-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?
- Thread starter Patrick66
- Start date
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Yes .. it refers to the spiritual attributes, and not any physical likeness.
i.e. the concepts of love, forgiveness, wrath, almighty, truth etc.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
Is pointing out the contradictions in your posts pedantic? I would say not.
In post #264 you said:
"they eat, sleep, defecate, and procreate, and that's it!"
But then in post #377 you contradicted your own assertion:
"yes they experience pleasure and pain, fear and comfort, and other emotions."
If the laws are constant, no god is needed to watch over them.
Man has gained a large amount of useful knowledge about how reality works, and none involves gods or came out of holy books. We simply don't need gods in our science. They add nothing. They explain nothing. They allow us to predict nothing. Gods have no known or imaginable role in the universe. They weren't needed to assemble it and aren't needed now to run it. What job do you want to give this god? What gap in knowledge remains for it to fill? Why life exists? We've got much of that covered naturalistically already. Why there is something rather than nothing? Positing gods doesn't answer that question.
The failure of governments and industry to apply scientific knowledge responsibly also occurred in Christian majority countries.
Here's the Christian take on global warming given by a former Secretary of the Interior:
"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan
No, you are.
If the beasts had language, you'd see the equivalent of those things in them.
So that's what this god has in common with man? Even almighty and truth? Good to know.
I think the beasts are pretty good at managing wrath and forgiving. They don't seem to carry grudges or plot revenge. And they love one another - at least the social beasts that parent and live in herds. They just don't do so using symbolic thought.
Man is the natural result of language acquisition in an ape. Language shapes minds. The logic inherent in a grammatical system organizes thought and is learned passively and without study. The first one, anyway.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A denial is not a refutation. You cannot name one significant trait shared by all of the other great apes that you do not have. When groups are classified it is done by the traits that they all share. Sorry, but you are an ape.No, they are not..
.."planet of the apes" springs to mind..
Or are you claiming not to be human? Here is an easy question. Are you an animal?
I'm always a little mystified by demands that claims of experiences need to be demonstrated as true? How does someone demonstrate they had an experience, other than to tell you about it?
Now to answer my own question how I would answer it, is that if that experience were as fantastic as they might claim, I would look at how they describe it first of all, and then see how and in what ways it impacted their lives. Those are the only really ways to judge the validity of claims, but not necessarily as 100% conclusive however.
Take for instance recently on RF some atheist poster was telling me they themselves had experiences of God. So I did what I do and asked him to describe it to me. Turns out he was describing an emotional experience that came through convincing himself through his beliefs that something was true.
Okay. Well, that's actually a very common experience, and not at all what I would describe as an experience of the Transcendent. Those are on the other hand absolutely life-changing. Going to church, hearing a stirring sermon, manipulative music meant to evoke emotions, etc., can be and is commonly experienced at any rock concert.
So as you see, those are the two way I know of that one can demonstrate the validity of their claims. Do you know any other way?
As explained above. I guarantee you the experiences I've had were not those. I've been in the Pentecostal environment, and experienced that, and there is a night and day difference between the emotionalism of a church service, and a Satori experience.
That's not true at all. Why do you say that? As I've pointed out, a subtle-level state experience is common across the world and cultures, as research shows. However, what is symbolically manifested during those state-experiences is drawn from the culture or religion on the person experiencing them. A Christian may see Jesus or Mary. A Hindu may see Krishna or Kali. A Buddhist may see Avalokiteshvara, or Tara, and so forth. But they are still the same type of experience regardless.
A funny and absolutely true story to share. I know a woman who was a Lutheran in some small town in Wisconsin. She had taken up meditation for pain management. And while she was meditating she much to her astonishment began speaking in tongues! She had no familiarity with what fundamentalists and other Pentecostals believed, and yet she spontaneously had a experience like that through the practice of meditation, completely outside of her religious exposures.
What does this mean? Does this mean the Holy Ghost came upon her like in the book of Acts, and now she's 'saved'? Does it mean it mean it was the devil because it wasn't in a Christian church (her church did not do these sorts of things)? Or does it mean that glossilia is a common spiritual experience that practitioners of religions the world over, outside Christianity as well as within it, such as the Zulus in Africa who are not Christians, or in Voodoo religions? Yes, it means that. It means the latter.
