overcast

I would hope so. Even traditional Christianity is something Jesus wouldn't have endorsed. After all, he didn't go to church and he wasn't a Christian!

Welcome to the forum, farfromthetree.

I agree that probably the historical Jesus would not have endorsed traditional Christian theology. Of course most everything about the historical Jesus is speculation.

HOWEVER, traditional Christians BELIEVE that they are following the teachings of the historical Jesus with perhaps some minor errors. That is different from KNOWING indifference to the historical Jesus.

There is also the possibility of disconnecting the historical Jesus from the living Christ. I suppose a PC might imagine that Jesus was just some ordinary guy trying to connect to a living Christ, become a living Christ, etc. That type of PC might say the historical Jesus and his teachings can be ignored, modified, etc., because he is just an early religious leader trying to figure it out - just like modern PCs.

As an atheist, I don't have a horse in the race, but I'm confused about PC ideas.

Soma. I've long since been open to mysticism, and I've had a fair share of mystical experiences. But lately, I've reverted back to primarily an intellectual state. That started with my treatment for bipolar. I closed that door thinking that it might keep the crazies away. It's been years since I had an episode, and now I feel like it is safe to open up again.

 

I haven't shared any of those experiences, because I worry what people would think. It's hard to convey them, much like trying to describe a dream that only you can understand...if indeed you understand. PCs tend to reject it and conservatives have litmus tests for whether it's divinity or devilry.

I think maybe you have your answer right there: "I've long since been open to mysticism, and I've had a fair share of mystical experiences. But lately, I've reverted back to primarily an intellectual state. That started with my treatment for bipolar."

Most people with bipolar that I've talked to on forums say that religion/spirituality/mysticism makes their problems worse. There seems to be a feedback loop so that bipolar feeds mysticism which feeds bipolar which feeds mysticism until they end-up hospitalized or whatever. Most of these people felt that atheism helped them stay healthy.

My mental health problem doesn't match any of the classifications. I suspect my problem is a mild mixture of several things (mostly depression). Due to the depression, I have always had a feeling that life seems pointless. I've wanted to grab God by the throat and make him tell me what life is about (even though I was a weak atheist). Every 10 years or so from childhood to now, I would have experiences that made me think there might be something beyond physical reality. Then I had a breakdown about 5 years ago and interpreted the hallucinations as God talking to me - except the message was confusing and Christianity was confusing. As I started recovering psychologically, the hallucinations became less frequent, and I felt that God was disappointed with me for not listening or understanding. I had been fantasizing about becoming a Orthodox monk even though I was too old. I didn't now how to pursue that goal (fortunately), but I did give away most of my savings (unfortunately ). After a year or two I stopped attending church and started investigating non-Christian explanations for my experiences (multidimensional beings, etc.). Then I learned about psychosis. For several years, I called myself an atheist, but I would have anxiety attacks whenever anything reminded me of my paranoid delusions. Then about 6 months ago, I finally got better. I suspect that if I had been a totally non-spiritual atheist when I had my breakdown, then maybe it wouldn't have been so bad. On the other hand, maybe I would have imagined the CIA was trying to assassinate me or some other non-spiritual paranoid delusion. FWIW.

I think Christianity is an organization or institution and must evolve like everything else including atheism.

 

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

― Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina

Maybe that's the essence of Progressive Christianity?

Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim to be basically unchanged.

Protestantism claims to be going back to the original through discarding tradition and relying only on the Bible.

Liberal Protestantism says lets discard parts of the Bible that seem to be corruptions of the inspired parts.

Does Progressive Christianity say it's o.k. to evolve Christainity into something that the historical Jesus may not have endorsed?

Does Progressive Christianity assume that Jesus would have endorsed anything that works?

I personally don't see it that way but you certainly are entitled to that opinion.

 

 

Life as a whole here is of course subjective to sentient beings. And yes, those words are subjective just like your opinion or mine. I think we can not truly get to know an Atheist or Christian for that matter when we box them in by saying what they should or shouldn't believe.. Just my opinion.

Peace,

Joseph

That's true, and sorry if I get carried away with my opinions.

I would suggest the defining attribute of 'God' or 'gods' are that they are generally attributed a personality, as though they are a specific being/entity. Yahweh God, Jesus as God, Buddha (although not traditionally a God is viewed as such by some), the pantheon of Roman Gods (all having a name or identified somehow), etc.

 

Supernatural on the other hand is something that is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

So I still think that being true to the word 'atheist', believing in or being open to spirituality, is different to believing in God or gods.

