Atheist Sprituality - Oxymoronic or Just Plain Moronic?

[pioteir]

Whatever rocks your boat, but get off your fucking high horse telling us what or what not to think about a nebulous thing like spirituality.

Yea, what he said!

You asked how many of us had a certain experience involving not-so-well-described set of emotions, but when I point out that everyone had some sort of this experience You ask us about, , some less deep than others, You get all deep-minded-reflectful-kind-of-people on my ass. If You don't like the answers don't ask the questions!

If You have a specific group of people in mind (deep minded or whatever) then say so at the stage of formulating Your question. You didn't do that so don't bitch about it later on.

[the_antithesis]

Whatever rocks your boat, but get off your fucking high horse telling us what or what not to think about a nebulous thing like spirituality.

Eating a dick would also be appropriate.

[Hydra009]

What the original post was attempting to ask was how many people recognize this dimension of existential human experience as a realm of existential human experience.

[Kamonohashi]

Spirituality, in my opinion, is simply another of humanity's grandiose ideas that we are something great and special to the universe, when we, like our "friends" are simply nothing. Not the warm and fuzzy you want, but probably a little closer to the truth than you will ever prove. We are indeed simply carbon based life forms on a mote of dust in a universe so vast our planet is  118/ the size of an atom to the universe as our planet is to it.

That is what spirituality for some people, to be sure, but not for everyone. I've studied the principles of Zen Buddhism for many years, because the intrinsic culture of Zen is empiricism and anti-dogmatism. A lot of practitioners accept the teachings of Zen on faith, but it is possible to base one's understanding and insight purely on reason, reflection, and empiricism. I reject faith axiomatically, but I don't need it to study Buddhism, and Buddhism is only one of many different paths that I have taken towards self-understanding and understanding of the world around me.

Zen enlightenment is all about coming to realize that we aren't infinitesimal motes of dust in a vast universe, but the universe itself. The Vietnamese Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh once wrote a book called "The Sun, My Heart" exploring the fact that, if the Sun were to suddenly burn out, a few days later everything on Earth would be dead. If you can no more exist without the Sun then without your liver or spleen, how can you meaningfully claim it to be a part of your "environment" rather than yourself? The air and water and plants and animals, without which we would quickly die, are also parts of "our environment." In truth, a human being isn't an independent, autonomous "object," but a continuously changing vortex, sucking in air, food, and information and spewing out waste products, heat, and information.

We are vortices which, as the atheistic spiritual teacher Alan Watts used to point out, have grown out of the Earth as apples grow out of an apple tree. The Earth grew out of interstellar dust, and that dust grew out of other stars, ultimately leading all the way back to the Big Bang. Our species grew out of earlier species, with no clear boundaries between each other than the capacity to interbreed, going all the way back to abiogenesis. Modern physics has proven that not only are matter and energy aspects of the same thing, so are time and space. So are matter and so called "empty space." The recent discovery of the Higgs Boson has verified the fact that the very "stuffness" of subatomic particles (which are actually waves in the fabric of space-time, not "objects") is derived from the so called "empty space (the Higgs field) through which they more.

Yes, to say that everything is interconnected and "I am the universe" sounds like new agey woo woo, but it's an empirical fact. Attaining that sort of paradigm shift is one facet of "spiritual searching" and "spiritual learning." It can lead to warm, fuzzy feelings, but I don't consider warm, fuzzy feelings to be very important compared to deep understanding about what I am, where I am, and why I am. You can call all this something other than "spirituality" of course, but the historical and linguistic reality is that the term most commonly used to describe this intellectual realm is "spirituality."

[Kamonohashi]

I think I know what you're talking about but I have trouble with the word spirituality as I have no supernatural beliefs of any kind.

I have worked in a soup kitchen and I support a child overseas and make some donations because of theses thoughts... So is that humanistic spirituality?

Absolutely. I would definitely call that humanistic spirituality. One certainly doesn't need to use the "s" word, but I've searched high and low and have yet to find a more practically useful/applicable term in the English language.

