5.
a. A detailed method of procedure faithfully or regularly followed: My household chores have become a morning ritual.
b. A state or condition characterized by the presence of established procedure or routine:

8. any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner.

How can so many people STILL believe in the obsurdities of religion?
How can so many people have so little ability in logical thinking?
How can so many people completely ignore or excuse the obviously evil acts written up as having been done by their godthing?

It seems like such obvious B.S. to me. It really bogles my mind how religionists aren't the minority.

I feel much the same way. It's really hard for me to believe that so many people, not only believe this crap, but will truly go out of their way to defend it, justify it, and perpetuate it against such obvious evidence that it's nothing more than a truly ignorant folklore from a society that wasn't all that great itself.

However, I think we really need to put thing in perspective here. We are living in an extremely 'abnormal time' historically speaking. The modern technologies that we take for granted are extremely new. It wasn't all that long ago with then stuff was in its extreme infancy.

For example, I was born the same year that the transistor was invented. So for practical purposes all of the solid-state electronic devices that we see around us today didn't even exist when I was born. Sure they had some crude vacuum tube devices prior to that, but even those don't go all that far back.

In other words, only a mere couple hundred years ago people were still living in log cabins and delivering messages via pony express.

This religious fable has been around for well over 2000 years. And it has been the focal point of western society for all that time. So not only has it become popular, but it's also become quite traditional. Large stone churches have been built around it. Large organizations of very 'serious somber people' act like it's real and that it should be taken very seriously. And society in general had come to accept this as the "Norm" for thousands of years.

Add to that, that this religion considers it to be "Blaspheme against God" to even question the religion or speak out against it. To do so is considered by the religion itself to be the only "Unforgivable Sin". In other words DONT'T EVEN THINK ABOUT!

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GOD!

That was the attitude that this religion was built around. People didn't causally say, "Has anyone ever considered whether these ancient stories might be false"

WHOA! What are you suggesting??? BLASPHEME!!!

That very THOUGHT can only come from Satan himself!!!

To question "God's Authority" is to be like SATAN!!!

How can you even suggest such a thing?

That was the attitude. Especially of the clerics who wanted to preserve their power and authority of the CHURCH. Don't even bring up such a topic. It's utterly TABOO!

This kind of attitude reigned surpreme for thousands of years, and was still alive an well as recently as the days of Isaac Newton.

Isaac Newton himself was very interesting in "Knowing God" and understanding the Bible. Historians say that he devoted more time and effort studying theology than he spent on studying physics. I find that hard to believe myself since he accomplished so much in physics and mathematics, yet they say that this is true. I also saw a documentary that claimed that Isaac Newton owned something like 200 bibles, and these weren't just copies of the same book, back then there were simply a lot of versions of the story running around I guess.

In any case, Newton's conclusion after having studied the religion in such depth was that Jesus could not have been the son of Yahweh. This is the very same conclusion I came to. I came to this conclusion BEFORE I even knew that Isaac Newton had concluded this.

However, Isaac Newton couldn't even publicly state his views on this because to do so would have been far too dangerous in his time and place. At best he would have been stripped of any authority and recognition for his works, at worst, he could have faced hanging for blaspheme against the church.

Historically speaking this was just "yesterday". Just a few hundred years ago.

So historically speaking we're only just now emerging from those highly superstitious times. Science and medicine were only just getting underway.

These religions are basically still just 'coasting' along under the sheer momentum of just how powerful they had been on the human Psyche.

It's going to take time for mankind to awaken from the nightmare. But it will happen.

On the bright side, consider the following:

The vast majority of young people today reject formalized organized religion. "Designer Christianity" is the Fastest Growing religion in the world. However, don't take that to mean that it's recruiting "new members" it's not. What's actually happening is that the children of Christians are rejecting the church and choosing to take a "Personal Walk with Jesus". And fortunately this is a good thing.

From your point of view it may appear that this people are continuing to cling to the "superstition" and they are. But they are not clinging to, or supporting the organized religion and churches.

The "Designer Christians" are becoming more and more divisive in what they believe to be 'acceptable'. They seldom agree with each other on the details of what Jesus actually represent. They are paying less and less attention to the actual Bible and spending far more time arguing for moral values that they merely personally feel that Jesus should stand for.

