Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
taniwha

Is God All In The Mind?

2,046 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ellapenella

^

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

-------Buddha (563 - 483 BC)

I was thinking ,what is the possiblity that he may not have said all of which is recorded ... but , it's quoted as if ...

Hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Well im going to have to give you props. Very few people recognize this. Not the atheists, not the religious.

Very few atheists recognize what exactly?

They get so mired in their agenda that they stop evaluating information with any kind of objectivity. Atheists perpetuate that it's all invented woo woo, which isn't really true, and theists well..... Accept certain narratives.

Which atheists would those be exactly? Do you have a quote? I don't know of any atheists off the top of my head who think most spiritual experiences are 'invented', as in made-up; they overwhelming I'd argue think that these experiences are being misinterpreted, which is exactly what you think (see above: 'accept certain narratives').

Any anthropologists will tell us that altered states of consciousness form the origin of our spiritual history, and it is still self evident in shamanic cultures to this day. Being somone who has experienced these things, I can instantly identify altered state happenings when I read them in various scriptures and holy books. It boggles my mind why normally rational people cannot accept this.

What rational people do not accept that people experience altered states? I don't think I'm clear on what rational people cannot accept. I think most scientists would say that the origin of our spiritual history is complicated and a result of many factors, not just, and I don't know if even primarily, a result of altered states of consciousness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

“If you think God’s there, He is. If you don’t, He isn’t. And if that’s what God’s like, I wouldn’t worry about it.”

Haruki Murakami, Kafka on the Shore

.

I find that an interesting perspective. Could you elaborate more on that? How do you see it if you are one or the other?

To me, though, I think it can be both. What if, a higher power is here, you don't see it, but you want to. Or the other way around.

Although, I find it a very comforting perspective on your part based on your last sentenced. I wonder how each and everyone, Atheist and believer are helped in their spiritual or lack of spiritual needs. I'm just curious, mind you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
A decent education, and science can answer any question apart from abiogenesis, and that is only a matter of time. Religion is simply redundant as the species develops and grows up, our last safety blanket to let go of. It did it's job, it helped us attain democracy, science, law and order, it was the precursor to many things, we just have trouble letting that safety blanket go. But it is time for the species to grow up again, if we remain religious based, this is surely leading us into another dark age. We should be celebrating the 21st century, not wallowing in the 11th.

First off, it's important to mention that it's not science's role to weight on religious or metaphysical topics. It has it's own limits. As such, I am skeptical to the claim that science can answer any questions a human being might have. It seems clear to me that if religious beliefs still (strongly) exist today in modern societies it is because science in itself does not meet the spiritual needs of a great deal of people around the world. You call it a 'safety blanket', I say it is a longing, a thirst to connect with who or what we are at a fundamental level.

Science is a tool, a rational methodology to acquire knowledge of the physical world using observation and experimentation objectively, it's not meant to be a set of beliefs. If you think the physical world is the only thing that can possibly be than fine. We call that materialism/physicalism in philosophy. But why should you expect people to view the world in the same way? There is nothing in the current scientific paradigm suggesting that the divine don't exist, nor is there any indication that it will be the case in the future. It's usually the reductionists or those who have an anti-theist agenda who make that claim, not the data. While science is essential to the development of the human specie, it does not mean we should stop wondering or believing that there can be something more to it.

Religions at their very sources are a manifestation of spirituality, an attempt of giving it a structure, a coherence, organizing it and focusing it in precise ways. The sheer diversity of organised belief systems around the world and from all ages is a strong indication of that. But spirituality is not reductible to religion only. You can be 'spiritual' without being 'religious'.

Edited by sam_comm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

First and foremost, it's important to mention that it's not science's role to weight on religious or metaphysical topics. It has it's own limits. As such, I am skeptical to the claim that science can answer any questions a human being might have. It seems clear to me that if religious beliefs still (strongly) exist today in modern societies it is because science in itself does not meet the spiritual needs of a great deal of people around the world. You call it a 'safety blanket', I say it is a longing, a thirst to connect with who or what we are at a fundamental level.

