An atheist's guide to spiritual experience

Sunday, January 7
Elizabeth Gilbert

Picture this — a smart, hip young woman called Elizabeth Gilbert who thought she had it all. She was married, lived in New York, made her living as a successful writer. One night found herself crumpled sobbing in a heap on the floor of the bathroom. And for the first time, she found herself praying to God. That was the start of Elizabeth Gilbert’s journey — both physically and spiritually. The result is her new book called Eat Pray Love: One Woman’s Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia. Elizabeth Gilbert will be Mary Hynes' guest on Tapestry this week.

http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives/2007/010707.html

Listen in: http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/media/2006/041606.ram (bandwidth warning)


Anyways, my point about this: Gilbert describes her spiritual experience and interprets it to be a message from a God. An indescribable, God-affirming, blissful revelation. This is the usual crap that ends up on Tapestry (Sam Harris' spot was the best episode yet). But here's what caught me: her explanation of her deep spiritual experience is a verbatim description of (how I have described) my own epiphany after reading The Problems of Philosophy 2 years ago.

Guess what theists, you lose.

I'm going to have to check both links now, but why do theists lose?  

Because religious people describe religious experiences?

Atheists are the ones who have been enlightened. Religion was founded during ancient times so that people would follow the wishes of the Church, and nowadays people use it as something which they claim is good enough reason to kill innocents such as Islam: "It is Allah's wish that they die."

Atheists are the ones who have been enlightened. Religion was founded during ancient times so that people would follow the wishes of the Church, and nowadays people use it as something which they claim is good enough reason to kill innocents such as Islam: "It is Allah's wish that they die."

Religion is used for more than just to justify killing.
Killing is justified more than just by religion.
Atheists kill people too.


As far as 'enlightenment' goes, does it really matter what happens when man dies?

At least Atheists dont kill people in the name of a deity that doesnt not exist.

At least Atheists dont kill people in the name of a deity that doesnt not exist.

Atheists kill people for belief in that deity that does not exist.

Quote from: "Strader"

At least Atheists dont kill people in the name of a deity that doesnt not exist.

Atheists kill people for belief in that deity that does not exist.

Name me one reasonable, rational person that does so/has done so.

Quote from: "Astantia"

Quote from: "Strader"

At least Atheists dont kill people in the name of a deity that doesnt not exist.

Atheists kill people for belief in that deity that does not exist.

Name me one reasonable, rational person that does so/has done so.

Reasonable and rational people do not kill people.  Just because someone does not believe in a God does not make them rational.

Then don't generalize that atheists kill, or even discriminate against "people for believing in nonexistent beings."

People can kill for any kind of reason, most are just stupid or are plausible but unbelieved.

Then don't generalize that theists kill.

I think we have the right to make that generalization when the total populations of religions are often involved in killing or torture. The Inquisition, for example. Atheists have killed people, yes. But name one instance of an atheist killing someone in the name of atheism.

Hmmmm, I know there was a few times, but I can't remember the instance it happened...

The whole lot of theists were responsible for the inquisition?

I'm not even going to address the absurdity of that statement.

Communism is directly descended from Atheism (but not it's only descendent)

Stalin comes to mind.


Then again, this is attributing the person to the idea, I believe that's Ad Hominem, so I would not like to argue that Atheism is bad because of Stalin, God knows there are plenty of good atheists.  Just as there are plenty of good theists.

I know this may sound silly, but what is a 'theist'?

Theist is a general term for any being that believes that there is a God.

It does not limit the 'believer' to the Christian God, to Allah, to Yehweh, or to any other clearly defined religion.  It is merely the belief that there is a being outside the Universe that is capable of interaction with our Universe.  It does not clearly define him (or her, or it) with any inherent abilities, nor any inherent limitations, except that this being is rational (as in, capable of thought) and supernatural (outside of the natural).

Ah I see, thank you for the explanation.

[size=1000000000000000000000000000]yes thank you [/size]


o man it didnt work

It is merely the belief that there is a being outside the Universe that is capable of interaction with our Universe.

It's probably meaningless to speak of anything that is "outside the universe" (as long as you're using the word 'universe' in the way it is generally understood to mean).

At least Atheists dont kill people in the name of a deity that doesnt not exist.

Really? Ever heard of Science? Or abortion? How about stem-cell research. And it's never religion which is bad. All religion, at least mainstream, encourages peace, and respect. (One exception I know of to this is something in the Quran about how you're supposed to convert people through violence if they deny you? Even so, almost no one in Islam still believes this, except the minority.) It's the people that abuse it that are bad. God is not evil, Buddah isn't evil, Allah(Which is the same thing as God) isn't evil. No, but it can easily be said that there are no wars started over religion, but of blatant ignorance of those that would abuse it for personal gain.

But then again, hell what do I know, let's go kill us some Muslims and get us some oil!

Quote from: "Strader"

At least Atheists dont kill people in the name of a deity that doesnt not exist.

Really? Ever heard of Science? Or abortion? How about stem-cell research.

Science kills people?  Abortion has nothing to do with any kind of religion.  And stem-cell research doesn't require any kind of killing, although when aborted fetuses are involved, it is better to use them for the betterment of society, than throw 'em away.

Even so, almost no one in Islam still believes this, except the minority.) It's the people that abuse it that are bad.

Actually, anybody that takes the Qur'an seriously still believes this, hence, Islamic terrorists.  If you need to be convinced that Islam is an inherently dangerous faith-based worldview, try reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris--specifically the chapter about Islam.  Even if you want to claim that the minority of people are the ones that are violent, you cannot cavalierly assume that this is because these people are misunderstanding what the Qur'an says.  In fact, Harris points out that this is surely not the case.

No, but it can easily be said that there are no wars started over religion, but of blatant ignorance...

Anybody that sincerely believes that God will reward them with seventy-two virgins in heaven when they die as long as they kill people of opposing faiths is only ignorant of how the world truly works, not of what their religion tells them.  Islam is dangerous, and Muslims are waging war over this worldview.  You seem to believe that religion is inherently moderate, whereas anybody else can simply open their eyes and see that religious extremism is supported by religious holy books.