Posts by Gerald Hill

silentviper19 said:🤦

See, he isn't really denying something that actually exists. He’s just rejecting what *other* people claim is out there. That's why he can't even wrap his head around the version of God he's supposedly arguing against. It’s a bit of a loop, isn't it?

I mean, honestly, if you're picturing some imaginary creature in your mind just so you can deny it, that’s either pretty silly or you might need to see a doctor.

Are you denying The Flying Dutchman too?? Because that guy is just as much a part of our legends as any vampire or forest spirit. It makes me wonder how you're even visualizing him, since you'd need an image to deny in the first place, according to your own logic.

The Vjedrogonja was described in legend as a mere man, and since we all know what a human looks like, the concept is simple. For instance, do you believe in Mark from Pancip? I don't need to "believe" in him; there is almost certainly a man named Mark living in Pancip right now.

Joseph Bailey41 As I have noted before, it appears that...
If I am operating under the assumption that God does not exist, why should it matter to me whether His likeness resembles a human being or a disco ball?🤔

One really ought to understand exactly what they are denying. When I set out to deny a legend like a demon, I have a very specific image in my mind: a creature with the face of an old woman, jagged iron teeth, and massive claws, riding a person through the countryside all night long. Ultimately, there is no single, universal definition of God; people experience Him in vastly different ways.

Joseph Bailey41 said:So, there you have it. Even as an atheist who prides herself on thinking for herself, I can decide for myself which chemical reactions are worth celebrating and which ones just don't matter. I don't believe in God, but I’m still going to go ahead and meditate for a bit—without worrying about what kind of reaction that might trigger.

It would be much more productive if you actually had a clear concept of what God is and what the term represents. Instead, you seem to jump to the conclusion that we are talking about some human-like entity. But, let's not dwell on it.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Believers always say that God is love. So, following that logic, is God just a chemical reaction in the brain? Some kind of Endorphin rush? 🍿

It certainly appears to be the case.😁.

darkraven said:No, I wasn't. Light and field particles are perfect examples of what I was getting at...

Your belief that "primitive consciousness" exists everywhere is just completely out of touch with reality.

I don't "believe" in it.

It's just one possible naturalistic explanation on the table.

Consciousness requires complexity—a complex system.

Yeah, and in what sense exactly is that "out of touch with reality"?

According to naturalism, our individual, personal consciousness depends on the brain and is a byproduct of specific neural activity. Fine. But I wasn't even talking about *that* kind of consciousness.

It's ridiculous to link atheism with spirituality. Just say normally, "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in anything spiritual," and leave it at that.

No, what *you're* claiming is what's ridiculous. 🤷

Where would this spiritual component come from? Like, just some transparent spirit permeating everything? What even is it if it permeates matter?

"Spiritual component" is kind of the wrong way to put it...

And honestly, if that's the case, then our understanding of matter is totally incomplete. That philosophy falls under naturalism, but it's more like a form of property dualism. My fear is that it isn't scientifically verifiable—or at least, nobody has even proposed a scientific experiment where something like that could actually be detected.

Let alone anyone having even the slightest clue what a theory describing what it is and how it functions would actually look like.

That's the pantheistic God of mysticism—an absolute spirit permeating nature. So, it's completely impossible to be both an atheist and spiritual. At least, that's how I see it.

Absolutely not. I explained what it is above.

And according to that philosophy, it doesn't permeate "nature." Baryonic matter makes up less than 5% of the universe.

.

I am unsure how baryonic matter relates to so-called spirituality, but if that is how you interpret it, then more power to you.😁 Generally speaking, consciousness requires a functioning, complex information system; I have no idea what any other kind of consciousness would even look like.

darkraven said:Right now, I don't believe in any God.

Basically, explaining it this way: spirituality doesn't exist for atheists.

Look, I'm an atheist, but spirituality *does* exist for me. For me, though, "spiritual" is just a synonym for phenomena regarding consciousness and the mind.

And if I really had to pick a side on how consciousness works, I’d lean toward naturalism. It doesn't even have to be strict physicalism... there are other naturalistic explanations out there that aren't strictly materialistic in their ontology.

Antimatter is a different thing entirely; that isn't spiritual, so there's no point in bringing it up.

