Do you agree with my Churchless Creed?

On November 23, 2004 I published my first posts on this Church of the Churchless blog.

Over the succeeding 18+ years those posts in the "Basics of our faithless faith" category still ring true to me, by and large.

I guess this shows that skepticism about dogmatic religious belief and being positive about open-minded spiritual inquiry rests on some pretty damn solid ground. But that's just my opinion.

So I thought it'd be interesting to share what I said in the Our Creedless Creed post and see if anyone has a good reason to challenge any of the points made there. I'll make some brief comments in red about how I currently view the points.

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

Note: to make this Creed more readable, some qualifiers have been omitted. So "God" signifies God/ultimate reality/final truth, not just a personal divinity. And "religion" signifies religion/spiritual path/philosophy, not just a mainstream theology.

There is no objective proof that any religion knows the truth about God. If there were such proof, most people on Earth would have converted to that faith long ago and all scientists would be believers.
This seems as true today as when I said it in 2004. But I should have said, "...knows the truth about God, assuming God exists."

Spirituality thus is an individual affair. Proof of any metaphysical realities that exist will be subjective, not demonstrable to others.
Yes, provided that we realize individual proof is not only subjective, but also illusory if the subjective proof is flawed, mistaken, incomplete, or otherwise weak.

Every person has the right to pursue their own spiritual quest without interference, so long as he or she doesn't interfere with the rights of others.
Absolutely. I still heartily agree.

Since the veracity of each and every religion is unprovable, equally unprovable are the moral and ethical tenets derived from any and all religious teachings.
Still seems completely true from my atheist perspective.

Thus morality also is an individual affair. There are no absolute laws of right and wrong as there are absolute laws of physics. Subjectivity rules in ethics.
Wouldn't change a word.

Individual ethical decisions may be formed into a collective codification of societal norms, or laws. These are purely human, not divine.
I'm unclear what I meant by the initial part of the first sentence. Now I'd say "A collective codification of subjective societal norms, or laws, is purely human, not divine."

Science is the surest means of finding truth. Theory, experiment, analysis of data: such are the tools of science, whether directed toward knowing material or immaterial reality.
Basically sounds fine to me, though now I'd make the ending "...toward knowing material reality or any immaterial reality that might exist."

Religious teachings are hypotheses to be confirmed through individual research. As such, they must not be taken as gospel truth by adherents of a particular faith.
Yes.

Religious doubters, skeptics, and heretics should be honored for their efforts to assure that unproven assertions about God are not put forward as solid truth.
Absolutely, especially since I'm one of those doubters, skeptics, and heretics.

Every adherent of a particular religion should say to himself or herself,"I could be wrong." If he or she won't do this, other people can say it for them: "You could be wrong."
Yes. 

This creedless creed of the Church of the Churchless also could be wrong. It needs to be reexamined and revised regularly.
I don't want to change the original post. But maybe I should add a link to a mildly revised Creedless Creed.

Death provides the final answers (if only momentarily). The spiritual quest is to get answers ahead of time. But the big question is, "What are the questions?"
Now I'm not sure that death provides any sort of final answer, since if there is no life after death, that can't be known by dying, since knowledge belongs only to the living. This is a point that could be deleted from the Creedless Creed.

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

As a final observation about this Creedless Creed, some might see a contradiction between my saying that (1) spirituality is an individual affair where evidence is subjective, and (2) unproven assertions about God shouldn't be put forward as solid truth.

I don't see any contradiction. What I was getting at here is that I have no problem with someone saying "This is what I personally experienced about... [God, the supernatural, heaven, angels, soul, divine light/sound, or whatever].

But I do have a big problem with someone claiming that their personal experience reflects an objective fact about the cosmos. To make that claim, solid demonstrable evidence would need to be provided. Which, to my knowledge, has never occurred at any time in human history. 

That's why I started off by saying, "There is no objective proof that any religion knows the truth about God."

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

I agree with much of the above, except for those claims about objective truth.

Everything science teaches us about the human brain supports the conclusion that whatever you think you know, it's subjective. Information has been conditioned and selected, manipulated, emphasized, or erased even before you see it. It wasn't done by the government. It wasn't done by a particular religion, or by Atheists, or by a particular political party.

Your brain does this. All the time.

So to claim some objective truth is possible to know, I don't believe that.

However, this same brain does function, after all those millennia of evolution, to help us see think and act effectively within our surroundings. We can filter and parse information, and create concepts to model reality. The brain builds models of reality so we can function in reality better, more effectively.

But it's woefully imperfect. It is an approximation of reality, influenced by emotion, biochemistry, conditioning, desire, avoidance, pleasure and pain.

That has proven to not be particularly objective outside of our immediate surroundings. Therefore, to claim some pure understanding of truth through that mechanism has been, for the most part, with small exception, subjective, and historically, flawed. When we try to conjecture about things that have no basis in evidence or personal experience, generally we are wrong. But even trying to understand what we do have some experience with, we can be very wrong and generally are. Those things we have lots of experience with, every day, every moment, those we can test and are more likely to understand correctly, at least as far as our relationship to that experience or that data goes.

But without such experience, without a constant stream of verifiable data, our conjecture is generally wrong. Without that experience and data constantly available, human judgment has been historically, consistently wrong conjecturing what is, and wrong conjecturing what isn't.

If science teaches us that we can be more objective about matters throughly investigated by science, repeatable, verifiable, but those matters require scientific rigor and significant testing, then I don't think commentary about anything science hasn't thoroughly tested can be anything more than subjective.

Clinging to the dualistic notion that we can know truth from falsehood when the mechanism to determine that discrimination, human thinking, is woefully biased, is a patently false conclusion.

At best, you can determine what is truthful among your friends who all operate within the same set of agreed premeses. You can use logic among those who already agree on the basics.

But those basics can and generally do include subjective conclusions and their own prejudices, preferences and biases.

Religion, spirituality, prayer and meditation practice offer mechanisms to transcend some of the biases of one's own thinking, to perceive outside our own biased logic. But when accepted superficially, they are another set of prejudices and biases.

And that is why the product of those practices is both ridiculous and transcendant: patently false and insightful. Both, at once, in one moment. Satori, enlightenment, in one moment, throws all our notions into the trash. Yet on the face of it, is nonsensical. And taken as some socially accepted set of laws, becomes the foundation for bigotry and harm.

It is still subjective. And therefore truth is going to be just our truth, just a subjective truth that can only apply to us, to one person, individually.

But through vigilance and effort, listening and digesting, learning and understanding, it can become more objective, in degrees. We can capture a principle, a truth, that is impossible to think through, or even to put into words. But that truth only applies to us.

[Spence Tepper]

And when we complain that Truth shouldn't be exclusive, but most of what we call Truth can only be subjective truth, whether it is a Truth of what stands before us bit no one else, or A Truth of we can't see it, that doesn't exist for us, then sadly, the vast majority of personal truths are going to be exclusive. We can't know someone else's truth we have to find our own, a truth no one else has access to. They can only have access to their own exclusive truth, however similar or dissimilar to our own.

[Spence Tepper]

When we claim to know Truth, it is only relative to our own premeses, however objective or subjective.

And when we claim someone else's truth is false, that is only a statement of subjective truth within our own premeses of belief, understanding and experience.

