Atheist Spirituality

stink_fist

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BE5M8743a1s

This is a must watch for all atheists and agnostics

karen3212

Did you have any opinion or comment on the video, and what did you find most interesting about it?

In my opinion, although I saw it a few days ago, it's not really spirituality.I think the main idea, that we are totally connected to the earth and universe is just true.

Sapien

karen3212 wrote: »

Did you have any opinion or comment on the video, and what did you find most interesting about it?

In my opinion, although I saw it a few days ago, it's not really spirituality.I think the main idea, that we are totally connected to the earth and universe is just true.

I think it very much qualifies as spirituality. Why ever wouldn't it?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

stink_fist wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE5M8743a1s

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BE5M8743a1s

This is a must watch for all atheists and agnostics

remove the http://youtube.com/watch?v= from the youtube tags

An Fear Aniar

The minute he mentions the word "Zen" it makes me want to punch him.

Sorry, I can't listen to that stuff, reminds me of too many boring stoners I've met.

Can't stand all that guru talk.


.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

sounds like l ron hubbard

Zillah

That was kind of interesting if a little simple. I fail to see what it has to do with atheism or spirituality to be honest.

Sapien

Zillah wrote: »

That was kind of interesting if a little simple. I fail to see what it has to do with atheism or spirituality to be honest.

It has to do with atheism and spirituality that zen is an example of a traditional atheistic spiritual system. Though he only mentions zen in the opening, all of the ideas in that video arise from zen thinking.

The segment about rocks "peopling" is especially relevant to the modern atheist's preoccupation with protecting science from erosion by corrosive idiocies rampant in the world, like creationism. Expressing the process of developing complex live as an inherent potentiality in all matter in the universe is a refreshing, pleasing and potentially very useful concept.

Prickles and goo could have a lot to do with the disparate mindsets of religionists and scientists, and in the case of this thread, might explain why some of you are unaccountably hostile to a few minutes playful philosophising by a pleasant old man with a grandfatherly voice. His is gooey thinking, and isn't intended to rock the world of science, but may help people understand, or, more importantly, feel differently about scientific ideas.

Ideas don't have to include gods and monsters and life after death in order to be spiritual.

robindch

Are any of these videos still online? I'm out in the Middle East at the mo', and any video posted over the last fortnight is coming up as unavailable (no doubt having been filtered out "due to its content being inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political and moral values" of the UAE).

Zillah

I remember you laughing that religioustolerance.org was blocked from Saudi Arabia before. Why the hell do you keep going to these places?

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote: »

Why the hell do you keep going to these places?

I suspect he is going to write a book someday:D

Zillah

Sapien wrote: »

Ideas don't have to include gods and monsters and life after death in order to be spiritual.

What does an idea have to include to be spiritual?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Zillah wrote: »

What does an idea have to include to be spiritual?

nonsense

Sapien

Zillah wrote: »

What does an idea have to include to be spiritual?

A very good question. Nothing in particular, I would say. Abstract insights into the nature and purpose of life, and how best to live it - that would be part of it. And other gooey thinking, as Watts would put it. Ideas that inspire wonder and expand the mind. Inflame the spirit, as it were.

But you must have a very clear idea of what spirituality necessarily involves if you can categorically declare something unspiritual. Let's have it.

Zillah

Sapien wrote: »

Abstract insights into the nature and purpose of life, and how best to live it - that would be part of it. And other gooey thinking, as Watts would put it. Ideas that inspire wonder and expand the mind. Inflame the spirit, as it were.

Sounds like philosophy really. Just that when someone encounters philosophy that they really like it becomes spiritual. I propose that this spiritual words serves no purpose in our language and that it be removed or reclassified immediately. Someone notify Oxford and the Queen.

A little more seriously, if we're to have the word "spiritual" be usefully different from "philosophical" we're gonna have to include souls/magic/spirits as a requirement.

Sapien

Zillah wrote: »

Sounds like philosophy really. Just that when someone encounters philosophy that they really like it becomes spiritual. I propose that this spiritual words serves no purpose in our language and that it be removed or reclassified immediately. Someone notify Oxford and the Queen.

A little more seriously, if we're to have the word "spiritual" be usefully different from "philosophical" we're gonna have to include souls/magic/spirits as a requirement.

I disagree, and I think your problem is that you underestimate the rigour required by philosophy. Philosophy in not merely a hobby of musing playfully about grand ideas - it's an academic discipline with standards, methods and nomenclatures.

Few, for instance, would disagree that art and poetry can be spiritually stimulating. Do you? Certainly these are very seperate from philosophy, and they most certainly do not need to include magic or spirits. I think I'll stick with my wonder-inspiring, mind-expanding definition.

