The Demonization of New Atheism and the Relative Desensitization to Religious Extremism

[stvdv]

As to these "big questions", they look bogus to me: just made-up guff designed to con the gullible

For me "big questions" are inspirational pointers to explore spiritual realms of bliss not so easy to attain or discover when you never think about it.

 

[stvdv]

I'm willing to wait until the end to find out

Probable even when "not willing", you might have to "wait anyway till the end" before hypothetically speaking checking in for Heaven and meeting God

 

[Mock Turtle]

Probable even when "not willing", you might have to "wait anyway till the end"

I'm working on my list of grievances - and excuses.

 

[stvdv]

I'm working on my list of grievances - and excuses

I think you are doing quite well. Did I miss something?
[when I said "you might have to wait", I meant "everyone". Aha I see, the correct english word is "one might have to wait". My mistake]

 

[Windwalker]

Whoever said humans were not fallible? There might be plenty of reasons why we have created them but that doesn't necessarily justify them. I'm sure we all know that humans are the ultimate learning machines and often seeing meaning where there is none - pareidolia is an example of this. The control issue might be one of the main reasons why they have developed - the man with the big stick and all.

While control, or explaining natural phenomena pre scientifically using mythic thought may have been part of religion, I would disagree that that was its primary goals, and that as religion has evolved right along with our understandings of ourselves and society, those take a back seat or are abandoned as distractions to the real goal of religion, which is to add meaning to the fact of one's own being and existence itself. The "big" question is not about how the rains fall or why oceans have fish in them. Those are the little questions, that science is a better tool, and in that sense, serves our greater understanding of God. The big questions of religion, really have a lot less to do with questions of causality, as it does questions of being and essence. Existential questions. Spiritual questions.

For me, they are all just a step too far, and an unnecessary one at that.

But they are not too far for those who have that question. In fact, not looking into that is experienced as wholly inadequate and unsatisfying. Simply not thinking about these things is not an option for many people so compelled to understand the nature of being and who they are. Just acknowledging our evolutionary origins, only adds greater depth to the pursuit of the knowledge of Self. It's not a matter of wanting to know about something, but rather to know in the sense of being. To truly know, is to be that which is known.

I think that most could probably live quite happily, and function as well as any others, without religious beliefs. The evidence seems to show this, in that non-believers tend to be just as moral as religious believers, and often the non-believers tend to be more realistic too - just like introverts tend to be over extroverts apparently.

I have no dispute that those who don't follow a religion can be just as, if not more moral than the "believers". I don't see religion as the source of our morality. I do not see religious truths as being dictated top-down from a sky god of sorts, which tends to be the image I see most neo-atheists hold in mind when they think of God.

While morality is part of any social system, and religion certainly qualifies as that, in a spiritual pursuit to the highest Truth, that of one's Being, there are certain truths which reign supreme: Love is the highest Truth. Integrity. Sincerity. Humility, etc are necessary. These are things which arise from within from the highest states of spiritual realization, not external laws imposed on others by which to judge each other by. If someone choose a diet of pop and candy for themselves, they will not benefit as well as those who eat healthy foods. These are "laws of the body", so to speak that if you wish to be healthy you have to follow.

They are not about controlling others behaviors. They are free to chose to be unhealthy if they wish. It's not a judgement against them by others, but an action from themselves, to themselves. One doesn't have to believe in a God, to understand this Nature of their own being, if they are so compelled to, as many, such as myself are. I chose to have "more" in the sense of realizing the fullest potentials Nature has gifted me with. Not everyone is so compelled, but plenty are, even if our numbers are a minority.

I don't think that is true at all. How many conversations really revolve around religious beliefs? Very few I would say, since, as with politics, religion is usually off the menu for most discussions.

In my life? It's central. Other questions such as politics are a painful, sometimes unfortunately necessary distraction. You see, for me, these questions are not about having the "right" opinion about these things, you see. They are about examining the nature of them in general and understanding what the underlying Truth is that compels humanity to these things on a vastly deeper level than "mere beliefs". Religion is not about right beliefs for me, and those who make them that, are as you say, just arguing their opinions, like political views and such. Those things bore me as distracting.

Most people don't really need religion in their lives.

I would say that every person does in fact need structures for their lives, on an essential level. It is what gives stability and security for them to navigate life with. Religion, in it's many roles, definitely can and does offer that. It certainly has historically offered a cohesive system, some better than others. In fact as one brighter than the noonday sun's example; the entire Western ethos was deeply shaped and informed in no small measure by the Christian religion.

Our very unexamined assumptions of truth and values were completely shaped by religions, so much so, that I say accurately in this sense that atheists are in essence "Christians without God." The West is formed by a basic Christian ethos, and no one who is raised in this culture escapes that, even if they do not consciously believe in the myths of the religion, Jesus dying for them, God needing blood to forgive, or God even existing, etc.

It has been so for a long time but as we can see from the decline in religious beliefs, many are apparently quite happy to ditch religions. And I don't think we are any worse off now than we ever were. We still have many problems of course but we are just as well off, or better, than ever.

I personally see this not a religion going away, but evolving in its nature. It may not having the trappings of mythic symbols, yet the underlying impulses, in the many things religions bring, is still present, just shifting its home trying to find something more effective. If not in name, certainly in function. For instance, to say "there is no God" is itself still dealing with the big question, a religious impulse. It is looking to the sky and saying, "nothing", rather than "something". The context is the same, even if the content is different for the individual or group.

Change doesn't have to be that quick, so those with religious beliefs no doubt can carry on as before - no issues with that - but as per the thread about teaching to children, I think if children were not taught so young then religions might die out faster.

I think blaming religions is shortsighted, and as such, neither effective nor ultimately helpful towards our humanness. I would say what needs to die out if outdated thinking, and that exists in many systems of thought. I think it takes vastly far more courage to correct the thinking within the systems, than burning down the whole house with everyone in it and claiming you've purged the world of a great evil. Healing is a harder path to take, than firebombing something out of existence.

What exactly do the big questions do for humans? The answers, from all sorts of seers, seem to just cause conflict between us.

