The "Spiritual But Not Religious" Crew

[BlueAlpha1]

There seems to be a big comeback of the 60's style hippiesmaking idiotic metaphysical claims about the world around us. This stuff is even more annoying than most traditional religions. These are halfway-cowards who know in their hearts religion is BS but don't have the courage to give up the idea that we live forever entirely.

They get so tied up in their pacifism and cultural relativism that they claim we are "all one", that "the universe" itself speaks to us, and that consciousness is definitely independent of the brain - only they don't come at you with a cold, hard claim such as "you go to heaven or hell when you die", but they speak in vague, incoherent babble which purports you "become one with the cosmos" or some BS like that.

Common side effects include:
- Youth, as the hippies become elderly this is being reborn among millennials
- An obsession with doing yoga 5x a week
- A god complex; "what is 'my place' in the universe?" ..as though the stars themselves have a plan for you
- Elitist spending habits (they all own an iPhone and drink starbucks), implicated in the Chinese slave trade while talking about world peace
- Stupid tattoos like the word "Om" in their inner wrist (Om being a vague manifestation of god across multiple eastern religions)

Some guy made a website where a computer jumbles some new age words together which make no sense, and he advises you to go to a yoga session and read it to the class to see if any one can see it's fake. Pretty funny.
http://sebpearce.com/bull****/

Some guy in this idiotic documentary actually claims the earth itself basically has the eyes of a conscious observer. WHAT!?

"The entire universe is in fact a single living conscious organism, with complete awareness of itself."

 

[cola]

Why does this bother you so much? This is what perplexes me about atheists.Them being atheist isnt enough. They want the world to be atheist as well.

But its highly unlikely this life came to be on its own by an explosion, or implosion?.. The probability of all the things neccissary for life to exist and to exist in the exact space in the correct amounts is like 1 trillion to 1. I wont get into my beliefs just inquire if you are truley confident in yours, why do you need others to join you in them?
Isn't that need essentialy making atheism a religion in itself? Feeling the need to convert?

 

[Mike32ct]

I usually pass when I read "spiritual but not religious" in a personal ad because I don't really understand what that means.

I can understand what "not religious" or "atheist" or "No longer practicing religion xyz" means, but "spiritual but not religious" is a head scratcher to me.

 

[Bible_Belt]

"New Age" isn't new at all. It's just so old people have forgotten. The beliefs existed at the time of Genesis. They are frequently mentioned in the Bible as being the competing religious ideas to monotheism.

 

[speed dawg]

At some point, everybody is going to come upon a day when they need something more than themselves. Then, and only then, ask yourself this question. If you have not come to this point then you either haven't lived long enough, or you've been living way too long in the cushy US of A.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

At some point, everybody is going to come upon a day when they need something more than themselves.

This is literally the only reason religion exists. People created a creator of the universe and believe if they do it right, they get to live forever. But here's the very important point; it doesn't make any of it true.

Then, and only then, ask yourself this question. If you have not come to this point then you either haven't lived long enough, or you've been living way too long in the cushy US of A

speed dawg, I like you. You're a smart guy. Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I already came to that point when I lost my father suddenly in 2014. I was that lost man looking for something "larger than myself". I was literally trying to becoming a born again Christian. Only that "transcendence" wasn't there. And after a while I decided I don't need to believe in magic to dedicate my life to a worthwhile cause.

And for the record, I've been to 15 countries on 3 continents, including some very poor ghettos in Central America where that sense of community is the only thing they have. But it still doesn't make it true.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Why does this bother you so much? This is what perplexes me about atheists.Them being atheist isnt enough. They want the world to be atheist as well.

It "bothers" atheists because in a civilized society we don't allow for this sort of tolerance for BS in any other area of our discourse, such as in politics, history, interpersonal relationships, etc. It is impossible to convert someone to "atheism". But what I am doing is holding people accountable for their beliefs.

If a politician comes forth and says the Holocaust never happened, his credibility immediately plummets.
\
If you tell a girl on a first date that you believe Elvis is still alive, your credibility takes a hit.

But if you tell me the creator of the universe promised you 72 virgins, that a cracker literally turns into the body of Jesus, or in the case of New Age that the "universe itself" speaks to you, I have to respect this?

