New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Spirituality of Atheists

If Knight or Reptilicus were still here we would end up arguing about the mechanics of spirituality - but whether it is 'all in the mind' or not is not what I am aiming to discuss here - nor the ins and outs of the idea of the 'supernatural', which no doubt they would argue was come about through fear, nor any of the old and worn arguments about the Dogmas-but- since all these words pertaining to spirituality, ie soul, have come out of man in a time before Dogma, before a literal God - and since we are now leaving behind this literal God - how do we now view the concepts of those who came up with them differently to them, the conceivers. How are we coming out of the age of Church vs Temple, Religion vs Philosophy? Are we coming out with nothing at all, as in we deny it all, or with something worthwhile and if so what?
 

JV-12

Mayor
If Knight or Reptilicus were still here we would end up arguing about the mechanics of spirituality - but whether it is 'all in the mind' or not is not what I am aiming to discuss here - nor the ins and outs of the idea of the 'supernatural', which no doubt they would argue was come about through fear, nor any of the old and worn arguments about the Dogmas-but- since all these words pertaining to spirituality, ie soul, have come out of man in a time before Dogma, before a literal God - and since we are now leaving behind this literal God - how do we now view the concepts of those who came up with them differently to them, the conceivers. How are we coming out of the age of Church vs Temple, Religion vs Philosophy? Are we coming out with nothing at all, as in we deny it all, or with something worthwhile and if so what?
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (The book of Ecclesiastes)

New age thinking has nothing new to offer. It is the sin of pride, I would put it. No different than the tower of Babel. Man does not consider his humble beginnings, nor He who gave him life. Instead he tries to be god and prove to himself that he came from nothing, and therefore, can do or think as he pleases without any spiritual accountability.

All these ancient revelations of the Church you relegate to “man made” ideas. What does that mean? Jesus revealed himself and man wrote it down. It was not man-made, it was divine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jen
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (The book of Ecclesiastes)

New age thinking has nothing new to offer. It is the sin of pride, I would put it. No different than the tower of Babel. Man does not consider his humble beginnings, nor He who gave him life. Instead he tries to be god and prove to himself that he came from nothing, and therefore, can do or think as he pleases without any spiritual accountability.

All these ancient revelations of the Church you relegate to “man made” ideas. What does that mean? Jesus revealed himself and man wrote it down. It was not man-made, it was divine.
It is not New Age thinking and you are not an Atheist - or are you?
 

gigi

Mayor
If Knight or Reptilicus were still here we would end up arguing about the mechanics of spirituality - but whether it is 'all in the mind' or not is not what I am aiming to discuss here - nor the ins and outs of the idea of the 'supernatural', which no doubt they would argue was come about through fear, nor any of the old and worn arguments about the Dogmas-but- since all these words pertaining to spirituality, ie soul, have come out of man in a time before Dogma, before a literal God - and since we are now leaving behind this literal God - how do we now view the concepts of those who came up with them differently to them, the conceivers. How are we coming out of the age of Church vs Temple, Religion vs Philosophy? Are we coming out with nothing at all, as in we deny it all, or with something worthwhile and if so what?

Sounds like you're asking "what will we make up next" to replace this "literal God".
You can make up anything you like, but it won't change what's true. The truth remains true even if only one person believes it an a lie is still a lie even if the whole world believes it.

As for atheist spirituality, I have found, among the atheists that I know, that they claim that there is no God and then give what I call the Litany of the Illogical....their list of all the things religions believe that don't make sense in the natural world. But then, I hear these same people attaching all kinds of supernatural powers to themselves. They laugh at the idea that Our Lady appeared in Fatima, but then go on about their own power to astro-project. They don't believe miracles occur through faith, but they believe that we humans have the power to affect the laws of physics if we concentrate hard enough. They don't believe there's a God who has the authority to decide on which lives are worthy to exist and for how long, and they mock those who do believe in that authority. But then they grant that same authority to themselves.
I think that mentality is a good illustration of the fact that the truth is written on every heart and embedded in every soul, but some allow it to be buried under so much noise.
 
