Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
John 6:61
Somebody suggested that spirituality doesn’t require belief in spirits.
I couldn’t fathom the desire to be spiritual without spirits.
It’s like being vegetarian without vegetables.
So I assumed it was safe to file the suggestion under “Obscure Atheist Nit-Wittery”.
Then I stumbled across this article.
It forced me to file the suggestion under “Published Atheist Nit-Wittery”.
The following quote is from Sam Harris:
“Spirituality “is a name for all of the deliberate efforts people can make to cut through the illusion of the self, the illusion that there is a thinker in addition to the thoughts, or an ego as it is often called,” Harris, 47, said in a telephone interview. “Self-transcendence is the foundation of what I am calling spirituality.”
And I need to ask again…
…why is it important to call this ‘spirituality’?
There are many other appropriate terms like “cuckoo”, “crackpot” or “loopy”.
On the surface, it seems incoherent.
But digging a little deeper reveals that it is, in fact, absurd.
If the self is an illusion, then what is experiencing this illusion?
And how does an illusion transcend itself?
I’m likely to be joined by some godless allies in mocking “Anti-Spirit Spiritualism”.
This too from the article:
“I know for a fact that many atheists are put off by Sam Harris’ word choices,” like “spirituality” and “transcendence,” said Dave Muscato, director of communications for American Atheists. He said some atheists will find “a connection to Sam Harris’ spirituality while others (will) see no need for it.”
God forbid the atheists to be ‘put off’ by word choices.
There seems to be some disagreement about the specifics of non-belief.
A1: We don’t believe in any gods.
A2: Right! And we don’t believe in supernatural stuff.
A1: Right! We don’t believe in transcendent reality.
A2: Yeah, we do!
A1: Well, what do you mean by transcendent?
A2: Stuff that transcends the self.
A1: We don’t believe in the self.
A2: Yeah we do!
A1: I don’t!
A2: Well, do you believe that Christians suck?
A1: Hell, yeah!
A2: Meeting adjourned. Go write a blog.
I do NOT blame anyone for pursuing spirituality.
In fact, spirituality is inevitable.
But I’m astonished by work people put into denying their spiritual leanings.
Like farmers insisting they don’t need rain.
351 Responses
The spirit, mind and body are to become one force. That is what many martial artists learn and it has nothing to do with the worshiping of a god. This teaching may have originally been part of an ancient Asian religion, however this is obviously not relevant today. Spirit in executing a technique or the high spirits within a football team or the spirit of an occasion are used all the time. I do not see the connection to a non-physical being.
Well if you don’t see it, we can all be confident it doesn’t exist.
We will put our faith in you!
“Gifts don’t necessarily require a Giv-er”
My kids used to try to tell me that all the time. Than they grew up and moved out. I’m sure it was a bit awkward to discover that indeed, gifts do not seem to just spring forth randomly from nothingness. There was indeed, a giver.
Calling something a “gift” which hasn’t been given looks like it comes from the same playbook as calling something “spiritual” which has nothing to do with the spirit…
The question remains: why is it so important to use these terms–when one must go out of the way to explain that he/she DOESN’T MEAN what everyone probably (rationally) thinks at first.
Oh, wait a second, I’ve got an interesting theory here…
“…For men will be lovers of self…ungrateful, unholy…conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power…”
Thinking in “spiritual” terms for a minute, I wonder what a “form of godliness” stripped of its power might look like. Hmmmmmm.
Ponder this…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Hopefully the reference is not too oblique.
Dave
Just because you don’t believe in something/someone, it doesn’t make the reality less real. I’ve seen a ghost…ok I call it a ghost because I have no real data to say what it actually was. It was a translucent figure of a woman that walked through a closed door and up a flight of stairs. I was blown away. the woman who lived there told me her room mate had seen the figure walk out a week earlier. Up until then I didn’t know what to believe about ghosts. I had heard about them, I read about them but until I experienced one for myself, I hadn’t made a decision. To say God doesn’t exist because you have yet to encounter him is closed minded, arrogant and foolish since you have no data by which you can assess your decision. I don’t really believe that aliens and flying saucers exist but I am open to the possibility that I am wrong about that. I’m not going to tell people who do believe that they are less intelligent than I. Likewise, I’m not going over to the close encounters blogs and telling them that they are wrong. I have no data to make such a claim. Get my point?
JB, can we demonstrate the existence of ‘spirits’ or consciousness or ‘personality’ that are separate from a physical brain? Do we know they exist or is their existence something we rather take based solely on Faith?
Another question would be “how do you define a Spirit?”
Another (better) question would be, “Why are you trying to take the heat off the Atheists hijacking the word ‘spiritual’ by flipping the question back on JB?” There are LOTS of posts on this blog dealing with the Theistic worldview.
This is about Atheists who consider themselves “spiritual.” Therefore THEY are the ones with explaining to do.
Just asking the blog post author to define terms.
Understood.
That’s why I’m “just asking” you to stay on topic. He’s not the one putting the word “spiritual” in Sam Harris’ mouth.
I think I’ll wait for the blog post author to answer. You’re butting where you were not addressed. Rude
What’s rude is asking questions and NEVER answering any.
Hey, Dad, KIA can’t accept answers from me.
I know you’re busy on the road right now. But, when you get a minute, could you copy-and-paste what I said about Atheists having to do the explaining?
I have already provided my answer to the questions with the first grouping of comments. I know it is easy to miss stuff in the midst of all the comments once the comments get started- but you can take a look and respond at your leisure.
Hi Matt. Is this JB? Either way, I’m not really interested in looking thru the comments. I’d like JB to answer the questions I’ve asked him. Thx
(Matt/JB responded to you, but you won’t get notified.)
? I don’t understand
Look down below. Matt (or is it JB?) wrote a response to you… But he didn’t actually hit “reply” to YOU, so you won’t get a notification.
Ah… Matt is trying to be clever and funny. I think I will wait til the person I asked answers as a response to my comment. Thx
No–he’s not trying to be funny. He is very patiently trying to outline the problem for Atheists (which is the point of this thread).
… but unfortunately not the answer to my questions. I think I’ll wait for JB. Thx
You’re going to be very disappointed. He’s going to copy-and-paste my response. (And maybe Matt’s, too.)
Why?
Because he will immediately see that you’re stalling. There’s no other reason to reject a perfectly good answer from Matt, as well as a stay-on-topic admonition from me.
Well, I guess I’m OK with his unwillingness to answer a direct question, defining the terms of his own post. Part for the course. My dad always said “disappointment builds character”.
That’s not unwillingness to answer a direct question.
It’s unwillingness to let you REFUSE good answers, over and over and over.
… has he answered my questions? No. You and Matt are trying to misdirect me when I never addressed you in the first place. Rude.
Yes–Matt answered your question. And you said you didn’t want to read the other comments (with which JB already agreed), and so Matt copied his comment here.
He has explained what “spirits” are, and given evidence for them.
You are simply stalling. (And, might I add, being the rudest one here BY FAR.)
No. I think I’ll wait for JB to answer my questions.nthx
You’ve said that, remember?
And he’s still not going to give you a different answer than you’ve already been given: Matt’s explanation about spirits…and my reminder that you can’t come here and control the comment thread. If you’re not going to explain how Atheists can be “spiritual” without believing in spirits, you should not have commented. (And we all know you’re not going to offer your perspective on that.)
The answer to the question rests on the definition of Spirit and in turn Spiritual. I was aking the author of the post a question of definition. Until that is answered, the question of the post is meaningless and pure polemics. I can wait for JB to answer, thx
The answer to how Sam Harris can be “spiritual” depends on MY DAD’S definition of “spiritual?”
No, it doesn’t.
What Sam Harris said was just as stupid as saying “I’m a vegetarian who eats meat and no vegetables,” just as the original post said.
The spirit is the person housed within the physical body. Without the spirit, the body dies and disappears.
Your spirit is the thing that makes you in God’s image.
Now, I’ve answered your question. You’ll probably tell me this is none of my business but…
Why would an atheist want to claim spirituality while denying the existence of spirits?
Is the spirit the persons personality?
Why are you here asking questions again instead of answering them?
(We all know where this is going, so I’ll save everyone the trouble. JZ believes that–because people’s personalities can be altered by brain injury–there’s no such thing as a soul/spirit. Only a brain.)
The question is: “Why would an Atheist want to claim spirituality while denying the existence of spirits?”
If you don’t want to answer, you can just say, “Please start sending my comments to spam again, Amanda.”
Why are you answering?
Are you now speaking for your father?
Spiritual is a generic word. Violet has explained this perfectly well above. Buddhists are spiritual, yet they are atheists. Theists, as such, do not have a monopoly on this word. It is an abstraction.
That was how this all started before you and your father, John Branyan, so rudely started deleting comments. Something he said he’d never do.
I suspect John Branyan did this because he knew precisely where this was going and panicked, deleting comments out of fear.
I hope, though, he now has the intellectual and emotional courage to take this conversation where it must inevitably go if this post of his is something he thinks he can actually defend.
Is it something he can defend?
So, I’ve answered the question, now could John Branyan please address mine.
Is the “spirit” the person’s personality?
I’ve been answering for my father while he’s on the road since the very first day I was appointed to administrator. 🙂 (The fact that I spoke for him is also the reason he has shows to travel to. It’s my job.)
So, yes. 🙂
If someone says they’re a vegetarian who eats meat and no vegetables, are you going to chalk it up to “evolving language?” Or would you say they’re being ridiculous?
