Spirituality Is for Wusses

 

Today it’s fashionable for a person to say he is spiritual but not religious. That comment is intended to suggest that the person is above the primitive practices he assumes religious people follow. Only superior people wear the mantle of spirituality, rather than taking on the dogma and rituals of ancient religions.

Only no one really knows what it means to be spiritual. And perhaps, no one cares.

From my perspective, I think people choose to take the easy road to a relationship with the—divine?—because practicing a religion can be demanding, if you follow it, well, religiously. But if you only see the downside of practicing a religious faith, you deprive yourself of what may become a deeply moving and fulfilling lifestyle that no level of spirituality can match.

Why do I celebrate religion? The moral tenets (which many people see as restrictive and limiting) are meant to be the guideposts for living a generous, righteous, and ethical life. But in these times, who cares about following all those rules? The fact that life continually presents us with the challenge of making wise choices is irrelevant; we can just rely on what feels good to us, repercussions be damned.

More than the moral reasons, though, is that religion, from my perspective, teaches us how to relate to the world and everyone around us. It teaches us what not to do, those actions that can cause harm or pain to others. Even more, it teaches us how to be a blessing to the world, how to relate to others in loving and caring ways. It gives us the road signs for when we are getting lost, and the rewards for making an effort to develop solid relationships and to benefit our families and communities and the world.

People who practice spirituality will tell you that they want to save the world, but their actions may demonstrate otherwise. They focus on what they think the rules should be, and act accordingly. Factors such as right or wrong, good or bad, helpful or harmful are irrelevant, because their activities are coming from a “spiritual perspective.” They have the freedom to make their own rules, and are not bound to, or responsible for, the consequences of their actions.

This mindset is a self-centered, narcissistic way to live.

*     *     *     *

Periodically I ask myself about my own religious faith. This time I was motivated to reflect on my observance before and during the Ricochet Meetup in Sarasota. The practices I observe on the Sabbath are minimal, but I try to maintain them and therefore rarely travel. Lighting Sabbath candles, turning off the phone, avoiding TV viewing, staying off the computer, reading Torah commentaries, praying and abstaining from anything that can be called work describes my usual Sabbath observance. It is a very minimal practice, but I have maintained it pretty consistently.

Until I didn’t.

I was determined to have a Florida Meetup, but for a number of reasons, my original plan of a dinner meet-up expanded to a two-day gathering, including Saturday. Nobody twisted my arm. One person asked me about the decision and its effect on my Sabbath practice, but I avoided the question. And it was a lovely time.

But I felt a certain sadness. I was sad that I was willing to sacrifice my simple practices for a time of pleasure. I missed the opportunity to connect with G-d. I have to admit that I also felt guilty, not only for dismissing G-d but disappointing myself.

I won’t spend a lot of time beating myself up about my decision. I know that G-d was present even if I wasn’t. But my Sabbath observance is the one commitment I want to maintain.

From now on, I aim to do it.

Published in Religion & Philosophy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 117 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    As I mentioned in a comment above, Lloyd Evans, a former Jehovah’s Witness, left the Jehovah’s Witness religious sect many years ago.  

    His father responded by dis-associating from Lloyd.  Lloyd’s father probably did this because he probably felt that like to continue to associate with his non-believing son would represent disobedience to God.  

    But in some religious sects, dis-association is not emphasized.  There are many ex-Mormons who still remain at least on speaking terms with their still Mormon parents, brothers and sisters.  

    So, a person’s idea about what God is asking of us does alter how that person will behave.  

    One person might attend church events 3 or 4 times each week, believing that this is what God is asking him to do while another person might not attend church at all, believing that God isn’t demanding that he do so.  

    • #61
  2. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    There are two different debates. One is over different religions that all claim to worship God but with different rules and beliefs. The other debate is between believers and atheists. I refuse to debate the former. To each his own path. 

    To be an atheist, one is disavowing the spiritual world and his own soul. He has reduced himself to being a mere biological construct, just an animal, but an animal at the top of the pyramid. Thinking and feeling for them isn’t being spiritual. 

    As to Susan’s Saturday, she gave it in service to others. I would advise her to not dwell on it since it was a rare deviation and it wasn’t done for selfish reasons. Make this coming Saturday a devoted one. I admire her devotion, which helped support her through her chemo times. 

    Should there be another meetup, make it a midweek one so attendees can accommodate her rituals and those who worship on Sunday. 

