Is there a spiritual dimension to atheism?

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

1 - It's the best definition that you are going to get JC2K3 unfortunately. Divine experiences are profound feelings. When I felt my first divine experience a fair few years ago, it was like something I had never felt before then. That with what you have there is all I can say to you.

I'm going to put a spin on this and bring up psychedelic drugs. A factor in my rejection of a "God" causing profound experiences is my interest in psychedelics. I've had experiences with them which were far more profound than any other "spiritual experience" I have had.

Reading up on them more I found that there were many tests run in the 60s with LSD and other psychedelics and it was found that trip reports were VERY similar to "religious experiences".(see: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/pahnke3.htm )

I think the fact that one can induce such a "spiritual experience" upon themselves artificially is strong evidence for there being nothing supernatural about such experiences. I think that if drugs can simply alter one's brain chemistry and induce an experience like this, then I see no reason why one might not be able to induce a similar experience through intense prayer or meditation, or it simply happening by chance due to the accidental ingestion of psychoactive substances.

Jakkass wrote:

2 - Out of interest I would like to know how you went about this (reading the Bible, active prayer etc)? Also to note that some paths of Christianity mightn't influence you in the same way. I am a Christian (although currently in the Anglican Church) of the mind that Christianity is through a personal interpretation of His scriptures and a generic faith to all denominations through faith in Him through the Holy Spirit (arguably with the exception of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the Jehovahs Witnesses). I believe that Christianity is largely a Pentecostal faith involving the filling of believers with faith and determination via the Spirit. Therefore without having being filled with the Holy Spirit it will be difficult to put your faith in Christianity. It requires patience. The deciples after the ascension of Jesus Christ weren't even filled with the Holy Spirit without waiting a few days.

I attended church more frequently, actually listened in church, prayed and did read the Bible a bit.

To be perfectly honest and blunt, "being filled with the holy spirit requires patience" sounds to me like "If you believe something without questioning it for a long time, you learn to accept it without thinking".

Jakkass wrote:

3 - I'd be keen on knowing what you attributed to God during your time of being a devout Catholic, and if you had experienced profound feelings as a Catholic as I have being a Christian. Also rejecting the scripture could be one of the way in which you are closing Him off to you. One of the ways in which the Lord speaks is through His book.

God was the answer to any profound, personal feeling.

And "His" book was written by men. Why the Bible and not any other religious text?

Jakkass wrote:

But I would conclude that belief in God does mean closing the doors in relation to believing in other faiths, however I would argue that it doesn't make you closed minded but even more interested in how other people view things which is the reason why I am reading books on the Hare Krishna, an the Qu'ran at the current moment in time as well. Interesting question, I give you that.

Just don't close your mind to what might seem like the cynical answer. Also, if you're going to devote time to learning about other religions then please devote some of that time to learning about scientific explanations also.

Jakkass wrote:

I see religion and faith largely as a personal quest instead of being gullible to what others have told me, even though this is what a lot of atheists associate with faith in the first place.

I would argue that you are gullible to what the authors of the Bible say. What would you make of that?

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

1 - Hold on a second, that isn't what I meant. Understanding of how to read scripture is rather different than forcing someone to accept one interpretation of it.

How does one decide how to read scripture as opposed to anything else?

2 - You are correct, but since you are being so critical of Christianity, you should know something about the scripture of what you are criticising the most.

I am actually quite fond of many aspects of Christianity.

It's what people do when they are criticising something in debate. They gain a good understanding of both sides first. You yourself have admitted that you don't have a good understanding of scripture. If I was getting into a debate on the Israel - Palestine conflict. I would read both Zionist sources and anti-Zionist sources to gain an understanding of how both sides argue and then make a judgement on the matter accordingly. It is how people debate.

"both sides" - there are far more than two sides here.
Again reverting to my list of 30 faiths that are supported by Scripture, given that I have had 13 years of Christian education, I would have to live to 30 * 13 = 390 years of age to bring things up to a level playing field.
Why should my life have such a bias to Christianity?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

That is fair enough, however you have to take these things into account before saying that some belief only appeals to those of a certain background.

