Any one feel off put by atheist's?

[LogicalFallacy]

6 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

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.

 

That depends again on what you are calling "spiritual". If you are talking about an inner experience or a feeling of deep connection to the universe then sure, I get that there is that form of spirituality.

 

If you start going down Deepak Chopra's road and saying that consciousness is a superposition of possibilities and the universe is infinite consciousness then I'm probably going to say that you are not quite understanding quantum mechanics properly.

 

I think one of this issues, and someone else pointed this out, is that the word "spiritual" is very loaded. Thus without clarifying what you mean by spiritual some might start arguing against something that you are not meaning because they think you are meaning something else. It's one of the unfortunate problems with our language and the way the word "spiritual" is used in a 21st century context. It can mean any thing from feeling a deep connection to the earth to thinking there is some super consciousness that we are all part of.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Like i said man. you can disagree with me thats ok and your still awesome. I love ya logical :-)

 

DB

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

BTW i've been drinking tonight so i will reply later when i am a bit more sober :-) and your actually not not one of the ones i was talking about :-)

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 2/11/2018 at 4:20 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

That depends again on what you are calling "spiritual". If you are talking about an inner experience or a feeling of deep connection to the universe then sure, I get that there is that form of spirituality.

 

If you start going down Deepak Chopra's road and saying that consciousness is a superposition of possibilities and the universe is infinite consciousness then I'm probably going to say that you are not quite understanding quantum mechanics properly.

 

 

That is exactly what this forum is for tho. This is ExChristian spirituality that covers everything from feeling a spiritual connection to the universe all the way to exchristians looking into other religions. So i'm glad the moderators created it. And those types of conversations probably need to stay in this forum. As they aren't welcome in the other forums..... well except the lions den. thats where we expect to see all the pro christian BS. I hardly ever look at the threads going on in there anymore. I have gotten SOOOOO tired of talking in circles.

 

But i'm talking about the more debatable parts of the bible that may or may not have some historical relevance. There are some that have their dogma's and cant see past them. But those discussions are few n far between and like I said i've learned a lot from them. 

 

Now if i just popped up in another forum and said I believe ghosts are real then you guys would have a field day with me. So yes i can see why someone who has deconverted and is still spiritual in some way would feel put off by athiests. But thats what this forum is for. We can openly discuss those thoughts here without ridicule. But at the same time i dont think everyone is comfortable talking about it openly even within this forum as it might make us look sub par. It doesn't bother me but I can see how someone might feel that way.

 

DB

[LogicalFallacy]

19 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

That is exactly what this forum is for tho. This is ExChristian spirituality that covers everything from feeling a spiritual connection to the universe all the way to exchristians looking into other religions. So i'm glad the moderators created it. And those types of conversations probably need to stay in this forum. As they aren't welcome in the other forums..... well except the lions den. thats where we expect to see all the pro christian BS. I hardly ever look at the threads going on in there anymore. I have gotten SOOOOO tired of talking in circles.

 

We can openly discuss those thoughts here without ridicule. But at the same time i dont think everyone is comfortable talking about it openly even within this forum as it might make us look sub par. It doesn't bother me but I can see how someone might feel that way.

 

DB

 

So, I'm trying to get a feel for your position on conversation here. Are you saying that people in the Spirituality section should be free to post anything without anyone else questioning it, or that anyone can post, but others can 'challenge' (for want of a better term) ideas?

 

I think there is an important distinction between ridicule and robustly discussing whether ideas have merit. Ideas or beliefs with merit tend to be able to withstand scrutiny, those without require bubble echo chambers to survive, which interestingly Christianity is a giant echo chamber imo.

 

So say you did say "I believe in ghosts because x y and z."

 

In this context do you think it's ok if I come in and say, well have you considered that x and y might not be true because of a and b?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

So, I'm trying to get a feel for your position on conversation here. Are you saying that people in the Spirituality section should be free to post anything without anyone else questioning it, or that anyone can post, but others can 'challenge' (for want of a better term) ideas?

 

I think there is an important distinction between ridicule and robustly discussing whether ideas have merit. Ideas or beliefs with merit tend to be able to withstand scrutiny, those without require bubble echo chambers to survive, which interestingly Christianity is a giant echo chamber imo.

 

So say you did say "I believe in ghosts because x y and z."

 

In this context do you think it's ok if I come in and say, well have you considered that x and y might not be true because of a and b?

