Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

I think it might "look like" most other human endeavours. A peppering of good ideas, mixed thoroughly with "a massive collection of self delusional ideas".

[Sculptor1]

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

I think it might "look like" most other human endeavours. A peppering of good ideas, mixed thoroughly with "a massive collection of self delusional ideas".

OH?
What is spirituality?

[Gee]

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

I think it might "look like" most other human endeavours. A peppering of good ideas, mixed thoroughly with "a massive collection of self delusional ideas".

OH?
What is spirituality?

It is real. You understand real, don't you?

Gee

[Sculptor1]

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

I think it might "look like" most other human endeavours. A peppering of good ideas, mixed thoroughly with "a massive collection of self delusional ideas".

OH?
What is spirituality?

It is real. You understand real, don't you?

Gee

"Real" is not a definition.

[Pattern-chaser]

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

I think it might "look like" most other human endeavours. A peppering of good ideas, mixed thoroughly with "a massive collection of self delusional ideas".

What is spirituality?

<yawn> Not again! You question the meaning of your own chosen vocabulary? Discussion suits philosophy much better than debate does, particularly when the latter is practised at such a ... basic level.

[Sculptor1]

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

I think it might "look like" most other human endeavours. A peppering of good ideas, mixed thoroughly with "a massive collection of self delusional ideas".

What is spirituality?

<yawn> Not again! You question the meaning of your own chosen vocabulary? Discussion suits philosophy much better than debate does, particularly when the latter is practised at such a ... basic level.

Answer the question, or not.
You are not under any obligation to be rude.
Discussion, debate? Define your terms!
Discuss!

[Pattern-chaser]

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

[...]

Discussion, debate? Define your terms!
Discuss!

Your terms, I think? I responded using the terms you were already using. See, just up there.

Define my terms? OK. I meant by "spirituality" the same as you meant when you used it, above. There, will that do?

[Sculptor1]

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

[...]

Discussion, debate? Define your terms!
Discuss!

Your terms, I think? I responded using the terms you were already using. See, just up there.

Define my terms? OK. I meant by "spirituality" the same as you meant when you used it, above. There, will that do?

FIne you seem to agree now that it is a set of delusions.. Is that correct?
Fine. If you accept my definition of spirituality you have no reason to attack my pov that it is a collection of self-delusional ideas.
If you think it is more then you will have to define your terms and say why think it is not what I say it it.

[Lagayascienza]

Spirituality has been long tied up with religion, most lately with the Abrahamic religions and their various imaginary gods, spirits, angels and demons. We know that the god of our religion is the right one because it hates the same people we do. The right god is the god of whatever religion we happen to have been indoctrinated into, usually as young children. And that is one of the ways in which we know that religion, and traditional religious spirituality, are nonsense.

Organized religion has caused untold misery for millennia. But I would not ban it even if I could. It would just go underground. It will take time, but religion and religious spirituality will have to be dealt with in the free marketplace of ideas. People themselves need to come to understand religion for what it is – a delusion. Only when enough humans understand this will humanity be able to free itself from the self-imposed chains of religion and traditional religious spirituality.

And once they do so, there is a naturalistic spirituality to turn to which serves them better and does not fly in the face of reason. If people want to be good, they will then do so simply because it feels good to be good, and because it makes sense to be good to one another, and not for reward or for fear of punishment in some imaginary supernatural afterlife. As more and more people come to understand the truth, organised religion and its evils will fall away.

Fortunately, the balance is shifting. In the 2021 census in Australia, for example, 38.9% of people said they l had no religion. I imagine that at the next census the number of non-believers will be greater than 45%. 20 years ago the figure was around 25%. I think the numbers of religious world-wide, and particularly in Western and Asian counties, will continue to fall away until the religious are a tiny minority. But the pace cannot be forced. It has to happen naturally as people gradually question religion themselves and eventually wise up, and then move to a naturalistic spirituality.

[Pattern-chaser]

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

[...]

Discussion, debate? Define your terms!
Discuss!

Your terms, I think? I responded using the terms you were already using. See, just up there.

Define my terms? OK. I meant by "spirituality" the same as you meant when you used it, above. There, will that do?