I think not.

But its highly unlikely this life came to be on its own by an explosion, or implosion?.. The probability of all the things neccissary for life to exist and to exist in the exact space in the correct amounts is like 1 trillion to 1.

Where did you come up with this figure? Nevertheless, the alternative is that god did it, and the evidence for that is 0.00% - infinitely less than 1 in a trillion. Absence of knowledge, i.e. if we don't know something, is not evidence of an invisible man in the sky. It's evidence that we need to do better science. The only evidence is purely anecdotal from believers who "just feel it." Confirmation bias and wishful thinking from a species that is predisposed to look for patterns is not evidence.

I wont get into my beliefs just inquire if you are truley confident in yours, why do you need others to join you in them?
Isn't that need essentialy making atheism a religion in itself? Feeling the need to convert?

No. This is the entire point. Most believers fundamentally misunderstand the definition of so-called atheism. Atheism is a demographic like "non-astrologers" are a demographic. Atheism is a belief system like not playing hockey is a hobby. If you don't play professional hockey, do you feel the need to classify yourself as a non-hockey player on job applications?

Atheism is not a belief system and not a religion. Atheism does not make any claims. In fact, all atheists are open to evidence for a god. But you can't provide it, so you tell me it's "your truth". There is no such thing as your truth or mine, something is either true or not. I don't claim to know how we got here. The New Ager does. He makes an affirmative claim and tells me a "white light" called "Om" put me here. The onus returns to him to prove why he believes something is true, not on me for not accepting the claim.

Atheism is the default position and everyone is born an atheist with respect to every religion. No one is born believing in Islam or Christianity. They are indoctrinated into it or choose it out of a fear of death.

 

[guru1000]

You could make cogent arguments for and against "God," though science, specifically, quantum physics (i.e. "double-slit test"), and thousands of NDE testimonies point to there being "something else."

Put all that aside for a moment. If someone came to me and said, "Hey, I have this crazy theory, which may or may not be true, which there is no way to prove or deny with 100% certainty--but, if you elect to believe in this theory, you will (1) transcend all of life's problems at lightening speed; (2) feel a sense of definite purpose; (3) be enfranchised of all your past grievances; (4) be happier overall, and (5) cause no harm upon others, would you be willing to accept this theory?" I would accept such a proposal.

BlueAlpha, I not purporting this to change your spiritual viewpoint. I do know this, though, having read your posts recently: You are not happy. I know how it feels to lose a loved one; to be shvtted on; and to be in the dumps. Perhaps an inner look is in order here.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

You could make cogent arguments for and against "God," though science, specifically, quantum physics (i.e. "double-slit test"), and thousands of NDE testimonies point to there being "something else."

I read 7 books on Near Death Experiences after the death of my pops. There was zero hard evidence for it. What they neglect to address is that every single person that came back to tell their story had a "light switch" moment, where they were coming back to life and consciousness was restored.

They were dreaming. And the reason the halluscinations are identical across cultures is because DMT is a very powerful drug and like any other drug, the side effects don't discriminate. They all see the "light" in the same way just about everybody tripping on Benadryl sees spiders.

The fact that they tell you the dream seemed extremely long is a moot point. The concept of time is known to dissipate even in standard dreaming - a dream that felt like hours is actually only 8-15 seconds.

Put all that aside for a moment. If someone came to me and said, "Hey, I have this crazy theory, which may or may not be true, which there is no way to prove or deny with 100% certainty--but, if you elect to believe in this theory, you (1) will transcend all of life's problems at lightening speed; (2) feel a sense of definite purpose; (3) be enfranchised of all your past grievances; and (4) be happier overall, would you be willing to accept this theory?" I would accept such a proposal.

1. It certainly does not transcend all of life's problems. All it does is compound existing problems a million-fold. Consider the fact that 270 million people have died from the sword thanks to Islam. What did that actually solve and did it prove Allah existed? If that's too extreme take a fundamentalist Christian like my grandmother, who lives here life 24/7 worshipping, TERRIFIED that she won't get past that velvet rope in the sky. It seems like planning your entire existence around this and pushing it on others creates one more problem that wouldn't exist but for the religion.

