Athiests

[Eudaimonist]

Calling myself spiritual personally seems to objective for my tastes.

I'm not sure what you mean. Would you elaborate?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[LordDuncanBurneWilke]

There's no fine line in this interview.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Haha indeed. That's that then.

Thanks for the vid.

 

[BaconWizard]

There's no fine line in this interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ25Ai__FYU

There's also no context in that interview. Jung later explains (in very brief and broad terms) what he means by "god" and I assure you it has nothing in common with anything Abrahamic and more to do with a higher state of common human and universal consciousness.

 

[LordDuncanBurneWilke]

I suppose agnostic is the wrong term. I suppose I never saw him as a theist either. Bacon kinda makes that point in that while he believed in god, what god was to him was far from classical. Maybe the term gnostic theist does fit. It was my journey through Gnosticsm that first lead me to read Jung. Gnostics love the guy.

 

[durangodawood]

What does spiritual mean?

Having to do with the deepest part of one's self, which we are creating as we go.

 

[Redac]

Would you count TheAmazingAtheist as one of these types?

I always get flack from friends and people for liking the guy, lol. I talk to TheAmazingAtheist on tumblr sometimes.. nice guy..

TJ is kinda hit and miss for me. I've watched a lot of his stuff though; I was a big fan several years ago. Never talked to him so I couldn't say much else.

I never heard of this Aalewis fellow. He strikes me as vomit worthy.

Aalewis was a user on the Reddit r/atheism forum who shared that on the board about a year ago I think. Even for r/atheism (which is known for arrogant, angry teenage atheists and the like) it was incredibly cringe-worthy and it was mocked mercilessly. You can google the name and read the archived thread if you want. Or google "fedora atheists" or something like that. You'll see the kind of person I'm talking about.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There's also no context in that interview. Jung later explains (in very brief and broad terms) what he means by "god" and I assure you it has nothing in common with anything Abrahamic and more to do with a higher state of common human and universal consciousness.

One doesn't have to believe in the Abrahamic God in order to be a theist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BaconWizard]

One doesn't have to believe in the Abrahamic God in order to be a theist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Nor any other recognizable deity, it kinda didn't need saying.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Having to do with the deepest part of one's self, which we are creating as we go.

Sounds like living

 

[BaconWizard]

Having to do with the deepest part of one's self, which we are creating as we go.

PLEASE, let's cut through the woo-woo.

"The Deepest Part of One's Self" exists in all people, aware or not. It need not be the same depth of place for everyone, less still awareness of that place nor self awareness. "introspection" covers most of that. One's dedication to self-awareness and deeper thinking does not make one spiritual, it makes one self aware and a deep thinker.

Down to brass tacks.

Spiritually requires belief in a spirit. Spirit is something that is at LEAST, an incorporeal part of our self, which can exist independent of the physical.

This is what is meant to some degree by the idea of a soul, by the haunting of ghosts, by the influence or listening of ancestors, by the presence of God or his son on Earth, and many other things going back probably to pre-history and different species of human altogether, I suspect.

I do not believe in it; I am a skeptic. I hope I am nevertheless self aware and somewhat a deepish thinker. I also suspect we have an instinct to believe in such things, that makes us more cohesive and able to deal with our vast ability to recognize patterns in The World, as co-dependent people even across small tribal boundaries. (Just my hypothesis, no proof)

In FACT, what matters is one's attitude and actions toward other people or perhaps other living creatures, regardless of any of the above EVEN AS CODIFIED IN THE CENTRAL TENETS OF MOST RELIGIONS AND FAITHS.

Spirituality is not actually required, and if anyone is going to assert it as something which should have any kind of influence on others (ESPECIALLY when it gives someone else influence) it will need to be measured, defined properly, demonstrated, tested, investigated, and so-on. It has evaded any such attempts thus far, and anyone here who thinks THEY are going to change that, had better be the actual messiah, for whom I and many others have a lot of questions.

Right now, everyone reading this is mid-debate as to what it can be objectively said to MEAN, less still what it might actually be, and a great many people who claim to be or are portrayed as being spiritual, fail to help others to an equal extent. Some do. And others who do not make any such claim, may achieve a great deal.

Meanwhile, whichever opinion is right, it is still the LATTER concern that actually MATTERS. Does anyone think that an all-loving, personal God would disagree? Does anyone want to really justify the opinion that such a deity who is already all-poweful would also wish to be WORSHIPPED? Is he/she/it so egomaniacal and self-absorbed as to put the worst humans to shame? REALLY?

So ditch the BS and start doing stuff, knowing you're just fine and dandy re heaven if it exists. Or try caring less about that and more for the effect of your life upon where and among whom you live. Obvious, really....

For the record, Pascal's wager is hereby reversed. What if adherence to a manmade, self-interested, misinformed faith via such a limited, human lense as the idea that God wants your pathetic praise or attention, prevents one from doing God's actual will which aught to be your unguided, pre-existing humanistic instinct (within a society) anyway, without such grand political aspirations nor petty concerns?

 

[EnemyOfReason]

PLEASE, let's cut through the woo-woo.

"The Deepest Part of One's Self" exists in all people, aware or not. It need not be the same depth of place for everyone, less still awareness of that place nor self awareness. "introspection" covers most of that. One's dedication to self-awareness and deeper thinking does not make one spiritual, it makes one self aware and a deep thinker.

Down to brass tacks.

Spiritually requires belief in a spirit. Spirit is something that is at LEAST, an incorporeal part of our self, which can exist independent of the physical.

This is what is meant to some degree by the idea of a soul, by the haunting of ghosts, by the influence or listening of ancestors, by the presence of God or his son on Earth, and many other things going back probably to pre-history and different species of human altogether, I suspect.