 

But maybe that's just me [/size]

Personality is another key attribute. Like what is personality? I would say it's predictability. I drink coca cola a lot. I imagine that I am an actor with free will who likes coca cola. This is a bit like a supernatural spirit in a cockpit piloting my physical body through life.

Gravity is predictable, but it is TOO predictable - it doesn't seem to have free will. A personality needs to be SOMEWHAT predictable. The weather is more like a personality. Of course science would say the weather is chaotic instead of choosing.

(Sorry, I enjoy trying to question what I mean by this or that. I know this is probably pedantic to people who have done more reading on these issues. )

I feel the word progress means moving forward so a Progressive Christian would be one that wants to move Christianity forward to a new paradigm. I meditate, but I am not Buddhist, I do yoga, but I am not Hindu. I feel I am Christian because I use Jesus as my deity to represent the abstract infinite realm in a physical form that I can relate to on the physical plane. Many people do not flock to the church and the problem is religion is not rational, but emotional, and it is not grounded in knowledge or in a firsthand spiritual experience except in the mystical components that are usually hidden in the tradition. The churches disregarding the mystical and scientific knowledge end up only providing ethical guidance when people want more than just being preached at. People would rather know and feel the experience of the Divinity within than just knowing the definition. Explanations of a universal consciousness can bring about and maintain the experience of being a part of the whole providing the young, curious minds with the inspiration to form their own views in life. Spiritual experience is an inside job that inspires people to help others and at the same time experience the love and peace from relaxing in the consciousness in the whole. It is time for a paradigm shift for our churches to see the virtue in opening minds and refining them instead of controlling and correcting them. We need a faith where people are able to know the Divine, understand the experience and incorporate it in their life so they may master, rule and have power over their abilities, senses, and desires. We need Christians who are grounded in reason and are big enough to adapt, cooperate and be resourceful in the moment as they cultivate virtue. The church is a living organism that needs to regenerate with each generation taking truths wherever they find them in order to enhance and deepen our wisdom and spirituality. It follows then that the undertaking of the ministry is not to rule with law and intense fear, but to restore and prepare people for a spiritual encounter through experience, persuasion and reasoning. Humans have free will and will prevail or fail on their own choice so need to come into their whole being expanding their choices and opportunities and not be poked and pushed with hate, hell or real estate in heaven. Making people feel guilty nudges them to the depths of misery, but a personal spiritual experience can suddenly elevate one to the height of bliss beyond authority, tradition and the conventional view. We need to rise above the conventional thought because we tend to make God in our human image with human qualities, but God is beyond your understanding and the behaviors of humans. In our finite world we calculate, label and explain things, but the infinite sphere is beyond our senses and the limits of the conventional mind; subsequently, Christ did not prescribe a religion or government, but only a love that is not fooled by our faults.

That sounds a bit like something an Eastern Orthodox would say.

The English word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, meaning "breath", but also "spirit, soul, courage, vigor"

 

English words associated with spirit ... courage, enthusiasm, heart, resolve, vigor, essence etc..

 

In common they all relate to a non-corporeal substance in that it does not occupy space or have mass. A spiritual person does not necessarily imply belief in "spirits" (ghosts) as you seem to me to assume in your post though i admit some might.

 

To me, a spiritual person is more concerned with virtues or "fruits" as the Bible might call them than the physical substances of this world. Fruits being such things as love, joy, peace, forbearance (patience or self-control), kindness, goodness, gentleness, etc. While these things may be closely linked to religion, a non-religious person or Atheist may strive for these non-corporeal things and thus also be considered in my view a spiritual person by definition.

"love, joy, peace, ..." are subjective like "delicious, beautiful, ...". These words are a bit like morality, and I think atheists should not believe in objective morality.

Interesting points! This is where I differ with many PCs. First off, I don't call myself a progressive Christian in the sense that I'm a Liberal Christian or that I reject orthodoxy. If I'm a PC at all it's on the point that I don't believe that I HAVE to believe anything at all or any specific thing in order to be accepted by God.

 

I accept much of the traditional views of the Bible and Jesus as valid....or as fundamentally Christian. But I reject some of it. I would rather call myself a heretic than to set out to change Christianity, with some exceptions. I think that Christians should leave the judging to God. Christian beliefs should stay our of civil law. Christians should be taking Christ's teachings to care for the needy far more seriously than these peripheral issues like being anti-gay and anti-abortion. Christianity should be about Love, Hope, and Peace. The litmus on Christian living should be, "Does this action bring more love, hope, or peace into the world or less?"