[SantMat64]

This whole "truth is subjective" narrative from some of the habitués of this forum is a bit much, especially coming from those who struggle session the people who choose to leave Sant mat. I've heard this narrative for the last 20 years from amateur apologists. They from somewhere got the idea that diversity of opinion means that everyone with an opinion is equally correct, and that this pov is the essence of an enlightened outlook. But this is nonsense, easily disproved. and not a little hypocritical given that those who espouse this mumbo jumbo labor endlessly to declare their pov correct and everyone else's in error. And, given they subscribe to a spiritual tradition that in no way "honor's everyone's truth" or other such gibberish, it smacks of hypocrisy.

"Wait," they exclaim. "Sant mat teaches that all religions deserve respect, and moreover are all based on mystic traditions that are precisely in line with Sant mat's dictums." Uh, no, not really. "Respect" is a relative term that has far more to do with human courtesy than it does with actually agreement. To test that out, ask the guru if he agrees that it was divine inspiration that prompted Mohammed to take 9 wives, the youngest of whom was 6 yrs old. Tell me that was Mohammed's truth and thus worth of respect. That's an extreme example perhaps, but try to find any guru really agreeing with the precepts of Christianity or Buddhism or other Hindu sects. Using ample historical fabulism they'll redefine these religions, but never actually validate them as they are in "teaching the same truth."

Though I sometimes vehemently disagree with the author of COTC's opinions, I much respect his right to voice those opinions. But the "truth is relative" crowd nauseates me, as their "argument," if we can call it that, boils down to "If you were truly spiritual like me you'd never complain, so you should really shut up."

There is no more insipid phrase in the world of philosophy and religion than "truth is relative." The idea that everything is relative is an actually an argument from nothing more than sentimentality . It's utterly anti-intellectual, anti-critical thinking, anti- in any way useful.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi SantMat64
I appreciate your opinion but it is about someone else:
You wrote:
""Wait," they exclaim. "Sant mat teaches that all religions deserve respect, and moreover are all based on mystic traditions that are precisely in line with Sant mat's dictums."
No, that isn't what I claim at all. It is, however, similar.

Let me clarify.
1. I'm not a spokesperson for Sant Mat or RSSB. All I can give you is my own view, which is subjective.
When I look through other spiritual literature, even Zen, even hard scientific literature, even such methods as Psychogenic training, and the Benson Relaxation Response, I see similar threads running through these. And when I review the actual hard scientific measurement of the effect of a variety of different forms of meditation and prayer, the results are similar. Therefore I conclude the brain mechanisms are going to be similar.

When I look at spiritual poetry in the Bible, which is largely poetic and metaphoric, I see references to things which are in my own experience. Naturally, they speak to me, but that is really my own experience speaking to me through the similarities in these writings.

If you had a different personal experience, you are going to interpret these things differently.

When Isaiah writes that all will one day live on the Holy Mountain of Jerusalem, even lions will lay down with lambs and all will be vegetarian, I see that as a reference to inner spiritual places, inner peace, not actual land.

Now, I was brought up by parents who left Judaism for this reason. They believed, and the Rabbi we had (who was fired for this) believed that the land of Jerusalem was within, spiritual and had nothing whatsoever to do with physical land. I was taught that there is no single inch of land worth a single drop of blood.

So, naturally, that influences how I see things.

You will see them differently, based on your upbringing and religion. If you thought that I was advocating anything other than an honest disclosure of my experience and belief then I'm sorry that is not at all what I meant, and I would add that I believe I've said something along these lines all throughout my comments.

Which means that when someone depicts someone else's views, that is fraught with the same problem of subjecfivity. You may not be seeing me. You are seeing the Spence you are building, your brain is reporting to you. Hence, that is your subjective view.

It's a universal condition.

However, you are going to be more accurate speaking to your own experience and upbringing. That actually happened, that is as legitimate as anyone else's experience.

[Brian Hines]

SantMat64, I agree with you about the simplistic notion that truth is subjective or relative. This is almost childish, something a freshman philosophy student would write about, believing that their immature brain now has overturned the foundation of science and other means of knowing objective reality.

On this blog, or rather in this blog's comments, Spence Tepper is a prime purveyor of this falsehood. Here's a recent comment from Tepper that illustrates this: (I corrected a spelling error)

"When we claim to know Truth, it is only relative to our own premises, however objective or subjective. And when we claim someone else's truth is false, that is only a statement of subjective truth within our own premises of belief, understanding and experience."

I want to ask Spence Tepper some questions about claims I believe are objectively false:

(1) There is convincing demonstrable evidence that God exists. Objectively false, Spence?
(2) Human-caused global warming is a myth. Objectively false, Spence?
(3) Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election. Objectively false, Spence?
(4) Gravity isn't one of the forces of nature. Objectively false, Spence?
(5) Humans, homo sapiens, were created 6,000 years ago. Objectively false, Spence?

What I'm trying to determine is whether Spence Tepper really believes the relativist, subjectivist views he spouts in comments, or whether this is just a trolling technique intended to create controversy and draw attention to himself. Do you really go through life unsure whether your and the world you inhabit are objectively real?

[Brian Hines]

Here's another way of expressing what irritates me about Spence Tepper's subjectivist approach to reality.

Because he can't provide objective evidence that his views about religion/mysticism are true, instead of saying "These are just my personal opinions," Tepper tries to demolish all of objective reality, for all of the 8 billion people in the world, by claiming that EVERYTHING is subjective and nothing is objectively real.

My hippie friends and I talked this way when high on drugs in our college days. But I've grown out of that. Tepper hasn't.

[um]

When young,there were a lot of questions with regard to Christianity that were seeking me out. Where else could I have gone at that time but to the priests?! I was stll in the habit in taking it for granted that the truth had to come from outside myself and .. from experts.

It was frustrating, to say te least. as It proved impossible to have them look at these questions let alone give me an answer.

Today, I understand that they were not free, so to say, to do so because if they had done they too would have to overthink their religious stronghold and why would they do so for somebody that had nothing to give them in return and .. as it was neither THEIR question, their doubts in the first place.

As long as a person needs a stick to walk, he would be insane if he would allow others to take it away. Only those that can walk on their own feet without losing their balance are free to go where the want and cannot be brought out of balance.

The question is .. what is the "stick"

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian:

You wrote:
"What I'm trying to determine is whether Spence Tepper really believes the relativist, subjectivist views he spouts in comments, or whether this is just a trolling technique intended to create controversy and draw attention to himself. Do you really go through life unsure whether your and the world you inhabit are objectively real?"

From above, I wrote:
"Those things we have lots of experience with, every day, every moment, those we can test and are more likely to understand correctly, at least as far as our relationship to that experience or that data goes.

"But without such experience, without a constant stream of verifiable data, our conjecture is generally wrong. Without that experience and data constantly available, human judgment has been historically, consistently wrong conjecturing what is, and wrong conjecturing what isn't.

"If science teaches us that we can be more objective about matters throughly investigated by science, repeatable, verifiable, but those matters require scientific rigor and significant testing, then I don't think commentary about anything science hasn't thoroughly tested can be anything more than subjective."

[Appreciative Reader]

"Do you agree with my Churchless Creed?"

...Oh yes, absolutely.