I don't remember saying that ...

Jakkass wrote:

One choses a faith because it makes sense to them as a person.

As one chooses rugby instead of soccer ...

Jakkass wrote:

1 - Well when you are experiencing bad things in your life that is when you start to question whether if there was something wrong with your life generally isn't it?

Well yes, but what provided "Christianity" as a solution? Instead of, well, knitting or yoga?

You must have considered Christianity a viable solution. You didn't convert to Roman god worship, or Buddhism

Jakkass wrote:

Scientology works on the basis of seperating families, and trying to ruin people's lives.

Well Christianity works on the basis of teaching everyone that they are evil, wicked and immoral and then convincing them that they need the religion to be happy.

But to each there own

Jakkass wrote:

Even the founder said that it was a handy way of making money. So I don't see that as any comparison to the faith of Christianity.

Well that is because Christianity is 2,000 years old. Initially Christianity was a way for Jesus to basically do no work (the Bible describes various well off women supporting Jesus and his followers why they "taught" the truth). Now it is a nation on believers. And believers by definition aren't in it for the money.

The same thing is happening with Scientology. A lot of what once had to be paid for in Scientology is now free, because the number of true believers is greatly increasing. The old guard that were in it for the money are slowly being replaced by the true believers who actually thing this crap works, just like Christianity (and pretty much all religions) The Church of Scientology has non-profit status in the US, and there are off shoots that will give you free copies of most of the works of Mr. Hubbard.

How is this any different than the collection plate in church? Or a church bake sale?

coffee_cake

Wicknight wrote:

How is this any different than the collection plate in church? Or a church bake sale?

Or american tv evangelists

Fallen Seraph

bluewolf wrote:

Or american tv evangelists

Perhaps the distinction being made is that while there are certainly bad and undesirable elements of christianity, the entire premise of scientology is rotten?

coffee_cake

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Perhaps the distinction being made is that while there are certainly bad and undesirable elements of christianity, the entire premise of scientology is rotten?

Well wicknight's point was that christianity may have started off in a similar manner, and that given 2k years noone might ever know scientology was invented for money and isn't really a compassionate saviour religion too

Fallen Seraph

bluewolf wrote:

Well wicknight's point was that christianity may have started off in a similar manner, and that given 2k years noone might ever know scientology was invented for money and isn't really a compassionate saviour religion too

Ah yes, true. I stand corrected.

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

Well wicknight's point was that christianity may have started off in a similar manner, and that given 2k years noone might ever know scientology was invented for money and isn't really a compassionate saviour religion too

That is exactly my point

No one knows what the original premise of Christianity was. Like most cults I imagine it was a mixture of delusion and self advancement of its leader (the messiah complex as it were) coupled with the nativity of his followers.

But after 2000 years of believer spreading to believer Christians today think there religion is wonderful (despite all claims to the contrary by non-believers) and accept that the reason it exists is for good and the advancement of mankind

(And like most religions, the believers write the history of the religion)

A similar transformation is already well underway in Scientology, after only a few decades. I doubt there are very few people left in Scientology who are not true believers.

It is a fascinating glimpse at how religions evolve. And I would imagine Christianity and Islam went through similar changes.

philologos

rockbeer wrote:

1 - The clear critical thinker will understand that when dealing with such realms of human experience, no one can reasonably say that they are definitively right and the other is wrong, as there is no possibility of proof and no grounds for arriving at such a conclusion.

2 - And it's equally possible that you have been receiving communication from Brahma, or Allah, or the great spirit, and mistaken it for Yahweh. To the critical thinker, this very real possibility alone should be enough to cast serious doubt on the validity of their belief system.

3 -And what exactly gives you the wisdom or knowledge to be so certain that your spiritual experience is more valid or real than that of an adherent of a different religion? There is a word for that - no disrespect intended, but it sounds extremely close to arrogance.

