****Can atheists be spiritual people?****

[Mr.Bizkits]

That was not what I was implying. Either I was unclear in my explanation or you misjudged my statement. Also Faith is very vague.. in terms of the implications for example in general...and in terms of what it means in Catholicism for instance.

Faith and spirituality are also mutually exclusive and are not at all equal in terms

Ok. Wikipedia pretty much explains it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality#History_of_spirituality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

So yeah, atheists can by spiritual people. It just sucks that the most people don't believe so. Atheists are basically the devils to most.

 

[Mr. Met]

I think defining spirituality is like defining love. Its practically impossible to describe except to say that it is an experience rooted in our nature as social animals and a need to connect our experiences to the experiences of others. No doubt, IMO, that spirituality describes a natural phenomenon.

But that's my point.

Does someone such as an atheist who can be so absolute in their thinking ever contemplate their spiritual side?

 

[JD Walker]

Depends on your definition of spirituality. Most misconstrue the term as another form of worship of a higher power, which is not what we are about. Many Atheist subscribe to Zen philosophy, which is about betterment of self.

 

[gemstone30]

fuck god, and all the evil shit that comes with it. Some of the most horrible things are done in the name of god. Wake up robots

 

[gemstone30]

fuck god, and all the evil shit that comes with it. Some of the most horrible things are done in the name of god. Wake up robots.

 

[Mr.Bizkits]

Depends on your definition of spirituality. Most misconstrue the term as another form of worship of a higher power, which is not what we are about. Many Atheist subscribe to Zen philosophy, which is about betterment of self.

The only person that I faithfully believe in is MYSELF and the things that I can do.

 

[Zero]

Bio-organisms are enormously complex, with multiple staggeringly intricate systems. The fact that you DON'T understand all the sensations that cause one to speculate about said sensations, doesn't create spirituality or prove it. I cram to understand why it's necessary to ply meta-physical rhetoric to an already remarkable existential NATURAL experience.

When the debate between science and religion sparks, this statement right here turns BOTH sides into liars...

Science - because they claim to be able to explain EVERYTHING through the narrow view of what is actually understood about the world/universe through science and deny the existance of what they can't explain

Religion - because they try to explain EVERYTHING through the narrow view of their own religious ideology and worldview and write the rest off as "earthly" or "evil"

Example: Science says we are just a combination of electrical impulses and biological mechanics and we really have no "consciousness or spirit" only sentience and those who don't agree are stupid. Religion says we popped up from the dirt instantaneously about 3 days after the rest of the universe popped up out of nowhere instantaneously and those wo don't agree are damned.

I think "spitituality" is simple understanding and awareness of the world around you and an awareness that this world is FAR larger than just you. Spitituality is the space between faith and logic and relies more on the connection to the universe that faith and logic try so hard to kill. In the end, faith and logic both serve the same purpose, to attempt to destroy man's natural connection to things. So if there is a God, your priest and you science teacher damn sure don't want you to know about it. Both have some truth, but both are a lie.

 

[da_monumental_1]

I hope this is sarcasm.

I think I just exhaled about a million cells of my brain matter after reading that.

 

[da_monumental_1]

On a side note, I find it incredibly funny that I happen to be watching "CONTACT" on television today . . .Sunday

Contact is about as "bad" as Forrest Gump. I know I've seen it a million times, but everytime it comes on, I have to watch it. It's like I can't turn the channel.

 

[da_monumental_1]

When the debate between science and religion sparks, this statement right here turns BOTH sides into liars...

Science - because they claim to be able to explain EVERYTHING through the narrow view of what is actually understood about the world/universe through science and deny the existance of what they can't explain

Religion - because they try to explain EVERYTHING through the narrow view of their own religious ideology and worldview and write the rest off as "earthly" or "evil"

Example: Science says we are just a combination of electrical impulses and biological mechanics and we really have no "consciousness or spirit" only sentience and those who don't agree are stupid. Religion says we popped up from the dirt instantaneously about 3 days after the rest of the universe popped up out of nowhere instantaneously and those wo don't agree are damned.

I think "spitituality" is simple understanding and awareness of the world around you and an awareness that this world is FAR larger than just you. Spitituality is the space between faith and logic and relies more on the connection to the universe that faith and logic try so hard to kill. In the end, faith and logic both serve the same purpose, to attempt to destroy man's natural connection to things. So if there is a God, your priest and you science teacher damn sure don't want you to know about it. Both have some truth, but both are a lie.