Science is a tool, a rational methodology to acquire knowledge of the physical world using observation and experimentation, it's not meant to be a set of beliefs. If you think the physical world is the only thing that can possibly be than fine. We call that materialism/physicalism in philosophy. But why should you expect people to view the world in the same way? There is nothing in the current scientific paradigm suggesting that the divine don't exist, nor is there any indication that it will be the case in the future. It's usually the reductionists or those who have an anti-theist agenda who make that claim, not the data. While science is essential to the development of the human specie, it does not mean we should stop wondering or believing that there can be something more.

Religions at their very sources is a manifestation of spirituality, an attempt of giving it a structure, a coherence, organizing it and focusing it in precise ways. The sheer diversity of organised beliefs systems around the world and from all ages is a strong indication for that. But spirituality is not reductible to religion only. You can be 'spiritual' without being 'religious'.

That is how I would see it. I guess it is all the different perspectives on it. Well yeah, based on my pwn unique perspective, I guess.

^

Wow, so many devices, so little ability to type well.

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orcseeker

Well im going to have to give you props. Very few people recognize this. Not the atheists, not the religious. They get so mired in their agenda that they stop evaluating information with any kind of objectivity. Atheists perpetuate that it's all invented woo woo, which isn't really true, and theists well..... Accept certain narratives. Any anthropologists will tell us that altered states of consciousness form the origin of our spiritual history, and it is still self evident in shamanic cultures to this day. Being somone who has experienced these things, I can instantly identify altered state happenings when I read them in various scriptures and holy books. It boggles my mind why normally rational people cannot accept this.

I think a lot of the majority religions were muddled a lot by politics but I always questioned the continuing spiritual practises of native peoples all over the world. The fact these practises are so fundamental and involved suggested another aspect of spirituality not commonly observed in religions like Christianity. I also agree with your statement about the writings. Interesting, you engaged in a shamanic spiritual event? Would be cool to give that a try.

The fact it is considered taboo or some sub could be a reason. As many theories have been suggested about parts of the bible possibly being a result of. It probably makes those who follow the religion feel it is degrading I suppose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Guru means teacher. I am a teacher. To lots of people. But no spiritual leader that's for sure more like a sharer and seeker. I'm not sure why you thought I was mad. It's just your style seems to reflect a couple of silly YouTube characters I have run across. Given your thing for you tube, you seem to be influenced by them. Hell you could be one of them. But you seem smarter than to listen to some of their crazy antics. I deal with teenagers and kids all day, childish antics are wasted on me and it makes me think you don't really have anything to say and are here to push an agenda.

Silly Youtube characters...I am in good company.

The Damn Commandments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

God is just an idea, a thought, a cultural meme. Let's face it, people at one time had a god or goddess for everything. Yet sometimes good ideas go bad. Then you get a god/s that are just tools to validate atrocities. Like a mind virus spread through shared belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Very few atheists recognize what exactly?

Which atheists would those be exactly? Do you have a quote? I don't know of any atheists off the top of my head who think most spiritual experiences are 'invented', as in made-up; they overwhelming I'd argue think that these experiences are being misinterpreted, which is exactly what you think (see above: 'accept certain narratives').

What rational people do not accept that people experience altered states? I don't think I'm clear on what rational people cannot accept. I think most scientists would say that the origin of our spiritual history is complicated and a result of many factors, not just, and I don't know if even primarily, a result of altered states of consciousness.

I am talking about the base of historical spirituality in our cultures. What atheist? Nearly eveyone one minus a few on even this website. Everyone that said "gods were invented to control the masses." I find it hard to beleive that you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. "Flying spaghetti monsters" " sky daddy." Shall I continue. Nearly every argument from every atheists about the fabrication of spirituality. It's not complicated. Its understood loud and clear. Human beings would have no concept of a spirit world if it were not for our propensity to enter altered states of conciousness where we perceive entities and feelings of union with nature and more. it really doesn't take much more study than examining what anthropologists have to say about the origins of spirituality and this the origins of religions. This is why I can't understand why people that seem willing to read about science and claim logical high ground when it comes religion and spirituality don't actually read about what we know about the history of such things and the obvious parallels in what people exspeeience to this day. I'm being fairly General here. I have had discussions with atheists many many times. I know most of the hard arguments as opposed to the true agnostics .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

I think a lot of the majority religions were muddled a lot by politics but I always questioned the continuing spiritual practises of native peoples all over the world. The fact these practises are so fundamental and involved suggested another aspect of spirituality not commonly observed in religions like Christianity. I also agree with your statement about the writings. Interesting, you engaged in a shamanic spiritual event? Would be cool to give that a try.

