More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual

May 05, 2011

More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual, according to new research from Rice University. Though the general public marries spirituality and religion, the study found that spirituality is a separate idea – one that more closely aligns with scientific discovery – for "spiritual atheist" scientists.

The research will be published in the June issue of Sociology of Religion.

Through in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social at elite universities, the Rice researchers found that 72 of the scientists said they have a spirituality that is consistent with science, although they are not formally religious.

"Our results show that scientists hold religion and spirituality as being qualitatively different kinds of constructs," said Elaine Howard Ecklund, assistant professor of sociology at Rice and lead author of the study. "These spiritual atheist scientists are seeking a core sense of truth through spirituality -- one that is generated by and consistent with the work they do as scientists."

For example, these scientists see both science and spirituality as "meaning-making without faith" and as an individual quest for meaning that can never be final. According to the research, they find spirituality congruent with science and separate from religion, because of that quest; where spirituality is open to a scientific journey, religion requires buying into an absolute "absence of empirical evidence."

"There's spirituality among even the most secular scientists," Ecklund said. "Spirituality pervades both the religious and atheist thought. It's not an either/or. This challenges the idea that scientists, and other groups we typically deem as secular, are devoid of those big 'Why am I here?' questions. They too have these basic human questions and a desire to find meaning."

Ecklund co-authored the study with Elizabeth Long, professor and chair of the Department of Sociology at Rice. In their analysis of the 275 interviews, they discovered that the terms scientists most used to describe religion included "organized, communal, unified and collective." The set of terms used to describe spirituality include "individual, personal and personally constructed." All of the respondents who used collective or individual terms attributed the collective terms to religion and the individual terms to spirituality.

"While the data indicate that spirituality is mainly an individual pursuit for academic scientists, it is not individualistic in the classic sense of making them more focused on themselves," said Ecklund, director of the and Public Life Program at Rice. "In their sense of things, being spiritual motivates them to provide help for others, and it redirects the ways in which they think about and do their work as scientists."

Ecklund and Long noted that the spiritual scientists saw boundaries between themselves and their nonspiritual colleagues because their facilitated engagement with the world around them. Such engagement, according to the spiritual scientists, generated a different approach to research and teaching: While nonspiritual colleagues might focus on their own research at the expense of student interaction, spiritual scientists' sense of spiritualty provides nonnegotiable reasons for making sure that they help struggling students succeed.

Explore further: Multidisciplinary study reveals big story of cultural migration (w/ Video)

Related Stories

Relationships hold key to spiritual care

Jul 23, 2010

Relationships hold the key to giving terminally ill patients the spiritual care they need. However, researchers have pinpointed a mismatch between patients' expectations and understanding when it comes to spirituality, and ...

Spirituality increases as alcoholics recover

Mar 19, 2007

For decades, recovering alcoholics and those who treat them have incorporated spirituality into the recovery process — whether or not it's religious in nature. But few research studies have documented if and how spirituality ...

Religion and medicine: Sometimes a healing prescription

Nov 04, 2009

Do pediatric oncologists feel that religion is a bridge or a barrier to their work? Or do they feel it can be either, depending on whether their patients are recovering or deteriorating? A novel Brandeis University study ...

Religious beliefs focus too much on self

Jan 17, 2008

Moving away from traditional religious beliefs to trendy, self-focused religions and spirituality is not making young adults happier, according to new research.

Recommended for you

Soccer's key role in helping migrants to adjust

10 hours ago

New research from the University of Adelaide has for the first time detailed the important role the sport of soccer has played in helping migrants to adjust to their new lives in Australia.

Congressional rift over environment influences public

Jul 31, 2014

American citizens are increasingly divided over the issue of environmental protection and seem to be taking their cue primarily from Congress, finds new research led by a Michigan State University scholar.

User comments : 175

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

baudrunner
1.5 / 5 (31) May 05, 2011
Those scientists who say they are atheists but spiritual are just too lazy to go to church. But then, what church is all about is money, employment, refuge for those of indeterminate sexual characteristics and for sinners, and so on, and it's all based on obfuscation of the facts.

I also do not go to church, and have said in the past that religions are frauds. Yet I am a spiritually conscious being. I believe that insomuch that we see but a narrow band of visible frequencies in the entire range that we call the optical spectrum, so in the entire spectrum of reality we exist but in this narrow physical band, where finite being is constrained by corporeality, and in which we share this reality with the spiritual.

Because of events in this world's past (ie repeated extra-terrestrial visitations of the 'gods' etc) and the bridging of the spiritual realm with this physical realm by spiritual beings (completely unrelated) who can effect miracles here, religion is an evolved concept.
Phideaux
4.5 / 5 (28) May 05, 2011
This sounds like the usual anti-atheist bigotry. If you "help struggling students succeed" you're automatically "spiritual". This fallacious definition isn't helpful because it's too broad in scope. It insinuates that if you arn't "spiritual" then you arn't concerned with helping other people.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (25) May 05, 2011
Religious doesn't mean spiritual, spiritual doesn't mean religious.

The two are not congruent terms and unfortunately the ignorant get this wrong quite often. Any experience can be spiritual if it resonates with you, it need not resonate with a depiction of a god or gods.
Javinator
5 / 5 (18) May 05, 2011
I wonder if they had a common definition of spirituality between the scientists.

What I mean is there's a big difference between "Are you spiritual?" and "Here's a definition of what we're considering spirituality for the purposes of this study. Now, are you spiritual by this definition?"

If it's been proposed to all of the scientists in the study that the definition is "an individual quest for meaning that can never be final" as it is stated in the article then I'm surprised the number is as low as 20%.
dirk_bruere
5 / 5 (15) May 05, 2011
Perhaps someone ought to define the word "spiritual" before we start arguing over it?
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (27) May 05, 2011
To claim one is spiritual while claiming one is not religious is to say you believe but don't participate in an organized group.

There are others who claim to be religious who also don't participate (at least regularly) in an organized group.

Spiritual vs Religious is an argument about terminology, not status.
that_guy
1.9 / 5 (7) May 05, 2011
I'm guessing that the general distinction would be that religion considers some kind of higher power or intelligence that can act in ways beyond our control - basically any spirituality whereby you assume another person or being has inherent authority above you on spiritual matters.

And spirituality by itself would just mean that you believe in a soul that is distinct from your physical body - without any special meaning necessarily attached to that soul.

So religion is essentially always spiritual in nature, however spiritual things are not necessarily religious, because spiritualism is a broader category.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (14) May 05, 2011
To claim one is spiritual while claiming one is not religious is to say you believe but don't participate in an organized group.
Spirituality is not the domain of religion, it is a state of mind to have a spiritual moment. Some attribute them to the unknown, some choose to attribute them to an unseen creator. That doesn't provide for ownership of that moment.
AJW
3.3 / 5 (3) May 05, 2011
Spirituality comes from and is based on an individual and an individual's thoughts, emotions and actions.
Religion is based on group behavior or conformance to group behavior.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (12) May 05, 2011
dogbert, you don't like the comment, so I'll support it. Watch Lawrence Krauss' lecture "A Universe from Nothing" on youtube, I'll get you the link if you need it.

Then tell me that isn't a collection of spiritual moments for him, completely free of the notion of a god. Child-like wonder is spiritual, it isn't to be labeled with an ideology. It is something inherent that we all own, and it isn't a belonging of any ideology, theistic or not.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (18) May 05, 2011
dogbert, you don't like the comment, so I'll support it.

I wonder how you know if I like a comment when I have not commented on that comment.
Watch Lawrence Krauss' lecture "A Universe from Nothing" on youtube, I'll get you the link if you need it.

You often ask that someone watch something. Why should I care about how Lawrence Krauss feels about something?

--

It is purely an exercise in semantics to separate the word "spirit" from the concept of religion and redefine it as a secular or emotional "feeling". Spirit refers to the non-material, non-secular.

You may redefine any word in any manner, but the traditional meaning of "spirit" is properly defined in the domain of religion.

epicureous
1 / 5 (3) May 05, 2011
Acceptations and ambiguity.
Institutionalized Science and institutionalized spirituality.
Deduction and reduction.
Everything and Nothing. What more exists? This proverbial 1+(-1) (yes I know it equals Zero, duh). The creation; 1+1=3. What more do you need to 'Be'? Not One, separate, Thing -Everything.. Here. We are all the same thoughts, we are all the same conclusions. We are all 'Here' with Everything we need. Go explore and be in awe of the eternal moment.

It would be difficult to live your life on only one side of the tracks. Just accept what 'you are'.
Pyle
1.6 / 5 (7) May 05, 2011
You may redefine any word in any manner, but the traditional meaning of "spirit" is properly defined in the domain of religion.
No. Just because the dominant organized religions in the western world have hijacked a word doesn't mean that their usage of the word is the only one left. Spirituality refers to the non-physical, non-material soul or spirit.
I personally feel it is all bunk, but that doesn't mean I'm gong to throw them in with the sheep.
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (13) May 06, 2011
Spirituality refers to the non-physical, non-material soul or spirit.


Correct. Non-physical, non-material, i.e., not secular. The domain of religion.
macsglen
4.1 / 5 (8) May 06, 2011
It's all just brain chemistry. Ingest the right neurotransmitter and you'll see God.
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (5) May 06, 2011
Higgs boson, dark matter, dark energy, strings...'hard scientists' have been going soft and 'soft scientists' have been embracing empiricism hence the big difference between the spirituality of H.Scientists (higher, with an emphasis on Zen Buddhism) and S.Scientists (lower, being aware of the brain mechanisms behind perception, psychiatric conditions, perceptual illusions and cognitive delusions that plague and misguide the human mind-brain). Psychologists suffer the lowest spirituality, cosmologists the highest...
dan42day
2.4 / 5 (7) May 06, 2011
To me spirituality is simply accepting that there are truths we don't know yet, and it's a good idea to keep an open mind. That doesn't mean that we have to believe the fairy tales someone was told as a child, or practice rituals that seem designed to promote submissiveness.
ProfSLW
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2011
72 out of 275 is over 26% -- more than a quarter of the sample, not a mere fifth. The headline writer is obviously not a "scientist".
ShotmanMaslo
3.8 / 5 (10) May 06, 2011
Atheist = rejection of belief in deities.
Spiritual = belief in some immaterial reality.

These 20 % of atheist scientists simply lack a belief in a deity, but still believe in some immaterial reality.
frajo
4.8 / 5 (6) May 06, 2011
Perhaps someone ought to define the word "spiritual" before we start arguing over it?
The definitions will vary individually. That's why the article suggests "individual, personal and personally constructed" as weak definition.

Spirituality (S) is a true superset of religiosity (R). Thus, every religious human is also a spiritual human but not every spiritual human is necessarily religious.

The set of all humans (H), however, is a true superset of S. RobertKarlStonjek exemplified this by mentioning the striking difference between cosmologists' and psychologists' spirituality.
While the boundary between S and R obviously is soft and dynamic the boundary between S and H seems to be more interesting. What is harder to bear: The unanswered questions of cosmologists ar those of psychologists?
frajo
3.2 / 5 (5) May 06, 2011
To me spirituality is simply accepting that there are truths we don't know yet, and it's a good idea to keep an open mind.
You don't need spirituality to exhibit this stance. To accept the existence of unknown falsifiable truths and to keep an open mind is best non-spiritual scientific attitude.
That doesn't mean that we have to believe the fairy tales someone was told as a child, or practice rituals that seem designed to promote submissiveness.
At the same time it doesn't mean to obsessively and generally denigrate believers or postulate a relation between the positive experience a community can give including their rituals and a very common psychological condition.

There are evil guys and good guys - on both sides of the fence.
To claim that the other party exclusively consists of evil guys is evil.
JadedIdealist
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2011
Spirituality has always had somewhat nebulous set of meanings some of which apply to situations that have nothing to do with believing in souls or sky fairies, deal with it.
orsr
5 / 5 (6) May 06, 2011

It is purely an exercise in semantics to separate the word "spirit" from the concept of religion and redefine it as a secular or emotional "feeling". Spirit refers to the non-material, non-secular.

You may redefine any word in any manner, but the traditional meaning of "spirit" is properly defined in the domain of religion.



You are wrong here. Sociology and psychology tell us the difference between religion and spirituality. Religion is a form of collective behavior based on tradition, while spirituality is an exclusively individual experience.
People can for example have the spiritual experience of a concept of "fate" without any religious affinity.
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (11) May 06, 2011
You are wrong here. Sociology and psychology tell us the difference between religion and spirituality. Religion is a form of collective behavior based on tradition, while spirituality is an exclusively individual experience.


Within your fiction that religion be narrowly defined as a group experience, you can separate spirituality as a non-group experience, but religion encompasses group/collective behaviors and individual spirituality.

There are many individuals who consider themselves religious who seldom or never attend any collective/group religious activities.
antialias
not rated yet May 06, 2011
Couldn't find whether that study only includes scientist from the US. If so then it's a rather skewed study because in the US the religion/spirtuality level is exorbitantly high.
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (11) May 06, 2011
antialias,

On the other hand, a scientist who admits religion/spirituality in the university setting in particular, may face considerable discrimination which could result in considerable error in such studies, particularly in the U.S.
orsr
5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2011

Within your fiction that religion be narrowly defined as a group experience, you can separate spirituality as a non-group experience, but religion encompasses group/collective behaviors and individual spirituality.

There are many individuals who consider themselves religious who seldom or never attend any collective/group religious activities.


Well, it is not *my* fiction, your objections have to go to proffesional sociologists of religion, e.g. Peter Berger. There's a ton of research behind this "fiction". :)
You see, the difference lies in the fact that anyone who considers himself "religious" associates himself with some kind of religious *group*. Therefore religion is group behavior, even for hermits.
Spirituality is the actual feeling, experience of the "transcendent, metaphysical".
A person can consider himself a christian, that is his religion. However he can also believe in the influence of horoscopes, that is his individual spiritual experience.
antialias
3.3 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
On the other hand, a scientist who admits religion/spirituality in the university setting in particular, may face considerable discrimination which could result in considerable error in such studies, particularly in the U.S.

True. additionally we should also look at what kind of 'sciences' we're dealing with here. Are we dealing with sociologists? Psychologists? Physicists? Theologians? ..
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (6) May 06, 2011
dogbert, you don't like the comment, so I'll support it.

I wonder how you know if I like a comment when I have not commented on that comment.
Science, and comment history.
Watch Lawrence Krauss' lecture "A Universe from Nothing" on youtube, I'll get you the link if you need it.
You often ask that someone watch something. Why should I care about how Lawrence Krauss feels about something?
Well it is obvious you don't. You don't care to explore any viewpoint other than your own. I ask people to watch things because there are people better able to explain aspects of science than I am.
It is purely an exercise in semantics to separate the word "spirit" from the concept of religion and redefine it as a secular or emotional "feeling". Spirit refers to the non-material, non-secular. You may redefine any word in any manner, but the traditional meaning of "spirit" is properly defined in the domain of religion.
As I said above, only to those ignorant of realit
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (11) May 06, 2011
Well it is obvious you don't. You don't care to explore any viewpoint other than your own.


Not true. I would not frequent places such as this if I were not interested in other opinions. What I don't care about is being directed to some person who is not a part of the discussion and who is not bringing anything to the discussion. If you have an opinion, I am interested in it. If you only have someone else's opinion, I am not interested in your borrowed opinion.
6_6
1.5 / 5 (16) May 06, 2011
The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.1 Cor. 3:19.
The word wisdom is used loosely. Some say that a person is wise if he has merely accumulated a wealth of knowledge. However, the worlds so-called intellectuals offer no trustworthy guidance for finding true meaning in life. On the contrary, those who allow themselves to be influenced by such ones end up being tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching. (Eph. 4:14) How different it is with those who acquire true wisdom, the Source of which is Jehovah God! The Bible tells us that Jehovah is wise alone. (Rom. 16:27) He knows all that there is to know about the universe, including its composition and its history. The physical laws of natureupon which humans rely for their researchare all of Jehovahs making. Thus, he is not impressed by man-made inventions, and he is not intrigued by the so-called elevated thinking of human philosophy. w09 4/15 3:1, 2
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (14) May 06, 2011
religion requires buying into an absolute "absence of empirical evidence."


First we need to define "religion", because when atheists and even many unlearned believers say "religion" they actually THINK they mean "faith". And when believers say "religion" it is almost always used in a negative sense as a person attempting to prove one's own worth to God.

Faith is NOT buying into a lack of evidence. Many believers, including myself, have eye-witnessed miracle healings. The Bible was written by eye-witnesses, and the Bible itself requires that there be two or three eye-witnesses before a thing is taken as true.

And when a Christian says something is "Spiritual" it refers to a specific part of one's "being" which either has or has not a relationship with God, or in other contexts it may refer to God himself, since God is a Spirit, or it may refer to angels or demons, etc.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (15) May 06, 2011
Anyway, as I was saying, the term "Religion" only appears a few times in the Bible, usually in a context interchangeable with "tradition", and almost all of these appearances are in a negative sense. The author or speak actually condemns "religion" and "tradition" because it caused the other person to love rules more than people or God.

Anyway, the "Spiritual" atheist is simply deceiving himself. There is of course "spirit" involved in everything as human beings are spiritual beings by creative nature, but the problem is the "spirit" involved is a fallen, godless spirit.

Evil does not really care what you believe or do, so long as it isn't the truth.

Spiritualism without God is re-invention of witchcraft, no matter how modern it may be, and no matter how differently it may appear to the historical "occult". It is "worshipping the creature(or creation) rather than the creator (Romans 1,25,)"
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (12) May 06, 2011
Religious doesn't mean spiritual, spiritual doesn't mean religious.

The two are not congruent terms and unfortunately the ignorant get this wrong quite often. Any experience can be spiritual if it resonates with you, it need not resonate with a depiction of a god or gods.


Beautifully said, and I didn't know you felt like this either SH. I learned something new today :)
Na_Reth
5 / 5 (4) May 06, 2011
Spiritualism without God is re-invention of witchcraft, no matter how modern it may be, and no matter how differently it may appear to the historical "occult". It is "worshipping the creature(or creation) rather than the creator (Romans 1,25,)"


Your God was created by my neutron repulsion spirit, you sir are an evil occultist! On the burning pile with you! Everyone get your pitchforks.
Pyle
3.4 / 5 (10) May 06, 2011
frajo: Well said with the sets/supersets. Religion necessarily is spiritual. Spirituality is not limited to the religious.

I guess I should have left out the jab at the end of my previous comment. But it plays into what I am about to say. You said:
There are evil guys and good guys - on both sides of the fence.
To claim that the other party exclusively consists of evil guys is evil.

First sentence, yes, I agree whole heartedly. Second sentence needs qualifying though. The modern organized religions are predominantly hierarchical and have lent themselves to manipulation by the "evil guys". Not that bad atheists don't get "good" people to do bad things, but religion has a terrible track record of it. Wake up sheep, follow blindly no more!

QC: You inadvertently win funniest comment of the day:
The Bible was written by eye-witnesses, and the Bible itself requires that there be two or three eye-witnesses before a thing is taken as true.

Funny but sad.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2011
Well it is obvious you don't. You don't care to explore any viewpoint other than your own.


Not true. I would not frequent places such as this if I were not interested in other opinions. What I don't care about is being directed to some person who is not a part of the discussion and who is not bringing anything to the discussion. If you have an opinion, I am interested in it. If you only have someone else's opinion, I am not interested in your borrowed opinion.

Not borrowed, sorry to inform you that rejecting source material is most assuredly putting you head in the sand if your only reason for rejection is "I don't like it".
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (11) May 06, 2011
You certainly can direct otherrs to watch videos, but such material is hardly 'source material'.

