We have the "what is spiritual?" discussion in this community VERY frequently.
More grist for the mill here:
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
15 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.In a very real way we are connected to everything else. Every iota of matter that exists came from a single source. Every atom in our bodies was created in a star and spread across space when it died. We are literally star stuff and it is to those component atoms our bodies will return after we pass away. This is our true immortality, our true spiritual nature, as fellow travelers for a brief moment of cosmic history when part of the cosmos becomes aware of itself, aware of the universe around us, and has time to marvel at the place we come from, the place we spend our brief moment of awareness, and to which we will all return in the fullness of time.
The say no man is an island, but that's wrong. We are islands, seemingly separate but all joined together at a fundamental level we don't even think about most of the time.
sterlingdean
Level 6
Jan 24, 2020
1
I have overwhelming feelings of connectedness and awe when I look into the night sky or ponder the beauty of nature. Many would use the word "spiritual" to describe this feeling. I don't; but I think some atheist do--not because they believe in a spirit that is separate from the body, but because they don't have another word to use in its place.
Even if one is an absolute materialist, they can recognize that there is something greater than ourselves: the universe, life itself-- and they can stand in absolute awe of it all.
Joanne
Level 7
Jan 24, 2020
3
I’m happy for people to do what they do. Prefer it if they can first do no harm, or at least intend to do none.
But I agree with those below saying spirituality means something different to each person, (possibly with the exception of those cold reading spiritualists).
Difference is perhaps implied by the first part of the word: ‘spirit’, relating to a person’s essence, reason to be, or soul, which if you believe exists would be highly individual.
I’m not sure if I do, (in spite of knowing myself and my morals and aims pretty well), hence being agnostic.
girlwithsmiles
Level 8
Jan 22, 2020
1
I'm at a point where I don't care about spirituality, whether or not it can be practiced or experienced without some kind of religion. One can approximate a spiritual feeling by simply meditating with purpose, such as through TM or one of the many "mindfulness" exercises.
This approach can be really "spiritually" satisfying and requires absolutely no belief in a higher power, or a spirit, or anything para- or meta- or supernatural. Just a human and a brain.
Shawno1972
Level 7
Jan 22, 2020
1
My girlfriend is a witch and believes in magic and spirits, but she does not believe there is a god. She knows I do not believe in magic. We make it work with respect of one another as human beings. We do try to understand each other so that it does not become a problem.
DavidLaDeau
Level 8
Jan 22, 2020
0
Are you guys really sure that there can't be a rational consensus as to just what it is that's being talked about by all of these people throughout history including some of the greatest as I pointed out below?
Metahuman
Level 7
Jan 21, 2020
0
Sorry Larry New, your biases are showing. Who said anything about it having anything to do with an invisible undetectable and unprovable daddy fantasy, except you?
Oh, sorry, deity not Daddy.
It depends on how one defines "spiritual." As I believe that no organism has a soul or spirit, I see no use for the terms.
wordywalt
Level 9
Jan 21, 2020
1
As YOU define them, you mean.
I'm not a "spiritual" being.
To me, it's all just individualistic woo.
Everyone who claims it, has their own definition of what it is.
I'll pass, thanks.
KKGator
Level 9
Jan 21, 2020
4
So, in spite of the fact that you say that it means something different to everyone, you're claiming that if they use that word it's all woo.
Doesn't that strike you as being somewhat hypocritical and ignorant?
That even if they all have a different meaning in mind you know what all of those meetings are encapsulated in that one word?
It sounds to me like your bias is emotional rather than rational.
@Metahuman I'm not being emotional, as you accused me of in your addendum.
I think it's bullshit. There's nothing that proves spirituality is based in anything other than emotion.
I don't have to know what every individual's definition is. That is irrelevant.
It also proves that it's rooted in emotion. If there can be differing individual definitions of the thing, it's emotional.
There isn't anything "rational" about spirituality.
