Personal Spirituality and Irrationality without Religion

Personal Spirituality, irrationality without religion

The best you can gain from spirituality without religion may be a delusional view of reality, minus the traditional culture of indoctrination, you have another style, if still the voodoo of faith.  Escaping the bastion of traditional religious organisations, with their rules and conformity, so you have free choice, exploration, and the ability to disagree massively, even if you cling to the mystical and experiential as critical for a serious view of reality.  Religion minus the church, minus the priesthood, and without a holy book, it sounds superior to religion indoctrination, even though you still have groups and organisations, experts and officials, and, you have many books that offer spiritual knowledge.  You may have broken free in some ways, yet you are still very much caged in others, the limits of an orthodox religion have been surpassed, but you cling to fun ideas that religious thinking can offer.  'Spirituality' is often just a term used to say personal religion, you mix and match based on what you wish, not what's traditional, nor what's evident, and commonly, its bias to own desires and the arguments you use to support your views. 

The removal of Hell is an example of this with moderate Christians. Liberal Christians may rethink the concept, making it philosophical, non-literal, we see this process being watered down even more, which isn't a bad thing.  Although most religions like to select texts, in new age spiritualism almost anything goes, and any nonsense will do.  Such as the idea that Jesus spent time in India learning from great masters, at the feet of gurus, or even travelled to Tibet.  Even though there is no serious evidence to confirm this idea in the least, you may as well suggest he moved to China while you're at it.  This kind of thinking and that of moderates means the books are a starting point, how they proceed to include ideas depends on common sense.  You can quickly dismiss a pet theory that is true but unknown and call a thing the true while not knowing that this is the case. 

Many suggest a foundation to spirituality, so they kind God in all religions with a few wild interpretations.  It's all selection, and who says what is the foundation and the errors created afterwards?  Fundamentalists say their belief is right and the rest became corrupted, the spiritualists claim the cute stuff and then claim the unpleasant things are to do with negativity and materialism. 

Even if many possibilities are used to say that the things you hold dear are correct, selection for fundamentalist Christians is to select stories about great floods in ancient times.  Searching the history books and ancient legends to find anything that suggests that the biblical stories are true, and often finding a flood myth is enough for them to say that the global flood is reported in every culture.
To pose the idea that a global flood took place, even if their flood story is Atlantis, is simple enough.  The way they prove the faith is by poor connections, so a spiritual person selects data to fit it into a lost global civilisation belief, and then without question will accept reincarnation stories as evidence, just because they have a bias the idea that one can reincarnate, as well as spirit channelling, and other mystic ideas.

Data selection based on bias includes the acceptance of hearsay and supportive ideas, which are held together by a unifying hypothesis, or series of hypotheses, and from the shaky ground the unsound idea is constructed.  This can including the unaccounted years of Jesus meaning that he must have been in India learning from gurus, just as ignoring the periods of floods reported in various cultures and myths can seem to support a biblical view of a global event, well, if you are fine with selecting what you want, not that which is in full context and backed by solid evidence.  And you may even say the great flood was evidence of the planetary shift that sank Atlantis, or even that it was the result of a near miss, as a planet X passed close to the earth, but you would still be trying to support beliefs with unsubstantiated legends. 

The issue is how we rationalise things based on limited information, even using hearsay as evidence, so beyond myths, the concern is poor reasoning based on belief, a poor comprehension of terms and concepts, and this ignorance, and a kind of arrogance has a knock-on effect on society.  Moderate people, whether religious or spiritual, are often very vulnerable to such leaps. 

Misconception

Misconception

Often I have discussed Atheism with internet Christians, and the misconceptions I will note, I selected a comment, for this response I have removed filler, as well as cheap insults. The content discussed was in regards to Islam, specifically the refutation of Islam and it's foundations, the audio placed on YouTube, edited from god is not great, by Christopher Hitchens, and many people added their points in the comments, often without reading the book or listening to the audiobook. It's worth noting, many pathetic tirades are common to internet comments, those with strong beliefs have a series of claims that are based more on bad philosophy than the facts, personally I value what is truly more than what is accepted on faith.

The comment begins, “Christ is the Word of the Living God. God is Good”, I would call that tame for the youtube, well until the usual claim comes up, “Bloodthirsty atheists can't see this because their eyes are blinded because they hate truth but love with all their heart lies”. The funniest thing about such claims, at least to me, is they are fighting the straw-man, what atheists must be to doubt the Christian faith, he may as well claim we worship Satan and eat babies, well, in for a penny, in for a pound. Many a devout Christian may well think Atheists worship Lucifer, or even because we have no moral guide in god, that we may eat babies if we wish, and if you're willing to make things up, you may as well go all out and tell some really amusing lines. And, in the knowledge, they will antagonise those who oppose you.

