[Sandstorm]

I have several questions about this one, hopefully does everybody find this subject as interesting as me. The title is referring to being spiritual without the main monotheistic religions mostly.

Ofcourse pagan and other religions are also counted as religion.

There is a trend, people without religion still need spirituality, showing the growing popularity of alternitive spiritual activitities/books etc. These people are diverse i know but why and what are they searching? These people are saying "I'm not religious, but I do believe in something".


Spirituality can be believing in a supernatural , with forces or powers regarded as beyond nature
or viewing the supernatural something that is part of nature.

Ok here some more questions and anwsers

- Is spirituality whitout religion possible?
is it good
is it not possible
there is no spirituality
there is no spirituality without faith
- Is spirituality without religion dangerous?
- Is spirituality needed?, for one's health?
- Is spirituality underrated?

"Spirituality may involve perceiving or wishing to perceive life as more important ("higher"), more complex or more integrated with one's world view; as contrasted with the merely sensual" (wikipedia )

http://www.explorefa.../spiritual.html
This article explains a bit more about how Jesus thought about spirituality

http://saltosobrius.blogspot.com/2006/10/b...-spiritual.html
A more modern view of this difficult subject

semantics is ofcourse important, maybe im too vague with my questions, sry

[Dolorous Menhir]

I don't think "spirituality" means anything. It's just a nice way to sort out the stupid people - they're the ones who claim they are "not religious, but spiritual."

It's like an empty catchphrase - there's no depth to the idea, it just sounds good.

edit: On an unrelated note, I think the forum was doing quite well when nobody was writing on these religion boards. They don't add anything but vitriol, in the end.

[SiriusL]

I'm inclined to agree that the current common usage of "spirituality" is just a way for some people to feel better about what they believe. They are not interested in the dogma and structure of religion, but feel guilty about or otherwise disturbed by atheism or true agnoticism.

But what if you believe that the universe has supernatural origins, but don't think any particular religion has the right of it? Or you believe in the immortal soul, but aren't sure what happens after death?

Maybe semantics make up the entire discussion.

[Obdigore]

SiriusL;190663 said:

I'm inclined to agree that the current common usage of "spirituality" is just a way for some people to feel better about what they believe. They are not interested in the dogma and structure of religion, but feel guilty about or otherwise disturbed by atheism or true agnoticism.

But what if you believe that the universe has supernatural origins, but don't think any particular religion has the right of it? Or you believe in the immortal soul, but aren't sure what happens after death?

Maybe semantics make up the entire discussion.

Spirtuality as a word is dead. You are either Religious, or Athiest. Wether or not you subscribe to a 'religion', or 'worship... something.'

[McLovin]

Obdigore;190672 said:

You are either Religious, or Athiest.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes :folken:

(Sorry, at home sick and was just watching that scene from Ep III DVD)

Anyway, don't you think that's a wee bit oversimplified?
Agnostics are neither religious nor atheist. Deists (who believe in a supernatural Creator that takes no interest in the doings of us here on Earth) are neither religious nor atheists. Even of the many who believe in some version of God I wouldn't characterize as "religious." My mother believes in the divinity of JC but hasn't been to church in years.

[Obdigore]

longhorn;190690 said:

Only a Sith deals in absolutes :folken:

(Sorry, at home sick and was just watching that scene from Ep III DVD)

Anyway, don't you think that's a wee bit oversimplified?
Agnostics are neither religious nor atheist. Deists (who believe in a supernatural Creator that takes no interest in the doings of us here on Earth) are neither religious nor atheists. Even of the many who believe in some version of God I wouldn't characterize as "religious." My mother believes in the divinity of JC but hasn't been to church in years.

No. You are making it more complicated than it is.

Agnostics believe in something, not sure what. Religious.
Deists believe in something who created, and walked away. Religious.
Your mother believes in something, wether agnostic, deist, or other(i know there are many more) and so is Religious.

If you believe evolution, and the scientific theory of big bang(s), and/or other theories not involving creationism, then you are Athiest, and not religious.

