Damien, What’s Worse Christians or Spiritual Non-religious?

Vague Theism or god Somethingism: just say NO
 
No, vague theism, somethingism or “ietsism” is not some Philosophers Stone of Theism removed from strong critique.

Religion is an Evolved Product

I am not spiritual and its because it does not refer to anything meaningful to me and really I don’t know how I could utilize the concept of spirituality as to me it’s trying to make woo woo of reality and I am a realist so that would not interest me. a made up word attaching animistic somthingism superstitions wrongly to a naturalistic feeling of emotions thus people must remember that phenomenology is not always connecting to a genuine reality, it involves the concept of to people places or things we are highly emotional beings, in fact, we are so much this way we actually are almost alway emotionalizing and why is being mislabeled as some-kind of magic feeling or feelings that are misinterpreted thinking they mean something they don’t. Personally, I don’t even know what that means in relation to reality. I use to call myself a spiritual atheist but the more I learned the less I saw that as anything meaningful and was just my place holder carry over word from my religious past. What I meant by it was I say value and meandering in the world. That things were connected in some way. I now have a nonreligious word that states this and is more substantive and beneficially descriptive. Axiology or Axiological. Which stands for value theory or value science. And I call myself an Axiological Atheist. But it’s more than just that value is also a morality and humanistic motivation for my atheism. Someone once said to me but Damien, maybe spirituality is just being conscious of morals and reality. Just wondered where you stood on it. I still pray. (learned behavior I guess). Axiological Atheism Explained

“Damien, I saw that in one of your Facebook posts that you said you’ve done almost every drug. I’m wondering, have you ever done lsd or psilocybin mushrooms. And why do you think so many people claim to have had religious or spiritual experiences through them? Also, in your opinion what is a logical explanation to the fact that many people claim to see the same unique hallucinations while on them?” – Questioner

.

My response, yes I did do mushrooms in my past, and why I think most religious people claim to have religious or spiritual experiences is they add make-believe to “reality”, and the general “WHY” to me is because we are emotional beings that while we can employ the thinking strategy of rationalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow we still appeal to emotionalism, not the other way around as we are not rational beings that who can employ the thinking strategy of emotionalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow.
.
“Yes, I’ve always thought that the reason people see all the “sacred geometry” is that they’ve both seen the same things in their life. Many people say they see Mayan calendar type patterns. But I wonder if you took someone say from the rainforest who had never learned about ancient civilization or seen any of these patterns if they would see the same thing.” – Questioner
.
My response, well we are both complects and simple being, we like patterns just look at art this goes back like 40,000 years it’s nothing new: Shamanistic rock art from central Aboriginal Siberians and Aboriginal drums in the Americas
.
“Damien, I saw that in one of your Facebook posts that you just when on a short vacation to nature to relax. While you were on the trip did you ever feel emotions like that? That people would call God or something?” – Questioner
.
 My response, well I enjoy life no magic needed.
.
 “Yes but I’m saying during the vacation to nature did you ever consider that? Or do you not remember?” – Questioner
.
My response, to me, we are all emotional and experience emotional wonder but that is just the joy of being alive it’s wholly cheapened to me by fantasy daydreaming delusions (supernatural) to this wonderful magic devoid reality.
.
“Damien, whats worse? Conservative Christians or won’t let their kid take sex ed or biology Or people who claim to be anti-religion, yet spiritual claiming a crystal can heal them?” – Questioner
.
My response, to me,  your question is about the actual or possible harm and in this case, the harm of other out weights the issues of peoples possible self-harm so the most harm to me is easily the harm to others (the child) thus its the one where the kid cannot take sex ed or biology classes in school as that is direct educational/intellectual abuse. MEANING: Disrespect for another’s learning style, way of thinking or intellectual interests and educational needs for an advanced society to function and succeed in their future as an adult. This can involve ridiculing a child’s carefully thought-out ideas or devaluing a person’s educational/intellectual opinions/needs. Calling a child ‘stupid’ or ‘slow’ is another form of intellectual abuse.
.

“True. You ever think “This person might literally be incapable of logical, non-fallacious thoughts.” Because I’m trying to get someone to define what God is and it seems the only definition is synonyms or metaphors. I honestly feel spiritual hippy types are more stubborn than Christians.” – Questioner

.