No one says science has all the answers. I've never heard a reputable scientist make the statements you've made about the natural world in the first paragraph. I dare you to point out a reputable scientist that says so. What's wrong with "I don't know"?

P.S. Where in the human body does this soul/spirit reside?

 

[Disanddat]

Its simple dude.... choose the one in the country of your birth.... that way you make sure you will be there with your family and friends.....do I have to explain everything......

 

[Zero]

No one says science has all the answers. I've never heard a reputable scientist make the statements you've made about the natural world in the first paragraph. I dare you to point out a reputable scientist that says so. What's wrong with "I don't know"?

P.S. Where in the human body does this soul/spirit reside?

A "reputable" student of theology wouldn't make the second statement either, but then again, you seldom hear "reputable" people on either side even engage in the science vs. religion debate.

I don't think the spirit resides in the body, it's channeled through a vessel that IS the body, but the spirit (or whatever you want to call it) is just an energy that has intellect. There is OBVIOUS intellect in the universe that can't be quantified, hell, even scientists are having difficulty saying EVERYTHING was just an accidental chain of events, shit is too gracefull to be the result of chaos.

 

[John_Gault]

When the debate between science and religion sparks, this statement right here turns BOTH sides into liars...

Science - because they claim to be able to explain EVERYTHING through the narrow view of what is actually understood about the world/universe through science and deny the existence of what they can't explain

Zero, what LIE are you referring to? SCIENCE is a framework for an approach to an objective understanding of the natural universe. Scientists' (whom ALL do not agree) in general state that there is a rational explanation for existential phenomenon.
The real question is how do YOU go about proving what IS so? Science HAS a methodology for proving things. I still don't understand what makes a liar out of science though?

Example: Science says we are just a combination of electrical impulses and biological mechanics and we really have no "consciousness or spirit" only sentience and those who don't agree are stupid.

This is a pretty broad stroke and the insult, re: "are stupid" is a red herring.You're creating a dissonance between your opinion of the scientific opinion reinforcing it with hearsay. Are they wrong? If so, how?

Many times scientists HAVE to simplify their explanations, so that lay folks can begin to grasp . . That's all your previous line tells me.

Religion says we popped up from the dirt instantaneously about 3 days after the rest of the universe popped up out of nowhere instantaneously and those wo don't agree are damned.

Well, that's just plain silly.

I think "spirituality" is simple understanding and awareness of the world around you and an awareness that this world is FAR larger than just you.

Dude, what is this? Yes, the universe is larger that us, surely you're not generalizing spirituality to own the notion of an axiomatic truth about the physical world? You seem to be super imposing spirituality on to a fact of existence. Existence exists. How's that synonymous with spirituality?
. . You know, the sun, it's really bright. Yeah, scientist will never admit to a larger world out there?? What what are hiding from it?

Spirituality is the space between faith and logic and relies more on the connection to the universe that faith and logic try so hard to kill. In the end, faith and logic both serve the same purpose, to attempt to destroy man's natural connection to things. So if there is a God, your priest and you science teacher damn sure don't want you to know about it. Both have some truth, but both are a lie.

Where is this GRAND conspiracy to hide GOD . . . .GOD seems to be doing a great job all by himself . . .our help is not needed

So in your attempt to EXPAND a subjective definition of "spirituality"
you're trying to render null the very same tool you use to circumnavigate life . . . logic? I may be making an assumption here because there's a good deal of dissonance in your challenge to my statement.

Do you FEEL your way through life? I don't get it . . .

JG

 

[Legacyns]

There is OBVIOUS intellect in the universe that can't be quantified, hell, even scientists are having difficulty saying EVERYTHING was just an accidental chain of events, shit is too gracefull to be the result of chaos.

So when the sun "burns" out, will we still say this is the result of intelligent design? Oh nevermind, we won't be here & likely neither will earth or the rest of this solar system as we know it.

 

[Dert Bagg]

But that's my point.

Does someone such as an atheist who can be so absolute in their thinking ever contemplate their spiritual side?

YES. They just don't give spiritual experience a supernatural source. Just like they don't give love a supernatural source.

 

[Dert Bagg]

A "reputable" student of theology wouldn't make the second statement either, but then again, you seldom hear "reputable" people on either side even engage in the science vs. religion debate.

