JoyfulSoul wrote the following in the "I had a very interesting stop at HQ" thread in the "About the Way" forum:
"I began as a college atheist 45 years ago. I'm long gone. Over the edge gone. Unreachable. Forever lost.
If we ever enforce a complete atheist, anti-supernatural society, take me first, drag me around back and shoot me."
What would such a world be like without all the supernatural beliefs in a heaven and hell be like? Or without the concept of a chosen people and a promised land? Or with the concept of humanism being our motive to love and care for one another? There are many other "Or" examples that could be given from either side of a supernatural vs atheism POV.
If ad hominem attacks can be avoided, this could be an interesting discussion.
Agree. I've read some definitions of it and appears quite "spiritual" in the sense of doing good for your friends and neighbors as a duty.
JoyfulSoul wrote the following in the "I had a very interesting stop at HQ" thread in the "About the Way" forum:
"I began as a college atheist 45 years ago. I'm long gone. Over the edge gone. Unreachable. Forever lost.
If we ever enforce a complete atheist, anti-supernatural society, take me first, drag me around back and shoot me."
What would such a world be like without all the supernatural beliefs in a heaven and hell be like? Or without the concept of a chosen people and a promised land? Or with the concept of humanism being our motive to love and care for one another? There are many other "Or" examples that could be given from either side of a supernatural vs atheism POV.
If ad hominem attacks can be avoided, this could be an interesting discussion.
I'd be against enforcing such a society, but if one had evolved, would it necessarily have been much different? People behave the way the do, good or bad, because they choose to. My own observation is that if someone follows a religion that commands or expects "love thy neighbor" or some version of that, they will find a rationale to behave against those strictures if they feel strongly that their neighbor shouldn't be loved. On the other side, one who has religious beliefs can very easily choose to live a life indistinguishable from what a religion might teach.
Campbell begins the video by talking about being in Japan, a place that never heard of the Garden of Eden story. I felt some joy when I heard that because it's what I experience each time I wipe that account right out of the bible because of the depravity it saddles upon humans at the time of their birth.
But he does talk throughout the video about the benefits of myths and traditions held by different cultures. Some teach the divine presence of the creator is in creation/nature itself including every human being which promotes treating both with respect. I personally see this as an improvement over the Jewish, Islamic and Christian god.
Near the end, he speaks of deeply challenging rituals that traditionally have transitioned boys into responsible men and how the traditions of today are too watered down to build this sense of responsibility in our youth which is why our societies are in such a mess.
I’ve only listened to the video once so if I have misrepresented Campbell’s views, please correct me. One quote I will share from within the first 5 minutes is the following:
“I think what we’re looking for is a way of experiencing the world in which we are living that will open to us the Transcendent that informs it and at the same time, informs ourselves within it. That’s what people want – that’s what the soul asks for.”
The definition of Transcendent being something that is “beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.” (Oxford Languages)
This is where humanism differs because there is no divine or supernatural aspects to it. Can this not be enough for us to live in this world?
I'd be against enforcing such a society, but if one had evolved, would it necessarily have been much different? People behave the way the do, good or bad, because they choose to. My own observation is that if someone follows a religion that commands or expects "love thy neighbor" or some version of that, they will find a rationale to behave against those strictures if they feel strongly that their neighbor shouldn't be loved. On the other side, one who has religious beliefs can very easily choose to live a life indistinguishable from what a religion might teach.
I think evolving is a good choice of words especially in progressing away from Christian/religious beliefs being imposed and enforced on others. The "others" here would not only be non-religious folks but also the people within a religious institution who are required to obey its expectations, rules and regulations in order to be accepted and avoid abusive consequences.
GSC has been good, especially with posts from Rocky, Penworks and others, about the rights and ways one has to stand against the control of authoritarian leaders.
The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations. Most of all, Yahweh and Christ have mandates that must be followed in order to avoid the consequence of hell (however it is defined). This is why I think atheism (which is simply a non-belief in the existence of god/gods) is not a very bad, difficult or unpleasant thing.
“I think what we’re looking for is a way of experiencing the world in which we are living that will open to us the Transcendent that informs it and at the same time, informs ourselves within it. That’s what people want – that’s what the soul asks for.”
The definition of Transcendent being something that is “beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.” (Oxford Languages)
This is where humanism differs because there is no divine or supernatural aspects to it. Can this not be enough for us to live in this world?
