@@nathanmckenzie904 I dont concider myself spiritual because i also dont really think it has meaning. So i agree with you thus why i also put these " " when using the word. Because its just that, a word. If you want to go a bit deeper than just being some hairless monkey, then i suggest reading more about the topic with an open mind. Try meditation aswell. Speakers and writers like Alan Watts come to mind. But you can also ignore all i say and continue living while asleep. That is also okay, but refrain from discussing the topic from which you have not even touched the tip of the iceberg.
Same here! I have wanted so badly for so long to believe in god, to the point of saying that I believe. When I realized nothing I could do or read to make myself believe, I tried the “I’m spiritual”, but eventually that also failed miserably. Now I realize that o need to be honest with myself and admit that I really am an atheist 😊
I love listening to you talk and the work you do. I have recently (just last month) become an atheist and The Atheist Experience and your channel has helped me psychologically as I change my mind. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
When a person says they are spiritual, I always take that to mean they are saying they are highly emotional and prone to feelings of extreme awe and inspiration. That they are moved emotionally quite often. At least that's the best I can gather by what they say spiritual means to them. It always has to do with what they feel and how intensely they feel it.
It is truly a metaphor for living a good life. Meditation has real benefits, and developing a healthy philosophy behind that can lead anyone (most?) to a healthier mindset. I am still an athiest agnostic. I live my life with the assumption that a God doesn’t exist and I can not know about it. However I also am in awe of our beautiful universe, and I think the best way to experience it is to “experience it fully” through thoughtful observation and contemplation. I don’t believe a God exists, not that there are no Gods, but I think it is unlikely.
@@kimmmimemwest1895 you’re missing his point. When someone says their spiritual it could mean a plethora of things, which matt even mentioned in his speech. It’s an extremely broad term, maybe more so that even Christianity as their are many sects to that. But I think OPs point here is at the very core of anyone who is spiritual, what he stated is every spiritual persons motivation.
@@giraffe1219 I didn't Miss his point he started his point very clearly and now you are making a different and separate point of your own and attributing it to someone else ..I'm going off his words not yours ... And as for your words ... I already said what people mean by spiritually ...and it has nothing to do with being emotional .. it means u believe in spirits and or other dimensions...
Great talk. I'm among the people who identified as "spiritual" before moving forward into atheism. It was a lovely comfort in which I could hold on to more comfortable beliefs without further explanation.
im sure it has some social benefits too when talking to theists..spome may feel its better to say "im not religious but spiritual" than saying atheist to other people ?
Actually, I'm spiritual, but I usually feel it's better to identify as an atheist, just to let people know they have zero hope of convincing me of a God or of supernatural occurrences. It's good to get all that out of the way. We can talk spiritual stuff once they accept that.
Many years ago, I told someone that I was the least religious person ever. They said, are you an atheist? I said no...because the atheist badge seemed dirty to me. It was much easier to dismiss the entire subject of religion when I didn't dislike religion. It's harder to be an atheist than to be a passive non-believer. When I say that it's harder...it's harder to defend publicly.
Geoff Stockton At this point in my life, I enjoy being a quiet atheist because I have no time for trolls. My friends and family know my position. I'm retired so I don't need to hide my position at work anymore either. I simply want to enjoy life now and that includes watching this stuff. I donate to FFR to fight for me.
Red Hunteur Don't get me wrong. I really appreciate people like Matt D who lay out logical moral arguments while pointing out that BS. But I'm not the best person to play "trap the religious person" in either a moral quagmire or logical fallacy trap.
Ted Soto For whatever reason, it's an addiction for me, and I wish I could say that it was entirely benevolent. It is, MOSTLY. But I do love the squirm of cognitive dissonance on an unsuspecting theist.
Absolutelly brilliant! I speacilly loved the idea that spirituality had originated when primitive people saw someone dying and they made the assumption something left the body cause it is not there anymore. That notion is what probably initiated believe in spirituality and consequently led way for religions to appear to explain where that "thing that left the body and is not there anymore" went to. I also loved the simple way you explained how people engaging in spirituality are actually people which left or never embraced religion, but do not feel sufficiently confident to deny it trully and entirelly, so they end up in these "spiritual, but not religious" ground diplomatically thinking it is a safe ground. You are also right by saying these people are claiming "Religions are false, but there is something" being closer, or equal, depending of what we analise, to religion, than on atheism. I may be forgeting more great points you made, but anyway, as usually, you nailed it Matt, and I can just embrace the motto: "I believe Matt can explain it!"
Excellent talk. I have a friend/ work partner who goes for that "spiritual" stuff, even though she says she's not religious. She drops into casual conversation that she was thinking about someone she hadn't heard from in a while and an hour later, they phone. Then it happened again a few later. It's amazing, no, how people can connect like that? (Erm.. no. It's called coincidence.) I try to not let this make me question her abilities to think rationally, but it's really difficult. I don't bother challenging her on it since I'd just get labelled an old cranky curmudgeon for bashing her "feel good" beliefs. She and another good friend just feed each other on this stuff. It bugs the shit out of me. Thanks for this, Matt. Wish I could share it with these people and maybe get them to think critically about these ideas but it wouldn't go over well and they'd just dismiss it anyway.
I’m an agnostic atheist. I agree with you completely in this talk. You are an excellent communicator and debater. However, I am perplexed with the very real concept of consciousness and mainly my own. How do you explain the qualitative experience of conscious and, if you can, why we are aware.
Matt had a "spiritual" caller some months ago on the AE. This talk sounds like it was inspired by that conversation with great follow-up thoughts. Excellent presentation.
If spiritual means that I have a soul that can be separated from the body then, no, I'm not spiritual. It is maybe not the right term to label it, but I have often called my deep attachment to nature and life as spiritual. However, it seems that the term spiritual is not the proper way to describe that.
Matt I'd have to agree with you but for the fact that in those rooms l learned just how a usefull god is manmade. Were it not for learning the skill of introsoection I'd had rather forgotten my mutiyear experience with the 12 & 12.
I had physical experiences that convinced me as an atheist, that a god was real I spent 12 years as a Christian. It was many years after my return to atheism, that I finally got rid of the 'spiritual' label. I still believed in an "energy" that was the spiritual force that people felt. It wasn't until I self-diagnosed my experiences as the likely result of neocortical temporal lobe epilepsy. Brain farts lol. But I was one of the spiritual atheists for a long time.
brain farts epilepsy XDD. Just keep your feet on the ground and live simply - you don’t have to believe or not believe anything - don’t take the weight of anyone on your shoulders
6:22. "Who knows what spirituality means? I don't" Perhaps you should have spent some time actually studying spirituality without judging it. You also overgeneralize us by assigning us values we don't homogeneously share. Modern spirituality encourages people to find their own path. How I was taught spirituality was from Kundalini yoga (inspired by Sikhism). Spirituality means to love yourself but to not live for yourself. The most effective way to do this is to tap into a metaphysical realm where values such as compassion, love, and empathy is the absolute power. In this realm, creator and creation are one. This is the core of my spirituality. Unlike what you stated in your video, we ARE comfortable with mysteries and we admit we don't know what we don't do. We are perfectly okay with that. When I asked my teacher what he thought of afterlife, "I don't know. I don't care. This is where I am focused on. This life right here, right now is heaven or hell. Your values and actions and thoughts determine what is heaven or hell"
"Perhaps you should have spent some time actually studying spirituality without judging it." It isn't possible to study spirituality. All we can study are people who claim to be spiritual.
Thank you for yet another good video, Matt! You are really well spoken and writes thought through content and I really appreciate that. Greetings from Sweden!
All of the religous and spiritual people and their reasons for their beliefs can all be summed up in two beautiful psychological words, "Cognitive Dissonance"
There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking on a belief that is informed by ones deeper intuition, or "feeling". I believe there is a deeper part of our consciousness that transcends the restrictions of our limited perception. This transcendent state can be achieved through the use of exogenous and endogenous DMT via meditation. I think DMT may hold the keys to the nature of consciousness and reality.
Think a lot of the spiritual stuff is mostly the chemicals in our brains during certain events. Watch a nice sunset, after a warm day and the slightly cooler breeze from evening hits you just right. You feel really good, and for that moment you feel at peace. A lot of people are so busy doing stuff so often that those moments seem far apart. So you can convince yourself that that special moment was something more than what it was.
Human consciousness is spiritual in nature. This can be demonstrated. I do very much like Matt's emphasis on get the label the hell out of the way and let's see if your actual concept has merit. I'm spiritual and can tell you why I am, what that means, and why it's inherent in the human condition.
@@jasonnadal9721 The human spirit, i.e. the spirits of a person, i.e. the moods, vitality, fulfillment v. despair quotient of a person, etc. ... is inherent in human consciousness. So if you can get your mind off of magic, incarnate, supernatural claims about "spirits" as a supernaturally based noun ... then you can enter the world of rational debate on the subject instead of poo-pooing the supernatural while being blind to the natural.
As enjoyable and important the contributions of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett are, I love it how precisely and clearly Dillahunty get´s to a point. As far as I know he doesn´t have a book yet, he just has to write one covering his best arguments.
Spritual is so called English translation of Sanskrit Word " *Adhyatm(अध्यात्म)* " the Word Adhyatm frim the 2 sanskrit word 1. अध्ययन (Adhyan) means Study 2. Atman (आत्मन) loosely described as self So the spiritual (Adhyatma) means Study of the self ..... 🙏🙏🙏🙏
This is such a strong case, I think it should have a lot more exposure! It's so strong, rational, logical, impossible to argue against. I mean come on, this is the kind of raitonality that we should all have for building a better world. Truth and skepticism are king.
As humans progress in understanding our universe, words and labels change definition to better reflect that new and better understanding. One such word and label begging for such a redefinition is "Spirituality." When I stopped believing, I needed to understand the "spiritual connections" that I felt. Thus, I came up with this revised definition of spirituality, namely "A subjective creation of a deep or profound emotional connection to persons, places, objects and/or experiences, whilst NOT attributable to anything existentially specific." This definition applies whether religious or not and addresses the complexity of the human condition.
22:00 ..."truth" is literally one of the names we use for god...? I am not a "spiritual but not religious", I am a religious jew. Or maybe you're referring to someone else, idunno. The challenge is in moving from the name to its practical implications. Even the "science" I described in the other comment is actually an extension of the normal term...I include quite a few more things under the umbrella of tools/observations than most people do. But it seems to be the way you use the term "science" as well. (Prayer takes this extension even further, e.g. a child prays to god about the monster in the closet. It does not matter if I know I am insane in what I'm seeing; I can and should still pray about it.) Not just "truth", we have some other good names (Tzvi Freeman's wording was "worthwhile labels") too...when I'm in my wits I try to stick with the "truth" one because people seem to use it as something close to what we mean...not exactly the same, though, which is sad. I wish that an actual Name would come into common use, because then we could have the more interesting discussions about how to actually live. "Love" is used in this sense by some people, but not enough. "All of these expressions of the sweet indifference some call love. The high indifference some call fate but we have names more intimate." --Leonard Cohen
Truth is a separate concept from God. Whether God and Truth are in fact the same thing is something to be argued based on definitions, once we give them. I’d say that a being and a descriptor of propositions cannot possibly be the same thing. Like how I cannot be Justice, because I am a being.
Matt proclaims at 22:30 that it's not good communication to use the word "god" with a group of people who have widely differing views on what that word means. I presume that Matt will never again use the word "theory" in conversation, speech or writing ... since the word "theory" has widely different meanings in different contexts. His attempts to differentiate between "theory" in secular versus scientific settings are clearly an example of poor communication, according to his own logic. Rule of Matt - if a word has become distorted and misunderstood in common parlance, you MUST give up on trying to correct the misunderstanding of the use of that word. You MUST stop using that word immediately.
I am atheist myself--I identify as an agnostic atheist, because as far as I understand things it appears to be more intellectually honest to say that I can't be 100% sure about anything. However, since the likelihood of a god existing (especially any specific human depiction of a god) seems incredibly low, I am for all intents and purposes simply atheist. That said, I still enjoy theology in the same way I enjoy any other mythology. I can acknowledge that "God" could be a fun metaphorical symbol for things without actually being anything true. Similarly, I can acknowledge that there are numerous ways to depict a river on a map, without thinking something crazy like "there is only one true way to represent a river on a map!" or "if I stare at it long enough it'll feel like I'm swimming in the river." The lines on the map are not real land, they're just representative of something real; I think the problem is buying into the idea that these symbols are actually the thing they represent rather than being merely metaphorical. I think that it's possible to use mythological concepts as stories and metaphors for useful meaning, without getting wrapped up in some stupid "I'm spiritual, but not religious" belief system as the people you described have. To use an example this video brought up, you can refer to the "human spirit" and have that be a useful concept, but it doesn't mean you have to believe in an actual "spirit" in a supernatural sense. In any case, Bible myths are still some of my favorite stories (after they're understood, of course--the actual reading is kinda boring), and I think it's fun to see what kind of lessons I can work out of them if I view them a certain way. Almost as a sort of game.
