Can Atheists & Agnostics be objective about spirituality

[Bro Dave]

Atheists & Agnostics seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything spiritual. Most,(but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not physically measureable. Are they suffering an over reaction to having commited to an idealogy that later embarassed them, leaving them incapable of objectivity in the arena of spirituality?

Bro Dave

(I just realized I accidently put this in the wrong area... I think it belongs under philosophy, if so feel free to move it)

[McCulloch]

Atheists & Agnostics seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything spiritual. Most, (but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not physically measureable. Are they suffering an over reaction to having commited to an idealogy that later embarassed them, leaving them incapable of objectivity in the arena of spirituality?

Bro Dave

Bro Dave, do you have any evidence to back up your claims? You have accused Atheists and Agnostics of not being capable of being objective in the arena of spirituality. I have two major difficulties with this accusation:

1. definition -- how does one objectively determine whether someone is being objective in the arena of spirituality. Furthermore, how does one determine whether someone is incapable of being objective in this arena? Please provide your criteria.
2. scope -- you have tarred most but not all Atheists and Agnostics with this incapablility. How did you determine this? Was a survey done? Was the sample representative? Was there any bias in the survey? What were the results and what was the margin of error?

One of the rules of debate is that you must provide evidence of your claim. I, for one, am quite interested in the evidence that you, with your higher spiritual wisdom, must provide.

[Cathar1950]

Bro Dave wrote:

Most,(but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not physically measureable

Personally It gives me the willies and makes the hair on my neck stand up.
But I think of my self as a non-dualist even if there are dualistic phenomena in nature such as the wave/particle spin/location behavior of sub-atomic physics.
but ultimately I have to concur with

QED:

Once it is measured, it passes into the realm of the natural

But all measurements are aproximentations.(is that even a word?)

Dilettante wrote:

This is very true. Am I the only one who finds this strange? If one is going to challenge science, why stop at evolution and biology? Why not challenge chemical periodicity, electromagnetism, gravitational theory (after all, it's "just a theory"), relativity, and countless other scientific "paradigms

This is not strange many pseudo-sciences and New Agers have the same attitude. almost anti-science.
This maybe more of a product of our times science is used by corporations to make money, corporations have the rights of persons yet lack acountablity except when it comes to making money.
Many feel disenfranchised by modern life and the science that has come with it.

dangerdan wrote:

I have many fond memories of going to church. I loved the social element, I loved playing bass in the band, I loved the sense of community, I loved the feeling that I was trying to improve myself and be a better person. However, as I started to think about themes in the bible and how they seemed inconsistent, I felt the apologetic arguments where unconvincing. And after much thinking and reading both sides of the fence I found my belief systems had become basically atheistic. So for me it was about being honest

I share some of the same sentiments, but my family reunions are interesting.
We all love each other dearly, I pray for them they pray for me.
Only my prayers are not as worrisome.

QED wrote:

I believe it is a philosophical question because the issue is one of personal world view and how it came about. You can't get much more philosophical than that.

I think we might want to add psychology in there also. The philosophical kind. Like Freud was doing only not Mechanistic or used by the West to control behavior.
I prefer Jung and Fromm.
I am not sure that atheist are any more reluctant to consider the unmeasurable then anyone else. Although I am not an atheist by definition, they would tend to weigh experience over revelation, something we have in common. This doesn't rule out that which is beyond the 5 senses(6 if you want to count sex) such as insight and intuition.
These forum are like going home for Christmas only not every one disagrees with me here. Almost brings a tear, Thanks folks.
I am being sincere I just don't sound like it from here.

[Bro Dave]

From the posts so far, I’m getting a strong impression that those who where Christians, and finally just could not cope with the inconsistencies and other Bible based difficulties, were indeed rejecting dogma, not spirituality.
But it is so easy to toss out spirituality as being solely a Christian concept; It is not. There is no reason to give up on spirituality, just because you find Christian dogma wanting. The Universe is a friendly place, and we all have been invited to participate. We are invited to go adventuring with God, learning as we go.
Now, maybe being just a chunk of meat, that stumbled into existence, and will rot away with out a trace is more logical and more appealing to some, but not to me.
Anyone who has ever reached out to God, has felt Him reach back. Yes, some decide also to obliterate those moments along with the dogma. That is too bad, because those moments when we are close to God give life it meaning and direction. And besides, even those who believe they have discarded God, will find He is still right there, “closer than your breath”, should they choose once again to look.
All, of course IMHO,

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

Atheists & Agnostics seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything spiritual. Most, (but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not physically measureable. Are they suffering an over reaction to having commited to an idealogy that later embarassed them, leaving them incapable of objectivity in the arena of spirituality?

