Discussions

New Age Spiritual Witch Hunt

Posted Nov. 15, 2013 by mrmathew1963 in Open

commented on Nov. 30, 2013
by mrmathew1963

Quote

52

This got some interesting reactions so I thought I would share this here on IONS.

It’s been interesting conversing & exchanging thoughts with Eastern minded people recently, it has confirmed & elaborated on what’s going, for me, in regards to Western style spirituality. The Western ideological perception of spirituality isn’t quite kosher by the sounds of it. It is being looked at as being in line with consumerist materialism which is based on self-serving, how could unconditional loving egoless spiritually aware people be self-serving? Before I go on I should also say that I was also caught within this trap for a while in my life, it’s quite a common occurrence by the looks of it in the West.

Let’s first take a look at what we demonise, everything that doesn’t serve us in finding utopia or give us feelings of utopia at the personal level like the ego for example, what is different from the dark ages when we demonize what doesn’t serve us in our own quest & negates our ideological principles to now. Let’s take a look at the contradictions of new age spirituality which is the driving force behind our demonization. We judge judgement & the ego period as being what, so how can we judge judgment as being wrong in some way if we are non-judgmental in the first place? A contradiction in terms!!

Recently I also had the misfortune or fortunate, depending in how you look at it, to come across a few self-confessed unconditional loving virtually egoless people, they, by just reading their cover, seem genuine within their perception of themselves until one has the audacity to refute or threaten in some way their ideological perception of themselves in anyway. All one has to do, at times, is look at this reality in a positive way like with the ego for example, how could the ego be a positive trait in anyway? What usually happens is the claws come out or your ostracised in some manner or your bagged & not usually to your face or at times all the above. Is this a true sign of spiritual awareness?

Soul Love: http://loveandlivedivine.wordpress.com/what-is-a-spiritual-awakening/
The person will start to accept who they are and let go of any hurt, anger and negative feelings that they had towards their life and people and they will gradually go through a healing process of their heart, soul and mind. The person will suddenly start seeing the world in a different way and their previous views and opinions may change drastically. A spiritual awakening can be very life changing for a person especially if that person was not spiritual to begin with.

Interesting isn’t it that we in the west are firstly unaccepting to who we are & refute any claims to being any part of what we detest in others as we become more aware. We must remember here, if we detest a certain human trait like the ego for example we are in fact detesting this in others. No wonder we bury our heads in the sand in the west, any sign of what we detest in ourselves & others goes against our ideological perceptions of what spirituality is about. Spirituality is about acceptance & then changing what’s not serving us from within without demonizing anything however all what we are accepting in the west is everything that serves our desire to feel good, anything form this is usually demonised in some way.

The Witch Hunt: So what am I referring to a new age spiritual witch hunt here? For one I don’t see much of a difference from our reactions today to the dark ages accept were not allowed to actually burn people at the stake who don’t conform to our own set ideological perceptions of spirituality these days however we do ostracize & bag people who seem to be a threat to our ideological perceptions in the West. The witch hunt of course is deeming anything that doesn’t conform to our ideological perception in what spirituality is about when true spirituality isn’t about bagging anything especially the ego. True spirituality isn’t about judgement period so how come we are being told to straight up judge judgment & the entire ego as being bad period in the west in some way? In the East the ego is accepted being a part of us straight up & is changed from within by becoming aware of its controlling nature, that’s all, it’s not demonised & shunned within ourselves & others.

We need to, in the west in particular, stop the witch hunt & blaming for in this only chaos will reign which of course is what has happened since the dawn of man to one extent of another around the world. We need to be more positive & accepting of what we have at the moment but for some reason that seems to be impossible for a westerner to do even in the new age spiritual scene so they demonise what doesn’t serve them personally. This continuing demonization affects us all!!

  • 52 Comments  
  • mrmathew1963 Nov 30, 2013

    G'day John

    We are all apart of the real world so yes everything you do will have some sort of impact. If everyone in the world focused on unconditional love for example the world would changed quite dramatically I feel however if only say 10% of the population focused on unconditional love any change is going to be minimal & these changes will take forever to come to fruition.

    Try not to focus on the world, focus on yourself is all you have to do, if 50% of the population did this the changes in the world would be quite significant. It's no good, in my mind, to try to change the world from outside of us however if we did this from within ourselves & in numbers that would make a significant difference. Always try to change something from within remembering we are the world.

    You really need to discuss this with more able people than I so I have supplied an internet address to a forum site that might just benefit you greatly. http://indigosociety.com/forum.php?s=997a0fcbb20615d74753b66bcaffc53a

  • Anonymous Icon

    john1969 Nov 30, 2013

    I meant to say Good day, and thank you. It really seams as if I know you. reflection, everything I think, reflects back, be it radio, t.v. strangers mouths, news papers, there was a time it was quite entertaining,
    Does my thoughts, my perception, my interpretation, which I keep to myself, have any change on the real world?

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 30, 2013

    G'day John

    Ros is probably the one to talk to on this, all I can suggest is be within your own quietness, forget the rest of the world, just be within your own quietness.

    Don't try & chase anything like enlightenment or experiencing the now, let it come to you within your own quietness. Meditating will help with this & it doesn't have to be a deep meditation either. Day dreaming is a good start & try not to think about not thinking just go with the flow. Daydreaming allows you to stop focussing on not thinking but teaches you to focus which is important especially at first.

