Moments of ultra-clarity

Post Reply New Topic

As you apply the attribute of "Creator" to your concept of god, then I would vote no, as I have no such belief.

He even evidences Himself to stark non-believers, but they never benefit by it because they quickly block it from memory or explain it away, due to willful disbelief.

I can't vote. The problem is the word "God". It has been so used and abused over the millennia that to me it has no concrete meaning. It also means very different things to different people. I can honestly say that I have had deep spiritual revelations but I cannot in all honesty anthropomorphise that into a vague concept that others call "God".

Well, for clarification, what I meant by the original question was: "Have you ever experienced your Creator, free of whatever attributes others may have applied to your Creator?" Indeed, God doesn't always formally introduce Himself, or give a detailed theology during a devine revelation.

Exactly, this is why I call myself a spiritual atheist. Using the term "god" is an anthropomorphic insult to the universe.

The idea of a spiritual atheist is an insult.

Nope that is not a typo in the title of this blog post, nor is it an oxymoron. It is typical to assume that being "spiritual" means one believes in supernatural forces and deities; I consider such assumptions to be utter nonsense. It is nonsense that stems from what I think is a baseless dualistic distinction between "spirit" and "mere matter" that permeates Western thought. This dualistic assumption, which is so much a part of Western thought that it goes unquestioned by very educated people and even by many of my fellow atheists, in my opinion leads to the physical world, in all it's wonderfulness and beauty, to be belittled and dismissed as "mere matter." This dualistic belittling of the physical world is obvious in the word "mundane," which comes from a Latin word meaning "The World," is used to refer to something "ordinary." This dismissal of the physical world as being "mere matter" is a source of a lot of the rhetoric New Age supernaturalists and the theologians of the great religions use to attack what they label "scientism," "scientific fundamentalism," "soulless materialism," "mechanistic reductionism," and other loaded terms for philosophical naturalism, which is the philosophical concept that the physical world is all that exists and that there are no supernatural realms and entities.

Many claim that they "know" God and/or supernatural realms because of their own personal experiences of so-called "mystical" states. Not that I think these states don't exist, I have experienced them myself, the sense of awe, wonder, bliss, union, the whole thing. I just don't believe that these states are the result of supernatural things nor are they visions of the divine. I consider these "mystical" states to simply be altered states of consciousness, purely physical processes in the brain. Even though these states are "merely" effects of the brain that, in my opinion, doesn't mean they are not important, nor does it mean that these states are "mere delusions." These altered states of consciousness temporarily free our minds from the prison that is language-based brain processes that give us a sense of self and thus bring us into an ego-less mental state that allows us to see that we are parts of existance, we are not separate from it; we are parts of the Universe observing Itself, one could say. A good example of this is the case of a brain researcher who had a series of mystical experiences during a stroke. People only think that these wonderful and enlightening experiences are supernatural only because they are conditioned by their own religion beliefs to see them that way.

Mystics often describe the sense of unity and mystery experienced during altered states of consciousness as "The Absolute," "The One," The All," etc. and label this as "union with God." My problem with this is that this use of the term "God" stretches the term so much that it makes the term useless. Pantheistic theologies that conceive of the Cosmos and God as the same thing fall into the same problem. Such notions are very far removed from the concept of God as a supernatural man in the sky that performs miracles and punishes the wicked that most people believe in. The average person's notion of God is essentially only slightly removed from primitive superstition, the theologians' conceptualizations are irrelevant abstractions. Existence is wonderful in itself, using the term "God" to describe the wonder, awe, beauty, and mystery of existence and being is merely the use of an anthropomorphic and anthropocentric superstition based on a false dualistic world view. The physical world is not "mere" matter, it is The Absolute, The One, The All, The Ultimate Reality we are all a part of, and that, in my opinion, is far more beautiful and wonderful then any supernatural belief.

Odin, I took the time to read the long quote from your blog and I agree with every word of it.

I suspect we may have very similar inclinations on spirituality. I purposely don't use the word "beliefs" because I have no religious "beliefs". To me beliefs are a cop out from people actually finding things out for themselves and perceiving themselves. Beliefs are like an item of clothing. Yes this one is comfy - I've have this belief Children are brought up believing in the tooth fairy, father Christmas and God. As their capacity for discerning the truth evolves most see through the first two, but peer pressure and the predominant social meme in their culture keep them hanging onto the third. To me spirituality is more of a personal quest for truth in conjunction with science and scientific methodology. If find the brain, mind and consciousness both fascinating and compelling and yes I have had deep spiritual experiences - however I see no need to attach some fantastical super being to them.

Not God, never the God you think of. - the feeling (nay, realization) that you ARE nature, and that you are a product of nature, and that you are governed by all the same laws.

The claim that atheists can't be spiritual is an insult. From my blog:

Ragtime, you wrote "You don't believe you were created, therefore you can't sense a Creator."
You also wrote "He even evidences himself to stark non-believers".
Which is it, eh?

Ragtime, you wrote "You don't believe you were created, therefore you can't sense a Creator."
You also wrote "He even evidences himself to stark non-believers".
Which is it, eh?

I disagree with your conclusion and will still claim that atheistic spirituality is false.

I disagree with your conclusion and will still claim that atheistic spirituality is false.