So we laugh at them

[Armistead]

I don't care what a person believes as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me except through rational discussion.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I don't care what a person believes as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me except through rational discussion.

Same here

Markus

[Skybird]

Wanting to know by self-experiencing the answers to the Why, Where-from, Where-to, How-much-time, is spirituality.

Instead of that just believing something one has been fed, may it be a missionary, a claimed holy book, or one own's parents, is religion, and dogma.

Religious dogma that one believes while keeping in private, keeping to oneself, is an obsession.

The moment religious dogma takes to the public, it stops to be a private obsession only, not to mention being "spiritual", but becomes pure power-politics, no matter whether the majority of public believes the same way, or opposes its views. It's about controlling people and make them obeying.

Educating one's own children in a spiritual manner can only mean to teach them to ask questions and to want experiencing the answers themselves. And only then you can learn about how limited man's reach is to find such answers. For every answer, there opens new questions, it seems. And that holds a lesson in itself. No wisdom without realising how limited knowledge always necessarily is.

For me, science/scientific methodology, and spirituality, are no opposites at all, but share the same sceptical but open mindset. They are two ways towards the same goal, and sooner or later they merge and become just one way, even if you started by following just one of them . Put our heart into just one of them, and you win both.

But science and religion are not only opposites - they are antagonists. Any attempt to find a compromise between them can only mean to erode reason, and scientific mindset - like any compromise between food and poison can only mean to die when eating.

He who believes to know, in reality believes exclusively.

He who knows, must not just believe anymore.

In the end, self-realisation can only be had at the the cost of transcending oneself, forgetting oneself, overlooking oneself. And that is the essence of wisdom, and deep insight.

[Wolferz]

Well, you can't spell the words "belief or "believe"" without the lie in the middle of them.

Religion is a man made thing. Not the same as spirituality, yet those who profess to be spiritual tend to want control over everything and everybody. Passing judgement when they have no right to.

I've never seen a UFO so, I won't confirm or deny their existence until one of them lands in my back yard to say howdy.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

I've never seen a UFO so, I won't confirm or deny their existence

Wait until you have seen me.

[Rhodes]

I've seen some UFOs, not Skybird tough, but a few flying objects that I could not identify. They may had been plane, satellites, weather ballons or even a ET ship. But who knows, not me for sure!

[GoldenRivet]

History is filled by folks who believed in a straight line, no tangents, no arcs.

From the earth being flat, to thunder being caused by an angry God-like being.

The arrogance of mankind and the collection of narrow minds; those are the ones worth laughing at. They are the ones chasing antelope with spears while the rest launch men into space and try to go beyond and press mankind onto greater things.

"There are more strange things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy" is one of my favorite quotes of all time.

We know so much as a species, yet we know so little. And nothing is more dangerous than a little knowledge.

How anyone could stare out into the vastness of the night sky and insist on mankind being alone in the universe be it spiritually or physically - transcends arrogance. It combines arrogance and ignorance into some higher form of closed mindedness for which there are no words.

Do i believe in God? Not in the traditional senses as many do... but i do believe that everything was created, possibly by an intelligence... but definitely created... somehow.

Do i believe in extra-terrestrial life?

Yes, life in our universe is as abundant as fish in the sea; its just a much larger ocean virtually incomprehensible in size and depth. That kinda makes the fishing that much harder, but on a long enough time line, we will find something. and when we do find it, it will change everything.

[Armistead]

Religion has never been a private matter, but a way to control culture and people. It's most dangerous form is when religion and politics combine. Man has always done better at genocide when it feels God is on its side. That's why I cringe at people saying we need God back in schools and govt., cause like it or not, that's govt. enforced religion. The goal of all religions are to convert, change and control the masses to a certain belief.

Anyway, here's proof of UFO's for any doubters.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Wait until you have seen me.

You're not one of those shape shifting lizard folk are you?

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Wait until you have seen me.

Originally Posted by Wolferz

You're not one of those shape shifting lizard folk are you?

