You should consider checking the thread that I created recently in Same Faith Debates. Personally, I do not criticize or reject doctrines as a straight funcion of how theistic they are, but rather by critérios of moral validity.
@nash8: I am not on the fence about those doctrines, believe me.
I know that, I am asking why you are not on the fence.
Dharma that encourages healthy, sustainable, moral attitudes.
What is healthy, sustainable, and most of all "moral".
I so disagree!
All three are deeply corrupt doctrines. Crowley teaches empty vanity; Kardecism teaches intelectual dishonesty and fear; Rajneesh is just a dangerous con man.
What doctrines of Crowley teach vanity, where does belief in oneself's abilities cross over into vanity? What doctrines of Kardecism teach intellectual dishonesty and fear? Why is Rajneesh a dangerious conman.
I am asking out of geniune interest, I am fairly familiar with Crowley, and I definitely see his views to promotoe vanity, it's just dependent on the perspective you view them.
With the other two, I really don't know that much bout. So I am interested in anothers view on them. Specific doctrines they teach that promote the ideals you attribute to them, or is it the entirety of their belief systems that promote these ideals?
Tarot: Don't believe in it
Mediums: see above
Meditation: Can be good for getting rid of stress, nothing transcendent about it.
Pagan beliefs in old theologies: Don't believe in it
Chakras: Don't believe in it
Basically all forms of external consciousness and/or supernatural belief/tradition are things i don't really believe in.
Have you ever practiced meditation? If so, what meditations have you practiced?
As far as the chakras, I think future biophoton research would lend more prevelance to the ideas of chakras.
Biophoton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The body emits light within the spectrum of visible light, the question is, do certain areas of the body tend to emit certain frequencies more regularly than other areas? I think the lack of evidence for this particular phenomenon is due more to lack of research rather than lack of evidence.
As for the others, they are only as real as the insight you gain from them. Repeatable evidence will never be presented in my opinon.
The problem is, at least in my experience, paganism is pretty much never in the news so there's very little reason to talk about it. It would be one thing if the pagans were trying to get their beliefs legislated into law or were out shooting at some other religious group or killing their kids in the name of their religion, but they aren't, at least as far as I know. Therefore, it's not going to be a very popular topic, it's like asking political bloggers to write about subjects that aren't popular or exciting.
Personally, I think paganism is just as pointless and ridiculous as any other religion.
In the aspect of accepting that it is the only "truth" I agree.
Not really.
1. Some atheists believe that there is no god. Others don't care whether there is one. Yet others just don't trust that there is one. And there is some superposition as well; such an unimportant detail is quite subject to oscillations, after all.
Believing that there isn't a god, and not trusting that there is one isn't the same thing? Semantics in my opinion. Not caring whether there is one or not, would not be qualified as athiesm in and of itself in my opinion. More agnostic from my perspective.
[/quote] 2. Disbelief is not a "doctrine". It is just a personal trait.[/quote]
Personal trait, personal doctrine. Semantics.
Alright and first
your specified inquires:
Not really religious per se, though I suppose one might incorporate a belief system within that discipline
I would agree.
-I would acknowledge that physical interaction with another of our own species can and will at times manifest a physical response
but any claims of some mystical or metaphysical changes remain questionable at best, and unsubstantiated beyond anecdotes and believing testimonials
Why does it have to be with "our own species"? All living beings emit light within the visible light spectrum which is what the concept of a chakra is. As far as mystical, I would agree that it would be personal and repeatable evidence would never be gained But as far as psychological, I would argue that placebo effect would be enough to establish psychological effect, and if placebo effect was demonstrated to be a repeatable result for the majority of society, why would it not be scientific? Psychology is, after all, the prediction of human action based upon general tendencies.
I have wisdoms (you know, opinions) upon many topics
Many here share similar gift
Most definitely a good thing to have.
Or maybe
Definition of atheism in English
atheism
Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə
m/
Translate atheism | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
noun
[mass noun]
disbelief or
lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheist if they lack belief in gods.
I was thinking the same thing as well.
