Ex Christian Spirituality: The rough treatment

[LogicalFallacy]

24 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

I don't know if you are intentionally misunderstanding me or if you are just incapable of questioning non-scientific behaviors in the medical or scientific community. There seems to be very much an in-group/out-group mentality in how many skeptics apply their skepticism.

 

Our misunderstanding is probably with using the very poorly defined term "woo".

 

False dichotomy you have going there - I could be intentionally misunderstanding you. (Thanks for the accusation, I appreciate the effort, but I'm not intentionally misunderstanding you), I might be incapable of questioning, (Again thank you once again for assuming I'm a religious moron). Or... shock horror I could just be misunderstanding you because you are not expressing yourself clearly enough for me to understand you. Amazing that. Which of the three options is most likely? Yeah, I agree I'm an arsehole deliberately misunderstanding you just to piss you off because well why not. /sarcasm

 

What part of the points about agreeing with you on problems in the medical community didn't you understand? Isn't that questioning? And a bit rich you pointing the finger at me and accusing me of not questioning science then wanting your own forum place where your spirituality isn't questioned.

 

If you want to have a discussion I'd suggest quit using derogatory terms. We ain't going anywhere with your very wrong assumptions and false labelling. Also in this forum I'm going to refuse to resort to a low level of labelling in order to do away with having to explain and justify my position.

 

At this point we need to define our terms and actually start discussing what spirituality you are talking about rather than the conversation so far between us. Either than or we might have to accept we butt heads in such a manner that attempts at conversation is pointless. Your call, I'm happy either way.

 

[TABA]

12 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

. I feel like some of you just have no idea how basic social etiquette works and I wonder if you were raised by wolves.

 

 

I think that’s one of the bad effects of social media.  It’s rather anonymous (even on Facebook when people use their real names and faces, mostly) which causes people who would never act that way in personal interactions to come across as total assholes online.  Just a general observation: I’m not pointing the finger at any Ex-C in particular.  I’m not guilt-free myself.  Twitter is the worst of all because the character-limit REALLY encourages snarkiness.  I think this effect is responsible to a large extent for the deepening divisions between political factions here in the US (and likewise pro- and anti-Brexit folks).  

[LogicalFallacy]

15 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

But it is clear to me that we really talk past each other a lot and I find it extremely frustrating. I don't believe we can really discuss things in good faith, you and I. I don't think you have bad intentions, I just find you frustrating and I'm sure you find me the same.

 

Huh we agree on something entirely. Maybe ignore my last post in which I came to the same conclusion.

 

Rough start. Want to restart or think we'll end up trying to kill each other again?   

 

PS: I'd like to say I'm sorry for some of the aggressiveness that comes through in my posts. I am aware (Due to people telling me so) that I can be combative. This is not a reflection on anybody or that I want to hurt anybody, it's just a style that comes through especially when frustrated and I admit to getting very frustrated as you pointed out.

[LogicalFallacy]

59 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

I think the problem here is that naturalists will divert to old terminology when they don't really need to. And it confuses things to do so. 

 

Probably true, but that's possibly more a function of not being part of the spiritual community so less aware of proper terminology.

 

 

[VerbosityCat]

12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I think Midnite used it as a reverse pejorative for spirituality. We just kept using it.

 

I'm trying to get definitions out of the spirituality people. For example the root of the word spirituality is spirit. But in this thread we talk about spells - which is magic. So is magic part of spirituality? Fucked if I know, and I'm not even sure spiritualists/wooists know.

 

Perhaps supernaturalism is a better umbrella term as that covers everything not covered by our known reality.

 

Yes, it's because "woo" is used as a slur word against those with any spiritual beliefs so fine we'll just roll with it. It's woo. Next!

[VerbosityCat]

18 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Our misunderstanding is probably with using the very poorly defined term "woo".

 

False dichotomy you have going there - I could be intentionally misunderstanding you. (Thanks for the accusation, I appreciate the effort, but I'm not intentionally misunderstanding you), I might be incapable of questioning, (Again thank you once again for assuming I'm a religious moron). Or... shock horror I could just be misunderstanding you because you are not expressing yourself clearly enough for me to understand you. Amazing that. Which of the three options is most likely? Yeah, I agree I'm an arsehole deliberately misunderstanding you just to piss you off because well why not. /sarcasm

 

What part of the points about agreeing with you on problems in the medical community didn't you understand? Isn't that questioning? And a bit rich you pointing the finger at me and accusing me of not questioning science then wanting your own forum place where your spirituality isn't questioned.

 

If you want to have a discussion I'd suggest quit using derogatory terms. We ain't going anywhere with your very wrong assumptions and false labelling. Also in this forum I'm going to refuse to resort to a low level of labelling in order to do away with having to explain and justify my position.

 

At this point we need to define our terms and actually start discussing what spirituality you are talking about rather than the conversation so far between us. Either than or we might have to accept we butt heads in such a manner that attempts at conversation is pointless. Your call, I'm happy either way.

 

 

I'd really rather just stop speaking to you. You jump on me acting like i'm a delicate snowflake who can't handle the lion's den when that wasn't what I was talking about, say I have a chip on my shoulder and just mistunderstand me at every turn so let's just... not. I'm done.

[VerbosityCat]

19 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Huh we agree on something entirely. Maybe ignore my last post in which I came to the same conclusion.

 

Rough start. Want to restart or think we'll end up trying to kill each other again?   

 

PS: I'd like to say I'm sorry for some of the aggressiveness that comes through in my posts. I am aware (Due to people telling me so) that I can be combative. This is not a reflection on anybody or that I want to hurt anybody, it's just a style that comes through especially when frustrated and I admit to getting very frustrated as you pointed out.

 

Sorry, I said my last post about not wanting to talk to you before I saw this post. ANd sure. W e could start again. I'm about to get kicked off the internet, but will be back tomorrow. I can be combative, too. People like you and me can clash pretty strongly. But I think you are trying to discuss in good faith. It's just... frustrating. But we can try again if you like.

 

I apologize as well if I came off like an asshole I AM an asshole, so that's why LOL

 

(A lot of heathens are pretty combative anyway. I mean it IS a warrior mythos so everything is conflict LOL like it's a personal point of pride. Even a lot of us girls do it.)

[midniterider]

LF: I've already started, but not using any particular method. Does it require any particular method other than saying "I will see a person on pink roller skates this week"? If so why does the spell require a particular way?

 

..........

 

1. create a sigil from your pink roller skates statement of will - to confuse your rational mind from blocking your request to the subconscious with it's "oh that's bullshit" thoughts.

2. optionally create more sigils about other non-related things you want to get - so the rational mind doesnt know what your casting for sure

3. optionally wait a few weeks  - so the rational mind (might) forget what you're casting for.

4. Get drunk, stoned, have an orgasm, whip yourself, listen to loud music and zone out, or See http://www.spiralnature.com/magick/gnosis/

     Gnosis is the primary way to knock out the little voice that says that magic and any attempted changes in your life is "bullshit!". I believe it is one of the fundamentals in hypnosis. (relaxing and being open to change)

5.  When you're maxxed out on gnosis, stare intently at your sigil.

6. Fuggetaboutit.

 

Done.

 

That's one way to do it. With a little imagination you'll figure out other ways more suited to you. Google 'casting sigils'.
 

 

 

Josh posted a video about how to cast sigils.

[TABA]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

It can be for neo-pagans or others who incorporate spells, sigils, or whatever into their spiritual practice. But a spiritual practice could be as basic as just putting time into meditation and trying to quiet your mind and tune into the observer behind your own thoughts. Stuff like that. But most of these terms probably deserve being revised because spiritual, sorcery, soul, mysticism, and other supernatural associations are often used in naturalist contexts. If they're being used in naturalist contexts then it may follow that new terms would be best to describe them. 

 

If taking about feeling interconnected to everything, just say interconnected instead of "spiritual" 

 

If taking about feeling in tune to the mystery of existence, just say it instead of "mystical." 

 

If feeling tuned in to the source of all things, just say it instead of "sorcery." 

 

If feeling tuned in to the eternal aspect of existence, just say it instead of "soul." 

 

I think the problem here is that naturalists will divert to old terminology when they don't really need to. And it confuses things to do so. 