You should make your own arguments, but if you defer to others, at least provide a link to written material. You cannot exppect to impress people with pretty lights and sound effects.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (54) May 06, 2011
All hail the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost of Neutron Repulsion.

@dogbert: lol just because something is written doesn't make it a valid source. Just look at the bible, lmao.
antialias
3.5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2011
QC: You inadvertently win funniest comment of the day:

The Bible was written by eye-witnesses, and the Bible itself requires that there be two or three eye-witnesses before a thing is taken as true.

Funny but sad.


Funny? I say it's just sad.

Basically everything that Jesus (was supposed to have) said was just his testimony WITHOUT any further witnesses. If QC really though that the bible required multiple witnesses before truth be accepted then he'd immediately have to stop believing.

but somehow I doubt that logic will prevail over blind faith (which really just leaves the questions: why are those who openly reject logic even on this site or even at a computer? Why aren't they groveling on their knees before their illusion of choice?)
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (12) May 06, 2011
I guess my (continuing) issue with all this isn't so much WHAT people believe, but rather HOW people treat people who don't believe like they do.

I'd like to see a hell of a lot less judgmental BS and a lot more tolerance from all camps (myself included). In the end I don't care how you believe, but I want respect you as a human being and treat you with the dignity that you deserve...it's just REALLY hard to sometimes if it's not a two way street (again, not leaving myself out of that one either).
baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2011
6_6 said: "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.1 Cor. 3:19."

And there is the perfect example of how the facts are obfuscated, and how that leads the evolution of religion. Taking a statement that essentially describes the extent of the intelligence, technological expertise, and general 'greatness' of the 'gods' who were visiting Earth at the time, compared with the primitive people of the proto-civilisations encountered here, completely out of context, as none of the content of the early testament has any relevance whatsoever today, further substantiates what I have written above.

That being said, religion is nonetheless a great contributor to the modern evolution of mankind, because generating new theories and ideas about things we must profess to actually know very little about builds new neural networks, and a smarter human race in the long run.
baudrunner
1.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2011
And just in case you all think me crazy for writing about the 'gods', then the bible is crazy. I suggest that you open your King James version of the New English Bible (the standard) to the second paragraph of the account - "The Flood and the Tower of Babel" - where it is written, "In those days, when the sons of the gods had intercourse with the daughters of men, there were giants upon the Earth. Those were the heroes of old."

All the skeptical and nay-saying bible thumpers out there should take heed. It is much more warm and comfortable to believe in the pure untruths of invention then it is to accept the darker realities of life.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 06, 2011
"meaning-making without faith"

Every scientist must have faith in their process.

As Max Placnck said:
Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'

We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.

Read more: http://www.brainy...LaqCje5w
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) May 06, 2011
"More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual"

-But alas, all 100% of them are human. People get a little emotional thrill from vertigo or endorphins or something and right away they start pondering the metaphysical and the possibility that perhaps, just Perhaps, there is some plane where they can go to live forever like the godman promised. An escape from the Cage. So pleasant.

An irresistable meme. Walt disney made a lot of $$ off it. Remember the theme song?
http://www.youtub...=related

The 'spiritual', an illusion caused by overactive brains, wishful thinking, and endemic defect. And fear. It implies an existance of a 'spirit' which is not there. It is another concept which will end up on the great rubbish pile of human folly along with all the institutions it fostered- music, art, fiction, RELIGION, philocrap, politics.

Humans will one day accept that Nothing is for free. Their machines will force them to confront this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (10) May 06, 2011
We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.
But we do, and we depend on the efficacy of reality all the time, as planck did. He was of course being a tad sarcastic in the interests of humility, and certainly did not mean to reinforce religionist delusions that some fickle god would create a universe and then want to fiddle with it to the benefit of his favorite buttsniffers.
pauljpease
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2011
Spirituality refers to the non-physical, non-material soul or spirit.


Correct. Non-physical, non-material, i.e., not secular. The domain of religion.


The definition of secular is to be "separate from religion", not separate from physical or material existence. Thus it is perfectly legitimate to discuss secular spirituality, because not all concepts of non-physical phenomena fall within the domain of an organized religion.

I also want to point out that for many people, including myself, religion means an organized religion, and an organized religion involves not only an assumption of the existence of non-physical phenomena, but also specific stories and rules for human behavior. Many people accept the non-physical aspect of existence while rejecting specific stories about the nature of non-physical phenomena (e.g. a guy named Jesus walked on water and is the path to salvation).
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (4) May 06, 2011
because not all concepts of non-physical phenomena fall within the domain of an organized religion.
See? Its like I said. Paul, if it is a 'non-physical phenomenon' this means that 1) the physical basis for it has not yet been discovered (or you are not aware of it); or 2) it DOESNT EXIST. It is fiction, deception, fantasy, a sociopolitical or economic ploy to get you to do something or spend money. There is nothing which is not physical that is real.

If you have a feeling which seems 'spiritual' to you, the feeling itself is a real physical phenomenon and can be fully understood as such. But to call it spiritual and imply that there is something about it which can never be understood, is fantasy. Our universe and everything in it consists of things which have the potential to be fully understood, including us.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (7) May 06, 2011
but also specific stories and rules for human behavior.
This is another aspect of the Lie, that people who are not 'spiritual' are somehow lacking the moral content. Morality does NOT originate in the unknowable. It is not the Gift of some greater and more perfect being. It is a natural result of the evolution and originates in mutual cooperation for survival and propagation.

Religions claim it as their own to aid in their own survival. It is not the only thing that they have stolen.
frajo
not rated yet May 07, 2011
To claim that the other party exclusively consists of evil guys is evil.

... sentence needs qualifying though. The modern organized religions are predominantly hierarchical
While the RCC is a textbook example of a hierarchy, I don't see too much hierarchical structure in other denominations and religions.
and have lent themselves to manipulation by the "evil guys". Not that bad atheists don't get "good" people to do bad things, but religion has a terrible track record of it. Wake up sheep, follow blindly no more!
Very good point. Historically, it's always the steep gradients of power and wealth that lead to bestialities and barbarism. No matter whether it's cloaked in religious, nationalistic, communistic, or "freedom and democracy" colors. The historical cruelties of Western civilization are dyed in the colors of Western civilization. And the historical cruelties of other cultures are dyed in the dominant colors of their cultures.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) May 07, 2011
[part II:]
All of them are and were driven by the seeming necessity to non-consensually take resources from other people regardless of their ensuing suffering.

It's time to get rid of the 10000 years old pattern of denouncing the "other" group as evil in order to justify one's own evil-being. There's one group only, humanity, and we ought to dismiss stealing and robbing and to cooperate to find a peacefully coordinated (network-like) solution how to distribute the available resources in a manner that is not injust and minimies global suffering.

Then the gradients will be flattened and the past will be unbelievably stupid.
Tachyon8491
1.4 / 5 (7) May 07, 2011
Religion is for those afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for those who have already been there. Organised religion has caused more death, destruction, deprivation, suffering, destruction of cultural heritage, disablement and suppression of discovery and evolutionary tendency, than pandemic disease.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (6) May 07, 2011
It's time to get rid of the 10000 years old pattern of denouncing the "other" group as evil in order to justify one's own evil-being. There's one group only, humanity
And we can start with religion which was conceived to reinforce and capitalize on these differences.

Frajo wants to 'get rid of' western pro-action but fails to acknowlege the 100,000 yr old pattern, of ancient cultures consistently growing beyond their means to support themselves and then invading their neighbors and taking what they have, and destroying any Order that was created.

Frajo doesn't want to include the ruinous natural rate of pop growth and the cultures which exist today which seek to take advantage of this, by inundating their neighbors. Frajo would rather see the world in ruins AGAIN, in his mind, than treat his myopia and accept the necessity of preemptive western aggression.

Frajo would rather see the world burn in nuclear fire than accept what people ARE, rather than what they ought to be.
TheZone
not rated yet May 07, 2011
Kant, the Critique of Pure Reason.

It is really the result of the hard-wired connections of our thinking that produces the 'spiritually induced sense', the phenomenon of experience. We project that inner theater of thought onto the senses, thus tainting the potential data into our inner and filtered structure that becomes the resultant polished thought. This is how we are and there is no alternative, mainly because we will always be inside the box of thinking of what is outside of the box and that 'noumena'. Kant had it right and a few nights of reading The Critique will put into perspective and clearly so on how far removed we are from the 'external world'. -TZ
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 07, 2011
Religion is for those afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for those who have already been there. Organised religion has caused more death, destruction, deprivation, suffering, destruction of cultural heritage, disablement and suppression of discovery and evolutionary tendency, than pandemic disease.

Democide, murder by govt, tops the list.
http://www.hawaii...RDER.HTM
Johannes414
2.4 / 5 (8) May 07, 2011
Of course they are spiritual. Big bang and evolution require an element of faith, given the fact that these events have not been observed by anyone and are supposed to have happened a very long time ago. Real science is about observations and repeatable experiments. Atheism is faith in the no-God axiom.
FenderFennec
not rated yet May 07, 2011
It's also true that 35% of atheist scientists enjoy the Bang Bang Shrimp at Bonefish Grill.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (7) May 07, 2011
It is really the result of the hard-wired connections of our thinking that produces the 'spiritually induced sense', the phenomenon of experience.
Kant was full of shit. How could he be anything else, except by pure chance? He had no idea of how the brain works, no understanding of the evolutionary nature of it's structure. We are just exploring this now.

Kants works are unfathomable for good reason. They're empty of substance. They are deception. At least Nietzsche wrote good prose poetry. Kant wrote gibberish and only your 'mental theatre' gives it meaning. That and his scads of erudite loyalists in their oak-paneled offices. Behind ivy-covered walls. Amidst leather-bound books. Dressed in tweed. A very organic bunch, wot?
_nigmatic10
3 / 5 (3) May 07, 2011
people. this is an extremely small control group used to come to what seems to be a predetermined set of answers. The number here would be no larger than a few universities at best.

