain people from their church because of prejudice, kill people under the guise of religion, and often, even tell us we are uninformed and ignorant because we do not accept their god and religion! These are some of the very apparent reasons that many people are turning away from beliefs in a particular god or religion.
If they (religious fundamentalists/extremists) would simply take a look in the mirror, and evaluate their words and actions, our world could be a better, more harmonious, more peaceful, safer place to live.Jun 29 2012: Don't misunderstand me about religion, I'm not saying it is all great. I honestly believe, though that not much would change if we do away with religion.
I just believe that when we see the hypocrisy of many religious people or hear the religious justification for perpetrating evil, people are quick to blame religion, because it is used to justify horrible actions.
Stalin, however, didn't use religion to justify the death of more than twenty million people under his reign, communism was officially atheist. When the US Government took my full blood Native American Mom away from her parents and adopted her into a white, American family, they didn't use religion as an excuse, but rather the concepts of integration and cultural superiority.
I truly believe we will cross all of those bridges of poor ethics, using our politics or economics as justification. The global sex trade is funded by greed. Hundreds of thousands of young children are kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery so that someone else can make money. It is justified by the need to make a profit. The same can be said of sweat shop labor.
I just don't see the end of religion making any real difference in these sorts of things. While defending freedom, "patriots" will continue to say things like, "America, love it, or leave it!" We'll continue to accuse people of being Nazis for trying to expand health care. People are capable of pretty disgusting behavior and they'll find a new religion to justify that. Some other belief system, which perhaps doesn't include Gods, but does leave them feeling justified in not examining their own faulty point of view. I think if we want to change this, we'll have to dig a lot deeper than religion.
Jun 29 2012: Hi Mike, we had similar race policies in Australia with the indigenous people, although my understanding is part of it was to give them some god.
Totally agree bad people and inhumane policies don't need religion.
Atheism is lacking a belief in god. It's a personal choice. Outlawing religion is not atheism. Stalin may have been an atheist but outlawing religion it is not an automatic outcome. Atheism does not equal communism.
I think theists are being a bit deceptive or ignorant when they link a lack of belief in god with totalitarian regimes that outlawed religion.
Most Atheists I know support human rights including freedom of and from religion alongside the separation of church and state.
Agree that it takes more than an end to religion to address the bad that are not part of or reinforced by religion. While I have an opinion, I'm not sure on balance if the world would be better or worse with or without religion. Either way we can do better than we are now.
My guess is things are much better now than the past in many places. Thanks to the enlightenment etc cruel punishment and torture is frowned upon. Slavery is no longer accepted although sanctioned by the Abrahamic texts. Equal rights. We no longer lock up homosexuals in Australia. They are still killed in some places. The idea of monarchy is challenged etc.
There is something beyond religion, maybe helped sometimes, maybe hindered sometimes, where our cultures have evolved. Sometimes in the early days religions may have been socially innovative and improvements. Nowadays I see religion in many places being dragged slowly into the 21st century, with human rights, freedoms, and responsibilities.
Things like greed etc seem to be par t of our nature depending on the individual. Maybe religion moderates some individuals, but I think the underlying cultural norms are more powerful. I think religion can be a + or -.
Regardless, of the pros and cons, the question is is it trueJun 29 2012: You know Mike, I am less interested in an end to religion than I am in moderating it.
No more theocracies. Freedom of religion with a secular government. Not sneaking creationism and prayer into state schools. Not forcing iron age and medieval morality on others based primarily on dogma.
One of my bugbears is how it is difficult for religious adherents to reject the dogma that is damaging. The advocacy of slavery in the bible was fighting words leading up to the US civil war. The stand against same sex marriage has strong links to religious dogma. Why shouldn't catholic priests be able to marry? Why not women priests? Circumcision of powerless infants is simply GBH wrapped up as tradition and religion. Who says aborting a fertilised egg is the same as killing a thinking feeling self aware child. Why does the foetus's right to develop and be born automatically trump the rights of the mother in regards to what happens in her body, particularly if she was raped etc. Its not black and white. A lot of religious morality stamps binary directives on complex issues.
Religion may stunt the debate of these sorts of issues on their merits. The starting point and sometime the end point is a book, or religious authority says this, every other argument is just to defend the dogmatic position.
So while a lot of the bad isn't going anywhere in general, there is nothing wrong with hoping bad is reduced, including the bad from religion.Jun 29 2012: Mike,
I don't think I misunderstand you about religion. Your topic is "Atheism as a Spiritual Path", and that is what I am addressing. Nowhere, have I suggested doing away with religion. In fact, I've spoken in favor of religions on many discussion threads in which people suggested doing away with all religions.
I am very aware of the benefits derived from religious beliefs for some people. That's why I used the examples of my mom, who truly lived her beliefs, and used her religion as a valuable life guide, and my dad, who was hypocritical and contradictory in the way he used religion.
I also clearly stated in my comment above..."One of the problems with religions, is that they often sanction mistreatment of others. These adverse actions, which are sanctioned by churches, need to be recognized for what they are."
Religious organizations are a HUGE part of our societies. The catholic organization, for example is one of the largest and richest entities in our world. I believe that if/when religious organizations start being accountable for their actions, which adversly impact people, it WILL make a difference in our world simply because of the masses of people who are controlled by religions. I agree with you that all challenges in our world are not going to be resolved by encouraging accountability/responsibility within religious groups, but it certainly will start to influence the way our world functions, simply because of the numbers of people we are talking about.Jun 9 2012: Interesting topic Mike,
I believe we can call ourselves whatever we choose, and live with whatever principles we choose. I don't like labels, so I choose not to label myself. I do not believe in a god, do not practice a religion, and live mindfully aware in the moment.
A little background...
I was born into a catholic family, and percieved the dogma/teachings to be hypocritical and contradictory, so I was constantly questioning. It never made sense to me to have a religious belief based on fear. At some point, I abandoned the belief, but had to continue going to mass on Sunday as long as I lived with my parents. Otherwise...you know...I would go to hell...LOL:>) As soon as I moved out (age 19) I abandoned the practice.
Fast forward...23 years later...
I had a horseback riding accident and sustained a near fatal head/brain injury, had a near death/out of body experience, which was totally outside any belief system that I had at the time. After that, I explored, researched, studied, and even practiced several religions and philosophical beliefs for years. While some religions have some valuable core beliefs, I find the dogma of many religions controling. So, I embraced, accepted and use many of those core beliefs independant of a dependancy on a religion.
I did not meet a god, when I was in the spirit/energy state. There may be a god "out there" somewhere, but with the information I have at this time, I do not believe so. I did not witness a heaven or hell. It doesn't make sense to me that a god of love (which "he" is called by religious people), would create this earth, and put us here only to worry about going to hell!
I like to live life from a place of love, and if there is a god, I believe that is how he/she/it would want us to live our lives as well:>)