1 - Of course, but when you are the one feeling these experiences you become pretty convinced that your faith is true. As I have with mine. Well of course there is no proof unless you have felt similar spiritual experiences to me.

2 - I did point out that it could be twisted and that you have done. There's a very small possibility I guess. But it's very unlikely to me with the faith I have in God.

3 - The Bible is all I need to have knowledge of the Supreme. It has given me conclusive answers. More than I found in my research of Islam. So I am quite content in continuing to believe so far. You haven't broken the foundations yet . Anyway, how is it more real than any other religion. Because I have got the biggest spiritual response from Christianity and it's the faith that worked for me basically. I wouldn't consider it arrogance, I would consider it believing in what has influenced my life the most. And that is God, ladies and gentlemen.

bluewolf wrote:

He's used to being called that by now

I will say what I am or what I am not used to thank you.

Wicknight wrote:

Well yes, but what provided "Christianity" as a solution? Instead of, well, knitting or yoga?

You must have considered Christianity a viable solution. You didn't convert to Roman god worship, or Buddhism

As I recall it. It was a prayer of desperation as one does from time to time when they feel all is too much for them. However this one worked out for me, that is why I have pursued Christianity to a greater level.

Wicknight wrote:

Well Christianity works on the basis of teaching everyone that they are evil, wicked and immoral and then convincing them that they need the religion to be happy.

But to each there own

For starters that isn't true at all. Christianity teaches that we are all flawed and that we all have particular problems. I think that is widely accepted even outside of Christianity. The concept that we all make mistakes. We can mend the mistakes we make by repenting to the divine being who created us. However you won't be trying that any time soon so it seems

Wicknight wrote:

How is this any different than the collection plate in church? Or a church bake sale?

Your ignorance to church fundraising amazes me. Churches don't fundraise to make a profit. Churches only fundraise or collect as a means to keep the church in existence. i.e breaking even and giving the priest / reverend something to live off.

Tim Robbins wrote:

"both sides" - there are far more than two sides here.
Again reverting to my list of 30 faiths that are supported by Scripture, given that I have had 13 years of Christian education, I would have to live to 30 * 13 = 390 years of age to bring things up to a level playing field.
Why should my life have such a bias to Christianity?

This may be true but you only debate Christianity on this forum generally. I haven't seen many discussing God in Hinduism / Sikhism / Shinto / Islam / Bah'ai etc etc etc. Therefore if you are to argue effectively against Christianity you should be acquainted with the Scriptures.

Wicknight wrote:

No one knows what the original premise of Christianity was. Like most cults I imagine it was a mixture of delusion and self advancement of its leader (the messiah complex as it were) coupled with the nativity of his followers.

Except for the way Paul the Apostle told us how it was run in the Bible in his letters to the churches and through the Acts of the Apostles.

Feel free to post some more questions.

JC 2K3

did you see my post?

Fallen Seraph

Jakkass wrote:

Except for the way Paul the Apostle told us how it was run in the Bible in his letters to the churches and through the Acts of the Apostles.

Apologies for returning to the scientology theme, but I might hazard a guess that L Ron Hubbard hasn't documented any of the illegal activies of his organisation in his literature...

What the bible says about the way the early church was run is, indeed, probably a good place to start looking if one wants to know about it; but I think it's wise not to forget the caveat that history is written by the winners...

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Your ignorance to church fundraising amazes me. Churches don't fundraise to make a profit. Churches only fundraise or collect as a means to keep the church in existence. i.e breaking even and giving the priest / reverend something to live off.

For those who regard the priest as not contributing anything to the world, the priest's salary is the profit. You mean, I think, that the priest's motives are not venal, and the Scientologist's are?

Jakkass wrote:

This may be true but you only debate Christianity on this forum generally. I haven't seen many discussing God in Hinduism / Sikhism / Shinto / Islam / Bah'ai etc etc etc. Therefore if you are to argue effectively against Christianity you should be acquainted with the Scriptures.

