"Scientific" Atheists who denounce Spirituality

This is not an attack on Atheism itself. In fact, many Buddhists are atheists in that they do not believe in God or teach a theological doctrine. Buddha never spoke of God, and in fact said that one should not even bother contemplating such a thing, but should just strive to become more conscious through the practice of non-attachment.

Yet I have a bone to pick with the close minded, fundamentalist atheists out there. By and large Atheists-

A) Do not believe in God
B) Do not believe in the Spiritual Realms
C) Believe Consciousness arises only from material causes
D) Do not believe in any kind of afterlife or real existence of a soul

People are free to believe whatever they want to believe. The point that I want to make is that Atheists often "believe in science" and the scientific method but on the other hand refuse to do anything which might prove to them the existence of any of these things. In their mind, if it cannot be physically seen by the eye and verbally communicated with the mouth, it does not exist.

The issue is that there are well known, well tested, well documented methods for seeking the truth of these things for oneself. These methods are scientific, they have been utilized by people for thousands of years, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have verified, for themselves, the existence of these things through scientific method and exploration of the human consciousness, soul, and the divine realms. They do not all agree on the interpretation of what they experience. In the same way we see in the scientific community that, for example, the knowledge of "String Theory" produces a number of theories as to the nature of the universe, and what that theory means in terms of creation. Yet at the highest levels of all the various systems there is a unity, an understanding, one wisdom, one knowledge, one awareness of one truth, and all who reach these levels, no matter which system we speak of, will agree on this point.

Furthermore these so called scientifically minded atheists will not even give themselves the opportunity to verify it for themselves.

You are just as bad as the religious fundamentalists you so often denounce. You believe in the Big Bang THEORY (Its still a theory). You believe blindly in science. You, like religious fundamentalists, don't even try to verify truth for yourself. You, like religious fundamentalists, don't realize the hypocrisy of your blind belief in what is largely still theoretical in many respects (whether we are talking astrophysics or the science of consciousness).

These well documented methods for exploring consciousness and the spiritual realm can be found in Buddhism, Tantra, Kabbalah and Taoism just to name a few. Buddha often taught "Do not believe me, but come and see for yourself". So to sit there and act like you know better because you believe in science, consider that you probably don't even know what half of these systems teach, nor have you ever sought anyone who can teach them to you so you can learn for yourself the reality of that which you deny.

These systems are scientific, which is what the so called "Scientific Atheists" will often deny. They deny it on the grounds that these things cannot be experienced with the physical senses. Yet the same argument can be made in regards to things like molecules, atoms, sub atomic particles, forces, and so on. The Atheist will argue that these things can be proven with tools. I argue that the Spiritual can be proven with tools as well. For science, we must use physical tools. For spirituality, we must use the intellectual and mental tools given to us by the sages, taught by the wise, practiced for thousands of years.

The methods are scientific because the results one achieves through correctly practicing them can be replicated. Not only in and for oneself, but others can as well. These experiences have been replicated for thousands of years. Granted, you could dismiss it all as some kind of controlled, self inflicted madness.

So until you actually inform yourself in these mystical systems, and actually choose one, and actually seek a teacher and follow his or her instructions and then adhere to it for at least a year, with a open mind and using the method given to you, to speak anything more than an opinion, and to speak it as anything other than an opinion, not only makes you a hypocrite, but makes you an atheistic fundamentalist, someone who blindly follows whatever scientific theory they have absorbed.

Once you do that, you are free to honestly hold whatever opinion you want about it. You can say "I saw and experienced this, but it was just delusion, fantasy and madness" or you can say "Its for some people, but not for me" or you can say "I now believe in the spiritual realm and the existence of the soul". But never again will you need to cling to your ignorance.

O' you close minded of the world! You are like someone who is told that chickens exist, and who deny that they exist. I tell you "Go into the next room and see for yourself, there are chickens in there" and yet you say "NO! The chickens don't exist, the room doesn't exist, the door doesn't exist, and the path there does not exist!".

