Is the following quote part of a faith based system or not?

[Wootah]

Is the following quote part of a faith based system or not?

My commentary is based upon experiential knowledge. I experience my physicality as being surrounded by life. You too can experience this by the simple act of observation. My physicality interacts with the life that surrounds it in such a manner that it forms a symbiotic relationship that is life sustaining, breathing being a prime example of this, which is again something that you can experience. Thus it is recognisable that caring for that which sustains my physicality, the environment, is an obvious outgrowth of the recognition of experiential knowledge ... NOT religion.

Personally, I do not care one way or the other what anyone else thinks about it being a "faith based claim", as it obviously isn't. They are, as all are, entitled to believe what ever it is that they choose to believe, whether such a belief is delusional or not.

When I read it from another poster I just felt the statement was clearly grounded in a religious outlook on life although I don't know which one. Was I wrong to think so? What do you think?

[Deadclown]

Is the following quote part of a faith based system or not?

My commentary is based upon experiential knowledge. I experience my physicality as being surrounded by life. You too can experience this by the simple act of observation. My physicality interacts with the life that surrounds it in such a manner that it forms a symbiotic relationship that is life sustaining, breathing being a prime example of this, which is again something that you can experience. Thus it is recognisable that caring for that which sustains my physicality, the environment, is an obvious outgrowth of the recognition of experiential knowledge ... NOT religion.

Personally, I do not care one way or the other what anyone else thinks about it being a "faith based claim", as it obviously isn't. They are, as all are, entitled to believe what ever it is that they choose to believe, whether such a belief is delusional or not.

When I read it from another poster I just felt the statement was clearly grounded in a religious outlook on life although I don't know which one. Was I wrong to think so? What do you think?

This may surprise you, but it is possible for people to be spiritual and not really religious. We are all human, and human beings have certain tendencies that lead towards such.

However, as noted in the thread where the above originated, there is nothing inherently religious or spirtual about the statements being made. If you think that there is, then you are misunderstanding what the poster is attempting to say. I will try to communicate the idea in different manners to call attention to it.

The Earth-Mother Version
"All living things are connected through Gaia, the Earth Mother who loves us."

The Scientific Version
"We are a part of the earth's bio- and eco-systems, and dependent upon them for our survival."

I think you are attributing the statements with the first idea, when really it means the second. Can you better explain why you think the statements are religious in nature?

[Nilloc James]

Religon
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

=/=

Spirituality
noun, plural -ties.
1.
the quality or fact of being spiritual.
2.
incorporeal or immaterial nature.
3.
predominantly spiritual character as shown in thought, life, etc.; spiritual tendency or tone.

[Wootah]

Nilloc James - what is spirituality? Is it based on reality? Are you sure it isn't just an action a person takes for some evolutionary purpose to gain advantage over others? Aren't there repeated practises in all spiritual lives that (bar the refusal to be labelled) are simply religious in nature?

[Wootah]

The Earth-Mother Version
"All living things are connected through Gaia, the Earth Mother who loves us."

The Scientific Version
"We are a part of the earth's bio- and eco-systems, and dependent upon them for our survival."

I think you are attributing the statements with the first idea, when really it means the second. Can you better explain why you think the statements are religious in nature?

Quite possibly I am.

My commentary is based upon experiential knowledge.

What does that mean? He quotes scientific experiments before commenting or he is using his experience to judge by.

I experience my physicality as being surrounded by life.

That is definitely a spiritual statement. Life is a small part of the universe.

You too can experience this by the simple act of observation.

Another spiritual statement. In effect and my words and interpretation,'Just stop with that religion stuff and you will see that life is everywhere.'

My physicality interacts with the life that surrounds it in such a manner that it forms a symbiotic relationship that is life sustaining, breathing being a prime example of this, which is again something that you can experience.

I did regret watching Avatar.

IF IAIAM reads the thread I wonder what symbiotic relationships he has formed?

Thus it is recognisable that caring for that which sustains my physicality, the environment, is an obvious outgrowth of the recognition of experiential knowledge ... NOT religion.

Nothing has been said to reach that conclusion.

Personally, I do not care one way or the other what anyone else thinks about it being a "faith based claim", as it obviously isn't. They are, as all are, entitled to believe what ever it is that they choose to believe, whether such a belief is delusional or not.

This part of the quote was not spiritual based as far as I can tell.

[Deadclown]

Quite possibly I am.

I am almost positive you are, or at least interpreting it in that manner when there is no need. I don't want to use the word 'projecting'... but...

My commentary is based upon experiential knowledge.

What does that mean? He quotes scientific experiments before commenting or he is using his experience to judge by.

I would assume from the statement that he uses the scentific method and science to evaluate information.

I experience my physicality as being surrounded by life.

That is definitely a spiritual statement. Life is a small part of the universe.

You can only interpret that as spirtual in an extremely loose manner to the point that I suspect a bit of dishonesty. Just because 'the universe' is not as a whole teeming with life, does not mean that *we* physically are not surrounded by it. Our biosphere is teeming with life, and we are surrounded by it every day.

You too can experience this by the simple act of observation.

Another spiritual statement. In effect and my words and interpretation,'Just stop with that religion stuff and you will see that life is everywhere.'