+David W a connection with earth, with nature, with other people, feeling empathy for others, a strong intuition, a sense of well being, caring, sharing??.....do you have to believe in God to have those things?.....Does it have to have a singular meaning?....other things in life have many meanings. Being so definitive to the nth degree is very narrow minded. I wouldnt for a second say what you could or couldn't do, say, believe, not believe, and neither should you be so presumptuous to assume that you could be so exact in saying that these things are mutually exclusive, end of story. This is where, FOR ME, religion is a problem. Religion, FOR ME, is too greedy in its desire for control. This is only my opinion, and I'm happy that you have yours...
If he has not yet, Matt should read Sam Harris’ “Waking Up.” Matt seems to be basing his dismissal of the “spiritual” concept on strawmans. You don’t need God or even belief in a separate soul be spiritual. It simply means a personal feeling of deeper connection with nature or the cosmos. Spirituality is a part of who were are as humans. There is no denying that.
And those definitions probably include what I said with much different wording, but with the existence of gods/spirits. When thinking “spiritual,” just think meditation and high states of consciousness.
Word of advice: to the uninformed the word "atheist" still carries a negative connotation. I tell people I'm a "non-theist," that way they get the idea strongly but they did not hear the "a word." Another "a word" that I can use is, I tell people I'm an "aweist," that is, I look up at the night sky and I'm awed by the complexity, depth and beauty of nature and the cosmos. The biological and evolutionary epic is god.
"11:30 In some cases, people argue that there is a universal intelligence. But do they offer any evidence to that? Well, I feel it." Here is my take. When it comes to evidence, this is where spirituality and science part ways. My spirituality is about a negotiation for perspective rather than a straight debate with facts. It's about faith to that this universal intelligence that we know exists. Despite the lack of data. I fully acknowledge the lack of evidence and yet I put everything into it anyways. It has NEVER let me down. Depression and anxiety free because of it. A year after suicide attempt. Only three weeks of psych drugs. only five therapy sessions. It is hard to explain. It is just something you have. The best analogy I can come up with is Star Wars. There is a connection to a metaphysical plane that certain characters just trust. If you do not trust it, it is not there.
The word spirit comes from the word spiritus which mean breath, so all spiritually is about is breathing techniques, being healthy, care for every being, and loving and taking care of yourself in my opinion. All this Ghost/God/Demons stuff is just so called “spiritual” people believing in religious stuff but don’t want to identify with being religious. But myself I really don’t identify my self but if I did I am an atheist who practices stuff like meditation, getting nature, eating plant based/heathy, and get sun, which is backed by evidence.
Manuel Lynch l do believe it is. However, it's not a reason to remain ignorant of a topic that may interest you. Personally, l live in this place in this time. I'd much rather spend my time learning what l can know. I've had quite enough of the unknowables. l gave them up when l gave up my faith.
I don't know can be equivalent to "there's not enough info/data to decide" and/or around the middle of the beleif/level of convinced spectrum, akin to a 50% probability/ 50% level of confidence in the claim. Many concepts aren't a dichotomy but rather a spectrum. There's a spectrum of belief, a spectrum in political ideologies, ect.
It could be and in all actuality we are not designed to know everything, at the same time ,to the same degree, about everything. I think it is fair to say that is one reason why we are different and communicate amongst our differences. But if the debaters had the same honesty and or insight we probably would get closer to understanding the root of it all for effective answers and solutions.
It's not a middle ground, it's not a position at all. It doesn't make sense to have a position on something that someone knows nothing about. Which is when "I don't know" applies.
I cringe when I think of myself back in high school. I recall saying a few times being asked if I’m religious and I responded no I’m spiritual… what a cop out word. Looking back I was just conforming and had nothing to back up what I meant
I refused to use the atheist label for years because I thought it was closing the door on the idea of the supernatural. I called myself agnostic because...I didn't know if there was a god or not. I still don't. I'm unsure if it can even be determined if the existence of a godlike being is even possible. I don't think it's possible, but I don't *know*. But I wasn't aware of the distinction between Gnosticism and Theism, so I thought calling myself Atheist was being just as closed-minded, refusing to accept evidence if it ever turned up. Now I'm comfortable saying I'm an agnostic atheist because I know what that means - I don't believe, but if anything concrete actually shows up, I'll look at it with as little bias as possible and examine it honestly. Matt, I thank your friend Aron Ra for explaining the difference to me, so that I understood I was resisting a false label all this time.
"Spiritual" means a deeper feeling of personal connection with nature or the cosmos. You do not need to believe in any God (I am actually my own variety of a deist) or seperate soul. I think almost everyone is spiritual whether they realize it or not. It is part of who we are. I recommend that anyone who ridicules the idea read "Waking Up" by Sam Harris or "The God Gene" by Dean Hamer.
Native Centre Idiomas A connection can constitute as a reference for all of us being stardust that originated from the primordial stew that created the universe. We all share molecules from that event and are subject to the constant flux of of natural cycles taking place within the cosmos. We are all a multitude of molecular components constantly recycling itself while perceiving itself consciously. The Buddhist call this "not self" as there is no inherent existence, we create it by giving reducible conceptual essences to things.Saying that one thing is any more good or bad than the other, not because it is inherently true but because from a subjective standpoint what we consider it to be makes it so. We would like think that we lead our own lives yet our brain is influenced by internal/external stimuli without our conscious awareness of it(unless you're an adept meditator, psychologist,neuroscientist). There are no boundaries between the self and the universe and our notion of reality is but an illusion. This can be considered very spiritual indeed.
Native Centre Idiomas is that not just giving spirituality a prescription based on post hoc historical connotations of it? No worse than labeling or generalizing how and atheist,theist,or agnostic should think or be. From my subjective standpoint I see no reason as to why biological systems cannot be used as conduits for a very spiritual experience. From a neurological standpoint enlightenment is a real thing. Is that not in it's own way a spiritual experience? Yet we try to reduce it completely to it's biological premise and not the affects of such perceptions on the individuals themselves.Why does spirituality have to be this fixed thing? This universe is strange is it not? Extra dimensions, quantum entanglement, the Higgs Boson, thermodynamics, hell the fact the we are even experiencing this. I know nothing except for that I am ignorant.
Anthony Greico i not only read 'Waking up' but saw him speak TWICE on his promotional tour. I just went through it last night looking for anytbing that supports your claim(s). Also your definitions. Can you direct me to the parts that support your claim/position on 'spirituality'?
You are assuming “spirit” has to be defined as a ghostly thing that leaves body at death. You do not have to believe in such an idea to be spiritual. The Hebrew word for the soul is “neshama,” which is word for our human sense of being/life. The word does not seem to have anything to do with “soul” as in something that allows an individual to exist after physical death.
I wonder if Matt realizes that the "spiritual but not religious" group is the fastest growing demographic in western culture, growing even quicker than the agnostic/atheist/"nones" group. And Matt overlooked that the very backbone of the "spiritual but not religious" view is the Perennial philosophy which Matt never even discussed. www.embodiedphilosophy.com/issue/perennial-philosophy-8/
Totally agree on the "that's just semantics" thing. I majored in philosophy in college(yes, seriously), and I quickly realized that so much of philosophy is bogged down, or even completely a problem of, semantics(definitions, usages, the imprecise and imperfect nature of our languages and general ability to get our point across, etc.) I swear sometimes I feel like 90% of what people refer to as "philosophy", or the arguments and debates that are put forth/go on, the claims made, etc. would disappear completely if we had a "perfect" language, and a way to "perfectly" communicate/articulate what it is one is thinking.
Spiritual for me, isn't something I cling to, it's an open ended wondering regarding the many unusual experiences I've have that science and orthodox religions can't explain. Matt can imagine and assume all he likes, but like me and so many others, he doesn't know.
“Spiritual” is just “the unexplained”, then. Like lightning in the past. So what makes you think that we won’t be able to explain them in the future? What is unexplainable about them now, even?
@@Kevorama0205 Coming from an open minded perspective, let me know if either of y’all find proof to validate either argument. Everyone’s beliefs are personal so no hate. At the end of the day nobody can explain why we all popped up one day in a seemingly infinite universe. Mind boggling.
@@Datkrazyfoo the point is that the default position would be I don't know why that happened if you're claimming it's something supernatural I expect you to have enough of a reason to do so.
@@giorgosab9986 but i dont KNOW, i just believe it to be so. My justification for believing is my experience. Pretty sure the root word for expert is experience. How we come to know is through making sense of the experiences we have.
I love how at 4:30, Matt dismisses the idea that "god" is not a concept that can be rationally understood and defined ... by stating that many people DO have a position on what a "god" is. Matt thus commits the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity," but it's OK for him to do that .... because atheists are always logical and correct! By the way, if you assume anything about my views, if you make a comment that does not directly deal with my very direct criticism, you commit the logical fallacy of being an idiot. If you try to subject the unknown and unknowable to logical proofs, you will end up with absurdity. That does not mean there is not in fact an unknown and unknowable.
Spirituality is based on love not fear, throughout religion there is lots of fear. Fear of the consequences of your action, fear of what might happen after your die if you don't live life accordingly. With spirituality there is love and it encourages you to focus all your energy only of the good and to act based on love, religion tells you the truth spirituality let's you discover it. Religion separates, spirituality unites. In this world there are many religions and they preach that their story is the right story, spirituality sees truth in all of them and unites them becuase the truth is the same for all despite our differences. It focuses on the devine message they share not the differences. Instead of talking about punishment and threats of hell spirituality only talks about karma. Walk your own path. Conscousiness creates reality. Perception of the external world might just be a reflection of the inner world, what ever your belief are, that's what you'll only see in your reality. We create our own realities based on our beliefs.
When I was coming out of religion, I transitioned to what I thought of as spiritualism, but I later understood that was just me celebrating my freedom of confined thought, and felt elevated in response to what I thought was a higher power having ultimately revealed this to me. Turns out I just wasn't giving myself credit for coming to realizations. Now, this concept of spiritualism, to me, is just a confused, emotional responsive, pseudoscientific idea of better understanding things. Not a higher being of any kind.
I just saw this, and I heartily agree that we as a species need to cast off the mantle of spiritual traditionalism and grasp the universe realistically and rationally.
What about Buddhist? They don't consider themselves a religion but spiritual. So I think some atheist or agnostics are possibily eluding to the same concept as Buddhist do as the concept of enlightenment. So some would say spiritual over saying enlightenment, when some might mean that but don't really know it or understand it. Probably also a reason a good amount of people who leave thier faith will look at/to Buddhism to see how they function without a god concept and what they view as "spiritual" which could shape a new or alternative view of the concept of the word "spiritual". Side note: some would argue Buddhism is a form of trying to understand our consciousness and how to "enhance" the conscious perception of the world and the mind/brain. They focus and train the mind in other ways then people normally do to try and have a 'higher' understanding. The more neuroscience you learn the more fasinating the brain/mind work.
You know I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything supernatural does "Exist" and that it is possible that Matt could agree with my argument 100%, However its pretty damned unlikely that anyone of a superstitious persuasion would ever use my argument. I also suspect that anyone who noticed the quotation marks I used around the word "Exist" have probably figured out how my argument would work, and would conclude that having such a discussion would just waste everyone's time.
Nicely put! Sometimes, when we ask those people what exactly do they mean by "spirituality", they will say that it's all about *"energy"* ... and once again we've entered the realm of the word game! What energy is that? They wont say. They'll talk about positive and negative energy, spritual energy, and all things "energy"!! It's another woo word that sounds cool, but means nothing. In science, we must always explain what we mean by "energy", how to measure it, etc. But spiritualists (and those so called spirit science gurus) will just throw the word around in order to sound smart.
I really like this latest series of talks Matt because I feel that you've really gotten better. Another reason that I like these latest videos is because I've never been christian. I was raised atheist yet I tried zen buddhism and though I haven't gone in two years, I still meditate. I've always wanted you to talk to buddhism and similar concepts (such as "spiritual but not religious" lol). However I didn't want to suggest it because you are quite focused on and experienced with christianity. Thank you for touching on these subjects.
Love ur break down because I have a lot of friends who are not Christian but their not Atheist either so they call themselves spiritual or they subscribe to spirituality. But I'm an Atheist so we kinda fall out with each other alot lol
If "atheist" is a label, then I'll gladly wear it with pride. Heck, why stop there? Throw the "anti-religious" label in there while you're at it. I'll wear that with pride as well. Spirituality is this comforting feeling that our existence is eternal. If souls were a part of our being, then when did they become a part of our evolution? When does it become a part of our development before birth? How does the soul get there? Where did it come from? Even at a restful state, the human brain consumes roughly 20% of the body's total energy. If consciosuness isn't a result of complex biological processes, then why do our brains require such vast resources?
@Just a guy with a turban Okay, let's just say that I am wrong, fine, I'm completely okay with that. However, without the falsifiable evidence to prove otherwise, then what reason do I have to take your word on it?
