People who claim to be 'spiritual'

flutterflye

Agricola wrote: »

Yes but are we at a stage now when a scientist can definitively say that there was / is no god. No.
Are human beings ever likely to be so advanced as to be able to say definitively that there was / is no god, its unlikely I'd say.

Lack of proof isnt the same as thing as saying something isnt there.

Oh and I'm not talking about the christian muslim gods / holy books which are obviously man made constructs. Just talking about "a god" in general.

Course we're that advanced already.
I'm not just talking about religious gods either - I'm talking about all of it - It is all just made up in someone's head, so how could it be real?

Duggy747

I don't care if a person is spiritual or religious, though it's usually the peddler's looking for money and make a career out of it that I despise.

I know a fair amount of people who would consider themselves spiritual but not religious but still hold onto the notions that there's a hell / satan / evil possessions / angels / fairies / somebody watching over you / everything happens for a reason / etc.

Still religious in my eyes, just not in the conventional way.

Furious_George

endacl wrote: »

Spirituality is wishful thinking. And incredibly lazy thinking.

You are full of it and you clearly have a very narrow definition of what you think spirituality is. You are wrong. For me spirituality is about having an open mind to there being more out there, that we are connected to the universe in a way we cannot explain.

If you read what some of the scientists are saying these days, we cannot comprehend even a fraction of what is happening in the universe or how it works. What makes you so great that you think you everything as a fact. In today's times a world famous astronomer says we are not capable of understanding the origins of the universe.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1120/1224326838946.html

Far better thinkers than you have some sort of spirituality (whatever the word actually means)

endacl

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'd argue spiritualiy is about removing thinking. To me beliefs play no part in spirituality. It is all about being present in the stillness of the moment.

That reads well, but doesn't actually mean anything.

endacl

Furious_George wrote: »

You are full of it and you clearly have a very narrow definition of what you think spirituality is. You are wrong. For me spirituality is about having an open mind to there being more out there, that we are connected to the universe in a way we cannot explain.

If you read what some of the scientists are saying these days, we cannot comprehend even a fraction of what is happening in the universe or how it works. What makes you so great that you think you everything as a fact. In today's times a world famous astronomer says we are not capable of understanding the origins of the universe.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1120/1224326838946.html

Far better thinkers than you have some sort of spirituality (whatever the word actually means)

Full of what? My mind is wide open. As are my critical faculties.

aaronjumper

If people want to be spiritual let them be. If their beleifs are not harming anyone then how bad. I am neither religious or spiritual but if it gives people a coping mechanism or makes them feel better about life in general then fine.

It will only be when their beleifs start forcing me to change the way I choose to live my life that any problems would arise. I had a big clever post planned but I need coffee.

Furious_George

Knasher wrote: »

If something isn't physically apparent then what basis do you have for proposing its existence?

I dont think anyone is proposing the existence of anything for definite. Posters have talked about feelings of peace, of awe at the power and beauty of nature (this is just an example). Some, including myself, have interpreted these feelings as some sort of spirituality which personally I cannot explain properly.

On a related note, do you think science at a subatomic level was physically apparent before we had the means and technology to understand and examine it. Of course not. How do we know what is possible when we understand so little.

endacl

Furious_George wrote: »

I dont think anyone is proposing the existence of anything for definite. Posters have talked about feelings of peace, of awe at the power and beauty of nature (this is just an example). Some, including myself, have interpreted these feelings as some sort of spirituality which personally I cannot explain properly.

On a related note, do you think science at a subatomic level was physically apparent before we had the means and technology to understand and examine it. Of course not. How do we know what is possible when we understand so little.

On the related note...

Yes. Of course it was. Do you think things don't exist before somebody looks at them? Did the first person to ever eat a banana invent or create the banana?

Knasher

Madam_X wrote: »

Anecdotes, not knowing for sure it *doesn't* exist.

Personally I'm open to the paranormal/supernatural.

The problem with anecdotes is that they are essentially based on peoples perception and memory. Both of which have been proven to be notoriously unreliable.