Bro Dave

Bro Dave, do you have any evidence to back up your claims? You have accused Atheists and Agnostics of not being capable of being objective in the arena of spirituality. I have two major difficulties with this accusation:

1. definition -- how does one objectively determine whether someone is being objective in the arena of spirituality.

Good question! It is of course, done by each individual. Mine is only a personal observation, not an accusation per se.

Furthermore, how does one determine whether someone is incapable of being objective in this arena? Please provide your criteria. [*]scope -- you have tarred most but not all Atheists and Agnostics with this incapablility. How did you determine this? Was a survey done? Was the sample representative? Was there any bias in the survey? What were the results and what was the margin of error? [/list]One of the rules of debate is that you must provide evidence of your claim. I, for one, am quite interested in the evidence that you, with your higher spiritual wisdom, must provide.

Again, this is my personal philosophical evaluation of what I personally have observed. I wanted to see the reactions of Atheists and Agnostics to the question of whether or not they were embarrassed by a previous Christian conviction. I myself have experienced such a reaction. I remember vividly, defending my fundamentalist beliefs in a bar at one point, and it still brings color to my cheeks! Obviously not everyone is incapable of being objective, because I for one, managed to overcome that embarrassment.
As for my “higher spiritual wisdom”, I make no such claim. This is only a friendly investigation of beliefs and disbeliefs, and the limits we impose on them.

Bro Dave

[QED]

The Universe is a friendly place, and we all have been invited to participate.

You wouldn't say that outside the microscopic bubble that keeps you alive! Even more than 95% of your own Planets habitable zones are off-limits to you. But we can undoubtedly improve on this situation with our technology.

Now, maybe being just a chunk of meat, that stumbled into existence, and will rot away with out a trace is more logical and more appealing to some, but not to me.

If this isn't 7.flame-bait I don't know what is. Deconstructing your statement I would grudgingly accept the assessment of us as being a chunk of meat. Although obviously intended to strip us of everything but our raw ingredients it's a fair comparison for many purposes. Hence I would also agree that it is reasonable to say that it will rot away without a trace in almost every instance. This much is logic.

But then you raise the issue that this would be appealing to some people. Naturally there are always going to be a handful of nihilistic death cultists who revel in such matters but I can't recall us discussing such types here. So I can only conclude that you have aimed this offensive remark at ordinary people like me who understand that, apart form our legacy to history, our mortal form is all there is of us. Setting aside the extremely strong compulsion to remain extant, it is safe to say that there is no measurable evidence for any continuation beyond death, nor for any mechanism or motive other than hope.

What you've come out with is a favorite poke at the unbelievers and I've heard much the same from numerous other believers. But you must know that it's a very cheap shot. So what's the motivation? It's perfectly obvious: the reality of rotting is undeniable. Anyone who applies the same amount of critical thinking to death as to any other physical matter comes up with an answer that offends our inner desires to remain extant.

So it seems that people such as yourself have to make an exception using the excuse that we're living creatures with fancy things like consciousness so that instead of viewing our passing in the same way as you do with all other physical things (like broken TV's and rusty cars) you imagine there to be some magical event that liberates us from our elapsed state and transports us into another realm where we can continue our existence.

In the total absence of any evidence for this, faith is all that's on offer if it's to be believed that death isn't as bad as it seems at face value. No wonder then that it's so important for some to defend this faith.

[McCulloch]

Now, maybe being just a chunk of meat, that stumbled into existence, and will rot away with out a trace is more logical and more appealing to some, but not to me.

Bro Dave,
You spoke of the need to be objective regarding sprirituality yet you seem to set a value on a particular world view based upon its appeal. If you would be objective about spirituality, something you have stated that most atheists and agnostics cannot be, then you would reach the same conclusion that the atheists and agnostics have; there is no objective evidence of spirituality.

[McCulloch]

Atheists & Agnostics seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything spiritual. Most, (but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not physically measureable. Are they suffering an over reaction to having commited to an idealogy that later embarassed them, leaving them incapable of objectivity in the arena of spirituality?

Bro Dave,
You have me curious. You speak of objectivity with regard to spirituality. Yet everything that I have read in your various posts, is entirely subjective with regard to spirituality. What is it that you mean when you speak of being objective about spirituality? I cannot, at this point, understand what you mean.