First read the Bible aged c.8-9 years old. Reread it umpteen times since then - although some of that was Gideon versions.

Jakkass wrote:

Feel free to post some more questions.

I don't think you ever answer mine.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

This may be true but you only debate Christianity on this forum generally. I haven't seen many discussing God in Hinduism / Sikhism / Shinto / Islam / Bah'ai etc etc etc. Therefore

What type of hair brained inference is that:

Premise:
you only debate Christianity on this forum generally. I haven't seen many discussing God in Hinduism / Sikhism / Shinto / Islam / Bah'ai etc etc etc

Conclusion:
if you are to argue effectively against Christianity you should be acquainted with the Scriptures.

Point 1: I am aquainted with Christian scriptures, I just wouldn't know them as in depth as someone who has studied theology.

Point 2: Before you argue Scientology, like you do on many threads JAckass, you should read Dianetics.

Point 3: Reading Christian scripture alone is not enough, as it ignores the fact there are at least 30 other faiths with their own scripture.

Point 4: Before you argue anything you should be aquainted with logic.
Arguments derived from Scripture become circular very quickly.

Q. How do I know there is a God?
A. Because the scripture says it
Q. How do I know the scripture is correct?
A. Because it is the word of God?
Q. But, how do I know there is a God?
A. Because the scripture says it
Q. How do I know the scripture is correct?
A. Because it is the word of God?
Q. But, how do I know there is a God?
A. Because the scripture says it
Q. How do I know the scripture is correct?
A. Because it is the word of God?
Q. But, how do I know there is a God?
A. Because the scripture says it
Q. How do I know the scripture is correct?
A. Because it is the word of God?
Q. But, how do I know there is a God?
etc.

rockbeer

Jakkass wrote:

Of course, but when you are the one feeling these experiences you become pretty convinced that your faith is true.

Precisely. Exactly as a Hindu experiencing Vishnu or a Muslim experiencing Allah becomes convinced that their faiths are true.

Jakkass wrote:

I did point out that it could be twisted and that you have done.

Well, what did you expect?

Jakkass wrote:

There's a very small possibility I guess. But it's very unlikely to me with the faith I have in God.

Is that another example of what you call critical thinking? I'm fascinated by how you derive this probability. Is it mathematical or based on your hunch? It seems from the outside that there's a very high probability that you're wrong given the entirety of human history, the vast variety of faiths, their common fallacies and the lack of objective evidence. In reality there is the exact same probability of you being wrong as the ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans, Muslims, Hindus and [insert other religion here].

Jakkass wrote:

As I recall it. It was a prayer of desperation as one does from time to time when they feel all is too much for them. However this one worked out for me, that is why I have pursued Christianity to a greater level.

Interesting... objectively, I would suggest, if you had grown up in a Muslim tradition and had prayed to Allah with the same degree of fervour and desperation, there is every likelihood that you would also have been answered. It's much more likely that it was your need for something to believe in that prompted the response, rather than your choice of deity.

Jakkass wrote:

For starters that isn't true at all. Christianity teaches that we are all flawed and that we all have particular problems.

Christianity specifically teaches that a whole range of perfectly normal social activities are sinful and will be punished with eternal damnation. Let's not lose sight of that fact.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote:

I'm going to put a spin on this and bring up psychedelic drugs. A factor in my rejection of a "God" causing profound experiences is my interest in psychedelics. I've had experiences with them which were far more profound than any other "spiritual experience" I have had.

Reading up on them more I found that there were many tests run in the 60s with LSD and other psychedelics and it was found that trip reports were VERY similar to "religious experiences".(see: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/pahnke3.htm )

I think the fact that one can induce such a "spiritual experience" upon themselves artificially is strong evidence for there being nothing supernatural about such experiences. I think that if drugs can simply alter one's brain chemistry and induce an experience like this, then I see no reason why one might not be able to induce a similar experience through intense prayer or meditation, or it simply happening by chance due to the accidental ingestion of psychoactive substances.

