It is oxymoronic, to my understanding.  Yet, I never fail to see it displayed all over the site, and is even one of the "groups" advertised.

 

Yes, I'm asking because it fails the sniff test.

Views: 148

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

From their mechanistic side, no, they don't fall into that category.

From their lifestyle side, yes, they do precisely.

While there is empirical evidence that both are highly advantageous to the body's well being; none of that proof is saddled in "spiritualism". They are just both physically demanding; the body is a machine, and it is best maintained through controlled and consistent use.
Absolutely. I practice meditation, not because I believe I am becoming one with the universe once deep enough in but because it makes me feel good.

You don't have to believe in 'chi' and whatnot to practice tai chi. It's all visualization exercises. (The same as my old occult practice's.)
FoA: So it leads to another question: shouldn't atheists be adverse to woo and woo peddling?

If you're a contemplative, and not monkey-see-monkey-do atheist, then absolutely.

3. You have no right to deride theism if you believe in unsubstantiated gibberish of your own

"Spiritualism" is a long grey streak. At our end, you have folks like Sagan and Einstein who were borderline pantheists. At the other you have clowns like Shirley MacClaine and Deepak Chopra who need to be hung up by the ankles and beaten with rubber hoses until they promise to stop being dicks.

"Atheism" and "spirituality" should be oxymoronic, however the etymology of atheist has nothing that precludes woo. This is a large reason for the endless and pointless debates about "re-defining" atheism that are second only to abortion as a source of gratuitous and irrelevant flatus. There are plenty of other threads for that elsewhere, no need to devolve into yet another one here. A lot of atheists don't even like the word anyway. See Harris.
"Spiritualism" is a long grey streak. At our end, you have folks like Sagan and Einstein who were borderline pantheists. At the other you have clowns like Shirley MacClaine and Deepak Chopra who need to be hung up by the ankles and beaten with rubber hoses until they promise to stop being dicks.

Okay, that is the funniest shit I've read since coming here. Point taken.

"Atheism" and "spirituality" should be oxymoronic, however the etymology of atheist has nothing that precludes woo. This is a large reason for the endless and pointless debates about "re-defining" atheism that are second only to abortion as a source of gratuitous and irrelevant flatus. There are plenty of other threads for that elsewhere, no need to devolve into yet another one here. A lot of atheists don't even like the word anyway.

Understood. Hence, why I label myself kitapsiz.
atheist spirituality as the feeling of awe when you contemplate the vastness and complexity of the natural universe

I agree. Most atheist spirituality I see has nothing to do with truth claims. Just wondering about an interesting, unexplainable concept.
LOL, say it like you mean it nate, always, say it like you mean it.

Well done. :)
I blame quantum mechanics myself.
LOL. Dare I ask ... (I think I shouldn't) ... why?
I blame quantum mechanics myself.

Yes really small mechanics are always messing with my stuff as well.
Ooooo Oooooo I promote kitapsiz; fabulous little epithet.
That's a damn fine and interesting point. Just recently had this discussion with a friend at my site; theism has an advantage of trying to prove a positive, atheism is in the less favorable position of proving a negative.

Under that view, it is easy to see, in my opinion, why atheists have a much tougher road to social acceptance.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service