Crisis Of Non-Faith

[Orbit]

This came up in chat last night, and I thought it would be good if we had a place to share our experiences and support each other, especially around the holidays.

 

A "crisis of non-faith" is when an atheist has spiritual feelings and no non-Christian outlet for those feelings. That causes a crisis of sorts because many people think they have to go back to religion, or seem to think atheism and spirituality are incompatible. I put forth that religion does not own spiritual feelings, which are deep human feelings of connection that we get from being human. Religion piggybacks on this until we are brainwashed into believing that these feelings come from religion and can only be found in religion.

 

For some people, the crisis might be precipitated by missing the act of prayer, or by missing the feelings of awe and reverence from a church service or ritual. Spiritual feelings can include a "spiritual high", feelings of connectedness, feelings of awe, reverence, and greater meaning in life. We can access those feelings from other places, however.

 

In my own experience, I access a spiritual "high" from meditation. I connect with the universe using the idea of panentheism, which can mean connection to the unknowable life force of the universe, as it does for me.

 

Other people's crises will be different, and so will be their solutions. Here is a place to share our thoughts about it. Have you had a crisis of non-faith? What did you do about it?

[TrueFreedom]

I miss shared spiritual experiences.  I have yet to try a meditation group.  The only thing that comes close so far is a music circle or a concert.  An astronomy club might be cool.

[Ellinas]

Orbit, I heard of the phrase when you mentioned on the "updates" a month or two back.

 

Now I know what you were talking about.  However, as I'm not an atheist, it's not ever been an issue for me.

[Leo]

Orbit, like we talked about In chat, I think this is a great topic. I think a lot of us don't even know we're having this kind of crisis. for me, the highest feeling of all is apathy. That of loving and being loved.

I wonder, regarding the meditation group, if that would help others of us be able to meditate. I think a lot of us are finding this stuff out, more or less a different paces. I guess for me, I have to reevaluate what spirituality even is.

[Leo]

I guess love in action, or actualized empathy, is as close to spirituality as I seem to get. Being now free from the dogma of evangelical Christianity, I feel liberated to be as naturally empathetic in a meaningful way, as I can. It is freeing to be able to support groups of people without fear of condemnation, because some passages in ancient texts which have been edited state differently. I can't say I'm a universalist in the strict sense, because empathy, or love, expressed in any meaninful way, has to have a recipient, if you will. And that is a person or persons. Cultural anthropology seems clear: we are tribal creatures. But it's possible to have filial, romantic and fidelus love for one's own group while also having altruistic and honorable alliances with other groups. The humanist maxim, as stated by Bertrand Russell, "The greatest well-being for the greatest number of people," I find to be both rational as a conclusion, but transcendant in hope and attainable by us. But, I'm kind of a concrete guy, so my way of doing that is all local. I'm sure there are more dimensions to explore, dimensions I've always had trouble with even when I was a Christian. But the so-called "new atheists" miss an awful lot in some of their more dogmatic stances. Of course we have biases; love and empathy create bias for things.

I'd rather be identified with what I'm for, rather than what I'm "against."I know some try to eschew labels. It helps me to have some definition to describe myself. Thus far, I co-opt Bart Campolo's "atheist head, humanist heart' idea sums it up for me. The rationalist head part, for me, is just a tool for being able to meaningfully apply what I consider to be the greater part of our emergent properties: love, honor and fidelity, which are only meaningful things for me if I can actualize them in comcrete ways. It's just how my mind works. I did read Sam Harris's book "Waking Up," and while most of it escapes me, I came away with one thing. I really don't have a definition of "self" the way many people seem to. Hence the phrases like "deny yourself" by the Christians, or "be true to yourself" by others, or "self is an illusion" by still others, all seem to ring hollow for me. What is a self, without a tribe? What is a tribe without our more highly evolved and emergent properties of love and empathy? And what good are love and empathy if I can't apply them in any meaningful way? Perhaps this is also why I can't really watch the type of shows some people find meaningful, where they see all this suffering, and then there's nothing at all you can do about it meaningfully.

Perhaps this is odd, perhaps not. Maybe this is spirituality, or maybe not. I don't know. I know this is for now where I am.

[seven77]

This came up in chat last night, and I thought it would be good if we had a place to share our experiences and support each other, especially around the holidays.

 

A "crisis of non-faith" is when an atheist has spiritual feelings and no non-Christian outlet for those feelings. That causes a crisis of sorts because many people think they have to go back to religion, or seem to think atheism and spirituality are incompatible. I put forth that religion does not own spiritual feelings, which are deep human feelings of connection that we get from being human. Religion piggybacks on this until we are brainwashed into believing that these feelings come from religion and can only be found in religion.

