Spirituality

Spirituality is a basic concept. Religion has accosted it and attempted to build a monopoly on it. But it can't, 'cause it's tough fighting reality. Let me explain using Peg's Message 3. Basically, Peg's right in that spirituality is "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self-control." Spirituality is all those virtues that we generally associate with the term.
Actually, I'm rather confused by the addition of "long-suffering" in there. That one doesn't make any sense to me. It makes me start singing Sesame Street songs: "One of these things just doesn't belong...", but hopefully the main point is there.Where Peg (and most religions) mess up is Peg's second paragraph. For no reason at all they jump to a conclusion that these things are a result of being "guided by God's spirit" or some other nonsense. The fact is that all these attributes are available to all humans regardless of their beliefs. An atheist can be just as spiritual, or even more spiritual then a theist. It all depends on how "in tune" they are with the actual qualities, and nothing to do with how much they believe in their specific deities of choice. Spirituality is an inherent part of simply being human (having intelligence?) it does not come "from God" or any other external force/entity. Heh. My answer is that spirituality is as real as poetry

Saying that spirituality is only available through God is like saying driving is only available through Ford.Each one may have popularized the usage in North America, but neither is the only, or best, method.

I completely agree with you.
Notice how you said nothing about God or religion in this paragraph. Again, I completely agree with you. And my answer to both your questions is "no."
Again, please notice that God or religion is completely irrelevent to the points you've just made.
The ability of being a spiritual person is an inherent part of being human (or having intelligence). God, or religion, is not required. For some people, God and religion can certainly be the best way to become a spiritual person. But certainly not for all, or even most people.This is where you go wrong: God and religion is absolutely not required at all. Every single one of the spiritual qualities you talk about are all available to all people.Some people have reached heights in these qualities that would be impossible for those same people under the "guidance" of God or religion.I do agree that for some people religion is a great avenue to spirituality. It's just not necessary or required. And it most certainly does not have any monopoly on the best path, such a thing varies for each and every person.To say that God or religion is mandatory for spirituality is utter ridiculousness that borders on detrimental mental abuse.If you are capable of describing a beneficial attribute that is unique to being part of religion or God, please do. You'll be the first. Good luck, because as far as I've been able to find, it just simply doesn't exist.

I take it you kind of meant this as a rhetorical smirk. But, I'm going to explain just incase anyone actually can't think of any other source for spirituality."The other car companies" represent all the other (basically infinite) sources of spirituality in this world.
-friends
-family
-enjoyable activities
-achieving personal goals
-self confidence
-understanding other people
.
.
.The list goes on and on. And, each element of the list is basically infinite in itself.The path to being a spiritual person is different for each and every one of us. Just as "a favourite car" will be different for each and every one of us.There is no right or wrong way.There most certainly is no "one way" that is best for everyone.I don't understand how "spirituality" is such an obviously subjective concept... yet some people actually believe there can exist a single, objective pathway (for everyone) to attain it. The idea is beyond ridiculous. It's ludicrous on the most basic level.People are different.
Spirituality is extremely subjective.I think it's blatently obvious that "how people obtain spirituality" is going to vary (greatly!) from person to person. I don't understand the mental process that must be ignoring such basic principles in order to think otherwise.

Actually, I'm attempting to avoid giving a strict defintion to the word "spiritual." Mostly because I don't have one To me, "spirituality" is such an extremely subjective concept (kind of like "music" or "poetry") that a definition that actually encompasses all aspects would be so vague as to be basically useless.Did you know that the actual, theoretical defintion of "music" is:

quote:

---

Any combination of any sounds or silences that anybody considers to be 'music'

