Buddhism doesn't tell you to not be ambitious. Buddhism tells you to do things that are beneficial, and sometimes maximizing your potential for beneficial action requires ambition. My life is more beneficial as a doctor than as a pizza delivery boy, for instance.
It just tells you, that in being ambitious, remember that your individual life is a very small thing in the grand scheme of things. Losing perspective in one's ambition - letting your ambition cheat and hurt yourself and others - is what Buddhism warns against.
It doesn't justify you sitting on the couch doing nothing all day.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
It must be nice to be able to take everything bad about non-religion and say that it is, in fact, religious when you are busy attacking religion.
The irony is that so many of the views of the most ardent evangelical atheists are more like religion than unlike.
Stalin, Mao, and other communist operate unquestioningly from a dogmatic belief.
You're being amazingly fucking dense right now. Let me make it really, really simple for you: skepticism. Skeptical. Constantly. Be reasonably skeptical of everything ever, be it politics, religion, science, everything. Communists are not skeptical. They are not critical of their own beliefs. I'm not sweeping away the behaviors of atheist states, I'm showing you that their atheism had absolutely nothing to do with their behaviors. They were shitty because they still operate on dogma, and dogma is ultimately what we're fighting against.
I am really at odds with any spiritual belief that praises retreat and distance from the material world, an abandonment of human things, transcendence, etc etc, which i see as cowardly, dehumanizing, and utterly useless
Either you don't know a lot about buddhism, or you're confusing it with taoism, which is the mountain hermit religion.
I am not exactly an expert in buddhism, but most of its moralizing is just big talk like Christian moralizing. Ultimately the teachings advocate separation from the world, do they not? The only way to find truth is in meditation? Don't sleep in a high bed, don't dance or wear jewels, don't eat after noon, don't lie, don't be sexually "irresponsible"?
I am familiar with Taoism, most of which seems to be just idiocy.
but some dudes gotta walk with a cane. i'm comfortable admitting that, in many ways, my faith is a crutch i use to function.
but without it, i'd limp along pretty bad.
i've been there, i've done that limpin', and it ain't nice.
now, it's easy for you or anyone else to sit there and say "if you just toss the crutch away, you'll be fine! walk!"
but let me tell you, that ain't how it goes.
So what you're saying is that you agree with the notion that lesser people need to have bullshit fed to them whereas better people can actually live through reality.
Works for me.
Humanism for the ignorant masses, ethical egoism for people who know what the fuck they're doing without being led by the nose.
wow, what an asshole way to put it
i guess if you want to call me a lesser person being fed bullshit, that's your call
i mean i don't appreciate it but it's your decision to typify me that way
i can really only speak for my own experience and life, ultimately, and in my experience, i'm actually a really terrible person without my religious faith and since finding my faith, i'm a completely different (and better) person.
does that mean that result is replicable or necessary for other people? i don't think it is, necessarily, which is why i don't proselytize my beliefs.
but at the same time, insulting me because i need them is like making fun of a dude for needing a cane
I don't like Buddhism because it seems to be based on the idea that my personal ambitions are a bad thing.
It's not so much that they're bad as that they don't amount to a hill of beans in the long run
Really, if you boil away all the cultural accretion all buddhism says is "Hey, you know how shit is like always changing, most of the shit you stress about turns out to be pointless in the long run, and you're 100% going to die? And you know how people pretend like none of that is true and get all angsty if confronted with reality? If you pulled your head out of your ass and just made your peace with the facts you'd be less stressed about shit".
They matter to me, though. That's what matters. What the hell does my life matter if I don't get what I want?
But you'll either never get what you want, or get it and then lose it. Either way, you'll end up in the same state.
Dead? That's fine, I won't know the difference when I'm a corpse.
Or there'll be an earthquake, or you'll get bored, or you'll get sick, or an army will steal your shit, or...
People largely labour under the assumption that the way things are at the moment are the way they'll always be, and so invest their own conceptions of happiness and self-worth in externalities. But nothing lasts, and so when things change they experience what Buddhism calls dukha (basically, dissatisfaction) because they bet on the external world remaining immutable.