2. I'm okay with a sense of purpose, as long as people understand it doesn't make it true.

3. This is where the little empathy I have for religious people comes from. I understand how the grieving mother can find comfort in believing her 2 year old is in heaven and everything will be okay in the end. Hell, absent this belief it seems rather pointless to carry on.

4. I do not accept this and I'll explain why below.

BlueAlpha, I not purporting this to change your spiritual viewpoint. I do know this, though, having read your posts recently: You are not happy. I know how it feels to lose a loved one; to be shvtted on; and to be in the dumps. Perhaps an inner look is in order here.

The world is not a "happy" place. It is utterly miserable most of the time for so many people. Happiness is a first-world idea. And please do not judge my entire moment to moment perception based on what you read on the forum. Of course what you read is my problems because I am not the type to type of "field reports" and brag that I got a lay or a promotion. I ask for help in areas in which I need improvement. Don't mistake my BPD story or my career confusion with total misery. Make no mistake, I have unconditional love for my family, have 5 or 6 very good friends, have my health, and found a passion for life in travel.

But I am a SOB when it comes to this stuff with a fierce propensity for debating this stuff. I watch debates on Youtube in my spare time.

Look at the work of Sam Harris. A staunch atheist who regularly takes the religious to the woodshed for a living, but who also mastered the art of meditation and is about as happy as a person to get in his moment to moment experience - far happier than any religious person I've ever met.

 

[amazingswayze]

I know what you mean OP, nowadays people are wishy washy about their beliefs. To be honest, I don't even think people know wtf they are talking about when they claim to be spiritual. Shintoism? Native American spirits?

A lot of people can't accept that you live and die as a speck of dust in our universe. I've decided just to appreciate the beauty of the natural world and the amazing efficiency of mother Earth's cycles. I realize I don't need to be the center of attention.

Life on Earth was going well before you, and I can promise it will be the same without you.

 

[guru1000]

I read 7 books on Near Death Experiences after the death of my pops. There was zero hard evidence for it. What they neglect to address is that every single person that came back to tell their story had a "light switch" moment, where they were coming back to life and consciousness was restored.

They were dreaming. And the reason the halluscinations are identical across cultures is because DMT is a very powerful drug and like any other drug, the side effects don't discriminate. They all see the "light" in the same way just about everybody tripping on Benadryl sees spiders.

The fact that they tell you the dream seemed extremely long is a moot point. The concept of time is known to dissipate even in standard dreaming - a dream that felt like hours is actually only 8-15 seconds.

Seven books, huh. So I assume you have read thousand of testimonies. In those thousand of testimonies, did you stumble across any testimonies describing that when the patient woke up detailed descriptions of the operation, the physical appearance of the doctor, or serial numbers on the light ten feet above were described in exact detail? DMT is quite the drug, then. It makes you psychic!

1. It certainly does not transcend all of life's problems. All it does is compound existing problems a million-fold. Consider the fact that 270 million people have died from the sword thanks to Islam. What did that actually solve and did it prove Allah existed? If that's too extreme take a fundamentalist Christian like my grandmother, who lives here life 24/7 worshipping, TERRIFIED that she won't get past that velvet rope in the sky. It seems like planning your entire existence around this and pushing it on others creates one more problem that wouldn't exist but for the religion.

Read #5 on my list, which was edited prior to your post.

2. I'm okay with a sense of purpose, as long as people understand it doesn't make it true.

Nor does it makes it untrue.

3. This is where the little empathy I have for religious people comes from. I understand how the grieving mother can find comfort in believing her 2 year old is in heaven and everything will be okay in the end. Hell, absent this belief it seems rather pointless to carry on.

Good that you understand, but we are speaking about spiritualism, not religion.

4. I do not accept this and I'll explain why below.

The world is not a "happy" place. It is utterly miserable most of the time for so many people. Happiness is a first-world idea. And please do not judge my entire moment to moment perception based on what you read on the forum. Of course what you read is my problems because I am not the type to type of "field reports" and brag that I got a lay or a promotion. I ask for help in areas in which I need improvement. Don't mistake my BPD story or my career confusion with total misery. Make no mistake, I have unconditional love for my family, have 5 or 6 very good friends, have my health, and found a passion for life in travel.

