What the hell does it mean when an Atheist says they're spiritual?

[Carrie]

I've never understood what people mean when they say they are spiritual, yet they're Atheist or Agnostic.

There's an Atheist guy I know who says he's spiritual, but he doesn't have any religious practices, and he doesn't do anything special or act in any special way. So what makes him so spiritual? Maybe he has deep thoughts or something, but I wouldn't say that makes him spiritual.

I have deep thoughts, and I appreciate the beauty of life and I enjoy nature and stuff like that, but I don't think I'm spiritual at all. I'm just a regular gal. I don't even think being spiritual is necessarily a virtue. It could just mean that the person is weird or thinks too highly of themselves.

So what's the big deal with being spiritual?

[Jinto]

Spiritual is a term that means (roughly) "I'm not religous, but I don't want the stigma associated with being nonreligous."

[Opera Nut]

That's really a good question!!

IMHO, I think they are attempting to say that they are "thoughtful" or "deep" without getting into specifics, and that's the most convenient label with the least amount of cultural baggage.

So many people now are leaving organized religion, and reading and meditating and synthesizing various traditions and find no conflicts in what they are doing. I guess it works for them and I assume they are not the type to get in peoples' faces like the fundies.

You could say that when you appreciate the beauty of nature, that that awakens spiritual feelings in you, and I would have no problem with that. "Spiritual" is a term that can mean anything to anyone, since it's subjective what a spiritual experience is.

That's the problem I have with Christianity telling me to "have a relationship with Jesus" when I cannot compel that experience or feeling.

[Enlighten Me]

I think some of us feel obligated to say we're "spiritual" since the labels "agnostic" and "atheist" can be shocking to many. In such a case, "spiritual" might mean having values that coincide with those of a "religious" person, but without adherence to doctrines or dogma (or belief in a deity). Such values might include love of family, appreciation of beauty, and the desire to be a loving, generous, and compassionate person. If you're an atheist and you've never felt that there is a stigma attached to declaring your lack of belief, then you're either fortunate or you live in Europe....

I once said I was spiritual, then felt stupid for having said it, but I felt I needed to establish some common ground between myself and the person who I was talking to. I hope that the Internet, and websites such as this one will help to dispel the myth that atheists are evil, selfish people who deserve to be pitied or held in contempt....

[Rational BAC]

I think that calling yourself "spiritual" is a very valid concept.

Simply means that you are capable of thinking "outside the box". That you realize as a human that you are severely limited in your sensory perception and your intelligence.

It means that you believe there is much more to existence than what we can sense with our pitiful senses or understand with our very limited intelligence.

Spiritualism means you have no particular religious preference or belief system, but you believe that there is "something else out there"---something more than our perceived reality.

And I think it should not be made fun of.

To believe that all there is to reality is what we are able to perceive is severely limiting. And essentially intellectually dishonest.

[Carrie]

I don't know Rational BAC, Spiritual Atheists don't usually believe in "something else out there" or there being more to the universe than we can perceive. If we can't perceive it, then we don't know if it's there, so no spirituality comes from thoughts about such mysteries. I may wonder if there's more to the universe than I can perceive, but I don't assume it.

I suppose it's easier to consider yourself spiritual as an Episcopalian. You must still believe in Jesus in some way. You believe in him even though you can't prove him, and that's spiritual (faith) for you. But I could make a pretty good case that Jesus never even existed. I am interested in finding out what is true, so I've done a lot of reading and research about this, taking both sides of the argument into consideration. Maybe searching for truth is being spiritual, regardless of the conclusion that you come to.

[Infidelettante]

Originally posted by Carrie
I've never understood what people mean when they say they are spiritual, yet they're Atheist or Agnostic.

I don't even think being spiritual is necessarily a virtue. It could just mean that the person is weird or thinks too highly of themselves.

So what's the big deal with being spiritual?

Ouch! That ‘weird’ part really hurt, not to mention the ‘thinks too highly’ bit. I have run into an atheist here and there who thinks too highly of themselves and even some who are down right weird. We spiritual type atheists don’t hold the patent on strange you know.

What usually sets us apart from non-spiritual atheists is that we often incorporate into our lives practices that most would consider religious. I for example use rituals to mark special events or to help me through difficult times or to allow myself to approach tasks in new ways and see things in a different light.