For example magic tricks work by drawing your attention away or fooling your perception into making the wrong conclusions. Obviously nothing supernatural is actually happened, and many of the most famous magicians (like Harry Houdini) are renowned skeptics, because they understand exactly how easy it is to fool humans perceptions. Memory has similarly been shown to be fallible, there have been tons of studies showing this.

So when it comes to anecdotes, it is a choice between accepting something which has never been objectively observed from a source which I know is unreliable (as we all are) and which often violates the laws of the universe as we understand them. Or just concluding that the person is mistaken. I know which seems the more likely explanation to me.

Knasher

Furious_George wrote: »

On a related note, do you think science at a subatomic level was physically apparent before we had the means and technology to understand and examine it. Of course not. How do we know what is possible when we understand so little.

The difference is that scientists followed the evidence until eventually it suggested the existence of subatomic particles. Spirituality is held, not on evidence but on the principle that nobody has proven the belief wrong yet, and almost anything can believed on that standard of evidence.

That isn't to say I absolutely dismiss your beliefs, I simply apply the same standard I use for everything else, my acceptance is proportional to the weight of evidence behind it, and as people seem willing to admit these things aren't "physically apparent" we both know what weight it carries.

ScumLord

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Someone who nourishes their spirit and does not accept a solely shallow materialistic life they believe they are more than physical.

But that's a very wide blanket statement that just about any person could relate to. Most of it applies to me. Except I'd say "Someone who nourishes their mind and does not accept a solely shallow materialistic life". Other than that I know I'm nothing more than a physical, I've accepted that I'm no more important to the universe than a grain of sand, I'm equal to everything from an ant to a star.

My goal in life is to learn as much as I can about life while I can, I want to take full advantage of my awareness to know my own limitations and that the real world is the ultimate calibration for the universe that exists inside my head. That universe works without boundaries, everything is possible inside my own head which I see as a flaw in many ways.

Furious_George

Knasher wrote: »

The difference is that scientists followed the evidence until eventually it suggested the existence of subatomic particles. Spirituality is held, not on evidence but on the principle that nobody has proven the belief wrong yet, and almost anything can believed on that standard of evidence.

That isn't to say I absolutely dismiss your beliefs, I simply apply the same standard I use for everything else, my acceptance is proportional to the weight of evidence behind it, and as people seem willing to admit these things aren't "physically apparent" we both know what weight it carries.

That's fair enough, I can respect that. I don't even know what I believe for it to be dismissed . It certainly isn't in an all knowing, all powerful creator though.

Scanlas The 2nd

endacl wrote: »

That reads well, but doesn't actually mean anything.

It means you can be spiritual through removing thought. Thought is probably the biggest barrier to being spiritual. You lose connection to the awareness behind your thoughts which is a deeply peaceful place to allow your focus to be. Your worries suddenly seem insignificant when you get to that space. "Me" doesn't exist in that space.

Scanlas The 2nd

endacl wrote: »

That reads well, but doesn't actually mean anything.

It means you can be spiritual through removing thought. Thought is probably the biggest barrier to being spiritual. You lose connection to the awareness behind your thoughts which is a deeply peaceful place to allow your focus to be. Your worries suddenly seem insignificant when you get to that space. "Me" doesn't exist in that space.

Roisy7

This is how I feel about the whole thing, in the words of Albert Einstein.

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

I think the world has mysteries I can't understand, and as a little pipsqueak on the universal plane, it's bloody cheeky of me to think I should.

Dunno if that makes me spiritual or not. I find beauty and meaning in nature.

I'm also thinking of reviving the cult of Dionysus.

ScumLord

Roisy7 wrote: »

I think the world has mysteries I can't understand,

Humans are adept at making things understandable for our brains. I don't think it's a case of we don't or can't understand it's just that we don't know yet, but we have a notion of what's going on. At a species level I think we can understand everything, on an individual level it's harder because we have limited time but the other great thing about human culture is we don't all have to understand everything, we can specialise in specific areas and share that knowledge. So even though I don't know how to make a smart phone I still have one even though it's likely there isn't even one person on the planet that knows how to make a whole smart phone..

flutterflye

ScumLord wrote: »

Humans are adept at making things understandable for our brains. I don't think it's a case of we don't or can't understand it's just that we don't know yet, but we have a notion of what's going on. At a species level I think we can understand everything, on an individual level it's harder because we have limited time but the other great thing about human culture is we don't all have to understand everything, we can specialise in specific areas and share that knowledge. So even though I don't know how to make a smart phone I still have one even though it's likely there isn't even one person on the planet that knows how to make a whole smart phone..

