You’re close minded

[BlakeEM]

I get this all the time when I try to explain why I don’t believe in the supernatural for example? How do other deal with this?

I tend to go into something like asking if they believe in unicorns or big foot and use that to compare but never seems to work and they don’t get the point.

I say I’m a naturalist, everything works by laws of nature and if supernatural does exist then it wouldn’t be supernatural at all because it would work within some sort of laws and because if it exists those laws would be natural right? No one gets this. Things thought supernatural in the past like shooting starts are no longer thought of that way and turn out to be explained by natural laws.

I have a hard time debating with these people. :huh:

I tell them when I have good proof for something I will change what I believe (or think), so how is this being close minded? Is this just something they use to make you sound bad/wrong? hah

[Mageth]

I tell them that I've considered the possibilities, have considered them long and hard, and still consider them. I've examined the evidence, continue to examine the evidence, and am willing to consider any evidence they wish to present.

Further, I was a theist until I was 45. And, umm, it was my open-mindedness, my willingness to examine all of the evidence with an open mind to the possibilities (e.g., of the non-existence of God) that actually led me to atheism. ;)

[Plognark]

Just show this to them:

http://plognark.com///Sketches/Ibelieve.jpg

hehe :D

And here's another shameless plug: I'll be putting that on a cafepress T-shirt soon; tonight hopefully.

[Nostalgic Pushhead]

I dislike that phrase ("Don't be so open-minded your brain falls out") because its also used by conservatives, in regard to liberals and their 'open-minded' opinions.
Excessive open-mindedness (postmodernism, for instance) is very annoying, but I think its less dangerous than excessive closed-mindedness.

Great drawing though :-)

[jonesg]

I get this all the time when I try to explain why I don’t believe in the supernatural for example? How do other deal with this?

I tend to go into something like asking if they believe in unicorns or big foot and use that to compare but never seems to work and they don’t get the point.

I say I’m a naturalist, everything works by laws of nature and if supernatural does exist then it wouldn’t be supernatural at all because it would work within some sort of laws and because if it exists those laws would be natural right? No one gets this. Things thought supernatural in the past like shooting starts are no longer thought of that way and turn out to be explained by natural laws.

I have a hard time debating with these people. :huh:

I tell them when I have good proof for something I will change what I believe (or think), so how is this being close minded? Is this just something they use to make you sound bad/wrong? hah

Well there are spiritual laws , as observable as physics but paradoxical by comparison. You'd get your own proof by practising spiritual principles, you may already so anyway but not connecting the results with the principles involved.

[Mageth]

Apparently, to some, being "open-minded" means believing in things even though there is in actuality little or no evidence to support belief in them, or what evidence there is is, upon careful examination, questionable at best. They tend to think you should "give incredible things the benefit of the doubt", in other words.

[BlakeEM]

I always thought that being too open minded wasn't a good thing, at least to the point of taking every idea and person seriously. I think being open minded without being skeptical or critical is the issue. They will believe anything.

People that I talked to that say they are open minded about things say that being closed minded means not believing in the supernatural so no matter what you say because you don’t believe in ghosts or whatever and because you won’t say that there is chance they do exist makes you close minded.

This is when I use the unicorn thing for example and everyone says no they don’t exist (and they NEVER realize the irony and hypocrisy of this). I don’t see how this is any different. If anything I think unicorns have a much better chance than ghosts to be real for example because there might be some unicorn fossils we haven’t found yet =P

I guess the problem is when I say something doesn’t exist I mean that I have found no proof for it. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe, if that makes sense. I think this is where they are confused when I debate.

I try to explain things in a way that I say I just haven’t found proof of it (yet?) so I don't believe it is real but then they say I’m close minded to the poof, it’s all around us! Haha

You just can't win :Cheeky:

[EricK]

Tell them you have examined all the evidence and arguments you can find both for and against *whatever* and come to the conclusion that it is not true.

Then ask them which parts of the evidence or arguments against *whatever*, they found weak and why.

Then, when they hum and har and have to admit that they haven't ever looked at the evidence or arguments against *whatever*, look at at them sadly, shake your head slowly, and say "It's a pity you can't be more open-minded".

