First things first

[Tonus]

Savannah, you've defined "spiritual", but the definition uses the word "spirit' several times. What's a "spirit"?

[Savannahw]

I went to one nondenominational church in a strip-mall. They were interesting. They laid hands, spoke in tongues, would beat their hands, shout and I mean shout. Then they all broke down and cried at the end. Not a dull moment.

[Bad Writer]

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

[Rahul]

You just reminded me of something, Savannahw.

Once when I was around 15 or so I went to a summer church camp for a couple weeks.

They do some weird psychological ploy where they build up some mental thing in daily sermons. Then on the last day they pull the plug on it somehow and everyone started crying.

But I was just sitting there feeling confused about why everyone was crying.

I haven't thought about that in forever.

Maybe I'm hardwired to have eventually left religion.

[Bad Writer]

Once when I was around 15 or so I went to a summer church camp for a couple weeks.

They do some weird psychological ploy where they build up some mental thing in daily sermons. Then on the last day they pull the plug on it somehow and everyone started crying.

But I was just sitting there feeling confused about why everyone was crying.

This is pretty typical. I experienced this same phenomenon myself while growing up Mormon. In fact, what I felt was so twisted about the whole thing is that they wanted you to believe that such a reaction was desirable because it was physical, visible proof that you were being acted upon by the Holy Ghost. Of course, being around 15-16, I was duped as well (despite my growing doubts, yes).

Looking back on it all, it definitely makes sense. It's certainly a ploy to get the youth more invested in the religion because it creates a seemingly real (and "spiritual") attachment to it for them.

[Whateverist]

I went to one nondenominational church in a strip-mall. They were interesting. They laid hands, spoke in tongues, would beat their hands, shout and I mean shout. Then they all broke down and cried at the end. Not a dull moment.

That's some pretty weird shit alright. Did it seem spiritual? I admit I don't use that word a lot.

Oh, and "woo" is something I only use in a derogatory way.

[Brian37]

Starting to lose me. Even if I concede that the universe is not "an entity"

It is not, period. The universe is not set up like a human brain, planets are not neurons and galaxies are not organs and the universe is not a human body.

"Entity" implies cognition, whereas "things" and "objects" do not. The universe simply does, it does not require a cognition to do that. The universe is a thing, not a who.

Anyone suggesting such si fi woo is on par with the ancient superstitions. Pantheism is as much superstition as any other.

You are stupidly falling for a gap trap, "We don't know everything" is allowing you to project your human qualities on the universe and the two are completely different. The psychological word for that is anthropomorphism, and it is still anthropomorphism no matter who is doing it.

Thoughts require a material structure and we know that the universe is not set up like a human brain so it has no capability of thinking. The only thing we have in common with the universe is that everything is made up of atoms, but since our atoms are set up differently you cannot compare the thoughts of a human as being license to suggest that something non life can do the same thing. Motion does not require cognition nor does mere motion imply life.

[Savannahw]

I'm sorry your wife had to go through that. Losing a belief is not easy. I don't disagree with your first point.

Do you believe in aliens? Yes no? Is it a cool concept? Do you find it believable? Now ask your self the same questions about souls. I find it believable, because I understand why other people believe in them.

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.

The value I place in religious claims has come from man. But if you asking if I believe that religious claims have a higher power behind them? They could. I don't really find that important. I don't believe they do. I find more significance in the value people place on them.

Point 4. I could stop at that. Usually I do. Sometimes I don't. If the word spiritual fits, better I'll use it. There is a labyrinth at a church in my city. It is a spiritual place to me. A deep connection doesn't cut it. If I say my husband and I have a spiritual connection, then deep connection doesn't go far enough. If spiritual fits the situation better, I'm not afraid of someone disagreeing with me or answering the questions it raises.

I think the last point just shows how different we are as people. I'm not going to question a persons beliefs, that is personal. If they have questions, I will answer if I can. If I know someone with an outrageous belief, that doesn't hurt anyone, I'll let them keep it. I might research for myself, but you can not convince someone to change their beliefs unless they want to.

---

I went to one nondenominational church in a strip-mall. They were interesting. They laid hands, spoke in tongues, would beat their hands, shout and I mean shout. Then they all broke down and cried at the end. Not a dull moment.

That's some pretty weird shit alright. Did it seem spiritual? I admit I don't use that word a lot.

Oh, and "woo" is something I only use in a derogatory way.

It seemed religious. I'm sure they felt it was spiritual, but I found it ritualistic.
It probably used used mostly that way, but try to say woooooooo while wiggling your eyebrows. Can you keep a straight face?

[Rayaan]

Welcome to the forum, BadWriterSparty. It's your first day here and you're off to an amazing start.

[Brian37]

I went to one nondenominational church in a strip-mall. They were interesting. They laid hands, spoke in tongues, would beat their hands, shout and I mean shout. Then they all broke down and cried at the end. Not a dull moment.

Not dull? How? Going to a ruber room hotel can also not be dull, but I wouldn't want to be living in it.

---

The value I place in religious claims has come from man.

You can find all sorts of pretty motifs about compassion for fellow humans in all cultures, but that does not excuse humans from making excuses to pretend that they invented human morality, or that we are in anyway important to this planet or the universe.

I can also find compassion in fiction too like Harry Potter and Star Wars. The problem with valuing religion is that it takes our common condition and sexes it up needlessly into a comic book in which the fans claim rights over each other.

If everything comes from man, meaning our evolution, then scrap religion and recognize the individual, not because of their religion, but because they are good. People are going to be good or bad and every religion has good and bad people. Religious labels are nothing more than an anthropomorphic projection of our personal desires, they do not reflect the real common existence we all share.

The damage religion does is because people fail to see it as a weapon and all it is is a form of politics to attempt to become the alpha male. Religion wont go away, but to fail to recognize it as a weapon is not only intellectually dangerous it far to often reaches deadly results.

Religion, and political ideology can also be a religion, when left unchecked and unquestioned leads to horrible things, no matter what you worship, a state or a god.

Hitchens in his book and his speeches often said "Name me one good thing said or good deed done that an atheist could not do that only a believer could." There is your evidence that man is what does good, not religion.

Claiming religion has done good is ignoring the roots of why it exists as a concept at all. Evolution explains why we do both good and bad, not human invented comic book clubs.

Things like charity and caring and honesty are something humans have always evolved to exhibit. But we also prove that we can be extremely cruel when our social order is challenged, but nether of our good actions or horrible actions are the result of superstition. But by coddling superstition you enable people to use it as an excuse to use it as a weapon.

So I find no value at all in placating the insecurities of superstitious people. I cant stop people from believing or belonging to any religion, but I damn sure am not going to value something I find absurd just because it has pretty stories in it.