All religions offer the experience of the divine to their followers, which mainly is a psychological experience of "epiphanic rapture" that mostly is created through ritual.
The rest is just local interpretation and some particular ethics which are not essential to the experience.

That's why, I think, it could be said that all religious people worship one thing, but that thing is not some god, is not an entity or a personification of something, it's an experience of their own psyche or self which, if experienced fully, is the godly bliss, paradise, lavondyss, avalon.

Because of this realization I've come to enjoy any such experience no matter the religion whether it is with krishnas, christians or some nature religion cult.

So I think that all the problems and clashes among followers of different religions is that they take their religions too seriously. Are in confusion and mistake their god to be the particular interpretation not the experience which is beyond names.

Maybe this realization should be the key worth exploring in order to create a world where people coexist peacefully on this religious level, eliminating the religious clashes that are still widespread today.
I think in time it would create a world culture that doesn't follow any particular religion, but still has the religious experience of wonder, amazement and sublime rapture that has fueled so many wonderful achievements of humankind.

I think in time it would create a world culture that doesn't follow any particular religion, but still has the religious experience of wonder, amazement and sublime rapture that has fueled so many wonderful achievements of humankind.


There will always be a religion of some kind as long as there are humans here. They need to have something to believe in besides themselves.

What about Buddhism? I think it's the most advanced religion/philosophy that also doesn't require people to believe in "something besides themselves", and there are millions of buddhists, so I think the second part of your generalisation is too broad and untrue.
I agree with the first though, but with accent on religious experience not a particular religion.

What about Buddhism? I think it's the most advanced religion/philosophy that also doesn't require people to believe in "something besides themselves", and there are millions of buddhists, so I think the second part of your generalisation is too broad and untrue.
I agree with the first though, but with accent on religious experience not a particular religion.

There may be millions of Buddhists but not all of them follow an atheistic model of Buddhism.

I know, but it shows that human doesn't have to believe in something other than himself, many do, but it's not an absolute psychological requirement.

I know, but it shows that human doesn't have to believe in something other than himself, many do, but it's not an absolute psychological requirement.

Perhaps, but I haven't engaged in a long convesation with any such people, so I'll suspend any conclusions. However, based on my own experiences with human beings, I'd say everyone has an ideology, sometimes, they just don't recognise it as such.

Religion = ideology ?

Religion = ideology ?

Ideology = something you believe in

Wait, wait, wait...
Where did I say that humans should not believe in anything?
I was just talking about the possibility of people not taking their religious beliefs too seriously.

Wait, wait, wait...
Where did I say that humans should not believe in anything?
I was just talking about the possibility of people not taking their religious beliefs too seriously.

Where there are religions there will always be those who will believe that theirs is the only one and that all others should be crushed and swept aside in order for their own religion to take control for their own reasons and goals.

Ideology = something you believe in

So you say that an ideology (= something you believe in) doesnt have to be a religion ?

cosmictraveler, what do you think is the most common and likely psychological cause of this fanatism?

cosmictraveler, what do you think is the most common and likely psychological cause of this fanatism?

Greed, they want to control people to make people slaves unto them. Convincing others to do things for you because of some supernatural power is a con job used throughout history. They get waited upon head over heal, that is those who establish the religions...known as Priests in many times during history.

This is of course fantasy, but that means that there should be created an ideology supported by very potent ritual experience or modified and improved an existing one that among other things overrides the greed instinct of the human psyche and replaces it with something more benovelant.

Benevolent slaves, just like worker bees or worker ants.

Not obligatory. :)
If humanity survives who knows what our society will be like in a million years?
Any way, human instincts, whether that is a good thing or bad, can be overriden by culture, Egyptian art proves it.

Personally I prefer that our minds are free and capable of inovation of ideas and that our minds are not set in a rigid frame. Exactly that has allowed us to progress.
The tradeoff however is that some of these inovative ideas could prove fatal to humanity.

So maybe a middle way should be found...

