Are Atheists Spiritual?

[cverzonilla]

IMO they can be. If an atheist is indwelled with peace and love how
is that not spiritual? I believe some of the differences between some
Atheists and some of the people who might believe in God is the
terminology and language used. I call the indwelling of peace and
love God, presence, stillness, awareness but you might call it the
"wonderful feeling of the awesomeness of the universe"

IMO The goal should be in trying to understand each other without
judgement. It would be nice if everyone offered care and acceptance.
IMO It is more spiritual then preaching a 2,000 year old story and
demanding that others accept it as truth. On the same note, I have
found some spiritual truths in the Bible.


Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.
Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)

God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides
in him. (1 John 4:16)


Do any of you Atheists believe in spiritual principles? Would you be
able to identify them even though you don't believe in God?

[cverzonilla]

I caught myself in judgement. How hypocritical of me! Oh well, it
happens to us all. My apologies. :)

Funny how we contradict ourselves. I think we all do though, at least
sometimes. Whether or not your a Theist.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jun 14, 3:08 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> IMO they can be.

I'm not. To me, "spiritual" implies "spirit," which implies things
like "soul" or "eternal essence," I lack belief in things like that.

>  If an atheist is indwelled with peace and love how
> is that not spiritual?

Peace and love are simple emotions, like "anger" or "happy." I see no
need to anthropomorphize emotions and give them artificial being.

>  I believe some of the differences between some
> Atheists and some of the people who might believe in God is the
> terminology and language used.  I call the indwelling of peace and
> love God, presence, stillness, awareness but you might call it the
> "wonderful feeling of the awesomeness of the universe"

As soon as you anthropomorphize emotions and give them being (like
"God" or "presence") then you are making statements that the world we
live in is not what I'm experiencing. So then the question becomes, am
I missing something? Are you delusional? If it merely comes down to a
choice of words for you then it's best to pick that don't imply what
you don't mean. Don't use loaded words.

> IMO The goal should be in trying to understand each other without
> judgement.  It would be nice if everyone offered care and acceptance.
> IMO It is more spiritual then preaching a 2,000 year old story and
> demanding that others accept it as truth.  On the same note, I have
> found some spiritual truths in the Bible.
>
> Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.
> Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)
>
> God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides
> in him. (1 John 4:16)
>
> Do any of you Atheists believe in spiritual principles?

What do you mean by "spiritual principles"? If you mean that "love" is
a "spiritual principle," then I'm going to have to disagree. Love is
an emotion that we all experience (except for sociopaths and
psychopaths), whether we're spiritual or not.

>  Would you be
> able to identify them even though you don't believe in God?

If I lack belief in the "spiritual" then I lack belief in "spiritual
principles."

[dillan]

On Jun 14, 6:33 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 3:08 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > IMO they can be.
>
> I'm not. To me, "spiritual" implies "spirit," which implies things
> like "soul" or "eternal essence," I lack belief in things like that.

Hahaha!!.. what a coffee cup!

[Lexie]

I believe in love, it might never happen for me, but I still believe
it...
Just take a look at my first quote ;-D
Matches the subject perfectly...

Man is in love, and loves what vanishes.
--W. B. Yeats

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to
it laughing.
--Stubb in Moby Dick

On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:08 PM, cverzonilla <christopher...@gmail.com
> wrote:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en
> .
>

[cverzonilla]

In my opinion they can be. If an atheist is indwelled with peace and
love how how is that not spiritual? I believe some of the differences
between some Atheists and Theists is the terminology and language

used. I call the indwelling of peace and love: God, presence,

stillness of which an awareness arises but an Atheist might call it
the "wonderful feeling of the awesomeness of the universe" True, not
every Atheist has an indwelling of peace and love but the same is true
for the Christian, Buddhist and Hindu community.


A good goal IMO would be in trying to understand each other without

judgement. It would be nice if everyone offered care and acceptance.