My response, once in a while but not usually as I have a degree in psychology so I know it’s a choice they stay uninformed thus such people don’t know how to think and why I fight to teach people how to think. Well the so called spiritual hippy types/what ever new age/new religious movement thinking they favor many seem to me from experience (doing atheist outreach at colleges) are more stubborn are somthingism (an unspecified belief in some higher force) believers and thus you have to address it differently than a regular theist.
.
“Somethingism I love that…” – Questioner
.
My response, well, Ietsism (Dutchietsisme (pronounced [itsˈɪsmə]) – “somethingism”) is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcendent force. It is a Dutch term for a range of beliefs held by people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect – or indeed believe – that “there must be something undefined beyond the material and that which can be known” than can be proven, but on the other hand do not necessarily accept or subscribe to the established belief systemdogma or view of the nature of a Deity offered by any particular religion. Some of the English language related terms are agnostic theism (though very many ietsists do not believe in one or more gods and are thus atheists), eclecticism, deism and spiritual but not religious. Ietsists might call themselves Christian or followers of an other religion based on cultural identification with that religion, without believing in the dogmas of that particular religion. In terms of statistics, this might influence outcomes when people are asked about their religion or beliefs without more in-depth interviewing. In some Eastern European censuses (Albanian, for example), those having ietsistic beliefs are counted as believers without religion. The name derives from the Dutch equivalent of the question: “Do you believe in the conventional ‘Christian‘ God?”, a typical ietsist answer being “No, but there must be something”, “something” being iets in Dutch. The atheist political columnist and molecular biologist Ronald Plasterk (who later served as the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Science and Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations) published a piece in 1997 in the magazine Intermediar in which he used the word. The term became widely known in the Netherlands after Plasterk used it in a feature for the television program Buitenhof. In October 2005, the word ietsisme was included in the 14th edition of the Dutch Language Dictionary Dikke Van Dale. Ietsism may roughly be described as a belief in an end-in-itself or similar concept, without further assumption as to exactly what object or objects have such a property, like intrinsic aliquidism without further specification. Other aliquidistic life stances include the acceptance of “there is something – that is, some meaning of life, something that is an end-in-itself or something more to existence – and it is…”, assuming various objects or truths, while ietsism, on the other hand simply accepts “there is something”, without further specification, detailing or assumption. In contrast to traditional agnostics who often hold a skeptical view about gods or other metaphysical entities (i.e. “We can’t or don’t know for sure that there is a God”), “ietsists” take a viewpoint along the lines of, “And yet it feels like there is something out there…” It is a form of religious liberalism or non-denominationalism. Ietsism may also be described as the minimal counterpart of nihilism, since it accepts that there is something, but yet, assumes as little further as possible without any more substantial evidence. Within ietsism beliefs are very diverse but all have in common that they are not classifiable under a traditional religion. Often concepts from different religions, folk beliefs, superstitions or ideologies are combined, but the ietsist does not feel he/she belongs to or believes in the dogmas of any particular religion. There is usually not a personal god who actively intervenes in the believer’s life and an ietsist can be an atheist at the same time. Some ietsists believe in an undetermined higher power or one of more specific theistic entities, others only in spiritual energiessouls or some form of afterlife. Ietsism often coincides with a belief in pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena such as acupunctureangelsanimistic deities and creaturesastrologyaura readingchakrasclairvoyancedeitieselvesenergy medicineesoteric energyghostshealing gemstoneshomeopathykarma or osteopathy. Ietsism also shares many attributes with similar viewpoints such as Deism and the so-called ‘God of the Gaps‘, whose origins lie more in questions about the nature and origin of the physical universe. It could be said that ietsism is ‘Deism for the spiritually-inclined’. As the ietsist will not have found any of the ‘pre-packaged’ gods offered by traditional religions satisfactory, each ietsist’s conception of spirituality will be different. This can range from the Judeo/Christian/Islamic concept of God as a force/intelligence that exists outside the world, to a position similar to the Buddhist “world view”, with collective spiritual power existing within the world. Other ietsists will take a truly agnostic viewpoint – that the actual nature of God is totally unknown or unknowable. An opinion poll conducted by the Dutch daily newspaper Trouw in October 2004 indicated that some 40% of its readership felt broadly this way, and other Northern European countries would probably get similar rates. From a December 2014 survey by the VU University Amsterdam, it was concluded that the Dutch population has 27% ietsists, 31% agnostics, 25% atheists and 17% theists. As ietsists cannot be neatly classified as religious or nonreligious, ietsism is somewhat notorious for mucking up statistics on religious demographics. Hence labeling ietsists as either religious or nonreligious will tilt the demographic balance for those countries to either predominantly religious or predominantly nonreligious. ref

Here is an example of an Ietsism/”Somethingism” thinking:

