(June 25, 2013 at 3:52 pm)Savannahw Wrote: 1: No I don't have any reason to believe in a spirit. I have no proof or evidence. I also need none. I do not have to believe in a spirit to find the idea of one a beautiful idea. If something affects me deeply, I might say it touches my soul. Do I have to believe in something to enjoy things relating to, or affecting my spirit?
2: Humans sanctify things. We are the ones that claim an object, place or being has any power. However do I have to believe in religion to take part in religious ceremonies? I take part in religious ceremonies all the time. I enjoy them. I enjoy watching the people who devoutly believe get some peace from them. If I go to church, edit a friends sermon, go to a moon festival, do I have to believe to enjoy them?
3oint 3 is very simple. I like understanding religious values. I concern myself with them.
4:My spiritual home is my happy place. It doesn't exist, but in my head. It is based on a real place that I felt a deep connection to. I think a spiritual home is a personal definition. It changes for each individual. Joined in spirit is what I consider a deep connection to a person.
5:I find all spiritual beings or phenomenon believable. I am not going to tell anyone they are wrong in their beliefs. It is a personal choice. I don't have any evidence for any spiritual beings or phenomenon. Believe happens in spite of evidence. I don't think believers require evidence. I don't believe in them either. However, I am not going to cast them aside. They might be able to be explained in a rational way, they might not. I don't think that is the point of believing in something. Also, Since when do all atheists think the same? Atheism is nothing more or less than denying god.
Your questions aren't too intrusive. I'm ok with answering as many as you have as long as it doesn't turn into.
The point you make about belief is astute. Belief requires no evidence, but, for some, if it's unfounded then it becomes undesirable. Also, there's evidence to support that unfounded beliefs can affect decisions in the real world in undesirable ways. (Your beliefs outwardly may not have any readily or visibly negative effects, but I liken that to how my wife reacted when she found evidence that homeopathic remedies were scientifically ineffective or not as effective/helpful as conventional medicines. The reaction was...well, not good.)
A person can like the idea of Sasquatch being real, but believing in him may cast doubt on that person's ability to reason with reality. I'm still not sure where you draw the line on this. You say that you like the idea of spirits, that you find it to be a beautiful concept, but you do not profess to believe in them...but you still find it believable...so that means you believe, but you don't? I would like you to clarify that for me because I think while there are many things that have gray areas, I would think that belief or disbelief in something is where people are able to draw the line.
You're right that people sanctify things. My ManCave at home is a place of bliss, my holy ground. What I was referring to (and so was the definition) was that the sanctity came about by ecclesiastical means. If you are the one putting worth (sanctity) on an object, that's one thing I can agree with. In fact, I make it a point to respect others' religious practices, as well as their own sacred places. I don't believe there is any real spiritual attachment to those things though. So I suppose my question on that can further be whittled down to: Do you personally place a real, spiritual value to religious claims? From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, that would be paramount to believing in these places/practices.
Point three taken, and taken well. I share your sentiments. I think there is a lot to learn from the religious values that others hold dear.
We diverge again though on point four. I wonder, then, if instead of calling it a spiritual connection, if you shouldn't just stop at defining it as "a deep connection to a person". I believe there is much worth to that statement, as I have experienced this feeling with many people. Calling it a "spiritual connection" instead qualifies it as supernatural, which raises more questions than it actually answers.
You're absolutely right on that last point. Not all atheists think the same. However, they all agree on that one point: they deny the existence of god. I will never tell someone they're wrong unless I can prove that they're wrong, and I'll only do that in such a way that it brings the OTHER person to that conclusion, helping them to rationalize the thought process. It's that thought process that I'm referring to though, and that's the thing that makes (the majority of) atheists unique from the plethora of believers out there. It's certainly something atheists share in common (at least I would hope so). If not, then I can at least help to promote it. On that note, casting anything aside is a bad idea, even if someone brings an outrageous claim to the table. But don't let it end there, I say. Instead, question the outrageous claim, get to the bottom of it, ie, find out whether or not there is proof enough to substantiate that person's assertion, and then cast aside the claim if it does not hold water.
Agreed though. None of this