Only when someone canonizing them into static truths that serve as substitutes for actual spiritual awakening. The "true believer" is the least awakened soul. The atheist is more spiritual, in my opinion, than them. Don't confuse believers, with the Truth itself. As Jesus rightly said, condemning most of these "true believers", "By their fruits you shall know them". The problem isn't the teaching, but the followers who themselves don't get or follow them.

How do you deal with that instead, seems the far greater challenge, and the one that will actually make a difference for humanity. Otherwise, you get rid of the religion, you think the "true believer" will stop? Or will they just shift their alliances to a new thing to believe in, like you see in the militant, anti-religious neo-atheist. Still the same "true believer", just a new home for it. You can take the fundi out of the church, but you can't take the fundi out of the fundi. This is an understanding that lacks, projecting this shortcoming onto religion as a form of self-distraction for the harder path of self-transformation.

It might be different if there was only a single answer to each question but there isn't.

But why does there need to be? Why is that the path to Peace? It isn't. It's not about having the right ideas and beliefs. The very opposite of that is true in fact. It's about understanding that all perspectives are reflective of ourselves as individuals and as products of culture, and humbly allowing for other perspective to hold truth and value for others, and ourselves, if we let them. The Truth is not known by having a better idea, but by becoming that Truth itself. That Truth is not a propositional truth, but the nature of Being. When we let go of trying to put handles on reality for a sense of security, is when we actually find it.

Everyone seems to have a particular interpretation of these questions - and how many will actually be correct?

All of them and none of them. The parable of the blind men and the elephant. Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

Philosophy alone for me would cope with all this without too much referencing of any divine nature or anything tied to this. For me, it's just a step too far - with our present knowledge at least.

What is the step too far? That there is something beyond our ability to know beyond the reasoning mind? There there is a spiritual nature to us that goes beyond reason that we can in fact legitimately discover and explore? Or are you saying, creating mythic images of God like some sky-parent watching over you to hit you with a big stick when you're being naughty? I would say that's not going too far, rather it is stuck in nursery school and needs to go a hell of a lot further than that to open to the bigger questions!

 

[Mock Turtle]

While control, or explaining natural phenomena pre scientifically using mythic thought may have been part of religion, I would disagree that that was its primary goals, and that as religion has evolved right along with our understandings of ourselves and society, those take a back seat or are abandoned as distractions to the real goal of religion, which is to add meaning to the fact of one's own being and existence itself. The "big" question is not about how the rains fall or why oceans have fish in them. Those are the little questions, that science is a better tool, and in that sense, serves our greater understanding of God. The big questions of religion, really have a lot less to do with questions of causality, as it does questions of being and essence. Existential questions. Spiritual questions.

But what actual good do they do? We can't do anything about what is supposedly revealed. Even the spirit is just a supposition. Demonstrate it. Most people just don't need this stuff. The ones who do are just playing with concepts with very little way of getting to any essential truths.

But they are not too far for those who have that question. In fact, not looking into that is experienced as wholly inadequate and unsatisfying. Simply not thinking about these things is not an option for many people so compelled to understand the nature of being and who they are. Just acknowledging our evolutionary origins, only adds greater depth to the pursuit of the knowledge of Self. It's not a matter of wanting to know about something, but rather to know in the sense of being. To truly know, is to be that which is known.

See above. Some might like to think about such things but it certainly is an option to just not think about them.

While morality is part of any social system, and religion certainly qualifies as that, in a spiritual pursuit to the highest Truth, that of one's Being, there are certain truths which reign supreme: Love is the highest Truth. Integrity. Sincerity. Humility, etc are necessary. These are things which arise from within from the highest states of spiritual realization, not external laws imposed on others by which to judge each other by. If someone choose a diet of pop and candy for themselves, they will not benefit as well as those who eat healthy foods. These are "laws of the body", so to speak that if you wish to be healthy you have to follow.

Only because these things are posited as such. And coming from humans - why not? Since we seem to value them highly, but that hardly then means they are the essential truths.

"Religion being central to one's life" In my life? It's central. Other questions such as politics are a painful, sometimes unfortunately necessary distraction. You see, for me, these questions are not about having the "right" opinion about these things, you see. They are about examining the nature of them in general and understanding what the underlying Truth is that compels humanity to these things on a vastly deeper level than "mere beliefs". Religion is not about right beliefs for me, and those who make them that, are as you say, just arguing their opinions, like political views and such. Those things bore me as distracting.

Which is to be expected on a religious forum of course - but for the majority?

I would say that every person does in fact need structures for their lives, on an essential level. It is what gives stability and security for them to navigate life with. Religion, in it's many roles, definitely can and does offer that. It certainly has historically offered a cohesive system, some better than others. In fact as one brighter than the noonday sun's example; the entire Western ethos was shaped and formed by the Christian religion.

Sorry, it's past its sell-by-date for so many now.

I personally see this not a religion going away, but evolving in its nature. It may not having the trappings of mythic symbols, yet the underlying impulses, in the many things religions bring, is still present, just shifting its home trying to find something more effective. If not in name, certainly in function. For instance, to say "there is no God" is itself still dealing with the big question, a religious impulse. It is looking to the sky and saying, "nothing", rather than "something". The context is the same, even if the content is different for the individual or group.

Religious belief is apparently declining by about 1% per year at a minimum in the countries where freedom is the norm. Is that going to be reversed? Not likely, and it will probably speed up as other countries become more educated and more prosperous - even in the USA it is declining.

I think blaming religions is shortsighted, and as such, neither effective nor ultimately helpful towards our humanness. I would say what needs to die out if outdated thinking, and that exists in many systems of thought. I think it takes vastly far more courage to correct the thinking within the systems, than burning down the whole house with everyone in it and claiming you've purged the world of a great evil. Healing is a harder path to take, than firebombing something out of existence.

Perhaps just being honest and admitting that religions were a bad mistake would be even better. We need very much to be based in reality rather than in any mythical thinking.

How do you deal with that instead, seems the far greater challenge, and the one that will actually make a difference for humanity. Otherwise, you get rid of the religion, you think the "true believer" will stop? Or will they just shift their alliances to a new thing to believe in, like you see in the militant, anti-religious neo-atheist. Still the same "true believer", just a new home for it. You can take the fundi out of the church, but you can't take the fundi out of the fundi. This is an understanding that lacks, projecting this shortcoming onto religion as a form of self-distraction for the harder path of self-transformation.

I think the anti-religious are just a product of the freedoms available now, and the means of communication, and of course they never really had much of this in the past. So quite understandable that many get quite excited and irate often towards the religious. They (non-religious types) in the past were suppressed after all with little choice. Now they do have that choice - at least in the countries that allow such freedoms.

But why does there need to be? Why is that the path to Peace? It isn't. It's not about having the right ideas and beliefs. The very opposite of that is true in fact. It's about understanding that all perspectives are reflective of ourselves as individuals and as products of culture, and humbly allowing for other perspective to hold truth and value for others, and ourselves, if we let them. The Truth is not known by having a better idea, but by becoming that Truth itself. That Truth is not a propositional truth, but the nature of Being. When we let go of trying to put handles on reality for a sense of security, is when we actually find it.


All of them and none of them. The parable of the blind men and the elephant. Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

For all this, you can't dispute the fact that religions have been the cause of so much conflict, and it's not as if it will go away until the religions themselves die out.

What is the step too far? That there is something beyond our ability to know beyond the reasoning mind? There is a spiritual nature to us that goes beyond reason that we can in fact legitimately discover and explore? Or are you saying, creating mythic images of God like some sky-parent watching over you to hit you with a big stick when you're being naughty? I would say that's not going to far, rather it is stuck in nursery school and needs to go a hell of a lot further than that to open to the bigger questions!

The step too far is postulating what might be, particularly when it means it just complicates matters by creating competing answers to these questions. Over 4000 religious beliefs apparently and counting. I'd ban it all. The beliefs are not really the problem - everyone is entitled to them - its all the religions that then form. To many, religions are the rich tapestry of human spiritual endeavour, to others they are a ball-and-chain to the past and the main thing that separates one from another. Me, the latter.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Doubt is the ally of faith, it is the servant of faith, not its enemy.

Not according to prominent theists like these :

• The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian." Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

How much room for doubt do you see there?

I read this in a blog this week from an atheist describing his departure from religion. Note the last phrase :

• "Imagine how many people plopped down into a pew this past Sunday, going through the motions again so as not to offend the people they love when in reality they became convinced a long time ago that this stuff made no sense. Those people have virtually no way to connect with anyone else who could relate to their frustration because their surrounding subculture shames anyone who openly discusses doubt and disbelief." How Faith Breaks Your Thinker

What you're saying is get rid of the big questions of life which people turn to religions to give some insights into. That is not realistic in the least. Those are the deepest human questions, of life, and existence, purpose, and meaning, happiness and fulfillment, etc. Is the alternative to religious questions the unthinking mind, drinking beer and watching football, screwing, eating, sleeping, rinse and repeat until we die?

No, the alternative to making up answers to unanswerable questions is to recognize that some questions are simply unanswerable. That has been good enough for me.

And surely you're not implying that those who accept religious answers don't live the beer and football life.

While morality is part of any social system, and religion certainly qualifies as that, in a spiritual pursuit to the highest Truth, that of one's Being, there are certain truths which reign supreme: Love is the highest Truth. Integrity. Sincerity. Humility, etc are necessary. These are things which arise from within from the highest states of spiritual realization

We don't need religion for any of that. Surely you know courageous, responsible, industrious, loving people of high character that developed outside of a religion.

I'm a firm beleiver that nothing is done better with religion than without it, and that religion creates the need it satisfies by perpetuating a state of mind dependent on its dogma, which prevents the eventual development of the state of mind I just described. How often have we read that without a belief in God, life is meaningless and purposeless? What is that person telling us except that he has become dependent on his religious beliefs to find meaning. Should we praise the religions for this?

Incidentally, I'm sure that you will agree that Christianity has failed America's white evangelicals as a moral system. Those people are completely lost, and almost certainly would have been better people if they were humanists.

I think it takes vastly far more courage to correct the thinking within the systems, than burning down the whole house with everyone in it and claiming you've purged the world of a great evil. Healing is a harder path to take, than firebombing something out of existence.

Sometimes, it's more efficient to raze the structure and build from the ground up. Humanism was a radical departure from Christianity, substituting a naturalistic metaphysics for a supernatural one, a skeptical and evidence based epistemology for a faith based one, and rational ethics for divine command theory.

 

[PureX]

Not from my perspective. They just developed rather naturally, as for most other things, where the conditions for them to thrive gave rise to them - and why they differed - location and circumstances. Nothing else is really needed to explain that. Just look at all the various more primitive communities - Jared Diamond's work, for example. The morality varied between different communities in different valleys, so it's quite as likely that religious beliefs would too.

So what? We can say the same thing about food: that our various diets developed naturally, according to location and circumstances. But all that dietary variety is actually a good thing for we humans. It increases both possibility and adaptability.

Humans will be what they are regardless - religions for me just complicate the issue. I can understand why we have so many and why so many are so attached but I think others could live their lives just as well if they just dismissed the questions that religions attempt to answer. Why does it matter if there is or isn't a God, and what might happen after death? We humans are just so inclined to search for meanings that I think this is just a step too far - and which tends to cause more problems than it solves. For me anyway.

It matters because how we respond to our unknowing defines who we are.

 

[Windwalker]

Not according to prominent theists like these :

• The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian." Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

How much room for doubt do you see there?

The fact that these are "prominent" figures does not negate what I said. They in fact, according to how I understand the nature of beliefs, faith, and doubt, consider them "true believers", means they have no faith, or "fake faith", as it were. Faith welcomes knowledge, whereas the "true believer" blocks their ears with heavy wax, letting nothing change their minds. I reject quite a lot that calls itself Christian, and these are examples of this.

I read this in a blog this week from an atheist describing his departure from religion. Note the last phrase :

• "Imagine how many people plopped down into a pew this past Sunday, going through the motions again so as not to offend the people they love when in reality they became convinced a long time ago that this stuff made no sense. Those people have virtually no way to connect with anyone else who could relate to their frustration because their surrounding subculture shames anyone who openly discusses doubt and disbelief." How Faith Breaks Your Thinker

Again, yes. What gets extolled as "faith" by many in the pulpit in fact is not faith at all, but whitewashing over stubborn beliefs as something virtuous, calling willful ignorance faith.

