Preaching Atheism

[aelf]

All I can say is don't talk to the crazy mystics unless you simply want to interact with another kind of caricatures of religious people.

 

[Leoreth]

From spiritual point of view this is sheer vaste of time. Its like doing what makes you sick and say: its O.K. cause I can take these pills to become healthy again. But spiritual man needs positive instrument to replace doubt: identification, introspection, development of insight, discrimination, intuition to name a few...

I think the better analogy is that in fact spirituality is the "pill" here: something that you apply without questioning to achieve a certain state. Doubt on the other hand is an essential aspect of introspection.

This is just wrong. Its like saying to a child if you cant stand this punch you will never be a boxer...
Doubt is very powerfull force; one may say most detrimental to spirituality or any kind of faith and offcourse negative one. To expose yourself to it after one has carefully choosen the path of inner development is act of stupidity and instead of condescending to it one should choose some positive approache to resolve ones problems.

Refusing that one's position can ever be wrong after a certain point is the road to fundamentalism.

And yes, a child that will never be able to stand any punch ever, will never be a boxer.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I think the better analogy is that in fact spirituality is the "pill" here: something that you apply without questioning to achieve a certain state. Doubt on the other hand is an essential aspect of introspection.

Its too much playing with the words at this point. Fair enough, everyone has to try what works for himself...

Refusing that one's position can ever be wrong after a certain point is the road to fundamentalism.

I understand spirituality as something growing and evolving so constant backchecking and search for higher truth is needed but not doubting...

And yes, a child that will never be able to stand any punch ever, will never be a boxer.

You have twisted a bit what I said.

 

[Leoreth]

You have twisted a bit what I said.

On purpose, because your analogy did not reflect what I said.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

If a religion preaches that the only way to salvation is through faith, isn't that essentially admitting that credulity is its paramount virtue? Shouldn't that set off most people's internal BS-detector?

 

[peter grimes]

Actually the Boxer analogy is very good.

If a kid can't withstand the very first punch - even after years of practice and training, then he will never be a boxer, indeed.

Likewise if your spiritual path can't stand up to a critical analysis then it will never be very good. Constant backchecking without honest doubt will only result in seeing what you want to see.

Which is, of course, what I think all religions are to begin with

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If a religion preaches that the only way to salvation is through faith, isn't that essentially admitting that credulity is its paramount virtue? Shouldn't that set off most people's internal BS-detector?

It would seem to me that faith is not only essential but also sufficient (if one feels so) for ones salvation and enlightenment. But those who care for expansion of knowledge are also doing the right thing. The best is of course if these two go together.
But you are really mistaken if you think that credulity is the precondition of faith.
I would rather base my faith on careful observation of movement inside my own expanding consciousness, inner experiences and their projections into the outside world and psychic development.

Actually the Boxer analogy is very good.

If a kid can't withstand the very first punch - even after years of practice and training, then he will never be a boxer, indeed.

And here comes another twist...

Likewise if your spiritual path can't stand up to a critical analysis then it will never be very good. Constant backchecking without honest doubt will only result in seeing what you want to see.

We are in agreement here. But I still prefer that my spiritual path is tested in battlefield of life rather then under obscure eye of erroneous criticism.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I'm sorry, but I have to object that it's a negative one.

I am not sure if I made it clear before but I meant it from purely spiritual mans perspective. I would imagine that in some more "technical" fields of humans knowledge it can has its uses...

When people began to doubt their way of healing people by spiritual means and decided to take a scientific approach instead, that is not a negative one.

Now that depends. Spiritualy or by inner process one can recognise that illness is coming on subtler plane or where the root of it lies before it manifest on the physical plane and the healing process can be more direct and effective.
But it would seem to me its better to heal with very large knowledge on physical level then very uncertain one on inner level.

Doubt itself does nothing except remove previously held convictions. If you trust the reasons why you arrived at those convictions you may end up there again. If by some new insight which was blocked by those previous convictions you arrive elsewhere, and that elsewhere can be spiritual or not, does it not improve your position since you allowed that new insight to have an effect?