As to spirituality being present in scientists? Spirituality is part of being human and scientists will always be human first, scientists second.
Pyle
1.7 / 5 (6) May 07, 2011
Atheism is faith in the no-God axiom.
Not for me. Atheism is my recognition that it is extremely more unlikely that there is a ghod in the religious sense of the word than there isn't one. It is much more likely that the universe behaves the way we observe it to and has for more than 6,000 years. It is much more likely that we are the product of natural selection rather than ghod waving his noodly appendage and creating a man and his rib for a wife (pick your creation story).

That some small group of atheist scientists from unspecified fields believe in something spiritual (non-physical - non material - soulish stuff) is not surprising to me in the least.

frajo - Imagine.

Otto - The brotherhood of man.
Na_Reth
4 / 5 (2) May 07, 2011
Of course they are spiritual. Big bang

I have to agree with you there, i am very skeptical about the Big Bang Hypothesis, red shift, blue shift, and the likes.
and evolution require an element of faith, given the fact that these events have not been observed by anyone and are supposed to have happened a very long time ago.

Evolution goes on all the time. Evolution has been observed by experiments in microbiology and animals and historical diggings.
Real science is about observations and repeatable experiments.

There is no real science as there is no fake science, science is just science.
Atheism is faith in the no-God axiom.

Atheism is the lack of or the rejection of believing in a deity.
BillFox
2.6 / 5 (5) May 07, 2011
Great to read an article that I feel describes my views. All religions are corrupted. Hell would not exist if god is truly benevolent, I mean could you bring yourself to put your own dog or cat in a fire and turn your back on it to be seared for an eternity without the reprieve of death? Why all the unfounded hatred among our own kind? What about the utter lacking of a truly reasonable theodicy? The cosmological arguement, at it's core, is correct scientifically because the simple fact that anything whatsoever exists is a mathematical impossibility... If there was ever nothing, there will always be nothing without an all-powerful being. With our limited and specialized ability to percieve the World, it's most likely that whatever God is, we could not comprehend it. Your existance is an impossiblity, and all of religion is a bastardized form of social control full of corruption with a long history of violence, bloodshed and hatred. There is a God, but you don't know him; we just can't..
epsi00
3 / 5 (1) May 07, 2011
religion is nothing without the people who claim to be of this or that religion. Now, the christian church, with which I am familiar, became the refuge of sexual predators and abusers of all kind. And they want to give others lessons on spirituality? They are morally bankrupt. When are people going to open their eyes and see religions for what they are; organizations that are about power, money and control of the masses.
sherriffwoody
1.2 / 5 (6) May 08, 2011
you scientist like people crack me up. I'm not religious, and I'm open to anything being dicovered. But you are all like "There is no god and thats that", You dont know. Your statements should be "according to current evidence there is no god". But really, how do you know, you dont, you only know what you don't know.
Megadeth312
not rated yet May 08, 2011
Can we keep the focus on spirituality instead of religion please.

From the comment guidelines page:

Comments that will be deleted include:

spam;
promotion of services, publications or work unless it is relevant to the post;
abusive, snarky, obscene, or just plain nasty remarks about anything or anyone;
off topic ramblings, rants, or pointless verbiage;
political and religious discussions;
pseudoscience theories.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
If there was ever nothing, there will always be nothing without an all-powerful being.


Where did this being come from? If the being always existed, then there was never truly nothing and you've cheated by using special pleading. If we grant something the ability to always exist, why not the universe? A god does not simplify anything since we must then ponder the creation of that god.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) May 08, 2011
"Evolution has been observed by experiments in microbiology and animals and historical diggings. "

Can you give me the very best proof available for Darwinian evolution that was observed by experiments during the last 150 years?
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2011
Oh Emm Gee! You can be "spiritual" without being religious?!?!

Really? Really?
MorituriMax
3.6 / 5 (8) May 08, 2011
you scientist like people crack me up. I'm not religious, and I'm open to anything being dicovered. But you are all like "There is no god and thats that", You dont know. Your statements should be "according to current evidence there is no god". But really, how do you know, you dont, you only know what you don't know.

I do know there is no God. My evidence?

1) Mosquitos.
2) babies dying of SIDS.
3) You can cut people open and they have all this stuff inside them, if God had made them they wouldn't NEED anything inside to live.
4) People love making shit up that gives them control over other people.
5) If there were a God, he would punish believers of other Gods who screwed with his followers.
MorituriMax
3.6 / 5 (7) May 08, 2011
I mean, seriously, if the whole point of HAVING a God is to be better off than NOT having a God, it certainly doesn't seem worth the effort of designing the whole universe from the perspective of "God Made It" if he:

1) never makes a public appearance.
2) never helps his followers when they ask for it. (Give me food, shelter, etc).
3) hides all physical evidence of his existence.
4) can only be reached by people talking to themselves, and wink wink talking back to them inside their own heads.
MorituriMax
3.7 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
So saying you are "spiritual" is just a fancy way of saying.. what, exactly? You feel everyone's pain? You're better than other people at being "one" with the universe? What?

Someone tell me why you have to have a label called spirituality to set yourself apart from everyone else that breathes, eats, loves, hates, dies, etc.

Can't we all just be human beings that live around other people, and treat them like we want to be treated?
Jim1138
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2011
Study funded by a Templeton Foundation grant?

Jim1138
2.3 / 5 (4) May 08, 2011
Being "spiritual" as opposed to "religious" avoids being pined down. If you have a religion, everything is laid out in a book for all to see. By snacking on the spiritual buffet, you get to believe in the sky-faerie(s) with fewer consequences.
Bitflux
2 / 5 (2) May 08, 2011
Spirituality was a way of surviving for more than 10.000 years ago i the form of shamanism. The shaman would ask the spirits of the ancestors for direction on finding the animals they needed to hunt for survival, they were in contact with the divine.
A scientist discovering the grand design in his field, will most certainly feel connected to the divine. How can you not, when you glimpse the beauty of the universe. You get a hunch, that it all just fits too well together, that there must be a thought behind the design. A tiny thread of meaning in all the chaos.
I bet that if you ask any scientist with a great discovery, they will tell you of a connection to something greater than themselves.
The greatest challenge with spirituality is, that there is no proof.
Ethelred
2.8 / 5 (4) May 08, 2011
Jim1138
Study funded by a Templeton Foundation grant?
Mmm could be.

http://kinder.ric...?id=2158
Elaine Howard Ecklund
Assistant Professor, Sociology
Director, Program on Religion and Public Life
Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Principal Investigator, Religion and Spirituality among Natural and Social Scientists at Elite Research Universities, The John Templeton Foundation ($283,549). (Coverage about study in USA Today, The Washington Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Newsweek, Nature, PhysicsOrg.com, ABCNews.com, MSNBC.com, Xinhua News), 2005-2007.


Just a quarter million. Nothing I couldn't live for years on.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2011
You certainly can direct otherrs to watch videos, but such material is hardly 'source material'.

You should make your own arguments, but if you defer to others, at least provide a link to written material. You cannot exppect to impress people with pretty lights and sound effects.

That is a recording of a lecture. Not sure how many lectures you've watched but there are few pretty lights and sound effects during a lecture on cosmological principle..
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2011
You certainly can direct others to watch videos, but such material is hardly 'source material'.

You should make your own arguments, but if you defer to others, at least provide a link to written material. You cannot expect to impress people with pretty lights and sound effects.


That is a recording of a lecture. Not sure how many lectures you've watched but there are few pretty lights and sound effects during a lecture on cosmological principle..


Still on that?

In a discussion situation such as this, it is expected that you will present your viewpoint and argue for that viewpoint with occasional links (or direct quotes preferably) to supporting material as appropriate.

Videos of someone else's arguments are not appropriate supporting material.

If there is something in the video material you find compelling, say what it is. Make the argument. I have neither the time nor inclination to watch videos for you.
epsi00
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2011
religion is nothing without the people who claim to be of this or that religion. Now, the christian church, with which I am familiar, became the refuge of sexual predators and abusers of all kind. And they want to give others lessons on spirituality? They are morally bankrupt. When are people going to open their eyes and see religions for what they are; organizations that are about power, money and control of the masses.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2011
Now, the christian church, with which I am familiar, became the refuge of sexual predators and abusers of all kind

Of course the ugly secret of the Catholic church is homosexuals were allowed to be priests and they covered up their mis-behavior.
But not a critical word is heard about homosexuals from the 'liberals'.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (9) May 08, 2011
epsi00,

It is common for atheists on discussion groups to make unsupported claims deprecating religion, but really, two identical posts 9 hours apart?

If you really were associated with a group of people who claimed Christianity and who became depraved, the logical thing to do would be to find a different group which were not depraved.

There are bad people in every endeavor.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 08, 2011
There are bad people in every endeavor.

The difference is what is the goal of the endeavor.
If the endeavor is socialism, or abortion, people using the state to take liberty and property from individuals or promote abortion, are bad.
If the goal of the endeavor is to promote life and the liberty of the individual, bad people detract from this endeavor.
The socialists think libertarians are the 'bad' people in their endeavor.
The objective of the endeavor is important.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2011
The objective of the endeavor is important.


Indeed, it is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2011
@Pyle
The dream is over.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2011
In a discussion situation such as this, it is expected that you will present your viewpoint and argue for that viewpoint with occasional links (or direct quotes preferably) to supporting material as appropriate.

Videos of someone else's arguments are not appropriate supporting material.
It isn't a video of someone else's views on spirituality, it is a display of spirituality without religion.

Sometimes I wonder if your skull is made of an ultradense metamaterial.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
Atheism is the lack of or the rejection of believing in a deity.
The term atheism has always made me a little squeamish as it implies a lack of something I think. A lack of belief or a lack of acceptance of what a great many probably very good people take for granted. And so I tend to call myself an antireligionist, which I see as a positive thing, and is also the result of the application of reason, which I think is something I have and religionists do not so much.