Partially. The personality is not separate from life.
(*sigh*)
You are in a VERY accommodating mood, aren’t you? (Is my husband influencing you this weekend?)
🙂
He’s still asleep.
I believe in 2nd chances.
JZ will get answers he doesn’t like and start repeating the question. Then you can send him to spam. Don’t worry! He is predictable.
Do you think there’s significance to the fact that these men won’t hear answers from a woman?
😉
They’re afraid of you.
You’re way smarter than they are and when they talk to you, even stupid people see that.
I wonder about that too. I’ve not been impressed by their attitude towards you, given that most of your comments are more sensible than your dad’s. Unfortunately sexism is rampant. Atheism on its own can’t remove it from society, but it gives a better base of reason and evidence to confront it.
…are we going to have the morality discussion again? You have said there is no such thing as absolute right or absolute wrong. Did you mean except sexism, which is absolutely wrong?
Are we going to have the deliberate ‘morality’ misinterpretation game again? Sexism is harmful to humans. If you need a certificate of absolutes from an invisible source of morality to make that real, I can’t imagine how you navigate in life.
I don’t need a certificate of absolutes. I simply recognize an absolute when I see it.
You do, too, apparently.
Perhaps I shortcut to it. It would take a long time to fully analyse everything on a harm to benefit ratio. Sometimes the scales tip high enough to feel like an absolute.
That doesn’t make sense. You’re trying to have right/wrong without having right/wrong.
If morality is truly relative, then there is no such thing, no matter how much “analyzing” you do. All actions and decisions are equal. When comparing them, you can only say they are different–not that one is better.
I don’t even think you believe this atheist projection mode is valid. It’s like words you’ve programmed yourself to say in certain situations, without considering how removed from reality they are.
Harm, suffering, empathy. All relevant, and all can be analysed quite easily.
Huh?
Why are we talking about me?
I believe that right and wrong exist, even if humans don’t always know what the BEST decision would be. I think that hating a woman just for being a woman is always wrong, because God created everyone with equal value and he requires us to think of others more highly than we think of ourselves.
If I were a relativist, I would not be able to say any of those things.
We’re talking about sexism, not mysogyny. You support some forms of sexism, don’t you? Ark thinks he read that you are ‘second in command’ in you household. Is that correct? Is that to your husband? Is that because someone has evaluated both your skill sets and concluded one of you makes more logical, useful decisions? Or is it based on your biological sex?
Please try to focus. YOU were the one who said you were “disappointed” by KIA’s “sexism.” And you claimed that Atheism–though unable to eradicate it completely–was better able to reason away from it.
I’m trying to point out that what you’re saying is NOT a consistent, relativistic perspective. You recognize that some things are right and others wrong.
Unless we’re just discussing flavors of icecream right now? (If so, that’s precisely why I didn’t want to come and talk about spanking children on your blog. And, I also have no interest in explaining my views of husband-wife relationships. On Atheism, whether my husband worships me or beats me is just a different way of doing things.)
It’s a different way of looking at things that even if we are devoid of empathy we can analyse in terms of harmful outcomes i.e. outcomes of husband beating wife on prospects of children, outcomes in terms of financial costs, outcomes in terms of lifespan. But most people stick to empathy for their main reaction. Are you denying we possess empathy?
And please don’t make unconvincing excuses for never leaving the safety of your own blog. It’s a common theme with some religious bloggers, and understandable you might not be prepared to face so many confrontational comments. At least here you have back up and the ability to censor. That’s simply how religions work – you need a crowd agreeing with you and a way to chop out whatever is inconvenient to your beliefs.
I’m not interested in debating whether strawberry or vanilla icecream is best.
You have been so fearfully and wonderfully made, that you don’t even realize that you know by instinct the difference between preferring not to cause harm and preferring strawberry.
One is an opinion. The other is truth.
If you don’t want to think it through logically based on observable facts, that’s your decision. I can’t support it, as I believe that on the very slim chance that a creator was involved in our existence, the whole creation would clearly be explicable in terms of nature. Invisible preferences of right and wrong don’t make sense, especially when we understand so much about what drives our behaviour.
I am thinking it through logically right now.
Also, I would appreciate if you did not continue making assumptions about my motives. I have been completely straightforward and honest about why moral debates with relativists are impossible. So, to suggest I’m somehow afraid of you and your readers is calling me a liar. (Lying, by the way, is wrong.)
I’ve lied about things in my lifetime–but this is not one of them.
If you do not believe in absolute right and wrong, then it doesn’t make sense to “confront” things like sexism. You might as well “confront” people who have a different taste in icecream or music.
Unless Truth is absolute, all of those things are on the same level. It does not matter–and the fact that you THINK it matters is all part of the same illusion.
Yes, ok, I’ll concede it’s pointless discussing this with you. 🙂 At this point in time anyway. Feel free to pop over any time, you’ll be welcome.
Are your opinions about spanking somehow different from opinions about icecream?
You really want to continue this conversation? We’re heading out with the kids, it’s Saturday, you should do the same. 🙂 I’ll get back to you later if you still think that’s a question worth answering.
My older two are at the zoo with their grandparents. My youngest just went down for a nap. We’re bowling AND going to the race track tomorrow–so they’ll have plenty of fun this weekend, don’t worry.
Yes–I absolutely, positively think it’s a question worth answering. Take your time. But think about it. 🙂
“Is there a difference between your opinions about icecream and your opinions about spanking (or causing harm or any other right/wrong)?”
I did you a post, you’ll get a pingback.
–Violet
That’s the comment which started the whole thing. You made the claim that Atheism provides a “better” foundation for confronting sexism than Christianity does. But you haven’t backed that up.
What you HAVE demonstrated is that you know certain decisions we make as humans are more valuable than others. Thank God you don’t really believe that it’s all an illusion. 🙂
I haven’t backed that up? Are you second in command in your house?
Has it been three seconds already?
I understand if you don’t want to pursue discussing that aspect of your life in public. It’s difficult to justify. Divert away …
I have already explained that I believe right and wrong actually exist. Therefore, I will gladly discuss with someone else who believes right and wrong exist any aspect of my life. 🙂
Do you believe some things are right and others wrong?
I believe it’s good to discuss things with anyone – I don’t have conditions. It’s interesting that you’ve created a condition to exclude anyone who doesn’t already think like you. Does that not worry you?
I’ve created no such condition.
I won’t discuss with people who agree with me but PRETEND they don’t.
That’s still a condition.
I suppose. It could also be called good judgment or discernment.
Lucky for me, the idea that it’s “good” to discuss things without conditions is just your opinion. 🙂
(You see why relativism is holding you back?)
Indeed. And it’s obviously your opinion that it’s best to avoid sticky questions when you bring up the subject of sexism. Should I add it to the list of unanswered questions?
Violet, I’m calling you out for being intentionally obtuse. If you can’t tell me “Being second-in-command is wrong,” then YOU are the one in the sticky spot. Not me.
Shall I add this to the list of times you have contradicted yourself?
Why would being second-in-command be wrong? It would depend on the situation. If it was an arbitrary rule based on biological sex, I would judge it to be wrong. If it was in a situation where quick and decisive leadership was required and a certain individual was judged to be the second most qualified to make those decisions, I would be fine. What about you? Are you happy to answer, or do we have to keep playing this game where you want to demonstrate to me my life is meaningless with your god?
Fabulous.
Since no wrong has been done (or, if it has, it’s just wrong in your judgement, and not absolutely), then why do you want to have this conversation so much?
It’s almost like you know–instinctively–that treating women as less-than is wrong, and in more than just an “opinion” kind of way. That’s either because you’re using the conscience that was given to you, or because the cells in your brain are creating an illusion of purpose and meaning and “ought” that isn’t really there.
Maybe. So are you second in command in your house?
Maybe.
Come back any time you can actually discuss this. Maybe after you’ve got clearance from first-in-command? 😀
Come back? I’m at my place.
And I will gladly discuss right and wrong with anyone who believes they exist. I can’t discuss it with someone who doesn’t believe they exist, because–that would be insane.
Yet another condition that rules out anyone you decide has a different point of view. What odd games you play.
Not another condition. The same one.
You’ve got a worldview where you can find ways to justify starving a child–but you want me to pretend for just a minute that it really matters who’s in “command” of my household?
Ah, relativism. I don’t know whether to cry or laugh.
Anyway, do you follow Unklee’s blog? I’m planning to get a copy of this book he reviewed: http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/life/making-sense-of-god/
I already own Reason for God, but this sounds even better. Apparently, Tim Keller outlines a case for Christianity having the BEST explanation for hope, ethics, justice, and several other things. (Literally the opposite of what you claimed about relativistic Atheism having the “better base” for confronting wrong things that aren’t actually wrong…) It might be worth checking out.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are ‘second in command’ in your household because you are the biological female and because someone interpreted the Bible to impose this on you. Could that ever be the BEST explanation for hope, ethics, justice and several other things? Or would that be mindlessly and embarrassingly following the superstitious rules of a sexist society from several thousands years ago? In my relationship, no-one is first or second in command, because depending on our skills and the day, each of us has different strengths in terms of making decisions – and sometimes we can even make them together! 🙂 That’s not ‘the atheist way’ – it’s just one way to do it without the interference of religion.
Or, don’t read the book.
Your call.
Or keep avoiding the discussion point by recommending random book. Your call.
I have not avoided “the discussion.” You don’t get to make my Facebook profile part of the discussion at will.