 

 

 

It’s just hard to come up with words that convey a similar meaning though.  I think I’m a naturalist, pretty much, but when I’m deeply moved by listening to a Sibelius symphony, for example, I’d be inclined to say the music touches my soul, even if I don’t believe in the soul the way a Christian would.  That statement has a touch of poetry to it that matches the feeling, and I don’t think it would lead people to conclude I was religious.  I know this doesn’t help.  But it kind of explains why a word can have different meanings in different contexts because there isn’t a better word available.  Maybe the Greeks have a single word for “the deepest part of my being but not anything that would survive my death”

[LogicalFallacy]

10 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

It’s just hard to come up with words that convey a similar meaning though.  I think I’m a naturalist, pretty much, but when I’m deeply moved by listening to a Sibelius symphony, for example, I’d be inclined to say the music touches my soul, even if I don’t believe in the soul the way a Christian would.  That statement has a touch of poetry to it that matches the feeling, and I don’t think it would lead people to conclude I was religious.  I know this doesn’t help.  But it kind of explains why a word can have different meanings in different contexts because there isn’t a better word available.  Maybe the Greeks have a single word for “the deepest part of my being but not anything that would survive my death”

 

Yes, this is possibly similar to the feeling I describe when I was listening to a lecture on evolution and at one point it was so profound I felt 'one with the universe'. But I realise this was just an intense emotional experience for me, not an actual connecting to the universe as a whole as some new age ideas would have it.

 

For example @Joshpantera in the example above I could describe as feeling tuned into the source of all things but that is very different to someone else who might say the same thing but be actually referring to sorcery or a literal ethereal oneness whatever.

 

Again I think this highlights some of the communication difficulties the various people are having here. Half the time (99%?) we don't know what we are talking about. The other 1% I'm talking about X while someone else is talking about ZX.

[TruthSeeker0]

40 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

It’s just hard to come up with words that convey a similar meaning though.  I think I’m a naturalist, pretty much, but when I’m deeply moved by listening to a Sibelius symphony, for example, I’d be inclined to say the music touches my soul, even if I don’t believe in the soul the way a Christian would.  That statement has a touch of poetry to it that matches the feeling, and I don’t think it would lead people to conclude I was religious.  I know this doesn’t help.  But it kind of explains why a word can have different meanings in different contexts because there isn’t a better word available.  Maybe the Greeks have a single word for “the deepest part of my being but not anything that would survive my death”

I'm with Josh on this one, because I think the words do have different connotations depending on context, which makes it confusing. Nothing wrong with saying "it touches the deepest parts of me" or "it was an intense emotional experience." And even when you describe it to the best of your ability, people tend to evaluate things through their own perspective or what they think of as spiritualism. So yeah, if you want headway or to avoid talking past each other, you have to agree on the meaning of the language.

[midniterider]

 

Someone just posted this on my FB feed.

 

I know , I know. They're not pink. Nor did I cast a sigil about it either, though. (haha)

 

 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Yes, this is possibly similar to the feeling I describe when I was listening to a lecture on evolution and at one point it was so profound I felt 'one with the universe'. But I realise this was just an intense emotional experience for me, not an actual connecting to the universe as a whole as some new age ideas would have it.

 

No, but I've gone the other way around with it. What they are alluding to with New Age ideas is a reality of existing in the universe. You can walk backwards down scale and realize that you exist now as a carbon based life form and follow it to the logical understanding. 

 

 

 

Our literal history goes in the direction of a unity more so than diversity. One with the universe is a very literal and upfront reality. Regardless of whatever abuses of the reality are used by New Age cults or some charlatan. It doesn't change the reality of the situation. There's no way that we're NOT connected to the whole. We've arose within the bubble. Made of the properties of the bubble. We are the bubble itself, not something other. Philosophical pantheism has merit in it's own ways when applied to the universe itself and not some personification thereof: https://www.pantheism.net/

 

What you're talking about is a legit type of naturalist oriented spiritual outlook. 

 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

For example @Joshpantera in the example above I could describe as feeling tuned into the source of all things but that is very different to someone else who might say the same thing but be actually referring to sorcery or a literal ethereal oneness whatever.

 

You feeling connected to the "source," makes perfect sense considering the chart above. And it would be a naturalistic spiritual oriented outlook per the world pantheism movement. But their word usage makes clear what they mean by that, and by god if they use the term. I've argued with them in the past about changing some of the word usage, but to no avail and I gave up. 

