In conversations with pragmatic atheists and scientific minded individuals they seem to get annoyed if anything spiritual or mysterious is implied (or assumed by them) in the argument.

Or if they cannot extract a logical pragmatic or scientific explanation from you, they accuse you of being "mystical" or of preaching God to them as if you were stepping over a line of reason that they have drawn around themselves.

I am not ashamed of considering the "spiritual" aspect of human consciousness and I consider it just as scientific as known science. Just because modern physics can't explain everything they designate anything beyond what they can prove as being "mystical."

I think its very closed minded.

They should be so lucky to live in a world with things they can't explain. That's half the fun of life, your own interpretations of the things you observe.

How do they think any science or whatever they'd quote as fact got established, someone went out of their way to discover it, or prove it or whatever. These are people full of repeated or as I call it "parroted" knowledge, they'll never know any divine truths.

Divine truths being something you find out in your lifetime, and things you know/believe in...not because someone told you, but because you have observed it, experienced it for yourself, and felt it to be so.

I think the reason is mainly due to the dogmatic religions. In particular the Mediterranean religions. They see how horrid they are and how they become a cancer on humanity and cause political and social unrest, as well as complacency or even disrepect for the natural world.

So they view mystical thinking of any kind as just being unnecessary supersition that can easily become dogamtic or a cult.



I personally feel that I am both pragmatic, as well as scientific minded.

Yet I'm not an atheist.

As a scientist I'm well aware that science is still in it's infancy. We bearly know anything.

I'm convinced that we do know some things. Like the age of the universe, the age of the solar system and earth, and the fact that we evolved from primates.

To me those are all very well-established facts.

I am also practical enough to recognize that the ancient mythologies (like the Bible) are clearly so fully of self-contradictions that they can't possible be true whether they agree with science or not is totally irrelevant because they shot themselves in the foot. There's no need to go outside of the biblical stories to see that they shoot themsleves in the foot time and time again.

So atheists are problem concerned with uncalled for superstitions and dogma.

However, as I say, even science isn't anywhere close to explaining what's actually going on. In fact, it's current in limbo with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is currently saying that it's impossible to know what's going on base on our current information!

That's the CURRENT conclusion of genuine science.

So any atheist who thinks that science can disprove any 'supernatural' events is just kidding themselves.

After all, what is 'supernatural'?

All the supernatural is, is something we have yet to explain rationally.

Well, there is a lot that science has not yet explained. Therefore the 'supernatural' clearly exists! Just by definition alone!

We know that science doesn't have all the answers. Therefore there are things we can't yet explain. Therefore, by definition, supernatural powers exist.

So atheists would be utterly wrong to try to claim otherwise.

But I'll help them put down dogma, because dogma shoots itself in it's own foot. You can't have a supposedly loving God doing hateful things. You can't have a supposedly unchanging God changing his mind all the time.

Dogma shoots itself in the foot by claiming that God is one thing, and then going on to tell stories that blatantly contradict those originally premises.

So Dogma has proven itself to be a manmade lie. Those liars were caught red-handed in their lies. There's no getting around it.

Truly.

Welcome to the forums.

Thanks Abra. Its nice to have the opinion of a person who is both scientific and spiritual.

I can understand why some scientists reject the idea that "God created it" because that is no answer at all.

But some go way overboard rejecting the idea of anything spiritual existing at all and even the slightest hint of and idea that is not grounded in what they consider to be scientific fact is mistaken as being "mystical."

I have been accused of being mystical when I thought I was being totally practical, logical and scientific.

I look for answers, even answers beyond science, and I refuse to dismiss any possibilities or methods to get them. Some people can't understand why I believe the way I do if I don't have iron clad proven scientific proof. DUH!!

Like you said, science does not have all the answers. So I look elsewhere. Big deal. Yet when I express my ideas people call me "dangerous" or "delusional" or "ignorant."

I am beginning to think I should just keep my thoughts to myself.

jb

I don't see what difference it makes whether or not something can be explained. Like magick. One day it will be shown how it scientifically works. In the meantime, it works.

I understand the need to investigate things. Like people who think there are ghosts in every picture with the little white spot. However, not everything can be proven or disproven. It is what it is.

"dangerous" and "delusional" are compliments. Ignorant is just something they throw in for anyone who disagrees with them.

That's the bottom line for me. It works.

What more do I need to know?

How to make it work faster and more consistently?

How fast do you want it to work. Instantly?

I have used the power of attraction to acquire 'things' that I needed or wanted and in my experience, depending on what I am asking for or needing, (including money) I get results in 12 hours to three days. Most often about three days.

The longest time I have noticed is between six months and a year, but I think I was doing something wrong in the process.

I thought I would revive the oldest thread on the "other" religion. It is 293 days old!

So what do you think of the question Jeannie offers. Any thoughts about it?

Most of the Atheists I know really want to have facts. They want real answers and when not found they discredit it or just don't give it any thought anymore. Of course some still search for answers with no success.

I am not saying every single atheist thinks like this, but the ones I have met do.