The fact it is considered taboo or some sub could be a reason. As many theories have been suggested about parts of the bible possibly being a result of. It probably makes those who follow the religion feel it is degrading I suppose.

A war was waged against shamanic culture. Abrahamic influences in governments attempted to eradicate many shamanic practices and literally demonized them. It's still hold over to this day. A fundamentalist will view a shaman who has spirit guides and spirit entities that he works with as consorting and being manipulated by demons. In reality their own religions exsperince and reports of angles have the same basis.

Yes I have taken a number of vision quests. Usually about once a year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

WCF

Everyone that said "gods were invented to control the masses."

I am not an atheist, but I suspect that some gods were invented for that purpose. While I believe that gods are more typically recognized than invented, I also believe that religion is peculiarly susceptible to "mission creep." It is, at most, a matter of time before the priest finds the king and they realize that they can make beauiful music together. Thus, I can't eliminate the possibility that some far-sighted individual way back in our past might have done just what some atheists say.

The main problem with the argument is that it is irrelevant to the existence of gods as such. The ideal right triangle which is the subject of the Pythagorean Theorem was invented, in part to help regulate land tenure and use, a key component of "controlling the masses." No such thing as a Euclidean right triangle actually exists, but it is an abstraction of things that do exist.

In terms of the topic, the ideal right triangle is "all in the mind," but what it refers to actually is not. What may be fatal to particular religions (capital-G God fearing ones), even fatal to each and every religion which worships specific god(s), may yet be uninformative about the Question of God as such.

Human beings would have no concept of a spirit world if it were not for our propensity to enter altered states of conciousness where we perceive entities and feelings of union with nature and more.

I see no evidence of that. What somebody gets out of an experience often restates what they bring to the experience. People who see Jesus hobnobbing with dead Uncle Fred during Very Injured Brain Experiences typically already believe in Jesus and have met Uncle Fred.

I suspect that some shamans become drug pushers because their calling has an occupational problem: shamans claim to have experiences that nobody else can confirm. So, they might seek to persuade by manipulating setting and set, then passing out the Kool-Aid. Of course, almost everybody experiences a load of crap. Which is a double win for the shaman: (s)he has "proven" to the paying public that there is another reality, and also that only specially trained people like the shaman can make sense of it. Ka-ching.

Yes, WCF. I am saying that drug abuse was invented to control the masses. Or, if originally discovered innocently, then drug abuse was so quickly applied to the purposes of social control that the difference is of solely academic interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I am talking about the base of historical spirituality in our cultures. What atheist? Nearly eveyone one minus a few on even this website. Everyone that said "gods were invented to control the masses." I find it hard to beleive that you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. "Flying spaghetti monsters" " sky daddy." Shall I continue. Nearly every argument from every atheists about the fabrication of spirituality. It's not complicated. Its understood loud and clear. Human beings would have no concept of a spirit world if it were not for our propensity to enter altered states of conciousness where we perceive entities and feelings of union with nature and more. it really doesn't take much more study than examining what anthropologists have to say about the origins of spirituality and this the origins of religions. This is why I can't understand why people that seem willing to read about science and claim logical high ground when it comes religion and spirituality don't actually read about what we know about the history of such things and the obvious parallels in what people exspeeience to this day. I'm being fairly General here. I have had discussions with atheists many many times. I know most of the hard arguments as opposed to the true agnostics .

In your tirade against "the majority of atheists" you are confusing spirituality with religion. Admittedly. some atheists do this as well, but you should try to avoid confusing the two as it harms your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

I'm not sure, Leonardo if WCF is confusing the two, as I am one, and not participating in the other. That could be me. *shrugs*.