  • Anonymous Icon

    john1969 Nov 30, 2013

    Good Mr. Matthew, and R.O.S.

    I really would love to talk, there is a lot that don't make senses, looking for the now. How to get there. some guidance.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 29, 2013

    G'day Dusty

    Thanks for that.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 29, 2013

    You are picking the low hanging fruit by continuing to may me your focus.
    I will not longer respond to your comments.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 29, 2013

    G'day Dusty

    Actually I usually state I believe, you might get something right about me sooner or latter:-)

    It is possible that people don't respond to you because of your aggressively provocative nature beyond any reasoning, why is the emphasise on everybody else & never you? How many times have people on this site complained about your mannerism but you persist to be aggressively provocative in my mind. You actually make very little logical sense at times & you don't answer all the questions & queries of others but you expect your questions to be answered, this sounds a little arrogant to me!!

    RE: "My comments are on topic and this is the real issue,"

    How many times have you gone off the topic in this discussion alone? You better rethink who really has double standards Dusty!!!!
    .

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 29, 2013

    Mathew,

    As I have previously stated, I find that you own your subjective view by saying "As I see it..." or words to that affect. I have also stated that I respect your right to your views. My frustration here is with people that create a double standard. Subjectivity is not evidence of a fact, and it is not science.
    I have posted several discussions that are specific to the research of IONS. No one response to those discussions, because few have read the research. So they cannot discuss it, yet they are quick to point to what they do not understand, as if what they haven't read supports their claims.
    My comments are on topic and this is the real issue, because my comment challenge others to actual discuss the research. People can choice to ignore them if they wish. Instead, I become the topic.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 29, 2013

    G'day Dusty

    I neither support nor denounce Scientific Materialism however it does make some good points that are worth considering. I didn’t think most people on here were into Scientific Materialism.

    Why do I hold you to standard? I find you aggressively provocative beyond any reasoning; I don't see this within others.
    Definition of narky: Slang irritable, complaining, or sarcastic. British term -- easily annoyed; overly sensitive; quick to fly off the handle.

    I wouldn’t say, going by the definition above, I was ever narky on here Dusty however sadly enough I couldn’t say the same about you.

    I don’t think I have ever said, on here, for anyone to stick to the topic & in fact its good people don’t.

    A wholly logical minded persons reasoning is going to be limited & yes so will a spiritually aware person however the big difference is spiritually aware people are supposed to be accepting where’s most if not all wholly logically minded people aren’t. The more enlightened the spiritually aware person becomes the more accepting they are, spiritualists in India are a good example of this however the more logically minded a person gets the more non-accepting they are of anything not able to be logically proven at that point in time in human history. One discards everything not of its conceptions the other is all accepting or supposed to be!!

    I’m afraid your reasoning is limited by your reasoning process of logic’s in my mind.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 29, 2013

    It would be easier for you to find a comment that supported traditional science, or scientific materialism or what ever the term other are referring to science as, aside from mine. I have repeatedly stated that IONS applies the same scientific method to their research as all scientists do. I have repeatedly provide definitions of the scientific method.

    Why are you holding me to this standard and not everyone else? Have Jim define "Scientific Materialism", I have tried repeatedly.

    Additionally, why is it which you yourself do not see when you snoop to "narky suggestive comments?" Or at the very least, ask others to "Stay on Topic" in these discussions?

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 29, 2013

    G'day Dusty

    So you’re stooping to narky suggestive comments now.

    RE: "most here are in denial of ALL science".

    You’re just not pointing out a view here but suggestively insulting others in my mind. Give me unequivocal proof that most here are in denial of ALL science. If you can’t please refrain from making such unfound prevocational remarks in the future desist in making any remarks period.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 29, 2013


    I read this somewhere and it seems to apply to you Mathew.

    "For one I don’t see much of a difference from our reactions today to the dark ages accept were not allowed to actually burn people at the stake who don’t conform to our own set ideological perceptions of spirituality these days however we do ostracize & bag people who seem to be a threat to our ideological perceptions in the West."

    I'm not asking you to accept my point of view, I'm just asking to be allow me to have one, even when it differers from yours.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 29, 2013

    G'day Dusty

    RE: "most here are in denial of ALL science".

    This is still an incorrect statement to make in my mind Dusty; instead of (most & all) it should be more correctly stated as (some & most). If I was to say all scientists are egotistical know it all's who can only think by one reasoning process thus make totally wrong deductions this would be total arrogance on my part wouldn't you say? You can't possibly make any sort of sound logical deductive evaluation when so arrogant/ignorant, control of the ego will give a much better evaluative deduction I believe.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 27, 2013

    RE: do you want me to believe this without firm proof?

    You see no proof? Search "Scientific materialism"

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 25, 2013

    G'day Dusty

    RE: "most here are in denial of ALL science"

    You can't honestly believe this can you or do you want me to believe this without firm proof? All is a big statement to make which in my mind is totally incorrect.

    What I can see happening here is most people are looking outside the box of logic reasoning for the main reason science is unable to measure what we are mostly talking about here so one must look outside the box of logic reasoning for an answer. We are using different reasoning process to come up with answers that may or may not be correct. This sounds like scientific theorising to me but we are now using different reasoning processes instead of being stuck using just one reasoning process such as logic which has it's flaws & obvious limitations.