Is it human nature to expect a glove to fit every hand that arises? Words and their definitions are problematic, aren't they? Words like transcendent, numinous, sublime, even spiritual. They are pretty much all we got and religion can't claim exclusive rights to them.
Transcendence has several meanings, only one of them religious. Numinous can mean awe-inspiring. Kant has a concept of the Sublime. Christopher Hitchens uses these words to make the point that you need to go beyond religion in order to fully appreciate reality, not just to understand it rationally but also to enjoy it, to be dazzled by its beauty and order, to exalt in its wonder.
When Hitchens talks about "the transcendent and numinous," he's not referring to anything supernatural. He's also not advocating any type of worship or debasement. He's referring to an appreciation for the amazing insights and workings of the natural order as well as an appreciation for the greater aspects of the human experience.
He's trying to make the case that religion doesn't own these words or concepts. He's also attempting to address the claim that science reduces everything to chemical impulses and nihilism. His position is that atheists are capable of having the exact same types of experiences as believers, and none of them require beleef in anything supernatural or anything unsupported by the evidence. He's saying that atheists are just as capable of feeling self-transcending love or connection to something greater than oneself or true awe. One doesn't need superstition to take part in any of these amazing human experiences.
If you reject the notion that there exists a supernatural dimension, then all religious and spiritual experiences can be understood as purely, physical phenomena. Therefore, when someone experiences a moment of self-transcending love that feels all-encompassing or when someone goes into a desert and fasts for 40 days and 40 nights or when someone takes a pilgrimage to feel a connection to the divine or when someone learns about the natural order and feels an incredible connection to the universe or when someone experiences a piece of art that moves them deeply and inexplicably to feel as if they're part of something larger than themselves, all of these things can be understood as meaningful subjective experiences in a physical, natural universe with no supernatural or spiritual dimensions.
It's difficult to illustrate how meaningful and impactful these experiences are without using language that is typically reserved for usage in explaining religious experiences. After all, people like Einstein and Spinoza weren't necessarily religious, but they definitely had beliefs that could be called spiritual. Not spiritual in the sense that it spoke of a spiritual dimension, but spiritual as in an incredible admiration for the workings of the natural order, the range of human experience, and the mysteries of the universe.
One can reject the supernatural and absolutely still have a transcendent experience.
JoyfulSoul wrote the following in the "I had a very interesting stop at HQ" thread in the "About the Way" forum:
"I began as a college atheist 45 years ago. I'm long gone. Over the edge gone. Unreachable. Forever lost.
If we ever enforce a complete atheist, anti-supernatural society, take me first, drag me around back and shoot me."
What would such a world be like without all the supernatural beliefs in a heaven and hell be like? Or without the concept of a chosen people and a promised land? Or with the concept of humanism being our motive to love and care for one another? There are many other "Or" examples that could be given from either side of a supernatural vs atheism POV.
It's the beleefs. Every time. I don't know JoyfulSoul, but reading his last two or three posts brought forth a wellspring of compassion for him. Only from reading the words he wrote, I gather he suffers deeply because of his beleefs. And, sadly, he won't let go to be liberated, or as he says, delivered.
My ex-step son (is that a thing?) has serious psychological disorders. He was clinically diagnosed in his teens, but because his mother and her wierwille-worshipping family are so vehemently opposed to a psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, his disease progressed and worsened. Today he is in prison.
I was with him one night when he was having a psychic break. He babbled a bunch of nonsense about heaven and hell and the devil and Israel, etc. His own Corps grad uncle never got the green light or cookie or whatever to cast out the psychological disorders. Now the young man is spending the rest of his life in prison.
Little children are more "spiritually mature" than all actors in this tragedy. They have yet to be conditioned to beleeve anything at all.
These are some of the “godly” laws dictated by God:
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.—1 Peter 2:18
He that striketh his bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands, shall be guilty of the crime.
But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money.—Exodus 21:20–21.
But if what he charged her with be true, and virginity be not found in the damsel:
They shall cast her out of the doors of her father’s house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee.—Deuteronomy 22:20–21
If a man have espoused a damsel that is a virgin, and some one find her in the city, and lie with her,
Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned: the damsel, because she cried not out, being in the city: the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife. And thou shalt take away the evil from the midst of thee.—Deuteronomy 22:23–24[5]
These are just a few of the laws an atheist society would probably not include in their laws.