So that means it's not necessarily a culturally learned thing. But it can be that too. It's not just one thing. And that is my point here. It's not all just "learned", as well as it's not all just "supernatural", nor all just "Christian". Reality is more complex and messy than all of that.
I agree in some cases. But surely you are reasonable enough to recognize that doesn't mean it's all that and nothing but that, don't you? Of course you have imitators. But the imitators while in the majority in most cases, are imitating something authentic at some point along the line. Otherwise, what is it they are trying to imitate, if not something authentic?
Yes, and no. This is complex. Yes, they may have touched the very Face of God, so to speak (that would describe my own experience). However, that does not necessarily mean that all of life's lessons magically get undone and bypassed! God knows, that wasn't my story.
What I can say definitively however is that my life was radically changed to where that became the goal of my whole life to try to find my way back Home to that, so to speak. To have my entire experience of life be of that nature and quality permanently. So, the fact I would devote literally 40 years of "wandering in the desert" in pursuit of that "promised land" (all metaphors), in itself shows the degree of life-changing impact it had. No mere emotional 'high' has that effect.
I can analyze why it has taken me this long to begin to fully open to that again now, but that's for a full-sized book, and not just one of my long posts.
But there are those who do have those instantaneous transformations. I just am not one of those.I think the difference between Kensho and Satori might explain some of this, since you are familiar with Buddhism: Satori - Wikipedia.
Kenshō refers to the perception of the Buddha-nature or emptiness. While the terms have the same meaning, customarily satori is used to refer to full, deep experience of enlightenment (such as of the Buddha), while kenshō is used to refer to a first experience of enlightenment that can still be expanded
I agree. My acid test for them all come from the teachings of Jesus. "By their fruits you shall know them". Not by their claims or beliefs or doctrines.
And they experience for all intents and purposes "God", but just not by that name. It goes by other names, such as Buddhahood, Buddha Mind, Emptiness, Nirvana, Anatman, etc. That Balance and Peace is the result of transcending the world of illusion. That is the result of Enlightenment.
If someone is on a true spiritual path, these things will in fact be the fruit of that. "By their fruits you shall know them." "And the fruits of the Spirit are these, love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control".
Sounds exactly the same as in Buddhism, doesn't it?
"There are many paths that lead from the foot of the mountain, but at its peak we all gaze at the single bright moon".
I disagree it's useless. And yes, a lot of people envision in in a lot of ways, some are downright childish. But I think your complaint is less about God as it is about insufficient and ineffective ideas about Ultimate Reality. That was and is my complaint as well.
As mentioned in my previous post, I'm accused of that all the time, because it is necessarily not something that can be defined in concrete-literal terms. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao". I can't say this any better that Lao Tzu here.
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
This appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
Would you accuse Lao Tzu of being uncessilary vague? Or is it yourself that doesn't understand something well here?
While I certainly embrace the goal of balance I see that as the key to opening ourselves up to great depths and fulfillment. That balance is really the same as removing obstacles in our lives that block the free flow of more life giving energies.
Once those are cleared, once a balance is found, then we are able to move deeper, and with some degree of luck, attain Enlightenment itself, which is the ultimate freedom or balance. So it is as you say all what human spirituality is. But I'd say balance is the necessary key to open the door to the Enlightened life.
We can understand certain aspects of reality with these as tools, but not all of what it means to be human. To understand the rest of reality through that, we have to develop our other states of awareness, and not just our physical or mental ones.
Not one over the other, but like the rudder on a sailboat which we control through effort, powered by the wind which is beyond us.
We shouldn't. But things like higher states of consciousness and Enlightenment experiences are not implausible and contrary to fact. Once we accept that, then understanding the nature of religious symbolisms and beliefs in pursuit of that actually make logical sense.
But obviously interpreting those symbols at face value as literal facts and literal beings and literal creatures as if they were scientific in nature, is an error. I say correct the error of that, not burn down the church because it isn't doing science accurately.
Correct. I don't hold in any kind regards mindless sheep who don't examine what they are told.
