The "Spiritual But Not Religious" Crew

[taiyuu_otoko]

What are you getting at?

You said that some religions make you angry because they impede progress. I wondered what exactly you meant by progress.

Anyhow, here's my opinion on what I think you're getting at:

ALL PEOPLE ARE TRIBAL.

All people will try, however they can, to demonstrate superiority over others, in any way they can.

Some do it through religious "superiority." Some do it through "moral superiority." Some do it through "red pill superiority." Some do it through "atheist superiority."

Everybody wants to subtly claim they are "better" because of some "belief" system.

Religion, in this regard, is no different than SJWism.

You can either let "those people" get you angry, or just identify them and ignore them.

Your choice.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

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.

Anecdotal evidence is not enough to get a conviction, so in a court of law you would lose if you didn't meet the beyond reasonable doubt barrier, and you certainly don't win the argument about the creation of the universe with it either.

You fundamentally misunderstand the burden of proof. No, it is not incumbent on me to crush your anecdotal evidence because in most cases what passes for this "evidence" is pathetically weak and can really just chalked up to wishful thinking. If a person feels bliss while praying and then does something nice because god "told him to", that can be taken for anecdotal evidence. In this case the "evidence" is so flimsy it's impossible to disprove because the person just made it up.

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?

Again, atheism is not a belief system and I don't have to substantiate a claim because there is no claim to support.

An atheist says: "We don't know how we got here, but I'm open to anything if you can prove it."
A religious person says: "God did it. I can't prove it but I can feel it."

Who do you think has the burden of proof here?

 

[BlueAlpha1]

You said that some religions make you angry because they impede progress. I wondered what exactly you meant by progress.

Anyhow, here's my opinion on what I think you're getting at:

ALL PEOPLE ARE TRIBAL.

All people will try, however they can, to demonstrate superiority over others, in any way they can.

Some do it through religious "superiority." Some do it through "moral superiority." Some do it through "red pill superiority." Some do it through "atheist superiority."

Everybody wants to subtly claim they are "better" because of some "belief" system.

Religion, in this regard, is no different than SJWism.

You can either let "those people" get you angry, or just identify them and ignore them.

Your choice.

We have a pretty good understanding of what represents progress in the 21st century. The value of free speech, freedom of movement, freedom from undue persecution, and education. Sure somebody might consider progress the opposite of all these things, but do most people not agree with this by now?

The only other thing I will challenge you on is there is no such thing as "atheist superiority." I'm really trying to hammer the point across that atheism is an identity like "non-astrologer" is an identity.

People do not take the time to identify themselves as non-astrologers because to not believe in an astrology is a default position. It is implied. Making the choice to believe an astrology (or Christianity or Judaism) is a conscious choice made at some point which diverts from the default position one is born into, which was originally not to believe in any of it.

 

[guru1000]

Anecdotal evidence is not enough to get a conviction, so in a court of law you would lose if you didn't meet the beyond reasonable doubt barrier, and you certainly don't win the argument about the creation of the universe with it either.

You fundamentally misunderstand the burden of proof. No, it is not incumbent on me to crush your anecdotal evidence because in most cases what passes for this "evidence" is pathetically weak and can really just chalked up to wishful thinking. If a person feels bliss while praying and then does something nice because god "told him to", that can be taken for anecdotal evidence. In this case the "evidence" is so flimsy it's impossible to disprove because the person just made it up.

Which court of law are you practicing in? LOL.

In all legal actions in the most/all states in the U.S., the testimony of a party on which the action is brought is prima facie evidence of the truth and shall entitle the party to the judgment unless rebutted by competent and sufficient evidence. When the plaintiff is a corporation, the affidavit may be made by its president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer or other person authorized by the corporation.

Again, atheism is not a belief system and I don't have to substantiate a claim because there is no claim to support.

An atheist says: "We don't know how we got here, but I'm open to anything if you can prove it."
A religious person says: "God did it. I can't prove it but I can feel it."

Who do you think has the burden of proof here?

It's your claim! I'm not claiming that spiritualism is true although I still could given that I provided anecdotal evidence that you failed to crush nor have you provided competent evidence to the contrary.

You claim that "spiritualism is hogwash." This is false as you provided no evidence--whether anecdotal or concrete--to support this claim. You could claim that "There is no concrete, irrefutable evidence to support that spiritualism is true." Such a claim is strong, because then it becomes incumbent on the opposing party to show that there is irrefutable evidence, and you could show nothing as there is no irrefutable evidence to show!

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

The only other thing I will challenge you on is there is no such thing as "atheist superiority."

