Calling all Atheists! Can Athiests be spiritual?

[Miss Anthropic]

I am going through a training class for hospice. Clients in this particular hospice have 6 months or less to live. Spirituality is a subject that many people seek to define at a time when they are facing death--particularly if they have not examined it before. Do not confuse spirituality with religion. I asked the hospice spiritual counselor if athiests could be spiritual. She replied yes, they could, but then admitted that no athiest was going to invite her over to discuss spirituality because they all link her to religion. What do all you self-proclaimed atheists think? Even if you believe that when you die you are dead and there is no spirit, is there something in your life while you are alive that you define as spiritual? Do you believe you have a soul when you are alive, but it dies with you when your body dies? What does spirituality mean to you? Thanks for your input. I rarely start threads because I'm such a know-it-all that I don't ask any questions because of course, I think I know it all like any self-respecting INTP does!

[Friendly_Julius]

Ignorant bullshit! Spiritual implies supernatural. We have brains, and brains are enough.

[Edmond Zedo]

Ignorant bullshit! Spiritual implies supernatural. We have brains, and brains are enough.
I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Miss Anthropic]

yeah, that's about what I thought you'd say. (I was thinking the spiritual counselor was being rather ignorant when she answered my question)

[Serotonin]

Brains trick us into thinking that there are higher levels of consciousness than can be produced by the human brain. But the brain itself produces them. Devious.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Well I assume atheists can very well believe in other supernatural forces. I understand that "spirit" is generally used as a subset of God, but it has other applications.

[Miss Anthropic]

Well I assume atheists can very well believe in other supernatural forces. I understand that "spirit" is generally used as a subset of God, but it has other applications.
And in your opinion, what might those applications be? The atheists around here seem pretty hardcore, earthbound, flesh and blood, brain-filled people who disregard anything outside the physical realm.

[jimkopelli]

I believe that the universe likes to play silly buggers... is there such a thing as the Spirit of Probability?


"Million to one chances crop up nine times out of ten." - Pratchett

[Sir Isaac Lime]

And in your opinion, what might those applications be? The atheists around here seem pretty hardcore, earthbound, flesh and blood, brain-filled people who disregard anything outside the physical realm.

Well, I think that physicists, the hardest headed materialists known to man, even accept the notion that there are realities beyond the physical realm. I think this is what Bells theory of non-locality suggests. Anyone more knowledgable please confirm this.

[Edmond Zedo]

Anyone more knowledgable please confirm this.
Yeah. That's bullshit.

[Miss Anthropic]

But back to the spirit as subset of god, and other applications.......I agree with you about the physicists, but I'm digging for definitions here.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Yeah. That's bullshit.

Can you say what exactly is incorrect or did you simply want to proclaim yourself as "someone more educated?

[cjs55]

Spiritual in a contextual sense, sure. I certainly don't believe in any soul or spirit, but I know that I experience things that I don't immediately put in a logical space. That doesn't mean they, objectively, couldn't be put there (and I easily could do that). But I participate subjectively and in the moment they would be inexplicable.

I would thus say I have had spiritual experiences with music and nature. This may be a stretching of the word, but I'm not exactly sure if I have a good replacement for it.

[C.J.Woolf]

Brains trick us into thinking that there are higher levels of consciousness than can be produced by the human brain. But the brain itself produces them. Devious.
Damn, that was well put. (Meaning, of course, I wish I'd thought of it.)

My working definition of "spirit" is that which seems like a higher level of consciousness. Because it is produced by the brain it is real, but also because it is produced by the brain we shouldn't make more of it than it is. I believe that is the meaning of the Gnostic idea that God is in each and every one of us. But only there.

[moni]

\My working definition of "spirit" is that which seems like a higher level of consciousness. Because it is produced by the brain it is real, but also because it is produced by the brain we shouldn't make more of it than it is. I believe that is the meaning of the Gnostic idea that God is in each and every one of us. But only there.

dang it, that's what i wanted to say!!

[Serotonin]

Spiritual in a contextual sense, sure. I certainly don't believe in any soul or spirit, but I know that I experience things that I don't immediately put in a logical space. That doesn't mean they, objectively, couldn't be put there (and I easily could do that). But I participate subjectively and in the moment they would be inexplicable.

I would thus say I have had spiritual experiences with music and nature. This may be a stretching of the word, but I'm not exactly sure if I have a good replacement for it.

Ditto, ditto to the core. Describing a particular jazz chord sequence, or a sunrise over low clouds, the word "divine" immediately springs to mind.

[Edmond Zedo]

Can you say what exactly is incorrect? Maybe you just wanted to proclaim yourself as "someone more educated". I'm not sure.
No. It is not scientific theory that there is anything..."beyond." It's the realm of pure conjecture, and physicists happen to be better at conjecture than religionnaires, as long as the two groups don't overlap. They do, and these are flawed physicists, because they claim to know more than science knows.

[jimkopelli]

How about this view... I grok God.

[MasterMerk]

I don't believe there is a soul. I found the idea fluffy to begn with.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

No. It is not scientific theory that there is anything..."beyond." It's the realm of pure conjecture, and physicists happen to be better at conjecture than religionnaires, as long as the two groups don't overlap. They do, and these are flawed physicists, because they claim to know more than science knows.

"Beyond" what? Beyond the physical or beyond the observable?

And if it's the latter, then hasn't history shown that there is always something beyond the observable, regardless if you pretend to know what it is or not?

[Edmond Zedo]

"Beyond" what? Beyond the physical or beyond the observable?

And if it's the latter, then hasn't history shown that there is always something beyond the observable, regardless if you pretend to know what it is or not?
Beyond the physical. Of course there is that beyond the observable, Sillypants.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Perhaps i'm misintepreting your suggestion, but is it not reasonable to saythat there are possible realities or dimensions beyond the reach of our instruments?

[Edmond Zedo]

Perhaps i'm misintepreting your suggestion, but is it not reasonable to suggest that there are possible realities or dimensions beyond the reach of our instruments? Isn't the nature of science rooted in that assumption?
No, actually that's exactly the opposite of science. If you can't observe it, you can't study it, and you can't reach conclusions. Hence: Conjecture.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

No, actually that's exactly the opposite of science. If you can't observe it, you can't study it, and you can't reach conclusions. Hence: Conjecture.

Isn't Science fundamentally an organized system of conjecture?

[Edmond Zedo]

Isn't Science fundamentally an organized system of conjecture?
Well, yes. And by "Yes," I mean "No." You're thinking of religion.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Well, yes. And by "Yes," I mean "No." You're thinking of religion.

No model or theory applies universally and absolutely. There will be new maps, new models, new systems and new theories. None of which will be anything more then a sophisticated tool of assumption. Thus conjecture. reasonable conjecture that is.

Guess which category religion falls into?

[In...TP]

science says "strings" are where its at.

[Edmond Zedo]

No model or theory applies universally and absolutely. There will be new maps, new models, new systems and new theories. None of which will be anything more then a sophisticated tool of assumption. Thus conjecture. reasonable conjecture that is.

Guess which category religion falls into?
You're dead-ass wrong. Modern science doesn't fail because it doesn't assume anything. It's continually advanced, but not reformed. Conjecture changes with the wind. Science may come from conjecture, as in "What if we tried this..." but it is NOT a system of assumption.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

You're dead-ass wrong. Modern science doesn't fail because it doesn't assume anything. It's continually advanced, but not reformed. Conjecture changes with the wind. Science may come from conjecture, as in "What if we tried this..." but it is NOT a system of assumption.

Isn't the inherant flaw of models the fact that they're models?

I'm personally not comfortable with the notion of having Carl Sagan explain reality and the Universe in it's entirety to me. Sounds like belief.

[PsiKik]

When it comes to models my perception is that they are getting more focused as science progresses. A bit like using a higher bit quantization allows for more detail and more detail is what we get as the models are refined and this seems to go on indefinately.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

When it comes to models my perception is that they are getting more focused as science progresses. A bit like using a higher bit quantization allows for more detail and more detail is what we get as the models are refined and this seems to go on indefinately.

If models are said to continually evolve in such a way that they reveal what was previously unknown, then doesn't that prove that models are by definition inherantly flawed?

[In...TP]

is the universe flawed? what is nothing?

[PsiKik]

If models are said to continually evolve in such a way that they reveal what was previously unknown, then doesn't that prove that models are by definition inherantly flawed?
No, they are not flawed. Meaning becomes clearer as the models evolve.
Example, the model of the solar system as planets orbiting the Sun in circular orbit preceeded the one where the orbits are known to be eliptic.
Think of it as a picture coming into focus.
Models such as this incorporate empirical objective fact - the orbits are eliptical.

[PsiKik]

Spiritual in a contextual sense, sure. I certainly don't believe in any soul or spirit, but I know that I experience things that I don't immediately put in a logical space. That doesn't mean they, objectively, couldn't be put there (and I easily could do that). But I participate subjectively and in the moment they would be inexplicable.

I would thus say I have had spiritual experiences with music and nature. This may be a stretching of the word, but I'm not exactly sure if I have a good replacement for it.
I agree with this to a degree. I am a practicing atheist when it comes to any traditional, organized religion like xtianity, judaism, islam, hinduism, ancestor worshi etc.

Many great physicists have held views that there was definately some kind of greater thing out there.
The problem is connecting 'spirituality' with BS like organized religion. I am not aware of any 'religion' that maps onto my experience of what is
'spiritual'.
From what I know of it Budhism seems to be less like the organized religions.

[In...TP]

wow, wait a minute, I'm sure I'm gonna die, and when i do, the energy will transform itself into something i cannot comprehend, and you can't either

[cjs55]

When I say spiritual, I make no concedence to any sort of 'greater thing out there'.

I occasionally find that there is a greater thing in me, however.


the energy will transform itself into something i cannot comprehend, and you can't either

What energy are you talking about? Your body will decompose, your consciousness will vanish. I comprehend that quite well. As far as nothingness goes, obviously one cannot comprehend one's own lack of existence on a personal level. It's inherently impossible. But there is no transformation of 'energy' that I can find...I can't even find this energy in the first place.

[In...TP]

Me either, fucking esfjs

[sbw]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Me neither.

[sbw]

I believe that the universe likes to play silly buggers... is there such a thing as the Spirit of Probability?


"Million to one chances crop up nine times out of ten." - Pratchett

"90 percent of the game is half mental." - Yogi Berra on baseball

[tragula]

I am going through a training class for hospice. Clients in this particular hospice have 6 months or less to live. Spirituality is a subject that many people seek to define at a time when they are facing death--particularly if they have not examined it before. Do not confuse spirituality with religion. I asked the hospice spiritual counselor if athiests could be spiritual. She replied yes, they could, but then admitted that no athiest was going to invite her over to discuss spirituality because they all link her to religion. What do all you self-proclaimed atheists think? Even if you believe that when you die you are dead and there is no spirit, is there something in your life while you are alive that you define as spiritual? Do you believe you have a soul when you are alive, but it dies with you when your body dies? What does spirituality mean to you? Thanks for your input. I rarely start threads because I'm such a know-it-all that I don't ask any questions because of course, I think I know it all like any self-respecting INTP does!

In answer to your actual question--Yes of course.

I am very spiritual and I don't believe in a non-tangible spirit.

Everything is solved very simply by redefining the terms.

Spirit or Soul should be defined as--the lasting effect of our actions and existence on the world.

[Xenophon]

I think that Aethiests often confuse what they perceive with actual reality. The fact of the matter is that the human consciousness does not live solely in the material world, there is a realm of form and ideas which we overlay on the physical world. Spirituality is just the recognition of this other layer, and the pursuit of a greater understanding of it. Granted many people are unable to do this on their own and thus choose the easy route of following some religion or other, but the fact that religion is based on spiritualism does not mean that spiritualism is based on religion.