They definitely fit the metaphor of those who follow the wide gate to self destruction.
It is actually a thing. I let Wiki explain this a little further:
Spiritual intelligence is a term used by some philosophers, psychologists, and developmental theorists to indicate spiritual parallels with IQ (Intelligence Quotient) and EQ (Emotional Quotient).
....
Howard Gardner, the originator of the theory of multiple intelligences, chose not to include spiritual intelligence in his "intelligences" due to the challenge of codifying quantifiable scientific criteria.[4] Instead, Gardner suggested an "existential intelligence" as viable.[5] It's possible that Gardner drew inspiration for his theories from his multiple divorces starting in the early seventies. The contemporary researchers continue to explore the viability of Spiritual Intelligence (often abbreviated as "SQ" or "SI") and to create tools for measuring and developing it. So far, measurement of spiritual intelligence has tended to rely on self-assessment instruments, which can be susceptible to false or unreliable reporting.
However, in his 2009 doctoral dissertation, Yosi Amram found that the self-reported measure of spiritual intelligence predicted leadership effectiveness as rated by outside observers.[6] In this research, he also deployed 360-assessments of spiritual intelligence and emotional intelligence, finding observer ratings of SI to predict the leadership effectiveness ratings from other observers, offering predictive validity for SI even when controlling for emotional intelligence. Studies by other researchers have shown that leaders’ SI can predict a variety of positive outcomes, such as financial performance of their organizations.[7] Such cross-method studies lend overall validity to the construct of spiritual intelligence and its self- and 360-assessments.
A broad review of the research on SI has shown that 1. that several valid measurement instruments exist, 2. that they offer positive incremental predictive validity across a variety of desirable outcomes, and 3. that there is a neurological and biological basis for Spiritual Intelligence, highlighting the plausibility of its evolutionary adaptability,[8] all of which supports SI's validity as an intelligence.
...
Definitions of spiritual intelligence rely on the concept of spirituality as being distinct from religiosity - existential intelligence.[12]
Danah Zohar defined 12 principles underlying spiritual intelligence:[13]
- Self-awareness: Knowing what I believe in and value, and what deeply motivates me.
- Spontaneity: Living in and being responsive to the moment.
- Being vision- and value-led: Acting from principles and deep beliefs, and living accordingly.
- Holism: Seeing larger patterns, relationships, and connections; having a sense of belonging.
- Compassion: Having the quality of "feeling-with" and deep empathy.
- Celebration of diversity: Valuing other people for their differences, not despite them.
- Field independence: Standing against the crowd and having one's own convictions.
- Humility: Having the sense of being a player in a larger drama, of one's true place in the world.
- Tendency to ask fundamental "Why?" questions: Needing to understand things and get to the bottom of them.
- Ability to reframe: Standing back from a situation or problem and seeing the bigger picture or wider context.
- Positive use of adversity: Learning and growing from mistakes, setbacks, and suffering.
- Sense of vocation: Feeling called upon to serve, to give something back.
I don't like labels either. Then why in the **** are so many atheists trying to say that atheism is the "default position" labeling babies and cows as atheists?
There is a reason I dropped the term atheist from my self-identifications. You're touching on it here.
But my major problem here is that someone assumes reality is nothing but stop and go, black and white, etc. Reality is more complex and nuanced that this. It's fuzzy, fluid and squishy, not rock solid like a slab of concrete. To me the test of true intelligence is to be able to navigate the fuzzy with agility and artistry. That is what makes the poet often times better suited to describe Reality.
LOL!
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
Evil is blind. Like atheism.
Atheism rests on faith, theism rests on both logic and faith. Quantum mechanics is not a material, physicalist science. It is a metaphysical science for your information. There are Philosophical conclusions that support the dualistic nature of reality as both a processor and display in a vast self-simulation. This is the ONLY reasonable conclusion that we can draw from logic.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
I can certainly empathize with atheists and the ignorant. Many will never know of the riches that come with perceiving the secrets of the universe using logic and reason.