OK, now you are fine. Great!

But I am a SOB when it comes to this stuff with a fierce propensity for debating this stuff. I watch debates on Youtube in my spare time.

Look at the work of Sam Harris. A staunch atheist who regularly takes the religious to the woodshed for a living, but who also mastered the art of meditation and is about as happy as a person to get in his moment to moment experience - far happier than any religious person I've ever met

I love these topics too, so let's debate. Invite Sam Harris too; I'll be more than happy to crush him Though, this is about spiritualism, not religion.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

There seems to be a big comeback of the 60's style hippiesmaking idiotic metaphysical claims about the world around us. This stuff is even more annoying than most traditional religions. These are halfway-cowards who know in their hearts religion is BS but don't have the courage to give up the idea that we live forever entirely.

You sound angry that other people have found comfort in ideas that have given you nothing.

Your job as a human is to find others (friends, lovers, colleagues) that share enough of your worldview to make it worth your while.

All beliefs, except for those based on physics and chemistry, take a certain amount of "faith."

Some you agree with, some you don't.

Why do other people's beliefs bother you so much?

Why do their different religious beliefs bother you more than their taste in music/food/literature?

 

[BlueAlpha1]

I know what you mean OP, nowadays people are wishy washy about their beliefs. To be honest, I don't even think people know wtf they are talking about when they claim to be spiritual. Shintoism? Native American spirits?

They don't even know themselves..."I don't know, I just know there's something out there." is pretty common.

A lot of people can't accept that you live and die as a speck of dust in our universe. I've decided just to appreciate the beauty of the natural world and the amazing efficiency of mother Earth's cycles. I realize I don't need to be the center of attention.

This. And the idea that an atheist can't sit at the apex of Rocky Mountain National Park and feel peace and bliss is arrogant and the apex of narcissism.

Life on Earth was going well before you, and I can promise it will be the same without you.

This is the point most religious people can't accept. I'll admit it's a terrifying thought, but it can also be very liberating in the end

And now I'm getting dragged into a debate over whether I should be "converting" people to atheism, but that wasn't really the point of the thread. We're never going to solve this problem on this thread. I was just making an observation that this "new age" silliness is making a big comeback within my age group, among people who have dumped traditional religion and in turn have half-admitted they are atheists, but just can't make that final step. All I'm saying is to an atheist, their mumbo jumbo is even quackier to me. I view New Age spirituality the way a Catholic views a scientologist...

 

[BlueAlpha1]

You sound angry that other people have found comfort in ideas that have given you nothing.

If the ideas are oppressive, make no sense, and fly directly in the face of science, why do I need to respect them. Please answer this: do I need to respect an Orthodox Jew who claims the earth is 6,000 years old? Do I need to respect the claim that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse?

If I had a belief that Marilyn Monroe's ghost was my wife because that view gave me purpose, and then I told you you were going to hell because you didn't give me a $10,000 wedding present on our anniversary, would you respect my opinion or tell me to take a walk? Because that is literally the level of rationality we're dealing with in many cases.

If the beliefs not only cannot be substantiated but are creating misery and are inhibiting progress around the world, yes consider me "angry." I am angry that Nigerian children don't get a chance to read about science because Boko Haram means "education is sinful". There are things worthy of anger.

All beliefs, except for those based on physics and chemistry, take a certain amount of "faith."

The problem is most religious claims spit in the face of physics and chemistry. At that point it's not faith, it's arrogance and stupidity.

Why do other people's beliefs bother you so much?

This ad hominem attack that all atheists are "angry" is a cheap little trick and not an effective tactic. You refuse to acknowledge my arguments so you want to make me the story.

Why do their different religious beliefs bother you more than their taste in music/food/literature?

Their beliefs in music and food do not hinder education and reason. Their beliefs on literature are fine because there is a subsection of literature called fiction that admits it's fiction. This is where religion belongs, and if religion were taught in public schools as literature I would have no problem with this. The problem is when you start treating Harry Potter as though it were non-fiction...

