Are You Spiritual?

[tsig]

Is that what you think I said tsig?

Answer the question:

Q: If skeptics who use whop-de-do as a means of trying to squash an individuals feelings of awe regarding the way the individual chooses to see life, the planet, and their small part in it, and you consider this to be okay and acceptable, in what way is this assisting the process of getting on the same page in regard to that awesome thing?

You just said it again.

 

[Pup]

Answer the question:

Q: If skeptics who use whop-de-do as a means of trying to squash an individuals feelings of awe regarding the way the individual chooses to see life, the planet, and their small part in it, and you consider this to be okay and acceptable, in what way is this assisting the process of getting on the same page in regard to that awesome thing?

Oh for heaven's sake. No, I don't still beat my wife, either.

The question is worded so poorly that it's impossible to answer.

1) I don't think that most skeptics do the "if" clause at the start.
2) If they did, I wouldn't be okay with it.
3) I can't answer "in what way" because the first part of the question has nothing to do with my position.

The question is an excellent example of how carrying on a conversation is pointless, if one person refuses to listen to what the other is saying, and insists on putting words in his mouth.

I will state my position again:

Skeptics feel and enjoy awe and similar emotions, because all humans feel and enjoy those emotions to varying degrees.

Skeptics also use rationality to try to learn about the world objectively, without human-induced bias, but that does not negate the fact that they feel and enjoy the same emotions that other people do. In fact, discovering new information often produces feelings of awe and wonder by itself, and motivates skeptics to investigate further.

Many skeptics spend their lifetimes studying the natural world and are as amazed and entranced by it as believers, and the vast majority are not trying to discourage anyone from having those feelings.

Just because you accuse them of trying to do that, doesn't meant they actually are.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is probably the most ponderous way I've ever heard the sad old "Atheist don't experience joy or wonder because they won't accept things without evidence" chestnut worded.

 

[Apology]

It seems to me that this thread has gone off track to a certain degree.

What does the world "spiritual" really mean to most people, especially those people who use it a lot? In my opinion, "spiritual" seems to mean "having religious or pseudoreligious beliefs or values outside of the confines of an organized religion". This definition would cover the "spiritual but not religious" person who believes in Jesus and angels and holy spirits at home but diverges from most organized religions' definition of such. It would also cover the New Ager's belief in crystals and alternative realities and other planes of existence.


If this definition suits, then I would say that I'm not at all spiritual.

 

[punshhh]

If you get that impression from what I have been saying in this thread, you are misreading me.

If skeptics who use whop-de-do as a means of trying to squash an individuals feelings of awe regarding the way the individual chooses to see life, the planet, and their small part in it, and you consider this to be okay and acceptable, in what way is this assisting the process of getting on the same page in regard to that awesome thing?

Simply put, it either IS an awesome thing or it is not. 'Putting things into perspective' in relation to the size of something should have no bearing on the feelings related to awe, 'spirituality' or anything else. Otherwise the impression is that Science is no more than a tool for discovering personal worthlessness and that would be a completely wrong description.

Admittedly it is a kind of balancing act until you get it right, but if you take another look and listen to Carl Sagan's 'little blue dot' you might see that he does this very thing.
He does not deny the 'smallness' of our situation, any more than he suggests we take that as proof we should ignore the significance of our situation to the point of continuing to act as if it it does not need to be nurtured and given the best possible chance of surviving and prospering.

Squashing awe in favour of accepting the 'reality' we are nothing important has never and will never support such a beautiful amazing rare and potentially limitless thing as Human Consciousness.
The mindful is more special than the mindless because it has the potential to use its self realization to preserve and utilize and nurture - nurture even the mindless thing.
It is Consciousness which determines what is special and what is not, and if it forgets to include itself in that process, then it wont be going anywhere nice.


Whop-de-doism is not a 'straw man' (your argument is) it is an actual thing which does happen and seems directly related to wooism, as if it were an antidote to the woo disease - it is not. It is just as much as disease as wooism.

Nice smorgasbord, I might take a nibble and bring a cup of something I brewed earlier.

 

[Navigator]

Just because you accuse them of trying to do that, doesn't meant they actually are.

Here is the thing though. I don't. I have made that clear enough in many posts.

There are some skeptics who do, who present themselves in that manner, consistently.

I am okay with pointing it out when it appears to be happening.

