Defining terms …

One of the most frustrating aspects of trying to discuss anything and especially when discussing in blog format is not understanding what your fellow interlocutor is talking about.

I consider the key to maintaining equanimity and reaching understanding, if not necessarily agreement over a topic in discussion, is when all parties have a clear understanding what certain words/terms mean.

To this end I would like to offer my It-Does-My-Head-In-When People-Use-This-Term,  word of the day and  see if  a consensus can be reached.

Spirituality.

 

All yours….

Ark

 


221 thoughts on “Defining terms …

      1. Your call, you’re the host. But any definition of spirituality that is along the lines of “focused on things of the spirit” hasn’t really answered the question.

        But then I don’t expect to get a coherent definition, either way. I’ve been asking for one for years, and so far nothing. I either get self referential nonsense, or a lot of dodging the question, as ColorStorm has already done below.

        Liked by 3 people

    1. Patience … all good things come to those who don’t bloody well badger the blog host before he’s hardly had time to get out the blocks on this post. Sheesh!
      🙂

      Liked by 5 people

  1. Hi ark/
    There can be no consensus. People who use the word disagree with each other’s opinion. Some deny there is a ‘spirit’ yet claim ‘spirituality.’ Etc.

    Without a standard- it is a hopeless discussion.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Do we have to wait for a confab of all the major religions to come up with something ‘standard’? Let ’em all speak with the One True Voice of/for the One True God … (never a Goddess, note—how cool is that?)

        Like

    1. Without a standard– it is a hopeless discussion.

      Hah! For once ColonStorm meows profound truth! 😆 But does so in self-defacing fashion onto his own “hopeless” beliefs. 🤭

      That invisible, non-existent “standard” cannot at all be found in ANY of the Abrahamic religions/faiths, much less ANY Protestant religions/faiths. How many hundreds of different denominations are there? How many different translations of ColonStorm’s Canonical “holy” Bible are there? How many various non-Canonical Bibles are there?

      And Ark, nearer the topic at hand, “Spirituality,” finally the Coup d’état for Christendom and ColonStorm is a false “standard” for the Holy Spirit; is it alive today, limited today, non-existent today, and ask just 100,000 supposed Christians, including CS’s lack of foresight, to please state unanimously one definition of the Holy Spirit that the remaining 2.4 billion Christians ALL, every single one, agree on word for word!?

      Yep, talk about HOPELESS Ark. CS hasn’t a clue either, does he?

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Hi prof-
        Glad I’m on your radar, if even a mere blip.
        Surely you must be aware that Ark here is mature and agrees with my observation to his query/ there can be no consensus.

        If you want to take this further into the weeds, go for it-

        And btw, the problem you have in ‘Seeing things’ of the spirit is as simple as proving the wind exists.

        Quite the dilemma for you eh? Defending g the invisible……yet, you cannot deny the reality.

        Like

        1. I can define the wind as “movement of air molecules”. I can measure its direction using a weather vane or windsock. I can measure its strength using an anemometer. I can use the wind to power a windmill and measure the power generated. And those measurements aren’t affected by my personal “feelings” about the wind. Other people can independently measure those same things.

          Can you give a clear definition of “spirit”?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. The aroma of a rose could be considered its spirit. Can’t see it, touch it but its effect/existence cannot be denied. This idea can be multiplied a million ways.

            The spirit of a man is also his sum total. The body of the flower/ man/ holds the spirit.

            There is natural, there is spiritual, but certainly, spiritual was first. Hope this makes you ponder. I cannot see the moon in all its effulgence without considering the spiritual. The light. The plan. The daily existence.

            Like

          2. The aroma of a rose is a chemical effect, molecules given off by the rose. It’s an attractant for pollinators, a completely natural thing. Also measurable. We can analyze the chemical difference between a fragrant wild rose and a modern hybrid that has been bred for showy flowers at the expense of fragrance. Not being able to see or touch something doesn’t mean that we can’t investigate it.

            You still have not defined what a spirit “is”. You are using wibbly-wobbly language and metaphor. Not helpful.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Metaphor? What the h#%* do you think light is if not describing something?

            So I bring you light!! How many oceans do you need to define what is wet?

            Like

          4. Light is comprised of photons, which have measurable qualities of frequency and wavelength. Wetness is how we describe the way that groups of water molecules adhere to certain surfaces.

            None of this pertains to a definition of what a “spirit” is.

            Here’s a few samples, based on what I’ve heard people say about “spirit”, to give you an idea of what an actual definition might look like.

            “Spirit” is an emotional state of a human brain. (As in to be in “low spirits”).
            Or,
            “Spirit” is an emotional state shared by group of people (as in “team spirit”).
            Or,
            A “spirit” is an invisible being capable of thoughts and actions (as in an “evil spirit”).
            Or,
            A “spirit” is a part of a human, that contains personality, memories, and the ability to think and feel, that somehow survives the death of that person’s brain (the equivalent of a “soul”).

            See why this isn’t easy? Now, can you write a sentence or paragraph with a clear definition of what you mean when you say “spirit”?

            Like

          5. ‘The essence of man is his spirit.’

            My quote.

            In other words, the quintessential part of man which distinguishes him from a badger, is his spirit.

            Like

          6. Correct. Ever seen him/ her read blueprints?

            You are getting to the heart of the matter though. No spirituality without a spirit.

            Like

          7. It’s a figure of speech ark. Many people can’t even tie their shoes. They do have a spirit however, by virtue of the breath of life and the image that people bear, with the innate desire to create.

            Like

          8. No need to be afraid. lol

            Take a look at the comments by your regulars though. The overall insults of anything ‘spiritual’ (except for nan) without offering anything of value…..

            Why must the rage be targeted toward ‘Christianity?’ For goodness sake the Lebanese poet Gibran spent his life in writing of ‘spiritual sayings,’ even speaking praise of most religions.

            At least I offered input based on your request, ie, there can be no spiritual without recognizing the spirit. Seems fair enough.

            Like

          9. It is not a ‘nonsense’ word. What, you can’t appreciate Khalil Gibran? I can. Then again, I find depth in most things others call mundane.

            Like

          10. I don’t know, CS… I thought I did a pretty good job showing the Greek source material and its historical role in metaphysical philosophy.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. Yeah you are right. But surely you agree with my basic premise.

            (You usually bring good stuff- sorry I left u off the list. Mak was reasonable too)

            Like

          12. Well, I’m not threatened by the term if it used in its proper form, meaning some kind of animating energy or factor. It’s a linguistic shortcut to be used as a action word. The problem arises when it’s used as an object word and this indicates woo. Because Christianity in particular evolved (what, around the 450s? AD) this notion of a holy spirit linking deification of Jesus to be the same as god without crossing the border into blasphemy and idolatry, of course Christianity is going to be the largest target in the room. But it certainly doesn’t preclude equivalent criticism for anything that uses spirit as a noun to also be woo – from chiropracty to manifest destiny to new age idiocy to this renaming of ‘religious’ to ‘spiritual’. It’s all equivalent hokum.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. Well, it’s ‘hokum’ if it’s not true eh? And therein lies the dilemma for the naysayers.
            If you leave room for the ‘possibility’ that you are incorrect, then the ‘hokum’ is cast to the wasteland of irrelevance.