I feel like reposting some ideas that were previously floated around in regards to this topic by @midniterider:

"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. "

 

What's being said here is that spirituality can be about feeling. A way of feeling connected, interconnected, good feelings etc...but it's mostly about feeling. This is also my take on it. So....then we can have debate that goes like this: "but your subjective feeling can't stand up to scrutiny because of x, y, or z." (applies scientific logic and rationale, evidence, etc).

 

I think there's something to be said for discussing whether ideas have merit, respectfully, while we also have respect for people's subjective feelings, and acknowledge that these can be a large part of spirituality. People will likely differ on to what extent they are comfortable having their subjective experiences critiqued.

 

[Orbit]

On 2/11/2018 at 2:20 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

That depends again on what you are calling "spiritual". If you are talking about an inner experience or a feeling of deep connection to the universe then sure, I get that there is that form of spirituality.

 

If you start going down Deepak Chopra's road and saying that consciousness is a superposition of possibilities and the universe is infinite consciousness then I'm probably going to say that you are not quite understanding quantum mechanics properly.

 

I think one of this issues, and someone else pointed this out, is that the word "spiritual" is very loaded. Thus without clarifying what you mean by spiritual some might start arguing against something that you are not meaning because they think you are meaning something else. It's one of the unfortunate problems with our language and the way the word "spiritual" is used in a 21st century context. It can mean any thing from feeling a deep connection to the earth to thinking there is some super consciousness that we are all part of.

 

Do you really think anyone on this forum is a Deepak Chopra fan?

[Orbit]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

So, I'm trying to get a feel for your position on conversation here. Are you saying that people in the Spirituality section should be free to post anything without anyone else questioning it, or that anyone can post, but others can 'challenge' (for want of a better term) ideas?

 

I think there is an important distinction between ridicule and robustly discussing whether ideas have merit. Ideas or beliefs with merit tend to be able to withstand scrutiny, those without require bubble echo chambers to survive, which interestingly Christianity is a giant echo chamber imo.

 

So say you did say "I believe in ghosts because x y and z."

 

In this context do you think it's ok if I come in and say, well have you considered that x and y might not be true because of a and b?

 

Phenomenology isn't a subject that lends itself to scientism. Subjective experience is a entire area of philosophy; materialism doesn't really help you there. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Materialism is your hammer.

[LogicalFallacy]

Hi Orbit

 

52 minutes ago, Orbit said:

 

Do you really think anyone on this forum is a Deepak Chopra fan?

 

If I said yes, would you take that seriously or as a joke?

 

Also haven't you just inadvertently lampooned any silent observer here who might be a Deepak Chopra fan?

 

I was merely using Deepak as a comparison between 'grounded' spiritualism and woo woo. (Sorry if anyone is a Deepak fan, but I have listened to quantum physicists and I've listened to Deepak's 'interpretation' of the science and I think he is as woo woo as some of those Pentecostal preachers you see "laughing in the spirit" and what not.)

 

 

48 minutes ago, Orbit said:

 

Phenomenology isn't a subject that lends itself to scientism. Subjective experience is a entire area of philosophy; materialism doesn't really help you there. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Materialism is your hammer.

 

You might have missed the entire point of the post which you responded to. I was not suggesting that we test spiritual claims scientifically, I am merely trying to  get a feel for DB's position on what are acceptable conversational limits in this forum.

 

PS picking up on your materialism point. I do and have admitted I do find spirituality a difficult topic to grasp hence my attempts at figuring out where people are coming from and what they mean by spirituality. Being a logical thinker tends to put a damper on non material and non  naturalistic thinking.

[midniterider]

LF, do you feel you might learn something from someone's spiritual practice?

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

So, I'm trying to get a feel for your position on conversation here. Are you saying that people in the Spirituality section should be free to post anything without anyone else questioning it, or that anyone can post, but others can 'challenge' (for want of a better term) ideas?

 

I think there is an important distinction between ridicule and robustly discussing whether ideas have merit. Ideas or beliefs with merit tend to be able to withstand scrutiny, those without require bubble echo chambers to survive, which interestingly Christianity is a giant echo chamber imo.

 

So say you did say "I believe in ghosts because x y and z."

 

In this context do you think it's ok if I come in and say, well have you considered that x and y might not be true because of a and b?

