Churchless on the rise in United States

Praise the non-Lord! The faithless are on the march! The ranks of the religiously unaffiliated have risen from 5-8% in the 1980s to 16.1% today.

So says a survey of religious affiliation by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life. This is great news. It shows that the Question Mark God, a.k.a. Who knows?, has a plan for America: ever-increasing uncertainty.

A USA Today story on the Pew Forum report is titled, "Survey: Americans freely change, or drop, their religions." More good news.

A new map of faith in the USA shows a nation constantly shifting amid religious choices, unaware or unconcerned with doctrinal distinctions. Unbelief is on the rise.

The story quotes one of the report's co-authors, John Green.

"Fluidity is the rule today, not the exception. There's greater diversity and greater movement — a quantum leap in the rate of change."

"It will become increasingly difficult to find people who share a love for distinct doctrine," he adds.

"But there are always niches in the marketplace. There will always be a place for religions that are strict. They just may cater to smaller numbers."

We can only hope. Like eventually, zero.

Of course, I'm biased. I've tried the strict thing and found it wanting. Since religiosity is aimed at finding ultimate truth that's currently unknown, I now consider that flexible openness is the hallmark of genuine spiritual inquiry – not clinging rigidly to preconceived dogmas.

Today a friend sent me a Science vs. Faith Flowchart.

You can see that science is about examining evidence to see if it supports an idea. Then getting more evidence and/or changing the idea. It's full of feedback loops that produce changes in direction, homing in on truth.

Faith, on the other hand, is linear. It sticks with what it believes, ignoring discordant evidence.

Fortunately, Americans are coming around to the benefits of a more scientific approach to answering the big questions of life. They're increasingly willing to discard the faith they grew up with for something that makes more sense.

I'm proud to point out that nowhere is this more true than in Oregon, where I live. I perused the maps page on the Pew Forum web site and found that Oregon has the highest proportion of religiously unaffiliated adults, 27%.

We're #1! We're #1! Still, that's 73% remaining to be converted to faithlessness.

Comments

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear Brian,

The flow charts that you have shown are oversimplified. Put your hand on your heart and think where you fit in your self. Probably no where. A faithful becomes a faithless within no time equally true that a faithless becomes faithful within no time.

So long as our inbuilt mechanism of thoughts and its continuum is being satiated, even our faith in science also continues. There are times in one's life when one thinks that one has been betrayed by the science itself when the scientist is a fraud.

(Imo) things are much more complicated than one can imagine or prove or disprove scientifically.

Anyway I have enough faith in your scientific thinking.

With love

[Aman]

I liked the charts thanks.

[tAo]

Check this out Brian, its very interesting and informative and revealing science:

God & the Myth of the Big Bang

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl3Uj2UJjPA

[Deepak Kamat]

We can be both faithful and scientific at the same time. The contradiction is a result of compartmentalised thinking. Get to think in a holistic manner. Science and faith mingle. THe more the faith greater the scientist, more scientific a man gets more he has faith. (Refer Einstein's famous lines: Science without religon is lame, religon without science is blind).

[Brian]

Rakesh, what you seem to be talking about is the difference between subjectivity ("I") and objectivity ("It"). These are two different aspects of reality, both important.

Science deals with public facts; feelings are private facts. Science doesn't deny feelings. It just says that they aren't objective, provable, testable. (The brain states that lead to feelings/emotions are different from the subjective feeling.)

Some people try to pretend that the objective public world doesn't exist and that science is a fraud. But obviously it does. As I often say, "I feel that..." is as valid as "It's true that..."

Just don't ask me to believe that your feelings are objectively true. Once you use the word "true," that gets us into public, objective reality.

[Brian]

tAo, I managed to watch a whole 58 seconds of the You Tube video before my B.S. detector started ringing wildly. The guy obviously knows zip about the scientific method when he says it's based on blind faith.

The big bang essentially is settled science. If someone wants to disprove it, he or she should stake a claim to a Nobel prize by publishing the arguments in a scientific journal.

No, wait! This guy doesn't believe in science, so he wouldn't trust scientists to give his beliefs a fair shake. So he'll "publish" them on You Tube instead, where we have to accept them on faith -- rather than subjecting them to evidence-based inquiry.

There are lots of loony theories on the Internet purporting to debunk science. I've got better things to do than pay attention to crazies. Again, when they're willing to debate their ideas openly, presenting facts rather than their faith, more power to them.

Until then, I'll believe Scientific American over a You Tube video.

[update: I gritted my teeth and got through a whole 5 minutes. That confirmed my 1 minute conclusion: this guy is remarkably ignorant of the science behind big bang cosmology. He's criticizing a fantasy of his own making.]

