Any one feel off put by atheist's?

[Orbit]

31 minutes ago, florduh said:

There are many forums and websites catering to specific belief sets. Some people need their safe space where they won't be challenged. Staying in one's echo chamber and never being challenged is counterproductive IMO. This site, for people recovering from Christian indoctrination, nevertheless tries to accommodate everyone as much as possible. 

When it gets to the point that you can't even have a philosophical conversation with it being derailed by less open-minded atheists, that's a problem. Note that Josh and I both identify as atheists. If we're saying there's an issue, there's an issue.

[LogicalFallacy]

6 hours ago, Orbit said:

@LogicalFallacy I'm going to tag you instead of quoting your post for length reasons. The part I want to respond to is regarding the suspicion of subjectivity. I think subjectivity is an important part of the human experience, and needs to be discussed. There is a special branch of philosophy for doing so, more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)

Something that I find interesting is that mystics the world over tend to say the same kinds of things, despite coming from very different religious or philosophical backgrounds: this represents an intersubjectivity, which is indeed how we all measure reality for practical purposes. I would caution against dismissing something because "it's just subjective" when our entire social reality is maintained by intersubjectivity.

 

I wouldn't say I'm suspicious of subjectivity. I specifically mentioned an experience that I had and how it is subjectively important to me. So I am in no way dismissing subjective experience.

 

Regarding finding mystics interesting: religions also tend to say the same kind of things despite their differences. They have similar themes and stories despite big differences of how and what is going on. But is this necessarily a path to truth. That is what I am getting at when I talk about subjectivity not being good at getting to what is true. Now I realize we can't escape it. Scientist all have their subjective views on any particular subject, but that's why there are methods and controls to try and remove this subjectiveness and bias from the equation.

 

So coming back to spirituality: Can it tell us anything objective about reality that we can all experience, it is it something that gives subjective meaning to reality?

[Orbit]

13 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I wouldn't say I'm suspicious of subjectivity. I specifically mentioned an experience that I had and how it is subjectively important to me. So I am in no way dismissing subjective experience.

 

Regarding finding mystics interesting: religions also tend to say the same kind of things despite their differences. They have similar themes and stories despite big differences of how and what is going on. But is this necessarily a path to truth. That is what I am getting at when I talk about subjectivity not being good at getting to what is true. Now I realize we can't escape it. Scientist all have their subjective views on any particular subject, but that's why there are methods and controls to try and remove this subjectiveness and bias from the equation.

 

So coming back to spirituality: Can it tell us anything objective about reality that we can all experience, it is it something that gives subjective meaning to reality?

 

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking "What can subjective experience teach us?"

[Joshpantera]

12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I have something of a quandary at the question of the topic and its possibly because of a crossing of the understanding of what atheist means. What is an atheist? Well to determine that we first have to know what a theist is. As we all know a theist is someone who believes in a literal personal God. (Contrasting with Deist who believes in a literal non personal God - sometimes referred to as "higher power").

 

The prefix "A" in a word negates the meaning of that word. Therefore atheist is someone who does not believe in a literal personal God. 

 

Therefore are we not primarily atheists here? I know there are people who hold various world views, possibly even religions, but do they actually believe in a literal personal God? Or is atheist just a label for this topic? I don't generally identify as an atheist, but I am atheist by definition. I trust you can see the distinction.

 

A +

 

I'd say that many, if not most spiritual minded ex christians, when broken down to bare bones, aren't really into belief in a personal god. Non-theist, if that sounds less harsh. But the thing is, being non-theistic isn't really all that harsh, or at least it doesn't have to be. It's just as simple as not believing in something. Many people are familiar with being spiritual but not religious. But maybe being spiritual but "not-god belief" isn't as well known. 

 

12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

"When we go back far enough in time we find that we are not just connected to all living things, but to all matter in the universe. Atomically we share the same elements that are forged in the stars."