Eric

[PinkPanther_04]

My brother has accused me of being close-minded for the same reason. He's a Deist (or a Pantheist, I think it changes), but he believes in all sorts of paranormal garbage. When I'm skeptical about something and talk about empirical verification he says things like "so you think we should just stop investigating?" Umm, yeah. I'm going through an insane amount of education to be a biologist because I think no one should bother exploring the unknown. You got it. :banghead:

Some people don't get skepticism, or for some reason think it's a bad thing. Explain your viewpoint as best you can, but if they don't get it then try not to let it bother you, I guess. There's probably not too much you can do if someone is willfully ignorant.

[doubtingt]

I teach research methods as a critical thinking course and usually address this issue of the relation between skepticism and "close-mindedness"
What I usually say is:

Belief in something always means disbelief in its opposite and giving deference to one possibility over all its alternatives.
Thus, to believe in something without any good reason is to disbelieve in something else without good reason and to fail to fully consider the plausibility of all the alternatives. What could be more close-minded than that?

On matters of the supernatural, there is virtually always several natural explanations for the event for which the supernatural is invoked. These natural explanations are not merely possible alternatives, but highly probable accounts whose presumptions have been previously and independently verified by quality evidence. Thus, the person who accepts a supernatural account is neccessarily blindly closing their mind to many alternatives that are not simply equally possible, but far more probable due to the other evidence that supports them.
For example, to believe that ghosts are real due to people's claims of having seen them is to reject the possibilities of illusion, hallucination, wishful thinking or expectancy effects on perception, faulty reconstructive memory, lying, etc,. All of these alternative accounts presume things that have been quite definitively shown to exist and occur frequently. To believe in ghosts based on anecdotal accounts is to close ones mind to all these possiblities, rejecting them as accounts of the particular events in question without sufficient reason to do so.

Skepticism simply means that you fairly evaluate all the possible accounts and only give deference to one over others when their is good reason to do so.

[David B]

Well there are spiritual laws , as observable as physics but paradoxical by comparison. You'd get your own proof by practising spiritual principles, you may already so anyway but not connecting the results with the principles involved.

Please give examples of spiritual laws. And, for that matter, spiritual principles.

David B (is somewhat sceptical)

[Prester John]

"At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly
contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how
bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical
scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are
winnowed from deep nonsense.-Carl Sagan
This says it for me.

"If God made us in His image we have certainly returned the compliment." -Voltaire
nothing to do with the OP but i found it whilst looking for the CS quote and i liked it. :)

[BlakeEM]

Ok after them calling me ignorant I just stopped talking to them... geeze :rolleyes:

~Blake

[Will I Am]

No, Blake.

For one thing, don't be so obviously sure of yourself. Like they are.

[Hawkeye]

I try to avoid calling people close-minded and don't take much notice if someone calls me that. More often than not, when someone says "You're close-minded" they really mean "You're closeminded because you don't believe as I do." I suppose it's sometimes difficult to accept that others can reach a differrent conclusion than ourselves using the same evidence.

It's more constructive to ask someone exactly why they believe as they do. What made them reach those beliefs? Did they seriously consider other explanations or are their beliefs just wishful thinking?

[Corona688]

Well there are spiritual laws , as observable as physics but paradoxical by comparison. You'd get your own proof by practising spiritual principles, you may already so anyway but not connecting the results with the principles involved. And if we practiced spiritual things before and came to the conclusion they were a load of unsubstantiated horseshit?

[Plognark]

I try to avoid calling people close-minded and don't take much notice if someone calls me that. More often than not, when someone says "You're close-minded" they really mean "You're closeminded because you don't believe as I do." I suppose it's sometimes difficult to accept that others can reach a differrent conclusion than ourselves using the same evidence.

It's more constructive to ask someone exactly why they believe as they do. What made them reach those beliefs? Did they seriously consider other explanations or are their beliefs just wishful thinking?

Yeah, that's usually what I do.

Very often, when you offer to test someone they get really gun shy really fast. Even with a neutral approach like "Well, I'm not sure I really buy it, but you could convince me with a proper test."

That's usually when I get the word "Skeptic" spat at me like an epithet.

[Nialler]

I always point them to some of the greatest counter-intuitive achievments of science, and ask how a closed-minded person could have come with such a conclusion.

My favourite is to take them from Einstein's thought experiment about the speed of light being teh same for all observers through to time-dilation.

There are other examples as compelling as this.

[jonesg]

And if we practiced spiritual things before and came to the conclusion they were a load of unsubstantiated horseshit?

Then you end up as you are.

[jonesg]

I always point them to some of the greatest counter-intuitive achievments of science, and ask how a closed-minded person could have come with such a conclusion.

My favourite is to take them from Einstein's thought experiment about the speed of light being teh same for all observers through to time-dilation.

There are other examples as compelling as this.


Heres a compelling one for ya !,

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

[Plognark]

Heres a compelling one for ya !,

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

I like it :)

Of course, I'd wager we both pull different meanings from it, but it's still a good quote.

[jonesg]

Please give examples of spiritual laws. And, for that matter, spiritual principles.

David B (is somewhat sceptical)


Spritual principles, not limited to just these but this covers it ok.
Forgiveness
Kindness.
Love.
Tolerance.
Compassion.
Responsibily.
Acceptance.

Spiritual laws depend on a persons belief or fellowship with others.
If I had to put it into a universal denominator?

When mankind prays , God listens.
If man listens God will speak.
If man obeys God will act.

[Astinus]

I don't consider "closed-minded" or "open-minded" to be inherently good or bad terms, though the former definitely has a bad connotation, and the latter a good one. However, I do consider irrationalism to be inherently bad, which naturally encompasses both "bad" close-mindedness, and "bad"(i.e., excessive) open-mindedness.

I don't like either of those terms, though.

[Plognark]

Spritual principles, not limited to just these but this covers it ok.
Forgiveness
Kindness.
Love.
Tolerance.
Compassion.
Responsibily.
Acceptance.

I don't see how those are supposed to be spiritual. Just social. :huh:


Spiritual laws depend on a persons belief or fellowship with others.
If I had to put it into a universal denominator?

When mankind prays , God listens.
If man listens God will speak.
If man obeys God will act.

I don't see it that way, but I'm content to agree to disagree here.

[jonesg]

I like it :)

Of course, I'd wager we both pull different meanings from it, but it's still a good quote.


It is what it is, it requires no special interpretation as laid out that even a child can comprehend its meaning.

I also see he was from a time before when science was abused by so called scientists who think the purpose of science is to disprove God.

Einstein fully understood spirituality, although he didn't like religion.
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while. "
His quote is pure spirituality .

[Berthold]

Isn't this somehow related to the claims of poets that a rational worldview "kills the beauty"?

[jonesg]

I don't see how those are supposed to be spiritual. Just social. :huh:



I don't see it that way, but I'm content to agree to disagree here.

You fail to see society is founded upon spiritual principles, thats all.

[Plognark]

It is what it is, it requires no special interpretation as laid out that even a child can comprehend its meaning.

I also see he was from a time before when science was abused by so called scientists who think the purpose of science is to disprove God.

Einstein fully understood spirituality, although he didn't like religion.
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while. "
His quote is pure spirituality .

Maybe we are pulling, roughly, the same meaning from it after all :)

Seems to me that Einstein was commenting on how scientific research and progress without any consideration of the human condition or moral issues can lead to calamity.
And the remark about religion was probably a statement about dogmatism and blind adherence that contradics what we ourselves know about the real world, and how it can stifle progress and liberty.

That's my take, anyhow.

Perhaps I'm just jaded by having the spirituality term used as an insult around here; such as "You atheists are spiritually dead and wretched" and other remarks along those lines.

[Plognark]

You fail to see society is founded upon spiritual principles, thats all.

A semantic difference is all, I think.

[Plognark]

Isn't this somehow related to the claims of poets that a rational worldview "kills the beauty"?

I think it might, although I disagree with that take on things. I've never understood why some people think rationality has to kill beauty.

[rexrex4]

Heres a compelling one for ya !,

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 I had a Christian Zionist quote that on his radio show. Only he was "wise". He changed the quote to say:
Science without religion is blind, religion without science is lame.
This was about 6 years ago.

[rexrex4]

Tell them you have examined all the evidence and arguments you can find both for and against *whatever* and come to the conclusion that it is not true.

Then ask them which parts of the evidence or arguments against *whatever*, they found weak and why.

Then, when they hum and har and have to admit that they haven't ever looked at the evidence or arguments against *whatever*, look at at them sadly, shake your head slowly, and say "It's a pity you can't be more open-minded".

Eric YOU have examined all the arguments? (of course saying all the arguments you can find is ALWAYS true in every case if you have looked at all) How do we know this? Because YOU say so?
Even if they do hum and har, exactly what does that prove. Nothing. In example, scientists have been crushed in debates with creationists simply because the creationist could invent an argument the scientist had never heard of, and thus the scientist could hum and har. Proving nothing!
I find a cold blooded description of a "tactic" far from a truth seeking posture!

[David B]

Spritual principles, not limited to just these but this covers it ok.
Forgiveness
Kindness.
Love.
Tolerance.
Compassion.
Responsibily.
Acceptance.

As far as I can see, these are human qualities. I'm prepared to make a value judgement, and say that these are among the better human qualities, but could you kindly explain where spirit comes in?

Spiritual laws depend on a persons belief or fellowship with others.

Then how are they laws? Gravity doesn't depend on belief or fellowship, nor the laws of motion or thermodynamics.

Also perhaps you should think further about the implications of your above assertion, and consider if it doesn't imply that practices like human sacrifice or Suti can be considered spiritual laws in the context and societies in which they were practised.

If I had to put it into a universal denominator?

When mankind prays , God listens.
If man listens God will speak.
If man obeys God will act.

Well you're the one making the claim, and the default position is that there is no such god. I wonder if you would be kind enough to give me convincing, or even plausible, reasons to think that such a god exists. I've yet to see any.

David B (awaits your response with some interest)

[Endo]

I'm glad you like Einstein, jonesg. Here's another great Einstein quote,

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

And another,

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.

[EricK]

YOU have examined all the arguments? (of course saying all the arguments you can find is ALWAYS true in every case if you have looked at all) How do we know this? Because YOU say so?
Even if they do hum and har, exactly what does that prove. Nothing. In example, scientists have been crushed in debates with creationists simply because the creationist could invent an argument the scientist had never heard of, and thus the scientist could hum and har. Proving nothing!
I find a cold blooded description of a "tactic" far from a truth seeking posture!
Because in that instance I am not trying to win the argument about whether they are right or wrong, I am trying to get them to see what being open-minded or closed-minded really means.

If I can get them to understand that then we can actually have a proper discussion about the original idea.

Eric

[Matty]

Einstein fully understood spirituality, although he didn't like religion. "Only a life lived for others is a life worth while." His quote is pure spirituality .My personal take on it would be that as the vast vast majority of science is open published and adds to the collective knowledge of the human race, not to mention having dragged civilisation out of the spirituality/religion mediated dark ages, all science therefore fits that bill. It doesnt have to be directly related to stereotypical "spirituality" at all , by definition all scientists are effectively living their life for others (or at least to the overall furtherment of the human race) to some degree

I have yet to be presented with any explanation of the whole morality/spirituality issue (which your list seems to allude to, good human qualites being somehow more "spiritual" than bad ones), that doesnt boil down to "because [insert chosen belief system] says so". It continually cracks me up how "open minded" and "spiritual" people are often simply ones which in another, less complimentary definition, could easily be described as "gullible" , "unquestioning" or "highly receptive to arguments from authority".
Isn't this somehow related to the claims of poets that a rational worldview "kills the beauty"?As a biologist i have had this spirituality/science discussion many times with an old friend who is a natural/holistic therapist of many guises. Whilst i fully credit her intent and agree that some of such therapies (mainly the various guises of massage, yoga, and meditation) do indeed have proven beneficial physiological effects, the extrapolation of this admission to other "spiritually tuned therapies" under the same new age umbrella simply do not work. This is one of the single biggest fuck ups of such "spiritually receptive" mindsets IMO. Just because one small part of a multi million pound industry might have benefits doesnt mean the rest isnt profit inspired bullshit or potentially harmful misinformation.

I can go so far as to accept that such therapists are very skilled massagers of the mind over matter/placebo effect, but that doesnt mean that the "vibrational energy of crystals"(for one example) has any actual physical effect (nor is indeed there at all), or that a nice foot massage is actually facilitating increase flow of "energy" though various organs of the body. Yeah you might feel [subjectively] "better" afterwards but chances are you feel good after intensive relaxation exercises and a massage anyway, irrespective of the new age spin put on such things.

Of course when i point out that the fact that this intensive "energy flow" at the root of many of such therapies, is undetectable by all modern instruments, (yet not by therapists, dowsers and kirlian photographers of course) despite energy measurments being able to be carried out at the atomic level, then i am closed minded.

Throw in a bit of the physics involved in the concentration of such energy through the "chakras" etc, not to mention the fact that the energy wavelength or colour actually changes in tune with your mood and the defensiveness starts. Of course it would be churlish to mention that as the strength/health of it is supposedly proportional to the degree you belive in it (damn, sorry tinkerbell) it must have some sort of inbuilt and intuitive mood/belief/expresson feedback loop.

Further point out that such an inbuilt diagnostic and repair mechanism would be the single biggest boon to the medical establishment ever, so why has it not been detected, explained and used except by the odd hippy therapist? and you usually get a half assed conspiracy theory involving more "closed minded" people like doctors, scientists and drug companies, all determined to keep such knowledge secret for some undefined reason.

If i were to further point out that maybe, just maybe, such ideas may have stemmed from a primitive attempt to metaphorically visualise the biochemical networks in the body, then of course i am belittling their beliefs.

The fact that i am in awe of nature on a daily basis, have chosen to further my wonderment at biology as a lifelong career option and have unwavering respect for, and love of science as a whole,( despite knowing a fair bit more of it than i used to,) this doesnt qualify as spiritual? Apparently not.

The single biggest disqualifier of being spiritual is seemingly wanting to know how something works or to understand it in greater detail. Only if you are willing to believe whatever is fed to you without question can you aspire to true spirituality, or at least that is how it appears to some of us who are continually told we are closed minded.

[jonesg]

A semantic difference is all, I think.


I try to be as definate as possible, words being powerfull things.
Its easy to pass things off as mere semantics , it depends whats at stake though.

If I give you directions to the hospital and say "turn right at the lights" and you turn left.....

[jonesg]

i have had this spirituality/science discussion many times with an old friend who is a natural/holistic therapist of many guises. .

That is spiritual-ISM.
Anything which centers on self empowerment is based on self power.

Spirituality is God powered and is never supposed to emphasize self, rather the emphasis is toward service toward others and NEVER for money. As soon as there is an exchange of money for service its unspiritual.

You are correct that spiritualism is often harmfull, when someone is in vital need of help especially. The charletans are everywhere.

[jonesg]

My personal take on it would be that as the vast vast majority of science is open published and adds to the collective knowledge of the human race, not to mention having dragged civilisation out of the spirituality/religion mediated dark ages, all science therefore fits that bill. It doesnt have to be directly related to stereotypical "spirituality" at all , by definition all scientists are effectively living their life for others (or at least to the overall furtherment of the human race) to some degree

The single biggest disqualifier of being spiritual is seemingly wanting to know how something works or to understand it in greater detail. Only if you are willing to believe whatever is fed to you without question can you aspire to true spirituality, or at least that is how it appears to some of us who are continually told we are closed minded

I have yet to be presented with any explanation of the whole morality/spirituality issue (which your list seems to allude to, good human qualites being somehow more "spiritual" than bad ones), that doesnt boil down to "because [insert chosen belief system] says so". .

Scientists get paid for their work, it cannot be a spiritual endeavor if there is an exchange of money, it IS similar but it isn't the same.

The scientist is usually making a living being a scientist.

Spiritual growth requires 2 things,
pain and faith or at least a willingness to believe.
Thats the lay of the land and I have found it to be very true even though it doesn't seem to make sense. Spirituality is paradoxical.
The pain involved is always self inflicted by our own actions, compulsive gamblers, addicts, drunks etc. The form of spirituality which removes their obsession brings a person into direct contact with God.
The transformation is from a person who was more of a human rat to one who talks, acts and thinks along spiritual lines, they become tolerant and lvoing, they were hurtfull, sarcastic and plain mean previously.

