Just Wondering.

[Legion]

When I talked about my opinion about free will and my belief that it's an illusion (and a self-created delusion that is required for our continued existence), they might threaten to kill themselves if I'm right.

Yoooooooou eeeeeeeeevil baaaaaaastard!!!!!!!!!!

 

So I don't want to be right... at least not to them. Hence, I'm not debating everything anymore.

Yes, uh, but did you choose to do that?

[mymistake]

But... on EVERY OTHER subforum here, you can say we are all idiots with impugnity. That's quite a lot of free reign. To be quite honest... this sounds like a bit of a persecution complex.

 

I am not being persecuted. What I am trying to do is tread very lightly yet correct a lot of misunderstandings.

 

You know how we say all the Christians whine about how persecuted they are in the US even though they are the majority viewpoint and you can't go anywhere without hearing something goofy about Jesus? Well... this is a microcosm of that. You can't pretend persecution when you're the majority and we only have a SMALL safe haven where we don't have to be attacked for thinking differently and VOICING IT.

 

Who is pretending persecution?

 

Think about how annoyed you get when you can't proclaim your atheism around Christians because they'll just treat you like shit for it. Same. Thing. Here. It baffles me why this is so hard to internalize and understand.

 

Because when some guy states what he is looking for in a soul mate that is not an attack on, nor did it have anything to do with the person who is talking about suicide over the incident. He has the right to refuse to have sex with anybody for any reason. Voicing such an opinion, even if he uses shoddy and flawed thinking, is not a statement about some other person being crazy. It's certainly not a good reason to talk about suicide. This thing was blown way out of proportion. Let's not loose sight of what really matters.

[Ouroboros]

Also, while I can respect it if Ouroboros's view of the word delusion is as listed above... that doesn't mean that's how most people perceive that word. People can call my views delusional all they want because I consider the source. But, most people are not "unreasonable, overly sensitive, etc" to take offense at being referred to as "delusional". Ouroboros' interpretation of that word varies WILDLY from how most people view that word.

So what is the most held view of the word?

 

That would be like calling someone a "fag" then excusing it because in the UK it just means "cigarette". It's a nice try, but ultimately unconvincing to the gay person you just yelled at. (general third person you here.)

I think you're wrong about it in this particular case.

 

So, while I acknowledge and respect that Ouroboros is likely explaining his honest viewpoint of the word delusional, I really don't think that's how most materialists mean it when they say it. To say that's what they mean seems disingenuous at best... and given their supreme Spock-like logic it would seem they would understand how most people see the word and pick a different word.

I think you missed the part when I tried to explain that I don't think ALL religious or spiritual views are delusional. But I do think some, or even many, religious beliefs ARE (however not all), but many are, but not all, but many are, but not all, but many are... I'm not sure, perhaps I'm not using "all" or "many in the correct way either.

 

Also... please don't interpret this as me trying to "shut down" free speech. People can call anyone delusional that they want to as far as I personally am concerned. What they can't do is pretend that that isn't or shouldn't be offensive to anyone and that those who are offended are "too sensitive" and "trying to stop free speech".

Of course it's not shutting down free speech... but we do in this particular forum.

 

If you're calling someone crazy, just own it.

Absolutely. Even though I don't consider "delusional" to be necessarily "crazy". "Delusional" as "crazy" (which is not really a medical term at all) is the medical use of it, but "delusional" also means "a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc." or "a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason." And if you take some psychology classes, you'll learn that we all carry around mistaken and misleading ideas about the world and ourselves all the time.

 

But hey, what do I know. I'm just an atheist.

[izzytheterri]

I would like it known that this thread makes my head hurt.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yoooooooou eeeeeeeeevil baaaaaaastard!!!!!!!!!!

I know. My words can kill. So watch out!

 

Yes, uh, but did you choose to do that?

Yes and no. That's the delusion. I think I did, but really I didn't.

[mymistake]

I would like it known that this thread makes my head hurt.

 

 

 

Me too.

[Legion]

But hey, what do I know. I'm just an atheist.

I'm just anotha &%$#& who don't believe in yo &%#@* [semantically rich and incoherent word]!

[Ouroboros]

I would like it known that this thread makes my head hurt.

 

Because you keep on hitting your head with a hammer...

 

Stop it!

 

That'll help.

[Ouroboros]

But hey, what do I know. I'm just an atheist.

