More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual

To claim one is spiritual while claiming one is not religious is to say you believe but don't participate in an organized group.

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.

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

Spirituality refers to the non-physical, non-material soul or spirit.

Perhaps someone ought to define the word "spiritual" before we start arguing over it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well it is obvious you don't. You don't care to explore any viewpoint other than your own.

religion requires buying into an absolute "absence of empirical evidence."

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.

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,)"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Spirituality refers to the non-physical, non-material soul or spirit.

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

because not all concepts of non-physical phenomena fall within the domain of an organized religion.

but also specific stories and rules for human behavior.

To claim that the other party exclusively consists of evil guys is evil.

... 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!

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

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.

It is really the result of the hard-wired connections of our thinking that produces the 'spiritually induced sense', the phenomenon of experience.

Atheism is faith in the no-God axiom.

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.

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.

If there was ever nothing, there will always be nothing without an all-powerful being.

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.

Study funded by a Templeton Foundation grant?

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.

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.

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..

Now, the christian church, with which I am familiar, became the refuge of sexual predators and abusers of all kind

There are bad people in every endeavor.

The objective of the endeavor is important.

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.

Atheism is the lack of or the rejection of believing in a deity.

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.

It isn't a video of someone else's views on spirituality, it is a display of spirituality without religion.

Sounds like the beginning of a belief system, a religion.

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.

There are bad people in every endeavor

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

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.

When analyzing data, a person needs to be objective.

Religions attract 'bad' people.

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.

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.

There's nothing wrong with a scientist being spiritual

That is because religion is just another form of capitalism.

...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.

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

Einstein didn't believe in god.

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,)"

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

I am deeply spiritual, in that I consult the god of my understanding all the time to help me decide right from wrong

I believe almost all religion is a complete fraud however.

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.)

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.

I could come up with Al quotes all day that demonstrate he DID think that there was some sort of a God

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.

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.

Richard Dawkins is incapable of saying "Good Morning" without saying something denigrating about God.

But I will point out fallacies in your arguments.

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.

Spirituality is an attitude of assessing immaterial and non-measurable terms with a certain value.

No, you don't "have to have". Some people just sense "they have".

Do you feel better now that you have had your morning name calling session?

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.

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.

I may not be a religious person, but I do have faith there are things we don't know.

Do theories play a role similar to opium for the scientists?

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?

A little more humility and a little less ego might help use to look at things in ways we had not previously considered.

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.

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.

I'm not sure you know very much about Spinoza. First off he was a philosopher, meaning that by definition he was a propagandist.

Jesus or God or Allah will never help you, they will help you help yourself. THAT is the purpose behind religion

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.

Thus, to call some person a liar, one has to know his intention.

To claim that a person's statement is a lie implies the claim to know his intention.

Thus, to say something denigrating "about god" does not necessarily imply to denigrate the object "god".

Its called "Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God".

but perhaps you would like to burn it up as a sacrifice to something or other(?)

Dawkins doesn't do that either. He denigrates religious BELIEF. Which doggy can't stand.

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 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.

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.

It is sad that you must resort to name calling to make yourself feel better.

I am trying to help you leave fantasy land and accept the real world.

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.

Thus, to say something denigrating "about god" does not necessarily imply to denigrate the object "god".

Dawkins doesn't do that either.

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

Showing one's true color is not sad. It's revealing.

Non-consensual help is an interesting behavior.

Last time, the Holy Inquisition tried to help save the souls of poor non-believers.

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?

Doesn't do what?

Thus, to say something denigrating "about god" does not necessarily imply to denigrate the object "god".

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.