Spirituality Without Superstition

March 29, 2008 at 12:16 am 23 comments

There are many sources of spirituality; religion may be the most common, but it is by no means the only. Anything that generates a sense of awe may be a source of spirituality. Science does this in spades. – Michael Shermer, The Soul of Science

I am an atheist, a person with a naturalistic world view, free of supernatural, metaphysical, and paranormal forces. Can I understand what it means to be spiritual? Can I write about spirituality? Can I claim to be a spiritual person? I was recently challenged to think about these questions.

For many people, the word spiritual is closely tied to the concept of religion and the belief in a personified God, a father figure looking out for his children as he reigns in heaven. For others, the word spiritual brings up images of the New Age movement, séances, auras, Tarot cards, and crystal energy. Still others think of Zen Buddhism, meditation, yoga, the Tao Te Ching, and other Eastern traditions. Yes, people following these paths do consider themselves to be spiritual. But that does not mean that those of us who are skeptics and brights cannot dip into the well of spirituality to quench our own thirst for mystery and meaning.

Spirituality is not a result of belief in the supernatural. It arises naturally out of human consciousness. Three and a half billion years of evolution has built the need for meaning and purpose into human beings. It is as real as our need to breathe. The word spirit comes from the Latin word spiritus, meaning breath. When the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words for breath, translated as soul and spirit in the Bible, were first used, people thought that the physical breath going in and out of our bodies through our noses and mouths was the source of life. Over time, the definition of spirit changed from literal breath to the idea of a non-physical life force. Although many of us no longer believe that ethereal spirits animate our bodies or that ghostly souls inhabit our brains, every breath we take reminds us of the wonder of life and gives rise to the to the feeling that we have a purpose to fulfill.

“Spirituality is a way of being in the world, a sense of one’s place in the cosmos, a relationship to that which extends beyond ourselves,” Michael Shermer writes in The Soul of Science. A friend of mine, author Jane Kirkpatrick, says, “Spirituality is a clarity of life framed by the awareness of death.” Both of these definitions speak about our humanity, about our place in the universe, and about how we can live with dignity and intention. Both sides of spirituality—experiencing transcendence through the beauty of the universe and finding purpose in our short lives here on earth—can be practiced by skeptics and believers alike.

However, in writing about spirituality, I find myself wondering if I am unintentionally empowering religious extremists by embracing their words. I’m not sure if those of us who do not believe in a personified deity should use the words that religions use at all. When I use the terms “spiritual,” “transcendence,” and “miracle,” as metaphors, am I causing confusion? Can spirituality be explained without using the terms of religious experience?

I have no answer to these questions, but neither do I have other words to explain the feeling of a fiery sunset, the satisfaction of living a purposeful life, or the amazing fact that I exist to think about these things.

The path may not be easy, and the goal may sometimes seem impossible to reach, but regardless of what we call it, mystery and meaning are available to all who seek to live a spiritual life.

- writerdd

Further Reading:

The Soul of Science by Michael Shermer. The Skeptics Society, Altadena, CA. 2006.

The Van Gogh Blues by Eric Maisel, PhD. Rodale, New York, NY. 2002.

A New Christianity for a New World by John Shelby Spong. Harper Collins, San Francisco, CA. 2001.

Entry filed under: writerdd. Tags: , , , , , , , .

The Christian God Is Not a God At All Postcards from the Apocalypse

23 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Gary  |  March 29, 2008 at 5:35 am

    Interesting to see Spong in this list. Given how radical his idea of a new christianity, the book should probably be called ‘A New Spirituality for a New World’.

    Great article, a book that goes along the same line is Bringing God Back to Earth by John Hunt. His argument is that some people are disposed to belief, and others to non-belief. In either case, there is still a place for spirituality.

  • 2. Spiritual Atheism? « The Ape of Reason  |  March 29, 2008 at 9:10 am

    [...] Though I do not believe the sensation is supernatural, the experience itself is undeniable.  A post at de-conversion.com makes an appeal to understand a skeptics right to share in this.  I am not completely on- board [...]

  • 3. Zoe  |  March 29, 2008 at 9:33 am

    Love this post writerdd.

    As an ex-Christian, for nearly four years now, I have really been at odds with using terms such as “spirituality” because of all the previous Christian associations with the term.