    This should answer this bigger question of yours Dusty.

    Look, I'm not into hairy fairy stuff either but I do use different reasoning processes which allows me to look at one thing in different ways giving me different incites to what's what, I'm just not limited to one deductive reasoning process, there is nothing wrong with that in my mind but their is in yours obviously.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 24, 2013

    Mathew,

    You're ducking the bigger questions here, and I will add that this is not a trap of some sort, just honest investigation.
    I course I quote others, "I stand on the shoulders of giants," as we all do in this modern world. Science is a building process, and there is no reason to reinvent a science of my own when there are so many bright and earnest individuals pressing at the boundaries. As it is, most here are in denial of ALL science. We are not having a conversation about which scientific theories we find the most useful, we are not even discussing the scientific research IONS has conducted.
    What I have stated, time and time again, is that I am critical of those that invent their BELIEFs on the fly, cafeteria style, and hold the expectation that others should embrace them.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 24, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    RE: "Much of what you know is based in prior knowledge that was passed to you, with little invention of your own. Is this a fair statement?'

    You yourself are always referring others to certain site addresses & coping & pasting various statements made by others to prove your point, wouldn't this question refer to you more than me? How many times have I done this period especially compared to you?

    Again Dusty: I know little of everything & nothing of all….Love Mathew

    I would also like to say I've never heard or read anyone explaining about how logics is flawed using cavemen & fires, I would call this inventive wouldn't you?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 24, 2013

    The reasoning that their brains afforded them was to assign agency to things and invent gods, lot and lots of them

    I've ask what you know about science but will also ask what you might know about the inventions of the gods, in terms of their history?
    Much of what you know is based in prior knowledge that was passed to you, with little invention of your own. Is this a fair statement?

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 23, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    Yes thank God IONS is more open to different deductive reasoning processes.

    RE: "But science requires proof...."proof is the bottom line for everyone." Faith replaces evidence in spiritualism."

    How is one to give proof when one doesn’t have the conscious understanding, as yet, to give such proof? Just because one is unable to give solid proof at the time doesn’t make something delusional or illogical as you try to portray with anything to do with spirituality in particular, ,just because you yourself have had no spiritual experiences doesn’t make them untrue does it or does it? You yourself must look within yourself for this answer however one must be honest within oneself first.

    Let’s get back to the fire in cave man days, it’s illogical because it can’t be explained logically within the conscious awareness they had at the time but they still utilised it through faith however with your deductive reasoning it shouldn’t have been utilised because it made no logical sense t that time. Thank God we didn’t rely on one reasoning process to evolve!!

    “Having two discussion that are basically about the same topic is confusing.”

    This is only confusing to you because you can obviously only think in a basic reasoning process such as logics.

    “Did you respond to my question about your knowledge of science?”

    You want me to egotistically answer this obviously because can only a question like this come from someone who is egotistical in the first place & egotism relates to a thought process that is normally limited!!

    I know little of everything & nothing of all….Love Mathew. See my point Dusty but I actually don’t think you can!!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013


    Hi Mathew,

    I see the confusion here regarding this statement. "Tell me please where is this statement ("Science, as a practice does not discard anything.... Science does not discard the "possibility," it seeks to defines probability.?”),"

    Those words of mine actually appear in the other discussion titled, "A Faultless Reality."

    I wrote, "Re: Why does science discard what they can't measure

    Science, as a practice does not discard anything. Everything is open to investigation. Some scientist might be dismissive of certain points of views, but others do not. Hence the experiments and research that IONS continues to fund.

    But science requires proof...."proof is the bottom line for everyone." Faith replaces evidence in spiritualism.

    You had written: "Why does science discard what they can't measure at the time being? I will answer that question quite simply, ego!! Because they can't answer it it's discarded so what's the difference between science & spirituality where you pick and choose the parts that you want to embrace and discard the rest? One uses logic that has been created from a theory & the other uses belief's which have come from faith. I'm objective to both understandings."

    Having two discussion that are basically about the same topic is confusing.
    Did you respond to my question about your knowledge of science?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013

    It would be to easy to responded to Jim C's personal attacks but that is not the purpose of these discussion.
    It suffices to say that this is a tactic of those with a weak argument. I will continue to address any relevant comments and ignore any personal attacks with the reply, "Let's stick to the discussion."

  • Jim Centi Nov 23, 2013

    Mathew,

    I see your point and am gaining more respect for you comments.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 23, 2013

    G'day Jim

    I don't think he's actually doing this on purpose but again he could be. Dusty can only seemingly think using one quite out-dated form of reasoning, it would seem it's impossible for him to think out side this square so he's going to respond according to his limited understanding which of course he doesn't think is limited or limiting.

    Any process of reasoning on it's own is limiting for instance logic or faith have their own limited reasoning attached to them however if we combine them they give us a totally different reasoning process to evaluate with. What we are actually talking about here is awareness.

    I feel as a collective species we have all added to this awareness by acting out certain & at times individual reasoning processes that on there own only give us awareness to the point of our reasoning processes however collectively I feel over time they have added to our awareness collectively. We must wonder why a collective species seems to be rehashing the same fixated points of reasoning over & over again, there is a point to this as there is a point to everything I feel.