People that self-identify as "atheists" tend to argue as if they are "superior" to those who aren't.

They argue DIFFERENTLY than people who argue over which is the best pizza.

Their argument is "I am right, and you are wrong, because of science and logic."

Hang out in any internet forum where religious topics are popular and you'll find atheists arguing their case just as strongly as Christians.

 

[Bible_Belt]

all atheists are open to evidence for a god.

The word you are looking for is "Agnostic." That's different than Atheist.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

The word you are looking for is "Agnostic." That's different than Atheist.

Agnostics are atheists. Agnostics do not deny the existence or actively believe in a god and that's all atheism means. They are a-theist or "not theist." All atheists are open to evidence of the existence of god. I'm an atheist and I don't say there is no god, I just say there is not enough evidence to believe there is. An agnostic would say the exact same thing.

The distinction in the atheist community is not atheist vs. agnostic because there really is no difference, but it's really the divide between atheists and anti-theists (someone who believes it would be worse if there WAS a god, or who wants to ban religion entirely)

 

[BlueAlpha1]

People that self-identify as "atheists" tend to argue as if they are "superior" to those who aren't.

No. As a general rule, they don't.

The superiority complex lies with the believer who claims to have the creator of the universe on his side with zero evidence for it. In a dispute between the person claiming reason & logic as their source vs. the person claiming an invisible friend in the sky with whom they have a personal relationship, the arrogance lies with the believer.

Their argument is "I am right, and you are wrong, because of science and logic."

Well, if science and logic is indeed on their side, there's pretty much nothing wrong with this

 

[Bible_Belt]

You can make up your own definitions of words of you want to, but those are not the meanings that the rest of the world attributes to those words.

Atheist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Agnostic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I'm an atheist and I don't say there is no god

Sorry to break this to you, but you're actually Agnostic. Atheists firmly deny the existence of any gods.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

You can make up your own definitions of words of you want to, but those are not the meanings that the rest of the world attributes to those words.

Atheist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Agnostic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Well you go ahead and use Wikipedia and let's hope nobody edits the page before your next post, and I'll draw my definitions from the workings of the most famous atheists in the 21st century: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and David Silverman. You should educate yourself on some of the literature that's out there before telling an atheist what an atheist is.

Every one of those guys (smarter than both you and I) will tell you that an atheist is open to evidence for the existence of god. The problem is you don't have any. I'm "agnostic" about the generic claims of god because it can't technically be disproved, but I'm as sure that cracker is not the body of Jesus as you are sure the earth isn't flat. Both claims are 100% unscientific.

Sorry to break this to you, but you're actually Agnostic.

Correct. And an atheist, but that's the only word with any context. Agnostics are atheists who just can't fully let go.

Atheists firmly deny the existence of any gods.

Simply not true. Study the linguistics: a-theism = without theism. Agnostics are also without theism.

Here, this might help:

 

[Asmodeus]

So what? I rather have those people be "spiritual but not religious" than be fundamentalists like ISIS or some born again evangelicals. I am agnostic myself, I cannot confirm or deny the existence of a higher power. But I just do not think about it much, I have too much important things to concern myself with here. Why waste my time pondering such things?

But why get so frustrate over those people who are "spiritural but not religious"? Sure, most of them are likely hipsters but they are not directly affecting your life and your existence. I say live and let live.

 

[cola]

So what? I rather have those people be "spiritual but not religious" than be fundamentalists like ISIS or some born again evangelicals. I am agnostic myself, I cannot confirm or deny the existence of a higher power. But I just do not think about it much, I have too much important things to concern myself with here. Why waste my time pondering such things?

But why get so frustrate over those people who are "spiritural but not religious"? Sure, most of them are likely hipsters but they are not directly affecting your life and your existence. I say live and let live.

Its just as I said. He needs people to agree so he feels validated in his belief. Which makes what he is doing no different than a religion.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Its just as I said. He needs people to agree so he feels validated in his belief. Which makes what he is doing no different than a religion.

No, I don't need anybody to agree. But this is what you do, isn't it? You can't substantiate your "1 in a 1 trillion" claim so you want to belittle me personally. And it's really rich you want to asset that I'm doing this because I'm insecure when you literally don't even know the different of a religion. A bit shallow, to be kind to you.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

So what? I rather have those people be "spiritual but not religious"

I think people are misunderstanding me. I'm not trying to take away anybody's rights. But we're so used to religious ideas being taboo to criticize that I can't challenge the idea that earth is a "conscious organism with full awareness of itself" without being attacked by a few people (not you).

