Why is it spirituality vs skepticism?

[XenoFish 101,771]

5 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

I can see how the concept can inspire profound thoughts.. I just wish that those thoughts would inspire more profound action.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

There we go, into perpetuity,

They do at times. Both positive and negative. Unfortunately it's more negative than positive.

[Likely Guy 24,128]

Just now, XenoFish said:

They do at times. Both positive and negative. Unfortunately it's more negative than positive.

That is as much my fault as it is yours (collectively speaking).

[XenoFish 101,771]

2 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

That is as much my fault as it is yours (collectively speaking).

Well. What motivates my actions are my own intentions. Not influenced for spiritual rewards. So I am only to blame for what ill I do. I can't scapegoat it.

[Likely Guy 24,128]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Well. What motivates my actions are my own intentions. Not influenced for spiritual rewards. So I am only to blame for what ill I do. I can't scapegoat it.

If your actions are motivated by good intentions... that is all that really matters.

[OntarioSquatch 86]

Skepticism is applied in all fields of research. The title "spirituality vs skepticism" is meant to place emphasis on questioning commonly held spiritual beliefs; supposedly, people aren't applying enough skepticism to spiritual beliefs.

People that are more "close-minded" have higher standards for accepting theories. By the same token, if one is more "open-minded", one has lower standards for accepting theories. 

Worth noting that in actual science, one doesn't accept a theory as being true; one just accepts it as the best explanation for the observations that it's based on.

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[sees 6,372]

8 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Why can't a person be both spiritual and skeptical?

I manage it. 

    Me too...it's possible to be skeptical about certain things. 

[AZDZ 743]

15 hours ago, rodentraiser said:

Why can't a person be both spiritual and skeptical? After all, being spiritual doesn't necessarily mean you have to be religious. Being  a spiritual person can mean you respect other people and nature and try to be a good person. That in no way contradicts the fact that you can also be skeptical of things like aliens and Bigfoot at the same time.

I agree. The problems start when skepticism becomes a reason to attack God for the sake of winning arguments with believers. I believe God would forgive and forget for people not believing in His existence. After all, He is responsible for hiding all the evidence so it would not be Just to condemn anyone* for not believing. (*that is, anyone who despite unbelief does as you say and lives a just life as if they believed)

But when skeptics step out of bounds, go beyond simply not believing and attack Him, that is when they set themselves up for spiritual trouble. 

I do not think it is in vain that He says His "enemy's will be made a footstool", or "every knee will bend".

So my advice would be go ahead, live life as good person to its fullest but beware of nastily critiquing something you do not understand.

Edited September 10, 2017 by AZDZ

[XenoFish 101,771]

7 minutes ago, AZDZ said:

I agree. The problems start when skepticism becomes a reason to attack God for the sake of winning arguments with believers. I believe God would forgive and forget for people not believing in His existence. After all, He is responsible for hiding all the evidence so it would not be Just to condemn anyone* for not believing. (*that is, anyone who despite unbelief does as you say and lives a just life as if they believed)

But when skeptics step out of bounds, go beyond simply not believing and attack Him, that is when they set themselves up for spiritual trouble. 

I do not think it is in vain that He says His "enemy's will be made a footstool", or "every knee will bend".

So my advice would be go ahead, live life as good person to its fullest but beware of nastily critiquing something you do not understand.

Man this whole post is riddled with bias assumptions about something that might not even exist. No one us skeptics get a little testy. Yeah, that nasty "critiquing" has a lot to do with the horrors that religion has caused. So you can get all happy go luck on that dopamine ride of jesus juice, fine with me. Not my fault you believe in something irrational.

[freetoroam 40,812]

15 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

 I am an open-minded skeptic  

 

Dear mods, can you move this little bit to the WTF thread, so we can debate it there? 

Thankyou.

[rodentraiser 408]

18 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I guess I would need to hear your definition of spirituality then. The debate is often in the definition.

No, atheists by definition are not necessarily non-spiritual. What I was referring to was the recent misuse of the word 'skeptic' by those who are really just attackers and not open-minded investigators (pseudo-skepticism).

OK, I get that. But my definition of spirituality was sort of in my first post: "Being  a spiritual person can mean you respect other people and nature and try to be a good person."

I'm not saying those are the only qualifications for being spiritual, just as I'm not saying these people are spiritual, although they sure seem to be:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/on-sept-11-a-tiny-canadian-town-opened-its-runways-and-heart-to-7000-stranded-travelers/2016/09/08/89d875da-75e5-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

But it's a start.