Again I have to point out it is spiritual plane I am talking about. Mental reasoning plays in spirituality only supportive role. Any real spirituality will have to go one way or the other beyond it simply because it is not capable of realizing truth in its fullness. So not removing your doubts in this case is something like breaking enemy lines with an army but leaving parts of it in fortified positions capable of disrupting your lines of supply...
Ultimately you will be able to illumine the mind with the souls light but as it takes considerable time and one advances only little by little its wise not to let doubts to interfere in the process. Meanwhile one has to rely on some more intuitive capacities from within himself which do the doubts work as you describe it, on pure reasons judgements of reality and on faith. I hope this answers the second part of your post as well.

The thing is, does the path decide where you go, or do you decide where the path goes? Are you going to be a passenger, or will you take control of your life? As I said before, I'm not asking you to give up your spirituality. I'm asking you to dare to question it. So now it's your turn to explain to me what's so stupid about that.

Oh, I am definitely more then willing to question my spirituality but I will not do it only on mental level but I will bring the vital emotions, the psychic part and if possible some intuitive capacity into the picture as well so that I can arrive at some more complex and true insight. Otherwise I may arrive at some judgement which may seem to be correct in its line of knowledge but it wouldnt fit in large picture of complex personality which human beings undoubtedly are.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I hope this answers the second part of your post as well.

It doesn't. But I never had high expectations and I understand why you wouldn't want to address that part of my post. I was expecting reasoning like: "So not removing your doubts in this case is something like breaking enemy lines with an army but leaving parts of it in fortified positions capable of disrupting your lines of supply...". Which isn't reasoning at all.

In short, doubt does not remove knowledge or wisdom, it questions it. Your entire reasoning leans on doubt removing previously found knowledge or wisdom. It doesn't.

edit: And you failed to back up your stupidity claim.

 

[Quackers]

When faith is the motivator for believing in God(s), and faith is belief without evidence, when one starts to doubt, chances are one may lose faith.

Thats a better way of putting it, in my eyes. Why couldn't you start the thread off like that?! No problem See you can be nice

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thats a better way of putting it in my eyes. Why couldn't you start the thread off like that?! No problem See you can be nice

I can think of a few other ways of putting it in your eyes

 

[peter grimes]

But I still prefer that my spiritual path is tested in battlefield of life rather then under obscure eye of erroneous criticism.

When I use the word 'criticism' I mean 'skeptical examination'. Think critical analysis. Like when you read a newspaper article. Examining the assumptions, the biases, the words not written and the questions not asked.

If you're not doing this then all you're doing is confirming your preexisting biases. Seeing that which you want to see.

Examination like that can't possibly be erroneous.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I think we have a confusion problem around here(and I am sure I am part of it). This is definition of doubt from wiki:
Doubt, a status between belief and disbelief, involves uncertainty or distrust or lack of sureness of an alleged fact, an action, a motive, or a decision. Doubt brings into question some notion of a perceived "reality", and may involve delaying or rejecting relevant action out of concerns for mistakes or faults or appropriateness. Some definitions of doubt emphasize the state in which the mind remains suspended between two contradictory propositions and unable to assent to either of them.

Now from spiritual point of view I claim that to indulge in doubt is stupidity.
If I enter into uncertainty I use faith because it will bring to the for my inner capacity and the problem will be dealt with. Yes, it requires me to believe in higher force which is in oneness with my inner strength but if I use doubt this force cant operate unless it violently asserts its strength over me.
This is why(at least from spiritual point) you can talk about doubt as poison.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If I get you correctly, the moment you doubt your belief in a higher force it will not re-establish itself. It will not be able to overcome that doubt, so you will persist in a state of doubt. In which case you will lose that spirituality.

If I get that correctly I wonder how much this spirituality is worth if it is a one-time accept without question deal. I think that is not a very bright way to approach the important aspects of one's life, but I am glad you illuminated your position, since it puts your claim of stupidity in perspective.

If you indeed wish to stay in your unquestioning state of belief, it would be foolish for you to doubt. I did indeed promote doubt as a tool for progression if one has the motivation for better understanding. Without that motivator, doubt will indeed be poison.