There is nothing supernatural involved. If I am required to make a critical choice in my personal life, or at work I may spend hours creating a ritual that focuses on that choice and the results of it. I will create a symbolic representation of the situation and act out in ritual the aspects of it in an effort to gain a deeper and broader understanding of my options. It often reveals outcomes I didn’t anticipate or paths I failed to see.

I think atheists often loose a great deal by throwing out all religious practice with God. One of those is the use and manipulation of symbols. The study of the meaning and information found in symbols is a rewarding and worthwhile occupation that can direct and order the life of any who undertake it.

Many of us reject such practices because we are intelligent, modern people who prefer to face life without the false trappings of superstition and religion. And rightly so. But, there some things we ignore that can still serve us well just as they have served us for thousands of years. I find ways to make them serve me and they help me deal with life in interesting and novel ways. And it can be fun, which is no small recommendation.

And so call me a Spiritual Atheist and a Pantheist and a Ritualist. I have not the slightest desire to have my spirituality make sense, which is really what bothers you I think. That atheism and spirituality don’t make sense together. One other thing I think Atheist loose out on, having a very important part of your life that doesn’t need to make sense.:D

JT

[River]

I dont think the masses have the slightest clue what spirituality even means.

[Elvithriel]

Spirit comes from the latin "spiritus" which means "breathe". So being spiritual is to breathe.

Guess that pretty much covers everyone.

[Opera Nut]

Gee, and I thought the "Spiritual Hour" was when the Unitarians/Atheists imbibe "spirituous liquors", known to the hungry hordes as "happy hour"!!

(That's AFTER we worship the coffeepot, which occurs in the morning....)

:D

[Rousseau_CHN]

kindness, compassion, morality, dignity, values...

how else should we categorized them except by saying "spiritual matters."

I define spirituality as "not tangible things or not corporal." I believe the Christians, too, define it as such.

And I, an atheist, am not being a hypocrite when I say I believe in things spiritual. Spiritual matter are not the exclusive domain of the theist.

[Carrie]

No, you spiritual Atheists are just weeeeird! KIDDING!

Those are all good explanations of what spiritual can mean. It's a little different for everyone. I'll have to think about whether or how I am spiritual, or if I want to be. I'd like to try meditating. And seaching for truth could be spiritual, and trying to be a good person. I do that.

Having rituals would be cool too. On my birthday, I got roses, and when the roses died, I scattered the petals in the wind and made wishes. I didn't expect the wishes to be granted, but it was more of a way to think about the goals I have for the next year, and my ideals. I suppose that could be spiritual. I just never thought of it that way.

Since quitting Christianity, I kicked the idea of being spiritual out the door too. But I guess I was seeing spirituality as prayer and worship. It's nice to know how many different things "spiritual" can mean. And it's true, telling someone you are a "spiritual" person lessens their shock of you being an Atheist.

[Marduk]

Meditation sounds right, Buddhists and Taoists are often atheists, stressing moderation ‘the middle path’, compassion, respect for all life and nature, thinking of others before yourself, that sort of thing.

[Enlighten Me]

Originally posted by Carrie


Having rituals would be cool too.

Breakfast, lunch and dinner are nice rituals.......:D

[fando]

Atheism only implies nonbelief in a deity or deities, particularily anthropomorphic entities with certain powers. Some say there's more to the definition, but technically speaking there isn't. You can have atheists who believe that aliens are visiting us, atheists who are spiritual Buddhists, atheists who believe in ghosts and so on.

[my dog earl]

I found myself at the bottom of the Grand Canyon just staring at the natural wonderment of it all and broke into tears.......and after that experience I called myself spiritual.........I found myself a few years later at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and stared at the natural wonders and couldn't bring myself to tears.......go figure.

[gsx1138]

I would guess for the same reason that I say I'm Wiccan even though I'm Pagan. If need be it gives me time to explain my position before the verbalized judgements begin. Since Pagan has a negative connotation to Christians they automatically shut down. I know some of you get that when you say you're an atheist. I say, "Wiccan." They say, "Huh? or What's that?" Or they just dismiss it and move on. Every "good" Christian knows you have to keep your eye on those "evil" Pagans and Atheists.

[Rational BAC]

Pagan spirituality has no negative connotation to me at all.

And I am a Christian. I feel very sorry for those who cannot think "outside the box" --------believe that they are limiting themselves seriously. And they are limiting the main thing that makes them human.


