Spirituality without God

No, it is just that I actually know how to read a dictionary. I know that it provides multiple possible, sometimes mutually exclusive, definitions, and that every semi-literate person understands this: just because you use a word doesn't mean that every sub-definition of someone's favorite edition of their favorite dictionary applies to your usage. Hell, even the fact that you tried saying "THE definition" shows you probably don't understand how dictionaries work . . . or how the basics of any language works. Though we have several threads you've started that demonstrate that much already.

What are you still struggling with?

Hint: You didn't provide THE definition of spiritual. There is no THE definition of spiritual (additional hint: that's what those numbers in the dictionary mean . . . that there's more than one possible definition . . . how does any educated English speaker not know this already?)

No, you provided some possible definitions, bolding your favorite parts and pretending that your selective bolding of portions of your favorite subdefinitions of your favorite printing of your favorite edition of your favorite dictionary was THE maaaaaagical definition of spiritual that all must abide by and that no one can ever mean anything else by the word. That's not how language works.

Also, not that consistency was ever something that could be attributed to your arguments, but you previously argued that souls could be natural rather than supernatural. Why are you changing your mind now?

 

Strawman. I never brought up “perversions,” which society is always changing its mind about every few centuries. I am referring to excess in hedonistic pleasures.

 

Nope, as there are different forms of energy.

 

I see 2 entries, both are religious! LMAO
Apparently you have some imaginary definition we dont know about that we need our dick tracy secret decoder ring to translate! Thats several magnitudes beyone cherry picking LOL

they are the only 2 listed!

trying to contain my laughter

First we have believing lack of believers and now we have religious nonreligion,

I mean hell I used to joke about neoatheists how loony they are for claiming to be agnostic-atheists, only to see they have progressed to new levels of comedy atheo-agno-theists!

Atheo-agno-theists, the final frontier where no rational person has gone before!

THis just keeps getting better.

 

Are you seriously so clueless that you think that the dictionary you picked up those 2 definitions from is the only dictionary that exists in the entire world? I wish I could say that, no, no one is that ill-informed; however . . .

As for agnostic-atheists, you've already argued there is no appreciable difference between an agnostic and an atheist, while also inconsistently arguing that there are incredible differences between the two. You never could come up with a consistent position on that. I guess the laughter could have a more serious underlying problem.

Between not knowing that more than one dictionary exists and blaming others for your inability to maintain a consistent position, yes, this does just keep getting better.

 

What a load of ****, that is 'your' argument not mine.

My position is consistent, your strawman spin however is another story, strawmen and spin is all you got.

I posted a definition from the dictionary if you dont like it not my problem it stands.

Everyone here is very familiar with the existence of the secret neoatheist dictionary that you need a special decoder ring to translate. WHen will you make it public?

 

No, it was yours. You stated that, so long as the number of gods someone believes in is 0, their psychological states don't matter and they are functionally the same thing. Which would mean someone who remains agnostic as to the existence of God and someone who outright denies the existence of any God would be the same. Again, that was your argument. If you no recognize the flaws in your argument and would like to abandon it, that isn't a big surprise.

Your position, as is often the case, is wildly inconsistent.

You posted A definition form A dictionary, not THE definition from THE dictionary (which doesn't exist). If you are able to comprehend this difference, then you should be able to understand the flaw in your logic.

Do you now understand that other dictionaries exist or do you require more tutoring on that subject?

You are the only one here claiming access to some special magic definition that all others must adhere to, and one which somehow maaaaagically erases all other definitions.

You are, once again, attempting to project the flaws of your reasoning onto others.

I'll ask again: have you finally learned that other definitions and other dictionaries exist? Seems elementary, but you'll have to learn this before you can progress in this discussion.

 

I unequivocally stated that the number of G/gods that agnostics disbelieve in is 0. Which is incompatible with atheism.
Please try to keep your story lines straight.

Not, your lack of understanding of them is the real problem.

No, you have not provided any evidence another dictionary exists, sorry.


the discussion will continue if and when you discontinue falsely representing my positions and provide evidence for your claims.

 

How many Gods do agnostics believe in? Before you said this number was all that mattered, but you run away from this question every time you are reminded that you are contradicting yourself. You are trying to change the subject to how many they disbelieve in, which wasn't the original discussion. I'm asking you for the thing you said was important: how many DO they believe in? Feel free to keep dodging while pretending you "unequivocally" answered.

See above. Run from above. Or learn from above. Your choice.

That's because no one is actually stupid enough to think that only one dictionary exists. You can pretend you don't understand this all you want, but I'm not going to believe you are truly ignorant enough to think that there is only one dictionary in all of existence.

I've presented your argument correctly, and have done so many times. Yet you run from it every time. Meanwhile, my other claim was that more than one dictionary exists. If you want to convince me that you don't understand this basic fact of reality, I'll need to see the brain scans showing the damage that lead to such a condition.

 

asked and answered

false I just answered

Sorry anything not entered into the record as evidence does not exist in this discussion for consideration.

false
you've presented your argument INcorrectly, and have done so many times, and continue to do so as we can see.


Done playing games yet?

 

No, you didn't answer. You answered how many they disbelieve in. I asked you how many they believe in.

The answer is, of course 0, which you argued would make them no different than an atheist who outright denies the existence of God. Just catching you up on the contradiction you lost track of.

There you go arguing that agnosticism and atheism are the same thing again! Meanwhile, you have cited more than one dictionary since being on this forum. You re only pretending to be clueless on this subject. In reality, you aren't stupid enough to think that only one dictionary exists, as much as you are trying to pretend now.

I presented it exactly the same way you did.

 

agnostic do not disbelieve in G/god(s) like atheists do. sorry

 

is a response regarding the alleged dictionary you claim to exist with atheist spirituality

agnosticism has nothing to do with your new found atheist spirituality, instead of dancing around in circles all day why dont you just admit you are really a theist in denial and be done with it?

Now back to your previously scheduled program

 

@yardmeat,

so everyone had to put up with all that circle jerking around and you still cant produce so much as one evidential dictionary out of your alleged gargantuan mountain of dictionaries that you claim exists, that defines atheist spirituality, I for one find that rolling on the floor hilarious!

 

I understand you.

Due to your religious viewpoint, you view all phenomena from a religious perspective. For the sake of understanding I went with the term spirituality, because it’s vague enough to encapsulate non-religious understandings, and common enough that everyone knows what I’m referring to.

If I was to call it “bogumelliku” no one would have any idea what I’m talking about. And it would be ridiculous of me to expect people to understand a term I just made up.

Language is a material thing to help us communicate, at times words are insubstantial in describing the emotions and thoughts that are part of the human condition. Much of the lexicon that attempts to decipher that which is intangible has religious baggage adhered to it. But that does not mean it is the only interpretation, nor does it provide the religious with a monopoly on describing metaphysical concepts.

Evangelicals go off on their own hedonistic adventures, some create their own cults. I didn’t create a strawman, what I said is very in line with what you’re expressing concerns about. My point is even with a “good book” you are not immune to becoming seduced by empty pleasures.

 

There are different TYPES of energy but ALL energy is DEFINED as "the ability to perform work".

Thoughts are NOT "energy". They are the PRODUCTS of the energy USED by the brain in order to produce those thoughts.

When we MEASURE the brain we are measuring the USE of energy as opposed to the actual thoughts themselves.

The brain USES 25% of all of the energy we consume on a daily basis.

 

Maybe, doubtful, but maybe

nope you dont. Im agnostic, and like everyone else on the planet religious, and not too cowardly to admit it, no need to hide behind some word salad sandwhich like the neoatheists out here.

Metaphysical would have been a better choice, at least that is touted as secular, despite its synonymous with supernatural.