The problem is that innovations have there prices. They cut both ways most of the time. Whatever we create we also destroy something at the same time. It is just a matter as to how much destruction that we cause because one day we will destroy ourselves by our own means if we aren't done away with by an asteroid or other Earth destroying event.

I think very few christians in the West are seeking epiphanic rapture or have experienced it. Nor do I think most Jews are.

To say that they really all are the same seems very problematic to me. This means that you, at best a dabbler in most religions know that 'really' they are not experiencing Allah or God, that pagans are not experiencing spirits other real external entities, and so in other religions, despite the fact that people with vastly more experience of those religions who have practiced their ecstatic practices much more than you consider insights into and contact with external beings to be a central part of their experiences. You want to dismiss all this and these experts. It is all really a solipsistic experience. A psychological one. Perhaps even merely a neurological one, a kind of positive internal feedback loop. I think to assume you are in a position to know what they are actually experiencing and how they are all confused and misinterpreting their experiences shows hubris.

I think very few christians in the West are seeking epiphanic rapture or have experienced it. Nor do I think most Jews are.
That's why their religions are losing force and in general have become not much more than a social ethics club. They interpret their symbols for being the real thing and not the metaphor. That limits their access to the experience, because they are stuck with metaphors that worked for people in another time and place. And that they are metaphors you can discover by analyzing other religions and human psyche.
'really' they are not experiencing Allah or God, that pagans are not experiencing spirits other real external entities, and so in other religions, despite the fact that people with vastly more experience of those religions who have practiced their ecstatic practices much more than you consider insights into and contact with external beings to be a central part of their experiences. You want to dismiss all this and these experts.
That's because I see the big picture and am not limited by the frame of one religion.
An expert in ones delusions is still deluded.
I think to assume you are in a position to know what they are actually experiencing
I have participated in rituals of various religions and analysed them in the field as well as in scientific literature.
shows hubris.
Maybe it does, but I have confidence in my abilities.

p.s. The first post of this thread is a very short version intended for fast forum consumption. I can elaborate on particular aspects if you wish.

Quick elaboration:


All religions offer the experience of the divine to their followers - Experience in this life or another, but they have to give a taste of it for their followers or they'd be dismissed as rubbish. The experience of god or the divine is esentially central to any religion.

which mainly is a psychological experience of "epiphanic rapture" that mostly is created through ritual. - Humans experience reality through their senses, that is to say, their psyche. Every experience is a psychological one that can be caused by many means.

During a ritual you have a controlled environment which is created to create that experience in the mind of the addressee. The most common methods are music/rhytm, physical actions, visual stimulants and intoxication, in many cases used simultaneously for the greatest effect. Psychological stimulants are also used.


The rest is just local interpretation and some particular ethics which are not essential to the experience. - By local interpretation I mean exactly how the experience is explained to the audience and that the interpretation is essential in controlling the audience, let's say a young man in an initiation ritual to assume the social duties of a grown up man. The ritual gives him the psychological energy to do it, the mythology provides him with reason, the cosmology with reality/environment, and the social guideance with the sense of purpose and duty.

That's why, I think, it could be said that all religious people worship one thing, but that thing is not some god, is not an entity or a personification of something, it's an experience of their own psyche or self which, if experienced fully, is the godly bliss, paradise, lavondyss, avalon. - With self I ment the total self of the particular mythology, which may also be the scientific total self, but it may be not, it depends on how the particular mythology is in tune with the particular science of the time.
In any case the experience is psychological.

There will always be a religion of some kind as long as there are humans here. They need to have something to believe in besides themselves.I often wonder what will happen when death via the aging process is eliminated? If people have little fear of dieing of old age, can stay young and healthy, why worship anything? (Oh course some people will worship something because it's probably written into their DNA - but for 99% - I'd think no).

There are plenty of problems besides dying and old age. Religions are also tended towards solving psychological problems not modifying reality.
How to be rich, how to be poor, how to be happy. how to be sad, where to look for peace, how to find adventure, purpose and bliss.