I was with you there until your last line.
I'm fairly sure there is.
What do you mean?!

lounakin

flutterflye wrote: »

I was with you there until your last line.
I'm fairly sure there is.
What do you mean?!

You think there's a person somewhere who can come up with a business plan for a new phone, find the money, then develop the software, then go to the lab and make the various materials for the phone, plastic, metal, rubber etc, then assemble it, design the interface etc?

Scanlas The 2nd

lounakin wrote: »

You think there's a person somewhere who can come up with a business plan for a new phone, find the money, then develop the software, then go to the lab and make the various materials for the phone, plastic, metal, rubber etc, then assemble it, design the interface etc?

I couldn't make a fork from scratch never mind a smart phone. Neither could the cast majority of people make a fork from scratch on their own.

smash

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I couldn't make a fork from scratch never mind a smart phone. Neither could the cast majority of people make a fork from scratch on their own.

A Lollypop stick, bit of glue and 3 tooth picks. Easy!

Scanlas The 2nd

smash wrote: »

A Lollypop stick, bit of glue and 3 tooth picks. Easy!

Make a fork like the one in your kitchen drawer.

smash

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Make a fork like the one in your kitchen drawer.

Make a mold and pour in some hot metal.

Scanlas The 2nd

smash wrote: »

Make a mold and pour in some hot metal.

Can you make a mold the exact size and can you get the right metal?

smash

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Can you make a mold the exact size and can you get the right metal?

You can make a mold whatever size you want, and yes you can get the metal. Of all things you chose a fork. They're not rocket science!

Scanlas The 2nd

smash wrote: »

You can make a mold whatever size you want, and yes you can get the metal. Of all things you chose a fork. They're not rocket science!

Of course a mould can be made but how is it made? If someone told me to make a mold without anyone's helps or they'd kill me I still couldn't do it. I assume items some sort of rubber, that's all I know. I wouldn't know how to make rubber.

flutterflye

lounakin wrote: »

You think there's a person somewhere who can come up with a business plan for a new phone, find the money, then develop the software, then go to the lab and make the various materials for the phone, plastic, metal, rubber etc, then assemble it, design the interface etc?

Yes.

indough

flutterflye wrote: »

Yes.

yeah but, anyone except tony stark?

smash

indough wrote: »

yeah but, anyone except tony stark?

Inspector gadget!

ScumLord

flutterflye wrote: »

I was with you there until your last line.
I'm fairly sure there is.
What do you mean?!

One person couldn't design, source and then go onto manufacture a smart phone. One person couldn't even just do the manufacturing. The machines involved are too complicated, you need to have a collage degree just to have the skills to do 1% of the work. A person wouldn't have the time or space in their heads for all the knowledge they'd need to pull it off.

Knasher

smash wrote: »

You can make a mold whatever size you want, and yes you can get the metal. Of all things you chose a fork. They're not rocket science!

There was an essay written in 1953 called I, Pencil which went over the process involved in making a pencil to illustrate the point that no one person has all the expertise necessary to make even the most simple of objects. Making a fork when you have the mold and the metal and the means of heating the metal in order to pour it is easy, getting to that point requires a lot more expertise though.

indough

you would also need to extract the metal from its natural form and build the tools required to do that, if we are doing this properly

TheUsual

ScumLord wrote: »

you need to have a collage degree just to have the skills to do 1% of the work.

Why is everyone getting Collage Degrees now, am I missing out something big by not having one ?

midlandsmissus

Sleepy wrote: »

Exactly.