Are you suggesting that I believe in God because my judgement is impaired? If so thats purely rediculous and to be honest with you it doesn't deserve an answer. I find it insulting that you compare God to drugs.

JC 2K3 wrote:

I attended church more frequently, actually listened in church, prayed and did read the Bible a bit.

To be perfectly honest and blunt, "being filled with the holy spirit requires patience" sounds to me like "If you believe something without questioning it for a long time, you learn to accept it without thinking".

You can view it as whatever you want. The Parable of the Sower discusses how Christians will need to put in the effort to establish a deep faith if they want one.

JC 2K3 wrote:

And "His" book was written by men. Why the Bible and not any other religious text?

Depends on which books you are talking about. Many believe the Torah was the Law and the Word of God as taken down by Moses. However the rest would be considered to be books that are inspired by the glory of God and there is dialogue between God and people throughout.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Just don't close your mind to what might seem like the cynical answer. Also, if you're going to devote time to learning about other religions then please devote some of that time to learning about scientific explanations also.

I've looked at some briefly but to be brutally honest with you science doesn't interest me much at all, not half as much as theology or politics.

JC 2K3 wrote:

I would argue that you are gullible to what the authors of the Bible say. What would you make of that?

I wouldn't make much of it as through my experience with God through prayer and discovery of the Bible. I'm confident that it's true. That's what is required to believe in God. I don't care personally if you think that is gullible, as I believe I've found the correct path.

I'll be around to answer the rest later.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote:

Are you suggesting that I believe in God because my judgement is impaired? If so thats purely rediculous and to be honest with you it doesn't deserve an answer. I find it insulting that you compare God to drugs.

More critical thinking? Did you read the link?

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

I've looked at some briefly but to be brutally honest with you science doesn't interest me much at all, not half as much as theology or politics.

Which is fine, of course, as long as you apply the same rule as for 'reading Scripture'. 'Common sense' is not an adequate guide to science either.

Jakkass wrote:

I find it insulting that you compare God to drugs.

Fortunately, then, he doesn't. He compares 'spiritual experiences' with drug experiences - finding the latter more intense and 'real'. He is therefore led to question the reality of spiritual experiences. No analogy between drugs and God is made.

It's probably not worth saying, but taking insult where none is intended is rather a sign of impaired judgement

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

Are you suggesting that I believe in God because my judgement is impaired? If so thats purely rediculous and to be honest with you it doesn't deserve an answer. I find it insulting that you compare God to drugs.

I'm not suggesting your judgement is necessarily "impaired". My point was that it is possible to induce deep "spiritual" experiences through the use of certain drugs, and in fact, that these substances expose that all that is "real" is simply what we interpret due to the balance of chemicals our brain.(although most of the time, I interpret everyone else interpreting the world the same as I do, which would be my basis for saying something's real)

Therefore, it is perfectly plausible for me to suggest that any experience that one might call "spiritual" could be explained by one, for whatever reason, perhaps through meditation, breathing excercises or deep faith in something, having a temporary abnormal balance of chemicals in the brain.

Saying, "I find it insulting that you compare God to drugs.", is dodging the question. Drugs that alter the mind and provoke experiences mimicing powerful religious/spiritual experiences exist and you can't deny that.

I'm not saying your decision to believe in God is due to impaired judgement, I'm asking why you believe so strongly that your spiritual experiences have been of supernatural origin when it is possible to artificially induce such an experience by ingesting certain chemicals.


(There were other things you said I could have responded to, however, this one was the only one that I felt was on topic, ie. pertaining to spiritual experience. We shouldn't let this debate expand much farther than the nature of spiritual experiences.)