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

8 hours ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

It’s just hard to come up with words that convey a similar meaning though.  I think I’m a naturalist, pretty much, but when I’m deeply moved by listening to a Sibelius symphony, for example, I’d be inclined to say the music touches my soul, even if I don’t believe in the soul the way a Christian would.  That statement has a touch of poetry to it that matches the feeling, and I don’t think it would lead people to conclude I was religious.  I know this doesn’t help.  But it kind of explains why a word can have different meanings in different contexts because there isn’t a better word available.  Maybe the Greeks have a single word for “the deepest part of my being but not anything that would survive my death”

 

8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes, this is possibly similar to the feeling I describe when I was listening to a lecture on evolution and at one point it was so profound I felt 'one with the universe'. But I realise this was just an intense emotional experience for me, not an actual connecting to the universe as a whole as some new age ideas would have it.

 

     I think these are simply emergent properties.  So we have brains and the mind is just an emergent property of the way the brain functions.  The "mind" is generally all the rational aspects of our selves.  The "soul" is also an emergent property in the sense that it is just a word we use to describe properties that are of a certain kind (usually of the more emotional nature..."transcendent" if you will...but, of course, my use of that word is problematic in my explanation since it has other implications but this is sort of the problem I'm trying to work around).  Anyhow, the issue of feeling "connected" to anything is just that, a feeling.  A chemical cocktail.  It is totally self-contained.  It is entirely in one's brain.  The mind and soul are just the words we use to describe functional aspects of the brain.  A sort of linguistic short-hand.  What it boils down to here is it's just the brain kicking out chemicals and us applying words to describe that effect to the best of our ability.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

10 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

Sorry, I said my last post about not wanting to talk to you before I saw this post. ANd sure. W e could start again. I'm about to get kicked off the internet, but will be back tomorrow. I can be combative, too. People like you and me can clash pretty strongly. But I think you are trying to discuss in good faith. It's just... frustrating. But we can try again if you like.

 

I apologize as well if I came off like an asshole I AM an asshole, so that's why LOL

 

(A lot of heathens are pretty combative anyway. I mean it IS a warrior mythos so everything is conflict LOL like it's a personal point of pride. Even a lot of us girls do it.)

 

Maybe I'm a heathen and don't know it?  

 

Where do you want to start? My primary goal would be to understand what you believe in regards to spirituality and why. I guess we'd need definitions or at least explanations as to what we are talking about to prevent what happened before.

[LogicalFallacy]

2 minutes ago, mwc said:

 

     I think these are simply emergent properties.  So we have brains and the mind is just an emergent property of the way the brain functions.  The "mind" is generally all the rational aspects of our selves.  The "soul" is also an emergent property in the sense that it is just a word we use to describe properties that are of a certain kind (usually of the more emotional nature..."transcendent" if you will...but, of course, my use of that word is problematic in my explanation since it has other implications but this is sort of the problem I'm trying to work around).  Anyhow, the issue of feeling "connected" to anything is just that, a feeling.  A chemical cocktail.  It is totally self-contained.  It is entirely in one's brain.  The mind and soul are just the words we use to describe functional aspects of the brain.  A sort of linguistic short-hand.  What it boils down to here is it's just the brain kicking out chemicals and us applying words to describe that effect to the best of our ability.

 

          mwc

 

 

I tentatively agree with you and that's probably where you, TABA and I differ from the thought that we are somehow connected externally as opposed to an internal state. Often when people talk about the mystical energy connecting all (Think Depak Chopra) I am reminded of Master Yoda: "For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship."

 

Of course the force was very demonstrable as Vader would show Conan Antonio Motti on the Death Star. "I find your lack of faith disturbing". Ironically the officers didn't need faith, Vader was always quite willing to use his power which makes Motti's challenge irrational. Ok geek time over. 

[mwc]

4 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I tentatively agree with you and that's probably where you, TABA and I differ from the thought that we are somehow connected externally as opposed to an internal state. Often when people talk about the mystical energy connecting all (Think Depak Chopra) I am reminded of Master Yoda: "For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship."