If you believe there is something else, someone or something who created the universe, and all that jazz, you are Religious. It dosent matter if you believe in the great white napkin of jaz'fertul or Jewish or Islamic, you are Religious.

Also, guess I'm a sith then sick-boy

[McLovin]

Obdigore;190706 said:

If you believe evolution, and the scientific theory of big bang(s), and/or other theories not involving creationism, then you are Athiest, and not religious.

Oh, i think there again that's oversimplified. The sciences of evolution and cosmology don't rule out God, they merely rule out certain creation myths. Why can't God have caused the Big Bang? Only if you strictly adhere to a certain myth of creation is this an impossible view.

[caladanbrood]

Obdigore;190706 said:

If you believe evolution, and the scientific theory of big bang(s), and/or other theories not involving creationism, then you are Athiest, and not religious.

What? You're joking, right? :Erm: Creationists are just one religious group. I believe in Evolution and the Big Bang as much as any guy, and I also believe in God. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[paladin]

Agreed..

And as far as the spirituality thing, deism can be seen as spiritual in nature, rather than religious, though some forms of deism are based off a religion. Deism has been on again and off again throughout history and is growing in more recent times, perhaps due to the information age we are in right now(seeing that it originally became big with scholars during the enlightenment)?

[Obdigore]

caladanbrood;190716 said:

What? You're joking, right? :Erm: Creationists are just one religious group. I believe in Evolution and the Big Bang as much as any guy, and I also believe in God. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Do not misquote me. Look at the paragraph below that. Where it says

Quote

If you believe there is something else, someone or something who created the universe, and all that jazz, you are Religious

You are here. You believe that God (or someting) created the 'big bang'.

I, apparently, was not clear enough in what I was saying. It was essentially 'If it just happened, with not outside influence/whatever (it being everything)' then you are an Athiest.

If you believe there is any kind of other-being-thing that created things, modified things, whatever, then you are Religious.

Again, there is no black and white. Either you believe there is something, or you believe there is not. Irregardless of what you think is there, or if you are not sure of what is there, if you believe that there IS, then you are Religious.

[paladin]

i think its common for people to associate the word religion with a belief system that has been institutionalized while spirituality is a belief without a real system or institution.

so your absoluteness may be true by some definitions, but not necessarily the everyday definition.

by your definition, you could technically call atheists religious, as they believe that nothing exists. there is no proof of anything or lack of anything, so it is a belief, and a belief under your definition is religion. so by your definition, there is religious and religious alone, as atheists are religious inherently. the only person you could call not religious is someone ignorant of all knowledge that religion exists.

[caladanbrood]

Obdigore;190737 said:

I, apparently, was not clear enough in what I was saying. It was essentially 'If it just happened, with not outside influence/whatever (it being everything)' then you are an Athiest.

If you believe there is any kind of other-being-thing that created things, modified things, whatever, then you are Religious.

This is fair enough, but patently not what you said in that previous post.

[Obdigore]

paladin;190746 said:

i think its common for people to associate the word religion with a belief system that has been institutionalized while spirituality is a belief without a real system or institution.

so your absoluteness may be true by some definitions, but not necessarily the everyday definition.

by your definition, you could technically call atheists religious, as they believe that nothing exists. there is no proof of anything or lack of anything, so it is a belief, and a belief under your definition is religion. so by your definition, there is religious and religious alone, as atheists are religious inherently. the only person you could call not religious is someone ignorant of all knowledge that religion exists.

No.

Religion = Belief that there is something beyond what can be proven scientifically.
Athiesm = Belief that there is nothing beyond what can be proven scientifically.

I distinctly stayed away from only calling religion a 'belief'.

And yes, I agree with your first statement, that many people mix those two words. Which, should not be done.


@Brood: yes, I mistyped. I did not explain my position clearly enough. This obviously nullifies my whole argument (such as it is) even after I attempt to go into further detail to get my point across. I even apologised, what do you want from me? (No, I wont do that... or that.)