[Architectonic]

When it comes to models my perception is that they are getting more focused as science progresses. A bit like using a higher bit quantization allows for more detail and more detail is what we get as the models are refined and this seems to go on indefinately.

I kind of like to think of each discovery of it as very small pieces of a very large (infinite) jigsaw puzzle.

[jimkopelli]

"90 percent of the game is half mental." - Yogi Berra on baseball
So does that also come to "45% of the game is all mental."?

[CoHo]

The fact of the matter is that the human consciousness does not live solely in the material world, there is a realm of form and ideas which we overlay on the physical world.

If it is a fact then where is the proof?

[Xenophon]

If it is a fact then where is the proof?

The fact that we have adjectives in our language is basically proof. The fact is that concepts such as good, evil and beautiful only have meaning because of human perception. Yet you would be hard pressed to argue that they don't exist.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I think that Aethiests often confuse what they perceive with actual reality. The fact of the matter is that the human consciousness does not live solely in the material world, there is a realm of form and ideas which we overlay on the physical world. Spirituality is just the recognition of this other layer, and the pursuit of a greater understanding of it. Granted many people are unable to do this on their own and thus choose the easy route of following some religion or other, but the fact that religion is based on spiritualism does not mean that spiritualism is based on religion.

I don't like that metaphor because it hints at being inherantly dualist. It deals with planes and realms, that one can "transcend" to, spiritually or otherwise. First, it's speculation and second, it's a way people use belief for what I guess I would call "spiritual elitism". You clearly used it in this form by stating that "many people are unable to do this", indirectly suggesting that you can. Religion.

Psikik, The point i'm trying to suggest is that models are only complete/accurate in their subjective usefullness. For example, we have the globe to model the planet. We also have flat maps that model the same thing, but in a different perception. No model is all inclusive, and there will always be a need to create new models, not simply improve upon the ones we have. Thus, despite their circumstantial effectiveness, models are inherantly flawed.

[Eileen]

The fact of the matter is that the human consciousness does not live solely in the material world, there is a realm of form and ideas which we overlay on the physical world.

I'm staying out of this discussion 'cause I'm not an atheist, but this sounds a little like Barthes and his levels of signification. I'm just curious to know if you're influenced by that.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

His statement would have been fine if he started it with "Perhaps" instead of "The fact of the matter".

[Xenophon]

I'm staying out of this discussion 'cause I'm not an atheist, but this sounds a little like Barthes and his levels of signification. I'm just curious to know if you're influenced by that.

Never heard of him, maybe I'll check it out. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Xenophon]

I don't like that metaphor because it hints at being inherantly dualist. It deals with planes and realms, that one can "transcend" to, spiritually or otherwise. First, it's speculation and second, it's a way people use belief for what I guess I would call "spiritual elitism". You clearly used it in this form by stating that "many people are unable to do this", indirectly suggesting that you can. Religion.

Psikik, The point i'm trying to suggest is that models are only complete/accurate in their subjective usefullness. For example, we have the globe to model the planet. We also have flat maps that model the same thing, but in a different perception. No model is all inclusive, and there will always be a need to create new models, not simply improve upon the ones we have. Thus, despite their circumstantial effectiveness, models are inherantly flawed.
I know where you are coming from, I don't like it either when someone states an opinion as fact, and I shouldn't have stated it that way. If you have read my other posts, you know that I am a big fan of dualism. I believe in the dualism of nature not only because it is observable in almost every facet of our world, but rather because it is a very logical idea. If you think about it, something can either be something, or not be that thing; there is no other option. Something either exists or it doesn't exist. From a human perspective existance is dependant on some sort of personal psychic construct that respesents whatever that thing is. (Trying to be as general as possible here.) This is not a plane to ascend to, it is part of human nature. My opinion of spiritual thought is that it comes from the realization that our human perceptions and reality are not indistinguishable.

If I can borrow what you say in your next paragraph to support my point. Human's view the world through models, since no model is complete, it is impossible for us to have a complete picture of the world around us. As you said, therefore our perception of the world is inherently flawed, I believe that spiritualism is really just thinking about this idea. The religious approach is to present a singular model that fills in all the imperfections of our personal model. If that religious model is tolerant of others, and provides a sense of fulfilment for the individual, then I think that is just great, but I don't think religion is the only way to deal with the imperfections of our personal models.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I get what you're saying here, and indeed our opinions are generally aligned. But, my problem isn't with the idea of dualism, or the use of it as a philosophical tool, but rather the belief in it. It's as if once you believe something, you've effectively signed away it's opposite, thus limiting the expansiveness of your conceptual ability.

As for Science and that debate, it is the theoretical explanation of phenomona. There is no room for belief in Science, especially a belief in Science itself. I think it's all too common for people to treat it, and other systems, like some sacred Golden cow, without realizing the flaw in mistaking the map for the territory.

[kafkaesque]

Isn't Science fundamentally an organized system of conjecture?

Well, yes. And by "Yes," I mean "No." You're thinking of religion.

Science is fundamentally an organized system of conjecture; religion is a system of assumptions and false absolutes.
Science (good science) questions all supposed absolutes rather than accepting them tacitly.

Conjectures are not assumptions.

[Sackanaka]

Regarding the original question, I think all you have to do is tweak the definition of "spirit" around. Seems to be the consensus here.
Spirit perhaps not in a pale-blue ghost flame or humanoid apparition strutting the clouds to reach some neverland, but spirit in the sense of pragmatic significance of one's life in relation to one's self and the rest of the world.
Then the question becomes "Can you refrain from being a cynical bastard?"
That's a tougher question if you're doing this to help others.

Sorry though, I'm not an atheist. I'm trying to defend agnosticism from Pascal's Wager at the moment :(.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Regarding the original question, I think all you have to do is tweak the definition of "spirit" around. Seems to be the consensus here.
Spirit perhaps not in a pale-blue ghost flame or humanoid apparition strutting the clouds to reach some neverland, but spirit in the sense of pragmatic significance of one's life in relation to one's self and the rest of the world.


Agreed. Very well put.

The "felt human experience" might be an equally acceptable notion eg. "The spirit of the evening" or "We were in good spirits". I think it's common for an atheist to question whether or not theres any permission to hope because frankly, it's easy to hope if you're stupid. So perhaps some feel the easiest way to truth is to simply imagine the most hopeless, pointless existance and proclaim that as the "harsh reality".

*edit*

To clarify, I am an atheist.

[songbird36]

Atheism is not a logical philosophical position, because just as we can't "know" there is a God, neither can we prove that there isn't one.

I'm surprised the atheist movement has got such traction in recent years.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Atheism is not a logical philosophical position, because just as we can't "know" there is a God, neither can we prove that there isn't one.

I'm surprised the atheist movement has got such traction in recent years.

Well, atheism can be one of two things

a) a disbelief
b) a doctrine

Every doctrine is fundamentally illogical because it implies belief.

[kafkaesque]

Atheism is not a logical philosophical position, because just as we can't "know" there is a God, neither can we prove that there isn't one.

I do not claim to be an atheist because I "know' for certain that there is no god, but because the idea of a magical man living in the sky with a list of rules for us to live by in order to earn a place in some golden kingdom is irreconcilable with any engaged intellectual or logical inquiry.

I use the term atheism in correlation to the term deity, which differs in subtle but important ways from divinity. I do not discount the possibility of something divine and larger than ourselves. But I cannot believe that there is some sort of conscious personality waiting to judge us upon our death. I also think that to believe in such things is harmful to our developement as thinking beings.

[songbird36]

Atheism is, by definition, the *knowledge* that there is no good - read Bertrand Russell on the topic.

Anything short of that is Agnosticism.

[ApeTheDog]

My grandfather has died last week, and I've thought about how I would deal with being in my deathbed. I thought that what people would have learnt from me in my life would change who they are, somewhat, and that they in turn would change other people, and so on... throughout history, and this idea gave me some comfort. And that is what I think the only function of spirituality is - comforting people. So I would say that yes, I'm spiritual, and yes I need it.

[FactsDontMatter]

This is just a really great thread, punctuated by entertaining differences in personalities. Xenophon and Kafkaesque, you are laying great groundwork in respose to Lime's great questions. Zedo is comic relief, and I mean that in a good way. [Meaning: good ideas presented in a fun way.]

This is a good dialog. What is clear from it, though, is that these words that are used so often in the world are very squishy and indefinite. Knowing that doesn't make it any easier; we want to define them anyway. Nevertheless, the struggle to understand these things is a good thing for us all.

As you were. Where is Zedo? Bullshit, I say! ;)

[FactsDontMatter]

Atheism is, by definition, the *knowledge* that there is no good - read Bertrand Russell on the topic.

Anything short of that is Agnosticism.
I've tried to stick with Russell's definition, too, but many people are not that careful with the semantics. That's the trouble with labels. His definition of atheism pushes it to an extreme position. Anyone being that precise with semantics could not go all the way to atheism since it requires a proof that does not exist. In other words, he defined atheism so that only whackos are atheists; therefore, the term is no longer a valid position, and the term is useless.

I prefer to think that there exists a passive atheism that simply fails to find a convincing reason to conjure up a supreme being. Why bother to devise proof that such a thing doesn't exist, when there seems to be no convincing evidence that it does exist? If I don't see any reason for it, then I don't have to come up with any reasons for it not to be. Is that agnostic? That would seem to lump it in with people who can't decide whether it exists or not. There should be a label for a person who doesn't see the need to struggle with that question. To me, that's a more workable definition of atheism.

[FactsDontMatter]

My grandfather has died last week, and I've thought about how I would deal with being in my deathbed. I thought that what people would have learnt from me in my life would change who they are, somewhat, and that they in turn would change other people, and so on... throughout history, and this idea gave me some comfort. And that is what I think the only function of spirituality is - comforting people. So I would say that yes, I'm spiritual, and yes I need it.
Hang with us, AtDog. You may have captured the whole thing right here.

[Xenophon]

The concept of Atheism is really confusing for me actually. It seems to me that there are an infinite number of gradations of belief that one could have on the whole subject. Ranging from believe in the literal truth of the Bible and that soon the Rapture will happen and armies of angels will descend from the sky wiping out all the sinners, to a group of people like the Objectivists who believe pursuit of personal gain is the only reasonable goal in the world, and that anything beyond that is the fanciful dreaming of deluded people.

As I hate to discount anything outright, I believe that the Bible contains a large number of allegorical stories that actually provide insight into the human character. For instance if you look at the beginning of John, you have "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God... All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." This is a fantastic explanation of philosophical idea of Form and Substance. In this section I really think that the word "God" is really just substituting for the word "Consciousness". Since I believe in consciousness, and I believe that when they say God in part of the bible they are refering to consciousness, does that mean that I believe in God? Does being an Atheist mean that you have decided that there is absolutely no merit that can be found in any biblical writings?

[Miss Anthropic]

Spiritual in a contextual sense, sure. I certainly don't believe in any soul or spirit, but I know that I experience things that I don't immediately put in a logical space. That doesn't mean they, objectively, couldn't be put there (and I easily could do that). But I participate subjectively and in the moment they would be inexplicable.

I would thus say I have had spiritual experiences with music and nature. This may be a stretching of the word, but I'm not exactly sure if I have a good replacement for it.



My working definition of "spirit" is that which seems like a higher level of consciousness. Because it is produced by the brain it is real, but also because it is produced by the brain we shouldn't make more of it than it is. I believe that is the meaning of the Gnostic idea that God is in each and every one of us. But only there.