If you read the description of the forum it is clear that within this forum exchristians who have converted to another belief, religion, or are just some other way spiritual can post those views and opinions within this forum without ridicule. I dont personally understand switching to another religion but thats not up for me to judge. I do have my own thoughts, opinions, and hopes as to what might be. For instance I love the thought of reincarnation. I've actually always thought that was a better after life scenario than "heaven". I also feel spiritually connected to nature. But that does not mean i'm going to start practicing some form of paganism because i have those thoughts and feelings. But It might be a good fit for someone else.

 

So in this forum you can openly express your worship of your pink unicorn without being brow beaten. It is kind of like how ex-c as a whole is a safe haven for those who have left christianity. This is a safe haven for those who have left christianity for another faith. 

 

I think constructive criticism is cool but at the same time it needs to also be supportive of the persons choice to believe what they have chosen to believe. Within this forum anyway. we have lots of other forums we can bash all religions in if we so choose. Some people just need that type of structure in there lives. And if they have chosen a path that makes them happy then i'm happy for them. 

 

So let me ask you the hard question here. Your the "hard nosed" atheist that was asked to give some input on the thread. Do you, as an atheist, see someone who has chosen another spiritual path or religion somehow less of an exchristian than someone who has chosen to be entirely atheist in there way of thinking?

 

DB

[LogicalFallacy]

7 hours ago, midniterider said:

LF, do you feel you might learn something from someone's spiritual practice?

 

That's a good question. Lets see.... I think I certainly learn talking about it, I learn others views (whether or not I agree with them) and I think it helps me learn and understand a bit more about myself... if that makes sense?

 

Learning from someones spiritual practice per se I'm not sure. It seems spirituality is very individual so not sure I can learn anything about someones experience? 

 

7 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

So let me ask you the hard question here. Your the "hard nosed" atheist that was asked to give some input on the thread. Do you, as an atheist, see someone who has chosen another spiritual path or religion somehow less of an exchristian than someone who has chosen to be entirely atheist in there way of thinking?

 

DB

 

(Agree with the rest of DB's post so just directly answering the question)

 

The short answer is no, I don't see them as less than Ex christian. Many people here that I respect have chosen such a path. And also I would say that one can be entirely atheist AND spiritual. I see no contradiction there... depending on your definition of spiritual.... well no, if you are atheist you are not theist so yeah regardless of your atheism you can be spiritual.

 

I guess because I care about what is true, and that people having as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible is desirable for society long term I would be sad to see an ex-christian go and worship a pink unicorn as if it actually existed. Now no one here is doing that, but if someone were I might feel compelled to ask why they are worship a deity they have no evidence for especially considering they left a religion for which there was no evidence for. But I think that's kind of an emotional state for me. 

 

This topic of spirituality though goes beyond that. It seems to be connecting to something deeper and which is based on individual experience.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

That's a good question. Lets see.... I think I certainly learn talking about it, I learn others views (whether or not I agree with them) and I think it helps me learn and understand a bit more about myself... if that makes sense?

 

Learning from someones spiritual practice per se I'm not sure. It seems spirituality is very individual so not sure I can learn anything about someones experience? 

 

 

(Agree with the rest of DB's post so just directly answering the question)

 

The short answer is no, I don't see them as less than Ex christian. Many people here that I respect have chosen such a path. And also I would say that one can be entirely atheist AND spiritual. I see no contradiction there... depending on your definition of spiritual.... well no, if you are atheist you are not theist so yeah regardless of your atheism you can be spiritual.

 

I guess because I care about what is true, and that people having as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible is desirable for society long term I would be sad to see an ex-christian go and worship a pink unicorn as if it actually existed. Now no one here is doing that, but if someone were I might feel compelled to ask why they are worship a deity they have no evidence for especially considering they left a religion for which there was no evidence for. But I think that's kind of an emotional state for me. 

 

This topic of spirituality though goes beyond that. It seems to be connecting to something deeper and which is based on individual experience.

I agree spirituality isn't only for the religious. I said it in another thread but even BAA had a form of spiritualilty. A very deep connection to the universe and the continued existence of his atoms. 

 

I remember hearing a sermon one time and the preacher mentioned how there are a lot of "spirits". Like the spirit at a rock concert. Everyone is shouting, crowd surfing, having fun, and it becomes infectious. Of course the sermon was about not getting lead by the wrong spirit and such. But in terms of this conversation when someone studies into the truth and starts to marvel at the universe and feel a deep connection to it then I consider that a spiritual connection. The term spiritual can definitely be considered a broad term. 

 

I would also be concerned if someone felt the needed to worship a pink unicorn as well. I was just using that as an example. And I would be concerned if someone converted to another religion such as Islam. Thats like going from the frying pan into the fire. Trading one oppressive religion for one even more oppressive. And based on the same foundation as the religion that was left. 