At the same time, I am indeed an attacker when it comes to things like Christianity being used as an excuse to do evil or even just when people proclaim themselves to be Christian but act anything but. Joel Osteen and his church is a good example.

I guess I'm seeing spirituality not only as when you don't do harm to anyone else, but also as part and parcel of doing good, too.

[rodentraiser 408]

18 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Spirituality is fantasy. It's for those with some kind of emotional need. Same goes for believing in ghost, demons, bigfoot, and the loch ness monster. 

So if I use your definition as a reason for my definition, then trying to be a good person is because I have an emotional need?  Well, I suppose it could be. There are very few people who do things for others for a purely unselfish reason. Even when someone walks into a bank or restaurant and smiles at the teller or waitress, it's usually because they are trying to appear agreeable and nice, so they get better service. I think that's hardwired into us.

----------------------------

To everyone here: how many people do you smile at each day if you aren't going to have an interaction with them? Do you look at the people you meet and wonder if they're having a good day or not? If they look like they're not, do you ask them if everything is OK? Are you paying attention to other people even when you're in a hurry or have something else on your mind? Just curious.

[papageorge1 5,247]

45 minutes ago, rodentraiser said:

OK, I get that. But my definition of spirituality was sort of in my first post: "Being  a spiritual person can mean you respect other people and nature and try to be a good person."

I'm not saying those are the only qualifications for being spiritual, just as I'm not saying these people are spiritual, although they sure seem to be:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/on-sept-11-a-tiny-canadian-town-opened-its-runways-and-heart-to-7000-stranded-travelers/2016/09/08/89d875da-75e5-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

But it's a start.

At the same time, I am indeed an attacker when it comes to things like Christianity being used as an excuse to do evil or even just when people proclaim themselves to be Christian but act anything but. Joel Osteen and his church is a good example.

I guess I'm seeing spirituality not only as when you don't do harm to anyone else, but also as part and parcel of doing good, too.

To me, that use of the word 'spirituality' is too watered down to mean much. I mean who is against the general concept of doing good. Skeptics don't ever argue against that. I think in this section the type of 'spirituality' we are talking about involves at least some belief in a super-physical spirit or spirits.

Edited September 10, 2017 by papageorge1

[back to earth 23,451]

22 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Good call. The title of the section doesn't  really make much sense 'Spirituality vs. Skepticism'. They are not things in competition with each other. I am an open-minded skeptic

 

 

[back to earth 23,451]

20 hours ago, Will Due said:

Spirituality is the knowledge that doesn't need belief. 

Skepticism is the belief that there is no knowledge. 

 

 

Its getting worse ! 

[back to earth 23,451]

6 hours ago, AZDZ said:

I agree. The problems start when skepticism becomes a reason to attack God for the sake of winning arguments with believers. I believe God would forgive and forget for people not believing in His existence. After all, He is responsible for hiding all the evidence so it would not be Just to condemn anyone* for not believing. (*that is, anyone who despite unbelief does as you say and lives a just life as if they believed)

But when skeptics step out of bounds, go beyond simply not believing and attack Him, that is when they set themselves up for spiritual trouble. 

I do not think it is in vain that He says His "enemy's will be made a footstool", or "every knee will bend".

So my advice would be go ahead, live life as good person to its fullest but beware of nastily critiquing something you do not understand.

 

                                       

[papageorge1 5,247]

18 minutes ago, back to earth said:

 

 

What's your definition of skepticism?

[lightly 7,811]

I'm not absolutely sure what I believe anymore....  But it's always confused me when someone says he is spiritual..but doesn't believe in spirit!    No such thing as spirit....but still claims to be spiritual...cuz he's a nice guy or something!

is you is or is you isn't ?

lol?

 

[Will do 5,825]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

I'm not absolutely sure what I believe anymore....  But it's always confused me when someone says he is spiritual..but doesn't believe in spirit!    No such thing as spirit....but still claims to be spiritual...cuz he's a nice guy or something!

is you is or is you isn't ?

lol?

 

You isn't, isn't the question.

What are you is.

 

 

[Aquila King 22,627]

9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

You isn't, isn't the question.

What are you is.

[Will do 5,825]

13 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Being good, isn't good enough.

 

 

[Carnoferox 5,797]

24 minutes ago, Will Due said:

You isn't, isn't the question.

What are you is.

This is the worst case of BS pseudo-philosophizing I've ever seen. I'm afraid that at such a late stage it is terminal.

[XenoFish 101,771]

Just now, Will Due said:

Being good, isn't good enough.

 

 

By whose standard? Being good is good enough for me. When I am the one doing good. Screw what anyone else thinks.

[mindpurge 44]

On 9/9/2017 at 8:38 PM, XenoFish said:

Because there is a line between fact and fiction. 

Its funny you know... I could see myself having a conversation with you, probably a fairly deep, intellectual conversation. But I know, without a doubt, at the end - I'd be walking away shaking my head saying to myself, "I think I just spoke to one of the stupidest person ever."

I don't mean this as an insult, I'm not saying you are stupid in everyday business. But I am saying this because you refuse to research anything you don't believe in. You don't see it as a possibility so you won't bother looking into it.

There's a reason why people believe, there's a reason why I believe, you don't have a reason to believe... yet... however if you did some research, and I don't mean a google search, I mean read some books written by respected doctors, scientists & specialists (I won't name these people at this time, they should be fairly easy to look up).

The reason for me to believe isn't emotional whatsoever, although I have indeed found peace in it, it's simply a matter of logic & research. Non-believers say there is no evidence, but I refute that, and tell you there is evidence, much more than you could even possibly imagine. Lets be clear, I'm not talking religion here, religion is simply man's interpretation of God, but man doesn't even know what God is, if God is even a singularity.

Simply not believing because of a lack of proof on YOUR part, from YOUR research, doesn't qualify as non-existence in all-dimensional reality.

Edited September 11, 2017 by mindpurge

[XenoFish 101,771]

Yeah I've never looked into it.

[Aquila King 22,627]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

What's your definition of skepticism?

I know this is directed at someone else, but, whatevs...

Skepticism is (or should be) considered to simply mean questioning something. that's it. It's irrational to believe something without questioning it's validity first, and yet at the same time it is equally irrational to question the validity of something incessantly without end. We all believe certain things, and we're all skeptical of others. You need both skepticism and belief to make since of anything.

This may be controversial, but here goes...

Unfortunately, here has become a religiously and politically motivated group of people with a very specific unflinching belief system and ideology, that has hijacked the word 'skepticism', and thereby uses it to cut down anything that doesn't fit their own invested interest. They have infiltrated the mainstream scientific community, and they use their majority power to suppress anything that they deem ideologically opposed to maintaining this status quo.  They've made the term 'skeptic' become almost completely synonymous with atheistic materialism, and have deemed any other view besides their own dogma as a 'belief system', whereas theirs of course isn't; it's considered an 'objective scientific fact'.

My point in this is, atheistic materialism and the 'scientific mainstream' holds no ownership rights to the term 'skepticism'. Skepticism is used by everyone to varying degrees, especially the religious. Biblical creationists are skeptical of evolution. Flat earthers are skeptical of a round earth. UFO researchers are skeptical of the government's response to UFO activity. Conspiracy Theorists are skeptical of, well, pretty much everything.

In order to be skeptical of something, you have to also believe in something, otherwise you wouldn't be skeptical of whatever it is you're skeptical of. You wouldn't question the validity of Ghosts, UFOs, or any other paranormal phenomenon unless you first believed there was natural explanation. In other words, with questions come propositions. One could say they open your mind to all possibilities, but in all honesty they don't. Literally anything is at least in some sense possible. But you reject a number of possibilities because you don't see them as likely, and therefore you pick and chose among this infinite stream of possibilities and propose that the few possibilities you select are more likely to be the case. You propose alternatives, and you wouldn't do that, unless you first believed those alternatives to be correct.

Everyone believes in certain things, and are skeptical of others. That's how the world works. So when someone tells you that they're an all-around 'skeptic', remember that they have a belief system just like the rest of us, and are skeptical of others belief systems just as we are. There is no 'skeptic' versus 'believer'. We are all skeptical believers. The idea that there are two sides to this debate: the atheistic, materialistic, mainstream, scientific community vs everything religious, spiritual, metaphysical, and paranormal; is merely a dogmatic fantasy pushed by one specific worldview in order to delegitimize all the rest. There will be those who are skeptical of this fact, and will instead propose alternatives, aka, what they believe is more likely. But in doing so they merely validate my point. Belief and skepticism is held by everyone, period.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Aquila King