The story of Jesus Christ is obviously one of the best. But in my
opinion it's easy to get sidetracked. Let's get back to the basics
and focus on spiritual principles. I have found for myself that some
of the scriptures in the Bible aren't entirely spiritual. But here
are some of the ones that I believe are:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.
Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)

God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides
in him. (1 John 4:16)

Do Atheists believe in spiritual principles? Can an Atheist identify
a spiritual principles even though he doesn't believe in God? Thank
you for reading. I hope some of you like some of what I wrote :)

I published a post similar to this one over on the Atheists vs.
Christianity Google Groups Forum: http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity


http://www.christopherverzonilla.com/2011/06/are-atheists-spiritual.html

[cverzonilla]

On Jun 15, 5:52 am, Lexie <abeane43...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe in love, it might never happen for me, but I still believe  
> it...

I wish you love and happiness from afar :)

[Lexie]

Aww thanks Chris

Man is in love, and loves what vanishes.
--W. B. Yeats

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to
it laughing.
--Stubb in Moby Dick

On Jun 14, 2011, at 7:04 PM, cverzonilla <christopher...@gmail.com
> wrote:

[cverzonilla]

......... love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there
is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jun 14, 4:49 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ......... love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness,
> faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there
> is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)

What's your point?

[cverzonilla]

I think an Atheist of good character would value spiritual
principles. Believing in "God", a higher power or Spirit IMO isn't as
important as valuing the spiritual principles behind such a concept or
actuality. That's like saying you don't believe in "Chris" but you
believe in the group of molecules moving in sync as a team to type and
send you this message. IMO at least.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jun 14, 5:03 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jun 15, 6:51 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_m_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 4:49 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > ......... love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness,
> > > faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there
> > > is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)
>
> > What's your point?
>
> I think an Atheist of good character would value spiritual
> principles.

You didn't answer my question - what *are* "spiritual principles"?

> Believing in "God", a higher power or Spirit IMO isn't as
> important as valuing the spiritual principles behind such a concept or
> actuality.

What are the "spiritual principles" behind such a concept (I lack
belief that God or higher power or Spirit is are "actualities").

> That's like saying you don't believe in "Chris" but you
> believe in the group of molecules moving in sync as a team to type and
> send you this message.

I won't be able to tell if it's like that or not until you explain
what "spiritual principles" are.

>  IMO at least.

[Observer]

On Jun 14, 5:08 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> IMO they can be.  If an atheist is indwelled with peace and love how
> is that not spiritual?

Observer
Give us , please, a definition of the word spiritual that is concise
and which, in your opinion, should be universally accepted. Then
provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data for the actual
existence of such as you define.

 I believe some of the differences between some
> Atheists and some of the people who might believe in God is the
> terminology and language used.

There exists only one set of actualities with which we can and must
contend. The physical universe, including but not limited to the
segment about which we have some direct awareness, it's components,
it's inhabitants , the interactions therebetween, and the consequences
thereof

All else is meaningless nonsense and of no moment.

 I call the indwelling of peace and
> love God, presence, stillness, awareness but you might call it the
> "wonderful feeling of the awesomeness of the universe"

Observer
You are simply uninformed as to the actuality that your sensations are
nothing more than reactions to endogenous opiates flowing into their
receptors. A little neurology anyone?

>
> IMO The goal should be in trying to understand each other without
> judgement.

Observer

Bullshit , it is preposterous to expect the educated, thinking ,
portion of humanity to accept the self imposed ignorance of an
unthinking and uneducated, majority with out judging that such as
their ignorance .

Ignorance is not hard to understand but is an insufferable flaw in
human character when, deliberately, self imposed.

 It would be nice if everyone offered care and acceptance.
> IMO It is more spiritual then preaching a 2,000 year old story and
> demanding that others accept it as truth.  On the same note, I have
> found some spiritual truths in the Bible

Observer
The bible is a collection of hideous, superstitious ,filth/ignorance
begotten myths best left to the dead past from which it emerged.

>
> Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.
> Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)
>
> God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides
> in him. (1 John 4:16)
>

Observer
Provide first a definition of exactly to what you refer when you use
that meaningless word.

Then provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data for the
existence of , any action of, any influence of, such as a god thing
in or on this universe.

> Do any of you Atheists believe in spiritual principles?

What Is a spiritual principle?

 Would you be
> able to identify them even though you don't believe in God?

Observer
It's your fantasy so fill us in as to what you think you are talking
about.


Psychonomist

[Alan Wostenberg]

An atheism which does not bring that peace the world cannot give is worthless.