It must be nice to be able to take everything bad about non-religion and say that it is, in fact, religious when you are busy attacking religion.
The irony is that so many of the views of the most ardent evangelical atheists are more like religion than unlike.
Stalin, Mao, and other communist operate unquestioningly from a dogmatic belief.
You're being amazingly fucking dense right now. Let me make it really, really simple for you: skepticism. Skeptical. Constantly. Be reasonably skeptical of everything ever, be it politics, religion, science, everything. Communists are not skeptical. They are not critical of their own beliefs. I'm not sweeping away the behaviors of atheist states, I'm showing you that their atheism had absolutely nothing to do with their behaviors. They were shitty because they still operate on dogma, and dogma is ultimately what we're fighting against.
Too many atheists conflate atheism and skepticism.
It's possible to be a skeptic without being an atheist and vice versa.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I am really at odds with any spiritual belief that praises retreat and distance from the material world, an abandonment of human things, transcendence, etc etc, which i see as cowardly, dehumanizing, and utterly useless
Either you don't know a lot about buddhism, or you're confusing it with taoism, which is the mountain hermit religion.
Also I'm going to agree with Wonder Hippie here: religion is not in itself evil or anything. The problem is absolutism and lack of skepticism. Skepticism is an intellectual virtue, perhaps the highest one. Absolutism is evil.
Evil Multifarious on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Pony, can you explain how your faith makes you better? do you go to do something but your faith intervenes, or is it like a more constant positive feeling that you have that has changed how you behave?
What great leaps has science made lately in explaining the purpose of life? What has science taught us about how to live a meaningful life?
Reason and science are actually really bad at dealing with spiritual concerns. Your way around this seems to be an insistence that spiritual concerns are of no concern. But you don't get to pick what matters are of concern for others, and when you try and insist on it it makes you sound like a fascist. I prefer to think of you as ignorant in the area of spiritual concerns, but if you'd prefer to be a fascist then that's OK too.
Science does not have a way to deal with something that there is no evidence for whatsoever.
Of course not. Science is not for that.
Can you not accept that religion and science are two different things, and that they fulfill very different needs for people?
And is anyone actually fucking stupid enough to accuse me of saying that religion can or should substitute for scientific inquiry?
God I hope no one is that stupid.
Example 1: America.
Whenever anyone says science and religion aren't related I'm all "well nominally that's the case..." but we all know it isn't the case - all religions make positive claims about the nature of the world which range from farcical to outright wrong.
And this isn't just religion - this is everything. Religion has just set us up to consider people declaring things their "beliefs" to be untouchable, and so we have all manner of bullshit inventions of ideas about the world running around.
There is no value in teaching and asserting peoples morality from someone else's book.
I don't like Buddhism because it seems to be based on the idea that my personal ambitions are a bad thing.
It's not so much that they're bad as that they don't amount to a hill of beans in the long run
Really, if you boil away all the cultural accretion all buddhism says is "Hey, you know how shit is like always changing, most of the shit you stress about turns out to be pointless in the long run, and you're 100% going to die? And you know how people pretend like none of that is true and get all angsty if confronted with reality? If you pulled your head out of your ass and just made your peace with the facts you'd be less stressed about shit".
They matter to me, though. That's what matters. What the hell does my life matter if I don't get what I want?
But you'll either never get what you want, or get it and then lose it. Either way, you'll end up in the same state.
Dead? That's fine, I won't know the difference when I'm a corpse.
Or there'll be an earthquake, or you'll get bored, or you'll get sick, or an army will steal your shit, or...
I also take issue with the word "spirituality" being applied to things like finding purpose and meaning in life, like there has to be some kind of supernatural element involved in these things, like the soul has to exist in order for there to be meaning.
Spiritual concerns exist only in the head of the individuals that talk about them, and that's pretty much it. Pick two people and ask them to define that phrase and you'll get two different definitions.
