Do you like spiritual people?

[Chandler M Bing]

You know the type. They believe in crystals, they go down to Stonehenge, they chant, they play you nice songs on their guitars, they see your chakras, they speak like Gandalf, etc etc. I love them. They're quirky and cool people. I aspire to be more like them myself.

Do you atheists like and get on with such people despite the obvious differences in your worldviews, or do you generally not tend to click with them? If so or if not, why.

[hackenslash]

Which brings us back to that baggage we were discussing earlier.

As for people, I don't make judgements about people based on what they believe, regardless of how idiotic what they believe might be. That would be what we call 'prejudice', and I am not given to such behaviour, as that's at least as idiotic as the beliefs they hold.

[Sophus]

Actually, yes. I don't know why. But those spiritual people who don't whine and complain about those who haven't "found the truth" or how immoral everyone is who doesn't share their values... there's something really interesting about them. I suppose it's because it's kind of child like. It's anti-intellectualism without the arrogance.

[Chandler M Bing]

Which brings us back to that baggage we were discussing earlier.

As for people, I don't make judgements about people based on what they believe, regardless of how idiotic what they believe might be. That would be what we call 'prejudice', and I am not given to such behaviour, as that's at least as idiotic as the beliefs they hold.

I get that. But sometimes it pays to be diplomatic. For example I consider that the atheistic point of view is totally ludicrous. However, you won't hear me say that too often, because that kind of talk can eventually break down communication and cause undue animosity. I believe in that. I'm very careul to let it be known that I disagree, yet without constantly emphasising the full emotion behind why I disagree. In person, it's different, but when you can't see each other, and you strongly disagree, things can get out of hand fast. And I'm naturally a very sarcastic person, but as a theist on an atheist forum, I know that one "wrong" word and I can be seen as a baddie. Which I'm not. I'd happily buy any one of you a pint. Even you, hack. Well, a half to start you off with, then we'll see how you get on. I'l have you singing kumbayah in no time.

[hackenslash]

Ah, well, there's the difference between us. For me, sarcasm is a very important part of discourse, and scorn and derision equally so, as long as they're only directed at the ideas, and not at the person proposing them.

As for a pint, red wine is my tipple, and you certainly won't get me singing kumbayah. Being a professional singer with a huge voice, I'd drown out your kumbayah with a rousing chorus of Sympathy For The Devil.

[Chandler M Bing]

Ah, well, there's the difference between us. For me, sarcasm is a very important part of discourse, and scorn and derision equally so, as long as they're only directed at the ideas, and not at the person proposing them.

As for a pint, red wine is my tipple, and you certainly won't get me singing kumbayah. Being a professional singer with a huge voice, I'd drown out your kumbayah with a rousing chorus of Sympathy For The Devil.

Bloody infidel. Good night, and god...well you know.

[Inevitable Droid]

You know the type. They believe in crystals, they go down to Stonehenge, they chant, they play you nice songs on their guitars, they see your chakras, they speak like Gandalf, etc etc. I love them. They're quirky and cool people. I aspire to be more like them myself.

You're describing New Agers.  Would they be whom you normally have in mind when you talk about spiritual people?  Or does it only apply to this thread?

I happen to like New Agers, generally.  Most of them make it pretty hard to dislike them, since they're all about friendliness, happiness, and helpfulness.

The problem with their world view, of course, is their extreme gullibility.  Most of them have no serious criteria by which to reject propositions.  This doesn't cause them any problems so long as no one in their lives is malevolent and cunning, but if someone is, New Agers are very vulnerable to manipulation, especially since they have a tendency to not want to look at such things as malevolence.

Nothing in the preceding paragraph would be any of my business, of course.  It isn't my job to protect New Agers from their own epistemology.  Meanwhile, if they want to give me some cool rock as a gift, I'll take it.  I like cool rocks. :cool:

Seriously.  I and some others take the position that theism is ludicrous.  Some theists try to combat that position by meeting us where we are and trying to play our game better than we do.  This usually fails, not merely because we're good at our game, but because our game leads inexorably to atheism.  You can't play our game and end up anywhere else.  A thread that rejected the game itself could be fresh and interesting.  Presumably you reject the game itself, the one I and some others play, since otherwise I doubt you'd view atheism as ludicrous.  A clear description of your own game and how you play it and why would give us a lot to talk about, maybe.

[Chandler M Bing]

You know the type. They believe in crystals, they go down to Stonehenge, they chant, they play you nice songs on their guitars, they see your chakras, they speak like Gandalf, etc etc. I love them. They're quirky and cool people. I aspire to be more like them myself.