In debate it is customary to ask for evidence and explanation when personal experiences are used as some example or evidence itself (which isn't evidence until it is shown to be what it is claimed to be). It's not as if other members are claiming they had a great experience downhill skiing, it is experiences they had that leads them to believe a supernatural exists and involved itself with them. Naturally this raises more questions, and also it's natural that the claimants can't demonstrate that the experiences they refer to were authentic as they describe and wasn't them imaginating it via what they heard others claim. When we don't have adequate evidence for claims we follow other rules, like Occam's Razor: what is the most likely thing that happened. If Jim believes X is true in a debate then he should be able to explain how he used evidence and reason that led him to come to that conclusion. Where it comes to religious beliefs we don't see this being the case, it is a matter of believers adopting what other people around them believe via subtle social influence and pressure.
This is the dilemma of being capable of understanding concepts but lacking self-awareness and reasoning skill to assess the ideas objectively.
When I was a kid, maybe 10 or so, I was outside after sundown with a bunch of other kids from the neighborhood. It was sometime in the fall, there was no moon, and it was a clear night. We heard thim hum in the sky and started looking arounf where it was coming from. We saw a small light moving in the sky, and a huge black cigar shaped that we could only see because it blocked out the stars. Man we freaked out. We ran home, got parents, and some of them came outside and looked. It was a UFO. We were just hearing more and more about UFOs, and how cigar shaped UFOs were being seen. Now we see one ourselves, and we were out of our minds. We didn't know what to do, call the police, the military, news stations, what? We watched this for 5-10 minutes, who knows how long because we were freaking out. We heard this hum as it moved slowly in the sky. We didn't know what it was going to do. And the, all of a sudden, they turned on the GOODYEAR sign. A ****ing blimp. We'd never seen one before. Aparently it was in town for the Chiefs football game the next night. OK, you live and learn.
Had the crew not turned on the sign I would have forever believed I experienced a UFO. We humans are eager for experiences and we are bad at setting the unknown and mistaken aside without any speculation or assumption. We are sloppy and make assumptions and then run with those assumptions, and then the assumptions feed the experiences. Confirmation bias. If a believer wants an experience with God they don;t want to be the only person they know not having one, like some shunned sinner. Of course they experience God like everyone else. Look at the Ashe experiments on conformity and the power of peer pressure. Folks will adopt ideas they know are not true just to avoid the stress of being outcast.
We humans have experiences of awe. We look to explain this awe with anything, and that tends to be us using our library of social learning and applying easy answers. I've done it myself as an atheist. I am aware how my own mind seeks an answer to what I am feeling in a moment. I remember one time I was on a bike ride and stopped to look at the sunset which had beautiful colors. I could understand why people see God in that. But then I pondered it. If someone was being beat up and saw that same sunset would their mind go right to thinking a God exists? If someone is busy working on a deadline, will they notice? Of course not, the God exists in a mind that has no other thing going on. There is no God in the sunset, it is an experience of leisure.
You answered it yourself, Hindus don't experience Jesus like Christians. Christians don't experience Hindu gods. That was my point. That humans have human experiences is not what I was talking about. Obviously humans will adopt ideas from their social experience and make them real in their minds. Are they taught how their minds work in this way? Not as a matter of principle. I suspect many cultures rely on their members being loyal to the tribe, and conform to cultural norms, to help maintain order. Look at how conservatives in the USA are openly hostile to education, especially critical thinking and science.
The most likely answer is that she has heard of speaking in tongues, which is little more than giberish, and her medical condition affected her brain functioning. I met some guys back in the late 80's who used rhythmic drumming to guide others into mystical experiences. These guys were part of Stan Groff's seminars on rebirthing, which was an interesting experience. I did it, and it did nothing for me. The drumming was interesting, and I can see where it is very moving in some way. It's easy to fall into a sort of light trance listening to drumming. This is a global thing for humans, and in music and rituals. Our brains are electro-chemical organs and they do some weird things when influenced in various ways. Whether drugs, or sounds, or feelings, or whatever we enjoy finding out what can happen to our conscious awareness. Can people have experiences without ever using the word "god"? You bet.