You claim to love reason, but you reject placing importance on thoughts and ideas? Concepts that have no matter or observable phenomena?
I submit that you do not, in fact, love reason. In any case, you have come fairly close to acknowledging the fact that spiritual concerns are important to people who have them. Whether they "exist" outside of thought is a stupid question. Concerns and thoughts, beliefs and ideas do not, generally, exist outside of the mind that is entertaining them. This is no way makes them meaningless.
And science infers no purpose or meaning because their is no such thing as purpose or meaning except as an individual perceives it. My purpose is different from your purpose, but it doesn't come from some deity or gnomes or faeries or any of that other crap.
Science infers no purpose or meaning because science isn't concerned with those things in this regard. Science describes and explains observable phenomena. It gives us models which predict behavior of observable phenomena. Science is necessarily limited in this regard, but that should in no way limit humanity to merely the realm of thought encompassed by science.
The other thing that Buddhism teaches is not to read into things more than is there.
If a text says, "Life is impermanent," then don't read it into, "So I might as well sit around and jerk off all day." It doesn't say that. It just says "life is impermanent." No more, no less.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I also take issue with the word "spirituality" being applied to things like finding purpose and meaning in life, like there has to be some kind of supernatural element involved in these things, like the soul has to exist in order for there to be meaning.
"Spirit" need not be supernatural. A person can be "spirited" - as in, having a lust for life or an inspiring presence. You can have the "spirit" of an occasion - like the spirit of Christmas, for instance.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Communist leaders tend to rule with an iron fist and reap a lot of benefits and don't really work under the "we are all equal and should receive the same benefits from our work."
They are probably more like "Okay, now I am on top of this crazy system. Time to squeeze it for all it is worth."
i guess if you want to call me a lesser person being fed bullshit, that's your call
i mean i don't appreciate it but it's your decision to typify me that way
i can really only speak for my own experience and life, ultimately, and in my experience, i'm actually a really terrible person without my religious faith and since finding my faith, i'm a completely different (and better) person.
does that mean that result is replicable or necessary for other people? i don't think it is, necessarily, which is why i don't proselytize my beliefs.
but at the same time, insulting me because i need them is like making fun of a dude for needing a cane
makes you kind of a dick
I could have phrased that in a much nicer, gentler way such that it would make you feel all warm and fuzzy and comfortable.
But I decided to speak to you as if you were an equal even though you aren't willing to be, and just gave it to you straight and bullshit-free. I, frankly, hate to speak to people as if they were scared children who can't be told the truth because they'll wet the bed.
Needing a crutch is a weakness, if you have a weakness, but another does not, in that aspect you are lesser. I am not tall, I am lesser in height than a taller person. I am not rich, I am lesser in monetary wealth than a rich person. I am not Einstein, I am lesser in intelligence than he is. I am lesser, in these ways, than all these people. I may be greater in other ways, but they don't change the fact.
Having to be spoonfed what is right and wrong, rather than being able to discern it on your own, through your own cognition and empathy, is a weakness, like any other, and those who do not have it are, in that respect, greater, if such things can be measured.
You basically said the same yourself, you just couch it in euphemism.
I am really at odds with any spiritual belief that praises retreat and distance from the material world, an abandonment of human things, transcendence, etc etc, which i see as cowardly, dehumanizing, and utterly useless
Either you don't know a lot about buddhism, or you're confusing it with taoism, which is the mountain hermit religion.
I am not exactly an expert in buddhism, but most of its moralizing is just big talk like Christian moralizing. Ultimately the teachings advocate separation from the world, do they not?
Explicitely no. Buddhism as a cultural phenomenon was a rejection of the shramana tradition in Vedic (or pre-vedic? I've forgotten which is which) India and their teachings that the only path to spiritual happiness/salvation/shitawesomeness/etc was to reject society, live in a cave, eat bugs, and generally be an ascetic gnome.
The only way to find truth is in meditation?
I wouldn't say that describes most buddhisms at all, really.