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Seven books, huh. So I assume you have read thousand of testimonies. In those thousand of testimonies, did you stumble across any testimonies describing that when the patient woke up detailed descriptions of the operation, the physical appearance of the doctor, or serial numbers on the light ten feet above were described in exact detail? DMT is quite the drug, then. It makes you psychic!

I read those accounts too, particularly one about a red tie on the windowsill of a different floor at the hospital. IF these accounts are true it is certainly the best evidence for the NDE, but they still anecdotal and the author who is writing the book and recounting the story has a dog in the fight, correct?

I want to read accounts from skeptics who were invited to a cardiac arrest resuscitation as an experiment who can attest to the legitimacy of these findings, start to finish.

In fact, let me participate in one and if the evidence holds up, we're having a very different conversation. Until that time, it's somebody with a confirmation bias telling a story.

Read #5 on my list, which was edited prior to your post.
Nor does it makes it untrue.

Oh come on man, not this one. You can't be serious.

The Muslims claim Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. I "can't prove" he didn't. I can't prove that Apollo or Thor doesn't control the tides either. Since I can't prove it's untrue, does that our claims a wash? Of course not because you can't prove a negative.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. It's on you to prove something is true, not on me to prove it doesn't.

 

[guru1000]

I read those accounts too, particularly one about a red tie on the windowsill of a different floor at the hospital. IF these accounts are true it is certainly the best evidence for the NDE, but they still anecdotal and the author who is writing the book and recounting the story has a dog in the fight, correct?

I want to read accounts from skeptics who were invited to a cardiac arrest resuscitation as an experiment who can attest to the legitimacy of these findings, start to finish.

In fact, let me participate in one and if the evidence holds up, we're having a very different conversation. Until that time, it's somebody with a confirmation bias telling a story.

If this were a court of law (which it isn't), "testimony" would be used to incite a "conviction." Anecdotal evidence is stronger than no evidence. The weight of the argument falls in my favor absent your crushing my anecdotal evidence or your providing stronger anecdotal or concrete evidence in your support.

Oh come on man, not this one. You can't be serious.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. It's on you to prove something is true, not on me to prove it doesn't.

If we use this this line of reasoning, you make the claim (see title and idea of OP) that "spiritualism is hogwash." Does not the burden of proof fall upon you to support your claim?

 

[speed dawg]

speed dawg, I like you. You're a smart guy. Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I already came to that point when I lost my father suddenly in 2014. I was that lost man looking for something "larger than myself". I was literally trying to becoming a born again Christian. Only that "transcendence" wasn't there. And after a while I decided I don't need to believe in magic to dedicate my life to a worthwhile cause.

And for the record, I've been to 15 countries on 3 continents, including some very poor ghettos in Central America where that sense of community is the only thing they have. But it still doesn't make it true.

I've been where you are. I've done some research here and there. To me, the creation story is the only one remotely close to plausible. Evolutionists say the way world is millions of years old, yet we have no observational evidence of that. Darwin says we evolve, but many tests have been done that say species cannot morph into another, ie apes turning to humans is complete BS. These test tube doctors control every variable imaginable and come up with some mutated form of life....then they act like it could happen naturally. It can't.

I'll revise what Cola said.....he said that the chances are 1 in a trillion that everything just happened to be crossed where life could thrive on Earth. I think his point was that there was virtually NO CHANCE it could happen. There is literally no way, scientifically, the universe could line up to support life. None. That's about as proven as it can be. All the evidence of DNA, protons/neutrons/etc. points to an intelligent designer. It can't be created any other way.

BlueAlpha1 I know you've been through some sh*t, that's why you're asking these questions. And I trust you'll come to a solution. I don't even like saying the word 'religion', because it trivializes MY religion, which I think is true (Christianity). History and the Bible tell you all you need to know about all the world's religions, so you can reconciliate the Jews and muzzies that way.

I can't make you believe in the supernatural power of the true God but I can tell you that I myself have seen it. I also know that the prophesies of the Biblical prophets came true. And I also know that if you get down to the FACTS of history, they all support the Biblical portrayals of Jesus Christ.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

If the ideas are oppressive, make no sense, and fly directly in the face of science, why do I need to respect them.

