Carol service in prod church review.

[Burney]

But 'supernatural' can also encompass matters that are spiritual. This need not have anything to do with God, which is why I objected to you conflating the two.

What you actually mean is "Anyone who has opened their mind for more than 5 minutes will be aware that there's loads we don't yet know or understand about the world - and will be open to the possibility of transcendental potential (for want of a better phrase)".

Fúck all to do with God.

If you believe any of that shít, you're only a cùnt hair away from being a god-botherer yourself imo. I always find convinced atheists who then come out with this type of horseshít very funny, I must say. Proof - if it were needed - of my avatar's dictum that ''When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

Let's just say that 'god' is whatever it is that every human being instinctively tries to bargain with at times of stress. That exists within all of us.

[Monty92]

If you believe any of that shít, you're only a cùnt hair away from being a god-botherer yourself imo. I always find convinced atheists who then come out with this type of horseshít very funny, I must say. Proof - if it were needed - of my avatar's dictum that ''When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

Let's just say that 'god' is whatever it is that every human being instinctively tries to bargain with at times of stress. That exists within all of us.

You think acknowledging that we have no real idea about the origins of human consciousness is only a **** hair away from being a God botherer?

My word.

[Burney]

You think acknowledging that we have no real idea about the origins of human consciousness is only a **** hair away from being a God botherer?

My word.

I think that a belief in human spirituality is simply a means of sublimating and rendering intellectually acceptable a pre-existing gut-level belief in a higher supernatural power. It's just a smokescreen thrown up by people who desperately want to believe in something, but won't let themselves believe in a 'God'. If you believe there are such things as 'matters spiritual', you are de facto admitting you believe in the human soul - a wholly religious construct.

[IUFG]

Quite frankly, the entire notion of religion (used to control people and amass riches through the ages) is preposterous.

If you proposed the idea now of living your life by means of 2000 year old folklore, you'd be sent to the Mental Hospital.

[Monty92]

I think that a belief in human spirituality is simply a means of sublimating and rendering intellectually acceptable a pre-existing gut-level belief in a higher supernatural power. It's just a smokescreen thrown up by people who desperately want to believe in something, but won't let themselves believe in a 'God'. If you believe there are such things as 'matters spiritual', you are de facto admitting you believe in the human soul - a wholly religious construct.

I would concede that the term 'spiritual' comes heavily loaded with religious connotations, and to that extent is certainly inadequate or imperfect.

But it only takes a small broadening of our traditional concept of spirituality to encompass matters such as the mysteries of consciousness that have absolutely nothing to do with God.

Believing in such matters is not a smokescreen - it's an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of 5 minutes of opening your mind.

[Burney]

I would concede that the term 'spiritual' comes heavily loaded with religious connotations, and to that extent is certainly inadequate or imperfect.

But it only takes a small broadening of our traditional concept of spirituality to encompass matters such as the mysteries of consciousness that have absolutely nothing to do with God.

Believing in such matters is not a smokescreen - it's an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of 5 minutes of opening your mind.

Sorry, but wishy-washy phrases such as ‘the mysteries of consciousness’ set alarm bells ringing. What mysteries? Our ‘consciousness’ is simply a series of biochemical reactions to which we imbue undue significance. If you’re that interested in it, I suggest the answers will be found in science, not ‘spirituality’.

[Sir C]

Sorry, but wishy-washy phrases such as ‘the mysteries of consciousness’ set alarm bells ringing. What mysteries? Our ‘consciousness’ is simply a series of biochemical reactions to which we imbue undue significance. If you’re that interested in it, I suggest the answers will be found in science, not ‘spirituality’.

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

A mild cynicism towards scientific dogma would serve you well. See also: 'climate change'.

[Burney]

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

A mild cynicism towards scientific dogma would serve you well. See also: 'climate change'.

I retain a cynicism about all dogma. Dogma and good science are mutually exclusive.

[Monty92]

Sorry, but wishy-washy phrases such as ‘the mysteries of consciousness’ set alarm bells ringing. What mysteries? Our ‘consciousness’ is simply a series of biochemical reactions to which we imbue undue significance. If you’re that interested in it, I suggest the answers will be found in science, not ‘spirituality’.

Wishy-washy phrases like "the mysteries of conciousness" are only toxic by association, because they've so often been utilised by wishy-washy idiots like Deepak Chopra. But that doesn't necessarily render them inherently useless.

What about the 'nature' of conciousness? Would you object to that too? You take a psychadelic drug to change the biochemistry of your brain and to get closer to understanding the nature of consciousness. In this sense, spirituality can often rely on science, yet you flippantly treat them as mutually incompatible.

[Burney]

Wishy-washy phrases like "the mysteries of conciousness" are only toxic by association, because they've so often been utilised by wishy-washy idiots like Deepak Chopra. But that doesn't necessarily render them inherently useless.

What about the 'nature' of conciousness? Would you object to that too? You take a psychadelic drug to change the biochemistry of your brain and to get closer to understanding the nature of consciousness. In this sense, spirituality can often rely on science, yet you flippantly treat them as mutually incompatible.

Drugs do things to your brain that alter your perceptions. But that is not a spiritual issue, it’s a chemical one. If you choose to believe what you experience when you’re fúcked up is ‘truer’ than what you experience when you’re not, you’re no different to a religious adherent who thinks they’ve achieved religious ecstasy. It’s all the same thing.