It is strictly emotional. It's still woo.
Calling me a hypocrite seems rather pejorative, but hey, whatever makes you feel better about someone who disagrees with you.
@Metahuman No, I'm really not.
I'm not "ranting" at you, I'm clarifying.
Your assumption of my "anger" or "annoyance" are exactly that, your assumptions.
I'm not "pretty emotional". I simply don't care for your particularly incorrect characterization. Again, simply clarifying my position in an effort to be better understood, since you appear to be having a bit of trouble with that.
Being accused of being "pissed off" is one of those male tricks to diminish a female taking exception to a comment.
I'm actually really pretty calm, other than I'm hungry and waiting for my
dinner to be ready.
That's not emotional either.
So, wrong.
By the way, it's okay to be emotional. In fact it's essential to be emotional. That's kind of what this whole fucking argument is about.
Reason AND feeling is what the human experience is, and that's what spiritual is, and if you divorce the emotional from the reason you're left with a bunch of crap and that's the opposite of spiritual.
Sorry, I'll leave you alone, sorry to upset you.
Hiking is a transcendent, uplifting and spiritual experience for me. I feel grounded and centered high in the mountains.
Have been an atheist since age 13.
Hassled by a Christian Psychologist
Ken, a 66-year-old psychologist from Portland, Oregon. His first message:
"I really like your playful, creative, giving being. You're more "spiritual" than most religious people. I'm curious how an "atheist" can live that way."
I don't have to justify my lack of belief to anyone.
LiterateHiker
Level 9
Jan 21, 2020
2
Yep.
If, as the interviewee suggests, spirituality is a focus on inner life and self awareness and a sense of greater interconnectedness with others and with nature then we can indeed have a conversation on those topics and their value or lack thereof. The problem is that few seem able to approach these topics without presuppositions rooted in the supernatural or "The Divine". Talk quickly degenerates into the realm of the non-falsifiable and therefore not usefully discussable.
mordant
Level 8
Jan 21, 2020
2
This is a repost of a comment i made in another thread some time ago.
What is spiritual?
To me, it's of, or relating to, the nature of the relationship between the individual and the collective reality, and an individuals understanding of the nature of the relationship between themselves and All that Is. The something, whatever it may prove to be, that all of this flows from.
There's a really basic flaw in western materialistic thought, an underlying assumption in oir thinking - that we are THINGS that exist IN the universe.
We're not. We are not separate things existing in it, we are events of it happening locally. We're not a bubble floating on a stream, we're the stream playing at being a bubble right here. We are localized patterns of the flow of energy and matter that streams through us.
At the root of this conflict is the question, is it all meaningless or is there meaning?
Meaning is not necessarily the right word. I'm not sure if there is a word in English that expresses the idea here. It might be easier to illustrate what I mean by 'meaning' in contrast to the opposing point of view, which is that no, there is no meaning to any of this. It's all just a pointless accident, one rock banged another rock in just the right way, and here we are.
I don't agree. You didn't come into this world. You came out of it.
Anthropomorphic principles aside, the universe is a masterpiece of pattern. For example, oxygen combines with hydrogen and becomes water. This is not an accident. In fact it's the opposite of accident, it's the laws of chemistry at work. It's built into the universe. Boom, water. Also, boom, life, inevitable because it's built in, by the fundamental laws.
To say that we wouldn't be here to observe it if the conditions weren't just right, is, in my opinion, a cop out. It sounds reasonable, but it's a non sequitur. It is just as true to say that in 100% of the universe's that we can observe we find life.
If ones going to argue that it's random because it was nothing more than the interplay of physical laws, then they're making the mistake of thinking that the way the laws work is itself random and it isn't at all.
Yes, you said it, a deep feeling of connectedness to the universe is at the root of it. To see yourself as a child of the universe. Understand that spirituality is an attempt to explain that deep feeling. The feeling came first, then the attempt to explain and understand it. I define spirituality as that attempt, however successful or unsuccessful it may be.