Science cannot explain that. It doesn't even look there.
But Einstein did.

For me it boils down to this, it just works out better in my life, the pain is gone and I have no fear of moving forward in life.

As for science dragging the world from ignorance,

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." ,
Albert Einstein.

The problem for many is they don't read with the same level of comprehension and tolerance Einstein did.

[jonesg]

I'm glad you like Einstein, jonesg. Here's another great Einstein quote,



And another,

I agree, he's talking about religions which are more about control and power than God.

The difference with spirituality is no middleman is required and that doesn't set too well with most religions, they want to portion God out.
The threat of hell is not a loving God, thats mankinds own confusion.

There is a hell, I've been there.
Its a potential state of being in anyones life, as is heaven.

[jonesg]

As far as I can see, these are human qualities. I'm prepared to make a value judgement, and say that these are among the better human qualities, but could you kindly explain where spirit comes in?



Then how are they laws? Gravity doesn't depend on belief or fellowship, nor the laws of motion or thermodynamics.

Also perhaps you should think further about the implications of your above assertion, and .



Well you're the one making the claim, and the default position is that there is no such god. I wonder if you would be kind enough to give me convincing, or even plausible, reasons to think that such a god exists. I've yet to see any.

David B (awaits your response with some interest)

Spiritual laws are such because they produce predictable results, isn't that what laws are ?

"consider if it doesn't imply that practices like human sacrifice or Suti can be considered spiritual laws in the context and societies in which they were practised"

You are veering into the absurd now, keep some balance here.

"I wonder if you would be kind enough to give me convincing, or even plausible, reasons to think that such a god exists. I've yet to see any."

Maybe thats because you don't practice the principles.
Having never attempted the experiment, how can you make any claim for or against.? That seems petulant.

If you don't pray, God cannot listen to what you don't say.
If you don't listen , you will not hear.
If you don't obey, you ain't listening anyways, you'll just keep getting the same nothing.

Sitting there and expecting someone to throw lightening bolts around for you to be convinced isn't gonna cut it, YOU have to do something yourself, I can't have a spiritual experience for you.

[jonesg]

I had a Christian Zionist quote that on his radio show. Only he was "wise". He changed the quote to say:
Science without religion is blind, religion without science is lame.
This was about 6 years ago.


Science and religion are both for nerds anyway. :p

[Starseyer]

Scientists get paid for their work, it cannot be a spiritual endeavor if there is an exchange of money, it IS similar but it isn't the same.

What about scientists who are not working as professionals? Such as amature astronomers who do the science for reasons that have nothing at all to do with making money?

And what about pastors, who are usually paid?

I don't think the potential of making money from something has anything to do with whether it qualifies as "spiritual" or not.

Spiritual growth requires 2 things,
pain and faith or at least a willingness to believe.


A willingness to believe what? Doesn't being kind and loving to those around you, and showing those qualities you mentioned as "spiritual" earlier in the thread enough? What has this got to do with believing things?

[Dark Jedi]

Just show this to them:

hehe :D

And here's another shameless plug: I'll be putting that on a cafepress T-shirt soon; tonight hopefully.

What's your cafepress shop again?

[BioBeing]

A willingness to believe what?
Which brings us back to the OP! What should we believe, and why? How is what you (jonesg) are saying any different to "If you have a willingness to believe that crystals cure, they will".

[kaelcarp]

Close-mindedness is an unwillingness to consider things. That's different from considering things and finding them lacking. However, I have met people who don't consider things as fully as they should, or make assumptions that just because something was one way sometimes, it will always be that way. Sometimes new evidence comes to light and changes things. But it's okay to stop considering something once you feel there's sufficient evidence to do so.

[David B]

Spiritual laws are such because they produce predictable results, isn't that what laws are ?

See below for another point, which I prefer to address there rather than here. But what sort of predictable result are you claiming? For instance, it is not extraordinary to suppose that someone who is generally walking around with a smile on his face will be perceived in a more positive way than someone who is always scowling - but I don't think that is spiritual in the way you use the word. Comment?

"consider if it doesn't imply that practices like human sacrifice or Suti can be considered spiritual laws in the context and societies in which they were practised"

You are veering into the absurd now, keep some balance here.

I said that in the specific context of Spiritual laws depend on a persons belief or fellowship with others.

There have been societies in which human sacrifice and suti were practised, in the context of belief systems and fellowship with others. My query stands. I also wonder how you think something variable enough to depend on a person's belief or fellowship can produce predictable results.

"I wonder if you would be kind enough to give me convincing, or even plausible, reasons to think that such a god exists. I've yet to see any."

Maybe thats because you don't practice the principles.
Having never attempted the experiment, how can you make any claim for or against.? That seems petulant.

And your comment above seems both presumptuous and contemptuous of any concept of truth. Have you asked me if I have made the experiment? No - you blithely assert that I have not, with no support for your assertion. I have to say that this is not untypical.

In fact I devoted years of my life to spiritual searching, including living a monastic life for the best part of three years. I await your abject apology. And also a convincing or even plausible reason to think god exists - something I notice you dodge.

If you don't pray, God cannot listen to what you don't say.

You don't believe in an omniscient god then. I no longer believe in a god at all. Have you got a plausible reason for thinking one exists, and, I ask again, if so then what is it?

If you don't listen , you will not hear.

I suggest that if you listen too hard, you might start hearing things that ain't there. I've done my share of listening.

If you don't obey, you ain't listening anyways, you'll just keep getting the same nothing.

What evidence can you offer me to make me think that there is anything to obey?

Sitting there and expecting someone to throw lightening bolts around for you to be convinced isn't gonna cut it, YOU have to do something yourself, I can't have a spiritual experience for you.

I've had my share of spiritual experiences already. Quite deep ones. Deep enough to lead me to years of monastic life. I am now convinced that they are just experiences, which do not have anything to do with anything out there. I am glad that they no longer lead me to believe in something for which I see no evidence to think other than imaginary. However, I'm ready to listen. Do you have any such evidence, and if so, then what is it?

David B

[anthrosciguy]

Scientists get paid for their work, it cannot be a spiritual endeavor if there is an exchange of money, it IS similar but it isn't the same.

The scientist is usually making a living being a scientist.


Besides the fact, as others have pointed out, that not all people doing scitntific work get paid for it, your claim there would mean that spriritual growth is not possibloe for paid clergy (most clergy) or for that matter for most churchgoers, who go to services at which the exchange of money in the form of offerings is an important part of the sevices.

[skepticalbip]

.........................
Spirituality is God powered and is never supposed to emphasize self, rather the emphasis is toward service toward others and NEVER for money. As soon as there is an exchange of money for service its unspiritual. ...................Rather odd reasoning this is... Does this mean that gurus who make a living teaching others are not "spiritual"? What of religious leaders and thinkers that rely on religion for a living? What of writers of books on spiritualism? Seems that the only "spiritual" people left are those who isolate themselves from the rest of humanity to contemplate their navels in solitude.

[Schneibster]

Scientists get paid for their work, it cannot be a spiritual endeavor if there is an exchange of money, it IS similar but it isn't the same.So all spiritual people starve to death.

[David B]

So all spiritual people starve to death.

What a good idea :D

David B

[Endo]

I agree, he's talking about religions which are more about control and power than God.

The difference with spirituality is no middleman is required and that doesn't set too well with most religions, they want to portion God out.
The threat of hell is not a loving God, thats mankinds own confusion.

There is a hell, I've been there.
Its a potential state of being in anyones life, as is heaven.

Um... those quotes illustrate Einstein's belief that there is no such thing as a personal god who interacts with his creation. Einstein didn't believe in prayer, the afterlife or your versions of spiritulality and god. Please don't twist the words of a great man.

[Matty]

Scientists get paid for their work, it cannot be a spiritual endeavor if there is an exchange of money, it IS similar but it isn't the same. The scientist is usually making a living being a scientist.

hmm dodgy ground there i think. If its a case of sacrifice, i'd say a lot of scientists get paid shit in comparison to peers in other fields (to the tune of 4-5 fold) so is it a black and white case of sacrifice or a sliding scale of spirituality? If you made a consious decision to work in a field for the love of furthering knowledge (yours and others), and despite knowing that you could earn 4 times as much in a field less rewardiing in other ways. How is that not a worthy sacrifice?