"I'm not religious but I'm spiritual" From my experience this usually indicates that the person is willing to believe ideas without good evidence, usually based on feeling or from personal testimony alone. Things such as; star signs, ghosts, the 'spirit', karma, witch-craft, alternative medicine, various conspiracies, etc. It's usually a mishmash of 'beliefs' that many religious lay people tend to fold into their world view also. These people tend not to have a particularly strong understanding of or trust in Science, and view it as no more of an authority on explaining reality than their personal 'faith' in an idea or what their friends said. They form their world view from on a combination of what they were told, their personal feelings, confirmation bias, scientific ignorance and personal incredulity
For me is a form of hypocrisy mixed with weakness. If you are atheist, fine. You get to live your life without any religious rules, but you as well don't depend on the divine, you don't get that comfort. Now if you are religious, you get the comfort of feeling protected and having a meaning and all that, but you have more rules to abide to. Now the spiritual but not religious people, are the ones who want to have the best of the two worlds without having none of the bad.
My experience is it means the person wants to believe a god exists, but doesn't want to be bothered with any sort of religious trappings, such as having to take time to go to the church/temple/mosque/synagogue.
Well I don't belive in Christianity I am a hindu and and Hinduism is all about sprituality it contains star signs and all what yall Christians consider as "sin"..I don't hate jesus I hate bible I love being a hindu
The religions i know of abide in the main in the two extreme forms of thinking: extreme love vs extreme hate, torture vs ever lasting joy, wars vs peace, believing vs knowing, solving problems in a humane ways vs tossing people alive into a burning furnace to die an extreme form of death/etc.
Uh....yeah...."I don't like organized religion because they try to explain what can't be explained but"I"know how unexplainable it is enough to tell them how off they are. Because I'm spiritually in tuned."
7 років тому+1
Matt Wood For me, there are things that have happened in my life and my families life that i cannot explain by rational means, such as my mother having "preminitions" that came to pass in detail and saved my brothers life, me and my family all seeing dark figures, or "spirit" figures, at seperate, or the same time, and all describing the same things, etc. So i consider myself a spiritual person, but I'm not a christian. plus, christianity gave me ptsd.
I'm interested to know if this atheist, whom I greatly respect and enjoy listening to, and agree with most of the time, has ever used DMT. It can be a life-changing and reality shattering experience for any human that at the very least, raises questions about our understanding of consciousness and reality. Why is a DMT breakthrough experience so entirely profound and often so overtly spiritual it's undeniable? why does the experience often provide paradigm shattering universal wisdom? Why do we apparently meet hyper-intelligent beings that are beyond imagination? Why are they so convincingly real, and why does the experience often feel "more real than reality", leaving people with an undeniable sense that waking reality is an illusion (albeit a very persistent one ;)? Why are such profound, dramatic, and deeply meaningful immersive experiences possible without directly affecting ones cognitive awareness (No feeling of intoxication or distortion)?
I would say I'm spiritual (based on my own experiences). I believe in soul, ghosts, telepathy.. but I would never try to convince other people about it..because it's not possible.
"The spiritual but not religious" can't be grouped together any more than "non-believers" or "the religious" can be grouped together. It's somewhat understandable as so much stuff like "rendezvousing with spaceships behind the coming comet" gets self-reported as "spiritual." Beware establishing bias based on self-reported kookiness.
At 12:55 Matt pooh-poohs coincidences. He asks of those who claim them how they did the math to determine that something truly "spooky" transpired. I asked myself what might be going on when it seemed to me that a large number of coincidences happened in early 1988. It seemed to me there were lots and lots - Feb 14th 1988 providing the focus for six. It also seemed to me that certain themes were recurrent. And it also seemed to me that many of the examples were, by themselves, quite powerful. Lastly, many were supportable with documentary evidence. But, like Matt asks; "How did I do the math?" No testable claim nor repeatable experiment. So nothing falsifiable. And just because so many things "seemed to me" peculiar did not demand they would necessarily "seem so" to anyone else. So I stopped a guy in the street: William Hartston . He was forty, not a complete stranger, and had an MA in Maths from Cambridge University. I asked for his opinion on it all. When I rang a few days later he said he had a very powerful coincidence himself when reading my material. More than once, Hartston asked me, "How can that happen?". Some people believe that coincidence often leads to coincidence. Professor Roderick Main termed it "Synchronicity’s self-referring tendency". Vaughan called it "The Synchronicity of Synchronicity". I found Hartston’s experience a kind of confirmation that in recording such material and bringing it to the attention and assessment of others I was "on to something". But on to what? But the coup de grâce arrived on August 15th 1988. It was then that a 1978 book by Stan Gooch called The Paranormal.was brought to my attention. On page 149 begins a 12-page section entitled Synchronicity and Coincidence. "In a recent pilot television programme designed to test the limits of human intelligence, the names of the three contestants were Hartston, Burton and Walkington. All three end in - ton, and all three are names of towns - except for one letter (Harston is a town). The contestants were not of course chosen because of their names but because each of them had done extremely well in similar competitions on previous occasions. " Hartston confirmed he is the person named first in the opening paragraph of the first example of that section. He had heard of the book but had not read it. So I had chosen to become the first critic of my cluster of coincidence the person with whom Gooch had chosen to begin his section on Synchronicity and Coincidence. Moreover, Hartston went on to have a coincidence which impressed him more than any he ever had whilst reading my material. So the Cambridge University Maths MA became part of that cluster himself. Don´t you agree, Mr Dillahunty?
I really like a lot of what you said here Matt. Just one question, I believe that it is unlikely that a god exists and created the world, but I also do not completely rule out that that is a possibility. I don't get why your saying you have to be on either side of this, but maybe I am missing something you said.
So what do atheists think about the religious but not spiritual? There are people who like the idea of having a place to experience a sense of reverence for life, community introspection, and explore ideas about having a good person, but who find the teachings in most religions a little too unbelievable?
Interesting. But apparently some psychologists say we are born to believe in something spiritual it offers some sort of brain soothing and makes people feel good about somethings. Humans are not necessarily rational. Even in Maslow's hierarchy of needs there is a need in which people seek self-actualisation, which involves things to do with spirituality.
I don't agree with Matt here if being spiritual doesn't necessarily mean you believe there is something behind existence. instead if it only means you're open to all the possiblities then I don't see where the problem is here. it's much like saying I don't know but I am welling to seek the truth with an absolute openess. however I do agree with Matt if being spiritual entails all sorts of beliefs and preassumptions about existence.
"You either believe or you don't". How does implicit bias factor into this? People believe that they don't believe something when they do believe it TO SOME DEGREE. This would seem to indicate that belief isn't binary. What is the transition period between holding a belief and not holding a belief?
this was a great talk! I'm one of those people that claims to be spiritual but not religious. I don't believe in a god. my idea of spirituality rests on the transfer of energy. since everything in the universe is made of the same matter and that energy is created and ceases to be (i.e. when stars are born and die much like humans are born and die), I think it's possible that our energy can go on to exist when it leaves our vessel (our bodies). therefore, might our energy be absorbed by something else when it leaves our vessel? I'm not advocating reincarnation, but rather the exchange of energy into different bodies of matter. now, this is what I think based on what I know to be true about energy. I accept that I could be wrong! I want to believe this is what happens because I want to believe that everything makes an impact on our universe regardless of whether a "God" exists or not. I hope that makes sense! I'm always open for respectful conversation and the exchange of ideas!
Ha ha ha ASHLEY !Just you wait when you have to face god for your stupidity and foolishness you say and talk about.Do you think with your satanic ways will actually save you even now with your thoughts you put down on here.?
21:28 how does believing in a being who exceeds human understanding not make sense? Can you understand the actions of someone who invents a computer? No because that someone exceeds your understanding in that area...so the intelligence of the being that created us has to be immeasurable compared to ours and it wouldn't be farfetched to not be able to understand our creator
@SWAGGQUEEN200 u sound like a complete imbecile when you would not have come to this conclusion without someone stuffing it down your indecisive throat
@Samurai Jack you can understand the actions of an inventor because you are an engineer but creating a machine is different than creating a sentient human being. If you do not believe that life was created by an intelligent being then it is evident to me that even with your deep understanding of technology you have still failed to grasp how complex life is...the idea that random events took place in order to create SENTIENT life is absurd...there is no evidence I can offer you to prove my claim just as there is no evidence of the big bang but what I can offer is a reasonable counterclaim...there is no way sentient life can be created through an explosion...if I had all the atoms in existence in a nuclear reactor and it exploded I highly doubt that a sentient being would emerge from that...the center of the galaxy is billions of miles away from earth and yet there is no life that we have discovered outside of our galaxy much less in our our own solar system but there life here in the middle of no where...if life is highly adaptable then how come we are the only organisms in the solar system...if all these particles existed in the fabric of space then there should be no problem discovering life within the confines of our galaxy...as humans we have built in emotions,appeties,passions and desires just like a computer has a code built in to facilitate certain processes, so do we have a genetic code of our own...theories are nice to indulge in but when it comes to facts you cannot place your belief in theory for comfort due to a lack of answers because at the end of the day the big bang theory is merely a theory and nothing more
"..so the intelligence of the being that created us has to be immeasurable compared to ours and it wouldn't be farfetched to not be able to understand our creator" But you have not proven that we had a creator, so your statement is null.
@@omarclarke55 " as far as I know no one proved that there is not a creator" As far as I know no one has proved leprechauns do not exist. Is that a reason to believe leprechauns exist? "...so the same can be said to you...how do you suppose that we got here?" I know how I got here, my mother and father had sex. What do you mean by "we got here"? As for a creator, there are many stories about a creator of the universe & life. There is the ancient Norse story ( Odin did it), the ancient Greek story ( Zeus did it), and the ancient Hindu story, the ancient story from assorted African tribes, North American tribes, South American tribes, Australian tribes, the story in the old testament/Torah. Which creator are you referring to? Zeus? Odin? Some other one?
I'm an agnostic atheist who believes in higher consciousness. One might call me a spiritual atheist. I have the same disdain for organized religion as most gnostic atheists, but I believe human consciousness is so much more than our physical reality, mostly because I've experienced it and nobody can tell me that I haven't. I tried to be an atheist, but in order to do so I'd have to be dishonest with myself.
The man/woman of logic who wants evidence or justification to anything will criticize those who can’t explain themselves; it’s either that or they’ll be lead to disappointment. I myself tend to be a person of logic, so I understand the argument of wanting evidence, but the thing here that I’ve come to realize is that for some people, there’s just so much that the human brain can understand and process. I myself used to be religious and also tried being spiritual at a time, so a lot of what the speaker is saying is something that I can understand, but I have my own disagreements. From my perspective at least, you can either continually search and argue with other people or just learn to accept what can’t be shown or explained through evidence. We all have our own definitions of what’s real or tangible and I’m okay with that. My definition of what’s real however is based on what I can actually see, feel and understand with my own senses and logic. If I come across something I can’t understand, I have two options; argue/rationalize why I believe I’m right or just work on being more aware and understanding.
What I notice about spirituality is that everyone has different beliefs regarding it, as if it were religion. But you could say that's because of a lack of research on one person's end or just in general
Research nde’s and pre birth memories, every time people are told to come back to earth to learn “lessons” by self proclaimed “spirit guides” but after each life time the memories from that incarnation slowly fade away like a dream. This place is a prison planet and beings trick souls that hold belief systems generated from this world (religious, atheist, and new age are the easiest to manipulate) into giving their free will by guilt tripping them into incarnating again. Sin, karma, and the creator is a lie.
I don't think you can necessarily separate spirituality and religious belief. It's inevitable that one will lead to the other. Simply put, spirituality is religious in concept, and vice versa.
You can be spiritual and not religious. For example, you can feel as if all life is connected or we have an inner spirit that lives on after we die without ever adhering to any religion (which implies doctrine, rules for living, believing in talking snake stories and so forth).
Yes, you have a point, but only to a degree. Prehistoric man's "spirituality", was based on superstition, ignorance, and fear, and is the very basis, and seed of religion and religious belief. Just as we can say the egg came before the chicken, we can say spirituality came before religion. But, we can not separate, in either case, one from the other.
Very good point, but specious at best. Spirituality connotes religious sentiment. The search for the sacred, the divine in the earthly. Whether one follows a printed word or an inner voice, the concepts are complementary, the objectives parallel in their course. The notion of the spirit (spirituality) itself, is religious by its very nature. Its aspects supernatural, spectral, and not based in evidence.
You totally misconstrued the point I made. Your argument regarding the chicken and the egg is totally non sequitur. Your response regarding different "types" of spiritual experiences, require a notion, a belief, in the spiritual, a spirit, a religious predisposition. To use your words, "You're simply wrong on both counts".
+smax26 "You can be spiritual and not religious. For example, you can feel as if all life is connected or we have an inner spirit that lives on after we die without ever adhering to any religion (which implies doctrine, rules for living, believing in talking snake stories and so forth)." I'm getting the idea that spirituality separated from religion is more a personal thing that's not subject to dogma and other crap that religion forms. What would happen if someone wrote down their spirituality and then other people started to follow the same thing? P.S. God dammit, UA-cam is screwing with commenting systems again.