.
 “Vague Theism or god Somethingism generally involves unjustified false ideas involving a rather unspecified belief in some higher force/being they may term “god something”
“Vague Theism or god Somethingism generally involves unjustified false ideas involving a rather unspecified belief in some higher force/being they may term “god something”
 .
“Damien sir, i am in a dilemma, can you help me???? i don’t believe in any particular god, but i believe in the god, i believe everything exist in this whole universe is part of God, am i an atheist????? each & everything made out of some mass & energy……” – Challenger
.
My response, you are a pantheist, a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of god(s).
.
“Damien, as the conservation theory explain that the total mass & energy is constant, & we are made from these mass & energy, why we are not part of the god???” – Challenger
.
My response, to me to call a thing god is to say it’s a superpower with a mind or intelligent expressed will. I don’t see anything like that in nature.
.
“Damien, sorry sir, but to me, it’s the entire mass & energy of the cosmos, which runs on some simple some physical rule……” – Challenger
.
My response, then it’s not a god, then can not be suitable for the needed qualities that could fit what is generally labeled as the term god.
.
“Damien, why sir????” – Challenger
.
My response, it’s like me calling love the expressed emotion god because all humans and most animals have this. But this is a logical fallacy of categorical error. A category mistake (or category error) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a speaker (knowingly or not) confuses the properties of the whole with the properties of a part. It contains the fallacy of composition (assuming the whole has the properties of the part) and the fallacy of division (assuming the part has the properties of the whole).
.
“Damien, i believe everything i can touch, see or feel, are part of god, even my toilet also is part of my god…… that’s why i never go to the temple (by the certificate i’m a hindu), or any kind of religious place…. my work is my religion…. & god (as I believe) never failed me….. i always get result as i worked…” – Challenger
.
My response, everything in the real world can fail and does so often. You sound like you have made your claim of god above failure. However, if there is no standard to fail by then there is also no standard to success. So, either your titled god does nothing or to you it does everything but then your label of god actually ends up meaning nothing….
.
And here is a blog that addresses this as well: Vague Theism or god Somethingism: just say NO

.
“Where do you get the energy for this Damien?” – Questioner
.
My response, where do you get the energy for this is I wish human flourishing and it is that love of humanity (focuses on universal ethics, human rights, humanitarianism, and development in the modern world and it is that where I get the energy for this. No matter what name they use they are some grouping of basically either Animists, Totemists or both with a possible sprinkling of shamanism and/or paganism. I will give you a blog on those: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism

Here is roughly how an ietsist “vague-theist or god-somethingist” may explain their beliefs: “they profess a feeling that there is or has to be something beyond us or naturalism, but they may not know what it is or even feel anyone can explain it they just think that they know it is real or is likely to be real “even if no evidence supports their claims. Even if they doubt or are unsure they still will hold some beliefs as to them there must surely be something. They have a hard time accepting that there is nothing and likely reject that naturalism explains everything or may think that nature must have something else because to them they just feel it must by so, it has to be so, they think they just know it somehow or in someway. Something to them is there beyond science that science missed, can’t yet see or may never be able to see but still they can’t stong this need to believe in something. They may not even know what that something is, but too them that is no deterrent for faith in this that there is something, of this “vague-theist or god-somethingist” that they are sure even if they are unsure.” And assuming that such ietsists, vague-theists or god-somethingists even bother to discuss their beliefs beyond loosely claiming them, or try to support them, such fideists or “faith-ism-ists” will likely cause both atheists and theists (and possibly agnostics to facepalm over the ietsists, vague-theist or god-somethingist‘s cobbled-together belief/faith thought confused processes and indecisiveness, or their indecision to get more information or most reasonably discard such undefined beliefs. An ietsist can frequently just be the infamous spiritual but not religious with a smattering of agnosticism, or vague-theist. Some such ietsist, vague-theist or god-somethingist believers like to utilize the power of theistic equivocation and the ambiguity of the word god. They often champion the term god as if it means something but when pushed often fall back to vague theism or somethingism, ie. “I feel there must be something,” so out of blind belief I call it god. However, you have not found some philosophers stone of theism you only are appealing to misunderstanding, logical fallacies and double talk similar to conman manipulation.

 
The word “god” either means something coherent and defined, or it doesn’t.
 
*If it does mean something coherent and defined, one cannot simply “assign” or “remove” elements at will. Neither can one arbitrarily claim things demonstrate the word “god” or connect to the word “god” without valid reasoning for doing so or you are admitting it has no reasoning to be validated and thus is little more than some desired empty belief, acin to liking whatever you wish to like just because you wish to like it.
 