    Why are different parts of ourselves fixated & repeatedly showing us these out-dated forms of reasoning, there is a lesson that needs to be learnt before we can all go on collectively I believe.

  • Jim Centi Nov 23, 2013

    Mathew and others,

    Can you see how dustproduction involves us in dialogues that distract from a topic or thread? One of his tactics is to attack a statement made by someone so the thread deteriorates from a discussion of the topic to personal exchanges.

    He has been the most active participant in Discussions for nearly two years and yet, has never posted a topic. His mission is to not create a topic, but destroy topics created by others.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 23, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    "so what you are saying if science can't measure it it's discarded." Who's twisting words around?? You know for a fact this wasn't in relation to the following, "Science, as a practice does not discard anything.... Science does not discard the "possibility," it seeks to defines probability."

    My statement was in reference to your last reply as follow: Re: " how many scientific theories contradict each other in relation to the creation of the universe thus the entirety of everything?"

    We are not discussing the universe or "everything." I raised this point with you when you mentioned the "Big Bang." Still there are certain observable fact that science has developed about the Universe; i.e. it is expanding. But let's not confuse theory, hypothesis based in observation, with subjective "I believe" speculation. Science offers a framework, proposes theories, establishes evidence to support further investigations, and continues to involve. It seeks to disprove itself. (Can we say this about spiritualism?)
    Let's stick to a somewhat less speculative avenue of science, like the brain, and consciousness. My understanding is that science see a physical basis for the emergence of consciousness, while spiritualism believes that the self is a spirit within a body.

    " The idea that science cannot explain consciousness seem to be rooted in particular views rather than based on familiarity with scientific inquiry."

    http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-is-consciousness-anyway.html

    Re: "Why don't you bring up objective questions like this instead of subjective questions repeatedly?"

    The point that I made already was that this is a discussion about your 'subjective' version of spirituality ("Spiritualism to me..."). The fact remains that spirituality is 'subjective', science is objective.

    Tell me please where is this statement ("Science, as a practice does not discard anything.... Science does not discard the "possibility," it seeks to defines probability.?”), that I was supposed to be replying to in your last reply, I wasn’t obviously replying to this specific statement was I?
    My statement was on your whole attitude towards anything not kosher in your own scientific perspective; you do seem to try to discard anything not of your personal reasoning process for example how many times have you said this that & the other isn’t what IONS is about so therefore discarding anything not relative to you personally. Everything is relevant & connected to each other in some way so everything in one way or another has something to do with IONS to one extent or another. You are repeatedly trying to discard what you personally deem as having no relevance but others obviously do.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013

    Re: "so what you are saying if science can't measure it it's discarded."

    Let's not twist my words. I clearly stated, "Science, as a practice does not discard anything.... Science does not discard the "possibility," it seeks to defines probability."

    I take it that you have very little knowledge of science. Is the true?

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 22, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    You still didn't answer the question, how many scientific theories contradict each other in relation to the creation of the universe thus the entirety of everything? The point is everything has in scientific terms evolved from a theory like logics for one so how can logics be seen as something practical in evaluations? My point is it can't not when it evolved from a theory.

    Just because another different conscious reasoning as opposed to the reasoning of science is being used doesn't make it wrong it's just a different reasoning process being used but science once again discards anything it can't explain.

    The only reason science can't explain consciousness is it's unable to measure it as yet, so what you are saying if science can't measure it it's discarded. We are damn lucky we didn't do this in the cave man days, we couldn't at that point logically explain fire so going by your logics we should have put the fire out, discard it.

    Sorry dustproduction but this kind of illogical thinking makes no common sense, just because someone says they are logical doesn't make their thinking so, obviously!! It took faith dustproduction for the continued use of the fire without knowing what it was about & faith today is still being used even by scientists.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 22, 2013

    Re: " how many scientific theories contradict each other in relation to the creation of the universe thus the entirety of everything?"

    We are not discussing the universe or "everything." I raised this point with you when you mentioned the "Big Bang." Still there are certain observable fact that science has developed about the Universe; i.e. it is expanding. But let's not confuse theory, hypothesis based in observation, with subjective "I believe" speculation. Science offers a framework, proposes theories, establishes evidence to support further investigations, and continues to involve. It seeks to disprove itself. (Can we say this about spiritualism?)
    Let's stick to a somewhat less speculative avenue of science, like the brain, and consciousness. My understanding is that science see a physical basis for the emergence of consciousness, while spiritualism believes that the self is a spirit within a body.

    " The idea that science cannot explain consciousness seem to be rooted in particular views rather than based on familiarity with scientific inquiry."

    http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-is-consciousness-anyway.html

    Re: "Why don't you bring up objective questions like this instead of subjective questions repeatedly?"

    The point that I made already was that this is a discussion about your 'subjective' version of spirituality ("Spiritualism to me..."). The fact remains that spirituality is 'subjective', science is objective.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 22, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    Let me ask you, how many scientific theories contradict each other in relation to the creation of the universe thus the entirety of everything? Why don't you bring up objective questions like this instead of subjective questions repeatedly? Which theory that created everything within it's entirety do you believe in because that is all it can be, a belief or is it blind faith???

