Who are the non-religious?

[Marcion]

In one thread here the thread-starter seemed to imply that the non-religous don't believe in God or gods.

I don't consider myself as part of any religion eventhough I am a firm believer in the usefulness of following the human Dharma or serving God.

If I have to stick a label on myself I would call myself a neo-humanist or spiritual humanist. Man or mankind is not or should not be at the centre of the universe but rather God or the Cosmic Consciousness is at the centre who is also within everything (yes, I am also a panentheist). Hence the whole of creation should be served, including animals and plants and landscapes and not just the predicaments of man as is the case with the underlying idea in humanism (withouth the 'neo').

I don't see sufi's or tantric-yogi's (whether of the buddhist type, hindu type or jain type) or even mystic christians or mystic jews as religious people. They are simply following their human dharma through their universal spiritual practices and they have no feelings of separation from their brothers or sisters in other non-religious traditions.

Some of these non-religious spiritual practitioners will develop devotional feelings for God as the supreme cause and sustainer behind all of creation, others will simply non-intentionally associate themselves with this Supreme Consciousness (beyond being or non-being) by withdrawing all sense of a limited segregated self. But the path and the goal are essentially the same whatever the tradition may be.

The basic teachings of Buddhism are non-religious as are the basic teachings of tantra-yoga and the teachings of other mystic traditions. They are not interested in religious ideas that don't have a base in spiritual practices, so they're also not interested in most of the things that are discussed on these Religious Forums by more religiously inclined people.

So the non-religious are not just atheists or humanists or people who deny the importance of God or spiritual development, the group is much larger than that. The non-religious includes all the trans-sectarian or non-sectarian traditions as well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In one thread here the thread-starter seemed to imply that the non-religous don't believe in God or gods.

I don't consider myself as part of any religion eventhough I am a firm believer in the usefulness of following the human Dharma or serving God.

If I have to stick a label on myself I would call myself a neo-humanist or spiritual humanist. Man or mankind is not or should not be at the centre of the universe but rather God or the Cosmic Consciousness is at the centre who is also within everything (yes, I am also a panentheist). Hence the whole of creation should be served, including animals and plants and landscapes and not just the predicaments of man as is the case with the underlying idea in humanism (withouth the 'neo').

I don't see sufi's or tantric-yogi's (whether of the buddhist type, hindu type or jain type) or even mystic christians or mystic jews as religious people. They are simply following their human dharma through their universal spiritual practices and they have no feelings of separation from their brothers or sisters in other non-religious traditions.

Some of these non-religious spiritual practitioners will develop devotional feelings for God as the supreme cause and sustainer behind all of creation, others will simply non-intentionally associate themselves with this Supreme Consciousness (beyond being or non-being) by withdrawing all sense of a limited segregated self. But the path and the goal are essentially the same whatever the tradition may be.

The basic teachings of Buddhism are non-religious as are the basic teachings of tantra-yoga and the teachings of other mystic traditions. They are not interested in religious ideas that don't have a base in spiritual practices, so they're also not interested in most of the things that are discussed on these Religious Forums by more religiously inclined people.

So the non-religious are not just atheists or humanists or people who deny the importance of God or spiritual development, the group is much larger than that. The non-religious includes all the trans-sectarian or non-sectarian traditions as well.

I think when people say they're non-religious it means they don't follow traditions to practice what they believe or who they believe in if any. For the purposes of RF, I'd consider myself non-religious. Off RF, it really doesn't come into play. I just do me.

 

[Marcion]

I think when people say they're non-religious it means they don't follow traditions to practice what they believe or who they believe in if any. For the purposes of RF, I'd consider myself non-religious. Off RF, it really doesn't come into play. I just do me.

That is probably the popular idea of what it means to be non-religious.
But to me the real non-religious are the most serious and most intense practitioners, but not of religion but rather of Dharma.
Religious ideas and rituals may differ, but spiritual practices or techniques know no religious boundaries and are universal.

 

[icehorse]

I don't consider myself as part of any religion eventhough I am a firm believer in the usefulness of following the human Dharma or serving God.

A common definition for religion is "worshipping a god". I don't think it matters which god(s). If you're worshipping god(s), I'd say you're religious.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is probably the popular idea of what it means to be non-religious.
But to me the real non-religious are the most serious and most intense practitioners, but not of religion but rather of Dharma.
Religious ideas and rituals may differ, but spiritual practices or techniques know no religious boundaries and are universal.

Based on that description, I'd call you religious.

I don't see much difference between your stance and those "I'm not religious; I have a relationship with Jesus" Christians.

In fact, I'm not sure why you're in this DIR.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is probably the popular idea of what it means to be non-religious.
But to me the real non-religious are the most serious and most intense practitioners, but not of religion but rather of Dharma.
Religious ideas and rituals may differ, but spiritual practices or techniques know no religious boundaries and are universal.

What are spiritual practices that are not religious in nature?

 

[Orbit]

Your OP indicates you are a theist. Perhaps you are confusing membership in a religious organization with "religion". Religion is a set of beliefs and practices centered on the supernatural.

 

[Marcion]

What are spiritual practices that are not religious in nature?