---

How ridiculous is that for a definition? It's useless. Pretty much anything and everything "can be" music. There have been actual, serious recitals where people have paid to fill an auditorium to "listen" to a musical "genious"... who comes out on stage, sits at a piano... and doesn't hit a single key. Silence.. for like an hour or so... and then he gets up and leaves.
(My mistake, it wasn't "an hour" but only 4 minutes and 33 seconds, in the aptly named "song" 4'33" by John Cage in 1952. Regardless of the actual length, however, the point stands)It's really the same thing for such subjective concepts as "poetry" and "spirituality." They don't have strict, difinitive defintions. They don't have such defintions because they are extremely subjective. Yes. Or "intelligence" at least. I think I'll just say "people" from now on, since it's getting tiresome saying "intelligence" all the time too.Even those who say they had a spiritual experience. As far as I can tell, they simply mean they received spiritual feelings from that particular experience. I can absolutely confirm to you that the same experience may be considered "spiritual" by some, and not by others. There's certianly nothing "external to people" or "non-subjective" about spirituality. Not at all. It just makes poetry a non-spiritual experience for you.
Is there anything you're passionate about?
Anything you receive bliss from?
Anything you get a sense of fullfillment from?
Anything you feel calm and serene about?
...any experience that causes such "spiritual qualities" is a spiritual experience for you.Personally, I even find very-mundane things such as video games to be a spiritual experience sometimes. Mostly when I'm playing with friends, but sometimes even on my own.There is no such thing as an objective "spiritual experience" that would make everyone feel spiritual. There are too many different kinds of people who feel too many different subjective feelings from too many different stimuli.It is possible to be a human and not be capable of spiritual feelings, though. However, this is generally due to certain kinds of brain damage or under-development. Any basically-average human is fully capable of spiritual feelings from certain experiences.Edited by Stile, : Found information on the "silent song" I was talking about.

I agree with your sentiment, but not your wording. Your wording is similar to that used by abusive, power hungry leaders.People may very well come into this world not knowing how to tap in to their spiritual side. But there is nothing damaged or impaired with the average human coming into this world. Again, I agree with your main focus, but your wording seems incredibly abusive. I would phrase it more like "Different people have different ways of figuring out how to tap into their spiritual side... it's not the same for everybody because it's such a subjective concept." This sounds even more abusive in the controlling sense. Are you going to explain how people can identify "misapplied" spiritual experiences? Who gets to judge? Okay. So what, specifically, is the difference between "soulical" and "spiritual?" What feelings does one get from a spiritual experience that are not present from a soulical experience? Or are you saying that certain objective experiences are strictly spiritual or soulical? Are you saying that "hypnosis" is always soulical, but never spiritual... for everyone? Why is that? What makes an experience objectively spiritual, or objectively soulical? Oh, I see. Only God can provide "true" spiritual experiences. Is this the same God that only has "true" Christians as followers? Can you explain the difference between a "guided by God" spiritual experience and a "non-God-guided" spiritual experience? Because I have never heard anyone, ever, explain an experience that atheists are incapable of. It would be interesting if you'd be so kind. Actually, I completely agree with your sentiment here. Notice how it says nothing about God. That's because God isn't required for such things. At all. In any way.
However, I would hesitate before saying "there is no quick and easy road"... there are people who exist where such things comes easier to them then it does to the average person. I'm not one of those people... but they certainly do exist. I agree that "enlightenment to the spiritual" can be difficult when a person is trying to "preserve some ego realm."
Again, notice how when you are actually making sense about spirituality... you're not mentioning God or religion. That's because they're both totally irrelevent, and can sometimes even be detrimental roadblocks in the way of spirituality. I agree with your situation. I would simply describe it as you not yet knowing how to deal with your spritual nature. It's not that you were "missing" your spiritual side in a defective or undeveloped way. It's just that you were unaware of how to deal with it. That's all. Just a function of missing knowledge, not a function of missing anything physical, or needed to "heal" anything. General people are not born broken, such an idea is only used by power-hungy, abusive leaders. Well said.
Notice, again, that you did not have to mention God or religion, because they are not required.