I am positive religion is a blight on the world. I am positive the world will be a much better place once the notion of god and wish-granting for his favorites and immortality and all the rest of it, are gone.

Hey check out the headlines- Moslems killing coptics in Egypt!
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 08, 2011
I am positive religion is a blight on the world. I am positive the world will be a much better place once the notion of god and wish-granting for his favorites and immortality and all the rest of it, are gone.

Sounds like the beginning of a belief system, a religion.
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2011
It isn't a video of someone else's views on spirituality, it is a display of spirituality without religion.


No, it is primarily a sermon on atheism.

I would not ask you to view a sermon to support my position. You, however, expect me to watch your sermon.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2011
Sounds like the beginning of a belief system, a religion.

How can the absence of a thing be called that thing?

You're probably the kind of person that calls 'translucent' a color.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
I am positive religion is a blight on the world. I am positive the world will be a much better place once the notion of god and wish-granting for his favorites and immortality and all the rest of it, are gone.

Sounds like the beginning of a belief system, a religion.
Just the facts ryggemortis. Youre not texting in church are you? Only god is allowed to do that.

Hey even more great news brought to you by... Religion!
http://www.cnn.co...hpt=Sbin
There are bad people in every endeavor
Religions attract 'bad' people. They thrive on those who are unwilling or incapable of accepting reality, and others who will take advantage of this shortcoming. That's why we can conclude that religions are the embodiment of evil.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (9) May 08, 2011
antialias_physorg,
How can the absence of a thing be called that thing?

When you proselytize, you take on the cloak of religion. When you proselytize at every opportunity, you can be said to have a zeal for your religion.

TheGhostofOtto1923,
Religions attract 'bad' people. They thrive on those who are unwilling or incapable of accepting reality, and others who will take advantage of this shortcoming. That's why we can conclude that religions are the embodiment of evil.


You have made it abundantly clear that you hate God. Your zeal is not in question.
Isaacsname
not rated yet May 08, 2011
I'm with Godel on this one.

http://cs.nyu.edu...int.html

The universe was either made or not made, either have equal validity to me.50/50, but I cannot be so closed-minded to put aside the notion.

We cannot say how big our universe is in relation to something that may lay beyond either, we just have to logically accept it as a possibility.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2011
There's a difference between being spiritual and allowing your spiritual beliefs influence your experiments. There's nothing wrong with a scientist being spiritual but there is something wrong with someone allowing those spiritual beliefs influence their analysis. When analyzing data, a person needs to be objective. For instance, if the person is Christian or Jewish, they shouldn't just ASSUME that some water marks in the middle of a desert are from Noah's flood. Instead they must account for the possibility that the Earth is much older than many fundamentalists believe and make theories based on that.

In other words, even if a scientist is a religious fundamentalist, they must still come up with alternative theories to "it's in the holy book" for what the data shows. I don't even have a problem with them throwing out their religious belief as a possible explanation so long as they provide others that are not based on myth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
You have made it abundantly clear that you hate God. Your zeal is not in question.
No, god doesn't exist. I hate religion for obvious reasons. Muß ich deutlicher werden?? Your support for institutionalized fantasy makes possible all the horrors committed in it's name, by any religionist fanatic, anywhere on the globe.

All that benign (for the moment) believers like yourself have to do, is say 'yes there is a god' and others can then say 'yes but he loves us more because only we know how to please him' etc etc, and seek to remove the affront that is you from the face of the earth. You legitimize their hatred and destruction. Neither of you is right, neither of you is good, and for the world to survive all your religions must END.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 08, 2011
When analyzing data, a person needs to be objective.

That is impossible.
We all have a heuristic.
Religions attract 'bad' people.

It was Lenin that demanded all communists MUST be atheists.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
It isn't a video of someone else's views on spirituality, it is a display of spirituality without religion.
No, it is primarily a sermon on atheism.
No, not in the least. Evidencing that you're unwilling to even review information that you may not have. Sad.
I would not ask you to view a sermon to support my position. You, however, expect me to watch your sermon.
No, you'd just deliver one, as you typically do and expect no one more intelligent to spend the time to address it.
Na_Reth
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2011
When analyzing data, a person needs to be objective.

That is impossible.
We all have a heuristic.
Religions attract 'bad' people.

It was Lenin that demanded all communists MUST be atheists.

That is because religion is just another form of capitalism.
Meaning that you are not a communist but a capitalist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) May 08, 2011
There's nothing wrong with a scientist being spiritual
Sure there is. It is one thing for a scientist to take his or her kids to Disneyland on the weekend. It is quite another for them to indulge in fantasy with any degree of seriousness, and to discuss it publicly as having some connection to the work they do. This undermines public support for science by making it seem superfluous. It erodes public understanding of what science is and how it works.

Einstein didn't believe in god. He was playing to the constituency, attempting as so many others had, to bridge the gap between the old religionist world and the secular one to follow. Hawking doesn't believe in god and says so publicly. In einsteins time this could have caused him more trouble than a few indignant YouTube videos.

Scientists should not be implying the existence of unknowable otherworlds. Especially scientists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) May 08, 2011
That is because religion is just another form of capitalism.

Na states atheism and communism are equivalent.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (10) May 08, 2011
...it is primarily a sermon on atheism.


No, not in the least. Evidencing that you're unwilling to even review information that you may not have. Sad.


I have seen that video before you referenced it. It begins with a presentation sermon by Richard Dawkins followed by the main sermon by Lawrence Krauss. It is about atheism, pure and simple. Richard Dawkins is incapable of saying "Good Morning" without saying something denigrating about God.

Again, I would not ask you to watch or comment on a sermon, but you seem to think I should listen to your sermon.

No, you'd just deliver one, as you typically do and expect no one more intelligent to spend the time to address it.


I have never delivered a sermon to anyone, much less to you and I have never asked you to listen to a sermon. I have no desire to convert you. But I will point out fallacies in your arguments.
Isaacsname
2.6 / 5 (5) May 08, 2011
Einstein didn't believe in god.


Really..? What colon did you pull that one out of ?

" I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. "

~ Albert Einstein

SemiNerd
2 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
Spiritualism without God is re-invention of witchcraft, no matter how modern it may be, and no matter how differently it may appear to the historical "occult". It is "worshipping the creature(or creation) rather than the creator (Romans 1,25,)"

Spirituality is about the respect and care of each person's humanity, organized religion is all about rituals.

Unfortunately, many people, like the author of the quote above, seem to use religion to disparage others, and in general make themselves better than others.

I am deeply spiritual, in that I consult the god of my understanding all the time to help me decide right from wrong, and to respect myself and others. I believe almost all religion is a complete fraud however.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (9) May 08, 2011
Really..? What colon did you pull that one out of ?
You delusion addicts will believe anything your keepers feed you won't you? It took me 2 seconds to find the truth. 'Seek and ye shall find.'

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
Johannes414
1.8 / 5 (5) May 08, 2011
SemiNerd,

When did the god of your understanding tell you that its OK to tell people lies and commit adultery?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) May 08, 2011
I am deeply spiritual, in that I consult the god of my understanding all the time to help me decide right from wrong
You are deeply delusional and a tad egocentric. You're one of those people who tailors a 'god' to suit their own particular needs, then asks it to condone what they think is right. I am assuming of course.
I believe almost all religion is a complete fraud however.
Except for the one you've concocted eh? The one which says god loves YOU best in all the world. Unless you're in a 12 step program and are praying to your coffee cup?

Let me ask you, why do you need an imaginary friend to consult with? Are you afraid to just sit there and think?
Isaacsname
2.3 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
Really..? What colon did you pull that one out of ?
You delusion addicts will believe anything your keepers feed you won't you? It took me 2 seconds to find the truth. 'Seek and ye shall find.'


Right, the thing is that Einstein didn't believe that God was personally involved, like the typical Judeo-Christian God of wrath and vengence., he took the view of Spinoza, that God is the universe itself.

Please don't twist the facts to suit your argument.

" I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

Isaacsname
1.8 / 5 (5) May 08, 2011
In fact, otto, if you want to argue that tripe, argue this:

http://www.spacea...logy.htm

The fact is that Einstein did believe, he just didn't believe the usual tosh that is attached by small-minded individuals.

If anything, Al was a firm believer in intelligent design.
antialias
5 / 5 (4) May 08, 2011
The universe was either made or not made, either have equal validity to me.50/50, but I cannot be so closed-minded to put aside the notion.

Just because there are two options doesn't mean that they should be accorded 50/50 probability. That's a logical fallacy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) May 08, 2011
Yeah. Take off your god glasses and read what he is saying:

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

-Like I say Einstein was waxing poetic. He had become something of a PR frontman for science, like sagan and hawking, and was playing to the audience. This is clear in the source of your quote, a letter to a RABBI. Einstein was being polite and politically correct for the times.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) May 08, 2011
Here is a favorite quote which Religionists like to misconstrue:

"The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence."

Einstein is saying that it is a source of inclination but he is not saying that it is HIS inclination. When he says that the universe reflects an intelligence he is not saying that an intelligence was needed to create it. Atheists for instance accept the existence of intelligence without positing that it needed to be created by some greater intelligence, understand?

Einstein says that the universe is fathomable; it is entirely intelligible. And he says it in very sensitive and polite terms as spokesmodel for a community which needed the financial and moral support of Religionists and nonreligionists alike.
Isaacsname
3.4 / 5 (5) May 08, 2011
How much do I love that noble man
More than I could tell with words
I fear though he'll remain alone
With a holy halo of his own.

Poem by Einstein on Spinoza

" God is slick, but he aint mean " ~ Einstein

April 1921

" I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious. "

Said to Vladimir Bargmann, as quoted in Einstein in America

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

Letter to Max Born

I could come up with Al quotes all day that demonstrate he DID think that there was some sort of a God. Fact of the matter is that I am talking to somebody who is only reading the things they like.
Isaacsname
2.3 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
How much do I love that noble man
More than I could tell with words
I fear though he'll remain alone
With a holy halo of his own.

Poem by Einstein on Spinoza

" God is slick, but he aint mean " ~ Einstein

April 1921

" I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious. "

Said to Vladimir Bargmann, as quoted in Einstein in America

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

Letter to Max Born

I could come up with Al quotes all day that demonstrate he DID think that there was some sort of a God. Fact of the matter is that I am talking to somebody who is only reading the things they like.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (7) May 08, 2011
I'm not sure you know very much about Spinoza. First off he was a philosopher, meaning that by definition he was a propagandist.

"Today, he is considered one of the great rationalists of the 17th-century philosophy, laying the groundwork for the 18th century Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism."

-In other words he was preparing academia for it's split from religion. To this end he was also:

Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional JudeoChristian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose..." etc. 

He was thrown out if Judaism and the church banned his books. He used the concept 'god' because it was still needed to inspire nationalism and conflict in the coming centuries. But it could not interfere with renewed scientific enquiry and tech progress.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (7) May 08, 2011
I could come up with Al quotes all day that demonstrate he DID think that there was some sort of a God
You only demonstrate that you fail to recognize sarcasm when there's the chance of making a religionist point. 'God' was a pun of sorts to Einstein and his peers. Your Spinoza poem, 'slick' and 'malicious' and 'old one' quotes are obviously tongue in cheek, double entendre. He was clear on his areligionism in the quote I posted. And his sarcasm in yours betrays his feelings about 'god'.

Einstein knew that Spinoza only took what liberties he could without losing his head. Einstein still had Religionists to placate although they were not near as vicious as they were in the 16th cent. At least in the west. In urban areas and academic circles.

You read what Einstein said a few gens ago in the context of today's world. Who is only reading the things they like? If he were here today he would study M theory and world politics like hawking and dawkins and proclaim that god is a waste
Isaacsname
3.4 / 5 (5) May 08, 2011
Your statement that he didn't believe in " God " was flat out wrong, no matter what semantical arguments you prop it up with. What now ? We digress into discussing what periods in his life he did/didn't believe to certain degrees and Einsteins take on Spinoza in your interpetation ?

We will agree to disagree here.
FrankHerbert
1.2 / 5 (55) May 08, 2011
Isaac, Einstein didn't believe in a god in any but the most superficial, poetic sense. He was trying to make science appeal to people it normally wouldn't.

Pantheists (which is what you are claiming Einstein was) are functionally no different from atheists.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) May 08, 2011
"turning to Einstein to ask if he was, in fact, religious. "Yes, you can call it that," Einstein replied calmly. "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.""
""I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) May 08, 2011
"But throughout his life, Einstein was consistent in rejecting the charge that he was an atheist. "There are people who say there is no God," he told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," he explained."
http://www.time.c...,00.html
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (10) May 08, 2011
"In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

"Einstein, on the other hand, believed--as did Spinoza--that a person's actions were just as determined as that of a billiard ball, planet or star.

"

Read more: http://www.time.c...LozlOfuj
Of course Einstein didn't care much for quantum mechanics.
rwinners
1 / 5 (1) May 09, 2011
Hey ryg... I disagree with Einstein. There is no predestination with regard to human beings, but complete predestination with regard to everything inanimate of itself. Lower life forms are not as highly tuned.
A proof of this: Stand in the middle of a busy street. When you see that bus coming straight at you, you realize eminent death. You have time to choose; move or die. What you choose is based upon the sum of all your life experiences. Those cannot be predestined and so, neither can your choice.

frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2011
So saying you are "spiritual" is just a fancy way of saying.. what, exactly? You feel everyone's pain?
No, that's empathy.
You're better than other people at being "one" with the universe?
No, except for the fact that everybody is part of the universe.
What?
Spirituality is an attitude of assessing immaterial and non-measurable terms with a certain value.
Someone tell me why you have to have a label
No, you don't "have to have". Some people just sense "they have".
called spirituality to set yourself apart from everyone else that breathes, eats, loves, hates, dies, etc.
To set someone apart from others? Have you had bad environment? First, nothing is wrong about setting oneself apart from others. (Or why did you choose a nick made of solid Latin?) Second, spirituality is more about being connected to whatever than about being disconnected from whatever.
sb4534
5 / 5 (3) May 09, 2011
The problem seems to be in the definition of spirituality. Personally I think they should avoid using such a vague word, because of the many connotations that people associate it with especially in western society.

Best attempt at a definition: spirituality is a feeling of connectedness that we have with our environment (ourselves, other people, places, things and actions), completely individual in its level and manifestation within the person.
JadedIdealist
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2011
@rwinners
A proof of this: Stand in the middle of a busy street. When you see that bus coming straight at you, you realize eminent death. You have time to choose; move or die. What you choose is based upon the sum of all your life experiences. Those cannot be predestined and so, neither can your choice.


What counts as "animate" does a robot designed to dodge oncoming vehicles count?
What counts as a "life experience" - a robot could update its behaviour based on new information.
It's possible that we're not conscious robots - but you certainly haven't "proved" it - because your "proof" begs the question.
rwinners
not rated yet May 09, 2011
lol. Robots are, even in the extreme, just constructs of man. Will they ever become 'sentient'? Haven't a clue.
Oh.. and will robots ever 'care'?
rwinners
not rated yet May 09, 2011
I suppose the whole argument centers around the definition of 'spirituality'. To me, that word means 'wonder at the vastness and possibilities of the universe'.
To any you, it might mean something else.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) May 09, 2011
Richard Dawkins is incapable of saying "Good Morning" without saying something denigrating about God.
Lie. He can't say anything denigrating about something that doesn't exist.

Now If you replaced god with religion in that remark you might have a point. An over the top point but a point. As is it is just false.

But I will point out fallacies in your arguments.
You might try seeing the fallacies in your comments before you post them. Dawkins doesn't believe in your god so he cannot denigrate it. He can denigrate your beliefs but not the god.

Of course the Bible does an excellent job of showing severe flaws in Jehovah. But that does not make Jehovah real.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (7) May 09, 2011
""I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages"

Marjon quotes Einstein poetry as evidence he believed in god. Atheists quote similar musings and conclude that he didn't. It is pretty clear to me that Einstein was neither atheist or pantheist; he was a scientist and a political commenter. He was indifferent to notions with no evidence, except when they had some political value. God leaves no evidence and is absent in physical phenomena, but was still important to the public. It is obvious einstein regards the myth in this light and uses it where appropriate and when advantageous.
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (1) May 09, 2011
The universe was either made or not made, either have equal validity to me.50/50, but I cannot be so closed-minded to put aside the notion.

Just because there are two options doesn't mean that they should be accorded 50/50 probability. That's a logical fallacy.


Fair enough, you got me there.

The more people who try to define god to me, the less sense they make, the more I learn about science, the more I see the possibility for some sort of god, if the word bothers you, call it a banana, I don't care.

An atheist who says " god does not exist " and a devout believer who says " my god is absolute " are both equally foolish and headstrong in my book.

Neither one gives me a valid argument for it's necessity, therefore, I take the view I do.
Now, realistically, one's ideas about such topics are in a constant state of flux through life, as one changes, so do their views, so in that respect you can beleive in a different version of the god than you did last year.
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) May 09, 2011
Ethelred,
Do you feel better now that you have had your morning name calling session?

Must be a sad life you have if you have to put down others to feel better about yourself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (5) May 09, 2011
Spirituality is an attitude of assessing immaterial and non-measurable terms with a certain value.
What a load. As these 'terms' do not in fact exist, your spirituality has no basis.
No, you don't "have to have". Some people just sense "they have".
And some people do want to feel more privileged, more 'endowed' don't they? And so they invent preferential gods and proclaim to understand Kandinsky, and will channel the netherworld for their superior empathic and emotive qualities. Which most of us sadly cannot do. Because we lack sensitivity and couth. We have not suffered I guess.
Isaacsname
not rated yet May 09, 2011
So one might think that their ideas are concrete, but they are not, they are convienient products of the degree of certainty one has in their beliefs.

And that is all we have, are degrees of certainty.

Pyle
3.4 / 5 (10) May 09, 2011
Do you feel better now that you have had your morning name calling session?
?????????? HUH?
dogbert, you are an idiot. There. I do feel better after my name calling session. But unless you are referring to an Ethelred post on another article, you really need to improve your critical reading skills. Stick to sniffing butts.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2011
I'm glad your sad life is improved by putting down others, Pyle.
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
2.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2011
Do you feel better now that you have had your morning name calling session?
?????????? HUH?
dogbert, you are an idiot. There. I do feel better after my name calling session. But unless you are referring to an Ethelred post on another article, you really need to improve your critical reading skills. Stick to sniffing butts.
I do think we should strive to maintain a minimum level of decorum here, wouldn't you agree Pyle?
SteveL
3 / 5 (2) May 09, 2011
Less than a handful of times in my life I have had events where I felt prompted to perform very specific, very defined tasks. As there was no logical or evidentiary reason to perform as prompted I ignored such the first two times - to my regret. Later in life, after having children I have had two more such promptings - which I did not ignore. Once when leaving a family reuinion I was prompted to say goodbye to my healthy Grandfather and tell him I loved him. He died suddenly a few weeks later and I'll never regret doing what I was prompted to do. Later I dreamed that my youngest son would drown because he was alone. The next day I told my ex and she told me she was going to take the boys out to the lake that weekend. I told her to not let him out of her sight. Fortunately she listened. He fell from a tree when trying to cross a creek and got caught underneath it and she was there to save him. I may not be a religious person, but I do have faith there are things we don't know.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) May 09, 2011
Richard Dawkins is incapable of saying "Good Morning" without saying something denigrating about God.

Lie. He can't say anything denigrating about something that doesn't exist.