I hate to say this, but I think that most atheists are so "rational" that they live in a little, very tiny, "box" of their own making.

Spiritualism is very necessary to call yourself human.

I seriously doubt that a dog or a cat or an elephant thinks about anything except its day to day moment to moment existence living in a "reality" these animals understand so well and cannot comprehend of any other.

Humans have always been "different" that way and that is what makes us unique among living forms on this planet.

Humans think "beyond the box". We are spiritual in nature. And that is what separates us from the "lower" creatures on the Earth.

It would be very obvious in the beginning to any intelligent creature on this earth that--------the earth is flat. That the sun goes around the earth. That the stars are fixed. That is reason working. That is stick in the mud rationality working.

I wish sometimes that atheists would not be such stick in the muds.

At least admit the possibility of things beyond our senses and our intelligence ---admit to the necessity of spirituality for humanity and I will consider you more human.


Great topic by the way.

[Colorado Infidel]

http://americanatheist.org/spr03/T1/eller.html

"Why I Am Not Spiritual" by David Eller

[Soul Invictus]

Check this out and let me know what you think - (http://www.spiritualmidwifery.com/archives/december1999.shtml)

Let me know your opinions and critiques!

[Enlighten Me]

Originally posted by Rational BAC


I wish sometimes that atheists would not be such stick in the muds.




I could not disagree more with your discription of atheists. The ones I encounter here are mostly lively, fun and HIGHLY intelligent. It's the robotic Christians, with smug, rote answers and black and white thinking who better qualify as "sticks-in- the mud" (present Christians excluded, of course).:)

[southernhybrid]

spir·i·tu·al [Audio pronunciation of spiritual] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-ch-l)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material.

The above definition, from dictionary.com, is the one I use when I refer to myself as a spiritual atheist. I often feel a very strong connection to the other animals, and living things that share the planet with me. That spiritual or emotional connection if you prefer, often gives me feelings of joy and helps me act in positive ways. While I don't believe there is any supernatural reason for this, and instead think it's probably just a matter of synaptic development, it still adds a lot of satisfaction to my life and hopefully enriches the lives of those who I interact with at times. That's all that spirituality means to me.

Spirit is about attitude and frame of mind and to me it has nothing to do with supernatural beings. It's about those things that move our emotions, inspire us to action, or give us the courage to face adversity with strength and dignity. It's really that simple and it has nothing to do with religion, although many religious people are also spiritual.

When I watch the sun slowing slipping into the sea at the end of the day, I feel a very strong connection to life, and am moved by the beauty of this event. When I comfort an 85 year old patient suffering from dementia by gently helping bring her back to a more comfortable place in her mind, I feel very moved emotionally. Those are examples of my spiritual side.

[Rousseau_CHN]

After reading "Why I Am Not Spiritual" by David Eller.

I'm convinced. I didn't experience anything spiritual. Kindness, compassion, morality and virtue are not spiritual experience--they are human experience.

[Carrie]

Yes the "Why I am not spiritual" article is very good. I change my mind on some things pretty easily. I suppose that instead of having "spiritual" experiences, I have human experiences. And human experiences can be amazing. When I am moved emotionally, when I make wishes, when I meditate, when I am grateful, when I feel at one with nature, etc., these are all human experiences. Most people feel / do these kinds of things, so every person could be considered spiritual. Rather, I'd just say that we're all human, experiencing and expressing our humanity. And the depths of human expreience and expression is really something wonderful.

[Rational BAC]

Carrie---

If what you are saying is that the essence of humanity is its ability to be "spiritual" I agree with you completely.

It is our "spirituality" that makes us humans so wonderfully unique on this planet.

I think the "lower" animals ---dogs, cats etc. ----are the most rational beings on this planet. I seriously doubt that dogs or cats are in any way spiritual. Does a dog or cat think outside of the box of the very limited reality it considers to be the "real" world? NAAH !!

And where did all this rationality get dogs or cats? ------subjugation to us very spiritual humans.

[BadBadBad]

Originally posted by Jinto
Spiritual is a term that means (roughly) "I'm not religous, but I don't want the stigma associated with being nonreligous."

Absolutely. I heard this the other day, and that's exactly what I thought.