With one small difference. This might be merely semantics, that is, simply how we each phrase this; but it seems to me from your words here that you see religious truths as fundamentally unverifiable: so that spirituality, you seem to be saying, consists in acknowledging this on one hand, and on the other hand doing whatever personal subjective thing in this respect that appeals to one.

While that's reasonable enough, my personal take on this is just a bit different. Speaking for myself, I see spirituality as actualization of whatever ...spiritual, potential we might have. And that, as I see it, encompasses three elements (although in practice all three might be attempted simultaneously, but conceptually they're three separate stages):

1) See what spiritual potential is available out there --- per all of these different traditions, be they theistic or atheistic, any of them, all of them. And evaluate which of them are true, and which complete nonsense.
(I guess one solution to the equation, perhaps the most likely solution, is a zero matrix, that is to say, that all of them are bull. While that's one way to go, but I prefer to keep looking. At least so far.)

2) Of the ones that one deems are not complete nonsense, or at least that might not be complete nonsense, seek out which one wishes to attempt to actualize, to actually practice, to actually experience.
(That's a matrix thing again. Assuming more there's more than one spiritual "ideal", then one selects which of these appeal to one. Not to mention, at onother level, sifting the bull from the real, or at any rate the potentially real.)

3) And finally, seek to actualize whatever they require, and whatever they promise.

So, a mix of the subjective and the objective. Objectively, try to understand what all is available on the menu, as it were; and to sift the wheat from the chaff. And then assuming that anything of worth still remains, after the chaff is gotten rid of, then again, select a subset of what remains following both objective criteria (what might be "true"), and what subjective criteria as well (what appeals to one). And finally, attempt to actualize the above.

So I suppose there's this difference between how you view spirituality and how I view it, assuming this isn't just a matter of how you've happened to have phrased it. While you seem to have given up on spirituality holding any real, objective worth; and concentrate only on what subjective worth people derive from religions and stuff, while acknowledging the subjectivity of it; but I continue to test for objective worth in all of this, as best as I can. To me spirituality consists in both the objective testing, as well as the subjective actualization of whatever might (tentatively) pass muster in the objective test.

[Appreciative Reader]

Basis the above, if I may present my own take on the specifics you've mentioned here:

There is no objective proof that any religion knows the truth about God. If there were such proof, most people on Earth would have converted to that faith long ago and all scientists would be believers.

..........Yep, agreed. So far there seems to be none.

Spirituality thus is an individual affair. Proof of any metaphysical realities that exist will be subjective, not demonstrable to others.

..........I differ slightly here. That may be, or it may not. Even if not completely objective, but an intersubjective validation I do not rule out, at least not potentially. Kind of like working out, while all of your gains are essentially subjective, and the whole endeavor a subjective thing; but I'd need it to be objectively verifiable, and verified, in order to accept it.

Every person has the right to pursue their own spiritual quest without interference, so long as he or she doesn't interfere with the rights of others.

..........Oh yes, absolutely.

Since the veracity of each and every religion is unprovable, equally unprovable are the moral and ethical tenets derived from any and all religious teachings.

..........Agreed, with one difference. I'd say it is 'unproved'; not that it is necessarily "unprovable". A subtle difference, but an important one.

Thus morality also is an individual affair. There are no absolute laws of right and wrong as there are absolute laws of physics. Subjectivity rules in ethics.

..........Agreed, 100%. Regardless of whether one derives one's morality from religion and spirituality, or intellectualization, or instincts, or merely whim, but morality is necessarily a subjective and individual affair, agreed. (Obviously there remains an intersubjective element here, since we live in society not by ourselves, but that's more a matter of accommodation than of one's own morality per se.)

Individual ethical decisions may be formed into a collective codification of societal norms, or laws. These are purely human, not divine.

..........Agreed.

Science is the surest means of finding truth. Theory, experiment, analysis of data: such are the tools of science, whether directed toward knowing material or immaterial reality.

..........Yep, agreed, agreed fully.

Religious teachings are hypotheses to be confirmed through individual research. As such, they must not be taken as gospel truth by adherents of a particular faith.

..........Agreed, fully.

Religious doubters, skeptics, and heretics should be honored for their efforts to assure that unproven assertions about God are not put forward as solid truth.

..........With one small further addition. Every hot young chick should consider it their duty to support these brave skeptics, including yours truly, and give them whatever ...support, encouragement, they can, to keep up their spirits in this noble quest they've undertaken.

Every adherent of a particular religion should say to himself or herself,"I could be wrong." If he or she won't do this, other people can say it for them: "You could be wrong."

..........Absolutely.

This creedless creed of the Church of the Churchless also could be wrong. It needs to be reexamined and revised regularly.

..........Don't see how this can possibly go wrong, but sure, in as much as nothing should be outside of examination, and re-examination, to that extent, sure, why not.

Death provides the final answers (if only momentarily). The spiritual quest is to get answers ahead of time. But the big question is, "What are the questions?"

..........I don't see this. It might, or it might not. (Not to get into details, but it's obvious I guess, what details I mean. There's scenarios where that might be the case, and scenarios where that might not be the case.) But yeah, agreed, when my time comes, I guess I'll keep an eye out to see what's happening, and if anything new or different reveals itself to me. (Not that I really expect it to.)

[Ron E.]

I go along with practically all of the creed; the only ones I’d query is the two pertaining to morals. There is quite a bit of evidence that points to the evolution of morals – started by Darwin I believe. Then there is the ‘Natural law’ theory holds that humans are born with a moral compass that guides behaviour.

As a naturalist I am always interested to see research – particularly with regard to other primates – that shows a degree of moral behaviour or ethics that is essential for the particular group’s cohesion and survival. Empathy seems to be a guiding factor in this. Perhaps all natural morality evolved from empathy and has been extended to secure the particular groups survival.

I would add that human society (alone) has long since entered the field of defining and using morality through the use of various concepts that are unnatural and often stem from religious beliefs. But even these – caste and class systems, sexual taboos, dress codes, reverence to a particular deity to name a few – are also woven into the fabric of societies and cultures to aid cohesion. And yes, in these cases and as Brian’s creed states “Individual ethical decisions may be formed into a collective codification of societal norms, or laws. These are purely human, not divine.”

[um]

>>These are purely human, not divine.<<

What does the "divine"mean?
and ...
How did these concepts popped up in the human brain, mind psyche etc language?

Where they and mental invention, an cultural tool to be compared with say ...democracy?
OR ...
came they to be in existence in another way?

[um]

All of a sudden I was thinking I you want to detach from something, be a habit like smoking, grief or in this case the role of religion in one's life, one keeps it alive in one's mind by talking it over and over .... it is feeding a worry etc ... it is making the wounds deeper.

If you want to stop spoking just don't do it. Never use phrases like "I have stopped smoking" etc The next emotional occasion that draws you to take a sigaret, just be firm for once .. after that the sell is broken. Do not take any alternative, Just forget about it.

If you have had it with RSSB etc, .. just forget about, and gradualy the deep roots it has in your mind and probably body will die out on their own accord due to lack of food.

But .. many are not inclined because the finding [legitimate] fault with its teachings and teachers, is in fact an mental substitute for the lost believe, hope etc.

