Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By "spirituality" I understand mostly two things. First, the opposite of materialism, that is being less attached to the purely material things and putting a greater value on non-material ones: relationships, beauty, nature etc, having a sense of awe towards the world, a recognition of something greater than one's self. Second, a desire to attain greater knowledge and understanding, to grapple with the "big" questions. Do you think religious people are more likely to exhibit these two traits than atheists or agnostics?
The reason I am asking this question is one of the arguments in favor of religion I have come across lately: namely that without religion, without a sense of something greater than himself, man becomes entangled in purely materialistic life, in chasing after the next nice car, or house, or promotion. What are your thoughts on this argument?
I'm seventy-eight and have had a lot of time to look around at the people I have lived among. My answer would be no, I have not seen conduct that would incline me to agree with the original statement. I have observed that the practitioners of some small fringe groups, both Christian and non-Christian appear to have a noticeable number of people who are, however. But I have not really seen enough of the latter groups to know if it is characteristic of their believers in general.
Some are, others arent.
From my experience, the more fundamentalist you are, the more secular you are. This may offend alot of ppl who think their faith is strong... but it isnt. Think about it, if youre in a state where youre all like "do not touch the sacred stone of..." nah, its just an object. Touch it or dont, there bigger things to worry about.
Certain muslims and christians are very very fundamentalist, and it shows with their irrational hatred towards those that hurt their book.
A spiritual person doesnt care if you did, as they seldom read the thing. They have a handle on their religion, and it doesnt need a book. Or a sacred this or that. They might still get mad if you burned their library cuz thats rude, but not all infidels must die mad.
Secular thinking. Fundies and atheists are basically almost the same, except one has a moral system and dogma.
It isnt just objects either. It's rules. "Sit here. Do this. Dont do that." Aside from murder and rape (because that crosses the threshold into harm, which is decidedly not enlightened), many of these rules do not actusally matter in the grand scheme of things. And even those can be forgiven. Let them go and walk away. The above mentioned groups? Big into rules, because they think the world we see matters.
Most are more entitled in that they feel they can do anything and not be held accountable because their god sanctions their behavior.
I have even heard a few say that if their god objects to what they do, that god would "stop" them from doing it or if they do something and their god does not "punish" them it is all good..
Most are more entitled in that they feel they can do anything and not be held accountable because their god sanctions their behavior.
I have even heard a few say that if their god objects to what they do, that god would "stop" them from doing it or if they do something and their god does not "punish" them it is all good..
That's interesting. I have had rather the opposite experience - with people who were so afraid to commit a sin that even getting out of bed in the morning turned to a moral dilemma (mostly figuratively).
I'm seventy-eight and have had a lot of time to look around at the people I have lived among. My answer would be no, I have not seen conduct that would incline me to agree with the original statement. I have observed that the practitioners of some small fringe groups, both Christian and non-Christian appear to have a noticeable number of people who are, however. But I have not really seen enough of the latter groups to know if it is characteristic of their believers in general.
A bit of a tricky or complex one, that. I suppose in my case (and I can really only speak for myself) I am rather like Hobbits
"One reason they were so unwearringly ffond of good thingss is, when necessary, they could do without them".
I love the good things this life has to offer, but the desire for posessions isn't there, but the appreciation of what I have. Non -attachment doesn't mean 'leavng the dipper clattering in the wind" but not having this compulsion to acquire, acquire, acquire, as an end in itself. Just for example, I enjoy good food, but that means coking and eating what I like, not just stuffing unk. It doesn't mean eating at expensive places, just because of some feeling that's 'best'.
I'm not sure whether that 'spiritual' or being rational, but the result isn't so very different. Like Buddha said, it avoids the extremes wallowing in luxury or starving to a skeleton on one grain of rice a day. It's just the all round more rational (and better way to live.
I migt also touch on the idea of needing godfaith to appreciate the world we live in. There is this idea of an uncomprehending wonder vs. knowing about it. In music, there are those who say they prefer not to know about it as it may spoil the wonderment. There is an element of that, but I have found that my appreciation of (for example the VW 4th...yep, folks, I shall inflict it on you ..) is due pretty much to understanding how and why it was written.
It's the with the cosmos and nature. we and reverence is enhanced rather than dimmed by understanding much about it, rather than just not knowing or wanting to know and just saying "What God hath done is awesome".
Second, a desire to attain greater knowledge and understanding, to grapple with the "big" questions. Do you think religious people are more likely to exhibit these two traits than atheists or agnostics?