This leads me to believe to you don't have a clue about the historical or contemporary debates centered on the conflicts/connects between science vs. religion. As far reputable proponents of science, how about Bertrand Russel, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Sam Harris etc... There are just as many reputable religious spokespersons who engage in these debates (whether I agree with them or not). The debate has moved far beyond Stephen Jay Goulds concept of NOMA. The popularity of the discussion (and the literature) has grown exponentially in the last few years.

You can start here if you'd like:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

 

[JD Walker]

There is OBVIOUS intellect in the universe,

And your proof for this is what?

 

[Spectrum]

Ironically..tonight on slashdot.org

Humans Hardwired to Believe in Supernatural Deity? |
| from the my-genes-rebel dept. |
| posted by Zonk on Sunday March 04, @16:31 (Biotech) |
| http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/04/1925246 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

dohcrx writes "According to a Sunday New York Times article, 6 in 10
Americans believe in the devil and hell, 7 in 10 believe in angels,
heaven and the existence of miracles and life after death, while 92%
believe in a personal God. The article explores the possibility that this
belief structure may be [0]ingrained into our genetic makeup. 'When a
trait is universal, evolutionary biologists look for a genetic
explanation and wonder how that gene or genes might enhance survival or
reproductive success ... Which is the better biological explanation for a
belief in God — evolutionary adaptation or neurological accident? Is
there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us
receptive to belief in a supernatural deity?'"

Discuss this story at:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=07/03/04/1925246

Links:
0.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/m...24423cc6&ex=1330664400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Spectrum]

the title and content of this thread is hypocritical

and only goes to show how confused and lost atheists really are

I am not an atheist so I am not taking offense to this statement, but I often find atheist to be the most logical.. fact based..and certain people I have ever met.

However.. It would be nice if you expounded on your blank statements in the first place... Atheist are lost and confused BECAUSE..... follow up the statement with some substance...not just make a declaration and walk out of the thread.

I often find fanatically religious people the most ridiculously close-minded, misguided, and for the most part..inept and weak individuals I have ever encountered....mainly because they substitute logic with faith..and create a dependence on the mystical.. when many of the answers lie in the objective world.

 

[Dert Bagg]

the title and content of this thread is hypocritical

and only goes to show how confused and lost atheists really are

You rarely find an Atheists on this board posting such brief and dismissive non-arguments in support of their ideas.

 

[Dert Bagg]

I never do

however for someone to believe that .........this is it..... when they look on the world is beyond me. I've seen too much for me to be blind and base everything on coincidence..

"fact based"???? like what? Most athiests begin everything they say "If there is a God why this...and that????" The follow it up with some dribble about something they base off their own blind and scarred rationlization.

Not to mention.... a belief in God and living spiritual does not have to be based on any fact. Its purely on faith and if you don't know what faith is...then no one can explain it to you because you stuck on some other garbage which makes the convo futile.

Yeah....You rarely find Atheists on this board posting such brief and dismissive non-arguments in support of their ideas.

 

[Spectrum]

I never do

however for someone to believe that .........this is it..... when they look on the world is beyond me. I've seen too much for me to NOT to be blind and base everything on coincidence..

Atheist do not base their world on coincidence. I find it Ironic that you can call an atheist blind when religion for the most part is based on faith..the belief in God is based on faith..BLIND read. This is the definition of faith:

Faith is a belief, trust, or confidence, not based on proof or material evidence

"fact based"???? like what?

This one should be very simple to understand. I meant just that... Atheists make their decisions based on objective reality and the laws of nature as understood by humanity at this time. So for most atheists (i can not speak for all atheists as atheism has different ideologies beyond the basic main premise) shape their beliefs based on direct observation of the objective world. They gather evidence and attempt to be rational when knowledge allows based on some type of fact or at least a basic axiom. Most of theology...well let be specific... Mysticism by its very nature requires you to take it on FAITH...because by its very nature (mysticism) it is not based on or can be proven in objective reality.

Most athiests begin everything they say "If there is a God why this...and that????" The follow it up with some dribble about something they base off their own blind and scarred rationlization.

You usually get that argument from Christians when they are momentarily questioning their faith... if God loves us so much why did he allow me kid to die, etc. in their momentarily lapses of faith. Most atheist have gotten well past that point of IFs. Atheists simply based on things on facts, axioms, cause and effect, etc. So if it is provably true that some religious declaration is proven true and becomes a fact that's simply a fact, an atheist would accept it as so and keep it moving. They for the most part are not emotionally locked into their decision. It is one that they have concluded by logic. However, on the hard, when science creates a true and proves a religous or mystic declaration to be false... that said religious person is much more likely to hold on to that belief and remain in a state of denial no matter how decisively objectively reality disproves their position. I find your last sentence to be most consistent with religious based thinking not atheism.