We’re talking about Atheism. Which has nothing to offer except unjustified criticism of Theism (somehow, from a void).
When I take away your ability to judge my worldview, yours becomes irrelevant. THAT is why I will not be sidetracked. It is YOU who continues commenting, but have not made good on your promise to answer my question. YOU have claimed Atheism can offer a basis for justice and empathy, and haven’t delivered.
I didn’t know it was from your Facebook profile, it was something Ark mentioned. If you’re not comfortable discussing it here that’s fine. I can see it’s touching a nerve.
I did you a whole post to answer your question, and there are lots of comments on the post that further clarify other thoughts from a non-gods perspectives. What questions do you have outstanding? You could pop back over to discuss it with me and other people if you want.
You didn’t answer the difference between your opinions about ice cream and your opinions about morality.
Do your opinions about morality matter more? Or do you just think they do?
Keithnoback gave a good answer on the post. You should have a look and see what you think of it.
As I stated several times, my opinion on ice cream is unlikely to harm other people whereas my opinions on actions that come under the ‘morality’ umbrella (I still argue icecream does, animals suffer) can impact on people’s lives and their suffering. I care about things that impact on people – it’s something I can see that has an emotional effect on me.
Right, and as I said before, your opinion that actions are more important when they harm people is still just an opinion.
I understand why you don’t want to answer. I’ve probably touched a nerve.
(Help, Violet! I’m being abused by my husband! He beats me! Wouldn’t it be great if you could offer something other than your opinion?)
I asked you for a question, not a game with inappropriate comments about the very real problems some women face. I’ve had enough, you’re really wasting my time and your childish approach with comments like that shows we won’t go anywhere with this discussion. Happy echo chambering.
Yep…it’s official. I’ve touched a nerve and Atheism is useless for offering real help.
It’s your OPINION that beating women is wrong. But you can’t say it’s objectively wrong, because you have a commitment to relativism. If you admit that morality is one of the invisible laws of the Universe, you have to admit there is (or at least was) a Law-Giver.
It’s a shame you’ve got yourself painted into a corner where right and wrong don’t really exist, or I could take you seriously.
And by the way, I am not the one wasting your time. EVERYTHING is a waste of time, if you’re an evolved pile of atoms which developed the ability to tell itself that things matter.
Again, ouch. How terrible to be someone who cares deeply about other piles of atoms for absolutely no reason.
When she says “inappropriate comment” what does she mean? What is the standard for appropriate. Surely not her own opinion. She wouldn’t expect you to abandon your convictions for hers!
“Inappropriate” are comments which cause her to see the light momentarily.
Sort of like “overthinking” is any thought process which starts to turn out spiritual conclusions.
Nice projection. If that was true, hopefully I wouldn’t have bothered wasting so much time trying correct wayward people like you. 😀
Does wayward mean wrong?
Drat, you beat me to it.
Changing “wrong” to “wayward” doesn’t solve your problem.
Jinx.
LOL! Double jinx! You owe me a coke…
Trying to get the last word in doesn’t solve your inability to engage in a conversation without resorting to wayward projections. I’m just as stubborn as you, however much I recognise this is futile. Maybe you could delete a comment or two so you definitely get the last word and it looks good on your manufactured blog. 🙂
That awkward moment when accusing others of “projection” is your projection. Ten points!
(You’re not trying to get the last word, are you?) 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
I would never do that.
Apparently not as stubborn as me, then… 🙂 🙂 🙂
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Keep seeking Truth today, Violet! I know you don’t need my permission to do it, because it’s clear you already are. But you can’t keep using the conscience given to you while denying the One who gave it. That’s objectively wrong, and I will call you on it.
And you keep seeking the truth too, simply because it’s likely to prove more useful than seeking lies.
Exactly. Truth is right and lies are wrong. Always.
“That’s not ‘the atheist way’ – it’s just one way to do it without the interference of religion.”
What you described IS religion.
Nobody lives without ‘the interference of religion’. You have embraced ‘Violet-ism’.
If that’s what you think a religion is, okay. The difference being I evaluate things on a case by case basis, and I’m completely open to going 180° if shown facts that prove me wrong. Doesn’t sound religious to me ….
If that’s what you think a religion is, okay.
Oh, and I don’t follow anyone who isn’t on WordPress, as I scarcely have time to keep up here. I remember looking at Unklee years ago and finding it all incredibly boring. Ark’s a big fan though.
Conditions?
What odd games you play. 😉
Time issues. Nothing to do with using false excuses to run from for specific conversations I’m in the middle of.
I’ll answer you question. Yes, Amanda says she’s Second in Command in her house. A co-pilot, because, I assume, she can’t be the pilot.
Hey, Mike, would you say JZ is “butting in?”
Good thing it’s a public forum, eh? 🙂
Well, you wouldn’t answer her question.
Carry on.
I’m pretty sure I’ve been telling all of you directly that I won’t be answering. It’s funny that you still act shocked when I don’t.
I believe it’s in your online description.
If it makes you uncomfortable then perhaps you should delete that description of yourself.
You’re good at deleting things you don’t like 😉
Since you’re here, is it wrong for a woman to be “second-in-command”?
Based on having a vagina?
Yeah–or ANY reason. (And don’t wear your Theist hat. That’s cheating.)
If your answer is Yes, your vagina makes you inferior, makes you secondary, then I would say you’re thinking is thoroughly retarded.
That wasn’t the question.
Is it wrong?
(You know exactly why the word “wrong” is significant.)
Just so we’re clear: Does your vagina make you inferior?
Uh-oh, this sounds like the beginning of repeat-question, please-send-me-to-spam exchange.
No, my vagina doesn’t make me inferior.
But we’re not talking about what my God-given conscience tells me. We’re talking about what your God-given conscience tells YOU–and, I’m waiting to see how hard you will work to deny it.
*your thinking
Maybe they live a complicated life that requires decision making that her area of expertise doesn’t cover? I’m sure it’s not based on biological sex, she wouldn’t be trying to avoid talking about it so much if that was the case …
She appears quite touchy about it now… even though it’s her own description of herself.
If that’s the case, I can only assume it’s because she knows she can do better.
Better in life? Perhaps. I hope so.
Apologies, I did not see this comment before answering your daughters butting in
Partially? What does that mean? Can you elaborate?
I would imagine either it is or it isn’t. I can’t see how there could be some middle ground. But I might be missing something.
Have you ever known a nonliving thing to possess a personality?
The spirit is the essence of life.
And you are missing something but you have no real interest in hearing about it again.
I’m sorry, but you didn’t answer the question.
What does “partially” mean?
What part of the personality is spirit, and what part isn’t?
That is what you said, wasn’t it?
I did, in fact, answer the question. And I answered it well enough that you are pretending it is unclear.
You are asking questions that NOBODY has answers for.
Partially means partially. The personality is a part of the essence of life. Life, consciousness, personality, intellect, subconscious, imagination, sense of humor, emotion are all rolled up into our “spirit”.
No, you didn’t answer it. You said “spirit is the essence of life.” Nice words, but nothing at all to address the question of what you meant by “partially,” which was the question.
Yes, these are all aspects of a human being. Particularly, intellect, imagination, sense of humor and emotion (amongst other things) are contributing elements to a person’s personality.
So, with that in mind, how do you explain brain injury dramatically altering a person’s personality, changing them into what (as recoded in thousands of case studies) friends and family say is “another person altogether”?
Where is the “spirit” in this?
This is not a trick question. I would like to understand your perspective in this specific regard as it appears to apply to your “partially.”
I see why you didn’t want me to “butt in.”
I’ve completely revealed your hand, before you got the chance to lay your ace card.
Every question you ask is a trick question.
You want to tell me I’m just a brain and nothing more. I’ll say that’s fine. And maintain that calling this “spiritual” is silly.
No, John Branyan, they’re just “questions” which pertain to your post.
I would genuinely like to understand your perspective regarding brain injury as it seems to apply directly to your “partially” statement.
I’d like to know what you actually think is going on here.
Does “spirit” represent the “person”?
If an individual’s personality changes, they are still the same person. Because personality is only PARTIALLY what defines a “spirit.”
This has been answered.
Are you going to answer my question about vegetarians?
Yes. Spirit represents the person.
There are thousands of documented cases of individuals becoming “another person” without suffering brain injury. The brain is not the whole story.
I believe the religious term is “rebirth” or “born again.”
“You’ll be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”
Ya know? Spiritual stuff?
Ignoring your evasion, I’d certainly agree with your general statement in so far as I’m not the person I was when I was, say, 13. Over long stretches of time, and generally by tiny increments, people transform quite naturally as experiences (both positive and negative) pile on top of one another.
That, though, John, is not what was being discussed.
And you know it wasn’t.
Brain injury can produce immediate and profound changes in a person’s entire personality. Their temperament can change. Their interests and skills turned on their head. Their emotional states altered. An aggressive person can suddenly become a calm person. A calm person can suddenly become an aggressive person. In the case of neuroscientist who suffered a severe stroke, her once mathematically orientated, data-driven personality transformed into an artist and a poet. Remarkable for a person who before the stroke couldn’t draw a straight line, or write a single creative word, nor ever felt the urge to do either.
And it’s not just unexpected brain injury. We need only to look at the ghastly Ice Pick Trans-orbital Lobotomy cases (thousands of them) to see this.
So, if as you say, “Yes. Spirit represents the person,” then where is “spirit” in this situation?
That is what was asked.
