Quote:
Originally Posted by evman150
Wow.
I wish there was a converse to the "thanks" feature.
I mean, dude, I've read a lot of your posts, and we've had our fair share of debates, but this little beauty has to take the cake. I expect this kind of thing from CalgaryBornAgain.
I'd like you to attempt to back up what you just said.
|
You are certainly one of the more closed-minded reductionists that I have ever encountered, so whatever I say will be ineffective.
Mysticism/transcendentalism does not equal literal theism or even deism. It's a way of telling stories and passing along information that is difficult or impossible to explain from a materialist perspective. For example, the historical story of humanity and the experiences within can only be understood from a mythical perspective. Before modern times, it was these human experiences that made up the basis of a lot of human religion.
Spirituality, of a sort, can be communicated rationally. The term, religious, is vacuous. Something doesn't require a literal god or an irrational belief in the literal reading of ancient scriptures to have a religious purpose. Indeed, many atheists from an Enlightenment perspective show signs of millennarianismm which is far more irrational than many moderate theistic faiths.
It ultimately comes down to how you understand history.
Sam Harris has gotten some flak for holding this perspective. Indeed, he even advocates Eastern mysticism and meditation, but this article sums up the argument pretty well.
Click here.