 

[part of original post omitted for brevity]

 

Other people's crises will be different, and so will be their solutions. Here is a place to share our thoughts about it. Have you had a crisis of non-faith? What did you do about it?

 

 

I am glad that you started this thread, Orbit. I have been struggling with some issues IRL recently. I sometimes crave that relationship aspect of the faith. Not the relationship with Jesus, the relationships with other flesh and blood people. My former church really emphasized the relationship thing within the body. It's a core teaching of their particular variant of the faith as they practice it. At times, it bordered on cultish, really, which was a reason why I left in the first place. Still, I miss having people IRL that I can talk to or hang out with. I think it would be nice to have someone(s) to talk with about the responsibilities that I've taken on in caring for my mother. I know my mom gets lonely too, now that she is immobile, homebound and no longer working.

 

As I said in chat the other night, if I did return to church, it would only be for the social aspects of it and it is probably going to be my former church. I don't believe, some people in my former church know that I am a non-believer and that is what it is. I've done my homework. I can debate them on most points. I don't find it necessary to feed into the emotionalism of faith any longer. I think that one can be spiritual without having faith or adhering to a certain path. Hopefully, that will be respected if there is any inquiry into my return to the church. If not, I can always leave.

 

It has been almost 2 years since I was seriously involved with my former church. They have a new pastor and a lot of the faptards-for-Jesus types have left in the year since his departure. It's mostly lower key Messianic types now, from what my remaining acquaintances still in the fold have told me. Judging by the sermons, I'd say things are much calmer and the emphasis is more on the supposed roots of the faith and not so much on lifestyle and being the living image of Yeshua and such like it was before. They have gotten rid of their reparative therapy (degaying) program and are no longer affiliated with Focus On The Family, according to their website. Which is good, imho. They were teaching a lot of courses that were sponsored by or written by FOTF and those were some real pieces of work. Total bs, most of the time. Although if it hadn't have been for my outrage during their FOTF "science" lectures, I might have never started lurking here and joined the community...

 

Anyway, I'm pretty much a live and let live type. As long as no one tries to evangelize or witness to me, I'll be okay. Plus I think it is likely to be a seasonal sort of thing for me. I just need some IRL support to get me through some trying times. Nothing wrong with that, imo.

[Orbit]

 

Anyway, I'm pretty much a live and let live type. As long as no one tries to evangelize or witness to me, I'll be okay. Plus I think it is likely to be a seasonal sort of thing for me. I just need some IRL support to get me through some trying times. Nothing wrong with that, imo.

This came up in 

 

 

I guess my question would be "Can't you find secular community?". Why endure a toxic Xtian environment just to be around other people in a community? It just seems so triggering, to go back to church just for a community. Of course you will do what you need to do. It's not my intention to sound judgmental, it's just concern.

[seven77]

I'd rather be identified with what I'm for, rather than what I'm "against."I know some try to eschew labels. It helps me to have some definition to describe myself. Thus far, I co-opt Bart Campolo's "atheist head, humanist heart' idea sums it up for me. The rationalist head part, for me, is just a tool for being able to meaningfully apply what I consider to be the greater part of our emergent properties: love, honor and fidelity, which are only meaningful things for me if I can actualize them in comcrete ways. It's just how my mind works. I did read Sam Harris's book "Waking Up," and while most of it escapes me, I came away with one thing. I really don't have a definition of "self" the way many people seem to. Hence the phrases like "deny yourself" by the Christians, or "be true to yourself" by others, or "self is an illusion" by still others, all seem to ring hollow for me. What is a self, without a tribe? What is a tribe without our more highly evolved and emergent properties of love and empathy? And what good are love and empathy if I can't apply them in any meaningful way? Perhaps this is also why I can't really watch the type of shows some people find meaningful, where they see all this suffering, and then there's nothing at all you can do about it meaningfully.

Perhaps this is odd, perhaps not. Maybe this is spirituality, or maybe not. I don't know. I know this is for now where I am.

 

 

I'd rather be identified with what I'm for, rather than what I'm "against." -- I like that thought. When I left the church, I was really angry and anti-everything related to God, the church, etc. I had to go through a detox period where I wrote a lot of essays and read a lot of books, posted here on ex-c and generally scared off most of the people in my life. I was an angry atheist. Now I've been through it all and I've analyzed my actions. I was a bitch and I can say now that all of the negativity that I displayed did nothing to further my life. I'm no closer to achieving my goals and that upsets me. Depression took hold after the anger subsided and I'll never get that year-ish that I spent identifying with what I was against.