So it should not surprise anybody that those that walk the streets pro and contra something are psychological the same people

Let go of the rope that binds you .. ropes or chains can be golden or of base metal

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian Ji
You asked
"I want to ask Spence Tepper some questions about claims I believe are objectively false:"

If you believe they are objectively false that is your subjective evaluation, your decision. Your belief.

It may be based on quality, verifiable, objective data but the conclusion, scientifically, is never conclusive. The possibility of other objective facts arriving later that refine or alter the conclusion somewhat always exists.

If you were omniscient you would know every shred of information about the subject. But you don't. Therefore you must make a judgment which includes what you don't yet know. And that is subjective. Could be very accurate, but still subjective because there is the unknown and missing info. And we just don't know what that is..

You asked..

"(1) There is convincing demonstrable evidence that God exists. Objectively false, Spence?"

If you have no access to that sort of information then the only objective conclusion available to you is this is unknown.

Of course you could look at all the objective data that shows people actively involved in religion live 5-7 years longer. You could see this as objective proof something about active belief in God is real and at work.

You could look at the meditation data to show that mindfulness and worship, repetition, and other related mental practices have an effect on brainwaves and positive effects on health, indicating some mechanism that often includes a system of belief in a deity. Most all of the systems of mindfulness began historically from religious practice that believes in something outside or higher than our current daily experience.

Active belief in God, evidenced by involvement in a religion, has an objective effect on human beings that medically is generally very healthy.

May not be a coinkidink.

Like many things science has proven objectively, such as gravity, it can't be measured directly at this time. It is only through its effect on other measurable things, mainly people, that we see an effect. Religious studies for example, defines and sociology tests for the effect of systems of belief on whole societies. That's real. And it's indirect.

You asked
"(2) Human-caused global warming is a myth. Objectively false, Spence?"

Global warming is a reality. So much evidence. The relationship to thermal pollution, and all other sources of pollution from industrialization is evident. That the two coincide so completely is unlikely to be chance. But again, it is a correlation used to infer causality..right?

And pollution has so many other proven poisonous effects on this tiny and razor thin biosphere that has been documented for many, many decades, so much objective data that it is safe to conclude our survival depends on society making seismic change. Subjective conclusion based on an overwhelming body of objective data.

So, being objective, Brian, and fact based, do you use weed killer on your lawns?

I only ask to be humble before passing judgment on other's experience that is outside our own.

There, that is an addition to the creed, an amendment I propose to you, Brian, and others, to add to the creed.

Don't let one's judgments about others' personal spiritual experience be final, presuming a level of omniscience we don't have, and in fact a presumption many have left formal religion to escape from.

What is the point of objectivity if we use that word as propaganda for just one more form of false omniscience?

Here is another amendment I would like to add: If you can't say 'I don't really know, objectively', then say "I honor the mystery" and leave it unresolved.

Let the door be open. Dualism requires a closed system. Don't allow it.

[Appreciative Reader]

As far the blog, just wanted to reiterate my appreciation of this wonderful space you've created, Brian. This place where all things spiritual are so lucidly discussed, while keeping the tenor of it firmly rational and free of woo.

I don't think there's any other place quite like this anywhere. Better than any single book, or set of books, infinitely better, given the wide range of subjects discussed, and not to mention how completely interactive Brian's kept it.

Thanks, Brian, for all the time, all the effort, that you've selflessly put in to this labor of love of yours. It's unparalleled, the sheer value-add that I've had from this place.

We keep discussing stuff, sometimes agreeing over some things, other times disagreeing over some things. And in the course of that, we do end up taking for granted this place, don't we, and everything that it entails? And it must actually take a great deal of time, a great deal of effort, to keep a place like this up and running over all these years!

Let's all take a moment to express our appreciation, and our gratitude for it all.

[um]

Hahaha ...AR

You make me suckle from laughter ... thank you ...now on to the coffee

If you would have expressed these words in our parents house, however correct and honest, you would have thrown out by our dad.

[um]

@ AR ...

Or worse, .... he would have sighed and asked me what has happened to him

I was more afraid of his sights than anything else in the world ... hahaha

[Appreciative Reader]

"If you would have expressed these words in our parents house, however correct and honest, you would have thrown out by our dad."

Oh, why is that, um?

I don't understand. That sounds ...so very odd!

[um]

@ AR

Forget about it.

I wrote an detailed explanation but decided that the very fact you write you do not understand, it would be better to delete it.

What is enough is to tell you that is that it has nothing to do with you and what you wrote but solely what such an incident would mean in the world I come from.

Consider it as an un appropriate reaction.

[SantMat64]

There's a problem with putting science over religion: people get the idea that information from secular sources has unimpeachable veracity. Really, the same veracity as does the Bible or any other holy script.

How else to explain a system of government that is mostly a series of hoaxes on the voters? And a media that makes its living by perpetuating these hoaxes? And a scientific community that punishes dissent?

So many hoaxes. All white Americans are racist, police target people on their skin color, children can choose their own sex, men can compete in women's sports, Ukraine can defeat Russia, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Covid was dangerous to anyone not already very sick or very old, the vaccines really work, 4 years of front page news of Russian collusion, the election was stolen, the need to spend 50 trillion to change the weather or all is lost, the border is secure, inflation is transitory. This is but the short list.

There has never, ever, been an age where people have been lied to by their leaders as the age we're not living in. So much for the internet and its promise of secular enlightenment.

There are not minor lies either. They're extremely tragic lies as they have altered presidential elections, wasted trillions of dollars, and have corrupted our youth with deviant medical treatments, retarded their education. These lies have sent thousands of our soldiers to an early grave in foreign lands.

Given all that, I find the problem of religion to be a very minor concern for our society.

I say "our society," which means I'm excluding the religious culture in nations like Pakistan, where there are still TV shows that encourage the faithful to "burn down cities" because someone somewhere has criticized Islam. So yes, I agree that religion can be a very big problem, but the days when it was such in our country was very many generations ago.

The real issue about truth has much to do with proportion. That is, it's very easy to cite an error, and then magnify that error to epic proportions, epic danger, epic moral turpitude. That is the new woke journalism 101. Want examples? Read the New York Times.

The problem then, as I see it, isn't religion per se. It's that we are bombarded by extremely skillful liars in high places in our government. The NIH, the FBI, the CIA, the White House. If we should be wary of religion for its ability to weave false tales that can ensnare and misled us, we should be doubly wary of societies new Lords of Truth. They have proven to be no more trustworthy than our religious leaders who claim their authority from God. I believe the same skepticism is due those who claim authority from Science.

[Appreciative Reader]

That sounds very ...mysterious?

But no issues. We'll drop it, if that's what you'd like, um. Cheers.

[um]

@ Sant Mat 64

You wrote that you never read comments but in case you do, read:

"Il Pricipe" / Trl The Prince
By: Niccolo Machiavelli

There you can read what the öbligations" are of the ruler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

>> The general theme of The Prince is of accepting that the aims of princes – such as glory and survival – can justify the use of immoral means to achieve those ends.<<

You can delve through whole history to find a ruler etc that did not rule according the guidelines as put down by Machiavelli.

Some are better in hiding it from the eyes of the public but that doesn't say they are not doing the same or even worse.

You seem to believe in "perfect" rulers ... the very idea would make all and everybody in my family roll over the floor from laughter.

