Ok, enough fun and games. Time to save the world. (Moved from Freethinking Anonymous)
Offline Hello, RR community. I am the immanent incarnation of the supernatural realm Limbo. I have taken physical form to tell you science geeks how to save the world from religious fundamentalism and extremism before humanity blows itself to bits. You see, I have a plan.
But there's good news and bad news. The good news is it's something even you nerds can do, if you try. The bad news is it has nothing to do with your precious science, so most of you will be out of your element. Think you Einsteins can handle that?
We shall see. I bet the Dream Realm 20 souls that you guys are up for it. Don't let me down...I don't have 20 souls to spare.
So, anyway. My plan. See, it's just two words...two simple words that theists and atheists alike overlook. Theists are too busy looking up at heaven to see them, and atheists are too busy burying their noses in their science books to see them. Two simple words that, if you are wise, will point you bookworms in the right direction. And here they are.
Comparative Mysticism
Heard of it? Probably not. But by the time I'm done here, you will be familiar enough with it to know how it will solve all your religious problems.
Before I start...are there any questions?
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll put this out there simply since I do understand what you are proposing since all it is is a religion that revolves around the religious experience of it all BUT instead of saying "GOD DID IT" you find rational scientific proof around it. You are also trying to show the whole myth of it all and teach why these things became big.
In short, taking all the 'good' (I don't find anything about religion to be good, so you'll have to find another word or define what good is) of religion and keeping it is no different than simply continuing the study of how the mind works, the common links between major mythological people/stories, etc. is no different than what the RRS is doing with things like the Jesus Mythcisist Campaign, the continued education and rebuttal of theistic thinking, and the continued research and support of scientific studies.
All of this without religion, which is the bad part of religion.
Again, though, all of this can be done without religion. In fact, even proposing a replacement for a religion doesn't stop theistic thinking, it supports it and as such replacing religion with religion is redundant much like putting a band-aid over cancer. It's not like building an immune system. You are proposing that the problem is religion BUT THEN offer another religion in it's place.
To further expand upon how that analogy doesn't work, one has to introduce an element into the immune system in order for the immunity to work. You know, this is why we get Flu shots to prevent the flu. You don't take a flu shot when you have the flu.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll put this out there simply since I do understand what you are proposing since all it is is a religion that revolves around the religious experience of it all BUT instead of saying "GOD DID IT" you find rational scientific proof around it. You are also trying to show the whole myth of it all and teach why these things became big.
Thank you, you are correct in your interpretation.
In short, taking all the 'good' (I don't find anything about religion to be good, so you'll have to find another word or define what good is) of religion and keeping it is no different than simply continuing the study of how the mind works
No, it is not the same. Studying how the mind works is studying how the mind works. What I'm talking about is *applying* that knowledge to combat religion, and I'm also saying that the best way to do that is to use religion's own methods (the good ones, remember) to that. You can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into. But you CAN myth someone out of something they mythed themselves into.
Eventually, logic must get involved, but to open the door, you need to use myth and persuasion.
is no different than what the RRS is doing with things like the Jesus Mythcisist Campaign
Why do you think I spend most of my internet time on RRS and related sites?
Yes, there are people out there who are effectively doing something close to what I'm talking about. They are the vanguard. I'm talking about making it much much bigger. A worldwide movement. With the internet, it is possible.
But anyway, I fear I've hijacked Limbo's thread. Come back Limbo!
All of this without religion, which is the bad part of religion.
Wait a second. Did you just say that religion is the bad part of religion? What the heck do you mean by that? You obviously have a specific beef with religion, but maybe you don't have quite the right words to express it.
In fact, even proposing a replacement for a religion doesn't stop theistic thinking, it supports it and as such replacing religion with religion is redundant much like putting a band-aid over cancer.
You're equating religion with god-belief. They are not the same. What I am proposing, whether you call it religion or not, does not involve any kind of god-belief or supernaturalism, or dogma, or faith, or wishful thinking or anything like that.
You are proposing that the problem is religion BUT THEN offer another religion in it's place.
You are the one who insists on calling it a religion. Is Humanism a religion?
To further expand upon how that analogy doesn't work, one has to introduce an element into the immune system in order for the immunity to work. You know, this is why we get Flu shots to prevent the flu. You don't take a flu shot when you have the flu.
The human immune system doesn't NEED a vaccine to fight the flu, but a vaccine DOES help. I think the best analogy would be a bacterial infection rather than a viral one. In a bacterial infection, you have bacterial cells (religious memes) and immune system cells (meta-religious memes). When bacteria are detected, the immune system cells rapidly evolve to produce just the right antigens to defeat the bacteria. Likewise, we will create just the memes necessary to defeat a religious memes.
The vaccine analogy was to imply that once someone gets it, they become immune. By teaching rational thinking skills, our meta-religious memes will provide immunity against current and future dogmatic religions.
No analogy is perfect, and I don't claim to have perfect ones. But analogies are useful, nonetheless.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline
Ok, I got an exciting lesson for today.
But first, is there an ignore list function on this website? CrimsonEdge failed in his assignment and refuses to leave my thread so I would like to be able to either put him on ignore, or delete his posts from this thread.
Can't have children like CrimsonEdge cluttering up my thread with their kindergarten understandings. This thread is for grown-ups, not children.
Atheists like CrimsonEdge are a dime-a-dozen. A weak-minded child with regurgitated rants who lacks the strength and will to watch a video about the subject matter. I'm looking for the rare breed. If you are an atheist of his breed then...maybe this thread isn't for you.
*Sigh*...my kingdom for an atheist who has the introspection to control his psychological defense mechanisms!
Ok, now that that's done...moving on.
The place we are going to start today is Shamanism. A Shaman is the most basic type of mystic you can get. The core experience of Shamanism, which is like a kind of schizophrenic crack-up, happens spontaneously to a person right around adolesence. So Shamanism requires no pre-requisite 'mystical' knowledge, nor any ritual preparation. It just happens, and it runs in families. From there, even the most basic culture can develop and refine a mystical tradition over time.
It's been said that 'the mystic swims the waters in which the schizophrenic drowns'. A Shaman pulls out of his initial core experience by 'swimming' the waters of the unconscious mind. The schizophrenic of course drowns in those waters. That is the difference between a Shaman and a schizophrenic, in a nutshell.
Shamanism is very, very ancient. We have evidence going back 70,000 years of Shamanistic ritual. And it's universal. All over the world, the SAME core Shamanistic experience is found.
Your assignment is to watch this video, and note similarities and differences among the various Shamans.
Fire on the Mountain: A Gathering of Shamans
And read this:
http://www.internetguides.com/dsm4/lesson3_8.html
- Login to post comments
Offline But first, is there an ignore list function on this website? CrimsonEdge failed in his assignment and refuses to leave my thread so I would like to be able to either put him on ignore, or delete his posts from this thread.
Can't have children like CrimsonEdge cluttering up my thread with their kindergarten understandings. This thread is for grown-ups, not children.
Atheists like CrimsonEdge are a dime-a-dozen. A weak-minded child with regurgitated rants who lacks the strength and will to watch a video about the subject matter. I'm looking for the rare breed. If you are an atheist of his breed then...maybe this thread isn't for you.
