By now, many AFF members (and those who remember me from JREF and WP) may have formed the opinion that I have contempt or hostility for Religionism and Spirituality.  After much introspection and study on these matters, here are the seven basic behavior traits for people who claim to be Religious or Spiritual:

1. Disdain and mistrust for all knowledge derived from human reason, especially through Scientific Method.  This is shown through their own contempt for any scientific conclusions and principles that conflict with their beliefs, and for their adherence to beliefs that conflict with evidence-based facts.

2. Reliance on divine or spiritual enlightenment (emotional, rather than intellectual) rather than reason for insight and understanding of their religious or spiritual principles.

3. Rejection of education that does not include, or originate from, previously-established 'holy' scriptures or spiritual writings.

4. Promotion of mass ignorance of skeptical principles, such as the Criteria of Credibility (based on Reputation, Ability to See, Vested Interest, Expertise and Neutrality) for people making extraordinary claims of religious or spiritual events and principles.

5. Greater credibility given to the 'inspired' teachings of ignorant or semi-educated (and usually self-appointed) 'experts' (such as homeopaths and psychics), rather than to those of learned scholars (such as physicians and physicists).

6. Belief that a major goal of higher education is to discredit religion and spirituality and draw people away from faith-based living.

7. Derision and disdain for any person asking for anything more than anecdotal 'evidence' for religious and spiritual claims.

Anyway, I'm still developing this into one of those full-page essay/rants that you see posted elsewhere.

I'm not so sure. I was totally atheist from my first properly conscious thoughts until the last couple of years (from around 12-30; the same age range you don't hear about Jesus). I'm becoming more religious but it's very unlike anything written down (except maybe Buddhism). A main tenet of it is reality, getting close to it however you can. Science is vital.  Emotional honesty is equally vital. At the highest levels you can't separate them.

This post was last modified: 07-29-2010 01:50 AM by dtx.

An early form of what I'm posting about was the Abecedarian movement...

Except for the Mennonites, this movement never took hold in an organized form, but has insinuated itself throughout modern religion (especially the fundamentalist sort) and more popular 'Spiritualist' beliefs and practices.

This post was last modified: 07-29-2010 01:56 AM by Fnord.

Magnificent, has a medieval manual that is very similar to your study, is the "Hammer of Witches." Excuse me, but you're  being biased, categorizing and caricaturing people from a distorted view of reality. The manipulation of values and principles can be done either through mysticism as of reason or logic. Of course we should be alert against such exploitation, but we must not reduce these conclusions, only to  "spiritual" people. With a few adjustments to your conclusions, if valid, may also serve to categorize the religious, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, satanists and perhaps the autistics too...
Respect for free and honest communication  in all ways to try to interpret the knowledge of the world , avoiding the urge to manipulation and domination is a viable alternative, I guess. (Forgive my bad english)

Distorted in relation to what?  Whose view of reality is the least distorted?  By what standard should this distortion be measured?  What units should be used?

The very basis of my rantlet is the 'spiritual' practice of avoiding fact-based evidence and reason-based conclusions in favor of a belief system based upon subjective impressions and unsubstantiated claims.

Oh?  And why not?  Are 'spiritual' people off-limits to criticism?

With a few adjustments to the United States Constitution, a case could be made to support the claim that there there is no reason for women to have any civil rights at all, but the very fact that these adjustments could be made does not make the U.S. constitution any less valid.  What you call 'adjustments' I call 'distortions'.

Knowledge is not interpreted, nor is it divinely inspired or spiritually bestowed.  Knowledge is discovered through research, experimentation, and validation of the results.

Hey Fnord not be angry with me ...
I sincerely appreciate many of your positions in this Forum and I agree with your concern about this controversial topic. I also am not good at arguing, so I may have offended you, and I apologize.
What I meant is that all knowledge must always be interpreted to be lived or vice versa. However the "scientistic ideology" or  the "religion of science" dismissed all "mystical" interpretation of the world and forged the cult of instrumental reason that "idealized" a world of certainties that do not exist, giving precedence to common sense. Both interpretations work on the background of knowledge inaccessible and should serve to make the little knowledge  possible into something intelligible and bearable to our perception and use.
But also think the abuse must be reported from whatever source.
With all due respect, Ro.

Number 5 ish wrongss, I am not a troll, I are boxxy you see

Umm, the other ones about them not liking beliefs that arent their own, well thats anyone really.

the others I didnt address I could agree or not agree they are a problem there were some I agreed are a problem.

Seconded. I should also add that science has so far proven to be by far the most reliable way of obtaining any useful knowledge about the universe we live in. The only reason we know anything at all is because of empiricism, not divine revelation.

The same thing goes for morality too; modern humanism only arose with the advent of science and rational thought...

Hey Fnord not be angry with me ...

You think I'm angry with you because I pointed out where you are wrong?  Wow... another item to add to the list.

The whole 'Spiritualism' movement offends me.

No.  Knowledge must be applied to be experienced; otherwise, it is merely static.

Religion is the political expression of faith, and faith is the belief in improvable things.  Spirituality is religion without accountability.

Science, on the other hand, is the methodical study of reality.  The Scientific Method is how that study is undertaken.  It has rules to ensure the accuracy and validity of its findings.

WRONG!  Science is predicated on the fact that all knowledge is accessible, and that only through investigation, experimentation, self-correction and peer-group review will knowledge be obtained.

That is science.  Spirituality does nothing of the kind.

Like Sylvia Browne claiming that the dead miners at the Sago mine had been found alive, when in fact they were dead.  Or when she predicted that Shawn Hornbeck was dead, when in actuality he was alive.  She claims that her rate of accuracy is over 80%, when a careful study of her record shows near zero accuracy.  Would you fly on a plane knowing that one in five planes will crash before reaching their destination?  Would you see a doctor knowing that one in five patients die on the examination table?  Would you trust a 'psychic' who is wrong once out of every five predictions?

No?

Then why believe in a person or system that shows an utter and complete lack of verifiable results?

Psychics, Spiritualists, Homeopaths and other fakers are parasites on society.  The sooner they go away, the better off civilization will be.

The list of behavior "basics" of people who recognize the religiosity and spirituality is ,at least, partially and even offensive .
Modern humanism, obviously, uses  rationality but is not purely rational. Rather, questions the "Enlightenment reason" imprisoned by the instrumental logic that hides often a desire to dominate and control nature and human beings. This "reason imprisoned" enslaves man , repressing the sensibility, affection, emotion and other forces of human's sensitive conduct , generating only specialists without spirit.
The knowledge based only on the pragmatic criterion of fact / reason-based serves to interpret and use a portion of truths inaccessible in its essence. Should not idealize it as the only viable interpretation. If the only tool that you accept is a hammer, everything begins to resemble a nail. I think Einstein almost never used laboratory for his  findings.
I respect , but do not like institucionalized  religion. Not attending to temples or religious denominations but I recognize the religiosity as a basic need and innate to every human being and not a social obligation or a weakness.

How is it offensive?  To whom is it offensive?

Such is the nature of all human endeavor.

Evidence, please?  Science (from the Latin, “Scienta”; meaning “Knowledge”) is all about acquiring useful understanding of the universe and how it functions.  It is the political entities around us that seek to control and dominate us.  It is well to note again that Religion itself is merely the socio-political expression of one’s ‘spiritual’ beliefs.  Thus, Religion is one of the tools that people use to control and dominate others.

WRONG.  People enslave people.  People also enslave themselves.  Reason does not enslave.  Speaking for myself, Reason has freed me from the fear and guilt that more ‘Spiritual’ people have tried to impose upon men in their attempts to control and dominate me.  The use of Reason is also how I determined that the only way I could get out from under their contempt and prejudice was to set out on my own, become my own advocate and make something more of myself than just another doubt-filled, ignorant slave to superstition.

WRONG.  Sensibility is a pre-requisite for all Scientific Inquiry.  All of the Scientists I’ve known are affectionate (to those they love), emotional (usually within the appropriate contexts) and sensitive towards the feelings of others.  Each has his or her own specialty, yet none lack for the means or motivation for human expression.

As a side note, no Scientist has ever tried to ‘enslave’ me.  In fact, most have tried to encourage me towards greater understanding of the universe and its principles, and to hone my own investigational skills.  Those who have not have been merely indifferent and aloof.

WRONG.  By definition, any thing that is inaccessible can not be accessed.  If it can not be accessed, then it can not be known.  Science is based on the fact that all knowledge is accessible.  Thus, the term “Inaccessible Truth” describes a null concept.

Science is not interpretation; it is knowledge.  Interpretation is for linguists and artists.

If the only tool you accept is subjective imagination, then everything begins to resemble the imaginary.

WRONG.  Dr. Einstein was a theoretical physicists. For his work that made him famous, he did not need to run a laboratory, as he is mostly known for his famous thought experiments.  While these were not real experiments -- just imaginary experiments he ran in his mind -- some of these thought experiments have been proven to be wrong by careful Scientific experimentation (such is the nature of the imagination).  Even so, they still contributed significantly to our understanding of physics, because the experiments that disproved some of his theories wound up indicating – or even validating -- other Scientific principles. Furthermore, he often collaborated with other scientists who had their own laboratories to either develop new theories or to verify his previously stated arguments.

Humans are socio-political animals.  Religion is the socio-political expression of faith.  Thus, Religion is a Human issue.  Spirituality is a rejection of Religion’s bipolarism – the expression of absolutes in faith-based doctrine (faith being the belief in improvable things).  Unfortunately, this rejection has been turned against provable knowledge that the universe acts in certain ways and no others.

From the Scientific Method, we can readily see that the universe is an unknowing, unfeeling and uncaring environment that contains both matter and energy -- two states of being which are equivalent, and which follow certain observable and experimentally demonstrable principles.  Nowhere has there been any evidence detected or shown for any forces other than those associated with the matter/energy equivalency.  Those forces being the Electric force, the Magnetic force, the ‘Weak’ force, the ‘Strong’ force, and Gravity.  Some theories have shown how the first three are inter-related, and all have been shown to have practical use in the real world.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no ‘force’ of love, nor is there any ‘psychic’ force.  These are imaginary constructs used to describe certain coincidental events related to human behavior.

Only this, and nothing more.

Love, and the lack of it, entirely shape our realities. Be loved and the person you are, your beliefs, are completely different from the person you are when not loved. Everything else is subordinate, even reason.

I can write a lot about this because I've been there. But I'm eating my dinner.

Can anyone demonstrate that 'Love' as we experience it is anything other than an effect on our brains and bodies, of which certain biochemical reactions are the cause?

"What's love, but a sweet, old-fashioned notion? What's love, but a second-hand emotion?" -- Tina Turner, from "What's Love Got To Do With It?"

Sure, but it changes you completely. If you believe one set of things and then suddenly believe another set of things, did you suddenly get more or less rational? No, you were affected by love.

... or a gun to the head.  Education can also change you beliefs.  So can anger, jealousy, depression ... love is not the be-all and do-all of human existence thatyou make it out to be.

It's only an emotion.