What's the deal with being "spiritual?"

[The Architect]

i don't feel like sharing my thoughts any longer

[Melody]

My interest in mathematics and science, and more specifically, fractal geometry and artificial intelligence; has led me to the belief that not only is the beauty of this world possible without any higher being, but extremely likely. I believe that at a low level, things are incredibly simple. However, with an increase of scope, this simplicity begins to look "complex." This "complexity" fools a lot of people. It is all simple.

I believe God exists in people's heads, and this makes him real in a strong way. I do not "disbelieve" in God. If he shows up, I will say "cool" and I will believe in him. Until then, though, I think he is entirely in people's heads.

[Division56]

What I don't get are people who will tell me that the universe is way too complex not to have a maker, but when you ask if god had a maker, they say of course not "he just exists".

[sme_bro]

What I don't get are people who will tell me that the universe is way too complex not to have a maker, but when you ask if god had a maker, they say of course not "he just exists".

ditto that

Another thing i dont get are the different kinds of 'god' religious people follow, and the way its so easy to explain away something with a vague answer.
agnostic here, because there is room for more...but id have to say all current evidence proves otherwise...evolution has been proven but 'thats not to say that god does not exist' id have to say that to choose any religion would mean changing my ideals and values so that i am faithfull and that would be lieing to myself...id rather form my own beliefs

[file cabinet]

when you mention spiritual people.. I think of the people who 'invent' or devise their own method of beliefs.. essentially, they picked what they believe from a pseudo spiritual buffet line and doing this makes him or her believe they have some sort of purpose in life... which I think is a response to the American and consumer lifestyle and it is also an alternative to mainstream religions so people can have their counter-mainstream beliefs and maintain whatever they want to believe.

[Vagabond]

I voted in that poll for "spiritual", because "heretic" was not an option. I do believe in a higher spiritual force, and I feel it is God we are talking about, not some alien force/power of nature/etc; however, I claim to be "somewhat religious" because:

a) I can't classify myself in any known religion. I am basically a christian, but I can't identify and/or agree with neither catholics, nor orthodoxes, nor protestants etc. I am not a blind believer and my idea of a God is way too different than the one presented by the official churches. Because you see, if any of them would (theoretically) prove to me they have god figured out right, I would have to say thanks, but no thanks.

b) I am open to the possibility that I have it all figured out wrong. I believe god exists, but he might as well not exist. So actually I don't know if I have a religion or a theory/philosophy. It is said that reason kills faith; reason I have. Faith I am not sure.

File cabinet mentioned people who invent their own method of beliefs - so what is wrong with that? I don't think I have to either accept someone else's method of beliefs or not believe at all... we all have minds to use, my method might as well be right :D

[Johnny]

The part I don't like is the part where my freedom to challenge and choose is compromised by the latest notion of scientific breakthrough...that we can reach a point where there is only what is, and what should be is no longer an adventure.

[HairlessBluetick]

The part I don't like is the part where my freedom to challenge and choose is compromised by the latest notion of scientific breakthrough...that we can reach a point where there is only what is, and what should be is no longer an adventure.

I don't think that can really happen. There will always be doubt in some form or another. Especially for INTPs.

I think I voted "spiritual" because my spirituality doesn't match with any organized religion that I know of, and yet I'm not really willing to call myself an atheist.

[Jkrs]

My personal belief system is in flux at the moment. It'll never swing the way of organised religion, but something taoist-inflenced might not be out of the question.

And to some of you above, atheism/secularism also requires faith. It has yet to be proven that everything in the universe can be percieved (by assorted devices, if not us biologicals), analysed, and categorised.

Considering my lack of ability to believe in anything much, I wouldn't be surprised if I wound up at agnosticism again.

[paladinoflunaria]

I'm thinking that you should take a break from Christianity, and turn yourself into an atheist, Architect. Go put your beliefs in a box somewhere and if you want, you can get them back later. Read some books on logic (as in, "if p, then not q," and propositions and that good stuff), and then read into some other religions. In fact, I suggest you start off with Satanism. It will make things like Sikhism seem much nicer, and you'll be less biased towards Christianity. This will help you to understand.

On the topic, I think that spirituality is agreeance with the abstract. I am an atheist, but I agree with ideas such as Karma (though superstition and luck are bullshit). I think basically atheism gets confused with super-extreme-Nihilism. This deludes. Atheism is simply the unagreeance with the idea of a personified abstract. Just look at the word. Spirituality is the concept that the physical sensations we have are inane. Religion is the twisting of abstract- the mixing of spirituality and marxism.

[MasterMerk]

Athiest here.

People who identify with spirituality, may do so for a number of reasons:

- Simplicity
- Accessibity
- Sensationalism
- Unconformity

Many forms of spirituality are open to interpretation, which also brings the interest of those searching for their own personal answers. You can take what you wan't and discard the rest. It's all a less binding, and open minded approach than mainstream religion, such as christianity. This is where spirtualism differs most, I think.

[Melody]

I second paladinoflunaria's opinion on spirituality.

[Avengardh]

What other option was there? I don't really like to label myself anything, I don't follow any religion, I agree with Vaga when it comes to the poll.

I'm not an atheist, used to be, but I am not anymore. I am not agnostic because I don't really fit the word, or the word suits me, whatever. I simply follow a set or personal morals, and that's about it, I don't buy anything to make that "spiritualism" sparkle, I simply carry it within, that's what, to me, is spiritual.

By all means, I still pray to a god everynight (or some form of energy)...which god, who knows, I just know there is a god out there, and if there isn't, well then, it helps me keep up the hope for good things.

~*Aven*~

[paladinoflunaria]

Hope for the best, expect the worst.

[Melody]

Diet Pepsi http://www.dietpepsi.com

[Johnny]

All I can say is this:
Individuals can posture, pose, and othewise shake fists at others to force God away from one another. Torture, destruction, and pain of death are strong motivators, to be sure. So is personal gain, greed, and power. But there are people in the world who have taken actions in spite of such motivation to do otherwise, and that's my real-world evidence that there is something more than than myself, my needs, and my wants to consider.

There is the world, other people, and the future to consider, and philosophies that serve the self alone, though perhaps useful for that person and for a time, do not account for all time and all the world and do not satisfy here.

Physical sensation is not inane, it's just not the whole enchilada...

[The Architect]

good bye .

[Johnny]

No one said growth was easy, and you never really know what you had until it's gone. I've rejected God in my time and sought substance to fill the spiritual void, and in that time not only have I been able to find connections to people that I never considered before, but I now also see God and Christianity in a way that offers a tolerance for others that I would have likely not possessed otherwise.

Best of luck to you.

[paladinoflunaria]

Fair enough, Architect. By the way, thanks for calling me Mr. Logic (even through the sarcasm). I assume that you are making assumptions about me, though. I haven't been an atheist all of my life. I'm not saying that Christianity is devoid of good practices- I'm saying that it is fundamentally, conceptually flawed.

I'm not sure how logically adept everyone here at the forum is, though I would be willing to bet that almost everyone is (unless socionics is right and INTPs have Ni-Te-Fi-Se, which would mean that I'm an INTJ, or Ti-Ne-Si-Fe). It seems a continual use of logic is not always present, though (when Fe attacks!), so it is possible that you could be having one of those times. Cast "Arcane Sight," not "Detect Magic." ;) I guess you should follow up with "Permanency."
Die, Fe, Die!!! (In piratespeak)

Let's say logic is my religion. Look out, I'm a fanatic! :devil:

[Johnny]

I know of at least one INFP who posts to this forum, who both seeks and offers quite good logic.

Just because thinking is the INTP's dominant function in both the MBTI and Socionics systems, it does not follow that INTP's are necessarily good at logic...

[antireconciler]

A "spiritual leader" I know is very knowledgeable great number of religions and thinks they are all great. He is very logical and very wise. Although I choose and walk my own path, I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with religion, just praticing it with a closed mind. Religions seem to mirror the attributes of those who practice them, making it hard to see the a religion's true underlying structures. Comments?

[paladinoflunaria]

I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with religion, just praticing it with a closed mind.

That sounds about right, but illogic is never good.

[int]

I know of at least one INFP who posts to this forum, who both seeks and offers quite good logic.

Just because thinking is the INTP's dominant function in both the MBTI and Socionics systems, it does not follow that INTP's are necessarily good at logic...

:)

But then again one person's logic is not necessarily another's, despite similar personalities. To which I say: :)

[Spartan26]

Religions seem to mirror the attributes of those who practice them, making it hard to see the a religion's true underlying structures. Comments?

I would say it's kinda the other way around. At least, a major aspect of Christianity is to mirror or act Christlike. I think a person's attributes may dictate a preference in choosing a church, e.g. ones who like a more quiet worship experience vs. a service that's more chasimatic. One with a formal attitude vs. one having a more laid back and open experience.

I think a lot of people have gifts and people feel comfortable using them. If a church offers people opportunity to use their gifts they'll settle in. It's not uncommon for churches to hold certain gifts or attributes in higher regard than others. I wasn't really sure what you meant by "making it hard to see a religion's true underlying structure" but I'd say there are cases where people can be so caught up in one aspect, like say praise in worship, that they miss or gloss over something like Bible study. :huh:

I'm sure you probably had a more negative connotation for 'people not seeing a religion's true underlying structure," but I believe guarding against complacency, Jesus always taught in parables just so people could see multiple points of view. Though it often takes a while, if ever, for people to see how they can resemble maybe "the bad guy" of the story and not the one who's ultimately vindicated.


I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with religion, just praticing it with a closed mind.

I think the more rewarding and fulfilling Christian life comes with the humility of allowing oneself to be transformed. Many people will settle into a church with a checklist of do's & don't, use a couple of gifts and be happy with that. I never thought I had a problem with patience, especially with people always commenting on how calm I am, but then I was forced to wait for some things for a really long, long time. :rant: Now my definition of patience or at least handling things in a patient manner, has changed.

I also think the closed mind label can get slapped on someone too quickly at times. Change isn't always, in fact, rarely overnight. ;) It's taken me ten years to be truly joyful despite facing adverse conditions and not get discouraged at my circumstances. I can think of someone at my church, who, in her fifties, said some horrible things to where I wondered 'why does she even bother coming to church?' Now, five years later, I see it wasn't just her who needed to gain a heart of compassion, which she has, but also me needing to build a spirit of forgiveness. :)

[Johnny]

I know of at least one INFP who posts to this forum, who both seeks and offers quite good logic.

Just because thinking is the INTP's dominant function in both the MBTI and Socionics systems, it does not follow that INTP's are necessarily good at logic...

:)

But then again one person's logic is not necessarily another's, despite similar personalities. To which I say: :)

I'm not clear exactly what you mean there. It's my understanding, in visual terms, that logic exists in order to ensure that no matter how far we go into the forest, we've charted a reliable map that leads us back to the starting point. :D

On that note, here's a worthwhile trip through logic for the curious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

[Sugaraddict2702]

Believing in (a) god is not that difficult, many people do and find great strenght in it. Believing in nothing (god(s), karma, ...) is not that difficult either, that's just a state of mind if you ask me. Where the real trouble is, is finding your belief back after you've lost it.
Ever since I've accepted for myself to abandon christianity I haven't been able to simply 'believe' in something, without that nagging voice in the back of my head, yelling at me for not being logical or realistic.

I think that all those people that claim to be spiritual are people who were able to let go of god, but aren't able yet to let go of any form of believing.
Personally I think we all should believe in something, if not in god than in the value of life itself. Where you draw the line is entirely up to yourself. Christianity, Karma, they are but words, you are the one who has to give them their meaning.

Ellen*

[Johnny]

Christianity, Karma, they are but words, you are the one who has to give them their meaning.
Yes, and you will eventually find this out for many other words as well...

Happy hunting.:D

[Bubbs]

I think those who consider themselves spiritual are those who believe in or follow the positive principles that many religions teach, without actively conforming or belonging to any such group. To say "I am a Christian" or Buddhist or whatever, proposes that you agree with all aspects of the religion, both positive and negative and follow traditions and rituals. Also, with so many religions and sub-sections of religions, its confusing to know which is The Right One, when they all claim they are.
I personally, cannot, commit myself to a religion unless I whole-heartedly believed in all aspects of it. Otherwise, I would deem myself a hypocrite or just not fully belonging.
I guess, I would call myself spiritual or agnostic because I believed in something
higher/more powerful/etc than myself (whether it benature/God/a force/whatever), but admit that I don't have the answers or the proof that it/they exist.

Or should I say, I hope it/they exist, and assume it/they do purely for my own comfort...

[antireconciler]

I think that all those people that claim to be spiritual are people who were able to let go of god, but aren't able yet to let go of any form of believing.

let go of any form of believing? I don't understand.

Bubbs, I agree with you. "Spiritual" can also mean different things depending on whether you adhere more to "prophetic religions" (Western) or "wisdom religions" (Eastern). It's a pretty fundemental split.

[antireconciler]

Christianity, Karma, they are but words, you are the one who has to give them their meaning.
Yes, and you will eventually find this out for many other words as well...

Happy hunting.:D

like all?

[candela]

Hope for the best, expect the worst.What the hell...I've always said that. Except I start with what to expect when I say it. Never seen anyone else go along with that before.

[Johnny]

Christianity, Karma, they are but words, you are the one who has to give them their meaning.
Yes, and you will eventually find this out for many other words as well...

Happy hunting.:D

like all?

Hmm, perhaps not all. How about "NO"? That one doesn't seem to take much effort. Maybe that could explain why it's so popular.

[paladinoflunaria]

But then again one person's logic is not necessarily another's, despite similar personalities. To which I say::)

That's not logic. Logic is the same between people- it is absolute truth. What you're talking about is relative truth, which isn't logic, but feeling. Feeling can go jump in a lake.

[Vagabond]

There is no absolute truth. Or at least none that we as humans have reached.

[paladinoflunaria]

Well you're second statement cushions your first. As for your first, there is always the Liar Paradox.

[Johnny]

What is the liar paradox, and what truth is to be gleaned there?

*edit: O.K. I read up on it. But so what that statements can be constructed to reveal paradox? Is that the kind of truth you are looking for, one that can't allow forward movement within logic?

Consider it another way: all architectural drawings are useless, as Escher can create visual paradoxes to confound us. :zzz:

[int]

I'm not clear exactly what you mean there. It's my understanding, in visual terms, that logic exists in order to ensure that no matter how far we go into the forest, we've charted a reliable map that leads us back to the starting point. :D



I understand the analogy, but have you ever taken the exact same route out of a forest?

[Utopmk]

There is no absolute truth. Or at least none that we as humans have reached.

It is amazing how decadent we are, in comparison to the people of the future. Absolute truth seems self evident in 100 years, until then we can always argue about what is true.

[paladinoflunaria]

No, Johnny, the point of the Liar Paradox is thus:

If there is no objective truth, then it is objective truth that there is no objective truth. This forms a contradiction and proves the existence of objective/absolute truth.

[antireconciler]

It is amazing how decadent we are, in comparison to the people of the future. Absolute truth seems self evident in 100 years, until then we can always argue about what is true.

Okay, are you joking around here? If not, you have got to back that up.


there is always the Liar Paradox

The Liar Paradox isn't convincing. Prove axioms without another axiom. You guys are taking logic beyond it's useful application. This discussion of absolute truth is pointless.


Hmm, perhaps not all. How about "NO"? That one doesn't seem to take much effort. Maybe that could explain why it's so popular.

"No" is based off of a single duality instead of a complex system of dualities like "Christianity" for it's meaning (or something) ... but what is the fundemental difference?



Religions seem to mirror the attributes of those who practice them, making it hard to see the a religion's true underlying structures. Comments?
I would say it's kinda the other way around. At least, a major aspect of Christianity is to mirror or act Christlike.

I agree. I think it goes both ways.


I'm sure you probably had a more negative connotation for 'people not seeing a religion's true underlying structure,"

I simply ment that people cannot judge a religion by the people who practice them. Everyone practices differently. Everyone must find thier own way. It's difficult to see through the differences between those of the same religion to really see how it all integrates, first with itself, second with other religions, and finally with human nature.




I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with religion, just praticing it with a closed mind.
I think the more rewarding and fulfilling Christian life comes with the humility of allowing oneself to be transformed

I don't see any difference.

[Sugaraddict2702]

I think that all those people that claim to be spiritual are people who were able to let go of god, but aren't able yet to let go of any form of believing.

let go of any form of believing? I don't understand.


I think Bubbs puts it better than I can :) That was actually what I meant, I'm just no good at explaining this stuff in a written way...and it doesn't help that English is my fourth language.

Ellen*

[Johnny]

No, Johnny, the point of the Liar Paradox is thus:

If there is no objective truth, then it is objective truth that there is no objective truth. This forms a contradiction and proves the existence of objective/absolute truth.

I was hoping that my point was being revealed clearly - such a statement neither proves nor disproves the existence of anything but that we can have fun with what the mind can dream. "If" is not synonymous with "is".

[Johnny]

I'm not clear exactly what you mean there. It's my understanding, in visual terms, that logic exists in order to ensure that no matter how far we go into the forest, we've charted a reliable map that leads us back to the starting point. :D



I understand the analogy, but have you ever taken the exact same route out of a forest?

It's not really about getting out of a forest, it's about being able to retrace your steps back to the starting point in case you want (or perhaps need) to. Getting out of a forest is an entirely different matter altogether. Consider this:

There is no absolute truth. Or at least none that we as humans have reached.
Is a forest really where you are to begin with? To start with "if there is a forest, then..." is fine, from a logic standpoint. Logic doesn't care. But to make logic useful - to turn it into a tool - is to assume the forest and then start making traceable tracks. If we question the tool and want to make it better for a particular application, or perhaps more versatile, then things like the Liar's Paradox may have value here. But to evaluate a tool for its limitations (such as with logical if statements that spin "true" and "false" round and round) to prove the object for which it is designed (such as absolute truth) is not so easy. That's where the rest of who we are come in.

And that's why I continue to believe in God. I'll take all the help I can get out of the forest, just in case logic can only take me back to where I started. :D

*edit: O.K., there are several kinds of logic to play with, and I may be offering only one kind here. Feel free to counter with anything anyone sees fit.

[Crazy]

Sprituality, to me, is the point where one acknowledges the existence of things that transcend the boundaries of the natural universe, but do not acknowledge much more. I consider myself spiritual because I believe that there is one all powerful, all knowing, infinite being (God), but by definition, I do not believe he fits in the little boxes that "religion" always tries to put him in.


As far as logic goes, it is only viable if the truths, being absolute truths, are accepted by the party or parties using the logic, and can be conveyed and understood by said party.

In other words, logic is based on faith.

It's kinda along the lines of common sense, it only works if it is common.

[paladinoflunaria]

faith [ fayth ] (plural faiths)

noun

1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof



log·ic [ lójjik ]

noun

1. philosophy theory of reasoning: the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning


2. system of reasoning: any system of or an instance of reasoning and inference


3. sensible argument and thought: sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim


4. reasoning of particular field: the principles of reasoning relevant to a particular field


5. inescapable relationship and pattern of events: the relationship between certain events, situations, or objects, and the inevitable consequences of their interaction


Faith is a crummy hypothesis. Logic is the proof. Faith can stimulate the motivation to find logic, but most times logic tends to say something different then faith does. Logic isn't based on faith, and it exists despite acknowledgement of it. If you want to make it practical, then it must be commonly acceptable, but to do that, you must first pervert it.

Common sense is wisdom, and you'd be surprised how rare it is, actually. The etymology of the term, "common sense," is to convey that even a person with common intelligence can have keen perception or great insight. Even a simpleton can see complex pattern, though they may not understand the pattern.

[Johnny]

Faith is a crummy hypothesis. Logic is the proof. Faith can stimulate the motivation to find logic, but most times logic tends to say something different then faith does.
Yes, faith can be a crummy place to start...but even geometry starts with assumptions, and you likely know how powerful the logic that stems from it is much better than I can recall it. Logic is a wonderful tool to be sure, and it offers all the things your definition describes. But again, to me it is only a tool. In itself, there's not much else to do but start with "if", play games, test its boundaries.

It's where logic is applied - to the world, to morality, to the actions of men - that its real potential exists. Give faith its due, whether it be called a premise, an axiom, or some politically correct term that has been offered recently, and then apply logic as agressively as you see fit. You can always start back at the beginning if your logic is good.