Spirituality without God

Double Jeopardy! Ok so what is a flip remark to illustrate the stupidity of a post for 1?

 

Yeh mine!

doubtful

Not what I said or implied.

try this:

 

You challenged the idea that objective reality exists. It is self-defeating to say that it doesn't. One of these years you'll learn what a reductio ad absurdum is.

 

Yes, my flippant remark illustrated the stupidity of the argument you made in your post. Double Jeopardy for 1, so that's, what, 2 points? Congrats. You get 2 points.

 

I challenged rahls version. please see the above video to get further help

 

And what is the significance here???

 

Oh really, then why don’t you “call out” the other poster who initially made god a given?

 

I didn’t see his post

 

As is would seem the self evident is above your ability to grasp I do not wish to waste the time of either of us.

Have A Nice Day

 

Oh, I grasp it alright... it nevertheless fails to contradict anything I’ve essentially said, hence my previous reply.

 

Many of us have traveled the road you describe. The good news is, spirituality is NOT dependent on being religious. Spirituality is found by looking within. Religion is always connected to following rules & regulations provided by some dominant force from outside oneself. Furthermore, God isn't like any description given us by any religion. In my own case, I ultimately concluded that God is much like some Native Americans believed--integrated into everything that exists--NOT the bearded man on the throne floating in the clouds as offered by so many western religions. Spirituality can include a personal connection with God, but that doesn't require any belief in religion.

 

being religious? You meaqn belief in a diety?

I have my own religion and its from within myself, dictated to me by me.

Im curious what realigion has the bearded man, never seen that one.

Problem is to be an atheist you are stuck with scientific proofs which all reside in the material realm, the spirit is not in a material realm, so that does not add up?

 

That's true for abrahamic religion, but like you already point it, it's not that true for other religions such as buddhism.

I think however it's important to have people with which you can relate and share from a spiritual point of view. Many things are possible together.

I particulary appreciate stoician teaching.

 

1. Many people confuse spirituality & religion, thinking they are either the same, or somehow inexorably connected. They aren't. Spirituality is a personal connection with the creative energy permeating all that exists. Religion is a physical interpretation of that creative energy that is usually bound up in rules, regulations, proscriptions, prohibitions, & politics, but seldom accurate in its understanding of the "God" or "gods" it claims to speak for.
2. That's exactly as it should be.
3. The concept of the "bearded man-God" is found mostly in competing versions of the Western religions--especially Judaism & Christianity. These are usually concepts found in the more fundamentalist sects of these two religions.
4. I would agree that most atheists limit themselves to the scientific physical evinces to reject the idea of the existence of God. Generally, they ignore the very real fact that there is a powerful, omnipotent presence of non-physical elements impacting the lives of every one of us--like love, hate, anger, etc--or consciousness itself--that don't really lend themselves to scientific scrutiny, but are very powerful forces that have a huge say in our personal experience. Perhaps quantum physicists are the one group of scientists today who are abundantly aware that the laws of traditional physics don't adequately explain reality, & that there is more going on than most people realize.

 

Gee so now using logic is off topic trash.

 

why does being an atheist stick you with scientific proofs. Rather silly to actually believe in something for which there is no evidence scientific or otherwise.

in fact the beliefs in thousands of gods throughout time would indicate that the probability of any one belief being true is small to non exist.

 

Very simplybecause G/god(s) and spirits exist in the supernatural and science exists in the natural, the only thing that can be proven are things of the natural.

Therefore it is possible for an atheist to have a god, but it would have to be some natural phenomena.

Its equally as silly to disbelieve in something without supporting evidence.