To show his poor contact with reality, Erik says, “Ironically enough the power of God claims once a man loves lies, he has sacrificed himself to Satan, the father of lies. For as Satan will use the fool aka atheist at his every whim will then turn and devour that which was faithful to him.” The best work of Christians isn't when they repeat hollow rhetoric, Such statements work on many, affecting those who are vulnerable to such beliefs, yet with most non-believers, you may as well be telling us about our lack of Jedi practice and meditation causes us to fall to the dark side of the force. Repeating over and over the word of the bible is as meaningless as repeating Harry Potter, going over bible verses like the Christian fictional hero, Bible-man, is ineffective except on those within that culture of belief, to us non-Christian it's as compelling as stories about Narnia, and I have let to find evidence against The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that makes it's absolutely sure that it is impossible. Most things are improbable, even in a vast universe, and we don't get to absolutes as much as the point at much an idea is so improbable that it in effect impossible, making the biblical god with all its miracles as probable as Narnia.

My response was short and clear, “Bloodthirst isn't the point, if there was any, the point is religions often push their politics on everyone, secularists demand that we don't give any group a superior position, to best avoid a limitation of choice.” The thing that the devout don't often understand is that non-believers do not the religious claims about them, we are not out to smash freedom of religion, we are out to ensure that secular values protect the rights of all people regardless of background, including religious creed. However, some people want to utterly destroy religion, even if most atheists see that religion is already practising self-destruction, and at worst no special treatment should be given, no privilege.

These Bloodthirsty Atheists don't seem to exist to any great degree, even angry atheists are often making a point because they are affected by religious influence in a society, some are repressed in a fundamentalist region or town, maybe a local politician is getting the Christian vote by condemning non-Christians, doubters, secularist, and homosexuality, with such decisive politics in the mainstream in the United States, and elsewhere, it's little wonder that many people are antagonised. In highly religious communities it isn't always easy to be the outsider, and with fundamentalists calling atheists the fools for Satan, some people are bound to express their anger on the internet. Much like the disrespect towards many communities, religion says it knows what's best, if you're not following the rules then you have nothing worth saying, this is a major attitude problem, “If you're not with us, you must be against us.” is the belief of many churches, whereas most doubters and religious moderates can get on happily in society, even when they disagree.

We shared our thoughts over a series of comments, and in essence, the Christian judged Islam as false using the same logic that refutes Christianity, different specifics with the same reasoning to counter the poorly supported claims of the religion. Claims made about the lack of evidence and history for Islam, and no acceptance of the large gaps in Christian history, the lack of evidence for Christ's existence says as much as the fact we know little of Muhammad. Much of what we claim to know of Muhammad is from the Quran and others books after the time, just as we know of Jesus is from the Bible and the second-hand histories after the time, it is easy enough to say Muhammad is at least a historical Character, and Jesus may as well be largely fabricated. It's worth noting that the majority of historian consider it probable that the man, Jesus, existed, even though a fair number of people think that he may have been created by a few people, or utterly fabricated, others say there must have been some foundation for the stories. It may well be, the earliest stories could be based on the man, the passing through various cultures added to the legend, and, as is evident, the myths of others became weaved into the tapestry.

Erik stated, “I respect the argument that religious people can be pushy as tyrants in the radical Islamic belief, they(Muslims or radical Muslims) say do or die.”, I don't know what was being addressed, I didn't raise that point, pointing out bad beliefs doesn't make other ones good by default. I'm not sure of her meant Muslims in general or the militant forces within Islam, it seemed like a side step from Christian issues on to that of Islam, and the bandwagon that paints Muslims with the brush, rather than explaining what you truly mean, such as the difference between Wahhabi-Sunni Muslims and moderate groups such as the Pacifistic version of Islam as expressed by the Sufi.

The Problem with many Christians is they learn debate tricks from the same sources, the churches, and ignorant communities that push an agenda, fleshing the belief out by agreeing with each other, although, sometimes they gets sketchy in a discussion and want to find something to agree upon, or a sidestep the lack of evidence that plagues all religions. Ignoring Christian problems by finding a more dangerous or aggressive ideology cures nothing, pointing out Muslim extremes doesn't cancel out Christian ones, they seem to think we'll forgive and forget the troubles of Christian politics, past and present, and will we accept the lesser of two evils. Evil in this context simply means harm done in the name of ideology, I only note this because a common trick is word games, such as responses like “And where does evil come from.”, so any claim of truth, love, or anything is said to be god's property, and the estate of evil is attributed to Lucifer.