The words "spirit" and "inspiration" can be interpreted in different ways. Christians in the United States tend to be very fundamentalist, and interpret the bible in insanely literal ways. Interpreted metaphorically, as symbolic mythology and folklore, one can find a great deal of wisdom in the story of Genesis. The so-called "fall of man" describes how our hominid ancestors "ate from the Tree of Knowledge" and, in so doing, not only kicked themselves out of the blissful ignorance of Eden (which all the other animals still enjoyed) but were also forced to face the inevitability of their own morality (unlike the other creatures of Eden). Taken as literature, as mythology, there's nothing wrong with bible stories. Interpreting EVERYTHING literally is just stupid. Stupid. Like I'm going to go to my corner grocer and say, "Hey, Joe, give me a pound of bananas and a half pound of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Oh, and those grapefruits look good, too."

[Kamonohashi]

(Love that clip.) The original post was essentially asking how many people recognize a spade as a spade, instead of denying that it is a spade or insisting that it is whatever it happens to reminds them of.

Look, I'm an atheist, so I think like an atheist. But I wasn't mentally abused as a child. My parents were agnostic so I wasn't brain raped by the adults upon whom I was dependent and whom I trusted. Consequently, I don't have a painful, angry visceral reaction to words which are often bandied about and twisted and distorted and used as instruments of kiddie brainwashing by theists. I can call a spade a spade. I don't have to insist that it's intrinsically a weapon of torture and abuse just because spades have been known to be used to inflict harm on others.

[Kamonohashi]

Yea, what he said!

You asked how many of us had a certain experience involving not-so-well-described set of emotions, but when I point out that everyone had some sort of this experience You ask us about, some less deep than others, You get all deep-minded-reflectful-kind-of-people on my ass. If You don't like the answers don't ask the questions!

If You have a specific group of people in mind (deep minded or whatever) then say so at the stage of formulating Your question. You didn't do that so don't bitch about it later on.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I said, "Yeah, well, maybe people who not only have an occasion thought of this sort but actually devote a substantial amount of time and effort to exploring such thoughts and trying to learn more on the topic and  existential/moral questions might possibly be more reflective or deep-minded, but they certainly aren't better or wiser. That's what I said, essentially, but you're hearing it as "I'm so much better than you losers!"

You've misheard me. Honestly. I wasn't saying that. The point I was trying to make was that, for some atheists, this realm of intellectual, existential exploration and learning is worthwhile enough to devote substantial time and effort to. If in hearing this you feel insulted, because when you've had such thoughts you considered them for a few minutes and then forgot about them-- if you feel insulted because that sounds like people are saying that they're better than you, then you've interpreted what you're hearing.

I've had thoughts about going to the gym and working out three or four times a week to get really buff. I haven't followed up on that, but I know some people have done more than I have to get in shape and keep in shape. Does that make me a "fat, lazy pathetic loser"? Does that make the people who seem to feel motivated to stay in shape better than me? If they make a post saying, "Anybody here want to go to the gym on Saturday to work out?" should I take that to mean that they think they're better than me since I'm not motivated to go to the gym?

The reason the original post was worded in the way that it was-- the reason I said that most people here won't understand what I'm talking about but I'm curious to know if there are any who do-- is that I've posted this sort of inquiry on atheist forums before and 95 percent of the responses were people jumping down my throat telling me that there's nothing to spirituality but dogma, woo woo, and stupidity.

I know that not all atheists believe that, but I also know that many do. I'm not saying that the ones who don't are intrinsically better, and I understand that many people here have been hurt by theists, taken advantage of and lied to by theists since early childhood. I understand that a lot of the reaction to "spirituality" on this forum isn't due to people being shallow or amoral, but rather to the fact that spirituality and religion are so closely intertwined in many people's experience, and they have been hurt by religious people and religion.

I get that, but I don't have the same personal background, so I don't have the same visceral affective reaction to the term or to the concept. That doesn't mean that I'm better.

Hey, if you're just angry, that's okay. Most likely, no matter what I say it's going to evoke an angry reaction in you. What I just said probably came across as patronizing rather than compassionate. That's okay, too. But I really don't mean any harm.