            But if you do not think the moon for example, has a spiritual source, then it’s no surprise that you all do not see ‘spiritual’ in anything.

            I go on record and say without hesitation, and with zero ambiguity, that the moon’s very existence, had a spiritual beginning.

            See, no religion necessary, thank God.

            Like

          14. Well, I say ‘hokum’ because even after all this time there has emerged no link between the evidence people use to claim spirit to whatever the presentation of ‘it’ is. This is important because without the link demonstrated to be the case then there is no causal connection beyond someone claiming there is something real and ‘hokum’. That is what we call an empty claim. There is no knowledge to be found, had, or shown. Just the claim. Like your moon claim. Claims without linking evidence to support some causal effect to ‘spirit’ can be just as easily dismissed as meaningless.

            I always go back to the murmuration of crows that create a moving flock that looks like a discrete ‘thing’, when we know local units obeying local rules bring this ‘thing’ into and out of being simply by behaviour. The term ‘flock’ is just a linguistic shortcut, as is the term murmuration to indicate the swooping and swirling of many birds acting together.

            There are those who will then conclude that such ‘flocks’ are magical things that slide into and out of somewhere – this is where we get into ‘mysticism’ and create ‘planes of existence’ that will house our magical flocks when they disappear – in order to maintain the belief that flocks are real things, as if the flock has an agency different from the birds that constitute it.

            Then we have others who understand that we have created a word to mean ‘a whole bunch of birds temporarily flying together in ways that are closely matched when the conditions are just so’ and that that grouping disintegrates when the conditions change and the birds go back to being just local units.

            Introducing a word like ‘spirit’ to describe an animating agency for these flocks doesn’t affect or change reality. It will, however, challenge us to understand what the term actually means in some context. If no linking evidence can be produced between what is seen – the flock – and what is claimed to be the cause -spirit – then the claim is just ‘hokum’. Spirit is not a thing unless and until you can demonstrate it is a thing, a thing that exists independent of thee or me.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. Your bird thing is spectacular, just as a parliament of owls is awesome, But you have no more authority to say that both are ‘natural’ since you deny the source of all things natural.

            Hence the obviousness of all things spiritual, that is, the hunger of man to include the divine.

            Your conscience is enough proof by the way. A lion can eat a child and go to sleep for 24 hrs, having done nothing wrong except to satisfy hunger.

            He is void of all wrongdoing. Your conscience demands recognition of the spiritual. This may be uncomfortable, but it is factual.

            Like

          16. @Tildeb.
            Excellent. Would that I could write like this.
            But CS and people like Jim ( and others of a similar mindset) will read this and hand wave it away because, well, you know, whatever… It is not part of their spiritual journey and interferes with their mojo and their true sense of reality and what lies beneath this local physical reality that you have obviously closed your mind to. You have to get in touch with nature, link ip with your spirit guide, and be more spiritual and let your life force flow and become one with the oneness.
            But before you do, remember to wash the bloody dishes and take out the rubbish, okay?

            Like

          17. The funny thing is, Ark, the more delves into the ‘how’, the more appreciation and awe one gains. It’s like being told to appreciate a postcard picture of some setting because someone thinks it’s very pretty and nice versus going to the setting having one’s vista expand upon approach, recognizing how small and sterile was the highly touted 2D postcard compared to discovering not just the sight but the sounds and smells of the 3D reality of which the postcard captured but a tiny fraction. The deeper one’s knowledge about how reality operates, the greater the vastness one recognizes of just how little we actually know and how much more there is to learn. I think this sense is what some of the scientists are trying to offer by using terms like ‘god’ and ‘nature’ and ‘the cosmos’, but of course the believers who are certain in their tiny glimpse springboard off these as if their postcard is by far the greater vista.

            Liked by 4 people

          18. Why target Christianity? Because (in my case) it’s the nearest and the most “in my face”.

            Also because BS being indoctrinated into little children and other vulnerable/defenceless minds makes my teeth hurt and I want to bite the nearest purveyor of BS. Xtianity fits the bill nicely.

            Liked by 2 people

          19. The question on the table is asking for a good description of ‘spiritual.’

            Seems small minds default to bias?? Yeah? At least I and a few others actually took the challenge seriously?

            Liked by 2 people

          20. Excellent point(s) Ubi. Unfortunately they will fall on deaf ears, blind eyes, and to borrow and paraphrase a New Testament passage (Ephesians 4:18), “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from life… because of their ignorance and hardness of heart.

            Most of anything measurable Christians try in futility to argue works BOTH WAYS, even their MOST measurable “standard”… the ambiguous, amputated, unreliable Greco-Roman canonical New Testament(s). 😉

            Nevertheless Ubi, very good rebuttal. 👏

            Liked by 2 people

          21. Ooooohhh, you leave yourself wide open here — any good Religioso could offer you the birds and the bees and the breeze in the trees etc etc as evidence and you’d be hard put to refute it.
            Take it far enough back and the Big Bang and Big God become hard to distinguish.
            As a (very!) devout atheist myself I still find it as hard to believe in the BB as G. “In the beginning all was void and suddenly in the darkness a non-existent nothing of infinite mass noiselessly went ! and many years later we had wot we now got; a lovely universe and all who sail in her.

            Furthermore: ouch

            Liked by 1 person

          22. I hope this comment falls into the right place!

            Anyway, I think you nailed it, tildeb, with this: The problem arises when it’s used as an object word,

            Liked by 1 person

    1. Without the religious connotation would it mean anything at all?

      Pilate: ”He has spiwit. Bwavado. Derring-do…”
      Centurion: ”Er … about eleven , sir”

      With apologies to Life of Brian,.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Ah, well, would we called ancestor cults (probably the first ‘ethereal’ expression back in the Palaeolithic) “religion”? They believed in spirits (of their dead).

        It means something in terms of extra-bodily movement, perhaps. Like listening to music. We’re moved.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m afraid you’ll be waiting a very, very, VERY long long time Maka. 🙄😴

      Self proclaimed Spirtualists, or those saved by a mythical living Savior, or “born again,” full of the Holy Spirit (their “standard,” but certainly not ALL Christian standards) can never agree on any measure or standard. 😄

      Geezzz, just talking about them all, their own ambiguous words, concepts, phrases, and their own creeds, doctrines, theology, philology, hermeneutics, or exegetics makes everyone sound ridiculously circular, playing a never-ending game of Whack-A-Mole, huh? 🤪

      Liked by 3 people

          1. I KNEW IT!!! I could smell somethin’ in the air originating south of the equator as I was slidin’ all over the Parquet floor from canine Kiwi “polish”! 🤨

            😛

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Btw Arkysatan, should I ask how high you be flyin’ after today’s/tonight’s result of 5 – Nil against your/our beloved-less Red Devils? Talk about a SPANKING! Me thinks Mo Salah is a futebol God with unWORLDLY Spirit… to play on your theme here. 😄

            Like

          3. Hah! The auld dog lives! Alive, well, bright-eyed and waggy tailed in Albion’s sunny clime … and someone actually missed him? Oh, wow … sniff … (SFX: insert long drawn out mournful howl here, please)(make if good!)

            Liked by 3 people

          4. What!? 😨 As in Albion, Michigan (USA) or Albion the little fat island in the stormy North Atlantic—god help us now!—or as in loyal fanatical Seagulls (with dog in tow) of Brighton-Hove Albion FC, UK and Graham Potter’s boys contending for Champions League and Europa League of the Premiership!? 🤯

            Say it ISN’T SO Ethel!!! 🤦‍♂️🤭

            Liked by 2 people

        1. I think we all have minor episodes like this.
          As long as you don’t address your missus by an old girlfriend’s name you’re probably okay.
          😉

          Liked by 2 people

    1. But OH MY STARS John, my time in Rio de Janeiro I got hooked on many many things, of course! But none as much as Guaraná Antarctica!!! I go BONKERS for that stuff when I can find it (not too often) here in Texas. Love it, miss it! Miss many things about Brasil my Friend. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Allah is the only real God for which we have inarguable truth! The Quran says it is a book not to be doubted! Mic drop, baby!!! (Unless you DARE to imply that a religious book could in ANY way be made up and false, and we both know that simply NEVER could happen!)

        Liked by 2 people

          1. Every time someone says that word I expect a repeat, and another, and another; getting louder and louder each time until a final explosive:

            TISHOO!!!!

            Liked by 2 people

  2. In common community, the word is almost universally associated with theology, belief, faith, theism, and other religious-type leanings, although some also use it to describe things they consider “other-worldly.”

    So to come up with an definition that is acceptable to all is pretty much impossible.

    Having said that, I do tend to think most people use it to describe events/feelings/thoughts that don’t fit into common, everyday experiences. In other words, things that fall into the “Hmmmm” category.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. When asked about “spiritual”, I sometime say that I occasionally have a glass of wine. But that’s intended as a joke.

    As far as I can tell, “spiritual” does not have any meaning outside of its religious connotations.

    Yes, some people say that they are spiritual but not religious. I have never worked out what that is supposed to mean (if it means anything at all).

    Liked by 3 people

    1. It must be a metaphysical, esoteric inner light demonstrating our oneness with the universe and our sanctified holiness as blessed creatures of the All Encompassing One bathed in agape love and.. and… Star Stuff.
      Or something like that?

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Possibly it means they have a religion but don’t wish to declare it to the querent.

      I think also that a modern wannabe equivalent might be ‘sensitive’ … as in “He’s a sensitive New Age man” etc. (Wrong, but with today’s usage of words who really cares?)

      I sometimes use it (“spiritual”) myself but with my own meaning: not in the sense that a person might be ‘religious’ but is someone who is deeply (a) interested in, and researches, some topics not necessarily recognised by Mainstream thinking; and is worthy of respect in he/she doesn’t try to use his/her ‘insights’ as a source of unearned Power or Income. Ergo, by definition I am myself a ‘spiritual’ person.

      And I’ve had some deeply ‘spiritual’ experiences when alone on the upperdeck of warships far out to sea, in all conditions. One such was when an albatross came down. Ship was loafing along at about twenty knots at the time. I was peering wayyyy out to the horizon and (effectively) meditating. Bird came silently down and hung in the air just out of (if I’d felt like it) reach. He/she wasn’t flapping at all, just hanging there matching our speed in a perfect formation. Stayed like that and made eye contact—I’d swear the beaky bugger was smiling—for several minutes, following the rise and fall of our ship as if he were part of it … and after a final (what? Damned if I can describe it) met my eyes again in something communicative then casually banked away and followed the surfaces into the distance. (When I say followed the surfaces, a liken to someone following the ground contours in a low flying aircraft.)

      You want spiritual? Try doing that — it’s something no church, mosque, temple, or whatever could ever hope to replicate.

      Liked by 2 people

          1. Hi Pink—

            I was out of touch ‘cos of systems, and my stuff being in transit from NZ to UK during lockdown etc etc. Anyway, they do things a bit differently over here but not so much that I can’t get the hang of it (actually, a whole world differently …) eventually. You know, old dog, new tricks …

            Liked by 2 people

        1. I’m not 100% back Pink, not yet. That is still TBD. My Mom now requires 12-14 hours per day of close attention/care so I am living with her now. My sister WANTS to help, however, since most Texas’ County Courthouses are reopened after 18-20 months of COVID-19 closures & massive backlogs of dockets, my sister is now on 3-yrs probation from all of her past federal/state felonies while also still in AA/NA recovery—for the rest of her life. 🙄 IOW’s Pink… I am now a full-time, solo, live-in Elderly Caregiver for my Mom for the foreseeable future.

          Plus, we are in the early stages of legal pursuit of our rather LARGE disappearance of the “Family Estate”—left to my sister and I by my paternal grandmother & my father for our long-term care as well as Mom’s long-term remaining healthcare, etc. If you had a chance to read my very last WordPress post, those funds were emptied(?), stolen(?), inappropriately moved(?), etc, but completely drained from my Mom’s care/management and me & my sister. Litigation and investigative pursuits are ongoing now. 😟 But for now, we three are NOT out of the dark by any means. It’s only because of my resources and small safety-net that the three of us are not out on the streets under highway overpasses/bridges.

          (to be continued it seems…)

          Nevertheless, thank you so much for asking Pink and your kind words. You are familiar enough with Oklahoma & Texas to know what we are dealing with daily. 🤦‍♂️

          Liked by 2 people

  4. Okay, so I’m pedantic. It’s the way I come.

    The term’s root has to do with breath, the metaphysical term used in the ancient world to describe the thing that animates stuff into life. It’s invisible like breath but describes something going on, an action, the product of some mover, some agent. Agency independent of the thing being moved causing life, causing breath, causing animation we can see.

    Because this is typical metaphysical language, such terms hide a vast ignorance. But by giving the unknown a term as if descriptive of something real, the tactic is used to pretend we ‘know’ something we actually know nothing about. That’s why religion and religious belief use metaphysical terms and metaphysical philosophy as if it reveals something profoundly wise and insightful… but always with metaphysical references and language.

    Where something is animated, there must be an animator, n’est pas? Such logic covers up the fact that the conclusion is used as a premise, a premise which we presume is true but only so far as to justify the conclusion using logical form. Whether the premise is, indeed, true is beside the point in metaphysical thinking yet central to why metaphysical thinking has not, does not, and probably never shall produce any knowledge. But that knowledge failure is also beside the point because, hey, we have a term! And before anyone thinks this is reflective of stupid ancestors, think again: the entire field of Sociology makes exactly the same mistake and uses the same reliance on creating terms as if this little trick produced knowledge because, hey, we can name something we presume we are seeing and believe we have produced knowledge by this naming trick!

    So we use the term spirit today to indicate some animating force, whether that’s hidden inside alcohol or hidden inside team building or whatever… as if this were an independent animator that is both real but invisible rather than do the hard work to figure out, say the chemicals in alcohol or the arousal of mirror neurons in many individuals to explain the effects we think we are seeing.

    As I said, all rather pedantic.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Well, woo doesn’t capture what’s going on here. What’s going on is the identification of something and then presuming it is a noun rather than a verb. By that, I mean to highlight the importance of the ‘how’ when it comes to connecting the whats. For example, breathing must be caused. So therefore the cause must be an agency. We can’t find the agency, so it must be invisible, and so on. These are all ‘whats’. Belief in the whats, the ‘woo’ you mention, seems rational and logical and therefore justified. If you question these as the presumptions they are, the believer will point out, say, breath, and continue to presume this is incontrovertible evidence for the imported whats. The problem is that the believer simply doesn’t recognize the import but focuses only on, say, the breath. Because ‘breath’ is real, thereofer the associated beliefs about the ‘whats’ must also be real, you see.

        Only by drilling down about the ‘how’ can we keep the imported beliefs out of the inquiry. We have to link causation through the various levels of the ‘hows’, so by the end of this evidential chain we realize no ‘whats’ are necessary other than the materials involved (and forces that are always present).

        It is from the imported ‘whats’ that we get belief in woo. We get rid of woo by implementing ‘how’ thinking.

        Regarding ‘spiritualism’, we can immediately recognize woo at work because this ‘thing’ is a what that animates yet is invisible and granted the status by believers as a ‘what’. To deal with the ‘how’, as in how stuff is animated by spirit, how ‘immaterial’ spirit causes ‘material’ effect, we have another term thrown at us to bridge the growing gap in knowledge: mysticism. Yes, it’s all quite a mystery, like the sound of one hand clapping. Oooo… so deep, so wise. And this why mysticism doesn’t produce knowledge: it fails to link the how with the what and so the ignorance remains as does the belief in the woo.

        This becomes obvious when we see exactly the same thinking pattern of belief in the ‘whats’ from Jim and monicat and rawgod and colorstorm and so on and how each turns to mysticism to excuse the utter lack of evidence to link the ‘whats’ they believe in with the mystical ‘hows’ they honestly think they’ve answered. The pattern of thinking this way reliably and consistently produces woo.

        Liked by 5 people

    1. Have just yesterday thrown another book against the wall in a fit of pure frustration. Not because the author was making sense, or not, but because every wannabe ‘authority’ claims unique authority (and to actually know).

      Some clever chaps noticed (or concluded) that the ‘universe’ is expanding (but into what/where or when he/they didn’t say) and ran the movie backwards; and concluded that in the beginning the whole universe was contained in a sort of tiny thing so small it didn’t really exist.
      And within that Primordial Atom something changed, upset a balance untold aeons in equilibrium and triggered a wee POP (soundless pop, though, note) and everything went down hill from there to here where we are now.

      Or God dunnit, the evidence either way is conjecture; and some other clever chaps ran the movie backwards and decided that if it happened once, why not before in endless cycles? (I believe the Hindoo beat them to it by a few centuries but can’t be quoted there either.)

      Liked by 1 person

  5. When I was religious, the concept of a ‘spirit’ I understood to mean as a ‘life force’ which makes makes us who we are. The implication being, that there is more to us than the physical bodies we have. In other words, our bodies inhabit our spirit, which I would’ve termed synonymous with a ‘soul’. That sounds all fine and dandy until you try to objectively define what a spirit is made of. Most people would consider spirits to be not defined or measured by our laws of physics, which to me means that you can’t properly define a spirit at all, because they can’t be detected or measured. Or you can continue to shift goal posts and make a spirit whatever you want to be, or define it by what it isn’t 😊. I don’t think you will find much agreement here as to what a spirit is.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I keep running it back to that ‘Big Bang’ thing; you know, where there was nothing but Nothing in a huge nowhere and suddenly the Nothing silently went BANG (bigly!) and then there was energy and fluffy bits all over the empty space where Nothing had been before.
      All very scientific and credible, and probably the best we can come up with for a few more years. So, other than Big G Him/Itself, and He / It was lonely so She/Him/it created little bits of Him/Her/It self to keep ’em all company. Run it forward a few gillenia and you have Jeezus, whom God made from Him/Her/Neuter (etc) self to save all the other litlle pop ooooogle phleep gabble flagger … damn, I’ve just blown a few fuses. Excuse me a mo …

      Liked by 3 people

        1. Purr, purrrrrr … (oops, wrong dialect) … bugger, new keyboard needed; throw in a lobotomy and I may even become a Christian. Or not. Can’t afford to keep the poverty stricken Abrahamic church’s luxury cars running, let alone buy computer parts.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. I think some people might use the ‘spirit’ thing as if it were some kind of programme animating a computer — not easy to get ahold of without pulling the blasted thing to bits. But take away the programming and all you have is that same pile of bits, quite useless, quite inanimate, quite (eeek!) dead.

      Ergo, if you have a programme and a working computer, there has to be a etc etc etc and for we organic robots that one is best described by the unthinking as ‘God’. (Aaaaah, nice one — but which god/God/gods; there’s millions of the little buggers running around in literature.)
      And, most of them still making damn’ good money for their profits (oops,typo—read ‘prophets’) (means the same anyway, no?).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. A computer program could be a good metaphor for a spirit, but it only goes so far. For one, they follow logic and make sense, to those who read and understand them that is. It would be more like someone telling you you’re run by a computer program but you can never see this program for yourself, and they keep changing their minds as to how said program works. A good scam indeed.

        I’m surprised most Christians overlook the ‘which God?’ bit. If creationists were somehow able to verify their ‘theories’, it wouldn’t do one bit to verify that their God is behind it.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Spiritual is an emotion like love, hate, happiness, sadness. The word has been mostly hijacked by the indoctrinated religious world.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. ‘Spiritual’ seems to mean (to the effect of) soft, sweet, fluffy, gentle, kind, away with the fairies and inoffensive.

    To be ‘spiritual’ you don’t really need wear sackcloth and cover yourself with ashes (preferably cold ashes, unless you’re doing a penance) (wotever one of them is, doesn’t sound appetising) but apparently it helps. It never hurts to have a copy of the local ‘Good Book’ on hand either.