I read Salem's Lot by Steven King when I was in college. Silly stuff about vampires, but the guy can have you afraid of that monster that hid in your closet when you were a kid in no time, even as an adult. I could choose to let my childhood imagination get a hold of me when I walk into a dark closet, but somewhere along the way I learned that had a real negative stigma associated with right along with believing in Santa Claus.

Spiritual is the same thing only instead of being discouraged, our culture attaches a real positive stigma to it. They might actually let themselves believe in spirituality, whatever that is, just like I could let myself be afraid of the dark. Perhaps they are not spiritual to avoid the stigma of atheism. Perhaps they are instead spiritual to wear the badge of honor for being religious while skipping the scarlet letter of Christianity.

Christians do the same thing all the time by claiming to be True Christians TM, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jehovah Witness, Cherry Pickers, non-literalists, etc etc.

Dr Seuss had a way of making it simple enough for a child to understand. Take a moment to read this. I love it. It's perfect.


The Sneetches (http://journeys.thericehouse.net/pager/6,50,10)

"Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches
Had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches
Had none upon thars.

Those stars weren't so big. They were really so small
You might think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.

But because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches
Would brag, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches."
With their snoots in the air they would sniff and they'd snort
"We'll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!"
And whenever they met some when they were out walking
They'd hike right on past them without even talking."

.
.
.

"Then up came McBean with a very sly wink
And he said, "Things are not quite as bad as you think.
So you don't know who's who. That is perfectly true.
But come with me, friends. Do you know what I'll do?
I'll make you again the best Sneetches on beaches
And all it will cost you is ten dollars eaches."

"Belly stars are no longer in style," said McBean.
What you need is a trip through my Star-Off Machine.
This wondrous contraption will take off your stars
So you won't look like Sneetches who have them on thars."

And that handy machine
Working very precisely
Removed all the stars from their tummies quite nicely.

Then with snoots in the air, they paraded about
And they opened their beaks and they let out a shout,
"We know who is who! Now there isn't a doubt.
The best kind of Sneetches are Sneetches without!"

[2human]

David Eller's text "Why I Am Not Spiritual" made up my mind.

http://americanatheist.org/spr03/T1/eller.html

I have to drop my religious atheist or religious naturalist.
From now on I have to see me as a human naturalist.

That is the most accurate way to describe our position isn't it?

Bernt Rostrom

[MollyMac]

Interesting thread. I know many secular humanists who describe themselves as 'spiritual' people and there is no way they are afraid of the stigma of being non-religious. The society we live in is largely secular and there is more of a stigma to being overtly religious than the opposite.

I've always avoided using the term myself because I have been unable to define exactly what I think it means. Having read through David Eller's article I think these extracts are helpful:

What 'spritual' experiences...have in common is their power, their capacity to grab us and sweep us away emotionally in ways that ordinary life cannot or does not...They feel like more than life, like extra life - more energetic, vibrant, and alive than normal life - and they feel like they come from outside of us....Spiritual experiences are those that seem to have more of that animating or vital stuff or force than mundane experiences do.

So presumably a 'spiritual person' is someone who feels they are more open than average to having 'spiritual experiences' or who seeks and relishes them more....or something like that. Where I disagree with David Ellery is his assertion that people think:

Where then could such a spiritual experience, such spiritual power, originate from? It cannot be from us, because we are just inert matter. It must be from wherever that first spirit originated, the one that gave us life in the first place, It must be from heaven, from the spirits, from god(s).

Nonsense. I know of no 'spiritual' atheist who believes this. They would all agree with him when he says:

...the things that we call spiritual are precisely of this world. They are natural, and they are social. They are not 'other life' but simply 'more life.' They are not 'other than human,' they are 'more human.' They are the best of human...in reality, it is discovering deeper or better levels inside of ourselves. It is encountering humanness at its fullest...We are the source. 'Spiritual' experiences are in fact human experiences - the best, the strongest, the most prfound human experiences, but human nonetheless. They are not a kind of non-humanness but a kind of ultra-humanness......

Absolutely spot on!

Personally, having read Eller's conclusion:
Atheists are not spiritual and do not have spiritual experiences. Never again should we say 'I had a spiritual experience.' Instead, the next time you see a particularly beautiful sunset or cute baby, simply say, 'I had a life experience' - or better yet, 'I had a human experience' - and encourage others to do the same.
...I am dissatisfied. It seems to me that theists and atheists alike can understand what we mean when we use the term 'spiritual' experience though we are likely to disagree with its source. Eller's suggestion that we replace it with terms such as 'life experience' or 'human experience' just won't do - these terms already have meanings which have nothing to do with being moved by a sunset. Similarly, if I suggest to someone that instead of saying 'I'm a very spiritual person', they replace the word 'spiritual' with a word like 'emotional' 'sensitive' or just 'human', they would be entitled to protest that those words don't convey what they really mean and in fact convey something rather different.