Thanks, it is easier for me to understand your ideas. While I was hallucinating, it seemed that God was holding a spot light up to the areas of Christain theology that bothered me. (Of course what was really happening was that my subconscious mind was very uncomfortable with Christianity and creating hallucinations to highlight these problems.) So for a while, I felt that either God was telling me to be a heretic, or Satan and God had switched clothing to test me. So I can identify with being a heretic.

I was a member of a progressive church for 15 years before I got a job at another church. It turned as many kids into atheists as the Catholic church or Judaism. When kids went to confirmation and then were asked in front of the church if they wanted to be confirmed and make a profession of faith many did not. I respect it. It means that our kids are thinking critically and taking the decision very seriously. But I believe in raising a child in whatever faith you subscribe to (if at all). It gives them something to work with or against or come back to later in life. I feel that this church was failing in this area. Kids need to be given something black and white until they can begin to comprehend and consider the gray.

That is interesting. I don't have children, but I can see that teaching values is important. It is hard to decouple the values from the religion - especially if the parent believes the religion.

In regard to atheists and Christianity. There are many atheists who follow the social teachings of Jesus. I happen to think that this is an excellent thing in that it gives a person a moral framework and a life path that is positive. The Dalai Lama encouraged the world to stick with the faith they were raised in. I come from a long line of Protestants. I explored Buddhism and New Age and Neo-Paganism for quite a few years, but what I found is that the wisdom I was learning and experiences I was having had Christian names and symbols already. So why change the heritage of my family name just to call my faith by different names?

o.k.

I actually think it comes down to the word Atheist - which is from the Greek atheos, meaning 'godless, denying the gods, ungodly'.

 

Atheism isn't a belief system, it is actually about a 'lack' of belief. So rather than atheism meaning a belief in logic, science, what can be proved etc, true atheism simply means one doesn't believe in God or gods. Maybe some atheists feel the term is being 'stolen' from them, but really this is just being true to what the word means.

 

But yes, superstitious thinking can be a concern. Reading 'spiritual' messages into things can be dangerous. Alternately, closing one's mind to anything at all possibly existing which currently cannot be proven, might mean we are missing out too.

 

I think minds can be open without having to be superstitious.

I'll take is one more step - it comes down to the word "gods". The "gods" are hard to define, but "supernatural" might be the defining attribute of a "god". "Supernatural" is anything beyond metaphysical naturalism. The moment we start letting the possibility of "supernatural" effects influence our decision making at all, we are no longer atheist IMO.

So atheism = methodological naturalism.

While not metaphysical naturalism per se, in the more general sense of naturalism and philosophy expressed by Kate and Vitaly (2000) "there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded."[9] As noted by Steven Schafersman, methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success (although science does have metaphysical implications), but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is."[2]

Of course I know that my opinion isn't shared by most atheists.

Overcast,

 

You said "The sayings of Jesus in the gospels are mostly apocalyptic, hyperbolic, etc." What about his teachings on forgiveness, about measuring or judging others, about loving your neighbor, about not being anxious about your life in taking too much thought for what you shall wear, eat etc., about giving and receiving, about treasuring the things that really matter, about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and many more that you can test for yourself ,

 

Don't forget, the early first Christians didn't have a Bible as you see today nor were they filled with all the baggage from a series of letters written by other people and claimed to be the word of God by a church system. In my view of things, they only had some first or second hand teachings and some passed down verbal teachings from Jesus. Jesus himself is recorded writing nothing. PC's have as much a right to Christianity as others claiming the same but polluting the teachings with more laws and doctrines.

No, I don't think PC's can just make up whatever they feel like and call it Christianity. The beliefs we call Christianity should be equivalent to the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Furthermore, these Christian beliefs should have survived intact to modern times due to their superiority over heresies.

Any claimant to the Christian denominational throne must he able to show an uninterrupted line of succession back to Jesus IMO.

BTW Thanks for all those replies, everybody. I'll probably have some thoughts this evening on them.

I think I understand your pet peeve Overcast, and if definitions were to change, then so be it. If you had the power to change the definition of Atheism to as you suggest, then we would be working with a different definition for the word than is currently understood. If you personally think that Atheists should claim no belief or support for anything beyond the realms of what can be proved by scientific method, then you are trying to rewrite our language as it stands today.

 

But as it stands, the current definition for the word Atheism would seem to allow room for spirituality (which is different to not believing in a theistic God or gods). So I wouldn't consider such people as being misleading and I would suggest you have no reason to be annoyed. People are just following current conventions.