 

Now I want to turn things around, be known for what I'm for. I think that I can find a place to get myself back on track in my former church. I can ignore and discard the bs about a great God and his bloody dead Son and just focus on my self, my inner peace, my journey.

 

What is a self, without a tribe? -- That's a very salient statement. I have a much better sense of self since I left the faith. When I was a believer, I was too caught up being "perfect" to relate to others in any meaningful way. I was terrified that someone would call me out for being gay, overweight, unmarried, childless, for not conforming to gender roles, for smoking cigarettes, for drinking alcohol, for being a recreational stoner, for listening to secular music...yeah, the list of my so-called sins was a long one. I hid everything about myself as a believer and was myopically focused on being a "little Christ" at the expense of being a member of the tribe.

 

I understand who I am, what I like, what I want from life now. Self without a tribe of tangible imperfect living beings is a lost cause. It's like floating in space, more or less. The self needs other selves to help them gain traction, to help stabilize their orbit, if that makes any sense? Idk. I guess it reaches back to a familiar sentiment of "one of many or many in one" that is used to refer to Yahweh and the possibility of a pantheon.

 

Is it better to be one of many selves in a tribe, family and/or group or is it just as good, if not better, to be a selfishly satisfied and self-contained entity?

 

Buckle up, because things are about to get meta up in here.

 

------

 

As an individual who identifies with Satanist views, my answer to the question above is multi-layered. Satanists are to be selfishly satisfied, but not always self-contained. Unless we take pleasure in being self-contained, that is. For a long time, I believed that I found satisfaction in being self-contained. Lately, I have questioned this premise. It is normative to have social desires. The tribe is part of the identity, the self. Very few individuals are truly capable of being both selfishly satisfied and self-contained. Some are by nature more private and reserved than others, that is, self-contained. Even the introverted sometimes desire social bonds, romantic bonds, or an identity outside of self. Some are quite selfishly satisfied and very open about it. Usually, these types come across as the types that most of us love to hate.

 

Ayn Rand was that sort of person during her day. As far as I know, Ayn Rand was not a Satanist. There are some parallels between Objectivism (Rand's philosophy) and Satanism, but that's beyond the scope of this post. Rand had a lot to say about love, relationships, morals, faith and just about everything else too. The following quotes are pulled from an interview she did with Mike Wallace in 1959. I love to watch interviews with her, because she is just pure ego. That's self, right there.

 

 

Yet even Rand needed a tribe. Her tribe was called The Collective and it mostly consisted of loyal acolytes whom Rand disposed of at will. She was like a crazy-eyed chieftess, a petty despot trapped in the body of an aging Russian philosopher. However, it was the Collective, and not Rand herself, whom disseminated her ideas. It was they who lectured, wrote newsletters, started institutes and pushed her vision into the mainstream (or collective conscious, if you're comfortable with such terms.)

 

All emphasis below is mine. -- If you are interested in reading the entire interview, HERE is a link to the transcript. Lots of gold Rand quotes there.

 

Ayn Rand: I will say that, "I don't like" is too weak a word. I consider it [self-sacrifice] evil. And self-sacrifice is the precept that man needs to serve others, in order to justify his existence. That his moral duty is to serve others. That is what most people believe today.

 

Mike Wallace: Yes...Were taught to feel concern for our fellow man. To feel responsible for his welfare. To feel that we are, as religious people might put it, children under god, and responsible one for the other. Now why do you rebel? What's wrong with this philosophy?

 

Ayn Rand: But that is in fact what makes man a sacrificial animal. That man must work for others, concern himself with others, or be responsible for them. That is the role of a sacrificial object. [This is how I think of Jesus]. I say that man is entitled to his own happiness. And that he must achieve it himself. But that he cannot demand that others give up their lives to make him happy. And nor should he wish to sacrifice himself for the happiness of others. I hold that man should have self-esteem.

 

Mike Wallace: And cannot man have self-esteem if he loves his fellow man? What's wrong with loving your fellow man? Christ, every important moral leader in man's history, has taught us that we should love one another. Why then is this kind of love in your mind immoral?

 

Ayn Rand: It is immoral if it is a love placed above oneself. It is more than immoral, it's impossible. Because when you are asked to love everybody indiscriminately. That is to love people without any standard. To love them regardless of whether they have any value or any virtue, you are asked to love nobody.