[tucson]

Tao,

I disagree with Brian. I watched the whole thing. Of course scientists don't have a clue, but I don't care what it proves or disproves. That was beautiful and opened the "doors of perception". Thank you!!

[Brian]

tucson, you can save me some time by summarizing the grand insights of the You Tube video. What door of perception was opened for you?

And I'm curious about your statement that you don't care what the video proves or disproves. Isn't the point of it that the science behind the big bang theory is wrong? I assumed that there would be an attempt to show how part or all of the theory doesn't fit the facts.

Science has discerned the radiation left over from the big bang. They know that the universe is expanding. The ratio of the basic elements in the universe (hydrogen, helium) is just as big bang theory predicts. And so forth. And so on.

Naturally scientists don't know what preceded the big bang. Neither does religion. This isn't part of the theory. Science has lots of conjectures, including the fact that time began with the big bang, so logically nothing preceded it.

There are notions of eternally expanding and contracting universes; hypotheses of countless "bubble" universes that cast off other creations. Many possibilities, nothing settled.

So I agree with you that science doesn't have a clue about what, if anything, lies beyond the physical universe. That isn't part of science. But science is quite sure about what happened after the big bang banged.

Does this guy refute that? As I said before, if he can, a Nobel Prize awaits him. If he can't, then he's just another religious speculator (as if we needed another one).

[Update: Here's a nice summary of big bang cosmology, which I found after I wrote this comment. As I noted, it says that it is beyond the big bang model to say what gave rise to the big bang. So if that's the crux of this guy's criticism, it's groundless. See:]
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

[tAo]

Brian,

You admittedly did NOT watch the video. The video is about 58 minutes, NOT 58 seconds. The author shows how the big bang is not founded in valid science, but rather in belief and theology. However, the author and the video is based upon science throughout. If you had actually watched the entire video, you would have seen and understood that. The video and its author is not "ignorant of the science" at all. In fact, the author is far more knowledgeable in astrophysics than you are. I also have quite a bit of scientific background and education, especially in physics and astronomy, and I am quite familiar with what he presented. You are clearly not an expert. And as a matter of fact, and quite contrary to your bogus statement and conclusion, and regardless of what some presume and believe, the "big bang" THEORY is far from a done deal. If you had actually carefully listened to and viewed the entire video, you would have discovered and learned that and much more. Your narrow-minded adherence to faulty and invalid science, and your premature judgement and resultant closed mindedness about what the author actually has to say and prove, has clearly made you jump to false and erroneous conclusions. You did not give it any fair chance at all. Beacuse a mere 5 minutes is not anywhere near 55 minutes. Therefore it is you who are "ignorant". You don't even know anyting about what the guy has presented. And your response comment was basically meaningless bullshit rhetoric. I can see now that you definitely leap before you look and listen. The reality is that you are really not scientifically minded at all, but only make a pretense of being so. You are a skeptic on the one hand, and yet come off with a 'know it all' attitude towards me on the other. Frankly, that's bullshit. So I surely won't bother to waste any more of my time sharing any more videos with you.

Adios

[tAo]

PS: You are just like D. Lane... you are both full of shit when it comes down to really seeking and facing the truth about something, be it spirituality, science, or politics. Your skepticism is only very superficial. You both play pretentious and hypocritical games. And you both selectively ignore and refuse to look at all the evidence, and you both ridicule those who do, in order to further your own personal agendas.

[Brian]

I'll repeat the question I asked of tucson: tell me the evidence the video presents that refutes the big bang theory.

If what you tell me makes sense, I'll watch the video. Facts, please.

In the first five minutes the guy puts up a photo of Darwin, as if this has anything to do with the big bang theory.

He obviously doesn't realize that the big bang was a one-time event. Natural selection of random big bang "mutations" has zero relevance to big bang cosmology. No reputable scientist turns to Darwinism as proof the big bang theory is correct.

Given this inauspicious first five minutes, I figured the video only goes downhill from there. But again: if you can share some facts from the video that show this guy knows more than the scientific community, please do so.

Please understand that I'm under no obligation to peruse every web site someone tells me about. I'm sure you're also selective. Often I take a glance at something and say to myself, "Nope, that doesn't interest me." This video is one of those "nope's."

[tAo]

Brian,

You said: "tell me the evidence the video presents" Well sorry, but I am not going to do that. There is way too much ground to cover there, and you have already taken a prematurely skeptical but unfounded attitude, and so you'll just have to go watch it yourself.

I am not here to prove anything to you. I just simply shared something that I (mistakenly) thought that you would find rather intersting. But you did not even give it a reasonable chance. And it appears that you also have the same shitty attitude towards me about such things as Lane has. So I am not going to extend my self any further. I am not here to defend that video. You will have to come to your own analysis and conclusions about it.

You said: "I figured the video only goes downhill from there." Well, I think that you "figured" wrong.

I also never said that you were "under obligation to peruse every web site" that someone tells you about. But don't NOT watch the video, and then make a bunch of bullshit conclusions that have little or nothing to do with what was actually presented in the video. That's just lame. If you don't want to view the video, that's your choice, but then don't jump to criticise something you have not seen.

[Brian]

tAo, to me reality is important. It's all we have. You're correct: I'm skeptical when someone claims that evolution, the big bang, general relativity, and the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, and he's right.

I'll look at evidence. So far, I haven't seen any in support of Joseph's weird theories.

[poohbear]

As far as discovering and observing the physical world is concerned, I like science. As far as discovering or becoming what consciousness is etc. I like mysticism. I find that the two don't mix that well. Different tools for different paradigms.
As far as Big Bang theory is concerned - it is a theory, and has a long way to go until proven. This isn't my view, because I'm not a cosmologist. But having read what is currently known about Big Bang theory in the writings of a respected cosmologist, he made the following statement:(my paraphrase)
That Big Bang is at present the preferred theory. However, for it be satisfactorily proven, cosmologists estimate that it would require 17 factors to be known. They currently have 3 factors, each of which are unrelated to each other. In order for Big Bang theory to exist currently requires the remaining 14 factors to be "free parameters". They hope eventually to discover these factors, but for the time being they remain hypotheses.
So we might have to wait and see on this one. But to refer to Big Bang as the proven origin of the universe is to handle the truth somewhat recklessly.

[tucson]

Brian,
I agree with tAo's comment posted above at 3:12 pm. Maybe not every remark, but generally.

You wrote: "tucson, you can save me some time by summarizing the grand insights of the You Tube video. What door of perception was opened for you?..I'll repeat the question I asked of tucson: tell me the evidence the video presents that refutes the big bang theory...If what you tell me makes sense, I'll watch the video. Facts, please."

--I'm not smart enough to summarize it for you. I don't know a red from a blue shift or a quark from a proton. I'm a high school drop out, a right-brain type. My response was visceral, spiritual if you will, rather than intellectual. That was what I meant by my over-dramatized "doors of perception". Set aside 58 minutes and watch the video. What a universe!! Scientists will never encapsulate it and wrap it up with a shiney red ribbon.

[the elephant]

What a lame cop out that tucson has delivered to us ...

Throw sprinkles in others' faces ... then when the magic dust has settled on the floor and the clotheless emperor exposed simply say: oups!... and sidestep the issue with more banalities and irrelevances such as "Scientists will never encapsulate it and wrap it up with a shiney red ribbon"

[Brian]

tAo and Tucson, here's the thing about science: in contrast with religion, you have to prove your point. You can't just say, "believe me!"

So if this YouTube expert on the universe has proof that mainstream science is wrong about the big bang, evolution, and relativity theory, it's up to him to prove that he's correct.

That's why I can criticize him without knowing much about his theories. He hasn't subjected them to scientific inquiry. He's taking the religious route -- writing stuff down and expecting people to take it on faith, without factual reasons.

"Bring it on, dude!" science says to this guy. Write up your theories. Submit them to a respected science journal. Have experts in cosmology and evolution critique the paper(s).

Christian and Muslim fundamentalists don't believe in evoluton or the big bang. A fairly recent court case in the U.S. found that evolution is settled science; creationism isn't. Big bang cosmology also has a wealth of evidence supporting it.

So I hope you can understand why, when I'm sent a link to a You Tube video by a guy who doesn't believe in evolution or the big bang, I view him the same as any other religious fundamentalist. Again, prove it, dude.

Fundamentalism comes in many guises. Monotheistic/Western. Eastern/New Age. Whatever. I reject it in every form. Science is one of our main bulwarks against religious craziness. It keeps us from believing every weird idea that comes along.

Jesus saves. Guru is god. The big bang never happened. Reality has to be defended, no matter what sort of fundamentalist is attacking it.

Read this Wikipedia article. Then tell me which of the observational evidence supporting the big bang theory this guy refutes. I bet, none of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[tAo]

Brian,

You have it all wrong. And thats because you simply did not see the video. Here's why:

You said: "if this YouTube expert on the universe has proof that mainstream science is wrong about the big bang, evolution, and relativity theory, it's up to him to prove that he's correct."

-- He did not say that science is all wrong. He showed and does "prove" how some theories are faulty science.

"That's why I can criticize him without knowing much about his theories."

-- Its not about HIS theories, its about the faulty theories surrounding the bigbang theory that are not based in proven scientific fact. If you had seen the video, then you would not be arguing and barking up the wrong tree here.

"He hasn't subjected them to scientific inquiry."

-- No. The entire video is about scrutinizing and inquiring into the supposed scientific basis for these generally accepted, but thus far UN-PROVEN theories.

"He's taking the religious route -- writing stuff down and expecting people to take it on faith, without factual reasons."

-- Wrong again. He does quite the opposite. He shows how several of the supposed scientific premeises are actually based soley upon faith and belief and faulty reason. So just cut the crap and go watch the damn video.

" 'Bring it on, dude!' science says to this guy."

-- No, thats exactly what this guy is saying to them. He shows and proves how their supposed facts are really just assumptions and are faulty.

"Have experts in cosmology and evolution critique"

-- These so-called "experts" are not all presenting solid science. Even at my meagre level of scientific knowledge I can can see that. For instance, their ideas regarding red and blue shift are faulty. And there is quite a bit of disagreement in the scientific community regarding the so-called big-bang. Even the suppoed age of the universe is in serious question. So you are obviously not well-rounded in your reading.

"Christian and Muslim fundamentalists don't believe in evoluton or the big bang."

-- The video was not about religion, it was about solid science, not theological assumptions masquerading as science.

"Big bang cosmology also has a wealth of evidence supporting it."

-- No it doesn't. And musch oif the so-called evidence is not accurate. Just watch the damn video and then decide.

"So I hope you can understand why, when I'm sent a link to a You Tube video by a guy who doesn't believe in evolution or the big bang,"

-- But I was that "guy" who "sent a link to a You Tube video". And who said that I don't "believe in evolution" or in proven scientific facts? Quite the opposite. I think you have me pegged wrong. You sound like Lane again. More of the same kind of mistaken crap.

"I view him the same as any other religious fundamentalist."

-- I am not a religious fundamentalist, and I don't think the guy who made the video is either (but since I have not checked him out thoroughly, I could be wrong) It seems that you are making alot of assumptions here that are not clearly evident. And I don't know ehat that guy believes. I just watched his video and alot of it made sense.

"Again, prove it, dude."

-- The guy does explain/prove a few things if you saw the video.

"Fundamentalism comes in many guises. Monotheistic/Western. Eastern/New Age. Whatever. I reject it in every form."

-- Thats exactly what the video was revealing -a trype of scientific fundamentism. So you are still shooting at the wrong target.

"Science is one of our main bulwarks against religious craziness. It keeps us from believing every weird idea that comes along."

-- But where was the "religious craziness" in the video? Can you please indicate where exactly, so that I can discern for myself?

"Reality has to be defended, no matter what sort of fundamentalist is attacking it."

-- That's precisely why you should watch the video.... and you might even learn something.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear Brian,

I am surprised to note the followings from the owner of a blog called "church of the churchless", the comments on the post"Churchless on the rise in United States".

Brian March 03, 2008 at 10:44 AM *tAo, I managed to watch a whole 58 seconds of the You Tube video before my B.S. detector started ringing wildly.
BrianMarch 03, 2008 at 03:32 PM
*understand that I'm under no obligation to peruse every web site someone tells me about.

What kind of sincerity and honesty do you expect from the bloggers here. One should be open enough to admit one's mistake.

You will have strong arguments to defend yourself.

Pl let me apologize, if I have surpassed my limits to point this out.

with love

[Brian]

Rakesh, it was instantly obvious to me that this guy is one of those cranks who don't believe in evolution, the big bang, or modern science. They're all over the Internet, along with people who believe the moon landings were faked and no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

I just don't have time to explore every anti-scientific wacko notion. Religions, by and large, also are anti-science. I'm pro science. Science is very much into considering alternative explanations when evidence doesn't match up with a theory.

This You Tube video starts out by calling science faith-based. That's completely wrong, so anything else the guy says is based on a false premise.

You shouldn't be surprised that I'm so skeptical of this You Tube diatribe, because I reject religious approaches to knowing reality. Give me facts, not unfounded beliefs. Like I've been saying, if this guy has facts that science has been ignoring, he needs to publish them in a respected journal, not on You Tube.

[tucson]

Elephant,
I admit that sometimes I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. It sounded kind of neat though...sprinkles, magic dust. Kinda poetic. But, did you just call me a banal, irrelevant, naked emperor? M'fucker, them's fightin' words in my neck 'o the woods! ;)

[Brian]

As a final big bang comment for tonight...I realize that I sound closed-minded on this subject.

Tomorrow I'll probably write a blog post about why I'm so passionate about keeping science scientific and spirituality spiritual.

These are two different ways of knowing reality. When they get mixed together, it's unfortunate.

For 18 years this has been one of my passions. I've pondering this stuff until ponders ooze out of my brain holes.

Tomorrow I'll try to do a better job of explaining why anti-scientific attitudes bother me so much.

[tAo]

Brian,

I don't think you gave Dr Joseph half a chance.

So ponder on this:

Dr. Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.

Dr. Joseph is a world renowned neuropsychologist and expert in psychological and neuropsychological testing, as well as cognitive & memory retraining and rehabilitation for brain-injured adults and children. He has published best selling textbooks and dozens of scientific studies in prestigious scientific journals.

Dr Joseph's site - BrainMind:

http://brainmind.com

Dr. Rhawn Joseph - Biographical Background & Publications:

http://www.brainmind.com/publications.html

Articles, Images, Archives, Galleries, Contents:

http://brainmind.com/Contents.html

Brain & Mind Video Lecture Series, Documentary Movies & Short Films, Astrobiology:

http://brainmind.com/AllBrainMindMovies.html

Published Books:

http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Rhawn+Joseph

Articles about Dr. Joseph:

http://illuminated.netfirms.com/a_hardwired.htm

http://www.nj.com/specialprojects/index.ssf?/specialprojects/seekers/seekers3.html

[adam]

yo guys,
just read this whole comment thread.
A couple of thoughts.
I fully defend Brian's or anyone's right to do with his/their time whatever they want, even if it means making a snap judgment. We all make snap judgments all the time; it's a part of being human. Tucson also has the right to come to his "sprinkles and pie" conclusion about the beauty of this crazy universe based on the same video.

Making a snap judgment does not make someone closed minded--it means theat they are using discrimination. The tools behind this discrimination need to be evaluated, of course, so harmful prejudice is kept to a minimum, but time is short folks, and we don't have all day.

Rakesh, I don't understand why you're disappointed with Brian's reaction? In this context, he is just a blogger, not a pastor, and has no obligation to his "posters/parishioners."

tAo, why are you so reactive? I don't want you to change the way you express yourself, as you have claimed on this site. But it does bother me when you repeatedly threaten to stop sharing ideas just because you don't like someone else's reaction. Can you explain why you keep doing this?

[Brian]

tAo, thanks for the links. I'd already looked at some of them, including Joseph's web site. I perused this page to learn more about his beliefs:
http://brainmind.com/TransmitterToGod.html

Joseph considers that the brain contains a "god transmitter." Well, that's fine. But it sure isn't science. It's religious. And he has every right to not believe in evolution, the big bang, relativity theory, and the laws of thermodynamics.

But this also isn't science. It's religious belief. I'll discuss this more today in a post about the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, science and religion, "I" and "It," truth and beauty.

Here's an excerpt from Joseph's web site that offers a good summary of his world view.
----------------
"And yet, how do we reconcile spirituality and religiosity with the 'big bang,' the belief that life originated in an organic soup, and with Darwinian principles of random mutations as the basis of human evolution?

There is no need for a reconciliation, for as we shall see in later chapters, the big bang is a myth, we have no idea as to the age of the universe, the proverbial organic 'alphabet' soup was missing all essential ingredients for the creation of life and DNA, whereas the Darwinian theory of evolution is refuted by genetics and the fossil record.

The big bang, organic soup, and Darwin's theory, are but myths propagated by the Temple Priests of Science; myths which have replaced previous scientific myths, which replaced those older still.

By contrast, and, as we shall see in later chapters, there is a scientific, genetic, and neurological basis for religious and spiritual experience. The brain has evolved the capacity to act as a transmitter to god. It is this neurological, genetic, as well as this spiritual foundation which explains the historical and cross-cultural commonalty in religious experience, including belief in gods, angels, demons, ghosts, and goddesses.

...Humans have similar religious experiences because these experiences are real and are perceived in a similar manner by the same regions of the brain. Each and every human is born with a brain and mind that serves as a transmitter to god, and to the gods."

[Richard Fu'e Fu'e]

A paragraph from Maharaj Sawan Singh's book Spiritual Gems letter 153 published by Radha Soami Satsang Beas-2004 ed.......

"We are expecting much from America.The average person in America is much nearer to this teaching than in any portion of Europe.The day will come when your people will turn to Sant Mat....
Some day the great work there will assume much larger proportions.
You may look confidently for it, in your own time. Be ready for it.

As the saying goes-when the disciple is ready the guru appears-this would apply to all of us seeking a way to the light.we can only go so far , by ourselves in the spiritual realm-the master disciple relationship- is the only one that makes sense.

If we want to learn -we need a teacher, a guide-we can teach ourselves to a certain point, we can go no further.

No martial artist awards himself a black belt,no pre med can lecture at a med school-so we underlings of spirituality need to seek a teacher, logically that would be the only choice-left to us.

Charan Singh once said "It is not time wasted ,it is time gained"
all of this intellectual thought,debate etc-we have that freedom to critique,to talk about,reflect and so we should before committing to any philosophy.Baba Ji the present master at RSSB
says the same thing-"why be in a hurry to join the long faces."
Referring to many of us we who rushed in to get initiated into a spiritual path -with so much expectation-that we were sorely disappointed when our expectations were not met.The thing with spirituality-is nothing goes wasted-every incremental thought of -merging with the infinite-which in fact is what will happen to us all-eventually.We will die we will return to dust,air,water our soul will go back to the father-our desires will bring us back again into the wheel of birth and rebirth.Reincarnation,the evolution of the human race,from amoeba to the top of creation.That is why we have a golden opportunity to get out of the cycle of coming and going-by being peaceful,meditating,living on a lacto -vegetarian diet,eschewing mind affecting drugs,alcohol,leading a moral life,being celbate or married.All the masters were-why? So as they could meditate-10% of our brains we utilise-the other 90% is I believe allocated to meditate-on the life force within -the shabd,logos,kalma,tao,word-the light and sound.
Perfect living masters never charge a penny ,never advertise nor attempt to convert anyone-the path of the saints is caught not taught-their successors have always been chosen by the teacher while alive and made evident by a notarised will-the successors have never sought the position. Many fakes and frauds have come but they have not been given permission to initiate anyone.As a student of sant mat for 25 years-my research into other faiths etc and their so called followers I have analysed their despicable claims and accusations about RSSB and the compassionate teachers past and present and all I can say is-

1) don't blame the coach if you yourself have failed on the track and field,

2) dont criticise the path of spiritualty if you haven't had the guts to go inside-and reach the ultimate.

3) If you have never been to dera and had the chance to sit with 900,000 people in pin drop silence and see the perfect living master do his sewa, have his darshan and listen to his discourse for 2 hours-dont criticise what you dont know nor understand.

4) to those Ex-sat groups-don't be such a coward or pussy -go and sit down and do your bhajan,simran dhyan like you promised-what is wrong with Love-its only the past karmas YOU yourself createdthat is making your meditation suffer-IT IS YOU who is the problem not the Master who is waitng for you, it is not the path which is the same path Jesus trod,John the Baptist,Guru Nanak,Buddha,Mohammed.Kabir-whats the problem -Charan Singh doesnt love you? Of course he loves you -why did he accept you-because he hates you ? No it is our minds agent of the negative power at work here.Come back to the table and take your medicine ex-sat people.Love,love.love,lovelove and compassion -thats all sant mat is-do your simran right now and let those angry tears roll down-the master is all forgiveness, he is all light and he will never turn his back on you Satsangi people-there is NO EX in Sant Mat.Dera is always open October 16 2008 -April 6 2009 or such-Baba Ji has so much love to give you all-Peteluma,Fayetteville,Kitchener,NY etc the path of love is never smooth, the truer the love the rocky the road some time-and yet He is always waitng for us to return, let us make that booking,go and sit,read that book ,go to a meeting-yes we are a support group-yes your problems are masters problems -he is our father-not the negatives of this world-we need the bulldozer, we need to go to the meetings -we all need to sit and meditate, we all need to go to dera-to be in the atmosphere- of surat shabdville-Great Master Baba Ji Sardar Bahadur Charan Singh Soami ji-all encapsulated in the Ringing Radiance of the shabd.
yes we may listen to it in our state -but the concentration of 500,000 souls doing the same simran and bhajn at the same time has an elevating effect on our conciousness-plus we get to see up close our teacher a living Charn,Sawan,Sardar Bahadur,Soami Ji Jesus,Buddha-All saints in one-why would we turn our backs on that-we do, and then we realise then we dont.No foul -He LOVES US! There is no penalty except we just missed out on the opportunity to be loved-longer,so my dears attend to surat shabd yoga if initiated, go to dera if you haven't been-and re read the books -listen to the new cd set that is out
and lets fly into the masters realm-leaving all this BS of a world behind for a while.Radha Soami.heaven Gods realm -all the same to me-God Bless you all ex ex Sat people and welcome home brothers and sisters.Radha Soami Alofa isi oi. Richard Fu'e Fu'e

[Marcel Cairo]

Brian, I know you are an intelligent person. You have written some wonderful posts in the past, but you are starting to get really boring with your myopic, single-focused dogmatic interpretation of faith.

Basically, I think you are starting to emulate your hero Richard Dawkins so much, you don't even see that you've given up the journey of self-discovery in order to serve as a foot soldier in a lost cause.

Like one of your readers stated earlier in the comments, faith and science are not an either or or decision. I am sure that you have a certain faith that both history and love have a valid place in your world view, but neither of them fit into your ass-kissing of the scientific method.

Let me ask you this, if you had a friend who was an alcoholic, would you send them to AA or to an atheist meeting?

Yeah, I thought so.

"tAo, why are you so reactive? I don't want you to change the way you express yourself, as you have claimed on this site. But it does bother me when you repeatedly threaten to stop sharing ideas just because you don't like someone else's reaction. Can you explain why you keep doing this?"

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is defined as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy" that is marked by an excessive sense of self importance. People who are narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated, and/or threatened when disagreed with or even slightly criticized. Most commonly, such feelings operate on a subconscious level and would rarely be admitted, or even recognized, by someone suffering from NPD. To protect themselves from such perceived threats, the narcissist will often react with exaggerated disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any disagreement -- if it conflicts with their entrenched world view or insecure sense of self -- regardless of whether the perceived threat is real or imagined.

[Marcel Cairo]

Anyway, if people are really interested in a more intelligent discussion/debate regarding real scientific research into consciousness survival, check out the http://www.skeptiko.com podcast and the Skeptiko discussion forum http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/

[Joseph]

Richard Fu'e Fu'e,

Wait! It's not too late. You're on the wrong path. I was a satsangi for years until I discovered the unsurpassed greatness of the Saptha Rishi. There are only seven in the whole galaxy! They make the RSSB gurus look like neophytes. Only seven for all the billions of planets and stars and we have one right here on earth...Sri Kagapujandar, aka Swami Dharmalingam. All hail Dharmalingam Ji with the following chant, especially attuned to the vibration of denizens of our galaxy..

Hari dubniga akaya
Kaga maga daya
Lama bagha mugnatha
Alakha Magaya Ka
Alakha Magaya Ka

Blessings be to thee oh my brethren,
Forever yours in celestial Love.

Kagapujandar Jai

http://www.kagapujandar.com/

[Bob]

Dear Richard:

After twenty plus years in Sant Mat, I found no evidence that the many RS mystical claims are true.

I found no evidence for reincarnation, never saw the radiant form of the master, never witnessed any inner stars,moons,or light or anything remotely spoken of in the RS literature.

When I first got initiated, I was expecting to experience an inner verification of the teachings. I thought that I would eventually come to know the inner Master and what lies beyond our lives here on earth. But, nothing happened. The mind never settled down and I felt a sense of lack in the area of personal spirituality.

Sant Mat eventually evolved for me into another form of Christianity. Jesus saves and so does the living guru. What I thought was a path to "experience" and inner transformation was really a path of redemption, based on faith that the guru would come and save me when I died.

What I had hoped for was a teacher who was going to help me see beyond the ego self and thus recognize the higher self within. But, nothing happened.

I know people today who brag about how great the Master is. Yea, and I can brag about how great Santa Claus is too. We think we know the guru but we don't him anymore than we know Ringo or Paul. I know my neighbor down the street far better than I'll ever know Gurinder Singh.

IMO, our so-called relationship with the Master is based on fantasy...and really doesn't exist except in our own ideal world. You know, it's quite comforting to believe that the guru will come and save us from rebirth or the jaws of kal.

But, the interesting thing about all this dreamland stuff is that it prevents us from living in the moment..today..right now! For so long, my life in Sant Mat was centerd on getting "somewhere else" and certainly not here!

I'm beginning to understand that we can't see the mind and our "conditioned" fantasies and "tape recordings" for what they are until we start living "gently" in the present.

Bob

[tAo]

Richard said:

"we can only go so far , by ourselves in the spiritual realm-the master disciple relationship- is the only one that makes sense."

-- It is the only one that makes sense to YOU. You speak only for yourself.

"If we want to learn -we need a teacher, a guide-we can teach ourselves to a certain point, we can go no further."

-- YOU "need a teacher, a guide". YOU "can go no further".

"we underlings of spirituality need to seek a teacher"

-- YOU "need to seek a teacher".

"Charan Singh once said ...."

-- Who gives a damn what he said.

"which in fact is what will happen to us all-eventually.....our desires will bring us back again into the wheel of birth and rebirth."

-- You mean what will happen to YOU.

"get out of the cycle of coming and going-by being peaceful,meditating,living on a lacto -vegetarian diet,eschewing mind affecting drugs,alcohol,leading a moral life,being celbate or married."

-- That's YOUR trip, but don't foist it upon others.

"the life force within -the shabd,logos,kalma,tao,word-the light and sound."

-- Blah blah blah

"Perfect living masters never...never...never..."

-- "Perfect living masters" is a bunch of rubbish.

"I have analysed their despicable claims and accusations about RSSB"

-- You mean YOUR "despicable claims about RSSB".

"I was a satsangi for years until I discovered the unsurpassed greatness of the Saptha Rishi. There are only seven in the whole galaxy! They make the RSSB gurus look like neophytes."

guru-go-round, and round, and round ...
can't wait to hear about the next one ...
that usurps the last one ...
and round and round she goes ...

[Brian]

Richard, as tAo correctly pointed out, you extrapolate your personal love and devotion for a particular guru/path into something universal.

If you're not aware of what you're doing, you should be. Your experience is your own. Nobody can, or should, talk you out of what clearly is so deeply meaningful to you.

I'd just suggest that you mentally reframe all those "you" and "we" statements into "I" statements. Recognize the difference between what you personally believe and what is true for everybody.

That's humbler. And also truer.

"I know what it is to be awakened, and to have true wisdom in the self-perfected state of true realization." -- tAo

"My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht."
-- Looney Tunes, 1955

[Brian]

Bob, nicely said.

[joseph]

It is most unfortuante the commenter above at 11:05am mocks the galactic chant "Alakha Magaya Ka", the only thing that can save you from the pralayam in 2037. I am saddened by the direspect and ignorance shown by this poor, unfortunate soul. May this ignorance be dispelled by the following holy words:

om bol maha baba kaka
kaka nada brinham jai
lalu bunakai kriham
maha kaka, maha kaka
maha baba kaka

repeat three times every five minutes for 10 cycles facing the sun at sunrise for purification of ignorance. A light breakfast of skinless, seedless fruit should follow. Hybridized varieties such as hawaiian solo papayas should be eschewed because they are in discordance with the vibration of the pralayam chant "Alakha Magaya Ka".

This is my final word on the subject. your destiny will be as it must as ordained by the grace of Sri Sri Ji.

[Brian]

Marcel, if I had a friend who was an alcoholic, I wouldn't send them to an AA meeting. I'd send them to a doctor specializing in addiction treatment.

I just read an interesting article in Newsweek about how science (yes, science!) is overturning long-held ideas about addiction being a problem of "will power" or "spirituality."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/114716

Excerpt: "If you weigh advances in neuroscience over the last few decades against social and spiritual progress, it's clear which field is more likely to produce the next breakthrough in treatments."

[tAo]

Brian,

Thanks for explaining that to Richard in a concise, sensible, and polite manner.

-------------------------------------

To the anonymous poster who repeatedly leaves his/her name blank:

If you don't at least give some way for others to identify and differentiate your comments, instead of always leaving your name blank, then few if anybody here will take or regard what you say with any seriousness or validity. As Brian recently pointed out as well, your little habit and game of hiding in obscurity by leaving the name box blank - by not giving some simple consistent identifying name - is clearly a cowardly and evasive game. You haven't got the guts to simply put some name, any name, in the name box. So you apparently don't want anyone to know or to identify whether or not you are the same commenter as other previous posted comments that have no name. So you are basically wasting your various comments by not at least giving some consistent identifying name, initials, or some identifying word symbol.

And btw, your futile attempts at critical humor are quite vacuous and lame and foolish. Other than vague unidentified quotations, you don't even clearly delineate who it is or or what it is that you are criticising. Which is also consistent with your deliberate anonymity, your repeated refusal to identify yourself.

In case you don't know, here on the internet no one pays any attention to people like you who deliberately hid behind total anonymity.

[tAo]

maha = great
baba = father
kaka = shit

thus, "maha baba kaka" means "great father of shit"

as for "kagpujandar" [ http://www.kagapujandar.com ]

kaga (kaka) = shit
pujandar = ritual-priest

thus, "kagapujandar" means "the priest of the shit ritual"

[joseph]

tAo,

Your perceptions are excellent and to be commended. Kaka does indeed mean shit, but not ordinary shit, rather Holy Shit. You see, the universe has both consumptive and eliminative functions. Sri Dharmalingam, being the incarnation of the eliminative function of the universe is indeed a master of universal shit. He came from the constellation Taurus (the bull) so he is indeed the master of Bullshit.

[Robert Duncan McNeill]

"Dr. Joseph is a world renowned neuropsychologist and expert in psychological and neuropsychological testing, as well as cognitive & memory retraining and rehabilitation for brain-injured adults and children. He has published best selling textbooks and dozens of scientific studies in prestigious scientific journals."

World renowned then... so that couldn't be a touch of hyperbole could it?
As for Rhawn Joseph being any kind of authority on abiogenesis, cosmology or astrophysics he isn't.
He had to put a fake peer reviewed journal with his "scientific paper" up on the scienceblog.com website to make his unsubstantiated ideas look like real science.