 

This is what modern pantheist's are into. Some diverge between strong naturalism and supernatural beliefs, but the modern variety is mainly a strong naturalist venture. It's about feeling spiritual or connected to the whole, to put it simply. Your quote would fit in well on the world pantheism movement website, in fact. Quite well. 

 

12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

But is this anything more than an aroused state in my brain? I highly doubt it. I don't expect the universe to share this spiritual moment with me, and no one else can either. It was my own subjective experience upon hearing a scientific truth expounded upon in a meaningful way.

 

Well put it this way, you are the universe incarnate. You are one of the many sensing organs of the planet and greater universe, as a conscious life form. The spiritual feeling breaks down to interconnection, and self realization and self awareness of that underlying interconnection, and interdependence throughout the whole of existence. So in a real way, the universe, of which you are an interconnected part, IS sharing this spiritual moment with you from closer look at the situation. And I think profound scientific truths can awaken such naturally occuring spiritual experience. 

 

When we say that some people are naturally inclined to spiritual thinking while others may not be, this is ultimately what I think it breaks down to. 

 

Some are very sensitive to these underlying interconnections and interdependence. You can't very well run away from it, in fact. I feel I tried to run away from it, but ultimately it caught back up with me. And instead of resisting it, I explored and embraced it until I came to a point of understanding who and what I am, and why I am that way. It's a great feeling to find that kind of peace within yourself. 

 

But back to your point, none of this spiritual feeling leads me to theistic conclusions. In fact, the more I understand about spirituality the further away from christianity and shallow minded spiritual assertions I get. So atheism, for me, comes with this rich and expansive world view encompassing non-belief, non-conformity, as well as deep spirituality and interconnection. I have to admit, I love it. I wouldn't trade what I feel at this point in life for anything I experienced or was involved in previously. I can only hope that it may get even better as I continue learning and gaining more wisdom with age. 

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, midniterider said:

One thing that bothers me with some atheists is the dogmatic understanding that science is the one true way and if science hasn't discovered it yet then it doesn't exist and is therefore unimportant and not worth further thought.

 

 

 

 

Just as I pointed out a scale of spiritual thinking, from literal and shallow through symbolic and deep, so too does this apply to science. Some would think if it hasn't been discovered yet, then it doesn't exist. This seems like the opposite, but equal position to religious literalist's.

 

While those with more depth of thought realize that something like newly discovered sub atomic particles always existed, before science has ever discovered them. And it's nonsensical to make an assertion about nothing existing that science hasn't already discovered. And they seem like the opposite, but equal to the symbolic, more well thought out personality counter parts in spirituality and religion. 

 

So it may break down to personality types and how they're wired to see the world. 

 

It sounds derogatory of me to point people out as shallow or deep minded, but that's what it is. Again, taking my own advice, I have to then ask myself what does it matter if some people are naturally inclined to a shallower depth of thought and perception than other people who peer much deeper into things? It doesn't make either of them good or bad. And perhaps looking closer, I might find that there's a beneficial function for having people focused at different depths of thought, rather everyone all being focused on just one way or the other. I haven't found an answer to that question yet, but at least I can see the question arising. 

 

Well, in any case, your post jarred these thoughts in my mind. 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, Orbit said:

 

I think what I'm put off by is when atheists who dismiss the subject of and reason for this forum,  post in this forum. This isn't the Lion's Den.

 

This seems like a valid objection. I've seen it too. 

 

Hopefully it's ok that I asked LF and Geezer to chime in with their non spiritual perspectives. I figured for the purpose of this discussion it would be ok to let that play out here as a way of trying to better understand one another. 

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

One thing that bothers me with some atheists is the dogmatic understanding that science is the one true way and if science hasn't discovered it yet then it doesn't exist and is therefore unimportant and not worth further thought.

 

Yes, this does seem to be an untenable position to make.

 

I would say that science, at the moment, is proven to be the best flawed way of discovering objective truth about reality. However i think there are things we cannot ever know or discover objectively.

