When is spirituality okay?

Religious_Rebel
Religious_Rebel's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
When is spirituality okay?

Greetings!  It has been ages since I've been here and I've grown a lot.  (Namely, I've given up religion but I'm still a spiritual person.  I despise "religion" nowadays.)

 

Notice that I didn't say "when is theism, religion, etc."  Spirituality is a little different and feel free to correct me with a different word if I'm not being accurate.

So my question really is, when it it 100% okay to be spiritual?  And I mean this in the sense that a spiritual person adheres to no particular doctrine (perhaps a few choice ones that are "loving teachings", for instance) and also they think for themselves.  If anything a good word is "hopeful" for things like a loving afterlife, ultimate justice, etc.

 

I can understand the need for many of you to change the thinking of people who are irrational in their thoughts so they might better themselves.  But how is just hoping or even believing wrong?

 

I posed this question because I get the sense that many of you are so stanch in your beliefs that you would be unaccepting of something, because you (like everyone else in the world, it's proven) are not unbiased.

 

 

Sorry in advance that I'm not as much of a heavyweight contender as some of you debaters are btw.  Smiling

 

It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
/headdesk oih.... oih oih

/headdesk

 

oih.... oih oih oooooih....

 

before i smack my head again, or break out into fits of psycotic laughter... how about we get you to...

define Spirituality and all it entails. If for no other reason, than, i know what to laugh at precisely!

(your post quite litterally went in 10 different directions at once, all of which made zero sense... while that in an of itself may actually be a solid definition of spirituality >.<   )

What Would Kharn Do?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
My person spirituality experience

Really happens when I snowboard, it's more of an emotional experience of awe, being on the top of a mountain, just nothing but you and that mountain of snow. That's about as close as I can get to a spiritual feeling per se. I have snowboarded in many places, but it's in those places which there aren't many people at all, sometimes no one, sometimes a friend or two. But I get a sense of awe for nature, and an awe for the grandeur of it all.

But it's not a sense that most people define spirituality as some seperations from reality or anything like that, just an awe for natural is the best I can explain it. As well as a feeling of utter inner peace, no worries, no bad thoughts, just inner peace and tranquility (yeah kinda buddhists and all but hey it's the best description i got). Then that one little push to start my decent down the mountainside.....always a rush.


Religious_Rebel
Religious_Rebel's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

/headdesk

 

oih.... oih oih oooooih....

 

before i smack my head again, or break out into fits of psycotic laughter... how about we get you to...

define Spirituality and all it entails. If for no other reason, than, i know what to laugh at precisely!

(your post quite litterally went in 10 different directions at once, all of which made zero sense... while that in an of itself may actually be a solid definition of spirituality >.<   )

 

It is indeed hard to define but I tried!  Which is why I asked to be corrected if need be.

 

Let me try again.  How about, adhering to no religion, but having beliefs an atheist or agnostic (blank) would never.

 

I liked the 2nd reply but I was thinking more of a belief rather than having absolutely none.

It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
What sort of beliefs are you

What sort of beliefs are you meaning? There are plenty of atheists(myself included) who find a great deal of emotional satisfaction contemplating nature, or music, or what have you, without trying to inject irrational beliefs into those things. Many often describe those sublime experiences as "spiritual," although I tend to shy from that myself as it smacks of supernaturalism. 

You mentioned an afterlife and "ultimate justice," however, and those are just irrational ideas, whether they are firmly grounded in a religious framework or not. I would recommend getting over your attachment to those things, perhaps by focusing on the realistic counterparts to those ideas, like working for social justice in THIS life. In my experience, irrational thoughts are like a cancer, so I tend to recommend rooting them all out, regardless of the emotional impact. Replace them with something real to be passionate over.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hello.Quote:I can understand

Hello.

Quote:
I can understand the need for many of you to change the thinking of people who are irrational in their thoughts so they might better themselves.  But how is just hoping or even believing wrong?

Hoping is not wrong. If you want something, it's virtually impossible to make yourself not want it. Part of me hopes for ultimate justice as well.

Believing is often wrong, but it depends on what you're believing in and how you define wrong.

Quote:
I posed this question because I get the sense that many of you are so stanch in your beliefs that you would be unaccepting of something, because you (like everyone else in the world, it's proven) are not unbiased.

Well, nobody is unbiased. It's impossible.

As for being 'unaccepting,' the evidence is insufficient or, in some cases, non-existent to support the claims that you are hinting at in the OP.

Religious_Rebel wrote:

Let me try again.  How about, adhering to no religion, but having beliefs an atheist or agnostic (blank) would never.

Agnosticism doesn't really apply here. Atheism just means you don't believe in God. If you possess a belief that an atheist would never possess, but you're not in a religion, then you're just a theist that doesn't adhere to any religion. I think you need a better definition. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Religious_Rebel
Religious_Rebel's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:What sort

thatonedude wrote:

What sort of beliefs are you meaning? There are plenty of atheists(myself included) who find a great deal of emotional satisfaction contemplating nature, or music, or what have you, without trying to inject irrational beliefs into those things. Many often describe those sublime experiences as "spiritual," although I tend to shy from that myself as it smacks of supernaturalism. 

You mentioned an afterlife and "ultimate justice," however, and those are just irrational ideas, whether they are firmly grounded in a religious framework or not. I would recommend getting over your attachment to those things, perhaps by focusing on the realistic counterparts to those ideas, like working for social justice in THIS life. In my experience, irrational thoughts are like a cancer, so I tend to recommend rooting them all out, regardless of the emotional impact. Replace them with something real to be passionate over.

 

Thank you for your reply!

 

I need to be much clearer when I speak to you guys, my apologies.

 

Anyway, let's take this quote and see if I can pose a better question.

 

Quote:
You mentioned an afterlife and "ultimate justice," however, and those are just irrational ideas, whether they are firmly grounded in a religious framework or not. I would recommend getting over your attachment to those things, perhaps by focusing on the realistic counterparts to those ideas, like working for social justice in THIS life. In my experience, irrational thoughts are like a cancer, so I tend to recommend rooting them all out, regardless of the emotional impact. Replace them with something real to be passionate over.

 

That's what I'm getting at, I enjoyed reading this and thank you.

 

A belief is needed in order to rationalize something.  Whether it be scientific, theological, or somewhere inbetween.  In either of those three events, there is a basis and this can be very individualized even when considering what you hold falls into one of the three.  Let's look at the "somewhere inbetween", and consider the multitudes of people that are this way.  

 

When can they hold a belief that is not purely scientific and still be considered adequate thinkers to an atheist who holds purely scientific beliefs?  Where can we draw that line?

