Of which act.
If you don't know anything in the subject that "you don't really care", why always mention that it is an anti-religious discourse? (which is absolutely not the case).
I don't give a damn about the discourses of these religions like atheisms of all kinds, but you have to be blind not to notice these reciprocal hatreds.
Religion constitutes an institutionalization of thought. For all those who have studied history from the church for example, it appears that in the end spirituality is taken hostage for the benefit of a political project, it is the same thing on questions of ecology, economy, immigration etc.
This is a good question that should have been asked earlier (whatever you have had the leisure to read all these pages on evolution where you constantly returned to the discourse of religions to make socio-political references, if not spiritual.) so I partly agree with you on what you write above. Religions are human systems (like all the others) recovering a speech, supposed spiritual, to make a juicy business of it and to dominate on the weak spirits (in this sense of misinformed on this last domain what led, and led still, with all the superstitions and which one sees repeated, with the comma near, in the dominant discourse on the vaccinations while playing on fear (the hell of the disease) and the paradise (to be miraculously spared by these ) because these are the old carrot and stick tricks, which work best as usual, and people say amen.
So why jump systematically when it comes to religion, then explain that it is not your cup of tea?
I don't jump on religion,
but on voluntary confusion which is made between the so-called philosophical discourse on the origin of all known and unknown things and the fact of bringing this systematically to these institutions which only represent themselves.
When you stop this little game of confusion to stay on the idea,
AND SHE ALONE, of a creator, that is to say of the origin of all things, religion will no longer even have to be mentioned.
The validity of “god” goes through personal experimentation, BY LIVING, not by intellectual or pseudo-intellectual pirouettes and its evasions. I refer you to Buddhism with its pseudo or real reincarnations [*] Only the subject concerned and some rare others can testify that this is indeed the case, but scientifically it is not provable, nothing can validate this thesis!
It’s incorrect.
Spiritual experience cannot confirm the existence of god, it can on the other hand validate the notion of a beyond, another dimension of consciousness etc ...
Not really! It is just a question of semantics where we will name the sweeper of the beautiful term of surface technician or the chance of indeterminism. (It makes us a beautiful leg ... of wood!) And therefore bring, once again, to the controllable, to the verifiable (according to your criteria) what can not be in a reduced framework.
As I noted, spiritualist currents turned towards experience (via yoga, meditation etc ...)
This is called an arbitrary selection that wants to value one system rather than another. It's like in sport which would be to want to enhance running rather than shot put! The harmony between body and mind is not exclusive to the Orient, it is expressed, according to cultures simply differently.
Personally I am rather in favor of these methods like western yoga precisely because this harmony has been interrupted as much by "your" religions as by atheism and its pseudo rationality, when in reality it is only individual regardless of the dominant system.
curiously are currents based on philosophical atheism.
The Buddha took position on the subject, by rejection of the dominant religion which surrounded him and it is there still more of a rejection of the religions and its alleged dominant representatives, wanting to make the rain and the good weather on the people's minds, (as atheism is a position of rejection with us) and his disciples followed the master as it is natural for them. He would have recognized the existence of this god and all his disciples would have followed him in the same way and all would preach today the existence of god, as what it is worth little.
In fact he made his revolution before us!
It is strangely reminiscent of the conflict between the Trinitarian "Christians" and the Unitarian "Christians" and it is the first who won the coconut palm because the authority (the Emperor Constantine in this case), chose the first for reasons. only political. If the scales had tilted the other way, the Unitarians would dominate today. And if the Buddha, from his princely position, had not lived the religious hypocrisy of his time, he might have had a different opinion and therefore Buddhism would be deist today (and you would not recommend yourself to not today or else you would follow the herd!)
In the West spiritual experiences through meditation or prayer (1) never conclude that a single god exists,
The disciples of Buddhism are like the disciples of Catholicism and as their submission to dogma forbids them to lead to anything else, it is obvious that they will lead to nothing other than their mental conditioning, the famous mantras.
but a feeling of peace and love,
This is good, this is what connects all the religions of the world,
at least theoretically.
It is only afterwards and via the culture of the experiencers that this is to be reclassified as a mystical experience having put a person in contact with God ...
And you immediately fall back into the rut in question and it's stronger than you. The experience is not the result of meditation (eastern way) or prayer (western way), it is independent of any form, cause or system otherwise all the meditators would be superhumans, saints or enlightened.
in an animist culture the shaman will speak of an entry into contact with spirits in a polytheistic culture with one of the deities of the panel etc ...
Rebelotte! Mysticism and shamanism are not spiritual criteria, they are sensitivities which obviously relate to cultures to credit them. Some see angels, others see saints as in Catholicism, or demonstrations off the beaten track like tunnels filled with EMI light [*] and therefore this represents effectively attempts to access a world different from that which is generally accepted.
[*] these experiments are interesting in the sense that no criterion of religion, spirituality or transcendental meditation is required.
The principle is therefore the same, there is experience of a modified state of consciousness then translated via the culture (the mind) of the mystic.
It is not exactly the same and this is where the rub is wanting to reduce to a few particular events as if there was only one kind of unique path to take and even worse to be interpreted by those there even who did not pass there.
It is for this reason that you hide behind the subjective experience, by unprovable definition, because in authentic cases of experiences of this kind there is never any question of a great architect, watchmaker, refrigerator, that is your interpretation, and your interpretation is based on a belief, an idea that has colonized your brain and all human beings works according to this principle...
And you are hiding behind a false rationalism. You bring everything back to the demonstrable,
ACCORDING TO YOUR CRITERIA ONLY, outside of experience, to make them dubious references because where did you go to seek that these experiences lead to a philosophically rationalist approach, of great architect? This is your interpretation,
and your interpretation is based on a belief, an idea that has colonized your brain and all human beings works according to this principle.
You therefore skillfully mix "catechizing" comparison and mystical experiences (without risking to describe them) in order to maintain a vagueness in the definition ...
And rebelotte, rationalize this type of experience by enclosing it within limits defined, a priori, by those who even know nothing about it. There are no criteria, no cathechism, no mysticism; it's like lightning strikes where it wants, when it wants, without criteria set in advance and without warning
Already periods of crisis, the story is full, cyclical, and none is more conducive to the arrival of one character more than another.
We will have to revise the story a bit in this case, which brings us back to the heart of the matter ...
Isn't the Messiah supposed to come in a time of trouble?
Except that you show that you know nothing about it! The period of trouble does not concern politics, but the people of Israel
ONLY and for which Christ Jesus says: "
I came ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel », He therefore protested against the idea that he came to deliver (Moses way) this people from the Roman yoke.
Ah yes my forgiveness you know nothing about religion!
Effectively ! The contemporaries of Christ Jesus rightly recommended their religion and he put them back in their right place by calling them hypocrites.
If one day you study (and meditate)
really these texts and without a priori atheist, you may change your perception of what must be a true religion
(pure and undefiled religion in the eyes of God consists in taking care of works and orphans in affliction) not to do pre-prechi in churches or any other means.
To return to less religious categories (albeit): A certain Lenin or a certain A.Hitler would he not have appeared in periods of trouble?
They came in times of political turmoil, not spiritual.
As far as I know neither Lenin nor Hitler recommended themselves to be spiritual experimenters, their works speak for themselves, because to finish on a biblical maxim "
we recognize a tree with its fruits »
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Already periods of crisis, the story is full, cyclical, and none is more conducive to the arrival of one character more than another. If you made the effort to study the subject rather than to fly over it quickly, as do the anti religious, you would understand (perhaps) better the meaning of prophetism which has nothing to do with troubles or political crises.