 

Mike Wallace: But in a sense, in your book you talk about love as if it were a business deal of some kind. Isn't the essence of love, that it is above self-interest?

 

Ayn Rand: Well, let me make it concrete for you. What would it mean to have a love above self-interest? It would mean, for instance, that a husband would tell his wife, if he were moral according to the conventional morality, that I am marring you just for your own sake, I have no personal interest in it, but I'm so unselfish, that I am marrying you only for your own good. Would any woman like that?

 

Mike Wallace: Should husbands and wives, Ayn, tally up at the end of the day and say, "Well now wait a minute, I love her if she's done enough for me today, or she loves me if I have properly performed my functions?”

 

Ayn Rand: No, you misunderstood me. That is not how love should be treated. I agree with you that it should be treated like a business deal. But every business deal has to have its own terms and its own kind of currency. And in love the currency is virtue. You love people, not for what you do for them, or what they do for you. You love them for their values, their virtues, which they have achieved in their own character. You don't love causes. You don't love everybody indiscriminately. You love only those who deserve it.

 

 

That is pretty much how I view spirituality these days. I would only go back to church because that is what I wanted to do. Namely, because it would satisfy my self to do so. Not because I am looking for someone or something to satisfy me or answer my questions. I am beyond placation and will not settle for the idle Christian emotionalism. I am not searching for belonging these days. I choose my path and in the past, I've made a lot of bad choices that were contrary to my self, even harmful. Now, I want to be a part of a tribe. Not based in the "truth" of a resurrected godman and his magic funtime miracles, but in a deeper sense. I want to be the bridge I spoke of in the Philosophy and Spirituality thread earlier this week. A philosophical bridge between the scientific and the spiritual.

[seven77]

 

 

Anyway, I'm pretty much a live and let live type. As long as no one tries to evangelize or witness to me, I'll be okay. Plus I think it is likely to be a seasonal sort of thing for me. I just need some IRL support to get me through some trying times. Nothing wrong with that, imo.

This came up in 

 

 

I guess my question would be "Can't you find secular community?". Why endure a toxic Xtian environment just to be around other people in a community? It just seems so triggering, to go back to church just for a community. Of course you will do what you need to do. It's not my intention to sound judgmental, it's just concern.

 

 

See the last of my post above for a partial response, ct'd below.

 

My former church has changed quite a bit. They are by no means radical, but they aren't your standard Christians either. They are (supposedly) more open to criticism, debate, discussion, etc these days. I suppose it could be triggering, which is why I would leave if I began to think/feel that things were going into the same terrain as before ie anti-gay, anti-science, surrounded by inconsiderate asshats, etc.

 

I probably could find secular community if I had more time to devote to searching and building new relationships. I work on weekends, stay pretty busy with my mom's appointments and therapy during the days, try to maintain a routine in the evenings for her sake and mine and don't have much time to give to the whole making new friends thing. If I returned to church, I already know a few people, am familiar with things, and they have a great website that gives access to their community calendar that I can sync with my phone. I can pick and choose a few events/groups there to attend for a bit to see if I want to be involved and if not, I can leave.

 

Also, I know that a lot of the church/faith thing is show. Like I joked in chat with Dee, I can sing along to fappy worship tunes, put my hands in the air, and let some random folks pray over me if they want. It is what it is. I am pretty low key IRL and I know what I want, have a purpose for being there. That purpose isn't a magic sky man; it's a selfish satisfaction of my own social support needs.

[TrueFreedom]

 I want to be the bridge I spoke of in the Philosophy and Spirituality thread earlier this week. A philosophical bridge between the scientific and the spiritual.

 

Sign me up for some of that!  *joins seven77's collective*

[Leo]

Seven77, I guess my view of the self is so unorthodox even the Satanists wouldn't have it, let alone the Christians, Buddhists or authors of modern pop self help.

When I look within, all I find is a desire to create meaning without. I have never struggled with the "what's the point," questions people have about purpose. Because for me, it is enough to be appreciated, to make contributions, to improve things where I am. It's not like I'm an ascetic without desires. Quite the contrary, in fact. But I honestly think if I was the last person alive, and there was nothing I could meaningfully do to improve things for other people around me, there might not be any self at all. Poof, it'd be gone. The things I enjoyed about Christianity had everything to do with tangible contributions I could make to others around me. Cook a meal for someone who's sick, help doing the dishes for a homeless outreach, things the Church defines as lesser tasks. Especially where they're afraid of any altruistic activities that don't start with singing and preaching.