No, the alternative to making up answers to unanswerable questions is to recognize that some questions are simply unanswerable. That has been good enough for me.

And true Faith most certainly embraces the Mystery. Amen. The "true believer" rests in "Answers". Faith rests in Unknowing.

And surely you're not implying that those who accept religious answers don't live the beer and football life.

It's not a matter of beliefs, but the value of higher pursuits beyond just passing the time of day one way or another until we die. Not everyone with religious beliefs actually pursue enrichment and transformations of their lives, nor does everyone without them just "get by" either. It isn't about religion or not, but about the spiritual impulse. That exists for people who are both religious, and non-religious, for theists and atheists. Just "believing" in one idea or another is not the same thing as Faith.

We don't need religion for any of that. Surely you know courageous, responsible, industrious, loving people of high character that developed outside of a religion.

Absolutely. There are a great many atheists who are far more "Christian" than most Christians! I called myself a "spiritual atheist" for many years, but decided such labels were too non-essential.

I'm a firm beleiver that nothing is done better with religion than without it, and that religion creates the need it satisfies by perpetuating a state of mind dependent on its dogma, which prevents the eventual development of the state of mind I just described.

What I don't like are these blanket assessments of religion as the one thing. There is plenty that religion can do that no other can do as well. And there is plenty it doesn't do as well. Why is it religion becomes defined as the lowest possible denominator, the "low-hanging God", as it were?

So, let's say I'm on a path of Enlightenment? Where would you recommend I go to help me on my search? Richard Dawkins? A good science book? What advice would you offer to someone seeking to grow spiritually? Get over it? That answer is not doing something better than religion can do, IMO.

How often have we read that without a belief in God, life is meaningless and purposeless? What is that person telling us except that he has become dependent on his religious beliefs to find meaning. Should we praise the religions for this?

No. We should kick them squarely in the *** for this. They would be wrong. They are mistaking belief systems for Faith.

Incidentally, I'm sure that you will agree that Christianity has failed America's white evangelicals as a moral system. Those people are completely lost, and almost certainly would have been better people if they were humanists.

I would say they would make lousy humanists as well. These are people with character defects. And I agree it is a dismissal example of a religion. I recognize it does not define religion, however. I do not broad brush the whole by kicking at it's low-hanging God. That's too easy. I prefer looking at actual functional adults.

Sometimes, it's more efficient to raze the structure and build from the ground up. Humanism was a radical departure from Christianity, substituting a naturalistic metaphysics for a supernatural one, a skeptical and evidence based epistemology for a faith based one, and rational ethics for divine command theory.

But humanism, for all it's positive contributions, still does not necessarily take one into the deeper aspects of human experience, which of necessity involves spiritual development. Unless I'm mistaken in that statement.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So what? We can say the same thing about food: that our various diets developed naturally, according to location and circumstances. But all that dietary variety is actually a good thing for we humans. It increases both possibility and adaptability.

I think it matters because we can then explain the delusional beliefs associated with them, and why we have such things as miracles, the Son of God, the afterlife and such - to make any particular religion seem more attractive than another - perhaps.

 

[Windwalker]

But what actual good do they do? We can't do anything about what is supposedly revealed.

First of all, I noted your use of the word "revealed" here. This to me says you have in mind specifically the Abrahamic religions as supposed "revealed religions". That is of course a type of origin myth, that it was "delivered" to them supernaturally. It is not necessary to think of what religion teaches as having that type of magical source in order for the teachings to have truth and value.

So what value to that add, what good do they do? I'd say plenty, but specifically referring to what I said about teachings about the big questions, spiritual questions, the good of those is the enrichment of one's life and the life of those around you. If you can find Peace, Love, and Joy in your life, not only does that make your life healthier and happier, it impacts everyone, and everything around you. In other words, improving the world. Serving love is more beneficial than greed for instance. They teach the former, or at least should be.

Even the spirit is just a supposition. Demonstrate it.

Actually, it's not a supposition. It's a description of an aspect of our being human and being alive in the world. It's not a scientific term, but a descriptive metaphor. It means "breath" in the sense of life is breathed. Our states of being, when they are healthy and balanced, become flowing, effortless, graceful, loving, and Free in an exchange of giving and receiving: breathed. These are not only experienced as states of being by people, they are clearly demonstrable by how one lives out one's life. "By their fruits you shall know them," said Jesus, which means their spirituality is demonstrable.

Most people just don't need this stuff. The ones who do are just playing with concepts with very little way of getting to any essential truths.

What you are describing is the conceptual trinkets people play with without actually realizing what these expressions are actually pointing to which is a lived reality. It's only a "concept", to those who have no actual experience as a referent, like trying to describe "love" to someone who has never experienced that with another person. It's just a "concept" at that stage in their minds, until it moves into something actual.

See above. Some might like to think about such things but it certainly is an option to just not think about them.

Of course it's an option not to pursue these things. It's an option to just sit on the couch all day and not exercise your body as well. But with everything, there benefits to these sorts of pursuits that those who have done it will attest to, and their lives should show it.

Only because these things are posited as such. And coming from humans - why not? Since we seem to value them highly, but that hardly then means they are the essential truths.

No, not only because they are posited as such. They are demonstrably beneficial. That they come from humans is not a question. I do not believe in the mythological spin that they are "revealed" or "delivered" supernaturally.

Let me give you a real-life example. I've have been learning the Yang family 150 posture long form of Tai' Chi Chuan. It is primarily an internal martial arts form with martial applications for self-defense. Each posture, each principle is highly crafted out for maximal benefit to the body, the mind, and the spirit. The more you learn, the greater the mastery of it, the greater the overall benefit to everything else in your life, physically, mentally, and spiritually. Not only is it claimed to benefit you in these ways, with practice it proves itself as in fact beyond what you imagined.

It is the same thing with following spiritual practices and principles that people have developed. It doesn't need to have come from a god, in order for it to deliver the results it claims. Ask those who do these things.