Matt . Glad I discovered you in the last week or two. You make life so easy for most of us in the process of evolving from the craziness and stupidity called Religion. When I discovered you and experienced how far ahead of me I believe you are, I immediately thought that I needed to Google " Spiritual but not Religious" since in my judgement and based on some of your works experienced , I realized that there will be an excellent chance that you will have encountered this trend you referred to . Vow for your magnificent energy and application. This work and all the other work you guys do in US is so precious for the future of our species and the planet. I can hardly believe that you and your adversaries belong to the same species. Matt, you guys clearly have an abundance of truth that surrounds you with wisdom and integrity . It's much easier to trust you guys than believers. Obviously and objectively so but still realising that in truth and true to our method and lifestyle, trust and respect still has to be earned and no one should get a free pass. I am of the view that we should try to always positively impact society with our superior skills and wisdom . To me its obvious that very bad people exploited our relative ignorance and dysfunctionality when they manipulated society to drag us into neverending "wars-for-prophets" and what not only because we knew so much less before. It is clear to me that Spiritual but not religious is religion back-paddling under pressure of rationality spearheaded by Atheist Activism. Suddenly they and mainly their enslaving institutions do no longer enjoy being mocked and to look ridiculous and stupid. They have given up on religion as an embarrassment that risk God's safety. God will of necessity need protection which should make us realise that our adversaries can be very dangerous people. They kill each other in wars ,with God apparently arming both sides - not unlike the case when US materially supported both Iraq and Iran in war. Spirituality is only a temporary safe zone for religion and Theism. Some groups of organized religion will, I predict, support the concepts of "African Spirituality" in great numbers even though the teachings of Dr Hagins is accepted and Jesus's pivotal place in Christianity is given up "as based on mythology". This may give some indication that Dr Hagin and his followers are prepared to move quiet a bit "to the radical left" but most importantly they are still clinging to their reliance on God for all their fundamentals in life. They are actually in my view not dealing with African Spirituality, I must caution. In recent days I tried to understand them and their movement to the left as well as to see how they differ from African Spirituality as practised elsewhere. I agree that loose standing, Spirituality is what it is. To our disadvantage in Africa is that not much to nothing of the rules of African Spirituality had been codified. Therefore it's demise and its overthrowing in Africa by stupidity and irrationality called religion. It seems as if there were/are still?various strains of African Spirituality on the Continent. Its completely unlike religion in its intent, function, implimenting and application. Much propaganda had been easily spread about it from as soon as Christian Ministries started popping up in Africa to mentally colonize our predecessors and the masses to this day. What makes me say that its unlike Religion? Most importantly there is no God nor anyone to worship in African Spirituality. Special emphasis was always placed on truths about what worked out in the past in order to solve problems in the present and for the future. Therefore our regular consulting of our predecessors/ ancestors for their "guidance" to solve problems was fundamental to how society operated. The prominence of the word "guidance" against the background that there was no written code, allowed Colonialists to easily spread their propaganda for our detractors to falsely assume from their base of ignorance that there must of necessity be a God and that when Africans held their rituals to connect with their forebearers on whose wisdoms and experiences they counted on , then the ignorant concluded that we must have worshipped our forebearers. You know all about these false assumptions and beliefs in favour of the notion that a God must of necessity just be made to exist. No . Guidance sought was all about Education, Education and Education as well as drawing from all past proven truths and wisdoms society was able to rely on. Families and society put their collective knowledge and experiences together to be guided by. We specifically "consulted " our ancestors , and did not worship them . Participants in African Spirituality from the strain I learned more about in recent day can therefore be considered Atheists and rational. Colonialists just had to attack African Spirituality first before they were able to enslave the masses and steal from us. Incidentally elections are won and undeclared wars for profit (prophets) are continued neverendingly by US when false consents are obtained therefore from a semi comatosed living dead populace that find higher value in things believed to be true rather than that they be true. Our enemy ( of man) is busy reducing your consciousness in so many ways for purposes of that and similar kinds of manipulation "believers were created to be deceived by." Essentially therefore the real irrational top dog enemies of man responsible for this mayhem on the planet for so long are now obviously inverting our real realities so much with fake corporate journalism that pushing back ever harder against their best longterm/ longtime asset is a no brainer. It will be wonderful to obtain some feedback from our family of Atheists that need to push back with our superior skills, wisdom ,creativity, norms, consciousness and so much more we have to offer our fellow man than God has on offer.
From the way I have heard 'spiritual' used (in "spiritual but not religious"), what people tend to mean is that they're open to just about anything, as long as it isn't dogmatically commanded. Someone could believe everything the Catholic Church believes and call themselves "spiritual but not religious", just as long as they believe all those things because they want to, and not because the church commanded them to. Spiritual but not religious = religious without the dogma.
Spiritual people can be dogmatic about specific elements within their cherry picked belief system. To take a more specific example alternative medicine like Acupuncture, or perhaps a better one would be homeopathy. It's got it's own subset of dogmatic concepts within it's methodology. Moral authority isn't the only thing that defines dogma. Edited 5 or so times because it's late, and I make insane typos and omissions.
They have a love for favorable superstitious woo. And it can change at the drop of a hat, so no way to pin it down and dissuade them because they can just shift the meaning of their words. Very frustrating to talk to them about their beliefs.
I agree that it's religion without the dogma, but I might disagree about the reason for that. (I'm not sure.) If you belong to a religion, there's at least _some_ way to pin you down. "This is the church position. How can you justify that?" Of course, most religious believers just ignore what they can't rationalize away, but the "spiritual but not religious" people can't be pinned down about _anything_. It's vague, and deliberately so. Vagueness is the main feature of "spiritual but not religious," don't you think? To my mind, the "spiritual but not religious" people aren't even disciplined enough to have any real beliefs - certainly not to stick to them. It's just pure woo. And no one can argue against what they believe, when they don't really believe anything - anything they can be pinned down about, at least. On the bright side, they're not trying to force their beliefs on anyone else. (That would take too much thought, I suspect.) But I tend to find that mindset even more irritating than that of dogmatic theists.
+Bill Garthright Religious people like to argue about what they believe. And because their beliefs are extremely logical, they can easily be backed into bickering about the most minor points of their beliefs, on the basis that those minutiae are somehow important to their greater worldview. And because they work within an old system, in congress with the large distributed intelligence of many other believers, they never have to tell you why _they_ believe what they believe. If they even know. It suffices to use a successful argument for why _some philosopher a century ago_ believed something similar what they believe. If someone says they're "spiritual but not religious," yes, they're going to be talking lots of emotions, not logic. If you try to pin them down in minutiae, they're going to get bored arguing those minutiae, and shift them in convenient ways. They also don't go into any conversation committed to any pre-existing ideology, so it's easy to change their minds, and they want you to change their minds. If you find that attitude worse than theistic dogmatism, perhaps it's because your own atheism is more than a little religious, and you enjoy sharing that common ground of argumentation with dogmatic theists.
Examples of terms that imo are usually too nebulously defined to promote productive discourse : spiritual, soul, supernatural, god, paranormal, enlightenment, and even faith, objective and absolute in some, imo strange, cases. rigorously defining terms is _key_ to honest, productive discourse, imo.
I’m an atheist by reasonable definitions of the term and I do often describe myself as spiritual but not religious. It’s just the most fitting term I’ve found to describe my sense of priorities and focus in life. I practice meditation and yoga in a fairly intensive way, for instance. I experience a strong subjective sense of value from these practices, and my mind seems to have benefited greatly. Woo abounds in just about any spiritual community structure, but my pursuits are a mostly solo activity so I’m not put off. Sorting woo from useful info helps me be more skeptical and more mindful. I’d love to hear a word for what I do that fits better than ‘spiritual’ but I haven’t heard of it yet. Obvious no word is really necessary but people get curious about me and I feel compelled to give them some sense of my priorities.
You're like most of us who used the term "Spiritual but not Religious". I'm not an Atheist but I cause I believe in a creator but not as outlined in the bible. I view the bible as esoteric. I really just focus on my self improvement.
I am openly atheist...I just do not believe in any divine figure..being atheist is so simple and so liberating..I dont know why so many people enjoy complicating things...enjoying music..arts..a beautiful sunset etc...these are spiritual experiences we as atheists can enjoy...we are not empty bodies living like trees...we have feelings...we manifest ourselves through these spiritual experiences...without any need of any god..sacred book..or religion...this guy upthere looks exactly like a preacher ,dwelling upon silly complicated absurdities.. let us be happy enjoying life free of chimeras
I'm a spiritual Atheist. I believe in the Universe, crystal's, astrology, hope and karma. And as an atheist I just lack a belief in god(s). I don't believe in the supernatural, I don't believe we have a soul (I use to now I don't), Our body isn't eternal, and after we die...We just die.Yep that's what I believe
I used to be highly against the term spiritual, but now, I take more of a Sam Harris view of it. Nothing magical or religious. I just think it has to do with the embodiment of wanting to become a better person. For instance, I am learning about chakras out of pure curiosity (shut up, I know. hippie bullshit, right..) but im only taking out of it what I see useful. I know they are not scientific and cant physically be found in the body, but they almost operate as a "7 levels of success" kinda thing. it just tells you what you could focus on to improve yourself. Spirituality has for the most part gone hand in hand with religion and belief in souls, god, afterlife, ect.. but it is my new opinion that its possible to salvage it for purely good purposes. No dogma, no irrational beliefs, no contradiction with naturalism.
I feel the same way. For me spirituality is just connecting and being in harmony with all living things. I guess you could say I’m a humanist and focus on more rational ways to solve human issues. But I think if we take care of ourselves, one another and have a positive mindset, then it could drastically improve our lifestyles and health as well. I value life and truth. I don’t actually believe in spirits, the universe as a conscious force, separate dimensions, the supernatural, etc. For me it’s just recognizing your emotions and living a fulfilling life. I just find ways to appreciate the beauty within a natural universe. Like in art, music and love. There of course needs to be evidence before I believe it. I also rely solely on science to explain things. Maybe spirituality isn’t the right word, or there could be other ways to describe it. I can definitely understand Matt’s perspective on this.
I don’t believe in the supernatural. I just believe that there is a lot we don’t understand. But why should the unexplainable be considered ‘outside of nature?’
I remember when I said I was "spiritual".. a few years later I figured I was really an atheist in denial
Same
Then you were never truly "spiritual".
@@caravan3636 i wasn't because the word has no meaning
@@nathanmckenzie904 I dont concider myself spiritual because i also dont really think it has meaning. So i agree with you thus why i also put these " " when using the word. Because its just that, a word. If you want to go a bit deeper than just being some hairless monkey, then i suggest reading more about the topic with an open mind. Try meditation aswell. Speakers and writers like Alan Watts come to mind. But you can also ignore all i say and continue living while asleep. That is also okay, but refrain from discussing the topic from which you have not even touched the tip of the iceberg.
Same here! I have wanted so badly for so long to believe in god, to the point of saying that I believe. When I realized nothing I could do or read to make myself believe, I tried the “I’m spiritual”, but eventually that also failed miserably.
Now I realize that o need to be honest with myself and admit that I really am an atheist 😊
I love listening to you talk and the work you do. I have recently (just last month) become an atheist and The Atheist Experience and your channel has helped me psychologically as I change my mind. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
A year later, how goes it? Any issues with family/friends? Here's hoping you have great good luck.
When a person says they are spiritual, I always take that to mean they are saying they are highly emotional and prone to feelings of extreme awe and inspiration. That they are moved emotionally quite often.
At least that's the best I can gather by what they say spiritual means to them. It always has to do with what they feel and how intensely they feel it.
It is truly a metaphor for living a good life. Meditation has real benefits, and developing a healthy philosophy behind that can lead anyone (most?) to a healthier mindset.
I am still an athiest agnostic. I live my life with the assumption that a God doesn’t exist and I can not know about it.
However I also am in awe of our beautiful universe, and I think the best way to experience it is to “experience it fully” through thoughtful observation and contemplation.
I don’t believe a God exists, not that there are no Gods, but I think it is unlikely.
You can also take it to mean they like alcohol.
No it means they believe in spirits and other dimensions and energies
@@kimmmimemwest1895 you’re missing his point. When someone says their spiritual it could mean a plethora of things, which matt even mentioned in his speech. It’s an extremely broad term, maybe more so that even Christianity as their are many sects to that. But I think OPs point here is at the very core of anyone who is spiritual, what he stated is every spiritual persons motivation.
@@giraffe1219 I didn't Miss his point he started his point very clearly and now you are making a different and separate point of your own and attributing it to someone else ..I'm going off his words not yours ... And as for your words ... I already said what people mean by spiritually ...and it has nothing to do with being emotional .. it means u believe in spirits and or other dimensions...
I love listening to you speak and your logic. Please keep going on!
Great talk. I'm among the people who identified as "spiritual" before moving forward into atheism. It was a lovely comfort in which I could hold on to more comfortable beliefs without further explanation.
im sure it has some social benefits too when talking to theists..spome may feel its better to say "im not religious but spiritual" than saying atheist to other people ?
Actually, I'm spiritual, but I usually feel it's better to identify as an atheist, just to let people know they have zero hope of convincing me of a God or of supernatural occurrences. It's good to get all that out of the way. We can talk spiritual stuff once they accept that.