So having sat on the fence for quite a while, I'm coming down on the side of people who, while being atheist to the core, while having no time for the idea of anything supernatural, reserve the right to think of themselves as being spiritual. In fact, I might start using it about myself.

[Enlighten Me]

Originally posted by MollyMac
The society we live in is largely secular and there is more of a stigma to being overtly religious than the opposite.


Since I live in the U.S., I can't agree with you.....:(

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Carrie---

If what you are saying is that the essence of humanity is its ability to be "spiritual" I agree with you completely.

It is our "spirituality" that makes us humans so wonderfully unique on this planet.

I think the "lower" animals ---dogs, cats etc. ----are the most rational beings on this planet. I seriously doubt that dogs or cats are in any way spiritual. Does a dog or cat think outside of the box of the very limited reality it considers to be the "real" world? NAAH !!

And where did all this rationality get dogs or cats? ------subjugation to us very spiritual humans.

Did you get a chance to view my link? As a Christian, I'd be interested in your opinions. (without the intent on berating you, as you've been subject to)

[Rational BAC]

I did read the link. The first part --about religion and spirituality--has almost nothing to with me being either a Christian or spiritual. ---I think there are very few Christians who would remotely agree with his interpretation of their Christianity----Some people are only comfortable with black and white definitions which rarely fit anything at all.


I am more aligned with his second definition of spirituality------but that doesn't stop me in any way from being a Christian.----and I think most Christians think of their spirituality along the terms of his second part.

[Bree]

spir·i·tu·al (spr-ch-l)
adj.
[list=1] Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural
Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
[/list=1]
I say I'm "spiritual" when I'm discussing art or artistic works, i.e. "when I'm playing X, it's really a spiritual experience" - basically it's an easy way to describe something that no words describe.

[Anti-Creedance Front]

I'm a self-proclaimed spiritual agnostic. I think I would go with definition number 3. There's just some feelings that can only be described as soulful. As for spiritual atheists, that's kind of an oxymoron since most barricade themselves off from anything remotely relating to the "supernatural" or spiritual.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Funnily enough, even though I'm a Buddhist in the Vajrayana swing of things with all of the beliefs that this entails, I actually think that an Atheist or Agnostic with no such beliefs can be spiritual.

Don't ask me to justify this with an essay or thrillingly good argument.

It's something along the lines of they might be contemplative, have a sense of wonder at the beauty of nature or the mysteries of physics, respect for other varieties of sentient life, compassion for fellow humans in distress stuff like that.

[bernie43]

Is it wrong to awaken an old thread?

I have a vague feeling that it is not encouraged. If that is soo I could start a new. But I am not good at expressing myself and the OP is a good description.

but I like the title of this thread. And that several of us did actually refer to David Eller. Since 2003 he has coming out with a book that express his views on atheism and life.

I have human experiences is a better way then to say one have a spiritual experience. Dawkins have such experiences too. He wrote in Free Inquiry about Einstein' use of religious words like God and such. Also took up Hawkins and others. both these words spiritual and religous is confusing when an atheist use them. None or very few would get what we talks about.

We also need words for the behavior of some atheists that behave in ways that is non-productive to furthering our cause.

Bernt Rostrom

[jastity]

No one has ever been able to explain to me what spiritual means.

Its another delusion. I'm an atheist.

[mirage]

What the hell is this "box" us atheists are all supposed to be in? I find that a little patronising, but then again I think I know better than you too.

Spiritual experiences as far as anyone can come to a consensus often means a feeling of transcendence, of being part of a greater whole, an ability to feel awe.

It's something the brain does. It's pretty cool and I highly recommend it. It tells us roughly jack shit about the larger universe, which, yes, is a great mystery.

[TomboyMom]

I can only try to clarify what I mean when I say it about myself, which I do. I am a strong atheist, and I consider myself to be a spritual person. What I mean by this is that I am a part of something larger than myself--the universe. My consciousness of my individuality normally prevents me from experiencing an awareness of this. Through specific practices and experiences, I am sometimes able to realize an awareness of this, which I refer to as a spiritual experience. Because I believe that it is possible to experience this, and because I am interested in it and find it important in my life, I consider myself a spiritual person.