I wasn't even talking about antimatter.

Spirituality is completely incompatible with naturalism and materialism because the spiritual is immaterial, while naturalism is materialism.

I totally disagree with your definitions—they're completely off base if you ask me.

When people present certain arguments to you, instead of actually arguing against them, don't you just end up restating your own premises that they were already arguing against in the first place? 🙄

I dig atheists who are materialists and naturalists and don't believe in the spiritual stuff because they aren't hypocrites.

I know plenty of atheists who aren't naturalists, and I don't think they're hypocrites.

On the contrary, I know for a fact that atheism can be totally separate from naturalism and materialism.

Where would that spirit come from? If everything is permeated by spirit, then that's just spiritual pantheism or mysticism—an absolute spirit, which is basically just a concept of God.

Actually, it could be a very simple, naturalistic version of panpsychism or panexperientialism, where a primitive form of consciousness is just as much a part of matter as an electron is a part of an atom.

It's worth noting that this kind of consciousness isn't some grand creator or a thinking entity; honestly, it's as mindless as atoms themselves.

Through the workings of the brain, those elements coalesce into a collective, which becomes our individual consciousness.

There you go—a concept of "where the spirit comes from" that is entirely naturalistic.

People jump into meditation just to chill out or de-stress or whatever, but honestly? It’s got zero to do with actual spirituality.

Meditation isn't about being spiritual 😲 🤣

If anything, it’s frequently used as one of the primary tools people weaponize to fake their way through "spirituality."

First, you were talking about antiparticles, so let's leave that aside. Your belief that "primitive consciousness" exists everywhere is completely at odds with reality. Consciousness requires complexity—it requires a complex system. It is somewhat absurd to link atheism with spirituality; just say plainly, "I am an atheist and I don't believe in anything spiritual," and leave it at that. Where would a spiritual component come from? If it permeates matter, what is it? That sounds like the pantheistic God of mysticism—an absolute spirit pervading nature. Therefore, I believe it is impossible to be both an atheist and spiritual.

darkraven said:Look, I’ve been sitting here thinking about this, and honestly? There is absolutely no concrete definition for "spirituality" or what it actually means to be a "spiritual person." It’s one of those terms people throw around like they’re tossing salt over their shoulder, hoping it makes them sound deep or enlightened, but there's zero ground to stand on. It’s all just vibes and subjective nonsense. One person thinks being spiritual means meditating in a park in Seattle, while someone else thinks it’s about some cosmic connection to the universe, and then you’ve got people who think it’s tied strictly to religious institutions. It’s a moving target. You can’t pin it down because everyone is just making up their own rules as they go. It’s frustrating how much weight people put on such an ill-defined concept.

How would I even begin to break down secular spirituality and why so many atheists end up practicing it? Take someone like Sam Harris, for example. The guy is a textbook atheist—he doesn't buy into any supernatural nonsense or divine intervention—yet he’s right at the center of this whole movement. It’s funny, actually. I remember sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle a few years back, watching this guy next to me go through this intense, silent meditation routine. He looked totally checked out from the world, but then he’d blink and look more focused than anyone I've ever met. It hit me then: just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you don't have a deep, driving need for purpose or some kind of internal connection to the universe. People think being an atheist means you're just a walking calculator, moving through life purely based on logic and cold hard facts. But humans aren't built that way. We're messy. We're emotional. Even if you reject the idea of a deity or anything "out there" that exists beyond physics, you still crave that sense of awe, that feeling of being part of something bigger than yourself. For people like Sam Harris, it’s about finding that transcendence through the mind itself—through things like mindfulness or deep neurological awareness. It’s not about praying to a ghost in the sky; it’s about exploring the sheer, overwhelming reality of consciousness. You can be a staunch materialist and still find something "spiritual" in the way a sunset hits the Rockies or the way your own brain processes existence. It’s about finding meaning in the mechanics of being alive without needing to invent a fairy tale to justify it. It's weird, it's complicated, and honestly, it makes perfect sense once you stop looking for magic and start looking at the miracle of the biology we're stuck with.

But then you look at him and he’s out there doing all this meditation and mindfulness stuff every single day. Honestly, his whole take on consciousness and the "self" seems like it’s been heavily influenced by Buddhist or Hindu philosophy. It's kind of wild how that works.