 

I share your concern that it in some way may legitimse others who cling fast to what I regard as harmful religious beliefs, but to a degree I accept that I can't live my life worrying about what others believe.

It all comes down to the definition of "spiritual". "Spirit" is embedded in the world "spiritual", so IMO "spiritual" implies belief in "spirits". IMO an atheist who justifies disbelief in deities because there is no scientific evidence should not believe in other things that have no scientific evidence.

I don't have a problem with atheists who feel inspired by (for example) realizing that the iron in their bodies came from an explosion of a now extinct star long before our own sun formed. Understanding that the boundaries of our bodies, identity, birth, death, etc. are convenient abstractions is not being "spiritual". Unfortunately it is human nature to go further and start imagining the "Great Spirit" flowing through all matter and influencing material events. That's going too far for a person who labels as an atheist IMO.

It's just my pet peeve

EDIT: Partly my feelings arise from my personal struggle with superstitious thinking. For example, I was reading an article about cancellation of the A-10 Warthog, and one of the quotes was from "General Hostage". Sometimes I think that something is sending me coded messages in the things that I read. If I allow myself to speculate about the "Great Spirit", then I start worrying when a sock disappears from my laundry.

O.k. thanks. I'm not sure what I think about PC.

From a practical perspective, maybe PC provides a bridge to help people become atheists. My impression is that many fundamentalists travel through non-fundamentalist denominations before finally leaving the faith. If PC can provide a safe Christian environment for fundamentalists to learn about Biblical criticism, early Christianity, etc. then that is good.

From a purist perspective, I don't think PC makes any sense at all. Where are these Christian teachings that are supposed to be the path to enlightenment? The sayings of Jesus in the gospels are mostly apocalyptic, hyperbolic, etc. The epistles are mostly Paul ranting. The traditions of the church are things like monks with extreme ascetic practices. And let's not forget the teachings about sex. Even married couples were encouraged to be celibate. IMO, these teachings are foolish and potentially dangerous for mentally unstable people. Furthermore, it seems a little disingenuous for people to label as Christian with the stated goal of transforming Christianity to prevent its extinction. A person attempting to transform something must not view that thing as sacred IMO. Therefore a Christian cannot knowingly redesign a religion like Christianity that is supposed to originate with divine revelations.

EDIT: IMO, PCs should simply study Christianity, discover that it doesn't work, then convert to Buddhism, Wicca, atheism, etc. Why try to change Christianity into Buddhism, Wicca, or atheism? Broadening the definition of Christianity only allows the traditional Christians to hide behind the smoke screen. Christianity needs to be isolated and ridiculed until we can finally say "will the last Christian leaving the faith please turn out the lights?"

Of course the people who are PC's seem nice. I'm not attacking you guys.

" Like "spiritual" should mean you believe in a spiritual world. An atheist should not label as "spiritual"."

 

A side note to what you've said here. There are people that don't believe in a god, but do believe in a spiritual dimension to the earth (earth-based religions for example). That there is something spiritual to humans and plants and animals and elements. They just don't believe in God, but they are spiritual nonetheless. I certainly wouldn't put you in the category! But I think some people would put themselves there.

That is true. There was an article on Patheos about an atheist who was a priestess in a pagan group. This priestess believed paganism was entirely imaginary and emotional, but she enjoyed the activities. She compared it to going to a rock concert.

Labels try to put people in a conveniently marked box because generally as humans we seem to be happier if we 'know' everything's place.

 

As for the label of 'Atheist', I know one agreed definition may be hard to find but generally I have understood Atheist to be the opposite to Theist. A Theist believes in the existence of a god or gods and more specifically in a creator god who intervenes in the universe.

 

Conversely, an Atheist doesn't believe in those things, but I fail to see how that excludes an Atheist from having a spiritual dimension. I call myself an Atheist because I don't believe in God (i.e. God being a stand-alone separate entity either watching over us or some other way external to us), but that doesn't mean I don't think there could be a spiritual side of life that we don't understand.

 

To me, the term God can be so misleading and responsible for so much misunderstanding. What if 'God' is simply the energy/vibration that we all come from and is not something outside of ourselves but rather we are it fully?

I agree that a popular definition of atheist is "somebody who does not currently believe in any deities". IMO this definition is particularly popular because it allows the atheist to simply sit back and poke holes in theist arguments in a debate.