[philosophy]

I'm not sure I follow you Alan.
I could say "A religion which does not bring that peace
the world cannot give, is worthless". Well, as there are
more religious people than atheists, and the world is
already a mess, I guess religion is truly worthless.

[Observer]

On Jun 14, 10:48 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An atheism which does not bring that peace the world cannot give is
> worthless.

A pity that you are unable to find the joy of living issued from
superior models of the universe . They are superior because in them
are found in the only ,study of actuality, which yields
scientifically testable hypothesis' and provides for accurate
prognostications.

Lack of belief or even complete rejection of your ill-conceived , and
meaningless god thing (Your mythical God) in no way has lessened the
quest for peace any more than Atheism could be a sect , corporation,
even a cohesive association capable of producing any change.

Psychonomist

[LL]

On Jun 14, 8:48 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An atheism which does not bring that peace the world cannot give is
> worthless.

LL. As is christianity, which has not brought peace, despite it's
promises. Christianity has had 2000 years and we're no closer to
peace than the first Christians were. In fact we're further away from
it than ever.

........


..........

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jun 14, 8:48 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> An atheism which does not bring that peace the world cannot give is
> worthless.

So democracy is worthless? So Catholicism is worthless?

[lawrey]

Cverz,

Shame on you, you obviously have not twigged on yet that
atheists do not believe in god/s.

Surely then it should go without saying they have no truck with
what is simply a nom de guerre like soul, spirit, god.

These are just names for religious inculcation of the rubbish
they constantly trot out to the susceptible sheep.

All these natural traits you choose: Love, peace, awareness,
presence, stillness, the awesomeness of the universe.

What on earth makes you think that any of it has anything to
do with some unknown, unknown thing? What gave you that
idea?

Come on be sensible, you can do better than that.
If there is no god and there is not, then how on earth can
you have atributes originating from it.

This is simply religious clap-trap!

On Jun 14, 11:08 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Rupert]

On Jun 15, 1:48 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An atheism which does not bring that peace the world cannot give is
> worthless.

I do not know to what you are referring.

[cverzonilla]

> I'm not. To me, "spiritual" implies "spirit," which implies things
> like "soul" or "eternal essence," I lack belief in things like that.

Are atheists experiencing the same thing but labeling it something
else? Maybe some of the disagreements between atheists and theists
has to do with some of the language used.

> > If an atheist is indwelled with peace and love how
> > is that not spiritual?
>
> Peace and love are simple emotions, like "anger" or "happy." I see no
> need to anthropomorphize emotions and give them artificial being.

I understand that you see no need to anthropomophize emotions but if
someone values love, peace and harmony calling it God and you value
love, peace and harmony too, would you be willing to move beyond your
traumatic and reactive experiences with Christians, religion, and
Theists and meet in the middle. Would you be able to agree that the
values in an unanthropomorphized sate are good and/or noteworthy? I'm
not asking you to put faith in anything, change your beliefs or
believe anything new. I'm asking you to see where Atheists and some
Theists agree as opposed to where we disagree. IMO we're really not
very different.

>
> > I believe some of the differences between some
> > Atheists and some of the people who might believe in God is the
> > terminology and language used. I call the indwelling of peace and
> > love God, presence, stillness, awareness but you might call it the
> > "wonderful feeling of the awesomeness of the universe"
>
> As soon as you anthropomorphize emotions and give them being (like
> "God" or "presence") then you are making statements that the world we
> live in is not what I'm experiencing. So then the question becomes, am
> I missing something? Are you delusional? If it merely comes down to a
> choice of words for you then it's best to pick that don't imply what
> you don't mean. Don't use loaded words.

I think there is a difference between what your experiencing and what
I'm experiencing but we may not be that far apart. I think a lot of
it has to do with the personalizing or anthropomorphizing experiences,
values and qualities that for some reason all seem to relate in an
almost interchangeable way. Keep in mind that the anthropomorphizing
is not intentional. It's something that happens when your close to
anything. Some people love their pets and dogs so much that they feel
they're people. Some people even go so far as to anthropomorophize
cars and boats. How much more would someone anthropomorphize values
that have the possibility to transform their life. It's easy to scoff
at such things but IMO that's really the same thing as a
fundamentalist scoffing at the man who doubts in a loving God sending
people to hell.

> What do you mean by "spiritual principles"? If you mean that "love" is
> a "spiritual principle," then I'm going to have to disagree. Love is
> an emotion that we all experience (except for sociopaths and
> psychopaths), whether we're spiritual or not.

Let us let go of the language barrier between us. I call it a
spiritual principle but you don't. That doesn't really matter. I value
love and believe there's depth to it wisdom and learning. I've seen
what love can do. Do you value love too?

A lot of spiritual teachers are teaching similar things to Atheism
it's just a bit different. They say that knowing you don't know is
the only true knowing. Atheism IMO in that way is a belief system and
religion. It's not really a lack of belief. It's believing that
there is nothing nonmaterial. That we are the highest plain of
existence.

[cverzonilla]

> All these natural traits you choose: Love, peace, awareness,
> presence, stillness, the awesomeness of the universe.
>
> What on earth makes you think that any of it has anything to
> do with some unknown, unknown thing? What gave you that
> idea?

As someone else has said, I've anthropomorphized things like love,
peace, stillness, and acceptance into a single identity but that's not
what I want to address. What I'm asking is whether or not such values
are noteworthy. If they are, specially to you, then we may not be
that different after all.

[Lexie]

A religion that cannot bring the peace is worthless...

Man is in love, and loves what vanishes. 

                                 --W. B. Yeats

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to it laughing. 

                    --Stubb in Moby Dick 

On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:48 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

An atheism which does not bring that peace the world cannot give is worthless.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/G8UkC83zD3kJ.

[cverzonilla]

> A religion that cannot bring the peace is worthless...

religion will never bring peace. :)

[cverzonilla]

On Jun 16, 3:18 am, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > A religion that cannot bring the peace is worthless...
>
> religion will never bring peace. :)

but neither will science. they can both help but neither of them will
be able to bring peace in themselves. They'll probably both continue
to evolve as we move towards peace.

[Walt]

As Neil implies, it depends on how you define spirit/spritual. If the
definition allows there to be spirits but no deities, there is no
direct conflict between the two concepts. If the definition does not
require it to be at all apart from or independent of the material
world, then materialists (which most atheists are) can be spiritual.

On Jun 14, 6:08 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Lexie]

Are you sure your Christian???

Man is in love, and loves what vanishes.
--W. B. Yeats

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to
it laughing.
--Stubb in Moby Dick

On Jun 15, 2011, at 4:18 PM, cverzonilla <christopher...@gmail.com
> wrote:

>> A religion that cannot bring the peace is worthless...
>
> religion will never bring peace. :)
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

[Lexie]

Man is in love, and loves what vanishes.
--W. B. Yeats

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to
it laughing.
--Stubb in Moby Dick

On Jun 15, 2011, at 3:14 PM, cverzonilla <christopher...@gmail.com
> wrote:

>> I'm not. To me, "spiritual" implies "spirit," which implies things
>> like "soul" or "eternal essence," I lack belief in things like that.
>
> Are atheists experiencing the same thing but labeling it something
> else? Maybe some of the disagreements between atheists and theists
> has to do with some of the language used.

Actually, I agree...

>
>>> If an atheist is indwelled with peace and love how
>>> is that not spiritual?
>>
>> Peace and love are simple emotions, like "anger" or "happy." I see no
>> need to anthropomorphize emotions and give them artificial being.
>
> I understand that you see no need to anthropomophize emotions but if
> someone values love, peace and harmony calling it God and you value
> love, peace and harmony too, would you be willing to move beyond your
> traumatic and reactive experiences with Christians, religion, and
> Theists and meet in the middle. Would you be able to agree that the
> values in an unanthropomorphized sate are good and/or noteworthy? I'm
> not asking you to put faith in anything, change your beliefs or
> believe anything new. I'm asking you to see where Atheists and some
> Theists agree as opposed to where we disagree. IMO we're really not
> very different.

