Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

If you don't believe me, then confirm it with Here-And-Now that the best and the only true non-religious spirituality that is viable for true atheists is Buddhism

I would like to add Daoism to that sentiment...

[Pattern-chaser]

The Laws of Nature are a perfect instance of Intelligent Design.

There are no "Laws" of Nature, but only Nature. It neither needs nor uses 'laws'. Nature follows the Dao; Nature is the Dao, in many ways. It doesn't follow the Dao actively, it's just that, being what it is, Nature cannot do other than follow the Dao.

As for ID, that is merely one of (very) many possibilities.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

There are no "Laws" of Nature, but only Nature.
It neither needs nor uses 'laws'.

Nature follows the Dao; Nature is the Dao, in many ways.
It doesn't follow the Dao actively, it's just that,
being what it is, Nature cannot do other than follow the Dao.

First of all, "Nature" is not a separate unitary entity
that could have any "needs", or would have to "use" anything.

We can substitute "Nature" with "physical reality".
Definitely, there are predictable "patterns" in physical reality,
and this predictability is what we refer to as "Laws of Nature".

" Nature follows the Dao; Nature is the Dao, in many ways.
It doesn't follow the Dao actively, it's just that,
being what it is, Nature cannot do other than follow the Dao."

WOW !!! Can you prove it ?

Or, is there any scientific evidence of that ?

What is Dao ?

And, what is Dao made of ?


Let's discuss this fascinating subject in-depth,
in the following new topic : DAO-ism for dummies,
which I have just created, and it will be approved by a moderator soon.

And then it will be available here :

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19200

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

As for ID, that is merely one of (very) many possibilities.

Really ?

Very many possibilities ?

How many ?

Two possibilities ?

The experimentally falsified random Darwinian Evolution nonsense,
or the Creator God Yahweh did it nonsense ?

[Pattern-chaser]

There are no "Laws" of Nature, but only Nature.
It neither needs nor uses 'laws'.

Nature follows the Dao; Nature is the Dao, in many ways.
It doesn't follow the Dao actively, it's just that,
being what it is, Nature cannot do other than follow the Dao.

First of all, "Nature" is not a separate unitary entity that could have any "needs", or would have to "use" anything.

That is my point. I'm surprised you seemed to miss it.

There is no 'dualism' — or anything with more than two divisions — there is only wholeness; One Whole.

Namaste

[Pattern-chaser]

As for Intelligent Design, that is merely one of (very) many possibilities.

Really ?

Very many possibilities ?

How many ?

They are beyond counting.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

As for Intelligent Design, that is merely one of (very) many possibilities.

Really ?

Very many possibilities ?

How many ?

They are beyond counting.

No doubt.

Are you able to name at least one of them ?
The more, the better.

[Pattern-chaser]

Are you able to name at least one of them ?

Yes, I am.

Instead of plying me with provocative questions, accompanied by smiley emojis that don't seem to match the tone of your words, why don't you start posting your own thoughts, or your responses to the questions others have put to you? Answering a question with a question can become annoying, in time.

[Lagayascienza]

When I started this thread, I wasn't sure anyone could convince me of a way to be spiritual without religion. But, lately, I've been trying to expand my mind and look beyond what I can see from my rigid, fortified, materialist holdout - I'm trying to see things from a different POV. It has not been easy. I have long practiced a form of meditation without knowing much about eastern philosophy/mysticism. And I have always dismissed Idealism out of hand as just some silly Continental nonsense. But, materialism has become increasingly unsatisfying and I've come to realise that I need to understand idealism in order to progress. Therefore, I've needed to leave the Anglo-American Analytic philosophers alone for a while. So, I've been reading Descartes, Kant and Husserl. (Thanks to Hereandnow)

Most recently, I've been doing an online course looking into what is called "Analytic Idealism" and I get the feeling it could accommodate a non-religious spirituality. There may be a ground of being that we are not aware of, or cannot perceive in the usual way. I'm coming to understand that reality may not be what we think it is. It seems we are saddled with an inability (perhaps an impossibility) of our seeing the universe as it is in itself. I think I understand that idea now. We are fooled into thinking that what our brains serve up via our sensorium (and our extensions thereof) is real when, in fact, it is not reality at all but merely a serviceable representation of it - good enough to enable us to survive in the wild, but not the real thing. And this seems to leave open a gate to, for want of a better word, spirituality without all the silliness, without all the accreted doctrine and dogma of religion.