Or me BBY! Seriously as in a previous post: yer out there in the boonies; the bush is burnin'; ya got a sudden case of Thirdman Syndrome in some solitary vision quest and suddenly yer Y chromosome related messiah complex (enlightenment?) kicks in! Prresto! get it down in writing (cuniform if possible-it looks better); round up some buddies (12 or so to start) with nothing else big on their agenda; move to Waco or head for Palestine or any promised land of yer choice and bump off anyone not in line with your 'opiate for the masses' as Moses and his inner-circle Levites did to about 3000 'Golden Calf' deviants in the Sinai trek: good 'ol politics mixed with religion as usual...or the first inquisition?. The poor Canaanites came 40 years later. What's in your Ark Bro?...Got Manna? Fortunately, at age 63, I assume the full monty will be revealed to me... shortly--so no need to bicker in advance.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Religious dogma that one believes while keeping in private, keeping to oneself, is an obsession.

An opinion, valid, but just an opinion. Obsession may be the wrong word.

For me, science/scientific methodology, and spirituality, are no opposites at all, but share the same sceptical but open mindset. They are two ways towards the same goal, and sooner or later they merge and become just one way, even if you started by following just one of them . Put our heart into just one of them, and you win both.

Agree. Completely.

But science and religion are not only opposites - they are antagonists. Any attempt to find a compromise between them can only mean to erode reason, and scientific mindset - like any compromise between food and poison can only mean to die when eating.

Disagree, with certain reservations. Dogmatic religious beliefs are certainly antagonistic but the list of scientists who held/hold religious/spiritual beliefs is extensive. The two fields are not mutually exclusive but rather somewhat different disciplines. Any attempt to explain a scientific theory with purely religious dogma is a mistake. In my opinion. Spirituality on the other hand is a personal quest that basically sets all other opinions aside. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It's too personal for that.

In the end, self-realisation can only be had at the the cost of transcending oneself, forgetting oneself, overlooking oneself. And that is the essence of wisdom, and deep insight.

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
-Max Planck

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

How anyone could stare out into the vastness of the night sky and insist on mankind being alone in the universe be it spiritually or physically - transcends arrogance. It combines arrogance and ignorance into some higher form of closed mindedness for which there are no words.

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

(on spirituality)

Agree. Completely.

(on religion)

Disagree, with certain reservations. Dogmatic religious beliefs are certainly antagonistic but the list of scientists who held/hold religious/spiritual beliefs is extensive. The two fields are not mutually exclusive but rather somewhat different disciplines. Any attempt to explain a scientific theory with purely religious dogma is a mistake. In my opinion. Spirituality on the other hand is a personal quest that basically sets all other opinions aside. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It's too personal for that.

To me you sound confused there, because you try to work around this difference that I made when keeping spirituality and religion, as terms, and thus end with trying to see religion and science as less mutually exclusive as they are. If using my "definitions" of the terms, as I explained them in order to be able to call two different concepts by a simple name, then you should see that you cannot have it all at the same time. The scientists you refer to, I also divide into two groups. There are those religious scientist, and since they are religious, they try to put faith and belief beside knowledge, reason and scientific methodology - corrupting all the three latter that way. On the other hands, guys like Heisenberg or Einstein in my book are not to be called religious, but sprititual. None of the two believed in simple superstitious explanations, or deities, nevertheless they stood in awe before the universe, realising that there is more to it and to themselves than they could ever know, but wanted to know.

To me, as I explained both terms, spirituality and religiosity are mutually exlcusive. You cannot be relgious AND spritial at the same time. But since we are mortal and sooner or later reaölsie that our time is limited, we start to ask those big questions. Therefore I would say that man is a sportual being by birth adn essenmce, and even cannot escape to be that. I would just hope he would stop trying so hard to be religious. Many people claim that to be a win. To me, it is a loss of a natural, inbuild quality that we have, due to our ability to be intelligent more or less, self-aware, and to reflect about ourselves and the cosmic context we are embedded in, may it be for our better or our worse. The more spirutual you are, the more you are a heretic to relgious dogmas. The more religious and believing you are, the less you want to know yourself by own experience, the less spiritual you are. You cannot be both. Hence my statement that science and spirituality can come together, but not science and religion, and also not religion and spirituality.