Light and Love
Be Well

Atheism is just another form of religion

No one can prove the unprovable. That is a fact.

ALS

It seems to me like you are saying it's only ok to be open minded when it comes to the existence of God, but not ok to be open minded to the idea that he does not exist.

Nobody believes anything when it comes to spirituality or the quantum sort of abilities of the mind until they have seen it for themselves. Is there some virtue in them believing in these things before they have a reason to? I don't see why and that sort of strong belief in something you have no reason to believe could lead to self-fulfilling prophecies and taint your experience. I have pretty strong reasons to believe in a spiritual existence and spiritual realms, but I have to admit I have never experienced "God."

At the end of the day I think Atheists are so adamant in their beliefs because they know that Atheism never started a war, and nobody was ever harmed by atheism, whether it was a swindling or some death cult disaster. These things don't happen in Atheism. All the religions and philosophies get credit for their good side, and Atheism should be no different.

Originally posted by Novise
It seems to me like you are saying it's only ok to be open minded when it comes to the existence of God, but not ok to be open minded to the idea that he does not exist.

What I'm saying is to not blindly deny anything, but rather question everything, including the possibility of a spiritual realm, with an open mind. I'm saying that people should reserve judgment about the existence of a thing before having actually tried to see if that thing exists. So many will blindly deny the spiritual realm without having tried to access it in the ways that people have been doing for thousands of years. Many also blindly assert it, which is religious fundamentalism.

In essence what I'm saying is this- Don't knock it until you try it. Almost nobody who denies the existence of the spiritual realm has actually ever really tried to access it using the methods which are time tested and proven to reveal it. Proven, that is, in terms of the millions of people, and the thousands of known individuals, who have utilized spiritual systems like Tantra for example in order to access higher realms and SEE FOR THEMSELVES.

Originally posted by Novise
Is there some virtue in them believing in these things before they have a reason to? I don't see why and that sort of strong belief in something you have no reason to believe could lead to self-fulfilling prophecies and taint your experience. I have pretty strong reasons to believe in a spiritual existence and spiritual realms, but I have to admit I have never experienced "God."

There is no virtue in blindly believing anything. Thats why I am saying to atheists that blindly deny the existence of a spiritual realm to stop blindly denying it. To open ones mind to the possibility (IE: Reserve judgment) and go and see for yourself by actually seeking answers in legitimate ways. You cant just go "well I cant see the spiritual world with my physical eye so it doesn't exist" and then turn around and claim to be any kind of believer in science or the scientific method without also being a hypocrite. It would be like me saying that I can't see you physically so you don't exist, and then you say "But you could come to where I live and meet me" and then I say "NO! You dont exist! I REFUSE TO SEE FOR MYSELF!". Thats the delusional way of thinking I am railing against here.

Originally posted by Novise
At the end of the day I think Atheists are so adamant in their beliefs because they know that Atheism never started a war, and nobody was ever harmed by atheism, whether it was a swindling or some death cult disaster. These things don't happen in Atheism. All the religions and philosophies get credit for their good side, and Atheism should be no different.

I think its just human nature to not want to change your beliefs. Our sense of self and reality (and therefore our sense of security and order) depends on our beliefs and opinions NOT changing. When our beliefs change, we change, and so does our perception of the world. When they change radically as will happen when the person first becomes aware of the spiritual dimension, the change in our sense of self and the order of the world is usually catastrophic and revelatory. People don't like change.

reply to post by Seventhdoor


I would like to add and specify here that I'm not talking about religious dogma at all except to say that Atheists themselves have a strong dogma against any conception of the spiritual, to the point that most will never work within any real spiritual system to find out for themselves the truth of the matter. I'm talking about metaphysical systems of spiritual development such as Tantra, Kabbalah, Buddhism and so on. They are teachings about how to access the spiritual realm when properly understood, not dogma regarding a blind belief in anything. Religion is in every case the corruption of the Understanding of these systems, and in every case corrupts the teachings into something they were never meant to be They are gateways that allow us to experience and access these realms, to become a resident there.

reply to post by Seventhdoor


Cool. And that's interesting how you specify spiritual development systems. I was going to say that a lot of people who are close minded to my own stories about my spiritual experiences are Christian (which wasn't on your list: edit sorry. I usually start to tell them something along the lines of Astral Projection, then after some sharp denial they don't want to hear anymore, I stop telling them about it and we talk about something else. But even if you bring up something as harmless as Lucid Dreaming to some of them, which has been scientifically proven and is accepted in both Science and Psychology and well accepted simply, they deny that even that is possible!

reply to post by Seventhdoor


Why do you even care?

If you are what you claim to be then you must recognise that the world doesn’t dance to the beat of just your drum

You must also know that the ‘spiritual experience’ field is packed to the roof with charlatans; this fact alone is enough to put off any serious investigator



And more to the point, I am one of the atheists who has explored a spiritual path (Taoist alchemy) and I had great fun doing it and had some wonderful experiences – but in the end I have to say it proves nothing, my brain could be producing the effects I have experienced



On the path of the sceptic there are no black or white answers only interesting data points

You are wasting your time trying to have a reasonable debate with the atheists on this site. try reading my thread 'dear atheists:as your sun is setting' for more on this.

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
Atheism is just another form of religion

No one can prove the unprovable. That is a fact.

ALS

edit on 25-9-2011 by ALOSTSOUL because: (no reason given)

That "no-one can prove the unprovable" doesn't lead to "atheism being a religion". It has actually nothing to do with it at all.

I'm painfully aware of the theist love for semanticism, but in the name of the great noodlemaster....PLEASE get your concepts in order and spare us from debunked clichées.

reply to post by Seventhdoor


I must give you, that you have a better understanding of the basics of science than most of our resident theists. And an applause for your initial building and presenting your case.

But considering the manifested understanding of the subject, I'm a bit surprised, that you stop at a relatively primitive level in the constructive direction and start on muddy issues instead.

There's something called 'philosophy of science', which in REAL science defines the epistemological perimeters of science, and you appear to be rather lost there. The systematic methodology of hard science includes a great deal of deductive logic, and practically all hard-science procedures rely on it.

In soft science, e.g. social sciences, inductive reasoning is used on occasion, but under strict forms. The 'spiritual' methodology you suggest would be an extension of the use of inductive methods (and ofcourse adding/including the 'direct experience'), but it CAN'T be compared directly to hard-science methodology, as you appear to do.

The validity premises are simply to different, and consequently is what's considered valid also very different. You can't directly compare cutting edge-science like e.g. the Big Bang theory with the wishy-washy confusion of some 50.000 different religions, denominations, cults etc and 3.500 different 'gods', and leave out the established and HIGHLY 'true' parts of science (true in a cosmic context).

Almost ALL this religionism etc. is cutting-edge, whereas hard science MAINLY is 'facts'.

If you want to make the small part of religionism which is not 'cutting-edge' (i.e. not on speculative hypothesis-ground) housebroken, it will require (for a start) a much stricter use of procedures similar to those of soft science.

***********

As to your categorization of atheists, it starts nicely with the label 'scientific atheists', by which you seemingly mean 'gnostic atheists' relying on reductionist, philosophical materialist science. Which is all very well, except that that kind of science is practically extinct these days, and any atheist trusting in it is as uninformed as your average metaphysical missionary, who fight phantom shadows from a non-existing science.

Contemporary 'agnostic atheists' are usually well-informed on such and is not the group you target. Which becomes a bit unclear, as OP and your posts develop.

I am a rational metaphysicist myself, working along lines similar to yours, but the form you eventually have presented your case in, weakens that whole position, so I distance myself from it. To avoid giving metaphysics a generally bad name.

Originally posted by mandroids
You are wasting your time trying to have a reasonable debate with the atheists on this site. try reading my thread 'dear atheists:as your sun is setting' for more on this.

I am familiar with that thread, which mainly is an effort to justify theism by using a mixture of postulates, clichées and propaganda-slogans concerning the mental state of 'atheists'.

And even if your opinions on that thread had any intrinsic value (which they imo haven't), it has nothing to do with the far more reasonable and sensible approach and claims on the present thread.

Here methodologies and attitudes based on them are presented. You confuse that with your on-line pop-psychology and amateur character-analyzing (the latest theist craze).

Originally posted by racasan

Why do you even care?

If you are what you claim to be then you must recognise that the world doesn’t dance to the beat of just your drum

You must also know that the ‘spiritual experience’ field is packed to the roof with charlatans; this fact alone is enough to put off any serious investigator

I both do and don't care. I care insofar as its food for thought. IE: Why do people who reject the spiritual offhand have also never made any attempt to use the methods which exist to actually explore the question for themselves? I don't care because I can't, if I did well, I would be rather upset almost all the time.

I've also not claimed to be anything nor claimed that the world "aught to dance to just my music" but rather, specifically state "People are free to believe whatever they want to believe". And I truly and really believe that. Free will and choice are sacred to me.

And yes, it is packed with charlatans, and it does make it hard to find anything real or legitimate out there.

Originally posted by racasan
And more to the point, I am one of the atheists who has explored a spiritual path (Taoist alchemy) and I had great fun doing it and had some wonderful experiences – but in the end I have to say it proves nothing, my brain could be producing the effects I have experienced

And thats my point. Its OK if a person wants to conclude that whatever they experienced was produced entirely by chemicals in their brain and their physiological nature, and that there is no soul, spirit, or otherwise AFTER having actually tried to see for themselves. Even though I disagree, such a stance is still respectable.

Originally posted by racasan
On the path of the sceptic there are no black or white answers only interesting data points

True. I believe the art of skepticism lay in ones ability to manifest a sort of mutable belief system. One which is based on the data one has, but one which is always ready and willing to change when new data arises. Also, one which never stops asking questions and looking for better or deeper answers.

reply to post by Seventhdoor


Perhaps I’m just more aware of it – but I know many sceptics/atheists have tried or are interested some form of spiritual exploration, go on most atheist forums and you will find talk of '___' and mediation ect.
So while there are some atheists who not interested – it’s probably not as many as you might think

But I’m still curious, why pick on atheists given that most theists don’t give spiritual exploration a go

According to Jung Religion is just a way to avoiding having a spiritual experience

On one forum I saw some poster trying to convince a christian to try meditation
The christian refused point blank because

A – Once that door is open you cannot close it again
B – While he was distracted Satan could get in

Or do you count mentally blowing Jesus kiss once a Sunday as a form of spiritual exploration?

Originally posted by bogomil
In soft science, e.g. social sciences, inductive reasoning is used on occasion, but under strict forms. The 'spiritual' methodology you suggest would be an extension of the use of inductive methods (and ofcourse adding/including the 'direct experience'), but it CAN'T be compared directly to hard-science methodology, as you appear to do.

I'll give that its not the same as hard-science methodology. For example if you conduct an experiment involving a few wires, a couple batteries and a light bulb, anyone and everyone capable of physically doing the experiment will always come to the same result- a lit bulb. It can be broken down into 8 steps, you know it takes about 30 minutes, and it can be replicated again and again. Furthermore the conclusion of this simple experiment is always the same- batteries can power light bulbs. Only the insane would turn around and believe that the experiment resulted in darkness, or in a cheeseburger.

While I don't take my post nearly as serious as you do, I'll try to clarify what my argument is.

To begin with I'm not speaking of religion, I despise religion to be honest. You might wonder how I can refer to what people think of as religions but deny I speak of religions! Well, the truth is that most of the major religions of the world, if not all of them, were one time the texts and teachings of mystery schools of the ancient world. They did not preach blind dogmatic religion, but rather used the texts as a teaching guide to explain to the student what he or she was experiencing in the spiritual world. In some cases they are instructional, as we find in the many Tantras and Holy Books of the Eastern Religions.

Unfortunately most people confuse spirituality with belief, but they are not the same thing. Spirituality, true spirituality, arises from experience, not conformity with dogma. Whether that experience was intended, as in the case of a Tantric who seeks a Guru and strives for enlightenment. Or if that experience was unintended, as is sometimes the case with people who might have a near death experience, or a traumatic event, which opens and frees their mind and heart to the inner realms.

When I say there is a scientific way to verify the spiritual for an individual, what I mean is this. That every major religion has its inner mystery school, and most of them still have gurus and schools that will train a person in that particular system and help them achieve their spiritual goals through directly experiencing the spiritual realms. These methods they offer are time tested and proven again and again to give the same results, just like the lightbulb experiment mentioned above. Now its true, MY experience wont prove to YOU or anyone that its real for me, or that it COULD be real for them. My point is before anyone rejects the spiritual world offhand, they aught to seek one of these schools, practice it, and see for themselves. Only then can they make a truly "scientific" decision.

The big difference is that unlike the light bulb experiment, what one takes away from such an experience varies widely. An example is the above poster who is an atheist, practiced Zen for a year, and concluded its created entirely out of the physiological structure of his brain and body. While another person might practice Zen for a year and conclude that the only worthwhile thing for a person to do is to practice Zen and aim for Enlightenment in order to perfect the Soul and attain Liberation from their physical Shell.

Both conclusions, though different and ultimately non scientific, are at least based on the use of, as you say, inductive reasoning. That is, its based on experience, not on blind rejection or blind belief in something. My whole point is that there are mystery schools connected to most of the major religions- though the major religions themselves now days denounce them because of their orthodoxy and fear (blind belief), if you are an atheist and you deny spiritual realms offhand, without having sought the truth for yourself in these systems, then you are just as bad as the orthodox.

Christianity has Gnosticism
Judaism has Kabbalah
Islam has Sufism
Hinduism has Tantra
Buddhism has never really been corrupted from a mystery school into a religion, but where and if it has, it still has Mahayana Buddhism, Zen, and Dzogchen just to name a couple.

Furthermore the pagan religions are mostly stand alone mystery schools if you understand the teachings. Kemeticism (Egypt), Hellenism (Greece), Celticism (Ireland), and so on.

Also you have the more esoteric schools which tend to blend many of these together. Rosicrucianism, Christian Cabalah, Alchemy (of which there is western alchemy, middle eastern-islamic alchemy, and eastern taoist alchemy), Freemasonry, and Occultism in general.

So there is something for everyone really.

Also, metaphysics already has a bad name! But I won't get into all that...

Originally posted by racasan
But I’m still curious, why pick on atheists given that most theists don’t give spiritual exploration a go

According to Jung Religion is just a way to avoiding having a spiritual experience

Good point. I agree and believe the same, and actually despise religion for this very reason. I guess my bias with this particular post just comes from a recent real life encounter that got me to thinking of the hypocritical, dogmatic way that many people who are not even religious act. So I had put religious fundamentalists aside in my mind because its well established that they are mostly blind and closed minded, but I've been thinking a lot about how everyone is afraid to change their beliefs, how very few people want to be confronted with any truth that contradicts whatever their pet theory of the universe and life is.

Mostly I've been thinking a lot about belief in general, about how it works and how peoples sense of stability and sense of self is highly dependent on an unchanging, mostly rigid belief system, and thats what induced the denial and fear regarding any knowledge of anything that might contradict that system.

Originally posted by racasan
On one forum I saw some poster trying to convince a christian to try meditation
The christian refused point blank because

A – Once that door is open you cannot close it again
B – While he was distracted Satan could get in

Or do you count mentally blowing Jesus kiss once a Sunday as a form of spiritual exploration?

Hah, no not at all. In fact I don't even count most Christian Prayer as exploration. Though the Christian poster was clearly unaware of the teachings of Jesus Christ, as well as the original language of the bible which mentions meditation in numerous places in the old and new testament (see; Meditation and the Bible by Aryeh Kaplan), they are correct that you can't really close the door once you open it. You can try, but it will always be there. Its like any other experience though. If you walk outside and step on a dead cat, you can never go back to a reality where that didn't happen. Its there forever, even if you suppress it or try to deny it.

reply to post by Seventhdoor


Thanks for your response, and before I get to the important points, I believe we have a small definition-problem. It seems, that you take 'inductive reasoning' to be 'intuitive experience' (a guess on my part). But never mind, it's not a central issue, just for the record for possible later use.

As to the 'mystic' ~ direct experience I'm a great supporter of that, and agree with you, that many (but far from all) religions are later rigid doctrinalizations of such. Some religions are ofcourse mainly fakes, some religions are halfbaked 'mystic~direct experiences and some (probably most) are the result of paranormal experiences, which have no real connection to transcendence.

But along very broad lines I agree with you. It's your 'wrapping' I mainly reject, trying to give a false sheen of respectability to mysticism and metaphysics, beyond what's actually housebroken.

*******

I'm sadly aware, that metaphysics has a bad name, and I have spent much time on this forum trying to give it a better one. Apparently I have succeeded to some extent, because I can communicate freely and friendly with even the most 'materialistic' of our resident atheists, going along with them as far as rational reasoning can carry (my own condition also), and then 'continuing further out' slowly and guardedly, with none of the sudden theist jumps of putting in unvalidated speculations of the-god-of-gaps varieties.

I guess I by character detest the intellectual dishonesty implied in inventing/fabricating central 'missing links' in a reasoning chain. It's a kind of lying (at best arrogance based on really deep ignorance), and european science/logic/philosophy/technology was set back almost a thousand years by it. So I'm probably a little touchy on that point.

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
Atheism is just another form of religion

No one can prove the unprovable. That is a fact.

ALS

edit on 25-9-2011 by ALOSTSOUL because: (no reason given)

I can't prove that the next time I blink, I won't open my eyes to seeing a completely color inverted world. Is it possible, anythings possible. Do I believe it'll happen, no I don't, for logic and evidence don't dictate me a reason to expect it.

Atheism isn't "knowing" there are no gods. It's not believing. Very few Atheists are Gnostic atheists, because they're aware of all the hidden possibilities, even if they are impossibly unlikely.

~
Didn't come in to bother that. The question of spirituality is the topic.

You have something very backwards. Non-spiritual "scientific" atheists like you describe, don't not believe in spirituality because they can't feel it with their senses. They don't believe because there's no objective evidence of such. Conjecture, and subjective evidence, can support anything, so there's no reason to believe in one thing because both support it.

I'm tired, so I'm not gonna pick the whole post apart line by line like I usually do. I am gonna add my own view on spirituality though. I'm not one for "pass the buck" tricks. I don't take the universe, wonder it's origin, and conjecture that origin on a deity, and pretend that answers origins when I now ignore the question of the deities origins. I also don't look at consciousness, and how it manages to exists, and then decide a soul answers that question, as that only passes the burden of making consciousness off our physical form. It doesn't explain how souls manage it.

If that makes any sense. Either the universe always existed in one way or another, or came from nothing(not gonna go into that topic). When you add a god, that god also holds the same possible existence critera. Making the god an invisible proxy to the question. Speaking solely about the origin of the universe.

Same concept with souls and consciousness. A soul isn't an explanation, just a proxy, uneeded step, between what we do see in the explanation.

That's the main thing I think of with spirituality. Ghost stories, spiritual awakenings, and all the other topics connected, would need to be discussed on there own. I repeat, I'm tired, so I'm only going with the one major point to contribute tonight.