Of course your other problem is that you have personally placed heavily negative connotations on the word spiritual - by way of religion and superstition. If you would just allow yourself to conceive of the word as applying to things that don't necessarily offend your atheistic and skeptic sensitivities, you might see that it can apply to some things that you don't abominate with zealous fervour.

Zillah

Sapien wrote: »

Few, for instance, would disagree that art and poetry can be spiritually stimulating. Do you?

Do you not see how circular that is from my point of view? I don't see or experience anything that can't be explained more accurately by a word other than spirituality. I still don't grasp what this concept is, so asking me if I find something stimulating in that regard is fairly pointless.

I think I'll stick with my wonder-inspiring, mind-expanding definition.

But, if something is wonder-inspiring I'd describe it as wonderful, amazing or incredible. If something is mind-expanding I'd describe it as enlightening, elucidating, or fascinating. I see no reason to group all such things under the rather ham fisted title of "spiritual", especially considering that such a word is derived from "spirit".

Of course your other problem is that you have personally placed heavily negative connotations on the word spiritual - by way of religion and superstition. If you would just allow yourself to conceive of the word as applying to things that don't necessarily offend your atheistic and skeptic sensitivities, you might see that it can apply to some things that you don't abominate with zealous fervour.

Like I said above, I don't have a problem with any of the component parts, I just don't see the sense behind such an arbitrary and misunderstanding-prone grouping of concepts. I don't believe in spirits, whether inside myself or in the world around me, so if I feel wonder looking at the stars or a humbling sensation gazing at some art I find it grossly inappropriate to have it described as "spiritual".

Sapien

Zillah wrote: »

Do you not see how circular that is from my point of view? I don't see or experience anything that can't be explained more accurately by a word other than spirituality. I still don't grasp what this concept is, so asking me if I find something stimulating in that regard is fairly pointless.



But, if something is wonder-inspiring I'd describe it as wonderful, amazing or incredible. If something is mind-expanding I'd describe it as enlightening, elucidating, or fascinating. I see no reason to group all such things under the rather ham fisted title of "spiritual", especially considering that such a word is derived from "spirit".



Like I said above, I don't have a problem with any of the component parts, I just don't see the sense behind such an arbitrary and misunderstanding-prone grouping of concepts. I don't believe in spirits, whether inside myself or in the world around me, so if I feel wonder looking at the stars or a humbling sensation gazing at some art I find it grossly inappropriate to have it described as "spiritual".

You're being really very silly. Words have etymologies that bear no relation to their modern usages. Do you consider holidays holy? Do you expect your salary to come in the form of salt? When you hear a person exclaim "Oh Christ!" do you take them for a Christian? A great many people who entertain no belief whatsoever in spirits know perfectly well what it means to be spiritually stimulated, and are quite happy to evoke that meaning using that word. If your need to distance yourself from ideas of spirits is so strong that you feel you must avoid using a very flexible and useful word, then that's perfectly fine, but that's a limitation of your own.

Think, also, on the various meanings that the word "spirit" can have. Many of them are distinct from... floaty, invisibly, ectoplasmic spookiness. A community can have spirit, as can a song. A political movement can be driven by a spirit that has nothing to do with God or a soul. In this sense too, a person can be said to have spirit, with nothing supernatural being intended. Spirit in this sense can be thought of as a unifying sentiment, or abstract impression, or underlying energy - giving us another interpretation of "spiritual", which, I think you'll see, ties in with the other connotations I've described.

If your fear is that by claiming to have spiritual feelings, you would be implying that you have a spirit - I wouldn't worry about it. I very much doubt that that's a meaning that many people would infer. I think you need to do a bit of getting over yourself.

iUseVi

Sapien wrote: »

You're being really very silly. Words have etymologies that bear no relation to their modern usages. Do you consider holidays holy? Do you expect your salary to come in the form of salt? When you hear a person exclaim "Oh Christ!" do you take them for a Christian? A great many people who entertain no belief whatsoever in spirits know perfectly well what it means to be spiritually stimulated, and are quite happy to evoke that meaning using that word. If your need to distance yourself from ideas of spirits is so strong that you feel you must avoid using a very flexible and useful word, then that's perfectly fine, but that's a limitation of your own.

I see your point, but I have to agree with Zillah. For me the word spirituality has always been associated with dualism. I understand that it is not in this context, and that there are benefits to the kind of spirituality you are talking about. Still sends shivers down my spine though.

Dades

I think both Zillah and Sapian have good points to make.