Although, and I could be off on this WCF, wouldn't it be comparing apples to oranges when talking about the flying speghetti monster along with the term sky daddy. I have found it a bit down putting when the term sky daddy is used, but I always thought flying speghetti monster was more of a example presenter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Its like the story of the boy who from birth was chained up in a cave, who his only existence he knows is the boundary and sustenance given to him from the small stream at his feet and the bugs or moss he eats, yet he sees the the shadows dancing on the walls. Would he ever know right from wrong? Of Gods or just the simplicity's of life and death.

right and wrong are universal truths. i think that he would know the basics. he would also transform those shadows into gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

WCF

I am not an atheist, but I suspect that some gods were invented for that purpose. While I believe that gods are more typically recognized than invented, I also believe that religion is peculiarly susceptible to "mission creep." It is, at most, a matter of time before the priest finds the king and they realize that they can make beauiful music together. Thus, I can't eliminate the possibility that some far-sighted individual way back in our past might have done just what some atheists say.

The main problem with the argument is that it is irrelevant to the existence of gods as such. The ideal right triangle which is the subject of the Pythagorean Theorem was invented, in part to help regulate land tenure and use, a key component of "controlling the masses." No such thing as a Euclidean right triangle actually exists, but it is an abstraction of things that do exist.

In terms of the topic, the ideal right triangle is "all in the mind," but what it refers to actually is not. What may be fatal to particular religions (capital-G God fearing ones), even fatal to each and every religion which worships specific god(s), may yet be uninformative about the Question of God as such.

I see no evidence of that. What somebody gets out of an experience often restates what they bring to the experience. People who see Jesus hobnobbing with dead Uncle Fred during Very Injured Brain Experiences typically already believe in Jesus and have met Uncle Fred.

I suspect that some shamans become drug pushers because their calling has an occupational problem: shamans claim to have experiences that nobody else can confirm. So, they might seek to persuade by manipulating setting and set, then passing out the Kool-Aid. Of course, almost everybody experiences a load of crap. Which is a double win for the shaman: (s)he has "proven" to the paying public that there is another reality, and also that only specially trained people like the shaman can make sense of it. Ka-ching.

Yes, WCF. I am saying that drug abuse was invented to control the masses. Or, if originally discovered innocently, then drug abuse was so quickly applied to the purposes of social control that the difference is of solely academic interest.

Except you are being rather narrow in assuming shamanic exsperiences all come from the use of entheogenes. They don't. Many cultures never had access to such things and ended up with different methods, so I don't see where you get this idea of "drug pushers". But you are makeing my point on this issue. I'm not talking out of my ass. Anthropologists do study this. There are peer review findings. Original spiritualities were never about control, they were about survival. Certainly things morph and power plays are made, but that says nothing about its origins.

Shaman were never originally "paid" for their services. Traditional societal structures had places. The "cheif", the warrior, the hunter, the elder, the healer. Shaman usually being the healer.

I find your analysis of this subject unusually out of character for the thoroughness of most of your arguments. time to pick up some books on anthropology eight bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

In your tirade against "the majority of atheists" you are confusing spirituality with religion. Admittedly. some atheists do this as well, but you should try to avoid confusing the two as it harms your argument.

Is that a "tirade"? Are atheists immune to critique now without it being an emotional outburst? I'm not confusing the two at all. I have repeatedly argued that spirituality is the base for religion. The base for spirituality is experiences of the altered state of conciousness sort. Wether from mediation, extatic experience, or to use eight Bitt's adhom the influence of "drug abuse". ( which is a very emotionally charged term and frankly insulting to large groups of people like the Native American church Et all of which it is prooven that their sacraments decrease the amount of actual drug/alcohol abuse and depression amoung it's members). Do I have to put the disclaimer in every post that I recognize that there are narratives that are invented by man, but that I'm looking deeper into the subject matter. I mean sheesh how many times have I said this? Don't you see the reaction that's happening right in front of you. Let me say it as clear as possible. Actual exsperinces of individuals are the Base ----- B A S E ---- of spirituallity in human beings. Thus the fundamental historical beginnings of religions. This isn't rocket science. And it's the only assertion I have made. I honestly don't know why logical thinking people have a problem with this. Could it be that some want to use the obviously ......... Hard to beleive narritives of religions as a straw man for spirituality as a whole? Not all I'm sure. Could it be that some hold particular narritives sacred and the idea that others experience the same thing today as the founder of their religion, is blasphemous? Not all im sure. The lowly shaman founded science, religion, medacine, and philosophy and is now demoted to "drug-pusher", Demon consort, witch doctor, psycotic, and more. :(

If you want to see a drug pusher go to a psychiatrist, you will walk out with prescriptions for just about anything.