 

DB

[TABA]

(damn duplicate post)

[TABA]

On 2/11/2018 at 11:00 AM, DarkBishop said:

 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

 

DarkBishop, I’d say there’s virtually no difference between you and I in terms of god-beliefs.  You call yourself an agnostic, I usually call myself an agnostic atheist.  There’s been some heated discussion here lately about the meaning of these words.  I’m not sure I see the point of the argument, especially when the arguers also have beliefs (unbeliefs?) that are so close to each other.  It’s just inevitable that these words are going to have different meanings to different people. 

 

Speaking of being “fully deconverted”, I started a topic about that last year, which has actually seen new activity just recently.  I DO believe that full deconversion is important, but it’s not about declaring strong atheism or of having no ‘spiritual’ side. To me being fully deconverted means...

• Having gotten Christianity out of our heads
• Having reversed the indoctrination we were subjected to
• Having gotten the faith virus out
• Giving credence not to faith but to reason and critical thinking
• Deprogramming our minds so that the Christian mindset now seems foreign
• No longer having any fear of Hell
• Not counting on Heaven
• Feeeling that our rejection of Christianity is a settled matter and there’s gonna be no re-litigation

 

By this measure, it sounds like you’re pretty far down this road, DarkBishop. Whether you end up preferring the agnostic label or the atheist label, or you prefer to avoid labels, matters much less, I think.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

14 hours ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

• Having gotten Christianity out of our heads
• Having reversed the indoctrination we were subjected to
• Having gotten the faith virus out
• Giving credence not to faith but to reason and critical thinking
• Deprogramming our minds so that the Christian mindset now seems foreign
• No longer having any fear of Hell
• Not counting on Heaven
• Feeeling that our rejection of Christianity is a settled matter and there’s gonna be no re-litigation

 

 

I can check all of those!!!! yay!

 

is there a diploma or certificate for full deconversion? Lmao JK

 

DB

[LogicalFallacy]

14 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I can check all of those!!!! yay!

 

is there a diploma or certificate for full deconversion? Lmao JK

 

DB

 

As can I.

 

I can make one up (Read: go google for one and post it here  )

[Joshpantera]

On 2/13/2018 at 9:37 PM, DarkBishop said:

 

I can check all of those!!!! yay!

 

is there a diploma or certificate for full deconversion? Lmao JK

 

DB

 

Maybe we could issue PhDeconversion's. 

[VerbosityCat]

I think Christianity is framed as "This is the one true truth and everything else is a lie" so you are ALREADY an atheist about every other system. So when you lose faith in Christianity I think the easiest most natural thing is to just be atheist. I think it's the natural way some people view things but I also think some people think spirituality has to be "very literal" like they think myths are "things that aren't true" instead of things that are not LITERALLY true. Also the myths of the bible are about a different people and their story and so it's not hard to understand why most Christians couldn't find a way outside total literalism to see how it had anything to do with their lives. It didn't. It was created for someone else.

 

I also think there is an element of "fool me once..." But I don't know... I just think this is not all there is. I just don't see reality in those terms. I find NDE research very compelling as well as a lot of the Reincarnation research. I can see how matter could arise from consciousness but not how conscious self awareness could arise from dead matter. I'm not saying anything "supernatural" is going on, but the natural is obviously somehow "magic" even if people get itchy thinking of that word. I mean how the crap else do you explain any of this shit. You can say "evolution" sure, I believe that happened, but all you're saying is... we observe this has somehow happened NOT HOW such a thing fucking happens.

 

I'm perfectly fine with atheists, but I think it's simplistic to assume anybody with a spiritual worldview is just a superstitious moron.
 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

I think Christianity is framed as "This is the one true truth and everything else is a lie" so you are ALREADY an atheist about every other system. So when you lose faith in Christianity I think the easiest most natural thing is to just be atheist. I think it's the natural way some people view things but I also think some people think spirituality has to be "very literal" like they think myths are "things that aren't true" instead of things that are not LITERALLY true. Also the myths of the bible are about a different people and their story and so it's not hard to understand why most Christians couldn't find a way outside total literalism to see how it had anything to do with their lives. It didn't. It was created for someone else.

