Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Will Faithless Sophia on May 8, 2011 at 9:01pm

The word 'spiritual' annoys me as much as people who say they believe in God, but the 'god' they believe in is completely different from the one(s) represent by organized religion - Einstein's 'god' is a good example.

Permalink Reply by Dogly on May 8, 2011 at 10:56pm

Elsewhere on AN there is a discussion about the word "truth".  It is inexact in that it refers to what one honestly BELIEVES is so.  I think that our debates would be more clear if we just stop using the word "truth" except meaning - the opposite of "lies".   If we say "facts" instead of "truth", one's own perception or belief doesn't get mistaken for testable, proveable reality.  I say, "Keep your truth, just give me the facts!"

Permalink Reply by matt warren on May 10, 2011 at 12:10pm

have these people define "spirituality" and THEN we may have a foundation for logical argument!

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on May 10, 2011 at 8:07pm

What I get out of it is that more than 20% of the scientists called themselves spiritual according to their own definition of it. Of course the problem would be that different people have different definitions of spiritual so it might be that none of the scientist were spiritual according to Webster's definition of it. It appears that to sure up this weakness the researchers compared the nature of the words the scientists associated with spiritualism to the nature used associated with religion. In that the results were consistent among all of the scientists (words connoting individualism were associated with spirituality while words connoting tribalism were associated with religion) scientific support was given to the proposition that all of the scientists were using the same definition of spiritualism. However, none of them was asked for his or her definition and no definition was provided for the scientists to go by. Accordingly, I think you hit the nail on the head: spiritualism certainly does not seem to have been well enough defined in the study.

Permalink Reply by Skye Azure on May 12, 2011 at 9:29pm

 

Well, reading these comments, I'm a little saddened so many people look at 'Spirituality' the same as 'Religion'. However, I don't blame anyone, as it is a loose concept, as well as an indefinite one, as it cannot be measured, or seen. This made obvious by the numerous interpretations of the word in the comment section.

 

From a happy Atheist, I will merely say it is what I feel when I'm quiet. No being speaks on to me, nor do I begin to float , but there is a personal enlightenment. Merely a more pronounced sense of silence. Larger gaps in between my thoughts that allow the law of attraction to actually do shit. Less chaotic thinking I guess.

 

I've always thought when believers prayers are 'answered' they are merely experiencing a reflection of their own intense thought, rather then an actual entity working to bring it upon them. Their thoughts do it, not God. The biggest reason a catholic can pray constantly not to die, feel the intense sad emotions they associate with death, and not soon after be hit by a speeding truck. But as it follows, few people who feel the law of attraction is bullshit would actually take time to simply silence themselves, quite literally too, for as long as a day, or a few hours each day, in order to see if there is any shred of truth in it. Not that the silent thing is necessary, I just think it makes the law of attraction easier.

So it really is left up to weather you feel something you have not relatively seen, or experienced is merely a supernatural fluff of delusion.

 

But then, it's an argument of weather you think you should judge a matter relatively, or practically? I tend to feel both are equally important, but practicality, being more general, would probably be more  acceptably accurate, because it can be judged by more people. Thus why I have no problem being called crazy in this matter. Still saddening though.

 

Sorry for the rant, interesting article, even more interesting comments.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on May 12, 2011 at 9:37pm

I think we've got more of a reaction going to what the Christians mean when they use the word.

Permalink Reply by Skye Azure on May 12, 2011 at 9:57pm

More than likely, your right. The other reason the negative reaction doesn't really phase me, one way or another.

Permalink Reply by Raymond Nash on June 12, 2011 at 11:48am

If this is to be believed, then it just shows that some folks just will not let go of their fantasies. Unless by "spiritual" they mean in the sense of the natural world a reverence for the mystery and awe one feels when confronted with one's own lack of understanding and being impressed with the magnificant grandeur of the Universe.

Permalink Reply by Cheryl on August 14, 2011 at 11:09pm

I agree with Raymond's meaning of "spiritual."  It sounds to me like the Scientists that are spiritual may have a spirit of cooperation that others may not have in abundance.  There is a humbleness in having strong feelings of awe and reverence.  This humility is a deterrent to the supposed arrogance that a lot of atheists are accused of.

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on August 15, 2011 at 4:57pm

I very much agree with you about the desirability of being humble but I think humbleness should come from within through freewill rather than from without through awe of the universe. The reason I don't think it wise to be awed by the universe is that the universe supports natural selection which opts completely for survival sometimes even at the expense of goodheartedness.

Permalink Reply by Orvo Luoto on June 23, 2011 at 9:23am

In my dictionary spiritual equals supernatural, especially when it includes some kind of extra-non-life energy, whatever that is.
In Kosmos (the Universe) there exist only natural entities, no supernatural.
1- everything that exists or happens can be explained naturally, not violating laws of nature
2- a valid natural explanation is: we do not yet have any explanation to that
3- an explanation based on supernatural elements, violates laws of nature, is no explanation at all

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page