Are they "essential truths"? Yes. If your goal is to improve these area of your life, there are many essential truths to follow spiritually, like in Tai Chi, "keep the shoulders and elbows down, let your tailbone point straight down," etc. These are essential truths to balance and flow. "Do not do harm to another," is an essential truth to those pursuing a spiritual life. And so forth.

Is it essential for you to just get by in life, and survive long enough to have moments of happiness here and there before you die? No. You can get by without developing the mind, or the body, or the spirit. But is that really a good choice for someone? I wouldn't say that would be the best choice they could make, but doing nothing with your life is always an option, and a choice. Just not a great one.

Which is to be expected on a religious forum of course - but for the majority?

I'm not disputing that the majority of people don't pursue higher states of being in their persons. Does that make it the ideal state of being for people? I don't believe so. Everyone can benefit from basic exercise and make the body healthier, and everyone can benefit by deepening and enrich their spiritual lives. It's available, but not compulsory. It's purely a free-will choice of what one cares to do with their lives.

Sorry, it's past its sell-by-date for so many now.

I don't disagree that the version of Christianity that insists mythological symbols are historical facts is well beyond it sell by date. But the basic underlying ethos of Western culture is something you embrace currently as the very filters that you see and experience reality through. There is no expiration date on your basic programming that defines your basic value systems. All cultures work this way, and those who imagine they are not influenced by it, are delusional.

Religious belief is apparently declining by about 1% per year at a minimum in the countries where freedom is the norm. Is that going to be reversed? Not likely, and it will probably speed up as other countries become more educated and more prosperous - even in the USA it is declining.

I would like to see this trend as a shift away from outdated expressions of religions to something which does in fact take that role in promoting the highest human truths and values, which include spiritual principles and practices, without the baggage of mythic-literal dogmas attached to them. But simply smashing the idols of the church and claiming a superior path are two very different things. Atheism without anything to replace the good religion offers with something else, really, is nothing more than just a "complaint". And you know how people eventually feel about complainers.....

Perhaps just being honest and admitting that religions were a bad mistake would be even better. We need very much to be based in reality rather than in any mythical thinking.

This is the error you are making. Mythical thinking is only one stage in religious development. Children of a certain age think in mythical terms, that their parents are god-like figures who can control the world, that everything is external to them, the power resides in others, and so forth. But then they grow up and realize in the more highly developed stages of maturity that they power resides within them. It is the same thing in religion, of course.

Not all religions as institutions are predominantly mythological. There are many forms of Christianity which are rational, modern forms. There are forms that are very postmodernist. There are forms beyond that, where they do not mistake the symbols and what they represent as historical and scientific reality. They do not confuse the finger pointing at the moon, with the moon itself.

Example: You are talking with me right now. Does it sound to you like I engage in mythical thinking? You may suppose that I must, because you assume all religion is that version of it, but then I'd then ask you to point to anything I've said that you can actually question me about that would demonstrate that as true? You cannot. You instead are faced with conflicting evidence, and of course the rational response would be to examine your presuppositions and modify them accordingly.

I think the anti-religious are just a product of the freedoms available now, and the means of communication, and of course they never really had much of this in the past.

That someone finds the system flawed and doesn't work for them does not necessarily result in them being "anti-religion". So that is not a product of freedom. That is a product of something else. I could go into my thoughts on that, if you'd like.

For all this, you can't dispute the fact that religions have been the cause of so much conflict, and it's not as if it will go away until the religions themselves die out.

You honestly believe that humans without religion will be peaceful? Are you sure they won't just find some other excuse to rationalize their warring behaviors? Aren't you scapegoating religion for something? If you acknowledge the humans created religion, that why do you suppose they were violent at times? To make is clear: it's humans who do this, and so it is of no surprise religions would be too!

 

[Mock Turtle]

First of all, I noted your use of the word "revealed" here. This to me says you have in mind specifically the Abrahamic religions as supposed "revealed religions". That is of course a type of origin myth, that it was "delivered" to them supernaturally. It is not necessary to think of what religion teaches as having that type of magical source in order for the teachings to have truth and value.

No, religions in general. They are basically just speculations - unless one truly believes the texts from the past - which I find rather preposterous. Considering for example we still have doubts about JFK's killer and that was filmed! Just imagine what it was like before even printing was around.

So what value to that add, what good do they do? I'd say plenty, but specifically referring to what I said about teachings about the big questions, spiritual questions, the good of those is the enrichment of one's life and the life of those around you. If you can find Peace, Love, and Joy in your life, not only does that make your life healthier and happier, it impacts everyone, and everything around you. In other words, improving the world. Serving love is more beneficial than greed for instance. They teach the former, or at least should be.

I think all these can be discussed and assessed without reference to religions.

Actually, it's not a supposition. It's a description of an aspect of our being human and being alive in the world. It's not a scientific term, but a descriptive metaphor. It means "breath" in the sense of life is breathed. Our states of being, when they are healthy and balanced, become flowing, effortless, graceful, loving, and Free in an exchange of giving and receiving: breathed. These are not only experienced as states of being by people, they are clearly demonstrable by how one lives out one's life. "By their fruits you shall know them," said Jesus, which means their spirituality is demonstrable.

Spirit and soul are just terms we use to describe a variety of thing from describing one's personal characteristics to how we approach life, but the religious meaning is purely supposition.

Let me give you a real-life example. I've have been learning the Yang family 150 posture long form of Tai' Chi Chuan. It is primarily an internal martial arts form with martial applications for self-defense. Each posture, each principle is highly crafted out for maximal benefit to the body, the mind, and the spirit. The more you learn, the greater the mastery of it, the greater the overall benefit to everything else in your life, physically, mentally, and spiritually. Not only is it claimed to benefit you in these ways, with practice it proves itself as in fact beyond what you imagined.

It is the same thing with following spiritual practices and principles that people have developed. It doesn't need to have come from a god, in order for it to deliver the results it claims. Ask those who do these things.

Are they "essential truths"? Yes. If your goal is to improve these area of your life, there are many essential truths to follow spiritually, like in Tai Chi, "keep the shoulders and elbows down, let your tailbone point straight down," etc. These are essential truths to balance and flow. "Do not do harm to another," is an essential truth to those pursuing a spiritual life. And so forth.