 

I also think there is an element of "fool me once..." But I don't know... I just think this is not all there is. I just don't see reality in those terms. I find NDE research very compelling as well as a lot of the Reincarnation research. I can see how matter could arise from consciousness but not how conscious self awareness could arise from dead matter. I'm not saying anything "supernatural" is going on, but the natural is obviously somehow "magic" even if people get itchy thinking of that word. I mean how the crap else do you explain any of this shit. You can say "evolution" sure, I believe that happened, but all you're saying is... we observe this has somehow happened NOT HOW such a thing fucking happens.

 

I'm perfectly fine with atheists, but I think it's simplistic to assume anybody with a spiritual worldview is just a superstitious moron.
 

 

Could you post your favorite article on reincarnation research? Would be nice to read.

[VerbosityCat]

21 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Could you post your favorite article on reincarnation research? Would be nice to read.

 

 

It's not really an article so much as several books by Dr. Ian Stevenson. He has some really fascinating case studies. Or had. He's passed now. Though there are others carrying on his work. I felt his methodology was the most respectable (of what I've seen) out there. MOST compelling to me are the situations where a young child remembers a past life and a birthmark they have ends up corresponding with a death wound from the previous life. They were very careful and excluded a lot of case studies that were too "polluted" (by overly excited parents and family who could have coached the child or situations where they could have done research on the internet, etc.) Most compelling are situations where outside a coroner's report (which they have no personal access to) there is no possible way these people could have known how the previous life died or where the bullet/knife/whatever wound was, and yet, the new child has a birthmark in the same spot. Very odd.

 

I'm not saying there are no charlatans fooling people. And I'm sure some "dirty cases" get through. But it's more the overwhelming amount of these things. The more you find, the harder they are to debunk. Anyway, to me, reincarnation makes a lot of sense out of life in general. Like why we're doing any of this at all.

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 12:23 PM, VerbosityCat said:

 I mean how the crap else do you explain any of this shit.

 

I'd just like to gently point out the flaw with this line of thinking. This is the exact thinking that got lightening bolts from Zeus and light before stars in Genesis.

 

The appropriate answer to something we don't know is we don't know. Not, we can't explain this therefore its whatthefuckever explanation someone can come up with.

[midniterider]

16 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I'd just like to gently point out the flaw with this line of thinking. This is the exact thinking that got lightening bolts from Zeus and light before stars in Genesis.

 

The appropriate answer to something we don't know is we don't know. Not, we can't explain this therefore its whatthefuckever explanation someone can come up with.

 

In the Ex-Christian Spirituality subforum, "whatthefuckever" is a perfectly valid explanation and ought to be respected. Other subforums are open to debating woo/non-woo.

 

 

[VerbosityCat]

23 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I'd just like to gently point out the flaw with this line of thinking. This is the exact thinking that got lightening bolts from Zeus and light before stars in Genesis.

 

The appropriate answer to something we don't know is we don't know. Not, we can't explain this therefore its whatthefuckever explanation someone can come up with.

 

That's really not what I'm saying at all. And I really do NOT think "science" will ever explain it. Because there are LIMITS to human reasoning and perception we are also part OF life not outside objective observers of it. There is some shit we will never know, don't have the capability to know, and have no possibility of ever achieving the capability to know. I call that big bag of shit "magic". If you don't like that, that is fine, but that's my language for it.

[VerbosityCat]

7 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

In the Ex-Christian Spirituality subforum, "whatthefuckever" is a perfectly valid explanation and ought to be respected. Other subforums are open to debating woo/non-woo.

 

 

Yeah I'm not sure why there is like this need to "debate" and argue with non-christians on this forum who have other spiritual beliefs. Who the fuck cares? A big part of the issue for most of us with Christianity has literally nothing to do with "whether it's true or not" we don't believe it's true obviously, but it's because it HARMED most of us. We were fucking miserable and terrified and little mind-controlled slaves.

 

I just don't see the same need for anybody to pull the fire alarm over "oh no, someone has an idea about something that we can't measure in a lab".  I get that there probably are a lot of autistic people who make all their choices based in spock-like logic. Some of them may be on this very forum. But... most people don't live their lives "rationally". Most of life is lived non-rationally and then rationality is used to justify "whatever" be that theism, atheism, or any other spectrum of being in the world in any sphere of life. Most people rely more on their emotions for how they live and experience the world than their logic. And thank the gods. If everybody was running around like computers, I would say what the fuck is the point of all this?

 

I don't think it's a crime to believe there is a bit of magic in the world. A mystery we will never fully unlock or be able to explain because we are too small to be able to understand the vastness of what is.