A Religion for the Non Religious

[loganonekenobi]

Hmm, all the claims of an apologist. I think he needs to stop insulting the reader.

Lol, did you read it? He's an atheist.

quick look says i love it and pretty much sums up the spiritual things we as sentient beings need to think and do about but work comes soon so i well look more at this tonight.

[Catholic_Lady]

Lol, did you read it? He's an atheist.

quick look says i love it and pretty much sums up the spiritual things we as sentient beings need to think and do about but work comes soon so i well look more at this tonight.

Whoa, some hope! Lol. Please do!

I hope you like it.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, Cath, what appealed to you the most in all of that, penny for -your- thoughts, at length?

Oh gosh... the most?

I thought the whole thing was great!

The fact that we are still evolving, that there are levels of consciousness and we are not necessarily at the top level of it, that there is a very real possibility that there are beings out there who are far more conscious than us at a level we can't even comprehend, that there is always conflict in our mind between acting on animalistic impulses and reaching for something higher, that those animalistic impulses holds us back from really seeing the big picture and the world around us as we should, putting daily nuances into perspective by always remembering how small we are in the universe and how insignificant these nuances are in regards to the big picture, that what we know is such a miniscule amount of what is actually out there....

Of all those things, it's difficult to pick a favorite, especially because they all go together. But.... I think the takeaway that I liked most was about trying to reach that higher level of being by not letting our lives be clouded by our animalistic impulses of selfishness, narcissism, pettiness, etc.

What about you? I know you didn't like it that much, but you said you thought it was kinda interesting. Which part did you think was interesting?

Well, on the portion you found the most interesting, I'd have to suggest that selfishness, narcissism, and pettiness are not animalistic urges.  Those terms describe -us-.  Not racoons, eh?  They might all be part and parcel of the "higher" camp...rather than the "animalistic" camp.  Rushing "upwards" might be rushing towards their elevation to a fetish.  Narcissism, as the strongest example, is literally a fascination with the self.  You see my concern..given the content of the article, lol?  A journey like this, into one's consciousness, and going so far as to implicate higher states of it..this "truthism".....is -inherently- narcissistic.  I don't see how a person could reduce their narcissism by focusing on it intently.  Not disagreeing with you at all, of course, in that managing our impulses, regardless of the category we choose to put them in - is immensely helpful, only commenting on the proposed method.

I think that the article drove the point of how little we know home in an engaging fashion.  If you want me to understand something I'm going to need picture books, and the article delivered!

[Tonus]

Thanks for the well thought out reply!

Your last paragraph, though is not what he's saying. He's not saying we should appeal to a higher power. He doesn't believe in a higher power. And he is precisely telling us to take control of our own lives and fates.

I think that his attempt to describe it in religious terms confuses things. Talk of conscious awareness as a 'higher being' and references to 'the truth' and of a veil that can obscure it ('a fog') seems a way to try to, as his title suggests, view things as from a religious perspective. I think it still gives an impression that there are many more things that are out of our control than actually are, and that he is turning conventional understanding on its head. We're better off understanding the subconscious mind and finding ways to influence it than to think that we've got a few evolutionary steps to take before we unlock our higher self and reach a new level of achievement. That, in itself, is reminiscent of religious thinking: manage in the present with an eye towards a greater future provided by an outside agent, instead of striving for a better today to create a better future for those who follow. I much prefer the latter approach.

[Catholic_Lady]

Thanks for the well thought out reply!

Your last paragraph, though is not what he's saying. He's not saying we should appeal to a higher power. He doesn't believe in a higher power. And he is precisely telling us to take control of our own lives and fates.

I think that his attempt to describe it in religious terms confuses things.  Talk of conscious awareness as a 'higher being' and references to 'the truth' and of a veil that can obscure it ('a fog') seems a way to try to, as his title suggests, view things as from a religious perspective.  I think it still gives an impression that there are many more things that are out of our control than actually are, and that he is turning conventional understanding on its head.  We're better off understanding the subconscious mind and finding ways to influence it than to think that we've got a few evolutionary steps to take before we unlock our higher self and reach a new level of achievement.  That, in itself, is reminiscent of religious thinking: manage in the present with an eye towards a greater future provided by an outside agent, instead of striving for a better today to create a better future for those who follow.  I much prefer the latter approach.