When people begin to make this realization, and they have all different ways of explaining it when they do, some of them better, some of them worse, some of them crazy, etc then generally the word spiritual begins to apply as it's usually used in these conversations.
Of course it's a vast interesting world of human thought, and along these lines you see everything from sheer brilliance to hustling shysters. But for the same reason that you shouldn't mock science because things like astrology and alchemy exist, you shouldn't mock spirituality because things like scientology and catholicism exist. There's science and then there's pseudo science. There's also spirituality and pseudo spirituality. Although really, there's a whole spectrum in between, as well on both fronts. People being people and all.
Science is most spiritual thing of all. Science is the attempt to get at the truth of what is, and therefore to get at the truth of what we are. But when science becomes scientism, the quest for the actual truth is less important then the dogma.
Metahuman
Level 7
Jan 21, 2020
1
Well, I thank you for that. Certainly well considered words. While I can't agree with all of it (what you may consider the wonder of the vastness, I'd acknowledge as emerging complexity and the statistical mechanics - believing that our body of knowledge will move our understanding towards a deterministic universe, though never quite getting there in full), it's not particularly woo either.
An answer with which I can work. Still wouldn't call it "spiritual", but I get your point there.
I typically ignore people when they go all "I am spiritual" - hey if the wibbly-wobbly, touchy-feely goofy biofeedback works for them, fine by me (it's all in their head anyway, if they can't get their minds around that part of it, then there's no talking them out of it - hey, that's religion...regardless of what labels one wishes to distance themselves with).
It's when folks go "We should feel spiritual" or "You should keep an open mind..." or (and this one always burns my biscuits) "We can't NOT prove it, so there must be SOMETHING".
That's when this Cattus gets all hissy and spitty and scratches. Woo pitchers cannot include me in their belly button gazing nonsense without me getting offended. To steal a concept - they don't get to put their toys on my shelf; their nonsense belongs on the shelf with other nonsense, like Bigfoot, UFOs, ESP, Elvis sightings, etc.
Just because someone has read "The Elegant Universe" and watched a TED talk doesn't mean that there is any truth to the idea (groan) that our spirit molecules are tied together on another plane through quantum entanglement. In fact, beyond flights of fancy into quantum mechanics, the actual framework is dispositive of the idea of the spirit realm.
But those who pitch woo are equally adept at catching woo as well, so this kind of thing makes some sort of sense to them. Go figure.
Scientific illiteracy, even at the most fundamental and remedial level, is rampant.
LatentumCattus
Level 6
Jan 21, 2020
2
So what are your thoughts on the very scientifically literate people that would completely disagree with your viewpoint? People like, oh, I don't know, Albert Einstein for example?
Among many many others.
Don't get me wrong. There's an awful lot of BS and nonsense out there masquerading under this topic. However, that doesn't mean that it's ALL bologna.
@Metahuman - you are citing an old canard about the "spirituality" of Einstein.
He was emphatically an atheist and, beyond poetic phrasing, was not spiritual.
Again, woo pitched, woo received with open arms. Sheesh.
@LatentumCattus a few quotes from old Al.
Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man.
I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity.
I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
The scientists religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
Poetic phrasing?
""I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." - Albert Einstein
@Metahuman - We can spend all day trading quotes.
If you fall into my first paragraph - go for it, I won't stop you.
If you want to pitch woo at me, go open a science textbook.
@LatentumCattus exactly. Did you actually consider what he was saying in the quote you just posted? Youre trying to use his denial of fundamentist religion to say he denied spirituality. Which he didn't, as evidenced above. Nice try.
@LatentumCattus btw, i've cracked a few.
@Metahuman - Kewl - so I'll infer that you're not pitching woo. I'll listen. Your position on "spirituality", then?
@LatentumCattus hold on a second and I'll post something above.