    Now, a few years into deconversion and reclaiming my life outside the Christian context, I’m finding that I’d like to use those spiritual words again, in fact, I wonder if it isn’t time we take them back from the realm of theism.

  • 4. Stephen P  |  March 29, 2008 at 11:23 am

    For me the word spirituality has never been tied just to organised religion, but refers more generally to belief in gods, ghosts, souls, fairies, leprachauns etc. However to me spirituality does indeed imply superstition: a belief in spirits of one kind or another.

    But there seems to be no consistency in how people use the word. Michael Shermer and yourself use it differently from me. As you say, some people tie it to organised religion. I have met other people who considered that the term specifically excluded organised religion. And I’m afraid I get the impression that some (many?) people just use the term to make themselves appear superior, without being at all clear what – if anything – they mean by it.

    As a result I fear that it’s not a word that can really be used any more (except perhaps in a formal paper that starts with definitions of terms or when you are writing for a small and well-understood audience). Whatever you mean to convey with it, the majority of your readers will understand something else.

  • 5. Jersey  |  March 29, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    There is a song by Nickelback called “Believe It or Not” that contains this line which I think can be taken just as many ways as the word “spiritual”: “Believe it or not, everyone believe in something above”.

  • 6. writerdd  |  March 29, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    It is interesting how different people use the word spiritual. I think people know at a gut level what it means though. It has something to do with what it feels like to be human.

  • 7. carriedthecross  |  March 29, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    writerdd,

    I think I’ll be uncomfortable, for some time at any rate, with using words like “spiritual” for reasons you listed. Nonetheless, I enjoyed your post. I love reading, and watching, Carl Sagan for exactly the reasons you talk about… when I read/watch the “Pale Blue Dot” I am filled with awe. In fact, much more than I ever was in any kind of church service.

    Thanks for the post,
    CTC

  • 8. M. Lind  |  March 30, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    After having read Bishop John Robinsons book Honest to God and Bishop Spongs A New Christianity for a New World, which books I like very much, a new confession of Faith came to me:

    I believe in God
    the Spring of Life and Love
    the Foundation of the Existence
    being in me and everýbody
    for ever and ever
    God is Love

    I believe in Jesus Christ
    the Man
    who shows us the Way
    God is Love

    I believe in us all
    as human beings
    through whom God can act
    God is Love

  • 9. exevangel  |  March 30, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    Agree completely, I like the idea that we “take back” the concept of spiritual, take it away from a meaning of swaying while arm raising during music at mega-churches. (Sorry, personal rant there!) I like this line from the definition at the start of the Wikipedia entry:

    Spiritual matters are thus those matters regarding humankind’s ultimate nature and purpose, not only as material biological organisms, but as beings with a unique relationship to that which is beyond both time and the material world.

  • 10. choward  |  April 4, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    I have a few problems that I have not yet received a satisfactory answer for: If our existence is completely naturalistic, the result of chance and/or natural forces alone, then what “purpose” could we have as human beings, one more flip of a cosmic coin? If our existence is entirely the result of naturalistic forces, then how can we have a purpose (defined by Merriam-Webster as “something set up as an object or end to be attained” – http://www.merriam-webster.com, emphasis mine)? If we have no purpose, how can there be meaning in life beyond that of the rest of the biological world, to live, reproduce, and die? If this natural world is all that exists, where is the meaning in living, reproducing, and dying, let alone in a world that is destined for entropy and destruction? If this is all the meaning that we have, how can we make the type of lasting impact that we are all searching for (based on your discussion of spirituality)? If our desire for meaning is the result of biological forces (and I assume you primarily mean natural selection), why is it that we are not satisfied with merely fulfilling that which nature has equipped us with, preservation of our progeny and/or species?

    Notice that I am not questioning whether or not a skeptic/atheist/naturalist can pursue meaning and purpose, but only whether or not they can find it in their world view.

  • 11. writerdd  |  April 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    I have a few problems that I have not yet received a satisfactory answer for: If our existence is completely naturalistic, the result of chance and/or natural forces alone, then what “purpose” could we have as human beings, one more flip of a cosmic coin?

    Bingo. None.

    Life is ultimately meaningless, but because we are beings who have feelings and thoughts, we can make our individual lives feel meaningful to us by doing things that we find important. We make our own meaning. Just because the universe has no ultimate purpose and my life isn’t hear for some big meaning that a diety pre-ordained, doesn’t mean that I find nothing meaningful. Helping other people, creating beauty, learning about things, all of these things give me an individual purpose. And that’s all I need.

  • 12. Quester  |  April 4, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    Choward,

    If our existence is completely naturalistic, the result of chance and/or natural forces alone, then what “purpose” could we have as human beings, one more flip of a cosmic coin?

    Whatever purpose you choose for yourself.

    If our desire for meaning is the result of biological forces (and I assume you primarily mean natural selection), why is it that we are not satisfied with merely fulfilling that which nature has equipped us with, preservation of our progeny and/or species?

    Because we have reason, not merely instinct. Reason is much harder to satisfy.

  • 13. choward  |  April 6, 2008 at 9:31 am

    writerdd,
    How come a majority of people are not satisfied with declaring their own purpose? That might be good enough for you, to determine by yourself why you exist, but, ultimately, “meaning” will come from knowing why you are here…at least that’s what most people pursue.

    Quester,
    To add to what I wrote to writerdd above…where is the satisfaction in knowing that you have supplied your own purpose, and that whatever purpose it is it will ultimately be pointless and meaningless in light of the fate of your life and our planet/universe.
    Also, where did reason come from? How do you explain its natural occurence through merely biological (or other natural) forces? And, if our current state is the result of chance and natural forces, how do we know that we can trust our “reason”? How do we know it is not just instinct telling us that we have reason, or environmental forces influencing us to think that we can reason independently of outside stimuli? Or maybe all of my thoughts are the end result of all experiences and interactions prior to me thinking them, in which case I have no control over my “reason,” and no reason to trust my reason.

  • 14. writerdd  |  April 6, 2008 at 9:36 am

    “How come a majority of people are not satisfied with declaring their own purpose?”

    Because they’ve been taught that they have a higher purpose, usually derived from religion. I truly think it’s that simple.

    Plus we’re incredibly vain as a species. We want to think we are important. Recognizing that we have no ultimate purpose and we must define our own purpose if we want to have meaning in our lives is just one more step in moving us from our imagined center of the universe. Our mothers all told us this, but we didn’t really believe them. It’s true though. The universe does not revolve around us.

  • 15. choward  |  April 6, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    writerdd,
    If “the universe does not revolve around us” (which I agree with)…then how come we get to individually choose our own purpose? That seems to nearly be the definition self-centeredness: to claim importance and purpose for yourself when you have none. True Christian theology, by the way, is the opposite of self-centeredness…it is giving up our “right” to choose our own meaning to allow Another to define it for us.
    And, isn’t defining your own meaning like putting a bandaid on the problem? I mean, if our universe is meaningless, then aren’t we just kidding ourselves when we make up our own meaning? It’s not a real meaning, just a pretend meaning that we give to ourselves.
    Also, I am not claiming that you cannot find meaning, but only that any meaning that you do find is not ultimately real meaning, but a temporary fix that is bound to end up pointless after you die, or at least when our planet is destroyed, and that your desire for meaning points to something beyond you and the natural world. Deep down everyone wants to leave some kind of legacy…not necessarily for fame’s sake, but because we want to know we have a purpose, a reason for living. But, the naturalistic viewpoint logically only leads to meaninglessness since any “legacy” we might leave will ultimately be destroyed and forgotten. Like the ripples from a stone thrown in the midst of crashing waves on a beach, any purpose we might fulfill in a purely naturalistic universe will be overwhelmed by the forces that brought us about in the first place…the net effect is zero, so there is no purpose.
    This is not to say that you cannot feel meaning or fulfillment by a self-defined purpose, but only that, ultimately, that purpose is purposeless, despite your feelings.

  • 16. writerdd  |  April 6, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    choward, your questions are really interesting but I don’t know if I’ll have time to reply in any reasonable amount of time. My next three weeks are completely out of control and I probably won’t be getting online very much. If I do have time, I’ll come back to this to discuss it further. In the meantime, I hope someone else will be able to continue discussing this with you.

  • 17. Quester  |  April 6, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    How come a majority of people are not satisfied with declaring their own purpose?