I'm just anotha &%$#& who don't believe in yo &%#@* [semantically rich and incoherent word]!

You spelled it wrong...

 

 

 

[izzytheterri]

I would like it known that this thread makes my head hurt.

 

Because you keep on hitting your head with a hammer...

 

Stop it!

 

That'll help.

 

I do. Cause I keep coming back to read this.

[Legion]

See ya'll's problem is this. You're lost without a topic.

 

Here go and contemplate this.

 

A-->B

f-->(A-->B )

B-->F

Phi-->(B-->F)

 

material, efficient, formal, and final cause

Cytoplasm, nulceus

phenotype, genotype

 

paradox

 

And then when you're done with that...

 

Go. And do evil.

[Legion]

 

New Year folks!!!!!!!!!

 

Hold each other tight!!! And do your thing!!!!

[Vigile]

Fair enough. But when i say "materialist" I mean those who believe it is some sort of unassailable fact that the universe started with a big bang that somehow then took us from non-life to life, that somehow got more and more complicated over time all by itself. I just don't believe in the "naturalistic" way of things.

 

This probably isn't the time or place to debate this, and the way you've stated this is somewhat problematic, but I don't see a huge problem with this. If it's where the evidence leads, why not? (that was rhetorical, for as I said, this isn't the forum to be debating this).

 

The reason I feel this way is... MIND is not a supernatural thing. I have a consciousness and you have a consciousness and we are not supernatural because of it. It is natural.

 

Sure, why not? I can accept that. It doesn't appear to contradict big bang, the theory of evolution and even abiogenesis, so I'm still confused what the big deal is? Psychology, including one's spirituality, doesn't have to be mutually exclusive of science.

 

 

So I don't find the basis of his rejection very logical since I don't posit a "God" out there who personally interacts with me to begin with.

 

If a person is doing what they can in their capacity to be objective, they don't reject hypotheses out of hand, but rather just don't accept them without further proof. It's an important nuance, but one that is often missed or misunderstood.

 

Abiogenisis makes no sense to me. I'm sorry, it doesn't.

 

At this point, it's only a partially developed hypothesis, not on the same level of evolution and other theories or laws. We don't have all the answers. Most scientists and rational thinkers freely acknowledge this. Again, I'll point to the nuance that is so often missed. We know that we exist, we know that we evolved via 'naturalistic means.' It only stands to reason that the process of first life is also naturalistic given the trend 100% in favor of well-supported naturalistic explanations for life as we know it. But back to the nuance, no one is making a hard claim here, but rather rejecting unsupported claims; e.g., god did it, aliens did it, etc...

 

 

WHEN abiogenisis is fully created in a lab,

 

You put a lot of restrictions on future discoveries. Why not just take the position of "I'll weigh the evidence as it's presented" which is the position most you call "materialists"? Isn't this the most reasonable approach to discovery?

 

 

Additionally, I find it absurd that we are conscious beings who can actively create things like computers and televisions and the internet but nothing we can create can even approximate the complexity of the natural world that I'm expected to believe somehow "randomly came into existence."

 

I find it absurd that a series of null and 1 can allow us to communicate from across the world, yet it happens despite my lack of understanding of the minute details of a typical modern computer. The problem you are left with here is the entity who created the first cause. If we couldn't exist without help, who helped our helper and ultimately, who was first?

 

Random is inaccurate, btw.

 

 

there comes a point where people get tired of talking it to death and the feeling that if they don't constantly defend themselves the other person will think they are "scared" rather than just bored or tired.

 

Well, as I said, there is a whole big world out there that feels this way. This just happens to be an isolated niche in the corner of the internet where people have historically been free to engage in this type of exchange that is not politically correct almost everywhere else in their lives

 

 

is a way to shame and shut down...

 

That's the blunt instrument I spoke of earlier. It too can and should be challenged. That's where people who believe/feel like you do can contribute to the debate (not saying this is the only way you can, I'm just saying you may be specially qualified to or specially interested in the issue).

[badpuppy]

I don't care how many times you call materialism a delusion, nor how many others join you. I would never threaten to kill myself because you have an opinion. See the problem?

That's the problem I've had with some people in the past. When I talked about my opinion about free will and my belief that it's an illusion (and a self-created delusion that is required for our continued existence), they might threaten to kill themselves if I'm right. So I don't want to be right... at least not to them. Hence, I'm not debating everything anymore.