The word "spiritual" doesn't have to involve something supernatural, although it commonly is interpreted as doing so. So perhaps the answer as to whether (as a non-believer) you are spiritual, comes down to how much you care about how people interpret your answer.

Zillah

You completely ignored my central argument, which is that any of the experiences one could group together as "spiritual" all have their own more accurate terms, terms that are not prone to misinterpretation of a magical nature.

I accept your point that the origins of a word don't neccessarily matter, but I still hear people talking about their spiritual chi enhancing meditation or the spiritual journeys they take at night when their soul leaves their body and travels the astral plains.

Some people are still getting paid in salt, it seems.

Sapien

Zillah wrote: »

You completely ignored my central argument, which is that any of the experiences one could group together as "spiritual" all have their own more accurate terms, terms that are not prone to misinterpretation of a magical nature.

I don't think it's a particularly interesting point. "Spiritual" is not the only word in the English language that is somewhat ambiguous, or has various registers. And the immediate association with magic is not common - it seems to me like a peculiar hang-up of yours. Your contempt for mysticism is spilling over into your use of language in a way that simply isn't rational.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

uh.. spiritual generally always means what zillah says it means except for somewhat materialist hippies who are trying to take it back, like gay people and queer or black people and ******.

Sapien

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

uh.. spiritual generally always means what zillah says it means except for somewhat materialist hippies who are trying to take it back, like gay people and queer or black people and ******.

uh.. is that so? Generally always. Righteo. I must be wrong then. Funny about all that stuff I wrote. If only I'd known.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if only

Zillah

Sapien wrote: »

"Spiritual" is not the only word in the English language that is somewhat ambiguous

Irrelevant, its the one we're talking about. Language should avoid ambiguity.

And the immediate association with magic is not common

Yes it is. We're both arguing by assertion though, so I'm going to start a poll

Your contempt for mysticism is spilling over into your use of language in a way that simply isn't rational.

Contempt is probably a little bit strong, but regardless, my reaction is perfectly rational. I dislike mysticism, a word being used to describe many unrelated things is being associated with mysticism, therefore I don't like using that word.

Sapien

Zillah wrote: »

Irrelevant, its the one we're talking about. Language should avoid ambiguity.

Language doesn't work that way, thank the gods. Almost every interesting word has a severalty of meanings - this is most relevant. Why are we talking about this? Because someone used the word to describe something they considered to be spiritual (and I'm pretty sure most literate people would agree) and you questioned it - even so much as suggested it was wrong. Take a glance at this list of definitions of "spiritual". Even in this second rate e-dictionary, it's clear that the OP's use of the word is comfortably accommodated, many times over in fact.

Zillah wrote: »

Yes it is. We're both arguing by assertion though, so I'm going to start a poll

Well, the dictionary should be slightly more elucidating on the correct use of words than the casual opinions of passers by. I mean no offense to anyone, but most people have a very simplistic approach to language. They associate a word with the first meaning they ever understood to be attached to it, and dispute all others. This is a stale and boring way of thinking about language. Words are living things - they collect meanings, and lose them. Your personal reaction to this word is all very understandable - but it has no bearing on correctness or its objective usefulness.

Zillah wrote: »

Contempt is probably a little bit strong, but regardless, my reaction is perfectly rational. I dislike mysticism, a word being used to describe many unrelated things is being associated with mysticism, therefore I don't like using that word.

Here's what I suggest. Use the word 'mysticism' to describe everything you previously would have called 'spiritual', and open up spiritual to the many other meanings people frequently intend by it. How's that?

Zillah

Sapien wrote: »

Here's what I suggest. Use the word 'mysticism' to describe everything you previously would have called 'spiritual', and open up spiritual to the many other meanings people frequently intend by it. How's that?

Changing my use of the word does not change what I think is a common interpretation of the word. I'm not contesting your non-magical usage, I'm simply asserting the astral-travel-psychic-powers-spirituality is one common interpretation. One I don't like and find inappropriate.

Sapien

Zillah wrote: »

Changing my use of the word does not change what I think is a common interpretation of the word. I'm not contesting your non-magical usage, I'm simply asserting the astral-travel-psychic-powers-spirituality is one common interpretation. One I don't like and find inappropriate.

If you were to say that you find a certain Shakespearean sonnet spiritually uplifting, do you imagine anyone would suppose you meant anything to do with magic or psychic powers? This is how language works - context clarifies, and when it doesn't, elaboration does.

This is all rather pointless. We're not actually arguing any intelligible point. If you have such problems with a simple complexity of meaning in such a straightforward word, you must have countless similar problems with vocabulary. Your use of language must be incredibly fraught and painstaking.