 

Do we draw the line at a minimum, where we find them adequate in being non-violent in their actions and words?  Or do we go the other extreme and must we purge anything that isn't purely based on science?  (Even if that includes something seemingly benign like a hope for the afterlife?)

 

And I apologize for using the term "ultimate justice" without clarification.  I was actually meaning that our race would ultimately reach a sort of "Utopian" society, not the whole judgement schtick.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

 

 

 

It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Religious_Rebel wrote:It is

Religious_Rebel wrote:

It is indeed hard to define but I tried!  Which is why I asked to be corrected if need be.

 

Let me try again.  How about, adhering to no religion, but having beliefs an atheist or agnostic (blank) would never.

 

I liked the 2nd reply but I was thinking more of a belief rather than having absolutely none.

 

Better... but still not quite what i was looking for

 

Belief in god, a god, or gods?

Belief in an after life?

Belief in supernatural beings?

Belief in divine punishment?

Belief in universal conscious?

 

Spell it out for me... come on mon! make it easier...

 

To quote Bill Maher

"Im not religious but im deeply spiritual"

ie...

"I believe in god, but im to lazy to go to church"

What Would Kharn Do?


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Religious_Rebel wrote:When

Religious_Rebel wrote:
When is spirituality okay?

The ghosts won't bother you, if you don't bother them!

Are your spirits rattling chains and slamming doors?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I've found a great amount of awe when rock climbing in various places, and also rafting down the Rio Grande and seeing places that only get minutes of direct sunlight a day...causing unique plants to have developed there, and in nearly even lines.

 

I think respect and awe for the power of nature is important for everyone.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
/facepalm getting a hard-on

/facepalm

 

getting a hard-on for nature does not = spirituality


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

/facepalm

 

getting a hard-on for nature does not = spirituality

actually it can be if the person experiences a more emotional awe to nature per se, usually it's very specific moments, but that's my take on it.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Actually, despite being an

Actually, despite being an Atheist, I don't mind at all if a person is Spiritual. We shouldn't frown upon people for thinking there's more to life than just a scientific explanation. It's when someone makes a concrete decision in which they identify the mysteries of the Universe as being the work of a specific God with a specific purpose. There are people who think we were created by some type of divinity or higher being, but they aren't so arrogant to say it was one written down in some organized religion. I know there's others here who won't agree with me, but I consider it close-minded to tell a person they cannot believe in creation. What if there were some sort of higher being that aided in our biology on this planet but didn't love us, create us in its own image, but instead participated in just another routine science experiment like we do here on Earth? Do I think this is likely? - NO, but I cannot criticize someone for simply thinking there's more to life than what can be measured, tested, and explained logically.


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

/facepalm

 

getting a hard-on for nature does not = spirituality

 

Spirituality is one of those slippery words that have several meanings.

Spirituality may include an emotional experience of awe and reverence.

 

Some aspects of spirituality are great, others are no better than any other religion.

If it feels good to hope and wish upon a star then go for it. But in the end it won't matter. Shit happens, good and bad.

 

 

 

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
The only major problem with

The only major problem with 'spirituality' is its close association with the word 'spirit', meaning disembodied beings.

If we could somehow disassociate the 'spiritual' from 'spirits', then most people would readily call themselves spiritual.

Unfortunately, a very large portion of the population who call themselves 'spiritual' really *do* believe in spirits, and they are very attached to that idea. They desparately want to have the promise of an afterlife in which there is no good reason to believe.

I've been trying to come up with a better word for 'sprituality without spirits'. My latest attempt is 'inspiritual', as in, "I'm an atheist and I'm also inspiritual." It has a dual meaning with the prefix 'in-'. It means both 'without spirits' and 'inspired'. (An interesting third variant of in- means 'within', as meaning that the so-called 'spirit' of a person is *within* his/her body, and not separate from it. There are no disembodied spirits.)

We can look at the word 'spirit' in its original meaning, which simply means 'breath'. It probably derived its 'lifeforce' meaning when people realized that you can tell when someone is dead when they are no longer breathing. Also, sick people often have trouble breathing, and so the idea of 'breath' became associated with 'life' and 'health'.

Now, I have no problem with this limited association. The problem comes when people start to attribute 'mind' and 'non-physical' with spirit. Our breath does not contain our mind. We cannot become possessed by evil spirits when we sneeze (which is where the whole obsession with 'Bless you' comes from). Likewise, the breath itself is a physical thing. Our health is physical. Our minds are physical. There is no reason to believe in anything non-physical.

Still, the word 'spirit' has many useful associations if we can divorce it from these supernaturalist ideas of mind and non-physicality. There is the 'spirit of the times', or zeitgeist, which is a pretty good metaphor for the mood, ideas, and culture of a particular time and place. There is 'team spirit', 'good spirits', 'she's got spirit, I'll give her that', etc..

Finally, there is the *other* meaning of 'spirit' which is the one that 'spiritual people' really care about, which is variously expressed as 'loving', 'emotional life', 'intuitive mind', 'religious experience', etc.

For this, I think 'inspiritual' could be a good word, with the primary meaning being 'living a life of inspiration ...', and the secondary meaning of '... without all that woo woo crap.'

The main point of coining this new word is to clearly state that 'inspiritual' people gain all the real benefits of 'spirituality' (assuming there are any clear benefits), without the associated irrational beliefs.

Anything you (the spiritual person) can do, I (the inspiritual person) can do just as well, if not better (because I maintain my self-honesty in doing so).

I can meditate to calm my mind and evoke powerful experiences, I can walk through nature inspired and in wonder, I can participate in community with other people, I can be in touch with my emotions and intuitions, etc. And I do not need to give up my rationality to do so. I do not have to pretend to know things which I do not actually know. I can be completely honest with myself in my limitations while at the same time experiencing sublime feelings and deep understanding of the universe.

Can the 'spiritual' person do any better? I don't think so. If they think they can, I ask them to show me how their 'spirituality' has anything to do with the supernatural or non-physical.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Religious_Rebel wrote:A

Religious_Rebel wrote:

A belief is needed in order to rationalize something. 

What do you mean by this?

 

Quote:

When can they hold a belief that is not purely scientific and still be considered adequate thinkers to an atheist who holds purely scientific beliefs?  Where can we draw that line?

Depends on the idea and the relative influence of the person holding it. I care less that the little old lady down the road is a rabid creationist than I am that some of my relatives hold even less extreme versions of those same irrational precepts, because the little old lady is not likely to try to impress those ideas upon my kids.