Hi Limbo - no, there is not an ignore function on these forums, and posts will not be deleted unless they are in violation of the rules. You, however, are violating the rules by singling out CrimsonEdge:
2.1. Antagonism.
Antagonism is giving one or more members a hard time. Cases typically comprise a series of provocations, each not necessarily sanctionable in its own right. Incidents can include, but are by no means limited to the following:
- Slander/Libel
- Clear intent to not argue a position, but to merely attack a person
- Trolling
- Abuse
- Bullying
The notoriously fickle and blurry nature of such exchanges makes it near-impossible to draw up a hardcoded definition of what exactly constitutes Antagonism. Moderators are more often than not simply forced to draw upon their vast and collective experience to adjudicate when enough is enough and take whatever steps they deem necessary in order to keep the peace, good will and reputation of the board.
Please refrain from attacking members. Also, out of curiosity, could you please tell us your theistic standpoint. The forum you are posting in (Freethinkers Anonymous) is for non-believers only, this thread may need to be moved to a different forum. Thank you.
- Login to post comments
Offline Limbo, you sound like Ted Haggard. You have yet to make a simple list of things that religion/myth can teach us, produce, etc. From the sound of things, you appear to be a theist in atheist clothing. Not only from trying to force questions out of 'your' thread, but by not even trying to do a very simple task... such as making a list.
I'll put it simply for you. Even if I agreed with you on what you were preaching (because this is what you are doing), I wouldn't want anything to do with what you want done because:
1. Your goals are not easily read, seen, or in numbered format. In fact, it appears as if you are proposing to make a religion out of atheism.
2. Instead of embracing opposition and question, you toss it out. No different than several theist boards.
3. You're behaving like a troll.
Just make a simple list.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hi Limbo - no, there is not an ignore function on these forums, and posts will not be deleted unless they are in violation of the rules.
Well then forget it. It'll be impossible to keep a thread like this from disintegrating if I don't even have a basic way of controlling it. Too many CrimsonEdges out there.
Please refrain from attacking members.
There's a difference between an attack and a strong rebuke. I rebuke atheists when I see the need, which is often.
Also, out of curiosity, could you please tell us your theistic standpoint.
Isn't it obvious? Oh, wait maybe not because I don't kiss every atheists butt and don't agree with everything they say. And I rebuke them when they deserve it, so maybe I'm a theist, eh? Is that it?
Yeah, I'm an 'atheist', minus the psychological defense mechanisms, and minus the kindergarten understanding of religion. So maybe that makes me half-atheist.
But it doesn't matter...I'm leaving. This place is just like every other atheist community. Plus it has lousy features.
- Login to post comments
Offline Thomathy wrote:I fail to see how this can aid the Atheist movement.
You will, if you would just loosen up, play along, and be patient. Don't want to learn? Fine. There's the door.
Or maybe you figure you already know everything that's worth knowing, eh? Typical.
This is ridiculous. You seem to have failed to read the rest of my post and have instead decided to suggest that I should be patient and that I already know everything worth knowing. Ridiculous; insulting. Neither you nor I believe we know everything. Shove it. It's extremely annoying to be told that I should play along with this charade of importance. If you really have something to say, say it or be done with this inane topic. I am more than willing to 'hear' you out if you would simply have out with all that you want to say.
This thread has turned into a back and forth between CrimsonEdge and natural which has no more to do with the topic at hand, I expect, than butterflies do with butter. I haven't seen a new response from the creator and I doubt very much if what natural talks about is even the gist of what Limbo means to.
If the purpose to comparative mythology is to determine the mechanism behind supernatural belief and the evolution towards present religion, it is an interesting study, but blatantly useless as these things are studied in various fields already. It is well understood why supernatural belief is present and it is no great leap to move from tribal animalism to the monotheistic religions of today.
As far as the bulk of natural's post go: there exists no place in a naturalist universe for the supernatural and thus there is no place for religion or spirituality. The very notion that there is or could be is contradictory to naturalism; to Atheism. If you don't mean religion, then don't use the term. It necessarily includes supernatural belief, dogma and the whole bit that goes along with religion. It is not reasonable to use the very thing Atheism fights against to forward Atheism. Irrational belief is not the basis of anyone's Atheism. It is nonsensical to suggest that it should be; that Atheism could win people over if it just used myth to appeal to supernatural believers. That just isn't what Atheism is!
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline That just isn't what Atheism is!
Thank you for elegantly saying what I was trying to convey.
- Login to post comments
Offline Well then forget it. It'll be impossible to keep a thread like this from disintegrating if I don't even have a basic way of controlling it. Too many CrimsonEdges out there.
It is not up to you to 'control' anything here. these forums are for discussion, not for you to rule and delete posts that you don't like. If there is a rule violation the mods will take care of that but people are allowed to post freely as long as the rules are followed.
Isn't it obvious? Oh, wait maybe not because I don't kiss every atheists butt and don't agree with everything they say. And I rebuke them when they deserve it, so maybe I'm a theist, eh? Is that it?Yeah, I'm an 'atheist', minus the psychological defense mechanisms, and minus the kindergarten understanding of religion. So maybe that makes me half-atheist.
I don't think it was obvious, your reaction is awfully defensive to someone who was just trying to perform their modding duties.
But it doesn't matter...I'm leaving. This place is just like every other atheist community. Plus it has lousy features.
You know what they say... don't let the door hit you or your 'holier than thou' attitude on the way out.
- Login to post comments
Offline CrimsonEdge, you are very welcomed.
- Login to post comments
Offline jce wrote:Hi Limbo - no, there is not an ignore function on these forums, and posts will not be deleted unless they are in violation of the rules.
Well then forget it. It'll be impossible to keep a thread like this from disintegrating if I don't even have a basic way of controlling it. Too many CrimsonEdges out there.
Quote:Please refrain from attacking members.
There's a difference between an attack and a strong rebuke. I rebuke atheists when I see the need, which is often.
Quote:Also, out of curiosity, could you please tell us your theistic standpoint.
Isn't it obvious? Oh, wait maybe not because I don't kiss every atheists butt and don't agree with everything they say. And I rebuke them when they deserve it, so maybe I'm a theist, eh? Is that it?
Yeah, I'm an 'atheist', minus the psychological defense mechanisms, and minus the kindergarten understanding of religion. So maybe that makes me half-atheist.
But it doesn't matter...I'm leaving. This place is just like every other atheist community. Plus it has lousy features.
Damn, I always miss the theistic temper tantrum. lol.
Sheesh, jce, how dare you ask him to follow the rules. Oh well, that just means there's one less inflated ego on this forum now.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
- Login to post comments
Offline “He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.” - Thomas Jefferson
Miracles don't exist. "Miracle" is a word given to a preposterous event that a theist considers dogmatically advantageous. Def. - Ecclesiastical sensationalism.
- Login to post comments
Offline So disappointed with Limbo's attitude. Oh well.
- Login to post comments
Offline Well, since Limbo ditched, I guess I'll continue to jack the thread.
As far as the bulk of natural's post go: there exists no place in a naturalist universe for the supernatural and thus there is no place for religion or spirituality.
You are incorrectly equating 'religion' and 'spirituality' with supernaturalism. Unfortunately, as I've tried to illustrate, they often get associated together, but there are people who call themselves religious (Einstein) and spiritual (some Buddhists) who do not believe in anything supernatural at all. One does not necessarily imply the other.
Religion, in the sense that might apply to the ideas I've been proposing, is a core philosophical worldview that you adopt as a way of life and a way of seeing life. There is nothing inherently supernatural about that, and many things could fall under this broad definition. I personally don't think it's a valuable definition, but the word IS often used that way, I can't deny it.
The very notion that there is or could be is contradictory to naturalism; to Atheism.
Good thing I haven't proposed this notion then, eh?
If you don't mean religion, then don't use the term. It necessarily includes supernatural belief, dogma and the whole bit that goes along with religion.
No it doesn't, this is an unrealistically narrow defintion of religion. I hate that kind of religion as much as you do, if not more.
Look, it was Crimson Edge who insisted on calling it a religion. Get that straight. I would very much prefer to have a better word, but unfortunately I haven't discovered this word yet. I may have to invent a word, who knows?
I'm just saying that if you look in a dictionary at least one or two of the definitions proposed could POSSIBLY apply to this idea. The problem is that the word religion (and even spirituality) have very broad and differing definitions.
It is not reasonable to use the very thing Atheism fights against to forward Atheism.
I agree, and I'm glad I never proposed such a thing.
Irrational belief is not the basis of anyone's Atheism. It is nonsensical to suggest that it should be;
I'm glad I never claimed that either. I never said atheism should have an irrational foundation. In fact, I said just the opposite. I said that we should promote a RATIONAL foundation. I just said that we should use religion's own tricks to accomplish this promotion.
The target will not be atheists, who already have a rational foundation for their beliefs, it will be theists, who do not.
that Atheism could win people over if it just used myth to appeal to supernatural believers.
This I do claim. Yes, atheism could indeed win theists over if it understood how to use myth effectively.
That just isn't what Atheism is!
Actually, atheism is nothing but a lack of belief in god. What you seem to be wanting to say is that you, and others like you whom you identify with under the term 'atheist', are against understanding the psychological power of myth and putting it to good use. But maybe I'm mistinterpreting you.
Forgive the sarcasm, I'm just trying to indicate that your objections so far have not been toward what I'm actually proposing, but toward what you imagine that I'm probably proposing based on your association of the word 'religion' with dogma and superstition.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline Actually, atheism is nothing but a lack of belief in god. What you seem to be wanting to say is that you, and others like you whom you identify with under the term 'atheist', are against understanding the psychological power of myth and putting it to good use. But maybe I'm mistinterpreting you.
There are actually two kinds of atheism. One is a lack of belief in a god(s) and the other is the belief that god(s) does not exist. And no, we allready know the psychological power of myth. It's a strong brain washing tool that can only be used in a negative way. Examples of religious and non-religious brain washing include:
The Crusades
The Holocaust
Propaganda
Nothing about brain washing is good. Tricking somebody/lieng to someone so they believe something without giving it any thought is absolutely wrong.
Again, there are no 'good' qualities to myth or religious experience as it all revolves around brain washing which has been covered and studied to the umpteenth degree.
Forgive the sarcasm, I'm just trying to indicate that your objections so far have not been toward what I'm actually proposing, but toward what you imagine that I'm probably proposing based on your association of the word 'religion' with dogma and superstition.
Then make it clear.
- Login to post comments
Offline “He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.” - Thomas Jefferson
Gotta disagree with ol' Tom on a strictly philosophical note.
Newton was closer to the truth than Aristotle was, even though technically Newtonian mechanics is false and in error, as Einstein showed.
Truth and falsity are not binary properties as many people seem to assume. When I say the sky is blue, it's not exactly blue, it actually scatters blue light more than red light. But light isn't exactly 'blue' or 'red', those are just labels we attach to the experience of those wavelengths of light. But we can never determine the exact wavelength of light due to quantum uncertainty, etc. etc. You can always poke holes in any 'truth' out there. There are always errors and falsehoods. But within that falseness, there is a glimmer of truth.
We know there is truth in Newtonian mechanics because it DOES predict motion quite well at slow speeds, and we know Einstein got even closer to the truth because his equations make even better predictions.
See, truth is like an arrow. If an arrow is true, then when it is aimed and fired correctly, it will strike its target. But if an arrow is untrue, then it will tend to miss wildly. But no arrow is perfectly true, perfectly accurate.
So, while an arrow may not always strike the target, it may be much better than no arrow at all!
A man with blurred vision sees better than a blind man. A man who knows nothing at all is farther from the truth than a man who knows slightly inaccurate truths.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline And no, we allready know the psychological power of myth. It's a strong brain washing tool that can only be used in a negative way.
Whoah! There's a strong positive claim. It can ONLY be used in a negative way?
How do you know that? What argument can you make that proves that it can ONLY be used negatively? What about all the counter-evidence that shows people using myth in a positive way?
Is Star Wars crap merely because it uses mythological conventions?
Examples of religious and non-religious brain washing include:The Crusades
The Holocaust
Propaganda
Pointing out the negatives of religions will in no way convince me that myth can ONLY be used in a negative way. I guess the Iliad is to be reviled. Superman should be shunned. The Godfather is a religious brainwashing tool.
Nothing about brain washing is good.
I guess you missed the part where I said we should take only the good parts. I agree that brainwashing is bad. I don't advocate it at all. But myth is not necessarily brainwashing in the same way that a knife is not necessarily a murder weapon. Knives can be very useful tools if used properly and with intelligence and care.
Tricking somebody/lieng to someone so they believe something without giving it any thought is absolutely wrong.
Never did I advocate tricking or lying. Never did I advocate believing something without giving it thought. You have a really twisted view of religion. Have you never met a nice religious person? The things you are talking about are NOT essential to religion. Again, the word has several definitions, most of them very broad, and nearly anything could be called a religion if you read some of the dictionaries out there.
Again, there are no 'good' qualities to myth or religious experience as it all revolves around brain washing which has been covered and studied to the umpteenth degree.
a) There are good qualities of myth/spiritual experience, you are just being willfully ignorant to them. Exhibit A: You refuse to watch a simple video on the topic. A very good video at that.
b) Not all myth or religious experience is about brainwashing. Revise your twisted stereotype. Just because most religion sucks doesn't mean it all does.
c) Brainwashing has NOT been studied to the umpteenth degree. We don't even have a solid understanding of consciousness yet, nor belief formation, so I don't know how you could argue that we know everything there is to know about brainwashing and have nothing to learn from comparative studies of religious mechanisms.
Quote:Forgive the sarcasm, I'm just trying to indicate that your objections so far have not been toward what I'm actually proposing, but toward what you imagine that I'm probably proposing based on your association of the word 'religion' with dogma and superstition.Then make it clear.
I will, but you'll need to drop the misconceptions if you're going to hear what I'm actually saying. Do you agree?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline I will, but you'll need to drop the misconceptions if you're going to hear what I'm actually saying. Do you agree?
The problem is, you have yet to prove me otherwise. You keep on using vague reasoning while insisting that I drop my reasoning... which is rather simple.
Nothing in religion is good. I'm asking you to prove me wrong and show me what is so good about it. Basically what you are suggesting is that I get rid of this 'misconception' that religion and myth are bad (by the way, there is a difference between a fictional story for entertainment and a myth used to brainwash people... just as there are certain knives that are only used to murder) so I can understand what you are proposing.