 

Can you explain why you don't believe in free will? Do you not believe in it on any level? Like... logically from that, that would mean that anyone who got free from Christianity just "got lucky". It wasn't because they were smart or could think for themselves. Do you believe in reason or logic or thinking? If there is no free will then why have conversations about anything? Or maybe we can't help it if there is no free will, haha! Like... I started a business that has become pretty successful. I have to make decisions in my business every day. Do you think I'm not making decisions? Is it all just chemical reactions? That doesn't make sense to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, and i certainly wouldn't go jump off a cliff if you were right (well... actually without free will I couldn't say that.) I guess I'm just trying to understand how/why one would come to the conclusion that they have no free will.

 

Our entire justice system and moral system is built upon the concept of personal responsibility for actions, which requires free will. So why would we punish people for things they couldn't help? (Though again, if we don't have free will I guess we could do completely absurd and illogical things without explaining why since we didn't choose it.)

 

I don't accept that no one is responsible for their actions. That results in chaos and people sitting back and going: "Well, I couldn't help shooting that asshole. I had no free will."

[badpuppy]

Yes. My opinion is that there will be a paradigm shift, and the shift won't be "materialism". LOL

Woah! Woah hammer! Gracious. You're scaring me.

 

I think your prediction has some measure of accuracy. But wouldn't you also like to be able to predict what it will actually BE rather than what it will not be?

 

LOL. Well... I hope it will be my dream theory! And I agree a lot with the Biocentrism theory... though I think he stops just shy of going "it's a dream". I just felt like my dream theory fit in perfectly with what he was saying so I "heard it' even if he didn't 'say it'. But, no I would rather not predict and assume too far into something that would just be conjecture and personal bias on my part. I just know, like the atheists have used the process of elimination to take out god beliefs, I've taken out materialism in the same way. But, while I know what I would LIKE it to be, I'm not going to predict that is what it WILL be because you can obviously see the bias in that.

[badpuppy]

The error I think Robert Lanza makes in Biocentrism is that he uses too much spiritual language and in popular articles in things like the Huffington Post it sounds more like something Deepak Chopra would come up with rather than his ACTUAL theory. He's leaving a lot of the actual science out to make it accessible to the layreader, but I fear it makes him look more like a crackpot to those whose first impression of the theory may be these "popular writings". I think he should lead with the science, stick with the science, and stop going down flowery rabbit trails, because the people he ostensibly wants to convince... "the scientific establishment" will dismiss him out of hand without thinking through anything he's saying if it is wrapped in too much metaphorical language.

[Ouroboros]

Can you explain why you don't believe in free will?

Nope. I explained why I'm not going to explain it.

 

Do you not believe in it on any level? Like... logically from that, that would mean that anyone who got free from Christianity just "got lucky". It wasn't because they were smart or could think for themselves. Do you believe in reason or logic or thinking? If there is no free will then why have conversations about anything? Or maybe we can't help it if there is no free will, haha! Like... I started a business that has become pretty successful. I have to make decisions in my business every day. Do you think I'm not making decisions? Is it all just chemical reactions? That doesn't make sense to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, and i certainly wouldn't go jump off a cliff if you were right (well... actually without free will I couldn't say that.) I guess I'm just trying to understand how/why one would come to the conclusion that they have no free will.

Like I said above, sorry, but it's a topic I refuse to partake in anymore after hearing that people wanted to kill themselves. It's worse than just a headache.

 

Our entire justice system and moral system is built upon the concept of personal responsibility for actions, which requires free will. So why would we punish people for things they couldn't help? (Though again, if we don't have free will I guess we could do completely absurd and illogical things without explaining why since we didn't choose it.)

There are other ways to look at it.

 

I don't accept that no one is responsible for their actions. That results in chaos and people sitting back and going: "Well, I couldn't help shooting that asshole. I had no free will."

It's your choice to believe it or not.

[badpuppy]

 

I am not being persecuted. What I am trying to do is tread very lightly yet correct a lot of misunderstandings.

 

 

That's fair. But I think you'll find that you don't need to clear up misunderstandings about "atheists", because most of us don't think what you might think we think. We have specific problems with a certain type of attitude in SOME atheists and materialists. Not everyone. It's not the worldview itself that is the problem, it's the fundamentalism that some still carry.

 

 

 

Who is pretending persecution?