In short, Christianity is dying rapidly. But it's not going to show up in the statistics because all these "Designer Christians" continue to check the boxes marked "Christianity". They continue to define the basic idea that "Jesus is God", and that Jesus will "save" their soul.

I agree, even that is still craziness. But at least they are rejecting the organized religions and churches. Even if they still attend them to some degree, they aren't prepared to back the churches in a major way. Especially if they feel that the church is going against their idea of what Jesus SHOULD stand for.

So these religions are dying out a lot faster than you might imagine, and a lot faster than simple statistic suggest. But the idea that "Jesus saves" will probably hang around for quite a while. Jesus himself will be the very last thing that these people finally let go of. And it will take them a while to get over him.

And I think that people will always revere him as a man who at least tried to teach love, even if those teachings became distorted by the religion that stole his name sake.

Jesus will never be forgotten by history itself. Let's face it, he ranks right up there with Confucius, Buddha, and Mohammad. None of those men will be forgotten by history even if their spiritual teachings are totally dismissed altogether, they will still be remembered as powerful historical figures. At least in the sense of having left deep impressions on the way cultures lived.

You've got to be one of the most bored people in the world.

And what are you doing here in this forum anyway? Unless you've had a revelation, so to speak, you're as much an atheist or agnostic as I am a butterfly.

You've got to be one of the most bored people in the world.

And what are you doing here in this forum anyway? Unless you've had a revelation, so to speak, you're as much an atheist or agnostic as I am a butterfly.

Yes, I would not argue with that assessment in the least.

Couldn't you already tell that from my posts in the religion forums?



It says it's for "Agnostics" too.

I've always confessed to ultimately being agnostic. I wish I could claim to actually know something.

I would be tickled pink if that were the case!

I suggest a Netflix account, a girlfriend, and some video games. Not to mention there are more books in the world than you'll ever be able to read in a dozen lifetimes.

As far as "always confessed to ultimately being agnostic" goes, until just recently, I don't remember you posting anything even close to that anywhere. But I could be wrong.

Not to mention there are more books in the world than you'll ever be able to read in a dozen life times.

And that includes the philosophy of "atheism".

The only thing I object to when it comes to "atheists" are those who hold out the idea that science supports atheism over mysticism

to such an extent that anyone who even considers that mysticism might be true is clearly a moron.

Nor has it ruled out the Eastern Mystical picture.

I think a lot of atheist either over-estimate what science actually knows,

or they simply don't understand the Eastern Mystical picture well enough to truly understand why it may very well be true.

All I'm seeking is to be 'respected' for continuing to consider it as a possibility.

It is not that science supports atheism, its empiricism/rationalism that supports materialism, while failing to support anything else, thus far.

You can consider something might be true, or even to be true, without overstating the evidence. There are many pro-mystics who overstate the evidence for mysticism, and I consider them morons.

Thanks to the ambiguity and non-falsifiability of eastern mystical claims.

I'd say there is more than one eastern mystical picture, they may simply be over generalizing based on an eastern mystical picture they do understand.

Is there some specific easter mystical claim that you'd like materialists to consider as a possibility?

I wouldn't even want to claim support for any particular specific picture. Especially not if it's going to be associated with a particular religious dogma. I just feel that the foundational idea behind it has merit.

I don't need to continue to defend the "Billiard Ball" picture of "materialism" to support the scientific method.

I'm curious what you mean by 'the foundational idea behind it'. The existence of samadhi? nirvana? the tao? karma?

Several of your comments seem to imply an equivalence between the newtonian model and materialism. I see the self-consistency of your argument as long as one is making this equality, but the newtonian model is just another model. To me, materialism is the view that the physical universe is real and all that is real. QM requires that our previous concepts of the nature of that material reality are wrong, but it may still be that there is one physical reality (that behaves in odd ways). To my mind, thus far, the investigation into QM is an investigation into the material world.

I girlfriend would be nice, but that's easier said than done. Unless you're suggesting a totally meaningless and unfulfilling encounter. I'm really not interested in that to be perfectly honest about it.

People often misunderstand where I'm coming from.

I'm far more reasonable than you might think.

The only thing I object to when it comes to "atheists" are those who hold out the idea that science supports atheism over mysticism to such an extent that anyone who even considers that mysticism might be true is clearly a moron.