An obvious point about Muslims, outside of the middle east and third world, they are, on average, far from the type of person to threaten you with death, well not more than most other communities, whereas, in the middle-east, including various capitalist democracies, we cannot fully judge a people group by the general view of the worst extremists, since where the freedom to think beyond the Imam or Mullah exists the people flock away from pure devotion. I think many Christians make a fair point about radical Islam, sadly, as long as nations like Saudi Arabia fund Sunni extremism, and the Iranian Government support Shia extremists, we have a mighty problem, and out of such extremes danger will emanate, using hard-line ideology to gain influence backfires, and creates groups like Islamic State. Think about how some American preachers have, by extension, supported the execution of homosexuals in Uganda, you see the tip of the iceberg, where pseudoscience and fanatical preaching pushes such agendas, if not in the western world, then such ideological views filter into less educated and liberal nations, empowering religious extremism, and laws that limit freedoms, and in this case lead to government mandated murder of those who don't follow the same lifestyle as the majority of the population. A preacher in the United States can say things that the US government will not pass into law, knowing this and rallying the church, the preacher can spread hate speech, and post this brand of extremism online as just an opinion, this can easily be picked up by a person in almost anywhere on the planet, from there this 'Science' can be passed off as official. And, if preacher should have an unaccredited doctorate, from a Christian college or diploma mill, then such a quack may be referred to as a doctor before audiences of ignorant fundamentalists or on a professional website.

A common error, the claim of how free and open Christianity is, they ignore the long social changes took and the philosophical development of our society, we're no longer treated badly for questioning the opinions of the church, yet, this is a moderation, not a fundamental view of the Christian faith. Another comment states, “Christianity and Judaism aren't pushy, and anyone who quotes the Holy Bible to testify otherwise is indeed misreading the book.”, this is ignorant of our shared history, how the moderation of religious power isn't due to the faith, as much as the cultural scenery in which religion can operate. Trying to get a modern Christians to agree on which laws and traditions of the old testament that should be used now is a battle they aren't prepared for, it isn't a clear series of ideas that works without interpretation, so how can a person twist Jesus's coming into changing a divine law, since he is said to claim to not break the law, most Christian values are based on modern morality, which is by definition moving beyond the bible. If we reject the old laws it becomes unclear, if you take it as non-literal then where is the line drawn, and if you cast off the bits that are no longer okay, you're believing in something that isn't biblical, even if inspired by aspects of it. Once you reach a wider philosophical view, you're almost ready to drop the Christianity altogether, accepting the books of old were inspired, not scripted by the creator of the universe, not the perfect word of god, nor a clear and factual history. Most Christians play a balancing act with ideas of what is moral, mostly based on background, most Christian don't know the bible well, so many accept what they think they know, and what a minister selects for a sermon.

The fact is many Christians are pushy, otherwise, there would be no debate over abortion, stem cell research, intelligent design, women's rights, LGBT rights, what politicians believe (or do not), and much more. It's not as bad as Islam in the middle east and third world, and who would expect the first world comforts to create a Christian State army as a mirror to Islam State, we have comforts and laws that have kept fanatics in line, so religion has become moderate and realistic where extremism isn't tolerated.

The trouble with quotations is the way they can be misused?

[small sample from a draft of a book, this tiny snippet makes some sense even when removed from surrounding thoughts in the draft of my new book.]

The best examples of quotes are pseudo-scientists, who use selected scientific quotes, or those quotes from scientists, to support an unscientific series of opinions, the goal is often to fleece the converted. These shameless entities leach on to the desire for knowledge, trick the somewhat ill-informed, and make a business from a half-baked philosophy. In fact, the lowest blow is where a person clear has originated the deception, so rather than accepting a poor authority, they actually have gone through various statement of a respected historical figure to winkle out a few choice words, this can be to support or dismiss claims, as with the criticism of atheist authors, although this is often applied by amateurs, and on ether side of the debate.

In various debates, many of which are in video form online, a person wishing to misrepresent a position will select quotes, even those quoted by the person they quote, as happened in one instance of a debate between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris, Dr Craig used selected quotes that Harris had quoted from others, and were not his own position.  This kind of quotation is to misrepresent a persons work, and is the lowest form of debate, since a dishonest selection process is used to discredit the individual, in that case Sam Harris. I don't doubt that there are many atheists who would do the same to discredit their opposition in a debate, although if we are honest we should point out these errors in reasoning, regardless of who uses these methods.

[extracted from the draft of a book I'm writing, about reason, philosophy, and quackery]

Testing Psychics With Haunted Box? - RobertWLester

how could I test a psychic?  what do many claim?  the skill to read people and even objects, to commune with spirits and angelic or guardian guiding entities.

so an idea came to mind after seeming so-called haunted objects on ebay and other websites, no evidence is in place, no tests, just stories, hearsay about accidents and other nonsenses.

And out of the ocean of irrationality the thought of using such a box was spawned.

Obviously such memorabilia is costly, so easier to get an old and cheaper box and make up a story, indeed seemingly this is what the sellers of such nonsense actually do, so if I were to use such a box could I fool a psychic or two?

 this box is the chosen item for such a pseudo-test, where I may take it to a psychic and get a reading, for less than £35, and get this person to do a reading upon this box.  The box would be noted as haunted by me, and if pressed I will offer more hearsay to the pile, the idea that the previous owners have suffered bad events that range from sleeplessness to a car crash, but these ideas wont be leaked unless they ask leading questions.  The idea is to get them to spin what I seem to believe even though it is fiction, logically cold readers will feed off this hearsay, the true psychic, if they were to exist, would know this is not so, and tell me another story all together. 

 naturally it is not easy to get thirty minute of a reading on a box, so I'll get information for me too, and in one or two I will act another way, in majority of cases I will be honest, except in the case of the box, which, as previously stated, will be described as haunted and from an ebay seller. 

Surely if a person were psychic this would be obviously
not haunted at all.

I have taken it to a psychics who said nothing of it being haunted, but I did not leak the fiction in that case. 

it is old, partly restored, and looks the part of an old haunted box.

the story is that previous owners had problems, the details are on my youtube channel, totally fake, but will psychics believe it. 

 naturally in the trial run of a reading the psychic claimed it was linked to my grandfather after I had already leak this fictional idea, seemingly this psychic and medium was communicating with my grandmother but described her wrong and got almost every detail incorrect. 

simply put this project should be interesting and results will be on my youtube channel, shared on twitter and here on this blog.  

RobertWLester

look up my youtube

you'll find my work online under the name robertwlester or roblesterfilms. 

2012 theories on nibiru = non-sense

[I am nothing & no-one, but here is my view]

I mean no offence to the followers of the belief, but nibiru is just that.
over the last 7 months i have done a good number of nibiru videos, attacking the so-called proof of the nibiru/2012 movements, although at first they dragged me in.

In later 2010 I had heard of these planet X theories & concluded it is possible, however the strange theories relating to planet X / Nibiru and alien / reptilians was truly insane, not because it is out on the edge, but because the concepts where completely unfounded in proof of any kind.
it was only in early 2011, when I had studied the topic a bit more, that I was able to open a can of kick ass on the theories, sadly some youtubers continue to troll me over the matter, they cannot except that my main channel, "rob lester films" ,was winning again masses of nibiru theorists.
For some Time I had hoped to better understand the ideas of the 2012 movement, my talks with binaryjudy & other lead me to conclude it was a question of belief, not any kind of factual evidence, Judy used to speak in her vids of the vibrational shift, as if over night a great consciousness shift will bring about a mass enlightenment!
It was an interesting idea to say the least, yet nothing of real value was presented, not a thing beyond self help non-sense & new age faiths of a reality matrix.

In my experiences of Nibiru'ers, I've found many have these ideas of consciousness at their centre, as a blind faith, still many, if indeed not most, are stuck in a fear belief that the end is here.
So many of the Nibiru'ers seem to be locked an end of days world view or very least an idea that some kind of end is near, how it will unfold is debated, there are a million theories, from earth quakes to polar shifts, but the facts allude the theorists.

I would like to say not all nibiru theorists are crazy, just a bit nutty, and sometime fruity, but in any case, nutcase or otherwise, being open minded to a maybe event is better than being a person in blissful ignorance until the moment of their doom.

the key points i have covered on nibiru have gone over various objects, theories, concepts, and in the big picture I don't think I've ranted too much, although it comes with the job when debating fanatics who are as bad as any young earth creationist or new age nutjob.

My vid that did the best was "Nibiru end of the world 2012", made in December 2010, it has received over 200,000 views, not bad at all, but it had a great thumb nail pic, good tags, and I left it as a response to a very popular video on nibiru.  so it took off not by my hard work, but by being in the right place at the right time.