I suppose you are right - but don't most people deal with those issues by themselves or maybe get the advice of a friend or someone who knows about the particular issue at hand? I'd think very few people would turn to a religous book for guidance?!? Maybe just a priest?

I don't think we're a model for a particulary healthy society - undirectional and with no common goal that's above the primitive economical.
Religion theoretically has the potential capacity and the tools to educate people and make them into fully functional members of the society.

There are very many people with psychological problems and the rate is increasing (I've been told this by several psychiatrists), many just have no idea how to be adults and walk past the classical Freudian triangle, so they are grown ups, parents and leaders with mentality of children.

Truth to be said most people can't solve their own psychological problems, and even more so solve the problems of others.

Of course todaay we have the problem that western religions have degenerated and "lost their way", but that's another topic.

Religion = ideology ?
In many ways, yes.
An ideology is a particular set of philosophical principles, and ideals which one holds in high regard.
My view of religion is simply that religion is taking an ideological form of one's philosophy into a form of devotion.

So, really, religion is summarised best as an ideology that one is devoted to.
In that case, really, religion can be nearly anything. From political and economic, to metaphysical, to ethical, or even aesthetic philosophy.

In many ways, yes.
An ideology is a particular set of philosophical principles, and ideals which one holds in high regard.
My view of religion is simply that religion is taking an ideological form of one's philosophy into a form of devotion.

So, really, religion is summarised best as an ideology that one is devoted to.
In that case, really, religion can be nearly anything. From political and economic, to metaphysical, to ethical, or even aesthetic philosophy.

In that sense, where is the need for a supernatural being and worship of such a being ?

Metaphysics is an aspect of philosophy, correct?
Theology, and the concept of Deity, serve as an "easy way out" of crucial questions pertaining to metaphysics.

Metaphysics is an aspect of philosophy, correct?
Theology, and the concept of Deity, serve as an "easy way out" of crucial questions pertaining to metaphysics.

So you say there is no real need, it's just lying to oneself.

Not necessarily. It's impossible to know whether that "easy way out" is the right answer.
It might be more complex than that, but the inherent idea of Divinity might be correct. However, there's an equally possible chance that it is incorrect, and that true believers are deluding themselves. It is impossible to know for sure.

Personally, I view it as unnecessary to believe in a transcendent and autonomous deity figure with a personality, and that if (big "if" here) there is a Divinity, it is immanent and part of everything, rather than a single conscious being.

Not necessarily. It's impossible to know whether that "easy way out" is the right answer.
It might be more complex than that, but the inherent idea of Divinity might be correct. However, there's an equally possible chance that it is incorrect, and that true believers are deluding themselves. It is impossible to know for sure.

Personally, I view it as unnecessary to believe in a transcendent and autonomous deity figure with a personality, and that if (big "if" here) there is a Divinity, it is immanent and part of everything, rather than a single conscious being.

I disagree, the chance of 'the easy way out' being correct is much much smaller than the chance of it being incorrect.
I still don't see the need for a supernatural being and worship of such a being ?

Neither do I. That's why I don't literally worship any deities.
I venerate and respect the archetypes and ideas behind the divinities in Paganism, but i do not believe that they are literal beings.

Neither do I. That's why I don't literally worship any deities.
I venerate and respect the archetypes and ideas behind the divinities in Paganism, but i do not believe that they are literal beings.

Are you a pagan then ? Well sort of ?

Yes. Look at my user title, it's a fairly big hint. :D

The good thing about neo-Paganism, especially eclectic traditions, which are inherently syncretic, is that it affords a wide range of theological views. This is because Paganism is more of an umbrella term for a broad spectrum of traditions, or beliefs.
My personal views fall within an atheistic view of a mix of Germanic and Celtic paleopaganism. I do not literally believe in the gods; rather, I view them as archetypes of an idealised figure which they represent.

