Spirituality and atheism..

[dzheremi]

Personally I don't like using the term "spiritual" as an atheist.. I just use "empathy". I don't know what else the use of a "spirit" is but to empathize with it.​

Empathize with what? The/a 'spirit'?

But if you're an atheist, there are no spirits, correct? There is no 'animating principle' outside of whatever is scientifically observable.

Do I just not understand what atheism is? I feel like I'm having a different conversation than the one that the rest of you are having.

 

[MehGuy]

Empathize with what? The/a 'spirit'?

But if you're an atheist, there are no spirits, correct? There is no 'animating principle' outside of whatever is scientifically observable.

Do I just not understand what atheism is? I feel like I'm having a different conversation than the one that the rest of you are having.

There are still people. There still is something to empathize with.. back before people had any idea of how the brain worked they just substituted that with spirit. I really don't see much of a difference. Your essence comes from some unforeseen spirit or a brain.. the empathetic effects are pretty much the same.

 

[dlamberth]

If your just eating food, ya, that's not very spiritual at all. But it's a different thing when something extra delicious came across your plate, something that you really got into. That experience just might reach a spiritual experience kind of thing. That's all I'm saying. But I kind of see things in a spiritual context anyway. But generally I was looking at OB's spiritual custard eating experience and was remembering some very fine food that I've eaten and how good it was and how I felt.

 

[dzheremi]

There are still people. There still is something to empathize with.. back before people had any idea of how the brain worked they just substituted that with spirit. I really don't see much of a difference. Your essence comes from some unforeseen spirit or a brain.. the empathetic effects are pretty much the same.

Hmm. Alright.

I don't accept that as a religious person (surprise, surprise...), but I guess if that's what you mean by "spirit", then that answers my question.

I'm kinda agreeing with Occam's Barber here in that it seems to be something of a redefinition/bleaching of the term as it is popularly understood, but then that's how language evolves. Who am I to say otherwise. I'll keep using it my (Church's) way, and you can use it your way, and we'll see if they're both still sticking around by the time we're both ready to kick the bucket.

 

[dlamberth]

Personally I don't like using the term "spiritual" as an atheist.. I just use "empathy". I don't know what else the use of a "spirit" is but to empathize with it. ​

That's perfect!

 

[MehGuy]

Yeah.. I can see food being spiritual if you self analyze it.. then again that sounds like "self empathy" to me. Not sure if a non-empathetic emotion has a spiritual quality too it.

 

[Occams Barber]

I explained why a few posts ago. I understand if you didn't read it.

I'm sorry - I must have missed that post.

I don't think it effects the ability to be empathetic with other people. They just can't channel that empathy into mysterious supernatural beings.

I'm fascinated by the value you place on empathy and why you might have felt the need to channel it into a mysterious supernatural being - but - I'm conscious of seeming to be putting you through an interrogation. I apologise if I've overdone it.

Thank you for talking with me.
OB​

 

[MehGuy]

I'm sorry - I must have missed that post.

I'm fascinated by the value you place on empathy and why you might have felt the need to channel it into a mysterious supernatural being - but - I'm conscious of seeming to be putting you through an interrogation. I apologise if I've overdone it.

Thank you for talking with me.
OB​

No it's fine. I'm just not the best at explaining things.

 

[Occams Barber]

That's perfect!

C'mon DL...

First it was awe, Now it's empathy and a little while ago it was custard.

I think you're making this up as you go.
OB

 

[dzheremi]

And here I thought everything was science.

What's the point of being an atheist if you have a religious -- pardon me, spiritual -- experience every time you have a donut?

 

[Occams Barber]

And here I thought everything was science.

What's the point of being an atheist if you have a religious -- pardon me, spiritual -- experience every time you have a donut?

No, no, no. Custard is for spiritual.

Doughnuts are for your more transcendental stuff.

The obvious point of being an atheist is I get custard and doughnuts and all you get is....tell me again - what is it you get?
OB

 

[dzheremi]

The obvious point of being an atheist is I get custard and doughnuts and all you get is....tell me again - what is it you get?
OB

Zalabya (Middle Eastern 'donut balls') and communion wine?

