New Age religions don't make you happy

[Gazpacho]

They're rather 'new age' here in Australia. We have a substantially well funded organisation called 'Hill Song' in Sydney which focusses primarily on seeking success in life. It's rather sad. My stepfather was in a pentacostal group for years and there was a slant in their preachings on attaining goals and being individually successful, which implied in some ways accruing wealth to give over to the church.Athon

In the US, at least, "new age" refers almost exclusively to unorganized beliefs & practices that involve incense, energy crystals, and astral contact.

All the article says about Pentecostals is that they're the least likely group to dabble in new-age stuff -- suggesting that they may, in fact, be fulfilled by what they're already doing.

 

[halofish2000]

I agree Gaz. There is diffrence in terminology between "new age" and new style. There are a few that have come along the pike in the past couple decades. Community and Harvest are some examples. Most you will see are trying to cash in on the "non-denominational" moniker. The charasmatic movement always sermonizes a few points; come in and sing to be happy, give the church YOUR money instead of the poor and listen to us preach about a story not in the Bible.

 

[thoth108]

I'm happier with the new-age religions... but that's just me.

Hello All!

I am a current new-ager / woo-believer / or, as I prefer to call myself, a shaman-Taoist who studies Theosophy. But, not long ago, I, too, was an aethiest... although even then, as I flipped through the pages of Popular Science magazine, I always thought it pecuilar that so many religions of the world belived in, "magic."

I was quite depressed before I was a new ager, and much of what the new age religions offered did not "cure" me of that depression at first - the depression that I couldn't find meaning, or purpose to life. I could tell that Christianity didn't have it, but science didn't fulfill my needs either. Aetheism, to me, is proclaiming that you have achieved the knowledge, or perspective to see beyond your current limitations - science can only speculate on what it does not know, it cannot prove God to exist or not exist. There are probably an infinite number of other galaxies in the universe, and we have not yet traveled beyond our own solar system - and yet our scientists presume themselves to have the capabilities to measure / see God. So I chose the occult religions for awhile, and I am much happier.

The literature available on new-age religions out there is mostly limited to paper back books on crystal scrying, astrology-for-lovers, and other such drabble. The real literature is hard to find, and even harder to understand, but once assimilated it weaves together the apparently disparate religions of the world into a concise and logical progression of human consciouness through the ages. Even the "aethiest" movement is a religion, to me, and reflects the age of reason in which we currently reside, where science is seen as superior to religion - and proclaims to itself, "God does not exist, because I can not prove that God exists."

In the new-age teachings of shamanism I found happiness, because I was shown how to upgrade my abilities of perception - and peek beyond the boundaries of our current perceptual limitations. I no longer "wondered" about the "supernatural," and why so many religions propose the existence of magic - I could see it for myself. That's what made me happy in the world-of-woo, being able to look for myself. Not all are ready for that kind of understanding, just like there are rated-R movies there are religions that go beyond the understanding of some people - as if they were kids who are not yet ready to accept Santa Claus as a myth. People should choose the religion that answers their questions - completely answers their questions - and respect the religious beliefs of all others, no matter how silly they may seem. I can honestly tell you that the TRUTH is much stranger than you can imagine, and science is not even close to uncovering it.

 

[-Fran-]

Hello All!

I am a current new-ager / woo-believer / or, as I prefer to call myself, a shaman-Taoist who studies Theosophy. But, not long ago, I, too, was an aethiest... although even then, as I flipped through the pages of Popular Science magazine, I always thought it pecuilar that so many religions of the world belived in, "magic."

You may have been an 'aethiest', but you don't seem to have been an 'atheist'. And it is peculiar that so many believes in magic, it doesn't however follow that magic therefore is true.

I was quite depressed before I was a new ager, and much of what the new age religions offered did not "cure" me of that depression at first - the depression that I couldn't find meaning, or purpose to life. I could tell that Christianity didn't have it, but science didn't fulfill my needs either.

Aetheism, to me, is proclaiming that you have achieved the knowledge, or perspective to see beyond your current limitations - science can only speculate on what it does not know, it cannot prove God to exist or not exist. There are probably an infinite number of other galaxies in the universe, and we have not yet traveled beyond our own solar system - and yet our scientists presume themselves to have the capabilities to measure / see God.