To help clarify, from my understanding, if there were a soul, a spirit, some overarching state of being independent of, and unique to, the brain, and “spirit” it’s not just an abstraction (a word) people use to describe things that move them emotionally, then someone’s personality would not (should not) alter (and alter dramatically in many cases) when they suffer brain damage. Their motor functions could be affected, yes, certainly, but not their personality. And not so dramatically. Not so immediately.
So, as an honest question, where is “spirit” here?
How does “spirit” apply to a person in the actual world when we consider the effects of brain injury?
He’s driving.
You might as well accept that you’re stuck with me….
I don’t know why you keep assuming the radio would not (should not) alter when it’s being messed with–particularly if it’s smashed with a bat. You remember the radio analogy, right?
Link to conversation: https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/all-natural-funeral/comment-page-1/#comment-4544
The physical body and the spirit are related (for now). But the Spiritual/Theist position is that the signal continues to exist, invisibly, even if there is no radio to receive it… or, even if the radio is broken and producing only garbled music… or, even if the radio is tuned and dialed into a specific song for many years and then suddenly gets flipped to a new station… or any number of examples.
So, it appears you’re not going to even attempt an explanation, John.
Understandable, and fair enough. I won’t push it.
It is an astronomically tough one for you to explore and maintain your self-evidently flawed worldview, I get that.
He’s still on the road and having a difficult time following all the comments on his phone. I talked to him yesterday and pointed out that he didn’t answer Violet’s last question either. (He said, “Yes I did!” and I said, “No, you didn’t…” and then he asked me to respond instead because–again–it’s not easy to be engaged while out of town and on his phone.)
By the way, Violet never said, “John? Are you not answering because you’re desperately trying to ignore all the cognitive dissonance from your OBVIOUSLY WRONG worldview??? Are you embaaaaaarrassed?” Nothing of that sort.
That’s what “not pushing it” looks like.
Fair enough, but he was just having a conversation with KIA, so your excuse sounds somewhat implausible.
True.
Any reasonable person would conclude that you are correct.
He remembers exactly what you were talking about yesterday.
He knows that you were the last one to comment and the ball was in his court.
He’s sneaking around trying to find ways to talk with other people, while intentionally avoiding you.
It’s your intellectual prowess, probably.
I was traveling most of this weekend. Couldn’t respond to your astronomically tough question.
Brain injury doesn’t affect the spirit which, as I’ve repeated several times, is not wholly equivalent to personality. It is, as I’ve repeated several times, the essence of life housed within the body. When the spirit leaves…the body dies.
It appears you’re not going to even attempt an explanation about personalities changing dramatically without physical trauma to the brain.
Understandable, and fair enough. I won’t push it.
That is truly an astronomically tough one for you to explore and maintain your self-evidently flawed worldview. I get that.
No, you have not repeated that “several times.” All you have said in answer to the question Is the “spirit” the person’s personality? is “Partially. The personality is not separate from life.”
When asked to clarify what this somewhat vaporous statement meant you simply answered “Spirit is the essence of life.”
When then asked specifically if “spirit” represents the “person,” you answered: “Yes. Spirit represents the person”.
So, to sum up what you’ve actually said:
1) Spirit is “part” of a physical person
2) Spirit “represents” the person.
3) Brain injury (which affects the person) does not affect the spirit
As you can see, there is a certain contradicting weirdness here in your position.
How can spirit “represent” the person, but not be their personality, their being?
How can spirit “represent” the person if even some minor cerebral trauma evicts it so completely?
That was the question put to you: How does “spirit” apply to a person in the actual world when we consider the effects of brain injury?
You’re going to have to actually address this, John, because it appears what you’re suggesting here in your contradictory position is that people are “split,” that they are not what they outwardly appear to be. That is to say, Ted Bundy, for example, could have been a wonderful “spirit,” but as a “person” he was a horror story.
Your statement, therefore, that spirit “represents” the person appears false, or at least mistaken, which raises the question, what is the purpose of the “spirit” if it does not, in fact, represent the “person”?
Conversely, what is the purpose of a “person” if it does not represent the “spirit”?
Apparently, you are not going to accept my answer to these questions no matter what. Fair enough. Atheism, as I have also repeated many times, is useless for everything including discussions about life.
Toddle back to your atheist buddies and tell them how you’ve vanquished theism with your superior intellect. They’ll applaud you!
I promise not to mention that you’ve ignored my question.
You haven’t answered, and you know you haven’t.
How can spirit “represent” the person, but not be their personality, their being?
How can spirit “represent” the person if even some minor cerebral trauma evicts it so completely?
That was the question put to you: How does “spirit” apply to a person in the actual world when we consider the effects of brain injury?
As I pointed out, what it seems you’re in fact saying is that people are “split” entities.
That being the case, then what is your god, Yhwh, “judging” through a person’s life?
This appears to me to a monstrously important question for you considering that you believe eternity is at stake, and eternity is (by your narrative) determined by the judgement of the “person.”
Consider your shock when, for example, you die and Yhwh “judges” a completely different “you.”
How does that work, John?
JZ–I never can tell whether you CAN’T understand what you’ve been told, or if your “therefor, therefore, therefor” statements are INTENTIONALLY full of assumptions and mangled thinking because you know it bothers good thinkers to see a bunch of random statements crammed together, as if they’re actually connected logically. (Serious question: are you interested in brain trauma because you’ve experienced it? If so, your spirit hasn’t “been evicted.” You’re not dead, so your spirit is still there.)
Meanwhile, your comments are always: #1. Quote a Christian. #2. Insert your own opinion. #3. Announce “therefore” the Christian is obviously contradicting himself. Every time! 🙂
Therefore, here’s what we’ve learned today. JZ said: “There is a certain contradictory weirdness in your position.” Therefore, we can see that JZ will always blame his comprehension problem on the other person. Also, my daughter is wearing pink, which demonstrates that JZ didn’t answer the question about how someone can become a “completely different person” overnight, when they HAVEN’T had any brain injuries. Therefore, we can conclude that it will rain today, and that there’s a 95% chance JZ still thinks his comments represent airtight reasoning.
Also, JZ, what do you make of people who report dramatic changes in themselves (and whose family members agree) without experiencing head trauma? If you repeat your question about how “spirit” is related to “body,” when you’ve already been told it’s like a radio signal and it is the essence of life made in God’s image which leaves the body when the “radio” dies, you will be sent to spam…
I have answered and you know I have. Instead of giving me your thoughts on the subject, you’re demanding exacting clarification about a subject that, again I SAID THIS BEFORE, nobody understands completely. Dare I say, not even you! Do you possess all knowledge? Why is your rejection of my answers superior to the answers themselves?
I could easily ask, “How does consciousness work?”. And if you were an intellectual (which you’re not) you would answer. Then, I could follow-up with three or four MORE questions demanding clarification. Eventually, you would hit a wall and be unable to refine your answers any further. At that point, I would smugly conclude, “See? Consciousness doesn’t exist.”
I don’t do this because I’m not a dogmatic fundamentalist who is committed to his own myopic view of reality. I’m not interested in refuting your worldview. I’m interested in having conversations to uncover truth. Painting atheism into a philosophical corner is not my goal.
Here’s a screenshot for you so you’ll have proof of victory:
“I, John Branyan, cannot specifically explain in scientific terms how a ‘spirit’ interacts with biological life.”
Yes, that part was perfectly clear from your first comment. In fact, this post made that point perfectly clear. You don’t know squat, and yet you act (until hopelessly cornered) that you do.
And it’s not only the case that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but that what you believe is comprehensively, irretrievably contradictory.
How can spirit “represent” the person, but not be their personality, their being?
How can spirit “represent” the person if even some minor cerebral trauma evicts it so completely?
If “spirit” isn’t the “person” then what is your god, Yhwh, “judging”?
That is the question you’re going to have to grapple with, Branyan.
Lie much, John Branyan?
Personality…for the last time…is PART of the spirit. It is not THE TOTALITY of the spirit. Life force, essence, soul, spirit, consciousness, take your pick.
Dramatic personality changes happen when the human spirit encounters God. Lives are changed by the Holy Spirit. There are thousands (millions) of historical cases of God making ‘different people’ without bashing their brains in.
Now I’ve even answered YOUR question. No surprise. Atheism is content free and utterly useless.
You have your screenshot. Is it not good enough?
Yes, I heard you. It means a person’s personality, their being, their disposition, their interests, their loves and hates, their temperament, their emotional interactions with all things is not “judged” by your god…. which is the central theme of your particular religion.
Leaves the question dangling out there: If it’s not the person’s personality, then what is actually being judged by your god, Yhwh?
Maybe you can do a post on it.
After you’ve thought it through, of course.
The question that’s dangling out there for you is, why do you give a shit about how a fictional god judges people?
Do you care about Harry Potter’s finances too?
Wow, I have to say, I’m not often so impressed with John’s corner driving, but he did a good job there. I’m sure you’ll come up with something to divert the awkward moment more smoothly in time, but now, it’s interesting to see the best you can offer when the facts are laid out before you. Why do you care if John cares about your god or Harry Potter? Because it’s your last diversion card when Christianity simply makes no sense at all.
Oh, please. If you think JZ laid out some sort of logical progression, you’re even more lost than I thought.
Don’t know about logic, but the facts were clearly devastating.
As we’ve said before on this blog (even to fellow Christians): if the Atheists here make sense to you, then join their team.
I just think it’s hilarious that certain people think repeating the same questions over and over (and in bold!) amounts to a “devastating” argument. Lol.
Well exactly, that’s why I said I’m not usually so impressed with his arguments. Even I can find them repetitive, but having experienced your desire to avoid questions and concentrate on projecting your version of atheist reality, I have to sympathise with him. It’s okay, we don’t need to keep chatting (really don’t want to after the last one) – just sufficiently impressed to say so.
Speaking of JZ, he made out like he was going to answer my question and then disappeared. That’s interesting, considering he was beside himself when my dad didn’t respond in a timely manner yesterday…
If I were him, I’d be celebrating my “devastating” victory right now, wouldn’t you say? It certainly SEEMS like he’s the one who got backed into a corner and ran away:
(link) https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/in-the-spirit-of-no-spirits/comment-page-1/#comment-19195
(P.S. You can stop chatting any time.)
Truth is relative.
But theism is absolutely wrong.
I’m certainly not feeling devastated…
Re-reading that conversation, I’m actually smiling to myself over Violet’s insistence that I’m somehow uncomfortable–and JZ’s suggestion that I delete my personal information from Facebook.
hehehe…
Why would I delete something that reveals Atheist contradictions so nicely?
She’s used to speaking with children.
That helps me understand things.
Meanwhile, I appreciate Violet’s “point #2” in the latest comment. She admits she never dealt with these issues very deeply when she was a Christian. Not all deconverts will be candid about that. Many are like Mike and insist they were the best Christians there ever were and, even though it’s a stupid religion, they still know more about it than anyone, ever, so boo-ya 🙂
Yeah but the sin of stubborn pride will keep me going till I burn out. Almost bedtime. I’m sure he did run away from that same old conversation about what is ‘wrong’ to an atheist. Yawn anyone? Empathy, harm, suffering…zzzzzz Did someone say goo?
I’d say “sweet dreams,” but some of the best nights of my life were spent restlessly dealing with inconsistencies in my own worldview that I just couldn’t ignore.
It was awful at the time–but ultimately a beautiful gift in disguise.
So, have a “good” night, even if it means going without peace. 🙂 (I mean that sincerely.)
Thanks, you’re both so sweet and sincere. May the truth always be with you. 🙂
The truth IS with us already.
You keep trying to tell us it’s not really true.
JZ’s ship sank! Save yourself, Violet! Don’t let him take you down with him!
The diversion is completely his. I answered his question so thoroughly, he just kept asking it over and over. I think it broke his brain.
Same question goes to you. If truth is relative, why do you spend so much effort trying to convince theists they are wrong?
Unfortunately I don’t have as much time on my hands as John, and my holiday is sadly drawing to a close. But at the risk of going for another diversionary dance …
1. I find it interesting, keeps my brain active in times where the majority of my conversations are with under 5s.
2. I used to be a Christian, and it’s helped me think through issues I’m familiar with but never bothered with too deeply.
3. Some religious people online promote harmful beliefs that hurt people I know (anti-gay, anti-abortion) and I don’t like to see bad ideas unchallenged.
4. I’m fascinated by how human minds work especially when it comes to bias.
I could go on, but I’m sure you’re bored already and were looking for an answer that would lead me on a merry dance in a particular answer?
What about you? If your god has all the answers why do you bother?
I try to point out the logical flaws in your thinking.
I’m not often successful.
And if you can’t find them, you can make a rude side comment I probably won’t find that is designed to undermine me – take your pick. I’m betting you’ll go for ‘she was never a real Christian then’ or ‘she only ever talks to kids – it shows!’. Tee hee. Must be fun being a comedian, with invisible morality on your side to boot! 😀
Reminder: no one is making “side comments.” If we want to say something rude that you’re not allowed to see, we will text each other.
Go ahead…read the “side comments.” Your guess was wrong.
I did read them, that’s why I wrote that comment. I can do comedy too. 😀
You read our exchange and guessed we concluded you “weren’t really a Christian”?
I said I appreciated your willingness to admit you haven’t studied EVERYTHING about Christianity, because many deconverts don’t do that. I’m not sure how that’s rude.
Just teasing, I know you’ll appreciate that. As I know you’d never attempt a sly backhanded compliment in an attempt to undermine anyone’s position. 🙂
I most certainly WOULD, depending on what has been presented to me first…
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
And I wasn’t being snide about her speaking to children either.
She’s pretty thin skinned.
I know you weren’t.
I thought both of us had been pretty accommodating.
Of course, I try to return what I’m given. So, there has been some condescension (and more than a few smiley emojis), when they have been dealt to me. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
But–we’ve let a lot of false accusations slide, and I always answer honestly. (Despite said accusations.) I’ve treated others the way I want to be treated, for sure.
Including frankness and some light teasing.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
You undermine yourself when you use words like “rude”, “harmful” and “bias”.
Your relative morals are also invisible.
Harm, bias and rudeness can all be measured to some degree, in terms of how they affect others. It’s actions based on observable consequences; not invisible, tricky, changeable morality standards of a creature in hiding.
“Harm, bias and rudeness can all be measured to some degree, in terms of how they affect others.”
You’re just making stuff up.
That’s okay. You create your own truth. You don’t expect me to take this seriously.
I guess. Impossible to attempt to evaluate them. Best wait for invisible guidance.
Yes.
Invisible guidance is how airplanes navigate.
I’m guessing the buddies are still gathered at Violet’s, congratulating her for writing (another) post which is 98% criticism of a Caricature Christianity, and 2% attempted explanation of why some opinions are really MORE PROFOUND than other opinions…
That’s where they belong. It is safe there.
Like their own little Westboro Baptist chapel.
“We’re smart aren’t we?”
“Yep. If God were real, he’d hate those awful Branyans.”
lol. I have no idea what’s actually being said this time. I took my screen shot of the three comments I left and their surrounding dialog, and then quit.
I’m trusting the Holy Spirit will do the convicting about the fact that they’re bearing false witness and guilty of all the things they project on me. 😀
You didn’t answer whether there is any evidence of the existence of spirits apart from the body. Whether there is any evidence or do you believe this solely on Faith
What would constitute evidence for you?
Doesn’t matter JB. Just give your evidence
I have.
Multiple times.
Atheists needing to find spiritual satisfaction is evidence.
And the answer to your question is that what Sam and other atheists, I’m not one, mean by Spirituality is based on a different definition of Spirituality that doesn’t depend on the existence of Spirits. Because they have no belief in the existence of spirits apart from physical brains due to not having evidence for such belief.
Thus my questions to help you understand that your question is malformed based on your possible assumption of a common definition of Spirituality.
There is no “possible assumption of a common definition of Spirituality.”
Harris’ convoluted definition is actually included in the original post. And, JB and Violet went back and forth about how languages evolve and words take on different meanings over time, which you would know if you read the comments.
JB’s point is that all of us were designed to seek the Transcendant. Atheists like Sam Harris are trying to fulfill that purpose by calling that thing “spirituality,” and then neutering it by insisting it’s somehow vastly different from what most Theists believe. They are the ones having to play word-games and alter definitions, in order to exist with an unlivable worldview.
Again Amanda, wasn’t talking to you. Rude
Misogynist?
No Amanda, not misogynist. Politeness. It’s not polite to interrupt other people’s conversations. You’re being rude
And (again), you were the one who interrupted a conversation which was already in place by commenting late and refusing to include those who already were participating.
Walking into another person’s party and standing between him and the other guests seems pretty…rude.
No… I was making a comment to the blog post author about the post. You have been continually interrupting. Do you accept this behavior from your children? I doubt it. Either way, butt out please. I wasn’t talking to you
I don’t accept being told to “butt out” from my children, either.
But adults having conversations is supposed to be different…
Yes Amanda, adults aren’t supposed to interrupt other people’s conversations. And when they do, just like children, they are told to stop it and butt out. Usually adults recognize when they have overstepped and politely apologize and… stop interrupting. You on the other hand, I suppose, are different
I can’t interrupt a conversation I was already part of, Mike. 🙂
Most adults would realize when they’re trying to control the dialog in another person’s space and politely apologize. You, I suppose, are different.
I addressed my question to JB directly. Not to you.
Not accepting a perfectly good answer from a nearby person is rude.
And it demonstrates that you’re not here for dialog. You’re here to run the show and then dodge return questions.
When it’s not a question directed to you… I have every right to ignore your answer as a rude child trying to speak when not spoken to. Deal with it and grow up.
You haven’t ignored anything. While insisting you are not talking to me, you’ve continued talking to me…and in a very rude manner.
So the atheists think they can hijack the word spiritual.
Again. Why?
Seems to me they are not happy with the implications of their godless worldview. They are unfulfilled by naturalism.
What is your new faith? It might help the atheists find solace.
Sorry. Trying to sleep at 430am. I’ll get back to you on that.
Some might say christianity hijacked the word God. It really is about the definition one chooses. The atheist sees no evidence for the existence of Spirits outside of the natural world or consciousness outside of brain activity.
Doesn’t matter what evidence I would accept, only that you present yours, unless you are dishonestly trying to withhold it by assuming bias where none has been demonstrated.
My own faith is not the issue or the subject 9f your post.
Dad: KIA suddenly cares about the subject of the post.
Now are you going to tell him what that subject was?
(KIA: the subject of the post is not my dad’s definition of “spirit,” nor his evidence for the existence of a spirit, as you’ve been told. Despite this, several different commenters have quite sportingly provided the Atheists with logical evidence. And we’ve pointed out that their desire for something “spiritual” while insisting it’s not REALLY spiritual, spiritual–is also evidence of the existence of spirits.)
