Patriotism may be the ‘last refuge of the scoundrel’ (as the saying goes), but having an absolutist, inflexible, and literalist stance on any religion or spiritual belief is a close second, in my very humble opinion. — 0 thru 9

Is it your experience that religious or spiritual people are open to communication, good listeners, willing to cooperate, fair, goodwilled, acting in good faith?

Is it your experience that religious or spiritual people are open to communication, good listeners, willing to cooperate, fair, goodwilled, acting in good faith? — baker

Most are fair and goodwilled… not much different than any others that I know.
Political issues seem to be more divisive than strictly religious ones.
But of course, self-righteousness in any style is fuel for political fervor!

To me, absolutist Evangelicals and smug judgmental hardcore atheists are quite similar and can go fornicate with each other.
Maybe that will loosen them up a little. :blush:
This is probably straying from the topic though.

Religious/spiritual people seem to be "free" to you? Free of what? Free to do what? — baker

A free state of mind or consciousness. They want to redeem their souls. I am not anyone to rant about them. It is my guilt that I have not found faith yet.

Many people who embrace religions do see the world through a very limited and doctrinaire lens which is its own form of zombification. — Tom Storm

I agree. But as much as some people who embrace themselves in political doctrines and sectarianism.

Not sure that really means very much. What is 'something'? The issue with a belief is whether is is useful or true or good. Not just any belief will do — Tom Storm

Although existentialism has been becoming less relevant in philosophy, it has key elements to understand our relationship and cause with life since we were born. I don't attempt to say that religion has answers to 'Who am I?' 'Why do I live well and others die in Gaza?' 'What is my destiny?' Etc. I understand that, in such a sense of uncertainty, some have faith. I am not referring to religious collectivism or the Church itself, but the aesthetics of 'experiencing' a belief individually.

Well said — 0 thru 9

:up: Thanks!

I agree. But as much as some people who embrace themselves in political doctrines and sectarianism. — javi2541997

Sure, but that's an equivocation - it doesn't change the fact that the religious are often experts at it and I was answering your specific question about religions depleting people.

Although existentialism has been becoming less relevant in philosophy, it has key elements to understand our relationship and cause with life since we were born. — javi2541997

Existentialism seems to come in and out of vogue, like the hula hoop. I don't make a good existentialist, although I flirted badly with it when I was young. I tend to hold that life is a lottery. Luck determines most things, but you can roll with the punches, adapt and make opportunities even in adversity. But giving up is always a possibility... :wink:

it doesn't change the fact that the religious are often experts at it — Tom Storm

It is true that some religious groups use the rhetoric of the Bible - or Quran - viciously. But this is far away from making people lose vitality. I think religion is one of the main causes of keeping people active. Let's see the Evangelists or Pan-Islamists.

Luck determines most things, but you can roll with the punches, adapt and make opportunities even in adversity. — Tom Storm

Where does 'luck' come from? It is a metaphysical thought, or we can only know it though spiritedness. Because it is obvious that some have more luck than others. Why does this happen?

But giving up is always a possibility... :wink: — Tom Storm

I hope you don't give up on believing - on whatever you wish -. I was close to that abyss, and it is not worth living in such a way. :smile:

It is true that some religious groups use the rhetoric of the Bible - or Quran - viciously. But this is far away from making people lose vitality. — javi2541997

No, I'm not making my point clear. Sorry. Religion as opiate of the masses, a soperific which has prevented people from taking revolutionary action for social justice and equality because life on earth is only a preparation for the next life. Religions often venerate suffering and passivity as god's will. This is certainly how much Christianity has operated, zombifying radical intent. But the caste sytem in India pulls similar stunts in relation to poverty. (Note - Yes, I am well aware that there is also religious activism for social justice.) But remember this was response to your line:

Do you really think that religion or spirituality deprive people from energy? — javi2541997

But we should move on from this since the act of bashing religion, while understandable, is dull.

Where does 'luck' come from? — javi2541997

Just a word we use to describe the dumb shit which happens. As a nihilist, I don't see reason to accept any transcendent meaning. These are bedtime stories, sometimes complicated and deep stories, which aim to provide succour and meaning.

Ah, I understand better. You consider religion as an enemy of human development. Christianity has managed to 'zombify' the people with the aim of not allowing them to think by themselves, and this caused slow progress in some parts of the world. Well, I used to think in this way too, but I think I am switching my beliefs and thoughts because 'progressivism', 'collectivism', and leftism have disappointed me. It is not a crisis because of scepticism of the current situation, but an act of open my eyes more often.