I have learned to follow evidence. I have learned not to listen to claimants in a bubble, and that means I can't just listen to 10 believers claiming they experienced a god and not also listen to those who say they behaved the same way and didn't experience a God. When witnesses disagree we can look at where any bias might exist, and that is those who claim extraordinary things and can't explain the extraordinary is real. The social sciences explain how many people can end up sincerely believing false ideas.
And why not? If a person is so naive and still has much to learn about life able to actually touch God's face and not walk away with some elevated wisdom suggests a product of being naive, and wanting a shortcut. We see quite a few members on RF who make many fantastic claims, and also show very shallow personality triats. I have noted that the shallowness is a liability to their credibility, and they don't seem to understand it, yet the double, triple, quadriple down on their claims as if the repetition makes their dogma true. There is a correlation between wisdom and character. The naive will seem to be more likely to suffer Duning-Kruger than the wise. The naive will assume a blimp is an extraterrestrial craft.
Notice how all this requires a pretty high level of intelligence and education. How many average folks would understand any of this? How many Christians would understand this, and set aside the simple and easy concepts of their religion? There has to be natural intelligence, and natural curiosity, and life circumstances that allow time, for anyone to ponder this. This is a lot of work, and it seems most want a path of least resistance, and that is what religion offers.What I can say definitively however is that my life was radically changed to where that became the goal of my whole life to try to find my way back Home to that, so to speak. To have my entire experience of life be of that nature and quality permanently. So, the fact I would devote literally 40 years of "wandering in the desert" in pursuit of that "promised land" (all metaphors), in itself shows the degree of life-changing impact it had. No mere emotional 'high' has that effect.
I can analyze why it has taken me this long to begin to fully open to that again now, but that's for a full-sized book, and not just one of my long posts.
I think the difference between Kensho and Satori might explain some of this, since you are familiar with Buddhism: Satori - Wikipedia.
Kenshō refers to the perception of the Buddha-nature or emptiness. While the terms have the same meaning, customarily satori is used to refer to full, deep experience of enlightenment (such as of the Buddha), while kenshō is used to refer to a first experience of enlightenment that can still be expanded
Funny how even the simple teachings get missed. There are Christian sects that offer a message that diverges from Jesus. Oh the irony of religion, as a product for sale.
"God" (as a metaphor) is not an idea necessary for all minds. I suggest it is trascendent to move past the need to believe in the western ideas of God. It's notable that Eastern ideas of god is less anthropomorphic and more symbolic, more of an essence and divine than a being.
There is no reason the moon is any less bright and the foot of the mountain.
I said the word "god" is useless when it has so many definitions and descriptions that it can't be all those things, yet still crucial to so many ONLY because they have decided one version is real and important. Krishnamurti explained it as a person going out and finding an ordinary rock, and putting it on a table, and then worshipping the rock many times a day for years and years, and eventually the rock becomes very important. It's not important because it is a special rock, it is important because a human decided it is important and treated it that way. The same applies to words and concepts like God. Atheists have moved past the importance of the word that theists have assigned to it, mostly due to adopting behavior from social learning,, not because it was a deliberate and intended act.
The word God is proliferated like any other word in language. the meaning assigned to this word is unique in that it is given special significance. Santa Claus has a similar status, as is the Tooth Fairy, or the Boogeyman, until comes a time when the child sets those meanings aside. The meanings assigned to the word God is not set aside unless the mind has certain natural traits. I'm like many other atheists who just never bought into religious ideas.
To a person who never has studied Eastern thought the above would be confusing. Even those with below average intelligence won't understand this to any abstract depth. I can read this and understand it to some degree, and know it isn't literal. What my point was (that many exploit confusion and vagueness) from Western claims, because the tradition of the West is literalist and concrete, with a few rare examples of mystics here and there. You seem to mix the two traditions and I'm not sure when you refer to a God if it is Western or Eastern. That it is capitalized suggests Western. My criticism of the use of God/god devends on the basic assumptions and descriptions. I am vastly more wary of the Western use of God than Eastern uses.
Funny how even the simple teachings get missed. There are Christian sects that offer a message that diverges from Jesus. Oh the irony of religion, as a product for sale.
