What is this "Spirituality" you Earthmen speak of?

[wolfman97]

What is this “spirituality”??

It is entertainment. See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=323904

[Scott_Plaid]

**wolfman97
**, please do not simply read what this thread has become. Please read the Original Post, as well.

[Liberal]

@cosmosdan

What about the sects that focus on the fear of God?

Well, let’s not equivocate. “Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power” — American Heritage

[Zoe]

Kalhoun: I believe that artistic expression is the way that we connect emotionally with one another to communicate our bond with other human beings. I believe that through art, we can find a common bond that connects our minds and hearts, and gives us a deeper understanding of the world and its inhabitants. I also believe that this is a direct communication – from one mind to another – and has no need for a spirit conduit to make the connection.

Now you are talking my language. I would differ with you only in your last sentence by changing it to this:

I believe that this is a direct communication – from one mind to another – and is a conduit for a spiritual connection.

About three or four weeks ago, we saw Chick Corea and Gonzalo Rubalcaba playing two pianos on BET on a program called Rendezvous in New York. They were playing at the Blue Note. The piece was Caravan, one of my favorites. These guys were so connected musically and with their “jazz spirits” that they just “took us in.” It was a natural high – almost like an altered state. By the time they had finished with their improv, my husand and I were both like kids at a concert. There did not seem to be a lot of separation between us, the musicians, the music, the pianos – all of it.

For me that was a spiritual thing. You may call it something else, but I’ll bet you know what I’m talking about.

There doesn’t have to be another person present. But art is often a key element for me. Nature too. Fractals. Irony. Intense color.

[Kalhoun]

@Zoe

It was a natural high – almost like an altered state. By the time they had finished with their improv, my husand and I were both like kids at a concert. There did not seem to be a lot of separation between us, the musicians, the music, the pianos – all of it.

For me that was a spiritual thing. You may call it something else, but I’ll bet you know what I’m talking about.

I know exactly what you’re talking about. But do you attribute that connection to a conscious, controlling third party who threw you a bone, or do you feel that you all just happened to be in the right place at the right time where you simultaneously found your collective groove? I believe that sometimes we just get lucky. After all, that very same performance could have been pure torture for someone else. How could it be anything but chance?

[cosmosdan]

@VarlosZ

Maybe you’re not assuming, but your statement that altruism seemed to make no sense under atheism was based on the assumption that self-interest had to be the main good under atheism. That assumption is faulty. Do you see why?

I made no such assumption. I was just poseing a question and playing a bit of the devils advocate in presenting it. My question still stands unanswered. If this brief physical life is all there is it seems to me that self interest is the logical and reasonable way to go.

You’d be wrong, apparently. Instances of human societies in history leaving the infirm to fend for themselves are the exception, not the rule.

I can’t agree. We see it happening every day. Isn’t the question of health care a symbol of this? Don’t we to a large degree abandon certain people in our own country and in other countries as well. I can’t afford to pay sopmeone elses medical bills. I have a cable TV bill to worry about, not to mention my boat payment.

Mystical mumbo-jumbo, actually, not necessarily spiritual, though at that point it’s really a matter of how you want to use the words (see the posts by Kalhoun and yourself above mine, e.g.).

I was kidding. As you can see I have spiritual beliefs.

First, did you really think that his argument that global prosperity helps everyone was “full of crap”?

I think it’s idealistic and not a realistic representation of how people actually are. In that sense I might say that reality is a reflection of this life being all there is.

Second, are you familiar with the Prisoner’s Dilemna? From the link:
Another way of looking at it is that, by cooperative action, we bring more total value into society, hence everyone’s expected value goes up.

I see the logic in a group working together. There are examples of groups working together and pooling their resources and it working out extremely well. The early LDS under Smith were a pretty good example. It sounds great in the ideal. In reality it’s hard to maintain as history shows. Sometimes we have to choose who gets the available food or medicine, me or them. Look at nation expansion. We need more land. They have it. Let’s take it.

You asked where morals come from for an aitheist, and are they as irrational for him as they seem? You’ve been given several good answers. An atheist may value the welfare of others as much as or more than his own welfare – this is in no way less rational than valuing his own self-interest most. He may (particularly if he follows certain Eastern modes of thought) have a very different conception of the “self” than others. He could believe that rational cooperative action is better for him in the long run than rationally self-interested action. Any or all of these things could be true.
Are you unsatisfied with these explanations?

You’ve made a good case for the logic of cooperation. It works well when all goes smoothly and seems to be the natural extention of self interest. It serves the individual to be a part of a group. When a crisis comes you see people put to the test. At that point survival of the fittest seems logical.