    How come a majority of people aren’t satisfied with all they need, but always want more? I’m not sure, but it’s not healthy.

    That might be good enough for you, to determine by yourself why you exist, but, ultimately, “meaning” will come from knowing why you are here…at least that’s what most people pursue.

    If most people believed the earth was flat, it would not make it true.

    To add to what I wrote to writerdd above…where is the satisfaction in knowing that you have supplied your own purpose, and that whatever purpose it is it will ultimately be pointless and meaningless in light of the fate of your life and our planet/universe.

    If you can not be satisfied by feeding someone who hungers because he will be hungry again, with spending time with someone lonely, because they will be lonely again, or otherwise making things better in a world where things often get worse, I can not help you. You are responsible for your own choices.

    Also, where did reason come from? How do you explain its natural occurence through merely biological (or other natural) forces?

    The natural result of increased complexity in our brains as we evolved in particular ways, in response to particular environmental pressures.

    How do we know it is not just instinct telling us that we have reason, or environmental forces influencing us to think that we can reason

    Because we can choose to follow either our reason or our instincts, or neither. Besides, if I do not think, but only think that I think, is there any practical difference?

    Or maybe all of my thoughts are the end result of all experiences and interactions prior to me thinking them, in which case I have no control over my “reason,” and no reason to trust my reason.

    Wouldn’t that give you more reasons to trust your reason, not less?

    That seems to nearly be the definition self-centeredness: to claim importance and purpose for yourself when you have none.

    Realizing that if something is going to be done, you have to get up and do it for no one will do it for you is not being self-centred. It is being responsible.

    True Christian theology, by the way, is the opposite of self-centeredness…it is giving up our “right” to choose our own meaning to allow Another to define it for us.

    Yes, and unscrupulous religious leaders take advantage of that every day to get the money, time and energy of believers. It is easy for them to do this because of how easily the vague revelations of this “other” can be interpreted in so many different ways.

    When you give up your responsibility to think for yourself and choose your own actions, what do you have left?

    And, isn’t defining your own meaning like putting a bandaid on the problem?

    Only if you persistently persevere in seeing the absence of externally applied meaning as a problem. Is flying in an airplane a bandaid on the problem of gravity? Is gravity a problem because so many people dream of flying and are unsatisfied with going from one place to another over the surface of the ground?

    People are unsatisfied with reality. That doesn’t make fiction a better source for seeking a basis on how to live.

  • 18. choward  |  April 7, 2008 at 10:44 am

    writerdd,
    Thanks for the discussion so far. I completely understand if you need to leave off for awhile. I look forward to picking up the discussion later.

    Quester,
    I don’t have time to address everything that we’ve touched on, so I’ll focus on two points that I think are most important.

    Point number one:
    I said: “Also, where did reason come from? How do you explain its natural occurence through merely biological (or other natural) forces?”
    Quester said:
    “The natural result of increased complexity in our brains as we evolved in particular ways, in response to particular environmental pressures.”

    Could you be more specific? I’m not sure of your training and background, and I don’t want to ask too much, but this response you have given is not really an explanation, but a restatement of what I asked for in my question. I asked how you explain the occurence of reason through naturalistic forces, and you basically replied that reason is the result of complexity which is the result of naturalistic forces. Do you have any empirical evidence for this? A valid evolutionary pathway with supportable data?

    Point number two:
    I said: “Or maybe all of my thoughts are the end result of all experiences and interactions prior to me thinking them, in which case I have no control over my “reason,” and no reason to trust my reason.”

    Quester said: “Wouldn’t that give you more reasons to trust your reason, not less?”

    The answer to your question is no…here’s why:
    If my thoughts today are the result of the sum total of all past natural interactions (or at least all environmental factors in my life plus genetic influences on me specifically), then I have to be thinking what I am thinking right now. If this is the case then I really cannot choose what to think, my thoughts are chosen for me. This means that I cannot choose between reason and instinct, as you stated we have the ability to do, because my thoughts are chosen for me by other factors. This is the opposite of intellectual reason. This is pre-determined thought. Or perhaps a more illustrative term would be pre-programmed thought. Like a computer, this naturalistic view would necessitate that I respond in such and such a way to such and such a stimulus. And, if it is necessary, pre-determined, pre-programmed, then it is not really reason. We might call it thought, but it is not the ability to objectively evaluate and reach logical conclusions. The conclusions are already pre-determined, therefore we have lost objectivity.

    Also, if my thoughts are the result of naturalistic forces and blind chance, then I have no way of knowing if my thought processes are logical or reasonable. For all I know I could only think I am being logical because environmental stimuli and genetic proclivities have prompted me to have such thoughts, when all the time I am really being completely unreasonable… or, even worse, objective reason does not really exist.

    You might say, “Well, I know I am being reasonable because I have tested my premises and found them practical and logical.” But, if our thoughts are determined by naturalistic forces and blind chance then how do you know that your premises are practical and logical? Perhaps environmental stimuli and genetic influences have only caused you to think that they are. Maybe you have only been programmed to think that practicality and logic exist.

    Reason cannot exist in such a world because we have no reason to trust our conclusions. We have no way of knowing if our thoughts are our own, if our choices are our own, or if we only think our thoughts because of all past experiences.

    Point number three:
    I know I said only two…but I have to comment.
    I said: “True Christian theology, by the way, is the opposite of self-centeredness…it is giving up our “right” to choose our own meaning to allow Another to define it for us.”

    Quester said: “Yes, and unscrupulous religious leaders take advantage of that every day to get the money, time and energy of believers.”

    And, yet, we cannot judge the merits of a philosophy based on its unscrupulous members/leaders. I’m sure you don’t believe that atheism is without base because of the actions of “unscrupulous” atheists such as Communist, Socialist, and Nazi leaders of the recent past (and present).

    Also, true Christian theology does not allow for just anyone to determine our purpose. In fact, the Bible clearly teaches that we are to determine for ourselves how to serve God, and not let leaders determine it for us. The fact that many Christians do not practice this does not invalidate Christian theology in the same way unscrupulous leaders do not invalidate it.

    Ok…sorry for the length. There is much more that I would like to comment on, but I have used up too much space already. Thank you very much for the sincere discussion. I am enjoying this opportunity to explore our points of view.

  • 19. Quester  |  April 7, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Choward,

    Point one:

    Do you have any empirical evidence for this? A valid evolutionary pathway with supportable data?

    Nope. Just the grade school version. I didn’t even take biology in high school (I chose physics for my science requirements).

    Point number two:

    Still not getting you. Imagine that your reason is as free and as objective as you could care for. You still have no basis for your reason besides your experiences and interactions before this point. I’m really not sure what more could be desired.

    This means that I cannot choose between reason and instinct, as you stated we have the ability to do, because my thoughts are chosen for me by other factors.

    Not in the slightest. What it means is that you can’t use reason to choose something irrational, because the factors that lead your thoughts to one particular conclusion and not another compose reality as you know it.

    Simply because I can’t use my reason to conclude that 2 + 2 is 5 or 22, doesn’t mean that my reason is no better than my instinct. Yes, the result is predetermined by factors outside of my control, but that is what makes it reason, not imagination.

    Point number three:

    I’m sure you don’t believe that atheism is without base because of the actions of “unscrupulous” atheists such as Communist, Socialist, and Nazi leaders of the recent past (and present).

    Since atheism is not a philosophy, the point does not arise.

    Nor was my argument that Christianity should be judged by it’s unscrupulous leaders. Instead, I was arguing that giving up personal responsibility to blindly follow the will of an other, as communicated by human instruments, risks being taken advantage of by those human instruments.

    True Christian theology, by the way, is the opposite of self-centeredness…it is giving up our “right” to choose our own meaning to allow Another to define it for us

    Also, true Christian theology does not allow for just anyone to determine our purpose. In fact, the Bible clearly teaches that we are to determine for ourselves how to serve God, and not let leaders determine it for us.

    These two points of “true Christian theology” contradict one another. Either you are taking responsibility for your own actions by choosing what you think is best, or you are not.

  • 20. cthoward  |  April 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Sorry, Quester, for not responding sooner…it is tax season (among many other things in addition to the normal routine), and the 1040EZ is not an option for ministers. I will get back to you as soon as possible.