Think about what that claim means. I didn't say they're as bad as ISIS, of course it's on a spectrum. ISIS is the worst, and these guys are probably the least of the offenders. But I can't point out that what they say is dopey and unscientific?

I am agnostic myself, I cannot confirm or deny the existence of a higher power.

This is the textbook definition of an atheist. All atheists are agnostic about god. Others who are telling you most atheists "are sure" there is no god are wrong or lying. That's the whole point I'm trying to make here.

But I just do not think about it much, I have too much important things to concern myself with here. Why waste my time pondering such things?

I certainly don't think the nature of consciousness itself is a waste of time. It's been the subject of philosophy since men learned to write their thoughts down.

But why get so frustrate over those people who are "spiritural but not religious"? Sure, most of them are likely hipsters but they are not directly affecting your life and your existence. I say live and let live.

For the same reason we criticize feminism. What they say makes no sense. But no they're not ISIS and don't want them persecuted...

 

[cola]

No, I don't need anybody to agree. But this is what you do, isn't it? You can't substantiate your "1 in a 1 trillion" claim so you want to belittle me personally. And it's really rich you want to asset that I'm doing this because I'm insecure when you literally don't even know the different of a religion. A bit shallow, to be kind to you.

Im not belittling you personally. I like your posts. Im belittling atheists as a whole. Let me give you an analogy like Jesus would.
I swallowed the red pill many years ago.. but when im around guys and they are saying things like my girlfriend is mad im going to go buy her something .. i dont call them fools or try to convert them. I just smirk quietly. Same position you should take with atheism.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Im not belittling you personally. I like your posts. Im belittling atheists as a whole. Let me give you an analogy like Jesus would.
I swallowed the red pill many years ago.. but when im around guys and they are saying things like my girlfriend is mad im going to go buy her something .. i dont call them fools or try to convert them. I just smirk quietly. Same position you should take with atheism.

That works. I think you're a straight shooter too, as I try to be. So, we'll agree to disagree. I actually quite hope you're right about god anyway...

 

[Bible_Belt]

Genesis states that God made sea creatures first, and then life on land. Curiously, that is the same timeline as the modern tale of evolution. Moses is credited as being the official author of Genesis. How did a Hebrew slave know that? Even if he copied the story from someone else, how did any human know that? Just a lucky guess, right?

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Genesis states that God made sea creatures first, and then life on land. Curiously, that is the same timeline as the modern tale of evolution. Moses is credited as being the official author of Genesis. How did a Hebrew slave know that? Even if he copied the story from someone else, how did any human know that? Just a lucky guess, right?

Are you honestly going to try to debate the legitimacy of the Bible with me?

Look, I know your posts pretty well and probably agree with 70% of them. I think you're great. But you must understand that even Evangelical Christians approach these theological debates today from a perspective of metaphors and allegory. Because they know that the Bible is deeply unscientific and contradicts itself hundreds, if not thousands of times, and that they would get utterly smoked if they tried to uphold the Bible as literal.

The only way religious people can even give the illusion of holding their own in a debate with an atheist is to try to flip the burden of proof on the atheist, and claim the Bible is a collection of metaphors. But for Pat Robertson and a few other quacks, believers have given up on this tactic you're using. In politics, the Christian Right is finally understanding that it must move away from theology to beat the radical left.

So I'm not going to actually debate the Bible with you, because it's already assumed that most people understand it's total bunk. I know it's hard to cope with the idea that we don't live forever, but let's be serious. It's 2016 and we're not talking about invisible men in the sky anymore.

 

[Asmodeus]

I certainly don't think the nature of consciousness itself is a waste of time. It's been the subject of philosophy since men learned to write their thoughts down.

Existence precedes essence... I care nothing for some grand plan. I care nothing for God's will, and even if there was God and he appeared before me I would not follow any will but my own, even if my defiance meant damnation. I do not care how or why I was created, that is if there is even a reason why. What I do know for sure is that I exist. Even if I am nothing more than an organic mix of dust, then at least this amalgamation of carbon based molecules was able to enforce its will upon its diminutive part of the universe. That means more to me than heaven, hell, God, or anything...

I alone manifest my destiny, I alone decide my fate.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Existence precedes essence... I care nothing for some grand plan. I care nothing for God's will, and even if there was God and he appeared before me I would not follow any will but my own, even if my defiance meant damnation. I do not care how or why I was created, that is if there is even a reason why. What I do know for sure is that I exist. Even if I am nothing more than an organic mix of dust, then at least this amalgamation of carbon based molecules was able to enforce its will upon its diminutive part of the universe. That means more to me than heaven, hell, God, or anything...

I alone manifest my destiny, I alone decide my fate.

You are Satan