No, I don't think it will be an easy task at all, but I'm all ears (or eyes...).Why do you think you can "get me to admit something is wrong with us as we are born into this world" without any evidence of such a thing? Why should I take your word for it? Why should I take the word of the Bible for it?Why should I even consider the possibility? Especially when we can objectively see that there is absolutely no difference between a "very spiritual man" and a newborn baby (other than growth, of course). There is no organ, or portion of the brain, or aspect of the baby's body that is "incomplete" or "gains completion" upon being an adult. Actually, that's not quite true, there are plenty of "undeveloped" parts that become "complete" through puberty. But even describing those parts as damaged or impaired is a stretch that's not worth making.I can show you that average human babies are born "completely human" and not damaged or impaired in any way. It isn't right for you to claim that people are damaged when you can't show it to be so. It's very close to lying. Although I'd lean towards you simply being mistaken. And maybe my reaction is simply because you keep saying humans are born damaged and impaired, without giving any actual reason to take you seriously. Also when all the evidence ever collected all shows you to be mistaken and that babies are born as perfectly healthy humans.But, if you want to believe I'm attacking your idea simply because of some inner-battle you believe I'm going through, that's your choice. Not very spiritual or honourable of you, but your choice.Spirituality and being moral may not be a choice that all humans make once they are adults. This is true. But such a thing certainly doesn't give any credence to the idea that human babies are somehow born defective. The same way you do.Spirituality is subjective. Like having a favourite colour. How do I KNOW that green "really is" my favourite colour? It's subjective I know simply because I'm me.I don't think your "true spiritual" vs. "mistaken spiritual" vocabulary is useful in any way. With such a subjective concept as "spirituality", you cannot make such divisions. You can, however, ask how I KNOW my spiritual feelings are the same as yours. And, of course, my answer would have to be that I do not know. However, I can say that everything you describe as being a part of "a true spiritual experience" are things I also feel during my spiritual experiences. Who says spiritual feelings aren't as normal as breathing? Or passive? And I think that "the flow of the spiritual" is as natural in man as the heart beat or breathing.It's the feeling of losing yourself when you're having fun.
It's the feeling of loving your spouse and knowing they love you.
It's the feeling of euphoria that comes from many different artistic sources.Exactly like what you say here: ..except I'd replace "peace towards God and man" with "peace towards everyone."And again, we see that "God" is not required. But you're simply wrong. God is not a necessary piece to the spiritual puzzle. He certainly can be a piece, and is for a great many people. But He doesn't have to be a piece, and He isn't for a great many more people.Are you actually going to try and claim that believers in God are capable of "higher feelings" than non-believers? Such an idea has been verifiably refuted many, many times. But we can do it again, right here, right now, if you'd like. Go ahead, describe to me the "higher feelings" you think some people have that I am not capable of having, and I'll tell you if I've had them or not.
(Comparing subjective feelings certainly is ridiculous... don't you think? It reminds me of kids growing up... "My mommy loves me more than your mommy loves you... nyah nyah...") This is incorrect.The spiritual experience has nothing to do with God. I've shown you how I have myself experienced various spiritual experiences, while being an atheist. This alone shows that spiritual experiences do not require God.However, if you're going to define spiritual as "being dependent on God," then I am forced to agree that this strange defintion of the word certainly includes God in some degree. But, there is no reason to attach such an extraneous feature to the definition of the word "spiritual." So, if you insist on simply defining God into the word, our debate over whether or not God is actually required is over... and I will simply have to continue pondering why you insist on adding God in places He is not required to exist for no reason at all. Here, I again agree with your wonderful description of spirituality. You've done a great job at putting something into words that inherently resists clarification.
And, again, I must point out that you do not speak of God or religion here. That's because they are not a mandatory aspect of spirituality. God is not required for humans to reach the highest of spiritual levels.Perhaps, in order to continue, you could describe an experience of your own that you consider to be "spiritual" and we can see if it's possible for non-God-believers to experience similar feelings. I will choose my own, if you'd like:Stile's spiritual experience:The feelings I get when I look into my wife's eyes and can see her love for me, and see her knowledge of my love for her. I get lost and euphoric, I feel incredibly calm and understood... the most amazing feelings I ever experience. All at once, an overwhelming feeling of comfort and safety. Much as you described above, it gives me feelings of light, comfort, peace, refreshment, uplifting, easiness, support, bouyancy, encouragement in spite of visible circumstances, joy, uprightness and peace towards everyone.Curiously... I get all these spiritual feelings without God or religion. I get all these spiritual feelings just because I'm human and I'm capable of experiencing them.Or, are you seriously going to try and tell me that my love for my wife is not a spiritual experience? Because, I do not want any of that stuff, and I can show you how what I say about babies being born as healthy, non-defective human beings is true. And you have yet to show how what you say (babies are born damaged and impaired) is actually true.So, if I do show what I say is true, and you do not show what you say is true... which one of us is on the side that is more easily corruptable by people interested in taking money, fame and prestige from others? Of course it is. That's why I showed that what I say is true. Now I'm waiting for you to do the same thing.