On the flip side of the coin, there is a certain level of danger for anyone holding irrational beliefs. People use these beliefs to determine voting patterns, for example, and a large group of moderately deluded people can be manipulated, allowing those with power over them to push through undesirable laws, for example.

Quote:

Do we draw the line at a minimum, where we find them adequate in being non-violent in their actions and words?  Or do we go the other extreme and must we purge anything that isn't purely based on science?  (Even if that includes something seemingly benign like a hope for the afterlife?)

If a person is not harming me directly or indirectly, I find it hard to care about what they believe. However, this is also somewhat short sighted, because this is certainly a very elitist attitude. Why should I not care that person X is plagued with irrational beliefs that I would not tolerate in myself?

Finally, those buried irrational beliefs sometimes bubble up and cause problems. Just watch the news. In the last few weeks, the US has seen several delusional individuals murder people over irrational beliefs. It's just not safe to let them fester.

Quote:

And I apologize for using the term "ultimate justice" without clarification.  I was actually meaning that our race would ultimately reach a sort of "Utopian" society, not the whole judgement schtick.

 

Thanks for reading.

I see. That makes more sense.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
As for the definition, the

As for the definition, the spirituality is, in fact, a development, evolution, and progress. It is not a religious thing, only the religion was agressive enough in last 2000 years to steal that meaning from the rest of the world, where it shall be returned.

Everything can be, and should be, spiritual. For example, in science that idea besides progress would mean less of death-bringing inventions and more of those improving the life of everyone. Similarly in other institutions. Currently, our institutions did not hesitate to summon a few trillions of dollars to save other institutions, but didn't donate even a fraction of that sum to lessen the global catastrophe happening right now. Such an institutions are certainly not spiritual and not progressive. You get the idea, I hope.

I feel sometimes a deep, inner peace or that someone or something loves me unconditionally. (during yesterday's meditation, for example) But that is separated from any religious practice or adoration of anything. It happens just out of nowhere, or during meditation and it doesn't use any labels of religion, or even words. (it is necessary to say, that spirituality is not the same thing as emotionality. Some people keep confusing that)
When someone acts according to the guidelines of spirituality, it is like that, because spirituality exists even without words, in our outer actions. If we take away from religion the thoughts and activities of the inner circle (like prayer meetings), what remains? Separatism, intolerance, bigotry...

natural wrote:

Anything you (the spiritual person) can do, I (the inspiritual person) can do just as well, if not better (because I maintain my self-honesty in doing so).

I can meditate to calm my mind and evoke powerful experiences, I can walk through nature inspired and in wonder, I can participate in community with other people, I can be in touch with my emotions and intuitions, etc. And I do not need to give up my rationality to do so. I do not have to pretend to know things which I do not actually know. I can be completely honest with myself in my limitations while at the same time experiencing sublime feelings and deep understanding of the universe.

Can the 'spiritual' person do any better? I don't think so. If they think they can, I ask them to show me how their 'spirituality' has anything to do with the supernatural or non-physical.

Excuse me, I'll be maybe a bit caustic now, but I need to make clear that spirituality should not be primarily a vague feel-goodism as you probably imagine it to be. If it's not what you think, then I'm sorry, maybe someone else will need that clarification. (btw, the "we" means the members,  co-workers and clients of our local club focused on humanistic self-improvement)
Can you with your version of rationality participate in therapies and healing methods based on:
past lives, astrology, meditation, kinesiology, homeopathy, dowsing, Bach's essences, acupuncture, and so on? We do all that to improve ourselves, our education and ethics, to become healthier than others, to be succesful and happier. We're here to gain a superior self-knowledge and to change systematically the bad things about ourselves and the society. (better than a so-called rational person could, without these methods) The result-based approach to spirituality is rational by itself. If it works, then it is probably correct, no matter how crazy it sounds according to the contemporary scientific knowledge. If we have the results tested on ourselves, we can be perfectly rational, AND spiritual, AND not vague, unlike your description is. It is nice to be in touch with our emotions and intuition, but it is useful to be in touch with one's chakras, antahkarana and karma account. All that for free, or for a reasonable, affordable prices, unlike it is the standard in America. Not even a miraculous healing is worthy of all your savings. What is expensive, is either a scam or not worthy of the money, that's one of the practical spirituality's rules.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Religious_Rebel wrote:So my

Religious_Rebel wrote:

So my question really is, when it it 100% okay to be spiritual? 

It's okay to be spiritual all the time, in the sense that it's is always okay to be in awe at something. It is even okay to believe in irrational concepts. That is as long as you don't hold me to those beliefs and as long as you don't expect me to respect you or your foolish ideas.

To put it another way. You can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. But at the same time, don't expect me to hold back my laughter if you should happen to let loose some ill considered idea.

Fair enough?

Edit:

Just to be clear, I meant no offense. Just stating what I think is and is not acceptable behavior. "Spiritual" people tend to hide under the same umbrella of religious protection when their beliefs are questioned or belittled. I find that unacceptable. If you want to believe in irrational things, you have to give up being perceived as rational by other people.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Actually, despite being an Atheist, I don't mind at all if a person is Spiritual. We shouldn't frown upon people for thinking there's more to life than just a scientific explanation. It's when someone makes a concrete decision in which they identify the mysteries of the Universe as being the work of a specific God with a specific purpose. There are people who think we were created by some type of divinity or higher being, but they aren't so arrogant to say it was one written down in some organized religion. I know there's others here who won't agree with me, but I consider it close-minded to tell a person they cannot believe in creation. What if there were some sort of higher being that aided in our biology on this planet but didn't love us, create us in its own image, but instead participated in just another routine science experiment like we do here on Earth? Do I think this is likely? - NO, but I cannot criticize someone for simply thinking there's more to life than what can be measured, tested, and explained logically.

I take it you're a Pantheist.
If not (which I doubt), look for an Exorcist.

Begone ye Spirits!


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Actually, despite being an Atheist,
----
I don't mind at all if a person is Spiritual. ...
------
there's more to life than just a scientific explanation.
------
...the mysteries of the Universe as being the work of a specific God with a specific purpose.
------
There are people who think we were created by some type of divinity or higher being, ... What if there were some sort of higher being that aided in our biology on this planet but didn't love us, create us in its own image, but instead participated in just another routine science experiment like we do here on Earth? Do I think this is likely? - NO, but I cannot criticize someone for simply thinking there's more to life than what can be measured, tested, and explained logically.

Buddy, sorry to tell you, but you're definitely NOT an Atheist.