Comfortable and convenient - atheism in a nutshell
@@InhabitantOfOddworld do some shroom my guy. free your mind
3 years ago, I was one of these morons who refused to be an atheist because I thought it was a religion. LOL
Many years ago, I told someone that I was the least religious person ever. They said, are you an atheist? I said no...because the atheist badge seemed dirty to me. It was much easier to dismiss the entire subject of religion when I didn't dislike religion. It's harder to be an atheist than to be a passive non-believer. When I say that it's harder...it's harder to defend publicly.
Ted Soto
I've come to thoroughly enjoy defending my position to the point where I go looking for those arguments. :)
Geoff Stockton At this point in my life, I enjoy being a quiet atheist because I have no time for trolls. My friends and family know my position. I'm retired so I don't need to hide my position at work anymore either. I simply want to enjoy life now and that includes watching this stuff. I donate to FFR to fight for me.
Red Hunteur Don't get me wrong. I really appreciate people like Matt D who lay out logical moral arguments while pointing out that BS. But I'm not the best person to play "trap the religious person" in either a moral quagmire or logical fallacy trap.
Ted Soto
For whatever reason, it's an addiction for me, and I wish I could say that it was entirely benevolent. It is, MOSTLY. But I do love the squirm of cognitive dissonance on an unsuspecting theist.
Absolutelly brilliant! I speacilly loved the idea that spirituality had originated when primitive people saw someone dying and they made the assumption something left the body cause it is not there anymore. That notion is what probably initiated believe in spirituality and consequently led way for religions to appear to explain where that "thing that left the body and is not there anymore" went to. I also loved the simple way you explained how people engaging in spirituality are actually people which left or never embraced religion, but do not feel sufficiently confident to deny it trully and entirelly, so they end up in these "spiritual, but not religious" ground diplomatically thinking it is a safe ground. You are also right by saying these people are claiming "Religions are false, but there is something" being closer, or equal, depending of what we analise, to religion, than on atheism. I may be forgeting more great points you made, but anyway, as usually, you nailed it Matt, and I can just embrace the motto: "I believe Matt can explain it!"
Thanks Matt, what a wonderful talk, I see this issue all the time, and it needed to be addressed.
Excellent talk.
I have a friend/ work partner who goes for that "spiritual" stuff, even though she says she's not religious. She drops into casual conversation that she was thinking about someone she hadn't heard from in a while and an hour later, they phone. Then it happened again a few later. It's amazing, no, how people can connect like that? (Erm.. no. It's called coincidence.)
I try to not let this make me question her abilities to think rationally, but it's really difficult. I don't bother challenging her on it since I'd just get labelled an old cranky curmudgeon for bashing her "feel good" beliefs. She and another good friend just feed each other on this stuff. It bugs the shit out of me.
Thanks for this, Matt. Wish I could share it with these people and maybe get them to think critically about these ideas but it wouldn't go over well and they'd just dismiss it anyway.
I feel ya man.
I’m an agnostic atheist. I agree with you completely in this talk. You are an excellent communicator and debater. However, I am perplexed with the very real concept of consciousness and mainly my own. How do you explain the qualitative experience of conscious and, if you can, why we are aware.
Matt had a "spiritual" caller some months ago on the AE. This talk sounds like it was inspired by that conversation with great follow-up thoughts. Excellent presentation.
If spiritual means that I have a soul that can be separated from the body then, no, I'm not spiritual. It is maybe not the right term to label it, but I have often called my deep attachment to nature and life as spiritual. However, it seems that the term spiritual is not the proper way to describe that.
Try using the word affinity.
That what I’m like
Society is filled with hurting people. Addicts and alcoholics find hope through faith and spirituality. Could these people find hope in atheism?
Perfect example of people taking advantage of this position is 12 step recovery programs.
Matt
I'd have to agree with you but for the fact that in those rooms l learned just how a usefull god is manmade. Were it not for learning the skill of introsoection I'd had rather forgotten my mutiyear experience with the 12 & 12.
Oh, and these are only introductions!
This is called ambiguous profiting.
I had physical experiences that convinced me as an atheist, that a god was real I spent 12 years as a Christian. It was many years after my return to atheism, that I finally got rid of the 'spiritual' label. I still believed in an "energy" that was the spiritual force that people felt. It wasn't until I self-diagnosed my experiences as the likely result of neocortical temporal lobe epilepsy. Brain farts lol. But I was one of the spiritual atheists for a long time.
The brain is the hard drive of the spirit matrix, that’s why. Hence why the “universe” aka this matrix reflects a brain.
brain farts epilepsy XDD. Just keep your feet on the ground and live simply - you don’t have to believe or not believe anything - don’t take the weight of anyone on your shoulders
@@consciouspresence5880 Amen
Loved this talk. Thanks for coming to Saskatchewan, Matt.
6:22. "Who knows what spirituality means? I don't"
Perhaps you should have spent some time actually studying spirituality without judging it. You also overgeneralize us by assigning us values we don't homogeneously share. Modern spirituality encourages people to find their own path.
How I was taught spirituality was from Kundalini yoga (inspired by Sikhism). Spirituality means to love yourself but to not live for yourself. The most effective way to do this is to tap into a metaphysical realm where values such as compassion, love, and empathy is the absolute power. In this realm, creator and creation are one. This is the core of my spirituality.
Unlike what you stated in your video, we ARE comfortable with mysteries and we admit we don't know what we don't do. We are perfectly okay with that. When I asked my teacher what he thought of afterlife, "I don't know. I don't care. This is where I am focused on. This life right here, right now is heaven or hell. Your values and actions and thoughts determine what is heaven or hell"
"Perhaps you should have spent some time actually studying spirituality without judging it."
It isn't possible to study spirituality. All we can study are people who claim to be spiritual.
@Dark Star as an atheist you are not comfortable not knowing? What more do you know by not believing in God? Think about that...
Thank you for yet another good video, Matt! You are really well spoken and writes thought through content and I really appreciate that. Greetings from Sweden!
All of the religous and spiritual people and their reasons for their beliefs can all be summed up in two beautiful psychological words,
"Cognitive Dissonance"
There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking on a belief that is informed by ones deeper intuition, or "feeling". I believe there is a deeper part of our consciousness that transcends the restrictions of our limited perception. This transcendent state can be achieved through the use of exogenous and endogenous DMT via meditation. I think DMT may hold the keys to the nature of consciousness and reality.
Conscious Robot okay Joe Rogan. What’s the difference between a mushroom trip and dmt then?
Or better yet, a dream and DMT.
Intuition can be wrong.
Think a lot of the spiritual stuff is mostly the chemicals in our brains during certain events. Watch a nice sunset, after a warm day and the slightly cooler breeze from evening hits you just right. You feel really good, and for that moment you feel at peace. A lot of people are so busy doing stuff so often that those moments seem far apart. So you can convince yourself that that special moment was something more than what it was.
Human consciousness is spiritual in nature. This can be demonstrated. I do very much like Matt's emphasis on get the label the hell out of the way and let's see if your actual concept has merit. I'm spiritual and can tell you why I am, what that means, and why it's inherent in the human condition.
Its been 7 months and im waiting for your demonstration. You have provided nothing but a statement.
And...?
@@jasonnadal9721 Never saw your reply till now. Will send you a book if you want. Very quick read. Give me an email?
It's a Shame. God is the Existence of Love. Everybody Believes Love Exists.
Atheists Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it.
It's Unfortunate
@@jasonnadal9721 The human spirit, i.e. the spirits of a person, i.e. the moods, vitality, fulfillment v. despair quotient of a person, etc. ... is inherent in human consciousness. So if you can get your mind off of magic, incarnate, supernatural claims about "spirits" as a supernaturally based noun ... then you can enter the world of rational debate on the subject instead of poo-pooing the supernatural while being blind to the natural.
I think this is my favourite talk of yours I've ever heard, Matt.
Thank you for standing up for the value of semantics.
As enjoyable and important the contributions of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett are, I love it how precisely and clearly Dillahunty get´s to a point. As far as I know he doesn´t have a book yet, he just has to write one covering his best arguments.
Spritual is so called English translation of Sanskrit Word
" *Adhyatm(अध्यात्म)* "
the Word Adhyatm frim the 2 sanskrit word
1. अध्ययन (Adhyan) means Study
2. Atman (आत्मन) loosely described as self
So the spiritual (Adhyatma) means Study of the self ..... 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Yeah, by some definitions and in some contexts that's true
This is such a strong case, I think it should have a lot more exposure! It's so strong, rational, logical, impossible to argue against. I mean come on, this is the kind of raitonality that we should all have for building a better world. Truth and skepticism are king.
This is great!
Thanks for sharing, Matt.
As humans progress in understanding our universe, words and labels change definition to better reflect that new and better understanding. One such word and label begging for such a redefinition is "Spirituality." When I stopped believing, I needed to understand the "spiritual connections" that I felt. Thus, I came up with this revised definition of spirituality, namely "A subjective creation of a deep or profound emotional connection to persons, places, objects and/or experiences, whilst NOT attributable to anything existentially specific." This definition applies whether religious or not and addresses the complexity of the human condition.
22:00
..."truth" is literally one of the names we use for god...? I am not a "spiritual but not religious", I am a religious jew. Or maybe you're referring to someone else, idunno.
The challenge is in moving from the name to its practical implications.
Even the "science" I described in the other comment is actually an extension of the normal term...I include quite a few more things under the umbrella of tools/observations than most people do. But it seems to be the way you use the term "science" as well.
(Prayer takes this extension even further, e.g. a child prays to god about the monster in the closet. It does not matter if I know I am insane in what I'm seeing; I can and should still pray about it.)
Not just "truth", we have some other good names (Tzvi Freeman's wording was "worthwhile labels") too...when I'm in my wits I try to stick with the "truth" one because people seem to use it as something close to what we mean...not exactly the same, though, which is sad.
I wish that an actual Name would come into common use, because then we could have the more interesting discussions about how to actually live. "Love" is used in this sense by some people, but not enough.
"All of these expressions of
the sweet indifference some call love.
The high indifference some call fate
but we have names more intimate."
--Leonard Cohen
Truth is a separate concept from God. Whether God and Truth are in fact the same thing is something to be argued based on definitions, once we give them. I’d say that a being and a descriptor of propositions cannot possibly be the same thing. Like how I cannot be Justice, because I am a being.
Matt proclaims at 22:30 that it's not good communication to use the word "god" with a group of people who have widely differing views on what that word means.
I presume that Matt will never again use the word "theory" in conversation, speech or writing ... since the word "theory" has widely different meanings in different contexts. His attempts to differentiate between "theory" in secular versus scientific settings are clearly an example of poor communication, according to his own logic.
Rule of Matt - if a word has become distorted and misunderstood in common parlance, you MUST give up on trying to correct the misunderstanding of the use of that word. You MUST stop using that word immediately.
Booo
I am atheist myself--I identify as an agnostic atheist, because as far as I understand things it appears to be more intellectually honest to say that I can't be 100% sure about anything. However, since the likelihood of a god existing (especially any specific human depiction of a god) seems incredibly low, I am for all intents and purposes simply atheist.
That said, I still enjoy theology in the same way I enjoy any other mythology. I can acknowledge that "God" could be a fun metaphorical symbol for things without actually being anything true. Similarly, I can acknowledge that there are numerous ways to depict a river on a map, without thinking something crazy like "there is only one true way to represent a river on a map!" or "if I stare at it long enough it'll feel like I'm swimming in the river." The lines on the map are not real land, they're just representative of something real; I think the problem is buying into the idea that these symbols are actually the thing they represent rather than being merely metaphorical.
I think that it's possible to use mythological concepts as stories and metaphors for useful meaning, without getting wrapped up in some stupid "I'm spiritual, but not religious" belief system as the people you described have. To use an example this video brought up, you can refer to the "human spirit" and have that be a useful concept, but it doesn't mean you have to believe in an actual "spirit" in a supernatural sense.
In any case, Bible myths are still some of my favorite stories (after they're understood, of course--the actual reading is kinda boring), and I think it's fun to see what kind of lessons I can work out of them if I view them a certain way. Almost as a sort of game.
Excellent talk, Matt. I'm especially irked by people when they tell me they're spiritual but not religious.
They simply haven't given it enough thought, but they can sense the BS that is religion. I prefer them over the overtly religious.
Looks like your brain got into a fist fight with some sharp objects.
You seem wrapped up in teleology. Stop that.
why?
newman447 Because it doesn't make sense. What does spiritual even mean?
+David W a connection with earth, with nature, with other people, feeling empathy for others, a strong intuition, a sense of well being, caring, sharing??.....do you have to believe in God to have those things?.....Does it have to have a singular meaning?....other things in life have many meanings. Being so definitive to the nth degree is very narrow minded. I wouldnt for a second say what you could or couldn't do, say, believe, not believe, and neither should you be so presumptuous to assume that you could be so exact in saying that these things are mutually exclusive, end of story. This is where, FOR ME, religion is a problem. Religion, FOR ME, is too greedy in its desire for control. This is only my opinion, and I'm happy that you have yours...