text:
Frameless Oversized Chalkboard
One is enough to make a big statement and provide plenty of doodling space, but why stop there? Perfect just about anywhere, there's nothing like a floor-to-ceiling chalkboard wall to spark their creative side.
- Made of wood with painted chalkboard finish
- Borderless edges also have a chalkboard finish
- Keyhole mount; hardware not included
- Eraser and chalk not included
Frameless Oversized Chalkboard
- 47¾"W x 59"L

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The holiday shopping season is more than just several weeks of frantic work for small-business owners in the retail field.
The total is staggering.
Small businesses can learn from the informative gatherings that were designed to help small businesses start and succeed.
Why is marketing material geared toward millennials so important to a company's success?
More Americans have home offices than ever before.
This icon indicates a link to third-party content. By clicking on the link, you will leave our website and enter a site not owned by the bank. The site you will enter may be less secure and may have a privacy statement that differs from the bank. The products and services offered on this third-party website are not provided or guaranteed by the bank.


text:
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa -- The Fighting Saints fell behind early in Cedar Rapids and were never able to catch the RoughRiders, who won their first game of the year against the Fighting Saints in five tries by a 7-2 score.
The RoughRiders scored off of a turnover less than four minutes into the first period, grabbing the 1-0 lead. Stu Wilson and Nathan Widman sent the puck to John Gilmour, who fired a wrist shot through the slot to beat Connor Girard and give the RoughRiders the lead. Gilmour picked up his second point of the night when he sent the puck to Nick Saracino, who sent a pass off of a Fighting Saints stick and to Ryan McGrath. McGrath beat Girard to give Cedar Rapids a 2-0 lead, which they would hold at the first intermission.
Four minutes into the second period, Gilmour got his second goal of the game on a shot from the point with Cedar Rapids on a 5-on-3 powerplay. With around three minutes to go in the period, Jack Rowe received a pass from the corner and one-timed it high to the glove side of Girard to put the RoughRiders in the lead 4-0. Cedar Rapids would score once more in the frame, getting a goal from Riley Bourbonais on a rebound at the netfront to put the Fighting Saints in a 5-0 hole.
The Fighting Saints got their first goal of the night early in the third period when former RoughRider Jono Davis sent a puck home from the slot to make the score 5-1. Tyler Lundey and TJ Moor assisted on the goal. Cedar Rapids made it 6-1 with a Stu Wilson goal under two minutes later. Austin Ortega redirected a Chris Dienes feed on the powerplay to make it 7-1 at the 11:28 mark of the frame. Matt Caito got the score to 7-2 with a goal late in the period, with Max Gardiner picking up the assist.
The Fighting Saints will return home Saturday night, hosting the Indiana Ice in what will be an important conference matchup for both teams. The Fighting Saints will make their longest road trip of the season next weekend, travelling to Youngstown for a Friday night game, followed by a trip to Ann Arbor to play Team USA and a matchup in Muskegon on Sunday.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa News, Sports, and Weather