I work in the tech industry which has a higher percentage of atheists than any other industry because of its scientific foundation. Actually.your statement of being blind and scared is better placed with Christians by far. Atheists have a monopoly on sound logic if you want to go that route.

Not to mention.... a belief in God and living spiritual does not have to be based on any fact.

It does not have to be based on fact because by its very nature IT CANT BE BASED ON FACTS. That is the problem that atheism have with the belief in deities.

Its purely on faith and if you don't know what faith is...then no one can explain it to you because you stuck on some other garbage which makes the convo futile.

Faith is a very easy concept to understand. Faith by definition is a belief, trust, or confidence, not based on proof or material evidence. Please read that again..reread the definition. And you want to call something garbage

 

[Dert Bagg]

you sound like some cat I got into it with about that Nupes at FAMU situation with the hazing.
in any case you free to beleive what you want
plus I doubt any minds will be changed on a porn board

Still...You rarely find any Atheists on this board posting such brief and dismissive non-arguments in support of their ideas.

 

[Spectrum]

you sound like some cat I got into it with about that Nupes at FAMU situation with the hazing.

in any case you free to beleive what you want

plus I doubt any minds will be changed on a porn board

I doubt it. Because I would never be in a Nupe thread arguing about hazing in the first place. Again..you make another blind statement without the BECAUSE..another weak response.

I have not told you what my position is. I told you what the position of atheism is generally speaking. As I am not an atheist, the position does not apply to me, but I definitely understand the position.

I dont enter an argument with the goal of changing a mind in the first place..only to express an opinion or to state a fact.

 

[Spectrum]

you must have gotten alot of sleep this evening because you just oddly and quickly threw out a dissection of my post. Knock yourself out Denzel's character from Bone Collector

Let me respond to your late addition with your own quote.

The follow it up with some dribble about something they base off their own blind and scarred rationlization.

Who is doing the dribbling now... you are becoming your own contradiction.. completely being the example of which you criticize.. the irony is striking considering what you type. Is your smoke screen a deliberate method not to either defend your original position and muttered posts..I dont get why you are jumping off topic and blabbering about irrelevant shit and Nupe posts and about Denzel movies

 

[Dert Bagg]

Yeah....eewwll but we both knew from his first post that he didn't have anything coherent to add.

 

[Spectrum]

Yeah....eewwll but we both knew from his first post that he didn't have anything coherent to add.

Yeah. I am not surprised. Now he is attempting to puke ill-advise underhanded insults as if someone is going to be offended or something. This was a good thread. I actually do not have in emotional attachment to any position here. I just feel if you are going to make a declaration like he did..at least follow it up with something substantial.. and then be ready to defend it when it is criticized or exposed as fallacious logic. All the other stuff he is talking is just irrelevant and waste of space.

 

[Spectrum]

you're sounding like a nagging wife

@ the definition of pure irony on display.

Tech9 ranting and raving... with an emotional position... making irrelevent jaded-type replies...with the absence of sound logic...dragging a subject to another topic altogether.... calling someone feminine

 

[Spectrum]

"puke ill-advise underhanded insults" these aren't insults it just how you sound as I read what you say.

Classic case of an Ad-hominem attack in your previous posts. However, the irony is that YOU fit your own criticisms.

but the way you're replying is reminiscent of someone I know(and I'm not about to type that shit)

Maybe I have not been clear. I have tried to say it indirectly with saying.. irrelevant, off-topic, etc. But to be clear. Whatever you think beyond the subject matter of this topic is completely unimportant to me. You should just save the time and use it to better support your argument.

"religiously fanatic" I am not.

Spiritual I am. What I said many replies ago coincides with what I hear most athiests(not necessarily on this board) say in order to justify their stance.

Again. Why are you discussing the arguments by Atheist not made on this board when you can discuss it with the very Atheist posting in this thread. None of them have made that argument or stance in this thread so even by that very fact it lends less credence to your examples. You came into this thread...pretty much called Atheist sad lost cases..and then logged out of it. You would be in fits of an atheist and game into a christianity subject thread and called you lost and blind for believing that Jesus was the son of God,etc and period..walks out of thread. Regardless of how your respond, you know you would be in fits. So for you to to the same is to your what you put in your initial reply: hypocritical.