[Cathar1950]

I would like to know what you mean by spirituality. It might even require what you mean by objective. I see no reason why Atheists and Agnostics would not be every bit as spiritual or as objective as any one else. I would not think anyone in their right mind would think of themselves or anyone else as

being just a chunk of meat, that stumbled into existence, and will rot away with out a trace

. I sure do not see that in the eyes and smiles of my children or anyone elses. I read this book call women with out superstition or something like that I admired the depth, honesty, compassion, and vision these people had of humanity. They were every bit as spiritual and objective as anyone I have known in religous circles. They all made King David look like the shallow evil person that he was. If there is a God then we all live in a spiritual dimension like a fish lives in water. If there is none it is the same.

QED wrote:

it is safe to say that there is no measurable evidence for any continuation beyond death, nor for any mechanism or motive other than hope.

I would like to add hope is not the sole domain of the religious or spiritual.
Honesty is not the domain of the religious and spiritual. Fear and doubt maybe the domain of the religious as well as intolerence.

[Bro Dave]

The Universe is a friendly place, and we all have been invited to participate.

You wouldn't say that outside the microscopic bubble that keeps you alive! Even more than 95% of your own Planets habitable zones are off-limits to you. But we can undoubtedly improve on this situation with our technology.

I am talking about “other-than” physical existences. I realize what I am saying is, forgive the expression, “alien”. However, I have been persuaded of the presents of intellects that do indeed administer it all, and it is they to whom I am referring as “friendly”.

Now, maybe being just a chunk of meat, that stumbled into existence, and will rot away with out a trace is more logical and more appealing to some, but not to me.

If this isn't 7.flame-bait I don't know what is. Deconstructing your statement I would grudgingly accept the assessment of us as being a chunk of meat. Although obviously intended to strip us of everything but our raw ingredients it's a fair comparison for many purposes. Hence I would also agree that it is reasonable to say that it will rot away without a trace in almost every instance. This much is logic.

Okay, I probably got a little overly graphic… I apologize. I was trying to make the point that we so obviously are more that just this vehicle.

But then you raise the issue that this would be appealing to some people. Naturally there are always going to be a handful of nihilistic death cultists who revel in such matters but I can't recall us discussing such types here. So I can only conclude that you have aimed this offensive remark at ordinary people like me who understand that, apart form our legacy to history, our mortal form is all there is of us. Setting aside the extremely strong compulsion to remain extant, it is safe to say that there is no measurable evidence for any continuation beyond death, nor for any mechanism or motive other than hope.

Well, at the risk of entering the category of a total “Flake”, I disagree. Many make claims of some sort of extra physical contacts. Are they proofs? Only for the one who experiences them. I can refer you to literally thousands of conversations between our unseen administrators,(teachers if you will). The only “proof” is in evaluating what is said, and the motives behind what is said. Still, totally subjective unless you personally receive the message.

What you've come out with is a favorite poke at the unbelievers and I've heard much the same from numerous other believers. But you must know that it's a very cheap shot. So what's the motivation? It's perfectly obvious: the reality of rotting is undeniable.

Again, I apologize for the graphics. But the reason it is an uncomfortable description, I suspect, is because one senses instinctively that it is untrue!

Anyone who applies the same amount of critical thinking to death as to any other physical matter comes up with an answer that offends our inner desires to remain extant.

So it seems that people such as yourself have to make an exception using the excuse that we're living creatures with fancy things like consciousness so that instead of viewing our passing in the same way as you do with all other physical things (like broken TV's and rusty cars) you imagine there to be some magical event that liberates us from our elapsed state and transports us into another realm where we can continue our existence.

The exclusion of the possibility of us being more that simply a physical body, may seem lofty and even scientific. However, one must close ones eyes to literally mountains of documented claims made by humans of experiencing beyond those bodies.

In the total absence of any evidence for this, faith is all that's on offer if it's to be believed that death isn't as bad as it seems at face value. No wonder then that it's so important for some to defend this faith.

The history of science and scientists is filled with folks who, in the name of the science of their time, denied what later was proven to be true. I suggest a look back will bring a blush to the cheeks of many as to what is and what is not “real”.

All IMHO…

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

Now, maybe being just a chunk of meat, that stumbled into existence, and will rot away with out a trace is more logical and more appealing to some, but not to me.

Bro Dave,
You spoke of the need to be objective regarding sprirituality yet you seem to set a value on a particular world view based upon its appeal. If you would be objective about spirituality, something you have stated that most atheists and agnostics cannot be, then you would reach the same conclusion that the atheists and agnostics have; there is no objective evidence of spirituality.

You are of course, correct. At least for all those who already “know” that all things not physical simply cannot exist.
Ultimately, there is only one place we can satisfy the truth of anything and that is “within”. In the final analysis of nothing external has any absolute reality, it is only that which impacts us personally that convinces us. And so, if we have decided not to allow an experience, it is by definition, not true.

Bro Dave