Ditto, ditto to the core. Describing a particular jazz chord sequence, or a sunrise over low clouds, the word "divine" immediately springs to mind.

Thanks guys...this is the kind of stuff I am looking for. A definition of spiritual that is not necessarily literally as of a spirit, or the human soul, because from an athestic point of view that doesn't exist. I guess maybe I'm asking what takes the place of that spirit or soul or existance of something greater than human that the world religions would define as spirituality. Not in a literal sense, but a sense of fullfilment in life.


No. It is not scientific theory that there is anything..."beyond." It's the realm of pure conjecture, and physicists happen to be better at conjecture than religionnaires, as long as the two groups don't overlap. They do, and these are flawed physicists, because they claim to know more than science knows. I'm not looking for the non-existance of God. I know that is already established for an atheist. So Mr. Z, is logic your fullfilment in life? When you come to the end of your life what will have impacted the way you view the world?

[Miss Anthropic]

In answer to your actual question--Yes of course.

I am very spiritual and I don't believe in a non-tangible spirit.

Everything is solved very simply by redefining the terms.

Spirit or Soul should be defined as--the lasting effect of our actions and existence on the world.
I like your definitions. Most concise and encompassing definition I have read yet!


My grandfather has died last week, and I've thought about how I would deal with being in my deathbed. I thought that what people would have learnt from me in my life would change who they are, somewhat, and that they in turn would change other people, and so on... throughout history, and this idea gave me some comfort. And that is what I think the only function of spirituality is - comforting people. So I would say that yes, I'm spiritual, and yes I need it.

[Miss Anthropic]

I've tried to stick with Russell's definition, too, but many people are not that careful with the semantics. That's the trouble with labels. His definition of atheism pushes it to an extreme position. Anyone being that precise with semantics could not go all the way to atheism since it requires a proof that does not exist. In other words, he defined atheism so that only whackos are atheists; therefore, the term is no longer a valid position, and the term is useless.

I prefer to think that there exists a passive atheism that simply fails to find a convincing reason to conjure up a supreme being. Why bother to devise proof that such a thing doesn't exist, when there seems to be no convincing evidence that it does exist? If I don't see any reason for it, then I don't have to come up with any reasons for it not to be. Is that agnostic? That would seem to lump it in with people who can't decide whether it exists or not. There should be a label for a person who doesn't see the need to struggle with that question. To me, that's a more workable definition of atheism.
I've tried to be a good listener here and not interject my opinions, mainly because I view myself as agnostic, but....my interpretation of atheism is that in addition to the lack of belief in some "being" greater than self, but that there is no soul, energy, personality etc. that lives on beyond the physical world. That is what I'm curious about...if one believes that death is literally the end, then what is the purpose of one's life? (looking at it that way because Christianity generally connects meaning of life and purpose to God)
'Having some sort of impact on others that is positive and lasting beyond one's life'
seems to be a pretty good working definition of spirituality in the sense I am searching for. Interestingly enough if we define spirituality that way, it could apply to anyone with any belief system.

I really appreciate everyone's input and answers...this thread has gone way further than I anticipated.

[FactsDontMatter]

...my interpretation of atheism is that in addition to the lack of belief in some "being" greater than self, but that there is no soul, energy, personality etc. that lives on beyond the physical world. I think my “passive atheist” would probably find no need to conjure up a “soul” of any kind that lives on beyond the physical world. That said, it may be that such positive beliefs are natural to humans (as they seem to exist in some form in most cultures), and that my “passive atheist” has to actively reject these notions after having been exposed to them by others. Recent news articles about the “God gene” suggest the possibility that some humans are naturally more religious than others. I would not say that I believe that to be true (as it is still in the realm of scientific hypothesis), but even the possibility is interesting.


...if one believes that death is literally the end, then what is the purpose of one's life? (looking at it that way because Christianity generally connects meaning of life and purpose to God) My “passive atheist” (who obviously doesn’t have the dreaded God gene ;)) would also find no need to conjure up or even wish for an exogenous “purpose” in life. The whole idea is suggestive of an Intelligent Designer, which the passive atheist doesn’t see the need for. Purpose and meaning can come from within, however, and even the passive atheist can be perfectly happy with that.


'Having some sort of impact on others that is positive and lasting beyond one's life' seems to be a pretty good working definition of spirituality in the sense I am searching for. Interestingly enough if we define spirituality that way, it could apply to anyone with any belief system. This is a great example of a purpose in life generated within, generated by life and for other living entities. It is endogenous, generated within the system of observable life, rather than exogenous, coming from some impetus fully outside of the system. It is consistent and compatible with evolutionary species-survival characteristics such as altruism. I do agree that this sort of life purpose is compatible with many belief systems, but it is likely not sufficient for those who need to believe that there is a meta-system of life beyond observable life.

[Edmond Zedo]

I'm not looking for the non-existance of God. I know that is already established for an atheist. So Mr. Z, is logic your fullfilment in life? When you come to the end of your life what will have impacted the way you view the world?
Firstly (In respond to other nonsense in this thread), look at the word atheism. a+(the+ism). a=not; against; without, the=religion, ism=of, related to. To some of us, that means we have nothing to do with religion. It doesn't mean we are sure no god(s) exist, because nobody knows.

The world and we are likely accidental. But we're biologically predisposed to like life, and like things in life. I do. Logic, reason, rationality...It helps me understand nature. With that understanding, little comes up that causes great frustration. I watch people without it who are generally religious, and can see the conflict between belief and the obvious reason of the real world. They become frustrated and unhappy, if they weren't already.

I should refer you again to "Imagine" by John Lennon, dealing directly with this subject.

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

[Eileen]

a·the·ist n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

the/theo: God or god

The closest I could find to a root that was literally for 'religion' was 'soph' for philosophy, which (of course) isn't very close at all. I'll keep looking.



EDIT: EZ, this is not to say that your definition for atheism might not be valid; it's just that your analysis of its elements was incorrect.

[Edmond Zedo]

EDIT: EZ, this is not to say that your definition for atheism might not be valid; it's just that your analysis of its elements was incorrect.
Why do I have to put up with this bullshit? I don't need a dictionary, or someone impersonating a dictionary.

religion=belief in god, in this context.

[Eileen]

Why do I have to put up with this bullshit? I don't need a dictionary, or someone impersonating a dictionary.

religion=belief in god, in this context.

Well, explain yourself better because the meaning of the root "THE" is GOD, not RELIGION. And don't take it so very personally, Mr. NT.

And religion *isn't* merely belief in God; it's a structure built up around for the purpose of expressing and maintaining a belief in a god or gods. So if you mean "belief in God," you ought to say "belief in God" to avoid ambiguity, because there are plenty of non-atheists who are a-religious.

[Edmond Zedo]

there are plenty of non-atheists who are a-religious.
Really? Name one.

[Eileen]

My sister, my best friend, one of my former roommates, my friend Jacob.

All either value a belief in God OR value the question of whether there is a god and pursues the belief or question without participating in religion.


Also, a correction to my earlier post: not all religions are concerned with maintianing a belief IN GOD; some (particularly Eastern) religions maintain beliefs that don't necessarily include god or gods.

[Edmond Zedo]

Also, a correction to my earlier post: not all religions are concerned with maintianing a belief IN GOD; some (particularly Eastern) religions maintain beliefs that don't necessarily include god or gods.
Really? Name one.

[Edmond Zedo]

All either value a belief in God OR value the question of whether there is a god and pursues the belief or question without participating in religion.
If they value belief, they can't be "a-religious." Oh, I forgot, some of you are under the mistaken impression that a- means something different from il-, so I guess I'm an Iltheist. Sorry for the confusion. *barf*

[Eileen]

*rolls eyes* Should I play?

Nah, I don't think I should. If you're curious, look it up.

[Eileen]

If they value belief, they can't be "a-religious." Oh, I forgot, some of you are under the mistaken impression that a- means something different from il-, so I guess I'm an Iltheist. Sorry for the confusion. *barf*

semantics *barf*

[Edmond Zedo]

semantics *barf*
Who's getting caught up in semantics, now?

[Eileen]

Who's getting caught up in semantics, now?

we both are. I will readily admit that I'm caught up in it. And so: BARF

[kafkaesque]

my interpretation of atheism is that in addition to the lack of belief in some "being" greater than self, but that there is no soul, energy, personality etc. that lives on beyond the physical world.

Scientific principles like the conservation of mass-energy and quantum physics wave-particle duality suggest that nothing in the physical world can just vanish. Considering that mass and energy are just different manifestations of the same thing the energy that makes up our conscsiousness would not end, just be transformed in some way. While I do not personally adopt this thinking, my assertion is that the idea that our conscioussness continues beyond the death of our physical body can be considered in humanistic terms, without interposing the idea of a creator that controls or administers such things.

[J.L. des Alpins]

That is what I'm curious about...if one believes that death is literally the end, then what is the purpose of one's life? If the purpose of exploring spirituality in this thread is to help you find a way to comfort atheists on their death bed, then I suggest an existentialist approach.

The foundation of existentialism is that “Existence comes before Essence”.



A way to understand this notion is by inverting the famous Cartesian quote, “cogito ergo sum” as such:
I am, therefore I think.


One can think anything at all without jeopardizing his existence, because thinking comes after existence.


As much as this statement applies now, it has remained applicable at every moment of one’s life.

Therefore a person is free to think anything he wants at any moment:

- A person can think about his past and feel regrets about it.

- A person can feel ecstatic about his grand children, nephews, friends.

- A person can be badly missing some old acquaintances.

- A person can remember the positive impact he made on others, tell stories about his life, indulge in make-beliefs of all kinds.

Who is to judge him?

Perhaps your atheist clients just don’t want anyone to judge them about anything, and because they fear that it is what you are up to, they reject your ‘spiritual’ help.

The best thing someone can do then is to help them expand their thoughts, let them dream that their grand children are indeed the most beautiful and smart human beings on earth, that they were war heroes, or that they saved their employers a dozen times from bankruptcy.

It could also be sad things they want to reminisce about, like the dead of a spouse or a friend, an opportunity they missed, some pain and suffering they inflicted on others.

One can ask them questions, encourage them in believing anything they want. No matter how outrageous what they say is, never argue against but always for them.

Who is to judge them anyway?

This may be the spiritual needs atheists have at the end…to experience complete freedom of mind.

Maybe the purpose of life is to enjoy our last moments, when finally we are truly free, free to think and believe whatever we feel like, without having to answer to anyone… to be free without responsibility.

JL

[FactsDontMatter]

Scientific principles like the conservation of mass-energy and quantum physics wave-particle duality suggest that nothing in the physical world can just vanish. Considering that mass and energy are just different manifestations of the same thing the energy that makes up our consciousness would not end, just be transformed in some way. While I do not personally adopt this thinking, my assertion is that the idea that our consciousness continues beyond the death of our physical body can be considered in humanistic terms, without interposing the idea of a creator that controls or administers such things. You seem to have equated mass/energy with consciousness, and I can’t quite get there. Let me suggest an alternative characterization of “consciousness.” Consciousness is sometimes described as an emergent property of the complex adaptive system that is the brain, and as such it depends very much on the physical structure of and interconnections among the many neurons. In that sense it is an emergent property of a particular arrangement of matter and energy, and not contained in the matter and energy itself. While matter and energy don’t ever cease to exist, consciousness, personality, identity, etc., cease to exist when that arrangement of matter and energy ceases to be arranged in that unique way that produces the individual.

[J.L. des Alpins]

Scientific principles like the conservation of mass-energy and quantum physics wave-particle duality suggest that nothing in the physical world can just vanish. Considering that mass and energy are just different manifestations of the same thing the energy that makes up our conscsiousness would not end, just be transformed in some way.Just a few details:

- 'Order' does vanish. (Second law of thermodynamics)

- No evidence of any kind has ever been uncovered to the effect that 'consciousness' has any energy, or is energy, or consumes/produces energy.