By atheist, I mean that I do not believe in the existence of any God, meaning a creator/being who cannot be tangibly experienced.

BTW Sam Harris has a very interesting chapter about this in his outstanding book, The End of Faith.

[Bold]

OK I can clear this one up, boys and girls.

"Spritual" is a feeling

- for everybody who is spiritual, theist or atheist.

Non-spiritual people probably have the same feeling - I think I have the same feeling - but don't call it "spiritual". I don't know what I do call it, I don't name all my feelings, they don't always fit neat categories.

Somebody might say that you have to be spiritual to be fully human because to them feeling spritual feels like an important part of feeling fully human. Other people might say that about other feelings just as reasonably.

Because we don't know that we each label our feelings in the same way - or even that the feelings we each feel are strictly comparable once they get tied up with ideas and values and language - arguments about this are pretty pointless.

[trendkill]

Mirage and Bold have got it. What it means when people who don't believe in spirits say they are 'spiritual' is that our language is biased in favor of religion. They are talking about feelings that are not inherently religious, but religion has something of a monopoly on the terminology for them. Personally I try to never say "spiritual"; I think "transcendent" is a term that's both more accurate and less biased.

[Clete]

Mirage and Bold have got it. What it means when people who don't believe in spirits say they are 'spiritual' is that our language is biased in favor of religion. They are talking about feelings that are not inherently religious, but religion has something of a monopoly on the terminology for them. Personally I try to never say "spiritual"; I think "transcendent" is a term that's both more accurate and less biased.

:thumbs:

Thank you so much for that post! I totally agree. And I think "transcendent" is an excellent term for the kind of stirring of emotions that has been discussed here.

[bernie43]

Trendkill, I partly agree. But transcend to many people is a religious word.

Many get the notion or connotation that you transcend "mere matter" or what it is to be human. The spiritual is supposed to be higher or more refined than the material and human that they see as low.

I like David Eller's approach better. To see that feeling as more human. To belong to this material world. That is why it is soo valueable to us.

We are made of star dust so that makes us at home i nthe material world and not in the spiritual world.

Bernt

[southernhybrid]

It all reminds me of a song.
You say transcendant, I say spiritual. Let's call the whole thing off.

This kind of thing gets old, doesn't it. I don't care what words other atheists use, so please don't tell me what words I can use.

[trendkill]

Clete, you're welcome.

But transcend to many people is a religious word. True, but it is more neutral than "spiritual". I guess the main reason I like it is, it's more accurate. It describes what the feeling is about better than "spiritual" does. It's more to the point.


This kind of thing gets old, doesn't it.No, it doesn't, actually. Words are interesting, and significant. What really gets old is people posting in a discussion to say they're not interested in the discussion.

[bernie43]

SouthernHybrid, may I ask if you agree to be seen as
ELGS said: People don't like to be labeled, they like to label themselves.
Words are very important. Why else would only some 10 percent accept the word Bright here in IIDB if words didn't matter very much to us.

Bernt

Originally Posted by EverLastingGodStopper (Janice)
Try reading this old thread: "The Brights, Collected Posts."

People don't like to be labeled, they like to label themselves.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2215195#post2215195

[y-chromo kid]

I've never understood what people mean when they say they are spiritual, yet they're Atheist or Agnostic.


I use the term spiritual in a broad sense. I think you might be relying on a narrow, organised-religious definition of spiritual. I consider myself spiritual because I am open to the wonder and complexity of nature/reality/universe, at times I am moved by it. I guess its a poetic feeling, bought about by reflection and observation. It doesn't require a deity either

[Eudaimonist]

I've never understood what people mean when they say they are spiritual, yet they're Atheist or Agnostic.

I don't know what other atheists mean when they call themselves spiritual, but I call myself that, and what I mean is that I have the specific intention to develop myself -- my "spirit", metaphysically naturalistically understood -- so that I have an improved understanding and sense of life. I seek to become more wise and to have a more joyful and courageous sense of life and its possibilities. I am "spiritual" in that my goals in life aren't primarily external and materially-oriented in nature, i.e. my life's goals aren't mainly about money or possessions. (Note: I think there can be plenty of overlap between material and spiritual goals, so I am not bashing material goals. I simply think that spiritual goals should be given a high priority in life.)

I have deep thoughts, and I appreciate the beauty of life and I enjoy nature and stuff like that, but I don't think I'm spiritual at all.

Maybe you are! :)

[Fencesitter]

I was talking about a friend about being spiritual. She said that she wasn't very spiritual, but that she believed that other people could be. She noted that some people are musical while others more physically attuned. It's possible that some people are more spiritual than others--meaning I guess that some people are more aware or more attuned to the experiences that people consider spiritual.

If that's the case, then is it possible that some people experience spirituality while others either don't or experience it in a different way? I believe so.

Fence

[Jobar]

The spirituality of atheists (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1399112#post1399112)

"Spirit" comes from the same word as "inspiration". It means "breath".

Think about your breathing. It's taking in the air around you. You inspire, and in a small but very real way you make that which is not you- the air- into you. In the most basic sense, you and the air become one.

In the same way, when you eat the molecules of the food are integrated into the pattern which is your body, and that pattern then produces the pattern which is your mind and personality.

When we die, our bodies dissolve back into the pattern of the world around us.

Spirituality is the recognition that, at the most basic level, you and the universe are one. It's the balance point where the concrete meets the abstract, and the mind meets the body, and you meet the universe. It isn't supernatural at all.

[doubtingt]

And where did all this rationality get dogs or cats? ------subjugation to us very spiritual humans.

Cats and dogs are "subjugated" to us (i.e., domesticated) precisely because of our rationality, not "spirituality". We were able to domesticate them as a result of observing the world with our senses, detecting patterns of covariance and causality, logically infering certain principles and then using more reasoned and rational thought to apply these principles to breeding animals.

"Thinking outside the box" is central to reason and rationality. Recognizing that their is more to the world than what is within our current body of knowledge is the engine that drives rational thought to seek out greater understanding and modify current thinking. The concepts of "spirituality" add nothing to this, except maybe an arrogance to claim to "know" in some vague sense what it is that human reason cannot understand.

I've seen no definitions of "spiritual" that don't obscure, confuse and detract from an understanding and ability to have discourse about the human psychological phenomenon that the term is applied to.

[Verloc]

The "spirit" is a dumping ground for the indescribable. To be "spiritual" can mean any thing.

Therefore, it means nothing.

[bernie43]

Which brings us back to that we need effective words for communication.

If we want to get understood we either need to use neutral words that has as little baggage as possible or new words that has no baggage.

Consilience was chosen by Wilson to say something he find no good modern word for.

Spiritual is an ambigious word. sure maybe some would get what you refer to but others would get soo entangled in connotations that you they have to sort them out b4 they could start listening again.

spiritual you go to sceanses and talk to your dead parents?
spiritual your a Channeler of messages from The Wise Elders.
spiritual you sense the little people in the wood and see them as mentors.
spiritual you see spirit in the whole of nature but as a non personal force or energy
spiritual you find soul in musical expressions
spiritual you ...

To me it is impossible to use. Too many different interpretations claim ownership of the word.

Bernt

[Eudaimonist]

Which brings us back to that we need effective words for communication.

If a word doesn't exist that is commonly understood to mean exactly what you mean by it, there is no alternative but to choose an old word or invent a new word, and explain what you mean by it. Typically, IMO, it is better to choose a pre-existing word that means something close to what you wish to mean by it, and then explain your particular use of it. Even if you coin a new word, you will still have to explain what you mean by it, so there is no alternative for explanation.

[bernie43]

Yes, even if one never give a name to it and only give the description then that description may need some explanations too.

so I am aware of it. But spiritual is not a good word. Why else would David Eller for such many years hold on to not recommend it? why else would Tom Flynn for soo many years not recommend it?

Bernt

PS read how UncleJim for 20 years struggled and then for a month of more tried to explain to us how he use the wiord God. did he succeed? And he see himself as an Objectivist. Did he even got accepted as an Objectivist by the majority of participants here?

Words are more tricky than we usually admit.

[bernie43]

Atheist Law Center President
Larry Darby

He is against us using the word spiritual too.

http://www.atheistlaw.org/archived-article.cfm?id=62
Spirituality & Materialism
Spirituality is a term that has always annoyed me. When I see it used in a positive manner by people who call themselves atheists, I am simply appalled. Spirituality is an essential component of the attack on Materialism by all religions.