 

 

It seemed that you were since it appeared you felt you weren't allowed to say anything.

 

 

 

 

Because when some guy states what he is looking for in a soul mate that is not an attack on, nor did it have anything to do with the person who is talking about suicide over the incident. He has the right to refuse to have sex with anybody for any reason. Voicing such an opinion, even if he uses shoddy and flawed thinking, is not a statement about some other person being crazy. It's certainly not a good reason to talk about suicide. This thing was blown way out of proportion. Let's not loose sight of what really matters.

 

I agree that Interested stating what he wants in a soul mate is not an attack, though he did say he felt all religious people were delusional. So that's kind of a statement about everybody who has spiritual beliefs. Either way, I didn't take personal offense when he said it and defend his right to think and say it, ESPECIALLY in a thread he started.

 

So the suicide statement happened in that thread. I seem to dimly recall it now. I guess I saw it as Luna being really upset and just lashing out. I didn't necessarily think it was a real suicide threat. That doesn't mean it wasn't, that was just my perception of it. Also I'm not sure I think Luna was reacting just to Interested. It seemed more like a lot of things had just built up for her and Interested was the last straw. But that's just how I saw it. But I agree that it wasn't meant as a personal attack on Luna... but that still goes back to what I said earlier about the black person hanging out with the white people who use the N word, it may not be a personal attack against THAT black person but it's talking about OTHER black people in a derogatory way. I think it is reasonable for Luna to be hurt in this situation. Her emotional volume may have been louder than some are comfortable with... but we aren't all robots. Well, unless Oubouros is correct, then we are.

[Overcame Faith]

If religion/spirituality is such a horrid delusion and mental defect, why is this section here?

 

I don't think religion or spirituality, and that includes Christianity, is a delusion or is a sign of a mental defect. If it were, then every ExChristian here must concede that they had , at one time at least, a mental defect.

 

Maybe we should rename this "the ghetto."

 

I take it you are being facetious when you suggest that this paticular forum should be renamed "the ghetto." I think what you are expressing, instead, is the way you are sometimes made to feel here since you are a person who embraces a form of theism. From what you say, I can understand your feeling this way. I think what would help is if we all understand that the primary purpose of this board is to encourage ExChristians. An ExChristian is anyone who was formerly a Christian but who came to reject the religion. By that definition, it could include a person who was a Christian but rejected it and became a Jew, for example. I use that example because when I first rejected Christianity, I seriously considered converting to Judaism since my religious problem was with the New Testament and not the Old Testament. Therefore, anyone who is a former Christian, whether they are a theist now or not, must be accepted here and we all need to understand that. That does not mean, of course, that we must all accept as true another's non-Christian religion, only that we keep in mind the primary purpose for this Board and conduct ourselves accordingly.

 

Sorry, I don't feel I'm delusional. Shrinks don't think so either. Yes, I do suffer from mental illness, but it's depression and anxiety, so thanks to those who punched my bruises by suggesting the one aspect of my life that keeps me from killing myself is another illness.

 

I think Richard Dawkins was the most prominent person who introduced the concept that one who believes there is a god is delusional in his book, "The God Delusion." I never liked that title nor the implications of it. Calling someone delusional for believing there is a god is an automatic turn off and is, in my view, counterproductive. As I suggested above, if one thinks it is delusional to believe in a god, then every exChristian on this forum is admitting to having been delusional at one point in their life. I don't think I was being delusional when I was a Christian nor do I think that a current Christian, or any other theist, is delusional because that word suggests some kind of mental disorder.

 

People can have opinions and free fucking speech, but it's clear that all that rationality has killed a fuck of a lot of empathy and basic compassion. If that's what it takes to be a mentally healthy smart atheist, I'll stay an insane dumb little theist, thanks.

 

For me, embracing a rational approach was a way to make sure that I am never again fooled into accepting a false religion like Christianity. What I learned about myself when looking back and trying to understand how I could have accepted Christianity as true was that faith somehow dulled my rational mind when it came to that religion. Having finally cast faith to the side (which was no easy task), I became determined never to do so again. But my experience is that it did not kill my "empathy and basic compassion." That had been killed by Christianity. Rather, by embracing a rational approach to life, my empathy and basic compassion were brought back to life.

 

And I'm still an ex-Christian. I am one too. And I'm religious. See what you can do about it. Nothing.

 

I totally agree that you are an ExChristian and your being religious does not change that fact one iota.