[1]
A lie is a statement given although being convinced of it not being true. Whether this statement is wrong or not doesn't matter. Only the willingness to deceive matters.
Thus, to call some person a liar, one has to know his intention. If one does not know his intention one cannot know whether he is lying or is just unknowingly wrong.
To claim that a person's statement is a lie implies the claim to know his intention.
[2]
Some Mr. K is incapable of saying "Peace be with you" without saying something denigrating "about weapons". Is he denigrating the object "weapons"? No. He is denigrating the use of weapons.
Thus, to say something denigrating "about god" does not necessarily imply to denigrate the object "god".
Thus, it does not matter whether the object "god" exists.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2011
I may not be a religious person, but I do have faith there are things we don't know.
And perhaps the relative weight of these events has led you to believe that they were something more than coincidence perhaps?

In 'Religulous' maher is talking to a guy who cites a 'miracle' of talking about rain and then sticking his hand out the window as it just begins to rain. Bill maher says 'If it started to rain frogs maybe you would have something...'

This is called synchronicity. It's curious but it is just happenstance.
http://en.wikiped...ronicity

Ha. That arf guy is pretty funny.
jjoensuu
1 / 5 (1) May 09, 2011
hmmm...only 136 comments so far. We will see if the "Fundamental question on how life started solved?" will beat this one.

My reasons for browsing at physorg:
"Quality" of articles: 30%
"Quality" of comments: 70%

BTW Ethelred, I recently browsed through an interesting book that you might want to order. Its called "Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God".

I mean I do not think you might want to read it but perhaps you would like to burn it up as a sacrifice to something or other(?)
rbrtwjohnson
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2011
Do theories play a role similar to opium for the scientists?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) May 09, 2011
Do theories play a role similar to opium for the scientists?
No they're more like food. They make you feel good and enable you to continue to work. Unlike religion which is a drug. It makes you feel good but hinders your thinking and makes you stoopid. And you need more and more stoopifaction to achieve the same effect, to the detriment of your hold on reality. Because to Religionists stoopifaction is preferable to reality. It's more pleasant.
SteveL
3 / 5 (1) May 09, 2011
I may not be a religious person, but I do have faith there are things we don't know.
And perhaps the relative weight of these events has led you to believe that they were something more than coincidence perhaps?

These events have led me to realize that there are some things that are beyond my ability to detect, control, replicate or understand. In none of these instances have I been able to find indicators before the event. All involved close family members. I just hope that I will continue to be able to hear that prompting, from whatever source if/when needed. I'm no believer of a personal God who hears, much less answers prayers. But I do think there are aspects of life that our technology, or perhaps our perspective may not be able to address - yet.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) May 09, 2011
Steve,
It is too bad so many 'scientists' reject your observations out of hand.
That is the nature of science today. 'Scientists' are reluctant to admit there are more things unknown than known.
Keeping and open mind and paying attention will enable one to see and hear many wonders.
SteveL
3 / 5 (2) May 09, 2011
The universe, and life it's self are so complex we are only beginning to understand them. We haven't the capacity to comprehend how so very little we really do know and our immature egos shield us from our ignorance. It's like that line in the movie "Men in Black" concerning what we used to know, and now know as facts. What will we think we know as fact in the distant tomorrows and how different will those facts be compared to today's facts? A little more humility and a little less ego might help use to look at things in ways we had not previously considered.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 09, 2011
A little more humility and a little less ego might help use to look at things in ways we had not previously considered.

That doesn't help those working for their PhD.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 09, 2011
the machines we create. When we ask them what they have found they will say 'What is is.'
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 09, 2011
disregard that last post. I lost a good one but I am not going to recreate it. Too bad.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 09, 2011
Well maybe I will.
The universe, and life it's self are so complex we are only beginning to understand them. We haven't the capacity to comprehend how so very little we really do know and our immature egos
-You mean the ones who tell us we are getting personal messages from guardian angels? Mature egos accept that this is just wishful thinking.

Imagine if we had guardian spirits who protected us. Would saving a loved one cause us or others greater suffering? What would other spirits do to protect their charges from the actions of your spirit? Would they go to arbitration or war?

What if there was one overarching holy spirit? He would still have to ensure that wish-granting did not impose on our futures or others. Intermittent favors would then necessarily imply complete control. Which is Nonsense.

The universe is complex but it is intelligible; if not by us then by the machines we create. See the above post.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) May 09, 2011
You mean the ones who tell us we are getting personal messages from guardian angels? Mature egos accept that this is just wishful thinking.

No, this is an example of paying attention to observations.
Something most 'scientists' today have forgotten.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2011
"Do you always read the comments first, before making a decision to read or not to read the articles afterwards?"

"Yes"

"Will you read this article?"

"No"

"How will you know if you are missing anything in Life, if you let the comments influence what you read?"

"Your question about Life can be answered. I will never know. Regardless of where influence comes from, what I read, and in what order, if at all."

"Are you always this vague?"

"If I answer 'yes', that will contradict your question."
"If I answer 'no', that is assumptious of me"

"I don't want to answer your question. An answer leaves you with assumptions or contradictions or both."

"Thanks for your answer."
"Your welcome" :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2011
You mean the ones who tell us we are getting personal messages from guardian angels? Mature egos accept that this is just wishful thinking.

No, this is an example of paying attention to observations.
Something most 'scientists' today have forgotten.
Navelgazing is not proper observation. Imaginary friends do not make good consultants. Hearing voices is not normal.

Peter Otoole in 'The Ruling Class' thought he was jesus. Somebody asked him well how did he know? He said one day he was praying and he realized he was talking to himself.

Does this equate with your similar experiences? One could say he was only a little more aware than the typical religionist-
Silver_the_Fox
1 / 5 (1) May 09, 2011
@Otto
I'm not sure you know very much about Spinoza. First off he was a philosopher, meaning that by definition he was a propagandist.


Here is the definition of a philosopher as accoding to Webster's New World Dictionary Third College Edition:
1: a person who studies or is an expert in philosophy
2: a person who lives by or expounds a system of philosopher

Now that we've had your USUAL schooling we can get back to the matter at hand, religion is not a crutch first and foremost, it is supposed to be (emphasis on supposed) something from which you yourself may respond to a problem. Jesus or God or Allah will never help you, they will help you help yourself. THAT is the purpose behind religion.
Now as to the definition of spirituality, you all are right in saying that is will vary, but the most widely accepted one is the following:
of the spirit or soul as disitiguished from the body or material matters

That's all I have to say.

Any Questions?
Silver out.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2011
Here is the definition of a philosopher as accoding to Otto's New Obvious Dictionary
Third Expanded Realworld Edition:
1: a person who studies or is an expert in philosophy
2: a person who lives by or expounds a system of philosophy for the purposes of earning a living or convincing a learned class of people they have the right to take over the world or that they can give up their belief in god and still live forever (because their brains are THAT powerful)(because they are too singularly unique to ever truly perish)
3: a person who realizes that all the many schools of philo thought have come and gone, and come again and then evaporated again, without ever getting anywhere; and yet still will expound using much esoteric word spaghetti in the hopes that bystanders will conclude that they are singularly unique enough to be worth propagating with (or an earnest simulation of such)

-Now what were you saying?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) May 09, 2011
Ah yes
Jesus or God or Allah will never help you, they will help you help yourself. THAT is the purpose behind religion
I do recognize this primitive form of word spaghetti. Let's see if we can unravel it. One of these guys (and only one- let's make sure we pick the right one) is available to help me help myself because without their help I am incapable of helping myself. So they are obviously not helping me only helping me help me. God help me that makes no sense. But then my brain is not stoopified with this rot like those zombie ants with fungal infestations.

Then too, this is only true if you believe in a deity and do not ask him for help, or if you are judging others who happen to pray to the wrong deity. Or in the wrong manner. From your own informed perspective that is.

I'm sorry I'll have to side with the millions and millions of people who live successful lives despite lacking supernatural guidance, and who think your reasoning is so much pasta.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
You mean the ones who tell us we are getting personal messages from guardian angels? Mature egos accept that this is just wishful thinking.

No, this is an example of paying attention to observations.
Something most 'scientists' today have forgotten.

No, it is an example of psychosis.

If a homeless man walked up to you today and said he was the son of God, would you believe him?

Why would you believe a homeless man you never met who died 2000 years ago?
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) May 10, 2011
Frajo said:
Thus, to call some person a liar, one has to know his intention.
Since I did not call him a liar that isn't relevant. He told a lie. And doggy does know it is a lie because he does know that Dawkins doesn't believe in gods. It has been pointed out to him before. And he is fully aware that Dawkins is an Atheist.

To claim that a person's statement is a lie implies the claim to know his intention.
No. I don't care about his intention. He told a lie. It was not merely false since he is aware that Dawkins doesn't believe in any god. People tell lies without knowing it fairly frequently. A favorite of Fundamentalists is the claim that there are no errors in the Bible. This is clearly false. Repeating someone else's lie does not change it into not being a lie simply because the teller believes it.

More
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2011
Thus, to say something denigrating "about god" does not necessarily imply to denigrate the object "god".
Dawkins doesn't do that either. He denigrates religious BELIEF. Which doggy can't stand.

For instance, I won't say Jehovah is a psycho, since he doesn't exist, except by accident. Jehovah is PORTRAYED as a psycho in Genesis. The portrayal in Genesis is not my doing. I simply point out that we would call that sort behavior in a human psychotic. To doggy that would be denigrating Jehovah despite his knowing that I don't believe in Jehovah.

And it is still bloody strange that he uses the handle 'dogbert'. A sociopathic atheist dog created by an atheist. Not that different from the situation that would exist if I was to call myself Jehovah. After all both Dogbert, the comic character, and Jehovah, as described in Genesis, are fictional.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) May 10, 2011
Its called "Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God".
Which god? Jehovah? Since the Flood didn't actually happen I don't accuse Jehovah of doing those things. There is no such god so it can't be a monster.