If he has not yet, Matt should read Sam Harris’ “Waking Up.” Matt seems to be basing his dismissal of the “spiritual” concept on strawmans. You don’t need God or even belief in a separate soul be spiritual. It simply means a personal feeling of deeper connection with nature or the cosmos. Spirituality is a part of who were are as humans. There is no denying that.
And those definitions probably include what I said with much different wording, but with the existence of gods/spirits. When thinking “spiritual,” just think meditation and high states of consciousness.
Can you define what you mean by "deeper connection with nature or the cosmos"?
Word of advice: to the uninformed the word "atheist" still carries a negative connotation. I tell people I'm a "non-theist," that way they get the idea strongly but they did not hear the "a word."
Another "a word" that I can use is, I tell people I'm an "aweist," that is, I look up at the night sky and I'm awed by the complexity, depth and beauty of nature and the cosmos.
The biological and evolutionary epic is god.
I must admit: I used to find your public access TV show unbearably smug; but with this you did an excellent job, and I thoroughly enjoyed listening
"11:30
In some cases, people argue that there is a universal intelligence. But do they offer any evidence to that? Well, I feel it."
Here is my take. When it comes to evidence, this is where spirituality and science part ways. My spirituality is about a negotiation for perspective rather than a straight debate with facts. It's about faith to that this universal intelligence that we know exists. Despite the lack of data. I fully acknowledge the lack of evidence and yet I put everything into it anyways. It has NEVER let me down. Depression and anxiety free because of it. A year after suicide attempt. Only three weeks of psych drugs. only five therapy sessions.
It is hard to explain. It is just something you have. The best analogy I can come up with is Star Wars. There is a connection to a metaphysical plane that certain characters just trust. If you do not trust it, it is not there.
"You can't know anything about God" is a statement that you know that you don't know anything about the subject you know something about.
The word spirit comes from the word spiritus which mean breath, so all spiritually is about is breathing techniques, being healthy, care for every being, and loving and taking care of yourself in my opinion. All this Ghost/God/Demons stuff is just so called “spiritual” people believing in religious stuff but don’t want to identify with being religious. But myself I really don’t identify my self but if I did I am an atheist who practices stuff like meditation, getting nature, eating plant based/heathy, and get sun, which is backed by evidence.
Is "I don't know" a middle ground?
Manuel Lynch
l do believe it is. However, it's not a reason to remain ignorant of a topic that may interest you.
Personally, l live in this place in this time. I'd much rather spend my time learning what l can know. I've had quite enough of the unknowables. l gave them up when l gave up my faith.
I don't know can be equivalent to "there's not enough info/data to decide" and/or around the middle of the beleif/level of convinced spectrum, akin to a 50% probability/ 50% level of confidence in the claim. Many concepts aren't a dichotomy but rather a spectrum. There's a spectrum of belief, a spectrum in political ideologies, ect.
It's not. Saying I don't know is not a position it's simply a state of knowledge.
It could be and in all actuality we are not designed to know everything, at the same time ,to the same degree, about everything. I think it is fair to say that is one reason why we are different and communicate amongst our differences. But if the debaters had the same honesty and or insight we probably would get closer to understanding the root of it all for effective answers and solutions.
It's not a middle ground, it's not a position at all. It doesn't make sense to have a position on something that someone knows nothing about. Which is when "I don't know" applies.
I cringe when I think of myself back in high school. I recall saying a few times being asked if I’m religious and I responded no I’m spiritual… what a cop out word. Looking back I was just conforming and had nothing to back up what I meant
The thing is that the word spiritual has no real definitive meaning, it's really just an emotional thing so it can be as broad as you want it to be.
I refused to use the atheist label for years because I thought it was closing the door on the idea of the supernatural. I called myself agnostic because...I didn't know if there was a god or not. I still don't. I'm unsure if it can even be determined if the existence of a godlike being is even possible. I don't think it's possible, but I don't *know*. But I wasn't aware of the distinction between Gnosticism and Theism, so I thought calling myself Atheist was being just as closed-minded, refusing to accept evidence if it ever turned up. Now I'm comfortable saying I'm an agnostic atheist because I know what that means - I don't believe, but if anything concrete actually shows up, I'll look at it with as little bias as possible and examine it honestly. Matt, I thank your friend Aron Ra for explaining the difference to me, so that I understood I was resisting a false label all this time.
Hey man, I wanna engage you on this one but before that, look up the word ''Zangbeto" on youtube and tell me if what you see is fake..
"Spiritual" means a deeper feeling of personal connection with nature or the cosmos. You do not need to believe in any God (I am actually my own variety of a deist) or seperate soul. I think almost everyone is spiritual whether they realize it or not. It is part of who we are. I recommend that anyone who ridicules the idea read "Waking Up" by Sam Harris or "The God Gene" by Dean Hamer.
Deeper than ordinary/everyday experience. Read "Waking Up" by Sam Harris.
Native Centre Idiomas A connection can constitute as a reference for all of us being stardust that originated from the primordial stew that created the universe. We all share molecules from that event and are subject to the constant flux of of natural cycles taking place within the cosmos. We are all a multitude of molecular components constantly recycling itself while perceiving itself consciously. The Buddhist call this "not self" as there is no inherent existence, we create it by giving reducible conceptual essences to things.Saying that one thing is any more good or bad than the other, not because it is inherently true but because from a subjective standpoint what we consider it to be makes it so. We would like think that we lead our own lives yet our brain is influenced by internal/external stimuli without our conscious awareness of it(unless you're an adept meditator, psychologist,neuroscientist). There are no boundaries between the self and the universe and our notion of reality is but an illusion. This can be considered very spiritual indeed.
Native Centre Idiomas is that not just giving spirituality a prescription based on post hoc historical connotations of it? No worse than labeling or generalizing how and atheist,theist,or agnostic should think or be. From my subjective standpoint I see no reason as to why biological systems cannot be used as conduits for a very spiritual experience. From a neurological standpoint enlightenment is a real thing. Is that not in it's own way a spiritual experience? Yet we try to reduce it completely to it's biological premise and not the affects of such perceptions on the individuals themselves.Why does spirituality have to be this fixed thing? This universe is strange is it not? Extra dimensions, quantum entanglement, the Higgs Boson, thermodynamics, hell the fact the we are even experiencing this. I know nothing except for that I am ignorant.
Anthony Greico i not only read 'Waking up' but saw him speak TWICE on his promotional tour. I just went through it last night looking for anytbing that supports your claim(s). Also your definitions. Can you direct me to the parts that support your claim/position on 'spirituality'?
You are assuming “spirit” has to be defined as a ghostly thing that leaves body at death. You do not have to believe in such an idea to be spiritual. The Hebrew word for the soul is “neshama,” which is word for our human sense of being/life. The word does not seem to have anything to do with “soul” as in something that allows an individual to exist after physical death.
I wonder if Matt realizes that the "spiritual but not religious" group is the fastest growing demographic in western culture, growing even quicker than the agnostic/atheist/"nones" group. And Matt overlooked that the very backbone of the "spiritual but not religious" view is the Perennial philosophy which Matt never even discussed.
www.embodiedphilosophy.com/issue/perennial-philosophy-8/
Excellent address. (Have you ever been to a Grateful Dead show?)
A lady said that phrase to me recently. But she was very very religious, into relics, hands on, spiritual leaders etc
Totally agree on the "that's just semantics" thing. I majored in philosophy in college(yes, seriously), and I quickly realized that so much of philosophy is bogged down, or even completely a problem of, semantics(definitions, usages, the imprecise and imperfect nature of our languages and general ability to get our point across, etc.)
I swear sometimes I feel like 90% of what people refer to as "philosophy", or the arguments and debates that are put forth/go on, the claims made, etc. would disappear completely if we had a "perfect" language, and a way to "perfectly" communicate/articulate what it is one is thinking.
Spiritual for me, isn't something I cling to, it's an open ended wondering regarding the many unusual experiences I've have that science and orthodox religions can't explain. Matt can imagine and assume all he likes, but like me and so many others, he doesn't know.
“Spiritual” is just “the unexplained”, then. Like lightning in the past. So what makes you think that we won’t be able to explain them in the future? What is unexplainable about them now, even?
@@Kevorama0205 Coming from an open minded perspective, let me know if either of y’all find proof to validate either argument.
Everyone’s beliefs are personal so no hate. At the end of the day nobody can explain why we all popped up one day in a seemingly infinite universe. Mind boggling.
@@Datkrazyfoo the point is that the default position would be I don't know why that happened if you're claimming it's something supernatural I expect you to have enough of a reason to do so.
It's possible that science can, or may one day be able to, explain experiences you've had that you don't understand.
@@giorgosab9986 but i dont KNOW, i just believe it to be so. My justification for believing is my experience. Pretty sure the root word for expert is experience. How we come to know is through making sense of the experiences we have.
I love how at 4:30, Matt dismisses the idea that "god" is not a concept that can be rationally understood and defined ... by stating that many people DO have a position on what a "god" is. Matt thus commits the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity," but it's OK for him to do that .... because atheists are always logical and correct!
By the way, if you assume anything about my views, if you make a comment that does not directly deal with my very direct criticism, you commit the logical fallacy of being an idiot.
If you try to subject the unknown and unknowable to logical proofs, you will end up with absurdity. That does not mean there is not in fact an unknown and unknowable.
Spirituality is based on love not fear, throughout religion there is lots of fear. Fear of the consequences of your action, fear of what might happen after your die if you don't live life accordingly. With spirituality there is love and it encourages you to focus all your energy only of the good and to act based on love, religion tells you the truth spirituality let's you discover it. Religion separates, spirituality unites. In this world there are many religions and they preach that their story is the right story, spirituality sees truth in all of them and unites them becuase the truth is the same for all despite our differences. It focuses on the devine message they share not the differences. Instead of talking about punishment and threats of hell spirituality only talks about karma. Walk your own path. Conscousiness creates reality. Perception of the external world might just be a reflection of the inner world, what ever your belief are, that's what you'll only see in your reality. We create our own realities based on our beliefs.
Love it! Great lecture.
When I was coming out of religion, I transitioned to what I thought of as spiritualism, but I later understood that was just me celebrating my freedom of confined thought, and felt elevated in response to what I thought was a higher power having ultimately revealed this to me. Turns out I just wasn't giving myself credit for coming to realizations. Now, this concept of spiritualism, to me, is just a confused, emotional responsive, pseudoscientific idea of better understanding things. Not a higher being of any kind.
Do you consider seeking a higher consciousness and enlightenment as being spiritual?
I just saw this, and I heartily agree that we as a species need to cast off the mantle of spiritual traditionalism and grasp the universe realistically and rationally.
What about Buddhist? They don't consider themselves a religion but spiritual. So I think some atheist or agnostics are possibily eluding to the same concept as Buddhist do as the concept of enlightenment. So some would say spiritual over saying enlightenment, when some might mean that but don't really know it or understand it. Probably also a reason a good amount of people who leave thier faith will look at/to Buddhism to see how they function without a god concept and what they view as "spiritual" which could shape a new or alternative view of the concept of the word "spiritual".
Side note: some would argue Buddhism is a form of trying to understand our consciousness and how to "enhance" the conscious perception of the world and the mind/brain. They focus and train the mind in other ways then people normally do to try and have a 'higher' understanding. The more neuroscience you learn the more fasinating the brain/mind work.
Who is they?
You know I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything supernatural does "Exist" and that it is possible that Matt could agree with my argument 100%, However its pretty damned unlikely that anyone of a superstitious persuasion would ever use my argument. I also suspect that anyone who noticed the quotation marks I used around the word "Exist" have probably figured out how my argument would work, and would conclude that having such a discussion would just waste everyone's time.
Nicely put!
Sometimes, when we ask those people what exactly do they mean by "spirituality", they will say that it's all about *"energy"* ... and once again we've entered the realm of the word game! What energy is that? They wont say. They'll talk about positive and negative energy, spritual energy, and all things "energy"!! It's another woo word that sounds cool, but means nothing. In science, we must always explain what we mean by "energy", how to measure it, etc. But spiritualists (and those so called spirit science gurus) will just throw the word around in order to sound smart.
I really like this latest series of talks Matt because I feel that you've really gotten better.
Another reason that I like these latest videos is because I've never been christian. I was raised atheist yet I tried zen buddhism and though I haven't gone in two years, I still meditate. I've always wanted you to talk to buddhism and similar concepts (such as "spiritual but not religious" lol). However I didn't want to suggest it because you are quite focused on and experienced with christianity. Thank you for touching on these subjects.
Buddhism is particularly interesting here as it is (ostensibly) an atheist religion.
Buddhism is tied into SATANISM.........Don't you know anything at all?
This is not a debate...its grandstanding
Love ur break down because I have a lot of friends who are not Christian but their not Atheist either so they call themselves spiritual or they subscribe to spirituality. But I'm an Atheist so we kinda fall out with each other alot lol
If "atheist" is a label, then I'll gladly wear it with pride. Heck, why stop there? Throw the "anti-religious" label in there while you're at it. I'll wear that with pride as well.
