Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Every time someone wants to discuss this issue, all I see is "squirming" on the part of Pattern Chaser. As in so many other threads, he/she resorts to weaseling words and the unreasonable demand that we disprove a negative in the face of overwhelming evidence against. There is no evidence of gods or spirits, elves or goblins. And yet he insists that, because they cannot be disproved with 100% certainty, we must give credence to them and accept them as reasonable and live possibilities. But that is madness. Must we also give credence to the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it cannot be disproved?

[Gee]

Why are you messing with PC? Pattern Chaser is intelligent, open-minded and likes to learn and think. You, on the other hand, have a personal problem with religion, so you are willing and able to take tens of thousands or maybe one hundred thousand years of evidence and dismiss it because you don't want to see it. If that is what you want to do, OK, but do not insult PC because of your personal problems. I seriously doubt that he asked you to "disprove a negative" and suggest that you asked him to prove a negative, which is impossible. You asked him to prove "God" exists using the rules of science. Science studies the physical. "God" is not physical, last time I checked, so you are being beyond unreasonable.

I also don't think that PC insisted that the approval have "100% certainty". I think you lied. If I am wrong, I will apologize. If I am right, you should apologize to PC.

Gee

[Sy Borg]

Non-religious spirituality is certainly viable for atheists, but some will dispute whether such people are true S̶c̶o̶t̶s̶m̶e̶n̶ atheists.

[Pattern-chaser]

I asked you to say what you think spirituality means and you and you refused to discuss it. So I am genuinely puzzed.

Why are you messing with PC? Pattern Chaser is intelligent, open-minded and likes to learn and think. You, on the other hand, have a personal problem with religion, so you are willing and able to take tens of thousands or maybe one hundred thousand years of evidence and dismiss it because you don't want to see it. If that is what you want to do, OK, but do not insult PC because of your personal problems. I seriously doubt that he asked you to "disprove a negative" and suggest that you asked him to prove a negative, which is impossible. You asked him to prove "God" exists using the rules of science. Science studies the physical. "God" is not physical, last time I checked, so you are being beyond unreasonable.

I also don't think that PC insisted that the approval have "100% certainty". I think you lied. If I am wrong, I will apologize. If I am right, you should apologize to PC.

Gee

Spot on, Gee, and thank you for your kind words!

When Sculptor1 encounters a difficult (theist) question he can't answer without admitting something he'd rather not, he often falls back on "Define 'God'!". In this topic, it only took a minor step toward "Spirituality" instead of "God". Here is the initial exchange, that grew out of some stuff fanman and I were discussing:

===============================================================

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

I think it might "look like" most other human endeavours. A peppering of good ideas, mixed thoroughly with "a massive collection of self delusional ideas".

What is spirituality?

<yawn> Not again! You question the meaning of your own chosen vocabulary? Discussion suits philosophy much better than debate does, particularly when the latter is practised at such a ... basic level.

The "<yawn>" was my frustrated response to the reappearance of his 'standard' avoidance tactic.

As for apologies, Scupltor1 doesn't *do* apologies. I didn't reply to his most recent jibe, because past experience (strongly) suggests that it would only lead to unwelcome and pointless insults. Perhaps he ought to be ashamed of his pretence of sincerity, in the wording of his innocent-seeming comment ("I am genuinely puzzled"), but I doubt it. He doesn't *do* shame either, IME.

[Fanman]

The word "spirituality" is difficult to find a specific definition for, but we understand the term well enough to know what it means and what it entails depending on the context in which it is used. I do not believe that Sculptor1 or any other atheist on this forum is unaware of that.

[Lagayascienza]

Why are you messing with PC? Pattern Chaser is intelligent, open-minded and likes to learn and think. You, on the other hand, have a personal problem with religion, so you are willing and able to take tens of thousands or maybe one hundred thousand years of evidence and dismiss it because you don't want to see it. If that is what you want to do, OK, but do not insult PC because of your personal problems. I seriously doubt that he asked you to "disprove a negative" and suggest that you asked him to prove a negative, which is impossible. You asked him to prove "God" exists using the rules of science. Science studies the physical. "God" is not physical, last time I checked, so you are being beyond unreasonable.

I also don't think that PC insisted that the approval have "100% certainty". I think you lied. If I am wrong, I will apologize. If I am right, you should apologize to PC.

Gee

Gee, I am not wrong.

For or a couple of years now, following a breakdown in communication, I have almost never responded to anything Pattern Chaser says. I regret having done so this time. He, likewise, never responds to anything I say. I like it that way. In future, even if I vehemently disagree with what he says and how says it, I resolve never to directly address him or mention his name again. That’s my New Year’s resolution.

The word "spirituality" is difficult to find a specific definition for, but we understand the term well enough to know what it means and what it entails depending on the context in which it is used. I do not believe that Sculptor1 or any other atheist on this forum is unaware of that.

That is true. Many atheists today were once theists. They have shed religion but found something that fills the “spiritual” hole left by religion. They have found a naturalistic spirituality that serves us better than religiously based spirituality and which does not need to abandon reason and rationality.

[Sculptor1]

The word "spirituality" is difficult to find a specific definition for, but we understand the term well enough to know what it means and what it entails depending on the context in which it is used. I do not believe that Sculptor1 or any other atheist on this forum is unaware of that.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" Wittgenstein

If you want s serious discussion then you need to know what you want to talk about.
Spirituality is a fantasy concept with no basis in reality, as vauge and diffuse as a ghost.
There is no "spirit", and this thread is a long list of self pleasure.

[Fanman]

Lagayascienza,

That is true. Many atheists today were once theists. They have shed religion but found something that fills the “spiritual” hole left by religion. They have found a naturalistic spirituality that serves us better than religiously based spirituality and which does not need to abandon reason and rationality.

As far as I am aware there is not a branch of spirituality that doesn't require us to step outside the remits of secular understanding - If there is a form of atheistic spirituality then fine, I will acknowledge it based on its merits. But on a personal level, I believe the term spiritual atheist is contradictory as atheists do not believe in the existence of such a thing due to a lack of empirical evidence. So, if we're talking about traditional forms of spirituality then I can't see how an atheist is going to step into any of those without abandoning what they (as a subset of society) perceive as reason and rationality. Living a spiritual life requires us to lean more toward what we feel than what we grasp. That doesn't mean we abandon our cognitive faculties - far from it. But we embrace ourselves holistically, listen to our intuition (or gut) and live for a purpose that is higher than ourselves - If we do not acknowledge the veracity of our feelings/intuition, a higher purpose or the spirit itself. How can we live a spiritual life?

[Pattern-chaser]

The word "spirituality" is difficult to find a specific definition for, but we understand the term well enough to know what it means and what it entails depending on the context in which it is used. I do not believe that Sculptor1 or any other atheist on this forum is unaware of that.

Exactly. If we *did* have a more precise definition, we *could* have more precise discussions about it. But we can continue with what we have, as we have done for ... millennia? And just as we have always done for similar subjects, where we also lack a precise and detailed description.

[Pattern-chaser]

As far as I am aware there is not a branch of spirituality that doesn't require us to step outside the remits of secular understanding - If there is a form of atheistic spirituality then fine, I will acknowledge it based on its merits. But on a personal level, I believe the term spiritual atheist is contradictory as atheists do not believe in the existence of such a thing due to a lack of empirical evidence. So, if we're talking about traditional forms of spirituality then I can't see how an atheist is going to step into any of those without abandoning what they (as a subset of society) perceive as reason and rationality. Living a spiritual life requires us to lean more toward what we feel than what we grasp. That doesn't mean we abandon our cognitive faculties - far from it. But we embrace ourselves holistically, listen to our intuition (or gut) and live for a purpose that is higher than ourselves - If we do not acknowledge the veracity of our feelings/intuition, a higher purpose or the spirit itself. How can we live a spiritual life?

Is that really all there is to an atheistic life? Just practicality and empiricism? What a dull existence! [That's a personal observation, not intended as an insult to anyone else.]

[Fanman]

The word "spirituality" is difficult to find a specific definition for, but we understand the term well enough to know what it means and what it entails depending on the context in which it is used. I do not believe that Sculptor1 or any other atheist on this forum is unaware of that.

Exactly. If we *did* have a more precise definition, we *could* have more precise discussions about it. But we can continue with what we have, as we have done for ... millennia? And just as we have always done for similar subjects, where we also lack a precise and detailed description.

That's right!