Don't sleep in a high bed, don't dance or wear jewels, don't eat after noon, don't lie, don't be sexually "irresponsible"?
Ummm
not really? Some of what you're quoting sounds like the vows south-east asian monks take (don't eat after noon), some are basic stuff (don't lie), and some are straight out of left field (don't sleep on a high bed)?
Most buddhisms would claim that their followers had to adhere to any of those things, although they'd certainly be big on suggesting it's best if you don't lie and don't fuck everything that moves without regards for peoples feelings. The monastic rules are for monks, not lay-folk.
Communist leaders tend to rule and reap a lot of benefits and don't really work under the "we are all equal and should receive the same benefits from our work."
They are probably more like "Okay, now I am on top of this crazy system. Time to squeeze it for all it is worth."
I'm pretty sure that's why we had the crusades, too. I'd feel safe saying that there was very little skepticism in the vast ranks of men who signed up to die under the notion that they were securing a cushy spot in heaven.
"Spirit" need not be supernatural. A person can be "spirited" - as in, having a lust for life or an inspiring presence. You can have the "spirit" of an occasion - like the spirit of Christmas, for instance.
I like to meditate and take in the world around me, and occasionally throw a mental thanks to dead things I have eaten.
Spiritual behavior without the mystic elements is pretty awesome. Like a designer drug that you can't OD on.
--
Atheism is an extremely narrow description. Plenty of religious people are atheists. Buddhists, Jainists, even some Jesus fan groups.
Atheism doesn't describe ANYTHING except a lack of belief in a specific class of supernatural beings.
Pony, can you explain how your faith makes you better? do you go to do something but your faith intervenes, or is it like a more constant positive feeling that you have that has changed how you behave?
alright well, i'll be honest.
I'm a sociopath. Diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
At my core, I have no emotional impetus towards any sort of moral conduct and I do not empathize with others.
By default, the only reason I have to behave or interact positively with external society is for my own benefit, and I will unabashedly lie, steal, hurt, and kill whatever and whoever I want within the framework of what I can get away with.
As a child, parental guidance kept me in check in a lot of ways. My father recognized the signs of my condition early as a kid and did a lot to try to help me manage it. He taught me how to manage my impulses and taught me how to channel those impulses more positively, and managed to make me understand a larger causality of how kindness and consideration positively benefit me and everyone else in a roundabout way.
This led to me having a pretty decent childhood, as far as things go. I had some problems, some unpleasant incidents and stuff, but for the most part I was an alright kid.
As I became a teenager, my condition became a serious problem. My father drifted out of my life, my mother was in no state capable of administering me as a parent, so pretty much I lost touch with any sort of valid authority I had guiding me in my actions. Given that, I simply did as was natural to me.
In the process, I did a lot of terrible things. I won't get into the particulars of it here, but needless to say, it was pretty terrible and I am incredibly fortunate to be alive, disease-free, not crippled, and not in prison today.
Anyway, as I became an adult, I began to recognize the long-term problems that my behavior was causing me, and sought a way to remedy it. Really, what I was looking for was another authority framework to give me a reason to not be as I am naturally, like I had as a child.
In religious faith, I found that, and it gave me pause. It gave me a reason to act ethically and benevolently, it gave me an appreciation of the worth of others, and it gave me the strength to resist the impulsive behaviors that come far too easily for me.
So, without my faith, I would go back to those behaviors. That is not good, especially since I am far older, intelligent, and knowledgable than I was and I could get away with so much more.
I have to fight that part of me every single daily, several times a day sometimes, because it is so easy and I definitely want to go back to those days because in the short-term, it's so much more enjoyable and comfortable for me.
But I adhere to my faith, I hold fast to the love I have found in the people I have been able to love, and that faith and love keeps me where I want to be.
I don't want to throw that all away, thank you very much.
I also take issue with the word "spirituality" being applied to things like finding purpose and meaning in life, like there has to be some kind of supernatural element involved in these things, like the soul has to exist in order for there to be meaning.
