Atheists, What's the point?

[muichimotsu]

Soul vs spirit. Not sure we can speak to their substance. And it is hard to distinguish one from the other, even in just qualities. It's easier to just say "mind," and distinguish that from body, which is also Biblical. An entirely different system of categorizing things though, obviously.

Soul is argued to be intertwined with the body in Xian theology, spirit is merely the animating force of a body, the ruach ha kodesh, the breath of God. Substance in this case would be that soul is integrated into the body, spirit can be separate from body in the Christian perspective.

Mind is usually distinguished from "soul" by the mind being intellect, soul being will.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

But then your usage of spiritual is not at all my usage of spiritual, nor that of what most people who use the term. Words mean things.

I believe my usage of the word spiritual is the same as anyone elses, many theists I know describe similar experiences using the word spiritual, if I was a theist you probably would have accepted my usage, the experiences are not much different to my "spiritual" experiences when I was a theist. In fact these types of experiences once supported the belief in my mind the existence of something supernatural. Im sorry I can not think of a more appropiate word to describe them.

 

[seeking Christ]

Transcendent"? Ineffable? Inspiring? Refreshing?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Transcendent"? Ineffable? Inspiring? Refreshing?

None of the above even come close except perhaps ineffable.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I was confronted with it repeatedly before I ever really paid attention. I was left with no choice. Big difference in background!

Well, can you give an example of how you were confronted by it?

If it exists, it's reasonable to assume I have also been confronted in similar ways but haven't identified it as such.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In Defense of “Spiritual” : Sam Harris

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't know why theists assume that words like spiritual, transcendent and soul, belong exclusively to theists. Perhaps they assume that the mere use of these words connotes the supernatural. I don't think that is necessarily the case.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't know why theists assume that words like spiritual, transcendent and soul, belong exclusively to theists. Perhaps they assume that the mere use of these words connotes the supernatural.

I've noticed that people have a tendency to define "spiritual" in terms of their own religious views, instead of seeking common ground with others. Even theists disagree with each other about what "spiritual" means, favoring their own religion's or spiritual tradition's interpretation.

But the fact is that intellectuals have been using the word "spiritual" in the sense promoted here by atheists for many years. One can easily find this in philosophy and psychology. It's not like this is some unprecedented use of the term. It's an established usage.

Language isn't a democracy, where everyone votes on one -- and only one -- meaning for a word. Words can mean different things to different people in different contexts. There isn't any particular reason why the term spiritual must refer exclusively to Christianity's views.

BTW, I didn't realize that Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens have been onboard in defending the use of such terms as "spiritual" by atheists, such as in "spiritual practice". That's my first time seeing evidence of this. I heartily approve. There is hope for the New Atheists yet.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sectio Aurea]

I have to concur with Hitch with regards to my experiences, the words transcendent, ineffable, inspiring and refreshing all fall short of the mark.

"Hitch believed that “spiritual” was a term we could not do without,"

Copy pasted from Archaeopteryx's link.

 

[KCfromNC]

So you guys want to prove me right? OK, I'm used to it.

This exchange started out with me saying I've never known an atheist to talk about Spiritual experiences, and here you are, saying they're not spiritual experiences.

You're confusing spiritual experiences with supernatural ones.

 

[KCfromNC]

But then your usage of spiritual is not at all my usage of spiritual, nor that of what most people who use the term. Words mean things.

Soul vs spirit. Not sure we can speak to their substance.

You can't really blame others for having different ideas about them when you don't know what they are either.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It seems to me that spiritual experiences are wholly emotional experiences.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Hebrews

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Now faith is hoping for things to be true and willing to convince yourself they are without evidence.

Or as Sam Clemens so aptly synthesized, "faith is believing something you know ain't true."

Personally, I see no benefit in wish thinking and believing in things for which evidence is lacking. I strive to see the world as it is, not as I wish it to be.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It seems to me that spiritual experiences are wholly emotional experiences.

Yes, but I would describe them as emotional reactions to unusual perspectives.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tinker Grey]

What do you mean by unusual perspectives?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do you mean by unusual perspectives?

Perspectives on life beyond the mundane perspectives people have in the ordinary course of day to day life.

Examples include profound experiences of music, nature, outer space, and such. Are you familiar with the term "peak experience"?

Also, perspectives could include a radical change in understanding of the nature of existence, such as one might imagine that the Buddha had.

You may want to read the article "The Cosmos is Not Enough" for more. Note especially that the emotional reaction is achieved due to a cognitive context. A cognitive context is a perspective.

http://www.fellowshipofreason.com/newsletters/newsletter2005_08.pdf


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, I'm not familiar with "peak experience". Does that doc explain it? If not, could you?

I'll read that later this evening.

Thanks.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

It seems to me that spiritual experiences are wholly emotional experiences.

That is the same conclusion I reached, however a theist has a natural propensity to seek some form of proof of god(s) and these innefable experiences are enough to suffice for most it seems.

 

[seeking Christ]

You can't really blame others for having different ideas about them when you don't know what they are either.

Nice dodge - except it isn't. I give clear definition for what they are. What I didn't point out previously is that some Bible versions use these terms the opposite way, and some switch them haphazardly. That doesn't help much. One advantage of KJV is its consistent in its use of a word.

 

[seeking Christ]

It seems to me that spiritual experiences are wholly emotional experiences.

Did you ever have a Spiritual experience without emotion?