@FrankA - And if you have read this thread, I have as much backed off of my position and allowed Metahuman the point. I concede - I jumped too quick without checking myself.
Way to make it to the party, Frankie... What next, catch me pooping in my litter box?? Try to keep up, my boy...
@FrankA - internet internet internet.
Your passive aggression by following me here just to beat a dead horse is obvious.
Whereas Metahuman has presented an eloquent statement on his philosophy of spiritual matters, your matter of "both sides are bunk, stay ignorant" statement referencing, of all things (groan) ghosts pretty much screamed woo and is therefore moot.
From whence we left off...
“He is not positing ghosts...and neither will I.
He...and I...are positing the possibility of stuff you may not know exists.
Stop being so dogmatic.
Someone saying "There is no life after death" or "there are no such things as ghosts"...
...are doing the same thing as people who are saying "there is life after death" or "ghosts do exist."
Both sides of those equations are blowing wind out their asses.”
So, YES, by your last line, you certainly suggested such a thing!
Your words, Sparky, not mine. And, yes, I will continue to be purposely derisive in response to you as I know it really really bugs you now.
The "Can't NOT prove it makes [insert any woo here] possible" is faulty reasoning with no concordance with the facts. Spirits do not exist, even if I will concede philosophically that there is a wonder to the vastness of what we do not know (caveated as "spiritual" in this thread, which I reject as a label).
Metahuman went all philosophic on me (grumble grumble) and I had no choice but to give the nod. I went the round with Metahuman, lost the round, and then suddenly you jump in like you're part of the play??
I'm starting to think you're trying to flirt with me...
@FrankA - ::: giggles :::
The primary difference here, the point, as it were...
There are things that one can say have possibility, even probability - that is the predictive nature of science.
It is wholly another to say [insert your flavor of fantasy here] is possible. There is so much simplicity in the position as to render it a useless point of view. Where would you draw the line then? Anything? Everything? Just if we keep an open mind??? Cross our fingers? Wish upon a Star??? Something at some point has to be so nebulous that you to call horsefeathers on it.
My position is rooted in the available evidence (that is ZERO) - hence, I can definitively declare that until such time that there is evidence to examine there is no spirit realm to get "spiritual" about. This is not close-minded - this is in harmony with reality. It is your (faulty) assumption that I am declaring I know everything. Certainly not - we're talking about one declarative statement.
You may also like to check out my comment in the "UFO" thread - in that particular thread, you and I would probably agree that the statistical likelihood approaches mathematical certainty that there is life somewhere in this universe besides on Earth. I also stated the same thing, though, without evidence of such, the point is academic and practically useless. You might call my position "woo" - I have no math to back up my post, it just makes sense to me (as someone else pointed out), and you'd be right.
Still, I must reject your position as baseless unless and until you can be more specific about what makes something woo "possible". Can't NOT prove it, so maybe just ain't enough.
NOT A QUOTE FROM FRANKA, BUT RATHER A PITHY REFERENCE FROM THE ICONIC FILM JAWS, JUST SO WE'RE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR - "I'll drink to your legs and you drink to my legs and we'll drink to our legs"?
Sure.
Anytime you wanna rack up a bunch of points, come find me...
@FrankA - Ooohh, Cattus must have really gotten under your skin...
OK. The quote is from "Jaws", the scene where Quint and Hooper call a truce over competitive banter.
Talk about tetchy... sheesh...
:::: strolls out of room :::::
@FrankA - Oh, I see what you are saying - the tag... OK, I'll edit it to remove the tag - for clarity's sake.
I hit reply and typed. In this particular instance, my post was not intended to rile you up... this time...
I've said it before and I will say it again. Spirituality and "being spiritual" can mean almost anything that you want it to mean. That's it, cut and dried, end of story. Why is this so? Mostly because the terms are used by both believers and non-believers in so many various ways.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Jan 21, 2020
1
Personally, I think we need to abandon the use of terms annexed by religion eons ago. Stop describing ourselves and our natural environment, and our emotional states as "spirtual".