But put aside all the contradictions, the Bin Laden-style behaviors of the god of the old testament, the very worst part of Christianity lay in its inherent nihilistic meaninglessness. You are constantly in a war you cannot meaningfully win, you are only engaged insofar as the god needs you, and most of all, you are nothing at all without the god. If you ever saw the movie "Cool Hand Luke," you may remember the scene where the two bosses are attempting to break Luke. One has him digging dirt out of the ditch onto the lawn. The second comes along, and punishes him for dirtying up the lawn, and has him filling in the ditch. The scene reverses until he breaks. Christianity was an endless series of these, all the while trying to deny a sort of "self" that I never fully embraced as they saw it, to begin with.

So yes, I'm familiar with rational objectivism, and Ayn Rand. Even some right wing Christian groups have successfully co-opted this philosophy. Based on my own understanding of myself, my application of her philosophy is an admission that for me, contribution is not sacrifice, not in the way she, or the Christians, or Anton Levey, even talk about it. Asceticism and hedonism both are equally empty to me, as is the Christian experience where they rail all day long as hard as they can against socialism and a social or socialist gospel, I guess. They were never very clear about defining their target. Again, it's not like I go without, or live a pseudo simple life, like some. No, I am materialist in a lot of ways, and reductionist in fact. Not wholly reductionist of course, we're too complex for that. But while the Christian carries on about pride and self sacrifice, and the California new ager carries on about finding yourself, I guess I am a bit on the outside: Beliefs matter less than actions to me. And I'd rather carry out local contributions to benefit people who mean something to me. And like a good workout, sometimes it really costss. But like a good workout, I feel good at the end of the day. Like you, I would not want to live any longer under a system where I had to repress desires for total meaningless reasons: sex, empathy, fidelity, honor, and yes, virtue, are all powerful motivators. Even courage. All motivators that need not be repressed by ideology, only perhaps controlled by what I see as a higher nature, love and empathy for one's own group. Even the Christians, who claim a sort of universalism by extension where their god "loves" all and we are to "love all" simply has always rung hollow to me. You and Ayn Rand are right when you say we admire virtue. Real virtue, not this fake prudish princess entitled virtue that lacks the fortitude to withstand a summer breeze. But real old-world pre-Christian virtue, as embodied by pantheon myths like the Norse pantheon. We seem attracted to it, compelled by it, when we see it. And it has no need to grovel or self-efface, and needs no beggars or worshippers.

I guess when I say I've never struggled with the "What's the point," questions, it's because meaning has always presented itself, always been right in front of me. I know scientifically we have "meaning making" brains and this surely accounts for it. But my view of the self is so wrapped up in meaning and contribution that I can't deny it as the Christians would have it. And I can't "find it" as the new age people would have it; it's already here. Right now, I spend a lot of enerhgy supporting the Wife in a very difficult situation on Her job, but it's for me both an honor and a privilege. This isn't a Hallmark cliche, it's just, well, what i am. Add to this my one child in college who of course needs our constant help and attention, not like when they're younger of course. But my "self" is all wrapped up in these types of things, plus local volunteer activities I've been involved in.If I look within, to the "self," as it were, these are all that I find. I don't mean the bits of identity like our interests, tastes, pleasures, buttons that can be pushed, etc. I mean the higher functioning meaning, I guess. Perhaps this is why I never felt purposeless without Christianity. For whatever reasons, in my case, purpose is usually at my feet, or nearbyIt's not something I have decided or chosen, though of course I like it this way. But it merely exists.

I was with a men's group as a Christian who focused a lot on altering what we meant by meaning in life. Well, that and the Orwellian preoccupation against sexual thoughts of course, something that rages rampant in Christian men's circles. But I was unique in that bunch, only in that i was quite the failure to attain their way of seeing things. I only wanted for us to be doing something constructive, and when they had their circle group and had us describe things without action, human beings and not human doings, I either tried to pass, or made an attempt and got some kind of redirection or correction, to redefine how I saw things.