    In the meantime, I wondered if you could explain some of your statements a little more. I think I might understand what you are saying, but I don’t know for sure, and I want to make sure. Could you explain the following:

    Quester said: “What it means is that you can’t use reason to choose something irrational, because the factors that lead your thoughts to one particular conclusion and not another compose reality as you know it.
    Simply because I can’t use my reason to conclude that 2 + 2 is 5 or 22, doesn’t mean that my reason is no better than my instinct. Yes, the result is predetermined by factors outside of my control, but that is what makes it reason, not imagination.”

    Also, can you answer this question along the same lines: Are you saying that any time a person is irrational or reaches false conclusions (such as 2 + 2 = 5) that they are not using reason? If so, what do they revert to? Instinct? Some other category of thought?

    Thanks for your thoughts and patience.

  • 21. Quester  |  April 9, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    Sorry, Quester, for not responding sooner…it is tax season (among many other things in addition to the normal routine), and the 1040EZ is not an option for ministers. I will get back to you as soon as possible.

    Tell me about it. I’m getting to work on that tomorrow, assuming I can track down the *censored* forms regarding the *censored* rectory which the *censored* regional church office assumes our parish’s choices regarding them change each year, unless we tell them otherwise, instead of sanely assuming that we’d tell them if we change and not if we stay the *censored* same. Then there’s the *censored* bonus money from funerals that I usually pocket without looking at because that is NOT where my mind is at the time. I don’t charge for the funerals. The money is a gift. But it is taxed as an honorarium. *more censored muttering*

    On second thought, don’t tell me about it. Apparently it causes me to rant.

    Back on topic:

    Are you saying that any time a person is irrational or reaches false conclusions (such as 2 + 2 = 5) that they are not using reason? If so, what do they revert to? Instinct? Some other category of thought?

    No, they are either in error in how they use their reason (how many people actually receive training in critical thinking these days?) or are ignorant of some of the pertinent facts (or believe in facts that are not actually facts).

    Does that clear things up for you?

  • 22. Adrian  |  April 15, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    I see a lot of discussion about naturalistic forces and I would like to point out that there may be a biological reason for religion. Consider that our Brain is a layered construct comprised of the reptilian brain, the mammalian brain and the Human brain, which is in turn, divided into two hemispheres. With different purposes, each portion of our brains is still interconnected, sometimes very tenuously, with the others in order to function as a whole. In the unfortunate cases of brain injury or pathology that sever those connections, people have been shown to exhibit a slew of personality and functionality disorders such as schizophrenia, aphasia, alien limb syndrome, paralysis etc. But even in the absence of injury or disease, we all have a dual brain and all you have to do to observe this is to talk aloud in your own head. We are self-aware, which is a trait that only the highest order primates exhibit, as is shown by simple self-recognition experiments using a free-standing mirror and some paint.

    Humans (and their closest cousins, possibly) are active thinkers, not passive reactors. When given a new situation, we actively assess, contrast and compare and deduce properties of the new situation and then act (or not) on it. And it is our social nature and ability to communicate complex thoughts and strategies that further separates us from lower order animals. We have empathy and sympathy/compassion. We have all of those things because we are able, with our layered brains, to actively imagine ourselves in another’s position, to rationally deduce the long-term effects of our actions upon another.

    Quite possibly, with these layered brains, a sense of an ‘Over-brain’ exists to give an instinct-like urgency to societal mores and interactions. Perhaps the ego and the super-ego and the id are policing agencies of the brain, honed by evolution to improve the co-operation within the individual brain to react better in concert with others of the same species to further that species’ survival. And maybe we just can’t help that that ‘little voice’ in our heads sounds more rational than our own emotional/animal voices, so it must be evidence of a superior being. This may go a long way towards explaining how there are so many religions, but so few strikingly different moral dissimilarities. Our Overminds have tricked our self-minds into ‘hearing’ our innate code of social mores. Of course, there has been no proof of innate social mores, but that may well be because we are genetically predisposed to communal living, and therefor, in need of other humans, and their hierarchies and morals. We are raised in groups, and live in groups and rely on fellow members of our groups, so it makes sense that we cannot be self-reared and be expected to exhibit a trait that requires human interaction.

    It all goes back to our huge heads. Trust me on this. Big heads=GOD complex LOL!

  • [...] only begun to read, is giving me a glimpse into another, less conventional way, to explore spirituality — without superstition. I am fifty-one years old, sliding toward death, and I don’t much like myself. I have failed [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,031,721 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers