I’m willing to accept the costs involved. Also the loss to my integrity.
Define ‘spiritual’. I would love the opportunity to deconstruct Buddhism or any other ‘spiritual, non-theistic’ belief system that posits non-material or supernatural energy or agency.
Isn’t this just a bit tangential (off-topic) to the original idea of this thread?
Doesn’t that question seem frivolous? Why would I define what’s spiritual when in itself is something for the individual to find out.
Go ahead, deconstruct Buddhism. I don’t think you need my definition of spirituality to do so.
If you can, deconstruct Rune magic.
Conceded, although the thread has already moved on from the OP.
I don’t know what you are referring to when you use the word spiritual. Materialists such as Dawkins and Hofstadter often use the word but mean something very different from new-agers and mystics. In order to respond to your post about athiests missing the property ‘spiritual’, I must know what the term refers to.
If I decided that, if I were to begin to “believe in God”, I would somehow be able to more effectively reach my goals or more happily participate with the people of our society, I would still not be able to just get myself to believe it. It would be absurd even to try; I would just be trying to willfully delude myself or produce some sort of hallucination.
So I am not really sure what you mean. Do you just mean that, to mesh with society more effectively, you just act like you believe it?
Once you wake up, you realize that you were in a dream world, that you were deluded. So when do you wake up from your “belie[f] in god”?
But, to paint paintings, write fiction, or whatever, what dogma must you hold?
Well, I detest the new-age garbage that floats around. Besides the Temple of Set and Church of Satan, I can’t stand anything modern. From what I know on mysticism, and what it refers to, the closest I read into that would probably be Hermeticism, but it’s still not close.
It would be futile for me to give a meaning to what spirituality is. You would be getting my subjective view on it which I’m sure would differ from a lot of others (Left-Hand Path vs. Right-Hand Path).
Yet, proposing that question can show that not all religion is the same, and to disregard all religion on some bases is a bias against all religion without knowledge of everything that there is. Asking someone to define spirituality without knowledge on all concepts of what spirituality can contain and obtain shows that there is still more to learn. One of the points I was making is generally attacks on religion are specifically on the Abrahamic religions, and not the pagan ones. If an atheist took a closer look at the many and diverse pagan religions they might actually come across something they like.
For example, just take a look at the beliefs of the Church of Satan.
“In their attacks [atheists] seem to also stray away from attacking the non-Abrahamic, pagan religions. I’d love to hear an athiest try to refute Buddhism, Odinism, or Setian philosophy.”
I’m guessing it’s just due to lack of familiarity. For example, I don’t really know what Odinism is (is it the original Norse religion - or some new derivative of it?) and have never even heard of Setian (SETI - worship of finding aliens?).
It would be futile for me to give a meaning to what spirituality is.
I have no clue what the word means. While I believe the world is material and deterministic, I find it difficult to think from the point of view of being a component in a fixed 4D universe or even as an acting automaton. I experience an illusion of conciousness, free will, and flow of time. Is that kind of like what you are refering to?
Odinism is the original Norse religion that was practiced practically all over Europe before Christianity. The traditions, rites, and holiday’s have been stolen and Christianized. It also incorporates Runes for many purposes.
Setian (Setian philosophy) relates to the Temple of Set which was born out of the Church of Satan due to philosophical differences. The name comes from the Egyptian god Set. The Temple of Set is the “leading religious organization in Left-Hand Path philosophy”. From Wikipedia: “The philosophy of the Temple of Set may be summed up as “enlightened individualism”: enhancement and improvement of oneself by personal education, experiment, and initiation.”
The problem with me defining “spirituality” or “spiritual” is that I’m going to give a meaning that is probably influenced by Left-Hand Path beliefs and my own personal view. In a way, I find it escaping the material world and centering towards your own personal, mental, physical fulfillment (spiritually growing). Selfishness and expansion of the self, ego, through the subjective, non-material world. When it comes to the Left-Hand Path, a spiritual dissent from unity with nature, god, and the universe. Find the “darkness” in your mind which is untouched by the “forces” that work in nature and in the universe which is untouched by any god. If god controls nature and the universe then he would obviously control the aspects and creations of those places. The “devil” would be a mere puppet of his creation, but it’s not. It’s what manifest from your own mind that is outside the control of any god. The mind is a powerful force that can create and destroy civilizations. You must take control of your own mind and “come into being” (through the spiritual and material worlds, balanced).
I don’t feel the need to write any further. I wrote a 3 (or so) page “introduction” to the Left-Hand Path for a friend’s zine. I’d prefer for the individual to look into this themselves.
Sounds like egoism dressed up in metaphysics. If its just a system of ethics (man should improve himself through education and experimentation) then how is it a religion? Unless it postulates some teleological goal or end that man must work towards, some state that fulfills his spiritual nature. In which case it is new-age spiritualism for egoists.
I remember offending someone at school by saying all atheists were hindus. The first atheists were the Carvaka, an older, now defunct school of Hinduism. Indeed, in some ways I do object to the classification of Hinduism, and in some ways even the word is deceptive in the sense it gives the impression of a singular identity.
Unlike Islam, Christianity and Judaism, I don’t think the so-called religions of the east offer such easy categorisation.
I use the word “religion” loosely. The goal or end that man must work towards could be in fact his own self (becoming your own “god”), but this can be subjective.
I wouldn’t call it new-age. Then again, this is a subjective bias. Any, or all, of the new-age material I’ve read is garbage. It seems to be more about unity and becoming one with nature or the universe and Right-Hand Path beliefs than it is spiritual dissent. At least the Temple of Set takes influence from ancient beliefs and religions than the new-age garbage that is just a bunch of various rehashed beliefs (most of which have nothing in common) and spewing them out into some form of “witchcraft”. An example would be Wicca (the laughing stock of paganism).
When I became an anarchist, I took the next logical conclusion towards atheism, though that didn’t come until 4 months after my turn towards anarchism. I simply recognized that both statism and religionism require some sort of central planner to exist. Both have the same roots. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Babylon, Ancient Summaria, etc.. the government arose out of religion. Men who claimed kingdship due to some god given right. Of course, eventually the state and church had a separation, but the values inherent in statism still use much of religiosity to legitimize itself.
I also realized I did not need some mystifying, all knowing, omni-benevolent being in my life to be a moral agent.
Both statism and religionism have a lot of violence inherent in both systems. It’s pretty obvious after you think about it enough. Both require some sort of veil of illusion to exist. Some sort of subversion of ones mental faculties.
You can be a theist and not be religious. 
Whats your point?
You must live a sad and meaningless life if you don’t judge anything.
Anyway, to those saying this thread is meaningless, how so? You apply reason to all facets of your life. Why is reason somehow not applicable to religion?
Brilliant post.
This guy is saying what I was trying to say, except 10 times better.
What is statist about voluntary arrangements?
it is my understanding that anti-theism is being against theism, or more specifically religions and pointing out all the horrible things that religion and belief in God have caused. Anti-theists are (I would guess almost all atheists), but go further in saying, “not only is there not a God, but thank goodness there isn’t. How terrible would it be if something like the Christian God were true”
Such would be an existence under a petty and sadistic big brother. Death would serve as no escape either, since that is when god passes judgment on you. Only two paths two go from there: eternal oven duty or eternal adulation duty by the side of a divine clingy sociopath. What a bleak retirement that would be indeed.