(bolded mine)

You said this same thing on your first post here, but the "eye towards a greater future provided by an outside agent" is exactly what he's NOT saying lol.


He doesn't believe in an outside agent and is speaking completely about self improvement coming from your own self.

[TubbyTubby]

He doesn't believe in an outside agent and is speaking completely about self improvement coming from your own self.

Completely off topic but looking at your closed thread with your photos, I would have to say, without any shadow of doubt, if I was to pick someone to try and convert me it would be you. No questions asked. You wouldn't succeed but I would savour every moment! I'm a very shallow person and a sucker for hot ladies.

[Catholic_Lady]

He doesn't believe in an outside agent and is speaking completely about self improvement coming from your own self.

Completely off topic but looking at your closed thread with your photos, I would have to say, without any shadow of doubt, if I was to pick someone to try and convert me it would be you. No questions asked. You wouldn't succeed but I would savour every moment! I'm a very shallow person and a sucker for hot ladies.

Thank you for the kind words.

[TubbyTubby]

Completely off topic but looking at your closed thread with your photos, I would have to say, without any shadow of doubt, if I was to pick someone to try and convert me it would be you. No questions asked. You wouldn't succeed but I would savour every moment! I'm a very shallow person and a sucker for hot ladies.

Thank you for the kind words.

No need to thank me. It's a spontaneous instinctive thing to either (depending on sobriety) speak nervous nonsense or flatter a fit bird whenever I'm faced with one.

[Tonus]

You said this same thing on your first post here, but the "eye towards a greater future provided by an outside agent" is exactly what he's NOT saying lol.

I said it is reminiscent of that kind of approach, in that he talks of things that are out of our control, and of consciousness as some sort of continuum, and that there is "no reason to think [it] doesn’t extend upwards forever." He establishes his 'atheist credentials' at the start, but then descends into a discussion that gets mired in a kind of "what might be out there" thinking that seems counter to his stated desire to find meaning in the here and now. For a moment he will appear to be discussing the human mind using simple analogies, then he talks about reaching the next rung of consciousness, then admits that it might require millions of years of evolution and then switches back to using analogies, except this time they're muddled and confusing. Like I said in my first response, the post is in desperate need of a full review and re-write. He could make it much shorter and more focused and not wander as much, and I might get what the main point is.

Keep in mind that an "outside agent" can be a lot of things, and doesn't need to be a god. Many people limit themselves while blaming "circumstance" for their poor quality-of-life. I only compare it to a religious outlook because that is what he seems to be aiming for with his title and introduction. Had he not made religion and atheism themes in the beginning, I wouldn't have made the connection. He'd still need a complete re-write to get his point across, though.

[Catholic_Lady]

You said this same thing on your first post here, but the "eye towards a greater future provided by an outside agent" is exactly what he's NOT saying lol.

I said it is reminiscent of that kind of approach, in that he talks of things that are out of our control, and of consciousness as some sort of continuum, and that there is "no reason to think [it] doesn’t extend upwards forever."  He establishes his 'atheist credentials' at the start, but then descends into a discussion that gets mired in a kind of "what might be out there" thinking that seems counter to his stated desire to find meaning in the here and now.  For a moment he will appear to be discussing the human mind using simple analogies, then he talks about reaching the next rung of consciousness, then admits that it might require millions of years of evolution and then switches back to using analogies, except this time they're muddled and confusing.  Like I said in my first response, the post is in desperate need of a full review and re-write.  He could make it much shorter and more focused and not wander as much, and I might get what the main point is.

Keep in mind that an "outside agent" can be a lot of things, and doesn't need to be a god.  Many people limit themselves while blaming "circumstance" for their poor quality-of-life.  I only compare it to a religious outlook because that is what he seems to be aiming for with his title and introduction.  Had he not made religion and atheism themes in the beginning, I wouldn't have made the connection.  He'd still need a complete re-write to get his point across, though.

Thanks for the clarification!