    Liked by 4 people

      1. I hope you washed your keyboard before mentioning His holey name? Otherwise you’ll be condemned to eternally sitting in a House Of Worship, forever listening to Christian, Jewish, and Islamic priests glaring at each other whilst raving divine ‘brotherly love’.

        Be careful, Sir, when you insult The Lord from whom all blessings flow … you know, the one who never misses even a worm turning or a gnat blinking, from whom not a leaf falling can conceal itself — the Guy who eternities before He created knew everything wot He was doing*.

        * And I do mean everything, no? So whom else can we give thanks to for His** very own Holy Inquisition, Auschwitz, Belsen, Dachau, runny fried eggs, vipers adders subtracters cobras and things that go squeak in the grass when you step on them and sting like fury for hours? Who else invented flood fire famine and fury? Don’t get me started, brrrrrr.

        ** Yup. His.

        Liked by 3 people

  8. And furthermore, any religioso may feel free to challenge me at any time. I await such with great fear, trepidation, and as much trust in the Lord as my fear and trepidation.

    Wimps …

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Well, I can’t define what others mean. I guess I would say that a spiritual person has a sense of the unseen spiritual world and its effects on the physical world. If one doesn’t believe there is a spiritual world, I would say he is not spiritual.

    Like

    1. The spiritual world appears to be not only unseen, but undetectable as well — except, apparently, by people who claim to be spiritual. Since neither Randy nor @CandyColouredClown can offer any empirical evidence for this unseen spiritual world, or how its alleged effects on the physical world might be measured, we might cynically say that spirituality can be defined by way of a negative proof: that is, the more you fail to make your claim, the more “spiritual'” you are.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. That’s fair. If a man who has no spirit can’t understand these spiritual things, then, from our position, all we can do is try to show him the one who can give him that spirit.
        I guess that’s why I love that one special book so much.
        Spiritual ideas are so different from physical understanding.

        Like

        1. If your Special Book is The Bible (Christian or Islamist) then you have a major problem. Instead of waving it you should try reading it; and relating the endless unpleasantness therein to a real sense of morals. Do so and you might be nauseated to the nth degree, I certainly was.

          Like

          1. You read it with the eyes of this world. You should try reading the Bible with the eyes that come when you accept Jesus as Lord of your life.
            You would see the revealing of God to His people.
            Your life would be changed.

            Like

          2. Actually, Randy, I tried reading it as a believer — and yes, it all seemed to make sense. But that’s because believers are LED by external -human- forces to interpret it a certain way. When a person reads it without religious bias and a pre-formed agenda, they can see all the many foibles and fallacies that believers simply gloss over.

            Liked by 4 people

          3. Except, Nan, you weren’t a believer, you were trying to find something you didn’t have eyes to see. You relied on human understanding to understand something that was far above any human understanding.
            His ways are not our ways.
            Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
            I was also in that place.
            Until my eyes were opened, not by the wisdom of man, but by God.

            Like

          4. You. Are. Judging. Me. And your “Holy Bible” CLEARLY instructs you not to do that — Matthew 7:1 (KJV).

            You do NOT know anything about my life — unless you are actually a fairy that flits about watching my everyday activities — or you have special powers that allow you to see into my brain and decipher my thoughts and feelings.

            FYI — I experienced the so-called “born again” experience and lived the “Christian Way” for over 15 years so do NOT preach to me from your holier-than-thou pedestal.

            Liked by 4 people

          5. Why does it make you angry for someone as unenlightened as I to say something to you that you perceive as judgmental?
            What if God were using me to ask you to come back.
            You may be a prodigal and not an unbeliever.
            If you would like to tell me more, I would certainly be open to a conversation.
            You tell me how or if.

            Like

          6. I don’t perceive it as judgmental. It IS judgmental when you say “you weren’t a believer.” You are making a statement based on your personal religious bias. There are any number of other ways you could have expressed this thought without “telling” me I wasn’t a believer.

            What if God were to ask me to come back? HA! Since such an entity does not exist, I would probably consider seeing a psychiatrist.

            Randy, I appreciate your offer to “tell me more,” but there simply is nothing to be gained by continuing the conversation. Considering your faith, you could do nothing except “preach” and I’m waaaay beyond that.

            Have a nice week. Enjoy and appreciate what Nature has provided so we humans can live and enjoy our (limited) lives.

            Liked by 4 people

          7. Randy, have you ever heard of indoctrination? It is generally not acknowledged by your religious brothers but it is the most powerful tool used by all religions to recruit newbies. Most indoctrinated believers will never be able to rationalise beyond their faith, like yourself they will not be able to feel they are indoctrinated and will likely never realise they are indoctrinated because that is only an atheist excuse and neuroscience is simply an anti-God scientific movement However Nan and most of the bloggers on this site have taken the brave emotional step back from the supernatural Christian doctrines to take a look at what the rationality and logic of the religious preachers claims are and that naturally leads to the indisputable evidence, the undeniable facts and of course the ultimate reality.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. Why would you think that I believe nueroscience is anti-God? I believe that God created everything, especially the living body and all its amazing interactive systems.
            “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. To search out a matter is the glory of kings.”

            Like

          9. Well Randy, the neuroscience finds little difference between different religious faiths during prayers and worship. Basically your Christianity is no different to any other religion as far as the brain functions is concerned and the resulting feel good factor you all get.

            “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. To search out a matter is the glory of kings.”

            God has concealed himself beyond believers brains so in fact there is no glory for God or the kings because there is nothing to search for.

            Like

          10. And yet, somehow this amazing body of interacting nerves, muscles, bones, and organs has come to exist without any outside force causing it to be. Now, that takes faith.

            Like

          11. I see you do not understand evolution. Nor do you seem to want to. You actually think Oogity Boogity! is a ‘better’ answer to how life has come to be rather than seek and find a fundamental understanding of biology, and you seem to have picked the former. What does that picking say about your respect for what’s true or, for that matter, any knowledge whatsoever? It says to me any concern with knowledge and reality ranks far, far below your desire to believe in some divinely ‘inspired’ Poof!ism that gives you a very silly, very immature, very disrespectful so-called ‘answer’. You’re good with that.

            I mean, just wow.

            This approach you are utilizing filling in ignorance with made-up ‘answers’ is called ‘God of the gaps’. It is a fallacy whereby you fill in areas of utter ignorance – in this case, willful ignorance (I mean, evolution for crying out loud is one of the three BASIC principles of biology after all) – with some version of goddidit and think you have a satisfactory ‘answer’.

            You don’t.

            Such belief, Randy, produces zero insight into reality, zero knowledge about reality, and does nothing but elevate astounding ignorance and superstitious nonsense to be preferable, to be more ‘righteous’ and ‘moral’ than bothering to actually learn something.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Tildeb, I would love to tell you the process of my changing my belief from evolution to creation.
            But, ultimately, that is not my purpose.
            This conversation began with “How do I define spirituality.?”
            I have a spiritual life that intersects with my natural life.
            So, my understanding of natural things hinges on my insight tgat I gain from my spiritual connection.
            This sounds so vague. It is not!
            You are not spiritual, so you have no choice but to believe a natural explanation.
            I was the same way.
            Until I wasn’t.
            Everything changed. I was 26.
            Now I am a couple of weeks from 70.
            Still growing, still learning, still carrying a supernatural life within. God in me fuels everything I do.

            Like

          13. Of course at this stage of your game, you would be scared to death to face the FACT that there is no god …

            BTW, I’m curious … have you considered how you’re going to spend your god-oriented eternity?

            Like

          14. Nan, I could have said the same thing to you regarding bring scared to death that you were wrong.
            Eternity I look forward to.

            Like

          15. Death anxiety was what pushed Francis Collins ‘over the edge’ to seek salvation.
            It is a theme that seems to crop up on a regular basis among those who convert or get ‘born again’.

            But like all culturally specific traits the god people turn to is almost always exclusively the one linked to their own specific culture.

            Liked by 2 people

          16. Funny how believing in this god or those gods is determined more by geography than theology! And, almost as strangely, knowledge and evidence reliably play no part in any.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. Death anxiety is not an uncommon thread to push one into the search for a God.
            Trouble is, when the danger passes, so does the desire for God in many cases.
            Fear had nothing to do with me. Or most of my friends.
            I do believe I have been delivered from death many times though.

            Like

          18. You have no fear of Hell, Randy? Seriously?
            What do you think happens to you after death should you reject your god at this late juncture of your life?

            Liked by 1 person

          19. And what lured you? I know it’s silly of me to ask, do you have some evidence to show us?

            Like

          20. God lured me. I was teaching a Bible study (cultural Christianity) but I had no understanding other than just reading the words.
            For the first time in my life, I was upset that I didn’t understand what I was reading.
            That was the touch of God.
            That is when I was quickened.
            That was when I called out to find the one who was calling.
            He answered.
            That is the evidence.

            Like

          21. Ah … so you were already ripe for indoctrination.

            I understand what I read in the bible – well a fair amount of it – and I’ve never succumbed to the drivel you are waffling on about on my blog.

            That is not evidence.
            You are old enough to know that what you are writing here is simply apologetic diatribe.
            Have a little bit of integrity.

            Like

          22. I no more ‘believe’ in evolution than I do gravity. Thinking as you precludes you from appreciating the difference between knowledge adduced from reality – where reality arbitrates – and belief imposed on reality – where you imported beliefs arbitrates reality! Try it with gravity and see how hard and how fast your beliefs let you down.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. Tilde, you think evolution is as certain as gravity?
            I believe in evolutionary changes in a species.
            But a gradual millions of years evolution to a more highly developed being from a lesser form I do not see.
            And I still believe evolutionary theory is just that…a theory.
            Gravity on the other hand, I will not dispute.
            Gravity has little effect on spirituality, though.

            Like

          24. You probably don’t know that you have just listed the standard and most common creationist tropes. I actually laughed. So thank you for that. Well done!

            No thinking required, no knowledge necessary. Just roll out the tropes. In fact, these been refuted so many times and in so many ways over such a period of time that there’s a term commonly used to describe what kind of nonsense to expect from you: it’s called PRATT (points refuted a thousand times).

            1) Evolution certain? No. Certainty belongs only to faith. Likelihood belongs to science. The likelihood that evolution is true is measured in confidence. The confidence is based on how much evidence – for and against – can be adduced from reality. Think of teeter totter with evidence for at one end and against at the other. Likelihood is based on how much tilt there is. Confidence is based on how much the differential is. In biology every. last. scrap. of evidence resides only for and only at one end. Very few explanations reach this level of confidence, to the extent that there is special scientific term used to describe such an explanation: theory. In fact, evolutionary theory is so powerful that it is the pinnacle of scientific explanations. No other scientific theory comes close. Certainly not gravity!

            Now, the explanation could still be wrong. There may be a better explanation. But for this to occur, the new explanation must account for all the same evidence and then go further based on some new insight. But this is not enough. The new explanation would have to account for all technologies, applications, and therapies built from the evolutionary theory – and they are legion. They cross all kinds of boundaries, meaning the same explanation ‘works’ in all cases (so far) regardless of subject. Evolutionary theory today successfully predicts all kinds of new insights in areas as diverse as medicine to agriculture to artificial intelligence and is used in literally dozens and dozens of fields of inquiry, from anthropology to zoology, from mathematical models to climate change. Weird, right? Whodathunk? But by far the greatest test of evolutionary theory has come from genetics. If the theory were wrong, genetics would have revealed this. Genetics would have shown, for example, evidence of creationist event or evidence of biblical kinds… neither of which it did. In fact, we know with the highest possible scientific confidence that the smallest possible cohort for today’s humans, for example, was a population bottleneck of about 12,000.

            Understand, it didn’t have to be this way. There could have been compelling evidence that evolution wasn’t the whole story, that there was this part here or that part there that didn’t quite fit or evidence that indicated something that aligned perfectly with the Genesis account yet allowed for changes to life over time. Changes to life once established could have coexisted with a creationist event and genetics would have clearly shown this.

            *sigh*

            Instead, reality showed human and great ape differences were in the second chromosome only, and that the ape chromosome had fused with the next (it has a ‘middle’ telomere whereas every other chromosome in both humans and apes have only an end telomere, so that apes have 22 and humans 23). Yet both have the same inherited genetic damage from an ancient simian (ape) virus. Or that human fetuses develop a layer of fur in vitro (lanugo) and then shed it before birth. And so on. All evidence from every branch of every subject that has anything to do with biology aligns with and can be explained by common ancestry across all species. A creationist event explains NOTHING and stands contrary to all evidence from reality. No rational person could understand all this evidence aligned from every branch of inquiry into reality and think some version of Poof! ism is an equivalent model, a reasonable explanation. It’s not.

            Evolution is such an overwhelming explanation that is really is a fundamental plank of biology. You cannot understand biology without evolution theory. That’s why it’s science. That’s why it is taught in science class… because it is as ‘true’ as any explanation about how reality operates and by what mechanisms as any other human understanding. No understanding exceeds the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. The confidence of it being likely cannot get any higher.

            Gravity? Not even close. Atomic theory? Nope. Lots we don’t know. Germ theory? Again, far less likely to be the case than evolution because it has far less evidence than evolution does even though we base medical procedures on it and with great success. No scientific theory is as complete as evolution. That’s just the fact. And you’d know this if you had this fundamental scientific understanding. Being a believer in creationism and thinking it is reasonable means you are either quite ignorant or a reality-denying person. And there LOTS of very smart people able to compartmentalize their knowledge from polluting their religious beliefs even when entirely contradictory. So my question is how can anyone have a grownup conversation about reality or anything it contains with someone who has already and by religious fiat rejected or waved away the common ground of reality and think a reasonable conversation can still be had?

            You tell me. But in the meantime, know that it is widely considered ‘crazy’ by non believers for someone who understands evolution to engage in any conversation about reality with a creationist for just this absence of agreeing to allow reality to arbitrate our beliefs about it. So yeah, I must be a little crazy to even try. You’re never going to change your creationist beliefs because, when push comes to shove, you will reject reality rahter than dare to question your religious beliefs. That’s why your beliefs are considered indoctrination and not a trustworthy source by any one who does respect reality enough to allow it to have some say in the matter of beliefs about it. Your testimonial amounts to nothing more and nothing less than motivated self-deception. And when you will not allow reality to arbitrate your beliefs about it, anything you believe about reality and anything it may contain or how it operates amounts to delusional thinking. You have intentionally deluded yourself and you try to delude others and think doing so is a virtue. It’s not. It’s actually harmful.

            Liked by 2 people

          25. Do you see why Christians lack all credibility among non-Believers, Randy, and especially those non-Believers who have deconverted?
            It is the complete lack of humility displayed in comments such as this one you wrote.

            Worse still is the lack of respect for the scientific foundation upon which your entire basis of life is built.
            Without it ‘doctors’ would still be bleeding you with leeches and exorcising demons.
            In all liklihood you would have been burned at the stake as a heretic.
            You consider your born again status a privilege?
            Well, yes. In a manner of speaking it is but only because you live in a secular democracy that allows all religions free reign.

            Liked by 2 people

          26. I told Tildeb that the purpose of your post was to discuss spirituality. I was uneasy branching out that way in the conversation.

            Like

          27. When you dip your toe in a pond filled mostly with former Christians I’m afraid you must be prepared to be ridiculed.
            Be grateful you only get your ear chewed a little.
            If I had my way the pond would be full of piranhas rather than mildy savage goldfish.

            Like

          28. Feel free to tell me more Randy. Tell me as much as you like.
            If you are open to an honest, civil discussion and are prepared to respect evidence I am sure we can have a very interesting chat.

            As we don’t usually moderate or censor or suchlike on my spot, tell me the circumstances that surrounded you becoming a Christian and we can take it from there. How’s that sound?

            Liked by 1 person

          29. But, Ark, you said before that you don’t accept personal testimony. There are three scriptures that would sum up my experience: “If you seek me, you will find me, if you seek me with all your heart.” “Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes, in him has eternal life. For God did send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
            Worked for me.

            Like

          30. Worked for me. — along with millions of others who seem unable to go through this life without needing some supernatural entity to “guide” them and “love” them and “watch over” them and “bless” them and PUNISH them at their death if they *gasp* happened to believe in themselves!

            Liked by 3 people

          31. No. I am merely interested in the circumstances that drove you to seek salvation from your god.
            I find such stories fascinating and am interested to see if there are any patterns among those who turn to Jesus of Nazareth.
            If you have any issues discussing such things in an open forum , no problem.

            Like

          32. Apologies for any lost correspondence … having a few problems getting this lot to work. Here’s hoping …

            Like

          33. Can’t see any link, sorry. I’m on my phone at the moment which is not as easy to read as the laptop so I may have missed it. If you want to post it again, here I’ll check it out.

            Like

          34. Thanks for the link. In fact I have read this before and I remember thinking the same thing then as I thought after reading it again – indoctrination. Your take exhibits all the classic elements of the religiously indoctrinated child. Religious family, church every Sunday, church camp then later, rebellious youth, a girl (sex) is involved – inevitably-then the ensuing drama, the guilt, the depression etc and eventually the return to the bosom of the Lord. It is a tale do often told with almost the exact same elements that it is cliche and all one needed to do was change the names of the main actors and the tale would apply to thousands of Born Again Christians.
            I can give you three names right off the top of my head and they are bloggers here on WordPress.
            Of course evidence is Never a part of the story and yet while it is the Christian god at the centre of these culturally specific ‘conversions’ the churches are often different from each other, and sometimes even the Christian sect is different. I can think of at least one Catholic!
            Odd, don’t you think, especially as most Protestsnt sects have a very dim view of Catholicism!
            Seems that Jesus was unable to convey the same born again message to all those who were open to it.

            Why do you think this is, Randy?

            Liked by 1 person

          35. The conversions could be similar because of the similarity of trials in life as a rule. I know catholics who are very similar to my protestsnt born again friends, and many protestants who consider me a bit over the top.
            The friends I know who have a similar zeal as I come from all different backgrounds.
            You can call it indoctrination, but I could say the same for your friends. What I cannot deny is the way my life changed, and the ongoing sense of joy that comes with it. Life has its ups and downs, but there is a great sense of stability through it all. I am not alone in this. I could have gone the way that Nan went after college. But, I “heard the voice” and everything changed.
            You could never convince me that I am wrong.
            But I am not stupid, or blind, or uninterested in your ideas and thoughts.
            But, the wisdom that comes from the scriptures blows my mind.
            I honestly believe that there is a very real born again experience that is initiated by God, and we choose to follow Him, or go our own way.
            I would never go back to the former.

            Like

          36. In some of the Scriptures (Christian, Islamic, Jewish … Hindu, Buddhist, Wotever-ist etc) one might sometimes find genuine wisdoms.
            One also might not.
            But when the garbage outweighs wisdoms on so vast a scale one has to look again and with a more critical eye; to spout that a book is good on the strength of just a few gems (in a vast field of sick rubbish) is to betray too great a biassed gullibility. I think it’s quite true that a person’s religion is (very) most often a product of geography ,,, no?

            Like

          37. There could be something to the geography of religions. But Christianity is found worldwide.
            But, there is cultural Christianity.
            That is not the spirituality that I am speaking of.

            Like

          38. Being a world-wide phenomenon isn’y really a qualification, now, is it? Otherwise we could all be worshipping coke bottles, or television sets (many seem to, in fact).

            Liked by 2 people

          39. You know, Ark, I can speak only for myself. I know many who also experience what I experience. Many hear the message, some receive the message, some of those turn away for various reasons, a few follow the One they find.

            Like

          40. The similarities are because of the prior religious indoctrination. Surely this much is obvious?
            Being steeped in a deeply religious culture is bound to rub off and even if the ‘sheep’ strays from the fold, as you did, all it takes is some traumatic event to trigger … How shall I say? …. The Jesus Response, and the Sheep begins to bleat!
            You have opted not to question the possibility of indoctrination, likely because, as Nan mentioned, you would not be able to face reality without the crutch of religion. In your case it just happens to be Christianity.
            And why do you think your god does not send a unifying message to all, Muslims and Hindus for example let alone the myriad sects of Christians?
            You did not respond to this point in my comment.
            I agree, I probably could not convince you you are wrong. However, that you even made mention of this suggests you already know you are and are simply afraid to face the truth so are flatly refusing to confront the evidence of your own intellect.
            Much like my kids used to do-put their hands across their face and say: “You can’t see me!”
            The fact of geography and its cultural links is so obvious, yet you hand wave it aside.
            Christianity is worldwide because it was exported, usually at arms length behind a sword.
            Out of interest, is your kid/s in any way religious?

            Liked by 1 person

          41. I have no ability to change anyone to believe in the One I trust.
            May “job” is only to say what I can to shine a light on the One who gives me light.
            The change that came to me only comes from Him.
            I wanted Him to change me.
            I had no idea how long a process he would begin.
            I have no regrets.

            Like

          42. And you avoid the body of my post like the plague.
            Nobody here, and I mean absolutely no one here gives a monkey’s uncle about your ‘job’.
            Most of those here have been where you are and are either embarassed at the drivel you spew or squirm with barely suppressed anger that you may have access to children or other impressionable minds.
            I was never a Christian other than in the cultural sense therefore any nonsense you punt merely goes over my head, but I imagine it touches a raw nerve with some.
            By not addressing the issue of evidence you simply confirm every point directed against the idiocy of your beliefs.

            Like

          43. Ark, you asked about spirituality. The Bible teaches that man is spiritually dead. He has to be brought back to “spiritual life” by another. A dead man can’t raise himself.
            I was spiritually dead.
            Now I am spiritually alive.
            I guess I was quickened by the hand or voice of God.
            All I know is I see things with different eyes now.
            It would be drivel if it weren’t true.
            And, I am not alone.
            The evidence can only be seen if one believes that God exists and that he rewards those that diligently seek him.
            Do you want to find Him?
            If not, then you have rejected his call.

            Like

          44. All I know is I see things with different eyes now.

            Yes, indoctrination does this. Ask any former Christian here.
            Ask Seth Andrews. He has an excellent video out called Christianity made me talk like an idiot.

            You have yet to produce evidence. Why do you keep using this word?

            Like

          45. Ark, EVERY Christian will say their “evidence” is the bible even though it is pointed out time and again that the book has NO credibility and only minimal historical validity, they put their fingers in their ears and sing the “LA-LA-LA-LA” song.

            Liked by 2 people

          46. Never having been ‘poisoned’ with this garbage I really struggle to come to terms with the fact that these people reject evidence that is as plain as the nose on their face.
            They can clearly see how and why something like the Qu’ran is garbage yet are completely blind to the same nonsense in the bible.
            How can they not realise this?
            Why didn’t you realise it until so late in the day?

            Like

          47. Ark, believers aren’t looking for evidence. They’re looking for confirmation of what they feeeel and what their leaders have told them. And for them … it’s all there. That’s the best way I can explain it.

            As for me, it wasn’t so much that I started disbelieving the bible. It was more that I began to realize that, from every aspect, Christian people are essentially NO different from non-Christians. Oh sure. They think they’re different because their INTERESTS have migrated to “religious” matters and they do “religious” things (pray, bless their food, go to confession, attend services, etc., etc.), but in essence, they’re still capable of back-biting, criticizing, gossiping, etc., as well as demonstrating ill will towards people they don’t like (like atheists 😛).

            So, bottom line, it’s all a head trip. But just try and convince a believer of that!!!

            Liked by 2 people

          48. What can I say? Sometimes when you believers say or do things that are soooo far-out, I just can’t help myself!

            Like

        2. @Randy
          When you understand the book was written by fallible men, it becomes more difficult to venerate the book. There’s as much wisdom in the works, say, of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Kafka, as in the Bible, but no-one is foolish enough to claim those writers were divinely inspired.

          Liked by 5 people

  10. Dammit, no time to spare but CS is begging for a query:

    Why are Christians and all the others allowed to begin with a primordial Nothing and create a God to create a universe, but we atheists are not allowed our Primordial Atom?

    Liked by 2 people

  11. I shall admit upfront that I have tried to read ‘holy books’. Didn’t get far with any of them (almost choked on my own vomit)(but that’s just me; you may have greater tolerance).

    Like

    1. You still haven’t got the set up right on your new blog. No place to comment and the header is odd ….- reads: Create your website with WordPress,
      Pull finger Mister A. I have a need to try out some fowl language on your blog!
      🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Am working on it, Ark … but not much progress thus far. UK seems a bit backward compared to NZ (okay, a fair bit. A lot …)

        Like

          1. So would I … but I remember from living here in times past that England is a wee bit … different. So why should a freebie WordPresser be any less. In the meantime, on with the show—I’ve just received a huge backlog of emails, all came in together having been in limbo for several more days. Aaaaah, England, she cain’t be beat.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. Oops, on MY blog, not yours. Bugger—memo to self: stop thinking and actually read wot’s there. Dammit, dumb dog, bad dog, stupid dog … go to your kennel and don’t come back out until I call you!

          Like

          1. So I liked you latest post, just so’s you know I read it. … rusted pipes, beach, weird mystery. But there’s still no place to comment.
            If I have to leave comments to your blog on my blog I’ll be damn well charging you rent in the not too distance future.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Being here in England and trying to make things purr along is a lot like the mental equivalent of an out-of-body experience.
            But I’ll get there … one day …

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Well get a bloody move on.
            How difficult can setting up a free WordPress blog be?
            Don’t you know a six year old who could help you over there in Blighty?

            Like

      1. Is maith liom as Gaeilge. Irish is fun. 😀

        Aw, things are running the way they are running, full-time job, only time for music and publishing in the far corners of the week, no time for writing at all. But, worth it: the kids in order of age (1) has a job she enjoys; (2) is studying medicine and (3) is doing her leaving cert this year. Things are safe here, we park in the drive way without worrying about our car being stolen, we have no alarm on house or car, M can walk to school, and R to the train station even when it’s still dark in the mornings, without fearing for their lives.

        How are your kids doing and how is C?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. All fine, covid not withstanding. We avoided the devastation many suffered during lockdown and business continues to thrive, thank the gods.

          So, all in all, pretty good.

          Liked by 1 person

  12. A recent comment stated:

    “An infinite God, who created the universe, could certainly use fallible men to deliver a message to His people.”

    If this is referring to any one particular infinite God—the ‘our Father’ one (yes, that one!) for instance, then as by its own definitions He is infinitely wise … you know, Omniscient … then He has to be the Grand Ultimate in pointless self-aggrandisement.
    Ie, has the Ultimate inferiority complex, no? (Why else create all that nausea just to be worshipped? The Guy is sick and needs treatment.) (Desperately … who knows what else the petulant bastard might flood-fire-faminate in the meantime?)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Interesting, but ultimately all woo. There is no ‘inner light’ and I simply shake my head in bemusement at the lengths some people will go to in an attempt to legitimise / justify this sort of waffle.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s