Sounds like you're asking "what will we make up next" to replace this "literal God".
You can make up anything you like, but it won't change what's true. The truth remains true even if only one person believes it an a lie is still a lie even if the whole world believes it.

As for atheist spirituality, I have found, among the atheists that I know, that they claim that there is no God and then give what I call the Litany of the Illogical....their list of all the things religions believe that don't make sense in the natural world. But then, I hear these same people attaching all kinds of supernatural powers to themselves. They laugh at the idea that Our Lady appeared in Fatima, but then go on about their own power to astro-project. They don't believe miracles occur through faith, but they believe that we humans have the power to affect the laws of physics if we concentrate hard enough. They don't believe there's a God who has the authority to decide on which lives are worthy to exist and for how long, and they mock those who do believe in that authority. But then they grant that same authority to themselves.
I think that mentality is a good illustration of the fact that the truth is written on every heart and embedded in every soul, but some allow it to be buried under so much noise.
Lol - this is quite funny isn't it - usually it is Christians complaining about so many atheists talking in religion, which is what prompted this post, and now we have it the other way round ;-)

No actually gigi I don't have any ulterior motive - I am as curious as you to know? You know my views and I am not trying to push them, otherwise I would have done in the TP - I have simply reversed 'the question'.
 

gigi

Mayor
Lol - this is quite funny isn't it - usually it is Christians complaining about so many atheists talking in religion, which is what prompted this post, and now we have it the other way round ;-)

No actually gigi I don't have any ulterior motive - I am as curious as you to know? You know my views and I am not trying to push them, otherwise I would have done in the TP - I have simply reversed 'the question'.
I don't think you have an ulterior motive.
 
As an atheist, I am in awe of nature and life. To me spirituality is woo woo but if it makes you aware of the wonder of it all, then it's good woo woo.
 

Jen

Senator
If Knight or Reptilicus were still here we would end up arguing about the mechanics of spirituality - but whether it is 'all in the mind' or not is not what I am aiming to discuss here - nor the ins and outs of the idea of the 'supernatural', which no doubt they would argue was come about through fear, nor any of the old and worn arguments about the Dogmas-but- since all these words pertaining to spirituality, ie soul, have come out of man in a time before Dogma, before a literal God - and since we are now leaving behind this literal God - how do we now view the concepts of those who came up with them differently to them, the conceivers. How are we coming out of the age of Church vs Temple, Religion vs Philosophy? Are we coming out with nothing at all, as in we deny it all, or with something worthwhile and if so what?
I think humans are born with a desire to find the Source of everything and communicate with It. That is spirituality.

People realize that other people can be controlled by the use of God thought, so they made Religion.

The quest for God sometimes goes through Religion to complete the quest, and sometimes it is sidetracked by religion with the quest never really completed.

As JV-12 quoted from the Bible, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (The book of Ecclesiastes)

Every person has his/her own path and either finds God or doesn't. What IS still IS whether it is believed in or denied, so that doesn't matter at all.
 

fairsheet

Senator
As an atheist, I am in awe of nature and life. To me spirituality is woo woo but if it makes you aware of the wonder of it all, then it's good woo woo.

I really like your response. It seems to allow for the fact that most humans do and have always been, drawn to something akin to "spirituality". My point is not to suggest that this human majority somehow "proves" the idea of spirituality. It's simply to suggest that since humanity is so "sold" on this idea, it's worthy of note and consideration.
 

Jen

Senator
As an atheist, I am in awe of nature and life. To me spirituality is woo woo but if it makes you aware of the wonder of it all, then it's good woo woo.
You must REALLY be in awe of all of this if you think it just sprang into existence without some sentient being thinking of it first. That takes some faith. I'm impressed that you are able to have that kind of faith.
 