FIne you seem to agree now that it is a set of delusions.. Is that correct?
Fine. If you accept my definition of spirituality you have no reason to attack my pov that it is a collection of self-delusional ideas.
If you think it is more then you will have to define your terms and say why think it is not what I say it it.

No, I said nothing about delusions. I only used the term you had first used, with the same meaning you intended, the meaning that we all know and understand, even if it's in the most general of ways.

[Sculptor1]

What might it look like if the entire edifice of what we call "spirituality" was nothing more than a massive collection of self delusional ideas?

[...]

Discussion, debate? Define your terms!
Discuss!

Your terms, I think? I responded using the terms you were already using. See, just up there.

Define my terms? OK. I meant by "spirituality" the same as you meant when you used it, above. There, will that do?

FIne you seem to agree now that it is a set of delusions.. Is that correct?
Fine. If you accept my definition of spirituality you have no reason to attack my pov that it is a collection of self-delusional ideas.
If you think it is more then you will have to define your terms and say why think it is not what I say it it.

No, I said nothing about delusions. I only used the term you had first used, with the same meaning you intended, the meaning that we all know and understand, even if it's in the most general of ways.

Okay. But if you do not know what it means then at least be honest.
But this sort of would undermine your criticisms of other people's usage if you are not willing to stick our neck out, so to speak.
But there is a distinct problem that you seem to think that there is such a thing as "the most general" understanding, when clearly this is so vauge and diffuse as to make it impossible to converse about it. Worst still people on this thread, alone, clearly have a range of view which are not in agreement one with another.

[Pattern-chaser]

But there is a distinct problem that you seem to think that there is such a thing as "the most general" understanding, when clearly this is so vague and diffuse as to make it impossible to converse about it.

This would mean that we could never discuss things like truth, beauty, and so forth. There are quite a few such subjects. And yet, in practice, in the real world, it seems that such vague and diffuse approximations *are* sufficient for our needs (to discuss and consider them). They could, ideally, be much improved, but they have proven to be sufficient, I think.

[Sculptor1]

But there is a distinct problem that you seem to think that there is such a thing as "the most general" understanding, when clearly this is so vague and diffuse as to make it impossible to converse about it.

This would mean that we could never discuss things like truth, beauty, and so forth. There are quite a few such subjects. And yet, in practice, in the real world, it seems that such vague and diffuse approximations *are* sufficient for our needs (to discuss and consider them). They could, ideally, be much improved, but they have proven to be sufficient, I think.

Not at all. The very act of discussion (about truth etc..) reveals what you mean about it and so defines the terms.
You are just squirming.

[Pattern-chaser]

But there is a distinct problem that you seem to think that there is such a thing as "the most general" understanding, when clearly this is so vague and diffuse as to make it impossible to converse about it.

This would mean that we could never discuss things like truth, beauty, and so forth. There are quite a few such subjects. And yet, in practice, in the real world, it seems that such vague and diffuse approximations *are* sufficient for our needs (to discuss and consider them). They could, ideally, be much improved, but they have proven to be sufficient, I think.

Not at all. The very act of discussion (about truth etc..) reveals what you mean about it and so defines the terms.
You are just squirming.

"Squirming"? Is there no room in your 'philosophy' for discussion? This isn't a contest, where one of us wins, you know? This is a forum where many things receive serious consideration from its contributors.

[Sculptor1]

But there is a distinct problem that you seem to think that there is such a thing as "the most general" understanding, when clearly this is so vague and diffuse as to make it impossible to converse about it.

This would mean that we could never discuss things like truth, beauty, and so forth. There are quite a few such subjects. And yet, in practice, in the real world, it seems that such vague and diffuse approximations *are* sufficient for our needs (to discuss and consider them). They could, ideally, be much improved, but they have proven to be sufficient, I think.

Not at all. The very act of discussion (about truth etc..) reveals what you mean about it and so defines the terms.
You are just squirming.

"Squirming"? Is there no room in your 'philosophy' for discussion? This isn't a contest, where one of us wins, you know? This is a forum where many things receive serious consideration from its contributors.

??? I have been trying to engage you in a discussion. I asked you to say what you think spirituality means and you and you refused to discuss it. So I am genuinely puzzed.