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote:

I'm not suggesting your judgement is necessarily "impaired". My point was that it is possible to induce deep "spiritual" experiences through the use of certain drugs, and in fact, that these substances expose that all that is "real" is simply what we interpret due to the balance of chemicals our brain.(although most of the time, I interpret everyone else interpreting the world the same as I do, which would be my basis for saying something's real)

Therefore, it is perfectly plausible for me to suggest that any experience that one might call "spiritual" could be explained by one, for whatever reason, perhaps through meditation, breathing excercises or deep faith in something, having a temporary abnormal balance of chemicals in the brain.

I don't think having faith is abnormal when one takes the population figures into account. Maybe, just maybe atheists could have an abnormal balance of chemicals in the brain.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Saying, "I find it insulting that you compare God to drugs.", is dodging the question. Drugs that alter the mind and provoke experiences mimicing powerful religious/spiritual experiences exist and you can't deny that.

No it's perfectly acceptable to say that. God is nothing like anything on this world. He is unique in my opinion. So I find it insulting, and I'm open to that viewpoint.

JC 2K3 wrote:

I'm not saying your decision to believe in God is due to impaired judgement, I'm asking why you believe so strongly that your spiritual experiences have been of supernatural origin when it is possible to artificially induce such an experience by ingesting certain chemicals.

Because they are unique to anything I have ever experienced before in my life. I don't need to explain it to you or to anyone on this forum. Why are atheists not affected by this again? Are you immune to these chemicals, assuming they are prevalent in our society. Or do you think that Christians drink Domestos at church

JC 2K3 wrote:

(There were other things you said I could have responded to, however, this one was the only one that I felt was on topic, ie. pertaining to spiritual experience. We shouldn't let this debate expand much farther than the nature of spiritual experiences.)

I don't feel that my last post went off topic at all.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

I don't think having faith is abnormal when one takes the population figures into account. Maybe, just maybe atheists could have an abnormal balance of chemicals in the brain.

Note the word "temporary" before "abnormal" in my last post.

We're talking about "spiritual" experiences, temporary changes in one's perception, not the relative usual distribution of chemicals in Atheist and Christian brains. When I said "abnormal" I meant deviating from the balance of chemicals in the sober human brain. I didn't mean that Christians had a different balance of chemicals to atheists.

In any case, a good 10-15% of the world's population don't have any religion, which is quite a substantial number. Adding to that the amount of people who are "religious by default" or are "non practicing believers" would increase that number significantly. And hell, most of the world used think the world was flat. The argument that so many people believe in God and therefore there must be one holds no water.

Jakkass wrote:

No it's perfectly acceptable to say that. God is nothing like anything on this world. He is unique in my opinion. So I find it insulting, and I'm open to that viewpoint.

Which viewpoint are you open to? The viewpoint that drugs can mimic religious experiences or your own viewpoint?

Read the link in my first post on the subject.

There are also those who believe drugs are a tool to become closer to God, by the way.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment and
http://www.csp.org/practices/entheogens/docs/young-good_friday.html

Jakkass wrote:

Because they are unique to anything I have ever experienced before in my life. I don't need to explain it to you or to anyone on this forum. Why are atheists not affected by this again? Are you immune to these chemicals, assuming they are prevalent in our society. Or do you think that Christians drink Domestos at church

What the hell are you talking about???

Firstly, since when is domestos a drug? wtf?

And secondly, you're missing my point. My point was basically that "spiritual" experiences can be artificially induced. Does this not indicate that your experiences may not have been supernatural, no matter how "profound" they might have felt?

And btw, atheists are affected by this, they simply reject that it has anything to do with a supernatural entity.

Jakkass wrote:

I don't feel that my last post went off topic at all.

It wasn't your fault, but I felt we were moving in the direction of debating the validity of holy scripture rather than the nature of spiritual experiences.