Spirituality is this comforting feeling that our existence is eternal. If souls were a part of our being, then when did they become a part of our evolution? When does it become a part of our development before birth? How does the soul get there? Where did it come from? Even at a restful state, the human brain consumes roughly 20% of the body's total energy. If consciosuness isn't a result of complex biological processes, then why do our brains require such vast resources?
Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea of eternity terrifying, I don't know what comfort people find in it.
g singh That’s an opinion not an answer.
g singh What was your experience? Honestly curious.
@Just a guy with a turban Okay, let's just say that I am wrong, fine, I'm completely okay with that. However, without the falsifiable evidence to prove otherwise, then what reason do I have to take your word on it?
@Just a guy with a turban Wouldn't DMT be much more effective in this case?
"I'm not religious but I'm spiritual"
From my experience this usually indicates that the person is willing to believe ideas without good evidence, usually based on feeling or from personal testimony alone. Things such as; star signs, ghosts, the 'spirit', karma, witch-craft, alternative medicine, various conspiracies, etc. It's usually a mishmash of 'beliefs' that many religious lay people tend to fold into their world view also. These people tend not to have a particularly strong understanding of or trust in Science, and view it as no more of an authority on explaining reality than their personal 'faith' in an idea or what their friends said. They form their world view from on a combination of what they were told, their personal feelings, confirmation bias, scientific ignorance and personal incredulity
For me is a form of hypocrisy mixed with weakness. If you are atheist, fine. You get to live your life without any religious rules, but you as well don't depend on the divine, you don't get that comfort. Now if you are religious, you get the comfort of feeling protected and having a meaning and all that, but you have more rules to abide to. Now the spiritual but not religious people, are the ones who want to have the best of the two worlds without having none of the bad.
My experience is it means the person wants to believe a god exists, but doesn't want to be bothered with any sort of religious trappings, such as having to take time to go to the church/temple/mosque/synagogue.
Well I don't belive in Christianity I am a hindu and and Hinduism is all about sprituality it contains star signs and all what yall Christians consider as "sin"..I don't hate jesus I hate bible I love being a hindu
I'm so sad I missed this - I live only 2 hours away from Regina and I'd love to see Matt speak.
G_D is my pair of ADS L810s.
Thank you for listening to my TED talk.
VERY good! Thank you, Matt!
The religions i know of abide in the main in the two extreme forms of thinking: extreme love vs extreme hate, torture vs ever lasting joy, wars vs peace, believing vs knowing, solving problems in a humane ways vs tossing people alive into a burning furnace to die an extreme form of death/etc.
Uh....yeah...."I don't like organized religion because they try to explain what can't be explained but"I"know how unexplainable it is enough to tell them how off they are. Because I'm spiritually in tuned."
Matt Wood For me, there are things that have happened in my life and my families life that i cannot explain by rational means, such as my mother having "preminitions" that came to pass in detail and saved my brothers life, me and my family all seeing dark figures, or "spirit" figures, at seperate, or the same time, and all describing the same things, etc. So i consider myself a spiritual person, but I'm not a christian. plus, christianity gave me ptsd.
I guess I could see that there is some sort of energy that started everything but I don't see any point in worshiping it.
I'm interested to know if this atheist, whom I greatly respect and enjoy listening to, and agree with most of the time, has ever used DMT. It can be a life-changing and reality shattering experience for any human that at the very least, raises questions about our understanding of consciousness and reality. Why is a DMT breakthrough experience so entirely profound and often so overtly spiritual it's undeniable? why does the experience often provide paradigm shattering universal wisdom? Why do we apparently meet hyper-intelligent beings that are beyond imagination? Why are they so convincingly real, and why does the experience often feel "more real than reality", leaving people with an undeniable sense that waking reality is an illusion (albeit a very persistent one ;)? Why are such profound, dramatic, and deeply meaningful immersive experiences possible without directly affecting ones cognitive awareness (No feeling of intoxication or distortion)?
Because acid drops the hairdryer of the brain into the bathtub of electrochemical chaos.
I would say I'm spiritual (based on my own experiences). I believe in soul, ghosts, telepathy.. but I would never try to convince other people about it..because it's not possible.
Okay so if you can't justify those things to others, why do you think you've justified them to yourself
Very well argued
"The spiritual but not religious" can't be grouped together any more than "non-believers" or "the religious" can be grouped together. It's somewhat understandable as so much stuff like "rendezvousing with spaceships behind the coming comet" gets self-reported as "spiritual." Beware establishing bias based on self-reported kookiness.
At 12:55 Matt pooh-poohs coincidences. He asks of those who claim them how they did the math to determine that something truly "spooky" transpired.
I asked myself what might be going on when it seemed to me that a large number of coincidences happened in early 1988.
It seemed to me there were lots and lots - Feb 14th 1988 providing the focus for six. It also seemed to me that certain themes were recurrent. And it also seemed to me that many of the examples were, by themselves, quite powerful. Lastly, many were supportable with documentary evidence.
But, like Matt asks; "How did I do the math?"
No testable claim nor repeatable experiment. So nothing falsifiable.
And just because so many things "seemed to me" peculiar did not demand they would necessarily "seem so" to anyone else.
So I stopped a guy in the street: William Hartston
. He was forty, not a complete stranger, and had an MA in Maths from Cambridge University. I asked for his opinion on it all.
When I rang a few days later he said he had a very powerful coincidence himself when reading my material.
More than once, Hartston asked me, "How can that happen?".
Some people believe that coincidence often leads to coincidence. Professor Roderick Main termed it "Synchronicity’s self-referring tendency". Vaughan called it "The Synchronicity of Synchronicity". I found Hartston’s experience a kind of confirmation that in recording such material and bringing it to the attention and assessment of others I was "on to something".
But on to what?
But the coup de grâce arrived on August 15th 1988. It was then that a 1978 book by Stan Gooch called The Paranormal.was brought to my attention.
On page 149 begins a 12-page section entitled Synchronicity and Coincidence.
"In a recent pilot television programme designed to test the limits of human intelligence, the names of the three contestants were Hartston, Burton and Walkington. All three end in - ton, and all three are names of towns - except for one letter (Harston is a town). The contestants were not of course chosen because of their names but because each of them had done extremely well in similar competitions on previous occasions.
"
Hartston confirmed he is the person named first in the opening paragraph of the first example of that section. He had heard of the book but had not read it.
So I had chosen to become the first critic of my cluster of coincidence the person with whom Gooch had chosen to begin his section on Synchronicity and Coincidence.
Moreover, Hartston went on to have a coincidence which impressed him more than any he ever had whilst reading my material.
So the Cambridge University Maths MA became part of that cluster himself.
Don´t you agree, Mr Dillahunty?
Matt, you should take a look at the woo over on the youtube channel Spirit Science I think you might get a good laugh out of it!
Excellent, Matt. Thank you for what you do.
I really like a lot of what you said here Matt. Just one question, I believe that it is unlikely that a god exists and created the world, but I also do not completely rule out that that is a possibility. I don't get why your saying you have to be on either side of this, but maybe I am missing something you said.
Matt has never said you need to hold one of those two positions. You've missed probably the most frequent and strongest point Matt makes.
Spirituality is just a discovery of consciousness , not spirit no gods. Nothing your awareness is invisible that’s why we call it spiritual.
Thanks 4 the thumbs up,I knew you guys understood.
So what do atheists think about the religious but not spiritual? There are people who like the idea of having a place to experience a sense of reverence for life, community introspection, and explore ideas about having a good person, but who find the teachings in most religions a little too unbelievable?
Interesting. But apparently some psychologists say we are born to believe in something spiritual it offers some sort of brain soothing and makes people feel good about somethings. Humans are not necessarily rational. Even in Maslow's hierarchy of needs there is a need in which people seek self-actualisation, which involves things to do with spirituality.
I don't agree with Matt here if being spiritual doesn't necessarily mean you believe there is something behind existence. instead if it only means you're open to all the possiblities then I don't see where the problem is here. it's much like saying I don't know but I am welling to seek the truth with an absolute openess. however I do agree with Matt if being spiritual entails all sorts of beliefs and preassumptions about existence.
"You either believe or you don't". How does implicit bias factor into this? People believe that they don't believe something when they do believe it TO SOME DEGREE. This would seem to indicate that belief isn't binary. What is the transition period between holding a belief and not holding a belief?
great video!!
ayy
***** ayyyyy
this was a great talk! I'm one of those people that claims to be spiritual but not religious. I don't believe in a god. my idea of spirituality rests on the transfer of energy. since everything in the universe is made of the same matter and that energy is created and ceases to be (i.e. when stars are born and die much like humans are born and die), I think it's possible that our energy can go on to exist when it leaves our vessel (our bodies). therefore, might our energy be absorbed by something else when it leaves our vessel? I'm not advocating reincarnation, but rather the exchange of energy into different bodies of matter. now, this is what I think based on what I know to be true about energy. I accept that I could be wrong! I want to believe this is what happens because I want to believe that everything makes an impact on our universe regardless of whether a "God" exists or not. I hope that makes sense! I'm always open for respectful conversation and the exchange of ideas!
That's exactly what happens...worms and microorganisms eat our flesh. That's a transfer of energy. But this is rather trivial.
Ha ha ha ASHLEY !Just you wait when you have to face god for your stupidity and foolishness you say and talk about.Do you think with your satanic ways will actually save you even now with your thoughts you put down on here.?
TheSirjohn2012 STFU religious dumbass!
TheSirjohn2012 Evidence for this?
TheSirjohn2012 nice theist you are.
21:28 how does believing in a being who exceeds human understanding not make sense? Can you understand the actions of someone who invents a computer? No because that someone exceeds your understanding in that area...so the intelligence of the being that created us has to be immeasurable compared to ours and it wouldn't be farfetched to not be able to understand our creator
@SWAGGQUEEN200 u sound like a complete imbecile when you would not have come to this conclusion without someone stuffing it down your indecisive throat
@Samurai Jack you can understand the actions of an inventor because you are an engineer but creating a machine is different than creating a sentient human being.
If you do not believe that life was created by an intelligent being then it is evident to me that even with your deep understanding of technology you have still failed to grasp how complex life is...the idea that random events took place in order to create SENTIENT life is absurd...there is no evidence I can offer you to prove my claim just as there is no evidence of the big bang but what I can offer is a reasonable counterclaim...there is no way sentient life can be created through an explosion...if I had all the atoms in existence in a nuclear reactor and it exploded I highly doubt that a sentient being would emerge from that...the center of the galaxy is billions of miles away from earth and yet there is no life that we have discovered outside of our galaxy much less in our our own solar system but there life here in the middle of no where...if life is highly adaptable then how come we are the only organisms in the solar system...if all these particles existed in the fabric of space then there should be no problem discovering life within the confines of our galaxy...as humans we have built in emotions,appeties,passions and desires just like a computer has a code built in to facilitate certain processes, so do we have a genetic code of our own...theories are nice to indulge in but when it comes to facts you cannot place your belief in theory for comfort due to a lack of answers because at the end of the day the big bang theory is merely a theory and nothing more
"..so the intelligence of the being that created us has to be immeasurable compared to ours and it wouldn't be farfetched to not be able to understand our creator"
But you have not proven that we had a creator, so your statement is null.
@@cnault3244 as far as I know no one proved that there is not a creator...so the same can be said to you...how do you suppose that we got here?
@@omarclarke55 " as far as I know no one proved that there is not a creator"
As far as I know no one has proved leprechauns do not exist. Is that a reason to believe leprechauns exist?
"...so the same can be said to you...how do you suppose that we got here?"
I know how I got here, my mother and father had sex. What do you mean by "we got here"?
As for a creator, there are many stories about a creator of the universe & life. There is the ancient Norse story ( Odin did it), the ancient Greek story ( Zeus did it), and the ancient Hindu story, the ancient story from assorted African tribes, North American tribes, South American tribes, Australian tribes, the story in the old testament/Torah.
Which creator are you referring to? Zeus? Odin? Some other one?
I've heard a few people say that and it seemed they were just trying to keep a toe in the religious waters just in case.
I'm an agnostic atheist who believes in higher consciousness. One might call me a spiritual atheist. I have the same disdain for organized religion as most gnostic atheists, but I believe human consciousness is so much more than our physical reality, mostly because I've experienced it and nobody can tell me that I haven't. I tried to be an atheist, but in order to do so I'd have to be dishonest with myself.
The man/woman of logic who wants evidence or justification to anything will criticize those who can’t explain themselves; it’s either that or they’ll be lead to disappointment. I myself tend to be a person of logic, so I understand the argument of wanting evidence, but the thing here that I’ve come to realize is that for some people, there’s just so much that the human brain can understand and process. I myself used to be religious and also tried being spiritual at a time, so a lot of what the speaker is saying is something that I can understand, but I have my own disagreements. From my perspective at least, you can either continually search and argue with other people or just learn to accept what can’t be shown or explained through evidence. We all have our own definitions of what’s real or tangible and I’m okay with that. My definition of what’s real however is based on what I can actually see, feel and understand with my own senses and logic. If I come across something I can’t understand, I have two options; argue/rationalize why I believe I’m right or just work on being more aware and understanding.