Uhhhh... what? That is not what atheism is, or what scientists do. Make up your own definitions of things, by all means, but that doesn't make them true.

So I chose the occult religions for awhile, and I am much happier.

Well, I'm glad you feel better.

The literature available on new-age religions out there is mostly limited to paper back books on crystal scrying, astrology-for-lovers, and other such drabble. The real literature is hard to find, and even harder to understand, but once assimilated it weaves together the apparently disparate religions of the world into a concise and logical progression of human consciouness through the ages.

And what makes this literature more real than any other drabble? How do you know?

Even the "aethiest" movement is a religion, to me, and reflects the age of reason in which we currently reside, where science is seen as superior to religion - and proclaims to itself, "God does not exist, because I can not prove that God exists."

It's 'Atheism' and it means only 'a lack of belief in deities'. It is not a religion. You make 'reason' sound like a bad thing!

In the new-age teachings of shamanism I found happiness, because I was shown how to upgrade my abilities of perception - and peek beyond the boundaries of our current perceptual limitations. I no longer "wondered" about the "supernatural," and why so many religions propose the existence of magic - I could see it for myself.

How do you know that what you have seen is the "paranormal"?

That's what made me happy in the world-of-woo, being able to look for myself. Not all are ready for that kind of understanding, just like there are rated-R movies there are religions that go beyond the understanding of some people - as if they were kids who are not yet ready to accept Santa Claus as a myth.

That sounds a bit arrogant to me, I must say.

People should choose the religion that answers their questions - completely answers their questions - and respect the religious beliefs of all others, no matter how silly they may seem.

Why?

I can honestly tell you that the TRUTH is much stranger than you can imagine, and science is not even close to uncovering it.

I am sure you are honest, there's still no particular reason to why we should take your word for it.

 

[six7s]

... new age religions offered did not "cure" me of that depression at first - the depression that I couldn't find meaning, or purpose to life. I could tell that Christianity didn't have it, but science didn't fulfill my needs either

Why, as an atheist, you looked to theism for a solution is rather confuzzling, especially when it seems that you hadn't identified the cause of your problem

Aetheism, to me, is proclaiming that you have achieved the knowledge, or perspective to see beyond your current limitations - science can only speculate on what it does not know, it cannot prove God to exist or not exist

This seems, to me, like an unnecessarily complicated definition. What's wrong with the much simpler 'without theism' ? Y'know... the sort that we all have at birth...

There are probably an infinite number of other galaxies in the universe, and we have not yet traveled beyond our own solar system - and yet our scientists presume themselves to have the capabilities to measure / see God.

Who says "scientists presume themselves to have the capabilities to measure / see God."?

So I chose the occult religions for awhile, and I am much happier

I'm sincerely happy that you are happier... but, it seems to me that your conclusion is a non-sequitur

The real literature is hard to find, and even harder to understand, but once assimilated it weaves together the apparently disparate religions of the world into a concise and logical progression of human consciouness through the ages

Ahhh... the one real, true Scottish source of literature!

Even the "aethiest" movement is a religion, to me, and reflects the age of reason in which we currently reside, where science is seen as superior to religion - and proclaims to itself, "God does not exist, because I can not prove that God exists."

By what definition of 'atheist' do you describe yourself as a 'former atheist'

In the new-age teachings of shamanism I found happiness, because I was shown how to upgrade my abilities of perception - and peek beyond the boundaries of our current perceptual limitations

Are you familiar with the term 'confirmation bias'?

 

[thoth108]

I always attract attention when I post to this site....

You may have been an 'aethiest', but you don't seem to have been an 'atheist'. And it is peculiar that so many believes in magic, it doesn't however follow that magic therefore is true.

Multiple eye-witness accounts of the same phenomenon, from people separated by time and geography... I don't know, sounds skeptical.

Uhhhh... what? That is not what atheism is, or what scientists do. Make up your own definitions of things, by all means, but that doesn't make them true.

This site is full of "scientist" who declare quite openly in these forums that if God were real, we would be able to determine that fact. I ask you, can ants in Africa conceive of, or prove the existence of civilization in New York city? Since they cannot, does that make New York any less REAL? If one ant believed in New York, would that ant be an outcast?

And what makes this literature more real than any other drabble? How do you know?