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

I'm not sure, Leonardo if WCF is confusing the two, as I am one, and not participating in the other. That could be me. *shrugs*.

Although, and I could be off on this WCF, wouldn't it be comparing apples to oranges when talking about the flying speghetti monster along with the term sky daddy. I have found it a bit down putting when the term sky daddy is used, but I always thought flying speghetti monster was more of a example presenter.

It's not just down putting. It's an illogical apeal. It's funny to see people claim logical high ground and in the same exact sentence be weighted with common logical fallacy. It's an interesting learning exslerince to see the reactions people have to this subject. All I have done is report that the base of religion and spirituality comes from experiences that people have while in an altered state of consciousness. It's not really up for debate, at least not by us, those who actually work in the fields that study mans history have already come to a consensus. And it quit evidence all over the world that traditional people still practice shamanism. I suppose that the majority of people may not actually understand what shamanism is about becuse of the vast amounts of different rituals, methods, and narritives, but the core of shmanism and the job of the shaman is extatic exsperience. The shaman is a personal wittness to the other side of reality ( if you can beleive in such a thing). Those without those sorts of exsperinces cannot know what the shaman is aware of, and those with them are free to interpret as they choose even if they want to chalk it up to purely a mental exsperience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

An interesting abstract. I'll see if I can find the paper itself.

http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/390

Ahhh here we go.

http://www.academia.edu/4165456/Shamanism_and_the_Origins_of_Spirituality_and_Ritual_Healing

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Is that a "tirade"? Are atheists immune to critique now without it being an emotional outburst? I'm not confusing the two at all. I have repeatedly argued that spirituality is the base for religion. The base for spirituality is experiences of the altered state of conciousness sort. Wether from mediation, extatic experience, or to use eight Bitt's adhom the influence of "drug abuse". ( which is a very emotionally charged term and frankly insulting to large groups of people like the Native American church Et all of which it is prooven that their sacraments decrease the amount of actual drug/alcohol abuse and depression amoung it's members). Do I have to put the disclaimer in every post that I recognize that there are narratives that are invented by man, but that I'm looking deeper into the subject matter. I mean sheesh how many times have I said this? Don't you see the reaction that's happening right in front of you. Let me say it as clear as possible. Actual exsperinces of individuals are the Base ----- B A S E ---- of spirituallity in human beings. Thus the fundamental historical beginnings of religions. This isn't rocket science. And it's the only assertion I have made. I honestly don't know why logical thinking people have a problem with this. Could it be that some want to use the obviously ......... Hard to beleive narritives of religions as a straw man for spirituality as a whole? Not all I'm sure. Could it be that some hold particular narritives sacred and the idea that others experience the same thing today as the founder of their religion, is blasphemous? Not all im sure. The lowly shaman founded science, religion, medacine, and philosophy and is now demoted to "drug-pusher", Demon consort, witch doctor, psycotic, and more. :(

If you want to see a drug pusher go to a psychiatrist, you will walk out with prescriptions for just about anything.

you don't have a right to your opinion if it disagrees with the atheist point of view. i get slammed all the time for my religious points of view, just because they don't match the atheist's point of view on their religious views.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

I am talking about the base of historical spirituality in our cultures. What atheist? Nearly eveyone one minus a few on even this website. Everyone that said "gods were invented to control the masses." I find it hard to beleive that you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. "Flying spaghetti monsters" " sky daddy."

I'm sorry WCF, I don't find everything you post as being abundantly clear, and it doesn't help that you just mentioned two examples that aren't that congruous with what you are discussing. The purpose of the FSM, although apparently an invented god, was to make a specific point against intelligent design, not as an argument that gods were invented. 'Sky Daddy' to me is just a pejorative concerning the relationship between the believer and their god and also isn't an argument about them being invented. As Leo I think pointed out, although some gods were likely invented, I don't think most atheists think that the Christian God or Allah were 'invented'; I think most atheists think these beliefs originated out of misinterpretations of the world they lived in, as well as ASCs, and were appropriated by some to some extent to also control the masses using religion (not just 'spirituality').