    I do not have the gumption to outright say that one ideological deductive reasoning process is right or wrong over the other especially when we have little idea of how everything was precisely created but you do!! You should really be questioning the illogical deductive reasoning process of yours not spirituality in my mind.

    Spiritualism to me relates to everything for the main reason spirituality is all about oneness of all within it's entirety, yes a lot of western spiritual ideologies separate one from the other within their concepts however it's a different matter in the east as a whole I believe.

    Again why how many scientific theories contradict each other in relation to the creation of the universe thus the entirety of everything? When you answer this you will answer why their are so many different versions of spiritual faith believe it or not.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 22, 2013

    Re: In certain spiritual ideologies...

    Again, let me ask which ones are we considering?
    This is the issue I continue to raise since many are contradictory, which tends to, at least in my mind negate the entire category.
    The debate here become one of science vs spiritualism, when in fact it is about, What is spiritualism? It cannot be everything.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 21, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    Theories that created the brain, mind and conscious should be in question more than anything else because it's these theories that the brain, mind and conscious have developed from.

    In certain spiritual ideologies wrong & rights seem to be enhanced when they shouldn't because true spirituality should be about acceptance & tolerance. Like I said, there seems to be as many spiritual ideological concepts as there are scientific theories.

    Science one day I believe will answer any question it cares to put foreword one day, the more we become connected to our inner selves the more answers we will answer I believe. The inner self is our selves without attachments that hinder our perceptions.

    Yes, a lot of spiritual ideologies & practices haven't evolved over time, could you imagine if science did this?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 21, 2013

    Here is another question we might want to ask: "How much of the current spiritual belief is the result of outdate beliefs?"

    Here is an examination of left handedness which was once view is a sign of the devil.

    For the left-handed people of the world, life isn’t easy. Throughout much of history, massive stigmas attached to left-handedness meant they were singled out as everything from unclean to witches. In Medieval times, writing with your left-hand was a surefire way to be accused of being possessed by the devil; after all, the devil himself was thought to be a lefty. The world has gotten progressively more accepting of left-handed folk, but there are still some undeniable bummers associated with a left-handed proclivity: desks and spiral notebooks pose a constant battle, scissors are all but impossible to use and–according to some studies–life-expectancy might be lower than for right-handed people.

    What makes humanity’s bias against lefties all the more unfair is that left-handed people are born that way. In fact, scientists have speculated for years that a single gene could control a left-right preference in humans. Unfortunately, they just couldn’t pinpoint exactly where the gene might lie.

    Now, in a paper published today in PLOS Genetics a group of researchers have identified a network of genes that relate to handedness in humans. What’s more, they’ve linked this preference to the development of asymmetry in the body and the brain.

    http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/09/why-are-some-people-left-handed/

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 20, 2013

    Religion and Paranormal Belief
    Alan Orenstein
    Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

    Abstract:
    This article uses a Canadian national sample to examine the relationship between conventional religious belief, church attendance, and belief in paranormal phenomena. Greater religious belief is strongly associated with greater paranormal belief. Church attendance (and other measures of religious participation) are only weakly associated with paranormal belief until conventional religious belief is statistically controlled; once this is done, greater church attendance is strongly associated with lowered paranormal belief. Together, these two religious variables explain about one-quarter of the variance in paranormal belief, making them the strongest predictors that have yet to be identified.

    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1388010?uid=3739952&uid=2133&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102968950951

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 20, 2013

    Religion (spirituality in this case, even when it is individualized) is more in the situation than in the person.

    The Big Bang Theory is not the argued as much as brain, mind and conscious are. For those we continue to peel away the layers.
    We all share a physical subjective experience that can be explained. Those that choice to ignore the research cling to obsolete beliefs.
    This is certainly true in regard to the religious vs secular debate regarding morality.

    "I'm going to speak today about the relationship between science and human values. Now, it's generally understood that questions of morality -- questions of good and evil and right and wrong -- are questions about which science officially has no opinion. It's thought that science can help us get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value. And, consequently, most people -- I think most people probably here -- think that science will never answer the most important questions in human life: questions like, "What is worth living for?" "What is worth dying for?" "What constitutes a good life?"

    So, I'm going to argue that this is an illusion -- that the separation between science and human values is an illusion -- and actually quite a dangerous one at this point in human history."

    http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html


  • mrmathew1963 Nov 20, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    What's the difference between a theory of the big bang or the balloon theory let's say to spirituality showing slightly different ideological concepts to any specified understanding, neither deductive reasoning here has a sound base for the main reason we are still theorising. We are theorising because we are unable to understand beyond our conscious understanding therefore unable to come to a conclusive deduction mainly because again we are unable to measure what we don't consciously understand.

    How many theories are there out there about how the universe which created everything including complex thought, I can count seven of them & there's probably a lot more, how consistent is this? These numerous theories have also created logic, how reliable does this makes logic thought? It goes both ways dustproduction, you really should be a little more objective but that's just my opinion.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 20, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    I subscribe to this kind of spiritualism, is it any different to subscribing to what was created through the big bang theory which is still up in the air to what actually occurred when the universe was created, we are still very much theorising on this. I find it funny basing our entire existence on a theory. It's a toss up basing our entire existence on theories or faith's, in my mind neither is blind just different perspectives.