Religion has annexed our LANGUAGE.
Time to start taking that back instead of being forced to use terms from religion to describe our non religious selves.
Take our language back I say.
Davesnothere
Level 7
Jan 21, 2020
1
@FrankA No it has not sir, it was defined that way by the believers who wrote the dictionary, with their bias intact, and shows that bias in that definition.
"The word, throughout history, has meant "denial that God (or gods) exist""
There is no need to deny things which have never been proven. It is not really possible to "Deny" God exists, as it is not shown to be in existence. In order to claim an atheist Denies Gods, you have to assume there is a God to deny.
See if you can follow along.
YOU say "Hey Dave, I got a new car."
"What did you get?"
"A Lamborghini."
"WHAT!? BS, your full of shit! Where is it?"
NOW, if it is parked outside or at your home and you roar up in the beast, then I eat Crow.
"Damn. I did not believe you. I appologize, Can I have a ride?"
You have now "proven" your Lamborghini (A fantastic claim for most folks)
IF I then still say "BULLSHIT!", thats not a legit Lambo, or its not really yours, or something . . .
That is denial.
Basic rulesof english show its meaning, as a indicates lack in all things, asexual (lacking sex intrest) amoral(lacking morals) and so forth.
It is used in the same fashion as Moral (Theist) Amoral (lacking Morals)Atheist
and Immoral(having bad/evil morals)antitheist(political position)/Gnostic Atheist(Position that there is no God)
Language has gained more nunance even as nuance itself is abandoned in conversation.
@FrankA "My point is that prior to, I'd say, the mid-1900's...you couldn't find a dictionary that showed atheist as meaning anything but "a denial that any gods exist."
Correct, because prior to that all dictionaires were written, edited and approved by theists who look at the question from a position of bias in favor of an unproven belief.
The Language itself does not support that, and that is why the definition has shifted. Language always evolves, so what?
The only purpose of language is to communicate, if a term is found to fit the society at any time it becomes prevelant (Groovy), once it is not, it either alters or is abandoned. (it's maccaroni).
"a" (without) + "theist" (a 'belief' in a god)...you are wrong
Oxford
a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
- a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:
Disbelief is as I said either gnostic (ie a person believes there is no God based on their own understanding)
or anti-theist (a political position against organized religion)
lacks belief is "soft atheism", agnostic atheism.
Its about communication of ideas to me. Not about what is correct, as far as that is concerned I stand with whatever useage the person I am communicating with needs to understand. I find the modern usage both more accurate on par and therefore more useful.
It's root source linguisticaly takes a back seat to the terms usefulness in actual communication.
Even in its roots it was a broad term, meaning both lack of and despised by(from a position of belief), godless and so on . . .
atheist (n.)
1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).
@FrankA "The word "atheist" came into the English language BEFORE "theist"...so it could NOT have derived via "a" (without) + "theist" (a 'belief' in a god.)"
SO FUCKING WHAT Frank?
The red lego was made before the blue lego, they work fine together. Language evolves and changes, so why does this offend you?
The way I use the term you would be an agnostic atheist, what truly boggles me is why you are so adamant, why you have an emotive response
"I do not "believe" any gods exist...and I am NOT an atheist. Period."
a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
- a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or god
Seems to fit in the modern vernacular, so I am puzzled why you seem offended by the term being attatched to you?
Do you see the term as derogatory?
I am not trying to offend you, this whole thing strikes me like this.
Wow, the sea is so blue today.
No, it is not blue, it is aquamarine!
@FrankA This is my boggle.
Language is flexable, people use terms in different ways. Most terms have many different ways to be used. Yet you are rigid and apparently angry about it.
You said "YOUR first comment is "SO FUCKING WHAT?"...any you are boggled that I have an "emotive response?????"
YES, so what if one person says flame and another crimson, both mean red. I do not at all understand why you feel offended at the term Atheist when you describe yourself as one, a none, lacking any belief in a God.