I have nothing against the take Onifre is taking on this point from you, but I'm going to try another method.What makes you think that feral children are not "completely human" in the context of this discussion?Specifically, this discussion is about spirituality. What makes you think that feral children lack spirituality, or are somehow incapable of it?I admit that feral children may very well be incapable of communicating to you that they did, indeed, have a spiritual experience, but I don't see how you could imply that they are not capable?This goes on into the more general sense, too.What is it, even generally, about feral children that makes you think they are not "completely human?"Civilized speech and educated intelligence may be specializations we take for granted. What makes you think that feral children are not human?Or even, the cheap cop-out route: I did say "average human babies." What makes you think that feral children are the 'average' human baby?

Actually, I completely agree with you. I suppose I've been using confusing terminology, though.What I mean is that every human baby is born with everything they need in order to "learn spirituality." That is, they certainly are not defective, damaged, or impaired at all in any way. They most certainly are lacking the knowledge to being spiritual, but they are not "broken" at all in any sense of the word. I mentioned "missing the knowledge" at some point earlier... this would be the same as "needing to learn." They don't need to be healed or fixed.. they simply need to uncover the knowledge.My arguement here is to say that we are not born defective or damaged or impaired, sorry if I was confusing.

Like I said with my initial statement to jaywill:I agree with the sentiment of this idea, but not with the wording.We both agree that all we have to do is "learn" spirituality.
We both agree that babies are "capable" of this learning.
We both agree that babies are "incomplete" in the sense that they have yet to gain such knowledge.I'm saying that calling such a situation "defective" or "damaged" or "impaired" is abusive and words that a controlling leader would use.I'm saying that if we simply call it what it is... "babies haven't learnt spirituality yet"... then it gets the same point across, but without the abusive (in a needlessly-negative sense) overtones.There is nothing inherently negative about being ignorant.To label inherently ignorant babies as "inherently damaged humans that are in need of healing" is abusive.That's my point. How are feral babies not "born with everything they need in order to learn spirituality?"What are the missing?I fully admit, and agree, that they do not get the learning as-they're-growing-up. And, along with their feral-raising, they may learn some social behaviours that then blocks any future learning of spirituality (but I think you'd have a hard time showing that to be necessarily true). But, as new-born babies... what are they missing?What I said: "every (average) human baby is born with everything they need in order to learn spirituality."...is not wrong. Even with feral children. It just so happens that feral children do not (possibly) learn spirituality. That doesn't mean that they were born incapable of doing so.

I take it you've heard of mental abuse, yes?

quote:

---

The U.S. Department of Justice[2] defines emotionally abusive traits as including causing fear by intimidation; threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner's family or friends; destruction of pets and property; forcing isolation from family, friends, or school or work.

---

(Bolding by me) From: Psychological AbuseAnd you're wrong. It's pure, innocent ignorance, which is not negative. To call it negative is a mistake or lie.
(ABE: I'm incorrect, here. You're not "wrong", you're just abusive I got a bit carried away, I guess)Calling innocently ignorant babies "damaged and in need of being healed" is "causing fear by intimidation."How can it possibly be deemed anything else?It's like a father telling his 10 year old kid he's "defective" because he's unaware of integration and derivatives in mathematics.Of course it's "a way of telling the truth." It's an abusive way. It's "causing fear by intimidation."Edited by Stile, : There are no contradictions, only clear, consice arguements... perfect in their very nature.