text:
New Newslink Feature Focuses on SLU Mission
'Mission Matters' will highlight University's Jesuit history, spirituality programs
Saint Louis University students, faculty, staff and administrators believe that mission matters. To demonstrate and develop that belief, the Division of University Mission and Ministry soon will launch a new weekly feature in the SLU Newslink Daily Update email.
"Mission Matters" will highlight interesting facts and footnotes about the University's Jesuit history and tradition, provide information and updates about Jesuits worldwide, and promote upcoming mission programs at SLU.
Also, members of the SLU community will be encouraged to share stories about their colleagues and classmates living the mission in big ways and small, on and off campus.
Eventually, all of the "Mission Matters" content will be archived on the mission and ministry website, which Paul Stark, S.J., vice president for mission and ministry, said will become a "one-stop" location for mission-related information, providing a variety of opportunities for education, formation and service.
"At Saint Louis U., we all know that mission matters," Stark said. "This new feature in Newslink will highlight some of the particular matters that make up our mission."
University Mission and Ministry includes the Eckelkamp Center for Campus Ministry and Pastoral Care at SLU Hospital. The division also offers retreats, programs, conferences and numerous other initiatives to help faculty, staff and students develop prayer and spirituality.
For more information about this new feature, contact Don Highberger, S.J., special assistant for mission programs, at email@example.com or 314-977-1058.


text:
Nov 19, 2006
Extend your NXT cables - homebrew
5 comments:
- Brian Davis said...
I think I remember that around 90 cm to 1 m is suspected to be the maximum pratical length, due to the way I2C signalling works. But it would be interesting to use this method to test this...
Brian Davis
- Nov 20, 2006, 3:02:00 AM
- Rob Torok said...
Steve Barker from HiTechnic (http://www.hitechnic.com/) told me that they ended up with 90cm as the longest cable in their 'Extended Connector Cable Set' because of problems with I2C beyond 1 metre.
Now, I'm not an electronics boffin, but I think he said that cables longer than 1 metre had problems with induction, and bringing it back to 90cm gave them a 10% (or so) safety margin.
This is also why there will probably never be a female-female cable joiner... )-:
- Nov 20, 2006, 8:23:00 AM
- Jim Kelly said...
Well, maybe Karl will read these comments and add one of his own to let us know his results. I know that even cat-5 cables has limits for its own lengths, so it doesn't surprise me that this type of cable will have its limits.
- Nov 20, 2006, 8:26:00 AM
I'm going to try different lengths, I've just thought up an easy way to do this. More on that later.
Meanwhile. This page says that the main limit is the capacitance of the cable of 400pF: http://www.i2cchip.com/i2c_connector.html
Not being an electronics type I'm not sure how that relates to the cat5 cable, I found a cat5e specification of 5.6nF/100m (nominal). Whatever that means.
- Nov 20, 2006, 8:01:00 PM
- Tony Naggs said...
Writing as an, ahem, 'electronics boffin', or at least a guy whose degree was 50% electronics:
It is a long time time since I worked my way through the I^2C (I squared C) spec, but 90 cm sounds like a good place to stop.
The touch sensors do not use the I^2C bus, so they can probably stretch further. The motors do not use the I^2C bus, but the tachometer inputs are similar.
Philips created the I^2C interface as a cheap, efficient way to connect chips and sub-assemblies, (e.g. in TV set). It was not designed to run over long distances.
In mechanical terms I^2C is like a short lever with only a small movement. The further away you are from the lever the harder it is to tell whether your piece of string is being tugged upwards or downwards.
Other signaling schemes such as Ethernet over CAT cable and the RS485 signals on Port 4 of the NXT brick are better for long distances. In mechanical terms they push in one place whilst pulling in a corresponding second place.
Karl - your success with longer cables may depend on:
(a) cutting out nearly all of the cheap phone cable, and
(b)which wires are connected to each twist pairs in the CAT-5 cable. Pins 1 & 2 should be on the same pair. As should 3 & 6, and 4 & 5.
5.6nF/100m means a worst case of 5600pF capacitance over 100 metres of cable. So if 400pF defines the cut off point you may be able to achieve about 7m.
I am skeptical that this will be reliable. Especially as the cables are likely to run near electrically noisy Lego motors.
Apologies for the long essay.
Tony N
- Nov 21, 2006, 7:35:00 AM