You say "the reason I am "offended" is because I AM NOT AN ATHEIST"
AND
"I do not know if gods exist or not;--Lack of direct knowledge (Gnosis) = Agnostic
(I agree)
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
(I agree)
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
(I agree)
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
(I agree)
ALL THIS Equals a lack of belief in any particular God, not believing itself is Atheism. Having those same positions I define as Agnostic (lacking Gnosis) Atheist (Lacking belief)
I find this telling
"It is obvious to me that you atheists use the descriptor because you think there are no gods"
YOU ATHEISTS? Like "You people"?
We hold the same exact positions and I see that as Agnostic Atheist. I do not know why you are offended by the term when you are defining yourself as a NONE, a non believer, one who has suspended judgement, no reason to believe or not to believe; a position very similar to my own, so similar as to be exact.
No reason to believe in any God
No reason to declare no God exists
No knowledge of any God
Hence I am Atheist and Agnostic.
In my choice of terminology, you are also agnostic and atheist, the terms are not exclusive.
@FrankA LOL
You did not address your use of the term "You Atheists", which indicates you see Atheists as a tribe of sorts, one you do not wish to be associated with.
I do not see how you "be" an atheist. There is nothing to be. It is not a worldview and does not impact my worldview. That is derived from other places.
THIS is where we seem stuck despite you holding the exact position I do.
"One thing all atheists share in common is "a lack of 'belief' that any gods exist."
"BUT NOT EVERY PERSON WHO LACKS A "BELIEF THAT ANY GODS EXIST" IS AN ATHEIST."
To me this indicates that you see Atheism as a thing you are, rather than a thing you lack (a belief in God(s). That would indicate some kind of creed, or belief, some dogma. You seem to react like someone is calling you a bad name, as if you hold some negative opinion of the term Atheist, because it seems to me entirely accurate for your held position.
If you are defining yourself as simply "Agnostic", that seems a poor or incomplete definition of your position.
If someone says "You are an Atheist", what does that mean to you?
If someone tells me that it means I do not believe in Gods, to me, but I would have to ask what they mean by the term so as to not be lumped into the "Gnostic Atheist" group (That is folks who believe there are no Gods due to a total lack of evidence)
To me that is also a position of faith. I think you see it that way too.
Do you see the term Atheist as lumping you into that group?
This same issue has been an issue forever in my experience, that is why I think the language has evolved to have more nuance.
This is how Bertrand put it in the 50's
Proof of God
“Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. ”
Bertrand Russell
@FrankA "And I do not want YOU or anyone else to tell me that AM simply because of a definition that I consider absurd."
The fact that you consider it absurd does not make it absurd, nor does it make it incorrect.
You just do not prefer it.
"How the hell can you consider that as "poor" or "incomplete"
Because your self written definition dodges the question theist/atheist addresses, one of belief.
You could belive--Theist
Dis-believe--Gnostic Athiest
or lack belief--Atheist
You seem to only address the knowledge issue
You could Know God(Gnostic) Knowledge.faith position
You could know No Gods (Gnostic)Knowledge.faith position
You could claim not to know(a-Gnostic(lacking knowledge)
So you do not like the term or consider it inaccurate, when it describes you.
I don't like the term "White" myself, there are no white or black peoples, they are peach, brown and varitions thereof.
It does not matter if I like it or not, it describes what I admit I am, caucasian.
So too does Atheist describe your position, whether you like it or not.
No black person was fond of "Negro" any more than I am "White", and most have a lot more with valid justification rather than usage of a term.
Despite all this you have not answered my question.
""One thing all atheists share in common is "a lack of 'belief' that any gods exist."
"BUT NOT EVERY PERSON WHO LACKS A "BELIEF THAT ANY GODS EXIST" IS AN ATHEIST."
So what is the difference?