    It's extremely hard for a person fixated to living in a box to see anything else other than what is in the box, this is man with his fixated ideologies to let's say faith alone or pure logics. A mind of pure logics can't possibly see outside their box however faith is a little more open minded unless it fixates itself to only a few faith's like logic has done with only being able to think logically. This means it's impossible for a person fixated on logics to understand beyond the interior of their box to know what spirituality is really about.

    People of logics believe we were created by a theory or theories however people open to all faiths believe we were created by a lot more than just a theory or theories, it's far more expansive than that mainly because they have bothered to look outside the box. Just because science today is unable to measure faith doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that would be a sign of utter ignorance with a dash of arrogance to add taste.

    Logic man has encased himself in his own importance & the longer he does this the harder it's going to be to look outside the box they have encased themselves in.

    Spirituality has no boundaries, why does logic man fixate himself to boundaries? Why be so fixated to the interior of the box when we can dismiss these boundaries governed by the interior of the box to open ourselves up to even more possibilities?


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 20, 2013

    Is there a difference between "the soul" and our "Spirit?"

    This write spellings out a difference:

    "Within the universe is a ‘divine energising power’ which supports all life. The energy of Spirit is everywhere and permeates through all time and space. It is also this energy which gives life to all material things, including the human body. With this energy the soul incarnates into the human body and the Spirit maintains it. Without it the physical body would die. Therefore, before human life is born, we must have both Spirit and Soul."

    Once again we find another set of beliefs, not a universal framework, that is to be accepted without questioning. If spiritualism is not a universal, but, instead, a personal understanding of what is to be believed, then the question that beg asking is why we accept any of it? Is it because of our immersion into a culture that introduces the concept in an unescapable manner, forcing us to consider and re-consider it as a form of social acceptance?

    Clearly, social acceptance plays a role here in these discussion if questioning spiritualism garnets the hostile reactions it does from some commenters.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 19, 2013

    Unlike science which deals with the physical aspects of the conscious experience, new age spirituality or personal spirituality has no rules or framework, so it is riddle with statement and writings like this.

    "In Spiritualism, we believe that we are all a part of the ‘Divine’ ‘Creator’ or God. It matters not what terms we use, rather the understanding that the creator of all life is within us all. This aspect of our being is the Soul. It existed before our physical birth and it is eternal. The Soul cannot be destroyed, it can only progress and change, as it journeys towards divine existence."

    How many here subscribe to this understanding of "Spiritualism?" Who is "we" in this case?

    While some here wants us to submit to the fact that IONS's research in Psi is based in the spiritual, "science" is in the name for good reason.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 18, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    Thanks for this & yes I believe all spiritual practices should be underpinned by psychology for in this there is a lesser chance of delusional episodes becoming a reality for some people.

    I see so many similarities of new age spirituality to the ideological concepts they held in the dark ages it’s not funny, it’s actually quite scary.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 18, 2013

    G'day Ros

    Amended: I have inserted additional supplements to this post in bold letters to better describe the difference between inquiries for our desires & inquiring for our needs, I will also give a real life example of inquiring for our needs. Also at the end of the post I will add another additional supplement pertaining to our hidden ego tendances. This is the problem of trying to keep the posts short which I won’t try to do in the future; I will just let it flow.

    Supplements:

    I would also like to enumerate here that one can also inquire for a need as opposed to inquiring for a desire however there is a fine line here. One must beware of the difference between a desire that is controlled by the controlling ego or a need which isn’t controlled by the ego. To give a better understanding of this I will use a real life example.

    I was helping out a lass from Cambodia in various ways, I should mention here it was all above board, anyway she wanted to fit in over here in Australia so she tried to become a Christian. After a few months she came up to me baffled about the ideological concepts of Christianity, she wasn’t happy with it at all so I suggested she stick with what she was comfortable with which was Buddhism. I gave her a book about Buddhism so she could make further inquiries to what she wanted.

    In this case it wasn’t an inquiry of desire but a need which wasn’t controlled by the controlling ego. Let’s look at the same scenario but in reverse which is driven by desire not a need. Having a desire to fit in, this lass would have kept making inquiries into Christianity until she herself psychologically accepted these ideological concepts that she was obviously not comfortable with in the first place. This is a desire to fit in which is controlled by the controlling ego. She is to this day quite happy with her choice in not egotistically fitting in.

    If this or any one of my posts or in fact anyone’s post has upset you in some way you must look within you to why you are feeling this way not look at other people’s perceptions as being wrong in some way. In my case, concerning this post, some people might be offended by me relating the ego to desires, why are you offended by this? It wouldn’t be you don’t want to be seen expressing a lowly human trait like the ego in anyway is it or is it just by expressing anything deemed lowly or unacceptable makes one less spiritual. If you think on this, what is controlling these thoughts of being a lesser person if we express a lesser valued human trait even when they do help us on our spiritual path? Interesting isn’t it but don’t worry about not seeing how the hidden ego fools us because it took me years to realise this!!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 18, 2013

    "A study in 2002 found that increasing dopamine in skeptics resulted in their being more inclined to see faces in jumbled images. This study led to another study, which essential found a gene for believing in God. Again, a glib way to put it, but the point is this: seeing things that aren’t there is just a mild form of schizophrenia. But what if a second person is the source for Hyper Agency Detection and Theory of Mind? What if this person tells you that the agent is called God and that He wants you to do certain things?