Just for the record.

JL

[kafkaesque]

You seem to have equated mass/energy with consciousness, and I can’t quite get there. Let me suggest an alternative characterization of “consciousness.” Consciousness is sometimes described as an emergent property of the complex adaptive system that is the brain, and as such it depends very much on the physical structure of and interconnections among the many neurons. In that sense it is an emergent property of a particular arrangement of matter and energy, and not contained in the matter and energy itself. While matter and energy don’t ever cease to exist, consciousness, personality, identity, etc., cease to exist when that arrangement of matter and energy ceases to be arranged in that unique way that produces the individual.


Just a few details:

- 'Order' does vanish. (Second law of thermodynamics)

- No evidence of any kind has ever been uncovered to the effect that 'consciousness' has any energy, or is energy, or consumes/produces energy.

Just for the record.

JL

I agree with you. As I noted above I do not adopt that thinking, so I guess I should not have put it forth. I was just trying to make the point that belief in the possibility of life after death does not necessitate belief in god or gods.

The definition of atheism should not include the disbelief in spirituality, which can be seen as psychological; a function of emotional perception or an aspect of the subconscious.

[FactsDontMatter]

I was just trying to make the point that belief in the possibility of life after death does not necessitate belief in god or gods.
But once you introduce life after death, you have to some sort of reality for it to exist within. Since it doesn't seem to be bound by physics, then all things are possible within it, including god or gods. One could stipulate that there are no gods in the otherworld [but what kind of being is a "life" after death anyway? A spirit?] but one has no basis on which to exclude that possibility, other than pure fantasy. I prefer to let Occam shave that one.

[tragula]

I like your definitions. Most concise and encompassing definition I have read yet!

The word Legacy springs to mind too, in the very broadest sense of the word.

Or perhaps it falls a little short.... as it may have a hard time conveying the effect people can have on one another. Even virtual strangers.

[Miss Anthropic]

If the purpose of exploring spirituality in this thread is to help you find a way to comfort atheists on their death bed, then I suggest an existentialist approach.

The foundation of existentialism is that “Existence comes before Essence”.



A way to understand this notion is by inverting the famous Cartesian quote, “cogito ergo sum” as such:
I am, therefore I think.


One can think anything at all without jeopardizing his existence, because thinking comes after existence.


As much as this statement applies now, it has remained applicable at every moment of one’s life.

Therefore a person is free to think anything he wants at any moment:

- A person can think about his past and feel regrets about it.

- A person can feel ecstatic about his grand children, nephews, friends.

- A person can be badly missing some old acquaintances.

- A person can remember the positive impact he made on others, tell stories about his life, indulge in make-beliefs of all kinds.

Who is to judge him?

Perhaps your atheist clients just don’t want anyone to judge them about anything, and because they fear that it is what you are up to, they reject your ‘spiritual’ help.

The best thing someone can do then is to help them expand their thoughts, let them dream that their grand children are indeed the most beautiful and smart human beings on earth, that they were war heroes, or that they saved their employers a dozen times from bankruptcy.

It could also be sad things they want to reminisce about, like the dead of a spouse or a friend, an opportunity they missed, some pain and suffering they inflicted on others.

One can ask them questions, encourage them in believing anything they want. No matter how outrageous what they say is, never argue against but always for them.

Who is to judge them anyway?

This may be the spiritual needs atheists have at the end…to experience complete freedom of mind.

Maybe the purpose of life is to enjoy our last moments, when finally we are truly free, free to think and believe whatever we feel like, without having to answer to anyone… to be free without responsibility.

JL

My question is not necessarily to how comfort atheists upon death... I'm not there to counsel anyone myself...listen mostly, give the family a break so they can get out of the house. Hospice is a secular organization, not affiliated with any particular religion, but the spiritual counselor will get a buddist monk or a rabbi or nothing--whatever is supportive of the family and patient. The only thing is an atheist hears the words spiritual counselor and they think Christianity. This particular subject was one training session, the only one dealing with this subject...a very small part of the whole. We were just talking about spirituality not connected to religion and I wanted to know what that meant to an atheist because it can't possibly have to do literally with spirit or soul. I am agnositic with my own set of beliefs that I've conjured up over the years. I am not comfortable with Christianity or Atheism. They are too far left or right from where I am. I'm am just gathering information to satisfy my own curiosity. What you have written as suggestions above amount to a life review--which most people do at some point when facing death...so yes, those are some very valid points for everyone in that situation, and as you said, it is not anyone's place to judge the patient's beliefs.

[Edmond Zedo]

My question is not necessarily to how comfort atheists upon death... I'm not there to counsel anyone myself...listen mostly, give the family a break so they can get out of the house. Hospice is a secular organization, not affiliated with any particular religion, but the spiritual counselor will get a buddist monk or a rabbi or nothing--whatever is supportive of the family and patient. The only thing is an atheist hears the words spiritual counselor and they think Christianity. This particular subject was one training session, the only one dealing with this subject...a very small part of the whole. We were just talking about spirituality not connected to religion and I wanted to know what that meant to an atheist because it can't possibly have to do literally with spirit or soul. I am agnositic with my own set of beliefs that I've conjured up over the years. I am not comfortable with Christianity or Atheism. They are too far left or right from where I am. I'm am just gathering information to satisfy my own curiosity. What you have written as suggestions above amount to a life review--which most people do at some point when facing death...so yes, those are some very valid points for everyone in that situation, and as you said, it is not anyone's place to judge the patient's beliefs.
Oh, why didn't you say so? Why don't you let them tell you what's what, and listen. They won't feel patronized, and you might learn something.

[Miss Anthropic]

Oh, why didn't you say so? Why don't you let them tell you what's what, and listen. They won't feel patronized, and you might learn something.
What, did you ASSUME I was on some religious crusade to save souls or something? Of course you did, you closed-minded twit!

[Edmond Zedo]

What, did you ASSUME I was on some religious crusade to save souls or something? Of course you did, you closed-minded twit!
Admins! Admins! She called me a bad thing! Just kidding. Fuck you, admins.

[Miss Anthropic]

Admins! Admins! She called me a bad thing! Just kidding. Fuck you, admins.
:whistle:

[Shai Gar]

yeah, that's about what I thought you'd say. true though.

[Miss Anthropic]

true though.
Not arguing.....coming to this thread a little late aren't you?

[ppc]

a·the·ist n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

the/theo: God or god

The closest I could find to a root that was literally for 'religion' was 'soph' for philosophy, which (of course) isn't very close at all. I'll keep looking.



EDIT: EZ, this is not to say that your definition for atheism might not be valid; it's just that your analysis of its elements was incorrect.

All that shows right there is that a person who was biased in some manner towards religion because that is the religious definition of an atheist - they think that everyone is born with belief in/of god and that anyone who strays away thinks that they somehow know something or believe that they can prove "everyone" wrong and therefore somehow came to the conclusion that they are "now" and atheist as opposed to not always being one like we all actually in reality are.

As far as spirituality, I think it's a way for people who have come to the realization that religion is silly and they know it and it is staring them right in the face and all the emotion over the years wore off and time and time again some priest molests a child or some sunday school teacher who donates all her time and money to the church gets gang raped and murdered while trying to feed homeless people. I think it is just a way for people to hold onto an idea that everyone wants to be true but in reality we know it probably isn't.

My grandmother calls herself spiritual but she can't define it when I ask her to.

Remember people do write dictionaries and people are fallable. Just use yer noggin - what does it mean when we put a before words? Without, lacking, none - things like that. So atheism is no theism and agnosticsm is no gnosticsm.

[Eileen]

Actually, Zedo, I do stand corrected. Upon looking it up in the dictionary, a definition of religion is "belief in a god" etc, so if I'm going to use the dictionary to complain about your use of "religion", I actually have no grounds to do so.

[Geoff]

Actually, Zedo, I do stand corrected. Upon looking it up in the dictionary, a definition of religion is "belief in a god" etc, so if I'm going to use the dictionary to complain about your use of "religion", I actually have no grounds to do so.

I shouldnt get too caught up in semantics if I was you. As long as people know whether you mean the 'faith' itself - the act of positive belief, or the process that sits around faith (the belief support system, or religion eg church) depending upon context, then no-one needs to barf
:whistle:

Of course, people do prefer to argue about semantics and spelling, than actually answer a fundamental point of a discussion. It is a classic argumentative ploy! Barf...

-Geoff

[ppc]

And then of course the people who lose the arguments always argue about how someone is arguing semantics.

How dare someone have an intelligent and correct conversation!

[kafkaesque]

I was just trying to make the point that belief in the possibility of life after death does not necessitate belief in god or gods. But once you introduce life after death, you have to some sort of reality for it to exist within. Since it doesn't seem to be bound by physics, then all things are possible within it, including god or gods. One could stipulate that there are no gods in the otherworld [but what kind of being is a "life" after death anyway? A spirit?] but one has no basis on which to exclude that possibility, other than pure fantasy. I prefer to let Occam shave that one.

The sentence of mine that you quoted does not exclude the possibility of gods.

[FactsDontMatter]

The sentence of mine that you quoted does not exclude the possibility of gods.
That is the point I was trying to make, perhaps poorly. If one allows room for belief in "life" after death, then virtually anything is possible and nothing is impossible. A person who believes in life after death but not in god/s would have to invent some fairy tale for why gods don't exist. So, while it is certainly possible that a person could believe in life after death yet be an atheist, it seems to be an inconsistent or incomplete point of view that would require lots more explanation.

[I put "life" in quotes, because we really haven't defined what we mean there. This line of thought began with an assertion/question about consciousness beyond death, and that's still what I'm working from.]

[Edmond Zedo]

Actually, Zedo, I do stand corrected. Upon looking it up in the dictionary, a definition of religion is "belief in a god" etc, so if I'm going to use the dictionary to complain about your use of "religion", I actually have no grounds to do so.
That's pretty cool.

[J.L. des Alpins]

The only thing is an atheist hears the words spiritual counselor and they think Christianity.I hear what you say there. Who can blame them to run for cover from ‘spiritual counselors’ when they probably had to endure their whole life virtually everyone around them constantly trying to ‘convert’ them, to have them ‘see Jesus’.


I wanted to know what [spirituality] meant to an atheist because it can't possibly have to do literally with spirit or soul.Thanks for the clarifications.

If you indulge me, I will attempt to describe what I think of spirituality from my atheist perspective.

I believe that existence comes before essence. In effect, I find it logical that a human being has to be a being first before the essence of what makes this being a human can develop.

Morality, religion, beliefs, personality types, culture, art, science, family ties, all are part of the essence of being humans.



In effect:
*I am, therefore I think.


A corollary is that others can agree, disagree, or ignore my thinking as they want, but it is ontologically impossible for them to ‘touch’ me as a [ontological] being. (Except, of course, by killing me.)


This also implies that I can agree, disagree, or ignore others’ thinking, but I cannot ‘touch’ their [ontological] being either.

A human thus has his [ontological] being totally shielded from others, no matter what he thinks or what other thinks.

Therefore, as humans, we are totally, absolutely free thinking beings.

My freedom of thoughts as a being, is total, absolute, no matter what happens to me as a human. (A slave is as much a free thinking being as the master.)



Total freedom of thoughts also implies that no metaphysical entities can dictate my thoughts:
*In my freedom of thoughts, metaphysical entities, such as gods and spirits, are irrelevant. It does not matter if they exist or not, they are not going to meddle with my thoughts.


This statement is the tenet of my atheism belief.




You might be surprised to know that John Paul II agrees with this statement. I strongly recommend—what I regard as—one of the most precious texts of 20th century philosophy, an encyclical from John Paul II: Veritatis splendor (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html)(1993):
*[Extracts from section 34] "Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?". The question of morality, to which Christ provides the answer, cannot prescind from the issue of freedom. Indeed, it considers that issue central, for there can be no morality without freedom: "It is only in freedom that man can turn to what is good". But what sort of freedom? [Not the kind expressed by those] who "often cultivate it in wrong ways as a license to do anything they please, even evil" […]. "Genuine freedom is an outstanding manifestation of the divine image in man. For God willed to leave man "in the power of his own counsel" […]. [However,] as Cardinal John Henry Newman, that outstanding defender of the rights of conscience, forcefully put it: "Conscience has rights because it has duties". [Bold and underline are my emphases.]


Morality follows freedom [bold] and “God” leaves my freedom alone [underlined]. Therefore, it is up to me to make use of that freedom as I see fit.


But let's be careful here. Being free to think what I wish does not mean that it is in my best interest to be a loose canon. As quoted above by J.H. Newman, conscience has duties. This is, perhaps, the most important responsibility of a human being: it is to set—for himself and in good faith—his “duties” for life…and fulfill them.

As an atheist, I may deem irrelevant any metaphysical entities meddling with my affairs, but it does not mean that I shall discard the underlying wisdom of all things religious. All of the main religions have been built by billions of thinking-hours from people of all background, culture, experience, and intelligence. Why on earth would I reject ALL of this inexhaustible knowledge? Just because it is religious? No way. I intend to make maximum use of this available knowledge.

As an atheist, I do not abide by one specific religion or school of thoughts, I draw from as many sources as possible to learn better ways to fulfill the duties that I have set for me personally. I see all sources as a diamond mine, in which I have to dig to extract little treasures. Veritatis splendor from John Paul II is one. L’ Être et le Néant (Being and Nothingness) from Jean-Paul Sartre is another. (Both authors are “John Paul”, what a coincidence!) This forum is another.



I hope now that I can give a constructive answer to your question:
*For me, as an atheist, spirituality is the exercise of setting my own goals in life and striving to always find better ways to reach them.


JL

[Edmond Zedo]

*For me, as an atheist, spirituality is the exercise of setting my own goals in life and striving to always find better ways to reach them.
For me, as a race car mechanic, maple syrup is what race cars use as fuel.

[cjs55]

Its nice when someone like FactsDontMatter does all the work for me and I don't have to post any replies to clarify the situation.

And my version of spirituality is (I believe) the only one an atheist (or agnostic atheist, or whatever) can have, anything else is just making stuff up and calling it spirituality arbitrarily (as zedo pointed out). The reason mine counts is because experience can feel otherwordly or surreal, (even though it isn't [although that hardly matters when you experience it]).

[J.L. des Alpins]

The reason mine counts is because experience can feel otherwordly or surreal, (even though it isn't).Your explanation is merely some diluted empiricism at best. It offers little insight to this thread and nothing to atheism.

Locke and Voltaire, both well known empiricists, had opposite views regarding deity. It is not empiricism’s main ambition to explain spirituality.

The simple notion of ‘not understanding a phenomenon’ does not confirm nor refute anything about spirituality, as demonstrated by phenomenologists such as Husserl, Heidegger, and Camus.

---

It is also quite telling about the maturity of your mind how you assess the opinions of others in this forum has “just making stuff up” and giving them arbitrary names. One is never surprised to see this from Zedo, given the litter he spreads throughout this forum, but coming from you is somewhat unexpected. Let’s hope it won’t become the norm.

JL

[Edmond Zedo]

[List of irrelevant names, etcetera]
"What a turkey. Hey fella, you're a turkey, you know that?"

[Claverhouse]

(Both authors are “John Paul”, what a coincidence!)
But is there such a thing as 'coincidence' ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Sir Isaac Lime]

But is there such a thing as 'coincidence' ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Heh, coincidence just means you've overlooked something

Coincidence is what you have left over after applying a bad theory.

[cjs55]

Sorry, I'm feeling a bit flippant this morning. But what exactly could ever be considered spiritual about "the exercise of setting my own goals in life and striving to always find better ways to reach them." It just seems like you are defining something that makes you feel good or makes you feel like you have purpose and then assigning the definition spiritual to it. My definition of spirituality is still bending the word, but at least it still retains its basic meaning and reluctance towards objective materialist understanding. Subjective understanding/feeling is far different than that, and much closer to the original meaning of the word spiritual which means 'otherwordly' or 'not in the material realm'. I am still working out what makes some subjective understanding 'spiritual' and some subjective understanding 'not spiritual', but that hardly defeats my idea.

And anyways, you are utterly missing my point. It has nothing to do with not understanding a phenomenon, but rather experiencing it in a way that has nothing to do with objective understanding. The phenomenon in question is only relevant in terms of the subjective personal experience which is undeniable. I am not associating spirituality with deity in the slightest. Voltaire and Locke have little or nothing to do with what I am talking about.

What I posted is the only definition of spirituality that can be applied without admitting any dualistic spirit that I have ever found. It is empiricism, but not diluted by any means.

Finally, I will readily admit that I'm not particularly mature, but it has little to do with thinking that your definition of spirituality is arbitrary ; )

I apologize for the massive amount of edits (I always do this though...)



Another edit!

I should replace atheism in my post above, because atheist does not imply materialism inherently. So replace atheism with non-dualist.

[cjs55]

That post is weak and this is characterized by the lack of replies, but as usual my N is outpacing my T so I'm having trouble clarifying.

[J.L. des Alpins]

But what exactly could ever be considered spiritual about "the exercise of setting my own goals in life and striving to always find better ways to reach them." It just seems like you are defining something that makes you feel good or makes you feel like you have purpose and then assigning the definition spiritual to it.

Granted. My post can be interpreted that way. It was not the intent of the post.

The approach I was following was to draw a parallel between spiritualism and existentialism.

The spiritualists who believe in metaphysical interventions in humans’ affairs (the believers) accept that ‘essence comes before existence’. For instance, God conceived humans first, then created them. God, being The Creator, remains the highest authority and the ultimate judge in the eyes of believers because if God was able to create humans, then God is certainly able to destroy them (or “send them to Hell”). Different dogmas may have different examples of metaphysical interventions.

To please God (or gods or spirits), believers seek to understand his wishes, his wishes being commands to be abided by. Main religions espouse a set of commands for their followers. These commands are part of the spiritual foundation of believers. Their spirituality is the foundation of their morality.

Since atheists do not believe in a god that has created mankind, that has wishes, and that imposes commandments, then atheists don’t have a spiritual foundation to define their morality. Yet, atheists can be morale people. But what is then the foundation of their morality?

In my previous post, I proposed that atheists accept that, “existence comes before essence”. I have shown that with freedom of thoughts, metaphysical entities are redundant, and that there are no freedom without responsibility.

While a believer accepts his ‘code of conduct’ from the authority of their church or spiritual leaders, the atheist makes his own set of rules.

Therefore, and here is the parallel, what is spirituality for a believer is the expression of freedom of thoughts for an atheist.

There is no spirituality in atheism. As you have pointed out, however, the conclusion of my previous post does suggest otherwise.



I will try to rephrase as follows:
“For me, as an atheist, the exercise of setting my own goals in life and striving to always find better ways to reach them is analogous to what spirituality is to a believer.


I have laid my moral principles, by choice, on a foundation that is uniquely mine. I do not pretend that my choice is any better or worst than anyone else’s; it is just the way I prefer.”

JL

[Lee]

You put the cart before the horse

[songbird36]

Actually, Zedo, I do stand corrected. Upon looking it up in the dictionary, a definition of religion is "belief in a god" etc, so if I'm going to use the dictionary to complain about your use of "religion", I actually have no grounds to do so.

Were you trying to argue that it meant something else Eileen?

[Eileen]

Were you trying to argue that it meant something else Eileen?

Well, there are multiple definitions (one of them being belief in god, and I didn't even think to look it up, honestly), AND not all religions necessitate a belief in a god. Because of my background in religious studies, I automatically think "structure" when I think "religion." And, of course, there are people who aren't atheists who also aren't religious in that they buy into a structure.

[Hypnos]

My grandfather has died last week, and I've thought about how I would deal with being in my deathbed. I thought that what people would have learnt from me in my life would change who they are, somewhat, and that they in turn would change other people, and so on... throughout history, and this idea gave me some comfort. And that is what I think the only function of spirituality is - comforting people. So I would say that yes, I'm spiritual, and yes I need it.
My grandfather's last words to me, as he lay on his death bed, were "Have a happy life."

I don't know if there's a god, and I don't really care.

[ppc]

So you think taoists/buddhists are religious then?

[Eileen]

So you think taoists/buddhists are religious then?

Yep, but not using the same definition as Zedo (limiting it to "belief in god").

I would say that Buddhist monks live a religious life. Buddhism's less ambiguous than Taoism, which is indeed more philosophical and less ritualistic.

[ppc]

So then you must also think gnostic atheists are religious as well?

I actually used to say the same thing because it(agnostic atheism) was "something I lived my life by" but that is really not accurate to call it religion. I think the only definition that is usable is the one that you are not using. Structure in itself does not religion make. If we used that definition then teachers, doctors, lawyers, or anyone who has "structure" is then religious. This is the big thing with people who believe in theism, they almost never want to pin down definitions for some reason so that there can be so much wiggle room that you can never possibly have a meanigful discussion.

[euterpenc]

What exactly is an atheist...

[ppc]

Someone without theism.

[euterpenc]

Ok, Atheists can be spiritual. Well, I think. I'm not an atheist so I don't know. I don't exactly believe in God as being a person in heaven who runs things. I see God in the way as if he is within man. If such is atheism, than yes. It's just internal rather than external spirituality, which i prefer anyway.

[J.L. des Alpins]

I see God in the way as if he is within man. If such is atheism, than yes. It's just internal rather than external spirituality, which i prefer anyway.If the 'God' you see is a metaphysical entity that can interact with you or the world around you in any way, then this entity is considered spiritual, thus you are not atheist.

In contrast, if you believe that there are no metaphysical entities at all or there may be some but they have never and will never meddle with the physical world, then you may be an atheist.

Do you think that the God in you can have a direct impact/interaction with you at all?

JL

[Eileen]

So then you must also think gnostic atheists are religious as well?

I actually used to say the same thing because it(agnostic atheism) was "something I lived my life by" but that is really not accurate to call it religion. I think the only definition that is usable is the one that you are not using. Structure in itself does not religion make. If we used that definition then teachers, doctors, lawyers, or anyone who has "structure" is then religious. This is the big thing with people who believe in theism, they almost never want to pin down definitions for some reason so that there can be so much wiggle room that you can never possibly have a meanigful discussion.

When I say "structure," I do not mean that religion is something that simply guides people's lives. Religion CAN be that--some kind of "inner" structure, but I was referring to external structures. I mean that there are actually religious institutions (structures/systems) that exist to perpetuate and express a particular set of beliefs (Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc, including all their derivative forms). That is ONE definition of religion. Another definition was Zedo's--belief in god. Another definition is what you just mentioned--an activity pursued with devotion.

I'm not opposed to pinning down definitions, but I'm not going to pretend that there's one definition, either. Thank you for assuming, though. I wasn't actually trying to take a particularly active part in this discussion, since it's directed at atheists and asks a question that I can not answer because I am not an atheist.

[Stem]

Black market spirituality in a little bag is what I have.

[Jacque]

What do all you self-proclaimed atheists think? Even if you believe that when you die you are dead and there is no spirit, is there something in your life while you are alive that you define as spiritual? Do you believe you have a soul when you are alive, but it dies with you when your body dies?
Life is drama. Even in death, we are faced with life changing decisions, though there may be not much left to live.

If an atheist converts to God, then they're not being themselves. For an atheist thinks not of death, but of the present and of the distant future beyond their own horizon. Death is cold stare into the unkown. Look long enough; figures and promises will start to materialize. A sudden haphazard death is the death for an atheist. This slow wittling away is for the believer. The rituals of belief serve as preperation and their pain is lessened. It's at the heart of their religion, Death.

Death is what makes everything worth believing. That is powerful and for an athiest who founded their beliefs on iron rationality, the emotions, the temptations, the desperation...would be too much for them. They must vent, though not always through full-fledged conversions. Spirituality is preferable to capitulation. Illusions possess analgesic properties when circumstances are grim. The atheist self medicates with this personal form of religion. It harms no one, as no doctrine or dogma lingers on to harm humanity. It dies with the user. In this noble respect, they transcend those that have passed before them.

[euterpenc]

Well if atheism lacks spirituality, then atheism is one of the worst ideas to have graced this earth. Man is a spiritual creature as well as an instincual one. You lose one side, then life won't be anywhere near the best it can be.

[Edmond Zedo]

Did anyone notice the first part of the word "spiritual?" It's "spirit." Hence incorporeal, like ghosts. It doesn't mean "We got spirit!"

Without referring to my gd dictionary, I'm sure the word or its origin was coined in a time long ago when "everyone in their right minds" believed in some kind of fairy tale world. Now we have atheists, and atheists aren't spiritual. Deal.

[Sackanaka]

Mmm I thought old greco-roman-whatever (old) dudes used the term "spirit" virtually synonomously with what we today tend to call "psyche."
At least, that's what I learned, and that's how 1st cent. peoples understood Paul or whoever talkin' the jive.

[Edmond Zedo]

Mmm I thought old greco-roman-whatever (old) dudes used the term "spirit" virtually synonomously with what we today tend to call "psyche."
At least, that's what I learned, and that's how 1st cent. peoples understood Paul or whoever talkin' the jive.
That's what I'm getting at. Everything was mystical. It isn't now.

[Sackanaka]

Ahhh soo deshita ka. Gomennasai!
(alludes to Simpsons yakuza episode) "Forgibuness, pureez!"
*commits intp harakiri*

[kafkaesque]

That's what I'm getting at. Everything was mystical. It isn't now.

Spirituality does not have to be mystical. It can be psychological in nature, like Jungian theories about the collective subconscious.

[ppc]

When I say "structure," I do not mean that religion is something that simply guides people's lives. Religion CAN be that--some kind of "inner" structure, but I was referring to external structures. I mean that there are actually religious institutions (structures/systems) that exist to perpetuate and express a particular set of beliefs (Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc, including all their derivative forms). That is ONE definition of religion. Another definition was Zedo's--belief in god. Another definition is what you just mentioned--an activity pursued with devotion.

I'm not opposed to pinning down definitions, but I'm not going to pretend that there's one definition, either. Thank you for assuming, though. I wasn't actually trying to take a particularly active part in this discussion, since it's directed at atheists and asks a question that I can not answer because I am not an atheist.

I never said that Eileen the INFJ doesn't want to pin down definitions, I said theists tend to do it and at the moment you just happen to be doing it - you used like three different ones. Thanks for assuming though. Why not just state the one you think suits it best, even though it might be the wrong definition.

[Miss Anthropic]

Life is drama. Even in death, we are faced with life changing decisions, though there may be not much left to live.

If an atheist converts to God, then they're not being themselves. For an atheist thinks not of death, but of the present and of the distant future beyond their own horizon. Death is cold stare into the unkown. Look long enough; figures and promises will start to materialize. A sudden haphazard death is the death for an atheist. This slow wittling away is for the believer. The rituals of belief serve as preperation and their pain is lessened. It's at the heart of their religion, Death.

Death is what makes everything worth believing. That is powerful and for an athiest who founded their beliefs on iron rationality, the emotions, the temptations, the desperation...would be too much for them. They must vent, though not always through full-fledged conversions. Spirituality is preferable to capitulation. Illusions possess analgesic properties when circumstances are grim. The atheist self medicates with this personal form of religion. It harms no one, as no doctrine or dogma lingers on to harm humanity. It dies with the user. In this noble respect, they transcend those that have passed before them.

I never said anything about coverting to God or Christianity. That isn't what this is about. I have my own definition of spirituality and it has nothing to do with Christianity. By my own definition of spirituality I would not consider an atheist to be spiritual. I would consider an atheist to be grounded in the physical and the tangible. I am asking for atheists to give me THEIR definition of spiritual. Not THE definition of spiritual. There have been a couple of really great definitions given that have made me reconsider my initial assumption. There is no right or wrong answer, obviously but a lot of people have assumed I am asking this from a Christian view point, and that my motivation is how to "deal with" a dying athiest---TOTALLY WRONG. When I say the goal of hospice is to make the patient comfortable, I mean physically comfortable. Anything beyond that is strictly on their own terms, their own beliefs, their desires. It is their death, their show, no last minute choreographing of their own belief system, whatever it may be.

I'm asking for alternative view points from the opinionated bunch of you--who are not dying--to satisfy my own curiosity. So Jacque,you didn't tell me your definition of spirituality. You only said it is preferable to capitulation.

[Miss Anthropic]

If the 'God' you see is a metaphysical entity that can interact with you or the world around you in any way, then this entity is considered spiritual, thus you are not atheist.

In contrast, if you believe that there are no metaphysical entities at all or there may be some but they have never and will never meddle with the physical world, then you may be an atheist.

Do you think that the God in you can have a direct impact/interaction with you at all?

JL
I think I stipulated in the initial post that spiritual is not necessarily connected with religion which would mean it doesn't have to be connected to (a) God(s). I think you are taking spiritual too literally which limits the interpretation.

[Miss Anthropic]

Did anyone notice the first part of the word "spiritual?" It's "spirit." Hence incorporeal, like ghosts. It doesn't mean "We got spirit!"

Without referring to my gd dictionary, I'm sure the word or its origin was coined in a time long ago when "everyone in their right minds" believed in some kind of fairy tale world. Now we have atheists, and atheists aren't spiritual. Deal.
Zedo, you are being extremely literal. Tragula and Ape the Dog have come the closest to a working definition in this context. However, your answer does support my initial supposition that atheists are not spiritual. Thanks for you consistant black and white input. Shades of gray just muddy the world for you, don't they.

[Eileen]

I never said that Eileen the INFJ doesn't want to pin down definitions, I said theists tend to do it and at the moment you just happen to be doing it - you used like three different ones. Thanks for assuming though. Why not just state the one you think suits it best, even though it might be the wrong definition.

Because definitions depend on context. When I corrected Zedo, which is the only reason I'm taking part in this discussion now, I corrected him because my mindset was "Religion is an institutional structure designed to perpetuate belief in something supernatural" rather than "Religion is belief in god". Words have various definitions and we weren't on the same page. That I corrected him because of that was an ERROR on my part *because* there are a variety of definitions and I didn't bother to take that into account.

EDIT: Any reluctance I have to "pin down" a definition has little to do with my theism (I could have easily just accepted "belief in god/supernatural" in that case) and a lot more to do with my background in the academic study of religion since much of the discussion in any theory class is what the definition of something is--and the point is rarely actually to "pin down" a definition but to be able to use different definitions in different contexts.

[Lee]

Of course athiests can have spiritual experiences that can be important and meaningful to them, the difference is that athiests are not under the illusion that any of it is real, they recognise that it is either smoke and mirrors or a trick of thier own minds.

[Miss Anthropic]

Of course athiests can have spiritual experiences that can be important and meaningful to them, the difference is that athiests are not under the illusion that any of it is real, they recognise that it is either smoke and mirrors or a trick of thier own minds.

Are you an atheist Lee?

[Lee]

I am going to stay away from using that term because of the apparent argument and controversy surrounding it's meaning, instead I will just explain my position.

I do not believe in God, however I cannot prove God does not exist, therefore I must accept the possibility that God may exist. Niether do I believe in spirituality, I do believe that peoples experience of spirituality and the meaning it has to them are quite true, however I believe the causes of these experiences to be strictly the result of smoke and mirrors and natural limitations and quirks of the human mind, these have been exploited both intentionally and unintentionally by shamans, magicians, hypotists, con-men etc. down the ages for as long as humans have existed.

At it's root, spirituality is about finding oneself, experiencing emotions, re-evaluating ones prejudices and sharing with a group.... similar feelings can be indulged by watching a good movie, reading a book, joining a group etc. the meaning behind these experience need not be diminished just because the the experience is draped in a lie, the underlying reasons and desires behind the beliefs and actions remain timeless.

[Miss Anthropic]

At it's root, spirituality is about finding oneself, experiencing emotions, re-evaluating ones prejudices and sharing with a group.... similar feelings can be indulged by watching a good movie, reading a book, joining a group etc. the meaning behind these experience need not be diminished just because the the experience is draped in a lie, the underlying reasons and desires behind the beliefs and actions remain timeless.

Why would the meaning behind an experience of emotion, indulged by a movie, book, or joining a group be draped in a lie, as you say. I can understand some unexplained phenomena falling into that category of being perception-based, but maybe not real in an earthly physical sense. I'd say you are teetering on the edge of agnosticism, a position I find more comfortable and undefined that to the far left or right of that

[Lee]

Why would the meaning behind an experience of emotion, indulged by a movie, book, or joining a group be draped in a lie, as you say. I can understand some unexplained phenomena falling into that category of being perception-based, but maybe not real in an earthly physical sense. I'd say you are teetering on the edge of agnosticism, a position I find more comfortable and undefined that to the far left or right of thatBecause they are fiction, they are not true, but we accept that and can derive meaning form them anyway... spirituality is the same... except some people really do believe it.

If spirituality had any truth in it, it would be science, science does not descriminate based on prejudice, science uses whatever it can to explain the world... the idea of the spiritual realm would have developed to become part of science if it were true.

edit: as it happens science has explained spirituality, it was just not the answer the spiritualists were looking for.

[ppc]

I am going to stay away from using that term because of the apparent argument and controversy surrounding it's meaning, instead I will just explain my position.

I do not believe in God, however I cannot prove God does not exist, therefore I must accept the possibility that God may exist. Niether do I believe in spirituality, I do believe that peoples experience of spirituality and the meaning it has to them are quite true, however I believe the causes of these experiences to be strictly the result of smoke and mirrors and natural limitations and quirks of the human mind, these have been exploited both intentionally and unintentionally by shamans, magicians, hypotists, con-men etc. down the ages for as long as humans have existed.

At it's root, spirituality is about finding oneself, experiencing emotions, re-evaluating ones prejudices and sharing with a group.... similar feelings can be indulged by watching a good movie, reading a book, joining a group etc. the meaning behind these experience need not be diminished just because the the experience is draped in a lie, the underlying reasons and desires behind the beliefs and actions remain timeless.


You exactly fit what an agnostic atheist would be described as. You don't claim to know anything but you don't believe in theism.

[ppc]

Because definitions depend on context. When I corrected Zedo, which is the only reason I'm taking part in this discussion now, I corrected him because my mindset was "Religion is an institutional structure designed to perpetuate belief in something supernatural" rather than "Religion is belief in god". Words have various definitions and we weren't on the same page. That I corrected him because of that was an ERROR on my part *because* there are a variety of definitions and I didn't bother to take that into account.

EDIT: Any reluctance I have to "pin down" a definition has little to do with my theism (I could have easily just accepted "belief in god/supernatural" in that case) and a lot more to do with my background in the academic study of religion since much of the discussion in any theory class is what the definition of something is--and the point is rarely actually to "pin down" a definition but to be able to use different definitions in different contexts.

You have a background in the academic study of religion yet you thought the whole world used your own personal definition of the term religion?

Also - how is it something supernatural isn't equal to god? That looks pretty obvious to me that is what is being talked about.

[kafkaesque]

Also - how is it something supernatural isn't equal to god? That looks pretty obvious to me that is what is being talked about.

I do not believe in the supernatural.
However, the possibility that things could exist beyond the realm of the physical does not necessitate the existence of a god (i.e. an omnipotent creator/judge type)

[ppc]

I agree

[Eileen]

You have a background in the academic study of religion yet you thought the whole world used your own personal definition of the term religion?


Jesus. I had a temporary mind blip and I corrected myself.

[Geoff]

Jesus. I had a temporary mind blip and I corrected myself.

Was Jesus an expletive? Or the subject of your remark ;)

-Geoff

[euterpenc]

Did anyone notice the first part of the word "spiritual?" It's "spirit." Hence incorporeal, like ghosts. It doesn't mean "We got spirit!"

Without referring to my gd dictionary, I'm sure the word or its origin was coined in a time long ago when "everyone in their right minds" believed in some kind of fairy tale world. Now we have atheists, and atheists aren't spiritual. Deal.

I've read that spirit is an upper level of man. At the bottom is man, then comes spirit, then soul. Hence the Holy Trinity: Christ as man, Holy Spirit, God.

[ppc]

Jesus. I had a temporary mind blip and I corrected myself.

Yeah people make mistakes, but I find it funny when someone does it and talks about their credentials as a means to suggest that they are right.

[Miss Anthropic]

Yeah people make mistakes, but I find it funny when someone does it and talks about their credentials as a means to suggest that they are right.
This thread got a little off track, as always happens, but really, I wanted different points of view, not an argument of what is and what isn't or what is proveable and what is not. Beliefs relating to religion, or lack thereof, are incredibly personal, and I guess we'll all find out in the end. Or if the atheists have it down, we won't know because we'll just be dead. I wonder if peoples' answers would differ if they knew that they had only a few weeks left to live. I believe it all gets down to the question of, are we satisfied with what we have accomplished during life. Has it been good enough that we can let it go in peace because our time is up.

[Hypnos]

[...] I believe it all gets down to the question of, are we satisfied with what we have accomplished during life. Has it been good enough that we can let it go in peace because our time is up.
I think the comfort for the skeptical agnostic is in the very fragility of life and finality of death. You've lived, and hopefully have experienced joy. That's it. (See my earlier post in this thread.)

[Miss Anthropic]

I think the comfort for the skeptical agnostic is in the very fragility of life and finality of death. You've lived, and hopefully have experienced joy. That's it. (See my earlier post in this thread.)
In my opinion, that would be the skeptical atheist. My definition of agnostic is a broad definition: Believes that there could possibly be something greater than self but does not buy into organized religions, some part of the self exists past the physical death. (I don't want any arguments, that is my definition, and I don't expect anyone else to buy into MY brand of spirituality) And you know, it really doesn't have to do with comfort in my mortality as it has to do with my personal experiences. I would be OK if I died tomorrow. The only regret I would have is not having time to spend with my daughter as she finishes growing up.

[ppc]

This thread got a little off track, as always happens, but really, I wanted different points of view, not an argument of what is and what isn't or what is proveable and what is not. Beliefs relating to religion, or lack thereof, are incredibly personal, and I guess we'll all find out in the end. Or if the atheists have it down, we won't know because we'll just be dead. I wonder if peoples' answers would differ if they knew that they had only a few weeks left to live. I believe it all gets down to the question of, are we satisfied with what we have accomplished during life. Has it been good enough that we can let it go in peace because our time is up.

Yes I think if I found out that I only had a few weeks to live I might change my mind but the only thing that tells me is that human emotion is very powerful especially about the unknown/unknowable. I would like to think that up to the second I die I will still have the same belief that I have right now.

I mean would it matter if I did change my mind anyway just because I knew I was going to die and I felt like I had to "make up" for all these years or something - that just doesn't make any sense.

[Hypnos]

[...] And you know, it really doesn't have to do with comfort in my mortality as it has to do with my personal experiences. I would be OK if I died tomorrow. The only regret I would have is not having time to spend with my daughter as she finishes growing up.
But, some people are afraid of death, despite the sum of their life experiences. Can they be comforted, or do they require counseling precisely because they must face the fear?

[Miss Anthropic]

But, some people are afraid of death, despite the sum of their life experiences. Can they be comforted, or do they require counseling precisely because they must face the fear?
That would be something that would be determined by listening to the patient. If he/she wished to speak to a professional counselor or mininster of their faith if they were of a specific religion, it would be my job to pass on the information to the professionals who deal with that aspect. Mostly people want to be listened to and heard. (That is a true statement for all people in all situations) A volunteer's job (for this hospice) depends solely on the family needs and the patients needs which are determined by them. Underneath the various tasks I might be asked to do for them I will be listening and observing and passing on information to the appropriate professionals who work for hospice, whether it be medical to the nurses, psychological to the counselors, religious to the spiritual counselors.

To summarize the answer to your question: It would depend upon the patient. But I would never be in a position to tell them they "needed" counseling.

[Lee]

This thread got a little off track, as always happens, but really, I wanted different points of view, not an argument of what is and what isn't or what is proveable and what is not. Beliefs relating to religion, or lack thereof, are incredibly personal, and I guess we'll all find out in the end. Or if the atheists have it down, we won't know because we'll just be dead. I wonder if peoples' answers would differ if they knew that they had only a few weeks left to live. I believe it all gets down to the question of, are we satisfied with what we have accomplished during life. Has it been good enough that we can let it go in peace because our time is up.If I had a few weeks left to live I would feel pretty much as I do now, there is no way I can confirm God's existence or not; so if he does exist how can I expect to know how he decides who deserves to go to heaven? for all we know he simply picks names out of a hat. I suspect a wise all powerful God will not give a toss whether or not I talk to the ceiling every Sunday, I sincerely hope that here is a God and a heaven, but have no way of knowing therefore there might as well not be.

[Miss Anthropic]

...... I suspect a wise all powerful God will not give a toss whether or not I talk to the ceiling every Sunday....

LOL. "Talk to the ceiling"....is that anything like "Talk to the hand?"
Aside: I totally agree

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

From what I know of it Budhism seems to be less like the organized religions.[/QUOTE]

Buddhism is an atheistic religion. In it, there is no creator God. All religions, in the words of Vietnamese Buddhist Zen Master Thich Naht Hahn, seek to give practitioners the "gift of the non-fear" in the face of death. In Buddhism, there is an emphasis on the idea of "Interbeing." All beings, including ourselves, do not exist independently of other phenomena. The example of a sheet of paper is given. It did not come from nothing. It came from trees, which arose from other trees in the past, and depended upon rain and sunlight, soil, etc. etc. And if you destroy the paper by burning it, it doesn't become nothing. Part of it becomes heat that penetrates into the atmosphere, smoke, ash etc. Matter/Energy is neither created nor destroyed but constantly changing into different forms. There is a recycling of materials and even conciousness. Buddhists emphasize that what you think of as yourself is not really limited to your current manifestation of flesh and bone. "You" is contained in your actions (karma) in the world, your thoughts, things into which you poured your energies, your blood relatives, or other people who know you. In Buddhist cosmology, everyone counts and everything matters but not separately from everyone and everything else. When a cloud is about to become rain, says Hahn, "it doesn't panic like us." Atheists can practice Buddhism and thus have a great deal of spirituality.

We spend our lives protecting our bodies, developing our minds, killing off bugs, and eating animal and plant material. And in the end, our bodies fail and the bugs, plants, animals get to eat us. Whatever system you have to confront this and helps you not to freak out about it would give you the gift of non-fear. I think we all crave such a system, such a way of looking at reality so that we can be at ease with our impermanence. But fearful or not, we all are headed to the recycling bin. Theistic systems help people get over their fears as well, and I think that these are worthy for that reason. But you also have to look at the amount of suffering generated by religious wars throughout history. When we begin to fight over the nature of God, we negate religious benefits to some degree.

One other question to atheists might be: What will you teach (or are currently teaching) your children about these matters?

[T.J.]

One other question to atheists might be: What will you teach (or are currently teaching) your children about these matters?

I think I'd teach my hypothetical children something very similar to that. It's what I emphasize to the children I sometimes babysit - consequences, complexity, mentally stepping into the shoes of other people, other species, everything. That everything we do has effect, that everything that is is made up of effects.

With my luck, at least one kid would get deeply involved with some organized religion and give me headaches over it. But I wouldn't stand in the way, though we'd probably have quite a few discussions. And I'll probably have them baptized Catholic, anyway, as a family thing rather than as a spiritual thing.

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

I think I'd teach my hypothetical children something very similar to that. It's what I emphasize to the children I sometimes babysit - consequences, complexity, mentally stepping into the shoes of other people, other species, everything. That everything we do has effect, that everything that is is made up of effects.

With my luck, at least one kid would get deeply involved with some organized religion and give me headaches over it. But I wouldn't stand in the way, though we'd probably have quite a few discussions. And I'll probably have them baptized Catholic, anyway, as a family thing rather than as a spiritual thing.

One strange thing you'll find if you explore Buddhism is that they do no recommend their own religion! They strongly encourage people to remain in their own traditions. There are even parables in the scriptures about that. Maybe it's because they see the family as a spirutual entity where solidarity in these matters is important.

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

I think I'd teach my hypothetical children something very similar to that. It's what I emphasize to the children I sometimes babysit - consequences, complexity, mentally stepping into the shoes of other people, other species, everything. That everything we do has effect, that everything that is is made up of effects.

With my luck, at least one kid would get deeply involved with some organized religion and give me headaches over it. But I wouldn't stand in the way, though we'd probably have quite a few discussions. And I'll probably have them baptized Catholic, anyway, as a family thing rather than as a spiritual thing.

One strange thing you'll find if you explore Buddhism is that they do not recommend others to formally adopt the religion. They strongly encourage people to remain in their own traditions. There are even parables in the scriptures about that. Maybe it's because they see the family as a spiritual entity where solidarity in these matters is important.

[fairgeek]

definition of spirituality: concern with things of spirit.

So yes, if one is concerned with things of spirit they can indeed be spiritual regardless of religion. I am an atheist. I do not consider myself devoid of concern for things of spirit. Some atheists lack a belief in a diety but still believe in a "soul". Souls deal with the spirit, and therefore atheists could be spiritual.


I think that Aethiests often confuse what they perceive with actual reality. The fact of the matter is that the human consciousness does not live solely in the material world ...this is from several pages back...don't mind be butting in here...

What is perceived is reality. If a pin drops and lands on a point, you will see it drop straight from above. However, if you are standing on the ground and looking at it from the side, the angle would appear slightly tilted. Is either perception more accurate than the other?

[coffeezombie]

There are many atheists who have a spiritual awareness of the way that nature and science work, without actually believing that there is an actual consciousness pulling the strings.

[elle]

is it at all possible to believe in something greater than oneself without concluding in theistic beliefs over whether or not there is a god?

[Hypnos]

elle: I think so. Many scientists believe in the rich, infinite fabric of the universe (conceptually, if not physically) with no original creator. Of course, this is largely a matter of taste since it's not falsifiable.

[elle]

I noticed that some people prefer spirituality because of its association with superstition.... Why is that? Is that the only reason to dismiss the desire to be spiritual????