 

Perhaps this is where @Orbit subjective experience comes in about discovering other parts of reality that we experience subjectively?

 

Different tools for answering different questions?

[Joshpantera]

20 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes, this does seem to be an untenable position to make.

 

I would say that science, at the moment, is proven to be the best flawed way of discovering objective truth about reality. However i think there are things we cannot ever know or discover objectively.

 

Perhaps this is where @Orbit subjective experience comes in about discovering other parts of reality that we experience subjectively?

 

Different tools for answering different questions?

 

Let's contrast this against our recent discussion honoring Mark's service here, and memory. 

 

We're into some deep shit. You, I, and dissillusioned are carrying on the torch of where Mark was headed. Hopefully we can do it some justice. 

 

One thing that has come of it is the fact that my philosophical, and intuitive feelings actually seem to hold more weight against an issue like "past-eternal" than the actual physics. When we try and formulate an argument we're on less solid ground with the physics than the philosophy. And that says something about our discussion here. My philosophical input about infinity and eternity, immanence and transcendence, etc., is something that occurs within the spiritual domain of human thinking. 

 

And it's quite helpful when formulating an argument against christian apologists about Genesis 1:1 and it's claim to a fixed beginning. They are in fact out of tune with spiritual thinking by (1) reading the bible literally and (2) asserting something as untenable as a fixed beginning due to reading mythology literally. 

 

 

[florduh]

5 hours ago, midniterider said:

.....that science is the one true way and if science hasn't discovered it yet then it doesn't exist and is therefore unimportant and not worth further thought.

A bit of a misrepresentation, IMO. I actually know of no atheists who think that. Scientists have doggedly researched things like ghosts, esp, psychokinesis and near death experiences for decades. America and Russia have spent millions studying remote viewing and mind control before they abandoned the pursuit for lack of results. That is hardly a case of science assuming "it doesn't exist and is therefore unimportant and not worth further thought."   They have tried and are still trying in many areas. Science doesn't know anything until it does, and when they do know something it means they have discovered evidence that can show it to be so. Science now knows, for example, that solid objects are not solid at all but that was not always so. Those with a spiritual bent can say to that, "I told you so! Everything is a vibration!" That is scientifically true, but what are the implications of that knowledge considering that we must work in a practical world of solid objects? Similarly, science readily admits that our senses are a very inadequate way to judge reality as we can see and hear only a small slice of the spectrum. There is very likely information available that we are not equipped to perceive. A problem arises when people pretend they can perceive, channel and manipulate physical reality through spiritual means.

 

That is not to say that there is no place for the religion of no religion.

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, florduh said:

A bit of a misrepresentation, IMO. I actually know of no atheists who think that. Scientists have doggedly researched things like ghosts, esp, psychokinesis and near death experiences for decades. America and Russia have spent millions studying remote viewing and mind control before they abandoned the pursuit for lack of results. That is hardly a case of science assuming "it doesn't exist and is therefore unimportant and not worth further thought."   They have tried and are still trying in many areas. Science doesn't know anything until it does, and when they do know something it means they have discovered evidence that can show it to be so. Science now knows, for example, that solid objects are not solid at all but that was not always so. Those with a spiritual bent can say to that, "I told you so! Everything is a vibration!" That is scientifically true, but what are the implications of that knowledge considering that we must work in a practical world of solid objects? Similarly, science readily admits that our senses are a very inadequate way to judge reality as we can see and hear only a small slice of the spectrum. There is very likely information available that we are not equipped to perceive. A problem arises when people pretend they can perceive, channel and manipulate physical reality through spiritual means.

 

That is not to say that there is no place for the religion of no religion.

 

Thanks for the balanced response. I appreciated that. I'm sure some of my opinion is just me pouting  that we're not all agnostics like me. But there is a lot of rampant materialism on this site. 