But we are human doings, at least some of us, because being is doing, and doing is being. Take away my ability to do something constructive and helpful, or to be supportive of Her or anyone else, and I would be in a more miserable hell than the Christian god itself is capable of creating, with all its iron age volcanic magic. I was the sort of Christian who when I heard a prayer request, I might have been brief and perfunctory in the praying, but my mind was only busy seeing how I might solve their problem, if it was something I could help with. They called that pride, or getting in the way. If that is how their god would have it, so be it then. I am nothing else. I love contentmet and well-being in other people. I get something of ecstasy from that, perhaps similar to what some of the older pentecostal ladies seemed to get from some of their outward and theatrical demonstrations. My mind never sits still.Some of my most creative solutions to problems, or insights into a situation, have come from a wandering mind, which schoolteachers, preachers and some meditators would have me control. I seem not to be able to. I'm 44 now and have had various impositions on it both externally and internally, all to no avail. And it usually comes back to yet another stumble upon meaning or purpose locally, some other way to participate and help out. This is not the "Jesus Others and then you" acronym of the Christians, it simply is me, apparently. As unorthodox as that happens to be to psychology and Christian types alike, and maybe even to Leveyan Satanists.It would be nice if someone wrote about this somehow, from an explanatory standpoint, without the corrective judgmental stuff of the psychology or the Christian types who think it's somehow wrong.

[seven77]

Altruism...that nagging issue.

 

My former church is very service oriented. However, they only do it out of an obligation to "show God to others". I never agreed with that premise. Like Leo, I believe that you should only engage acts of altruism if that is what you, as an individual, want to do. Action without intention is pointless and worse than worthless. By intention, I mean a sincere wanting of the individual to do whatever the voluntary task is at hand. Some things one has to do, like caring for loved ones and the like and those things are not always pleasant. Yet we must do them. (Unless you're a selfish hardass and even Ayn Rand admitted that she loved her husband and cared for him. She also cared about the members of the Collective.)

 

No one should take part in voluntary actions unless it is their desire to do so. If you want to help someone, help them. If not, stay at home and don't help them. Using Jesus and the promises of eternal love/eternal damnation or forgiveness or friendship or whatever as your pretense for action is disgusting. I suppose there is a crucial difference: Christian outreach/service/volunteer work is usually done under pretension, where as I think that volunteering/service should be done with intention. 

 

Somehow it is as if the Trinity taints the altruism of mankind. Personally, I had a lot of issues in the church because I could never quite trust the motives of some of the people. Do they like me for me or do they just want to blab about how awesome Jesus is for the 99th time today? Do they really give a damn about my life, my interests, my thoughts or are they just caught up in the show of it all? I suspect that a lot of Christians are bit actors. If I return to the fold, I will at least have this knowledge on my side. I'm not saying that these bit actors for Christ aren't trying to put on a good show that succeeds from time to time. They are and they do. It's just that they really aren't that different from their secular neighbors. A lot of the smiles and scripture quoting and such is merely a cover for their boringness, imho. Without Jesus, most of the church types are boring fucks.

 

A bit blunt, yes, but true. I've gotten know some of them during my years as a believer and most of the ones that I knew were seriously boring fucks. They are caught up in their dogma, going through the motions (or not, since a lot of them quit giving fucks about community service and starting writing checks instead). Decent folks, but they aren't really there for Jesus. They are there because without that church, without their Torah classes and prayer circles and Bible studies and cookouts, they would be namelessnumberheads, boring fucks 'r us, basically. 

 

Someone needs to go there and kick the hornets nest a few times, I think. And not just the crazies who do stupid shit like cut themselves in the bathroom or get into fights in the parking lot. Plus I want to find out if the church is actually more open to discussion and debate than it was before or if it is just my old church-going acquaintances blowing smoke to get me back in the fold.

 

I agree with Leo. Human beings are human doings; being and doing are two sides of the same coin and inseparable. Humanity IS being; living IS doing. Too often, organized religion ends up emphasizing the humanity=sinners and living=sin-free lives of righteousness and purity. The whole of the Christian existence is overcoming your sins (masturbation, drinking, drugs, being gay, anger issues, gaming addiction, gambling addiction, workaholic, whatever) and maybe going out to try and win some souls or minister to some lost souls or whatever and that's it. Mostly, you're wrapped up in overcoming your own sins and "helping" others to overcome their sins by "encouraging" them. I used quotes around those words because very few people are helped by the sort of encouragement that is given by their believing peers.

 

I think that this ties back to the "humans are attracted to virtue" portion of Leo's long but thoughtful post. Not the empty Christianese virtue that is easy to come by on Sunday morning but in seemingly short supply once the horde empties out of the seats. The godly claim that it's that nasty old sin nature doing them in once again, every time. They ask for forgiveness, pray about it and someday they are magically healed by Super Jesus.  I might be able to offer credence to that idea if there were actually some merit to it. But there is not and I cannot. The only way your poor habits (which is what sins usually are, imho) will change is you make the efforts to change them. God usually doesn't factor into the equation at any point. Instead of praying for TO BE virtuous, invest your energy in DOING something. Be a HUMAN DOING, basically and eventually you will find yourself as a HUMAN BEING. 

