self righteous atheists....

Why call it that? Because it is that.

Ok, it's name is the Participation Mode, and it's basically just experiencing the world. "Focusing on the richness of the human psyche".

It's the language you use in poetry (like I said), it's going to funerals, it's meditating, it's... It's probably even that feeling you get when you're in love with someone.

It's all spirituality. Not religion.

 

I am not apologizing for not believing in God or whatever by using the world 'spiritual'.

I'm saying that I feel as if people have a spiritual side, because there are things I do that I can not explain, just to give myself some peace of mind.

I'm sorry for speaking for "most human beings".

 

no, simply the application of empirical science to spiritual matters.


clearly the question of the existence of god is relevant to the debate between theism, and atheism

and I am beginning to believe you're just posting barbs for the sake of posting barbs and not for any advancement of an actual meaningful debate.

 

Well if I really think about it, I can explain love logically. Spiritual implies something otherworldly to me.

But it doesn't matter. The best things in life don't really need to be explained, you can love and create and exercise the emotional parts of your psyche. You don't need to defend that.

I just agree with Nesta that alot of people, not you necessarily, use that to apologize for not being orthodox, so that's why I don't like the term. Plus some new agey people can get a little weird.

I have a rich interesting soul. That's how I like to describe the same thing you're going for. :biggrin:

 

I don't have spooks flying out of my head when I write poetry or meditate or when I like someone, so I don't call it spiritual. I don't think going to a funeral is going to give me out of body experiences, either. But if you want to call it spiritual or participation mode or the richness of the human psyche, be my guest.

 

aka he's a freak.

 

....thats what i'm saying, i understand it and disagree with it, due to other things i know of. for instance, religion beyond christianity, judaism, and islam. i'm not excluding the possibility of someone being spiritual without being religious, i'm saying the difference is flimsy and generally unimportant, emphasized most often by people who want to explain that they are neither atheists nor adherents to any established religion. this is fine, in fact i fall into the category of someone who believes there is something more than the empirical world, yet does not adhere to any established faith. i have no church, no congregation, no dogma, no clergy, nothing like that.

i do, however have a set of beliefs and practices, a moral code, and a belief in divine beings. (i'm unsure of whether i should call myself pantheistic or polytheistic though). so in that sense, yes, it is religious. there are definite beliefs and ideals which characterize my spiritual life, even if i do not belong to a religion. i would consider this somewhat religious.

but i took a course in my universities religious studies department dealing specifically with daoism, and because of the nature of religious life in china it was really brought home how loosely the term "religion" applies to some sets of beliefs. what you and i immediately think of as religion when the word is mentioned is not what all religion is like. many mature, established religions are far more amorphous or ambiguous. some are major influences on the regions in which they exist, yet they haven't a dedicated laity. in the west, you are generally expected to consider yourself either atheist, agnostic, or PART of some big religion. in much of the world this is not the way it works. belief and participation in daoist religions does not mean you are a daoist, and does not prevent one from participating in buddhism. many, many people participate in more than one religion, accepting teachings and beliefs of more than one religion. this is not intuitive to people who grow up in cultures where christianity, islam and judaism are most common, but this illustrates the fact that religion is a word with a very, very elastic and in essence meaningless definition.

spirituality does not have to take place inside of a religion, but what makes something a religion? since this cannot be adequately and definitively answered, we must accept that there is no actual line seperating the spiritual from the religious. religious experiences are spiritual experiences, and spiritual experiences are religious experiences even if they occur outside of the context of a specific religion, because they promote religious thought in the person experiencing them

 

Soul? Are you serious? Or is this you being funny?

In my opinion, having a soul and having a spiritual side are very closely linked

 

He is being poetic not superstitious.

 

I feel a bit like I wasted my argument here.

 

When are you going to throw some more of that lovin' at me trousers?

 

I like to think I'm a little more 'haha' funny than that.

Well, I explained my thoughts in another thread a while ago. I'll dig up what I said if I can.

I do believe in a soul, one that is ephemeral, (doesn't live forever) and one that is earned through the course of your life, not given at birth.

And Prax is right, it's a poetic concept, not a literal truth. But yes, I do believe in a soul.

 

when a black arab lesbian half muslim half atheist female becomes prez of these here states.

 

Just lost my post.

Said something like...

You must be this:

“Causality” (causal): practical, focused on cause and effect, descriptive
(rationality and science are forms)

I used to think I was atheist, blah blah blah, now I realised I'm agnostic, blah blah blah. I'm not religious. I'm not anti-religious.

I thought y'all didn't understand me, but I suppose I was wrong.

arty: Failure arty:

 

Heres the thread, and a few of my thoughts on the matter.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=363587&page=6

Blah. :biggrin:

 

Hey hey hey... Never said anything about superstitions..

Wouldn't walk under a ladder though

 

I'm going to find her and make that happen. :biggrin:

Well be married, and our kids will worship the moon. Which is only half as beautiful as you, beloved trousers.

 

Ignoring wikipedia and my lecture and everything else, I take spirituality to mean believing in more than just the fact we are walking, talking, clumps of molecules with nothing to live for, but nothing to die for.

I have to say, I think you are pretty damn smart. GODdamn smart

I have a lot to learn in five years

 

if its any consolation i follow, i just had very little i saw which i could comment on either positively or negatively, however i do very much agree with your statements on the matter, generally speaking.

one other thing i find interesting, beyond the subjectivity of science, is how various branches of science are often considered relatively infallible on their own because they're so convenient and plausible, and do such a good job of explaining things....yet they're at odds with each other (i.e., iirc, relativity vs. quantum physics - but i am sure you know better than i about this)

but imo, very little of what is proven is actually proven. i believe very much in the idea of paradigm shift, but i don't think it drives us inherently closer to a more accurate facsimile of truth, it just changes what we take for granted as "truth."

there is nothing which the sciences offers which i feel discredits theism or supports atheism, and there are certainly such things as probability which would suggest that it is, at very least, far more likely that there is a god than is not. the probability of things existing the way they do, even on a simple scale such as the existence of a planet similar to earth, the existence of life, is so unimaginably slim that its mind boggling to think that anyone could really suggest that the ONLY possible way we could arrive here is by pure dumb luck.

 

It's true. All my experience is not linear, casual, dualistic, or discursive. There is a part of my experience which is paradoxical, independent, synthetic, and intuitive.

Very good, so we experience similar things but sadly you choose an unfortunate label. I rather not call it anything at all, and explain it as little as possible.

When I hear the name Buddha I cover my ears and run and spit.