[Fanman]

As far as I am aware there is not a branch of spirituality that doesn't require us to step outside the remits of secular understanding - If there is a form of atheistic spirituality then fine, I will acknowledge it based on its merits. But on a personal level, I believe the term spiritual atheist is contradictory as atheists do not believe in the existence of such a thing due to a lack of empirical evidence. So, if we're talking about traditional forms of spirituality then I can't see how an atheist is going to step into any of those without abandoning what they (as a subset of society) perceive as reason and rationality. Living a spiritual life requires us to lean more toward what we feel than what we grasp. That doesn't mean we abandon our cognitive faculties - far from it. But we embrace ourselves holistically, listen to our intuition (or gut) and live for a purpose that is higher than ourselves - If we do not acknowledge the veracity of our feelings/intuition, a higher purpose or the spirit itself. How can we live a spiritual life?

Is that really all there is to an atheistic life? Just practicality and empiricism? What a dull existence! [That's a personal observation, not intended as an insult to anyone else.]

Given what I have experienced, of course not. I believe that atheists experience the depth and richness of life just like people who see more than practicality and empiricism. They appreciate the beauty and the subtle nuances too. We're all human ultimately. I have encountered people who claimed to be atheists, but I could tell by their behaviour and actions that they had spiritual beliefs. Just not beliefs that were associated with ethical practices. The ghost of my theistic past will never leave me and I am not ashamed of it. So, I would say that their methods, behaviours and tactics were "Satanic". Now, I would not tarnish all atheists with that ugly brush, just the ones that I encountered in conflict. But by that same token, some people claimed to be religious and adopted similar "Satanic" behaviours. I'm no saint, that is not my approach, and I'm not judging anyone just giving my perspective. But when people tell me that they don't believe in God and they don't have any beliefs. I do not instantly take their word for it. Call me crazy or sceptical if you want. But based on the things I have seen, fought against and encountered - some people, even those who claim to have no beliefs are aligned with something. The easy thing to do is to call people like me crazy or eccentric, but if you look in other forums apart from philosophy, you will see many people claiming to be seers, healers, spiritualists, witches, etc. I don't believe that everyone is into those types of things, that would be ridiculous. But I am also not naive enough to think that everyone who is into those sorts of practices (for their reasons) would openly admit to it.

[Lagayascienza]

Awe, reverence, humility and acceptance in the face of the grandeur of nature comes naturally. And knowing that we are part of it all, and that we are meant to be here, gives a sense of belonging in the universe. And because there is still much we do not understand, there remains a sense of mystery. All that, to me, amounts to a naturalistic spirituality. There is no need for make-believe gods and spirits, ghosts and demons. With a naturalistic spirituality, we can leave the demon-haunted world of religion behind. And the more we understand about the universe, the more amazing it becomes.

[Fanman]

Awe, reverence, humility and acceptance in the face of the grandeur of nature comes naturally. And knowing that we are part of it all, and that we are meant to be here, gives a sense of belonging in the universe. And because there is still much we do not understand, there remains a sense of mystery. All that, to me, amounts to a naturalistic spirituality. There is no need for make-believe gods and spirits, ghosts and demons. With a naturalistic spirituality, we can leave the demon-haunted world of religion behind. And the more we understand about the universe, the more amazing it becomes.

That is fair. And it sounds like a good way to live.

[Pattern-chaser]

Given what I have experienced, of course not. I believe that atheists experience the depth and richness of life just like people who see more than practicality and empiricism. They appreciate the beauty and the subtle nuances too. We're all human ultimately. I have encountered people who claimed to be atheists, but I could tell by their behaviour and actions that they had spiritual beliefs. Just not beliefs that were associated with ethical practices. The ghost of my theistic past will never leave me and I am not ashamed of it. So, I would say that their methods, behaviours and tactics were "Satanic". Now, I would not tarnish all atheists with that ugly brush, just the ones that I encountered in conflict. But by that same token, some people claimed to be religious and adopted similar "Satanic" behaviours. I'm no saint, that is not my approach, and I'm not judging anyone just giving my perspective. But when people tell me that they don't believe in God and they don't have any beliefs. I do not instantly take their word for it. Call me crazy or sceptical if you want. But based on the things I have seen, fought against and encountered - some people, even those who claim to have no beliefs are aligned with something. The easy thing to do is to call people like me crazy or eccentric, but if you look in other forums apart from philosophy, you will see many people claiming to be seers, healers, spiritualists, witches, etc. I don't believe that everyone is into those types of things, that would be ridiculous. But I am also not naive enough to think that everyone who is into those sorts of practices (for their reasons) would openly admit to it.

I'm not sure if I can see what you're getting at here, especially with your references to "Satanism". Where did that (idea) appear from? What is it intended to mean or describe?