Sounds counter-intuitive, because many people do not draw that difference between what I call spiritual and what I call religious, and think of both as just one and the same. But I think that is a mistake, and that difference is vital and utmost important.

For the same reason, I have come to label myself - when I got asked occasionally - not as an atheist, but as a "spiritual atheist". And I knew many anti-religious but nevertheless spiritually-feeling atheists in my life as well. I think the difference I make is less rare and less exotic as it may sound. When doing some voluntary counseling job myself long time ago, I often had to deal with people who also refused dogmas and religion and tradition, nevertheless were sometimes desperate about trying to find a convincing meaning in life again. You know, it can happen that there rises this existential hunger for meaning in man, and when it cannot be tamed, then it can push man into deep desperation, and even clinical depression. Man needs a meaning in life, whatever it may be. For some, religious dogmas are good enough, but for others who dig deeper and are not easily to be satisfied with pre-produced answers, that is not good enough. They want more, and thus they become - necessarily - heretics. That can be good for their soul, but since it is a threat to the cult of their social environment, it also can be bad for their bodies - when they are being dragged to a stake to burn them, that is. Religions are a formidable excuse to turn out the worst in man, and they have a splendid historic record of violence and brutality carried out in their name, they breed supremacism to the outside and submission to the inside of a society, and poison human minds with tunnel-view syndrom, hate and intolerance. But truly spiritual people you will seek in vein in such historic recordings. Selbsterkenntnis just does not serve well as an excuse for trying to submit the outer world.

So let's keep the reason and logic of the scientific mind and religion separate, therefore, for the first is the natural enemy to disclose the irrationality in the latter - something which the latter never will forgive the first. These two must be enemies, and no way there is that I would want it any different.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

To me you sound confused there,

I'm confused alot.

To me, as I explained both terms, spirituality and religiosity are mutually exclusive. You cannot be religious AND spiritual at the same time.

I'm sorry but that is just not true. Of course, your definition of a religious person and mine or anyones for that matter may vary greatly. Perhaps you should start by giving your definition of one. My definition would be a person who seeks to serve both God and his fellow humans without reservation. It is commonly called 'practicing' your religion. In Christianity it is even more sharply defined. Serve God and others even to the detriment of your own well being. I'm not one of those people but I know some. If you had the nerve to ask these people if they considered themselves 'spiritual' I think you would be insulting them.

The more spiritual you are, the more you are a heretic to religious dogmas.

Religious dogma, yes. Religion as a practice and lifestyle, no.

The more religious and believing you are, the less you want to know yourself by own experience, the less spiritual you are.

Not so in the strictest sense. In fact any study of Christianity, and my own experience is the exact opposite. The whole idea is to find out who you are and why you are here. The religious/spiritual quest is based on knowledge, acquired both by learning and experience. The fact is the term 'spiritual' is almost meaningless today. Every rock star, actor and teenage girl claims to be 'spiritual'.

You cannot be both. Hence my statement that science and spirituality can come together,

The world is full of people who believe this and some of them have some very strange beliefs.

but not science and religion

The scientists you refer to, I also divide into two groups. There are those religious scientist, and since they are religious, they try to put faith and belief beside knowledge, reason and scientific methodology - corrupting all the three latter that way.

The scientists I was referring to do not belong in that group. A quick search shows an extensive list of people who had/have faith and do not let that faith interfere with the scientific process. Some have won Nobel prizes in their chosen fields. I know the group you are referring to but I wasn't.

So let's keep the reason and logic of the scientific mind and religion separate, therefore, for the first is the natural enemy to disclose the irrationality in the latter - something which the latter never will forgive the first.

I would rephrase that ...So let's keep the reason and logic of the scientific mind and religious dogma separate...,

There is a difference, a huge difference.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Perhaps you should start by giving your definition of one.

But I have. Repeatedly in this thread. Repeatedly in threads over the past years. I must not once again explain what I mean by "religious" and "spiritual", yes?!?!

My definition would be a person who seeks to serve both God and his fellow humans without reservation.

That already excludes atheist religions like Buddhism which does not have a conception of a god. It also exlcudes polytheistic religions which believe in more than one god. Not to mention pantheism. "Religion" is not limited to monotheism only. What you mention, is the monotheistic dogma. It's one amongst so many religious dogmas possible.

It is commonly called 'practicing' your religion. In Christianity it is even more sharply defined. Serve God and others even to the detriment of your own well being. I'm not one of those people but I know some. If you had the nerve to ask these people if they considered themselves 'spiritual' I think you would be insulting them.

For the x-th time, I gave my defintion of terms like relgion and spiritual, and why I use them in a different way than most people do: to be able to call by two single names two concepts that are mutually exclusively to each other. I explain that once ion a conversation, so that the pother knows what I speak of and refer to when saying "religion" and "spirituality". Read again what I said in this thread, it is not that difficult to understand. Not at all.

Religious dogma, yes. Religion as a practice and lifestyle, no.

Religious lifestyle and practice is based on dogma. A spiritual person as I defined it doesnot care neither for religious dogma, nor a stylish life. Regarding the social environment, such a person lives by the golden rule. You do not need religion to define the golden rule. The golden rule is a product of reason, and you can come to its conclusions even if you never received any religious teaching.

Not so in the strictest sense.

But certainly and very much so! Again, it bases on the two concepts that I call religion and spirituality, which i have explained before, repeatedly.

In fact any study of Christianity, and my own experience is the exact opposite. The whole idea is to find out who you are and why you are here. The religious/spiritual quest is based on knowledge, acquired both by learning and experience. The fact is the term 'spiritual' is almost meaningless today. Every rock star, actor and teenage girl claims to be 'spiritual'.

You either learn by studying theory. In the context of this matter, that would be studying religious dogma. You memorize what others have said and written down. It can or cannot have a relation and value for your real life, but since relgion sevres to cointrol the masses and to secure the power and privilige of the elite, it more or less is an ikagined knowedge that is not so much knpowing something real, but beolieving to know something. And as said earlier already: he who believes to know, in relaity believes esylcuisvely. That is the reaosn why theology and relgion in general , also Islam, should not have a seat in the canon of academic branches at university. At best they are object of historic studies only.

Or you learn by not trusting or not caring or not wanting to learn existing dogma, instesad want to base on what you experience yourself. That can be introspection, that can be meditation, that can be life experience in general. I have been meditation trainer for almost ten years. You can imagine that I got some expoerience about what states of mind and what attitudes are people in when looking for such things, and what walls they often run into. I hd around 200 to 250 trainees in those years. Just one or two of them I am sure broke through to a really deeper understanding of himself, to another (=deeper) awareness and understanding of life and reality. Maybe there was a third person, but I am not certain, when she left, it was too early to predict her path for sure, but I saw a promise in her. the other two were a couple and last thing I heard many years ago was that they now do their own trainings after the returned to America.

To understand spirituality, I remind - once again - of this very famous passage from the Buddhist Kalamas Sutra. It makes a a strict difference between real own experience, and dogmatic belief and unfounded faith. You do not give trust in advance in order to be rewarded with "evidence", that is not trust but unfounded credulousness. You trust because evidence or empiric justification has come first.

From the Kalamas Sutra:
Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, accept only that which you have carefully examined and tested tested for yourself, and found it reasonable and to be in conformity with your well being, and that of others.

Combine it with the golden rule: do not upon others as though do not want to be treated by them, and there you are: all moral and ethics you could ever need. Without any religion.

The scientists I was referring to do not belong in that group. A quick search shows an extensive list of people who had/have faith and do not let that faith interfere with the scientific process. Some have won Nobel prizes in their chosen fields. I know the group you are referring to but I wasn't.

Once these scientists you mean deal with an object that brings their scientific methodology into conflict with their religious belief, they necessarily either have to decide for the one, or for the other. The ones you mean, either have not touched upon such controversial objects, or they have corrupted reason and logic and necessarily have corrupted scientific standards as well by trying to establish religious superstition beside them, calling it the reconciliation of science and religion. It isn't that, not by a lightyear's distance - it is always the corruption of scientific standards, of reason, of logic.

Sorry, I take no prisoners there. Not a single one.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I don't care what a person believes as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me except through rational discussion.

Yes, more or less how I feel.