Just look at me and Pickle (Dillan)
We are both dorks ;-P

>
>>
>>> I believe some of the differences between some
>>> Atheists and some of the people who might believe in God is the
>>> terminology and language used. I call the indwelling of peace and
>>> love God, presence, stillness, awareness but you might call it the
>>> "wonderful feeling of the awesomeness of the universe"
>>
>> As soon as you anthropomorphize emotions and give them being (like
>> "God" or "presence") then you are making statements that the world we
>> live in is not what I'm experiencing. So then the question becomes,
>> am
>> I missing something? Are you delusional? If it merely comes down to a
>> choice of words for you then it's best to pick that don't imply what
>> you don't mean. Don't use loaded words.
>
> I think there is a difference between what your experiencing and what
> I'm experiencing but we may not be that far apart. I think a lot of
> it has to do with the personalizing or anthropomorphizing experiences,
> values and qualities that for some reason all seem to relate in an
> almost interchangeable way. Keep in mind that the anthropomorphizing
> is not intentional. It's something that happens when your close to
> anything. Some people love their pets and dogs so much that they feel
> they're people.

My mom yells at everyone who calls Zippie (my puppy) a dog...

> Some people even go so far as to anthropomorophize
> cars and boats.

Btw, why are cars and boats almost always women??

> How much more would someone anthropomorphize values
> that have the possibility to transform their life. It's easy to scoff
> at such things but IMO that's really the same thing as a
> fundamentalist scoffing at the man who doubts in a loving God sending
> people to hell.
>
>
>> What do you mean by "spiritual principles"? If you mean that "love"
>> is
>> a "spiritual principle," then I'm going to have to disagree. Love is
>> an emotion that we all experience (except for sociopaths and
>> psychopaths), whether we're spiritual or not.
>
> Let us let go of the language barrier between us. I call it a
> spiritual principle but you don't. That doesn't really matter. I value
> love and believe there's depth to it wisdom and learning. I've seen
> what love can do. Do you value love too?
>
> A lot of spiritual teachers are teaching similar things to Atheism
> it's just a bit different. They say that knowing you don't know is
> the only true knowing. Atheism IMO in that way is a belief system and
> religion. It's not really a lack of belief. It's believing that
> there is nothing nonmaterial. That we are the highest plain of
> existence.
>

[philosophy]

I think I am getting confused by your confusion.
There's a book I read some time ago called
"The Death of Religion and the rebirth of Spirit"
by Joseph Chilton Pearce, where he defines
spirit a the Intelligence of the Heart. Now, it
would help if you could share your definition
of Spirit / Spiritual, so I could try and
follow your logic.


On Jun 15, 10:03 am, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[philosophy]

I don't think you can say "science will never bring peace'.
Science has nothing to do with bringing peace or not. It's
like saying "love will bring icecream". There is no
relationship between the two.

Any religion, on the other hand, which purports to be filled
with loving kindness, peace etc and has commandments
about not killing etc., is obviously linked to the concept
of peace, and can be judged accordingly.

On Jun 16, 6:29 am, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[cverzonilla]

> Are you sure your Christian???

I'm not Christian but I believe in God. I can accept that materialism
accounts for everything as a possible argument but I don't think I'll
ever be convinced.

Thanks for asking :)

[Lexie]

Huh...
I think I'm more confused about you than before
:-)

Man is in love, and loves what vanishes.
--W. B. Yeats

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to
it laughing.
--Stubb in Moby Dick

On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:41 AM, cverzonilla <christopher...@gmail.com
> wrote:

[LL]

On Jun 14, 8:48 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An atheism which does not bring that peace the world cannot give is
> worthless.

LL. A religion that "does not bring that peace to the world cannot
give" is equally worthless.

Actually, the words as you have written them here make no sense,
though I can guess at what you meant. Nevertheless, you can't
criticize atheists for not bringing peace to the world unless you also
criticize religion for it's own failure. Atheists have never promised
to bring peace to the world, so they have not failed to deliver a
promise. Religion has. Atheism make no promises, it is simply a
statement on the existence of gods. Rationalista however, do,
indirectly, at least, promise to bring followers to a better
understanding of how the universe actually works and they have been
successful in that endeavor.

.................
.......


.......

[student13]

Hi Cver,

you say you are not Christian, but believe in God !

In another post you talked about Jesus and Buddha.

Yet in another post, you said Awareness is God !

what is this God after all ? Is it possible to explain
or interpret the definition and or qualities or specifications
attributes etc so that people who read your post and yourself
are somewhat in the same wave lenght ?

cheers
st13

On Jun 16, 6:41 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[LL]

LL. As to your last paragraph, atheistm is not a belief system, nor is
it a religion, and it makes no claims. It is simply a lack of belief
in the existence of gods. When you finally understand this we can
debate rationally, not before.

