On 16-Jan-09 6:29, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> So, yes, there is a "value" that come with it, which you don't have 
>>> without it.
>>
>> I disagree that spirituality without a personal sky daddy is 
>> necessarily better than a spirituality with a personal sky daddy.
>>
> Depends, I suppose, on your definition of "better". Some people seem to 
> be virtually "incapable" of functioning as rational human beings without 
>  a god. Frankly, some of those people scare the hell out of me, since I 
> have either seen them in moments when they questioned it, or have been 
> told by them what they "imagine" they could do, if they suddenly found 
> they didn't have a god looking over them. For those people.. having such 
> a "spirituality" that is derived from the magic sky faerie, is better 
> then without it.
> 
> Then there are the others, who use belief in the forgiveness, mandates 
> from, communication with, and self selected quote mining of his supposed 
> words, to justify doing all the things that the former group would do, 
> but **as a result** of having the belief. That category would be better 
> off if they had to deal with the cold hard truth that there isn't 
> anything out their that cares about every tiny little thing they do, and 
> they bloody well better start being nice to real people on earth.
> 
> That the majority fall some place between these two, with occasional, 
> and limited, wobbles in one or the other direction, based on their pet 
> peeves, doesn't at all, in my mind, suggest that the first group might 
> have been better off if introduced to moral thinking, instead of fear 
> based self control, and the later to the concept of humility, without, 
> in either case, resorting to what has, in one fashion or another, helped 
> manufacture their rather dangerous mental instabilities in the first place.
> 
> For both sets, a spirituality that sees the world for what it is, and 
> find awe in that, is far superior than one that sees it as all corrupt, 
> or all made for their own purposes, with only an imaginary friend there 
> to tell them "how" to use it, or what things to avoid doing.
> 
> Note, the "spirituality" of those in the middle, while they often walk a 
> bit close to both lines at times, has "far" more in common with the 
> naturalist/humanist spirituality they deny believing in, than the deity 
> based one. So.. it might be argued that, if you examine religious 
> spirituality, in its purist and untainted form, it has serious problems. ;)
> 
I think you are missing at least one other 'pole' i.e. those that think 
they have a purpose in life. I have met a fairly large group of 
religious people that feel responsible for their neighbours and the 
earth in general. That is not because there is a God that is going to 
count every action when they die and will punish them if the score is 
negative. They really do have an internal motivation to do this. I also 
know a couple of atheists with the same drive, in fact almost the only 
thing that separates these two groups is that one believes in God and 
the other doesn't.
If you leave out this group of spiritual people in your analysis you do 
the religious people unjustice. Note that nearly every new religious 
group starts here and only later on when people find that being a 
religious leader gives power over others dogmas start to develop. Note 
also that gnostic individuals and groups are almost by definition not 
following authority.

Post a reply to this message