[badpuppy]

@Oroboros I want to believe you aren’t just being disingenous here, but I find it incredibly hard to believe you REALLY think somehow most people find the word “delusion” in any way related to some metaphorical software.

 

But let’s go with something less esoteric. Like the dictionary:

 

de·lu·sion

 

   [dih-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA

noun

[/url]<a name="hotword3">

1.

an act or instance of deluding.

 

 

2.

the state of being deluded.

 

 

3.

4.

a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur

 

Psychiatry . a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason orconfrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

 

 

 

(Sorry if that copies and pastes weird.)

 

Since I’m talking about what I think most people reasonably think about that word used as a descriptive term toward another human being, then maybe we should just let everybody vote on it. My guess is that more people will agree with the dictionary definition and it’s perceived negative connotations rather than your innocuous software metaphor. (But of course I could be wrong.)

 

Re: the fag example, you’re free to think what you want, but we’re talking about how most people react to something in this case. I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine most people think: “People who think XYZ are delusional” is somehow a neutral and non-offensive statement.

 

And again, I’m not arguing against the poster’s right to use the word, I’m merely saying that others have a right to hear it and get offended and such offense or hurt is not irrational or emo.

 

I never said you said all spiritual views were delusional. I was only speaking about your apparent understanding of the word delusion as innocuous and non-hurtful.

 

You seem to hold the same dictionary definition of delusion that the rest of us do, you just don’t seem to imbue it with a negative connotation. I could be wrong, but I think most people hear “you’re delusional” and think of that as an insult.

[Rev R]

Seems to me that, a good chunk of the time, threads on "spirituality" just degenerate into an argument between a supposed "materialist" or "reductionist" side and a "spiritual" side. Both forgetting that the entire point of either exercise is to take this fucked up fancy mess that we call existence and make some kind of bloody sense out of it.

 

The poison of the bloodgod makes everyone highly defensive of their own mind. Can anyone truly consider themselves free if at any time they revert to the conditioning of "x thought is deeply flawed and is not a proper view of reality"?

[Ouroboros]

@Oroboros I want to believe you aren’t just being disingenous here, but I find it incredibly hard to believe you REALLY think somehow most people find the word “delusion” in any way related to some metaphorical software.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

But let’s go with something less esoteric. Like the dictionary:

 

de·lu·sion

 

   [dih-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA

noun

deluding.

 

 

2.

the state of being deluded.

 

 

3.

4.

a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur

 

Psychiatry . a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason orconfrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

A false belief (is Creationism true?) which is resistant to reason and confrontation (like Ken Ham and Ken Hovind?). Paranoid delusion is an example, not the one and only "delusion" that is a delusion.

 

 

 

(Sorry if that copies and pastes weird.)

 

Since I’m talking about what I think most people reasonably think about that word used as a descriptive term toward another human being, then maybe we should just let everybody vote on it. My guess is that more people will agree with the dictionary definition and it’s perceived negative connotations rather than your innocuous software metaphor. (But of course I could be wrong.)

 

Re: the fag example, you’re free to think what you want, but we’re talking about how most people react to something in this case. I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine most people think: “People who think XYZ are delusional” is somehow a neutral and non-offensive statement.

 

And again, I’m not arguing against the poster’s right to use the word, I’m merely saying that others have a right to hear it and get offended and such offense or hurt is not irrational or emo.

 

I never said you said all spiritual views were delusional. I was only speaking about your apparent understanding of the word delusion as innocuous and non-hurtful.

 

You seem to hold the same dictionary definition of delusion that the rest of us do, you just don’t seem to imbue it with a negative connotation. I could be wrong, but I think most people hear “you’re delusional” and think of that as an insult.

Sorry, but you're not understanding what I'm saying, so I'm leaving it at that.

[badpuppy]

@Vigile, we don’t “know we evolved via a naturalistic means”, that’s an metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality. But... either way, in order for ANY of that to happen, abiogenisis has to be proven as actually possible first. I don’t even want to “touch” big bang, mindless evolution, etc before we nail down abiogenisis.