If I was "label faery", I would define atheist as "somebody whose aspires to use the scientific method to decide what to believe". This definition would prohibit atheists from claiming to believe in panentheism, astrology, faeries, ET visitation, etc. An atheist might be fascinated by the possibility that some of these things might be true, but an atheist should be a skeptic. Of course an atheist should feel free to assign probabilities to different theories. For example an atheist might say he is 95% sure that ET visitation has not happened. In other words, an atheist can be on the fence, if the evidence looks that way.

I'm not sure what my point is. I think I will go to sleep.

Overcast,

The problem with labels is they try to put you in a box as if we all have the same beliefs and at the same point in our spiritual journey and therefore are called by that label. The fact is that though many find that comfortable, people are more complicated than mere labels. If one really wants to know exactly what a person believes, it is in my view, best to simple ask them a specific question rather than trying to categorize them. The only thing Progressive Christians have in common here is that in general they subscribe to the 8 points of PC listed on this site. And even those tenets have changed over time to more accurately reflex commonalities. In essence "Progressive Christianity is an open, intelligent and collaborative approach to the Christian tradition and the life and teachings of Jesus that creates a pathway into an authentic and relevant religious experience."[/size]

For a message from this sites president (Fred Plumer) on what exactly is Progressive Progressive Christianity Click [/size]HERE and check out the video part way down on the right.

Joseph

Joseph, the link in your post is broken, but I googled and found a video where Fred Plumer explains Progressive Christainity. I have a better understanding of PC now after watching the video you suggested. Plumer seems to see the historic Jesus as a Buddha-like figure with teachings and practices that will lead to self-improvement and an experience of the divine. That's fine and dandy except that the teachings and practices of Jesus have come down to us in the Bible and the traditions of earliest churches. There are so many fundamental disagreements between the early churches that we cannot accept them collectively, and we cannot identify the true teachings among all the heresies.

So what is a Progressive Christian supposed to do?

(1) A PC might test all the known forms of early Christianity by practicing and studying each one in turn for several years. If something "works" then the PC might assume he/she has found the "true" teachings of Jesus in that ancient Christian sect.

(2) A PC might test spiritual practices with non-Christian roots. If somethign "works" then the PC might assume this is the "true" teachings of Jesus discovered independently by Buddha, Muhammad, or whoever.

Why not simply ignore Christianity and Jesus entirely? Buddhism has sects, but my impression is that they are far more consistent than the early sects of Christianity. Where is the historical evidence that Christianity has EVER been good for anything? It's a wld goose chase IMO.

Thanks, fatherman That is interesting, because most Progressive Christians seem to be so far from Christian orthodoxy that identifying as Christian at all seems strange to me. Your apparent beliefs and behavior seem more "Christian" to me, so labeling as Progressive Christian seems sensible in your case IMO.

I don't know why I care about labels, but it annoys me when they are misleading. Like "spiritual" should mean you believe in a spiritual world. An atheist should not label as "spiritual". "Progressive Christian" should mean you have some commonalities with other types of Christians. Somebody who thinks the historical Jesus was just an ordinary Jew with delusions of grandeur (like I believe) should not label as a "Progressive Christian" IMO.

Of course everybody can label as they want. It's just a pet peeve.

Thanks, romansh, I wasn't aware of that theory. I've heard some similar ideas to explain the human tendency to believe in spirits, religions, etc.

The DSMV notes a difference between religious psychosis and spirituality. There is a difference between "hearing voices" because you have schizophrenia and sensing the leading of the holy spirit.

During my religious phase, I read several accounts of monks and saints. Now I can look back and see that many of those monks were mentally ill. For example, there was a story about a monk who ate dirt, then I saw a youtube video about a girl with bipolar who described feeling compelled to lay down in a culvert and eat rocks. There was another story about a bishop who supposedly had a demon whispering doubts in his ears almost constantly for years, and that is similar to accounts of hearing voices. There is another case of a medieval Moslem who was executed because he believed he was God - a very common delusion. In the bible there are prophets who cut themselves just like so many modern people cut themselves compulsively. Somewhere I believe the Bible mentions that you can tell a prophet by his scars. I have heard that the Pentecostal churches attract mentally ill people who are not aware that they need psychological help. There are youtube videos of mass kundalini awakenings much like the craziness of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches; these criticisms of spirituality apply to all religions.

So what's my point? All the good plants growing in the religious/spiritual gardens can be transplanted into atheist gardens where there are no snakes to bite us.

A couple of observations:

We define mental illness into and out of existence.

Spirituality seems to be different things for different people.

 

For me spirituality is the few moments that I have had in my life that I was in awe.

 

One such moment, as an example, was looking down a microscope looking at a pre-zygote when my wife and I were trying IVF. Those four tiny cells - potential human being.

 

Anyway is not acceptance (as opposed to apathy) a form of spirituality?

I think the solution would be to abandon the word "spirituality". Let "spirituality" be reserved for the beliefs and practices that assume the existence of a non-physical, spiritual world.

I've had some uplifting experiences like you describe, and those are nice. The problem comes when people describe these experiences using the "spiritual" lingo. When a person with psychological problems says "the Holy Spirit told me to move to Arizona", nobody considers the possibility that this person might be hearing voices, because normal people use the same words for more normal circumstances.

So what is so compelling about Jesus that you would identify as a Christian, while rejecting the spiritual nature of Jesus? (I'm assuming that you are a Christian)

 

My answer would be that you can practice much of what he taught without believing in spirit. I know many people who do. You don't even have to call yourself a Christian to act as a Christian. That's fine.

I'm an atheist. I grew up Episcopalian and lost faith as an adult.

Now, I'm going to challenge you a bit here. As far as mental health goes, I have bipolar affective disorder. I've seen my fair share of mental health professionals, and not one of them would agree with you that spirituality is a symptom of mental illness or that it is unhealthy in any way. That notion, which was prevalent 100 years ago, is passing away What is your science regarding spirituality and mental health?

 

This paper reflects the current direction of psychology/psychiatry in regard to spirituality and mental health. There are many such studies and articles that support the ideas in this paper

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755140/

o.k. I skimmed the abstract, but I didn't read the article. I am aware that the psychiatric groups have been trying to be more friendly to spirituality. Part of the problem is that spirituality has broadened to include less harmful concepts. Nowadays a person could describe fishing as a form of spirituality and nobody would blink an eye.

I'm sorry you have bipolar, because it is apparently very dangerous and difficult. A few years ago I had a psychotic episode for the first and only time (hopefully). I lived through that experience without any treatment at all, because my family are Christians and believed it was "spiritual". It's taken 5 years to fully recover, but now I am normal. So that's where I'm coming from.

Taking meditation as an example:

A spiritual person might think that meditation is a way of reaching a higher form of consciousness, talking to spirits, clairvoyance, etc.

A non-spiritual person will be free to refine the practice of meditation by measuring physical results from physical mechanisms.

Of course, religions sometimes stumble onto some good ideas. Meditation helps a lot of people.

However, just as alchemy became chemistry and astrology became astronomy, we need to discard the spirituality to move forward IMO.

Here are a few more reasons that spirituality should not be respected or tolerated:

(3) When sane people mimic the delusions and practices of insane people, it is more difficult to identify the truly insane people who need medical or psychological help. If I say that "I think God is talking to me", that should immediately raise red flags and the authorities should treat my illness (against my will if I necessary, because insane people are often unaware that they are insane). Unfortunately, for every truly "spiritual" (i.e. insane) person, there are 99 sane people who for whatever reason think "spirituality" is stylish, wise, or whatever. If I say "I think God is talking to me", nobody notices, because there are 99 sane people saying the same nonsense. The sane people need to understand that "spirituality" is insanity, and claiming to be "spiritual" is just like pulling the fire alarm as a prank; eventually everybody begins to ignore the fire alarm.

(4) There is a range between sane and insane. There are many "spiritual" people who are mildly insane, and their "spiritual" practices and beliefs may eventually push them over the edge. In fact, the more "spiritual" (i.e. insane) these people become, the more enthusiastic they become about "spirituality".

Would you say a little more about how spirituallity is dangerous?

Probably if you go to an atheist forum, and ask your question, you will get a better answer, but here are a few ways:

(1) There seem to be a range of psychological and neurological problems that make people think they are in contact with God, spirits, faeries, aliens, etc. Here is a link to a particularly sad example ( http://neuroresearchproject.com/2013/06/21/preying-in-the-name-of-god/ ). These types of tragedies are not unique to Christianity. Any religion that believes that a person can interact with a non-physical world can probably have these issues.

(2) The fact that there is no scientific evidence for a non-physical world means that people who hope to improve their physical circumstances through spiritual practices are certain to receive no measurable reward. If a person invests little and expects little (like buying a lottery ticket) then little harm is done. If a person has serious problems and tries to solve those problems through spiritual practices, then greater harm is done.

Sorry, ran out of ideas.