You should look into what Pantheism is.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Actually, despite being an Atheist,
----
I don't mind at all if a person is Spiritual. ...
------
there's more to life than just a scientific explanation.
------
...the mysteries of the Universe as being the work of a specific God with a specific purpose.
------
There are people who think we were created by some type of divinity or higher being, ... What if there were some sort of higher being that aided in our biology on this planet but didn't love us, create us in its own image, but instead participated in just another routine science experiment like we do here on Earth? Do I think this is likely? - NO, but I cannot criticize someone for simply thinking there's more to life than what can be measured, tested, and explained logically.

Hows about you and I go on a Vision Quest for our mysterious, non-personal, scientific but not scientific because science can't explain mysteries, for our purposeless POSSIBLE Creator?

Just you and me.

We can ask our Spirit guide how to be a religious Atheist
because science can't explain everything.

Any provisions you want to take, like shrooms should be tightly wrapped to prevent water damage from the non-specific purposesless spirits.

Oye! Will someone direct this
guy to a Shaman that can deal with his redefinition of Atheism.

I'm gonna barf.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: I take it

treat2 wrote:
I take it you're a Pantheist. If not (which I doubt), look for an Exorcist. Begone ye Spirits!
You again? Well, what we do here is a civil discourse. No matter if you're right or wrong, you lose points. People's attention is a valuable gift, if you misuse it, it may become rare for you.

Others: Don't worry about him, in last times he just goes around insulting people, even new ones. There's no need to take him seriously. Maybe after a hospital stay, detox session and reconvalescence when he returns, apologizes and explains everything, but that's a long time ahead.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:The Flying

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Actually, despite being an Atheist, I don't mind at all if a person is Spiritual. We shouldn't frown upon people for thinking there's more to life than just a scientific explanation. It's when someone makes a concrete decision in which they identify the mysteries of the Universe as being the work of a specific God with a specific purpose. There are people who think we were created by some type of divinity or higher being, but they aren't so arrogant to say it was one written down in some organized religion. I know there's others here who won't agree with me, but I consider it close-minded to tell a person they cannot believe in creation. What if there were some sort of higher being that aided in our biology on this planet but didn't love us, create us in its own image, but instead participated in just another routine science experiment like we do here on Earth? Do I think this is likely? - NO, but I cannot criticize someone for simply thinking there's more to life than what can be measured, tested, and explained logically.

I take it you're a Pantheist. If not (which I doubt), look for an Exorcist. Begone ye Spirits!

You're seriously too stupid to even debate me.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:The Flying

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
Actually, despite being an Atheist, ---- I don't mind at all if a person is Spiritual. ... ------ there's more to life than just a scientific explanation. ------ ...the mysteries of the Universe as being the work of a specific God with a specific purpose. ------ There are people who think we were created by some type of divinity or higher being, ... What if there were some sort of higher being that aided in our biology on this planet but didn't love us, create us in its own image, but instead participated in just another routine science experiment like we do here on Earth? Do I think this is likely? - NO, but I cannot criticize someone for simply thinking there's more to life than what can be measured, tested, and explained logically.

 

Buddy, sorry to tell you, but you're definitely NOT an Atheist. You should look into what Pantheism is.

I am an Atheist.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: Hows about

treat2 wrote:
Hows about you and I go on a Vision Quest for our mysterious, non-personal, scientific but not scientific because science can't explain mysteries, for our purposeless POSSIBLE Creator? Just you and me. We can ask our Spirit guide how to be a religious Atheist because science can't explain everything. Any provisions you want to take, like shrooms should be tightly wrapped to prevent water damage from the non-specific purposesless spirits. Oye! Will someone direct this guy to a Shaman that can deal with his redefinition of Atheism. I'm gonna barf.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying. I in no way implied the existence of God because there's "mystery," I said while I do not believe in God, I cannot look downly on someone who thinks God exists BEYOND organized religion, because neither me nor YOU, knows for an undeniable fact, how life started. You're making yourself look like a moron, bud.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Can you with

Luminon wrote:
Can you with your version of rationality participate in therapies and healing methods based on:


past lives, astrology, meditation, kinesiology, homeopathy, dowsing, Bach's essences, acupuncture, and so on?

Do you mean, Can I benefit from the placebo effect? Why, yes, I can.

Can you demonstrate that these 'therapies' are any more effective than the placebo effect? No? What a surprise.

[Note: There are known benefits to meditation, however all of the other things you mentioned do not have any known benefits beyond placebo. And yes, i can meditate.]

Quote:
If we have the results tested on ourselves, we can be perfectly rational, AND spiritual, AND not vague, unlike your description is.

I have asked you before, and you were completely vague about the benefits of your 'spirituality'.

Quote:
It is nice to be in touch with our emotions and intuition, but it is useful to be in touch with one's chakras, antahkarana and karma account.

That is an empirical claim. Of *what* use are chakras and karma? Provide empirical evidence of their usefulness.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
@FSM: Stop feeding the

@FSM: Stop feeding the treat. He's on a personal mission to piss off so many people that he'll get banned from this site. Honestly, though, he's just too damn boring for that to happen.

@natural: You want Luminon to make sense? Jeez- got a bridge you can buy from me.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I think respect nature and life in general for surviving is as spiritual as anyone needs to be. Most people claim to be spiritual but ignore the world around them. Really, go rock climbing. I promise it will change your perspective on things when you stop to reflect on a ledge and look at the world below you. It is really awe-inspiring how insignificant people are.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
Actually, despite being an Atheist, ---- I don't mind at all if a person is Spiritual. ... ------ there's more to life than just a scientific explanation. ------ ...the mysteries of the Universe as being the work of a specific God with a specific purpose. ------ There are people who think we were created by some type of divinity or higher being, ... What if there were some sort of higher being that aided in our biology on this planet but didn't love us, create us in its own image, but instead participated in just another routine science experiment like we do here on Earth? Do I think this is likely? - NO, but I cannot criticize someone for simply thinking there's more to life than what can be measured, tested, and explained logically.

 

Buddy, sorry to tell you, but you're definitely NOT an Atheist. You should look into what Pantheism is.

I am an Atheist.

According to you, your not.
You're more of a weak Spinozan variety of Pantheist.

BTW. I don't need to debate you, asshole. You contradict yourself.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:treat2 wrote:

Luminon wrote:

treat2 wrote:
I take it you're a Pantheist. If not (which I doubt), look for an Exorcist. Begone ye Spirits!
You again? Well, what we do here is a civil discourse. No matter if you're right or wrong, you lose points. People's attention is a valuable gift, if you misuse it, it may become rare for you.

