And Splendour, I can assure you that my spirituality is stronger and more profound than yours could ever be, since mine doesnt come from a book, it comes from myself and the world around me.
I happen to be one of these non-theists who is not good at using non-woo terminology, so I do consider myself spiritual. And Splendour, I can assure you that my spirituality is stronger and more profound than yours could ever be, since mine doesnt come from a book, it comes from myself and the world around me.
Spirituality is a pissing contest now?
How immature and insecure of you.
"The book" as you term it is the manual that helps you make spiritual connections.
Are you interpreting the emotion/impression of awe as the spiritual connection itself?
Imo, like most people but particularly atheists you'd most likely benefit from some type of spiritual cognitive therapy but you're too busy justifying cutting yourself off from it to notice. (Theists usually receive some degree of spiritual cognitive therapy through participation in churchs so we don't usually seek help from Christian psychiatrists. See the book by Curt Thompson, The Anatomy of the Soul.)
Spiritual comparisons between people shouldn't inspire pridefully insecure statements like you just made it should inspire you to discover the reason for your own shortcomings.
But pride and insecurity are such devious states and emotions.
I say just go for it - join, see what they are about and if it appeals to you or not.
I am not sure if it is your cup of tea, but Shambhala is a secular tradition. Its all about living the life of a warrior - whether that warrior is Buddhist, Christian, Atheist or whatever. Its just really creating a society and bringing out the best of humanity's basic goodness.
Though you will probably get a heavy does of Buddhism from the people at the meditation center - the idea of Shambhala is independent of any one culture or tradition. Chogyam Trungpa's book is probably a good place to start so you can get an idea of what it is.
It's stuff in there that can relate to common ethics, which are also ethics of secular humanism.
So I lied, I don't have problems with ethics of secular humanism, I have problems with ethics in general. I think ethics are mostly religion-influenced and secular humanists say that they don't need religion for their ethics. So, imo secular humanists perpetuate the myth of common ethics and say that they are not influenced by religion. That's what I have a problem with / don't understand.
I say just go for it - join, see what they are about and if it appeals to you or not.
I am not sure if it is your cup of tea, but Shambhala is a secular tradition. Its all about living the life of a warrior - whether that warrior is Buddhist, Christian, Atheist or whatever. Its just really creating a society and bringing out the best of humanity's basic goodness.
Though you will probably get a heavy does of Buddhism from the people at the meditation center - the idea of Shambhala is independent of any one culture or tradition. Chogyam Trungpa's book is probably a good place to start so you can get an idea of what it is.
It's stuff in there that can relate to common ethics, which are also ethics of secular humanism.
So I lied, I don't have problems with ethics of secular humanism, I have problems with ethics in general. I think ethics are mostly religion-influenced and secular humanists say that they don't need religion for their ethics. So, imo secular humanists perpetuate the myth of common ethics and say that they are not influenced by religion. That's what I have a problem with / don't understand.
I think religion has cerainly influenced ethics to some extent, but there are many non theists (such as buddhists) who spend a great deal of time/have contributed greatly towards "common ethics", and still today are probably the people who spend the most time further developing ethics.
Definitely check out this video - It's by Sam Harris at the TED conference arguing that science can help to answer moral questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
I would like to specifically hear if anyone has had any experience with the the organization: "The council for secular humanism", or any related or similar non-religious groups that are positive.
Limited, but very positive experience,: I was married by a humanist officiant.
She did a great job. Planned out the ceremony and vows with us, had the right touch of pomp and circumstance, and didn't muck up our wedding with stuff we didn't believe in.
Limited, but very positive experience,: I was married by a humanist officiant.
She did a great job. Planned out the ceremony and vows with us, had the right touch of pomp and circumstance, and didn't muck up our wedding with stuff we didn't believe in.
Cool, thanks for sharing. I was just at a wedding in Mexico (2 friends from the US on destination) and it was great, the ceremony was like 25 minutes long and all in Spanish with a translator and no bs. Straight to the point.
"Luke Galen is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who uses the Big Five personality model. Galen says that he researches demographics of non-religious communities directly, rather than as a byproduct of investigating religious groups. One of Galen's studies attempted to control for demographics and church attendance; he found that members of secular organizations (like the international Center for Inquiry) have similar personality profiles to members of religious groups. Galen describes how members of secular organizations are very likely to label themselves primarily as "atheists", but also very likely to consider themselves humanists.[2] Galen explains that secular group members show no significant differences in their negative or positive affect - meaning they are no more or less happy (in line with other research on religion and happiness). These members also have similar profiles for conscientiousness (discipline or impulse control, and acting on values like "pursuit of truth"). On the other hand, secular group members do tend to be less agreeable (e.g. more likely to hold unpopular, socially challenging views), as well as more open minded (e.g. more likely to consider new ideas) than members of religious groups. Galen writes "Many previously reported characteristics associated with religiosity are a function not of belief itself, but of strong convictions and group identification." end quote
Two Plus Two
)
Re: Secular Humanism
Linear Mode