I think evolving is a good choice of words especially in progressing away from Christian/religious beliefs being imposed and enforced on others. The "others" here would not only be non-religious folks but also the people within a religious institution who are required to obey its expectations, rules and regulations in order to be accepted and avoid abusive consequences.
GSC has been good, especially with posts from Rocky, Penworks and others, about the rights and ways one has to stand against the control of authoritarian leaders.
The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations. Most of all, Yahweh and Christ have mandates that must be followed in order to avoid the consequence of hell (however it is defined). This is why I think atheism (which is simply a non-belief in the existence of god/gods) is not a very bad, difficult or unpleasant thing.
Agree in part. Assuming that death is the natural end of one's existence, eternal nothingness cannot be unpleasant. But is it very bad? Well, I would say that to the believer it's very tragic and sad, if there's a whole world of souls living eternally with God while simultaneously there's a whole world that is not. But perhaps we may agree on one thing: that universal salvation (the belief that everyone will eventually be saved no matter what they believe and/or do) is not the truth?
JoyfulSoul wrote the following in the "I had a very interesting stop at HQ" thread in the "About the Way" forum:
"I began as a college atheist 45 years ago. I'm long gone. Over the edge gone. Unreachable. Forever lost.
If we ever enforce a complete atheist, anti-supernatural society, take me first, drag me around back and shoot me."
What would such a world be like without all the supernatural beliefs in a heaven and hell be like? Or without the concept of a chosen people and a promised land? Or with the concept of humanism being our motive to love and care for one another? There are many other "Or" examples that could be given from either side of a supernatural vs atheism POV.
If ad hominem attacks can be avoided, this could be an interesting discussion.
For the sake of this forum, I will examine from the position that all beliefs, including all religious beliefs, have stemmed entirely, 100% from people, with no exceptions.
If so, that would mean all the religious beliefs- which people have based things on- would have that origin, as would every other belief upon which things were based.
So, to posit a world where some of those beliefs were never developed, the question is, what would such a world be like?
We're not imagining a world of magic and dragons here, we're imagining something deterministic and "realistic" (not fantastical.)
I would expect it to look almost identical to our world.
As has been pointed out, technology may change over time, but man has not changed. Improving technology has made some changes in society possible, but man is still man.
We have the printing press, which helped to try to usher in universal literacy (a radical concept for history, and a recent one.) We have the internet, where someone can use that literacy to read things all over the world. We have the potential to have the best-informed Earth population EVER.
Do we have it NOW? No, we do not.
People go into an echo chamber and don't get impartial, fair and neutral information on things, just a lot of bias confirmation. (Can't blame ALL of that on Facebook, even if they made it easier.)
What happened?
Technology may have changed, but man has not changed.
Hippies tried to eliminate capitalism, and make things free for everyone. It failed miserably.
What happened?
Man has not changed. MOST of the people went along with it. But it only takes a few freeloaders to ruin things. A minority of people showed up, and sponged off of the hippies, and tried to get everything they could (including "free love.")
So, I could see the brands changing- from religious to any other brand. But I'd expect the same problems with a few cosmetic differences.
Man has not changed.
So, maybe somebody makes their identity in a philosophical group, or a political group, or even their bowling league. But there will be sectarianism, and sabers rattled.
People form societies, and take on labels, and take on "who is an outsider", which strengthens group cohesion. That's going to stay the same as long as we HAVE people.
"The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations."
This may come as a shock to you, but all INSTITUTIONS have expectations, rules and regulations. Communist China and Russia are loaded with them. Removing religion from a society doesn't change that, it just changes WHICH institutions and WHICH expectations, rules and regulations are in effect.
"The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations."
This may come as a shock to you, but all INSTITUTIONS have expectations, rules and regulations. Communist China and Russia are loaded with them. Removing religion from a society doesn't change that, it just changes WHICH institutions and WHICH expectations, rules and regulations are in effect.
This is not a shock to me WordWolf and insinuating it might be is a bit of an ad hominem statement on your part. This thread is not about other kinds of institutions. Here is the context in which I used that quote:
"I think evolving is a good choice of words especially in progressing away from Christian/religious beliefs being imposed and enforced on others. The "others" here would not only be non-religious folks but also the people within a religious institution who are required to obey its expectations, rules and regulations in order to be accepted and avoid abusive consequences.
GSC has been good, especially with posts from Rocky, Penworks and others, about the rights and ways one has to stand against the control of authoritarian leaders.
The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations. Most of all, Yahweh and Christ havemandates that must be followed in order to avoid the consequence of hell (however it is defined). This is why I think atheism (which is simply a non-belief in the existence of god/gods) is not a very bad, difficult or unpleasant thing."
Under this context, however, I did use a broad brush to infer that all churches and spiritual institutions have expectations, rules and regulations (I'll add beliefs as well) that result in negative consequences from them personally or from their supernatural god if they are not followed. This was ignorant on my part as I'm certainly not educated on every one of the thousands that are out there.
Is it human nature to expect a glove to fit every hand that arises? Words and their definitions are problematic, aren't they? Words like transcendent, numinous, sublime, even spiritual. They are pretty much all we got and religion can't claim exclusive rights to them.
Transcendence has several meanings, only one of them religious. Numinous can mean awe-inspiring. Kant has a concept of the Sublime. Christopher Hitchens uses these words to make the point that you need to go beyond religion in order to fully appreciate reality, not just to understand it rationally but also to enjoy it, to be dazzled by its beauty and order, to exalt in its wonder.
When Hitchens talks about "the transcendent and numinous," he's not referring to anything supernatural. He's also not advocating any type of worship or debasement. He's referring to an appreciation for the amazing insights and workings of the natural order as well as an appreciation for the greater aspects of the human experience.
He's trying to make the case that religion doesn't own these words or concepts. He's also attempting to address the claim that science reduces everything to chemical impulses and nihilism. His position is that atheists are capable of having the exact same types of experiences as believers, and none of them require beleef in anything supernatural or anything unsupported by the evidence. He's saying that atheists are just as capable of feeling self-transcending love or connection to something greater than oneself or true awe. One doesn't need superstition to take part in any of these amazing human experiences.
If you reject the notion that there exists a supernatural dimension, then all religious and spiritual experiences can be understood as purely, physical phenomena. Therefore, when someone experiences a moment of self-transcending love that feels all-encompassing or when someone goes into a desert and fasts for 40 days and 40 nights or when someone takes a pilgrimage to feel a connection to the divine or when someone learns about the natural order and feels an incredible connection to the universe or when someone experiences a piece of art that moves them deeply and inexplicably to feel as if they're part of something larger than themselves, all of these things can be understood as meaningful subjective experiences in a physical, natural universe with no supernatural or spiritual dimensions.
It's difficult to illustrate how meaningful and impactful these experiences are without using language that is typically reserved for usage in explaining religious experiences. After all, people like Einstein and Spinoza weren't necessarily religious, but they definitely had beliefs that could be called spiritual. Not spiritual in the sense that it spoke of a spiritual dimension, but spiritual as in an incredible admiration for the workings of the natural order, the range of human experience, and the mysteries of the universe.
One can reject the supernatural and absolutely still have a transcendent experience.
Recommended Posts
waysider
It's a bit lengthy but well worth the time spent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Agree. I've read some definitions of it and appears quite "spiritual" in the sense of doing good for your friends and neighbors as a duty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I will second the motion for Joseph Campbell.
Well worth it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I'd be against enforcing such a society, but if one had evolved, would it necessarily have been much different? People behave the way the do, good or bad, because they choose to. My own observation is that if someone follows a religion that commands or expects "love thy neighbor" or some version of that, they will find a rationale to behave against those strictures if they feel strongly that their neighbor shouldn't be loved. On the other side, one who has religious beliefs can very easily choose to live a life indistinguishable from what a religion might teach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Campbell begins the video by talking about being in Japan, a place that never heard of the Garden of Eden story. I felt some joy when I heard that because it's what I experience each time I wipe that account right out of the bible because of the depravity it saddles upon humans at the time of their birth.
But he does talk throughout the video about the benefits of myths and traditions held by different cultures. Some teach the divine presence of the creator is in creation/nature itself including every human being which promotes treating both with respect. I personally see this as an improvement over the Jewish, Islamic and Christian god.
Near the end, he speaks of deeply challenging rituals that traditionally have transitioned boys into responsible men and how the traditions of today are too watered down to build this sense of responsibility in our youth which is why our societies are in such a mess.