Presumably you take the same position when it comes to gods other than
your own. Is that lack of belief your religion? Atheists lack belief
in only one more god than you do.

......

.......


On Jun 15, 12:14 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[LL]

On Jun 15, 12:27 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

LL. It's not the values we differ on, it's where they are purported
to come from--and that makes a tremendous difference.

[LL]

On Jun 15, 1:41 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As Neil implies, it depends on how you define spirit/spritual.  If the
> definition allows there to be spirits but no deities, there is no
> direct conflict between the two concepts.  If the definition does not
> require it to be at all apart from or independent of the material
> world, then materialists (which most atheists are) can be spiritual.
>

LL. I disagree that there can be spirits on any level. I prefer to not
even use the word because it has no precise meaning and can mean
anything the speaker wants it to mean. I would never claim that
atheists can be spiritual. We can feel emotions an give those
emotions names, but spirit would not be one of them, IMO. It is
simply too meaningless a term. Most atheists I know would agree with
me on this.


......

[LL]

On Jun 16, 9:03 am, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Cver,
>
> you say you are not Christian, but believe in God !
>
> In another post you talked about Jesus and Buddha.
>
> Yet in another post, you said Awareness is God !
>
> what is this God after all ?  Is it possible to explain
> or interpret the definition and or qualities or specifications
> attributes etc so that people who read your post and yourself
> are somewhat in the same wave lenght ?

LL. I expect he's a pantheist, which means he can call anything a god
and never feels the need to define it. Such a position is impossible
to debate because it means nothing and everything. It amounts to no
position at all.

.......

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jun 15, 12:14 pm, cverzonilla <christopher.verzoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > I'm not. To me, "spiritual" implies "spirit," which implies things
> > like "soul" or "eternal essence," I lack belief in things like that.
>
> Are atheists experiencing the same thing but labeling it something
> else?

I don't experience in any way that I (or anyone else) has a spirit,
soul, or eternal essence. Do you?

>  Maybe some of the disagreements between atheists and theists
> has to do with some of the language used.

Maybe, but in the case theists are making a claim of existence which
goes beyond language. If spirits, souls, or eternal essences exist,
where are they? Can theists see them but atheists can't? Do theists
have special powers that atheists don't? If so, how? After all, all
our internal organs are the same.

> > >  If an atheist is indwelled with peace and love how
> > > is that not spiritual?
>
> > Peace and love are simple emotions, like "anger" or "happy." I see no
> > need to anthropomorphize emotions and give them artificial being.
>
> I understand that you see no need to anthropomophize emotions but if
> someone values love, peace and harmony calling it God and you value
> love, peace and harmony too, would you be willing to move beyond your
> traumatic and reactive experiences with Christians, religion, and
> Theists and meet in the middle.

What would "meeting in the middle" consist of for a religious person?
Do they half-believe that God exists? Do they remove the eternal
torture half of their religious beliefs, and believe that everyone,
including atheists and Hindus, goes to Heaven?

>  Would you be able to agree that the
> values in an unanthropomorphized sate are good and/or noteworthy?

Depends on which values you're talking about.

>  I'm
> not asking you to put faith in anything, change your beliefs or
> believe anything new.  I'm asking you to see where Atheists and some
> Theists agree as opposed to where we disagree.  IMO we're really not
> very different.

I think we are quite different. For one thing, I think theists are
deluded to the extent that they are theists, and atheists are not
deluded to the extent that they are not theists. There's a big
difference between deluded thinking and non-deluded thinking.

> > >  I believe some of the differences between some
> > > Atheists and some of the people who might believe in God is the
> > > terminology and language used.  I call the indwelling of peace and
> > > love God, presence, stillness, awareness but you might call it the
> > > "wonderful feeling of the awesomeness of the universe"
>
> > As soon as you anthropomorphize emotions and give them being (like
> > "God" or "presence") then you are making statements that the world we
> > live in is not what I'm experiencing. So then the question becomes, am
> > I missing something? Are you delusional? If it merely comes down to a
> > choice of words for you then it's best to pick that don't imply what
> > you don't mean. Don't use loaded words.
>
> I think there is a difference between what your experiencing and what
> I'm experiencing but we may not be that far apart.  I think a lot of
> it has to do with the personalizing or anthropomorphizing experiences,
> values and qualities that for some reason all seem to relate in an
> almost interchangeable way.  Keep in mind that the anthropomorphizing
> is not intentional.

I know. It's unconscious and indoctrinated into children when they are
too young to sort out what's being done to them rationally.

>  It's something that happens when your close to
> anything.

Disagree. It doesn't happen to me, and it doesn't happen to other
atheists when we're close to anything.

> Some people love their pets and dogs so much that they feel
> they're people.  Some people even go so far as to anthropomorophize
> cars and boats.  How much more would someone anthropomorphize values
> that have the possibility to transform their life.  It's easy to scoff
> at such things but IMO that's really the same thing as a
> fundamentalist scoffing at the man who doubts in a loving God sending
> people to hell.

It's all fun and games to anthropomorphize dogs and cats and cars and
boats until someone decides that the ones that haven't
anthropomorphized the same values that they have are going to be
tortured for eternity in Hell (or the equivalent). Read some history
if you want to know what people like this are capable of doing to
other people.

> > What do you mean by "spiritual principles"? If you mean that "love" is
> > a "spiritual principle," then I'm going to have to disagree. Love is
> > an emotion that we all experience (except for sociopaths and
> > psychopaths), whether we're spiritual or not.
>
> Let us let go of the language barrier between us.  I call it a
> spiritual principle but you don't. That doesn't really matter. I value
> love and believe there's depth to it wisdom and learning.  I've seen
> what love can do.  Do you value love too?

Of course. But can you give me a straight answer? What do you mean by
"spiritual principles"?

> A lot of spiritual teachers are teaching similar things to Atheism
> it's just a bit different.

What exactly do you think atheism is teaching? Because I'm an atheist,
and as far as I can tell atheism is simply a lack of religious belief.
In other words, I don't believe that spirit, souls, eternal essences,
God, Satan, Heaven or Hell exist.

> They say that knowing you don't know is
> the only true knowing.

I'd have to disagree with them about that, and I'd call that a trite
cliche.

>  Atheism IMO in that way is a belief system and
> religion.

Atheism does not teach that"knowing you don't know is the only true
knowing," so you're wrong about that.

>  It's not really a lack of belief.

Yes, it is. It is the lack of belief in supernatural deities, souls,
spirits, and the like.

> It's believing that
> there is nothing nonmaterial.

No, it isn't. For instance, I'm an atheist and I am of the opinion
that God exists in people's psyches (psychical existence vs. physical
existence), which makes God and other ideas (like "good" or "love")
immaterial.

>  That we are the highest plain of
> existence.

I'm an atheist and I don't think there are "planes of existence,"
Where did you get these ideas about atheists from?

[cverzonilla]

> Hi Cver,
>
> you say you are not Christian, but believe in God !

Do you think you have to be Christian to believe in a creator?

> In another post you talked about Jesus and Buddha.

Yes. I find a lot of value in a lot of what Jesus is recorded as
saying and like a lot of what Buddha said too.

>
> Yet in another post, you said Awareness is God !
>
> what is this God after all ? Is it possible to explain
> or interpret the definition and or qualities or specifications
> attributes etc so that people who read your post and yourself
> are somewhat in the same wave lenght ?

Thanks st13 for pointing that out. I'm finding that I can learn just
as much from Atheists about life, God and spirituality as I can from
the spiritual teachers who's teachings resonate with me. I wish I was
more gathered in my thoughts and dialogue but to tell you the truth I
don't understand what I'm experiencing in words 100% either. Eckhart
Tolle and Adyashanti appear to explain the stillness, presence,
meditation and awareness pretty well but as you and possibly others
may have inadvertently pointed out, I'm not there yet. I can read and
understand what a lot of spiritual teachings mean and know them in
terms of experience but understanding everything in a logical,
objective way is still a little bit aways. If it wasn't for the
discussions I have with you and everyone else here it would prob. be
even further away and maybe not even attainable. I think though, with
all the discussion I'll be able to understand myself and what I
experience. Hopefully someday I'll be able to express everything in
words completely and immediately on call.