Jakkass, I must ask, what were you looking for when you made this thread? Presuming there is no argument that can be made that will sway your interpretation/opinion of "spirituality", I think I can offer this explanation to you, in terms of your belief:

"Athiests are contacted by Yahweh as much as Christians are, they just dismiss Him as a natural, although profound, feeling/emotion."

philologos

No what I was looking for is to see if Atheists felt a certain feeling or an inspiration that drove them to be better people. The answer I got is no. Then I was subsequently questioned on how I view spirituality as a Christian. I have got my answer from you at this stage, and no I didn't expect you to say that atheists are contacted by Yahweh. I'm not trying to force anyone to accept anything like that, it's a very big step accepting Him into your life.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

No what I was looking for is to see if Atheists felt a certain feeling or an inspiration that drove them to be better people. The answer I got is no. Then I was subsequently questioned on how I view spirituality as a Christian. I have got my answer from you at this stage, and no I didn't expect you to say that atheists are contacted by Yahweh. I'm not trying to force anyone to accept anything like that, it's a very big step accepting Him into your life.

I would feel a desire to be a better person. Although my definition of "a better person" might be different to your's. Boy, this is a stupid thread. I'm off.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

I would feel a desire to be a better person. Although my definition of "a better person" might be different to your's. Boy, this is a stupid thread. I'm off.

It's a very valid question. I don't see you starting threads with much substance in the Christianity forum either.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote:

Firstly, since when is domestos a drug? wtf?

Well it certainly affects ones judgement and has a lot of chemicals in it. Read Paul McGrath's autobiography - Back from the Brink it deals very nicely with his Domestos abuse actually

JC 2K3

Paul McGrath once drank a pint of Domestos, ie. bleach, in a suicide attempt....

How you equate a poisonous and highly corrosive household cleaning product, which was used in this case as part of a suicide attempt and not for a high or an alteration of the mind, with psychedelic drugs I don't know.....

Jakkass wrote:

No what I was looking for is to see if Atheists felt a certain feeling or an inspiration that drove them to be better people. The answer I got is no. Then I was subsequently questioned on how I view spirituality as a Christian. I have got my answer from you at this stage, and no I didn't expect you to say that atheists are contacted by Yahweh. I'm not trying to force anyone to accept anything like that, it's a very big step accepting Him into your life.

From what I'm reading it seems that we Atheists are indeed driven to be better people, we just don't view it as a supernatural motivation.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

No what I was looking for is to see if Atheists felt a certain feeling or an inspiration that drove them to be better people. The answer I got is no.

Hmm. You asked if there was a 'spiritual' side to atheism, or whether we had some 'spiritual' feeling - some feeling of 'something greater' or 'connection' that impelled us to become better people. The answer to that question was 'no', at least in the terms you understand.

It was hardly ever likely that atheists were going to say "yes, we have spiritual experiences that make us strive to be better people", but that doesn't tell one anything about whether we do strive to be better people, or why we do so, if we do.

If you think the answer to the first question gives an answer to the second, then we are talking at cross-purposes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Fair enough, are there any agnostics here who have felt a spiritual dimension in their lives so?

JC 2K3

See Jakkass, the problem is that if one does not believe in the supernatural, one does not believe in the supernatural. You can't not believe in the supernatural and "feel a spiritual presence in your life".

And AFAIK, one can be an Atheist and believe in a spiritual dimension, just not a God(Though it's rare that you hear of that). Being Agnostic would presumably mean being uncertain of the supernatural, and therefore unlikely to proclaim that they have felt a spiritual dimension in their lives.

@Scofflaw
Would you agree though, that we all do have our moments of deep thought, reflection and epiphanies that theists might interpret as being spiritual and supernatural rather than natural emotion?

Scofflaw

JC 2K3 wrote:

@Scofflaw
Would you agree though, that we all do have our moments of deep thought, reflection and epiphanies that theists might interpret as being spiritual and supernatural rather than natural emotion?

I would certainly agree with that. There are undoubtedly moments of 'connectedness' with the world for the atheist which a theist would probably consider religious in nature. A lot of mine are rather 'religioous' in tone, as well.

For example, I find funerals very 'spiritually refreshing' - that is, they make me feel refreshed and reconnected - because death and change are universal truths. Only what has never lived will never die, and only what has never been is unchanging. You die only because you lived.