    • #62
  3. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Catholicism can be divided into the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

    OK, sorry to nitpick here, but accuracy is helpful and this happens to be a pet peeve of mine, albeit a small one: There are 24 churches within Catholicism. The largest one is the Latin, or Roman, church. There are 23 others which are in communion with Rome and recognize the primacy of the papacy. There are 6 rites – the Latin Rite, which contains one church; the Alexandrian Rite, which contains three churches; the West Syrian (Antiochene) Rite, which contains 3 churches; the Armenian Rite, which contains one church; the East Syrian (Chaldean) Rite, which contains two churches; and the Constantinopolitan (Byzantine) Rite, which contains fourteen churches.

    There are several Orthodox churches that are not in communion with Rome. The Eastern Orthodox are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

    Wow! Very informative; I had no idea.

    • #63
  4. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    That’s my take. I don’t think it means they can’t handle the discipline of a religion, not necessarily.

    I think you’re giving far too much credit to people who call themselves “spiritual.” You may give a lot of thought to these concerns, but I don’t think most people bother. If they can feel good after seeing a beautiful sunset or palm trees waving in the breeze, that’s plenty for them. They may not even give a lot of thought to the concept of G-d; they figure they see G-d in those things of beauty and that’s enough. Why trouble themselves with all the rest of that stuff?

    I suppose it depends on the person.

    But let’s say some Jewish Rabbi tells you that you should avoid consuming shellfish. You could just say, “Ok. I will avoid consuming shellfish.”

    But one could also wonder, “Why would God care if I consume shellfish?” At somepoint, one might question the underlying theology behind the command “Don’t eat shellfish.”

    I personally don’t eat shellfish very often because I want to keep my cholesterol low. But that’s not usually what religions are about. It isn’t about You. It’s about God.

    That begs the question: What does God want? Different people have different answers. At some point one might think, “I think my understanding is about as good as that pastor who preached in church last Sunday.”

    I certainly felt this way when I listened to a church service where the pastor used college basketball as an analogy for his sermon. I realized that this guy was just a guy. He had no special insight into the Maker Of The Universe.

    Once someone reaches that conclusion, it’s hard to get them to adhere to a list of do’s and don’ts because some religious sect says so.

    Yes. One must go to the source, the Scriptures, to be sure you are getting the authentic Truth. Ministers and preachers are humanly fallible, just like the rest of us.

    • #64
  5. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    We Americans tend to approach religion with our background of atomized individualism, and think of religion as a smorgasbord of options open to the curious individual, from which he may pick or choose as his wont.

    But this may misunderstand the great historic religions. God, for instance, is not asking you to avoid consuming shellfish. You are not a Jew. God made a covenant with a specific tribe of people (the Hebrews) thousands of years ago, that included a long list of religious laws. The history of the Jews is the story of that covenant and the dynamic relationship between God and his chosen people. To be born a Jew is to be born into that story (whether you like it or not). Even if a man born Jewish rejects his religion, he is still a Jew and that long religious story will always be part of his identity. To understand the meaning of “Don’t eat shellfish”, we must do more than analyze it as an abstract command of a hypothetical God, judged before the court of the atomized individual’s intellect. It can only be understood in the context of the long history of Israel and what that tells us about the meaning of God’s covenant with Israel.

    Beautifully said, JClimacus. As a Jew, I don’t need a logical reason for not eating shellfish. Some laws are explained to Jews, some are not. But I accept the prohibition on shellfish, because it allows me to demonstrate my love and commitment to G-d.

    A person could say, why should I love my spouse? After all, there’s no rule or requirement. But we can choose to love our spouse and dedicate ourselves to that person because it demonstrates our love and commitment to that person, and to the morality of marriage.

    Very well said, as usual, Susan.

    • #65
  6. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I realized that this guy was just a guy. He had no special insight into the Maker Of The Universe. Once someone reaches that conclusion, it’s hard to get them to adhere to a list of do’s and don’ts because some religious sect says so.

    The question of authority seems to block many people from religion. But we Catholics hold firm to the authority of the Church, created by God Himself, Jesus Christ. He also gave us the office of pope to safeguard the faith. One chooses to worship and glorify God and one chooses to adhere to the tenets of faith. Choose wisely.

    I think you hit the nail on the head.

    If one really believes that the Catholic church is the One True Church, or at least among the true churches, then, of course, being part of the Catholic church makes perfect sense.

    What I am getting at is that there are lots of people who have studied the Bible intensely, for decades, attended Theological Seminary, became a pastor at a church but then realized that they didn’t think they really had much actual knowledge of God and how God interacts with his creation.

    Someone could attend a church even while harboring serious doubts about the underlying beliefs taught at the church. But those who do this usually do this for reasons such as, “I like the people I meet at church” or “I enjoy singing in the choir” or “I want to be with my wife when she goes to church.”