The advantage to that rather than repackaging is they at least ask 'what'?

Everything has religious baggage attached to it.

semantics

 

this is also meaningless. Everything consists of matter/energy

 

false, if matter is energy then we could heat our homes with rocks ffs

 

It's basic 6th grade science. Matter and energy are interchangeable. EVERYTHING is matter/energy.

 

I hesitated to write at all about this, much less in this thread, but I’m feeling pleasantly melancholy at the moment and hoped this might be something that 1) spiritual atheists or likeminded souls might sympathize with or 2) serves as an illustrative example for the open-minded, who might wonder what an atheist might mean by being “spiritual.”


Fair warning, however, things are about to get very sad, so here’s your chance to turn away if you aren’t ready for that.


.


.


.


My wife and I have rescued 4 dogs. 1 was a beagle I had when we first met, who has since passed, and the other 3 we adopted together.


My wife had never had a pet before we started dating – she came from a traditional Chinese household and pets were never allowed. My hound and I, however, were a package deal, and it was a deal she was willing to take. As she got to know my dog more, and as the beagle grew older, my wife proposed that we get another dog: one that would be *her* first dog and one that would provide companionship and exercise for the beagle.


This new dog was a border collie/Labrador mix and she was everything we could have hoped for. She was super friendly, intelligent, easy to train, and she probably extended my beagle’s life by a couple of years. She was patient, kind, and a perfect ambassador between the two species. Not only that, but she was what we call a “bulletproof” dog, one who remains calm around other dogs and doesn’t respond to aggression, making her a perfect companion for dogs who need more socialization. My more recent rescue, a Catahoula/pit mix, was in such need. She probably never would have learned to socialize with other dogs if it weren’t for this border collie, whom I will just call Haley from here on.


As I’m sure you can tell from the past tense, we recently had to say goodbye to Haley, and it was quite sudden. Just last month the vet was telling us how she was in incredible shape, especially for a senior dog, and then we came home one day and she had peed in the house, wouldn’t eat, and was curling her lip when the other dogs approached. None of this was like Haley.


I immediately drove her to a 24-hour vet hospital. It took hours to get an answer. She had an extremely aggressive form of anemia. There were some treatment options, but they weren’t likely to work, and she’d have to stay at the vet hospital, where she would probably die and where she was obviously getting uncomfortable, pacing and drooling with anxiety.


So, I brought Haley home. We spent 2 last days with her, part of it in denial and telling ourselves we saw signs she was recovering, part of it enraged at the unfairness of it all, and all of it by her side. I spent those nights on the couch so that she could sleep beside me while I rested on hand on her heart with the other stroking her ear, and I could feel her heartbeat slow and her body grow less tense as I provided her these small physical comforts.


We, thankfully, found a vet who would come to our house and perform the euthanasia in our backyard, her favorite place in the world. We put her bed in the yard and let it warm up in the sun, then I joined my wife and our other two dogs as we all cuddled around Haley and waited for the vet to arrive. Haley had stopped curling her lip when the others approached, and she seemed happy to have us all there. In fact, she seemed much more concerned with comforting us than anything else.


The end was more peaceful than I could have imagined, though I still cried then more than I had ever cried in my life.


One of the things that I felt during this time was an intense gratitude for my relationships, animal and human, and an overwhelming sense of interconnectedness. Grief sucks, but I never feel more of a sense of belonging than when I am in grief. I’m emphasizing this because it is a lesson I’ve learned over the past couple of weeks that I still don’t fully understand.


My wife and I reflected on our time with such an amazing good girl, but we also reflected on this sense of belonging, our roles as the “alphas” (such a poorly understood concept; alphas in nature are caring, nurturing parents, not bullies) of our little pack, and I also spent time thinking about the millennia of evolution that had brought our two species together so that we could have this moment.


For those of you who don’t know, the prevailing theory is not that humans captured wolves and domesticated them, but that this was a more mutual happenstance. Friendlier wolves would approach human fires in search of food, where friendlier humans would show them compassion. The “domestication” of the dog is simply the best of what our two species have to offer overlapping over the vastness of time to bring us to this point, where many of us still have a more emotional reaction to seeing a dog dying in a movie and seeing a human suffer a similar fate.


Anyway, I have no problem calling this reflection on belonging, community, the vastness of time, and the power of our better nature, a spiritual experience, perhaps the most spiritual I’ve felt even when comparing it to my time as a Christian in prayer.


My wife and I have done everything we can to try to put our feelings, and yes they are spiritual ones, into words. We found nothing so powerful as this a passage from Rudyard Kipling. We are getting matching tattoos of these words – if you told me at any point in the past that I’d be getting matching tattoos with a woman, even one I’m married to, I’d have said you were crazy. And, yet, here we are.


I’ll share those words shortly, but before I do, I just want to say this: If you don’t understand how this is spiritual, either because you think your religion has a monopoly on spirituality or because you are hung up on semantics, then I won’t call you names or besmirch your character. I’ll just say this: Haley could have taught you a lot about the compassion and wisdom that makes for a good human, or a good doggo.

"As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk, the law runneth forward and back;

For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack."

 

Yet another dodge. I didn't ask what they disbelieve. I asked how many Gods they believe in. Don't worry, though, as with our previous discussion, I wasn't expecting a response.

 

I simply think that you missed the big picture.
It boils down to why humans need a God for.

It is a human nature to prepare for one's own future. That's why you need a pension plan when getting old.
The problem however lies in how far away you need to prepare for such a future. You need to make an assumption by faith here, either you have faith that life cease to exist after our physical death, or life goes on beyond. It is however out of human capability to confirm which one is true. That's where humans need a God for, in order to get to the info that what lying ahead beyond the point of our death.

If God truly exists, it's no point to give the info to you only. The info should be made available to all mankind. There are basically 2 ways for such an info to convey. 1) God tells it to every individual. However if God has a good reason to hide behind, all left is an alternative 2).

And 2) by testimonies from eyewitness accounts.
The analogy is, when the US government has a critical message for its citizen it needs to find a way to keep each and every individual informed of the message. If that's not possible, then the next is to turn on the media such as CNN to broadcast/preach the info as a piece of news. So that, say, those fishermen in the middle of the seas can hear it from radio broadcast that a hurricane is coming nearby. They have to make a run before the evidence which could well be the hurricane itself. In this case, the US government needs to demand its media to put full effort in broadcasting this "news" such that the info will be as far-reaching as possible.

Similarly, a religion is the media of a God. If this God is true and there is a critical info for humans. As the US government should do, this God needs to ask to preach the gospel (good news) as far-reaching as possible till it reaches every nation on earth. If this God doesn't have an explicit command for this, either this God is not true or the info is not critical to humans or this God doesn't care.

There's only one true God before you. That's why Christianity is an international religion with an explicit command to preach the gospel with full effort. Relatively Islam is local in the middle east, Hinduism is local in India...etc for the past thousand years all due to the lack of such an explicit command from their gods.

 

Pascal's Wager is actually a really, really weak argument. It involves tons of mutually exclusive assumptions, and doesn't even provide a remedy for the problem it proposes.

There are tons of mutual exclusive religions out there, and Pascal's Wager (the argument you are advancing) provides no means for deciding between those options. Additionally, Pascal's Wager assumes that you can believe something just by willing it to be so. I need evidence to believe something. I can't just believe something because I REALLY WANT it to be true, or because I'm REALLY SCARED of what might happen if it is true.

Pascal's Wager only works if we assume that people can simply choose their beliefs and that God is an immoral idiot.

 

It's not even a Pascal's wager! It's about how humans can possibly get to info about a future.

That said. Pascal's wager is never a weak argument. It's not the way how a truth should be pursued though!