Oh, and regarding picking on the "plan"... Your OP sounds more like a general philosophy question than a plan, and I would answer that the right here IS the spiritual shit...IF you so choose to draw something spiritual out of it. I think the "spiritual" moments I have are nothing more than "A-ha!" moments where I make some fantastic connection in my head, draw some deeper understanding of myself, or the world around me, and they are as likely to be scientific as they are "spiritual" in nature, but I draw just the same "cosmic" energy experience that any Christian or Wiccan or Buddhist does from their spiritual moment. It's a moment of transcendence from what you were one moment ago. The bonus of being an atheist is that you can have secular "spiritual" moments in accomplishment, in realization, in orgasm and other hedonistic pleasures, which are channels that those locked into various spiritual dogmas deny any validity.
I don't think this is something that can be taught, or delivered. I think it's something that has to be found, and discovered for one's self. Faith is akin to conservation of energy. It can neither be given, nor taken...only changed from within. As always, IMHO. On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chris, you are talking about a personal thing that I agree with. > I'm talking about changing the way of Society. It will not happen > without the execution of a plan designed to achieve the goal. > > I would really like to hear what you have to say about the plan I've > been "proselytizing". > Quit picking on me, pick on the plan :-) > > peace & Love > > > On May 8, 6:23 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > No plan is necessary to move beyond religion. One simply does. As Fran > > noted, he, myself, Ian, and many others on here are agnostic or atheist. > I > > lost the need for religion long ago. I didn't need a plan...I simply > didn't > > need religion. In proselytizing your plan, you are coming across as that > > which you decry. > > > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes sir, I have and do. > > > Fran, do you have or do you know of a plan to move beyond religion? > > > Am I arrogant because I do have a plan? > > > The religions have a lot of good stuff in them. A lot of that good > > > stuff is 'common' to them and is what I go forward with. I am not > > > intentionally putting down anybody's beliefs, I am simply defending my > > > own. > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > On May 8, 4:42 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Tinker, I have to wonder if you actually read and understand what > > > > others post here. Five hours ago, I stated clearly that I believe > that > > > > the time has come for humanity to move beyond religion. As I have > > > > repeatedly stated here, I am an agnostic/atheist. > > > > > > Nonetheless, it strikes me as pretty arrogant to simply dismiss all > of > > > > what people have thought and reasoned within a religious context > > > > (particularly as, for most of human history, a non-religious > > > > standpoint was simply inconceivable) as bullshit. It's like saying > > > > that Caesar was a bad general because he didn't use tanks and have > air- > > > > support. > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > On 8 Mai, 22:19, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Fran, what you would expect is the BS of religions gone past > failing > > > > > for thousands of years. > > > > > I am rude and crude in your face trying to get you to wake up from > the > > > > > apathy of those failed religions. > > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:12 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Tinker, the tone of your posts doesn't particularly serve to make > > > your > > > > > > claim to have reached some new level of spiritual illumination > > > > > > particularly credible. I would expect someone who claims to have > > > > > > attained new spiritual insights to be courteous and compassionate > > > > > > towards others who appear to be honest seekers - along the lines > of > > > > > > the old maxim, "by their fruits shall ye know them." > > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > > On 8 Mai, 22:04, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > My dear Lady, > > > > > > > > > He sounds to me like someone telling their grandfather he ought > to > > > > > > > find a lady and have some kids :-) > > > > > > > I've been through all of that BS and it goes nowhere. > > > > > > > I'm talking about taking action here and now to bring about the > > > > > > > evolution of mankind to become spiritual beings. > > > > > > > All of your spiritual beliefs are 'wannabe' what I'm talking > about. > > > > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 3:29 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Don't be so quick to dismiss what Justin is trying to tell > you. > > > There > > > > > > > > is a truth for you there. > > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:07 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Guess again :-) > > > > > > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 3:55 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, who’s right? Is it one out of the jumbled > clusterfuck > > > of spiritual > > > > > > > > > > > beliefs? Or is it the Fact, that Life IS here and now. > > > > > > > > > > > The ‘Dream of Utopia’ points at Life, not some > spiritual > > > other shit. > > > > > > > > > > > That’s why I ask if it’s dead. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well Ok, but you are setting up a false dilemma. Above > you > > > have > > > > > > > > > > capitalized the following words "Fact", "Life" and a > double > > > capital of > > > > > > > > > > "IS". > > > > > > > > > > > > Basically, if you consider what something is, like "its > red" > > > or "its > > > > > > > > > > round" you are considering its nature, or its essence. It > is > > > possible > > > > > > > > > > however to cease to consider what is and turn your > > > consideration to > > > > > > > > > > the fact that it is. When you do you transcend what life > is > > > and > > > > > > > > > > consider the fact that it is, or to use your writing, the > > > Fact, that > > > > > > > > > > Life IS. Now, it turns out that you can experience the > fact > > > that life > > > > > > > > > > is in some very, what are called, "profound" ways. You > can > > > either > > > > > > > > > > appreciate its meaning fully or not. When you no longer > are > > > > > > > > > > considering what is but the fact that it is you are going > > > beyond the > > > > > > > > > > physical to the metaphysical, or going beyond the natural > to > > > the > > > > > > > > > > supernatural or going beyond the sensory to the > extrasensory. > > > That is > > > > > > > > > > the "some spiritual other shit" because it is not what > is, > > > but rather > > > > > > > > > > is the fact that it is. That is why it is "other" or > > > transcendent. It > > > > > > > > > > is also Immanent meaning roughly "here and now." That is > why > > > "the > > > > > > > > > > Fact, that Life IS here and now" IS "some spiritual other > > > shit"... it > > > > > > > > > > just happens to be YOUR "some spiritual other shit". > > > > > > > > > > > > It turns out that the appreciation of the meaning of the > fact > > > that > > > > > > > > > > life is in its fullest sense is the experience underlying > all > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > religions. The meaning of that experience is expressed, > > > indirectly > > > > > > > > > > through the books and stories that constitute the > religious > > > texts and > > > > > > > > > > genuine religious activity and mythology is about the > problem > > > of > > > > > > > > > > knowing what it means to be and is part of the > intellectual > > > history of > > > > > > > > > > mankind. > > > > > > > > > > > > You might think it is easy to know what it means. It is > not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now many activities and beliefs interpret these texts > > > literally. For > > > > > > > > > > them God is basically like any other thing capable of > either > > > being or > > > > > > > > > > not being and they believe he "happens" to be. They > interpret > > > religion > > > > > > > > > > not existentially but essentially. They think it is about > > > what is not > > > > > > > > > > the fact that it is. These people are fundamentalists. > Their > > > > > > > > > > interpretation is truly not even religious. It is just > bad > > > science. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, when the religions are not interpreted > essentially > > > then we > > > > > > > > > > can see their value. Their value is in their appreciation > of > > > the > > > > > > > > > > meaning of "the Fact, that Life IS here and now." So you > > > raise a false > > > > > > > > > > dilemma between religion and what you are saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > With respect to Utopia I recommend that you read > Kierkeguard > > > on > > > > > > > > > > despair "The Sickness Unto Death". He analyzes what > despair > > > really is > > > > > > > > > > and how one falls into its clutches. It is truly a very > big > > > problem. > > > > > > > > > > Utopia is not being realized because of something that is > > > called Maya > > > > > > > > > > or illusion in the hindu literature. It is called > original > > > sin in the > > > > > > > > > > christian literature. In the Hindu litterature it is > noted > > > that all > > > > > > > > > > suffering comes from a failure to realize the true nature > of > > > life. > > > > > > > > > > > > To put as close to your terminology as I can: When "the > fact, > > > that > > > > > > > > > > life that life is here and now" fails to become "the > Fact, > > > that Life > > > > > > > > > > IS here and now" then there is suffering. > > > > > > > > > > > > You should be careful about prematurely cutting out the > > > meaning of the > > > > > > > > > > religions because you correctly realize that their > literal > > > > > > > > > > interpretation is false and even distracting. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the most important question: Is the dream dead. I > > > think the > > > > > > > > > > answer is no. Not even in the most evil would I say > dead... > > > or at > > > > > > > > > > least not completely incapable of being resurrected. We > know > > > basically > > > > > > > > > > that there is this problem, the problem of Maya or > original > > > sin and > > > > > > > > > > there is this clouding of our vision but religious > experience > > > still > > > > > > > > > > happens. The real question can be posed in terms of the > myth > > > of Lot > > > > > > > > > > and his fleeing of his city. The dream is alive. We are > like > > > in a game > > > > > > > > > > with the stakes doubling. The technical capabilities we > have > > > for > > > > > > > > > > communication now are making possible a major > reawakening. > > > They also > > > > > > > > > > make possible our destruction and these capabilities, the > > > ones we > > > > > > > > > > currently have are nothing compared to what is in the > > > biological > > > > > > > > > > design / neurology synergy. We are about to become very > > > capable. Are > > > > > > > > > > we responding to it is the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Good luck. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