"God" (as a metaphor) is not an idea necessary for all minds. I suggest it is trascendent to move past the need to believe in the western ideas of God. It's notable that Eastern ideas of god is less anthropomorphic and more symbolic, more of an essence and divine than a being.
There is no reason the moon is any less bright and the foot of the mountain.
I said the word "god" is useless when it has so many definitions and descriptions that it can't be all those things, yet still crucial to so many ONLY because they have decided one version is real and important. Krishnamurti explained it as a person going out and finding an ordinary rock, and putting it on a table, and then worshipping the rock many times a day for years and years, and eventually the rock becomes very important. It's not important because it is a special rock, it is important because a human decided it is important and treated it that way. The same applies to words and concepts like God. Atheists have moved past the importance of the word that theists have assigned to it, mostly due to adopting behavior from social learning,, not because it was a deliberate and intended act.
The word God is proliferated like any other word in language. the meaning assigned to this word is unique in that it is given special significance. Santa Claus has a similar status, as is the Tooth Fairy, or the Boogeyman, until comes a time when the child sets those meanings aside. The meanings assigned to the word God is not set aside unless the mind has certain natural traits. I'm like many other atheists who just never bought into religious ideas.
To a person who never has studied Eastern thought the above would be confusing. Even those with below average intelligence won't understand this to any abstract depth. I can read this and understand it to some degree, and know it isn't literal. What my point was (that many exploit confusion and vagueness) from Western claims, because the tradition of the West is literalist and concrete, with a few rare examples of mystics here and there. You seem to mix the two traditions and I'm not sure when you refer to a God if it is Western or Eastern. That it is capitalized suggests Western. My criticism of the use of God/god devends on the basic assumptions and descriptions. I am vastly more wary of the Western use of God than Eastern uses.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
I find your statement to be very arrogant and obnoxious, as if you recoil at the thought of lowering yourself to the level of us mere mortals.
That doesn't address his comment, which was, "What are these evils of atheism? What constitutes evil, to you?"
And you're wrong. Faith is blind belief, like your religion.
Wrong again. Here you are giving homage to reason, which you eschew even while claiming to be its sole possessor in this discussion, and demeaning faith as a basis for belief, which you embrace.
Wrong again. All science is about physical reality (nature), which is all there is as far as we know.
And yet another expression of "I see further than you" with nothing to back it up. The ignorant atheist has much to learn from a spiritual genius like you, right? Tell me some of your discovered spiritual truths using your special ways of knowing, truths that elude the ignorant atheist. What have you seen, and how has that information made your life better than my benighted existence?
Your concern - your empathy - is certainly appreciated:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So backwards. And as usual only empty claims. Do you really think that any rational thinker beliefs you? You do not even seem to understand what atheism is in the first place.
But go ahead. Please demonstrate, do not just claim and run away, that any sort of theism is based on logic.
And no, quantum mechanics is material. You just do not understand it. You expect physics to be mechanical and that is an error on your part. At its deepest core physics is based upon statistical events.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
12/12 for ZoharWhile I certainly embrace the goal of balance I see that as the key to opening ourselves up to great depths and fulfillment. That balance is really the same as removing obstacles in our lives that block the free flow of more life giving energies.
Once those are cleared, once a balance is found, then we are able to move deeper, and with some degree of luck, attain Enlightenment itself, which is the ultimate freedom or balance. So it is as you say all what human spirituality is. But I'd say balance is the necessary key to open the door to the Enlightened life.
We can understand certain aspects of reality with these as tools, but not all of what it means to be human. To understand the rest of reality through that, we have to develop our other states of awareness, and not just our physical or mental ones.
Not one over the other, but like the rudder on a sailboat which we control through effort, powered by the wind which is beyond us.
We shouldn't. But things like higher states of consciousness and Enlightenment experiences are not implausible and contrary to fact. Once we accept that, then understanding the nature of religious symbolisms and beliefs in pursuit of that actually make logical sense.
But obviously interpreting those symbols at face value as literal facts and literal beings and literal creatures as if they were scientific in nature, is an error. I say correct the error of that, not burn down the church because it isn't doing science accurately.
Correct. I don't hold in any kind regards mindless sheep who don't examine what they are told.
They definitely fit the metaphor of those who follow the wide gate to self destruction.