Is it essential for you to just get by in life, and survive long enough to have moments of happiness here and there before you die? No. You can get by without developing the mind, or the body, or the spirit. But is that really a good choice for someone? I wouldn't say that would be the best choice they could make, but doing nothing with your life is always an option, and a choice. Just not a great one.

I think what you have described here might be considered as being of practical value and might not require anything of a religious nature, much like meditation. I have no issues with such things and they can be of enormous benefit, just as I believe Buddhism has much to offer because of the way it tends to concentrate on improving oneself without recourse to the dogma found in many other belief systems. Buddhism is the closest I would ever get to a religious belief but I do have issues with it - most of the various forms.

I'm not disputing that the majority of people don't pursue higher states of being in their persons. Does that make it the ideal state of being for people? I don't believe so. Everyone can benefit from basic exercise and make the body healthier, and everyone can benefit by deepening and enrich their spiritual lives. It's available, but not compulsory. It's purely a free-will choice of what one cares to do with their lives.

True enough but the other side of religious belief - the side that tends to separate one from another all too often is more common than those seeking further enlightenment - and even then it might make one feel superior or different from others - I have learnt more than you, type of thing.

I don't disagree that the version of Christianity that insists mythological symbols are historical facts is well beyond it sell by date. But the basic underlying ethos of Western culture is something you embrace currently as the very filters that you see and experience reality through. There is no expiration date on your basic programming that defines your basic value systems. All cultures work this way, and those who imagine they are not influenced by it, are delusional.

So if the trends are followed in the next hundred years or so and religions die out? I would just like to see it sooner than later. It's not the religious beliefs I'm against, it's the religions. If people just kept them to themselves then we would all be better off.

This is the error you are making. Mythical thinking is only one stage in religious development. Children of a certain age think in mythical terms, that their parents are god-like figures who can control the world, that everything is external to them, the power resides in others, and so forth. But then they grow up and realize in the more highly developed stages of maturity that they power resides within them. It is the same thing in religion, of course.

Not all religions as institutions are predominantly mythological. There are many forms of Christianity which are rational, modern forms. There are forms that are very postmodernist. There are forms beyond that, where they do not mistake the symbols and what they represent as historical and scientific reality. They do not confuse the finger pointing at the moon, with the moon itself.

Example: You are talking with me right now. Does it sound to you like I engage in mythical thinking? You may suppose that I must, because you assume all religion is that version of it, but then I'd then ask you to point to anything I've said that you can actually question me about that would demonstrate that as true? You cannot. You instead are faced with conflicting evidence, and of course the rational response would be to examine your presuppositions and modify them accordingly.

Perhaps I didn't put it right. Most religions seem to be founded in myth - that of some special person, be it Jesus, the Prophet Muhammad, for example, and/or various miraculous events, etc., not something that I can accept. All the rest just builds on this.

That someone finds the system flawed and doesn't work for them does not necessarily result in them being "anti-religion". So that is not a product of freedom. That is a product of something else. I could go into my thoughts on that, if you'd like.

I think I was meaning the militant atheist types often cited - and where I probably wouldn't join them since I'm not that bothered, but I can see where they are coming from and think they have every right to campaign as they do. I, like many, just see religious beliefs as being just another belief system and deserving of the same respect of lack of it as any other. Probably not a popular view though.

You honestly believe that humans without religion will be peaceful? Are you sure they won't just find some other excuse to rationalize their warring behaviors? Aren't you scapegoating religion for something? If you acknowledge the humans created religion, that why do you suppose they were violent at times? To make is clear: it's humans who do this, and so it is of no surprise religions would be too!

Of course I don't know any more than anyone else about that, but I suspect that we would be just as peaceful, since the evidence seems to show that those without any religious beliefs are just as moral as those without. Why would we be less peaceful? Let's face it, it's not the people who make war, it is those in power who do so. When was the last time anyone held a referendum as to going to war? We need to make our leaders more accountable, and here, our democracies (if we can call them that) are not doing a great job at the moment.

 

[PureX]

I think it matters because we can then explain the delusional beliefs associated with them, and why we have such things as miracles, the Son of God, the afterlife and such - to make any particular religion seem more attractive than another - perhaps.

One man's delusions are another man's reality. You are assuming your imagined reality should trump everyone else's. But I don't see any reason besides ego that it should. If someone else's imagined reality works for them, then I think it's logical that they continue living accordingly.

 

[Windwalker]

No, religions in general. They are basically just speculations - unless one truly believes the texts from the past - which I find rather preposterous.

Have you looked into the things in the scriptures of both Buddhism and Hinduism? What do you find "preposterous" in these?

BTW, my basic quick answer to this is that the things that it speaks of are proven true by repeated experience of those following the injunctions or practices. It's not a matter of blind "faith", but one of proven experience which validates these. Perhaps you are confusing the metaphorical language, or symbolism with the language of science and history? It seems quite odd to lump them into "preposterous" terms. Very odd indeed.

Considering for example we still have doubts about JFK's killer and that was filmed! Just imagine what it was like before even printing was around.

What is it you imagine scriptures are about? Are you that hung up on Adam and Eve not being actual historical people that you cannot see the symbolic truth and value of the story? Weren't you exposed to things like Aesop's fables as a kid? "The 'moral' of the story is...."?

I think all these can be discussed and assessed without reference to religions.

Please do. I'm intently interested in your thoughts. Where do you look to, or would recommend looking for guidance to someone wishing to realize Enlightenment? Suggestions?

Spirit and soul are just terms we use to describe a variety of thing from describing one's personal characteristics to how we approach life, but the religious meaning is purely supposition.

They are terms we use to speak of something transcendent within human experience, and that by definition can be called "religious" in some sense of the world. So, when religion does speak in these terms, it is not pure supposition, it is, as I said, a description of lived experience of a transcendental nature. I have such experience, and I use the word to describe it, and it is not supposition for me, it is not conceptual, it is experiential.