Lol. Christians hijacked the word God!
If you are unwilling to explain your faith, I’m just gonna call you an atheist. That’ll simplify things for me and I honestly don’t care enough about you to keep asking.
Yup. There are religions and Faiths much older than either christianity or judaism that refer to God or gods. Judaism and christianity have given their own definition to the term, just as the others have. Same with Spirit or Spirituality. You need to understand how the other person is using the term and not just critique his use by your definition. That is honesty. Not everyone thinks of Spirituality in terms of a non corporeal/non physical ‘being’ or existence. In mocking Sam Harris, you are showing your own ignorance of what he is talking about. You look as Foolish as Amanda is childish.
What do you think spirituality is?
Understanding our connection to and interrelationship with everything and everyone around us. Living in awe and wonder of living and being the best expression of that gift of life that I can be. That is at least how I see it now.
Who gave you this gift of life?
Not a Who.
Then it’s not a gift.
Ah, that’s where you’re wrong. Life is just as much of an unexpected and unasked for opportunity for joy and celebration. My responsibility is to fill my own life with as much meaning and purpose as I can. No biblical God necessary or required.
Did you assign yourself this responsibility too?
Gifts don’t necessarily require a Giv-er, just one who recognizes what he has and receives it as a gift.
Yes, I assign the responsibility to myself each new day.
What makes you different from an atheist?
I’m not Atheist. Nor am I Christian anymore.
Hey John, I’ll help out since you are on the road.
Mike. The question was:
What makes you different from an atheist?
That was the question.
Because I am curious about the answer too!
Wally, how bout you learn how not to butt in on other people’s conversation? You and Amanda seem to have the same childish issue that you wouldn’t tolerate from your own kids.
And… I answered the question.
LOL, you did not
The question was : What makes you different from an Atheist?
You answer that you are neither atheists or Christian.
That’s not an answer.
It’s an open forum, moron. If the host wants me to shut up, I will
Meanwhile, break the rules your atheist handler Ark gave you and answer a question for a change
Sorry to butt in, Wally, but he clearly commented and included the word “Atheist.”
Therefore, he answered the question.
Duh.
Ahhhh….I see?
LOL.
Oh..check this out. You never did get a pingback, but I did get a proper atheist whipping over at Mikes place. Just no pingback. Apparently Mike has successfully taught me how to be a better Christian. Just ask him
Except, he’s….not a Christian…or atheist
Ugh my head
Enjoy the rent-free stay in his head. 🙂
No kidding right?
Now, I have a question for you. What’s the difference between you and a farmer?
(Pssst. Your line is: I’m not a farmer.)
LOL. I am not a farmer.
Now, that is funny. I actually live out in the country. I may not be a farmer, but many of my closest friends and associates are.
Oh, the irony there.
It’s actually hard NOT to answer the question, isn’t it? lol. You wanted to say, “I live in the country like a farmer, but I don’t tend fields or animals.”
Now we should compare and contrast fish and dolphins. (Answer: Fish aren’t dolphins and dolphins aren’t fish.)
I did almost say that!
And, because I live in the country and hand out with a lot of farmers…some might be confused and ask me if I am in fact a farmer.
On the other hand, if somebody asked, I would gladly say:’ No, I am not a farmer, but now let me clarify for you what I actually am.”
Then I would tell them. I would not answer “I am not a farmer, and I am not a hairdresser.”
I would tell them what I am
Just sayin
And also, not to confuse the issue, but there actually is a fish called a Dolphin lol.
Hahahahaha!!! Yeah, that IS a little confusing.
Let me guess, the Dolphin fish is spiritual but doesn’t believe in spirits. 🙂
I’ll have to ask one I suppose
I think I’m going to try that–being thankful for things that weren’t necessarily GIVEN to me.
Neighbor: Hey, that’s my truck!
Me: I’ll consider it a gift! (*drives away*)
🙂
I tried that with a guy’s wallet once.
Epic fail.
Weird.
Did you try explaining that “not everyone has the same definition of things”?
Maybe you should have said, “This is an unexpected and unasked for opportunity to celebrate…”
😉
What I said is
“Robbery is relative, and we just define it differently.”
Then I explained that I wanted to accept the gift of his wallet out of empathy for my crackhead buddy who really, really needed a fix.
I can’t understand why that didn’t work!
No–wait–maybe it’s because you forgot the most important part of signalling to others that you’re a good guy who takes moral responsibility:
“HAVE A NICE DAY!”
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!
I bet that is it
Sounds to me like we’ve got a plan!
Step #1: Find something to be grateful for–it doesn’t need to be “given” to you.
Step #2: Receive it with joy and celebration.
Step #3: Inform everyone who objects, “You need to understand how I’M using my terms, and not just critique my use of the word ‘gift’ by YOUR definition.”
Step #4: “HAVE A NICE DAY!”
Anyone who still tries to force their beliefs on you after this point is just RUDE.
LOL
Step 5: Write a really lame rebuttal post.
I didn’t get a pingback. So I’ll assume you’re still talking about what you and I will do the next time we’re accused of stealing–and NOT talking about something another blogger did today…?
Yes..purely hypothetical at this point.
They have a way of making us look like prophets. 🙂
Earlier in the thread, I called where JZ was headed before he even mentioned the word “brain injury.”
Yes..that was pretty funny actually. And he just missed the entire irony of it all.
Actually, Wally, considering we’d had the conversation about “souls” and “brain damage” before, it wasn’t remarkable at all. And most definitely not “ironic.” It was, actually, quite pathetic, which is why I ignored it.
Thunder stolen. 🙂
Yeah ok.
I suppose shortly you will start using bold face and repeating yourself?
You are more predictable than the tides.
You have 5 comments, and all you do is cut and paste them from blog to blog
You are indeed pathetic, John, which is why i rarely waste time on you unless I am really, really, really bored.
Unless you’re talking about my mom and dad, and their moms and dads… And so forth
And, just a little suggestion. If you don’t want to talk to me–don’t talk ABOUT me in comments to others.
It’s rude. 🙂
Who knows- physically speaking- perhaps every atom that had made up the body of John Branyan at one point in time now makes up me. Would that make me John Branyan, or would our spirits give us seperate identities?
On the same token- would the “John Branyan” that answers you be the same “John Branyan” that you had originally addressed? And will you be the same person when he eventually replies to you?
Neuroscience is everywhere. Your subconscious mind contains a limitless supply of creativity, powerful stored information, and a vast amount of untapped potential.
Our brains have hidden depths. Whether it’s psychological tricks that change our long-term behaviours, or the strange healing powers of placebo and hypnosis our minds are surprisingly open to manipulations that can change us for the better.
Meditation is merging your conscious mind with the power of your subconscious mind and this is where these limitless benefits reside, meditation is the key.
Call it whatever you like and interpret the word spiritual as you think fit, however it is just a word and if that is the basis of your argument for the invisible force you consider exists outside of reality that only shows your limited knowledge or your ignorance to look outside of your ideology.
Who’s that typing this stuff?…
Electricity and chemicals?
Is that you?
Yes this is me with a bit or maybe a lot of help from Google. It is real science though, even if I am not the smartest person to deliver the information.
Chemicals and electricity are not sentient. (Neither is Google.)
So, why should anyone listen?
I’ve a few discussions recently that relate to conflicting definitions of words. As I’m keen on stating, language is not a static tool, it evolves with society, and we often find different understandings even between individuals, never mind across cultures with shared language, or over time. I like to check dictionaries first, given that they are regularly updated to reflect current usage. So ‘spirituality’ at Oxford Dictionaries:
“Relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.”
This is pretty much in line with your objection. But when those of us who don’t believe there is evidence for anything outside the physical reality in front of us want to express our thoughts on any ‘greater meaning’ to life, we need a word. And ‘spirituality’ is the word that has traditionally been used to express that. So I think as language evolves, and humans becomes more evidence based, it’s possible we may continue to use this word in an altered context.
After all, it’s perfectly valid for atheists to ponder what greater meaning there could be to our existence than what is in front of us, without resorting to thinking that clearly human-made religions are possibly be true. I find it fascinating to think about the component parts of my body, countless individual atoms and how they have come together to create a vehicle for consciousness with a fixed shelf life, but constantly move on and will continue move on to create other parts of this world. That’s kind of spiritual, isn’t it? The connections of the universe, the material we’re all built with. But strictly natural. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Atheists are experts at redefining terms. I can’t tell you you’re wrong.
Agreed. When we’re at a stage as a species of moving away from practices developed in times of relative ignorance, there’s a lot of redefining required.
Hopefully, someday there won’t be any words that theists can use to express their beliefs. Every concept will be atheist!
Then we’ll be well away from those times of relative ignorance, eh?
You could talk about spirituality in the olden days. Like we talk about ‘getting stoned’ in the olden days. People understand by context.
Yes. But getting stoned was a real thing. Spirituality is just ignorant make believe. When you atheists take over, we’ll finally be living in reality!
What we developed in times of ignorance certainly appears to be false. It doesn’t erase the desire to know more or attempt to express concepts we probably can’t understand, or simply to speculate.
And in the end, it’s pointless. Might as well get stoned.
Ah ok, we’re back to your inaccurate Christian atheist projection. I used to do that when I was a Christian too. I can only tell you it’s nothing like that from the other side. Maybe I’ll do you a post. 🙂
I get it. You conjure purpose from your mind and validate it via an act of will.
It certainly comes from thinking, which I doubt is influenced by an outside invisible force, but will undoubtedly be influenced by what’s around me. I’m not sure if I personally validate it, but I guess whatever conclusions I draw will be subject to change based on my experiences – is that what you mean?
Yep.
You make your own truth.
And the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and countless other Christian groups will say the same of you. We all make up our own truths, even within our loosely bound groups. Another point to ponder in a spiritual manner. 😉
Actually, you’re mistaken about the amount of disagreement among Christian groups.
And you might want to ponder the possibility that truth isn’t completely made up in your mind.
That’s a fair point. I think most nowadays have adapted their message to be as inclusive as possible. But this is a recent message, and many, if not most adherents, believe their denomination is the only way. It’s always fun to have a lurk around Catholic forums on this kind of topic. I remember one once where someone was appalled the wrong kind of oil was used in a baptism and suggested someone wouldn’t be saved. This kind of superstitious belief is fairly common, and indicates that everyone has their own Truth, even within their brand of faith. Is your church quite united in thinking? Is there no speculation on who is ‘saved’ or the correct way to be a Christian?
We have fundamentalists who believe they make up truth themselves. They’re not much for different points of view.
“That’s a fair point, John. But I still think Christians have huge, insurmountable differences which are relevant to this discussion.” –Violet
In reply to his comment that we make up our own truths, it’s relevant to point out that this is true within religion too.
Religions don’t make up their own truths. They are all seeking to find THE truth–and that’s why they believe others are wrong. The fact that they disagree about oil and other small trivialities is a GOOD thing. It’s because they recognize that some things are right and others are wrong. Your relativism is the problem–not religious people who disagree about specifics.
Believing someone is going to hell because of the wrong oil is a good thing. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on that, but I doubt many people would agree with you.
I didn’t say that. I said that believing there is such thing as right/wrong is a good thing (as I would have hoped you realized by now).
Relativism is the problem.
You did say that, go back and read it. Perhaps you didn’t mean it like that. However you want to spin the discussion at this point, it doesn’t alter the fact that every individual had their version of the truth, even religious individuals.
I apologize if my meaning is not clear–but I am not trying to “spin” anything.
The point I’m trying to get you to understand is that religious people–at least, Theists–don’t have “their version of the truth.” That’s incoherent. It’s like saying “my version of the winner.” By definition, there can be only one. If someone THINKS a certain oil is the only correct one, they may be wrong. But that’s because a real, concrete truth is out there, and they’ve missed the mark. In that case, what you’re calling their “version” of truth isn’t truth at all. And they would accept that. “One of us must be right and the other wrong,” they would admit.
Because they’re not relativists.
I agree you believe there is a truth you are all aiming for. That doesn’t stop you all having your own version.
“Your own version” of truth is still a meaningless way of saying it.
Somebody has the Truth.
Somebody else does not.
Maybe ‘explanation’ or ‘philosophy’ would be better.
You can change the word, but the concept stays the same. Either Truth exists or it doesn’t.
Having philosophies and explanations doesn’t even make sense, unless we agree there is such thing as “right/wrong” that we’re aiming for.
And that’s why I am happy to discuss sexism (and spanking and baptism) with any Theist. But it cannot be done in any meaningful way with a relativist.
So aiming for common understanding based on facts doesn’t make sense unless the Christian gods exists? You can’t be that narrow minded.
I did not specify “Christian.”
I said “Theist.”
And, yes, I have already explained to you in many ways, over many weeks, why relativism is unlivable. It’s not narrowmindedness. It’s the logic you claim to value.
You’ve given you illogical opinion, that’s certainly true.
It’s illogical to claim there is no Truth while continuing to seek it.
But, don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you are continuing to seek it. 🙂 As Silence has pointed out to you before, you do by instinct what you deny with your mouth. That means all hope is not lost. Keep seeking.
John,
Also, I was bummed to see the “Magic 8-Ball” Atheists have returned.
Interesting article (not very long):
http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/03/the-circular-reasoning-of-atheists/
And a fun video that will sound very, VERY familiar!!!
Dave
Of course, all arguments for and against a god existing are circular only because theists expect atheists to disprove the god they claim exists, but more importantly cannot prove this god they worship exists.
Theists have nothing more tangible than old scripts and faith as evidence of a god. Atheists have science and reality to support their position.
A number of religious documents tend to be self-referencing – the inerrancy of the Bible is proved by – the Bible! That’s the best demonstration of circular logic that currently exists.
I hate it when Christians do that! We actually referenced that circular reasoning in a recent episode of the podcast, when we read a pamphlet that some door-to-door evangelists made us take.
What’s also frustrating, though, is the way Atheists can literally waste all 70+ years of their life complaining about the Christians who don’t think well, and never getting around to dealing with the circular assumptions of their own.
John,
I must be confused. You will have to forgive me, but my primary language is English. My dictionary says thusly:
spir·it·u·al
ˈspiriCH(o͞o)əl/
adjective
1.
relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
“I’m responsible for his spiritual welfare”
synonyms: nonmaterial, incorporeal, intangible; More
2.
relating to religion or religious belief.
“the tribe’s spiritual leader”
synonyms: religious, sacred, divine, holy, nonsecular, church, ecclesiastical, faith-based, devotional
“spiritual writings”
So… how can atheists do the “spiritual thing” without believing in the spirit of soul? They reject the intangible, immaterial soul, yet seek a way to validate spiritual encounters they have?
Talk about taking the cake and eating it, too…
Sounds to me that they have admitted belief in the supernatural, and have given themselves a non-theistic way of saying it. Sort of like athiests just went, “Whew! I never knew what to do with my sense of the soul. Thanks, Sam!”
Dave
Psalm 19:7 (ESV)
The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
It is all in the mind, spiritualism for an atheist is all in the mind only and that is acknowledged by atheists, unlike theists who cannot realise that also is where their god is located.
Hi again Steve
Again, I ask you this. You never answer. We are talking about yammering, so I might as well yammer too. Your buddies steadfastly maintain atheism is a “null set,” and a content free sort of thing. Yet, you constantly yammer about what atheists believe. I find that confusing, so perhaps you could enlighten us all how one man acts as a spokesman for a content free system. You are, after all, so educational.
Yes it is. No it isn’t. Yes it is. No it isn’t.
Spirituality without spirit is like vegetarian without vegetables is my favorite part of this post. Atheists call feelings spiritual. It’s the same problem some Christians have with emotions passing for God’s presence. Does the spirit exist? Is there a life force within which exists for eternity? I say yes. My proof is anecdotal therefore I am happy to know what I know and not all that interested in convincing anyone else.
Something I find rather comical, once atheists rid their world of religion, they often discover they now have to invent it to fill in the gap. It’s a bit like digging a God sized hole and then thinking, hmmm,what is society now missing,what am I personally now missing? I wonder what should go into this hole?? Sometimes that religion that fills the hole becomes evangelizing atheism itself.
It’s ironic and a bit tragic, because right on the other side of “self,” is God. Sam is seeking mindfulness and meditation, because when we take “self” out of the equation, like dying to self, God is right there, you can feel His peace and His power. The problem with atheism is that it must deny the existence of anything beyond the “self.” Another name for “self” might be pride or ego. Well, if Sam could relinquish some pride and ego, he might realize how silly it is to be seeking God, actually trying to bask in His presence spiritually…while firmly insisting He does not exist.
What spirits from what gods do they have in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Confucianism and Taoism? Are they also having to fill the gap and are they basking in Christian spirits or evil spirits?
Wikipedia says “Meditation refers to a broad variety of practices that includes techniques designed to promote relaxation, build internal energy or life force (qi, ki, prana, etc.) and develop compassion, love, patience, generosity, and forgiveness. A particularly ambitious form of meditation aims at effortlessly sustained single-pointed concentration meant to enable its practitioner to enjoy an indestructible sense of well-being while engaging in any life activity.”
Now would I ditch what I know about my meditation or believe that I am filling a gap in my life with spiritual worship where your god should be? Surely you are not serious or does your blog name reflect your thinking.
I suppose I could be wrong, but I beleve at least Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism to refer to things outside of the natural realm – the supernatural. At that point, spirituality could take on that definition very smoothly. It’s when the supernatural is denied that the term spirituality becomes much less… meaningful I suppose.
Sure, you can meditate, but what spiritual gain is it? Aren’t you just reorganizing neural connections and retraining synapse fires? Clearly that’s beneficial, but is it “spiritual”? If so, what does that mean?
“Are they also having to fill the gap and are they basking in Christian spirits or evil spirits?”
Good question! I would urge caution there, because one never knows what lurks in the abyss.
“Surely you are not serious or does your blog name reflect your thinking.”
My name reflects the absolute delight of forgoing the alleged “rational, reason based” thinking of atheism and instead just embracing the wonder and mystery of God. Sanity and pride are such a silly things to cling to so fearfully. “Lean not into your own understanding,” and just embrace the crazy.
“Sometimes that religion that fills that hole becomes evangelizing atheism itself.”
Bravo IB, you absolutely nailed it. I am going to remember that.
Way too many atheists who claim to be free of the shackles of religion actually seem free of it at all.
Obviously being free of religion and that “God sized hole” are deeply troubling.
This is just wishful thinking James or more than likely complete ignorance of what an atheist belief is.
“God sized hole” are deeply troubling.”