Because it very much looks like it is just "I don't like that term", with no rationale as to why you don't like it at all.
Obviously you are including something to the term Atheist which you do not like and think does not represent you, which in fact makes you angry because you feel mislabeled.
See, when someone assumes I am a Gnostic Atheist (believing there are no Gods), I have to inform them that is not so.
It does not make me angry.
It does make you angry.
For the life of me I fail to see why that is, because you define as lacking a belief in God and to me that is Atheism, a(lacking)-Theism(a belief in God)
seems really simple to me.
So what are you adding to that term?
Why does this make you angry and not me?
What are you reading into Atheist that makes you say ""One thing all atheists share in common is "a lack of 'belief' that any gods exist."
"BUT NOT EVERY PERSON WHO LACKS A "BELIEF THAT ANY GODS EXIST" IS AN ATHEIST."
So what the fuck are they then?
@FrankA ""Not atheists" is what they are if they say they are not atheists."
That does not answer the question but reiiterates your displeasire with the term atheist being applied to you.
You have said that many times, point taken.
It does not begin to address why.
If something is blue, and you call it aquamarine and take offense at asomeone else calling that blue, it would beg the question as to why you do not think aquamarine is blue.
This "despite the fact that I do not "believe" any gods exist"
mathches the Oxford ddefintion of atheist.
noun
- a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or god
Note, no belief = atheist
NOW it is very apparent you do not want to be called that, so what does someone call you in relation to that?
"I do not use "atheist" as a descriptor for me. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST."
So what are you then non believer?
AND
Why do you take offense at a label which describes your position?
You have never answered why at all, only that you don't like it, don't like the descriptor, why you have not explained at all.
WHY, confuses me. Like I said before, your reacting like atheist is a bad word you do not want associated with YOU even thought you hold the same position on God, non belief.
Do you even know why, or is it just some visceral feeling, which is what it looks like from here.
@FrankA OK
So you said "No need for anyone to apply a descriptor to me. I have CLEARLY stated my position without using a descriptor."
However that descriptor describes that exact position.
THIS, to me
"I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't"
EQUALS Atheist, ie. non belief, making no decision is not believing Yes there is or no there is not a god.
That is atheist
THIS
"I do not hold the same position as you atheists. I frame my responses on this issue in terms of "gods"...not this "God" of which you speak. And I stress in my conversations on the issue that I do NOT "BELIEVE" there are no gods."
An Atheist does not need to believe there are not Gods, just lack belief in them.
Sorry you don't like the label, maybe you should learn not to take offense when people use it, few outside religion use the term Atheist in such a way.
@FrankA Look Frank, with all due respect, please don't tell me what I mean by a term I use.
"People who use "atheist" as a descriptor PRETEND the only reason they do is because the lack a "belief" in any gods."
THAT is a no true scotaman fallacy based upon your apprent and evident prejudace against yourself I guess, or at least anyone who says they are an atheist.
See, YOU are the on INSITING on the archaic theocratic usage of the term (a belief there are no Gods)
but most people TODAY use the term as I do, a simple lack of belief.
SO, you are free to insist your not an atheist as your define yourself as one descriptivly and illustrate your prejudace against atheists, which you describe as "you atheists", and for whom apparently YOU decide how they meant a term they used.
By doing this you are gaurenteeing your own outrage and anger, for no damn rationale reason at all, but because you have some prejudaced idea of atheists and seem to desire to pigeon hole them into the gnostic Box YOU insist upon.
methinks he doth protest too much
Call yourself whatever you please, but if you define yourself as non believing a LOT of people will see that as atheist, period. I do, your descriptive matches my use of the term. To me your denying your damn self because you insist on standing on an antiquated usage over a century ago.
It looks like you desire outrage, that you create a windmill to then tilt at.
Have fun with that.
@FrankA Frank, just so you are aware, I do not self define as Atheist either.
Technically I am because I lack beliefs in any Gods, but I do not use that term on myself because it is imprecise, there is a better one for me.