 

Now , regarding manipulating physical reality...I love magic! lol

 

Ex-c probably not the best place to pursue spirituality. There are other freaky places to do that.

[midniterider]

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes, this does seem to be an untenable position to make.

 

I would say that science, at the moment, is proven to be the best flawed way of discovering objective truth about reality. However i think there are things we cannot ever know or discover objectively.

 

Perhaps this is where @Orbit subjective experience comes in about discovering other parts of reality that we experience subjectively?

 

Different tools for answering different questions?

 

Yes, different tools that have different functions, at least.

 

Science gathers information about reality using a certain method.

Spirituality (to me) is a method to make yourself feel good and take away feelings of helplessness. I also choose to accept that magic 'might' actually work.

 

I don't accept every spiritual idea I hear.

Nor would I say that every answer must consists of protons, neutrons or electrons.

 

Science is a good thing.

Spirituality is a good thing.

 

I like em both. I choose them both.

 

 

 

 

[disillusioned]

I'm also an atheist, and I sometimes feel put off by atheists. When people cross the line from inquiry to dogmatism, I tend to tune them out pretty quickly. I've had enough of that in my life already.

[Storm]

I think the biggest struggle for me is that "spiritual" and "spirituality" are loaded words much like "faith" is. I fully admit that Christianity has completely muddied my ability to understand it. But it seems to me that it means something different to each person.

 

Much like the discussion disillusioned and BAA and I had about morality,  I see spirituality as like morality. It means something different to each person and it only has meaning when you see and understand it from the construct of the person or groups defining it. 

 

In my mind right now, spirituality = religion. I am having a hard time separating that. I don't have any idea how to separate that. Much like I struggled to understand what it meant to "give it over to God", I can't seem to wrap my head around spirituality. 

Reading what some of the people described spirituality as in this thread still left me clueless. Maybe I will never be able to understand it. I'm OK with that. But, honestly, I'd like to try and maybe I'll only understand it on a shallow level, but that's OK to me as well. 

[Joshpantera]

23 hours ago, Storm said:

In my mind right now, spirituality = religion. I am having a hard time separating that. I don't have any idea how to separate that. Much like I struggled to understand what it meant to "give it over to God", I can't seem to wrap my head around spirituality. 

Reading what some of the people described spirituality as in this thread still left me clueless. Maybe I will never be able to understand it. I'm OK with that. But, honestly, I'd like to try and maybe I'll only understand it on a shallow level, but that's OK to me as well. 

 

I like intellectually honest posts like this. 

 

I think that many people have a hard seeing spirituality as anything other than religion. But at the same time, I believe that the polls show a lot of people preferring to go as "spiritual, not religious." But even then, let's face it, what they mean by that is that they believe in god, or are at least agnostic about it, but don't agree with organized religion. So spiritual to them probably means belief in supernatural spirit realms and all that. But again, that's a very simplistic view of it. 

 

Probably the best solution to the confusion would be to come up with an entirely new term other than, "spiritual." 

 

That could possibly cut a lot of the confusion as to what naturalist's mean when they use it, for lack of some other way of describing what they're trying to express. Sam Harris even reverts back to using the word "spiritual," for lack of another way of terming it. I'd be good with leaving the word left to represent religion and leaving it at that, simple, if there were a better way of describing it. 

 

A ) In tune with nature and existence is a good way of describing it. Feeling a strong interconnection with everything. Being at one and centered. 

 

B ) As opposed to being oblivious to nature and existence, not feeling interconnected at all, and finding yourself not at one but rather way out of center, off to one extreme or the other. 

 

Unfortunately spiritual has been the only way to describe the interconnected, balanced and unified feeling. But at the same time, believing in supernatural spirit realms, literally, is not necessary for someone to take a position A world view. Between A and B, A would be the one most people would identify as the spiritual option. And that leaves, of course, B as the non-spiritual option. 

 

Again, I'd love a better suited way of describing A than "spiritual." 

