fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2456 ]

[ SECRET POST #2456 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2456 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[China, Illinois]

__________________________________________________

03.

[The Mortal Instruments]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Community]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Hunter x Hunter, Senritsu/Melody]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Hetalia]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine]

__________________________________________________

08.

[It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Ghostbusters]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Teen Wolf]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Malik Ishtar from Yugi-oh Duel Monsters]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #351.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - ships it ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Do whatever you want, OP. But keep in mind that it's going to be really confusing when you purport to be an atheist who's cool with deities as long as they're pagan because that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. It's like saying you're a vegan in mind, but spiritually feel at home with the family size bucket of original recipe at KFC.

There's a huge difference between "spiritually" believing in gods and physically believing in gods, though. Spiritual belief implies not physically real, but it's a go-to for inspiration, meditation, centering yourself, whatever. Physically believing in gods means you believe they're real, do real shit, and actually interfere with reality.

(reply from suspended user)

can't you let a single comment slip by without reminding everyone what a gigantic dick you are about religion?

(reply from suspended user)

Of course not, the high premium on belief is actually a Christian-centric bias. Quite a few religions don't care whether you believe or doubt gods.

It's hilarious that you say "appropriate gods" considering that what Wicca is founded upon.

Yeah, it's funny watching an agnostic white knighting a religion built around a gender-essentialist duotheism. In its own way, Wicca isn't much different from the Jungians, Chaos Magicians, and Pop Culture Pagans.

(reply from suspended user)

Yeah, no. That definition of spiritual vs. physical belief is one that only exists inside your head and not reality. You either believe in god(s), or you don't. There's none of this oh, I don't believe PHYSICALLY, but SPIRITUALLY I totally do blah blah blah.

This is why I roll my eyes when people say they're "spiritual". They usually make define that word so vaguely or inaccurately that it loses all meaning. What it basically means is that you don't like any of the religions that already exist, so you're making up your own. Conveniently, it doesn't have to include anything you don't like, so you can feel like you're accomplishing something profound while exerting minimal effort.

Hi again, Stella.

Guess what. You don't get to define spirituality or religion for anyone. It's cute of you to presume that you MUST BELIEVE GOD IS A REAL DUDE IN THE SKY and you can't spiritually believe in him (which I do, I believe God is love, and is an idea, not an entity).

OF COURSE people should be able to make up their own idea! Why the hell should people follow tenants of any religion they don't like? If I call myself a Christian, I don't believe being gay is bad and I think women are equal in all ways to men. So damn well I'm not going to follow them, and if I "make up my own religion", why the fuck do you care? That's between me, my soul, and God - you're not invited.

For all intents and purposes, it's apologists and interfaith ecumenical folks who expanded the definition of "spirituality" to "everything but explicit atheism." Of course these are also the sort of people who advance the perennialist claim that everything is really compatible with Christian theology under the surface, even if it's explicitly atheist or agnostic.

(reply from suspended user)

With all due respect, this sounds like being otherkin.

What if I spiritually believe in Sephiroth? Not physically, mind. But spiritually he is my husbando.

With all due respect, that's idiotic. Otherkin comparison if you don't actually believe in supernatural dudes in the sky, but still find them spiritually valid?

And if you truly believe in a fictional video game character spiritually, that's your business. I don't even care if people invent their own gods. If that's the spiritual path that fits for you - Jedi or Lifestream or something - who cares?

With all due respect, that's idiotic. Otherkin comparison if you don't actually believe in supernatural dudes in the sky, but still find them spiritually valid?

I'm assuming that "believing in supernatural dudes in the sky" really translates into "believing they exist," as for example most Christians/Jews/Muslims believe in God but don't believe he is a Zeus-like old bearded man on a cloud, but do believe he is a real being who exists.

How is a deity "spiritually valid" if it doesn't exist?

I don't even care if people invent their own gods. If that's the spiritual path that fits for you - Jedi or Lifestream or something - who cares?

Shitstream is pretty awesome but I don't suggest worshiping it. And I damn well am going to make fun of Jedi, because they're Jedi

And if I don't believe gods exist as anything but a spiritual concept, how is that invalid? Not all Christians/Jews/Muslims even believe God physically exists, I've known more than a few that simply translate to "God is love" or "God is a feeling" etc. That's the difference between spiritual belief and physical belief.

How is that NOT spiritually valid, and why do you feel the need to invalidate a frankly harmless religious idea that's not even anything new?

Not all Christians/Jews/Muslims even believe God physically exists, I've known more than a few that simply translate to "God is love" or "God is a feeling" etc.

Then I would contend that your friends aren't mainline Christians or Muslims (I can't really speak to Judaism, I don't know as much about that theology), if by "Christian" or "Muslim" you mean someone who adheres to the tenets of Christianity or Islam. They might be culturally tied to those religions--which is perfectly valid, I'm more or less 'culturally' Catholic at this point--or feel uncomfortable separating from them in the sense of identity for various individual reasons, but Christianity mandates that God is an actual being, Jesus was his Son, blah blah blah. They could be part of an offshoot, too--for example, Mormons are classified as Christians but disagree with Christians about some pretty fundamental things, for example. But they still believe God is a being who exists.

How is that NOT spiritually valid, and why do you feel the need to invalidate a frankly harmless religious idea that's not even anything new?

I don't have the power to do that and wouldn't presume to have that authority. What I'm doing is having a conversation with you on the internet. What you are doing is being kind of incoherent about what you mean.

Edited 2013-09-24 18:51 (UTC)

I don't know. Can't swing a stick around modern theology without hitting someone making the distinction ala Tillich between Being and A Being. Well, you can, but you'd likely get arrested for assault and battery. Of course, I suspect that people who flip/flop from a pantheistic god to a personal and prophetic god are likely engaged in a theology of convenience.

More or less, yeah.

I just don't understand "I'm an atheist! But spiritually I _____."

It's just incongruous. Do they not want to be theist that bad? If you're spiritual, you aren't atheist. You can certainly respect spirituality, even think it's neat, while being an atheist (see: most university Religion departments), but I'm not sure how you can be "spiritual" but atheist.

It's like those women who are dead set against ever being defined as a feminist but have beliefs that are wholly in line with classical feminism. They've got the right to identify as whatever they want but it looks funny.

> If you're spiritual, you aren't atheist.

Not even wrong.

> ... but I'm not sure how you can be "spiritual" but atheist.

Simple, atheism != physicalism. And spirituality != supernaturalism.

For example, it's entirely consistent to say that karma exists, and karma also applies to gods. I'm also about halfway through David Abram's work on phenomenological animism. I should probably add the just published Dworkin on my reading list.

Edited 2013-09-24 22:46 (UTC)

...I'm gonna assume you meant Dawkins, not Dworkin, as one of those people just published a book and the other one died several years ago.

Ronald Dworkin, died Feburary 13, 1913. Book due out next month, although reviews are currently hitting my news feeds.

Aahh, okay! Mybad.

Uh? The idea that deities are useful metaphors and thoughtforms didn't actually start with psychoanalysis and modern magickal traditions. They picked that idea up from certain flavors of Mahayana Buddhism and classical atheists who didn't have a problem name-dropping Venus in their treatises on atomism.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2456 ]

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?

Re: Any neopagans here?