Look, I’ve said this a thousand times before, but people just don't get it. Atheism doesn't believe in anything immaterial because, at the end of the day, that stuff is just supernatural nonsense. It’s all just fluff. There’s no substance there, no physical reality to back it up. You can't touch it, you can't measure it, and frankly, why would anyone bother? It's all just extra noise in an already loud world.

Total nonsense. Honestly, I’m living proof of how stupid this whole idea is. Anything that isn't built from actual matter—you know, those particles we call fermions that follow Fermi-Dirac statistics—is non-material by definition. But anyone who actually gives a damn about physics knows for a long time now that there is way more to the universe than just that.

Spiritual stuff? Please. Honestly, if we’re talking about anything actually supernatural, I just don't see how it holds up. It feels like a reach.

Look, I’m telling you, we’re talking about spirituality in terms of the soul—or consciousness, if you want to get technical. And according to the naturalists, that whole thing is just a natural phenomenon. Are you seriously suggesting that because someone holds a naturalist view, they can't, say, sit down and meditate or actually work on cultivating their inner life? Just because they view the "soul" through a scientific lens doesn't mean they aren't doing the work.

Look, let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: atheism isn't just some isolated idea floating around in a vacuum. It’s fundamentally tied to naturalism and materialism. You can't really have one without the other if you're looking at the full picture. Basically, it’s all about denying anything supernatural. If you don't believe in some unseen force pulling the strings from behind the curtain, you're operating in a world where only the physical stuff matters—the atoms, the biology, the hard science. It’s all grounded in what we can actually touch and measure here on Earth.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: atheism is the outright denial of God—any version, any concept, any flavor you can dream up. Period. Full stop. You could believe in ghosts, aliens, or some weird supernatural phenomenon under the bed, and honestly, I wouldn't care. As long as you aren't putting your faith in God, you're still an atheist. It’s a pretty straightforward distinction, and frankly, it’s common knowledge if you actually bother to look into it.

Which specific God are we talking about disbelieving in? People make far too many assumptions regarding what God is. To clarify: spirituality doesn't exist for atheists. Antimatter is a separate physical concept; it isn't "spiritual," so there is no need to bring it up. Spirituality is fundamentally incompatible with naturalism and materialism because spirituality is non-material, whereas naturalism is materialism. I actually respect atheists who are materialists and naturalists and reject spirituality because they aren't being hypocritical; I can understand that mindset since I don't believe in anything spiritual myself. An atheist who believes in the spiritual is simply not thinking clearly. Where would this "spirit" come from? If everything is permeated by spirit, then you are looking at spiritual pantheism or mysticism—an absolute spirit—which is essentially a concept of God. People practice meditation just to relax or similar reasons, but that has nothing to do with true spirituality.

Joseph Bailey41 said:That’s great—so I can have love and spaghetti all at once. And the Spaghetti Monster, too. If I really want to, I could even be my own goddess. So, what exactly is left for me to find in the realm of spirituality as an atheist?

Love is simply a material phenomenon triggered by chemical reactions within the brain. As for spirituality, you find it lacking because an atheist does not subscribe to ghosts or the supernatural, but rather adheres to naturalism.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Alright, look at it this way. Spaghetti is physical matter, but love? Love is intangible. So, if you’re prioritizing love over the pasta, you’re essentially being spiritual. Even if you don't believe in anything beyond the physical world. 😬

I have to disagree; love isn't intangible when you consider that endorphins are very much a physical, material reality.

Joseph Bailey41 said:How do you actually define "spiritual"? Personally, I get along just fine without any gods, but I don't consider myself a materialist either—nor am I a hypocrite. Either we’re talking about two completely different things here, or you're just talking nonsense.

In my view, being spiritual means prioritizing the non-material over the material. Atheism, by its nature, rejects the non-material because it views such things as supernatural. Spirituality implies something beyond the physical realm, whereas atheism is fundamentally linked to naturalism and materialism, which deny the existence of the supernatural. It seems your struggle lies in viewing God as a being similar to ourselves; however, there are many ways to understand this, and atheism specifically denies the supernatural.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Religion is built on faith, whereas spirituality is about direct experience. Because of that, I actually think it’s much easier to be a spiritual atheist than a spiritual believer.

Nonsense. An atheist cannot believe in anything spiritual; to suggest otherwise is pure hypocrisy. That would simply be spiritual pantheism or mysticism, not atheism. If you believe you possess a spiritual component, then that essence must have originated from some boundless, absolute spirit without a cause. Even if spirituality permeates life through manifestation, we are looking at the presence of a pantheistic God. Spirituality cannot arise through purely naturalistic means, and atheism is inextricably linked to naturalism. As I have previously stated, the logical conclusion of atheism is pessimism—a depression born from the inherent meaninglessness of existence.

Michael Castillo said:You misunderstood it.

Hmm. In that case, I am at a loss as to who exactly would be those individuals standing against life as a phenomenon and existence itself—if we are to call them anything at all.

Michael Castillo said:Presumably humanity—not life as a whole.

From what I understand about life, it isn't just limited to humanity; it encompasses all living creatures in nature. To me, such a stance seems entirely nonsensical. As for those anti-human nihilists who harbor nothing but hatred for mankind, I would quite gladly assist in their disappearance.🙂.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:I assume they’re referring to this specific subset of atheists:
The most radical ones are considered antitheists—people who actually believe religion is one of the most destructive forces in society. According to some researchers, though, this represents the smallest group of atheists, even if they do happen to hold the highest levels of anger toward religion and certain types of dogmatism.

Source: http://science.com/article/not-all...#ixzz3i4f4hi89

The term they used is actually apatheists. They have applied the wrong label here.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:That really depends on how you define rationality... for instance, if the drive to propagate the species is considered an irrational impulse—something buried in our subconscious or a primal instinct to persist—then it stands to reason that a viewpoint opposing that drive would be perfectly rational.

Essentially, you are arguing that we ought to cease procreating so that life itself eventually vanishes from the face of the earth😁.

Which group are you referring to?

darkcanyon10 said:Hmm. Not sure if someone's "philosophy" actually dictates whether they have kids or not.
Feels more like people just tailor their philosophy to fit what they already want to do.
If you truly see life as some cruel, meaningless slog, then yeah, not wanting to bring more people into the mess makes sense. It's rational. 😁
Gives you something to chew on, I guess. Heh. 😁
But... still going with the "have kids" route for me.

It is true that some people eschew parenthood due to a philosophical belief that existence itself is just a mess.

Regarding those who oppose procreation, I am curious to hear your thoughts. What is your perspective on them, and are there any such individuals within this group? Some advocate for this philosophical stance by viewing life as inherently harsh and devoid of value, often citing the fact that Earth's resources are finite. Do you believe antinatalism is a rational viewpoint, or do you consider it to be unnatural and irrational?

coastalwalker said:That's nothing more than eclectic amateurism.

I disagree; this isn't about eclecticism or amateurism at all. It isn't an intentional pursuit of any specific style. Rather, it feels more like pure mockery. There is no connection to any underlying theory or a genuine search for truth here—it is simply everything thrown together at once, just for the sake of it.

ironfox9 said:Well, you all certainly have a lot to say... yet somehow you can't seem to grasp a simple Paradox...

A Paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true (or wrong at the same time)

-Behind it lies a collection of specific definitions.

Not belonging to a set of certain positions makes it a member of a set that lacks defined positions which ultimately makes it a set that does have defined positions (specifically, the lack of a defined characteristic), which finally makes it—ism.

So, we have pure Russell's Paradox, which goes like this:

If I examine the set of all sets (-isms) that do not contain themselves as an element (are not -isms). The question is: does that set contain itself as an element? (meaning, is it then an -ism?)

That is just Russell's nonsense. It creates a set without defined positions, while simultaneously being a set with defined positions, wouldn't you agree? In the scenario I described above, we aren't actually discussing a mathematical set or an element, but rather the constant shifting of stances. That volatility is precisely what ensures it belongs nowhere and everywhere at once. If it isn't an "-ism," then what is it? To put it simply: what I have outlined is a state of non-belonging and total belonging—an intentional shifting of perspectives that prevents one from ever truly belonging to a single, unique "-ism.