So, I'm a Buddhist now.

[Despanan]

"It's that we understand that the Christian talking about his "spiritual experience" is just talking about stuff that's entirely imaginary."

Is it entirely imaginary though? I mean certainly the "magic" aspect of it is - but the actual emotions and physical changes in the body are a material fact.

So the experience is "real" and it's also "not real" - it's like telling someone who's having a panic attack that what they're feeling isn't real. It doesn't matter because that's what they are feeling - it is real to them right there in that context.

"what you've said implies that there's some middle ground, some area of reconciliation, and that's just unrealistic"

You mean in God existing vs. Not existing? Yeah there's no middle ground there. In the material validity of the experience? Yes there is.

"That doesn't mean that an atheist can't benefit from such experiences, it's just that the atheist recognizes from whence they come: responses and urges ingrained over generations by natural selection (for whatever reason, maybe HDS could chime in here, I think it really starts getting into the murky realm of evo-psych.) That doesn't mean that such urges aren't real, and that we can't therefore benefit from fulfilling them (though for some, recognizing that such urges don't represent a "god-sized hole in our hearts" means that they are able to live without such experiences.)"

I agree but "able to live without" does not mean "cannot benefit" which was what agent implied.

"The question of whether such experiences have the potential to be beneficial (even for folks of a secular humanist bent) is another discussion entirely from whether or not they are real, and I think that's where your discussion with Agent is breaking down (as is some weird quibble about the difference between "I think everyone could benefit from this" and "EVERYONE MUST DO THIS OR THEY ARE HORRIBLE.")"

I think the problem may have something to do with pre-conceptions about religion. I had similar problems when I first encountered this version of Buddhism, but I stuck it out and realized it was my own prejudices that were causing me to react this way, rather than anything the Buddhists were doing or saying.

"My opinion on all of it: a pretty good philosophy is "hey, if it works for you, that's pretty kick-ass, as long as you're not a gigantic jerk about all of it." So, good for you Desp, even if you're totally deluded. <3"

Thanks dex, glad to see you're being reasonable about this.

[dexeron]

Yeah, when I'm using the words "imaginary" or "not real" I mean in terms of it being an actual literal deity involved. The feelings are "real," even if the source is mis-attributed, as are some effects on the body and mind (including benefits and/or drawbacks.)

I think that's a problem when people try to discuss anything spiritual or with a religious component. Like you said earlier, it's hard to separate words like faith or belief or real from meanings that don't always apply. A religious experience can be both real and false at the same time, depending on what aspect of that experience we are discussing.

Anyway, I'd neither agree with contentions that "everyone could benefit" or that people "cannot benefit" though I don't think either of you are really making as much blanket assertions as you think the other is making. And I'll totally agree with the idea that "Hey, lots of people could benefit from this kind of thing, maybe even most people, even folks who aren't religious, because it doesn't require specific religious belief to work."

[Rip]

hahaaaaaaaaaaa oh wow I need to come back to this tomorrow or something.

For now, srsly: I can feel "spiritual" when I'm looking out over a gorgeous sunset in a secluded Irish forest or something, because I feel "one with nature" while I think about the vastness of the cosmos and the ridiculous improbabilities that lead to my being able to experience the moment I'm experiencing and blah blah blah because I am a reasoning creature, and so far the only one we know of to be able to think about such things and recognize them. This is the "gut feeling" you're talking about. You didn't experience it with Christianity, and neither did I, but it's what Christians feel because it's rubbing our brains internal prostate. You found a way to get there and you're telling us that it's the best way and while we don't need YOUR specific way, we do need SOMEthing because, again, you like it a lot.

This is offensive.

Worse, you're defending it with pure anecdotes. So let's defeat your point in the exact same way. I have achieved many "great" things in my life, things I sometimes thought would be impossible for me. I saw goals that I wanted more than anything, and I saw them as being far out of reach. Instead of working on my feelings, I worked on the problems and told myself that only I could solve them. I put my "faith" entirely in myself, which is exactly what you said we would all fail for doing, and took what I wanted out of life by figuring out how to get it. So, anecdotally, having faith in anything OTHER than oneself is distracting from self-improvement, and therefore detrimental. All human beings, everywhere, would benefit from MY point of view and should drop all religious pursuits immediately, focus on personal improvement in their own unique ways, and then they would be exactly as happy as I am.

[dexeron]

NO YOU MUST MEDITATE NOW.

Ahm
Mu
Ra
Beh
Cah
Summ
Lum
Om

THOU HAST LOST AN EIGHTH.

[Nick]

I was joking to someone that it only takes 2 words for desp to write an essay in response but then he did it.
You guys know what akickass spiritual experience is? I'm getting 10 sets of rad legos in the mail tomorrow.

[Phantomgrift]

Man, Ahab would have had a field day with this after Desp's whole "Rar Uprising! Anarchy! Imma gonna throw-down with the ultra-violence when it comes down to it cuz of mah leet ninja skills!" bit.

Technically, as an enlightened Buddhist, Despi Llama, this means that I could slap you upon meeting you and you would have to turn away peacefully or risk upsetting your spiritual harmony with the universe.

Heh. Karmas a bitch.

[Despanan]

Actually Buddhism jives pretty strongly with my anarchist principals. Especially Nichiren Buddhism. According to Nichiren I have an obligation to confront and denounce the enemies of the Lotus Sutra - which would probably include you and Ahab, the GOP, Ayn Rand, The Military as a whole and any other person or teaching which contradicts the message of the lotus sutra: that all life is connected and all human beings posses an inherent Buddha nature, and none of us are better or more deserving than another and everyone from the lowest to the highest deserves life, dignity, and the chance to manifest this Buddha nature in their lifetime.

The Dalai Llama actually represents something that slightly conflicts with SGI principals - as we don't have priests nor temples and we don't believe anyone is spiritually better than anyone else. At best the Dalai Llama is a person who has attained the Buddha life-condition.

The only thing that wouldn't jive with my Buddhist principals would be violent revolution, which honestly I was never a supporter of. I liked to saber-rattle and talk about Guillotines and the like, but that's more or less because I like reminding you reactionaries that there's only so far you can push people before they fight back, ie: the powerful and wealthy do not actually control society the way they think they do.

Also, Hi Phant. Good to see you again. Glad to see you haven't changed.

[Despanan]

But yeah, a warship is in and of itself a slander of the Lotus Sutra, as is a fighter jet or a handgun, and our nuclear arsenal is about the biggest slander of it the world has ever seen - specifically because they have the potential to wipe out all life on earth.

[dexeron]

My Browning Auto-5 Sweet Sixteen is a beautiful sexy slander of the Lotus Sutra.

[Despanan]

Yep. And I denounce it.