The problem is, you haven't listed a single 'good' thing about myth. Just make a list, meng.
- Login to post comments
Offline natural wrote:I will, but you'll need to drop the misconceptions if you're going to hear what I'm actually saying. Do you agree?The problem is, you have yet to prove me otherwise. You keep on using vague reasoning while insisting that I drop my reasoning... which is rather simple.
Nothing in religion is good. I'm asking you to prove me wrong and show me what is so good about it. Basically what you are suggesting is that I get rid of this 'misconception' that religion and myth are bad (by the way, there is a difference between a fictional story for entertainment and a myth used to brainwash people... just as there are certain knives that are only used to murder) so I can understand what you are proposing.
No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking you to drop the misconception that what I'm talking about has anything to do with brainwashing, supernaturalism, belief without thinking/reason, tricking, lying, dogma, faith, etc. etc.
All of these you have falsely claimed (and/or supported Thomathy in his claims) were something I'm proposing. I never have. Will you drop it?
The problem is, you haven't listed a single 'good' thing about myth. Just make a list, meng.
Yes I have. I listed three things including greater awareness, greater happiness, and greater political power. You ignored them without even watching the video which supports my claims. That's called willful ignorance and is one of the worst fallacies an atheist could commit. Just because you refuse to study the topic doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right. You're going to have to provide a better argument than that.
Do not forget (trust that I won't) that YOU made a strong positive claim that myth can ONLY be used for negative purposes. I countered your claim with examples of great works of art which relied heavily on myth and its techniques. You have not supported your positive claim with any argument or evidence at all. What is your defense of your claim that myth is limited to negative uses only?
In short, you have hidden assumptions about me, my motives, myth, religion itself, and many other things. These hidden assumptions are getting in the way of conversation, and that's why I'm pointing them out to you. I hope you'll acknowledge that you're misinterpreting some of what I've said so far, and just drop the misconceptions.
If we can get past this hurdle, if you can wait to pounce on me until I actually say something indefensible, then I can continue to explain more details about this idea. How about it? I don't want to spend my time defending myself against claims I never made.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline Fortunately I can be the only witness to the screaming in my head. All right, if all this is to do with the definition of religion, then you are still wrong to use the term. Einstein clearly used it in a way vastly different than the accepted and common usage. He was very intentional in this. The invocation of 'god' and 'religion' by physicists and mathematicians is wholly separate from the usage we accept when we typically use the term religion. You are welcome to look up and compare from numerous sources definitions of the term. They are invariably grounded in the supernatural; in the sense of the kind of religion you, like me, hate. If you want to use a different term, choose philosophy, or belief system. Something, but don't use religion, it is a contentious term and so contextual reliant when using it in a way like Einstein has that it is troublesome. Look how he is often misinterpreted.
As to spirituality, you're just wrong. It is to do with the supernatural. Just read the word. It's an oxymoron if it's taken from supernatural. It is as clearly defined as religion. People who do use the word spiritual to refer to the experience of deep meditation would be better using a different term, for I know of no way else to define spiritual. I have no need for spiritual and no Atheist (indeed, no one) has need for spiritual. It is wholly of the supernatural.
I suppose it can seem to be good to try to win over the religious using their own tools, but I find converting to be virtueless.
If you want to suggest that myth is responsible for greater awareness, happiness and political power, you're going to have to show me how. I live my life without myth/spirituality/religion and find that I am particularly aware (though you may need to define what you mean by greater awareness) and that I am happy (though you may need to define what you mean by greater happiness) and that I exercise my political power in the fullest way that I can (though perhaps you need to define what you mean by greater political power). I feel fulfilled in every moment I live, and I am certain that no religion can help me to become more fulfilled. The point is you are the one being vague. If you feel you're defending yourself against claims you've not made, instead of insisting the fault is on those reading you, perhaps you should reiterate what you have stated in a more clear way. The communication error here is with you, for you fully understand what it is CrimsonEdge and I mean to say, but we are as yet unable to understand the meaning of the claims you do make. We find what you claim to be problematic. Enlighten us with the full scope of your vision here.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline All right, if all this is to do with the definition of religion, then you are still wrong to use the term. Einstein clearly used it in a way vastly different than the accepted and common usage. He was very intentional in this. The invocation of 'god' and 'religion' by physicists and mathematicians is wholly separate from the usage we accept when we typically use the term religion. You are welcome to look up and compare from numerous sources definitions of the term. They are invariably grounded in the supernatural; in the sense of the kind of religion you, like me, hate. If you want to use a different term, choose philosophy, or belief system. Something, but don't use religion, it is a contentious term and so contextual reliant when using it in a way like Einstein has that it is troublesome. Look how he is often misinterpreted.
I'm getting a little sick of being repeatedly accused of things I never did here. Let me put this in bold, because apparently, last time you missed it:
I did not insist on using the word religion, Crimson Edge did.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline As to spirituality, you're just wrong. It is to do with the supernatural. Just read the word. It's an oxymoron if it's taken from supernatural. It is as clearly defined as religion.
Yes, it is as 'clearly' defined as religion, which is to say that it is not clearly defined at all.
Here I'll straighten you out since you're too lazy to look it up yourself:
Spiritual
| 1. | of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal. |
| 2. | of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life. |
| 3. | closely akin in interests, attitude, outlook, etc.: the professor's spiritual heir in linguistics. |
| 4. | of or pertaining to spirits or to spiritualists; supernatural or spiritualistic. |
| 5. | characterized by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined: She is more of a spiritual type than her rowdy brother. |
| 6. | of or pertaining to the spirit as the seat of the moral or religious nature. |
| 7. | of or pertaining to sacred things or matters; religious; devotional; sacred. |
| 8. | of or belonging to the church; ecclesiastical: lords spiritual and temporal. |
| 9. | of or relating to the mind or intellect. |
All of the bold definitions could apply to a physicalist who calls himself spiritual. Just for good measure, here's the 'clear' definition for spirit:
Spirit
| 1. | the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul. |
| 2. | the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body. |
| 3. | the soul regarded as separating from the body at death. |
| 4. | conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit. |
| 5. | a supernatural, incorporeal being, esp. one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits. |
| 6. | a fairy, sprite, or elf. |
| 7. | an angel or demon. |
| 8. | an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform. |
| 9. | (initial capital letter ) the divine influence as an agency working in the human heart. |
| 10. | a divine, inspiring, or animating being or influence. Num. 11:25; Is. 32:15. |
| 11. | (initial capital letter) the third person of the Trinity; Holy Spirit. |
| 12. | the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit. |
| 13. | spirits, feelings or mood with regard to exaltation or depression: low spirits; good spirits. |
| 14. | excellent disposition or attitude in terms of vigor, courage, firmness of intent, etc.; mettle: That's the spirit! |
| 15. | temper or disposition: meek in spirit. |
| 16. | an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action, etc.: A few brave spirits remained to face the danger. |
| 17. | the dominant tendency or character of anything: the spirit of the age. |
| 18. | vigorous sense of membership in a group: college spirit. |
| 19. | the general meaning or intent of a statement, document, etc. (opposed to letter): the spirit of the law. |
| 20. | Chemistry. the essence or active principle of a substance as extracted in liquid form, esp. by distillation. |
| 21. | Often, spirits. a strong distilled alcoholic liquor. |
| 22. | Chiefly British. alcohol. |
| 23. | Pharmacology. a solution in alcohol of an essential or volatile principle; essence. |
| 24. | any of certain subtle fluids formerly supposed to permeate the body. |
And finally, for great justice:
Religion
| 1. | a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. |
| 2. | a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. |
| 3. | the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. |
| 4. | the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. |
| 5. | the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. |
| 6. | something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. |
| 7. | religions, Archaic. religious rites. |
| 8. | Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. |
| . |
People who do use the word spiritual to refer to the experience of deep meditation would be better using a different term, for I know of no way else to define spiritual.