 

When self-replicating and evolving life can spontaneously spring to life in a lab via some chemical soup, then I will accept materialism “may” be the correct philosophical worldview. I’ll have to suspend disbelief a little since just randomly putting what is most convenient into your chemical soup seems a bit contrived, but... since I don’t think actual self-replicating and evolving life can ever arise from non-life no matter how convenient the set-up, then I’m not really that worried about having to address that issue. (Spontaneous generation was disproven already but apparently only applies to things like maggots in meat and moths in clothing and there is somehow an exception billions of years ago that we can’t witness or replicate. Um, okay. Sorry but not logical to me. Though I will and do respect if it is logical to you.)

 

But I’m happy to say I’m wrong if the evidence ever comes in. It would still be a long way toward proving the entire narrative I’ve been told about “what really happened”, but it would at least be a start toward some credibility for this way of thinking.

 

If abiogenesis somehow requires billions of years to happen, isn’t observable, isn’t replicable, and isn’t falsifiable, then... by definition it’s not science. It’s a materialistic creation myth.

 

The problem is... many materialistic atheists ARE making a hard claim. They may not be saying god did it or aliens did it but they are saying “abiogenesis did it” and claiming that makes it more rational because it’s not “supernatural”. But it may as well be. It’s equally weird, unsupportable, and just plain absurd in my opinion.

 

Weighing the evidence as it’s presented is all fine and good, but in order to posit an idea such as abiogenesis you should be able to at LEAST demonstrate it’s possible. If you can’t demonstrate it’s possible and you have no way set up in which it can ever be falsifiable then you aren’t dealing in the realm of science. I can’t just say any random crackhead think I want to say and then expect you to accept it without even proving it’s true. (Note that though what I DO think may be some random crackhead thing to you I have not insisted, as materialistic science has about the nature of reality, that you accept it or be deemed delusional or unintelligent.)

 

I already know dreams are possible. I do NOT know abiogenesis is possible. I feel absolutely no compulsion to accept what I consider a ludicrous concept before even the most basic repeatable science has been successfully performed.

 

WHEN it is, then that will be then and I’ll amend my position. I don’t see why it would be logical for me to hold any other position until then. I’m already ahead of you. Dreams are demonstrably real. Now give me some abiogenesis and we can proceed from there.

 

Re: random... I understand how natural selection works. Me using the word “random” to portray my personal perception of how weird it is should not be taken to mean I don’t understand Darwin’s theory. Nor should it be taken to mean I don’t believe any evolution has taken place. I do accept evolution happens. I just don’t think it happens in the way materialists think it happens.

 

Also... I am not positing a “god out there” as some “first cause” who therefore “needs to be created”. The universe can and does “self-create” if that’s it’s nature. But... you have to have a way that nature can be expressed. The materialistic version of this is in no way explanatory. Mind and dream ARE explanatory. And minds and dreams aren’t supernatural.

[badpuppy]

Seems to me that, a good chunk of the time, threads on "spirituality" just degenerate into an argument between a supposed "materialist" or "reductionist" side and a "spiritual" side. Both forgetting that the entire point of either exercise is to take this fucked up fancy mess that we call existence and make some kind of bloody sense out of it.

 

The poison of the bloodgod makes everyone highly defensive of their own mind. Can anyone truly consider themselves free if at any time they revert to the conditioning of "x thought is deeply flawed and is not a proper view of reality"?

 

Actually my problem is fundamentalism: "I'm right and you're wrong". Anyone can hold any view they want. If materialists didn't feel compelled to say they are right without proof, then I would not feel compelled to rebut it. To me, the materialistic view of everything is the most extraordinary claim you can make, and yet... "Oh, we don't know everything yet, but we will someday and definitely god didn't do it!" is the big answer I get. If everyone was content to live and let live and not shove their view of reality down everybody's collective throats, I wouldn't care. And that's the same way most of us feel about Christianity. Stop telling me it's "the truth" without proof. Same concept. It may be "your truth" (general third person you), but it isn't mine. Christians acting like I'm unholy and materialists acting like I'm irrational because of that is somewhat irritating. I'm sure I'll get over it and go through another "meh I don't care" phase, but this thing with Luna has set me off.

 

Because it's just irritating

[Astreja]

I think the realm of spirituality has a lot in common with cutting-edge neuroscience. There apparently is something very important our minds are trying to tell us, and that something seems to express itself in intense imagery and emotion. The way we see the world, the way we learn, the way we create value and find personal satisfaction -- Spirituality is one way of opening up our selves to the unknowns that surround us, and I think it frequently does a better job of it than a strictly objective, empirical approach to the world.