I’ve only listened to the video once so if I have misrepresented Campbell’s views, please correct me. One quote I will share from within the first 5 minutes is the following:
“I think what we’re looking for is a way of experiencing the world in which we are living that will open to us the Transcendent that informs it and at the same time, informs ourselves within it. That’s what people want – that’s what the soul asks for.”
The definition of Transcendent being something that is “beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.” (Oxford Languages)
This is where humanism differs because there is no divine or supernatural aspects to it. Can this not be enough for us to live in this world?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I think evolving is a good choice of words especially in progressing away from Christian/religious beliefs being imposed and enforced on others. The "others" here would not only be non-religious folks but also the people within a religious institution who are required to obey its expectations, rules and regulations in order to be accepted and avoid abusive consequences.
GSC has been good, especially with posts from Rocky, Penworks and others, about the rights and ways one has to stand against the control of authoritarian leaders.
The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations. Most of all, Yahweh and Christ have mandates that must be followed in order to avoid the consequence of hell (however it is defined). This is why I think atheism (which is simply a non-belief in the existence of god/gods) is not a very bad, difficult or unpleasant thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Is it human nature to expect a glove to fit every hand that arises? Words and their definitions are problematic, aren't they? Words like transcendent, numinous, sublime, even spiritual. They are pretty much all we got and religion can't claim exclusive rights to them.
Transcendence has several meanings, only one of them religious. Numinous can mean awe-inspiring. Kant has a concept of the Sublime. Christopher Hitchens uses these words to make the point that you need to go beyond religion in order to fully appreciate reality, not just to understand it rationally but also to enjoy it, to be dazzled by its beauty and order, to exalt in its wonder.
When Hitchens talks about "the transcendent and numinous," he's not referring to anything supernatural. He's also not advocating any type of worship or debasement. He's referring to an appreciation for the amazing insights and workings of the natural order as well as an appreciation for the greater aspects of the human experience.
He's trying to make the case that religion doesn't own these words or concepts. He's also attempting to address the claim that science reduces everything to chemical impulses and nihilism. His position is that atheists are capable of having the exact same types of experiences as believers, and none of them require beleef in anything supernatural or anything unsupported by the evidence. He's saying that atheists are just as capable of feeling self-transcending love or connection to something greater than oneself or true awe. One doesn't need superstition to take part in any of these amazing human experiences.
If you reject the notion that there exists a supernatural dimension, then all religious and spiritual experiences can be understood as purely, physical phenomena. Therefore, when someone experiences a moment of self-transcending love that feels all-encompassing or when someone goes into a desert and fasts for 40 days and 40 nights or when someone takes a pilgrimage to feel a connection to the divine or when someone learns about the natural order and feels an incredible connection to the universe or when someone experiences a piece of art that moves them deeply and inexplicably to feel as if they're part of something larger than themselves, all of these things can be understood as meaningful subjective experiences in a physical, natural universe with no supernatural or spiritual dimensions.
It's difficult to illustrate how meaningful and impactful these experiences are without using language that is typically reserved for usage in explaining religious experiences. After all, people like Einstein and Spinoza weren't necessarily religious, but they definitely had beliefs that could be called spiritual. Not spiritual in the sense that it spoke of a spiritual dimension, but spiritual as in an incredible admiration for the workings of the natural order, the range of human experience, and the mysteries of the universe.
One can reject the supernatural and absolutely still have a transcendent experience.
Here are the Four Horseman talking about the transcendent and numinous. https://youtu.be/9DKhc1pcDFM?si=n2dsCndVCJviEYEn
And here's Sam Harris on his use of the word spiritual.
https://youtu.be/zLKNvBdUtZY?si=utS8kRZtcr7AX8Ka
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It's the beleefs. Every time. I don't know JoyfulSoul, but reading his last two or three posts brought forth a wellspring of compassion for him. Only from reading the words he wrote, I gather he suffers deeply because of his beleefs. And, sadly, he won't let go to be liberated, or as he says, delivered.
My ex-step son (is that a thing?) has serious psychological disorders. He was clinically diagnosed in his teens, but because his mother and her wierwille-worshipping family are so vehemently opposed to a psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, his disease progressed and worsened. Today he is in prison.
I was with him one night when he was having a psychic break. He babbled a bunch of nonsense about heaven and hell and the devil and Israel, etc. His own Corps grad uncle never got the green light or cookie or whatever to cast out the psychological disorders. Now the young man is spending the rest of his life in prison.