[Casparov]

That is what spirituality for some people, to be sure, but not for everyone. I've studied the principles of Zen Buddhism for many years, because the intrinsic culture of Zen is empiricism and anti-dogmatism. A lot of practitioners accept the teachings of Zen on faith, but it is possible to base one's understanding and insight purely on reason, reflection, and empiricism. I reject faith axiomatically, but I don't need it to study Buddhism, and Buddhism is only one of many different paths that I have taken towards self-understanding and understanding of the world around me.

Zen enlightenment is all about coming to realize that we aren't infinitesimal motes of dust in a vast universe, but the universe itself. The Vietnamese Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh once wrote a book called "The Sun, My Heart" exploring the fact that, if the Sun were to suddenly burn out, a few days later everything on Earth would be dead. If you can no more exist without the Sun then without your liver or spleen, how can you meaningfully claim it to be a part of your "environment" rather than yourself? The air and water and plants and animals, without which we would quickly die, are also parts of "our environment." In truth, a human being isn't an independent, autonomous "object," but a continuously changing vortex, sucking in air, food, and information and spewing out waste products, heat, and information.

We are vortices which, as the atheistic spiritual teacher Alan Watts used to point out, have grown out of the Earth as apples grow out of an apple tree. The Earth grew out of interstellar dust, and that dust grew out of other stars, ultimately leading all the way back to the Big Bang. Our species grew out of earlier species, with no clear boundaries between each other than the capacity to interbreed, going all the way back to abiogenesis. Modern physics has proven that not only are matter and energy aspects of the same thing, so are time and space. So are matter and so called "empty space." The recent discovery of the Higgs Boson has verified the fact that the very "stuffness" of subatomic particles (which are actually waves in the fabric of space-time, not "objects") is derived from the so called "empty space (the Higgs field) through which they more.

Yes, to say that everything is interconnected and "I am the universe" sounds like new agey woo woo, but it's an empirical fact. Attaining that sort of paradigm shift is one facet of "spiritual searching" and "spiritual learning." It can lead to warm, fuzzy feelings, but I don't consider warm, fuzzy feelings to be very important compared to deep understanding about what I am, where I am, and why I am. You can call all this something other than "spirituality" of course, but the historical and linguistic reality is that the term most commonly used to describe this intellectual realm is "spirituality."

Absolutely!

Spirituality does not require a belief in god. It only requires a devotion to growing in understanding about oneself and others, and bettering oneself and others. The realization that ultimately we are not separate but "are all one" is the basis of morality in my point of view. That inner understanding of what is right and wrong comes from this deep knowledge buried deep within that what you are doing to another you are doing to another yourself.

None of this requires a belief in "god". It is the traditional dogmatic religion of the masses that prioritizes "belief" over all else, not spirituality.

[Hydra009]

(Love that clip.) The original post was essentially asking how many people recognize a spade as a spade, instead of denying that it is a spade or insisting that it is whatever it happens to reminds them of.

Look, I'm an atheist, so I think like an atheist. But I wasn't mentally abused as a child. My parents were agnostic so I wasn't brain raped by the adults upon whom I was dependent and whom I trusted. Consequently, I don't have a painful, angry visceral reaction to words which are often bandied about and twisted and distorted and used as instruments of kiddie brainwashing by theists. I can call a spade a spade. I don't have to insist that it's intrinsically a weapon of torture and abuse just because spades have been known to be used to inflict harm on others.

So...people are either on board with your whole "realm of existential human experience" thing (whatever that means) or they're dishonest and/or irrationally hateful of religion (apparently, because they've been hurt by it)?  That doesn't sound like much of a choice.

Like other people have been saying, whatever floats your boat, but I'm not endorsing anything nor asserting the existence of anything beyond the material.  Of course, I do sympathize to some degree with a focus on the "big" questions and the search for meaning and "transcendence of the ego" and yadda yadda, but let's not make the mistake of contemplating our navels or allowing one's sense of "warm fuzzies" to override rationalism.

[La Dolce Vita]

I'm curious to know what the people participating in this forum think of the topic of spirituality. That term can be used in so many different ways as to render it virtually meaningless unless the person useing it defines what they're talking about clearly. By "spirituality," I don't mean religious dogma or religious practice. I don't mean new age woo woo. I don't mean the pseudoscience- dogma mix of many pre-scientific but non-theistic religions. I'm not talking about "the supernatural," or magical non-physical entities or forces, either. Finally, I'm not even talking about warm, fuzzy feelings-- though that is a dimension of spirituality that I think is worth considering.

Doesn't that leave out everything, then? No, the above doesn't exclude a search for meaning-- existential meaning-- searching for meaning in human existence or in one's life.

Tread very carefully. If you are speaking about any kind of any kind of ultimate meaning of existence - that is woo woo! That implies a some kind of theism, and there would need to be some mind or design forcing this meaning onto us. Woo of the worst kind.

If you are simply speaking of finding meaning for your own life. I.e. there is no purpose outside yourself, but you can make one for yourself. That's perfectly fine. In fact if you define "spirit" as your own "spirit" in the poetic sense rather than the religious/magical one, I'd accept this definition of spirituality as sensible. I'd advice against using the word as no one knows what it means though. You'd have to go on a long, explanatory lecture to inform everyone you're talking to specifically what you mean, otherwise they will get confused as hell, mix it up with what they would call spirituality, etc.

Nor does it exclude attempts at transcendence of the ego, self-centered perception and self-centered behavior.

Nothing wrong with that.

Practicing forgiveness, performing random acts of kindness, running a soup kitchen, volunteering in third world countries

None of this has necessarily anything to do with your definition of spirituality. You don't need to try to find meaning for your life to do any of this, one can simply be a very good and caring person. But of course, in your quest for transcending the ego, which you seem to label part of finding purpose and meaning, these things can be utilized. As they'd be done for you to reach a goal they might not be labelled as selfless however and could easily be labelled self-centered.

[aitm]

That is what spirituality for some people, to be sure, but not for everyone. I've studied the principles of Zen Buddhism for many years, because the intrinsic culture of Zen is empiricism and anti-dogmatism. A lot of practitioners accept the teachings of Zen on faith, but it is possible to base one's understanding and insight purely on reason, reflection, and empiricism. I reject faith axiomatically, but I don't need it to study Buddhism, and Buddhism is only one of many different paths that I have taken towards self-understanding and understanding of the world around me.

Zen enlightenment is all about coming to realize that we aren't infinitesimal motes of dust in a vast universe, but the universe itself. The Vietnamese Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh once wrote a book called "The Sun, My Heart" exploring the fact that, if the Sun were to suddenly burn out, a few days later everything on Earth would be dead. If you can no more exist without the Sun then without your liver or spleen, how can you meaningfully claim it to be a part of your "environment" rather than yourself? The air and water and plants and animals, without which we would quickly die, are also parts of "our environment." In truth, a human being isn't an independent, autonomous "object," but a continuously changing vortex, sucking in air, food, and information and spewing out waste products, heat, and information.

We are vortices which, as the atheistic spiritual teacher Alan Watts used to point out, have grown out of the Earth as apples grow out of an apple tree. The Earth grew out of interstellar dust, and that dust grew out of other stars, ultimately leading all the way back to the Big Bang. Our species grew out of earlier species, with no clear boundaries between each other than the capacity to interbreed, going all the way back to abiogenesis. Modern physics has proven that not only are matter and energy aspects of the same thing, so are time and space. So are matter and so called "empty space." The recent discovery of the Higgs Boson has verified the fact that the very "stuffness" of subatomic particles (which are actually waves in the fabric of space-time, not "objects") is derived from the so called "empty space (the Higgs field) through which they more.

Yes, to say that everything is interconnected and "I am the universe" sounds like new agey woo woo, but it's an empirical fact. Attaining that sort of paradigm shift is one facet of "spiritual searching" and "spiritual learning." It can lead to warm, fuzzy feelings, but I don't consider warm, fuzzy feelings to be very important compared to deep understanding about what I am, where I am, and why I am. You can call all this something other than "spirituality" of course, but the historical and linguistic reality is that the term most commonly used to describe this intellectual realm is "spirituality."

it took you four paragraphs to somewhat come to the same conclusion I did in one.  Except for the part of human arrogance that suggests we "are something". You don't have to agree, but I am quite assured that the universe no more recognizes you than it does our entire galaxy. And if in an instant every particle of matter that is of our galaxy disappeared, the universe would not notice, care or be affected. Such is the size of the universe, and to proclaim otherwise is to also suggest that should you lost a single atom from the bottom of your foot, you would notice. I am equally assured, you would not.

[La Dolce Vita]

That is what spirituality for some people, to be sure, but not for everyone. I've studied the principles of Zen Buddhism for many years, because the intrinsic culture of Zen is empiricism and anti-dogmatism. A lot of practitioners accept the teachings of Zen on faith, but it is possible to base one's understanding and insight purely on reason, reflection, and empiricism. I reject faith axiomatically, but I don't need it to study Buddhism, and Buddhism is only one of many different paths that I have taken towards self-understanding and understanding of the world around me.

Zen enlightenment is all about coming to realize that we aren't infinitesimal motes of dust in a vast universe, but the universe itself. The Vietnamese Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh once wrote a book called "The Sun, My Heart" exploring the fact that, if the Sun were to suddenly burn out, a few days later everything on Earth would be dead. If you can no more exist without the Sun then without your liver or spleen, how can you meaningfully claim it to be a part of your "environment" rather than yourself? The air and water and plants and animals, without which we would quickly die, are also parts of "our environment." In truth, a human being isn't an independent, autonomous "object," but a continuously changing vortex, sucking in air, food, and information and spewing out waste products, heat, and information.

We are vortices which, as the atheistic spiritual teacher Alan Watts used to point out, have grown out of the Earth as apples grow out of an apple tree. The Earth grew out of interstellar dust, and that dust grew out of other stars, ultimately leading all the way back to the Big Bang. Our species grew out of earlier species, with no clear boundaries between each other than the capacity to interbreed, going all the way back to abiogenesis. Modern physics has proven that not only are matter and energy aspects of the same thing, so are time and space. So are matter and so called "empty space." The recent discovery of the Higgs Boson has verified the fact that the very "stuffness" of subatomic particles (which are actually waves in the fabric of space-time, not "objects") is derived from the so called "empty space (the Higgs field) through which they more.

Yes, to say that everything is interconnected and "I am the universe" sounds like new agey woo woo, but it's an empirical fact. Attaining that sort of paradigm shift is one facet of "spiritual searching" and "spiritual learning." It can lead to warm, fuzzy feelings, but I don't consider warm, fuzzy feelings to be very important compared to deep understanding about what I am, where I am, and why I am. You can call all this something other than "spirituality" of course, but the historical and linguistic reality is that the term most commonly used to describe this intellectual realm is "spirituality."

Ok, now you are starting to make dogmatic claims of truth without backing these statements up with evidence. You say you reject faith, but how have you come to the position that "In truth, a human being isn't an independent, autonomous "object," but a continuously changing vortex, sucking in air, food, and information and spewing out waste products, heat, and information." Nothing you say back this up. This is all woo. All made up fairytales to make you feel better about your own existence. Empty space, etc. has nothing to do with any of this, and you sound just like Casparov and other theists trying to find anything that sounds scientific you can cling to in order for your own view to make sense.

I am NOT the universe. You are NOT the universe. We are part of the universe, but that is it. We will die, and then we are no more. Our minds, all we are, can be demonstrated to be reactions created by our brains. It's cause and effect. When we die we are death. The matter and energy that was part of us will be redistributed, but we, ourselves will not. Our brain activity is gone. The memories, etc. that made up who we are, and the brain that hosted them, will rot. I'm sorry if this sounds unpleasant, but it is true. Backed up by everything we know about the brain.