The realisation of other people's reality is also very interesting - quite well summed up in the phrase 'to understand is to forgive'.

Not for everyone, I suppose, but I also get a kick out of the ultimate 'meaninglessness' of life - a powerful remedy for most negative emotions, as Buddhists will tell you. A good think about the complete pointlessness of life makes me feel a lot better after an unpleasant experience.

The universal brevity,and pointlessness, of human existence, to me, are a powerful argument for concentrating on what are normally considered the 'spiritual aspects' of life - joy, compassion, awareness, and so on. You can concentrate on the material, but past the point where you're no longer starving or sick, you're better off concentrating on being happy, and doing something you want. As for envy - what's the point? In a hundred years you'll both be dead.

All of these things, I think, give the atheist plenty of scope for 'spiritual experiences' - although rather more like 'enlightenment' than 'talking to God'.

By the way, I don't know whether Christians really ever follow Christ's call to "give up everything and follow", but certainly an awful lot of atheists seem to be willing give up everything to follow their hearts rather than their 'best interests' or whatever is socially acceptable - perhaps by better recognising the pointlessness of mere existence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

However this one worked out for me, that is why I have pursued Christianity to a greater level.

Again with the John Travolta effect.

What makes you think it was the prayer that actually did anything?

Jakkass wrote:

For starters that isn't true at all. Christianity teaches that we are all flawed and that we all have particular problems.

No, Christianity teaches that all humans inherited "sin" from Adam.

From Wikipedia -

Wickedness refers to human sin, describing not just the "wicked" aspect of the "wicked" act, but to describe the state of being wicked; man's own deliberate choice of doing evil over doing good.

While "sin" refers to the conceptual power by which man succumbs to do evil, "wickedness" is the distinctly human personification of human sin.

Because humans do sin and more importantly want to sin by their nature, they are wicked.

They (us) therefore need to be "saved" from this fundamental nature through the religion

Jakkass wrote:

The concept that we all make mistakes.

Why would you seek forgiveness from a deity for your "mistakes"? Surely you would seek forgiveness from the people in this world that you actually hurt or upset with these mistakes? Any other forgiveness is largely pointless.

But then again that goes against the point of the religion. Part of the religion is to convince someone that the religion, and only the religion, can "save" them. Notice it isn't even taht you must seek forgiveness from God and the people you hurt with your wickedness. The other people are irrelevant. You must seek God's forgiveness. Which is why you can murder people and seek forgiveness on your death bed.

The way the religion sets this up is the concept of sin. Yes you murdered people, but you murdered people because of your sinful nature. Ultimately you must apologise to God for your sinful nature because sin was against him. The people you murdered are largely irrelevant to this.

This is attractive to people, because it might be hard or impossible to actually attempt to apologise for the things you have done, but you can do that to "God" any time you want.

Its why people go confess their sins to a priest, rather than simply fixing what they have done. Guilt, guilt of sin, is a very fundamental aspect of Christianity.

Jakkass wrote:

Churches don't fundraise to make a profit.

Neither do Scientologists. They are a non-profit organisation, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed "religion" classification in the US

Its very easy to not make a profit, you just spend all your money on assets.

Do you have any idea how much the land the various Christian Churches own around the world. Massive churches don't grow on trees Jakkass.

Jakkass wrote:

Churches only fundraise or collect as a means to keep the church in existence.

I know. That is the point. The point is to make money to keep the church going. That is the point of everything in any religion, the self-propagation of the religion.

Jakkass wrote:

Except for the way Paul the Apostle told us how it was run in the Bible in his letters to the churches and through the Acts of the Apostles.

Paul wasn't there. He has no idea how the church was run. Assuming he was a true believer not someone manipulating the religion for his own reasons (as some suggest) he knows how people told him it was run.

Would you believe Tom Cruise if he told you about how the Church of Scientology was run or what L. Ron Hubbard was like?

Feel free to post some more questions.[/QUOTE]