You must REALLY be in awe of all of this if you think it just sprang into existence without some sentient being thinking of it first. That takes some faith. I'm impressed that you are able to have that kind of faith.
You might try watching some physicists talk about cosmology. Here is a great one for you to see that is non-technical and entertaining.


Try not to get confused when he starts talking about how mankind has utilized the God of the Gaps over the ages.
 
I really like your response. It seems to allow for the fact that most humans do and have always been, drawn to something akin to "spirituality". My point is not to suggest that this human majority somehow "proves" the idea of spirituality. It's simply to suggest that since humanity is so "sold" on this idea, it's worthy of note and consideration.
Thanks. I saw a physicist debate Chopra once and he kept saying that Deepak was saying nothing but woo woo all the time. It was hilarious. Deepak came back defending woo woo and spirituality with gibberish that sounded scientific but was roundly laughed at by the physicist. I think its a good term.
 
Last edited:

Jen

Senator
You might try watching some physicists talk about cosmology. Here is a great one for you to see that is non-technical and entertaining.


Try not to get confused when he starts talking about how mankind has utilized the God of the Gaps over the ages.
I understand that mankind has used God for lots of things.
That does not mean God doesn't exist.
 

gigi

Mayor
You might try watching some physicists talk about cosmology. Here is a great one for you to see that is non-technical and entertaining.


Try not to get confused when he starts talking about how mankind has utilized the God of the Gaps over the ages.
Mankind can't prove that God does not exist. We come up with more and more evidence of how this world physically came to be, but we can't prove that there is not a God at the beginning of it all or through it all, or at the end of it all.

People like Tyson start out settling on one belief to tackle: That the world was created in six days. Well, we don't all believe that the world was created in six 24 hour days. Some believe these "days" represent different periods that God brought the creation of the world through. Some believe that the story is metaphoric. But Tyson and others don't address those beliefs. They pick the low hanging fruit, so to speak, and hope we can all join them in ignoring the rest.

Then, they often use conflicting beliefs among believers to make it appear that God does not exist. But they're not talking about God. They're talking about people. They're actually using the fact that people interpret God's word differently and have different experiences with Him to make it seem that He must not exist if we don't all agree.
Doesn't make a bit of sense. Most of us here have never seen or met each other. If we stop and think about it, we each have opinions and beliefs and experiences of one another here....but they won't all be identical. Imagine trying to make the case the case that one of us doesn't exist because all opinions of that one differ. It's foolish and dishonest.
 
Jen and Gigi are perfect examples of faith based reasoning. Nothing will sway them, no argument, no scientific discovery, no logic, no reason, nothing will sway them. It is fortunate for humanity that this type of faith is no longer the dominant social, civic and religious construct driving civilizations. Wait, there is one civilization that has this type of faith, we are all waiting for it to catch up after sitting out the last 800 years.
 

gigi

Mayor
Jen and Gigi are perfect examples of faith based reasoning. Nothing will sway them, no argument, no scientific discovery, no logic, no reason, nothing will sway them. It is fortunate for humanity that this type of faith is no longer the dominant social, civic and religious construct driving civilizations. Wait, there is one civilization that has this type of faith, we are all waiting for it to catch up after sitting out the last 800 years.
This is what you repeatedly tell yourself (and us) when we don't see it all your way. It's ironic, because you complain about "faith based reasoning" but you yourself use faith based reasoning to support your opinion. You put up a video of someone reasoning. You have faith in his point of view or you wouldn't have offered it the way you do. All I said was that his reasoning was faulty and a bit sleight of hand.

You really have no idea what my journey or Jen's journey is or has been. How do you know how many sides we've looked at these questions from, or where we've searched for answers, or even how we came to our conclusions? How do you know where when and how we've swayed? You don't. It's been pointed out to you before. But you continually pretend that you do know something. You rely on a stale stereotype: We believe in God, so therefore we have blind faith. That's a cop out.

And please show me where I relied on my faith in this thread to make my point. Again, I talked about man, and about your scholar's approach. That's all. But let's see if you can back up this assertion for once.
 
Top