I think I will pass on it. Just as I pass on Dawkins book on religion. I already know he is a bit excessive about religion. I wonder what he would say if Christians and Muslims were warring over Titans vs. Olympians instead of Jehovah vs. Allah.

but perhaps you would like to burn it up as a sacrifice to something or other(?)
I once thought about burning a deck of cards, I was rather tired of losing at poker at the time. Not as a sacrifice so much as an attempt at sympathetic magic. Not that I had any expectation of success, it was just an exercises in thinking about how one would go about it if it could be done. And to blow of steam. I call that sort of behavior hatching moronic plots. I think most of us do that now an then.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) May 10, 2011
Dawkins doesn't do that either. He denigrates religious BELIEF. Which doggy can't stand.


I do not like Richard Dawkins. I can stand him and have listened to his lectures against God.

He is against God, particularly the God of Abraham and Jesus.

It is not a lie to point that out. Yes he attacks religion too, mostly the believers in the God of Abraham and of Jesus. You can hardly attack one without attacking the other.

It is not necessary to believe in God to attack him as Dawkins makes quite clear in his attacks.

It is sad that you must resort to name calling to make yourself feel better.
SteveL
not rated yet May 10, 2011
Well maybe I will.
The universe, and life it's self are so complex we are only beginning to understand them. We haven't the capacity to comprehend how so very little we really do know and our immature egos
-You mean the ones who tell us we are getting personal messages from guardian angels? Mature egos accept that this is just wishful thinking.

Imagine if we had guardian spirits who protected us. Would saving a loved one cause us or others greater suffering? What would other spirits do to protect their charges from the actions of your spirit? Would they go to arbitration or war?

What if there was one overarching holy spirit? He would still have to ensure that wish-granting did not impose on our futures or others. Intermittent favors would then necessarily imply complete control. Which is Nonsense.

The universe is complex but it is intelligible; if not by us then by the machines we create. See the above post.


I don't have answers for your questions, or my own.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) May 10, 2011
I do not like Richard Dawkins
Really. I am shocked, shocked I tell you that gambling oops wrong rant.

I can stand him and have listened to his lectures against God
He has never made such a lecture, he doesn't believe in any god. And since you know that it is a lie to keep saying it.

He is against God, particularly the God of Abraham and Jesus
False. There is no such god. I know you believe there is but neither I nor Dawkins have ever seen any reason to believe in Jehovah. You sure haven't supplied one and when I ask your for evidence you reply with insults.

It is not a lie to point that out
It's a lie. For the simple reason that there is no such god. Nothing to denigrate.

Yes he attacks religion too
That one is true. He does over do it. I think it is due to people like you lying about him. That and the way many Muslims have gone off the deep end. Just like Christians used to do in wholesale lots. Some still want to force their religion on others.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 10, 2011
mostly the believers in the God of Abraham and of Jesus
More of Abraham. It's the Fundamentalists, of both Christians and Moslems, that are scaring rational people.

You can hardly attack one without attacking the other.
I can and he can. I attack your nonsense all the time. I have NEVER attacked things that don't exist. Tilting at windmills is more rational than attacking non-existent gods.

It is not necessary to believe in God to attack him as Dawkins makes quite clear in his attacks.
False. Telling the truth about the nonexistence of a god is not an attack on the god. It is an attack on irrational beliefs. Of course, because you are completely irrational on this you cannot comprehend it. Nevertheless it is true. Truth is not limited to what irrational ignorant people can comprehend.

And if you think that is mere name calling too bad. Stop being irrational and deal with reality.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) May 10, 2011
It is sad that you must resort to name calling to make yourself feel better.
It is sad that you have to repeat the same lies to make yourself feel better. I do NOT feel better about myself due to your being irrational. That is a sad thing. I am trying to help you leave fantasy land and accept the real world.

Any time you want to discuss things in a reasonable manner I will be here to do so. You are the one that is refusing to discuss anything and respond with vitriol instead. That post was just another attempt to evade dealing with the truth by calling others names.

You started the name calling with your lies about Dawkins.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
I once thought about burning a deck of cards, I was rather tired of losing at poker at the time. Not as a sacrifice so much as an attempt at sympathetic magic.
Careful what you burn. You never know who you're gonna blaspheme.
http://www.youtub...a_player
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2011
Otto, that was appalling. The distortions of thought and diction are equally hideous. If there was still a Gehenna you should be posted there in this life as there is no other that we have evidence of.

Tu-o com-pound yo-ur punish-ment yo-u sho-uld be forc-ed tooo list-en tooou Cry-in inu thu Beeaur Di-vors So-ungs four awl eturn-ity.

Without benefit of beer of course.

Ethelred

hush1
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2011
America eats children to make a living.
Otto simply points out the menu.
frajo
3.8 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
It is sad that you must resort to name calling to make yourself feel better.
Showing one's true color is not sad. It's revealing.

I am trying to help you leave fantasy land and accept the real world.
Non-consensual help is an interesting behavior. Last time, the Holy Inquisition tried to help save the souls of poor non-believers.

Thus, to call some person a liar, one has to know his intention.
Since I did not call him a liar that isn't relevant. He told a lie.
People tell lies without knowing it fairly frequently.
Thanks for enlightening. So pupils with errors in their homeworks are not liars but were telling lies? The English language knows only ONE word ("lie") to describe a knowingly wrong statement AND a unknowingly wrong statement? Your help will be appreciated.
Thus, to say something denigrating "about god" does not necessarily imply to denigrate the object "god".
Dawkins doesn't do that either.
Doesn't do what?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2011
Otto, that was appalling. The distortions of thought and diction are equally hideous. If there was still a Gehenna you should be posted there in this life as there is no other that we have evidence of.

Tu-o com-pound yo-ur punish-ment yo-u sho-uld be forc-ed tooo list-en tooou Cry-in inu thu Beeaur Di-vors So-ungs four awl eturn-ity.

Without benefit of beer of course.

Ethelred

Well perhaps this is more relevant to your interests
http://www.youtub...=related
chaman
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2011
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty -- it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves ... Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." -- Albert Einstein
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011
Showing one's true color is not sad. It's revealing.
Yes. Dogbert likes to tell lies, to himself first. We could be chicken and call them fantasies but that is gutless by this time. I call them fantasies the first few time. Dogbert still makes the same false claims no matter how often it is pointed out that it is false.

Non-consensual help is an interesting behavior.
Its rather normal. Advice is given even when there is no expectation of the advisee taking the advice. For instance YOU are doing that.

Last time, the Holy Inquisition tried to help save the souls of poor non-believers.
Since when am I or even doggy using torture? And even if you think my posts constitute torture it is not non-consensual as you are under no obligation nor restraint.

You really do have problems in dealing with discussion that involve religion. And that remark counts as revealing. You should look into what it reveals about what annoys you.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011
You really shouldn't be getting so riled up over an online discussion. Now was that attempt to help you even remotely deserving of you bringing in the Spanish Inquisition?

http://www.youtub...jmoSMJ-o

So pupils with errors in their homeworks are not liars but were telling lies?
I made no such claim and you know it as I gave an example to avoid that sort of completely bogus remark. See above for why I suspected you would do such a thing.

The English language knows only ONE word ("lie") to describe a knowingly wrong statement AND a unknowingly wrong statement?
Of course not. But why pull punches with someone that simply refuses to deal with the truth? To consistently make the same false statement no matter how many times it is pointed out that it is false is more than fantasy or an error. I could call it duplicitous or mendacious but that eventually becomes tiresome and by this time it is gutless as they mean the same thing in this case.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2011
Doesn't do what?
You must be way past annoyed. You made the remark. I simply wrote that it was wrong as Dawkins doesn't do it. If you don't remember what you wrote try looking at what you quoted.

Thus, to say something denigrating "about god" does not necessarily imply to denigrate the object "god".
If it makes no sense to you why are you asking me what it meant? If I wrote something I couldn't heads or tales of later I wouldn't blame it on the person that pointed it out. I know wouldn't because it happens occasionally and I admit it was garbled.

If you can't handle discussions with religion in them perhaps you should avoid them. If I am a having a bad day I don't post, at least where things are difficult.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2011
Well perhaps this is more relevant to your interes
Otto, California has the death penalty. You really shouldn't come here as that was a Capitol Offense.

If you MUST have drinking songs, I suggest George Thorogood. Makes me want to take up bourbon and beer. And I can't stand the stuff.

http://www.youtub...qQst-Sg8

Man, he has big teeth. Right up there with The Mask.

And if you MUST have people named Slim I prefer Slim Pickens.

http://www.youtub..._Ygs6hm0

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011
Otto, California has the death penalty. You really shouldn't come here as that was a Capitol Offense.
Ah has diploomatical immun-uh-tee. It's interesting that a lot of southern slang comes from German. And also yodeling.
zip101
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2011
== The set of terms used to describe spirituality include "individual, personal and personally constructed." All of the respondents who used collective or individual terms attributed the collective terms to religion and the individual terms to spirituality. ==

The way that I'm reading this is that spirituality allows intuition and making your own truth.

Spirituality can readily flatter natural, human pride and promote self-merit with doctrines like: "You have the truth within".

I observe that religion is avoided by many because it may make demands like: "Repent and believe in the merits of another: Jesus Christ."
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
I observe that religious people often make religion serving remarks about the moral of people they do not know.

What merits? Why should anyone believe a book written long ago by men that got so much wrong about the Universe and the planet we live on?

And repent what? It Christians that are clogging the penal system not Atheists or Agnostics. Not believing falsehood? Sorry not going to believe in flood that never happened just because you make disingenuous remarks about people you don't know.

Give evidence. Support your claims. Explain WHY people should believe BASED ON EVIDENCE not on claims that often defy physical evidence.

Ethelred
Jim1138
1 / 5 (2) May 16, 2011
The Bible could not possibly be wrong! [/snark] Rapture in T-100 hours and counting!