There are those who have pursued the science of magic as a true science, and there are those who have just written crap about it. The latter is what usually gets published in the local book store, while the "real stuff" is very difficult to understand. After awhile in the field you can determine who knows what they're talking about, and who is just repeating something they read in another paper back book on gypsy love spells. I can point you to specific authors, if you'd like to take a deep journey into the subject. If nothing else, the history of magick is a testament to it's possibility.

It's 'Atheism' and it means only 'a lack of belief in deities'. It is not a religion. You make 'reason' sound like a bad thing!

I knew I should have checked my spelling. To me, it's a religion. I know that ALL of you will argue that, but it's my opinion. If you're an atheist, then your religion is a belief in science, or empiricism. That's fine, but to declare there is no God when you have barely opened your eyes to the size of the Universe is premature delusions of grandeur. You haven't the eyes to see the kingdom of Heaven.

How do you know that what you have seen is the "paranormal"?

Direct experience.

That sounds a bit arrogant to me, I must say.

Why?

What is religion for, if not to help us answer the questions that reason cannot? We all ask, "what is the meaning of life?" and we all seek an answer to that question - fundamentally, that is religion. All the dogma, ritual, tithing and false idols aside - religion is a way to find peace with your individual place in the grand tapestry; even if the experience of it amounts to nothing more than a musing in your head.

I am sure you are honest, there's still no particular reason to why we should take your word for it.

I don't want you to take my word. I was just sharing it. Choose the belief system that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, and don't bash on other people's Santa, or God.

 

[thoth108]

Why, as an atheist, you looked to theism for a solution is rather confuzzling, especially when it seems that you hadn't identified the cause of your problem

I was too young to go about it that sytematically, and a book on Buddhism happened upon me at that moment - in what we new-agers call a "synchronicity" or meaningful coincidence. It should'nt seem unusual that while looking for "God" I went through theism... that's where I expected to find the knowledge of others who have looked for God before me.

This seems, to me, like an unnecessarily complicated definition. What's wrong with the much simpler 'without theism' ? Y'know... the sort that we all have at birth...

You're right. Much simpler.

Who says "scientists presume themselves to have the capabilities to measure / see God."?

You do belong to this site, don't you?

I'm sincerely happy that you are happier... but, it seems to me that your conclusion is a non-sequitur

My conclusion was actually scientific, in that I required my own experience of the facts, repeatable effects, and absolute proof that what I was seeing wasn't a hallucination. I didn't believe in magick until I could see it, and the positive, measurable results of using it. Now that I know how it works, I can see it's effects everywhere. If you'd like, I'll give you a simple experiment to do and you can measure the effects for yourself; it's a personal thing - and only you can decide if you're going to "believe" in it enought to see it, or if you're going to ignore it.

Ahhh... the one real, true Scottish source of literature!

I'm not a free mason, or a Druid.

By what definition of 'atheist' do you describe yourself as a 'former atheist'

No Gods. One who believes in science.

Are you familiar with the term 'confirmation bias'?

No, but I looked it up just for you.
I would ask if you apply total critical scrutiny to your life... That is, basically, what I'm talking about with my religious musings here - critical scrutiny. How does each religion answer the unanswerable questions about life and reality? Do you feel completely and utterly satisfied that your belief system is entirely correct, or do you have unanswered questions about the big picture? Like I said, believe in what you want - and let others do the same. You may not be looking at the same aspects of reality that I'm looking at - because your "confirmation bias" is guiding you to verify your current belief system - making you comfortable with your everday reality. Have you seen the movie, "I Heart Huckabees?"

 

[-Fran-]

I always attract attention when I post to this site....

Childish pleasure in attracting attention noted!

Multiple eye-witness accounts of the same phenomenon, from people separated by time and geography... I don't know, sounds skeptical.

So, what you are claiming here is that magic is real because of the number of people that have believed in it through the times?

This site is full of "scientist" who declare quite openly in these forums that if God were real, we would be able to determine that fact. I ask you, can ants in Africa conceive of, or prove the existence of civilization in New York city? Since they cannot, does that make New York any less REAL? If one ant believed in New York, would that ant be an outcast?

They can not, because they do not have brains that can do that.

There are those who have pursued the science of magic as a true science, and there are those who have just written crap about it.

Evidence of this?

The latter is what usually gets published in the local book store, while the "real stuff" is very difficult to understand. After awhile in the field you can determine who knows what they're talking about, and who is just repeating something they read in another paper back book on gypsy love spells.

Are you sure that you are not only liking the feeling of thinking that you have managed to tap into some arcane "truths" and secrets that other people are too stupid to understand? "Look at me, I can the tell the difference between fake woo and “true” woo."

I can point you to specific authors, if you'd like to take a deep journey into the subject. If nothing else, the history of magick is a testament to it's possibility.

How is the history of "magick" (I am noticing the choice of spelling here) testament to its possibility? Please explain this.

I knew I should have checked my spelling.

Well, I wasn’t sure, as you redefine the words maybe you give them a new spelling as well *shrug*

To me, it's a religion. I know that ALL of you will argue that, but it's my opinion.

Your opinion doesn’t matter in this, it still does not make it a religion.

If you're an atheist, then your religion is a belief in science, or empiricism.

This is incorrect.

That's fine, but to declare there is no God when you have barely opened your eyes to the size of the Universe is premature delusions of grandeur.

How so?

You haven't the eyes to see the kingdom of Heaven.

And you have? Talk about delusions of grandeur

Direct experience.

How do you know that your experiences reflect reality?

Further arrogance noted.

What is religion for,

Nothing useful, apart from certain individuals’ need of a safety blanket even if it’s an illusion, it seems.

if not to help us answer the questions that reason cannot?

What questions are those? How do you define reason?

We all ask, "what is the meaning of life?" and we all seek an answer to that question - fundamentally, that is religion. All the dogma, ritual, tithing and false idols aside - religion is a way to find peace with your individual place in the grand tapestry; even if the experience of it amounts to nothing more than a musing in your head.

So, what you are saying, basically, is that all human thought is religion?

I don't want you to take my word. I was just sharing it.

Sharing? I thought you were telling us!

Choose the belief system that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy,

Thanks, I have no need for that.

and don't bash on other people's Santa, or God.

Since you seem to like to redefine words… What do you consider “bashing”? Is asking people to clarify what the heck they are actually on about when they approach you with their beliefs, why they believe as they do, if they have anything that supports their beliefs, and why we should respect what they think when they obviously are not prepared to show us the same kind of respect – bashing?

 

[thoth108]

I wasn't looking to start a debate.

As per usual with this site, anything I say quickly begins a debate about my beliefs. My beliefs are different - to say the least, but the topic for this thread is, "New Age Religions Don't Make You Happy," and I disagree - the new age religion that I'm a part of makes me very happy. Let's leave that as it is, and not debate ME (we can start another thread for that).

Let's turn the conversation towards this, instead of questioning me about every little thing I say:

Do you think that someone's religio-philosophical beliefs are a direct reflection of their own feelings of incompleteness? (or rather, their own incomplete world-view; their fractured understanding of reality). What religion makes you happy depends on what you need to make you happy. It's what fixes your incompleteness, or fractured view of the big picture. I think that's why there are so many religions, and so much variety in philosophies. We're all incomplete in different ways.

I think that what we seek from religion is that part of the hero's journey that will complete us - the missing aspect of ourselves that returns us to perfection upon it's finding.

 

[schlitt]

OK everyone. Lets show our appreciation for thoth108. He has finally revealed to us the one true religion. We can now all live happily ever after.

Thanks thoth108! You're a real pal!

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

"Well, if you're going to have delusions, you may as well go for the really satisfying ones." –Marcus Cole in Babylon 5.

 

[CFLarsen]

I agree with the notion that it isn't perhaps the most content and balanced people who become Superstitious.

Not to say that the content won't jump into the cesspool of woo from time to time, but that would be out of curiosity, to see what it was all about. Hey, who knows, it might work, and I need some excitement in my life, you know?

What has struck me the most in dealing with the New Age Superstitious is how thin-skinned they are. I don't really see as much of that in the old religions, the Abrahamic or Eastern ones. Not that there aren't fanatics in all camps, but it isn't a general trait.

I'm not talking about someone going berserk after a lengthy debate where they have painted themselves into a corner with their wacky ideas and claims. I'm talking about someone going berserk after a few moments worth of merely questioning their beliefs.