It is actually a thing. I let Wiki explain this a little further:
Spiritual intelligence is a term used by some philosophers, psychologists, and developmental theorists to indicate spiritual parallels with IQ (Intelligence Quotient) and EQ (Emotional Quotient).....Howard Gardner, the originator of the theory of multiple intelligences, chose not to include spiritual intelligence in his "intelligences" due to the challenge of codifying quantifiable scientific criteria.[4] Instead, Gardner suggested an "existential intelligence" as viable.[5] It's possible that Gardner drew inspiration for his theories from his multiple divorces starting in the early seventies. The contemporary researchers continue to explore the viability of Spiritual Intelligence (often abbreviated as "SQ" or "SI") and to create tools for measuring and developing it. So far, measurement of spiritual intelligence has tended to rely on self-assessment instruments, which can be susceptible to false or unreliable reporting.However, in his 2009 doctoral dissertation, Yosi Amram found that the self-reported measure of spiritual intelligence predicted leadership effectiveness as rated by outside observers.[6] In this research, he also deployed 360-assessments of spiritual intelligence and emotional intelligence, finding observer ratings of SI to predict the leadership effectiveness ratings from other observers, offering predictive validity for SI even when controlling for emotional intelligence. Studies by other researchers have shown that leaders’ SI can predict a variety of positive outcomes, such as financial performance of their organizations.[7] Such cross-method studies lend overall validity to the construct of spiritual intelligence and its self- and 360-assessments.A broad review of the research on SI has shown that 1. that several valid measurement instruments exist, 2. that they offer positive incremental predictive validity across a variety of desirable outcomes, and 3. that there is a neurological and biological basis for Spiritual Intelligence, highlighting the plausibility of its evolutionary adaptability,[8] all of which supports SI's validity as an intelligence....
Definitions of spiritual intelligence rely on the concept of spirituality as being distinct from religiosity - existential intelligence.[12]Danah Zohar defined 12 principles underlying spiritual intelligence:[13]And so on an so forth. I could say more, but this introduces you to this as a separate line of development that can be measured, along with things like cognitive development, moral development, kinesthetic development, and so forth.
- Self-awareness: Knowing what I believe in and value, and what deeply motivates me.
- Spontaneity: Living in and being responsive to the moment.
- Being vision- and value-led: Acting from principles and deep beliefs, and living accordingly.
- Holism: Seeing larger patterns, relationships, and connections; having a sense of belonging.
- Compassion: Having the quality of "feeling-with" and deep empathy.
- Celebration of diversity: Valuing other people for their differences, not despite them.
- Field independence: Standing against the crowd and having one's own convictions.
- Humility: Having the sense of being a player in a larger drama, of one's true place in the world.
- Tendency to ask fundamental "Why?" questions: Needing to understand things and get to the bottom of them.
- Ability to reframe: Standing back from a situation or problem and seeing the bigger picture or wider context.
- Positive use of adversity: Learning and growing from mistakes, setbacks, and suffering.
- Sense of vocation: Feeling called upon to serve, to give something back.
I don't like labels either. Then why in the **** are so many atheists trying to say that atheism is the "default position" labeling babies and cows as atheists?
There is a reason I dropped the term atheist from my self-identifications. You're touching on it here.
But my major problem here is that someone assumes reality is nothing but stop and go, black and white, etc. Reality is more complex and nuanced that this. It's fuzzy, fluid and squishy, not rock solid like a slab of concrete. To me the test of true intelligence is to be able to navigate the fuzzy with agility and artistry. That is what makes the poet often times better suited to describe Reality.
LOL!
Last edited:
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
I could add that Eihei Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen, in his work Fukanzazengi says that “To practice the Way singleheartedly is, in itself, enlightenment. There is no gap between practice and enlightenment or zazen (meditation) and daily life.”
What I wonder about is how these material beings can assert that they can detect an immaterial but not explain how they do it. They refer to their "spiritual" as an immaterial essence or force or whatever but what they describe is belief, feelings, some animating force, etc. which are all related to the material brain. And they still don't explain how an immaterial esence uses their brains as an instrument to connect to an immaterial God.