 

 

 

[Casey]

On 2/1/2018 at 11:35 PM, Joshpantera said:

This is what happened to myself while off and away at boarding academy. It just hit me like a load of bricks and I felt so embarrassed, and so gullible for ever having believed that something this blatantly fair tale oriented was ever true. Shame on me. And my first instinct was to reject it all immediately. I flipped from believing in the christian god to hard atheism and anti-theism just like that. But over the course of the next ten years I began feeling pulled back towards religious issues nonetheless, mainly, I think, because I never did my homework to face off with christianity and learn and know the details associated with my decision to leave. It sort of haunted me for a while until I decided to go back and re-read the bible and face this thing again. And what happened is that I immediately began to see contradictions in the bible, starting with genesis, which I must have always overlooked before when I was a believer. This led to more interest in knowing what's going on, so I kept on searching and found my way through comparative world mythology and religion, biblical criticism, minimalist archaeology, and basically everything that secular oriented academia has to offer on the subject. 

 

That is what happened to me also, via hardcore Catholicism. There is nothing like physical, sexual, and verbal/mental abuse to make a person grow up fast, too fast. It has taken years to straighten out the mess the Irish Christian Brothers made of my life, but I have got it to where I can live more or less normally. I'll leave it at that, except to add it's appalling how they got away with such things because they were such exemplary church crawlers; the only thing they fancied as much as that was football and athletic meets. Many of them were in short, sports mad, cuntstruck religious workaholics and not a few were also alcoholics.

 

That said, if you happen to be an atheist who takes the economic, political, and social theories of Marxist Leninism as your religion, you are every bit as bad as any Bible thumping Baptist or creeping-to-the-Cross Catholic, as witness the number of AK47s, RPDs, and RPG7s floating around in, well, certain Third World nations. Of course an atheist whose gospel is Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West, and/or similar Capitalist rhetoric, is exactly the same sort of fanatic; the only difference would be their taste in small arms; by and large their preference is for the M16 and M4 type of weaponry. Many fundamentalist Christians are also right wingers of that kind, but they are the same as militant atheists.
 

Me? I don't care what anyone chooses to believe, as long as they don't ram it down my throat. The ones who really scare me though, are those who have come to believe their beliefs are worth killing for. Whether they are believers or atheists, they would do the world a favour if they would start with themselves. Whatever happened to "Live and let live?" Did I mention I don't care for fanatics?

Casey

[Casey]

You want an example of how "spiritual," some Christians are? You know how they like to call themselves "One of the flock," and other ovine names? In the real world, sheep get flyblown. You know how you can see if there are flyblown sheep in a mob? You look closely at the tail (rear) of the mob and if you see one or several sheep following along on their own, you can bet they're flyblown or have something else wrong with them. It's not that they can't keep up, it's that the other sheep in the mob will push them out. Christers will do the same thing, only they call it "shunning," or something like that, don't they?

 

Just goes to show you, Christians are more like sheep than even they would have others believe.
 

Casey

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, Casey said:

 

That is what happened to me also, via hardcore Catholicism. There is nothing like physical, sexual, and verbal/mental abuse to make a person grow up fast, too fast. It has taken years to straighten out the mess the Irish Christian Brothers made of my life, but I have got it to where I can live more or less normally. I'll leave it at that, except to add it's appalling how they got away with such things because they were such exemplary church crawlers; the only thing they fancied as much as that was football and athletic meets. Many of them were in short, sports mad, cuntstruck religious workaholics and not a few were also alcoholics.

 

That said, if you happen to be an atheist who takes the economic, political, and social theories of Marxist Leninism as your religion, you are every bit as bad as any Bible thumping Baptist or creeping-to-the-Cross Catholic, as witness the number of AK47s, RPDs, and RPG7s floating around in, well, certain Third World nations. Of course an atheist whose gospel is Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West, and/or similar Capitalist rhetoric, is exactly the same sort of fanatic; the only difference would be their taste in small arms; by and large their preference is for the M16 and M4 type of weaponry. Many fundamentalist Christians are also right wingers of that kind, but they are the same as militant atheists.
 

