I’m spiritual, rather than religious… what am I?
Riddle me this 
Mags : if you not believe in God then you are atheist even if you dispense with the
label and prefer to describe yourself as something else instead [ such as spiritual ]
mags - I really have no idea what that means. Seriously. I have even looked it up and i still don’t know what it means.
MagsJy
You might be considered a pagan, in tune with nature and your own nature.
Even a pagan though can be religious in the sense of being bound up by certain rituals or behaviors or beliefs pertaining to your paganism.
“Religious” doesn’t necessarily have to mean having to do with god.
A pagan can be just as religious and spiritual, perhaps even more so depending on the INDIVIDUAL as a catholic or any christian who follows their path by going to church, praying, et cetera ~~~ by complying to certain behaviors which draw out the spirit of their nature freeing them and adding to their own sense of deep self and worship, no matter what is being worshipped or reverenced…but not usually the Self itself being worshipped but something outward which resonates within.
Even scientists themselves are religious in their searches and experiments for knowledge, et cetera. They are bound up by these things, held fast by them.
That’s my perspective.
Loose and confused.
…and yes, a “pagan”.
What’s with the loose? 
No confusion, as I know I don’t believe in a god but in the nature that resides in each of us… it is a personal choice on how we each want to use that nature during our lifetime.
Why do I have to be labelled? why doesn’t being spiritual just suffice?
Mags is a loosely confused label hating spiritual pagan ha ha ha ha
Why can’t one just be ‘spiritual’? they’ve had it on diversity monitoring forms here for a long while now, you know 
Lady MagsJy,
I heretofore knight you JUST SPIRITUAL.
Namaste 
I just noticed this and I take back what I said.
One cannot just be spiritual since we are also biological organisms.
We don’t like to be labelled but at the same time I think we can be a bit conflicted or unreconciled. The labeling allows us to define who we are or allows us to be define by others. Well, not so much defined because who can really know us that much, including ourselves but the labeling acts as a mirror to show us something.
It is actually impossible for a human being to think in any way that is entirely free of any type of subjective interpretation
As what we term objective is not absolute objectivity as such but instead an acceptable level of intersubjective consensus
Only a machine can think absolutely objectively but human beings are not machines but biological organisms with minds of their own
You can be the most logical rational left brain thinking human being who has ever lived but you will not be just that and nothing else
On the question of discovering more about reality I simply study as much as I can with material that I determine is beneficial to me
So the books that I choose to read will involve a degree of subjective interpretation for I cannot read absolutely everything there is
Firstly because I am old so have limited time and secondly because I will not be able to understand everything as I have limited intelligence so do what I can
Of course these conditions also apply to everyone else as no one is immortal or omniscient although some will have more time or intelligence relative to me
surreptitious75
I agree with this. But most scientist do that best.
I may be mis-interpreting your words. For instance many people believe in a God ergo there is a God? You seem to be saying that there is “objectivity” within a number of people sharing the same thoughts and opinions.
I have a weird mind. What came to my mind as I read your quote were the Borg.
True and emotions too. The problem with us is that we tend to forget that we have minds of our own.
True. Again emotions get in the way but not so much with the most logical and rational left brain thinking person.
Beneficial in which way? Enjoyable and that which you already agree with/knowledge which appears to be “real” to you? Perhaps I am projecting here. 
Please explain though.
Only in relation to the intersubjective consensus of scientists after something has been subject to the rigours of the scientific method
I am not talking about anything beyond this because there would be far less rigour involved and a far greater degree of emotional bias
But scientists are trained to deliberately find fault in anything that they think may be true in order to counteract any bias of their own
Beneficial in the sense that I will gain new knowledge of the subject matter in question and that I will hopefully understand it at a deeper level too
I am interested in learning for the sake of it but it has a deeper significance in that an active mind is the best antidote against dementia in old age
I try not to have too rigid a world view because that can lead to dogmatism and at my age I have no real need for such intellectual rigidity
I find myself being very comfortable with different interpretations of various subjects such as history or physics or philosophy for example
My default position is to be emotionally detached but intellectually focused on all subjects which allows for as great a variety as possible
I think nothing of reading those whose world view is fundamentally different to mine for to not do so would be intellectually irresponsible
But I try not to focus on having a world view - certainly not one which is set in stone - because all opinion is merely one point of many on a spectrum
I do not think any opinion I have on anything at all is of any great value and they only exist as markers to give me some perspective and nothing else
At my age I am slowly learning to let go by making mental space for the inevitable which is merely another point on the spectrum and nothing else
And all I am doing in the meantime is keeping myself busy for the very brief period between now and my eventual transition into non consciousness
There are atheists and there is atheism but there is no such thing thing as atheist philosophy - that is not something that actually exists
Atheism is simply a skeptical position with regard to the existence of deity and nothing else - it is too sparse to be called a philosophy
You can philosophise just fine from premises that do not involve the existence of Aslan the Narnian Lion in any way, yet still understand what it is that people are thinking about when the character is brought up.
Talking about Aslan as an “Anaslanist” doesn’t make you an “Aslanist”, it doesn’t disturb your “Anaslanism” or the quality of your “Anaslanist” philosophies. You don’t invoke the real existence of Aslan by philosophising in terms that refer to him - you remain “Anaslanist” even if the topic is “Aslanist”, or “not Anaslanist”.
Such an argument as the one that the OP seems to be hinting would require that one’s beliefs, one’s philosophies and/or the quality of one’s philosophies are dependent upon what one is talking about at the time, and what one is able to understand of others’ beliefs.
If such an argument were the case, simply hearing about God would make you theist or at least a bad atheist, when you can clearly philosophise consistently from fundamental principles without any reference to God (or Aslan) - as you yourself presumably exemplify when you clarify how much of an atheist you are - and still understand what it is that theists are misunderstanding when they philosophise about God.
A good sign of intelligence is the ability to entertain beliefs without holding them yourself.
Atheists philosophising about how there is no God doesn’t make them theist or bad atheist philosophers, it’s a show of intelligence (as is philosophising about atheism as a theist).
Atheists - continue to not shut up!
Tbh. fundamentally, how aren’t theism and atheism not the same…? Both are unfalsifiable beliefs.
I always picture them as orbiting around each other, dully, forever.
Some games you win by burning the board, throwing the rules into the blender, punching everyone else in the face and slamming the door behind you. Everytime I see a new thread with god in the title I die a little.
Tab,
I think that the former IS a belief in God but the latter lacks any belief in God, Tab.
How can a lack of belief be the same as a belief?
Well, perhaps if the so-called atheist becomes so emotionally attached to his lack of belief in a God that it becomes more of an obsession, then I daresay if that becomes the case perhaps he is not really a full-fledged atheist.
I may be wrong here though. Humans are such complex creatures. Often we do not know our own minds.
Considering how they go after one another, I can picture them as being interchangeable dolphins and sharks.
Something about that sounded almost poetic to me, Tab.
Perhaps your little “mini” death means that you are not quite finished with your God problem.
(I will send you my bill).
But why do you think you die a little?
I agree with this. Scientists are cool in this way.