 

The virtue of old was an all-encompassing term. To be considered virtuous, one had to be strong, courageous, excellent, moral. One had to be not only a man (in the human sense, not always literally male) of confidence, but a man who stood for what he thought was right. A virtuous person was not a wishy-washy faptard-for-Christ who could be coerced, shamed, tricked or fleeced into going against his own self-interest without a fight. To have virtue, was not only to BE something, it was to DO something because you had the passion and faculty to do so. I think that is why Christian virtue rings so hollow in our modern times. Jesus is not a reason; an invisible friend whose claim to fame is a collection of oft misinterpreted myth is not worth standing for, imho.

 

TL;DR:

1. If you want to help others, do so because you want to do so.
2. Without Jesus, most of the church types are boring fucks.
3. Action under pretense is not equivalent to action with intention.
4. We should be both human beings and human doings.
5. Christian virtue is hollow and worthless. 

[Joshpantera]

Seven77, see below. 

 

 

It's a delicate tight rope interacting with your former church as a non-believer. They are the meat puppets of a mental matrix that you've become aware of, and have since left behind. Now, you, like Neo, want to return to the matrix and interact with it from the perspective of knowing. The program will not like you, because you're aware of the deceiving program. You represent a threat to the program. This is a great analogy for what you'll likely experience if you go back in without submitting yourself to blind belief in the program.

 

Proceed with caution.....

[Guest Furball]

This came up in chat last night, and I thought it would be good if we had a place to share our experiences and support each other, especially around the holidays.

 

A "crisis of non-faith" is when an atheist has spiritual feelings and no non-Christian outlet for those feelings. That causes a crisis of sorts because many people think they have to go back to religion, or seem to think atheism and spirituality are incompatible. I put forth that religion does not own spiritual feelings, which are deep human feelings of connection that we get from being human. Religion piggybacks on this until we are brainwashed into believing that these feelings come from religion and can only be found in religion.

 

For some people, the crisis might be precipitated by missing the act of prayer, or by missing the feelings of awe and reverence from a church service or ritual. Spiritual feelings can include a "spiritual high", feelings of connectedness, feelings of awe, reverence, and greater meaning in life. We can access those feelings from other places, however.

 

In my own experience, I access a spiritual "high" from meditation. I connect with the universe using the idea of panentheism, which can mean connection to the unknowable life force of the universe, as it does for me.

 

Other people's crises will be different, and so will be their solutions. Here is a place to share our thoughts about it. Have you had a crisis of non-faith? What did you do about it?

For me, a crisis of non faith means there is no definition to my life and nothing to hold on to (believe in) in this life or on a death bed. There has to be something out there, there just has to be, this can't be it. I meditate and try to focus on the energy that me and everything in the universe belongs to. It works for me, and gives me something to believe in and hold on to when things are bad or i just need to calm myself. I am making it sound like i am describing god or something, but i don't believe in god, so i don't know. There just has to be something out there, the universe and it's vast existence says so. -my 2 denari 

[Ravenstar]

Nature… that helps me a lot. My time as a practicing pagan helps because one aligns themselves with natural rhythms. (seasons, etc..) I get a sense of the 'spiritual' communing with nature, being a part of something bigger, I guess.

 

Volunteer work… I do a lot of volunteer work with like-minded people in areas I feel strongly about. (Social housing, food banks, amnesty, etc…) I think for me, working with others towards a goal that is positive is my replacement for 'fellowship'. It is also more satisfying as it isn't self-absorbed and there is less pressure to 'conform'… as individual views and solutions to problems are encouraged. (I usually do volunteer work in organizations which work on committee, Board or consensus platforms.. not just mindlessly filling a work role set up by others)

 

I also attend from time to time social gatherings for pagans, humanists and atheists… pub moots, coffee meetings, etc..  it's good to be around people with non judeo-christian affiliation.

 

I come here!  

[mikey101]

Religion piggybacks on this until we are brainwashed into believing that these feelings come from religion and can only be found in religion.

Hmm, I've found quite a bit of spirituality in indigenous religions.  I've also taken concepts from Buddhist religion and Hindu religion.  They are quite profound. I would say it's the opposite of brainwash.   Just because of one bad experience with religion, doesn't mean it's all bad.  Western pop culture certainly would agree that religion is brainwash, but in academia we try to understanding things.