[Trez]

Ahh the famous religious beliefs and they're dogmatic babas

Reminds me of one so called well known religious cult goes by Radha Soami and a Baba who's goes by Gurinder Singh Dhilion who has been fooling the millions for years on empty promises for all your hard work day and night of seva and arduous nights of meditation with zilch results as a thank you in your enlightenment bank.

Yes he knows nothing of God let alone about himself. The mocking of God is all he does. Which Godly saint ever sat on a stage and does what he does with his eyes on the sangat as they sit all googly eyed, I thinks he's putting a evil spell on them.
Wake up call everyone he is!

Ask him at Questions and Answers session do it and wait for a getaway card from Gurinder too

This religious organisation was created to profit the so called God man Gurinder for life times to come oh and his family too.
Millions of rupees equals a No when it comes to God and Gurinder has lied his way to make millions and in the name of God too.

"There is no objective proof that any religion knows the truth about God"

Gurinder Singh Dhilion is a prime example of this, just look at his actions not his words

He ain't got a monkees

[um]

@ Tez

How do you know that he knows nothing of God?
Are you telepathic gifted or otherwise able to have a look in his mind?

How do you know that this organisation was created for him?
That organisation started decades ago.

[SantMat64]

This blog has been around for nigh on 20 years, established on the creed that religion is bad and science is good. And yet, out of many hundreds of posts, none to my recollection is about the terror of jihadi Muslims, day by day, across the world.

There's something glaringly strange and non-objective to me about a blog with a thesis that religion itself is harmful, and yet that blog makes virtually no mention of the precise religious faction in this world that's devoted to carrying out terror campaigns that take the lives of thousands ever year.

That's my criticism of the creed.

[um]

@ Sant Mat

In a bakery one can buy bread and nothing else

The tile of this blog is:
The church of the CHURCHLESS

It is not the high court on religious affaires

[Brian Hines]

SantMat64, I've written several posts about Islam. Here's what I was able to find by some Googling:

Of all the crazy religions, is Islam the most dangerous?
https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2013/04/of-all-the-crazy-religions-is-islam-the-most-dangerous.html

If a cartoon inflames religious passions, so what?
https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2015/01/if-a-cartoon-inflames-religious-passions-so-what.html

Why we're all Muslims (a teeny, tiny bit)
https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2010/06/why-were-all-muslims-a-teeny-tiny-bit.html

Image of Muhammad causes uproar. I'm pleased to share it.
https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2023/01/image-of-muhammad-causes-new-uproar-im-pleased-to-share-it.html

[Appreciative Reader]

I remember, back during the Charlie Hebdo days, as well as the Danish cartoon thing, while many publications, big and small, mainstream and niche, legacy and blog, were out milking the thing for eyeballs, but carefully protecting their yellow backsides by not actually publishing the cartoons, Brian had been one of those rare exceptions who actually stood by their convictions, and actually published the cartoons, both times. I remember having commented on this then, both commending him, and also cautioning him.

It is one thing to criticize what one disagrees with, if done substantially that can actually be a good thing and can actually help further understanding, one's own as well as everyone else's. But it is a good thing only if it is done honestly. Critics who do not clearly acknowledge it when their criticism is very clearly shown to be unfounded, are evidently neither sincere nor honest. One would hope that none here answer to that latter description, and that an acknowledgement will be forthcoming.

[SantMat64]

@ Brian Hines

Fair enough. I guess my overall point is that I feel religion is so vast and varied in its personal and social values that I differ with the new atheist argument that religion per se is a problem the world can do without. Like mosquitoes.

[Appreciative Reader]

Your POV is not entirely without merit, SM64, in that neither religion, nor nationalism, to take another example, is completely without any merits at all. But the negatives clearly outweigh the positives, at any rate if we're not given to the pessimistic opinion that humanity is incorrigibly and irredeemably lacking in innate goodness and that any goodness and charity and beneficient organization of effort must necessarily be smuggled in onto this degenerate lot under false pretences.

But that is a larger, more nuanced issue. This here had been a far plainer thing, far more in-your-face, with zero wriggle room for disagreement. As it turns out, no wriggling was attempted --- which I appreciate and respect. Cheers.

[uknowme]

I had 4 dreams last night about GSD. The color green was highlighted in all of the dreams. I don’t know if that had to do with the 4th chakra or the color of money. However, in one of the dreams he made everyone answer two questions that he had written in red. I only remember one of those questions and that was, “What do you hope to get out of this.”

It’s an interesting question.

What do you hope to get out of THIS life.

I honestly can’t even begin to answer that question.

I guess the first thing that comes to mind is I hope I never have another human life or any kind of life on this earth… I’m this realm.

[um]

And as far as the cartoons are concerned:

When at school, one of us died in a traffic incident. The rumor goes that his last words were: "I had priority anyway". In this Calvinistic Country, people are very much into sticking to rules at all cost..

Islam has to be cured from inside and cannot be cured from outside. Those who do act as Don quichot, or as the young swords man that feels he can and shout fight the old master to proof himself.

Christianity has also cured itself from inside and came to realize that it should invite and not impose.

One of our politician, was also thinking that could and should stand up against islam, he lives a miserable life the last decades, 24/7 under protection at a higher level then probably our prime minister.

If he only had heed the words of the hexagram 33 in the I Ching .. he would have been a free man today.

"" Retreat is not the flight of a weak person but the voluntary withdrawal of a strong one. Flight means saving oneself at all costs; retreat is a sign of strength""

I have also come to understand, that all that fight the negative forces will lose that fight.and end up in misery.

No, I am not suggesting that negativity should have a free run but only the WAY as to how to deal with it.

[Tonto]

No I disagree with virtually all of the Churchless creed, except for your penultimate tenet.

+ “There is no objective proof that any religion knows the truth about God. If there were such proof, most people on Earth would have converted to that faith long ago and all scientists would be believers.”
We exist therefore God exists. What are the odds of our existence? Highly unlikely. It’s all got to be just right and yet it is and here we are. I have no issue with people believing in some kind of universal god and even something that goes above and beyond nature and that created it. There is nothing in the natural world that we or science knows of that is either eternal or acausal, and yet the existence of something rather than nothing, means something must either be eternal or acausal (and hence be above and beyond nature and be non-scientific).
I would call this God. You can call it a ‘god of the gaps’. I’d call it a God of The Gap that is inherently unnatural or scientifically explainable.

+ “Spirituality thus is an individual affair. Proof of any metaphysical realities that exist will be subjective, not demonstrable to others.”
So what? Love is subjective. Doesn’t make it untrue, unimportant or non-existent. Quite the opposite: is there anything more important to a human being than love - a completely subjective intangible unprovable emotion? Where there is love there is life. Forget the scientists, listen to the poets if you want to understand the human condition.

+ “Every person has the right to pursue their own spiritual quest without interference, so long as he or she doesn't interfere with the rights of others.”
If this tenet were followed why attack RSSB or other spiritual or religious beliefs? Hypocrasy. To thyself be true.

