Author Topic: Can you have a spiritual experience without religion? (Read 30668 times)

Walt Zingmatilder · « **Reply #125 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:06:28 PM »

Quote from: Shaker on February 16, 2016, 12:29:17 PM

Or, indeed, most words.

Well I know the word Wanker and am replying to one now.

Gonnagle · « **Reply #126 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:11:26 PM »

Dear Vlad,

Wanker with a capital W, was there any need for that

Gonnagle.

Rhiannon · « **Reply #127 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:17:10 PM »

Quote from: Gonnagle on February 16, 2016, 01:11:26 PM

Dear Vlad,

Wanker with a capital W, was there any need for that

Gonnagle.

Haven't you noticed this sums up Vlad's posting style of late? As with ad-o's endless insults it reveals much about the person making them and absolutely nothing about the supposed targets.

I'm sure the fact that they're both Christians is merely coincidental.

Rhiannon · « **Reply #128 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:22:52 PM »

It's also really sad to see a lovely discussion with posters sparking ideas off one another being trashed by one of the theists. Same thing happened on the Seasons thread on the pagan board.

Shaker · « **Reply #129 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:28:57 PM »

Quote from: Rhiannon on February 16, 2016, 01:22:52 PM

It's also really sad to see a lovely discussion with posters sparking ideas off one another being trashed by one of the theists. Same thing happened on the Seasons thread on the pagan board.

Yes ... that was disappointing to say the least

Samuel · « **Reply #130 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:30:41 PM »

I agree Rhiannon although to be fair Jeremy and Shakes were not too shy to join in. And then Len picked it up and it instantly became another 'isn't Vlad a moron, tehehe' thread.

In my book they are all as bad as each other. But then, we've all behaved in a similar manner on here at some point.

Gonnagle · « **Reply #131 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:32:49 PM »

Dear Rhiannon,

Nope, what I notice, well with Vlad, I liken his comments to, it's like that old couple on the Muppets, these guys have been at it so long, it is water off a ducks back, Shaker and Vlad, when they are having a dig at each other, pure genius comedy, Shakers comment about words, not only brought a big smile to Leonard's face but also to mine.

Gonnagle.

PS: Should that be pure comedy genius

jeremyp · « **Reply #132 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:33:10 PM »

Quote from: Samuel on February 16, 2016, 01:30:41 PM

I agree Rhiannon although to be fair Jeremy and Shakes were not too shy to join in.

So when Fa Tarse writes a post that is totally nonsensical, I should ignore it?

Samuel · « **Reply #133 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:35:35 PM »

It depends on what you'd prefer to talk about Jeremy, more of Vlad's inevitable endless, and somewhat entertaining nonsense or the actual content of the thread.

Shaker · « **Reply #134 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:38:45 PM »

Quote from: Samuel on February 16, 2016, 01:30:41 PM

I agree Rhiannon although to be fair Jeremy and Shakes were not too shy to join in. And then Len picked it up and it instantly became another 'isn't Vlad a moron, tehehe' thread.

In my book they are all as bad as each other. But then, we've all behaved in a similar manner on here at some point.

I freely admit that I'm as unable to resist the temptation to reply in like kind as the next man (if the next man is jeremy), but in all honesty, we had a really nice little thread going here chugging along peacefully with lots of interesting and thought-provoking contributions until Vlad waded in at #117 with the usual 'antitheism' shite.

As Rhiannon said, the 'Seasons' thread on the Pagan board suffered a similar dismal fate.

jeremyp · « **Reply #135 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:39:24 PM »

Quote from: Samuel on February 16, 2016, 01:35:35 PM

It depends on what you'd prefer to talk about Jeremy, more of Vlad's inevitable endless, and somewhat entertaining nonsense or the actual content of the thread.

I think the content of the thread was already over. Gonagle provided a reasonable definition of "spiritual" as long as one ignores his slipping the word "god" in there and that allows us to answer the question in the affirmative.

Samuel · « **Reply #136 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:40:39 PM »

fair enough

Shaker · « **Reply #137 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:41:50 PM »

Quote from: jeremyp on February 16, 2016, 01:39:24 PM

I think the content of the thread was already over. Gonagle provided a reasonable definition of "spiritual" as long as one ignores his slipping the word "god" in there and that allows us to answer the question in the affirmative.

Counsel for the defence however submits that Gonners was quite clear about that being his own personal take on it:

Quote

...we are all spiritual animals and only because it is me, somewhere in all this, God is.

Gonnagle · « **Reply #138 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:42:32 PM »

Dear Jeremyp,

Fatarse, really

see Rhiannon, they have been at it for ever, and I don't envy your job as a moderator.

Now have a stern word with them all, there are none blameless.

Gonnagle.

wigginhall · « **Reply #139 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:44:15 PM »

Quote from: Rhiannon on February 15, 2016, 10:01:43 PM

I don't know if nature makes me feel empty - I would say it completes me. But then maybe I lose myself in it. No bad thing.

I love snails, if I find one I often let it sit on my hand for a bit so I can truly look. I'd make a rubbish allotment gardener.

Interesting point about losing oneself. I see this as important in 'spirituality', although it's very difficult to describe. What is it that I have lost? Errm, a concept of self I suppose, in Buddhism, the separate self, and also in some areas of Christianity actually. Often called self-abandonment, and in New Age Christianity this = the crucifixion.

Rhiannon · « **Reply #140 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:45:37 PM »

It's disappointing to say the least when all decent discussion is going the same way. It devalues the time and effort put in by other posters and I for one am beginning to question what the point is.

jeremyp · « **Reply #141 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:46:59 PM »

Quote from: Shaker on February 16, 2016, 01:41:50 PM

Counsel for the defence however submits that Gonners was quite clear about that being his own personal take on it:

Yes, but it chimed with how I would define "spiritual" except for the god bit which I took to be an optional extra.

Shaker · « **Reply #142 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:49:16 PM »

Quote from: wigginhall on February 16, 2016, 01:44:15 PM

Interesting point about losing oneself. I see this as important in 'spirituality', although it's very difficult to describe. What is it that I have lost? Errm, a concept of self I suppose, in Buddhism, the separate self, and also in some areas of Christianity actually. Often called self-abandonment, and in New Age Christianity this = the crucifixion.

Wiggs: at the outset I mentioned that I'd just finished reading Sam Harris's Waking Up: Searching for Spirituality Without Religion. I highly recommend it as I think you'd appreciate it very much - almost the entirety of the book is given over to how Buddhism and cutting-edge neuroscience converge on there being no identifiable, pin down-able 'I', no inherent self, only the contents of consciousness from moment to moment. Very, very interesting stuff. Whether I agree is another matter - I need to think on it much more - but the evidence that Harris marshals and the arguments he presents are highly persuasive.

jeremyp · « **Reply #143 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:49:26 PM »

Quote from: Gonnagle on February 16, 2016, 01:42:32 PM

Dear Jeremyp,

Fatarse, really

It's Fa Tarse, the space is important. In case you didn't figure it out, it's a play on "Hugh Janus" which is Vlad's current (~~entirely voluntary~~forced on him by an ancient Catholic conspiracy) nom de plume.

Gonnagle · « **Reply #144 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:53:22 PM »

Dear Wigs,

Yes, you stop thinking about yourself, you become focused on the subject, all the mundane flies away, caught in the moment, but then does that mean the lose of a love one is not spiritual.

Gonnagle.

Rhiannon · « **Reply #145 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:56:46 PM »

Quote from: wigginhall on February 16, 2016, 01:44:15 PM

Interesting point about losing oneself. I see this as important in 'spirituality', although it's very difficult to describe. What is it that I have lost? Errm, a concept of self I suppose, in Buddhism, the separate self, and also in some areas of Christianity actually. Often called self-abandonment, and in New Age Christianity this = the crucifixion.

For me it's about losing the story. I head out the door with a story of who I am and what's going on, and if I'm lucky - it doesn't always happen - I lose the story in that moment and it melts away. Whether the story's good or bad, it's a way of getting a grip, getting perspective.

Gonnagle · « **Reply #146 on:** February 16, 2016, 01:59:01 PM »

Dear Jeremyp'

Ah right!! my apologies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_name

Gonnagle.

Walt Zingmatilder · « **Reply #147 on:** February 16, 2016, 02:20:04 PM »

Quote from: jeremyp on February 16, 2016, 01:49:26 PM

It's Fa Tarse, the space is important. In case you didn't figure it out, it's a play on "Hugh Janus" which is Vlad's current (entirely voluntary) nom de plume.

What? You mean I wasn't forced to do it by an evil Catholic conspiracy dating back to the council of Nicea. ..........That must be a first.

jeremyp · « **Reply #148 on:** February 16, 2016, 02:29:39 PM »

Quote from: Hugh Janus on February 16, 2016, 02:20:04 PM

What? You mean I wasn't forced to do it by an evil Catholic conspiracy dating back to the council of Nicea. ..........That must be a first.

My apologies. I've amended the post.

Walt Zingmatilder · « **Reply #149 on:** February 16, 2016, 02:45:45 PM »

Quote from: jeremyp on February 16, 2016, 02:29:39 PM

My apologies. I've amended the post.

Ah....things back to how they should be.

News:

Author Topic: Can you have a spiritual experience without religion? (Read 30668 times)

Rhiannon

Rhiannon

Rhiannon

Rhiannon