 

Are you kidding me? More DANGEROUS than the Spanish were to the Natives in America, who used Christianity to excuse their inhumane treatment? ( Interesting footnote to that story: the Spanish developed a serious problem w/ large #s of native slaves committing suicide to escape Spanish cruelty, until the Christian masters told them that, if they killed themselves, so would the Spanish, to pursue & enslave them in the afterlife, as well). But the Spanish are no exception to the rule: how 'bout the MILLIONS who died, throughout Europe, because Catholics saw it as serving God to kill fellow Christians during the Protestan Reformation ( which Ireland's Catholics & Protestants have shown is not a savagery left in the ancient past); the potentially MILLIONS TORTURED & MURDERED in the Church-sanctioned Inquisition (80% of whom, painstaking research suggests, were actually women, many of whom were widowed & whose land was forfeited upon conviction-- though they couldn't have passed it on anyway according to the Church's, which is to say, God's blessed RULES: they were female, after all); the early Church's maniacal killing of Apostates ( the Donatists, etc., etc. ); the Crusades; the JUSTIFICATIONS used in the modern day Israeli ( Jew)- Palestinian ( Muslim) situation; and the practice of slavery in the U.S. & elsewhere which was initiated under religious pretext? I could go on ad infinitum, if I were someone with any expertise on the subject. I half-suspect, however, you only posted to try to get a rise out of someone, and you certainly hooked a big one, in me. If that is the case, I'd be curious to understand, if you were able & willing to, what makes this such a fun undertaking for you. As you may have guessed, I'm a former Catholic; but I don't typically get on my soapbox at every opportunity ( in fact at all, like this, in decades). I think what set me off was your apparent utter ignorance of something while projecting such an air of infallibility in your opinion; the Conceit of portraying to the young, trusting, me that the Church was the sole proprietor of all the answers is the thing about my Catholic years (in addition to the sense of guilt, of course) that still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
If you weren't just playing devil's advocate, by the way, your philosophizing would benefit greatly from giving yourself a significantly larger basis of fact on which to postulate your theories. I'll wrap up w/ acknowledging that it's not ONLY religion which serves as an authority which people use to assuage their shame over behavior unbecoming of a human (see Nazism), though it is one of the most potent. As George Carlin put it ( more or less), " I trust people, just not in groups."

 

I agree completely that there can hardly be a more personal relationship than that between someone & the Force they conceive of being the source of their existence ( to not get bogged down in quibbling over words, the above description should be taken as an EXAMPLE; for those who'd prefer semantic arguments over true communication, I'll state that one need not conceive of God as being the, " source of their existence, " though this is a very, very common attribute given to that which one refers to as God ). I have read that science has proven that, because no two brains are identical, and all that we sense must be processed through and, in effect, CREATED by our brains, no 2 people see the blue of a sky in exactly the same way-- anyone recall that cool, " what color do you see this dress, " online sensation?-- so it is not at all irrational to postulate that no two person's experience of God ( even if God, like the sky, IS a SINGLE entity, which itself is unproven &, like everything on BOTH SIDES of questions about God, the afterlife, & so forth, unprovable ) is going to be precisely the same. Even amongst those who ascribe to the same religions there are myriad differences in even doctrinal matters ( cf. views among Catholics on abortion, compulsory weekly Mass attendance, the Sacrament of Confession, etc.); it can hardly be doubted that, at the very least, "variations, " in their actual experience of GOD are proliferate &, in all likelihood ( though of course the evidence, convincing as it may be, can only be anecdotal ), widely ranging.

This is why I always try to keep in mind that, no matter how unfounded or even ridiculous another's beliefs may seem to me, there is NO WAY I can KNOW that they are wrong. I honestly believe that nobody comprehends the truth, in full, most certainly including myself. But that does not logically lead me to the Agnostic conclusion that it's therefore not worth at least trying to understand. To use an analogy from the mundane world, how many great insights have come through a scientist's pursuit of an objective that turned out to be unattainable or knowledge that remained inaccessible? (Charles Goodyear's discovery of the vulcanization process came accidentally-- though I don't know how one ACCIDENTALLY combines rubber & sulfur over a hot stove. But live & let live--I'm glad he DID, nonetheless.) Or, for those readers who prefer Biblical references, consider Jesus' parable of the wealthy man who, before going away, entrusted 3 servants each w/ a sum of TALENTS (coins), based on their abilities. Clearly this story is meant to symbolize those gifts we each receive from God. Recall how the servant who buried his talent, so as to be sure not to lose it, & have it to return to the master ( in original condition, as it were ) was cursed by that master, had his talent taken from him & given to the one who'd done the most to multiply his own talents. Well our BRAINS ARE GOD'S GIFTS. As they say, use it or lose it.

 

I forgot to add, in reference to what XplorR said about the Divine being integrated into Creation / the Universe (just in case he came to that idea independently), that this is the essential difference between monotheism, which holds that God is TRANSCENDANT ( above Creation), & pantheism, in which God is viewed as IMMAMENT (part of, embodying, or inhabiting its Creation ). I consider myself a pantheist; but even amongst this tiny populace there are major differences. When I tried looking for like-minded people online, I found that a science-satisfied brand of pantheism seems to be the dominant strain in the modern age. That is, it seems that the universe, as we know it, is equated w/ the Divine in this iteration of what, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, is the earliest form of religion: a sense of oneness w/ all nature. My own nature is drawn to this older variety, to what I sense as a Reality underpinning that which we routinely perceive & accept, to the belief that a Spirit, if you will, resides within the Universal Body. This sentiment, of course, is kindred w/ the Native American spirituality which XplorR references.

 

So you don't know the NAMBLA agenda is wrong. Right?

 

1. No. For me, the word "religion" means you follow the dogmas of an established, outside of yourself, belief system. It often includes a belief in God or gods, but doesn't have to.
2. Then you can call that a "religion" if you want, but it's actually more in line with a personal spiritual path. Religions are non-personal, institutions outside of you, that require you to follow their rules, beliefs, dogmas, etc., in order to qualify as a member.
3. I generally associate the concept of the bearded God on his throne with the more fundamentalist groups in Judaism or Christianity.
4. In general, I agree. But it is possible for an Atheist to believe in life after death &/or reincarnation, as part of a natural system that works without any supreme controller like a God, but that eventually breaks down much as the Atheist explanation for the physical world we all occupy, working automatically without any form of spiritual dependence or interplay.

 

It took me years to arrive at the place you so accurately describe regarding the unity of God & creation, or God & the Universe. Like you, I am cognizant of the many gaps in my personal knowledge or understanding, along with how incredibly complex the subject matter is. But it is infinitely exciting too. Many times along the way, I reflected on how the Europeans, while they were finding, exploring & settling the Americas, regarded the natives as "primitive barbarians" compared to themselves. That was primarily based on a comparison of technology. But in the spiritual realm, some of the natives were far more advanced. But the Europeans were trapped in religious dogmas that were incapable of seeing that. The result of that ignorance & intolerance is a history darkened by many shames.

 

Spiritual avatars have long known that the source of life & all creativity comes from non-physical realms. Science, limited to physical studies only, have identified the brain as that source. It isn't. The best evidence I can cite for that conclusion right now, is the experience & writings of Dr. Eben Alexander--a neurosurgeon who had a Near Death Experience, which included aspects not explainable by science alone. There are videos on Youtube showing Dr Alexander discussing his experience along with what he learned from it. I recommend them highly, along with his two books. He gives an in depth discussion of the scientific views on the brain, the relationship between consciousness, creativity & the brain, & how all that relates to the spiritual, based on his personal Near Death experience. He is a very good writer as well as being exceptionally knowledgeable about the brain & science in general.

 

Thanks for the tip, though I wasn't actually trying to say that spirituality comes from the brain; I was trying to encourage (since this wasn't a private mssg & I presumed [hoped] others might also also see it) people to not fear questioning things they may've always taken, " on faith, " because of their particular religious instruction.