    For some people, religious conviction is hard to fake. Some people prefer just being honest with at least themselves and saying, “I’m not sure,” even as they continue to listen to various viewpoints concerning religion.

    Being a Christian is a very personal matter; in fact, it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. 

    • #66
  7. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    That’s my take. I don’t think it means they can’t handle the discipline of a religion, not necessarily.

    I think you’re giving far too much credit to people who call themselves “spiritual.” You may give a lot of thought to these concerns, but I don’t think most people bother. If they can feel good after seeing a beautiful sunset or palm trees waving in the breeze, that’s plenty for them. They may not even give a lot of thought to the concept of G-d; they figure they see G-d in those things of beauty and that’s enough. Why trouble themselves with all the rest of that stuff?

    I suppose it depends on the person.

    But let’s say some Jewish Rabbi tells you that you should avoid consuming shellfish. You could just say, “Ok. I will avoid consuming shellfish.”

    But one could also wonder, “Why would God care if I consume shellfish?” At somepoint, one might question the underlying theology behind the command “Don’t eat shellfish.”

    I personally don’t eat shellfish very often because I want to keep my cholesterol low. But that’s not usually what religions are about. It isn’t about You. It’s about God.

    That begs the question: What does God want? Different people have different answers. At some point one might think, “I think my understanding is about as good as that pastor who preached in church last Sunday.”

    I certainly felt this way when I listened to a church service where the pastor used college basketball as an analogy for his sermon. I realized that this guy was just a guy. He had no special insight into the Maker Of The Universe.

    Once someone reaches that conclusion, it’s hard to get them to adhere to a list of do’s and don’ts because some religious sect says so.

    The world is full of idiot clergy to be sure. 

    • #67
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    There are two different debates. One is over different religions that all claim to worship God but with different rules and beliefs. The other debate is between believers and atheists. I refuse to debate the former. To each his own path.

    To be an atheist, one is disavowing the spiritual world and his own soul. He has reduced himself to being a mere biological construct, just an animal, but an animal at the top of the pyramid. Thinking and feeling for them isn’t being spiritual.

    As to Susan’s Saturday, she gave it in service to others. I would advise her to not dwell on it since it was a rare deviation and it wasn’t done for selfish reasons. Make this coming Saturday a devoted one. I admire her devotion, which helped support her through her chemo times.

    Should there be another meetup, make it a midweek one so attendees can accommodate her rituals and those who worship on Sunday.

    You bring tears to my eyes, RH. What a kind comment on my Saturday.

     

     

    • #68
  9. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    But one could also wonder, “Why would God care if I consume shellfish?”

    Perhaps God is a giant lobster who made shellfish in his own image and likeness.

    • #69
  10. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    That’s my take. I don’t think it means they can’t handle the discipline of a religion, not necessarily.

    I think you’re giving far too much credit to people who call themselves “spiritual.” You may give a lot of thought to these concerns, but I don’t think most people bother. If they can feel good after seeing a beautiful sunset or palm trees waving in the breeze, that’s plenty for them. They may not even give a lot of thought to the concept of G-d; they figure they see G-d in those things of beauty and that’s enough. Why trouble themselves with all the rest of that stuff?

    In Dante’s Inferno, the majority of damned souls aren’t even in Hell proper, but in the vestibule of Hell, condemned to chase through the mist a flag receding in the distance, while being stung by hornets to goad them along. These are the people who chose to sit out the great questions of life.

    There are some people who devoted entire decades of their lives to studying the Bible in its original languages and also studying church history in depth and then concluding that their religious beliefs might not be correct after all.

    That’s not a case of sitting out the great questions of life. It’s a case of asking the questions and realizing that there are multitude of possible answers that need exploring, possibly outside of a particular religious sect.

    I never said it was. Nonetheless, there are many people who do in fact sit out the great questions of life.

    “There are three kinds of people in the world; those who have sought God and found Him and now serve Him, those who are seeking Him but have not yet found Him, and those who neither seek Him nor find Him. The first are reasonable and happy, the second reasonable and unhappy, and the third unreasonable and unhappy.”

    -Blaise Pascal 

    • #70
  11. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    There are two different debates. One is over different religions that all claim to worship God but with different rules and beliefs. The other debate is between believers and atheists. I refuse to debate the former. To each his own path.

    To be an atheist, one is disavowing the spiritual world and his own soul.

    The atheist thinks it is more likely than not that neither God nor gods exist.  Many, if not most atheists would go further and say that it is more likely than not that neither angels, nor demons nor fairies exist either.  

    In other words, many atheists believe that the natural world is all that exists and that there is no supernatural world.  However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realismwhich is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.   Sort of like how most astronomers think that the planet existed before any astronomer discovered Neptune’s existence.  

    He has reduced himself to being a mere biological construct, just an animal, but an animal at the top of the pyramid. Thinking and feeling for them isn’t being spiritual.

    Most atheists would argue that human beings are biological organisms and that the claim that religious people make, that there are things “outside nature,” is more likely than not to be untrue.  

    • #71
  12. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    There are two different debates. One is over different religions that all claim to worship God but with different rules and beliefs. The other debate is between believers and atheists. I refuse to debate the former. To each his own path.

    To be an atheist, one is disavowing the spiritual world and his own soul.

    The atheist thinks it is more likely than not that neither God nor gods exist. Many, if not most atheists would go further and say that it is more likely than not that neither angels, nor demons nor fairies exist either.

    In other words, many atheists believe that the natural world is all that exists and that there is no supernatural world. However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist. Sort of like how most astronomers think that the planet existed before any astronomer discovered Neptune’s existence.

    He has reduced himself to being a mere biological construct, just an animal, but an animal at the top of the pyramid. Thinking and feeling for them isn’t being spiritual.

    Most atheists would argue that human beings are biological organisms and that the claim that religious people make, that there are things “outside nature,” is more likely than not to be untrue.

    Believe the above if you wish. No way believing that would give me comfort. What is the selling point of atheism? What makes it better?

    Can’t believe in God because they can’t see him but can believe in the unseen thing in your quote below:

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    • #72
  13. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    That’s my take. I don’t think it means they can’t handle the discipline of a religion, not necessarily.

    I think you’re giving far too much credit to people who call themselves “spiritual.” You may give a lot of thought to these concerns, but I don’t think most people bother. If they can feel good after seeing a beautiful sunset or palm trees waving in the breeze, that’s plenty for them. They may not even give a lot of thought to the concept of G-d; they figure they see G-d in those things of beauty and that’s enough. Why trouble themselves with all the rest of that stuff?

    I suppose it depends on the person.

    But let’s say some Jewish Rabbi tells you that you should avoid consuming shellfish. You could just say, “Ok. I will avoid consuming shellfish.”

    But one could also wonder, “Why would God care if I consume shellfish?” At somepoint, one might question the underlying theology behind the command “Don’t eat shellfish.”

    I personally don’t eat shellfish very often because I want to keep my cholesterol low. But that’s not usually what religions are about. It isn’t about You. It’s about God.

    That begs the question: What does God want? Different people have different answers. At some point one might think, “I think my understanding is about as good as that pastor who preached in church last Sunday.”

    I certainly felt this way when I listened to a church service where the pastor used college basketball as an analogy for his sermon. I realized that this guy was just a guy. He had no special insight into the Maker Of The Universe.

    Once someone reaches that conclusion, it’s hard to get them to adhere to a list of do’s and don’ts because some religious sect says so.

    Yes. One must go to the source, the Scriptures, to be sure you are getting the authentic Truth. Ministers and preachers are humanly fallible, just like the rest of us.

    This is something one would do if one believed that certain texts where inspired on some say by God and were in some important way true.

    In other words, one could read the New Testament and read in them that Jesus rose from the dead.  While one could accept the assertion that Jesus rose from the dead, one could also remain skeptical of this assertion, despite reading about it in the New Testament.  After all, many Jews believe in God but do not believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead.  Most Jews do not believe that the New Testament is an entirely accurate account of Jesus’s life and ministry.  

     

    • #73
  14. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realismwhich is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    Most atheists would argue that human beings are biological organisms and that the claim that religious people make, that there are things “outside nature,” is more likely than not to be untrue.  

    Things like non-natural moral facts?

    • #74
  15. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Believe the above if you wish. No way believing that would give me comfort. What is the selling point of atheism? What makes it better?

    I don’t think most people convert from Christianity into atheism in order to gain comfort.  

    I have watched lots of YouTube videos where various people explain how they switched from someone who would spent hours and hours each week studying the bible and attending religious services to someone who concluded that the Bible was written by human beings, not God, who more likely than not does not exist.  

    They reached this conclusion, in many cases, not because this conclusion was comforting, but because they had a sense that this was an accurate representation of reality.  

    Of course, each of us are fallible.  We might think that X does or does not exist and we can be wrong.  That should be obvious to anyone with a sense of humility and/or the limitations of human cognitive ability.  

    Can’t believe in God because they can’t see him but can believe in the unseen thing in your quote below:

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    This is a big philosophical question.  If I can’t see bacteria, should I believe that bacteria exists in part because most biologists tell me that bacteria exits?  Many philosophers think that a non-biologist is justified in believing that bacteria does exist despite never having laid eyes of bacteria.  

    But what about elephants in my back yard.  I go to my back yard and don’t see any elephants.  So, I don’t believe that any elephants in my back yard exist.  One could argue that I am justified in disbelieving in elephants in my back yard because if they did exist in this way, I would see them.  

    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”  

    • #75
  16. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”  

    I suppose their poo is invisible too?  But you’d still realise when you stepped in it.

    • #76
  17. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    But what about elephants in my back yard.  I go to my back yard and don’t see any elephants.  So, I don’t believe that any elephants in my back yard exist.  One could argue that I am justified in disbelieving in elephants in my back yard because if they did exist in this way, I would see them.  

    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”  

    John Fogerty saw them.

    • #77
  18. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Zafar (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”

    I suppose their poo is invisible too? But you’d still realise when you stepped in it.

    Nope.  Invisible poop and their poop don’t stink.

    • #78
  19. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Nope.  Invisible poop and their poop don’t stink.

    But you’d still feel it.  Have you ever seen elephant poop?  It’s huge and wet.

    • #79
  20. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    As has been mentioned, if one isn’t Jewish, it isn’t clear that one is commanded to abstain from eating shellfish. But even if one isn’t Jewish, loving one’s spouse seems like, at the very least, enlightened self-interest

    It is clear: only Jews are told to abstain from certain foods. Period. The commandment to not eat certain foods is similar to the expectation that we will love our G-d. We are called to love Him. Explicitly. When we love G-d, there is also a level of self-interest. Not only are we in service to Him, but we benefit from the relationship, too. It is reciprocal.

    Different forms of Christians give different weight to the Old Testament, probably because Jesus was a Jew and found that stuff compelling. 

    • #80
  21. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Believers might usefully reflect on how much faith will give blessings versus how much faith is the blessing. 

    • #81
  22. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Believe the above if you wish. No way believing that would give me comfort. What is the selling point of atheism? What makes it better?

    I don’t think most people convert from Christianity into atheism in order to gain comfort.

    I have watched lots of YouTube videos where various people explain how they switched from someone who would spent hours and hours each week studying the bible and attending religious services to someone who concluded that the Bible was written by human beings, not God, who more likely than not does not exist.

    They reached this conclusion, in many cases, not because this conclusion was comforting, but because they had a sense that this was an accurate representation of reality.

    Of course, each of us are fallible. We might think that X does or does not exist and we can be wrong. That should be obvious to anyone with a sense of humility and/or the limitations of human cognitive ability.

    Can’t believe in God because they can’t see him but can believe in the unseen thing in your quote below:

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    This is a big philosophical question. If I can’t see bacteria, should I believe that bacteria exists in part because most biologists tell me that bacteria exits? Many philosophers think that a non-biologist is justified in believing that bacteria does exist despite never having laid eyes of bacteria.

    But what about elephants in my back yard. I go to my back yard and don’t see any elephants. So, I don’t believe that any elephants in my back yard exist. One could argue that I am justified in disbelieving in elephants in my back yard because if they did exist in this way, I would see them.

    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”

    I just hope I don’t nitpick myself into hell. 

    • #82
  23. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Believe the above if you wish. No way believing that would give me comfort. What is the selling point of atheism? What makes it better?

    I don’t think most people convert from Christianity into atheism in order to gain comfort.

    I have watched lots of YouTube videos where various people explain how they switched from someone who would spent hours and hours each week studying the bible and attending religious services to someone who concluded that the Bible was written by human beings, not God, who more likely than not does not exist.

    They reached this conclusion, in many cases, not because this conclusion was comforting, but because they had a sense that this was an accurate representation of reality.

    Of course, each of us are fallible. We might think that X does or does not exist and we can be wrong. That should be obvious to anyone with a sense of humility and/or the limitations of human cognitive ability.

    Can’t believe in God because they can’t see him but can believe in the unseen thing in your quote below:

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    This is a big philosophical question. If I can’t see bacteria, should I believe that bacteria exists in part because most biologists tell me that bacteria exits? Many philosophers think that a non-biologist is justified in believing that bacteria does exist despite never having laid eyes of bacteria.

    But what about elephants in my back yard. I go to my back yard and don’t see any elephants. So, I don’t believe that any elephants in my back yard exist. One could argue that I am justified in disbelieving in elephants in my back yard because if they did exist in this way, I would see them.