"Spirit" need not be supernatural. A person can be "spirited" - as in, having a lust for life or an inspiring presence. You can have the "spirit" of an occasion - like the spirit of Christmas, for instance.
"Spirituality" carries with it the connotation of the supernatural. Most of the time, referring to someone as "spiritual" means they are concerned with the supernatural and religious, and someone's "spirituality" is their concern with such.
But my other problem with the word is that no one can really agree on what it means, and so it means too many things, and becomes a useless word signifying nothing. I can argue the connotations, but it carries many, many connotations, and the meaning varies radically from person to person.
Spiritual concerns exist only in the head of the individuals that talk about them, and that's pretty much it. Pick two people and ask them to define that phrase and you'll get two different definitions.
You claim to love reason, but you reject placing importance on thoughts and ideas? Concepts that have no matter or observable phenomena?
I submit that you do not, in fact, love reason. In any case, you have come fairly close to acknowledging the fact that spiritual concerns are important to people who have them. Whether they "exist" outside of thought is a stupid question. Concerns and thoughts, beliefs and ideas do not, generally, exist outside of the mind that is entertaining them. This is no way makes them meaningless.
And science infers no purpose or meaning because their is no such thing as purpose or meaning except as an individual perceives it. My purpose is different from your purpose, but it doesn't come from some deity or gnomes or faeries or any of that other crap.
Science infers no purpose or meaning because science isn't concerned with those things in this regard. Science describes and explains observable phenomena. It gives us models which predict behavior of observable phenomena. Science is necessarily limited in this regard, but that should in no way limit humanity to merely the realm of thought encompassed by science.
At this point, I'm just going to ask you to define all this stuff you've been so conveniently nebulous about. It's the best way to end an argument.
I'll leave with this bit, though: you're creating a seperation between two things, but only one of them is actually real. That thing that's actually real is our only concern because it is, as mentioned, all that is real.
Posts
It just tells you, that in being ambitious, remember that your individual life is a very small thing in the grand scheme of things. Losing perspective in one's ambition - letting your ambition cheat and hurt yourself and others - is what Buddhism warns against.
It doesn't justify you sitting on the couch doing nothing all day.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Science and fairy tales and special clubs have different uses, yes.
Stalin, Mao, and other communist operate unquestioningly from a dogmatic belief.
You're being amazingly fucking dense right now. Let me make it really, really simple for you: skepticism. Skeptical. Constantly. Be reasonably skeptical of everything ever, be it politics, religion, science, everything. Communists are not skeptical. They are not critical of their own beliefs. I'm not sweeping away the behaviors of atheist states, I'm showing you that their atheism had absolutely nothing to do with their behaviors. They were shitty because they still operate on dogma, and dogma is ultimately what we're fighting against.
I am not exactly an expert in buddhism, but most of its moralizing is just big talk like Christian moralizing. Ultimately the teachings advocate separation from the world, do they not? The only way to find truth is in meditation? Don't sleep in a high bed, don't dance or wear jewels, don't eat after noon, don't lie, don't be sexually "irresponsible"?
I am familiar with Taoism, most of which seems to be just idiocy.
I can pretty confidently say this isn't true.
wow, what an asshole way to put it
i guess if you want to call me a lesser person being fed bullshit, that's your call
i mean i don't appreciate it but it's your decision to typify me that way
i can really only speak for my own experience and life, ultimately, and in my experience, i'm actually a really terrible person without my religious faith and since finding my faith, i'm a completely different (and better) person.
does that mean that result is replicable or necessary for other people? i don't think it is, necessarily, which is why i don't proselytize my beliefs.
but at the same time, insulting me because i need them is like making fun of a dude for needing a cane
makes you kind of a dick
Or there'll be an earthquake, or you'll get bored, or you'll get sick, or an army will steal your shit, or...
People largely labour under the assumption that the way things are at the moment are the way they'll always be, and so invest their own conceptions of happiness and self-worth in externalities. But nothing lasts, and so when things change they experience what Buddhism calls dukha (basically, dissatisfaction) because they bet on the external world remaining immutable.