[paladin]

well, i understand the spirit of what you're saying, though i wouldnt say that either belief depends on science itself.. i would say more along the lines of a belief in what is tangible and what isn't(perhaps physical sciences), as deism is typically based off the science of logic

instead of religion, you could use theism/theistic belief instead of religion, as technically speaking, the theism and atheism are mutually exclusive by definition as antonyms(while religion is not). religion is not theism, but includes people that practice systems of belief, of which there are atheistic and theistic systems.

[Satan]

Sandstorm;190574 said:

Ofcourse pagan and other religions are also counted as religion.

so (other) religions actually count as religions. How fun!

Obdigore;190672 said:

Spirtuality as a word is dead. You are either Religious, or Athiest. Wether or not you subscribe to a 'religion', or 'worship... something.'

The whole point of "spiritual, but not religious" is that you don't subscribe to something.

Obdigore;190737 said:

I, apparently, was not clear enough in what I was saying. It was essentially 'If it just happened, with not outside influence/whatever (it being everything)' then you are an Athiest.

this is breaking with the premise you propose further down for atheists, where they are defined as not believing in anything other than what can be scientifically proven. One of the fundamentals in natural science is the action-reaction rule. By saying that the universe just happened, then you are breaking with this action-reaction rule.

Obdigore;190737 said:

Again, there is no black and white. Either you believe there is something, or you believe there is not. Irregardless of what you think is there, or if you are not sure of what is there, if you believe that there IS, then you are Religious.

"There is no black and white," and then you pose an either-or sentence? I don't get it...

Obdigore;190763 said:

No.

Religion = Belief that there is something beyond what can be proven scientifically.
Athiesm = Belief that there is nothing beyond what can be proven scientifically.

I distinctly stayed away from only calling religion a 'belief'.

And yes, I agree with your first statement, that many people mix those two words. Which, should not be done.

You see the difference between belief and religion, but you claim that the word spirituality is dead? I'd appreciate it if you'd explain in more detail how you see spirituality, belief and religion relate to each other. It would be nice if you could also discuss a little bit how you find other stuff commonly associated with religion like ethics, ritual and symbols relate to the words above, and how you see that atheism is apart from all these religion-defining characteristics.

Quote

"I'm not religious, but I do believe in something".

This quote, along with...

SiriusL;190663 said:

Maybe semantics make up the entire discussion.

...sums up the entire discussion.

- Is spirituality whitout religion possible? --Depends on your definition of spirituality and religion.
is it good --Depends on your definition of good and spirituality.
is it not possible --Depends on what you believe is possible.
there is no spirituality --depends, apparently, on semantics.
there is no spirituality without faith --again, semantics.
- Is spirituality without religion dangerous? --depends on your definition of danger and spirituality
- Is spirituality needed?, for one's health? --depending on the individual.
- Is spirituality underrated? --depending on the judging individual.
According to the human rights agreement, all of the above is up to each and every individual to decide for him or herself.

[Sandstorm]

Brynjar;190870 said:

so (other) religions actually count as religions. How fun!

- Is spirituality whitout religion possible? --Depends on your definition of spirituality and religion.
is it good --Depends on your definition of good and spirituality.
is it not possible --Depends on what you believe is possible.
there is no spirituality --depends, apparently, on semantics.
there is no spirituality without faith --again, semantics.
- Is spirituality without religion dangerous? --depends on your definition of danger and spirituality
- Is spirituality needed?, for one's health? --depending on the individual.
- Is spirituality underrated? --depending on the judging individual.
According to the human rights agreement, all of the above is up to each and every individual to decide for him or herself.

Ok. true, i was a bit afraid of this kind of post , spirituality is too big as a word to discuss really i now see.

[Obdigore]

Brynjar;190870 said:

so (other) religions actually count as religions. How fun!




The whole point of "spiritual, but not religious" is that you don't subscribe to something.



this is breaking with the premise you propose further down for atheists, where they are defined as not believing in anything other than what can be scientifically proven. One of the fundamentals in natural science is the action-reaction rule. By saying that the universe just happened, then you are breaking with this action-reaction rule.



"There is no black and white," and then you pose an either-or sentence? I don't get it...