I do not believe in it; I am a skeptic. I hope I am nevertheless self aware and somewhat a deepish thinker. I also suspect we have an instinct to believe in such things, that makes us more cohesive and able to deal with our vast ability to recognize patterns in The World, as co-dependent people even across small tribal boundaries. (Just my hypothesis, no proof)

In FACT, what matters is one's attitude and actions toward other people or perhaps other living creatures, regardless of any of the above EVEN AS CODIFIED IN THE CENTRAL TENETS OF MOST RELIGIONS AND FAITHS.

Spirituality is not actually required, and if anyone is going to assert it as something which should have any kind of influence on others, it will need to be measured, defined properly, demonstrated, tested, investigated, and so-on. It has evaded any such attempts thus far, and anyone here who thinks THEY are going to change that, had better be the actual messiah, for whom I and many others have a lot of questions.

Right now, everyone reading this is mid-debate as to what it can be objectively said to MEAN, less still what it might actually be, and a great many people who claim to be or are portrayed as being spiritual, fail to help others to an equal extent while some do, and others who do not make any such claim, may achieve a great deal.

Meanwhile, whichever opinion is right, it is still the LATTER concern that actually MATTERS. Does anyone think that an all-loving, personal God would disagree? Does anyone want to really justify the opinion that such a deity who is already all-poweful would also wish to be WORSHIPPED? Is he/she/it so egomaniacal and self-absorbed as to put the worst humans to shame? REALLY?

So ditch the BS and start doing stuff, knowing you're just fine and dandy re heaven if it exists. Or try caring less about that and more for the effect of your life upon where and among whom you live. Obvious, really....

For the record, Pascal's wager is hereby reversed. What if adherence to a manmade, self-interested, misinformed faith via such a limited, human lense as the idea that God wants your pathetic praise or attention, prevents one from doing God's actual will which perhaps aught to be your unguided humanistic instinct (within a society) anyway, without such grand political constraints?

You have accurately addressed my issues with this usage of this term "spiritual"

 

[scraparcs]

Back to the OP, I came here looking for Jesus. Instead, I found an internet website.

 

[Eudaimonist]

PLEASE, let's cut through the woo-woo.

Spirituality is associated in the minds of many people with woo, but it is not in its essence woo. At least to my mind, but I don't think that I'm alone in this.

One's dedication to self-awareness and deeper thinking does not make one spiritual

Yes, it does, if you value that improved vantagepoint on the deep issues of life for the sake of personal improvement.

it makes one self aware and a deep thinker.

It does that too. These aren't mutually exclusive.

Spiritually requires belief in a spirit. Spirit is something that is at LEAST, an incorporeal part of our self, which can exist independent of the physical.

No, that is not a requirement. Certainly, many people who call themselves "spiritual" have this view. But that is not what makes them spiritual.

I do not believe in it; I am a skeptic.

I don't believe in separability of mind and body either. I'm a spiritual skeptic.

I hope I am nevertheless self aware and somewhat a deepish thinker.

You may be spiritual as well.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

Sounds like living

"Living" is not enough.

 

[bhsmte]

Back to the OP, I came here looking for Jesus. Instead, I found an internet website.

You came to a thread titled; atheists, looking for Jesus?

 

[durangodawood]

...Spiritually requires belief in a spirit. Spirit is something that is at LEAST, an incorporeal part of our self, which can exist independent of the physical....

I'm not so sure. I think our spirit might be an emergent property of a highly complex self aware brain. And so while it cannot "live" beyond a brain, it is a categorically different sort of order from the mere flesh that preceded it.

So spirit is a novel form in the world, just like at one time life was a novel order in a world of mere 'inert' matter, even though life could not exist apart from matter (obviously).

Thats how it seems to me. Could be wrong, though.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

"Living" is not enough.

No, living life bountifully and with the grace of Allah is.........wait wait, forget the Allah part .

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Spiritually requires belief in a spirit. Spirit is something that is at LEAST, an incorporeal part of our self, which can exist independent of the physical.

No.
The one thing you need to understand about language is that its meaning is malleable, and terms may subtly shift in meaning depending on who uses them. That phenomenon is kind of annoying for people who are used to thinking in fixed categories and black-and-white logic, but that's how interpersonal communication works, and there's virtually no way to avoid it. Even dictionaries - which are an attempt at ossifying meaning as much as possible - always list multiple entries for each term - and new ones are added (while obsolete ones are deleted) all the time.
Language is organic. It shifts. It changes. It rearranges itself as it is being used on a daily basis.

Now, let's get to the meat of your objection:

I call myself a spiritual person.
I also reject any notion of a mind-body-dualism, and do not believe in disembodied "spirits."
To you, that's a contradiction in terms.
To me, it is not, because I use the term differently. The "spiritual" quality I am talking about is not a supernatural pilot inhabiting my body, or anything of the sort. It refers to the (utterly mundane) psyche, to meaning, to the pursuit of answers to existential questions, to a sense of sacredness.

All of that CAN be found outside of supernaturalist world views. That it has so rarely been located there (and that so few people even recognize that possibility) does not detract from the fact that it is very much an option.

 

[oi_antz]

For the record, Pascal's wager is hereby reversed. What if adherence to a manmade, self-interested, misinformed faith via such a limited, human lense as the idea that God wants your pathetic praise or attention, prevents one from doing God's actual will which aught to be your unguided, pre-existing humanistic instinct (within a society) anyway, without such grand political aspirations nor petty concerns?

Fantastic question! Could you raise this on a new thread? I would like to see what gets said about that.

 

[BaconWizard]

Fantastic question! Could you raise this on a new thread? I would like to see what gets said about that.

Okey Doke