That fact is that science has not shown that atheism should be a conclusion. Nor has it ruled out the Eastern Mystical picture. On the contrary it leaves more than sufficient room for mysticism to be perfectly true.

I think a lot of atheist either over-estimate what science actually knows, or they simply don't understand the Eastern Mystical picture well enough to truly understand why it may very well be true.

I'm not suggesting that science "points" to mysticism. I'm simply saying that it certainly hasn't come close to ruling it out. Therefore to "preach" that science supports a purely atheistic view and that any ideas of mysticism are intellectually "silly" and ungrounded, is simply wrong.

That picture is just not true. Science has not shown that it's "silly" to continue to consider the Eastern Mystical philosophy of life. It's simply false to claim otherwise.

At best atheism and mysticism are running neck-to-neck. (assuming you truly understand what the mystics are actually saying)

I think a large part of the problem may have to do with the simple fact that many people simply don't truly understand the potential of the Eastern Mystical philosophies.

So I'm not trying to "Sell" Eastern Mysticism.

All I'm seeking is to be 'respected' for continuing to consider it as a possibility.

What upsets me is when people act like anything other than atheism is just plain stupid. From my point of view, that's just a little too-overconfident. That's basically religious fanaticism in reverse.

Beats masturbating alone.

And yeah, science has indeed shown that atheism should be a conclusion. Lack of proof of anything else demands it.

Just because science doesn't specifically rule something out, is no reason to believe in a something.

You wanna follow a philosophy, good for you. You wanna talk science, I'm there. However, since science and philosophy are mutually exclusive subjects, I'd appreciate if you'd stick to one w/i a topic.
Oh wait...it just dawned on me. You really don't understand that, do you? That explains so much.

In the colorfull landscape of your mind, perhaps.

uh huh

What upsets me is when people act like believing in anything other than what is provable is ok and is perfectly acceptable.
Overconfident?? Give me a break. Overconfidence is believing in crap w/o any legitimate reason to do so.

Ok, sorry for the confrontational nature of this reponse but damn, you can piss me off sometimes...

Yeah, I guess it's really hard to put into words. In fact, it might be almost impossible to convey the actual concept that I'm trying to get at.

I wouldn't use any of the words you've offered. Although samadhi might potentially be the closest. Not the concept of samadhi itself, but the actual experience of it, if that makes any sense to you. It's the experience of samadhi that suggests to me that I am eternal whether I like it or not.

I don't doubt that the physical universe is 'real'. But what's your scientific justification for adding on, and all that is real.

It seems to me that our observations of QM suggest otherwise. Even string theorists need to tack on a whole bunch of extra dimensions to 'reality' to try to get things to work out (which they haven't even done yet I might add)

So where's the scientific justification for saying that the physical universe is "all that is real"

What do you mean by thus far?

Quantum Mechanics is basically a finished theory.

The whole idea that QM is incomplete or will someday fail is really basically beating a dead horse at this point.

In other words, we use science as support to say that it's "rational" to conclude that life is probably non-spiritual, and all the while we have our fingers crossed behind our back hoping that our best scientific theory will fail and give support to this conclusion.

Extra dimensions don't surprise me, nor does their hypothetical existence strike me as breaking with the materialistic approach in any way. Accepting them as existent without evidence is foolish. Treating them as potentially provable is rational.

Mathematically it may be, but as a species we are still investigating the truths embodied by it.

...I treating the possibility of there being a "spiritual" essence to reality as being "potentially provable".
...

I'm not one who holds out that it should fundamentally impossible to prove a spiritual essence of the universe. It may be provable, or it may not be provable. I simply don't know.

...

All I'm saying is that this mystery novel is FAR FROM OVER.

That's all I'm saying. Those people who are 'concluding' atheism as the most likely conclusion need to stick around to the end of the novel. They may potentially be wrong.

...

I personally haven't found that to be the case. But to each their own.



I totally disagree with your view on this. Lack of proof of one conclusion does not automatically demand that you conclude something else that you also lack any proof of.

Where did you ever come up with that idea? I certainly hope you didn't get that from a college course! I'd ask for my money back.




Well, you seem to be going down that road of jumping to conclusions again. Where did I ever say that I actually "believe" in mysticism?