TBH, I don't care if my opinions on religion are considered obnoxious, it's a far more offensive thing to consider religion as being worthy of respect imo. Me being obnoxious causes the world very little harm. Self-delusion on such a grand scale as we see with religious beliefs, whether organised or not, in the kindest light possible is a vast misallocation of human potential. In harsher light, it's been the cause of wars, genocide, the hoarding of wealth that could end world hunger, etc. etc. etc.

eeemmmmmm.....we're talking on this thread about people who dont believe in any organised religion, and are spiritual in their own way.

lounakin

TheUsual wrote: »

Why is everyone getting Collage Degrees now, am I missing out something big by not having one ?

You don't need a collage degree, all you need to do is prove that with a magazine and a bit of glue you can produce a deadly collage

kincsem

Spiritual: someone who reads all those books about angels.

endacl

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It means you can be spiritual through removing thought. Thought is probably the biggest barrier to being spiritual. You lose connection to the awareness behind your thoughts which is a deeply peaceful place to allow your focus to be. Your worries suddenly seem insignificant when you get to that space. "Me" doesn't exist in that space.

A type of induced psychosis? No thanks.

Scanlas The 2nd

endacl wrote: »

A type of induced psychosis? No thanks.

There's a good chance you've felt it before. Lots of people feel present looking up at the stars on a clear peaceful night.

endacl

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

There's a good chance you've felt it before. Lots of people feel present looking up at the stars on a clear peaceful night.

I felt present all right. Due to the fact that I was there. Funnily enough, alone looking at stars on a clear peaceful night is a scenario I'm quite fond of. Generally with a couple of moderately powerful telescopes. I've no problem with a sense of wonder.

I become more than mildly skeptical, however, when there's an expectation that I'll experience an ineffable wonder at the sights I regularly observe. The effable ones are wonderful enough one their own. I little understanding goes a long way to addressing 'spirituality'.

TheUsual

lounakin wrote: »

You don't need a collage degree, all you need to do is prove that with a magazine and a bit of glue you can produce a deadly collage

Errr ... used loads of Superglue by mistake, am waiting in A&E for a nurse right now.

Maybe a degree is the way to go. This collage business is tricky stuff.

Roisy7

ScumLord wrote: »

Humans are adept at making things understandable for our brains. I don't think it's a case of we don't or can't understand it's just that we don't know yet, but we have a notion of what's going on. At a species level I think we can understand everything, on an individual level it's harder because we have limited time but the other great thing about human culture is we don't all have to understand everything, we can specialise in specific areas and share that knowledge. So even though I don't know how to make a smart phone I still have one even though it's likely there isn't even one person on the planet that knows how to make a whole smart phone..

Hmmm but as a whole species we haven't decided on who created us or why we're here. The concept of the sublime is just that. That our consciousness when failing to comprehend something gives us a glimpse of something otherworldy.

Second you on the smart phone thing though, if people were all like me we'd never have progressed beyond the rocks and berries phase

Maximus Alexander

ScumLord wrote: »

One person couldn't design, source and then go onto manufacture a smart phone. One person couldn't even just do the manufacturing. The machines involved are too complicated, you need to have a collage degree just to have the skills to do 1% of the work. A person wouldn't have the time or space in their heads for all the knowledge they'd need to pull it off.

The technology in a smart phone is actually deceptively simple. It's the miniaturisation that is difficult.

It's very much possible for one person to design every single component and piece of software for a smartphone. However, it would take a really long time and you wouldn't be able to manufacture it.

If you had enough money and time you could single handedly make a really large version though. One that functioned the exact same way but was the size of a football field.

Scanlas The 2nd

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The technology in a smart phone is actually deceptively simple. It's the miniaturisation that is difficult.

It's very much possible for one person to design every single component and piece of software for a smartphone. However, it would take a really long time and you wouldn't be able to manufacture it.

If you had enough money and time you could single handedly make a really large version though. One that functioned the exact same way but was the size of a football field.

If you had enough time could you make one from scratch without any help. This means you'd have to extract the materials needed from te earth yourself. You would have to create all tools needed. No one on the planet could do that.

Maximus Alexander

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If you had enough time could you make one from scratch without any help. This means you'd have to extract the materials needed from te earth yourself. You would have to create all tools needed. No one on the planet could do that.

Sure, maybe I expressed myself poorly.

