Spiritual demographics of PowerSwitch

[UndercoverElephant]

Abrahamic religion tends to view the world as created by an intelligent God for the primary purpose of being the home of humanity. It's ours to do with as we see fit.

That's the "novel" aspect or, "why is there something and not nothing" aspect of these religions, but it's not the only one at all, and the quite boring one in fact, the let's say more "Johannic aspect" or "how come things, life, words, are functioning, now, at every second" is also there.

I don't think it is boring with respect to the main topics discussed on this board. If you believe that God made the Earth for humans, or worse - that we are approaching the end times when the Earth will be destroyed by God anyway - then why bother worrying about environmental problems?

I'm personally more interested in the role of the 2012ers. There is a large number of people out there expecting some sort of unspecified "end of the world as we know it" event (as opposed to just the end of the world.) And I reckon they are going to get one. If we are going to build a new ideology, then we need as many people on board as possible. We need leaders and thinkers from both science and religion working together. I've given up hope on the politicians and economists.

[Ludwig]

'Atheist' might suffice but it presupposes that there is a question, ie does a supreme being exist or not? I have no interest in such a question.

The nearest I can come to describing my spirituality (no 'beliefs', please) is humane-ist (not humanist). I can't think of a better word at the moment.

The term "spiritual demographics" implies that everyone has some kind of spiritual belief system.

Almost everyone has some kind of belief system, even if it is anti-spiritual.

Some people are undoubtedly more prone to belief than others, so your refusal to class your outlook as belief is probably apt.

I have encountered almost nobody who could truly claim to have no beliefs. The only obvious exception I can think of is Robert Anton Wilson.

For example, the vast majority of people who consider themselves scientific atheists also claim to have no beliefs, but when you actually engage them in debate then you discover that their scientific beliefs rest on a foundation of metaphysical and epistemological beliefs which themselves have no justification. When you challenge those unsupported metaphysical and epistemological beliefs, some of those individuals react with exactly the same sort of intolerant and irrational behaviour we normally associate with extreme forms of theism.

Yes, I see your point. I'm just thinking about conversations I've had with people who, without being rabidly atheist, are not particularly spiritually inclined either. My father and brother spring to mind: they are both "people people", and get emotional satisfaction from casual social interaction in a way that I don't: the world of people is "where they belong". Broadly speaking, they are humanists; and while they don't discount the idea of a higher reality, it's not an idea that they have strong feelings about one way or the other. I'm guessing that's maybe how emordnilap feels (with apologies if I'm wrong!).

But yes, like you I have come across scientific rationalists who get very scornful and even uppity if you try to present them with evidence that their world view is missing something, or point out that there is well-attested evidence from respected scientific laboratories that challenges some of their basic assumptions.

As someone once said, science doesn't progress by old scientists changing their minds, but by their dying off. It can be very painful for all of us to change our views of the world, especially if we have dedicated a career to them.

There's a good quote by Peter Medawar: "An imaginative conception of what might be true is the starting point of all great discoveries in science."

[emordnilap]

hu⋅man⋅ist  [hyoo-muh-nist or, often, yoo-]
–noun
1. a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.
2. a person devoted to or versed in the humanities.
3. a student of human nature or affairs.
4. a classical scholar.
5. (sometimes initial capital letter) any one of the scholars of the Renaissance who pursued and disseminated the study and understanding of the cultures of ancient Rome and Greece, and emphasized secular, individualistic, and critical thought.
6. (sometimes initial capital letter) a person who follows a form of scientific or philosophical humanism.
–adjective
7. of or pertaining to human affairs, nature, welfare, or values.
8. (sometimes initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the humanities or classical scholarship, esp. that of the Renaissance humanists.
9. of or pertaining to philosophical or scientific humanism.

I see nothing in there about the rest of the world; I could never be that self-centred (except on this board maybe ). That's one of the reasons I said 'humane-ism'.

[UndercoverElephant]

The term "spiritual demographics" implies that everyone has some kind of spiritual belief system.

Almost everyone has some kind of belief system, even if it is anti-spiritual.

Some people are undoubtedly more prone to belief than others, so your refusal to class your outlook as belief is probably apt.

I have encountered almost nobody who could truly claim to have no beliefs. The only obvious exception I can think of is Robert Anton Wilson.

For example, the vast majority of people who consider themselves scientific atheists also claim to have no beliefs, but when you actually engage them in debate then you discover that their scientific beliefs rest on a foundation of metaphysical and epistemological beliefs which themselves have no justification. When you challenge those unsupported metaphysical and epistemological beliefs, some of those individuals react with exactly the same sort of intolerant and irrational behaviour we normally associate with extreme forms of theism.

Yes, I see your point. I'm just thinking about conversations I've had with people who, without being rabidly atheist, are not particularly spiritually inclined either.

Ah...the disinterested and apathetic. Yes, there are some parts of the world, such as the UK, where people tend to just ignore religion.

[Yves75]

I don't think it is boring with respect to the main topics discussed on this board. If you believe that God made the Earth for humans, or worse - that we are approaching the end times when the Earth will be destroyed by God anyway - then why bother worrying about environmental problems?

Yes agree that it can be considered as a key aspect of these religions, although not sure about the God destruction aspect (more humans destruction if any). But I used the word boring more to refer as to what interests me in them, and others. In fact to me there are three main aspects that you find in every or at least most religions or belief systems :
- The novel aspect : How things did pan out, why is there something and not nothing, or historical aspect
- The moral aspect : what you should or shouldn't do, what is good, what is bad, etc
- The how come things are working or functioning, now, by what miracle, or the mystical aspect

By the way, my only true religion is of course litterature (and art)

[Ludwig]

I see nothing in there about the rest of the world; I could never be that self-centred (except on this board maybe ). That's one of the reasons I said 'humane-ism'.

What about:
1. a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.
? Or by "the rest of the world", do you meant the world outside human affairs?

[Ludwig]

Ah...the disinterested and apathetic. Yes, there are some parts of the world, such as the UK, where people tend to just ignore religion.

That's true, but not in the cases I cited. The family members I referred to are neither disinterested nor apathetic, they are just not temperamentally inclined to speculate on spiritual matters. I think this was probably true through most of history. In the Middle Ages, everyone believed in God, but I suspect that for most people it was not a particularly intense belief: they just swallowed everything they were told, which since there were no competing paradigms was easy. Religion was simply the framework of their lives, much as shopping and TV are for most modern people. (And I'm not being facetious, either!)

[emordnilap]

I see nothing in there about the rest of the world; I could never be that self-centred (except on this board maybe ). That's one of the reasons I said 'humane-ism'.

What about:
1. a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.
? Or by "the rest of the world", do you meant the world outside human affairs?

Both?

But what are we? .5% of the biomass?

[Ludwig]

I'm personally more interested in the role of the 2012ers. There is a large number of people out there expecting some sort of unspecified "end of the world as we know it" event (as opposed to just the end of the world.) And I reckon they are going to get one.

I don't think you need to be a "2012er" to guess that this will be about the time that our systems truly start to fail. Or that certain plans that are being made behind the scenes see grim fruition.

There's also the argument that if enough people believe something strongly enough, it becomes more likely to happen. I don't care what people think of me for saying this, but I think there's something in that.

If we are going to build a new ideology, then we need as many people on board as possible. We need leaders and thinkers from both science and religion working together. I've given up hope on the politicians and economists.

What kind of ideology would it be? I have to be honest, I draw the line at David Icke's turquoise lizards - unless I get more evidence :\

[UndercoverElephant]

I see nothing in there about the rest of the world; I could never be that self-centred (except on this board maybe ). That's one of the reasons I said 'humane-ism'.

What about:
1. a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.
? Or by "the rest of the world", do you meant the world outside human affairs?

Both?

But what are we? .5% of the biomass?

Nowhere near. More like 0.005%

[emordnilap]

I don't think you need to be a "2012er" to guess that this will be about the time that our systems truly start to fail. Or that certain plans that are being made behind the scenes see grim fruition.

If we're predicting, 2012 seems as good as any other year. Take it or leave it. Put the kettle on the gas. It'll boil some time.

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm personally more interested in the role of the 2012ers. There is a large number of people out there expecting some sort of unspecified "end of the world as we know it" event (as opposed to just the end of the world.) And I reckon they are going to get one.

I don't think you need to be a "2012er" to guess that this will be about the time that our systems truly start to fail.

Not now you don't. You might have been ten years ago.

Then again, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day....sooner or later an apocalyptic prophecy was always going to come true, even if it was just by accident.

There's also the argument that if enough people believe something strongly enough, it becomes more likely to happen. I don't care what people think of me for saying this, but I think there's something in that.

I think that something along those lines may be true...

If we are going to build a new ideology, then we need as many people on board as possible. We need leaders and thinkers from both science and religion working together. I've given up hope on the politicians and economists.

What kind of ideology would it be? I have to be honest, I draw the line at David Icke's turquoise lizards - unless I get more evidence :\

I too draw the line at David Icke (who I once saw live in a tent at Glastonbury, boy was that a weird afternoon.)

It will be an ideology which replaces the goal of growth with sustainability - one which can only establish itself after the majority of the human race have been sufficiently traumatised by the scale and speed of the collapse of the world as we know it that they are finally ready to embrace something else, based on a very different set of principles.

We already know what those principles have to be and already have some of the technologies we'd need to apply (permaculture, for example.) What is missing is any trace of political or public will. In short, the human race needs a monumental kick up the backside.

[Aurora]

I see nothing in there about the rest of the world; I could never be that self-centred (except on this board maybe ). That's one of the reasons I said 'humane-ism'.

Wrong.

We choose to take responsibility for our actions and work with others for the common good.

See: http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism

[Yves75]

stupid post

[Yves75]

stupid post