 

I would say inward reflection and personal transformation will guide us towards peace, not placing blame on things 'out there' like people, religions, governments, etc.  It's easier said than done though :-)   

[Orbit]

 

Religion piggybacks on this until we are brainwashed into believing that these feelings come from religion and can only be found in religion.

Hmm, I've found quite a bit of spirituality in indigenous religions.  I've also taken concepts from Buddhist religion and Hindu religion.  They are quite profound. I would say it's the opposite of brainwash.   Just because of one bad experience with religion, doesn't mean it's all bad. 

 

I would say inward reflection and personal transformation will guide us towards peace, not placing blame on things 'out there' like people, religions, governments, etc.  It's easier said than done though :-)

 

In this context I was referring to the Christian religion. I should have been more specific.

[Leo]

Orbit's right about religions thinking they own spirituality. I know for me I am still trying to figure out what I even mean by that term, as I'm not often very quick on things that are subjective. Anyhow, case in point: The Wife was talking the other day about Oprah Winfrey referring to something ordinary as being spiritual, and She couldn't believe Oprah would see it that way. She said, "Well, spirituality means 'of the spirit,' or having to do with spirits." (she didn't mean the spirits we enjoy on Friday nights lol).

But I wonder: do we need a new word? Becaus I don't think I have a spirit or a soul. So why do we use the word spirituality? I'm not trying to pick knits, honestly. But I had to concede what She was saying on this point. She didn't even say "Christian" or "holy spirit" or anything, just "spiritual." So, for perhaps an exercise in thought, and perhaps because one of you will enlighten me on something: Why do we use the term spirituality if we don't think there are any spirits? I can understand and appreciate how some pagans use it, because for theistic pagans at least, they do in fact believe there's a spirit or spirits. When I say I'm not convinced there are spirits, I mean, I'm not even sure we have a good definition for what a spirit even is. Is it a dualistic thing? "Mind and body?" What about us who are no longer even dualists, but seem to observe a world where the mind is a function of the body. I'm seriously not trying to be argumentative, I'm just taking a bit of Dale McGowen at his word, when he writes about religious / secular relationships, where we secular people can be sharpened in our thinking by the religious partner. She made a salient point about the word "dpiritual" by definition having "spirit" in it. It's entirely possible, even probable, that I simply don't have the information to respond to such a statement. She was not being hostile, just brought that up, and I being as rlatively uninformed as I am with many of these things, was left with a "hmm, wow, well, that kinda makes sense," type feeling.

So, why do we call it spiritual if we don't think there's a spirit, for those of us who don't? Is She incorrect about saying spirituality by definition means having to do with the spirit? Or is there another word some of us who aren't persuaded there's a spirit out there, can use to talk about transcendant meaning or experiences? If it seems like I'm fumbling, it's because I am: I don't use the terms "spiritual" or "spirituality" in everyday life yet because I have no working definition that includes me yet. So it's true that religions, or a particular religion, don't own spirituality. But in order for language to be at all useful, words have to have commonly-understood definitions. Proof of that concept? My frank and utter willingness to be completely wrong reA: my understanding of the term, or ability to describe it in a meaningful way at all. Especially when met with Her definition. And again, She was talking about Oprah, someone I am tangentially aware of at best, but She wasn't referring to me, nor were we engaged in a debate. Her reasoning was, the root word is spirit. Well, to a simple kind of man I guess, that makes sense. I hope I haven't put anyone off by this post, merely hoping to become better informed in a meaningful way I can use in communiccating in real life.

[Orbit]

Leo, I think that the usage of the word "spirituality" culturally refers to the non-rational experience of humanity that we all share. Unfortunately we are trapped by linguistic history.

[mikey101]

So it's true that religions, or a particular religion, don't own spirituality. 

Religion is kind of foreign concept in Western society, because most of us have only experienced Christianity which itself is not doing too well fitting in with the modern world.   But religion has been a part of societies as far as we can tell.  Burial rituals have been around since the first humans and belief in animal or nature spirits.  It's not that religion owns spirituality, it's just part of being human as seen from history.  The belief in no gods, no afterlife, no spirits, etc is not defined as a religion, but can be seen as a religious belief because it takes a stance on those things.  In the same way, many people are taking beliefs from different religions and westernizing them today, not going to a 'church' or anything so aren't practicing religion in that way, but are practicing it in their personal lives and part of daily life.. which also happens to be how ancient cultures practiced religion.

[Guest Furball]

 

 

  The belief in no gods, no afterlife, no spirits, etc is not defined as a religion

Isn't Humanism now being pushed for a religion?