Others: Don't worry about him, in last times he just goes around insulting people, even new ones. There's no need to take him seriously. Maybe after a hospital stay, detox session and reconvalescence when he returns, apologizes and explains everything, but that's a long time ahead.

You really are too full of shit for public consumption.

BTW. Whatever you perceive as an appology for anything is entirely your own misperception.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:The only major

natural wrote:

The only major problem with 'spirituality' is its close association with the word 'spirit', meaning disembodied beings.

If we could somehow disassociate the 'spiritual' from 'spirits', then most people would readily call themselves spiritual.

Unfortunately, a very large portion of the population who call themselves 'spiritual' really *do* believe in spirits, and they are very attached to that idea. They desparately want to have the promise of an afterlife in which there is no good reason to believe.

I've been trying to come up with a better word for 'sprituality without spirits'. My latest attempt is 'inspiritual', as in, "I'm an atheist and I'm also inspiritual." It has a dual meaning with the prefix 'in-'. It means both 'without spirits' and 'inspired'. (An interesting third variant of in- means 'within', as meaning that the so-called 'spirit' of a person is *within* his/her body, and not separate from it. There are no disembodied spirits.)

We can look at the word 'spirit' in its original meaning, which simply means 'breath'. It probably derived its 'lifeforce' meaning when people realized that you can tell when someone is dead when they are no longer breathing. Also, sick people often have trouble breathing, and so the idea of 'breath' became associated with 'life' and 'health'.

Now, I have no problem with this limited association. The problem comes when people start to attribute 'mind' and 'non-physical' with spirit. Our breath does not contain our mind. We cannot become possessed by evil spirits when we sneeze (which is where the whole obsession with 'Bless you' comes from). Likewise, the breath itself is a physical thing. Our health is physical. Our minds are physical. There is no reason to believe in anything non-physical.

Still, the word 'spirit' has many useful associations if we can divorce it from these supernaturalist ideas of mind and non-physicality. There is the 'spirit of the times', or zeitgeist, which is a pretty good metaphor for the mood, ideas, and culture of a particular time and place. There is 'team spirit', 'good spirits', 'she's got spirit, I'll give her that', etc..

Finally, there is the *other* meaning of 'spirit' which is the one that 'spiritual people' really care about, which is variously expressed as 'loving', 'emotional life', 'intuitive mind', 'religious experience', etc.

For this, I think 'inspiritual' could be a good word, with the primary meaning being 'living a life of inspiration ...', and the secondary meaning of '... without all that woo woo crap.'

The main point of coining this new word is to clearly state that 'inspiritual' people gain all the real benefits of 'spirituality' (assuming there are any clear benefits), without the associated irrational beliefs.

Anything you (the spiritual person) can do, I (the inspiritual person) can do just as well, if not better (because I maintain my self-honesty in doing so).

I can meditate to calm my mind and evoke powerful experiences, I can walk through nature inspired and in wonder, I can participate in community with other people, I can be in touch with my emotions and intuitions, etc. And I do not need to give up my rationality to do so. I do not have to pretend to know things which I do not actually know. I can be completely honest with myself in my limitations while at the same time experiencing sublime feelings and deep understanding of the universe.

Can the 'spiritual' person do any better? I don't think so. If they think they can, I ask them to show me how their 'spirituality' has anything to do with the supernatural or non-physical.

I gonna vomit.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

Religious_Rebel wrote:

So my question really is, when it it 100% okay to be spiritual? 

It's okay to be spiritual all the time, in the sense that it's is always okay to be in awe at something. It is even okay to believe in irrational concepts. That is as long as you don't hold me to those beliefs and as long as you don't expect me to respect you or your foolish ideas.

To put it another way. You can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. But at the same time, don't expect me to hold back my laughter if you should happen to let loose some ill considered idea.

Fair enough?

Edit:

Just to be clear, I meant no offense. Just stating what I think is and is not acceptable behavior. "Spiritual" people tend to hide under the same umbrella of religious protection when their beliefs are questioned or belittled. I find that unacceptable. If you want to believe in irrational things, you have to give up being perceived as rational by other people.

Thanks for your fucking permission, pea-brain.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Religious_Rebel

Religious_Rebel wrote:

Greetings!  It has been ages since I've been here and I've grown a lot.  (Namely, I've given up religion but I'm still a spiritual person.  I despise "religion" nowadays.)

 

Notice that I didn't say "when is theism, religion, etc."  Spirituality is a little different and feel free to correct me with a different word if I'm not being accurate.

So my question really is, when it it 100% okay to be spiritual?  And I mean this in the sense that a spiritual person adheres to no particular doctrine (perhaps a few choice ones that are "loving teachings", for instance) and also they think for themselves.  If anything a good word is "hopeful" for things like a loving afterlife, ultimate justice, etc.

 

I can understand the need for many of you to change the thinking of people who are irrational in their thoughts so they might better themselves.  But how is just hoping or even believing wrong?

 

I posed this question because I get the sense that many of you are so stanch in your beliefs that you would be unaccepting of something, because you (like everyone else in the world, it's proven) are not unbiased.

 

 

Sorry in advance that I'm not as much of a heavyweight contender as some of you debaters are btw.  Smiling

 

Borg Queen 745 said:

"This 'Atheist' unit needs to be reassimilated immediately!"

WTF?

You do not have the permission of the hive.
It is not OK.

You and Spagetti Machine, Atheist Borgets.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:@FSM: Stop

crazymonkie wrote:

@FSM: Stop feeding the treat. He's on a personal mission to piss off so many people that he'll get banned from this site. Honestly, though, he's just too damn boring for that to happen.

@natural: You want Luminon to make sense? Jeez- got a bridge you can buy from me.

That's not very spiritual of you.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Hello.

Quote:
I can understand the need for many of you to change the thinking of people who are irrational in their thoughts so they might better themselves.  But how is just hoping or even believing wrong?

Hoping is not wrong. If you want something, it's virtually impossible to make yourself not want it. Part of me hopes for ultimate justice as well.

Believing is often wrong, but it depends on what you're believing in and how you define wrong.

Quote:
I posed this question because I get the sense that many of you are so stanch in your beliefs that you would be unaccepting of something, because you (like everyone else in the world, it's proven) are not unbiased.

Well, nobody is unbiased. It's impossible.

As for being 'unaccepting,' the evidence is insufficient or, in some cases, non-existent to support the claims that you are hinting at in the OP.

Religious_Rebel wrote:

Let me try again.  How about, adhering to no religion, but having beliefs an atheist or agnostic (blank) would never.