Yeah, you are definitely playing Twister with his language to draw that sort of conclusion. If you are denying the fact that our biosphere is full of life, it is because you are actively not trying to observe it. If you are coloring his statement with spiritual overtones it is because you are either pushing an agenda to paint him in an unfavorable light or you are coming at his language with such an odd perspective that you are reading into it things that simply are not there.

My physicality interacts with the life that surrounds it in such a manner that it forms a symbiotic relationship that is life sustaining, breathing being a prime example of this, which is again something that you can experience.

I did regret watching Avatar.

IF IAIAM reads the thread I wonder what symbiotic relationships he has formed?

I loved that movie, but not for the banal plot. You are straw manning what he is saying by the comparison. The movie clearly demonstrates the differences. If I kill off life on the planet, I'll die too, because there will be nothing to eat. There doesn't have to be spirtual feelings beyond a stone cold fact.

Thus it is recognisable that caring for that which sustains my physicality, the environment, is an obvious outgrowth of the recognition of experiential knowledge ... NOT religion.

Nothing has been said to reach that conclusion.

He is speaking from a perspective. You are coming at him like you've got an axe to grind on the issue.

Personally, I do not care one way or the other what anyone else thinks about it being a "faith based claim", as it obviously isn't. They are, as all are, entitled to believe what ever it is that they choose to believe, whether such a belief is delusional or not.

This part of the quote was not spiritual based as far as I can tell.

All of it wasn't. You are just reading into it what you want to see. That's not a good way to read anything, from his posts to the bible to scientific research. It is far better to just take someone at their word, or to at least read their words with your best understanding of their intent in mind.

[Wootah]

He is speaking from a perspective. You are coming at him like you've got an axe to grind on the issue.

Just to be clear the axe to grind is that I am pretty convinced that 'we all worship something' and that 'we might not like it called religion but we all have one'. In this era it is definitely easiest to spot in the green movement.

I am always on the lookout for religious statements that might help penetrate to what is really going on.

My only axe with IAIAM specifically is the blue font because it stands out too much and makes reading difficult.

[Deadclown]

Just to be clear the axe to grind is that I am pretty convinced that 'we all worship something' and that 'we might not like it called religion but we all have one'. In this era it is definitely easiest to spot in the green movement.

Yeah, that is a really wrong and slightly insulting opinion to express without evidence to support it. You have to define religion into meaningless vagueness for it even to hold under the most minor of scrutiny. You're entitled to your opinion. It just isn't one I can begin to take seriously. I'd love to see any evidence supporting this statement. If it is all of the type that you've demonstrated above then you should probably revise your opinion considerably.

How do you define 'religion' anyway?

I am always on the lookout for religious statements that might help penetrate to what is really going on.

You do that. Just be aware that you are probably wrong, and it's definitely wrong to put words into people's mouths. It's especially wrong to make blanket statements about their intentions or beliefs without any real evidence or indications.

My only axe with IAIAM specifically is the blue font because it stands out too much and makes reading difficult.

Then do you have a problem with non-religious people in general? To the point that you have to assert that none of us are really what we claim?

You don't catch me saying that none of you religious people are 'really' religious or that theists don't 'really' believe in God, because the statements don't make sense.

[Nilloc James]

Nilloc James - what is spirituality? Is it based on reality? Are you sure it isn't just an action a person takes for some evolutionary purpose to gain advantage over others? Aren't there repeated practises in all spiritual lives that (bar the refusal to be labelled) are simply religious in nature?

I personally (you can disagree if this is a valid interpretation) on two criteria:

Degree of faith in specific claims.

institutionalization.

The more specific a claim (like jesus rose from the dead after 3 days....) the closer it is to dogma. While holding a majestic and beautiful view of the universe is spirituality.

Institutionalization should be fairly self-evident; the more "believers" organize the more dogmatic and church like the group becomes and is more religous in nature; while spirituality is more based on one persons view of reality.

_____________________

Another definition I have seen is this (I find it interesting):

Religons are mutually-exclusive. Spiritualities are not.

[Wootah]

Just to be clear the axe to grind is that I am pretty convinced that 'we all worship something' and that 'we might not like it called religion but we all have one'. In this era it is definitely easiest to spot in the green movement.

Yeah, that is a really wrong and slightly insulting opinion to express without evidence to support it. You have to define religion into meaningless vagueness for it even to hold under the most minor of scrutiny. You're entitled to your opinion. It just isn't one I can begin to take seriously. I'd love to see any evidence supporting this statement. If it is all of the type that you've demonstrated above then you should probably revise your opinion considerably.

How do you define 'religion' anyway?

I am always on the lookout for religious statements that might help penetrate to what is really going on.

You do that. Just be aware that you are probably wrong, and it's definitely wrong to put words into people's mouths. It's especially wrong to make blanket statements about their intentions or beliefs without any real evidence or indications.

My only axe with IAIAM specifically is the blue font because it stands out too much and makes reading difficult.

Then do you have a problem with non-religious people in general? To the point that you have to assert that none of us are really what we claim?

You don't catch me saying that none of you religious people are 'really' religious or that theists don't 'really' believe in God, because the statements don't make sense.

I think we all have beliefs and an ideology, exposing it is not easy but I always try to get people to look at why they are arguing what they argue, what is the drive, what do they believe that has them act and speak as they do.