My position has always been that Spirituality CAN include God, but that God is not REQUIRED for any level of spirituality, especially the highest levels.I apologize for the confusion. I have had to repeat this part of my position many, many times in my discussion with you. I don't like to say things exactly the same way all the time, it gets boring. It's likely that one time I phrased it is such a way as to possibly imply that I thought God can NEVER be a part of spirituality. But that's not what I think. God (and anything else, really) CAN certainly be included in spirituality, He's just not MANDATORY by any means. I've never claimed such a thing. Please stick to the topic we're discussing. I claimed that newborn babies are not born damaged or impaired. They are simply lacking the knowledge of spirituality and morality. They are born with all the tools required to grow into an average human being who is capable of the highest levels of spirituality and morality.They don't need to be healed, they just need some knowledge.Try to focus on what we're talking about, and please refrain from making up things that I haven't said, it only adds unnecessary length to these posts. You are correct. Something does go wrong after birth (with many people). They learn (from themselves or others) how to make personal gain at the cost of other people. They learn unspiritual and immoral things.This does not mean that babies are born damaged. No. Regeneration, Redemption through Christ is a possible answer to both problems. It most certainly is not "the" answer, nor is it in anyway necessary or required.I have had no regeneration, or redemption through Christ... yet I have an answer to both problems as well: simple knowledge and teaching about spirituality and morality. That's what I got, and it worked fine for me. God was not required. You're not offending me at all. I'm simply pointing out that you "being frank about man's condition as you see it" is not actually based in reality. You've created an imaginary reason for something you perceive as a failure that just doesn't exist.Yes, babies are not born moral and spiritual.
But this isn't because they are damaged.
This is simply because they are innocently ignorant of such matters.
They don't need to "be healed."
They simply need knowledge.You're adding complications and confusion and imagination onto a simple, real problem. That doesn't make your imagination correct. No. I don't think babies are innocently ignorant because it "raises a sense of unfairness." I think babies are innocently ignorant because there's nothing damaged or impaired about them. They simply lack knowledge.Again, if you have anything based in reality to show that what you say is true, please present it. Otherwise there's nothing to differentiate your ideas from imagination. I'm not arguing against these unspiritual factors coming naturally (for some). I agree with you.What I'm telling you is that this doesn't lead to babies being born damaged. All it leads to is that babies need to learn how to be spiritual and moral. To jump into "babies are defective" is to invoke your imagination. If it's not simply your imagination, please feel free to show how what you say is actually based in reality. This doesn't make any sense at all. Subjective things are not illusions, they're simply not objective. It is not an illusion that my favourite colour is green. It's just not objective trait for all people. This statement of yours is clearly false. If such things are what your posts are based on, then we need to clear up some basic knowledge about "subjectivity" and "objectivity" before we continue. Neither are illusions. No. I mean that everyone must learn about spirituality. But, it is not necessary to learn such things from other people (although that is the easiest way I know of). It is possible to learn of such things from yourself and reflection on your own experiences... this is simply a more difficult path.Both ways spirituality must be learned. However, it can be learned naturally (from oneself), or from other people.All babies are born ignorant of spirituality.
Some can learn spirituality all on their own.
Some can learn spirituality from others.
Some can learn to not be spiritual (perhaps on their own, or from others, I can even agree that this is the "easiest" of the possibilities)None of these options leads us to think that the baby is initially defective in some way. Such a thought only comes from imagination. Unless you can show how it is anything other than imagination? I understand that you do not agree with me.I am not asking for you to explain how you do not agree with me, you have done so many times now.I am asking for you to show how your explanation of disagreement is different from imagination.I can show you how my explanation is different from imagination:I don't think babies are damaged.
I can show you x-rays and doctor's records of new born babies and how they show no damage.
I can show you how, without God or religion, I or others are capable of spiritual levels you claim are only available "with God." This directly refutes your position.I fully understand that you say babies are damaged, and God is required for spirituality.I am asking you to show how what you say is actually a part of reality. How do you differentiate the ideas you talk about as different from pure imagination?I'm going to try and show you what I'm talking about. Below is an excerpt from your Message 54 in this thread. I have highlighted certain sentences in yellow.I completely agree with everything you discern and conclude from these yellow phrases. However, my issue is that you are simply stating these yellow phrases. You are not showing how these yellow words are actually real. You are not showing how these yellow words are different from pure imagination.I agree that IF we assume these yellow words are correct, then your conclusion follows. My issue is that you give no reason for anyone to assume that these yellow words are actually correct. Therefore, there is no reason to accept your conclusions or explanations (all the non-coloured text). From what you've written, it's entirely possible that the yellow words are equivalent to pure imagination. Can you show how the concepts you talk about are different from imagination? You are simply making statements. They are either from you, or from the Bible. But they are still nothing more than mere statements. Without showing how your statements are different from imagination, your arguements will remain impotent.

Our debate isn't going anywhere, so I'm afraid I'm unable to put the effort in to keep... spinning wheels. You keep explaing your theology, and I keep saying that it isn't required.You believe in God and the Bible. I understand that.
You accept the Bible's theology. I understand that.
You fully believe the Bible's theology is an important part of everyone's life. I understand that.I also believe that God and the Bible are a path to spirituality.
They're just not the only one.I have reached levels of spirituality without God or religion.
I know you don't believe such, but your belief one way or the other has no impact on what has actually happened.
Since I cannot know what you feel, and you cannot know what I feel, it isn't possible for us to directly compare our feelings of spirituality.
All I can say is that I'm not lying to you when I tell you that everything you have described about spirituality is what I also feel. I just don't require God, the Bible or the rest of your theological explanations in order to have those feelings.Perhaps, if you could actually describe a discernable difference between your "God granted" spirituality, and my "inherently human" spirituality, you could show how your point has validity.