Me? I don't care what anyone chooses to believe, as long as they don't ram it down my throat. The ones who really scare me though, are those who have come to believe their beliefs are worth killing for. Whether they are believers or atheists, they would do the world a favour if they would start with themselves. Whatever happened to "Live and let live?" Did I mention I don't care for fanatics?

Casey

 

Live and let live sounds good. Fanatics suck.

[LogicalFallacy]

On this topic there was some... concern... at those atheists who are scientifically dogmatic. However in line with my first post I tend to take Carl Sagan's view. For me science is a form of spirituality.

 

 

[disillusioned]

The thing is, when science is done properly, it absolutely is not dogmatic. It can't be. Dogmatism is completely antithetical to science.

[LogicalFallacy]

10 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

The thing is, when science is done properly, it absolutely is not dogmatic. It can't be. Dogmatism is completely antithetical to science.

 

Yes I agree.

 

I think @Joshpantera and @Orbit were referring to atheists who are dogmatic in applying scientific principles and dismissing anything not empirically quantified by science which is what my post was referring to.

[disillusioned]

8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes I agree.

 

I think @Joshpantera and @Orbit were referring to atheists who are dogmatic in applying scientific principles and dismissing anything not empirically quantified by science which is what my post was referring to.

 

Yeah, I get that. I know a few such people in real life. I have argued with them that this is a fundamentally flawed approach to science to little avail. I think it's people like this who inspire Christians to claim that atheism is a religion.

[Guest]

On 2/2/2018 at 6:27 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

 

Well put it this way, you are the universe incarnate. You are one of the many sensing organs of the planet and greater universe, as a conscious life form. The spiritual feeling breaks down to interconnection, and self realization and self awareness of that underlying interconnection, and interdependence throughout the whole of existence. So in a real way, the universe, of which you are an interconnected part, IS sharing this spiritual moment with you from closer look at the situation. And I think profound scientific truths can awaken such naturally occuring spiritual experience. 

 

When we say that some people are naturally inclined to spiritual thinking while others may not be, this is ultimately what I think it breaks down to. 

 

Some are very sensitive to these underlying interconnections and interdependence. You can't very well run away from it, in fact. I feel I tried to run away from it, but ultimately it caught back up with me. And instead of resisting it, I explored and embraced it until I came to a point of understanding who and what I am, and why I am that way. It's a great feeling to find that kind of peace within yourself. 

 

But back to your point, none of this spiritual feeling leads me to theistic conclusions. In fact, the more I understand about spirituality the further away from christianity and shallow minded spiritual assertions I get. So atheism, for me, comes with this rich and expansive world view encompassing non-belief, non-conformity, as well as deep spirituality and interconnection. I have to admit, I love it. I wouldn't trade what I feel at this point in life for anything I experienced or was involved in previously. I can only hope that it may get even better as I continue learning and gaining more wisdom with age. 

When I left Christianity I thought I was done with any spiritual feeling (because I made the mistake plenty of people do of associating it with religion), but that I think was because I didn't really understand or think upon what it means to be spiritual. For a long time I didn't feel any need to explore it. I can really identify with what you've written here about feeling interconnected and being part of the universe. The more I learn about science, the more in awe I am about the world we live in, and I guess this is what I could term a sort of spiritual experience. I think for some of us, these feelings of interconnectedness, self realization and self awareness are all part of what helps give us meaning in life. I wouldn't trade them away either, they're much more real and satisfying than anything I experienced in my fundamentalist church.

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I think for some of us, these feelings of interconnectedness, self realization and self awareness are all part of what helps give us meaning in life. I wouldn't trade them away either, they're much more real and satisfying than anything I experienced in my fundamentalist church.

 

This!

 

What was going around at my fundamentalist church hardly even passes as spiritual, from my perspective now. 