Agnosticism doesn't really apply here. Atheism just means you don't believe in God. If you possess a belief that an atheist would never possess, but you're not in a religion, then you're just a theist that doesn't adhere to any religion. I think you need a better definition. 

The above has been entitled:

"Atheist Law According to Butters"

An alternate title is:
"The Religious Atheist" written by, Butters.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

Religious_Rebel wrote:

So my question really is, when it it 100% okay to be spiritual? 

It's okay to be spiritual all the time, in the sense that it's is always okay to be in awe at something. It is even okay to believe in irrational concepts. That is as long as you don't hold me to those beliefs and as long as you don't expect me to respect you or your foolish ideas.

To put it another way. You can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. But at the same time, don't expect me to hold back my laughter if you should happen to let loose some ill considered idea.

Fair enough?

Edit:

Just to be clear, I meant no offense. Just stating what I think is and is not acceptable behavior. "Spiritual" people tend to hide under the same umbrella of religious protection when their beliefs are questioned or belittled. I find that unacceptable. If you want to believe in irrational things, you have to give up being perceived as rational by other people.

That was almost lucid.
You have my blessing.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Actually, despite being an Atheist, I don't mind at all if a person is Spiritual. We shouldn't frown upon people for thinking there's more to life than just a scientific explanation. It's when someone makes a concrete decision in which they identify the mysteries of the Universe as being the work of a specific God with a specific purpose. There are people who think we were created by some type of divinity or higher being, but they aren't so arrogant to say it was one written down in some organized religion. I know there's others here who won't agree with me, but I consider it close-minded to tell a person they cannot believe in creation. What if there were some sort of higher being that aided in our biology on this planet but didn't love us, create us in its own image, but instead participated in just another routine science experiment like we do here on Earth? Do I think this is likely? - NO, but I cannot criticize someone for simply thinking there's more to life than what can be measured, tested, and explained logically.

I take it you're a Pantheist. If not (which I doubt), look for an Exorcist. Begone ye Spirits!

You're seriously too stupid to even debate me.

Nobody could debate a bone head like you.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Hows about you and I go on a Vision Quest for our mysterious, non-personal, scientific but not scientific because science can't explain mysteries, for our purposeless POSSIBLE Creator? Just you and me. We can ask our Spirit guide how to be a religious Atheist because science can't explain everything. Any provisions you want to take, like shrooms should be tightly wrapped to prevent water damage from the non-specific purposesless spirits. Oye! Will someone direct this guy to a Shaman that can deal with his redefinition of Atheism. I'm gonna barf.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying. I in no way implied the existence of God because there's "mystery," I said while I do not believe in God, I cannot look downly on someone who thinks God exists BEYOND organized religion, because neither me nor YOU, knows for an undeniable fact, how life started. You're making yourself look like a moron, bud.

That's the best you can do, eh? Soz, but you're sti l not an Atheist as clearly shown by your own post.

You don't get it.

I don't need to debate what you already do not deny.
By your own words, you're not an Atheist. End of fucking discussion.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: Nobody could

treat2 wrote:
Nobody could debate a bone head like you.

Quit reaching, I've only been here off and on for a week and you've been identified as a troll by several members. You have no redeeming quality to clinch hold of at this point. You're in no position to even mention debating.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:The Flying

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Hows about you and I go on a Vision Quest for our mysterious, non-personal, scientific but not scientific because science can't explain mysteries, for our purposeless POSSIBLE Creator? Just you and me. We can ask our Spirit guide how to be a religious Atheist because science can't explain everything. Any provisions you want to take, like shrooms should be tightly wrapped to prevent water damage from the non-specific purposesless spirits. Oye! Will someone direct this guy to a Shaman that can deal with his redefinition of Atheism. I'm gonna barf.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying. I in no way implied the existence of God because there's "mystery," I said while I do not believe in God, I cannot look downly on someone who thinks God exists BEYOND organized religion, because neither me nor YOU, knows for an undeniable fact, how life started. You're making yourself look like a moron, bud.

That's the best you can do, eh? Soz, but you're sti l not an Atheist as clearly shown by your own post. You don't get it. I don't need to debate what you already do not deny. By your own words, you're not an Atheist. End of fucking discussion.

I'm not an Atheist because I admited to not being all-knowing? XD

Fucking hell you're stupid. How about you pull out your camcorder that filmed the origin of life for me, k? I in no way denied the big bang or evolution, but said I wouldn't look down on someone if they believed a God created life. I'm not talking about ALLAH, THOR, or JESUS. I'm not even referring to an all-loving God. I'm simply saying, WHILE I DON'T BELIEVE IT, an intelligent entity could have created space and neither you nor I can say that person is wrong for believing in that, because we weren't there to witness it. No matter what type of evidence we uncover on evolution or the separation of cosmological forces, will tell us if the universe is eternal or if something initiating the big bang, is eternal.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Nobody could debate a bone head like you.

Quit reaching, I've only been here off and on for a week and you've been identified as a troll by several members. You have no redeeming quality to clinch hold of at this point. You're in no position to even mention debating.

I wouldn't bother debating an admitted fool like you.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Hows about you and I go on a Vision Quest for our mysterious, non-personal, scientific but not scientific because science can't explain mysteries, for our purposeless POSSIBLE Creator? Just you and me. We can ask our Spirit guide how to be a religious Atheist because science can't explain everything. Any provisions you want to take, like shrooms should be tightly wrapped to prevent water damage from the non-specific purposesless spirits. Oye! Will someone direct this guy to a Shaman that can deal with his redefinition of Atheism. I'm gonna barf.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying. I in no way implied the existence of God because there's "mystery," I said while I do not believe in God, I cannot look downly on someone who thinks God exists BEYOND organized religion, because neither me nor YOU, knows for an undeniable fact, how life started. You're making yourself look like a moron, bud.

That's the best you can do, eh? Soz, but you're sti l not an Atheist as clearly shown by your own post. You don't get it. I don't need to debate what you already do not deny. By your own words, you're not an Atheist. End of fucking discussion.

I'm not an Atheist because I admited to not being all-knowing? XD

Fucking hell you're stupid. How about you pull out your camcorder that filmed the origin of life for me, k? I in no way denied the big bang or evolution, but said I wouldn't look down on someone if they believed a God created life. I'm not talking about ALLAH, THOR, or JESUS. I'm not even referring to an all-loving God. I'm simply saying, WHILE I DON'T BELIEVE IT, an intelligent entity could have created space and neither you nor I can say that person is wrong for believing in that, because we weren't there to witness it. No matter what type of evidence we uncover on evolution or the separation of cosmological forces, will tell us if the universe is eternal or if something initiating the big bang, is eternal.