For example, the god Odin in Germanic paganism, to me represents an ideal King or ruler. The horned god of Celtic paganism, Cernunnos, represents to me, an idealised father or fertile husband. On the other hand, the chief goddess of Celtic paganism, Beira, represents an ideal mother figure, and the Norse goddess Freya is an idealised huntress figure, the ideal of the "working woman".
The mythological figures make good role models, but I do not believe they literally existed as gods. They may have existed as ancestral tribal leaders to those peoples, though, and were subsequently deified by tribal consensus, thus immortalising their deeds for future generations to follow.

Yes. Look at my user title, it's a fairly big hint. :D

The good thing about neo-Paganism, especially eclectic traditions, which are inherently syncretic, is that it affords a wide range of theological views. This is because Paganism is more of an umbrella term for a broad spectrum of traditions, or beliefs.
My personal views fall within an atheistic view of a mix of Germanic and Celtic paleopaganism. I do not literally believe in the gods; rather, I view them as archetypes of an idealised figure which they represent.

For example, the god Odin in Germanic paganism, to me represents an ideal King or ruler. The horned god of Celtic paganism, Cernunnos, represents to me, an idealised father or fertile husband. On the other hand, the chief goddess of Celtic paganism, Beira, represents an ideal mother figure, and the Norse goddess Freya is an idealised huntress figure, the ideal of the "working woman".
The mythological figures make good role models, but I do not believe they literally existed as gods. They may have existed as ancestral tribal leaders to those peoples, though, and were subsequently deified by tribal consensus, thus immortalising their deeds for future generations to follow.

Oh lol ;)
Paganism is really appealing to me but I can't believe in any deities (like you), so I don't want to identify myself with any. It's appealing to me like a good fantasy story or role playing game would also be.
Or the 'religion' of native americans, in short.. nature religions :)

In short, that's what Paganism is. It's a broad range of earth-based, natural religions.
Which is why it appeals to me; it's not bastardised by the twisted Mesopotamian morality that permeates the Abrahamic religions. It's a lot more tolerant, and a lot more accepting of new ideas, as well as being big on the idea of personal responsibility.
It's the ethics, really, that matter the most in a religion.

Mod note: deliberately misquoting me or any other person by altering the quoted post will result in severe punishment.

Avatar


:roflmao:

Reminds me of a Scripture...But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him...

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book...

All religions offer the experience of the divine to their followers, which mainly is a psychological experience of "epiphanic rapture" that mostly is created through ritual.
The rest is just local interpretation and some particular ethics which are not essential to the experience.

That's why, I think, it could be said that all religious people worship one thing, but that thing is not some god, is not an entity or a personification of something, it's an experience of their own psyche or self which, if experienced fully, is the godly bliss, paradise, lavondyss, avalon.

Because of this realization I've come to enjoy any such experience no matter the religion whether it is with krishnas, christians or some nature religion cult.

So I think that all the problems and clashes among followers of different religions is that they take their religions too seriously. Are in confusion and mistake their god to be the particular interpretation not the experience which is beyond names.

Maybe this realization should be the key worth exploring in order to create a world where people coexist peacefully on this religious level, eliminating the religious clashes that are still widespread today.
I think in time it would create a world culture that doesn't follow any particular religion, but still has the religious experience of wonder, amazement and sublime rapture that has fueled so many wonderful achievements of humankind.
http://www.iskcon.net/perth/Biographys/ISKCON_Gurus/JapatakaSwamiPranamas.jpg

[QUOTE]That's why their religions are losing force and in general have become not much more than a social ethics club. They interpret their symbols for being the real thing and not the metaphor.

This quality was present at the inception of certain religions, perhaps even more strongly. And in groups that are actively seeking rapturous experiences this is also often true. I still think you have chosen one kind of religious experience, prioritized it in a way that means that most religious people are not religious AND are making claims about how these rapturous experiences were actually just brain states and the originators knew this. I do not think this is true. I think many of the orginators and current practitioners, perhaps especially those seeking experiences you are talking about, take much of their myths literally.

That limits their access to the experience, because they are stuck with metaphors that worked for people in another time and place. And that they are metaphors you can discover by analyzing other religions and human psyche.

I agree that many of the metaphors should be publically acknowledged as dead but better buried. Service, sacrifice and war metaphors which are rampant in many mystic texts are a good example of this.


I have participated in rituals of various religions and analysed them in the field as well as in scientific literature.

Then you know that most people who think of themselves as religious you do not consider religious. I think this has to be stated up front. Then it will seem less like hubris. You are not saying what most people are seeking and doing, you have placed them outside of 'real' religious practice.

Hubris to me comes in here if you are saying 'what all these people are really doing is......'

In short, that's what Paganism is. It's a broad range of earth-based, natural religions.
Which is why it appeals to me; it's not bastardised by the twisted Mesopotamian morality that permeates the Abrahamic religions. It's a lot more tolerant, and a lot more accepting of new ideas, as well as being big on the idea of personal responsibility.
It's the ethics, really, that matter the most in a religion.

Why call yourself a pagan? Why not a humanist with a certain set of ethics? What makes your belief system a religion?

Why call yourself a pagan? Why not a humanist with a certain set of ethics? What makes your belief system a religion?

Well, that raises the question why call yourself anything at all.
I'm really not calling myself an atheist, but by definition I am.. so whenever asked I'm forced to say I'm an atheist or people don't understand or start asking a million questions. Definition make conversation easier but, personally, I don't like labeling though.

Why call yourself a pagan?
Because my beliefs are closely associated and derived from paganism.
It goes beyond merely one's view on divinity. It's all of metaphysics, and I my view of the metaphysical universe is in line with most pagans I have talked to.
Besides, we all have a right to define ourselves, do we not?

Why not a humanist with a certain set of ethics?
Because I go beyond mere humanism. I think all things, not just people, are worthy of dignity and respect, especially nature, as it is from nature which humanity developed. It must be revered and respected much as one would revere and respect one's mother.

What makes your belief system a religion?
I consider myself devoted to my philosophy and I try to apply it in everyday life. That's what religion is: devotion to an ideal and a certain will for it to be applied to everyday situations.

Please be so kind and discuss personal beliefs in Religion not CR subforum.
Thanks

The guy asked me a question. I'm not about to ignore it. That'd be rude. A thousand times more rude than simply posting in the wrong subforum.

The guy asked me a question. I'm not about to ignore it. That'd be rude. A thousand times more rude than simply posting in the wrong subforum.A tough call for the Moderator. I'm glad this isn't my board. The discussion is about definitions. Sometimes a definition isn't worth much without an example. At least you're arguing about what a particular belief is, not about which one is "true" or "better."

All religions offer the experience of the divine to their followers, which mainly is a psychological experience of "epiphanic rapture" that mostly is created through ritual.
The rest is just local interpretation and some particular ethics which are not essential to the experience.

That's why, I think, it could be said that all religious people worship one thing, but that thing is not some god, is not an entity or a personification of something, it's an experience of their own psyche or self which, if experienced fully, is the godly bliss, paradise, lavondyss, avalon.

Suppose, instead however, that the real function of religion is to enable, us who have evolved as social animals used to some forty individual-sized groups (instinctively), to adjust to living in huge mass of people united by a common belief system. Just as howler monkeys will gravitate to the edge of their territory in the wild and mock those in the next group who gather and howl back threateningly. This "us" against "them" sense is important to have for people who need to feel as "one". Remember how united the U.S. was after 9/11 and we felt powerful and wanted to smash the Taliban? We stopped seeing social problems in the newspapers because the press and the social researches realized no one wanted to read that stuff any more. People waved flags, went to church and cheered "God Bless America."

This is the way I explain the role of religion in http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
Also, I show the formula that all religions have to shape to in order to do that and that formula has nothing inherently to do with "spirits" of any kind. It is just a matter of what questions the religion purports to answer and if those answers are consistent with each other.