But we should move on from this since the act of bashing religion, while understandable, is dull. — Tom Storm

Yeah, and it is infantile. At least, I acted in such a way...

s a nihilist, I don't see reason to accept any transcendent meaning... — Tom Storm

I cannot conceive that an upright and clever person like you has no interest in life and existence - per se -

You consider religion as an enemy of human development. Christianity has managed to 'zombify' the people with the aim of not allowing them to think by themselves, and this caused slow progress in some parts of the world. — javi2541997

No. I consider some expressions of religion harmful. Not all. But yes, in relation to your later point I think this has often been true.

I cannot conceive that an upright and clever person like you has no interest in life and existence — javi2541997

Nihilism has various expressions, for me it simply means I don't think there is a purpose to life or any meaning other than the meaning we manufacture ourselves. Meaning being human perspective. So there's plenty of opportunity to create meaning, both personal and in collaboration with others. Which is what people have done for ever, although some of us like to believe that meaning is ultimately derived from a transcendent source. But this belongs in a nihilism thread.

But that’s how you worded it. Either / or. And that’s an invitation for purging the dissenters and foot-draggers. — 0 thru 9

The fact that there is a spectrum of intensity when it comes to how much an individual is part of a particular problem or a particular solution, does not prevent each individual being assessed as falling into one of those two categories. Part of the problem or the solution, is merely a convenient way to put it, but, taking such to one of the more extreme but real examples, such categorisations of individuals should never mean that even those who just worked for an Aristo, also get their heads guillotined.

You do not speak like a skeptic of anything related to Tech or the owners of such. — 0 thru 9

Then let me try to be clear. I support all tech advances and all attempts to create a tech advance but I do not support the private ownership or distribution of such. My broad goal would be to employ any tech only when it is proven as a net benefit to all existents it can affect, or at least to the vast majority. I do realise that this is a very difficult standard to reach for every example but it does need to be the main standard set, imo.

We need more than “checks and balances” to defeat the “nefarious few” (as you aptly call them).
Been there, done that: they have gamed the system until their wallets overflowed.
I’m not asking for specifics on how to defeat the 1% and pry the remote control out of their cold dead hand lol. I don’t know either. — 0 thru 9

I disagree and I think adequate check and balances do exist and do work. The battle to prevent them being foiled will, I agree, always have failures but hopefully these will be further reduced by better and better checks and balances.

But as a very general direction saying “we the people” comes through as a platitude in a rote political speech. — 0 thru 9

Such an opinion does not detract from the validity and just statement starting 'We the people,' especially when it will eventually refer to the majority of the humans alive at the time.

We as a people are NOT the stakeholders now, if we ever were, and things are moving in the wrong direction. — 0 thru 9

No offence, but I think that is just nonsense and ignores all of the efforts people are making every day to change the future for the better. They will eventually succeed imo.

You seem to be asking for a lot of faith in this system you are describing, and trust in Elon Musk and like visionaries.
Basically, it is the capitalist status quo in hip new clothes. — 0 thru 9

I am a secular humanist and a democratic socialist. Elon Musk is a net negative as an influencer and unfettered capitalism is utterly pernicious and its practice needs to be ended. Only small capitalism can be contained, so that is all that should be tolerated, imo.

Then let me try to be clear. I support all tech advances and all attempts to create a tech advance but I do not support the private ownership or distribution of such. My broad goal would be to employ any tech only when it is proven as a net benefit to all existents it can affect, or at least to the vast majority. I do realise that this is a very difficult standard to reach for every example but it does nosed to be the main standard set, imo. — universeness

I am a secular humanist and a democratic socialist. Elon Musk is a net negative as an influencer and unfettered capitalism is utterly pernicious and its practice needs to be ended. Only small capitalism can be contained, so that is all that should be tolerated, imo. — universeness

Ok good, thanks! :up:
You had mentioned in another thread that you leaned towards democratic socialism, and I was trying to reconcile that with what seemed to me like a pro-industry stance (or something similar).
I realize that one cannot say everything in one post, so what you say here helps me understand your positions.

Technology advancements are of course generally a good thing, although with some drawbacks.
If we as a society can really see the true cost and impact of everything we do, and base leadership decisions on that… it would be a turn for the better.

But right now the entire world is playing a board game (with real money and lives at stake) that is a combination of the Monopoly and Risk games, and we are all losing.
Even the kings are captives in a gold cage, surrounded by swirling smoky chaos.

leaned towards democratic socialism — 0 thru 9

I joined the Labour Party in Scotland and their cooperative Labour Party section and their young socialists section, when I was 17. I had clause 4 of the Labour Party painted along the top of my bedroom walls (in old English script), so 'leaned towards,' made me smile.

I left the party, when I eventually understood what Tony Blair and his mob were about.
I eventually supported Scottish independence, as I saw a road from there to the possibility of Scotland becoming a truly democratic socialist nation. I have always been an atheist, so secular humanism followed, as I consider such to be symbiotic with democratic socialism.