You must be joking, atheists do not acknowledge your god or any other god. I think truthfully you are describing how you would feel if you did not have a god to save your sorry arse. You cannot put your guilt trip onto us.
It’s on you like a rat on a Cheeto Steve and I didn’t put it there. You’re the one who yammers on incessantly about a God he doesn’t believe in, not me.
If I didn’t believe in God, I would spend absolutely no time babbling about it becuase doing so is an absurd waste of time.
I yammer on, and you don’t yammer on that your god exists then James? That is quite a contradiction and a weak reaction to my educational comment to you.
Don’t get me wrong James, I like these interactions with theists because it offers a chance for me to challenge their beliefs and I do not think it a waste of my time defending atheism if I can expose myths, protect a secular way of life, save children, our school science classes and enlighten some poor fool from having his brain rearranged by the god mob.
Quick clarifying question, Steve:
Do you actually believe you have “challenged” anyone’s belief? Do you think you have exposed myths, protected a secular way of life, SAVED CHILDREN, and done some sort of enlightenment? (And when you say you’ve left an “educational comment” for James, which one did you mean?)
Seriously?
I’m glad I’m not.the only one who missed the educational comment Amanda.
Atheists have to believe their efforts to get us to see their error in our Bronze Age thought has some social justice value or it’s just silly.
Yep.
It must be frustrating to be an Atheist and have nothing to say, unless you employ the religions you claim to hate.
Must be, I think it’s odd.
I am 100 percent convinced that if I lost my faith I wouldn’t talk about it at all except maybe to brag about all the extra free time I suddenly had. If it wasn’t for ministry work I wouldn’t even be out of bed right now.
I might get out of bed long enough to kill myself.
Seriously, I know how that sounds to someone who has absorbed JUST ENOUGH meaning and purpose from their religious culture that they can’t think like a consistent Atheist. But, if all of this is just an illusion (with absolutely no intent behind it, and no objective goals in front of it), I would not be sticking around.
How are any of your comments educational Steve?
JZ has been given an out. I’m sending him to spam so that he can whine and cry and pretend that THAT’S why he’s not saying anything smart.
You’re welcome, buddy.
Of course- John Zande, while denying spirits, has no evidence that the same person of John Branyan has ever made the claim not to censor.
The body of “John Branyan” now is much different than the body of “John Branyan” when he ( who is “he” exactly?) typed that he never censored.
See, now THAT’S a thoughtful comment, Matt! 🙂
I wonder how JZ would respond. (Wait–here’s a picture of the spam folder, for several examples. I guarantee you, he has nothing else to offer…)
This is a good point, Matt.
The policy here is that we don’t remove comments because of the content or point of view. I’ll let JZ say whatever stupid thing he wants to say.
I’m no longer willing to let him REPEAT that stupid thing dozens of times.
He actually received 3 thoughtful responses (from you, SOM and myself) to his initial comment.
So he began demanding evidence for spiritual reality because he’s not capable of responding to thoughtful comments.
Censorship is a godsend to John Zande. He will now gleefully tell his godless companions that his intellect vanquished theism. Unable to formulate a response, we sent his comments to spam. We have blessed him richly. That’s what we do here!
As I sometimes say, if you’re going to insist on being a random bit of biological goo, basically a potted meat product, then you need to go sit with the other spam.
Sometimes I feel like I’m arguing over the nature of existence with a table lamp. Okay, okay, you’ve convinced me,you truly do seem to lack sentience! Go non exist somewhere else for a while. 🙂
I’ll have to remember that line. LOL!
Honestly, if he wants to say something he hasn’t already said, I’d welcome the comment. (And we are even more tolerant than most by giving them a handful of chances each thread to make a point, rather than blocking them completely.)
But it has been nice not to have threads with 300 or 400+ comments of nothing but the word “evidence” over and over and over.
It makes sense that one would retreat to a position of “there is no self” if one denies the existence of an actual spirit. How could there be a cohesive “thinker” when the only driving force behind thoughts is a collection of molecules that are exchanged regularly?
Consciousness and a strong sense of self seems to point to something more than the mechanisms that we understand. That something more would almost definitionally be supernatural. Which I obviously have no evidence for… er… that the collective universe obviously has not evidence for… >_>
The impossible question for our atheist pals is, “What would you accept as evidence?”
They are not comfortable offering definitions or statements. They only make denials.
Yeah, I’ve been trying to engage in a few conversations within this post and I’ve received relatively nothing, even when I think I’ve given an answer to such questions.
People won’t even sing and dance for/with me – at least you get show with your rebuttals ^_^
“spiritual experiences are not proof of God, but are proof of the power and complexity of the human mind.”
Sam Harris, has it nailed with this statement. You can try but you will not succeed in high jacking what spirituality means.
To enforce the belief that spirituality has to involve a supernatural spirit shows a poor understanding of human complexity.
I understand that my mind can be trained to benefit the quality of life with meditation for many things such as to control anxiety, focus on detail, health and internal energy or Ki.
The term “spirituality” has been around since LONG before Sam Harris.
It is he, and the other New Atheists, who are hijacking it.
I guess you could say that, but that’s playing with the spiritual. I think it makes more sense to say that perceived spiritual experiences are misunderstandings of natural phenomena.
*playing with the word spiritual
Art, for example, doesn’t transcend the self?
Interesting.
Art is not conscious.
“True existentialism is the dramatic investigation of human nature through the medium of art” (Colin Wilson)
Spiritualism.
The concept I’m discussing here is spiritualism. NOT existentialism.
Specifically, I’m confused why atheists want to reference spirituality while denying the existence of spirits.
You will offer nothing, as usual. You are only interested in disagreeing with me.
And as I previously asked you, but you ran away from, if you have evidence for “spirit” then present it.
Until then, the word is generic, and all we actually have have is existentialism.
So, do you have evidence?
What would you accept as evidence for “spirit”?
Let’s see what you have.
LOL!
It is not me who runs away from these discussions.
You’re asking me to provide evidence for something you can’t even define.
Everybody in the world, except you, understands ‘spiritual’ isn’t a generic term. You need to demonstrate why your definition is better.
John Branyan, let’s see what you think is evidence.
Do you have evidence, yes or no?
Of course I have evidence.
I have an atheist who is compelled to assign ‘spirituality’ to his godless worldview. Strong evidence that the atheist soul is not content being ignored.
If you think “spiritual” describes something specific then provide evidence for that.
If you can’t, stop talking. You’re boring.
You’re not bored.
You’re beaten.
YOU are the evidence–and anyone who isn’t stubborn (and bordering on insane) can see it.
LOL! My blog, remember?
You are the evidence for spiritual reality. You can’t justify your godless worldview on it’s own merit. You are here desperately trying to squeeze some transcendent meaning out of naturalism.
You can’t do it. Sam Harris can’t do it.
The solution is pretty simple. Ditch atheism.
…but you can’t do that either.
And again, if you think “spiritual” describes something specific then provide evidence for that.
Evidence.
You’re NOT allowed to bloat this comment section with the same question. You have been answered.
My guess is that you’ll probably just go to spam now because you can’t keep from repeating yourself.
He’s on the road.
I’M the one who is keeping the comment section from being held hostage by the 100-COMMENT SONG AND DANCE!!!!!!! 😉
Try saying something worth reading next time.
A spirit is what remains consistent in a subject or object while the material of the subject or object is ever-changing.
The fact that John Zande knows that John Branyan will be the same John Branyan when he replies- and that he, John Zande, will be the same John Zande when he recieves the reply is evidence for spirits.
Hi John and Friends!
John has stated that Art is not conscious, but To be fair, on atheism, consciousness is an illusion- as Sam Harris stated in that first quote above: “..the illusion of the self, the illusion that there is a thinker in addition to the thoughts..” On atheism neither art NOR the artist are conscious.
On atheism, a toaster and the human brain differ only in their complexity and chemical make up- but in a godless worldview, how does complexity create self or self awareness? That is like asking how complected your toaster can get before it DECIDES to make toast. In both cases, it can’t. Atheism demands one reject free will and a unified self. It’s part of the laundry list of reasons why atheism is unlivable and absurd. When atheists are consistent, they have to reject belief not only in God, but in themselves.
(There needs to be a better word for “stupid.”)
Here’s where I take atheists to task- if you admit that you can think and make choices, if you can distinguish between actual right and wrong (as opposed to your feelings and personal preferences), if you admit you can choose and make decisions, if you admit you are not a toaster, then you admit that Atheism is false and God must exist. They don’t get to steal from our worldview and attack it at the same time. You want to claim you are thinking person- a “free thinker”? Then you have rejected Atheism already. You want to reject the existence of God? OK, you’re a toaster whose DNA has forced their brain to take the form we call “Atheism.” But personally, I’m not taking advice from a toaster.
Thanks for posting this JB. A great invitation to think, as always.
YOU (and any other viewer with a soul) can transcend the physical realm when you view art.
Oh, and the artist is what in that equation, exactly?
Usually another person with a soul. Sometimes God himself.
As expected, you didn’t address the question.
Of course I did.
But, so begins the JZ-100-QUESTION-SONG-AND-DANCE.
No, you didn’t.
John,
Art is either an imitation of reality or a hallucination of an alternate reality.
Neither imitation nor hallucination transcend the self although atheism may make it seem that way.
JZ can feel free to reply to your comment. But, if the only thing he’s going to do is whine about being censored when he has had at least half a dozen comments here to make a point, then you’re going to be waiting awhile. 🙂