Nobody said anything about respect.I asked why they made you angry.

If the beliefs not only cannot be substantiated but are creating misery and are inhibiting progress around the world, yes consider me "angry."

OK, so you are "angry" at things that cause misery and inhibiting progress.

Do you believe that "religion" is the largest cause of misery and inhibition of progress in the world?

Do you believe that people who say they are "spiritual but not religious" are inhibiting progress in the world?

Who gets to decide what "progress" is? You? Somebody else? Democracy? Free markets?

What if somebody disagrees with you about what "progress" is?

What then?

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Do you believe that "religion" is the largest cause of misery and inhibition of progress in the world?

Probably not the largest overall, but it's up there with greed and tribalism. I think it most obviously is in the case of Islam, where we see a culture lag 1,400 years behind everyone else because of religion alone.

Do you believe that people who say they are "spiritual but not religious" are inhibiting progress in the world?

No, they're not really a problem in that regard. The scorn that atheists have for religious people is on a spectrum, The spiritual types are much lower on the spectrum than ISIS for example.

I have a friend who is spiritual but not religious. And he is an out and out narcissist with the closest thing to a god complex I've ever seen. Is it because of his "spirituality" or in spite of it? I think the spirituality is what opens the door and allows him to talk his gobbledy gook. It's what allows him to say "the universe spoke to me" or to call himself a "chosen one" when he hasn't done a damn thing with his life.

Just play around with the link I posted in the first post on here. It's meant as a joke but that is how a lot of these people talk at these yoga meetings. It's first-world, culturally appropriating people speaking utter nonsense that is meant to sound deep so people who don't believe in god can still feel "transcendence"

Who gets to decide what "progress" is? You? Somebody else? Democracy? Free markets?

What if somebody disagrees with you about what "progress" is?

What then?

What are you getting at? We all define our morals and values. I decide what progress means for me and that might be a different thing for you. There is no such thing as objective morality, unless you believe atheists cannot be moral by definition.

What if they disagree? Nothing. I don't want to ban religion, I just want to have the right to challenge people on it.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

I've been where you are. I've done some research here and there. To me, the creation story is the only one remotely close to plausible. Evolutionists say the way world is millions of years old, yet we have no observational evidence of that. Darwin says we evolve, but many tests have been done that say species cannot morph into another, ie apes turning to humans is complete BS. These test tube doctors control every variable imaginable and come up with some mutated form of life....then they act like it could happen naturally. It can't.

I'll revise what Cola said.....he said that the chances are 1 in a trillion that everything just happened to be crossed where life could thrive on Earth. I think his point was that there was virtually NO CHANCE it could happen. There is literally no way, scientifically, the universe could line up to support life. None. That's about as proven as it can be. All the evidence of DNA, protons/neutrons/etc. points to an intelligent designer. It can't be created any other way.

BlueAlpha1 I know you've been through some sh*t, that's why you're asking these questions. And I trust you'll come to a solution. I don't even like saying the word 'religion', because it trivializes MY religion, which I think is true (Christianity). History and the Bible tell you all you need to know about all the world's religions, so you can reconciliate the Jews and muzzies that way.

I can't make you believe in the supernatural power of the true God but I can tell you that I myself have seen it. I also know that the prophesies of the Biblical prophets came true. And I also know that if you get down to the FACTS of history, they all support the Biblical portrayals of Jesus Christ.

Couldn't disagree more on everything you've said, but we're on the same side of the most important issues so we're cool.

I don't want to take away your right to practice your religion. People have this misconception about atheists. I don't want to close down churches. My father was married at a Roman Catholic church near my childhood home in 1982, and eulogized in that same church in 2014, 32 years later. That place is part of my identity now. I still consider myself an ethnic Christian and thoroughly enjoy going to mass there once a year for Christmas. Christianity is getting a lot more things right in it's message these days.

The problem is religious people have never really been used to being challenged on their faith because it was always taboo to criticize.

We're slowly seeing that shift and atheists are speaking up. But all we want is debate, because that's what we do in the civilized world.