    This is how religions are created. Not by seeing things and believing them, but by having those beliefs codified into rules of conduct. Passing false pattern recognition on to others for the purpose of control. And once it takes root, it is very easy to perpetuate: all agency is attributed to God."
    http://brainrobbery.blogspot.com/2013/11/when-two-brains-lie.html

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 18, 2013

    A lecture Ara recently gave at the Centre for Human Evolution, Cognition and Culture. If you are interested in human psychology, evolutionary studies and/or religion, it's certainly worth the time!

    Dr Ara Norenzayan, social psychologist at the University of British Columbia, outlines his and his colleagues' research program on studying the links between religion and cooperation in large groups.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7TJlDH3jYU#t=11

    "The Eight Principles of Big Gods"

    1. Watched people are nice people.

    2. Religion is more in the situation than in the person.

    3. Hell is stronger than heaven.

    4. Trust people who trust in God.

    5. Religious actions speak louder than words.

    6. Unworshipped Gods are impotent Gods.

    7. Big Gods for Big Groups.

    8. Religious groups cooperate in order to compete.

    I do tend to view spirituality, in its 'new age' incarnation as a religion.

  • Anonymous Icon

    RealityOverScience Nov 18, 2013

    A great way to explore the physical vs spiritual is to look at objects such as: car, house, musical instrument, science lab, space shuttle, money...

    A car can't drive itself, a house isn't really a home until someone lives in it, a musical instrument can't play itself to be musical at all, a science lab just sits there without someone dreaming toward a purpose or goal in it, and the same for a space shuttle, and money is worthless without exchange.

    None of these objects "even" existed without a dream preceding them.

    Spirit is initiated by that very first "one grain of sand," as life takes its first step away from Balance at the Universal Core.

    It superimposes "the god particle," which also begins with that first step away from the Core, when mass first becomes matter.

    It's important to hear "when mass first becomes matter" because it "tells on" the reality that imbalance initiates the searching, the seeking, the journey, and that searching, seeking journey begins expression of the (famous and infamous) "two truths" of reality: movement away from Core resolution/return, to survive and extend life, and movement toward the Core resolution/return, Universal Truth, Oneness, Nothing (Emptiness of all projection).

    Spirit is movement, inquiry, purpose, meaningfulness. Otherwise, everything just...sits there..., as would this forum if nobody wrote on it. Participation in this forum is the having of a spiritual experience. It was also a spiritual experience/dream to create the forum.

    "The Something," all life, all projection/distraction from "The Nothing" (Translucent Core), would not exist without spirit, like a teenager running away from home to have an adventure. Each dream gives birth to the next. The physical, therefore, would begin to resemble what that teenagers's dog may leave behind, the temporarily congealed remnants of a previous dream abandoned in a particular time and space. Eventually, it will also dissolve/resolve with the rest.

    The Universe is Translucent. (Think "string theory," vibration, resonance, noise, silence!)

    Catch it if you can! And if you can, you've caught the...Now!

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 17, 2013

    G'day dustprouction

    There is a big difference between inquiry & warning people of the pitfalls of going a certain way, Jesus I understand didn't need to inquire about anything, all he had to do from the beginning is become silent within himself & once he did this all he needed to know he become aware of without inquiry.

    Yes it's hard for a logically minded person to accept & I understand that, not all of what is known came from inquiry, most of my actual spiritual experiences just happened to me without inquiry. Once we bring in inquiry we are then serving our desires to know not just sitting with our own quietens for a need to know.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 17, 2013

    G'day frequencytuner

    Well conversed indeed. It is strange that supposed collective people react towards others in such a manner, yes dustproduction can be annoying but we must ask ourselves why is he so annoying to me. If I was supposed to be that enlightened & collective dustproduction in reality wouldn't be annoying just another me expressing a different point about me.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 17, 2013

    Re: inquiry v acceptance

    Those here that are familiar with the reported lessons Jesus tried to impart will recall that he questioned the priest regarding their view of God and their understandings of the soul. Both inquiry and acceptance are part of the process we wrestle with in our investigation into our beliefs.

    Those that say that there is a "oneness" to the universe MUST examine for themselves what it is that they would seek to exclude from it.

  • frequencytuner Nov 16, 2013

    dustproduction is the emblematic scapegoat of this very topic in the way some choose to receive, refute and reject his perspective. It has always been known in ancient times that man was not born with a spirit, but was given a metaphorical seed. It therefore rests entirely on each individual to plant and nourish this seed for it to grow into a spirit or soul or whatever word one wishes to use. Dust touches the harsh reality that most refuse to accept about this material, mortal existence. Than you dust for your enlightening perspective.

    Imagine a coin for a moment. The head is the elusive abstract, Divine, Spiritual, unmanifest quantum reality that is beyond the physical laws and senses. The tail of course is the physical, concrete, material reality that is bound by the physical laws and senses. Is a human like this coin? Well if the coin is some form of a mobius yin yang, then yes. From the material side, there is a spiritual spark or seed. From the spiritual side the physical reality is but a speck or seed. The goal of Alchemy has always been the matrimony of matter and spirit, the goal of all religion has been some form of salvation and no matter where you look the goal is always the same but the means are different because they are approaching the goal from a different perspective and require a different process to get there.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 16, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    I only show respect to those who deserve my respect, I'm a hard task master.