Human beings would have no concept of a spirit world if it were not for our propensity to enter altered states of conciousness where we perceive entities and feelings of union with nature and more. it really doesn't take much more study than examining what anthropologists have to say about the origins of spirituality and this the origins of religions.

I think this statement is too far reaching, there are also important, natural, non-ASC factors at work that I'd argue are just as much a base of spirituality as these ASCs. For some reason the text from that paper you linked doesn't copy and paste, but in the section titled "The Spirit World: Psychological projection of self-processes' it discusses the innate and overactive tendency of our minds to infer agency where there is none and that this projection is a consequence of our development. Thus there are natural, non-ASC factors that go into belief in the spirit world that seem to just be consequence of our mental wiring.

Actual exsperinces of individuals are the Base ----- B A S E ---- of spirituallity in human beings. Thus the fundamental historical beginnings of religions. This isn't rocket science. And it's the only assertion I have made.

No, you've asserted that 'very few' atheists recognize something. Is it just the above? I think 'the base" is overstated (I'm assuming when you say 'actual experiences' you really mean 'ASCs'; 'actual experiences' are the origin of everything humans believe), as I said there are other factors at play, but I think you are way off in your evaluation of the proportions of atheists at least who don't recognize these factors and their role in the origin of spirituality. Thus your accusation, if I've even defined it correctly, seems to largely be a strawman. The atheist argument isn't usually that some don't have experiences of what they believe are angels, it's that they shouldn't think just because they had an experience of an angel that angels actually then exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I'm not confusing the two at all.

How so?

Is god, or deity, essential to spirituality? Your comments regarding atheists, who do not necessarily deny spirituality but reject deity, suggest you think so. But spirituality is only the belief that something exists that is not of the material universe, it does not necessarily have to incorporate a belief in deity.

In fact, your comments are not at all really directed towards atheists, but materialists (and not all atheists may be materialists) who do not accept anything other than a material universe exists.

As for the alleged 'slur' you state is made of the shamanistic practice of using psychedelics to achieve an altered state of consciousness, there are cultures who use rituals not involving psychedelics to achieve such states. Given this, isn't it therefore true that the shamans in those cultures which promote the use of psychedelics to achieve an altered state of consciousness are indeed "drug pushers"?

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

It's not just down putting. It's an illogical apeal. It's funny to see people claim logical high ground and in the same exact sentence be weighted with common logical fallacy. It's an interesting learning exslerince to see the reactions people have to this subject. All I have done is report that the base of religion and spirituality comes from experiences that people have while in an altered state of consciousness. It's not really up for debate, at least not by us, those who actually work in the fields that study mans history have already come to a consensus. And it quit evidence all over the world that traditional people still practice shamanism. I suppose that the majority of people may not actually understand what shamanism is about becuse of the vast amounts of different rituals, methods, and narritives, but the core of shmanism and the job of the shaman is extatic exsperience. The shaman is a personal wittness to the other side of reality ( if you can beleive in such a thing). Those without those sorts of exsperinces cannot know what the shaman is aware of, and those with them are free to interpret as they choose even if they want to chalk it up to purely a mental exsperience.

Well, I have an affinity to your thoughts on this, but I guess people talking about the flying speghetti monster falls under another category.

Anyways, like I said, I see your point on the religious outlook on the various levels, even if it's viewed through altered views or experiences. If I am getting you correctly. That's me. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

I'm sorry WCF, I don't find everything you post as being abundantly clear, and it doesn't help that you just mentioned two examples that aren't that congruous with what you are discussing. The purpose of the FSM, although apparently an invented god, was to make a specific point against intelligent design, not as an argument that gods were invented. 'Sky Daddy' to me is just a pejorative concerning the relationship between the believer and their god and also isn't an argument about them being invented. As Leo I think pointed out, although some gods were likely invented, I don't think most atheists think that the Christian God or Allah were 'invented'; I think most atheists think these beliefs originated out of misinterpretations of the world they lived in, as well as ASCs, and were appropriated by some to some extent to also control the masses using religion (not just 'spirituality').

I think this statement is too far reaching, there are also important, natural, non-ASC factors at work that I'd argue are just as much a base of spirituality as these ASCs. For some reason the text from that paper you linked doesn't copy and paste, but in the section titled "The Spirit World: Psychological projection of self-processes' it discusses the innate and overactive tendency of our minds to infer agency where there is none and that this projection is a consequence of our development. Thus there are natural, non-ASC factors that go into belief in the spirit world that seem to just be consequence of our mental wiring.

No, you've asserted that 'very few' atheists recognize something. Is it just the above? I think 'the base" is overstated (I'm assuming when you say 'actual experiences' you really mean 'ASCs'; 'actual experiences' are the origin of everything humans believe), as I said there are other factors at play, but I think you are way off in your evaluation of the proportions of atheists at least who don't recognize these factors and their role in the origin of spirituality. Thus your accusation, if I've even defined it correctly, seems to largely be a strawman. The atheist argument isn't usually that some don't have experiences of what they believe are angels, it's that they shouldn't think just because they had an experience of an angel that angels actually then exist.

In would say that maybe some. But when you constantly hear that man invented religions and thus their Gods in nearly every argument it's not so much of a straw man and probably an ignorant misrepresentation of less than prepaired atheists. If you read the entire paper I linked to, you also see how important spirituality and even religon has been to the development of mankind.

Misinterpretation: How do you know meeting a spiritual entity in an ASC is misinterpreted? Is it a bias that they can't exist? Let's say I have a spiritual friend that I discuss physics with in place he created for me. It's place that gives me shelter away from endless dreams every night. Now this character is every bit as real as anyone one else in my life just separated by the veil between worlds. How do you know I'm misinterpreting a mental process? Is it because you don't believe in non corporeal beings? What are is your criteria other than your bias to decide wether it's a real entity or purly a psycological construct?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

How so?

Is god, or deity, essential to spirituality? Your comments regarding atheists, who do not necessarily deny spirituality but reject deity, suggest you think so. But spirituality is only the belief that something exists that is not of the material universe, it does not necessarily have to incorporate a belief in deity.

In fact, your comments are not at all really directed towards atheists, but materialists (and not all atheists may be materialists) who do not accept anything other than a material universe exists.

As for the alleged 'slur' you state is made of the shamanistic practice of using psychedelics to achieve an altered state of consciousness, there are cultures who use rituals not involving psychedelics to achieve such states. Given this, isn't it therefore true that the shamans in those cultures which promote the use of psychedelics to achieve an altered state of consciousness are indeed "drug pushers"?

Hahaha "drug pushers" is a term that has a meaning despite the semantics of the two words. You might as well call doctors and pharmacists "drug pushers". Some may actually be under the common understanding of the term, others dare I say most are not.

So no cultures that have entheogenes as a sacrament are not "drug pushers". In fact I would consider using such a term a logical fallacy.

Atheists/materialists/physicists: no you are right there are atheists that indeed are not anti spirituality. Many Buddhists come to mind, but I have been fairly good at putting the disclaimer of generalization out there. If you missed it, just imagine the words "not all" in front of any generalizations I make. You will have to forgive me. I only have my exsperiences with atheists and Remembrance of being one myself. If you put a study in front of me that show me percentages of atheists that are indeed spiritual, I might be able to revamp my generlizations a bit instead of relying on what's presented to me. ;) but I'm not going to hold my breath on it being a very significant number buhddist probably being the bulk.

It's also interesting how now the discussion is about me and not the simple fact the ASC is in many ways the well spring for spirituality and religion. Sticking strictly with the academics as with the paper I posted, it's a deep and powerful part of our history even evolution as a species. Thank goodness for the "drug pushers" otherwise we might not even be here.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

^

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

-------Buddha (563 - 483 BC)

I was thinking ,what is the possiblity that he may not have said all of which is recorded ... but , it's quoted as if ...

Hmmm

If you take that to it's logical conclusion , the same possibility exists for all quotes whoever made them

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.