 

[Navigator]

This is probably the most ponderous way I've ever heard the sad old "Atheist don't experience joy or wonder because they won't accept things without evidence" chestnut worded.

That is not what is happening.

 

[Navigator]

It seems to me that this thread has gone off track to a certain degree.

What does the world "spiritual" really mean to most people, especially those people who use it a lot? In my opinion, "spiritual" seems to mean "having religious or pseudoreligious beliefs or values outside of the confines of an organized religion". This definition would cover the "spiritual but not religious" person who believes in Jesus and angels and holy spirits at home but diverges from most organized religions' definition of such. It would also cover the New Ager's belief in crystals and alternative realities and other planes of existence.


If this definition suits, then I would say that I'm not at all spiritual.

There are a few who think this definition suits, but some don't think so.

 

[Pup]

Here is the thing though. I don't. I have made that clear enough in many posts.

There are some skeptics who do, who present themselves in that manner, consistently.

I am okay with pointing it out when it appears to be happening.

You phrased your question to me in a way that blatantly misrepresented my position. Either you did it deliberately as a debating tactic or you are having trouble understanding how skeptics are presenting themselves, and are interpreting things that appear to be there, which aren't.

To ask you your own question, "in what way is this assisting the process of getting on the same page in regard to that awesome thing? "

 

[Navigator]

You phrased your question to me in a way that blatantly misrepresented my position.

The question itself was not originally asked of you in relation to your particular position, but it was asked of skeptics who take this particular stance Pup.

Your particular position is not clear to me even now Pup, so your use of the words 'blatantly misrepresented' in regard to that position cannot apply.

I would say that once our 'positions' are clear to each other, THEN we have some chance of getting on the same page.

... or you are having trouble understanding how skeptics are presenting themselves, and are interpreting things that appear to be there, which aren't.

I am not having trouble understanding how different skeptics present themselves Pup - I have said as much quite often.
I am focusing upon a particular type of skeptic presentation which is whop-de-do and useless for that. As useless as wooism.

 

[Pup]

The question itself was not originally asked of you in relation to your particular position, but it was asked of skeptics who take this particular stance Pup.

Then you shouldn't have included the phrase "you consider this to be okay and acceptable." It made the question silly and nonsensical, like asking, "If John Smith swears at people and you consider this to be okay and acceptable, how does that help him make friends?" It's pointless and unanswerable unless the person you're asking actually does consider it to be okay and acceptable.

Your particular position is not clear to me even now Pup, so your use of the words 'blatantly misrepresented' in regard to that position cannot apply.

If my position isn't clear after what I wrote in Post #182 after the words "I will state my position again," then you will never understand my position. I don't know if that's because it's not the straw man you want to attack so you don't want to understand it, whether it's due to a language barrier, whether you're just trolling, or what's going on. But I can't make it any clearer than that.

I am focusing upon a particular type of skeptic presentation which is whop-de-do and useless for that. As useless as wooism.

Then I'd advise finding someone here who takes that position and who will debate it with you.

Edited to add:

Do you notice a contradiction in these two sentences, both in your previous post?

"Your particular position is not clear to me even now Pup"

"I am not having trouble understanding how different skeptics present themselves Pup."

That's pretty funny, actually.

 

[Navigator]

Then you shouldn't have included the phrase "you consider this to be okay and acceptable." It made the question silly and nonsensical, like asking, "If John Smith swears at people and you consider this to be okay and acceptable, how does that help him make friends?" It's pointless and unanswerable unless the person you're asking actually does consider it to be okay and acceptable.

So you are saying that the question should have been asked in a manner that left no room for misunderstanding or even possible misuse?

I am not sure why you didn't just say so or maybe you did and I didn't see it.

How should the question have been framed that this need not have happened?

On the rest of you post, I would say yes - there is a definite problem in our being able to communicate effectively with each other. We can work at improving that if we want to.

 

[JaysonR]

It seems to me that this thread has gone off track to a certain degree.

What does the world "spiritual" really mean to most people, especially those people who use it a lot? In my opinion, "spiritual" seems to mean "having religious or pseudoreligious beliefs or values outside of the confines of an organized religion". This definition would cover the "spiritual but not religious" person who believes in Jesus and angels and holy spirits at home but diverges from most organized religions' definition of such. It would also cover the New Ager's belief in crystals and alternative realities and other planes of existence.


If this definition suits, then I would say that I'm not at all spiritual.

With the rise of individual social diversity, to most people the word means further clarification is needed.

In the vernacular, the word implies a few different possibilities.

On the other hand, in the critical, it depends on who's using it for what purpose as to what the meaning implies.

If, for instance, Sam Harris states the word, then it would imply your understanding.

If, on the other hand, it is being used by someone like Sam Keen, then the word would be more general in its implication and refer to things every human experiences because Keen's use of the term is more regarding the emotional response surrounding the phenomenon of reverential behavior and the provocation thereof.

So it is a wide ranging term, but again, that is due to the context of the term.

If it's being used by an adherent to some belief, then the word is specialized and subjective to their perspective.
However, if the term is being used objectively to describe a state of interaction behaviors by humans in commentary, then the term will be more benign and descriptive of general behavior and likely relate to sensory stimuli if the address is also philosophical discourse regarding known matters of neurology thus far.


One of the nice things about the word being subjectively slippery is that it permits a merging point between non-religious and religious individuals; permitting folks like Sagan and Tyson to claim "spiritual" experiences and identify their craft as "spiritual" as well.

Which means, it permits for the portrayal of science as a spiritually satisfying pursuit; which permits advocates of science to show how non-scientific holdings aren't needed for the spiritual satisfaction.

Taking the word out of the lexicon is probably not going to happen outside of the normal vernacular evolution; meaning, it will fade as time moves forward in much the way other similar words have.

As it is, the word has come a long way.
It used to be rather specific in its use, while today the word has evolved and moved.

As subjective experience states become more secular in expression, I expect that words such as "spiritual", as well as many other words, will alter over time.

 

[Navigator]

Pup

I said this earlier:

I was thinking that as Human Consciousness evolved, it was simply necessary to invent things like gods and angels and devils and what have you as part of the journey into self realization and identity and that as such, religion played its role and invented words to describe these states and the actual states can transcend gods and devils and such and still have relevance as part of individual and species self identity.

Now I ask you, do you agree with this?

 

[Navigator]

Pup

Earlier I replied to a post Tricky had made.

Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

In this Carl is most definitely making similar commentary as you regarding position place and importance, however he is not at all suggesting it is not important, but what he is suggesting is that 'we' redefine our own understanding to better adjust our own behavior toward one another which
underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish our home - the only home we have ever known.

Do you agree with this or not?

 

[Pup]

Pup

I said this earlier:

I was thinking that as Human Consciousness evolved, it was simply necessary to invent things like gods and angels and devils and what have you as part of the journey into self realization and identity and that as such, religion played its role and invented words to describe these states and the actual states can transcend gods and devils and such and still have relevance as part of individual and species self identity.

Now I ask you, do you agree with this?

Well, I haven't gone back to look at the original context so I'm taking the paragraph as it stands, and there are a lot of words in there that could be defined different ways, so I don't want this to turn into a "gotcha" where you say I agreed with something and then reveal that you're defining a word differently than I am.

For example, if "Human Consciousness evolved" means the same thing as "the human brain evolved to produce consciousness more than other animal's brains" then I agree, but if it means something else, I don't.

But in general, I agree up through "... describe these states."

"Transcend" in the next phrase is such a loaded word that I'm hesitant to agree. The transcendentalists left it with a lot of baggage, as have other religions. If you mean that the states which are usually ascribed to religious influences occur in people due to normal brain function, without any supernatural cause, then yes, I'd agree with that part as well.

Not sure what this part means so I can't agree or disagree: "still have relevance as part of individual and species self identity" Words like "relevance" and "self-identity" have so much pop-psychology and new-age baggage attached to them that I can't guess how you're using them.

 

[Pup]

Pup

Earlier I replied to a post Tricky had made.

Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

In this Carl is most definitely making similar commentary as you regarding position place and importance, however he is not at all suggesting it is not important, but what he is suggesting is that 'we' redefine our own understanding to better adjust our own behavior toward one another which
underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish our home - the only home we have ever known.

Do you agree with this or not?

It would require youtube watching and previous-post-reading to give an honest answer, and quite frankly, based on other posts, I'm suspicious you'll misinterpret my other answer in some way to create a strawman or a gotcha, so I don't want to invest a lot of time in the conversation, and therefore I have no answer to this one.

 

[Navigator]

Well, I haven't gone back to look at the original context so I'm taking the paragraph as it stands, and there are a lot of words in there that could be defined different ways, so I don't want this to turn into a "gotcha" where you say I agreed with something and then reveal that you're defining a word differently than I am.

For example, if "Human Consciousness evolved" means the same thing as "the human brain evolved to produce consciousness more than other animal's brains" then I agree, but if it means something else, I don't.

But in general, I agree up through "... describe these states."

"Transcend" in the next phrase is such a loaded word that I'm hesitant to agree. The transcendentalists left it with a lot of baggage, as have other religions. If you mean that the states which are usually ascribed to religious influences occur in people due to normal brain function, without any supernatural cause, then yes, I'd agree with that part as well.

Not sure what this part means so I can't agree or disagree: "still have relevance as part of individual and species self identity" Words like "relevance" and "self-identity" have so much pop-psychology and new-age baggage attached to them that I can't guess how you're using them.

Thank you for that Pup.

I agree with you that 'gotcha' moments in relation to the use of language and how individuals might understand words, phrases etc - differently.
perhaps then our first step is to agree not to use language in this way.

Now, when you say ""the human brain evolved to produce consciousness"" my problem with that concept is that it proposes that the human brain was designed for a purpose.

I do not agree with that.

Your struggle with the word transcend also is linked with your struggle with the concept of 'spiritual' and 'what is prayer' where-as I have no problem with these as concepts. For me it helped to claim ownership of them in my own growth as an individual Conscious Awareness.
(I always of habit use CAPS for words I feel are important to me and want others to know this)

However, your description of ('if you mean...) that the states which are usually ascribed to religious influences occur in people due to normal brain function, without any supernatural cause, then yes, I'd agree with that part as well.
I agree with that but would like to add this:

"Normal brain function in relation to Consciousness."

As to your last statement, I think for now that is better put on the shelf as you don't know what I am saying and I don't know how to say it differently so that you can understand...so I think it would distract at the moment and can be looked at later if things unfold that way.

 

[Navigator]

It would require youtube watching and previous-post-reading to give an honest answer, and quite frankly, based on other posts, I'm suspicious you'll misinterpret my other answer in some way to create a strawman or a gotcha, so I don't want to invest a lot of time in the conversation, and therefore I have no answer to this one.

Perhaps then I can make the suggestion that you put aside your *suspicions and watch the video and note the way it makes you feel and if that feeling is related to an agreement with both Carl and myself in relation to whether you agree that Carl and I are saying the same thing, and do you agree with that and also do you agree with what we are saying?

*I agree not to use language as a form of 'gotcha' etc...

 

[Navigator]

With the rise of individual social diversity, to most people the word means further clarification is needed.

In the vernacular, the word implies a few different possibilities.

On the other hand, in the critical, it depends on who's using it for what purpose as to what the meaning implies.

If, for instance, Sam Harris states the word, then it would imply your understanding.

If, on the other hand, it is being used by someone like Sam Keen, then the word would be more general in its implication and refer to things every human experiences because Keen's use of the term is more regarding the emotional response surrounding the phenomenon of reverential behavior and the provocation thereof.

So it is a wide ranging term, but again, that is due to the context of the term.

If it's being used by an adherent to some belief, then the word is specialized and subjective to their perspective.
However, if the term is being used objectively to describe a state of interaction behaviors by humans in commentary, then the term will be more benign and descriptive of general behavior and likely relate to sensory stimuli if the address is also philosophical discourse regarding known matters of neurology thus far.


One of the nice things about the word being subjectively slippery is that it permits a merging point between non-religious and religious individuals; permitting folks like Sagan and Tyson to claim "spiritual" experiences and identify their craft as "spiritual" as well.

Which means, it permits for the portrayal of science as a spiritually satisfying pursuit; which permits advocates of science to show how non-scientific holdings aren't needed for the spiritual satisfaction.

Taking the word out of the lexicon is probably not going to happen outside of the normal vernacular evolution; meaning, it will fade as time moves forward in much the way other similar words have.

As it is, the word has come a long way.
It used to be rather specific in its use, while today the word has evolved and moved.

As subjective experience states become more secular in expression, I expect that words such as "spiritual", as well as many other words, will alter over time.

I enjoyed this, thank you JasonR