    I'm not sure where others are coming from when they say you always speak out against spirituality, to me you only speak out against the hypocrisy of spirituality in my mind. Maybe you shouldn't question the beliefs of people who have a supposed control over their controlling ego!!

    I'm presently in a discussion about inquiry v acceptance, it would seem a number of spiritually aware people state that spirituality is about inquiry which of course is desire driven but I say true spirituality should be wholly about acceptance which denotes needs not desires, I soon quietened them. Spirituality goes wrong when desire becomes a major driving force behind their ideologies instead of needs. Yes spirituality, when needed, has always inquired but it's never a driving force & it's certainly not the main force behind their ideology, beliefs & faiths are obviously.

    I think spirituality today is trying to egotistically justify itself, it shouldn't have too.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 16, 2013

    Thank you for responding MM,

    If you search back in the discussions, such as "The Psychological Benefits of Spirituality," and "The Independent Theist," you will find that
    i have proved a consistent position on spirituality. I have included quotes by Ronald Dworkin, "Religion Without God."

    "The familiar stark divide between people of religion and without religion is too crude. Many millions of people who count themselves atheists have convictions and experiences very like and just as profound as those that believers count as religious. They say that though they do not believe in a “personal” god, they nevertheless believe in a “force” in the universe “greater than we are.” They feel an inescapable responsibility to live their lives well, with due respect for the lives of others; they take pride in a life they think well lived and suffer sometimes inconsolable regret at a life they think, in retrospect, wasted."

    And acknowledged a respect for the belief of the commenter Ashok Malhotra, saying,

    "I have a growing appreciation for the concept that you are presenting here, in that you are stating your beliefs, and a reason for those beliefs, in a personal manner. You acknowledge that others have reasons for there beliefs and demonstrate respect for those reasons . In this way, you are implying that what is religious is a multi-coherence; there are many ways in which others who are on a path can find the "peace of mind" you refer to when you write, "He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind."

    This is an end unto itself, and that leaves little need to convert others to a certain thinking or behaving. There is something in all lessons if we chose to see it. But too often we are unsettled in our own mind, and need others to confirm our experience, share our thoughts and feeling, so that we are not so separate from the rest."


    I generally respect the beliefs of others, when they are correctly stated as beliefs. We do not have to agree in order to have an interesting and informative discussion.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 16, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    I will probably be ostracized, if I'm not already, responding to you sadly enough but my ego doesn't control me in this way so here we go. You are but another me that deserves my patience & respect.

    It's funny isn't it, in true spirituality there is no wrong or right's because there is no judgement so how could you be wrong in some way or anyway? Yes spirituality can be extremely hypocritical indeed; I just wish most self-confessed spiritually aware people knew of this because it makes my job that much harder in showing how spatiality in its purist form is all accepting.

    Most spiritual ideologies are based on fear, new age spirituality is no different from the dark ages of spiritual fear mongering at its worse I believe. We fear expressing the ego or attracting bad karma if we do wrong unto others however spirituality in its purist form isn’t about fear at all. Am I able to give a good example of this & the answer would be a big fat no however I’m a pretty good example to a certain extent. A lot of Western spiritual ideologies are fear based but I have the understanding Eastern spiritual ideologies aren’t, they have an underlying fear within their ideology but they are not based on fear to the best of my knowledge.

    It did amaze me that I’m still accumulating likes for this post on spiritually based Google communities, it’s good to see that there are other very accepting spiritually aware people out there.

    I do see where you are coming from; you’re not against spiritualism just the hypocrisies of spiritualism which a lot of self-confessed spiritually aware people portray sadly enough.

  • Jim Centi Nov 16, 2013

    Dustproduction,

    This is responsive to your comment today on this topic.

    Most of the comments in Discussions are directly or indirectly related to spirituality.

    You have been the most active participant in Discussions for nearly two years and your constant criticism has had no effect on comments related to spiritually.

    Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Einstein’s words are very appropriate to your behavior in Discussions.

    Don’t bother responding to this, I vow to read nothing you post from this moment on and strongly encourage others to do the same.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 16, 2013

    I have been accused of being "a voice that is adamantly opposed to any mention of spirituality." I counter this by asking what it is that I should be in favor of, in terms of "spirituality". In truth I am opposed to language that permit internally held beliefs to be externalized as universal reality.

    Example: God is going to punish you if you....
    Correctly stated, I believe God will punish you if you.....

    Spiritualism is reported to be many things, pretends to be others, but in fact may be nothing at all. "Spirituality" is a bit of a moving target, it is never clearly defined in a universally accepted framework All religions put forth there own concept, and others turn it into a tent that is big enough to be all inclusive, ignoring any contradictions of dogma or historical pretense.
    It is, at best, little more than a diluted or corrupted belief system, one that is learned, usually imprinted in young minds. Like language, it is a imparted at a developmental stage which makes it part of a scheme that is difficult to 'unlearn' or alter. Additionally, we are not spiritual beings, we are physical being that claim a spiritual aspect.

    This is why the practices of spirituality are somewhat less than "spiritual" We are after all human.


  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS