Spiritual?

[kai]

Ok.
I am pretty much a nailed on fundamentalist atheist.
However.
There are times.
Like right now.
I feel 'spiritual'.

The oneness and acceptance of life, mortality, and the ease I feel, make my mind wander into the possbilities that are out there, in the almost infinite expanse of the universe.
My mind floats.
My heart slows.
And I wonder.
It's certainly a good feeling, sometimes (as now) but not always brought on by alcohol, or other, and the only word I know is 'spiritual'... Is there a better word for the likes of me maybe?

a moment of clarity,

 

[Quath]

Hehehe...no center because everywhere is the center. The terms are equivalent and often used interchangeably.

Right, but it means we are not in a special place in the universe as religion once taught us.

There's considerable difference between a description of what goes on and an explanation.

I do not follow this. If I describe what happened, have I not explained what happened? Are you talking level of explanation?

That's a non sequitur. I clearly said if was my pleasure and advantage.

You're right. I misread this.

However, I think this is the way people work. For example, say someone raped my daughter and got away with it. I may decide that it was my pleasure and advantage to kill them after weighing the odds of getting caught; ethical considerations; alternatives; etc. I think a lot of people do think this way. If enough do, then it just becomes a law and it is no longer murder.

LOL! Of course not. What makes you think it is?

I am not sure. I have heard people claim that the reason people murder is because the ten commandments were not taught to them. I didn't know if that is where you were leading with this.

I don't see any reason to have religion to teach ethics. A lot of ethics can be derived from cooperating with society to maximize your happiness.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Right, but it means we are not in a special place in the universe as religion once taught us.

On the contrary, it means each of us stands at the center.

I do not follow this. If I describe what happened, have I not explained what happened? Are you talking level of explanation?

Not at all...you described the process.

However, I think this is the way people work. For example, say someone raped my daughter and got away with it. I may decide that it was my pleasure and advantage to kill them after weighing the odds of getting caught; ethical considerations; alternatives; etc. I think a lot of people do think this way. If enough do, then it just becomes a law and it is no longer murder.

That's right. It's consensual ethics...arbitrary

I am not sure. I have heard people claim that the reason people murder is because the ten commandments were not taught to them. I didn't know if that is where you were leading with this.

No doubt there are those, but not all religions are fear-based.

I don't see any reason to have religion to teach ethics. A lot of ethics can be derived from cooperating with society to maximize your happiness.

Ah, this is a point I made earlier (either here or another thread). This is backwards. Felt values come first which is then followed by the conceptual interpretation/explanation of those values. Conventional religion has been so perverted that this error is understandable.

 

[Quath]

On the contrary, it means each of us stands at the center.

I am not sure how that makes us special since the center would be everywhere such as Ploto, other galaxies, etc. It makes us recognize that our place in the Universe is not special. You may try to linguistically make it seem otherwise, but that is not in practice how atheists view our world. They tend to see it as a "pale blue dot."

Not at all...you described the process.

A good description of a process tends to explain it. So I am not sure what you are seeing as a difference. Do you mean higher orders of explanation? For example, I can describe how neurons work in the brain, but that doesn't directly explain psychology?

That's right. It's consensual ethics...arbitrary

Right, but that comes from religion as well (like slavery is bad for Israelites unless the Israelites are the ones owning slaves). It is human nature to be arbitrary in the rules it sets up.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

lol
Maybe a loose use of the word.
But I absolutely believe there is no god/creator/divine being.
To the same extent there is no flying teapot/spaghetti monster etc
Everything in and about the universe has a scientific explanation, we are just not evolved enough yet to 'get it' all yet.
The human body(or any other animal) is no more than an organic machine.
In fact humans are no more deserving of the ownership of the planet than any other animal. Where sharks, lions, crocodiles have evolved physically, primates with us at the top have evolved mentally. etc.

What if it turns out there's a scientific explaination for God?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I am not sure how that makes us special since the center would be everywhere such as Ploto, other galaxies, etc. It makes us recognize that our place in the Universe is not special. You may try to linguistically make it seem otherwise, but that is not in practice how atheists view our world. They tend to see it as a "pale blue dot."

How dull! How unrealistic!

A good description of a process tends to explain it. So I am not sure what you are seeing as a difference. Do you mean higher orders of explanation? For example, I can describe how neurons work in the brain, but that doesn't directly explain psychology?

Nope....and no psychologist will tell you it does. It describes what happens. Scientists can describe electricity, too, but they don't know what it is.

Right, but that comes from religion as well (like slavery is bad for Israelites unless the Israelites are the ones owning slaves). It is human nature to be arbitrary in the rules it sets up.

Again, no. Religion is first a pursuit of felt values which is followed by interpretative beliefs. But considering how people have let their insecurities make the vulnerable to those who those who would pervert religion for personal gain, it's easy to understand why this misperception is so common.

What if it turns out there's a scientific explanation for God?

You've got to be kidding, sandy!

Is this amusing or what? Even when God is defined by the believer as "existence itself," many in the RF continue to insist God is like a flying pink unicorn and therefore does not exist...and in the same breath they exclaim they are “open-minded and logical free thinkers.” “Look at me!" they say. “I have a sentimental sense of wonder, too! I’m spiritual!” Never mind that “spirit” is the animating or vital principle undergirding existence, that spirit is a dynamic and creative sense of oneness and not a passive awareness of individuality in the face of Creation.

Check out A_COURSE_IN_CONSCIOUSNESS. If I'm nuts, at least I'm not alone.

 

[frg001]

How dull! How unrealistic!

Nope....and no psychologist will tell you it does. It describes what happens. Scientists can describe electricity, too, but they don't know what it is.

Again, no. Religion is first a pursuit of felt values which is followed by interpretative beliefs. But considering how people have let their insecurities make the vulnerable to those who those who would pervert religion for personal gain, it's easy to understand why this misperception is so common.

You've got to be kidding, sandy!

Is this amusing or what? Even when God is defined by the believer as "existence itself," many in the RF continue to insist God is like a flying pink unicorn and therefore does not exist...and in the same breath they exclaim they are “open-minded and logical free thinkers.” “Look at me!" they say. “I have a sentimental sense of wonder, too! I’m spiritual!” Never mind that “spirit” is the animating or vital principle undergirding existence, that sp

irit is a dynamic and creative sense of oneness and not a passive awareness of individuality in the face of Creation.

hmm. I wonder how many dreamers cling to the idea that their dreams may be real? That is the feeling you give me.
I dream, I wonder, I become (FWOABW) spiritual... However, when I wake or become focused, the real world of solid, liquid and gas always comes back and clears my head.
Nothing wrong with being a dreamer, so long as you also have a waking state...

As for the flying pink one-horned horse... Its as good a bet as any god, so why dismiss it? It may be true afterall.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

hmm. I wonder how many dreamers cling to the idea that their dreams may be real? That is the feeling you give me.
I dream, I wonder, I become (FWOABW) spiritual... However, when I wake or become focused, the real world of solid, liquid and gas always comes back and clears my head.
Nothing wrong with being a dreamer, so long as you also have a waking state...

What's real? How do we see the world as real if the self that is determining it to be real is an intangible property of matter, which is itself fundamentally intangible?

As for the flying pink one-horned horse... Its as good a bet as any god, so why dismiss it? It may be true afterall.

This has already been addressed...and shown to be a remark born of ignorance. Most in the RF have abandoned this "argument."

 

[frg001]

This has already been addressed...and shown to be a remark born of ignorance. Most in the RF have abandoned this "argument."

You can't dismiss an argument because it is one you do not like.
I do not believe it is out of ignorance... Let's replace the flying pink thing for the things that people believed in in the middle ages... We mostly agree that the sun and moon are not gods for instance.
The FSM, or pink unicorn is not out of ignorance, it is out of logic, and absolutely nothing to do with ignorance. I absolutely believe that there is EQUAL chance of a flying turquoise Turtle that sits in space spinning the world around as as there is of a divine creator.

 

[Muffled]

It sounds as though you might have been in a meditative state. If that were the case, you could very well have become aware of the spiritual mind. However as you have stated, you perceive this as coming from your physical mind becasue your belief system requires you to perceive it that way.

It is true that the spiritual mind likes to fantasize, but that does not mean that it isn't aware of reality. Of course because of your belief system, fantasy is construed as coming from the physical mind.

I consider you a prime candidate for Hell. Afer you die you will stick to the body thinking that your physical mind is still alive (even though it is not) and connected to your body. You will not leave the body so your consciousness will be swallowed up into the lake of fire when your body goes there. Even then when it ought to be obvious to you that nothing physical can survive fire, you will probably still think that you are physically existing in the fire.

I would liken you to the person who sees a magic show and a lovely lady disappear. You will always believe there is a trick behind it. I would agree with you but I also know there is a way to make the lady disappear without a trick. However you will never believe that because your belief system is trained to always see it as a trick.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You can't dismiss an argument because it is one you do not like.

I dismissed it because it's been done here.

I do not believe it is out of ignorance... Let's replace the flying pink thing for the things that people believed in in the middle ages... We mostly agree that the sun and moon are not gods for instance.
The FSM, or pink unicorn is not out of ignorance, it is out of logic, and absolutely nothing to do with ignorance. I absolutely believe that there is EQUAL chance of a flying turquoise Turtle that sits in space spinning the world around as as there is of a divine creator.

It's ignorance when, in this day and age, you can't tell the difference between something that has being and being itself. It's ignorance when you use an absurd concept as evidence against a "finger pointing" to something that, by definition, transcends our ability to conceive.

 

[frg001]

I dismissed it because it's been done here.
It's ignorance when, in this day and age, you can't tell the difference between something that has being and being itself. It's ignorance when you use an absurd concept as evidence against a "finger pointing" to something that, by definition, transcends our ability to conceive.

I think god is an absurd concept.

(And I read that thread, and agree...You do dance around questions)

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I think god is an absurd concept.

Maybe, but:

The problem of trying to create an objective theory of subjective experience has been labeled the "hard problem" of consciousness by David Chalmers (see Scientific American, Dec. 1995, p. 80; and http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html). (The so-called "easy problem" is to explain the functioning of the brain in terms of objective concepts.)

 

[frg001]

Maybe, but:

The problem of trying to create an objective theory of subjective experience has been labeled the "hard problem" of consciousness by David Chalmers (see Scientific American, Dec. 1995, p. 80; and http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html). (The so-called "easy problem" is to explain the functioning of the brain in terms of objective concepts.)

And, you know. I agree in a way. Science doesn't explain everything particularly well (I happen to believe conciousness is simply an electro-chemical reaction though), but where it misses something in absolute knowledge it makes a hypothesis, and is not afraid to change. God and Allah and Xenu ...etc are a 'leap of faith of biblical proportions'...if you'll excuse the very poor pun.
So when somebody uses the pink space monkey argument, it isn't ignorant, it is simply a statement of where they stand...And I for one stand with them...

And in all honesty, I love your posts... so don't fall out with me

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So when somebody uses the pink space monkey argument, it isn't ignorant, it is simply a statement of where they stand...And I for one stand with them...

there's 2 problems with this: (1) it defines what the beleiver believes is and therefore irrelevent to the discussion and (2) it doen't recognize the difference between something that has being (i.e., a pink space monkey) and being itself (i.e., pure consciousness). Ergo, it's ignorant on 2 levels.

You seem to ignore the fact (as so many do) that the God conceived is not God.

 

[frg001]

there's 2 problems with this: (1) it defines what the beleiver believes is and therefore irrelevent to the discussion and (2) it doen't recognize the difference between something that has being (i.e., a pink space monkey) and being itself (i.e., pure consciousness). Ergo, it's ignorant on 2 levels.

You seem to ignore the fact (as so many do) that the God conceived is not God.

But most peoples image of 'God' i not that he is 'pure conciousness'. And in fact doesn't it say in the bible that we are made in 'his image'
Maybe more esoteric versions of 'a creator do not fit with the atheist argument, but certainly the bible god, and all the ones depicted in art galleries arounnd the world do.

Any how about I change the argument to a 25 dimensional thought bubble that coats all living things with its aura, whilst secretlyplaying siduko through the minds of bus-passengers?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

But most peoples image of 'God' i not that he is 'pure conciousness'. And in fact doesn't it say in the bible that we are made in 'his image'
Maybe more esoteric versions of 'a creator do not fit with the atheist argument, but certainly the bible god, and all the ones depicted in art galleries arounnd the world do.

It's a matter of interpretation and maybe it is a minority one, but it exists and it makes the "flying pink unicorn" look childish and immature.

Any how about I change the argument to a 25 dimensional thought bubble that coats all living things with its aura, whilst secretlyplaying siduko through the minds of bus-passengers?

LOL. Been done. Scientists do it when they propose unfalsifiable theories to explain "hidden variables."

 

[frg001]

It's a matter of interpretation and maybe it is a minority one, but it exists and it makes the "flying pink unicorn" look childish and immature.

You can keep saying that until you're blue in the face, but I don't believe that trying to explain where you stand by giving an example of something else you believe is highly improbable, is childish.

For me, ANY idea of a god, creator etc whether it be Incorporeal or flesh and blood is utterly ludicrous outside of fantasy fiction. I can understand why people want to believe it, but that doesn't make it any more true.
So I will continue to use the FSM (or whatever) as a very true and honest indication as to where I stand on that particular belief.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You can keep saying that until you're blue in the face, but I don't believe that trying to explain where you stand by giving an example of something else you believe is highly improbable, is childish.

For me, ANY idea of a god, creator etc whether it be Incorporeal or flesh and blood is utterly ludicrous outside of fantasy fiction. I can understand why people want to believe it, but that doesn't make it any more true.
So I will continue to use the FSM (or whatever) as a very true and honest indication as to where I stand on that particular belief.

Well, since you insist on looking like a fool, have it your way.

 

[frg001]

Well, since you insist on looking like a fool, have it your way.

Was that one out of the same book as "F*** off you red nosed b*st*rd!" ?