No. I don't think it would be necessary. But, if God is incapable of reading my mind, then I would only accept that He was required if He showed me that He was required. He, like you, has yet to do so. I am not going to take God's word for it, as much as I am not going to take your word for it. If an all-powerful God gave me a brain to make my own decisions, I would assume that God is not stupid and respect the gifts that He gave me. Especially if I ever find myself in His presence. A smart God would not give me a brain and then expect me not to use it.A smart God would know that human's can't "know" things unless they are shown to be true. If I then bypassed this point, right in front of God, it would be the rudest slap-in-God's-face that I would be capable of. God would *know* that I need to be shown the truth before I can honestly accept it as such. Accepting as truth, without having it shown to me, right in front of God Himself can only be seen as rude and dismissive and lying on my part. I'd rather not anger a God. Being honest, and asking God to show me that it's actually true before telling Him that I accept it as true, would only seem prudent.It is also possible that God exists and He is not required for our existence in any way. No, I am not absolutely positive about this at all.(We should probably start another thread if you want to continue with these types of questions)

Yes, you seem to say a lot of things that aren't true. You have given me no reason to actually think that I do not know myself well. You just keep saying it over and over. Saying something does not make it true. As far as I can tell, I know myself as well as anyone you've described knows themselves. There is no difference at all. Well, let me be the first. Hello, jaywill. I am an atheist and I do not think I am "clever" in the sense you are talking about here. I only explained my reasoning to you. You called it "an array of irrelevant reasonings" without giving any basis at all to call it such.Perhaps you can show the error of my ways, instead of just saying "you're in error" and leaving it at that?Can you actually show how humans are capable of "knowing" something without having it shown to them?Perhaps you have a strange defintion of the word *know*.Faith and belief are ways of accepting the truth when we are not fully aware of the actual possibilties of the truth. This is why we have faith in such things as the afterlife, or God's existence.To know something is a way of understanding the actual truth through verification. This is why we have knowledge of such things as the distance between cities.The very defintion of the word "know" is to "directly perceive" or "have direct cognition of." Such things (for a human) are not possible unless we are shown whatever it is we're trying to understand. Taking someone's word for something, even if that someone is God Himself, is not "directly perceiving" something. It's just the defintion of the word "know."I can understand how you think that God's authority is beyond question. It's just that, as a human, I cannot honestly *know* something unless I have directly perceived it.Therefore, if God Himself asks me how I know something, I would be lying if I told him "because I accept your word." Such a thing is faith, or belief, or trust; it is not "knowing" since it is not "directly perceiving." It's not being rude or clever, it's simply acknoweldging the defintion of the word.I wouldn't want to "be clever" in front of a God as much as I wouldn't want to be dishonest.So, what specifically, about the above is "irrelevant" or "clever?"
As far as I can tell, I'm simply being honest and answering God's question to the best of my abilities as a human. You seem to be very sure that I haven't done this already, or constantly. Strange. I wouldn't say God rejects my honest prayers. I'd say He doesn't acknowledge them. Perhaps it's because He doesn't exist. Perhaps it's for some other reason. Nothing to lose at all. Again, what makes you think I don't already do so? It just so happens that God doesn't seem to answer honest requests. Perhaps I'm "doing it wrong," but I only do what other's (such as yourself) have suggested. Oh, don't worry. Actually, if anyting, I gained more respect for jaywill from our exchange. I don't think I've ever seriously read your posts before. But you still have yet to make Jesus an issue to me. You have yet to do as I've asked (but it's okay, I'm pretty sure it's impossible, so it's not like I blame you or anything):Can you show anything beneficial at all that a "God (or Bible) believer" can obtain that an atheist cannot?You have yet to do so.
Therefore, I am forced to remain with my original thoughts about your position: the words you espouse are no different from imagination, they don't make any actual difference to reality.You claim that Jesus, God and the Bible are the only path to spirituality and a "glorious" life.But, from all you've claimed about spirituality or a glorious life, there is nothing that I don't already have in my atheist life. Apart from the talk of God, the Bible and Jesus... who may as well be entirely fictional creations of the imagination since they have zero impact on any portion of reality (from what you describe to what I see around my own life).