*If the word “god” doesn’t mean something coherent and defined, then you employing the word “god” in a way that removes its substance and falls back to vague theism or somethingism, which is like belief in an empty gesture or a fool’s gold belief looking like something of value but worth nothing. And if you are pushed such a fool’s gold god as anything real you are only appealing to misunderstanding, logical fallacies and double talk similar to a con man lying.
 
But all god claims seem to be tethered to mental manipulation of one kind or another as well as logical fallacies or internal or external contradictions to make their belief as a whole a meaningless arbitrary nothing belief in relation to reality.

Why are all gods unjustified?

Okay, so, anything you claim needs justification but no one has evidence of god claim attributes they are all unjustified. All god talk as if it is real acts as if one can claim magic is real by thinking it is so or by accepting someone’s claim of knowing the unjustifiably that they understand an unknowable, such as claims of gods being anything as no one has evidence to start such fact devoid things as all knowing (there is no evidence of an all-knowing anything). Or an all-powerful (there is no evidence of an all-powerful anything). Or the most ridiculous an all-loving (there is no evidence of an all loving anything). But like all god claims, they are not just evidence lacking, the one claiming them has no justified reason to assume that they can even claim them as proof (it’s all the empty air of faith). Therefore, as the limit of all people is to only be able to justify something from and that which corresponds to the real-world to be real and the last time I checked there is no magic of any kind in our real-world experiences. So, beyond the undefendable magical thinking not corresponding to the real-world how much more ridicules are some claimed supreme magical claimed being thus even more undefendable to the corresponding real-world, which the claimed god(s) thinking is a further and thus more extremely unjustified claim(s).

What is this god you seem to think you have any justification to claim?

Saying that some features of reality are not fully know is not proof of god myth claims. II’s not like every time we lack knowledge, we can just claim magic and if we do we are not being intellectually honest to the appraisal of reality that is devoted of anything magic. So what is a god, when no one has some special knowledge to say what it could be and shot gunning unjustifiable hypothetical claims that one thing or another that you like, thus attaining to such a thinker as a deserved the title of some believed magic something of which there is no evidence of magic anything of any kind? Thus, to assert magic anything s by its nature an unjustified as certain to even present. God claims are presupposition errors in how they are most often assumed to be a hypothetical explanation to the unknown or fear of something it’s not from facts in reality.

God: “antihumanism thinking”

God thinking is a superstitiously transmitted disease, that usually is accompanied with some kind of antihumanism thinking. Relatively all gods in general are said to have the will and power over humans. Likewise, such god claims often are attributed to be the ones who decide morality thus remove the true morality nature in humans that actually assist us in morality. So, adding a god is to welcome antihumanism burdens, because god concepts are often an expression. This is especially so when any so-called god somethingism are said to makes things like hells is an antihumanism thinking. A general humanism thinking to me is that everyone owns themselves, not some god and everyone is equal. Such humanism thinking to me, requires a shunning of coercion force that removes a human’s rights or the subjugation of oppression and threats for things like requiring belief or demanding faith in some other unjustified abstraction from others. Therefore, humanism thinking is not open to being in such a beliefs, position or situations that violate free expression of one’s human rights which are not just relinquished because some people believed right or their removal is at the whims of some claimed god (human rights removing/limiting/controlling = ANTIHUMANISM). Humanism to me, summed up as, humans solving human problems through human means. Thus, humanism thinking involve striving to do good without gods, and not welcoming the human rights removing/limiting/controlling, even if the myths could somehow come to be true.

Stop Promoting Errors in Thinking like gods

Theists seem to have very odd attempts as logic, as they most often start with some evidence devoid god myth they favor most often the hereditary favorite of the family or culture that they were born into so a continuous blind acceptance generation after generation of force indicated faith in that which on clear instinctually honest appraisal not only should inspire doubt but full disbelief until valid and reliable justification is offered.

I Hear theists, ietsist, and vague-theists or god-somethingist believers?

I hear what all you make believe believers say and what I hear is that they make assertions with no justification discernable of or in reality just some book and your evidence lacking faith. I wish you were open to see but I know you have a wish to believe. I however wish to welcome reality as it is devoid of magic which all religions and gods thinkers believe. I want to be mentally free from misinformed ancient myths and free the minds of those confused in the realm of myths and the antihumanism views that they often attach to. So, I do have an agenda human liberation from fears of the uninformed conception of reality.