All spiritual practices are not religious in nature. They are exercises or perhaps better called innersizes that are designed to expand or liberate the mind.
If you practise yoga asana's, that does not make you a hindu and if you practise meditation techniques or avoid drugs, alcohol and meat that does not make you a member of any religion either.

Spiritual practices do not make up a religion, they do make up a spiritual cult (specific system or combination of practices). To practise a spiritual cult in a collective group or society does not make you a part of a religion either.
There is no need to have any type of belief or faith in order to be able do spiritual practices. They also work if you are an atheist.

@Orbit there is no such thing as the supernatural. There is only one nature, dualism is an illusion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

All spiritual practices are not religious in nature. They are exercises or perhaps better called innersizes that are designed to expand or liberate the mind.
If you practise yoga asana's, that does not make you a hindu and if you practise meditation techniques or avoid drugs, alcohol and meat that does not make you a member of any religion either.

Spiritual practices do not make up a religion, they do make up a spiritual cult (specific system or combination of practices). To practise a spiritual cult in a collective group or society does not make you a part of a religion either.
There is no need to have any type of belief or faith in order to be able do spiritual practices. They also work if you are an atheist.

@Orbit there is no such thing as the supernatural. There is only one nature, dualism is an illusion.

How do you define religion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Spiritual practices do not make up a religion, they do make up a spiritual cult (specific system or combination of practices).

IOW, a religion.

To practise a spiritual cult in a collective group or society does not make you a part of a religion either.

No, that actually does make you part of a religion.

Why are you here?

 

[Heyo]

In one thread here the thread-starter seemed to imply that the non-religous don't believe in God or gods.

I don't consider myself as part of any religion eventhough I am a firm believer in the usefulness of following the human Dharma or serving God.

If I have to stick a label on myself I would call myself a neo-humanist or spiritual humanist. Man or mankind is not or should not be at the centre of the universe but rather God or the Cosmic Consciousness is at the centre who is also within everything (yes, I am also a panentheist). Hence the whole of creation should be served, including animals and plants and landscapes and not just the predicaments of man as is the case with the underlying idea in humanism (withouth the 'neo').

I don't see sufi's or tantric-yogi's (whether of the buddhist type, hindu type or jain type) or even mystic christians or mystic jews as religious people. They are simply following their human dharma through their universal spiritual practices and they have no feelings of separation from their brothers or sisters in other non-religious traditions.

Some of these non-religious spiritual practitioners will develop devotional feelings for God as the supreme cause and sustainer behind all of creation, others will simply non-intentionally associate themselves with this Supreme Consciousness (beyond being or non-being) by withdrawing all sense of a limited segregated self. But the path and the goal are essentially the same whatever the tradition may be.

The basic teachings of Buddhism are non-religious as are the basic teachings of tantra-yoga and the teachings of other mystic traditions. They are not interested in religious ideas that don't have a base in spiritual practices, so they're also not interested in most of the things that are discussed on these Religious Forums by more religiously inclined people.

So the non-religious are not just atheists or humanists or people who deny the importance of God or spiritual development, the group is much larger than that. The non-religious includes all the trans-sectarian or non-sectarian traditions as well.

I think, strictly speaking, you are right. Non religious is somebody who doesn't follow a religion. That is not synonymous with non theistic. Theoretically all combinations of (non) religious and (non) theistic should be possible.
I find the dichotomy of believer / non believer more useful.

 

[Marcion]

IOW, a religion.


No, that actually does make you part of a religion.

Why are you here?

I am here because I am a non-religious neo-humanist.
Doing spiritual practices does not make one part of any religion.
The opposite of being atheist is not being religious as you seem to imply.

 

[Marcion]

How do you define religion?

In order to be able to speak of a religion, there has to be some of the following:
* superstitious beliefs and rituals
* mythical type of thinking
* feeling of separation from people who don't follow the same tradition (or even feelings of superiority or being a "chosen people")

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am here because I am a non-religious neo-humanist.

... who practices a religion.

Doing spiritual practices does not make one part of any religion.

I agree. A religion is a community of shared belief and practice; something that you've said you're a part of.

The opposite of being atheist is not being religious as you seem to imply.

Sounds like you presume too much.

 

[Marcion]

... who practices a religion.

I agree. A religion is a community of shared belief and practice; something that you've said you're a part of.

No, I do not practise a religion.
I don't agree with your definition of what constitutes a religion, it is too vague and too broad.
The opposite of being an atheist is being a theist.
People who do spiritual practices may or may not belong to a religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I do not practise a religion.
I don't agree with your definition of what constitutes a religion, it is too vague and too broad.

Well, it's a category that's vague and broad.

Your definition excludes many actual religions, so it's obviously wrong.

The opposite of being an atheist is being a theist.
People who do spiritual practices may or may not belong to a religion.

True. And if you had said that you were doing "spiritual practices" that you had come up with yourself and that you were doing them on your own, I wouldn't have said that you're religious.

What you told us is that your beliefs and practices come from a religious tradition (you called them "Dharmic"), and you practice them in a community of like-minded people (IOW, a religious group).

Also, in case you missed it, this DIR is for non-theists, and you identified yourself as a theist.

(But please skip the arguments about why you think panentheism isn't a type of theism. I'm already sick of your arguments for why your religion isn't a religion)