I've only done the first hour of a seven hour course. I'm really looking forward to the next six hours. Maybe I'll go from being a hard nosed materialist and end up as some sort of ghostly, nondual mystic, lol.

HAPPY CHRISTMAS to ALL.

[Belindi]

Religion is composed of :-
social control written up in a moral code

foundation myth such as the story of the Xian God written up in the Bible

rituals, such as praying or participating in an orthodox ceremonial such as a catholic mass ,plus lots more.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Foundation myth such as the story of the Xian God written up in the Bible.

You see, Belindi, theists and a-theists are both humans,
this being the reason why Atheism and scientific materialism
also have its two main foundation myths:
the Big Bang Creation Myth of the Universe, and
the Abiogenesis plus Darwinian Evolution Creation Myth of Life on Earth.

Different myths (strokes) for different folks.

Even though Atheists have blind faith in scientific materialism,
they don't know what space is made of :
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19187

Everything in the Universe, including the Universe,
and the purported Big Bang is intelligently designed :
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19192
like for example Abiogenesis :
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19193

Darwinian EVOLUTION was scientifically experimentally FALSIFIED :
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19198

And the Big Bang could not possibly ever happened,
logically and scientifically speaking :
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=13653
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19190


The scientific materialist Atheists love to demonize religion in general,
and never fail to point out that there is no scientific proof
of the existence of God, etc, etc, but all this petty fault-finding
can't ever amount to any kind of scientific proof that the above
Atheistic foundation myths must be true, because they are obviously false.

And, most importantly, the obvious falsehood of the above
Atheistic foundation myths is no scientific proof
of the existence of God, either.

So, this is the reason why I am a Buddhist :

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19194

because Buddhism is completely free of all of the above
ontological extremes, both theistic and a-theistic.

[rainchild]

I feel obliged to say that the idea " future atheistic belief-system" is a contradiction in terms. Such a thing is baseless since it does not rely on beleiving anything. Atheism is not believing.
What would be the "system"- based on what exactly?

There are such things as belief systems that a) either deny or make no mention of the existence of one or more deities, and b) nonetheless differ from one another according to what they affirm. For example, dialectical materialism differs from Sarte's existentialism. Both differ from Theravada Buddhism. So, we have three atheistic belief systems. Where does the contradiction lie?

[Sculptor1]

I feel obliged to say that the idea " future atheistic belief-system" is a contradiction in terms. Such a thing is baseless since it does not rely on beleiving anything. Atheism is not believing.
What would be the "system"- based on what exactly?

There are such things as belief systems that a) either deny or make no mention of the existence of one or more deities, and b) nonetheless differ from one another according to what they affirm. For example, dialectical materialism differs from Sarte's existentialism.

That is not the basis of it though. It has its own system. Your argument is an empty comparison.
You might as well say that Xity is A-Judaism because it differs from Judaism.
And would you suggest that the entire basis of modern chemistry is nothing more than a rejection of Alchemy?
Your argument is baseless just like Atheism.

Both differ from Theravada Buddhism. So, we have three atheistic belief systems. Where does the contradiction lie?

Capitalism and Communism; Football supporters and Rugby supporters are all Atheistic systems of thought.
So what the hell are you talking about?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

When I started this thread, I wasn't sure anyone could convince me of a way to be spiritual without religion. But, lately, I've been trying to expand my mind and look beyond what I can see from my rigid, fortified, materialist holdout - I'm trying to see things from a different POV. It has not been easy. I have long practiced a form of meditation without knowing much about eastern philosophy/mysticism. And I have always dismissed Idealism out of hand as just some silly Continental nonsense. But, materialism has become increasingly unsatisfying and I've come to realise that I need to understand idealism in order to progress. Therefore, I've needed to leave the Anglo-American Analytic philosophers alone for a while. So, I've been reading Descartes, Kant and Husserl. (Thanks to Hereandnow)

Most recently, I've been doing an online course looking into what is called "Analytic Idealism" and I get the feeling it could accommodate a non-religious spirituality. There may be a ground of being that we are not aware of, or cannot perceive in the usual way. I'm coming to understand that reality may not be what we think it is. It seems we are saddled with an inability (perhaps an impossibility) of our seeing the universe as it is in itself. I think I understand that idea now. We are fooled into thinking that what our brains serve up via our sensorium (and our extensions thereof) is real when, in fact, it is not reality at all but merely a serviceable representation of it - good enough to enable us to survive in the wild, but not the real thing. And this seems to leave open a gate to, for want of a better word, spirituality without all the silliness, without all the accreted doctrine and dogma of religion.

I've only done the first hour of a seven hour course. I'm really looking forward to the next six hours. Maybe I'll go from being a hard nosed materialist and end up as some sort of ghostly, nondual mystic, lol.

HAPPY CHRISTMAS to ALL.

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2024 to ALL.

What we should be thinking and believing is that life is individuals' quests to truth and beauty, and the holy grail is always receding from us but normally does not permanently disappear.

Belindi, I do completely agree with you, my friend!

We are all distinctly unique individuals, ultimately taking care of our own self. As it is pretty objectively self-evident, no religion or spirituality has ever fitted all humans. We are adults, and therefore, most of all, we are responsible for ourselves, and we have a duty to critically think for ourselves.

The history of Western science is the best positive example we all should learn from. Western science is objective, and therefore,in principle, it is acceptable to all properly educated individuals. Had Western science not been objective, there would not have been such thing as objective technology for all to benefit from.

I'd love to find a religion, or at least a spirituality, that I didn't need faith to believe in. Then I could follow it's tenets (if they are any different to those I currently subscribe to) with a clear intellectual conscience.

Lagayscienza, in light of the above insight of Belindi, only Western science can fulfill your above very intelligent criteria. As far as I was able to understood you better recently, you have already been naturally following your individual atheistic spiritual path to truth for a long time!

And, I have no doubt in my scientific mind, that Western science, given enough time for its natural understandably slow progress, will finally answer all the important questions that we, intelligent humans, have been asking ourselves ever since the dawn of human civilization, when early on, we invented the idea of THE GOD OF THE GAPS in order to simply make ourselves feel better about living in the vast unpredictable Universe.

Sincerely yours,
Jon (an experimental quantum physicist, and no-longer a Buddhist)

P. s.

Enough of this old religion BS, of the laughable Ken Wilbur BS, of the incoherent Kastrup BS, of the naive and childish Phenomenology BS, and of the useless Transcendental Mysticism BS. Only Western science alone was capable of landing many rovers on Mars, because Western science really works, and all this opium for the masses BS do not work at all.

[rainchild]

Capitalism and Communism; Football supporters and Rugby supporters are all Atheistic systems of thought.
So what the hell are you talking about?

Dialectical Materialism is an atheistic belief-system: acceptance of this system in toto entails the denial of God's existence.

Capitalism is not an atheistic belief system because the theory and practice of capitalism are largely indifferent to the religious beliefs of those who engage in these activities. The religious stances of Catholics, Sikhs, and atheists have nothing to do with their ability to contribute to the widget manufacturing industries.

Similarly, Football and Rugby are not atheistic systems of thought because the religious stances of players who believe in Macumba, Islam, and Shinto have nothing to do with the rules and strategies of these games.

It's silly to define atheism as the mere absence of belief in God, since this definition applies equally to Bertrand Russell, my plush toy collection, the fish at Seattle's aquarium, and the rocks on any given road.