It's not practical for any one man to ever create a smart phone from scratch.

What I was challenging was the notion you seemed to be putting forth, that no one person could possess the knowledge to create one from scratch. I don't think that's true.

In fact, I think many such people exist right now.

Crooked Jack

I dont buy into any one religion but I certainly don't believe that humans are the be all and end all of creation. The idea of a God or creator or catalyst of some sort makes sense to me. That doesn't however mean I have any trouble accepting scientific theories or discoveries, I can never quite understand how people think the two cant coexist.
Organised religions however seem very man made and have a lot of rules set down by man not God, whatever God is. Im not being "wishy-washy" or "covering my arse," I firmly believe something started all this I just don't accept that any one religion has all the answers, or any of the answers.
You could say I'm spiritual in a sense but I wouldn't use the term myself because as somebody pointed out earlier it gives the impression of being someone who sits around reading books about angels, talking to Gaia or spends their weekends as a Wiccan.

johnwest288

Be carefull what you type onto boards. this could be used in evidence at the pearly gates:eek:

Crooked Jack

johnwest288 wrote: »

Be carefull what you type onto boards. this could be used in evidence at the pearly gates:eek:

It's alright, I've covered my arse, bless myself passing the church every morning. It's like a fucking press pass

Red21

lazygal wrote: »

Are they just kidding themselves? Anyone I know who says they aren't religious 'But I'm a very spiritual person' seems to think its a kind of a get out of jail free card for rejecting religion. Like, they don't want to be associated with an organised religion, but want to feel like there's something more to life. Is it not just wishy-washy and make-up? Seems like its covering your arse just in case.

Are you genuinely inquiring about something? because it seems like you already know and are just trying to make some half-assed attack on people who don't share your outlook.
Spirituality is a very broad term, would you not consider asking a peson who describes themselves as "spiritual" a few more questions before you presume to know what they're thinking.

lounakin

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Sure, maybe I expressed myself poorly.

It's not practical for any one man to ever create a smart phone from scratch.

What I was challenging was the notion you seemed to be putting forth, that no one person could possess the knowledge to create one from scratch. I don't think that's true.

In fact, I think many such people exist right now.

We were clearly talking about making the phone, not having the knowledge to make it.

Maximus Alexander

lounakin wrote: »

We were clearly talking about making the phone, not having the knowledge to make it.

No, it wasn't that clear:

it's likely there isn't even one person on the planet that knows how to make a whole smart phone..

nozzferrahhtoo

lazygal wrote: »

Are they just kidding themselves? Anyone I know who says they aren't religious 'But I'm a very spiritual person' seems to think its a kind of a get out of jail free card for rejecting religion. Like, they don't want to be associated with an organised religion, but want to feel like there's something more to life. Is it not just wishy-washy and make-up? Seems like its covering your arse just in case.

I have a lot of affinity for your impressions here and share many of them but I would be wary about stroking the brush stroke too wide. Often a lot of the issue is a linguistic one for example. People simply have no word better than "spiritual" to communicate what they are saying so they fall back on that word despite the baggage it brings.

I think many people who try to explore the human condition in ways above and beyond that experienced by your average joe on the street are likely to consider themselves "Spiritual". Mindfullness Meditation such as Vipassana is one example of this but there are many more.

An exploration of what it "means" to be human... what our moral and ethical concerns are to our fellow man, animal and our planet... what it means to be "happy" and "content" and "fulfilled".... whether those concepts always require input such as having ones favorite ice cream on ones lips when one wants or whether it is possible to be happy and content before any such input.... and exploring our connection as humans to our environment and planet and trying to see ourselves as part of the bigger picture rather than a sole ego and individual.... and an exploration of the ways and methods of training our moment to moment awareness and maybe even influencing or perturbing it consciously.....

... all these things I think fall under the category of "Spiritual" for many people and we do not really have other words for it that communicate what we want to communicate when talking about them.

So I do have some sympathy for atheists and others who feel compelled to use the phrase "Spiritual but not religious" to describe where they are at. I feel in many ways their hands, and mine, are tied linguistically to have to make some concession to words like that.