You don't get it. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you your own post, ya moron.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:The Flying

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Hows about you and I go on a Vision Quest for our mysterious, non-personal, scientific but not scientific because science can't explain mysteries, for our purposeless POSSIBLE Creator? Just you and me. We can ask our Spirit guide how to be a religious Atheist because science can't explain everything. Any provisions you want to take, like shrooms should be tightly wrapped to prevent water damage from the non-specific purposesless spirits. Oye! Will someone direct this guy to a Shaman that can deal with his redefinition of Atheism. I'm gonna barf.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying. I in no way implied the existence of God because there's "mystery," I said while I do not believe in God, I cannot look downly on someone who thinks God exists BEYOND organized religion, because neither me nor YOU, knows for an undeniable fact, how life started. You're making yourself look like a moron, bud.

That's the best you can do, eh? Soz, but you're sti l not an Atheist as clearly shown by your own post. You don't get it. I don't need to debate what you already do not deny. By your own words, you're not an Atheist. End of fucking discussion.

I'm not an Atheist because I admited to not being all-knowing? XD

Fucking hell you're stupid. How about you pull out your camcorder that filmed the origin of life for me, k? I in no way denied the big bang or evolution, but said I wouldn't look down on someone if they believed a God created life. I'm not talking about ALLAH, THOR, or JESUS. I'm not even referring to an all-loving God. I'm simply saying, WHILE I DON'T BELIEVE IT, an intelligent entity could have created space and neither you nor I can say that person is wrong for believing in that, because we weren't there to witness it. No matter what type of evidence we uncover on evolution or the separation of cosmological forces, will tell us if the universe is eternal or if something initiating the big bang, is eternal.

You don't get it. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you your own post, ya moron.

Because you can't. I accept your concession.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:The Flying

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Hows about you and I go on a Vision Quest for our mysterious, non-personal, scientific but not scientific because science can't explain mysteries, for our purposeless POSSIBLE Creator? Just you and me. We can ask our Spirit guide how to be a religious Atheist because science can't explain everything. Any provisions you want to take, like shrooms should be tightly wrapped to prevent water damage from the non-specific purposesless spirits. Oye! Will someone direct this guy to a Shaman that can deal with his redefinition of Atheism. I'm gonna barf.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying. I in no way implied the existence of God because there's "mystery," I said while I do not believe in God, I cannot look downly on someone who thinks God exists BEYOND organized religion, because neither me nor YOU, knows for an undeniable fact, how life started. You're making yourself look like a moron, bud.

That's the best you can do, eh? Soz, but you're sti l not an Atheist as clearly shown by your own post. You don't get it. I don't need to debate what you already do not deny. By your own words, you're not an Atheist. End of fucking discussion.

I'm not an Atheist because I admited to not being all-knowing? XD

Fucking hell you're stupid. How about you pull out your camcorder that filmed the origin of life for me, k? I in no way denied the big bang or evolution, but said I wouldn't look down on someone if they believed a God created life. I'm not talking about ALLAH, THOR, or JESUS. I'm not even referring to an all-loving God. I'm simply saying, WHILE I DON'T BELIEVE IT, an intelligent entity could have created space and neither you nor I can say that person is wrong for believing in that, because we weren't there to witness it. No matter what type of evidence we uncover on evolution or the separation of cosmological forces, will tell us if the universe is eternal or if something initiating the big bang, is eternal.

You don't get it. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you your own post, ya moron.

Scratch that.

I've ALREADY spoonfed your own post to you.

Those were your words, pea-brain.

Those were not my words.

I'm done spoonfeeding you, pea-brain.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: Scratch that.

treat2 wrote:
Scratch that. I've ALREADY spoonfed your own post to you. Those were your words, pea-brain. Those were not my words. I'm done spoonfeeding you, pea-brain.

And no where did I say I'm not an Atheist. Admitting to being agnostic in our creation and doesn't make me a theist. Being tolerant of another person because they believe in a God (even though I don't agree, which I've mentioned MULTIPLE times now) doesn't mean I'm a theist. You're "spoon-feeding" me my own quotes based off of your misinterpretation.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

treat2 wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
Actually, despite being an Atheist, ---- I don't mind at all if a person is Spiritual. ... ------ there's more to life than just a scientific explanation. ------ ...the mysteries of the Universe as being the work of a specific God with a specific purpose. ------ There are people who think we were created by some type of divinity or higher being, ... What if there were some sort of higher being that aided in our biology on this planet but didn't love us, create us in its own image, but instead participated in just another routine science experiment like we do here on Earth? Do I think this is likely? - NO, but I cannot criticize someone for simply thinking there's more to life than what can be measured, tested, and explained logically.

 

Buddy, sorry to tell you, but you're definitely NOT an Atheist. You should look into what Pantheism is.

I am an Atheist.

"Religious Rebel" asks Atheists for approval of what's Ok to believe!!!

Surely that's a religious rebel!

"Religious Rebel" asks Atheists for approval regarding "100% Spiritual" matters. (Fucking bloody hell. That's a religious rebel. And moronic Atheists are supposed to respond to such a moronic question, giving their approval! Jesus Fucking Christ! One religious moron talking to a bunch of Borgets.)

Surely that's a religious rebel!

Atheists Borgets respond with their own definitions of "100% Spiritual" matters.

That's a nice twist. Atheists Borgets offering not only advice on "100% Spiritual" matters, but granting their permission as to what is "OK" to believe on "100% Spiritual" matters, from the official Borget "Atheist" perspective, of course.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

... I don't mind at all if a person is Spiritual.

That's very liberal minded of you to say, as the designated Atheist to approve or disapprove of "100% Spiritual" matters.

It's even more liberal minded of you to offer 100% Spiritual guidance, from the Atheist perspective on "100% Spiritual" matters.

Obviously, you're religiously Atheistic in your thinking.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

We shouldn't frown upon people for thinking there's more to life than just a scientific explanation.

Ah yes. Lest I forget you're a spiritually minded Atheist responding from the Atheist perspective on "100% Spiritual" matters and offering spiritual your guidance as an Atheist to a "religous rebel."

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

It's when someone makes a concrete decision in which they identify the mysteries of the Universe as being the work of a specific God with a specific purpose.

Ah. Glad you clarified that a personal god is different than the non-personal god that's Ok for Atheists to believe in.

Once again, your official seal of Atheistic approval and on "100% Spiritual" matters and Atheistic guidance on "100% Spiritual" matters
is officially appreciated.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

There are people who think we were created by some type of divinity or higher being, but they aren't so arrogant to say it was one written down in some organized religion.

Kinda like your average Pantheistic Atheists, eh? Ah yes. Your actually an Atheist. I forgot.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

... I consider it close-minded to tell a person they cannot believe in creation.

Thanks for that 100% Spiritual guidance. I'm supremely glad you, as an "Atheist" envision creation by a non-personal God, and it's 100% Spiritual, too! Wow!!!

Thanks also for your approval in response to what "100% Spiritual" matters are OK by us "Atheists".

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

What if there were some sort of higher being that aided in our biology on this planet but didn't love us, create us in its own image, but instead participated in just another routine science experiment like we do here on Earth? Do I think this is likely? - NO,

Ok. It's not likely, eh?

However, as an "Atheist" (not an Agnostic), it IS POSSIBLE a deity exists! Wow!

Thanks for clarifying that your "Atheists" don't know what they believe!

Sure glad you're not an Agnostic, or I'd really be lost!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

... I cannot criticize someone for simply thinking there's more to life than what can be measured, tested, and explained logically.

Ah!

So, "Atheists" believe in spirits, too!

Oh no. "Atheists" are fucking mystics!

You're a clueless.

You're an Agnostic Spinozan Pantheist. You're a fig neutron of your own imagination. How anyone beyond this idiotic bunch of Borgets could even take what you said as serious or meaningful, is not even possible.

"You're seriously too stupid to even debate me", and your 2nd spoonfeeding session is over.

I wouldn't bother debating a fool like you. No one could ever get through your bone head.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: I gonna

treat2 wrote:
I gonna vomit.

I think you just did. All over this thread.

----

Hey FSM, seriously, stop feeding the troll. You spend 5 minutes typing a thoughtful reply, and he spends 2 seconds vomitting all over it. It's not worth your time, or any of ours, to feed trolls.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:treat2 wrote:

natural wrote:

treat2 wrote:
I gonna vomit.

I think you just did. All over this thread.

----

Hey FSM, seriously, stop feeding the troll. You spend 5 minutes typing a thoughtful reply, and he spends 2 seconds vomitting all over it. It's not worth your time, or any of ours, to feed trolls.

Heh, sadly he didn't get a rise out of me. I enjoy making fools look foolish. Although, I think he just did it for me. I cannot even reply to his last post without pitying him. Thanks.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Luminon

natural wrote:


Luminon wrote:
Can you with your version of rationality participate in therapies and healing methods based on:

past lives, astrology, meditation, kinesiology, homeopathy, dowsing, Bach's essences, acupuncture, and so on?


Do you mean, Can I benefit from the placebo effect? Why, yes, I can.

Can you demonstrate that these 'therapies' are any more effective than the placebo effect? No? What a surprise.

Well, actually I can provide some information. I take an alternatively medicinal food supplements. They're based on traditional Chinese medicine and prescribed on basis of EAV and acupuncture diagnosis and dowsing. The workers of that company are trained and equipped for that. The company itself also produces and distributes their meds. They're of a very high quality and besides numerous herbal extracts, they contain also bioinformation, frequencies natural for human body, which helps to activize the immunity system. (something like the homeopathics)
Well, and these preparatives are popular among the first-rate sportsmen. National representative Korean triathlon team uses them with a great success, together with their Czech trainer, Jan Rehula, who is still a top sportsman as well.
The general manager and main trainer of Czech hockey representation, Vaclav Ruzicka saw it's great results on his injured player and himself, and started to use these supplements for his team, HC Slavia Prague.
Top sportsmen are professionals, who observe their body with a great care, because their victory depends on it. They can not afford to take anything ineffective.
The homepage is http://www.energy.cz/ and the mentioned information is from the article http://www.energycentrum.cz/cb/sportovci.html


Astrology is about self-analysis, analysis of events, people, personal life purpose, and so on.
Dowsing and kinesiology is less or more a communication and work with one's sub-consciousness through microscopic moves or tension in muscles. The subconsciousness is incredibly wise in all conditions of self-benefit or survival, and it is several times faster than conscious mind. It is an useful tool for prescription of medicine, for example.
Bach's flower essences affect the people's emotionality, or better said, disturbances in emotionality.
Acupuncture is the way to fix our nerve and endocrine system and make it work better. Homeopathy works similarly, just from within.
These and similar methods are here to make us, participants from good will, healthy, active, succesful, happier, and disillusioned. The fact of good will and participation means the will to change our imperfections systematically, these are the methods. I wonder, do ever the atheists form such a groups focused on self-development, or are they alone in that effort?

natural wrote:
[Note: There are known benefits to meditation, however all of the other things you mentioned do not have any known benefits beyond placebo. And yes, i can meditate.]
Sure. Btw, do you like to meditate?

natural wrote:
I have asked you before, and you were completely vague about the benefits of your 'spirituality'.
You don't realize, how extensive this topic is. You'll have better to ask more specific questions. Anyway, if you do some kind of progress, like abandoning religion and embracing the light of reason and atheism, then from my point of view it is an example of spirituality, because the progress, self-development is spiritual.

natural wrote:
  That is an empirical claim. Of *what* use are chakras and karma? Provide empirical evidence of their usefulness.
Chakras - again, that's such a question like what are the inner organs good for. But generally - the 7 major chakras are located next to the  most important endocrine glands in human body and they affect their function. The etheric body (of which the chakras are organs) is directly connected with the nerve and endocrine system. Messing with chakras and etheric body is thus also messing with the main glands.

Karma - it is simply a law of action and effect. With every thought or action we do, there are set into motion the results of our actions. (or non-actions) This means two things - harmlessness is necessary to not set further causes into motion against ourselves. And the second thing - all things we encounter are somehow connected to us, we have a certain degree of responsibility for everything, what happens to us. We attract events, like a magnet attracts metals or a weak, submissive woman attracts violent, abusive men.



As for the trolls, do I have to repeat the ancient truth, that people who see all people around to be full of shit, should look at themselves first? A troll is a person who doesn't get that fact.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Chakras -

Luminon wrote:

Chakras - again, that's such a question like what are the inner organs good for. But generally - the 7 major chakras are located next to the  most important endocrine glands in human body and they affect their function. The etheric body (of which the chakras are organs) is directly connected with the nerve and endocrine system. Messing with chakras and etheric body is thus also messing with the main glands.

Does this mean i can shoot fireballs out of my hands or NOT?

 

We're been over this before... and you've never given me a straight answer...

What Would Kharn Do?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Pew pew pew chakra blast.

 

Kaaa...may.....ha...