    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”

    I just hope I don’t nitpick myself into hell.

    This assumes that hell exists.  Also, if hell does exist and some Muslim religious leaders are to be believed, Christians are going to hell along with the atheists, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists and Zoroastrians.

    No matter what your religious beliefs are, someone holds to a theological belief that you are going to hell.

    But the existence of hell and who does or doesn’t end up going to hell (if it exists) is not verifiable in the same what that the existence of Pennsylvania is.  Not that verifiability is everything.

    • #83
  24. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Believe the above if you wish. No way believing that would give me comfort. What is the selling point of atheism? What makes it better?

    I don’t think most people convert from Christianity into atheism in order to gain comfort.

    I have watched lots of YouTube videos where various people explain how they switched from someone who would spent hours and hours each week studying the bible and attending religious services to someone who concluded that the Bible was written by human beings, not God, who more likely than not does not exist.

    They reached this conclusion, in many cases, not because this conclusion was comforting, but because they had a sense that this was an accurate representation of reality.

    Of course, each of us are fallible. We might think that X does or does not exist and we can be wrong. That should be obvious to anyone with a sense of humility and/or the limitations of human cognitive ability.

    Can’t believe in God because they can’t see him but can believe in the unseen thing in your quote below:

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    This is a big philosophical question. If I can’t see bacteria, should I believe that bacteria exists in part because most biologists tell me that bacteria exits? Many philosophers think that a non-biologist is justified in believing that bacteria does exist despite never having laid eyes of bacteria.

    But what about elephants in my back yard. I go to my back yard and don’t see any elephants. So, I don’t believe that any elephants in my back yard exist. One could argue that I am justified in disbelieving in elephants in my back yard because if they did exist in this way, I would see them.

    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”

    I just hope I don’t nitpick myself into hell.

    This assumes that hell exists. Also, if hell does exist and some Muslim religious leaders are to be believed, Christians are going to hell along with the atheists, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists and Zoroastrians.

    No matter what your religious beliefs are, someone holds to a theological belief that you are going to hell.

    But the existence of hell and who does or doesn’t end up going to hell (if it exists) is not verifiable in the same what that the existence of Pennsylvania is. Not that verifiability is everything.

    Like I said, I won’t nitpick myself into hell. You seem racked with hypothesis while  I am content with not overthinking my beliefs.

    • #84
  25. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Believe the above if you wish. No way believing that would give me comfort. What is the selling point of atheism? What makes it better?

    I don’t think most people convert from Christianity into atheism in order to gain comfort.

    I have watched lots of YouTube videos where various people explain how they switched from someone who would spent hours and hours each week studying the bible and attending religious services to someone who concluded that the Bible was written by human beings, not God, who more likely than not does not exist.

    They reached this conclusion, in many cases, not because this conclusion was comforting, but because they had a sense that this was an accurate representation of reality.

    Of course, each of us are fallible. We might think that X does or does not exist and we can be wrong. That should be obvious to anyone with a sense of humility and/or the limitations of human cognitive ability.

    Can’t believe in God because they can’t see him but can believe in the unseen thing in your quote below:

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    This is a big philosophical question. If I can’t see bacteria, should I believe that bacteria exists in part because most biologists tell me that bacteria exits? Many philosophers think that a non-biologist is justified in believing that bacteria does exist despite never having laid eyes of bacteria.

    But what about elephants in my back yard. I go to my back yard and don’t see any elephants. So, I don’t believe that any elephants in my back yard exist. One could argue that I am justified in disbelieving in elephants in my back yard because if they did exist in this way, I would see them.

    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”

    I just hope I don’t nitpick myself into hell.

    This assumes that hell exists. Also, if hell does exist and some Muslim religious leaders are to be believed, Christians are going to hell along with the atheists, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists and Zoroastrians.

    No matter what your religious beliefs are, someone holds to a theological belief that you are going to hell.

    But the existence of hell and who does or doesn’t end up going to hell (if it exists) is not verifiable in the same what that the existence of Pennsylvania is. Not that verifiability is everything.

    Those strawmen don’t stand a chance!

    Finding a case of another religion believing something different isn’t quite the sovereign comeback you seem to think it is.

    • #85
  26. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Percival (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Believe the above if you wish. No way believing that would give me comfort. What is the selling point of atheism? What makes it better?

    I don’t think most people convert from Christianity into atheism in order to gain comfort.

    I have watched lots of YouTube videos where various people explain how they switched from someone who would spent hours and hours each week studying the bible and attending religious services to someone who concluded that the Bible was written by human beings, not God, who more likely than not does not exist.

    They reached this conclusion, in many cases, not because this conclusion was comforting, but because they had a sense that this was an accurate representation of reality.

    Of course, each of us are fallible. We might think that X does or does not exist and we can be wrong. That should be obvious to anyone with a sense of humility and/or the limitations of human cognitive ability.

    Can’t believe in God because they can’t see him but can believe in the unseen thing in your quote below:

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    This is a big philosophical question. If I can’t see bacteria, should I believe that bacteria exists in part because most biologists tell me that bacteria exits? Many philosophers think that a non-biologist is justified in believing that bacteria does exist despite never having laid eyes of bacteria.

    But what about elephants in my back yard. I go to my back yard and don’t see any elephants. So, I don’t believe that any elephants in my back yard exist. One could argue that I am justified in disbelieving in elephants in my back yard because if they did exist in this way, I would see them.

    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”

    I just hope I don’t nitpick myself into hell.

    This assumes that hell exists. Also, if hell does exist and some Muslim religious leaders are to be believed, Christians are going to hell along with the atheists, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists and Zoroastrians.

    No matter what your religious beliefs are, someone holds to a theological belief that you are going to hell.

    But the existence of hell and who does or doesn’t end up going to hell (if it exists) is not verifiable in the same what that the existence of Pennsylvania is. Not that verifiability is everything.

    Those strawmen don’t stand a chance!

    Finding a case of another religion believing something different isn’t quite the sovereign comeback you seem to think it is.

    Saying, “I don’t want to go to hell,” isn’t the sovereign comeback that you seem to think it is.  

    If hell doesn’t exist, it’s a different ball game, isn’t it?

    • #86
  27. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Believe the above if you wish. No way believing that would give me comfort. What is the selling point of atheism? What makes it better?

    I don’t think most people convert from Christianity into atheism in order to gain comfort.

    I have watched lots of YouTube videos where various people explain how they switched from someone who would spent hours and hours each week studying the bible and attending religious services to someone who concluded that the Bible was written by human beings, not God, who more likely than not does not exist.

    They reached this conclusion, in many cases, not because this conclusion was comforting, but because they had a sense that this was an accurate representation of reality.

    Of course, each of us are fallible. We might think that X does or does not exist and we can be wrong. That should be obvious to anyone with a sense of humility and/or the limitations of human cognitive ability.

    Can’t believe in God because they can’t see him but can believe in the unseen thing in your quote below:

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    This is a big philosophical question. If I can’t see bacteria, should I believe that bacteria exists in part because most biologists tell me that bacteria exits? Many philosophers think that a non-biologist is justified in believing that bacteria does exist despite never having laid eyes of bacteria.

    But what about elephants in my back yard. I go to my back yard and don’t see any elephants. So, I don’t believe that any elephants in my back yard exist. One could argue that I am justified in disbelieving in elephants in my back yard because if they did exist in this way, I would see them.

    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”

    I just hope I don’t nitpick myself into hell.

    This assumes that hell exists. Also, if hell does exist and some Muslim religious leaders are to be believed, Christians are going to hell along with the atheists, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists and Zoroastrians.

    No matter what your religious beliefs are, someone holds to a theological belief that you are going to hell.

    But the existence of hell and who does or doesn’t end up going to hell (if it exists) is not verifiable in the same what that the existence of Pennsylvania is. Not that verifiability is everything.

    Like I said, I won’t nitpick myself into hell. You seems racked with hypothesis while I am content with not overthinking my beliefs.

    You are content with assuming that [a] hell exists and that [b] Christians don’t go to hell.  

    But either of those assumptions might be wrong.  

    • #87
  28. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Believe the above if you wish. No way believing that would give me comfort. What is the selling point of atheism? What makes it better?

    I don’t think most people convert from Christianity into atheism in order to gain comfort.

    I have watched lots of YouTube videos where various people explain how they switched from someone who would spent hours and hours each week studying the bible and attending religious services to someone who concluded that the Bible was written by human beings, not God, who more likely than not does not exist.

    They reached this conclusion, in many cases, not because this conclusion was comforting, but because they had a sense that this was an accurate representation of reality.

    Of course, each of us are fallible. We might think that X does or does not exist and we can be wrong. That should be obvious to anyone with a sense of humility and/or the limitations of human cognitive ability.

    Can’t believe in God because they can’t see him but can believe in the unseen thing in your quote below:

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    This is a big philosophical question. If I can’t see bacteria, should I believe that bacteria exists in part because most biologists tell me that bacteria exits? Many philosophers think that a non-biologist is justified in believing that bacteria does exist despite never having laid eyes of bacteria.