Little children are more "spiritually mature" than all actors in this tragedy. They have yet to be conditioned to beleeve anything at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
These are some of the “godly” laws dictated by God:
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.—1 Peter 2:18
He that striketh his bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands, shall be guilty of the crime.
But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money.—Exodus 21:20–21.
But if what he charged her with be true, and virginity be not found in the damsel:
They shall cast her out of the doors of her father’s house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee.—Deuteronomy 22:20–21
If a man have espoused a damsel that is a virgin, and some one find her in the city, and lie with her,
Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned: the damsel, because she cried not out, being in the city: the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife. And thou shalt take away the evil from the midst of thee.—Deuteronomy 22:23–24[5]
These are just a few of the laws an atheist society would probably not include in their laws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Agree in part. Assuming that death is the natural end of one's existence, eternal nothingness cannot be unpleasant. But is it very bad? Well, I would say that to the believer it's very tragic and sad, if there's a whole world of souls living eternally with God while simultaneously there's a whole world that is not. But perhaps we may agree on one thing: that universal salvation (the belief that everyone will eventually be saved no matter what they believe and/or do) is not the truth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For the sake of this forum, I will examine from the position that all beliefs, including all religious beliefs, have stemmed entirely, 100% from people, with no exceptions.
If so, that would mean all the religious beliefs- which people have based things on- would have that origin, as would every other belief upon which things were based.
So, to posit a world where some of those beliefs were never developed, the question is, what would such a world be like?
We're not imagining a world of magic and dragons here, we're imagining something deterministic and "realistic" (not fantastical.)
I would expect it to look almost identical to our world.
As has been pointed out, technology may change over time, but man has not changed. Improving technology has made some changes in society possible, but man is still man.
We have the printing press, which helped to try to usher in universal literacy (a radical concept for history, and a recent one.) We have the internet, where someone can use that literacy to read things all over the world. We have the potential to have the best-informed Earth population EVER.
Do we have it NOW? No, we do not.
People go into an echo chamber and don't get impartial, fair and neutral information on things, just a lot of bias confirmation. (Can't blame ALL of that on Facebook, even if they made it easier.)
What happened?
Technology may have changed, but man has not changed.
Hippies tried to eliminate capitalism, and make things free for everyone. It failed miserably.
What happened?
Man has not changed. MOST of the people went along with it. But it only takes a few freeloaders to ruin things. A minority of people showed up, and sponged off of the hippies, and tried to get everything they could (including "free love.")
So, I could see the brands changing- from religious to any other brand. But I'd expect the same problems with a few cosmetic differences.
Man has not changed.
So, maybe somebody makes their identity in a philosophical group, or a political group, or even their bowling league. But there will be sectarianism, and sabers rattled.
People form societies, and take on labels, and take on "who is an outsider", which strengthens group cohesion. That's going to stay the same as long as we HAVE people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations."
This may come as a shock to you, but all INSTITUTIONS have expectations, rules and regulations. Communist China and Russia are loaded with them. Removing religion from a society doesn't change that, it just changes WHICH institutions and WHICH expectations, rules and regulations are in effect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
This is not a shock to me WordWolf and insinuating it might be is a bit of an ad hominem statement on your part. This thread is not about other kinds of institutions. Here is the context in which I used that quote:
"I think evolving is a good choice of words especially in progressing away from Christian/religious beliefs being imposed and enforced on others. The "others" here would not only be non-religious folks but also the people within a religious institution who are required to obey its expectations, rules and regulations in order to be accepted and avoid abusive consequences.
GSC has been good, especially with posts from Rocky, Penworks and others, about the rights and ways one has to stand against the control of authoritarian leaders.
The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations. Most of all, Yahweh and Christ have mandates that must be followed in order to avoid the consequence of hell (however it is defined). This is why I think atheism (which is simply a non-belief in the existence of god/gods) is not a very bad, difficult or unpleasant thing."
Under this context, however, I did use a broad brush to infer that all churches and spiritual institutions have expectations, rules and regulations (I'll add beliefs as well) that result in negative consequences from them personally or from their supernatural god if they are not followed. This was ignorant on my part as I'm certainly not educated on every one of the thousands that are out there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I think this is why being around little children is so often just plain fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I so appreciate your post. Thank you for taking the time to compose it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.