I think what you have described here might be considered as being of practical value and might not require anything of a religious nature, much like meditation. I have no issues with such things and they can be of enormous benefit, just as I believe Buddhism has much to offer because of the way it tends to concentrate on improving oneself without recourse to the dogma found in many other belief systems. Buddhism is the closest I would ever get to a religious belief but I do have issues with it - most of the various forms.

Well, there we go. Buddhism is a religion. Don't let anyone tell you it's just a "philosophy". Christianity is a philosophy too in this sense. Something interesting you might find amusing. I haven't read the book but it was a Christian priest, I believe, who wrote a book called, "If it wasn't for the Buddha, I couldn't be a Christian". I just love the title of this, because what it says is that the things you see in Buddhism, are also at their core in the Christian religion as well.

But I do agree with you, that much of that is lost due to the dogma. But to my point, it seems you're not anti-religion, but anti-outdated forms of Christianity. That to me is more accurate. It may behoove you to refine your focus a bit, rather than shotgunning everyone in the hopes of hitting your intended target!

True enough but the other side of religious belief - the side that tends to separate one from another all too often is more common than those seeking further enlightenment - and even then it might make one feel superior or different from others - I have learnt more than you, type of thing.

And I agree with you here. There are in fact stages of faith development, and the ethnocentric, us vs. them, "saved and unsaved" dichotomies, are reflective of very early, or immature stages of faith. And unfortunately, in Christianity here in the States, and what is exported from here to the world in these Evangelical right-wing type expressions, are predomentally the mythic-literal, Stage 2 faith that James Fowler details in his research work.

In reality, someone seeking Enlightenment who drags a "I'm better than you" egoistic attitude with it, will be stuck spinning their ego-wheels in the mud and never move at all. Humility is the golden key to moving beyond being mastered by one's veracious ego eating anything it can claim as it own to ensure its survival. In other words, they are anything but on a path of Awakening.

So if the trends are followed in the next hundred years or so and religions die out? I would just like to see it sooner than later. It's not the religious beliefs I'm against, it's the religions. If people just kept them to themselves then we would all be better off.

Alright, in the current form of many, there isn't exactly the greatest home for those beyond mythic-literal conflations of symbol and meaning. But my point is religion could be at very positive, and helpful source for true paths of Awakening, and that without any I don't see that being as effective as with religion. I agree religion is either struggling, or in complete failure mode to deliver, but I see evolving them, rather that outright burning them to the ground is a better approach. However, that said, sometimes when something is so entrenched and stubborn, like a cancer, maybe cutting it out is the best approach so a health form of religion can take its place.

Perhaps I didn't put it right. Most religions seem to be founded in myth - that of some special person, be it Jesus, the Prophet Muhammad, for example, and/or various miraculous events, etc., not something that I can accept. All the rest just builds on this.

That would not be untrue, in particular that they emerged during a time when mythic thought was how society and culture as a whole framed their realities. Religions didn't create that, but reflected that. That said, even though something is in mythic terms, it doesn't mean it doesn't speak a truth, so long as you don't get hung up on whether or not Adam and Eve were actual biological animals. To me, being mythical makes them far more powerful symbols, rather than if they were actual people.

I think I was meaning the militant atheist types often cited - and where I probably wouldn't join them since I'm not that bothered, but I can see where they are coming from and think they have every right to campaign as they do. I, like many, just see religious beliefs as being just another belief system and deserving of the same respect of lack of it as any other. Probably not a popular view though.

I have to dissect what I would lump into as "religious beliefs", as those run a wide spectrum and are interpreted by people at every stage of development. I can look at the same passages some fundamentalist is looking at, and while I find it profound, deep, and beautiful in what I see, what I hear him say may be utterly repulsive to me! It's not "religion" that's the issue, but the level of development, the mind of the interpreter that co-opts a deeper truth into some offensive ethnocentric rationalization of their own sin, so to speak.

Of course I don't know any more than anyone else about that, but I suspect that we would be just as peaceful, since the evidence seems to show that those without any religious beliefs are just as moral as those without. Why would we be less peaceful? Let's face it, it's not the people who make war, it is those in power who do so. When was the last time anyone held a referendum as to going to war? We need to make our leaders more accountable, and here, our democracies (if we can call them that) are not doing a great job at the moment.

In the absence of religion being manipulated to justification that actions of political motives, the politicians find the next greatest thing, like "patriotism" nationalism, the flag, etc. When in reality, it's not about that, but money. People are people. It's not religion's fault.

 

[Mock Turtle]

One man's delusions are another man's reality. You are assuming your imagined reality should trump everyone else's. But I don't see any reason besides ego that it should. If someone else's imagined reality works for them, then I think it's logical that they continue living accordingly.

My delusions are for me to overcome but I think we shouldn't impose any on children, which was why I started the other thread. Of course one can live with as many delusions as seem appropriate, but not when they seem to affect others so much - which undoubtedly many religions do. We had to live with Sunday trading laws for a long while mainly because of religious beliefs, others have to live with no abortion laws (Catholics in Ireland), and others have to live with not being able to practice or proselytise their beliefs - many predominantly Muslim countries, for example. So religious beliefs do often impact others, and often more so than most other beliefs.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Have you looked into the things in the scriptures of both Buddhism and Hinduism? What do you find "preposterous" in these?

Jesus, being the Son of God, resurrection, miracles, anyone being the voice of God or messenger, etc. Much of religious material is fine when it just deals with humans and their flaws and/or where they might have solutions, but it is the backing up of such with some religious authority that troubles me - authority not based in reality but claimed as such, in my view.

BTW, my basic quick answer to this is that the things that it speaks of are proven true by repeated experience of those following the injunctions or practices. It's not a matter of blind "faith", but one of proven experience which validates these. Perhaps you are confusing the metaphorical language, or symbolism with the language of science and history? It seems quite odd to lump them into "preposterous" terms. Very odd indeed.

As above - it's all the material associated with some of the religions, and often done to give them some kind of authority, Such that one can either accept them or reject them. Me, the latter.

What is it you imagine scriptures are about? Are you that hung up on Adam and Eve not being actual historical people that you cannot see the symbolic truth and value of the story? Weren't you exposed to things like Aesop's fables as a kid? "The 'moral' of the story is...."?

But was it just symbolism when these things were written? I doubt it. They have evolved to survive as our knowledge has become greater.