    But what about elephants in my back yard. I go to my back yard and don’t see any elephants. So, I don’t believe that any elephants in my back yard exist. One could argue that I am justified in disbelieving in elephants in my back yard because if they did exist in this way, I would see them.

    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”

    I just hope I don’t nitpick myself into hell.

    This assumes that hell exists. Also, if hell does exist and some Muslim religious leaders are to be believed, Christians are going to hell along with the atheists, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists and Zoroastrians.

    No matter what your religious beliefs are, someone holds to a theological belief that you are going to hell.

    But the existence of hell and who does or doesn’t end up going to hell (if it exists) is not verifiable in the same what that the existence of Pennsylvania is. Not that verifiability is everything.

    Those strawmen don’t stand a chance!

    Finding a case of another religion believing something different isn’t quite the sovereign comeback you seem to think it is.

    Saying, “I don’t want to go to hell,” isn’t the sovereign comeback that you seem to think it is.

    If hell doesn’t exist, it’s a different ball game, isn’t it?

    I’m not trying to convince you. Only you can do that, and only if you seek it. It’s “seek and ye shall find,” not “show no curiosity and it will be dropped in your lap.”

    Very few scientific truths are found that way either.

    • #88
  29. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Percival (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Believe the above if you wish. No way believing that would give me comfort. What is the selling point of atheism? What makes it better?

    I don’t think most people convert from Christianity into atheism in order to gain comfort.

    I have watched lots of YouTube videos where various people explain how they switched from someone who would spent hours and hours each week studying the bible and attending religious services to someone who concluded that the Bible was written by human beings, not God, who more likely than not does not exist.

    They reached this conclusion, in many cases, not because this conclusion was comforting, but because they had a sense that this was an accurate representation of reality.

    Of course, each of us are fallible. We might think that X does or does not exist and we can be wrong. That should be obvious to anyone with a sense of humility and/or the limitations of human cognitive ability.

    Can’t believe in God because they can’t see him but can believe in the unseen thing in your quote below:

    However, many atheists do subscribe to what is known in moral philosophy circles as non-natural moral realism, which is the belief that at least one moral fact exists independently of whether any person thinks the moral fact(s) exist.

    This is a big philosophical question. If I can’t see bacteria, should I believe that bacteria exists in part because most biologists tell me that bacteria exits? Many philosophers think that a non-biologist is justified in believing that bacteria does exist despite never having laid eyes of bacteria.

    But what about elephants in my back yard. I go to my back yard and don’t see any elephants. So, I don’t believe that any elephants in my back yard exist. One could argue that I am justified in disbelieving in elephants in my back yard because if they did exist in this way, I would see them.

    But the response could be, “What about invisible elephants in your back yard?”

    I just hope I don’t nitpick myself into hell.

    This assumes that hell exists. Also, if hell does exist and some Muslim religious leaders are to be believed, Christians are going to hell along with the atheists, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists and Zoroastrians.

    No matter what your religious beliefs are, someone holds to a theological belief that you are going to hell.

    But the existence of hell and who does or doesn’t end up going to hell (if it exists) is not verifiable in the same what that the existence of Pennsylvania is. Not that verifiability is everything.

    Those strawmen don’t stand a chance!

    Finding a case of another religion believing something different isn’t quite the sovereign comeback you seem to think it is.

    Saying, “I don’t want to go to hell,” isn’t the sovereign comeback that you seem to think it is.

    If hell doesn’t exist, it’s a different ball game, isn’t it?

    I’m not trying to convince you. Only you can do that, and only if you seek it. It’s “seek and ye shall find,” not “show no curiosity and it will be dropped in your lap.”

    Very few scientific truths are found that way either.

    Would you say the same thing to a Jewish person who doesn’t believe that Jesus is Lord?  After all, according to many Christians, Jews will go to hell because they do not accept Jesus as Lord.  

    So, believe in God is one thing.  Belief in Jesus is another.  And belief in the existence of hell for everyone who does not accept Jesus as Lord is another.  

    Perhaps you accept all three assumptions.  But not everyone does.  

    • #89
  30. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    But not everyone does.  

    And I don’t care.

    If a Jew came up to me and asked, I would discuss it. I would be more likely to point them to people I know who know more than I. There are many strategies for evangelizing. The majority do not involve standing on street corners. I also don’t garner inconsistencies in beliefs they do not share and pretend that I’m proving something about beliefs that they do.

    1. It’s predictable
    2. Ergo, it’s boring
    3. Ergo, it’s ineffective
    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.