At first, they come off as oh, so tolerant and open-minded. The Sales Talk, about how happy and fullfilled Belief(X) has made them (and wouldn't it be great if you could be as happy as them?). But it doesn't take long before the thin veneer cracks and their insecurity and anger comes out. They strike out viciously at those who question that their sacred world is maybe not so sacred after all.

They want to be secure in their beliefs, but they don't want anyone to even question them.

 

[CFLarsen]

Direct experience.

And that is?

What is religion for, if not to help us answer the questions that reason cannot? We all ask, "what is the meaning of life?" and we all seek an answer to that question - fundamentally, that is religion. All the dogma, ritual, tithing and false idols aside - religion is a way to find peace with your individual place in the grand tapestry; even if the experience of it amounts to nothing more than a musing in your head.

What is the meaning of life to you, then?

 

[-Fran-]

As per usual with this site, anything I say quickly begins a debate about my beliefs. My beliefs are different - to say the least,

Now, that's where you're wrong. They are not different. This is standard run of the mill woo thinking that we have seen here, in slight variations like, you know, about a gazillion times!

but the topic for this thread is, "New Age Religions Don't Make You Happy," and I disagree - the new age religion that I'm a part of makes me very happy. Let's leave that as it is, and not debate ME (we can start another thread for that).

Let's turn the conversation towards this, instead of questioning me about every little thing I say:

Really, I think that's nice for you if you are happy with it (no sarcasm). You did however make a whole bunch of claims that was not directly about your happiness in your woo, so it seems you didn't mind talking about that, until it was questioned.

Do you think that someone's religio-philosophical beliefs are a direct reflection of their own feelings of incompleteness? (or rather, their own incomplete world-view; their fractured understanding of reality). What religion makes you happy depends on what you need to make you happy. It's what fixes your incompleteness, or fractured view of the big picture. I think that's why there are so many religions, and so much variety in philosophies. We're all incomplete in different ways.

I think that what we seek from religion is that part of the hero's journey that will complete us - the missing aspect of ourselves that returns us to perfection upon it's finding.

Well, it's possible that that is what many people think, doesn't mean that what they think they find has anything to do with reality. Doesn't mean that this percieved feeling of incompletness is anything other than a subjective feeling, or that any feeling of perfection upon finding... whatever, isn't also.

 

[Mobyseven]

Beautiful. Just beautiful. A thread discussing the results of a survey that suggests New Age religions don't make people happier is started, and someone from a New Age religion comes along to tell us all that he has anecdotal evidence that this is wrong.

Words escape me.

 

[athon]

Beautiful. Just beautiful. A thread discussing the results of a survey that suggests New Age religions don't make people happier is started, and someone from a New Age religion comes along to tell us all that he has anecdotal evidence that this is wrong.

Words escape me.

Yeah, I was also marvelling at that.

You know, the longer I hang about these boards, the more I see the same old arguments. Anecdotal evidence - even limited - seems to trump objective investigation. The same old 'science doesn't know everything = my right to judge any old nonsense as being true'. The typical 'all opinions are equal'. It's whack-a-woo over and over. I've given up repeating the same old rebuttals.

Athon

 

[-Fran-]

Yeah, I was also marvelling at that.

You know, the longer I hang about these boards, the more I see the same old arguments. Anecdotal evidence - even limited - seems to trump objective investigation. The same old 'science doesn't know everything = my right to judge any old nonsense as being true'. The typical 'all opinions are equal'. It's whack-a-woo over and over. I've given up repeating the same old rebuttals.

Athon

Not to mention that they all seem to think that their thoughts, arguments and beliefs are different and unique! Don't they ever talk to each other?

 

[schlitt]

We should really compile a list of standard responses. So that we can just cut and paste, and not bother wasting time formulating and typing responses.

 

[-Fran-]

We should really compile a list of standard responses. So that we can just cut and paste, and not bother wasting time formulating and typing responses.

Good idea!

 

[schlitt]

Good idea!

Perhaps we could compile a list of common woo claims, e.g:

-If i broke a watch into a million pieces and put it in a bag and shook, it would not form a watch.

-Atheists cause more wars, Hitler and Stalin were atheists.

-Something like an eye is to complex to evolve.

etc...

Have everyone who wants to participate formulate a response, and then vote on the best, which can then be adopted as the standard response.