+ “Since the veracity of each and every religion is unprovable, equally unprovable are the moral and ethical tenets derived from any and all religious teachings.”
If veracity means truth, there are not any absolute truths, except death and taxes. Everything else is conjecture, imperfect probabilities or partial truths. Even science is perhaps at best only partially true. Newton’s explanation of gravity was considered true until Einstein relativity provided a more accurate explanation of gravity. Relativity is almost certainly not entirely true either and that a better more accurate explanation of gravity will be advanced in the future. We know nothing more than partial truths about anything at any point in time based on the limits of our imagination and the evidence available. How much we or science doesn’t know is almost certainly massive and probably almost everything. We are all entirely ignorant in the greater scheme of things. As all the truly great scientific intellects know - nature is stranger and more complicated than we can possibly imagine. For all intents and purposes, nature may be God.

+ “Thus morality also is an individual affair. There are no absolute laws of right and wrong as there are absolute laws of physics. Subjectivity rules in ethics.”
Oh really. What are the absolute laws of physics? Are you saying there are certain laws of nature that are perfectly true and will never change? I’d say this level of certainty is maybe just as dangerous as the certainty of any religion. Science is by no means entirely objective. Apart from the “observer effect” which at the heart of the power of science (ie evidence), science is scattered with subjective bias (not least the different interpretations that’s Einstein and Bohr have). While one subjective view may deemed more accurate at one point in time, it may be overturned later on. In terms of morality, science has nothing to say on it. Spirituality does, which is why its often called “wisdom traditions” as they pass down the deep understanding from certain cultures, i.e. wisdom as distinct from intelligence or science. A subjective explanation of the human condition can be found in art and poetry and wisdom traditions - not science. I find it odd that a site created and visited by people that have clearly resonated so deeply with these wisdom traditions (including Buddhism, zen, Taoism etc), seem to also to be so quick to put these teachings to the sword when it doesn’t suit them. Science is just one tool for explaining a small bit of our existence - it’s not everything, not by a very long shot, and it has very little to say on how we should live, love or believe.

+ “Individual ethical decisions may be formed into a collective codification of societal norms, or laws. These are purely human, not divine.”
On the first part, individual decisions may or may not form part of the collective, which become culture. Viva le difference. Not sure anyone thinks culture is god ordained apart from the extremely ignorant. That said aren’t their certain fundamental truths or moral laws that are tantamount to universal truths or laws in every culture? Ex thought shall not kill or steal or poke amock? Or put another way if a culture developed rules that were not aligned with success ir existence, it would die out. So perhaps man-made cultures are in some way affected by the underlying natural world in that any set of laws that are too out of whack with nature will mean that society or culture perishes. If nature is considered divine, then perhaps the cultures that are most divinely aligned are the only ones likely to survive or exist over time.

+ “Science is the surest means of finding truth. Theory, experiment, analysis of data: such are the tools of science, whether directed toward knowing material or immaterial reality.”
Science can say virtually nothing on the human condition and our own truths. If you believe otherwise, you are either a robot or a positive barbarian in the humane sense if science and logic are your only guiding lights and if your soul has not or cannot be touched deeply by love or great works of art (like music, poetry or even film) or natural beauty. This is what really matters in life or to the life of any ‘human’ being. In fact , without these things are lives are hell and meaningless- and indeed are the cause for psychoses which creates non-humane behavior - like serial killers etc. Reading one passage of the Bible or Koran or Talmud will tell you more truths about the human condition, than any scientific work.

+ “Religious teachings are hypotheses to be confirmed through individual research. As such, they must not be taken as gospel truth by adherents of a particular faith.”
Religious beliefs are merely that. Live and let live. Nothing should be taken as gospel. Scientific teachings can also be disputed. The best we can say is that a particular scientific theory seems most true at this point in time based on the available evidence but this may change. Individual research is good and fine, but even with the time it takes, you’re still going to be heavily influenced by what others have thought and written, which may be the prevailing wisdom at the time, rather than the truth or a more accurate version of it.

+ “Religious doubters, skeptics, and heretics should be honored for their efforts to assure that unproven assertions about God are not put forward as solid truth.”
Why only “religious” doubters? Surely, a doubter or a skeptic of all things and teachings is the better approach. Or do you think skepticism should only be applied to what you subjectively no longer consider to be true? Shouldn’t ppl who try refute unproven theories of any kind be equally honored?

+ “Every adherent of a particular religion should say to himself or herself,"I could be wrong." If he or she won't do this, other people can say it for them: "You could be wrong."
Why should only adherents of religion ask themselves this question? Why not also those who believe in anything with so much certainty. Could you be wrong on your laws of science being so fundamentally true and unchanging?

+ “This creedless creed of the Church of the Churchless also could be wrong. It needs to be reexamined and revised regularly.”
I fully agree with this one.

+ “Death provides the final answers (if only momentarily). The spiritual quest is to get answers ahead of time. But the big question is, "What are the questions?"
A true atheist would disagree. No answers are provided in death. It’s simply the end. Lights out, end of. Personally, I have no idea. I would hope some of the answers are revealed but who knows.
We don’t even really understand life abd existence - so how can we positively comment on death and non-existence?

[um]

@ Tonto

>> We exist therefore God exists. <<

Well "the house" might have the idea that it did not create it self.
But can the house know, anything about its creator as to why he created the house?
Can the house by studying itself draw conclusions about its creator?

We exist.
And that is all.
Some cannot exist without asking "why" questions and others do

[um]

@ Tonto
At young age we had to learn the catechism of the Catholic Church.
I still remember the first question and the answer to it:

Q} Why are we on this Earth
[A} We are on this earth to serve and to love God, and in doing so we will be happy now and in the hereafter.

As we all have to learn language and how to maintain ourselves in our artificial nature [culture], we come in the habit of believing that learning has to go on and all learning must come from outside, the experts the pundits, in all possible fields of interest.

So I just accepted these admonishments as gospel truth.

One day, many, many years later an monk in an monastery, un asked for and suddenly addressed himself to me and said: "look, you are not supposed to keep learning all your life"

It did not have an intact in those days although I did neither forget it.

Then the day came, that is started to ask myself questions and finding answers to it. Soon therafter I found that in religious affairs all what I knew was in fact "hearsay" and would have not been in my mind if it had not been put before me and I was not conditioned to take it in as the mere truth.

I came to realize that many of the revelations containing messages of angles, and even God himself, messages that have been formed the history of mankind, were always given to just ONE person ... and ... never given to a another person, nor were all human beings informed by these same divinme messengers to heed the owrds of this or that prophet etc.

So ... I have never had an so called inner experience of the divine, telling me that the words, spoken by the RC church are correct and had to be heed by me.

That divine messenger is SAID to have given the land of Israel, to his chosen people as their land of milk and honey. How do we know? We just have the testimony of just one prophet. That same divine messenger could have informed all other leaders in the world, then and there after, but he didn't do that.

That same mechanism ...works for all other so called divine messengers related to what we are and are not to do on this earth but in all these cases these messengers forget to tell the rest of the world about that triuth etc.

Which caused an ongoing misery upon the earth of killing and be killed in the name of that same divine power that told each and every time just ONE person what to do and leaving the rest in the dark.

Crows, are born crows, live as crows and will die so also
We humans do the same.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Tonto!
Great essay and comments. Excellent points. I don't agree with all of them, and yet, they are all wonderful and present a beautiful perspective that, at least internally, is a 100% truthful expression of sentiment and experience.

