Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel being spiritual is seeking out the highest spirit you can vibe and communicate with outside of yourself, and then doing frequent self-checks on your own spirit to see how it's been affected by the spirits you're (a) hanging around with (b) admiring/emulating/hating/judging/worshipping/watching/reading about, etc. "We are spirits in the material world" as Sting sang. For me the highest spirit on Earth is the Holy Spirit of the New Testament which is the same spirit as God and Jesus. In other words, the same spirit lives in all three and to me they're of one spirit, God's spirit. I don't know enough about other religions to say that Religion A or Religion B or whatever are or aren't needed for spirituality or that they're not conducive to spirituality. My belief (and personal experience) is that the Holy Spirit of the New Testament is VERY conducive to daily elevation and daily refinement of my own Earth-bound spirit, a work in progress.
....
Somewhat related to this were responses taking issue with my suggestion that an atheist might qualify as "spiritual" even though the large majority of atheists would deny the existence of any sort of spiritual realm.
What I was suggesting in my first thread was that anyone who has sincerely attempted to wrestle with the big metaphysical questions, as opposed to ignoring them, can legitimately claim the title of "spiritual." If an atheist has sincerely wrestled with the big questions, then by definition he or she has given due consideration to the possible existence of God and/or a spiritual realm. (Most atheists have not done this, of course, but neither have a great many people who claim to be believers.) The point of my first thread was simply that I believe the definition of spirituality is "sincerely wrestling with the big metaphysical questions," even if one ultimately ends up denying the existence of a spiritual realm.....
Perhaps part of the problem as it is outlined in the above paragraphs is that it seems to be focused on "atheists" only in terms of the usual secular atheists one would encounter in the U.S. for example.
This ignores the fact that millions of Theravadan Buddhists and Jains are also atheists, or if their conviction is weak, agnostics at least. But it would be impossible to deny that they are very much encouraged to wrestle with the "big questions" as their daily practice.
It strikes me that the existence of these two large groups is more clearly supportive of your argument in some ways.
.... When dealing with unbelievers who think they are witty and sarcastic, however, Troglodyte74 jams it back up their asses and shows them what a Christian who makes his living being witty and sarcastic looks like. ....
I think you've proved that with the buggery reference. It's five-star.
I think to be spiritual is to be possessed of a sense of wonder and appreciation for life.
yup. the emotional connection to ones surroundings. whatever they happen to be. the "physical connections" are real. how we feel about them are a separate issue for me. For me, Those feeling are dependent on that particular brain state. Many people share the same brain states. lol, we are human after all. I think
Perhaps part of the problem as it is outlined in the above paragraphs is that it seems to be focused on "atheists" only in terms of the usual secular atheists one would encounter in the U.S. for example.
This ignores the fact that millions of Theravadan Buddhists and Jains are also atheists, or if their conviction is weak, agnostics at least. But it would be impossible to deny that they are very much encouraged to wrestle with the "big questions" as their daily practice.
It strikes me that the existence of these two large groups is more clearly supportive of your argument in some ways.
tup, she has some points. But the act of wrestling with the question isn't the issue. The issue is really with the answers one thinks is real. or at least more real than is possible in this case.
your notion is speaking to a large group of American atheists. That subset is too large. its like defininf cells as human cells and other cells. Its just not sound.
we are trying to point out to her that there are classifications within atheism. In the United states, there are different sects to atheism. they range from milli to nonreligious. Each group has people in them that thinks its "better". and even within those groups, some side with crazy because they perceive the same enemy. so they attack religion. its a real problem but there is nothing we can do about it other than a wink and set up limits for the natives.
This is actually the problem. What you have described just there is (1) religion not spirituality, and (2) sounds like Zoroastrianism not Christianity.
Religion mean to "reconnect" and describes an organized path to relating to other people and to the divine. Nonetheless, religion typically has a set system of beliefs. It puts its religion into neat boxes, and others elsewhere.
Spirituality, on the other hand, is an attempt to brush aside divisions. Not just the divisions of religions, but also getting rid of black and white moralism. That is, a strict thinking like this actually takes leave of spirituality, which is largely about breaking borders, especially such borders as the rigid confines of Islam or Judaism. It often emphasizes stuff like nature worship, custom beliefs, or syncretism (mixing religions).
I agree with your explanation regarding the differences between religion and spirituality. Nature worship, mixing religions, etc "seems" spiritual to people, but it's really nonsense. Religion is man made, therefor is not the answer. A personal relationship with God thru Jesus Christ is the only answer.
Sam Harris often seems to be over-concerned with the propaganda effect of words.
For me I don't mind if one uses the Humpty dictum and uses words to mean whatever one wants them to mean-so long as you explain the particular meaning one has in mind for the particular argument.
I might also observe to Sam Harris that "consciousness" can be used in a wide range of meanings..
I'm not saying he's wrong (again ) as when I and others didn't sign up to his suggestion that atheists reject the word "atheist" as though i was something to be ashamed of, and pretend we are something else. I'm just saying there are other approaches to the matter.
And before any Theist apologists tries to make a big deal about my reservations, I would observe that we all agree on the essential:- disbelief in the god claims. What (if anything) to do about it, the best way to do it and the tactics involved are all open to discussion. Atheists are not required to conform to a rule book. That we all reject the god =claim makes us atheists by definition. It does not turn us into a church with dogmas. That is just projection of church -thinking by the believers onto a matter they do not understand and do not want to, since they prefer their bias -confirmation prejudices - the touchstone of theistic thinking. ( for the third time) .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think