 

[LegionSteve]

I think we have a confusion problem around here(and I am sure I am part of it). This is definition of doubt from wiki:
Doubt, a status between belief and disbelief, involves uncertainty or distrust or lack of sureness of an alleged fact, an action, a motive, or a decision. Doubt brings into question some notion of a perceived "reality", and may involve delaying or rejecting relevant action out of concerns for mistakes or faults or appropriateness. Some definitions of doubt emphasize the state in which the mind remains suspended between two contradictory propositions and unable to assent to either of them.

Using that definition of doubt I can see why you view it as a negative thing. But you don't have to stay stuck in doubt, unable to make a decision, forever. Doubt can lead you to look for more information and consider other alternatives, and eventually make a better informed decision.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If I get you correctly, the moment you doubt your belief in a higher force it will not re-establish itself. It will not be able to overcome that doubt, so you will persist in a state of doubt. In which case you will lose that spirituality.

You will not necessarily loose all of it. But you can delay significantly your achievements.

If I get that correctly I wonder how much this spirituality is worth if it is a one-time accept without question deal. I think that is not a very bright way to approach the important aspects of one's life, but I am glad you illuminated your position, since it puts your claim of stupidity in perspective.

Its worth is determined by many factors and varies by individual. But do not think its something weak. No, its the greatest strength but gentle and subtle in the same time and if you prefer doubt force to it, like a perfect gentleman, it will withdraw.

If you indeed wish to stay in your unquestioning state of belief, it would be foolish for you to doubt. I did indeed promote doubt as a tool for progression if one has the motivation for better understanding. Without that motivator, doubt will indeed be poison.

Similarly I promote spirituality as a tool for progression. In fact constantly transcending progression. And for that one has to be in touch with reality and truth.

 

[Borachio]

I confess it freely. I don't understand any of this talk of another kind of stuff; other than the material (say). It seems very foolish to ask, I know, but what would it be made of?

 

[peter grimes]

I confess it freely. I don't understand any of this talk of another kind of stuff; other than the material (say). It seems very foolish to ask, I know, but what would it be made of?

Yeah, I'm with you. That's why I've basically withdrawn from the discussion.

But since you're bringing it back on topic, please read this blog post by Sean Carroll on ScientificAmerican.com:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

We also know better for life after death, although people are much more reluctant to admit it. Admittedly, "direct" evidence one way or the other is hard to come by — all we have are a few legends and sketchy claims from unreliable witnesses with near-death experiences, plus a bucketload of wishful thinking. But surely it’s okay to take account of indirect evidence — namely, compatibility of the idea that some form of our individual soul survives death with other things we know about how the world works.

Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?

[snip]

Even if you don’t believe that human beings are "simply" collections of atoms evolving and interacting according to rules laid down in the Standard Model of particle physics, most people would grudgingly admit that atoms are part of who we are. If it’s really nothing but atoms and the known forces, there is clearly no way for the soul to survive death. Believing in life after death, to put it mildly, requires physics beyond the Standard Model. Most importantly, we need some way for that "new physics" to interact with the atoms that we do have.

[I've left the best parts out... it's worth reading, and won't take more than 10 minutes ]

This, to me, is the essence of the argument against spiritualistic bunkum. You can talk all you want about how great you feel from a regimen of meditation, prayer, yoga, chanting - that's awesome. But it has nothing at all to do with life after death or a soul / spirit. Until the people positing the existence of a soul or life after death can show how that immaterial aspect is compatible with the universe as we know it to be, then I will disregard their ideas.

I don't have time for make believe. Life is too short.

 

[Borachio]

You will not necessarily loose all of it. But you can delay significantly your achievements.

Hey, I've just thought of something. Isn't it true that scientific progress relies on belief to a very great extent, too? Isn't it a case of dwarves on the shoulders of giants, much of the time?

If all you could do with science was doubt stuff, you wouldn't get very far, would you? You'd spend all your time going over and over the same elementary stuff and get nowhere. It's only by trusting, or having faith, in others' past achievements that we can make any progress.

Scientific knowledge now, and has been for a long time, is incapable of being grasped in its entirety by any one single person.



Am I wrong?

 

[ParkCungHee]

most people would grudgingly admit that atoms are part of who we are.

Well there's your problem right there.