Too many atheists conflate atheism and skepticism.
It's possible to be a skeptic without being an atheist and vice versa.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What if the statement was altered to say "Communist party leaders are not skeptical"?
I think that might be a more true statement, and likely true with religion in general too.
I'm sure the bloke leading the crusade wasn't very skeptical, I'm sure some of the religious warriors participating were.
Or Jainism.
Stop moving so fast, chat!
Example 1: America.
Whenever anyone says science and religion aren't related I'm all "well nominally that's the case..." but we all know it isn't the case - all religions make positive claims about the nature of the world which range from farcical to outright wrong.
And this isn't just religion - this is everything. Religion has just set us up to consider people declaring things their "beliefs" to be untouchable, and so we have all manner of bullshit inventions of ideas about the world running around.
There is no value in teaching and asserting peoples morality from someone else's book.
You have no idea how tenacious I am.
You claim to love reason, but you reject placing importance on thoughts and ideas? Concepts that have no matter or observable phenomena?
I submit that you do not, in fact, love reason. In any case, you have come fairly close to acknowledging the fact that spiritual concerns are important to people who have them. Whether they "exist" outside of thought is a stupid question. Concerns and thoughts, beliefs and ideas do not, generally, exist outside of the mind that is entertaining them. This is no way makes them meaningless.
Science infers no purpose or meaning because science isn't concerned with those things in this regard. Science describes and explains observable phenomena. It gives us models which predict behavior of observable phenomena. Science is necessarily limited in this regard, but that should in no way limit humanity to merely the realm of thought encompassed by science.
I would say less true.
If a text says, "Life is impermanent," then don't read it into, "So I might as well sit around and jerk off all day." It doesn't say that. It just says "life is impermanent." No more, no less.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
first teaching of the school of Feral. now taking donations.
"Spirit" need not be supernatural. A person can be "spirited" - as in, having a lust for life or an inspiring presence. You can have the "spirit" of an occasion - like the spirit of Christmas, for instance.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Communist leaders tend to rule with an iron fist and reap a lot of benefits and don't really work under the "we are all equal and should receive the same benefits from our work."
They are probably more like "Okay, now I am on top of this crazy system. Time to squeeze it for all it is worth."
it's the almost that pisses me off.
I could have phrased that in a much nicer, gentler way such that it would make you feel all warm and fuzzy and comfortable.
But I decided to speak to you as if you were an equal even though you aren't willing to be, and just gave it to you straight and bullshit-free. I, frankly, hate to speak to people as if they were scared children who can't be told the truth because they'll wet the bed.
Needing a crutch is a weakness, if you have a weakness, but another does not, in that aspect you are lesser. I am not tall, I am lesser in height than a taller person. I am not rich, I am lesser in monetary wealth than a rich person. I am not Einstein, I am lesser in intelligence than he is. I am lesser, in these ways, than all these people. I may be greater in other ways, but they don't change the fact.
Having to be spoonfed what is right and wrong, rather than being able to discern it on your own, through your own cognition and empathy, is a weakness, like any other, and those who do not have it are, in that respect, greater, if such things can be measured.
You basically said the same yourself, you just couch it in euphemism.
Explicitely no. Buddhism as a cultural phenomenon was a rejection of the shramana tradition in Vedic (or pre-vedic? I've forgotten which is which) India and their teachings that the only path to spiritual happiness/salvation/shitawesomeness/etc was to reject society, live in a cave, eat bugs, and generally be an ascetic gnome.
I wouldn't say that describes most buddhisms at all, really.
Ummm
not really? Some of what you're quoting sounds like the vows south-east asian monks take (don't eat after noon), some are basic stuff (don't lie), and some are straight out of left field (don't sleep on a high bed)?
Most buddhisms would claim that their followers had to adhere to any of those things, although they'd certainly be big on suggesting it's best if you don't lie and don't fuck everything that moves without regards for peoples feelings. The monastic rules are for monks, not lay-folk.