Then you need to educate yourself.
I have no need for spiritual and no Atheist (indeed, no one) has need for spiritual. It is wholly of the supernatural.
You are acting very narrow mindedly on this subject.
I suppose it can seem to be good to try to win over the religious using their own tools, but I find converting to be virtueless.
Why specifically? Please be specific. So far you have raised a bunch of objections that have turned out to be aimed at a straw man version of what I'm talking about. You have not attacked my ideas, you've attacked your misconceptions of my ideas. Your own biases that do not stand up to evidence.
If you want to suggest that myth is responsible for greater awareness, happiness and political power, you're going to have to show me how.
Are you willing to spend a single hour watching an interview on the subject? Watch the Joseph Campbell interview. Why are you so reluctant to watch it? You've already spent more than an hour reading and writing on the subject, why don't you take the easier (and might I say much more informative) path of watching directly from an expert on myth.
I live my life without myth/spirituality/religion and find that I am particularly aware (though you may need to define what you mean by greater awareness) and that I am happy (though you may need to define what you mean by greater happiness) and that I exercise my political power in the fullest way that I can (though perhaps you need to define what you mean by greater political power).
I never claimed myth was *required* for these, I just claimed that myth will help you get MORE of these things. It's like saying "Well, I don't see why I need to learn algebra. I already know what a number is and I can count just fine thank you very much."
It seems like you are intent on misinterpreting everything I say. Just drop your misconceptions. They are completely getting in the way of a productive conversation.
I feel fulfilled in every moment I live, and I am certain that no religion can help me to become more fulfilled.
How certain are you? 100%? Is your mind closed on this subject? Do you admit that there's a possibility you could be wrong here?
The point is you are the one being vague.
I GAVE you a freaking source to get ALL the information you could want on it, and you CONTINUE to say I'm being vague. Watch the f'ing video already. Educate yourself. Stop being willfully ignorant.
If you feel you're defending yourself against claims you've not made, instead of insisting the fault is on those reading you, perhaps you should reiterate what you have stated in a more clear way.
Okay, here it is: Myth is good. Here's a video to prove it. No, it has absolutely nothing to do with believing in anything supernatural. Is that clear enough?
You know, I'm reminded of when I first told people I was an atheist, at age 11. You know what they said the next day? I was a devil worshipper! Oh yes. You've heard it before. "If you're not a Christian, you MUST be a devil worshipper. There are NO other options, and I KNOW this FOR CERTAIN, because I heard it somewhere."
Answer these questions or stop bothering me with your misconceptions:
1. Can you prove that religion, spirituality, and spirit, and MYTH *necessarily* must deal with the supernatural?
2. Can you prove that myth can ONLY be used for negative purposes (as CE claimed).
3. Can you show that the positive examples of myth I mentioned (Iliad, Star Wars, Godfather, etc.) must be interpreted supernaturally and negatively?
4. Can you prove that Joseph Campbell is talking about supernaturalism?
5. Can you point to a single instance where I endorsed supernaturalism, brainwashing, evil of any kind, or any of the other accusations made against me in this thread?
I'm expecting 5 nos, because I know you can't prove any of this crap.
The communication error here is with you,
No, seriously, it is with your false beliefs about words. You are biased and ignorant (willfully so) and have done nothing but make up accusations against me with NO evidence to back them up.
for you fully understand what it is CrimsonEdge and I mean to say
I also understood what the kids who called me a devil worshipper were meaning to say. But they were just wrong. And so are you. Drop your misconceptions. Watch the f'ing video. Stop being willfully ignorant.
but we are as yet unable to understand the meaning of the claims you do make. We find what you claim to be problematic. Enlighten us with the full scope of your vision here.
I will do so on one condition. Stop mischaracterizing me and what I say. Do you agree?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline Edit: double post
- Login to post comments
Offline i understand most of what your saying (i think) and i agree in many ways, but i also think you should realize that what your talking about has been largly explored in the past and the best stuff usually isnt open knowledge, it is far too easy to manipulate people when one knows how and it is very temping to do so, if you think that you could control your self and that those involved could do the same and not use the ability to convince those around you of clear falsehoods, then i would support you looking into the matter and even supply some of the more crude "tricks" that im familiar with....
"Absolute power corupts absolutly."
you should make a note that many magicians and illusionist use the same "tricks" as "mysticism" for simply entertaining others, you should also realize that hitler, stalin, and many other "charismatic leaders" who manipulated entire populations were often familiar with these "tricks"....
like most tools, what it acomplishes is dependent on what the person using the tool does with it....
- Login to post comments
Offline RR community,
I experiment with different approaches here and there, trying to find an approach that atheists will listen to long enough to see the value in having a basic understanding of comparative mysticism.
I was hoping that a tongue-in-cheek, school teacher approach might get atheists to listen long enough, but it didn't work.
It's hard getting atheists to listen for many reasons, first and formost because of all the emotional knee-jerk reactions to the words mysticism, mythology, religion. Some atheists can't control their emotions long enough to learn.
'Know thy enemy' is a truism that seems to be lost on many atheists.
Some think they know enough, but if that were the case then we wouldn't be having such a problem with religious fundamentalism, would we? Obviously the status quo isn't working.
And because of flaws in human nature, which of course atheists have, they aren't open to alternatives. It has to be science or nothing...and to hell with the consequences.
Comparative mysticism destroys any religious claims to be unique, claims to have special Divine revelation. It could solve our global religious problems by itself. In conjunction with science this would be sort of a one-two punch combo. But atheists would rather keep one hand tied behind their back, rather than put forth a little effort into something that isn't science. It's shameful, lazy, self-indulgent, hypocritical.
Yes, hypocritical. Atheists value rationality, yet here is a legitimate academic field of study (comparative mysticism) which they shun for petty personal reasons. Not rational reasons. That is hypocrisy in my book.
It all boils down to flaws in human nature. THAT is why atheism will ultimately fail.
- Login to post comments
Offline that is why atheism will ultimately fail.
You act as if there is a goal.
- Login to post comments
Offline Limbo wrote:that is why atheism will ultimately fail.You act as if there is a goal.
Of course there is a goal. The survival of the human species.
- Login to post comments
Offline Maybe an example of what we can learn will spark your imaginations. There was an experiment on 'mystical experiences' back in the 1960's which yielded interesting results. Results that every atheist should be interested in.
"The most systematic scientific study of how mystical experience alters people's lives will probably never be replicated. In 1966, Berkeley, Calif., physician Walter Pahnke randomly selected half of a group of 20 Protestant seminarians and gave them the hallucinogenic drug psilocybin before the entire group listened to a radio broadcast of a Good Friday service. Those who didn't receive psilocybin got a B vitamin that caused the skin to flush, thus serving as a placebo.
After the service, those who ingested psilocybin reported having had experiences resembling those of classic mystics, such as a feeling of oneness with God or ecstatic visions. The B vitamin group recalled more mundane reactions. Immediately afterward, participants learned whether they had received drug or placebo.
Six months later, the researcher surveyed the participants. After 25 years, another researcher contacted seven of those who had received psilocybin and nine who had gotten the placebo. In both follow-ups, members of the psilocybin group cited many more positive changes in their attitudes and behavior that they attributed to the Good Friday broadcast than placebo-group members did."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_7_159/ai_71191554/pg_1
- Login to post comments
Offline
Are you advocating dope?
By the way, giving a bunch of seminarians hallucinogens? What else would you expect but a "oneness with a god" from a preacher-in-training listening to a church service?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Comparative Mysticism - can I get a definition of the area of study?
My guess is that you are from the Integral (Keith Wilber) approach of things.
Inconcievable!
The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...
For now the best way to think of it is as an academic field of study that analyzes the similarities and differences between the mystical traditions of the world, throughout history. The traditions are looked at panoramically, as a unit, and critically compared.
Nope.
The approach we will take is this. We will first define mysticism and mystical tradition for our purposes. We will then identify common denominators in the mystical traditions of the world.
We will then do something that it has apparently not occured to mortals to do...or at least not to do right. We will start to overlap and integrate the field of comparative mysticism WITH the fields of comparative mythology and comparative religion. This is the missing link. Or should I say, the myth-ing link.
In other words, dear mortals, we will find the epicenter and trace the shockwaves. We will find the roots and trace them to the branches. We will find the river and trace it to the sea.
Now then, can anyone define mysticism?
mysticism:
1.the experiance of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality as reported by mystics
2.the belief that direct knowledge of god, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experiance
3.a. vague speculation: a belief without sound bias b. a hypothesis postulating the possiblity of direct and intuative acquisition of ineffable power or knowledge
now i would like to know why youve claimed to be limbo??? couldnt you just ask without making yourself seem silly?
"We will then do something that it has apparently not occured to mortals to do...or at least not to do right. We will start to overlap and integrate the field of comparative mysticism WITH the fields of comparative mythology and comparative religion. This is the missing link. Or should I say, the myth-ing link."
this has occured to "us mortals" to do, and has been done, for instance, the virgin birth story has been all the rage from before christ to darth vader, this has been done before, it only shows that a lot of people had similar delusions, it does not show that any of them were correct, nor does it show that they had believed in the same thing, just that they had similar delusions, this was most likely caused by the evolution of memes, judaism branches into both christianity and islam, christianity branches into the mormon religion, one should assume that they would have certain things in common.....
No. Don't ask again or I'll turn you into a newt.Yup, that's the text-book definition. But for our purposes of comparative mysticism we are going to drop #2 and #3 and tweak #1 a bit.
1. Altered states of 'mystical' consciousness, the methods/paraphrenalia used to gain said states, and the insights gained from said states
The definition of a mystical tradition will be the inner system of a religion/mythology, which systematically uses the mystical methods/paraphrenalia to gain altered states of mystical consciousness and thus, informs the religion/mythology of its mystical insights.
Every religion and mythology has one.
Pfft. Please. That's kids stuff. Comparative Mythology 101. We are going a bit deeper than that rolat3, so hold on tight.
Ok. Time to pause for questions and comments. But before you post, your homework assignment is to read this:
http://sandra.stahlman.com/james.html
I fail to see how this can aid the Atheist movement. Faith is the key to belief in the supernatural. I find it difficult to believe that anyone immersed in such beliefs who has not been swayed by the science and reason presented thus far in history to stop believing will be swayed anymore by someone telling them wherefrom these supernatural beliefs stem (besides, it's already fairly well understood). It may just add to the pile of convincing evidence, but I doubt any revelation gleaned therein will suddenly shift the weight, so-to-speak. And, it necessarily has to do with science.
Your presentation is unnecessary and at least silly. Please, get on with what you mean to explain here about 'Comparative Mysticism'.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
You will, if you would just loosen up, play along, and be patient. Don't want to learn? Fine. There's the door.
Or maybe you figure you already know everything that's worth knowing, eh? Typical.
I think I know where you're going with this, Limbo. I've had similar ideas but have yet to express them confidently. I'm interested to hear your ideas.
Just to see if I'm on the right track: We examine all the religions and myths, sift through them for all the actually useful parts, combine them into a complete system of 'mysticism', and say "Hey guys, we figured out the Holy Spirit! And Nirvana and Spirit Guides, etc. And they're all the same!"
I've already been working somewhat along these lines, having my own 'mystical' experiences and coming up with some vocabulary to start thinking about it more systematically.
I think the advantage of this approach is two-fold. One, we adapt all the advantages of traditional religion to eliminate the lingering "Well, what are you going to replace religion with?" Two, like Penn and Teller, we expose the mechanics behind the mysticism so that it becomes clear and obvious to anyone with a brain that it's all completely naturalistic. Eliminates the deception of religion.Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
There are no useful parts.
Glad to hear that Natural. I look forward to your input as we go.
Yes and no. We are going to start doing to religion what Darwin did to life. But where he used comparative anatomy as an underpinning of evolution, we will use comparative mysticism, mythology, and religion as our underpinnings. We are going to discover, among other things, that if religion could be said to 'evolve' in a way analogous to biological life, then mysticism would be like it's mechanism of change over time.
Ah, good.
Time to eliminate that misconception, CrimsonEdge.
Your assignment is to watch this video and then come back here and tell us all at least one useful part of religion or mythology.
And that goes for all of you who agree with his comment.
I stopped the video once he started speaking about spiritual heroes who figured out supernatural things. Instead of offering a video, why not make a list of things that religion/myths give us and I'll make a list of other places one can get such things.
You. Did. What?
Do you actually have the nerve to call yourself a rational free-thinker?
No CrimsonEdge, I'm not going to make a list for you. Either watch the video like a man, or don't participate in this thread any longer.
Uhh, yes. Yes I do. Why do I call myself a rational free-thinker? I'll make a list that you can read and reply to in seconds instead of showing me a video that will take an hour of your time.
1. Supernatural is a contradiction.
2. I have come to this conclusion on my own using rational free thought.
3. Spirituality is pointless because:
a. I am not spiritual and do not need anything spiritual in my life.
b. The people around me are not spiritual and do not need anything spiritual in their life.
So, instead of coping out and wasting an hour of my time giving me a video about mythology, make a list of things that mythology/spirituality brings to the table that other things do not.
Protip: Don't mention morality.
P.S. I'm not on the defense here. You're the one proposing something and unless your points can be made into an easy to read list then the majority of people won't want anything to do with it.
Yes, I understand where you're going here. I agree of course. I have been trying to express these thoughts, but not very confidently. Check out my YouTube account, username 'wonderist'. I don't have much yet, but I'm planning on expanding it.
Here's how I see it. Religion was dead, but then it came back. Why? Because it's an evolving system and it adapts to its environment. The current adaptation is fundamentalist interpretation and evangelicalism.
We want to tame religion once and for all, and so to do that, we need to understand how it evolves and adapts, and also specifically what mechanisms it uses to keep control over people, which it *must* do in order to replicate itself. It must have influential power over people, or otherwise it would have been wiped out long ago by rationalism/science.
Currently we don't understand this power. There is no science of religion, no memetics (yet), no clear psychological framework to explain religious/mystical experience, no clear understanding of consciousness from a purely scientific perspective. We are working on these, but they are not there yet.
BUT! The religions themselves contain their own tricks, just lying there waiting to be discovered, similar to how all of the 'tricks' of life are encoded in the DNA in each of our cells, just waiting for us to discover. So, by directly studying religions, comparing them, and teasing out the common ideas, we can get a glimpse into how religions exert their influence on people.
With this knowledge, we can reverse engineer religion, use its own tricks against it, adapt it and mold it into something better. We will essentially have control over religion in the same sense that physicists have control over mechanical forces when they send a rocket into space.
Currently, some of the topics of interest that I've been working on have been stuff like: Intuition, fear, awe/wonder, deception, common fallacies, concept formation (myths communicate concepts intuitively), memes (of course), metaphors, etc.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Put another way, what I am proposing is a kind of cultural immune system, a way to counteract malicious memes (mind viruses by analogy) with smarter, more intelligent memes. Just like your immune system cells evolve faster than bacteria, and therefore can adapt quickly enough to keep you healthy for many years; similarly, we can develop a system of 'rational response' (if you will) that evolves better memes than religion, faster than religion, and uses them to combat religion itself using its own tricks against it.
In a sense, we are already doing this. The Blasphemy Challenge is a perfect example. Take their own verses, use them to demonstrate their absurdity, and show by example that we don't fear this absurdity precisely because it is absurd.
But what I'm talking about is much bigger than that. I'm talking about developing a whole literature of books, movies, art, music, web pages, internet video, etc. all focused on adapting religion to modern times (especially rationality). The approaching technological/environmental crisis requires us to have religion under control before it happens.
In essence, I'm making the case that there needs to be a rational meta-religion that takes whatever good experiences we can get out of religion and eliminates the pathological aspects, like an immune system.Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Make a list of the good experiences/things religion has that can not be offered elsewhere.
Edit: Be sure these experiences/things are actually needed.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I actually agree with that. In fact, that's a good example of why this is so important that we have this conversation and start working on this. Basically, you are saying that unless Limbo can simplify, summarize, and illustrate why this topic is important, you're not going to pay much attention to it (let alone believe it!), correct?
And there's nothing wrong with that. But you know what? That's the same excuse I hear from theists and apathetic agnostics who ask, "Why should we listen to your ideas? Religion doesn't cause any harm. Why should I care?"
And I think the only way to tackle that problem is to give them the answer. Summarize, highlight, simplify, metaphorize, analogize, etc.
And that is exactly what a study of myth and mysticism will help you do successfully. If you want to influence people, you have to understand HOW to influence them. That's what you'll learn if you follow this conversation and watch the video of Joseph Campbell.
That's number one. Number two is that you'll gain a greater appreciation of a LOT of your own personal experiences in human culture. You will start to understand movies and TV shows better, You'll understand novels better. You will see more beauty in these things. As well, art, music/song, even politics.
Number three is that it will help you understand people better, *especially* theists and woo woos. You will start to really understand what makes them tick. As a result, you'll have fewer conflicts with them, and will be able to express your ideas better to them. This will make your life happier and more fulfilled, as having closer relationships to people (even if you disagree philosophically) will make for a happier life generally.
There are more, but I'll leave that for someone else to chime in on. These things I've mentioned have been benefits to me personally, so I speak from my own experience. Take it or leave it. But seriously, I think you would enjoy the video if you give it a chance and watch it through. Joseph Campbell is a great speaker of ideas.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
You're missing the point. I'm talking about providing these experiences *without* religion. Get it?Your phrase 'that cannot be offered elsewhwere' is getting it wrong. It is precisely this 'elsewhere' that I am talking about providing.
Currently, this elsewhere does not exist for the scientific/rational person. The ideas and methods are scattered in religious books, Buddhist/meditation teachings, 'spiritual' books, etc. But there is no coherent system that's just rational, no woo woo.
I think there's an unquestioned fear/avoidance of myth and 'mystical' or 'transcendant' experiences for most atheists. It is too closely associated with religion and woo woo, and so it becomes guilty by association. But things like mediation actually do work and actually do induce different brain states, as shown by neurological studies.
But there's more to it than just meditation. It's also about the emotional influence religion has over people, and its ability to manipulate their intuitions to deceive them. If you want a practical demonstration of the usefulness of this, just watch some Derren Brown videos on YouTube, especially the clips from his show Messiah.
To deny the practical effects of religion is to deny its existence. The fact that religion is still around, 'wild' as it were, is proof enough that we don't fully understand how it works. Limbo is proposing a rational method to find this understanding. Think of it like DNA. Life exists, it's hard to kill. From an outside view, we can sort of get a sense of how life can be so adaptable and tenacious. But to really understand it, you have to understand DNA and how it is organized and how it produces proteins, how it replicates and mutates, etc.
That study is called genetics, and it revolutionized our understanding of life. Limbo is proposing one technique that would help us understand how the DNA of religion (its myths and texts) works. By analogy, it would be a form of study of memetics. By focusing on this area, we can expand our understanding, and there is a great potential for this understanding to revolutionize religion itself, just like genetics revolutionized biology.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I don't know. I most certainly understand all of the music that I listen to, the movies I watch, the things I read, all sides of the political spectrum, etc. One doesn't need to know a lick of any religion to appreciate and understand these things. For example, I know exactly why some religious people are for and against abortion without having to delve deep into religious texts to find out.
I don't have to study mythology (which schools in the U.S. teach mind you) to understand what the song In This River is about nor would I get anything more out of a song called Jesus I Love You if I had a P.H.D. in Mythological Studies than I do now.
Everything that has been listed is taught in other fields of study, such has History, English, and brain function (whatever that's called). Figuring out why some things become meme's while others do not does not require a study into myth. In fact, studying myths to figure out something like that is like studying mayonaise for the cure for gingivitis.
In essence, what is being introduced is simply another religion to replace the others. A band-aid, if you will, in the human psyche's immune system. Fabricating another religion to replace others is no different than what L. Ron Hubbard did with scientology (besides having a competition with a friend to see who could make the better cult). It's an utterly useless and futile attempt to replace a skewed idealogy with something else... but with only the 'good' bits.
And yes, what is being proposed is a religion. Except the difference is that instead of it being a combination of EXTREMELY ancient religions, it is now just a compilation of the 'good' bits of psuedo-ancient religions.
It's because it isn't needed. I haven't ever needed a spiritual experience, meditation, prayer, or anything that any religion or myth has ever reproduced nor have I ever had the want. My father is the same way, as is my grandfather, as are my cousins, as are my friends. It simply is not a requirement and offering a replacement to such things does not fix the problem.
It's no different than offering chicken pox instead of the measles.
I don't know what you mean by fear/avoidance. I'm open to any sort of experience. I don't actively go out and avoid such things, making sure to not step 50 feet from a church. There was a time in my life where I had a girlfriend who insisted I went to church and do all sorts of religious crap with her. I was open to it and tried to experience the same 'euphoric' bullshit experiences that she and her friends experienced. It didn't work.
In fact, they couldn't describe said experiences and the ones that could usually described vastly different things.
It's called brain washing. The U.S. government did some serious studies on this. There's a series on the Sci-Fi channel (believe it or not) that is going over this. It's nothing deep but it does show how one can manipulate people by doing certain things. Again, nothing religious or spiritual about this.
No, I do not deny that brain washing exists. I see it daily. I've watched documentaries over it. I've read all about what the 'kool-aid' can do.
And no, it's nothing like DNA. Brainwashing is, simply put, making somebody think something. That is, unless you mean religion/myth is like a virus and then I would agree.
What is being proposed is a new religion. Nothing more, nothing less. A sort of 'true' scientology (or scientism I guess... maybe scienceanity) to replace an archaic one. It's no different than one Christians did with Judaism, what Judaism did with whatever religion was before it, and so on and so forth untill some dude in a cave asked another "Why is the sky blue?" and the answer was "A SKY BLANKET DRAGON!"
You propose a band-aid when the ailment is cancer.
I didn't say you don't understand them, I said that studying myth with help you understand them more.
I'll try to explain it this way: Have you ever had an 'Ah ha!' experience, where you come to a sudden realization of a new fact or perspective? By understanding myth, and how it works, you will have more control over those feelings. You will get them more often, and if used properly, it will accompany a greater understanding of the subject matter. You will start to see things from different perspectives, and it will open your eyes.
It's not about understanding a particular religion, it is about understanding religion itself, and using that understanding to understand yourself and the world better.
Of course they are being studied, all in their separate fields. That's exactly what I'm talking about. They need to be brought together and examined as a whole, to make the theories coherent with each other. The neurologist may know little of history or politics, the historian may know little of metaphor, etc. There is no single study of religion itself. There is no single study of memetics. All of these need to be brought together if we're going to solve the actual, practical problem of religion.
Are you quite sure of that? I beg to differ. Watch the video and get back to me and see if you truly do not learn anything about memes while watching it. He may not use the word meme directly, but you will see how it relates quite clearly.
The word religion is a very fuzzy word and can mean many things. If by religion you mean a philosophy founded on supernaturalism, then no, it would not be a religion. If you mean a dogma, then no, it would not be a religion. If you mean simply a way of thinking about the world in relation to myths, then yes, it would be a religion, but no moreso than Einstein was when he sometimes called himself religious. It would be more like a biologist who sees through the perspective of a cell, or a chess master who can visualize a board well enough to play 10 games blind folded and win. You will see how myth (memes and memeplexes) shape the world around you.
Again, that fuzzy word religion. No, it would not be a religion in that sense. That's a dogma.
I have not yet come up with a good word for it, but the best I have so far is a meta-religion. It's understanding *about* religion itself. Yes, when you apply that understanding to the real world, it may superficially resemble religion. It will be stories and symbols and ideals and whatnot, but it will all be clearly labelled as fiction, just as movies and books are today. In fact, it will itself teach *about* religion itself. An example would be a story about someone who discovers that Jesus was just a myth, like the upcoming movie Danielle by Brian Flemming.
Look at that sentence again and explain to me how replacing a skewed ideology with something else (but with only the good bits) is *necessarily* useless and futile. Isn't that a big assumption you're making? What ELSE are we supposed to do about religion? We can't just leave it alone. We tried that; it got worse. We can't argue them with logic. They don't listen. Religion STILL has its hooks in them, after many generations. The missing ingredient is a thorough understanding of the *mechanism* of religion.
Which definition of religion are you using? Seriously. It makes a big difference.
As long as the 'good' bits are intelligently chosen, what's your objection?
Then why do people seek these experiences from mystical sources, and not from science books?
Faulty generalization. Just because you and those close to you do not need spiritual experiences doesn't mean that billions of other people don't either.
And anyway, you are fooling yourself. You have had 'spiritual' experiences, you just didn't think of them as spiritual. A 'spiritual' experience is nothing special, it's just a feeling of wonder. Everyone has experienced it. However, there are greater intensities of wonder that are possible, and there are real techniques to train yourself to be able to have these experiences more often, and to have more control over them.
When woo woos say 'spiritual experience' that's generally what they mean. There are of course variations and nuances, but that feeling of wonder is pretty much essential.
Well, there are billions of theists who think it IS a requirement. How are you going to convince them otherwise?
Actually, it's more like using cow pox to vaccinate for smallpox. Pretty useful technique as far as history shows.
I don't know what you mean by fear/avoidance.
I mean that you are refusing to watch a movie just because it was associated with the hero myth.
Just because it didn't work then, using those techniques, for you personally, does that necessarily mean it will never work, no matter the technique, for no other person?
People DO experience euphoria in religious settings, by following religious rituals. So it DOES work, in that one aspect at least. Just because it doesn't seem important for you personally does not mean it's not important for humanity in general.
Wouldn't it be great if we had a comprehensive understanding and vocabulary of these experiences so that in the future people CAN talk rationally about them and describe them?
Again, you're missing the point. It's not that it is religious or spiritual, it's that it is used *by* religion, and we need to teach *about* religion, using its own tricks so that we can communicate with those who are already brainwashed by it.
I'm not talking about mind-controlling the masses. That's L Ron Hubbard. I'm talking about waking up the mind-controlled masses. That's Carl Sagan, Brain Sapient, Greydon Square, Bill Nye, Penn and Teller.
What you are denying is that myth can *cause* brainwashing. Myth has power over people's minds because it manipulates their emotions. By claiming that learning about myth is a waste of time, you are claiming that myth is useless, i.e. that it has no power to do anything. It has power. You said it yourself, you see it every day. The Jesus myth quite literally can change a person, just by reading it. People really do have revelations that change their lives, even if those revelations happen to be false and constructed by a myth.
But denying the power of myth will not diminish its power. And remaining ignorant of how myth works will simply leave the door open for more 'wild' religions to flourish and evolve into ever more pathological forms.
You are on the right track in the sense that what I'm proposing is LIKE Christianity rewriting Judaism. But you are being too absolute when you say it is NO DIFFERENT. The big difference is that what I'm proposing will be founded on rationality, science and naturalism, not faith, dogma, and supernaturalism. That's a pretty big difference if you think about it long enough to get past the whole 'religion' label.
The closer analogy would be an immune system, which can both fight viruses and cancer as well (most cancer is caught by the immune system before it is even a problem).
I can see how it would appear to be a band-aid from your position where you don't know much yet about what I'm proposing. After all, there have been 'attempts' at this in the past, and scientology is a good example. Actually, I think a much better example would be something like Objectivism, which in some ways has evolved into a cult of personality.
The key difference is that those religions did not have a thoroughly self-critical rational foundation. They took one-too-many tricks from the religious handbook, and placed some form of faith over evidence. I personally will never do that and will always seek to correct my own errors, and I will always defer to evidence over faith or 'belief'.
As such, what I am proposing will have the same foundation of evidence over belief. What I am claiming here and now is that there is strong evidence to suggest that myth is a powerful natural force in our world and it is worth educating yourself on how it works and how to use it and protect against it.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!