It is oxymoronic, to my understanding.  Yet, I never fail to see it displayed all over the site, and is even one of the "groups" advertised.

 

Yes, I'm asking because it fails the sniff test.

Views: 204

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"Spiritualism" is a long grey streak. At our end, you have folks like Sagan and Einstein who were borderline pantheists. At the other you have clowns like Shirley MacClaine and Deepak Chopra who need to be hung up by the ankles and beaten with rubber hoses until they promise to stop being dicks.

Okay, that is the funniest shit I've read since coming here. Point taken.

"Atheism" and "spirituality" should be oxymoronic, however the etymology of atheist has nothing that precludes woo. This is a large reason for the endless and pointless debates about "re-defining" atheism that are second only to abortion as a source of gratuitous and irrelevant flatus. There are plenty of other threads for that elsewhere, no need to devolve into yet another one here. A lot of atheists don't even like the word anyway.

Understood. Hence, why I label myself kitapsiz.
atheist spirituality as the feeling of awe when you contemplate the vastness and complexity of the natural universe

I agree. Most atheist spirituality I see has nothing to do with truth claims. Just wondering about an interesting, unexplainable concept.
LOL, say it like you mean it nate, always, say it like you mean it.

Well done. :)
I blame quantum mechanics myself.
LOL. Dare I ask ... (I think I shouldn't) ... why?
I blame quantum mechanics myself.

Yes really small mechanics are always messing with my stuff as well.
Ooooo Oooooo I promote kitapsiz; fabulous little epithet.
That's a damn fine and interesting point. Just recently had this discussion with a friend at my site; theism has an advantage of trying to prove a positive, atheism is in the less favorable position of proving a negative.

Under that view, it is easy to see, in my opinion, why atheists have a much tougher road to social acceptance.
at the very least I would say "Who gives a damn?"

when the world is primarily atheist then we can nitpick this crap.

For now, you must all at least agree that a "spiritual" atheist is still more sensible than a fucking retarded theist.

there is nothing in my mind more rediculous than the notion of an objective being. How the fuck could there be? everything in the world, spiritual or naturalistic, points to subjective beings. Even the concept of a ghost can not possibly be as stupid as the concept of a deity.

Go debate a theist and leave the nitpicking of atheists alone lol
I dunno, I find these discussions to be very important. I'd rather discuss such things than go brow beat a bible thumper. :D
Johnny: anything that is attempted to be be proven is a theory... Just because most don't use the concept of ghosts as a "theory" doesn't then mean that no one does

Jeez Louise. Where to begin...

Ghosts are not a 'theory'. Just because something doesn't have an explanation doesn't mean you can just go and invent unprovable, unfalsifiable hogwash and label it a 'theory'. This is precisely how cranks and nutjobs operate. You need to do some reading son. You can start of with this vid and then work through the rest of them -

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service