text:
my snapdragons were doing fine, but now they are turning wilty. is this normal??
Before posting, please review all comments. Due to the volume of questions, Almanac editors can respond only occasionally, as time allows. We also welcome tips from our wonderful Almanac community!
Visit our sister Web site: www.YankeeMagazine.com
Custom programming and server maintenance by Reinvented Inc.
©2015, Yankee Publishing, Inc., P.O. Box 520, Dublin, NH 03444, (603) 563-81112015-07-08 02:40:37


text:
Top Searches:
Horoscopes |
Salaries |
Washam |
July 22, 2013
Links: Australian Glass and the Pacific Northwest at Museum of Glass
Wsu Master Gardeners of Pierce County at Master Gardener of Pierce County
The Shape of Things by Neil Labute at Dukesbay Theater
All events for today »
Submit an event | All events
Drama, Suspense/Thriller, Musical
Unjustly sent to prison, a man vows revenge, not only for that cruel punishment, but for the devastating consequences of what happened to his wife and daughter. When he returns to reopen his barber shop, he becomes Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, who "shaved the faces of gentlemen who never thereafter were heard of again." Sweeney's amorous accomplice, Mrs. Lovett, creates diabolical meat pies.
Rated R for graphic bloody violence.
Visit the official site
Cast: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Christopher Lee
Produced by: Richard D. Zanuck, Walter Parkes
Directed by: Tim Burton
Written by: John Logan, Christopher Bond
Running time: 1hr 56min
Opens: Dec 21, 2007 Nationwide


text:
Comfort and cool
Swishy, fabulous and fun
Inspired by Brazilian carnival costumes
Simple and sporty
Essential footgear
Brilliant for every day
Svelte, sparkly AND adjustable
Sporting a 70's retro-chic vibe
Delivering constant comfort and cush
The tan colour is very flattering and teamed with the cork sole is stunning!
I bought a pair of the black suede Arena FitFlops and really wanted the tan suede as a complimentary pair to go with all my outfits. I couldn't get them and bought these instead. I feel that these turned out to be a better choice. Both pairs look smart but don't detract from my clothes. The tan patent leather just shines enough for someone to glance down and say 'Wow' which is what I say all the time when I look at and wear my collection of FitFlops. Walking was a pain before, now it's a pleasure.
Microwobbleboard™ Technology
FitFlop multi-density midsoles, inspired by our Non-Stop Ergonomix™ philosophy, are biomechanically engineered to diffuse pressure and provide instant relief to your feet.
Classic FitFlop™ footwear is built on Microwobbleboard midsoles which can help diffuse underfoot pressure and absorb shock.
Not sure which size you need?
Click the appropriate sizing chart below and follow instructions to print accurately.
Women's FitFlop Size Guide
Men's FitFlop Size Guide
Note: you may need to install Adobe Acrobat Reader first.
Microwobbleboard™ sizing information
Instep sizing information
FitFlop footwear only comes in whole sizes. If your feet fall somewhere between, opt up a size if you have wide feet or a high instep, and down if you have narrow feet or a low instep. In the US, most people size down to the nearest whole size. In the rest of the world, people generally size up.
To ensure these fit, take 20-30 brisk walking steps in them, then look at your heels to make sure they are not being pushed off the back of the footbed. If they are, the upper straps are too tight across your instep and you need to SIZE UP (if a size up seems too long for your foot, please try another style).
Note: It is normal to have some space between your toes and the front of the footwear.
Shipping Options
SurePost $5.95 or FREE on orders $75 and over
Customers can typically expect delivery within 5-7 business days after the order is processed, pending credit card approval.
UPS Ground Service $8.95
Customers can typically expect delivery within 2-5 days after the order is processed, pending credit card approval.
HI and AK customers please allow for additional delivery time when choosing this method.
(UPS is our preferred method for HI and AK customers)
2-Day UPS Air Service $15.95
Customers can expect delivery in 2 business days on orders placed prior to 3pm EDT Monday - Friday, pending credit card approval. Orders placed after 3pm EDT will ship the following business day.
Next Day Air UPS service $38.95
Customers can expect next business day delivery for orders placed prior to 3pm EDT Monday - Friday, pending credit card approval. Orders placed after 3pm EDT will ship the following business day.
Full Shipping information