Why would you want someone who thinks exactly like you?
That would be annoying as fuck, diversity is good, friend.
I'm pretty sure that's why we had the crusades, too. I'd feel safe saying that there was very little skepticism in the vast ranks of men who signed up to die under the notion that they were securing a cushy spot in heaven.
boredom masturbation usually makes me feel bad about myself
I'd rather want someone who doesn't think at all like me.
But I start to expect my own answers fed back to me and when I don't get em I'm like: "o.O"
I would have to agree.
I like to meditate and take in the world around me, and occasionally throw a mental thanks to dead things I have eaten.
Spiritual behavior without the mystic elements is pretty awesome. Like a designer drug that you can't OD on.
--
Atheism is an extremely narrow description. Plenty of religious people are atheists. Buddhists, Jainists, even some Jesus fan groups.
Atheism doesn't describe ANYTHING except a lack of belief in a specific class of supernatural beings.
Titans are totally real though.
I don't want to put all these values back into my calculator...
alright well, i'll be honest.
I'm a sociopath. Diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
At my core, I have no emotional impetus towards any sort of moral conduct and I do not empathize with others.
By default, the only reason I have to behave or interact positively with external society is for my own benefit, and I will unabashedly lie, steal, hurt, and kill whatever and whoever I want within the framework of what I can get away with.
As a child, parental guidance kept me in check in a lot of ways. My father recognized the signs of my condition early as a kid and did a lot to try to help me manage it. He taught me how to manage my impulses and taught me how to channel those impulses more positively, and managed to make me understand a larger causality of how kindness and consideration positively benefit me and everyone else in a roundabout way.
This led to me having a pretty decent childhood, as far as things go. I had some problems, some unpleasant incidents and stuff, but for the most part I was an alright kid.
As I became a teenager, my condition became a serious problem. My father drifted out of my life, my mother was in no state capable of administering me as a parent, so pretty much I lost touch with any sort of valid authority I had guiding me in my actions. Given that, I simply did as was natural to me.
In the process, I did a lot of terrible things. I won't get into the particulars of it here, but needless to say, it was pretty terrible and I am incredibly fortunate to be alive, disease-free, not crippled, and not in prison today.
Anyway, as I became an adult, I began to recognize the long-term problems that my behavior was causing me, and sought a way to remedy it. Really, what I was looking for was another authority framework to give me a reason to not be as I am naturally, like I had as a child.
In religious faith, I found that, and it gave me pause. It gave me a reason to act ethically and benevolently, it gave me an appreciation of the worth of others, and it gave me the strength to resist the impulsive behaviors that come far too easily for me.
So, without my faith, I would go back to those behaviors. That is not good, especially since I am far older, intelligent, and knowledgable than I was and I could get away with so much more.
I have to fight that part of me every single daily, several times a day sometimes, because it is so easy and I definitely want to go back to those days because in the short-term, it's so much more enjoyable and comfortable for me.
But I adhere to my faith, I hold fast to the love I have found in the people I have been able to love, and that faith and love keeps me where I want to be.
I don't want to throw that all away, thank you very much.
What, like, where you stand belly to belly with the other guy and grip both members with one hand and start wanking?
"Spirituality" carries with it the connotation of the supernatural. Most of the time, referring to someone as "spiritual" means they are concerned with the supernatural and religious, and someone's "spirituality" is their concern with such.
But my other problem with the word is that no one can really agree on what it means, and so it means too many things, and becomes a useless word signifying nothing. I can argue the connotations, but it carries many, many connotations, and the meaning varies radically from person to person.
It's a stupid word.
At this point, I'm just going to ask you to define all this stuff you've been so conveniently nebulous about. It's the best way to end an argument.
I'll leave with this bit, though: you're creating a seperation between two things, but only one of them is actually real. That thing that's actually real is our only concern because it is, as mentioned, all that is real.
The kind that involves having chainmail gauntlet gloves.
Prove you're a real man.