Taken to its extreme, if only true selflessness is a qualifier to true spirituality then i'd say any god squad (even and especially the most devout) effectively rule themselves out as by definition their actions are not truly selfless but trying to gain them paradise for all eternity or to avoid eternal punishment .

Either option strikes me as a less altruistic POV than taking a low wage and in exchange for doing something you have utter belief in and love for, no?

I have no particular wish to be thought of as spiritual as i believe it as self qualifying and above all arbitrary "quality" however if you want to find someone whos overriding qualities include a deep love for and respect of life itself and an built desire to know the workings of the universe, at least at some level, then look no further than the majority of scientists i have ever met** . Sounds spiritual to me by many a definition.

**Apart from physicists mind, they're all fuckers........... ;)

[Agemegos]

I get this all the time when I try to explain why I don’t believe in the supernatural for example? How do other deal with this?

"The thing about an open door is this: it lets things in, but it also lets things out. If you don't abandon old ideas in the face of lack of evidence, you are just as close-minded as a person who rejects new ideas in defiance of evidence. As for me, I have given up these old ideas you cling to because there is no reason to believe that they are true. I'm open-minded that way. When is the last time you rejected an old idea that didn't work out?"

[Corona688]

Then you end up as you are. Thank you, Captain Obvious. Less obviously, this also invalidates your statement -- I did not get proof of what you believe from it, quite the opposite.

[Schneibster]

Agemegos, good question. And an excellent point.

[jonesg]

hmm dodgy ground there i think. If its a case of sacrifice, i'd say a lot of scientists get paid shit in comparison to peers in other fields (to the tune of 4-5 fold) so is it a black and white case of sacrifice or a sliding scale of spirituality? If you made a consious decision to work in a field for the love of furthering knowledge (yours and others), and despite knowing that you could earn 4 times as much in a field less rewardiing in other ways. How is that not a worthy sacrifice?



Either option strikes me as a less altruistic POV than taking a low wage and in exchange for doing something you have utter belief in and love for, no?

I have no particular wish to be thought of as spiritual as i believe it as self qualifying and above all arbitrary "quality" however if you want to find someone whos overriding qualities include a deep love for and respect of life itself and an built desire to know the workings of the universe, at least at some level, then look no further than the majority of scientists i have ever met** . Sounds spiritual to me by many a definition.

**Apart from physicists mind, they're all fuckers........... ;)

So do teachers and cooks ( get paid peanuts).
The person who teaches can go do something more profitable if money is the motivator.
It might be a sacrifice in many ways and it is worthy but its not spiritual because money is being exchanged.

>>Taken to its extreme, if only true selflessness is a qualifier to true spirituality then i'd say any god squad (even and especially the most devout) effectively rule themselves out as by definition their actions are not truly selfless but trying to gain them paradise for all eternity or to avoid eternal punishment .<<

Unless the person practising spiritual principles is already living in hell and wants out.

[jonesg]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Less obviously, this also invalidates your statement -- I did not get proof of what you believe from it, quite the opposite.


Are you not happy as you are then ?

[ninewands]

Isn't this somehow related to the claims of poets that a rational worldview "kills the beauty"?
Okay, but there are some of us for which only a rational worldview allows us to see the beauty.

You see, supernaturalism and irrationality act as blinders for me. I did not have nearly the appreciation for the grandeur of nature before I cast aside belief in "Goddidit." Having done away with any vestiges of belief in magicles ... errrmmm ... miracals ... you know, those "poof!" events Behe's so fond of ... I am forced to see how things fit together to produce, say, a limestone cliff beside a small stream with fish below and foliage above ... see, e.g., pretty picture (www.gonomad.com/destinations/0504/images/buffalo_river.jpg) ... or a waterfall ... see, e.g., another pretty picture (www.adventurist.net/photos/waterfalls/hemmed-in%20hollow%20falls%201.jpg). There is enough in nature that is miraculous and beautiful without resorting to irrationality and superstition.

In short, I feel that the poets who agree with the feeling expressed in the quote above lead an emotionally and logically impoverished life.

[starling]

http://plognark.com///Sketches/Ibelieve.jpgOh come now, Plognark. (I love that nym!) You know that brain fluid doesn't have any hemoglobin in it. It's colorless grey.