What I notice about spirituality is that everyone has different beliefs regarding it, as if it were religion. But you could say that's because of a lack of research on one person's end or just in general
Research nde’s and pre birth memories, every time people are told to come back to earth to learn “lessons” by self proclaimed “spirit guides” but after each life time the memories from that incarnation slowly fade away like a dream. This place is a prison planet and beings trick souls that hold belief systems generated from this world (religious, atheist, and new age are the easiest to manipulate) into giving their free will by guilt tripping them into incarnating again. Sin, karma, and the creator is a lie.
Whoa... Matt, huge thanks for this video.
I don't think you can necessarily separate spirituality and religious belief. It's inevitable that one will lead to the other. Simply put, spirituality is religious in concept, and vice versa.
You can be spiritual and not religious. For example, you can feel as if all life is connected or we have an inner spirit that lives on after we die without ever adhering to any religion (which implies doctrine, rules for living, believing in talking snake stories and so forth).
Yes, you have a point, but only to a degree. Prehistoric man's "spirituality", was based on superstition, ignorance, and fear, and is the very basis, and seed of religion and religious belief. Just as we can say the egg came before the chicken, we can say spirituality came before religion. But, we can not separate, in either case, one from the other.
Very good point, but specious at best. Spirituality connotes religious sentiment. The search for the sacred, the divine in the earthly. Whether one follows a printed word or an inner voice, the concepts are complementary, the objectives parallel in their course. The notion of the spirit (spirituality) itself, is religious by its very nature. Its aspects supernatural, spectral, and not based in evidence.
You totally misconstrued the point I made. Your argument regarding the chicken and the egg is totally non sequitur. Your response regarding different "types" of spiritual experiences, require a notion, a belief, in the spiritual, a spirit, a religious predisposition. To use your words, "You're simply wrong on both counts".
+smax26 "You can be spiritual and not religious. For example, you can feel as if all life is connected or we have an inner spirit that lives on after we die without ever adhering to any religion (which implies doctrine, rules for living, believing in talking snake stories and so forth)."
I'm getting the idea that spirituality separated from religion is more a personal thing that's not subject to dogma and other crap that religion forms. What would happen if someone wrote down their spirituality and then other people started to follow the same thing?
P.S. God dammit, UA-cam is screwing with commenting systems again.
I've been using spirituality to refer to things like Buddhist principles and the pineal gland
I use it for higher consciousness within.
Matt . Glad I discovered you in the last week or two. You make life so easy for most of us in the process of evolving from the craziness and stupidity called Religion.
When I discovered you and experienced how far ahead of me I believe you are, I immediately thought that I needed to Google " Spiritual but not Religious" since in my judgement and based on some of your works experienced , I realized that there will be an excellent chance that you will have encountered this trend you referred to . Vow for your magnificent energy and application. This work and all the other work you guys do in US is so precious for the future of our species and the planet. I can hardly believe that you and your adversaries belong to the same species.
Matt, you guys clearly have an abundance of truth that surrounds you with wisdom and integrity . It's much easier to trust you guys than believers. Obviously and objectively so but still realising that in truth and true to our method and lifestyle, trust and respect still has to be earned and no one should get a free pass.
I am of the view that we should try to always positively impact society with our superior skills and wisdom .
To me its obvious that very bad people exploited our relative ignorance and dysfunctionality when they manipulated society to drag us into neverending "wars-for-prophets" and what not only because we knew so much less before.
It is clear to me that Spiritual but not religious is religion back-paddling under pressure of rationality spearheaded by Atheist Activism. Suddenly they and mainly their enslaving institutions do no longer enjoy being mocked and to look ridiculous and stupid. They have given up on religion as an embarrassment that risk God's safety. God will of necessity need protection which should make us realise that our adversaries can be very dangerous people. They kill each other in wars ,with God apparently arming both sides - not unlike the case when US materially supported both Iraq and Iran in war.
Spirituality is only a temporary safe zone for religion and Theism.
Some groups of organized religion will, I predict, support the concepts of "African Spirituality" in great numbers even though the teachings of Dr Hagins is accepted and Jesus's pivotal place in Christianity is given up "as based on mythology". This may give some indication that Dr Hagin and his followers are prepared to move quiet a bit "to the radical left" but most importantly they are still clinging to their reliance on God for all their fundamentals in life.
They are actually in my view not dealing with African Spirituality, I must caution. In recent days I tried to understand them and their movement to the left as well as to see how they differ from African Spirituality as practised elsewhere.
I agree that loose standing, Spirituality is what it is. To our disadvantage in Africa is that not much to nothing of the rules of African Spirituality had been codified. Therefore it's demise and its overthrowing in Africa by stupidity and irrationality called religion. It seems as if there were/are still?various strains of African Spirituality on the Continent. Its completely unlike religion in its intent, function, implimenting and application. Much propaganda had been easily spread about it from as soon as Christian Ministries started popping up in Africa to mentally colonize our predecessors and the masses to this day.
What makes me say that its unlike Religion?
Most importantly there is no God nor anyone to worship in African Spirituality.
Special emphasis was always placed on truths about what worked out in the past in order to solve problems in the present and for the future. Therefore our regular consulting of our predecessors/ ancestors for their "guidance" to solve problems was fundamental to how society operated. The prominence of the word "guidance" against the background that there was no written code, allowed Colonialists to easily spread their propaganda for our detractors to falsely assume from their base of ignorance that there must of necessity be a God and that when Africans held their rituals to connect with their forebearers on whose wisdoms and experiences they counted on , then the ignorant concluded that we must have worshipped our forebearers. You know all about these false assumptions and beliefs in favour of the notion that a God must of necessity just be made to exist.
No . Guidance sought was all about Education, Education and Education as well as drawing from all past proven truths and wisdoms society was able to rely on.
Families and society put their collective knowledge and experiences together to be guided by. We specifically "consulted " our ancestors , and did not worship them .
Participants in African Spirituality from the strain I learned more about in recent day can therefore be considered Atheists and rational.
Colonialists just had to attack African Spirituality first before they were able to enslave the masses and steal from us.
Incidentally elections are won and undeclared wars for profit (prophets) are continued neverendingly by US when false consents are obtained therefore from a semi comatosed living dead populace that find higher value in things believed to be true rather than that they be true. Our enemy ( of man) is busy reducing your consciousness in so many ways for purposes of that and similar kinds of manipulation "believers were created to be deceived by."
Essentially therefore the real irrational top dog enemies of man responsible for this mayhem on the planet for so long are now obviously inverting our real realities so much with fake corporate journalism that pushing back ever harder against their best longterm/ longtime asset is a no brainer.
It will be wonderful to obtain some feedback from our family of Atheists that need to push back with our superior skills, wisdom ,creativity, norms, consciousness and so much more we have to offer our fellow man than God has on offer.
From the way I have heard 'spiritual' used (in "spiritual but not religious"), what people tend to mean is that they're open to just about anything, as long as it isn't dogmatically commanded.
Someone could believe everything the Catholic Church believes and call themselves "spiritual but not religious", just as long as they believe all those things because they want to, and not because the church commanded them to.
Spiritual but not religious = religious without the dogma.
Spiritual people can be dogmatic about specific elements within their cherry picked belief system. To take a more specific example alternative medicine like Acupuncture, or perhaps a better one would be homeopathy. It's got it's own subset of dogmatic concepts within it's methodology. Moral authority isn't the only thing that defines dogma.
Edited 5 or so times because it's late, and I make insane typos and omissions.
I don't know if that's better or worse.
They have a love for favorable superstitious woo. And it can change at the drop of a hat, so no way to pin it down and dissuade them because they can just shift the meaning of their words. Very frustrating to talk to them about their beliefs.
I agree that it's religion without the dogma, but I might disagree about the reason for that. (I'm not sure.) If you belong to a religion, there's at least _some_ way to pin you down. "This is the church position. How can you justify that?"
Of course, most religious believers just ignore what they can't rationalize away, but the "spiritual but not religious" people can't be pinned down about _anything_. It's vague, and deliberately so. Vagueness is the main feature of "spiritual but not religious," don't you think?
To my mind, the "spiritual but not religious" people aren't even disciplined enough to have any real beliefs - certainly not to stick to them. It's just pure woo. And no one can argue against what they believe, when they don't really believe anything - anything they can be pinned down about, at least.
On the bright side, they're not trying to force their beliefs on anyone else. (That would take too much thought, I suspect.) But I tend to find that mindset even more irritating than that of dogmatic theists.
+Bill Garthright
Religious people like to argue about what they believe. And because their beliefs are extremely logical, they can easily be backed into bickering about the most minor points of their beliefs, on the basis that those minutiae are somehow important to their greater worldview. And because they work within an old system, in congress with the large distributed intelligence of many other believers, they never have to tell you why _they_ believe what they believe. If they even know. It suffices to use a successful argument for why _some philosopher a century ago_ believed something similar what they believe.
If someone says they're "spiritual but not religious," yes, they're going to be talking lots of emotions, not logic. If you try to pin them down in minutiae, they're going to get bored arguing those minutiae, and shift them in convenient ways. They also don't go into any conversation committed to any pre-existing ideology, so it's easy to change their minds, and they want you to change their minds. If you find that attitude worse than theistic dogmatism, perhaps it's because your own atheism is more than a little religious, and you enjoy sharing that common ground of argumentation with dogmatic theists.
No more labels!
I think that's the best way to go.
Examples of terms that imo are usually too nebulously defined to promote productive discourse :
spiritual, soul, supernatural, god, paranormal, enlightenment, and even faith, objective and absolute in some, imo strange, cases.
rigorously defining terms is _key_ to honest, productive discourse, imo.
I’m an atheist by reasonable definitions of the term and I do often describe myself as spiritual but not religious. It’s just the most fitting term I’ve found to describe my sense of priorities and focus in life. I practice meditation and yoga in a fairly intensive way, for instance. I experience a strong subjective sense of value from these practices, and my mind seems to have benefited greatly. Woo abounds in just about any spiritual community structure, but my pursuits are a mostly solo activity so I’m not put off. Sorting woo from useful info helps me be more skeptical and more mindful. I’d love to hear a word for what I do that fits better than ‘spiritual’ but I haven’t heard of it yet. Obvious no word is really necessary but people get curious about me and I feel compelled to give them some sense of my priorities.
@@vanilakai I’m glad you were entertained at least. My mommy says I’m special so your argument is invalid.
@@vanilakai This has really been my wake up call. Thanks for your valuable service.
You're like most of us who used the term "Spiritual but not Religious". I'm not an Atheist but I cause I believe in a creator but not as outlined in the bible. I view the bible as esoteric. I really just focus on my self improvement.
I am openly atheist...I just do not believe in any divine figure..being atheist is so simple and so liberating..I dont know why so many people enjoy complicating things...enjoying music..arts..a beautiful sunset etc...these are spiritual experiences we as atheists can enjoy...we are not empty bodies living like trees...we have feelings...we manifest ourselves through these spiritual experiences...without any need of any god..sacred book..or religion...this guy upthere looks exactly like a preacher ,dwelling upon silly complicated absurdities.. let us be happy enjoying life free of chimeras
Are chimeras a problem for you? Can't say that's something I have to deal with on my way to work every day.
I'm a spiritual Atheist. I believe in the Universe, crystal's, astrology, hope and karma. And as an atheist I just lack a belief in god(s). I don't believe in the supernatural, I don't believe we have a soul (I use to now I don't), Our body isn't eternal, and after we die...We just die.Yep that's what I believe
I don’t know how karma can exist when people like Henry Kissinger live to almost 100 and are revered
How is this a debate?
A limited concept of an infinite being remains ever a limited concept.
Thank you Matt so eloquently said as usual
I used to be highly against the term spiritual, but now, I take more of a Sam Harris view of it. Nothing magical or religious. I just think it has to do with the embodiment of wanting to become a better person. For instance, I am learning about chakras out of pure curiosity (shut up, I know. hippie bullshit, right..) but im only taking out of it what I see useful. I know they are not scientific and cant physically be found in the body, but they almost operate as a "7 levels of success" kinda thing. it just tells you what you could focus on to improve yourself.
Spirituality has for the most part gone hand in hand with religion and belief in souls, god, afterlife, ect.. but it is my new opinion that its possible to salvage it for purely good purposes. No dogma, no irrational beliefs, no contradiction with naturalism.
I feel the same way. For me spirituality is just connecting and being in harmony with all living things. I guess you could say I’m a humanist and focus on more rational ways to solve human issues. But I think if we take care of ourselves, one another and have a positive mindset, then it could drastically improve our lifestyles and health as well. I value life and truth. I don’t actually believe in spirits, the universe as a conscious force, separate dimensions, the supernatural, etc. For me it’s just recognizing your emotions and living a fulfilling life. I just find ways to appreciate the beauty within a natural universe. Like in art, music and love. There of course needs to be evidence before I believe it. I also rely solely on science to explain things. Maybe spirituality isn’t the right word, or there could be other ways to describe it. I can definitely understand Matt’s perspective on this.
I don’t believe in the supernatural. I just believe that there is a lot we don’t understand. But why should the unexplainable be considered ‘outside of nature?’