Please do. I'm intently interested in your thoughts. Where do you look to, or would recommend looking for guidance to someone wishing to realize Enlightenment? Suggestions?

Well, for me it would be such things as philosophy and psychology (not exclusively), and these will often be as hard to study as much of the higher levels of religious debate, but no doubt there is much that can be used appropriately without recourse to religions - that is, that we can debate such things without imbuing any with some assigned authority. The current trend to lower the value of Freudian ideas for example (rightly so), such that all ideas and theories in such fields are always up for questioning. Some will survive - apparently working for us - and others won't but there is usually no mystique attached - apart from psychiatry perhaps, where money tends to sway things.

Well, there we go. Buddhism is a religion. Don't let anyone tell you it's just a "philosophy". Christianity is a philosophy too in this sense. Something interesting you might find amusing. I haven't read the book but it was a Christian priest, I believe, who wrote a book called, "If it wasn't for the Buddha, I couldn't be a Christian". I just love the title of this, because what it says is that the things you see in Buddhism, are also at their core in the Christian religion as well.

Yes, I am aware. I did say it was the nearest, not that I then accepted it. It's just that much of what they say - the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path could stand alone without anything else, so more like a philosophy. And to me, hey do tend to make a lot of sense. I'm sure much the same exists in many religious beliefs too so I do recognise my problem. I don't just dismiss all that religions encompass - just their assumed or claimed authority.

But I do agree with you, that much of that is lost due to the dogma. But to my point, it seems you're not anti-religion, but anti-outdated forms of Christianity. That to me is more accurate. It may behoove you to refine your focus a bit, rather than shotgunning everyone in the hopes of hitting your intended target!

As above - it is still the claimed authority I dispute.

And I agree with you here. There are in fact stages of faith development, and the ethnocentric, us vs. them, "saved and unsaved" dichotomies, are reflective of very early, or immature stages of faith. And unfortunately, in Christianity here in the States, and what is exported from here to the world in these Evangelical right-wing type expressions, are predomentally the mythic-literal, Stage 2 faith that James Fowler details in his research work.

In reality, someone seeking Enlightenment who drags a "I'm better than you" egoistic attitude with it, will be stuck spinning their ego-wheels in the mud and never move at all. Humility is the golden key to moving beyond being mastered by one's veracious ego eating anything it can claim as it own to ensure its survival. In other words, they are anything but on a path of Awakening.

Seems to be endemic in many religious beliefs though - as pointed out, in the USA and in the many Muslim countries where 'the others' are seen as wicked or whatever.

Alright, in the current form of many, there isn't exactly the greatest home for those beyond mythic-literal conflations of symbol and meaning. But my point is religion could be at very positive, and helpful source for true paths of Awakening, and that without any I don't see that being as effective as with religion. I agree religion is either struggling, or in complete failure mode to deliver, but I see evolving them, rather that outright burning them to the ground is a better approach. However, that said, sometimes when something is so entrenched and stubborn, like a cancer, maybe cutting it out is the best approach so a health form of religion can take its place.

As I said, and I doubt it can be disputed, the non-religious now are just as normal in their lives so why not everyone?

That would not be untrue, in particular that they emerged during a time when mythic thought was how society and culture as a whole framed their realities. Religions didn't create that, but reflected that. That said, even though something is in mythic terms, it doesn't mean it doesn't speak a truth, so long as you don't get hung up on whether or not Adam and Eve were actual biological animals. To me, being mythical makes them far more powerful symbols, rather than if they were actual people.

I just see this as being the explanation that many then could accept and powerful enough for them to adhere to what was being proposed. People then were hardly educated in any real sense were they - only the very few were so?

In the absence of religion being manipulated to justification that actions of political motives, the politicians find the next greatest thing, like "patriotism" nationalism, the flag, etc. When in reality, it's not about that, but money. People are people. It's not religion's fault.

True - whatever tends to work, the politicians will use, and for a predominantly religious country, like many Muslim ones, it seems easier to drum up hatred for others when God tells them so - or the voices of God do so.

 

[PureX]

My delusions are for me to overcome but I think we shouldn't impose any on children, which was why I started the other thread. Of course one can live with as many delusions as seem appropriate, but not when they seem to affect others so much - which undoubtedly many religions do.

People can reject religions as they please. And people teach their children what they think their children need to know. I still don't see why your idea of reality should trump theirs.

We had to live with Sunday trading laws for a long while mainly because of religious beliefs, others have to live with no abortion laws (Catholics in Ireland), and others have to live with not being able to practice or proselytise their beliefs - many predominantly Muslim countries, for example. So religious beliefs do often impact others, and often more so than most other beliefs.

We are a social species. To live together we have to learn to tolerate the ideas and behaviors of others, whether we agree with them, or not. Humanity has not yet learned this, or learned how to do this. And so none of our societies have lasted very long before selfish individuality pulled them apart, or drowned them in violence.

 

[Looncall]

For me "big questions" are inspirational pointers to explore spiritual realms of bliss not so easy to attain or discover when you never think about it.

"Spiritual realms of bliss": how has their existence been demonstrated?

Just part of the Great Scam as far as I can tell.

 

[Mock Turtle]

People can reject religions as they please. And people teach their children what they think their children need to know. I still don't see why your idea of reality should trump theirs.

I'm sure many don't. They might have had the same belief when children were down the mines (Before 1914 in the UK), sold off by their parents in child marriage, deprived of education, etc. Hopefully we advance as a species.

We are a social species. To live together we have to learn to tolerate the ideas and behaviors of others, whether we agree with them, or not. Humanity has not yet learned this, or learned how to do this. And so none of our societies have lasted very long before selfish individuality pulled them apart, or drowned them in violence.

That's a rather easy answer to a complex issue. Why do we have to tolerate the beliefs of those that perhaps cause more harm than any benefit they provide?

 

[Windwalker]

"Spiritual realms of bliss": how has their existence been demonstrated?

By experience. What experience, you ask? The experience of spiritual states of bliss. Consider it a report of actual experience, rather than a concept in someone's mind.

Just part of the Great Scam as far as I can tell.

Such cynicism.