[Hypnos]

Superstitious spirituality might have served our survival as a species -- help cement group relationships and hierarchies, while redirecting mental energies away from idle existential speculation and toward more productive pursuits, like being exploited by realist leaders ;)

Or, along a similar vein, superstition is a defense mechanism against the cruel real world, giving people the strength the go on by exciting the imagination in a last-resort fashion. The big forebrain must be reeled in somehow.

[T.J.]

Superstitious spirituality might have served our survival as a species -- help cement group relationships and hierarchies, while redirecting mental energies away from idle existential speculation and toward more productive pursuits, like being exploited by realist leaders ;)

Or, along a similar vein, superstition is a defense mechanism against the cruel real world, giving people the strength the go on by exciting the imagination in a last-resort fashion. The big forebrain must be reeled in somehow.

Superstition gives you power. It gives you control over the uncontrollable. Not absolute control, but the perceived ability to nudge something one way or another. Be it averting the forces of cosmic irony by knocking on wood or praying to a Loving God for what you want to happen.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Superstition gives you power. It gives you control over the uncontrollable. Not absolute control, but the perceived ability to nudge something one way or another. Be it averting the forces of cosmic irony by knocking on wood or praying to a Loving God for what you want to happen.
:wub:

[kuranes]

There's a book out called "A New Kind of Science" by the inventor of the software called Mathematica ( I don't remember his name offhand ) where he basically proves that incredibly complicated systems can arise from simple givens/mechanisms. It's kind of like "ammo for the atheists". Perhaps a good read for you, Hypnos. I found it interesting also. But there's still that other aspect . . . . .see my contribution to the "Believe" thread.

[Hypnos]

There's a book out called "A New Kind of Science" by the inventor of the software called Mathematica ( I don't remember his name offhand ) where he basically proves that incredibly complicated systems can arise from simple givens/mechanisms. It's kind of like "ammo for the atheists". Perhaps a good read for you, Hypnos. I found it interesting also. But there's still that other aspect . . . . .see my contribution to the "Believe" thread.
Oh yes, Steve Wolfram's book. I have not read it (being expensive and overly long), but those who have found it to be cogent, comprehensive and largely uninteresting as far as new ideas.

There has not been in a breakthrough in non-linear dynamics and complex systems in a long time ... I would like to make one.

[ry_goody]

I don't know if it's been said. But atheism with spirituality would essentially be deism. I was atheist until I realized deism, I guess I could write out my reasons why, I got alot of free time ATM.

Ok so, God does undoubtedly exist. Before you want dish out one of the many pre-made remarks to that. I'll say that the traditional meaning of the word god is dead. Consider that the word god could also be synonymous with the word random.

Now evolution, t's pretty logical to think we all started at some point and evolved to where we are now, that is most likely true. I say most likely true because it is not -absolutely- correct. But compared to the alternative theories, evolution does seem the most correct and the one I am most willing to believe. When dealing with the creation of existance we will never really have an absolute truth, but some theories will be more correct than others.

So evolution is all fine and dandy. But what about before evolution? Time existed before evolution. Everything has a begining and an end, evolution began at some point. Things existed before evolution. We do not know what or anything about the time except there was existance. If you wish to be thorough in your beliefs on existance you must include pre-evolution also, do not cut things out for the sake of convienence. Since we have absolutely no idea about the things before pre-evolution many people have applied different things to this time period. I will only deal with two of those types of people, atheists and deists.

Atheists prefer to think of things going on before evolution as random. Deists prefer to think of things going on before evolution as the will of God. In this case, random and God both apply to the exact same thing. God implying a logical deisgn and random implying luck to the happeneings of things that led up to evolution. The thing these words apply to is undoubtedly there, so there is not necessarily a debate over the existance of things before evolution. But there is a debate on which word we should use.

God and random, is one of these more correct than the other? Neither are perfect, but one is more correct from a logical standpoint. That being God. Why is it more correct logically? If you prefer random, then you believe we exist from luck. Everything around you is just luck, every underlying system that allows you stay alive is just luck. The universe is not infinitely varying so the possibility of every outcome existing by rational of infinite statistics is not a valid theory.

In our world we have many examples of logical design. Cars, art, bird nests etc. Not a single person would ever say these things came about by just random luck, in fact it would absurd to think such a thing. So it is not correct to convienently start assuming the ability of random to do such things when you leave the realm of percievable concious. You can and many people do, but you are not obeying logic when you do. Nature itself is the best and most correct example we have of how things are, because of this we should use nature to answer questions when we do not have the knowledge ourselves to do so. It is incorrect to create explanations when nature already demonstrates them and we ourselves demonstrate them. All complex workings are the product of designs, not random luck. And random does not exist without luck.

It is because of this that Deism is the most correct theory. You do not have to believe the most correct thing. As I said, many people do not, in fact many people find alot of pride in believing things that are less correct, this is perfectly ok. Many people do not make every decision based on what is most correct and you can lead an equally as good or possibly better life if you don't. Just keep in mind that it is the most correct theory. I am very decisively saying "most correct" because I am in no way saying "absolutely correct". I know the flaws in this explanation, but compared to the alternatives it seems much more valid and this reason alone is the only reason I refer to myself as deist.


When I have explained this to people in the past, the initial response is not to rebut the actual explanation, but to oppose the general idea of God because intellectuals hate "God" so to say. But consider what your hate for God is, it probably is the same as me, which is the idiocy that surrounds written religion. Deism deals absolutely in no way with that sort of idiocy, the whole advent of Deism is the product of independent thought in the pursuit of logical correctness. Deism is simply a label, it is not an entity like the Christian Church. Rebutting my explanation is not opposing a body of knowledge, but rather rebutting me, myself, directly. And with the progression nature of Deist ideas, rebuttals often help reinforce the theory by providing new ideas or reworking of previous ideas.


well that was long... felt good to get it into words though

[Claverhouse]

Good post.:thumbup:


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[CoHo]

So evolution is all fine and dandy. But what about before evolution? Time existed before evolution. Everything has a begining and an end, evolution began at some point.

So what about before God?

[kuranes]

RY_Goody, you did not check out Wolfram's book.

[Hypnos]

Atheists prefer to think of things going on before evolution as random. Deists prefer to think of things going on before evolution as the will of God. In this case, random and God both apply to the exact same thing. God implying a logical deisgn and random implying luck to the happeneings of things that led up to evolution. The thing these words apply to is undoubtedly there, so there is not necessarily a debate over the existance of things before evolution. But there is a debate on which word we should use.
a) (i) evolution has an element of randomness (as far as we can tell)
a) (ii) there are non-random elements before evolution, if you believe the laws of physics

b) Why can't our non-logical universe be a stroke of luck? The bottom line is that logic/science has absolutely nothing to say about stuff that isn't falsifiable, like whether or not the measurable universe is the fundamental entity or if it started with a God.

So deism is crap, in that it has nothing more to say than any other spiritual belief.

[Pan]

I am an atheist (a term I despise, by the way - it's somewhat like calling humans "uncows" - shame I don't have anything more positive to replace it).

By this I mean that I do not believe in anything supernatural and real... ie the "natural world" is defined (for me) as all things that exist, and anything that exists outside of that is by definition fictional (or at least irrelevant). God, if he/she/it/they exist(s) must either be able to interact physically with the natural world and therefore by definition be part of it (and be observable - at least in theory) and hence not "supernatural", OR be active only entirely outside the observable universe we live in... and whos existence/nonexistence is therefore completely irrelevant to our lives and our attempts to understand the world around us.

I find spirituality to be almost as problematic a definition as atheism (and I'm obviously not alone), though for a different reason. Spirituality does normally imply a connection to the supernatural, but many of the things strongly associated with spirituality need not be. I think a lot of confusion and misunderstanding from non-atheists stems from the assumption that if an atheist is not "spiritual" then he/she must be lacking in some pretty basic human characteristics.

Beauty is something I appreciate greatly... presumably every bit as much as a religious individual does, yet the concept of appreciating beauty seems to have been co-opted in many religious minds into the concept of spirituality. How many atheists have had to hear "Wow, what an incredibly beautiful sunset... I don't understand how anyone could see that and not believe in God!" from some (formerly) respected friend?

Love is another one that seems to get pulled into the mix, as is any sort of contemplation of levels of complexity in the universe outside our immediate understanding. I have actually told a religious person that I was an atheist and got the response "How horrible! How can you live and not believe in love?"

Anyway, the simple answer from me is this: what you probably think of as spirituality is likely largely alive and well for most atheists, but I think we tend to call it something else because we don't subscribe to the fallacious belief that things like beauty, contemplation of the infinite, or love have anything whatever to do with the supernatural.

Amen.

[Hypnos]

Anyway, the simple answer from me is this: what you probably think of as spirituality is likely largely alive and well for most atheists, but I think we tend to call it something else because we don't subscribe to the fallacious belief that things like beauty, contemplation of the infinite, or love have anything whatever to do with the supernatural.

Amen.
Amen.

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

Beauty is something I appreciate greatly... presumably every bit as much as a religious individual does, yet the concept of appreciating beauty seems to have been co-opted in many religious minds into the concept of spirituality. How many atheists have had to hear "Wow, what an incredibly beautiful sunset... I don't understand how anyone could see that and not believe in God!" from some (formerly) respected friend?

Love is another one that seems to get pulled into the mix, as is any sort of contemplation of levels of complexity in the universe outside our immediate understanding. I have actually told a religious person that I was an atheist and got the response "How horrible! How can you live and not believe in love?"

Anyway, the simple answer from me is this: what you probably think of as spirituality is likely largely alive and well for most atheists, but I think we tend to call it something else because we don't subscribe to the fallacious belief that things like beauty, contemplation of the infinite, or love have anything whatever to do with the supernatural.

Amen.

I completely agree with this. You'll hear many of the banal comments by some Christians that "God is Love." But Why can't Love alone be Love? It's as if something very natural isn't good enough for us. We put it on a pedastal, and speak in terms of the supernatural. The concept of God is foisted or grafted onto an interaction that doesn't require it. Are we to assume in cultures that don't recognize a god or Gods that people can't love one another? The same goes for moments of spiritual inspiration, such as the viewing of a sunset. Yes it is spectacular and strikes a person as being beautiful and majestic. Why then should it be co-opted by God? Why can't
it simply be? And when some negative phenomenon is encountered, some Christians will say "Well, God works in mysterious ways. It was His plan. We must not question." Either that, or the phenomenon is ascribed to the Devil.

[Zifmer]

Unless someone hasn't told me yet, I can't believe there hasn't been anyone to form a religion basing the Bible as one gigantic metaphor. Is there? Anyway, try telling a Zen Buddhist (they usually don't believe in god's and such) that he is without spirituality... he probably wouldn't do much but say something back at ya... but he'd put you in his place.
I've studied tons of religions (yes, I'm a expert, don't dispute it or I'll do the whole cast you to some hell or something) and my belief is that everyone can have spirituality. That feeling of God or the holy ghost or whatever is just interpreted differently through the different religions. Just like sympathy or anger, it's a feeling, not a supernatural.

[Jacque]

But Why can't Love alone be Love? [...] Why then should it be co-opted by God? Why can't it simply be?

Because religion like any other money-maker seeks monopolies, crowning popes, and kings alike, who then rule over humanity as ruthlessly as the god(s) they emulate. "Spirituality" in the fashion of the cult of self help, attempts to ween us from that dependence, but not without deceptive advertising of its own. Love is what it is in your own mind, too transcedent for words or too banal for thought. I wouldn't miss a beautiful sunset worrying who should take it from me, not for friends, religion, love, or God.