You're describing New Agers.  Would they be whom you normally have in mind when you talk about spiritual people?  Or does it only apply to this thread?

I happen to like New Agers, generally.  Most of them make it pretty hard to dislike them, since they're all about friendliness, happiness, and helpfulness.

The problem with their world view, of course, is their extreme gullibility.  Most of them have no serious criteria by which to reject propositions.  This doesn't cause them any problems so long as no one in their lives is malevolent and cunning, but if someone is, New Agers are very vulnerable to manipulation, especially since they have a tendency to not want to look at such things as malevolence.

Nothing in the preceding paragraph would be any of my business, of course.  It isn't my job to protect New Agers from their own epistemology.  Meanwhile, if they want to give me some cool rock as a gift, I'll take it.  I like cool rocks. :cool:

Seriously.  I and some others take the position that theism is ludicrous.  Some theists try to combat that position by meeting us where we are and trying to play our game better than we do.  This usually fails, not merely because we're good at our game, but because our game leads inexorably to atheism.  You can't play our game and end up anywhere else.  A thread that rejected the game itself could be fresh and interesting.  Presumably you reject the game itself, the one I and some others play, since otherwise I doubt you'd view atheism as ludicrous.  A clear description of your own game and how you play it and why would give us a lot to talk about, maybe.

It's interesting that you describe all this as a game. A game implies winners and losers, which implies competition and conflict, which in itself implies other things. Generally, when I talk with theists it's more about sharing views. Whereas when talking with atheists, it's generally about defeating, ridiculing, and being right.

[Cecilie]

No, they're annoying.
 

[Inevitable Droid]

It's interesting that you describe all this as a game. A game implies winners and losers, which implies competition and conflict, which in itself implies other things. Generally, when I talk with theists it's more about sharing views. Whereas when talking with atheists, it's generally about defeating, ridiculing, and being right.

While ridicule isn't necessary or helpful, and defeating someone is of no value in itself, if the topic is theism and the participants are two, a theist and an atheist, only one can be right.  God can't both exist and not exist.  The same would be true if we were discussing some scientific fact, and you said the fact was X, and I said it was Y.  We can't both be right.

In discussing theism, the primary question is one of epistemology.  What is the basis of knowledge?  There are only five candidates:

1. Logical empiricism
2. Logic alone
3. Faith
4. Intuition
5. Emotion

I have claimed that #1 is the sole source of empirical knowledge; #2 is the sole source of mathematical or formulaically logical knowledge; #3 is believing something because you want to, and thus represents desire invading and usurping control of your epistemology; #4 is a powerful tool for generating hypotheses but those hypotheses must then be tested by #1 if empirical or by #2 if non-empirical; and #5 yields knowledge of oneself and only oneself.

In the above, I am either right or wrong.  If I'm right, then when it comes to questions of empirical causation, #1 is the sole path to knowledge, which means, if such knowledge is the goal, scripture must be set aside.

If you say I'm wrong, I'll ask you why, and then, if you answer, I'll assess your response.  It won't matter if we like each other.  But I certainly agree that ridicule is counter-productive and defeating someone is too trivial a goal to waste time on unless we expect to live forever.

[Whitney]

I would be able to get along fine if they kept it to themselves.  I don't go around pushing my views of god and religion on others and expect the same in return.  So, if they were the type who only knew how to talk about 'spiritual' things then I wouldn't want to hang out with them.  I don't even like to hang out with people who only talk about being frustrated with religious people even if I share their frustrations; it becomes repetitive and I prefer more well rounded friends.

[Chandler M Bing]

I would be able to get along fine if they kept it to themselves.  I don't go around pushing my views of god and religion on others and expect the same in return.  So, if they were the type who only knew how to talk about 'spiritual' things then I wouldn't want to hang out with them.  I don't even like to hang out with people who only talk about being frustrated with religious people even if I share their frustrations; it becomes repetitive and I prefer more well rounded friends.

So you don't believe in sharing views?

[Whitney]

So you don't believe in sharing views?

I'm allowing Christians to share their views on my forum so what do you think?

[Chandler M Bing]

So you don't believe in sharing views?

I'm allowing Christians to share their views on my forum so what do you think?

But didn't you say you prefer them to keep it to themselves?

[Whitney]

But didn't you say you prefer them to keep it to themselves?

There is a difference between keeping beliefs to one's self in a general manner and sometimes discussing them maturely.  I would not want to hang out with anyone who only knows how to talk about the world in terms of their beliefs...like people who always have to talk about how great god is just because some mundane like an extra coke can falling out of the machine when they made a purchase.

I also don't want to hear about their views if there is no attempt at a rational basis behind them..they can go share that fluff with someone else.