 

Of course the force was very demonstrable as Vader would show Conan Antonio Motti on the Death Star. "I find your lack of faith disturbing". Ironically the officers didn't need faith, Vader was always quite willing to use his power which makes Motti's challenge irrational. Ok geek time over. 

     Look, any of these guys pulls a Vader and I'll change my mind.   But as it is they're all Jar-Jar's at this point.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

43 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Look, any of these guys pulls a Vader and I'll change my mind.   But as it is they're all Jar-Jar's at this point.

 

          mwc

 

 

Totally. It's like Christianity. I've told a number of Christians this; if you can pray to Jesus and get fingers to grow back you now have, at the least, a believer in the power of prayer. Similar to casting spells. Assuming you can show they work consistently I will believe in magic. 

[mwc]

12 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Totally. It's like Christianity. I've told a number of Christians this; if you can pray to Jesus and get fingers to grow back you now have, at the least, a believer in the power of prayer. Similar to casting spells. Assuming you can show they work consistently I will believe in magic. 

     I don't think the movie would have been as good if Vader would have went back to his room, drew some squiggles on a piece of paper, then every day after said a spell about choking Motti then, one day months even years later, Motti chokes on a peanut while on a transport shuttle.  Imagine the power of that force.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Penn & Teller provide all of the magic I need; but, each to his own.

[Guest end3]

Well, what exactly is the Force.....you know, watching in the theater back in '77......when Luke threw off the aiming device...

What is the Force that Rocky used to "win".

The Force that The Natural used to hit that last home run for his son.

 

We share it when we watch....  what is it.

[midniterider]

6 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Totally. It's like Christianity. I've told a number of Christians this; if you can pray to Jesus and get fingers to grow back you now have, at the least, a believer in the power of prayer. Similar to casting spells. Assuming you can show they work consistently I will believe in magic. 

 

I'll distill this a little bit:

 

Assertion: I will only accept the efficacy of something if it will achieve the impossible for me. Right? This allows me to disregard it entirely when it fails to do. (black and white logic)

 

Science doesn't regrow fingers therefore science is worthless. <-- black and white logic.

 

My lawn mower cannot chop down a tree therefore: worthless.

When someone can pick up a semi-truck with a pair of tweezers, I'll believe in the power of tweezers but until then....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

I put fertilizer on my grass. The next day it was still brown. Obviously fertilizer is bullshit. Everything should conform to my unreasonable (or uneducated) expectation of it.

 

Of course after a month the grass was lush and green. No thanks to that goddamn fertilizer, though. It was just like , you know ... random chance that my grass got greener.

[LogicalFallacy]

48 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I'll distill this a little bit:

 

Assertion: I will only accept the efficacy of something if it will achieve the impossible for me. Right? This allows me to disregard it entirely when it fails to do. (black and white logic)

 

Science doesn't regrow fingers therefore science is worthless. <-- black and white logic.

 

My lawn mower cannot chop down a tree therefore: worthless.

When someone can pick up a semi-truck with a pair of tweezers, I'll believe in the power of tweezers but until then....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Come on Midnite, you can do better than a strawman. That wasn't what I was saying and you know it.

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

I put fertilizer on my grass. The next day it was still brown. Obviously fertilizer is bullshit. Everything should conform to my unreasonable (or uneducated) expectation of it.

 

Of course after a month the grass was lush and green. No thanks to that goddamn fertilizer, though. It was just like , you know ... random chance that my grass got greener.

 

Really the analogy is closer to you are claiming you have a grass fertiliser. You sprinkle it around, differing the quantities, sometimes watering sometimes not. Sometimes you will dance on the fertilised lawn.

 

99% of the time the lawn dies. 1% the lawn actually gets greener and you are claiming you have a fertiliser that works.

 

I'm saying that it doesn't appear your fertiliser works, in fact it seems to be more of a poison, and we haven't even determined if the 1% of the time is down to the 'fertiliser' or you just happened to water the grass plenty enough that it grew anyway. If you got it to 50/50 all you have is random chance. Once you are higher than 50/50 we can start saying that it appears your fert actually does do something that its claimed to do.

 

Meanwhile you are criticising me for pointing out that your fertiliser is unreliable and therefore I won't buy it until such a time as its shown to be reliable.