Often quite the opposite. It looks to me like many religious people are buying into "pre-packaged" spirituality so they do not have to do the deep thinking on deep questions. They seek a package where all the thinking has been done for them, and they can be informed what their narrative is and what it is they believe without having to do much working that out for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norne
The reason I am asking this question is one of the arguments in favor of religion I have come across lately: namely that without religion, without a sense of something greater than himself, man becomes entangled in purely materialistic life, in chasing after the next nice car, or house, or promotion. What are your thoughts on this argument?
Well firstly I would point out that religious people appear to be no less interested in pursuing those things than atheists are. Quite the opposite quite often. So the hypothesis is false on the face of it and crashes before it even gets off the ground. It sounds like one of those navel gazing arguments that makes sense to people who think it up without stopping to look around at the real world and see if it maps onto it.
Secondly I would point out that atheists often DO have a "sense of things greater than themselves". It just does not tend to be unsubstantiated nonsense they simply made up on the spot, so much as very real things that do actually exist. And they are therefore just as capable of introspection on questions like what it means to be "human", what our place in this universe is and should be, and what meaning and goals we should derive in life.
Excellent post. Yes. The argument is part of the 'life is meaningless without God' package incorporating 'we need religion, true or not'. We do not need religion, we do not need a god or gods for meaning, morals, a sense of wonder or anything else. In fact we can do better without them.
Nozz also pointed up the argument from Unknowns with the back to front canard that atheists are shutting their eyes to the unknown. This is balls. We are more receptive to the existence of unknowns than theists are and even if we accept the possibility of a god of some sort, we also are aware of the possibility of the whole thing being a brain in vat, a computer game on an alien computer and a whole load of possible unknowns which of course we cannot know about.
It is the theist who rather tends to dismiss all those other possibilities because the god they believe in all there is or (they believe) could possibly be.
It is far better and far more correct to say 'we don't know' and then to find out rather than say 'we do know - on faith' and then fight against any research that might tend to come up with answers that don't support it.
By "spirituality" I understand mostly two things. First, the opposite of materialism, that is being less attached to the purely material things and putting a greater value on non-material ones: relationships, beauty, nature etc, having a sense of awe towards the world, a recognition of something greater than one's self. Second, a desire to attain greater knowledge and understanding, to grapple with the "big" questions. Do you think religious people are more likely to exhibit these two traits than atheists or agnostics?
The reason I am asking this question is one of the arguments in favor of religion I have come across lately: namely that without religion, without a sense of something greater than himself, man becomes entangled in purely materialistic life, in chasing after the next nice car, or house, or promotion. What are your thoughts on this argument?
You miss the whole point of the true nature of religions or why religions exist.
The true nature of religions is that religions are actually built based on an unknown.
The unknown is what could possibly happen after our death. The advocate is that what could possibly happen after death is somehow related to a god. That's how the religions are coming from and that's why we humans 'need' a god at all.
Excellent post. Yes. The argument is part of the 'life is meaningless without God' package incorporating 'we need religion, true or not'. We do not need religion, we do not need a god or gods for meaning, morals, a sense of wonder or anything else. In fact we can do better without them.
Nozz also pointed up the argument from Unknowns with the back to front canard that atheists are shutting their eyes to the unknown. This is balls. We are more receptive to the existence of unknowns than theists are and even if we accept the possibility of a god of some sort, we also are aware of the possibility of the whole thing being a brain in vat, a computer game on an alien computer and a whole load of possible unknowns which of course we cannot know about.
It is the theist who rather tends to dismiss all those other possibilities because the god they believe in all there is or (they believe) could possibly be.
It is far better and far more correct to say 'we don't know' and then to find out rather than say 'we do know - on faith' and then fight against any research that might tend to come up with answers that don't support it.
Or we dismiss possibilities because they don't make sense. Before I'm a theist, I'm an artist, writer, and game programmer. None of the stuff I make even exists unless I make it. By this analogy something must have made all of this, and existed without something else making it. An Original Creator.
Now, does this necessarily lead to any particular assumption about this Original Creator? No. Not even that this would be human and not some force or law or something. Or that we humans collectively are the only thing here, and this is why a God isn't easy to see. Or it could be any number of things. But since if I do nothing, nothing happens, on a fundamental level, atheism cannot work.
I'm glad I blocked Nozz. Even someone talking about what he said secondhand, I'm not impressed. The only thing in fact I did agree with was the statement you just said was balls. I also believe in the Socratic Cave/Brain In Vat theory, having taken philosophy. But I seem to remember this theory too.
If the universe is an illusion, it still requires (1) me to receive it and be fooled, (2) someone else, (2b) or me again, to send it. In the case 2, this would mean there is a God out there, even if he is evil and deceiving me. In case 2b, it would mean that I am God. In either case, because there is anything at all, even an illusion, pffft no, atheism still doesn't work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..) is due pretty much to understanding how and why it was written. 