I am now against all party politics, as I think party politics has failed badly at all levels. I now support democratic socialist, non-party based, secular humanist, global governance and a resource based global economy. Perhaps that will give you a clearer base, for any of my future/past posts you are kind enough to read and consider.

:ok: :cool: :sparkle:

Just don't confuse it with anything spiritual. — Wayfarer

That's an interesting perspective, in my opinion. I've heard the same echoed about Gnosticism by a number of reputable sources; that they would not have embraced a techno-optimistic religion.

I find much about technology to be a form of spiritual experience, or embodiment. I am not a proponent of a religion, or any specific of spirituality. But I know there is a growing community of seekers who are turning almost exclusively to modern technology for answers.

We live in fascinating times.

Alright. I will change the subject in future posts.

The tone of some cosmism seems to be similar to your modern techno-optimism, though of course the technological focus has changed. — Jamal

Indeed, the technological focus has changed. And with it, the distance between our species and the stars has shortened.

If I understand correctly, Cosmism directly inspired today's Transhumanist movement. One being the intellectual and spiritual predecessor to the other. What is even more astounding, if true, is that most Transhumanist haven't even heard of Cosmism.

"I have no idea" because what you describe, Bret, does not make any sense to me. — 180 Proof

That's interesting. I don't know what to say to that. I definitely respect your position here, but can you explain more about what I have described that confuses you?

Post-singularity ubiquitous smart nanotech seems more likely to transform planetary civilization into a Global Experience Machine^ (à la "The Matrix" or wireheading^^) than to enable hedonic beings to somehow "transcend" (or to religiously seek "transcendence from") being hedonic. — 180 Proof

This is good. And is (IMO) a major part of what our planet will become. Just as T. McKenna would imply, we will be swallowing our computers whole in the near-future.

If anything, I see a convergence between what you call "techno-optimistic religion" and existing religions/spiritualities. — baker

I see this happening too. It is already happening in the Pagan communities.

:lol: Fair enough Bret!

The second quote attempts to explain the first.

The second quote attempts to explain the first. — 180 Proof

I see now. Thank you for clarifying.

It is already happening in the Pagan communities. — Bret Bernhoft

In my observations, Technopaganism is a legitimate form of religious practice. Likely with millions of participants; no belief required. The only paradigm shift that is necessary, is an embrace of universal Animism.



At the center of this underground renaissance are the EDM DJs. Legendary figures. Priests, some might say.



This spirituality was legitimized in the minds of many tens of millions of people via the international festival scene. We're entering a "stage two" for the emergence of a worldwide, techno-optimistic religion.

In eastern religions A.I may have an influence but because of the focus on Tradition from Abrahamic religion would make it difficult to implement A.I into it. The biggest thing we will probably see for Christians is the use of A.I for Sermons.

With that said, there will be resistance to these developments. Entire swaths of the population, including individuals in high leaderships roles, will stop at nothing to prevent this from happening. As they are motivated by rather techno-pessimistic religions and/or worldviews. — Bret Bernhoft

On the contrary, individuals in high leaderships roles will jump on any opportunity to rope in the masses, and with the help of GAI it could be easier than ever before in history.

In eastern religions A.I may have an influence but because of the focus on Tradition from Abrahamic religion would make it difficult to implement A.I into it. — Isaiasb

Eastern religions don’t focus on tradition? :chin:

They do but their views on tradition are different. They are more open to change.

Curious. There are conservative and liberal elements in the East and the West. Maybe it appears that Easter traditions are more liberal because you mostly see them from a Western perspective, where Westerners have freely adopted Eastern traditions, which is strongly indicative of a liberal bent. Cultural inculcation, on the other hand, would not be indicative of a liberal inclination.

But I know there is a growing community of seekers who are turning almost exclusively to modern technology for answers. — Bret Bernhoft

Historically, humans have turned, from time to time, to inanimate objects for worship -- crop circles, UFOs, the Titanic (that billionaires paid to see), the stock market. They thought they're gonna get some deep answers to the questions of life. Nothing surprising here.

And with it, will come a certain reverence for and optimism about modern technology's role in the destiny of humankind. Among, amidst both inner and outer spaces. — Bret Bernhoft

An empty prophecy -- we've always overestimated the humans' capacity to do without intuition. And we've always failed. Technology is canned goods. We reach out for human contacts and human acknowledgment because this is what's natural for us. This is what feels good and comforting.

It seems like it would be within civil liberty to start a religion. I wouldn't recommend it, but I wouldn't oppose it.

:roll: IMO, nothing could be more hedonistically anti-Gnostic (contrary to the OP ) than "universal animism" of "technopagan" raves/festivals. :party: :sparkle: