Calling all spiritual atheist.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Seems like you're turning you "spiritual atheist" thread into a bible study, so I'll take my leave. I got enough of that as a kid.

DITTO

Don't like what you hear? Put a condition on it.

Seems to me, maybe the thread title should be edited. I've tried to be diligent at staying on topic according to the thread title.

sorry, you guys go ahead

What condition?

Where did I make this conditional?

Why are you guys doing this?

I just thought since you guys are spiritual and say you do appreciate some of what the Bible has to offer it would be OK,

You can use any ancient manuscripts you want, and trust me I am not trying to influence anyone one way or another.

I am just look at it as multi dimensional.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I didn't say Christians specifically.


what the heck you guys?

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I didn't say Christians specifically.


what the heck you guys?

I see nothing but Christian/Catholic/Judaic materials in that post I was responding to.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I guess what I am trying to say is, do you find the teaching of great masters inspirational?

I do. Especially Jesus. I think a LOT of what he taught is how I'd like to live my life. He was accepting, non-judgmental, treated everyone with respect and love. I don't know if Jesus was a real person or not, but the character of him is something to aspire to, IMO.

You brought Jesus up!

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I didn't say Christians specifically.


what the heck you guys?

I see nothing but Christian/Catholic/Judaic materials in that post I was responding to.

AI, BH brought up Jesus,

Go ahead discuss it without the Bible,

I am listening.

MY question from the OP

Is there room for a creator in Spiritual atheism? My guess is the claim the religious text proclaim god is this that or the other is the problem. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Stormdancer777

 

Everyone is spiritual by default and possesses a 'spirit', which at all times throughout history, is the creative drive, will or inner-dialogue that seeks to govern the other drives of the body. Spirituality has always been wisdom.

Spirituality nowadays, however, is basically a big colorful display of who can believe the least meaningful of doctrines and act them out in public. Try it sometime; listen to what the so-called spiritual are actually saying and see how much meaning you can derive from their sentences. It's always nothing and empty. Nowadays, one isn't spiritual unless one speaks of anti-spiritual topics, ie. spirits, afterlives, gods, dimensions—all topics that are neither physically nor mentally within the reach of humanity, save for in the dreams and imagination. That isn't wisdom, that is superstition, which has never been a precondition of wisdom nor spirituality. The precondition of wisdom, creativity and spirituality is vitality every single time and in every single case. If one is alive, one is spiritual. If one can utilize the spirit beautifully, one is wise.

Atheists simply repudiate the modern version of spirituality, which is simple superstition.

Obviously I cannot have an opinion on this topic, but your post was appreciated, ty

is the creative drive, will or inner-dialogue that seeks to govern the other drives of the body. Spirituality has always been wisdom.

Yes, I see what you are saying.

What I believe happened here was a concerted effort to hurt me.

jointly arranged, planned, or carried out; coordinated.

congratulations, you succeeded.

Please may I have another.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
What I believe happened here was a concerted effort to hurt me.

jointly arranged, planned, or carried out; coordinated.

congratulations, you succeeded.

Please may I have another.

I have never asked this before, but I would like for the mods to close down this thread and ever damn thread I have ever posted on ATS.


I'm done, I'm totally done, you guys win , I quit, I'm gone.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I didn't say Christians specifically.


what the heck you guys?

I see nothing but Christian/Catholic/Judaic materials in that post I was responding to.

AI, BH brought up Jesus,

Go ahead discuss it without the Bible,

I am listening.

Absolutely. Take, perhaps, Taoist Atheism, or Buddhist Atheism, or Pagan Atheism. Which do you wanna talk about?

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Obviously I cannot have an opinion on this topic, but your post was appreciated, ty

You can and do have an opinion. Don't let anyone else silence you.

Atheists will always say that the only similarity between them all is that they do not believe in a deity, and they sort of play it off that it as inconsequential, deflationary and almost meaningless to group such a motley crew. But say something negative about atheism, and we see another similarity—that they are overly protective of the same ideology they try to downplay.

originally posted by: Aphorism

Atheists will always say that the only similarity between them all is that they do not believe in a deity, and they sort of play it off that it as inconsequential, deflationary and almost meaningless to group such a motley crew. But say something negative about atheism, and we see another similarity—that they are overly protective of the same ideology they try to downplay.

Of course there are similar thinking atheists. They share a similar atheist philosophy.

However, the only factual definition is: lack of belief in a god/deity.

Learn the difference between a philosophy and a factual definition.

The thread title and OP is about Spiritual Atheism. A subject I am trying to diligently stick to.

a reply to: Annee

However, the only factual definition is: lack of belief in a god/deity.

Learn the difference between a philosophy and a factual definition.

The thread title and OP is about Spiritual Atheism.

You only prove my point. Downplay it so it is meaningless. And then puff it up like it means something as soon as somebody says something negative about it.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Stormdancer777

 

Obviously I cannot have an opinion on this topic, but your post was appreciated, ty

You can and do have an opinion. Don't let anyone else silence you.

Atheists will always say that the only similarity between them all is that they do not believe in a deity, and they sort of play it off that it as inconsequential, deflationary and almost meaningless to group such a motley crew. But say something negative about atheism, and we see another similarity—that they are overly protective of the same ideology they try to downplay.

That is because most people cannot understand what it means to be atheist. So many times folks try to stick all kinds of other qualities to the term atheist. Like "why do atheists believe in nothing?" Or "atheists can't have morals."

The term atheist only means one thing. I do not believe in god. It says nothing about what i do believe in. I really dont know of or want a one word label to sum up all of my thoughts. Neither do i want anyone else to define what i am based on their perceptions.

Most atheists would not care if you poked at the fact that we do not believe in god. I personally Welcome any discussion that stays on that topic. The problem comes when you incorrectly label me with some other attribute. Take notice the next time when you offend an atheist, what they are actually rebutting.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Is there room for a creator in Spiritual atheism? My guess is the claim the religious text proclaim god is this that or the other is the problem.

www.centerforabetterworld.com...

This doctrine is self contradictory in my opinion. It says according to my interpretation, the following two things:

1. We are atheists, but
2. We are not atheists

They may suggest #2 is not the case by replacing "supernatural" with "mysterious" but it doesn't seem atheistic to me.

a reply to: Woodcarver
"Spiritual Atheist" is actually an oxymoron I think, and the wikipedia article on this topic doesn't use that term. Here is the relevant wikipedia reference:

Spiritual but not religious

The term "spiritual" is now frequently used in contexts in which the term "religious" was formerly employed. Both theistic and atheistic beliefs have been known to criticize this development.

I guess I'll join the other critics from both sides of the fence and say there's not really any such thing as a spiritual atheist in my opinion, and if you read that wiki article, that passage is the only referent to atheism, as it's not really an atheistic belief system according to my view of theism.

Most of the atheists I know are something like this:
Secular Humanist

There is actually a declaration of secular humanism:
A Secular Humanist Declaration

The declaration claims numerous famous people were secular humanists, including Albert Einstein, and while I don't know of Einstein identifying himself with secular humanists, he did say this which aligns with their beliefs pretty well:

Albert Einstein's religious views

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

As I believe everything is energy based, I also believe individual conciousness exist in non physical form. Therefore "spirits".

I understand coming from a society based in myths of creators, gods, demi-gods etc that many words come out of that society. Those words can and should evolve as society evolves.

As "moral code" does not require belief in god, neither does spirituality.

Spirituality is an evolving word defined more by the individual, then the root of its beginning.

a reply to: Annee


Yes, by your description i can see how the term spiritual atheist can be employed.

Because the term Atheism does not mean that one must stick to a strict definition of materialism. (Even though energy is material)

a material atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in god or anything supernatural.

To me the term "spiritual" means matters of the spirit or having to do with the spirit. Some people define spirit as the soul. Soul is specifically "supernatural".(which is a misnomer because nothing can exist outside of the natural world) For those who define spirit as mind, i say why use the word spirit when your talking about the mind and your emotions? It is too easy to confuse the terms when used that way. Words get co-opted when people want to propagate confusion on a subject. I find it much easier to learn definitions and use words properly. Then you dont have to spend all your time explaining what you really meant when you use a term that is usually meant to describe something else. By definition the term spiritual refers to matters of the spirit, which is def a religious term referring to the soul. I am happy to let them have the word and i will not try to convince people that it means something mundane such as how i feel about something.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Annee


Yes, by your description i can see how the term spiritual atheist can be employed.

Because the term Atheism does not mean that one must stick to a strict definition of materialism. (Even though energy is material)

a material atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in god or anything supernatural.

To me the term "spiritual" means matters of the spirit or having to do with the spirit. Some people define spirit as the soul. Soul is specifically "supernatural".(which is a misnomer because nothing can exist outside of the natural world) For those who define spirit as mind, i say why use the word spirit when your talking about the mind and your emotions? It is too easy to confuse the terms when used that way. Words get co-opted when people want to propagate confusion on a subject. I find it much easier to learn definitions and use words properly. Then you dont have to spend all your time explaining what you really meant when you use a term that is usually meant to describe something else. By definition the term spiritual refers to matters of the spirit, which is def a religious term referring to the soul. I am happy to let them have the word and i will not try to convince people that it means something mundane such as how i feel about something.

I see hard core atheists the same as I see hard core evangelicals. What is the point? Is it just stubbornness? Life is fluid, ever changing.

Science: if atheists want to use science as proof, great. But, science is still limited to what is known and what can be repeated in testing.

Ancient scripts: if religious scholars want to use ancient scripts to prove god, great. But, ancient scripts are written by and interpreted by man. If they are proof of anything, it is that some men were literate. They are not proof of much else.

Energy is not matter, so by definition it is not material. Energy can be converted to matter, and matter to energy.

Spirit: one definition: the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person. Person/Individual consciousness does not require a physical body.

If you want to let religion own the word Spirit? That's your choice.

a reply to: Annee

Energy is matter. Thats physics 101. They are the same thing. Period. Electricity, magnetism, and gravity are all properties of matter. Which is made of these things we refer to as electrons. Electrons are all the same everyone o them are exactly the same.

There is nothing about the human body that is immaterial. Consciousness is the product of a mind. There are no examples of consciousness without a brain or at least a nervous system.

Your def of spirit is not a working def. they are just defining how people use the term.

Main Entry: 1spir·it
Pronunciation: ˈspir-ət
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, espirit, spirit, from Latin spiritus, literally, breath, from spirare to blow, breathe
Date: 13th century
1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
2 : a supernatural being or essence: as a capitalized : holy spirit b : soul 2a c : an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible; specifically : ghost 2 d : a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being
3 : temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated
4 : the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
5 a : the activating or essential principle influencing a person b : an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind : mood 6 a : a special attitude or frame of mind b : the feeling, quality, or disposition characterizing something 7 : a lively or brisk quality in a person or a person's actions 8 : a person having a character or disposition of a specified nature 9 : a mental disposition characterized by firmness or assertiveness 10 a : distillate 1: as (1) : the liquid containing ethanol and water that is distilled from an alcoholic liquid or mash —often used in plural (2) : any of various volatile liquids obtained by distillation or cracking (as of petroleum, shale, or wood) —often used in plural b : a usually volatile organic solvent (as an alcohol, ester, or hydrocarbon) 11 a : prevailing tone or tendency b : general intent or real meaning 12 : an alcoholic solution of a volatile substance 13 : enthusiastic loyalty 14 capitalized Christian Science : god 1b
synonyms See Synonym Discussion at courage

This is webster's dictionary. Their definitions include some unfounded ideas but that is my point. Those ideas are unfounded and more than that there is no reason to believe in anything like a human spirit as an immaterial part of your existence.

1) defines it as a principle of life

2) defines it as a soul (supernatural)

3) defines it as a ghost (malevolent)

4) (your definition) there is no such thing as immaterial except when you are thinking in abstract terms which dont apply to this conversation.

The rest don't apply


Look up the def of unicorn. It will cover what the term means to us but it will not be admissible as evidence of unicorns.

a reply to: Woodcarver

That is because most people cannot understand what it means to be atheist. So many times folks try to stick all kinds of other qualities to the term atheist. Like "why do atheists believe in nothing?" Or "atheists can't have morals."

The term atheist only means one thing. I do not believe in god. It says nothing about what i do believe in. I really dont know of or want a one word label to sum up all of my thoughts. Neither do i want anyone else to define what i am based on their perceptions.

Most atheists would not care if you poked at the fact that we do not believe in god. I personally Welcome any discussion that stays on that topic. The problem comes when you incorrectly label me with some other attribute. Take notice the next time when you offend an atheist, what they are actually rebutting.

The idea of the unbeliever is an age old church invented belief and propaganda piece, and therefor a myth. By playing the unbeliever, or atheist or infidel, we merely fall into a church invented role that still fundamentally requires the idea of a god in order to define it, showing that atheists are never without god in the first place. There is not even a deity to not believe in, let alone one to believe in. It's never true when an atheist says "I do not believe in deities", because it's only ever the propositions of the bible and church rhetoric that they truly don't believe in. No need to evoke the idea of gods. As ecclesiastical slander terms hammered into the culture by thousands of years of church rhetoric, of course they are going to have evil connotations as it always had throughout the history of human discourse. It is up to the individual if he wants to play that role that the church has always laid out for him. It is only very recently (even the last 20 years?) that the term atheist simply means "does not believe in deities", which is a slight perversion of an idea that has been around since before Socrates. It carries historical baggage put there by the church, and you wear it. Why?