If you quit jumping to conclusions and actually read what I write you'll suddenly realize that all I have ever been saying is that, as far as I'm concerned, the concept is plausible. That's not the same as saying that I "believe" it to be true.

In fact, I have always confessed to being "agnostic" in terms of the true nature of reality. There has never been a time in my life when I believed that I actually knew what the hell is going on.

If I ever have reason to actually "believe" that strongly about something I will be very pleased about that. The reason being that if I am actually being convinced of something you can bet your sweet bippy that I have really good reasons to come to that conclusion.



I see no reason to discuss science with someone who thinks that they should jump to one unproven conclusion over another just because neither conclusion has been proven.

I'm sorry, but your method of drawing conclusions just makes no scientific sense to me.



No. These are simply both unproven concepts. I personally see no more reason to conclude one over the other. Obviously you feel differently.

The only difference between us is that I respect your right to lean toward you unproven conclusion, but you'd rather make fun of me, and call me 'silly', for leaning toward the other unproven conclusion.

I think it's all a matter of respect. I respect your right to believe that atheism might be a more likely conclusion. You refuse to respect my right to believe that mysticism might be a more likely conclusion.

Neither of us knows the answer. In other words, we are both "Agnostic". (i.e. without knowledge of the true answer)

Yet I'm willing to bet that you're an "Atheist" (someone who thinks they do indeed know what the answer is).

Am I right? Or do you confess to being Agnostic too?

If your claiming to be without knowledge of the final answer, then why make fun of other people who are in the same boat as you but prefer to consider other possible answers to these questions?

I just don't see the merit in making fun of people who consider that atheism may not be the final word. It certainly hasn't been scientifically proven to be the case.



I'm not.

If you say that you believe that atheism is more likely, I'm fine with that. But then you want to make fun of me for not agreeing with your conclusion.

All I'm saying is that I'm not buying your unproven conclusions.

That's not the same as trying to sell you mine.

All I'm seeking is to be 'respected' for considering spirituality as a possibility. And I don't think that's an outrageous request in the least.

And of course, I'm really not concerned about this on an individual basis. I'm really not concerned if "Arcamedees" respects "Abracadabra". I'm more concerned of the larger picture. I don't like to see a world where atheists belittle and make fun of people who hold out the hope or belief that there may be a spiritual essence to life.

Especially when these atheists are pretending like science supports their conclusions, which is simply not true. Our scientific knowledge of the world is not sufficient to draw any such conclusion with any degree of "certainty".



Since when did science become a religion? Since when do people need to have "proof" of what they believe in? If you can't disprove what they believe in, then who are you to say that it's absurd?

Like I say, science has not proven that there cannot be any spiritual essence to reality. It hasn't even come close to doing that. Therefore, for you to "believe" in atheism (a non-spiritual life), you are believing in something that is not 'provable'.

You fail your own criteria for what you demand should be accepted as "believable". You believe in something that's not provable!



I don't piss you off. You piss yourself off. You are in control of your emotions, not me.

I am sitting here typing this entire post in with absolutely no emotional sensations whatsoever. I'm simply addressing your thoughts as best I can. If you are becoming all emotional about that, then who's fault is that?

I can't control your emotions and I take no responsibility for how you control them.

In fact, even if you don't believe in the mystical aspects of the Eastern Mystical and practices, I would highly suggest that you try some of their meditative procedures and exercises anyway. Even as a believer in pure atheism you could still benefit from these meditations and exercises. They will help you control your emotions so that you don't piss yourself off and blame other people for having pissed you off.

I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to send you into a state of emotional turmoil. What would I have to gain from that?

I'm just trying to make a point about how science cannot be used to conclude that reality is non-spiritual anymore than it can be used to conclude the opposite.

That's all.

So...are you now or have you even been, a politician?
Perhaps you were a politician in a former life.
You seem to have a gift for backpedaling, obfuscation, and change of premise. "I never said I believed in mysticism." Kinda like "I never had sex with that woman Monica Lewinski."

My dad, in one of his few moments of genuine intelligence, had a great saying for people like you. "If b.s. was music, you'd be a brass band."

Another great quote I think is applicable by Robin Williams, "You're more in need of a blow job that any other white man in history."