Their saying is "If it isn't proven then it doesn't exist"

Also concerning religion I usually hear "Well nothing happens when we die. We just become food for the worms and that is it."

Who am I to say this is wrong? I don't know, yet whatever it is worth, one has to be happy with what one believes in. Some atheists are happy and then there are some who are not with the conclusions they come up with.

What a complex world we live in with so many different idealogies floating around. If only we could simplify it somehow right.

I wondered how this thread got 11 replies already.

I thought it was HOT HOT HOT!

I see I already gave my answer. I still hold to it after 293 days!

Those dastardly Mediterranean religions with their evil jealous Gods condemning all men as sinners.

Is it any wonder that so many atheists have spiritual phobia?

Sometimes I wonder if England wouldn't have conquered half of the world at the time how the Christian faith would stand and how far would it have gone?

I remember reading an article of how surfers in Hawaii, which is a tradition amongst the inhabitants was forbidden by Christian missionaries. They mentioned it is the work of the devil. For the Hawaiins it was an appreciaten of a god they worship. In the end they where forced to stop surfing all the way until the late 60's where a group of young men protested and made it popular again.

Then I look at how the English empire really settled on so many countries creating fear into the inhabitants who had different belief system and converting them to their religion. Many times against their will.

If this wouldn't have happened would there still be 2.1 billion followers? I mean yes it is a shaky 2.1 billion followers because out of those 2.1 billion followers we have 48 denominations of Christianity and alot who just check the box Christianity but don't really practice it.

Of course I can't change history, but one can see that Christianity expanded because the people who practice it are more skeptical about other belief systems they don't know creating the mind to invent weapons outweighing other cultures and belief systems.

The mind then told itself with the help of the bible that one had to convert or kill the inhabitants if they don't believe.

That is where those volumes of heretics, embezzle, sin, infidel where created to give justice to do such acts onto people. It is amazing as soon as it is written on paper then it is a justified law to act upon those who are different in lifestyle and belief system.

I can also understand why the other belief systems didn't have the desire to conquer other nations. Their belief system was in actuality more peaceful(overall). Perhaps not perfect like we want to believe for their was violence and injustice inside the system, but it wasn't has violent as a mediterrenean mythology would do.

So now we are back to the psychological reason. What made the people believe so blindly without doing some research. I can understand that when the heretic volumes were written people didn't dare to ask questions or they would be condemned as a heretic, but what about those who weren't Christian. Why didn't they fight back?

I can come up with a few reasons, but I wouldn't mind to see an elaboration in a psychological aspect to get a deeper meaning out of this.

Does a more violent religious belief system push the mind to invent more sophisticated technology to outweight and give advantage (so to say concerning conquering other nations) then those who practice a more peaceful spiritual belief system?


Now concerning atheists, I can understand their view point, but what amazes me is that they are so certain (many of them) that there is no spirit, soul, or anything after life. How can one be so certain? I mean yes if there is no factual points to lean back on, I can understand the logic in many ways. It is a tough one to be so certain when considering something we don't absolutely know in either perspective being spiritual or not.

Well, I think there is no doubt that Christianity in general was indeed a unifying FORCE.

This is precisely why it thrived. What could be more powerful than to have the power of "God's Will" embedded in the King's Voice!

And this comes directly from the Bible (from the book of Kings). To blaspheme against the King is to blaspheme against God! So clearly even the people who wrote the Bible (or at least Kings) were setting it up to insure that the King will have the authority of God. To speak against the King is to speak against God.

This gives the King's words the same power as the very word of God. And this comes directly out of the Bible. It was clearly written with the express intent to give the King the power and authory of God.

And this made the Governnments of the time very powerful. In fact, it also states in that same book that to blaspheme the King is to blaspheme God, and the pentalty for blaspheming either the King or God is to be STONED TO DEATH! Of course, I think they often just used a sword. The bottom line is that it's ok to murder anyone who says anything against God or, more importantly, against the King!

This made it easy to murder anyone who didn't go along with the plans of a particular King. Plus it instilled fear into the masses that if they don't go along with the King they will surely be killed (not to mention that God will also be quite peeved with them and cast their poor dead soul into an eternal hellfire)

There's no question about it John. This religion is indeed what made it easy to create large obedient armies that would go out and murder anyone the King told them to murder.

If the King proclaimed that the enemy are heathens, then this was the Word of God and there can be now denying it. To even question this would be blaspheme!

Religion used to be powerful stuff. Thank "God" (the real god if there is one) that Christianty finally fell. And it has. It's no longer a political power (at least not in an official capacity like it was in the days of the Kings).

It still causes violence even today though.



Well, I personally feel that this truly stems from gross ignorance of philosophy, logic, and a misunderstanding of Occam's Razor and how it applies to science (not philosophy).

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation always seems to be the best. And here's what people fail to realize about Occam's Razor.

Think about what it says:

The simplest explanation always seems to be the best

In other words, if you can explain electricity and magnatism using 4 dimensions, then why bother inventing a hypothetical 5 dimension to explain it? Take the SIMPLE explanation and run with it!

And that has been very useful.

However, the bottom line is that and explanation was indeed possible using less then 5 dimensions, and that's the key.

If it wasn't possible to explain it in 4 dimenions, then we'd have no choice but to propose a possible 5th dimension.

Well, take life in general.

We can begin with the premise that all we can ever experience in this life comes from physical sensations. (i.e. all is physical)

Why make up anything more? That would violate Occam's Razor!

But not really!

This is what many atheists fail to recognize. The bottom line is that this simple premise hasn't succedeed in explaining everything. It's hasn't satisfied Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor simply suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the best. But it doesn't say anything about restricting things when an explanation hasn't yet been forthcoming.

Where do brand new creative ideas come from, for example?

If the idea that all experience is purely physical can't explain where freash new ideas come from, then it's hasn't succeeded in explaining anything. Therefore Occam's Razor isn't even applicable!

Moreover, what athesits don't seem to also realize is that it's just as arbitrary to assume that all experience comes from the physical as it is to assume that there may be something more going on.

One premise truly has no more merit than the other really.

Especially in light of modern scientific discoveries!

Science has discovered the mystery of time dilation and that space and time are one entity we now call a 'fabric' of spactime.

Science has dicovered the mystery of Quantum Mechanics that compeltely defies conventional "classical logically thinking".

Science has discovered Dark Energy and Dark Matter, that are still compeltely undetectable DIRECTLY, yet they know they must exists via INDIRECT methods!

How does this differ from knowing that spirit must exist from the INDIRECT evidence that we are obviously CREATIVE in our thoughts?

Science is currently proposing 11 dimensions to EXPLAIN physical reality! Where's Occam's Razor now?

Clearly science is confessing that they have NO EXPLANATIONS and so they need to dream up 7 more INVISIBLE UNDETECTABLE dimensions to try to EXPLAIN things?

And these same people are laughing at the idea of spirit?

Not to imply that all scientists are atheists. That's far from the truth. Many scientists have deeply spiritual views. Some even still believe in orthodox Christianity and that Jesus had case even demon out of men who had been posssed by demons!

Anyone who believes in Jesus must necessarily believe that evil demons can possess humans, because the Bible clearly has Jesus casting demons out of possessed people!

So anyway, many athiests have simply been mislead to believe that it somehow makes more sense to not believe in spirit than it does to believe in spirit.

But that's simply not true. It's a false arguments really and unfortunately many new atheists are just falling for it. It sounds good on the surface, but in the depths of logic it doesn't hold water.

So in the end we have two extremes dealing with what they believe to be true.

I have known atheists that are so aggressive that I told them they need to find some spirituality in their life for their own good.

Then I have found some really hardcore (you must be like this) religious fanatics to where I told them that they need to open their minds to different possiblities.

It amazes me how complicated we made it for ourselves on this planet.

When we look at animals, we can only admire that at least they have a life that doesn't worry so much about the 'what ifs' and 'what ares' that occupy us humans alot of times.

Well whatever it is worth I agree that "simplicity" really helps a person focus much better on lifes perspectives in general.

It is a great lesson you give me. Thank you for the explanation.

A lot of people don't realize that spirituality is a very healthy and healing aspect of being human. They want to associate it with religion, and it is not neccessarily an accurate assessment. Spirituality is more about relaxation, and introspection, and about learning about yourself and the world around you. If an athiest applies this definition to his or her life, then they could find scientific study of the world around them and the people, plants and animals in it, to be very relaxing, especially if they reflect on their place in the scheme of things. Seeing one's self and your own life as a valid scientific study can be quite interesting. And quite frankly, what we have now proven scientifically used to be the stuff of Sci-Fi and fantasy.

Exactly.

And not only that, but modern scientists are currently proposing 'imaginary' physical theories that make Sci-Fi appear to be written by unimaginative authors.

11-dimensions of space, 7 of them totally unseen and undetected?

Any scientist who laughs at someone who proposes that their might be unseen spirits needs to think again about who's proposing imaginary unseen things?

7 invisible dimensions of space?

fear of the unknown and a very closed mind

I'm curious what a 'pragmatic atheist' is, as I've not heard the term. I've heard of 'materialist atheists' though, and 'strong atheists', and the less-specific 'skeptics', all of which groups have many people therein who meet your description.

But I don't think its fair to generalize about a group - this is your experience with individuals. And consider, I mean, you say it yourself - these are people who are 'getting annoyed' - probably they are committed to a particular ideology (which, probably, is not inherent in either science nor atheism). They may, by nature, be argumentative people.




I believe I know what you are talking about, and I think its a problem with the individual(s).


To me, true skepticism is an approach to truth not a position on what is true. I once visited a skeptics club with the intention of joining, but everyone there was preoccupied with their certainty that certain unsubstantiated claims (alien visitations, existence of a Diety, psychic powers) were false. I never went back. True skepticism is a process, and approach, not a position.