(Not together...we're not that crazy/modern.)

 

[Occams Barber]

Zalabya (Middle Eastern 'donut balls') and communion wine?

(Not together...we're not that crazy/modern.)

Let me know if you start using the doughnut balls for communion - I might join.
(that would make me an OOO - an Occidental Oriental Orthodox)
OB

 

[juvenissun]

What are your thoughts on atheists being "spiritual" or attempting to be "spiritual"?

If spiritual is supernature, then atheism becomes false.
If spiritual is not supernatural, then it is a part of humanism.
Atheists should first make clear "to themselves" what is the nature of their "spiritual".

 

[Jon Osterman]

There are still people.

Are you sure? Do you have evidence for this? Shouldn't the natural (i.e. logical) atheist position be that you are the only consciousness in existence since you don't have direct observation of consciousness in others? I am not meaning to be facetious in that question.

I suppose one could hypothesis consciousness in others and regard the similarities between your own and others' behaviour as evidence of your hypothesis. However, a universe with only one consciousness is simpler than one with many, so this would fall foul of Ockham's Razor.

 

[FireDragon76]

I can hear the disagreement. But I'll say it anyway, in it's simplest form, the awe one "experiences" when catching first sight of a rainbow is a spiritual experience. For even that brief moment a person is taken out of their selves while in wonderment. I think we tend to make the spiritual world harder and more mysterious than it really is.

Experiencing what Kant called the Sublime need not be seen as spiritual, nor do all religions necessarily see it as essentially spiritual.

 

[FireDragon76]

Very intense spirituality, pretty much feeling euphoria during all my waking hours.

Is that spirituality, per se, or just euphoria? In Christianity there's a spirituality, that the former Dominican (and now Episcopalian priest) Matthew Fox's calls the Via Negativa, that is about experiencing less pleasant emotions, like desolation, anguish, etc.

The point is that all these particular ways of experiencing the world, in terms of feelings evoked, can be sacred in the proper context. The goal of Christian spirituality isn't necessarily towards experiencing only one kind of emotion, but psychological integration and being a human "fully alive" (to borrow that phrase from St. Gregory Nanzianzus).

 

[Jon Osterman]

A rainbow is a very simple optical effect caused by reflection off and refraction through raindrops. It is a very easy phenomenon to understand, so I don't see why it would generate a "spiritual experience".

 

[Zoness]

@MehGuy
I wonder if you're not using spirituality to relate to something else instead? Based on what I've gathered from your empathy, maybe it was more closely related to having a strong (maybe SM) empathetic Connection that was associated with Christianity and Christian imagry but maybe it isn't spiritual per se, it's emotional? I'm just spitballing ideas a bit.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Empathize with what? The/a 'spirit'?

But if you're an atheist, there are no spirits, correct? There is no 'animating principle' outside of whatever is scientifically observable.

Do I just not understand what atheism is? I feel like I'm having a different conversation than the one that the rest of you are having.

You seem to confuse science and scientifically-minded people with atheism/atheists.

There are plenty of theists who know and understand that vitalism (i.e. the hypothesis of a numinous "animating principle") has been thoroughly off the table for more than a hundred years, yet still embrace belief in a deity.
(You might even build a strong case for Christianity rejecting the notion of a "disembodied spirit"/"body-as-mere-vehicle"-dualism, since OG Christianity pretty much taught for hundreds of years that the afterlife starts with a bodily resurrection, NOT with spirit-pilots vacating bodies like shells and immediately progressing to whatever post-mortem destination they are headed for.)

And while most atheists you'll ever meet will most likely reject *any* notion of the supernatural, that is not a requirement for atheism. The only thing atheists have in common is that they do not believe in gods - apart from that, they can hold any number of beliefs in the supernatural.

Personally, I am a monist. It's pretty obvious to me that virtually everything we identify as "I" is not only inextricably tied to our physical existence, but also consists of various parts that can change and even perish while we are still alive. Identity is not an essence, but an activity: the way we are perceived and perceive ourselves.