You wrote:
"We exist therefore God exists. What are the odds of our existence? Highly unlikely. It’s all got to be just right and yet it is and here we are. I have no issue with people believing in some kind of universal god and even something that goes above and beyond nature and that created it. There is nothing in the natural world that we or science knows of that is either eternal or acausal, and yet the existence of something rather than nothing, means something must either be eternal or acausal (and hence be above and beyond nature and be non-scientific).
I would call this God. You can call it a ‘god of the gaps’. I’d call it a God of The Gap that is inherently unnatural or scientifically explainable."

What do we really know? We think we exist, do we?
Could all this just be our individual imagination? Could Church of the Churchless and even Scientific literature just be an imagined distraction?
We take so many things on faith, and we rely upon their internal constancy, reliability. We believe yesterday actually happened. We expect without question tomorrow will happen.

But all we can know is what we are aware of. If we are in a dream, doesn't that make all of science just an invention of our own mind, verified by the mind's own rules?

And if we can, through some practice, realize we have been dreaming and see from a higher level, then isn't that transcendent experience the most valuable treasure, the most real thing to us that could ever exist?

For some, that is the product of worship. And God, Spirit, whether in detail or pure sentiment and love, the object of our praise and worship that translates into that moment of Satori, where we understand more of what is going on around and within us, does that validate that God exists? If worship becomes a transcendent experience of higher perception and understanding, doesn't that prove God exists?

But if we don't actually exist, then no proof, no science exists except as part of a dream.

When you wrote: "We exist therefore God exists" that sums up a great deal. Whatever we find true exists because we exist. But it is possible we don't exist, but only are a fleeting dream in God's mind.

Therefore God must exist even if we do not.
And if God doesn't exist, we never were.

[um]

@ Spence

hahaha .. if you would tell me that you experienced God i would believe you did have that experience.
I would also hear upon you if you wanted to express the content and abou the meaning and value such an experience would have for you.
And changes are there that I would rejoice in hearing you telling all these things if the energy you would expressed allowed for such an reaction.

But that would be all of it .. it would have no meaning or value for me.

[um]

@ Spence

BUT ...

If you would address me with directions, admonish me me based upon the content of that experience or address met with words .. the divine has told me that I should aproach you etc etc.

Then ....

Then I would stop you there and then and even ask to leave. Telling you:
"Now look, spence, If that power you said that spoke to you has no power to speak to me, I need not to listen neither to you nor to it"

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote:
"If you would address me with directions, admonish me me based upon the content of that experience or address met with words .. the divine has told me that I should aproach you etc etc.

Then ....

"Then I would stop you there and then and even ask to leave. Telling you:
"Now look, spence, If that power you said that spoke to you has no power to speak to me, I need not to listen neither to you nor to it"

Yes, I agree.
Whatever anyone shares can only inspire each of us to consider our own internal experience and connections.

If Moses said "Thou Shalt Not Kill" came right from God, everybody!

What could any of us do but, in prayer, meditation, consideration, as ourselves, "Is that ring true for me? Does God really want me not to kill anything or anyone?"

And then, we may turn to priests or others for advice.

If they are any good, they re-direct us back to our own searching within ourselves.

So, it's OK for anyone to present their experience.

But it only has potential value if it rings true for each person who becomes aware of those statements.

It's a good idea for everyone to voice who they are, where they are, what they are as honestly as they can.

That diversity is very good for opening up our own thinking and even to our own experience.

But you can certainly say "I don't see that. I don't connect with that."

That is actually, equally valid. That's your voice. That is the point.

And we are all moving anyway. Our awareness is always in flux.

[Spence Tepper]

...Therefore, Um, it doesn't matter what Moses wrote or anyone claimed when you are faced with deciding what is your truth. You set your own criteria.
What matters is a little different.

It is the fact that Moses claimed what he experienced that actually gives you a platform to make your own claims.

God may have told Moses what to tell others what they should do. OK. Fine.

But you still must decide for yourself what you are actually going to do.

And, in truth, you do.

I only suggest making sure that is a purposeful process, so that you know "Heck, I'm choosing what to do all the time. I can do that. I should do that."

And so that whatever you do you realize "That's on me!" and not "This is Moses' fault!"

The freedom you have to believe or refuse to believe is also the freedom to take full 100% responsibility for what you do.

So the faster you understand and own your freedom, and throw off all claims about what you "should do" by others as just their best guess, best opinion, based on their subjective experience, the sooner you live a full and purposeful life......According to my humble opinion!

If I say "God said" that is my internal experience. It can't carry any weight except for you to find your own God within you and listen to what They is trying to say. Yes, God is Transgender, all Genders, non-Binary, Gender Fluid and Gender changing moment by moment. No one can compete with God for switching out genders more often than changing old socks. See, I saw it, I said it, but it's subjective.

Could be the God of Creation, The God of the heavens, the God of Lawn Mowers, the God of Atheism (an empty space inside the cup of reality at the restaurant on the edge of the universe, that is actually quite overflowing). :)

[um]

@ Spence

I agree with the general purport of your argument [ if this is the correct way to say it in English ... hahah].

However the point that I want to stress is very simple ...
if there is a god that can speak to Moses and you, he definitely must have the power to speak to me and if he doesn't do so he obvious has nothing to say to me.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um:

You wrote:
"if there is a god that can speak to Moses and you, he definitely must have the power to speak to me and if he doesn't do so he obvious has nothing to say to me."

Yes, he must have the power to speak to you, right? Is that your best guess?
Maybe bad coffee interferes with his transmitter.
If you don't grind a fresh whole bean coffee, you may actually be the cause of this lack of communication.

" if he doesn't do so he obvious has nothing to say to me."

That's actually an assumption tend to make a lot, and they get themselves into trouble on this front. They think if their employees, spouse or children don't say anything, that they can do whatever they want because, using their argument, they must have nothing to say. When people make attributions about others they never stop to think that their employees, spouse or children may actually have a lot to say, but just can't get through.

In therapy we encourage folks to reach out and find out. To observe.

So, whether God has something to say to you, or not, and whatever that might be, perhaps he's just too shy to say it to you, in these circumstances. Or is trying to speak but you aren't listening. Or, as you say, has nothing to add to your own thoughts...maybe he thinks you think too much and don't need his thoughts added on top of yours. So, let's just say God isn't interrupting you right now.

It is a problem to project our notions onto anyone else when there is no communication happening. So, I turn this back to you to make sure the phone is on the hook, the phone is on and charged, and you are able to hear when it rings.

I make no claims for who might call or what they might say, but if you say God isn't speaking directly to you, then I wouldn't necessarily infer that's on God, and just ask that you make sure your phone is plugged in and on, and not accidentally on mute. Happens all the time, no sweat.

[Spence Tepper]

So, Um,
We've talked a lot about Satori recently. Here's a Satori moment: You choose what you think and do.

Right now you might not be aware of that. You might be aware of most of your thoughts, words and actions, but maybe not quite all.

In an instant, you may realize that in total you are making the decisions yourself, and not anyone else.

It's an AHA moment. Did you see this from Heaven? No. You just connected the dots of what you already knew, but now you know something more from the whole: No one is manipulating you, you are doing it. You are reacting without being aware, or you are acting in full awareness, but still guessing about how things are turning out...It's still you. If you weren't aware that's because you were focused on something else...you chose where to put your attention.

OK, maybe not Satori, maybe just Kensho. Kensho when you feel manipulated but realize, even more painfully, that this was your judgement call...that had you attended, you would have been able to choose.

But enough Kensho moments and maybe Satori!

Here is the difference between a painful moment and a Kensho moment:

"Ouch. I was manipulated by them, they pushed me into doing it, it's not my fault. Look how awful THEY ...(fill in the dots with your favorite demons) did it TO me!"

Kensho "Ouch, that was stupid on my part. That's on me. There is no "They"..."They" is just the world being the world. Next time, before it happens, I will simply .....!"

Tiny moments add up.

[um]

@ Spence

>> Maybe bad coffee interferes with his transmitter.
If you don't grind a fresh whole bean coffee, you may actually be the cause of this lack of communication.<<

Hahah Spence , you are funny .. the is the latest version of how priests in the pas would react .. telling me that there was something wrong with me, my faith etc.

And then the dictum was:
"If he is a giver, he is also knower"

This is not an complaint. I have come to accept things for what they are.

as said often
The pull, if any. must come from within.
If it is not there it is just not there and there is nothing YOU [ I] can do about it.

That is how it is and I do accept it

[um]

@ Spence

Why do you create double-binds?
You must be a priest or a Psychotherapist or both ... hahaha

[um]

@ Spence

Making coffee a strange thought came up in my mind:
\Many years, my friend and I had a contact with a well known "healer". A very kind man, and a gifted story teller.. He had many "interesting things to say" one of which was that there was an Inner and an Outer circle in Sant Mat and that those in the inner circle were free to eat meat and he suggested I should do the same, to ground myself better ... grounding .. because in a previous life I had been a black magician.

Why should I say he is a liar, why should I believe him ....based on what?

I cannot confirm for myself what he said.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
The universe is broader than our limited thinking.
You had written that God must not want to speak with you. There could be a thousand different explanations, each with their own inference in that statement. It may not be a bad thing. It could be perfect as it is.How can it be a double bind if you don't believe in God?

Do you believe in God and want God to speak to you the way God spoke to Moses? Is this something you desire?

If not, then I don't see your argument against Moses' relationship to God, or anyone's teaching about that. It's what they say. You believe what you wish. That's how it should be, right? We make our own choices.

This was, point. You can have a God or no God. It's perfect just the way it is.

You may be right afterall. God may not wish to speak to you. Loving couples don't have to speak to each other all the time either. Silence can be filled with love.

[um]

@ Spence

>> Do you believe in God and want God to speak to you the way God spoke to Moses? Is this something you desire?>You may be right afterall. God may not wish to speak to you.<<

That is what i want to believe

[um]

@ spence

No that is not what I desire an if I had not listened to others, mainly, priests etc such an desire would not even arise.

Ye, I want to believe I am right. ... hahaha

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um!
So which is it...
"That is what i want to believe"

or

"No that is not what I desire an if I had not listened to others, mainly, priests etc such an desire would not even arise.

"Ye, I want to believe I am right. ... hahaha"

Who doesn't believe they are right?

But what is it you want to believe?
Just you, today, this moment?

[um]

@ Spence

It is a technical problem. Every time I try to write under more then one copy/paste, the message gets partially deleted

The second is correct.
There is nothing I want to believe.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um!
"There is nothing I want to believe."
That's good. So is there anything stopping you from believing in nothing?

[um]

Hello

Spence I just believe the everyday things of live. ...

If you would ask me that question in the presence of my dad he would ask me in a certain tone .. Did you bring him in? .. he would not even look at you

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
Do you believe in your dad?

[um]

@ Spence

You use a set of words that are not part of my daily vocabulary..

To be honest I have no idea what to make if that sentence.

If he would tel me that a certain thing was to be found in a place he said, I would believe him but i cannot answer the question "do you believe in your dad" ... it sounds like do yo believe in a tree, or a crow.

You often use words that are the voczbulary of priests and I am not a priest.

They use these words, love, faith, believe and all sorts of admonshments to do good

[Tonto]

Spence

In your post of 18 May at 3pm, I think it’s good to think out of the box but not so that we completely lose it.

To have any kind of sensible or interesting conversation I think we have to agree that we exist and that the earth is round and that there are certain laws of science that exist or put another way I think therefore I am. I’m not saying there aren’t other realities but this is the reality we as humans can comment on - ie our stared experience - anything else is complete guesswork.

Granted its a theoretical possibility that all existence is a creation of my own mind - including science and this conversation I am currently having with you, but let’s use a bit of common sense. This interpretation seems highly unlikely.

What is more likely is that you and I both exist and we each have our minds and we can agree or disagree with the thoughts produced by our own respective minds. I’m not really into ‘nutty’ thinking or put another way, fantasy if the probability of it being true is extremely low and/or has no possible way of being proven one way or the other. I don’t think it’s worth discussing those ideas - it doesn’t stretch my mind or fascinate me - it just seems fantastical, harebrained and improbable.

As for transcendental experience, this is a more interesting concept. By its inherent meaning, this type of experience is the exception, not the norm - it’s not our shared experience. Doesn’t make it untrue but again I can’t speak to it sensibly as I’ve never had one and can’t claim to have had one - at least in the spiritual sense - but then again I’ve experienced feelings of euphoria - love or great art or or music or a beautiful bit of nature / perhaps these are trabscental experiences.

As for hallucinogenic experiences are these true or merely produces of a mind artificially induced by chemicals unnatural to the human body. So how true are these experiences - you may dream you’re flying through on your fairyhorse towards neverneverland nirvana while in reality you ain’t left your couch.

I’d rather argue against the atheist creed and experience from a more practical viewpoint.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Tonto
To function here we use mind. It has evolved for that purpose.

So all these assumptions we have learned lead us back to the same conclusions. But they only apply here in the environment we can perceive, either directly or experience through instrumentation. Our ability to conjecture beyond our immediate experience has proven, even here, to be woefully inadequate and generally false.

Which is why, occasionally, it's nice to realize that we don't really know. We are only because we see. Thinking is parochial. But seeing leads the way to expand our vistas.

And that helps us to appreciate the variety of experience with understanding and compassion. We arrive at these qualities through patience and a continuing effort to withhold conclusions and replace them with more investigation, more observation.

It opens the door to things our brain filters out of our conscious awareness without our permission. As we become more conscious through the discipline of meditation and observation (meditation being a heightened kind of observation) we have more capacity to turn down the filters or to see through entirely different channels that are already present within us.

We may not understand or interpret correctly what we are seeing. In time, with enough exposure we begin to understand. Just as a child tests reality and learns to understand what it is seeing and hearing.

This is a physiological reality.

One can argue for Atheism in the strongest terms possible by stating that to see things as they are is a journey we take into what is uncommon: the unknown. It is the place every scientist lives. It is real.

To go there we must see through different eyes into places no one has imagined before. If we are serious about reality.

They are all, as it turns out, part of the same reality and well beyond the common definition. Belief is set aside and replaced with practice.

If you say practical and real you are speaking of two entirely different but related things. One is a grain of sand. The other is the creation.

But real is Atheism at its core.

[El]

I concur. Particularly with "I could be wrong."
Lacking the humility of "I Could Be Wrong" is what makes sheeple so unbearable.