You see the difference between belief and religion, but you claim that the word spirituality is dead? I'd appreciate it if you'd explain in more detail how you see spirituality, belief and religion relate to each other. It would be nice if you could also discuss a little bit how you find other stuff commonly associated with religion like ethics, ritual and symbols relate to the words above, and how you see that atheism is apart from all these religion-defining characteristics.

No, whatever you subscribe to, or dont subscribe too, whatever you believe, sans the belief that there is NOTHING else, makes you religious. Just because you don't have a name/hymm book/rights for your religion does not mean you don't have one.

The word, Spirituality is, imo, dead. It means nothing with the fact that people can subscribe to the religion of 'Jedi'. That makes anything and everything 'religious', except those people that understand and accept only what can be proven by Science.

Broods comment of 'I believe in something, but I'm not sure what', does, IMO, make him religious. I don't care if he has never been to a church, never heard or studied any religions at all, the fact that he thinks there is something else, does make him religious.

Athiesm, is obviously the defenition of athiesm. Everyone else, no matter what you believe in, or what you don't know about, is religious.

And yes, I agree it is completely a matter of semantics, and since I am having trouble getting my point across, please ask for clarification if needed.

[Bottle]

What you're saying Obdigore only makes sense with your own definitions of Religion and Spirituality. Which are not the same definitions most people hold, and so this is causing the conflict here.

Your definitions seem to be:

Religion = any sort of belief in something beyond the explanation of science.
Atheism = belief in science, and nothing beyond.
Spirituality = the same as religion.

You think spirituality is a meaningless word, because it is simply a guise of 'Religion'. You seem to get aggravated by someone saying they are spiritual because to you it implies they are religious but in denial.

If any of the above was wrong, correct me, but that’s how it comes across.

Now for everyone else spirituality has a different meaning to religion, in fact it has a lot of meanings because it itself covers a broad spectrum of topics.

Spirituality does blur along the boundaries of religion, but more so with 'new-age' religions then traditional 'Organised religions.'

As Brynjar said, what constitutes spirituality is up to the individual. But most often it follows a few set patterns.

Spirituality is not a belief in religion and not a belief in science because it attempts to offer what those two lack in a modern society. That: Modernity has made everything artificial, or fake. Spirituality is more so the belief in the self, or the inner quest to find the self. It is the acceptance of nature's power, a re-habilitation of pre-modern belief structures or the re-enchantment of the world (seeing things from a mystical perspective again.)

Here's where it gets muddy, what I've been talking about can be seen emerging in the 1960s counter culture, when for example the Beatles went 'east' and so on. But now in a society where the former foundations of structures such as 'Religion' have been dissolved. Spirituality has taken on a multitude of forms.

He's a few that I can think of:

1.) (Colloquial) Spirituality; The belief in something that transcends this world*
2.) Holistic Spirituality; the integration of mind, body and spirit.
3.) Spiritualism; i.e. tarot cards, spirit communication etc
4.) Naturalistic spirituality; the power of nature.

*This is not a religion because it has none of the ritual, structure, organisation or formality present in all religions.

Obviously there can be many more aspects of Spirituality too, my personal beliefs don't really fit with anything, except maybe point 1 as it's so broad and point 4.

What I'm getting it is Spirituality is something very different from religion, that in can exist separate from it too, and that it is far from a "dead" term, but in fact one that defines many aspects of our modern society.

[paladin]

and to mention on top of that, atheism is not a belief in "science", it is just a belief that there is no greater being/entity/force. not believing in god(s) doesn't mean you can't be spiritual, as a few examples provided by bottle point out.

basically, atheism is what you make of it, as long as you don't believe in a greater power.

[Sandstorm]

I don't think naturalistic spirituality or spiritualism can easily be accepted by a atheist.

These types of spirituality are non-logical, if a atheist does not believe in a force, or a god or ghosts it can not take most of the naturalistic spirituality or spiritualism seriously. Its based on believing something that is difficult or most likely impossible to prove scientifically. It's really more suited for agnostics or theists.

The whole holistic body and mind approach to spirtuality is something a atheist or christian can accept I think.