[cosmosdan]

@Liberal

Well, let’s not equivocate. “Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power” — American Heritage

Apart from the technicality of the dictionary there are many who teach a fear of God, rather than reverence.

God’s pinishment is stressed more than his love. Rejection by the group for unacceptable behaviour is the equivilant to rejection by God.

[Liberal]

@cosmosdan

Apart from the technicality of the dictionary there are many who teach a fear of God, rather than reverence.

God’s pinishment is stressed more than his love. Rejection by the group for unacceptable behaviour is the equivilant to rejection by God.

Thus proving my point. Those who teach it value the fear in others (not in themeselves) for the power and wealth that it brings them. Those who fear in that manner do not value the thing they fear; rather, they value the deliverance that they are promised will come. For people who value a feeling of fear, that is what they will seek out. People are always in pursuit of what they value. It is the purpose of life.

[VarlosZ]

@cosmosdan

My question still stands unanswered. If this brief physical life is all there is it seems to me that self interest is the logical and reasonable way to go.

It is a reasonable way to go, but not the reasonable way to go. Again, altruism is only illogical for an atheist if he is primarily self-interested, but he need not be. If you disagree, you need to explain how it is less rational to be concerned with the welfare of others than with your own welfare.

I can’t agree. We see it happening every day. Isn’t the question of health care a symbol of this? Don’t we to a large degree abandon certain people in our own country and in other countries as well. I can’t afford to pay sopmeone elses medical bills. I have a cable TV bill to worry about, not to mention my boat payment.

Huh? If you pay taxes, you pay someone else’s medical bills every day. We, as a society, have medicaid for the poor, medicare and social security for the old, relief for the unemployed, etc. Similar, and often much more thorough, protections for the needy exist in other societies. Even before such modern institutions, there were private charities and simple human kindness. While everyone is on their own to some degree, the old and infirm have tended not to be “abandoned” throughout history; this strikes me as so obvious as to forestall further discussion on the subject.

First, did you really think that his argument that global prosperity helps everyone was “full of crap”?

I think it’s idealistic and not a realistic representation of how people actually are.

But it’s not a question of human nature, it’s just a fact. Life isn’t a zero-sum game; one person’s suffering isn’t necessarily counter-balanced by another’s prosperity, and vice-versa. Stability and prosperity in central Africa is likely to have good consequences, in the long run, for everyone (especially when compared to the alternative).

Anyway, this is all peripheral. My first response in this post is the important one.

[cosmosdan]

@Liberal

Thus proving my point. Those who teach it value the fear in others (not in themeselves) for the power and wealth that it brings them. Those who fear in that manner do not value the thing they fear; rather, they value the deliverance that they are promised will come. For people who value a feeling of fear, that is what they will seek out. People are always in pursuit of what they value. It is the purpose of life.

Yes I see your point here and as I’ve said before I realize people are in pursuit of what they value even if it’s a subconscious act.

My question then would be about the followers who are taught to fear God. If people do not value what they fear then do people who fear God’s punishment not value God?

[cosmosdan]

@VarlosZ

It is a reasonable way to go, but not the reasonable way to go. Again, altruism is only illogical for an atheist if he is primarily self-interested, but he need not be. If you disagree, you need to explain how it is less rational to be concerned with the welfare of others than with your own welfare.

I already conceded that you have made a logical arguement for cooperation. Is it the most logical. That reamins open. It seems to me that even cooperation is motivated in large by self service.

Huh? If you pay taxes, you pay someone else’s medical bills every day. We, as a society, have medicaid for the poor, medicare and social security for the old, relief for the unemployed, etc. Similar, and often much more thorough, protections for the needy exist in other societies. Even before such modern institutions, there were private charities and simple human kindness. While everyone is on their own to some degree, the old and infirm have tended not to be “abandoned” throughout history; this strikes me as so obvious as to forestall further discussion on the subject.

I didn’t say there were no altruistic examples. I’m not sure taxes would even qualify. To be accurate for this discussion we’d have to eliminate chistian charities right? I’d also point out that it’s easy to help the less fortunate when we have way more than enough. Sure needs are being met. Aren’t there many needs here and abroad not being met. People abandoned by the system or that we just can’t afford to help? It’s hardly an obvious argiement. Since it’s off the OP let’s drop it.

But it’s not a question of human nature, it’s just a fact. Life isn’t a zero-sum game; one person’s suffering isn’t necessarily counter-balanced by another’s prosperity, and vice-versa. Stability and prosperity in central Africa is likely to have good consequences, in the long run, for everyone (especially when compared to the alternative).

Like the growing economies in China and India is a great boon to many out of work Americans. That fact?

Anyway, this is all peripheral. My first response in this post is the important one.

and so I reread it. this section ;

See above. Also, some materialists might not be so sure about the nature of this “self” that is supposed to be served. A strict “me and them” delianation is, in some sense, arbitrary. In other words, a person might reasonably consider his “self” to include more than just the stuff encased by his physical body, while still not really believing in what we’d call a spiritual plane of existence.

Is a valid if somewhat vague arguement.
**Kalhoun **explained it very eloquently in post 233 or there abouts.
If this is the explaination of atheistic morals and values my question is answered and I am grateful for the answer. What interests me is that other than different termnology we barely disagree. How refreshing. That explains the great affection I feel for my atheist friend at work. A great appreciation for the world and the people in it and a sense of whats important without any fear of hell.
Dam, the light went on. One could say that folks who are altruistic without doing it for some heavenly reward are even more unslefish than those who do.
Won’t the fundies hate that gem?

[Liberal]

What is so great about altruism? Why is the denial of self a good thing?

[cosmosdan]

@Liberal

What is so great about altruism? Why is the denial of self a good thing?

It may not be. The discussion was about morals and honor among atheists. It seemed to me that if one truly believed that this physical life was all there is then there woukd be little reason to do anything that wasn’t self serving.
A religious person might be altruistic because of their beliefs in an afterlife. A promise of reward. Why would an atheist?

[lekatt]

@cosmosdan

It may not be. The discussion was about morals and honor among atheists. It seemed to me that if one truly believed that this physical life was all there is then there woukd be little reason to do anything that wasn’t self serving.
A religious person might be altruistic because of their beliefs in an afterlife. A promise of reward. Why would an atheist?

I think you are accurate. Atheists have no motivation to be kind, compassionate or any other morals. But they still are, at least most of them, which indicates they just accept what society dictates or at some level of their being know it will benefit them later to be kind now. Sounds like some belief in the hereafter.

[matt]

@lekatt

I think you are accurate. Atheists have no motivation to be kind, compassionate or any other morals.

We do, you know. We have empathy. We can share the joy and the pain of other people. Atheists are not loveless.

@lekatt

But they still are, at least most of them, which indicates they just accept what society dictates or at some level of their being know it will benefit them later to be kind now. Sounds like some belief in the hereafter.

Having empathy means we enjoy being kind and compassionate. Since you don’t seem to understand this, I can only assume you have no empathy at all, and only go through the motions of kindness and compassion in expectation of your honking great reward in the hereafter.

[cosmosdan]

@matt

We do, you know. We have empathy. We can share the joy and the pain of other people. Atheists are not loveless.
Having empathy means we enjoy being kind and compassionate. Since you don’t seem to understand this, I can only assume you have no empathy at all, and only go through the motions of kindness and compassion in expectation of your honking great reward in the hereafter.

Which was my point 4 post ago.

Not that believers don’t have compassion but that obviously some atheists do as well. In my figureing that makes them even more unselfish than people who believe in some kind of reward.

[MrDibble]

@lekatt

I think you are accurate. Atheists have no motivation to be kind, compassionate or any other morals. But they still are, at least most of them, which indicates they just accept what society dictates or at some level of their being know it will benefit them later to be kind now. Sounds like some belief in the hereafter.

Right.
Atheists are just in denial.
Secretly, they believe in an afterlife, they just lie about it.
Right.
And you know this because you can read minds, right?
The fact that kindness can draw immediate benefits, in this life, is irrelevant, of course. It’s only afterlife benefits that matter.
Right.

[RedFury]

@lekatt

I think you are accurate. Atheists have no motivation to be kind, compassionate or any other morals. But they still are, at least most of them, which indicates they just accept what society dictates or at some level of their being know it will benefit them later to be kind now. Sounds like some belief in the hereafter.

My turn.

The sole reason most theists refrain from committing mass-murder is the threat of eternal damnation as proposed by their imaginary sky friend/s.

Back to you.

[cosmosdan]

@RedFury

My turn.

The sole reason most theists refrain from committing mass-murder is the threat of eternal damnation as proposed by their imaginary sky friend/s.

Back to you.

Hey, why didn’t I think of that. Because it’s ridiculous? Yeah I think thats it.

[Scott_Plaid]

@RedFury

My turn.

The sole reason most theists refrain from committing mass-murder is the threat of eternal damnation as proposed by their imaginary sky friend/s.

Back to you.

cosmodan, I don’t understand what you are saying. What do you think is the reason why a religious person should be good, even if internally tempted not to be.