I began my life as a Christian Theist, I evolved through Christianity and world religions study to a deist, I evolved through philosophical study to an agnostic atheist, I evolved through more study of both philosophy and religion to Ignostic, Igtheist.That was 88, been that way since.
I am an Ignostic
I was raised a believer
AS a believer I thought understanding God of the utmost import.
SO I studied that.
Which is why I am today an Igtheist/Ignostic
Ignosticism is an Epistomologic position; it is a set of ideas refuting the importance of determining the existence of God. It claims that knowledge regarding the reality of God is altogether unprofitable.
It is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term god has no coherent and unambiguous definition.
IF you cannot even define what you are talking about, or consider it beyond human understanding, how is it you can claim to know anything about it and keep your intellectual integrity intact?
So you can use the archaic version if you insist, its a free world, but since you insist on it you will find this same disscussion eternal, because the world moved on from that archaic usage some time ago, like they did with groovy, and maccaroni. You will be seen as atheist (a lack of belief) for any foreseeable future, and it is only your insistence upon using that archaic form which makes you feel pigeonholed into a position you do not hold, you feel falsely labeled, when others just use the term in its modern usage and you are too stubborn to bend for a discourse.
Please be aware that by doing this you are pigeonholing atheists the world over into a position they do not hold, one labeling them as "a belief no Gods exist",
and they do not like that any more than you do.
I hope you move past this someday, it looks to me like damage from religion, like the fear of hell non believers still suffer from. It looks that way because you keep clinging to that antiquated theocratic usage, when nothing demands you must, except you.
I really hope you learn to get past this.
www.recoveryfromreligion.org
@FrankA
NO ONE IS TELLING YOU WHAT YOU ARE
at fucking all Frank!
YOU are choosing to define Atheist as "a belief their is no God(s)"
THAT is the old archaic term, just the way it is, I did not make it that way.
In so doing YOU are telling me and anyone else who identifies as an Atheist (non believing) that they BELIEVE there are no gods.
In the exact same fashion YOU are choosing to be offended by a shift in the language.
Groovy Man, Have a blast.
@FrankA " I am simply saying that while ALL atheists lack a "belief" that any gods exist...NOT ALL PEOPLE WHO LACK THAT BELIEF ARE ATHEISTS."
Argue with the Oxford dictionary, it disagrees.
@FrankAItTHIS
"I'd rather use this
"a person who believes that God does not exist."
Is not possible, as God is undefined, not possible to not believe in something I have no idea about, all I have is the assertions of humans.
Further, the ancient greek ASSUMES GODS, assumes it as a basis for the language itself. They had a pantheon even including the unknown God.
Fact is the language has evolved and is still evolving and always will evolve.
By choosing that preference, you place yourself in a position to always be misunderstood.
Further, you are doing to me exactly what you take issue with, being falsely labeled.
I do not believe in any gods, to me that means I am an atheist.
It also means you are, by the way I use the term.
The way you use the terms places a false positive claim on all non believers who call themselves atheists, your are falsely asserting they "have a belief no God exists"
I do not take offense, as you do when someone hears I am a non believer and calls me an atheist. I am well aware this term is jostled and not used in the same manner, so it put impetus on me to ask "How do you mean the term Atheist?"
You seem to want the world to bend over and kiss your ass about it, your way or the highway.
There it is man, drive away,
Have fun being angry for no good reason, forever I guess.
It's good that there are articles making such statements such as "thinking beyond oneself" and so on can be called being "spiritual" with no deity necessary.
For me, if I was to call myself "spiritual" it would be describing a feeling of connection to all which surrounds me, so beyond myself, I suppose, but also acknowledging that I'm a part of this big drama unfolding before our eyes, and of course I like to feel I'm doing my best to be a positive influence, rather than negative, if and when possible, by listening to my conscience.
Julie808
Level 8
Jan 21, 2020
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.