 

I'm left to wonder, what exactly is spiritual about believing that a god, who's a fixed being, not the totality, and lives somewhere way out there beyond observation, in some fixed location, exists, and hears you speaking to it? And will resurrect your physical body so that it can live forever, if you're deemed worthy? 

 

This to me is nothing more than a materialistic, ego centered perspective based on wanting your body and egocentric consciousness to live on eternally. Is that not christianity in a nut shell? 

 

You hear about fake news, this is like fake spirituality coming from christianity when you really analyze it. 

 

And I think this speaks to the issue of some people thinking that anything to do with spirituality may represent a back slide back into christianity. I often post about intellectual atheism. The same idea applies here as well. Intellectual spiritual atheism is no different. When you firmly understand where christianity ranks in terms of spiritual insight, what in the world is there to slide back into? 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This to me is nothing more than a materialistic, ego centered perspective based on wanting your body and egocentric consciousness to live on eternally. Is that not christianity in a nut shell? 

Yes. When I started to examine Christianity in a historical light instead of just "having faith" it was clear as day to me why it has survived so long, and this is why. And if and when my religious family asks me how I can accept the fact that I think I won't live eternally, I will likely make these same points you have made here. 

22 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

You hear about fake news, this is like fake spirituality coming from christianity when you really analyze it. 

 

And I think this speaks to the issue of some people thinking that anything to do with spirituality may represent a back slide back into christianity. I often post about intellectual atheism. The same idea applies here as well. Intellectual spiritual atheism is no different. When you firmly understand where christianity ranks in terms of spiritual insight, what in the world is there to slide back into? 

I tend to think these people are still associating spiritualism with religion if they make that mistake. The two are completely separate things. I think some people are just naturally more spiritual, why, I don't know, perhaps personality differences. We all think in different ways, this likely has something to do with it. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

I've been giving this a lot of thought since i first saw it posted. I think it has already been pointed out by others on this thread but it is really according to who you are talking to. I felt like i was accepted with open arms by most everyone on this site. However there have been the few that if you post anything even remotely supporting the possibility of something spiritual you might as well prepare yourself. I won't give any of the examples i've seen because I dont want to call anyone out. It is what it is. 

     It is the same thing I dealt with as a christian between the denominations. Some people believe so fervently in something or against something that they cant accept an alternate possibility, or even at least have an intellectual conversation about it without devolving into the same type of circular arguments as you would see when talking to someone in another denomination about some particular doctrine or another.  Or like we always see in the Lions Den between us and christians still trying to reconvert the "fallen". LOL

     At the same time tho, being agnostic myself. I have still been able to take the arguments i've seen and learn from them. There are a lot of good valid points made from both sides. I know that a lot of atheists see agnostics such as myself as someone still stuck in the middle, like we haven't fully deconverted. But for me I require proof now and I dont feel that Science can fully explain all the hows and whys from billions of years ago. There will always be the argument of where did it come from. If we accept that in the beginning everything was in one big ball of fire that exploded on an atomic level, then those atoms started colliding and forming the different elements that we see on the periodic table there is still the question of how that big ball of fire came to be. Therefore I remain agnostic. Maybe it seems a bit silly to some. But I realize that odds are that there is probably nothing after death and i'm fine with that. But I do have a hope still. Not in some "heaven" , "mansion", "Golden street", or being with all my loved ones who have passed before me, but in something. What that something is I dont know nor will I ever claim to know. Death will be a last great journey for me because of that. When I'm old and frail and all of life's adventures are long gone for me I will still have one journey to take. And because of deconverting and the help I've been able to get from everyone here, agnostics and atheists alike, I will be able to take that journey without fear or dread of hell or standing before some God or another that man has made. I know that all the man made religions were just ancient attempts to explain the world around them in the absence of 100's of years of research and study as we have now. 

     And it is OK if you don't agree with me. Ya'll are still awesome. 

 

Dark Bishop