Going back to what I said orginally

however for someone to believe that .........this is it..... when they look on the world is beyond me. I've seen too much for me to be blind and base everything on coincidence..

"fact based"???? like what? Most athiests begin everything they say "If there is a God why this...and that????" The follow it up with some dribble about something they base off their own blind and scarred rationlization.

Not to mention.... a belief in God and living spiritual does not have to be based on any fact. Its purely on faith and if you don't know what faith is...then no one can explain it to you because you stuck on some other garbage which makes the convo futile.

I know what you said the first time because I QUOTED it and gave a response line by line to show where you went wrong in your assessment. Instead of addressing that specific response to this very quote earlier.. you called me the Bone Collector

This is how I assess most athiests I come in to contact with because their facts are askew as well as fueled by some traumas they've experienced.

Where is your proof or even analysis to back this type of claim up. Considering my extensive contact with atheists and the fact that NONE of them claim that ideology of the non-existence of deities based on some traumatic even, I find this statement highly improbable and probably just a blank, baseless statement as most of the other ones you have made.

Now you may have assessed athiests differently and that's fine and it just seems like you went in a total different direction of the question posed in the title of this thread. Most of what you said seems to answer a question never asked

Man. You are making it a habit or making declarations without supporting your statements. My replies where very direct replies to the topic of this thread or to specific questions addressed directly to me by posters. I even went so far as to give concrete definitions because some posters in this thread did not understand the definitions of the very terms to be able to identify that some of the entities (religion and spirituality) are linked, however are mutually exclusive.

 

[femmenoire]

I didn't respond to this thread initially because I didn't think the post was phrased well.

The term "spiritual" has many meanings and by some people's definitions not even remotely relating to God or religion in any way.

Thus anyone can be spiritual.

 

[Spectrum]

^^^^^^ okay so explain how an athiest can be spiritual??

quoted from this very thread:

There is a great distinction between spirituality and religion(as in the distinct belief in God). I think you may be missing this point. Spirituality is a classification of the desire to understand the ultimate nature of humanity and or connection to existence. Religion or even the belief in God is just one manifestation of that quest. Spirituality and the belief in God though multilaterally linked ARE mutually exclusive: meaning they are independent philosophical outpourings that function entirely without the other. Placing GOD into the picture only adds MYSTICISM(specifically deities) to the equation. However, spirituality, the desire to connect with the objective world and place a meaning CAN be a completely individual internal personal experience without the inclusion of a deity. Religion(theism)attempts to encapsulate the questions of morality, transcendence, meaning of life, etc WITH the Apex being the deity. However, there are other forms of spirituality that address ALL the same issues WITHOUT the inclusion of a deity. For instance, there are religions that have a spiritual basis that are non- deity based (nature- worshipping religions for instance such as some forms of Buddhism)

So do not confuse the two. You CAN be spiritual and be an atheist and not in any form contradicting either of the terms.

Should be clear as day. To directly link spirituality as equating only with a belief in God is a perversion of the definition.

However man.. it is 4:30 am here in Sao Paulo..bout to check in homie.

 

[Mr.Bizkits]

I'll just revise my initial reply as "a spritual athiest is an oxymoron"
because both are mutually exclusive

ok... explain?

 

[Mr.Bizkits]

okay someone post that pic of the guy saying "not this shit again"

me and eewwl just went at each other because I neglected reading his previous post on HIS definition of what spirituality is

his definition excludes a higher being and mine involves one

and let's leave it at that

ok... so why do you involve a higher being?

 

[Mr.Bizkits]

I'm just curious that's all.

 

[Spectrum]

me and eewwl just went at each other because I neglected reading his previous post on HIS definition of what spirituality is

I did not personify the definition of spirituality. I gave a representation of the objective standard definition. Pick up a dictionary or encyclopedia in your house... go to dictionary.com.. I hate to say wikipedia.org because anyone can edit it. But I bet you if you go to 50 places for a definition of spirituality where there is no agenda for that source..you will get a definition that corresponds with what I wrote. This is ALMOST as objective as mathematics..where 1+1=2 is a prove acceptable fact by definition of the terms involved. It is just the accepted stand way to identify this particular term. It is not an axiom in a metaphysical sense but surely a universally accepted representation of that term. You will rarely find a definition of spirituality from an objective source that includes or specifies that spirituality presupposes a deity. That is why I said to use a definition that excludes the concept of spirituality because it does not include a deity is a PERVERSION of the term. Spirituality, as the term is universally accepted and define, does not presuppose a deity.