...

I have listened to brilliant atheists explain that "spiritual" means "spirited." This is simply not the case, unless you redefine terms in the manner mentioned above.

A number of atheists have spent much of their thinking life immersed in religion, and are unable to stop using “spirituality� even though they no longer believe in the spirit world. They say that they know of no other word with the same meaning. Isn’t that because the word takes a secular concept, the noble aspirations and feelings of people, and turns it into a part of the spirit world? Of course a secular term lacks the punch of “spirituality,� but isn’t that precisely the point of secular knowledge?

Spirituality is diametrically opposed to Materialism. It is a major weapon that the theists have used against us for centuries. I have called it the “s-word� for twenty years.

Bernt

[Eudaimonist]

But spiritual is not a good word. Why else would David Eller for such many years hold on to not recommend it? why else would Tom Flynn for soo many years not recommend it?

Are you making an argument from authority?

I don't care how many distinguished people you could name that don't like the word spirituality. I can name distinguished atheists who like the word.

If you don't like the word, that's fine. I'm not saying you should like it as much as I do. What I'm saying is that there is no popular word that means what you want it to mean, so the burden of explanation is always present. I just happen to prefer words in the dictionary over neologisms.

[Amedeo]

I've never understood what people mean when they say they are spiritual, yet they're Atheist or Agnostic.

There's an Atheist guy I know who says he's spiritual, but he doesn't have any religious practices, and he doesn't do anything special or act in any special way. So what makes him so spiritual? Maybe he has deep thoughts or something, but I wouldn't say that makes him spiritual.

I have deep thoughts, and I appreciate the beauty of life and I enjoy nature and stuff like that, but I don't think I'm spiritual at all. I'm just a regular gal. I don't even think being spiritual is necessarily a virtue. It could just mean that the person is weird or thinks too highly of themselves.

So what's the big deal with being spiritual?

Obviously you associate "spiritual" with "religious." Many people do. And that is why I myself do not like to use the word for something which is "spiritual" and yet unconnected with religion. Many of the writers on this thread are deeply aware of the ambiguity of the term.... and perhaps of the need of a new word.

I'll make a few comments about "spirituality" in its connection with religion.

Some sincere and caring religious people try to guide others, for they see that some other people DEVOTE THEIR LIVES to making money or accumulating possessions or spending their time (life) in pleasures, whether
of lust or gluttony or narcotics, and so forth.

They are talking about lives which are spend in such pursuits, which they call materialistic pursuits. The pursuits are in a way compulsive, addictions, which in fact control the lives of the pursuers. Truly caring people are talking about only such addictions, not about the simple fact of seeking nurishment or caring for one's heath, or engaging in pleasures, or having property.

By contrast, however, some people devote themselves to things which are not perceptual or physical: "spiritual" pursuits are devotions to invisibles, such as God, or devoting oneself to the care of the soul, meaning acting morally and without arrogance -- without arrogating to oneself values or qualities or authority which one does not have. In other words, the spiritual life is a life which tends his moral serlf and binds itself to Heavens or God. (This means purity of character and religion, the binding of oneself to the divine.)

So, for theists and religionists, the opposition of materialism and spiritualism (spirituality) is the opposition between addictions to bodily things and cares of invisible things [of the spirit]. For ascetics and hermits, their notion of materialism includes ALL cares of worldly things. So, they consider taking food or working for food a necessary evil (necessarly for living at all), sexual intercourse a necessary evil (necessary for procreation), and so forth.

Freethinkers (seekers of truth and feedom who are against orthodoxies of all kinds), atheists, philosophers, and others, may also speak of materialism and spirituality. What they mean by materialism corresponds to a live addicted to the pursut of money, possessions, pleasures, or anything else in the world one lives for. They definitely do not mean by "materialist," what ascetics, religion prophets, and other deranged people mean.

What is spirituality for secularists? Certainly not devotion to invisible supernatural realities. As for morality or general purity of character, a secularist will act as he chooses, but he does not spend his life to the formation of a moral character or personality. A monk, on the other hand, whether theistic or atheistic, may so run his life as to make a morally perfect "self". He becomes a professional moralist, as his life occupation is self-perfection; may form monk-associations or monasteries, where they wear a uniform, do not form families, and regulate their deeds, their breathing, and they looks for the attainment or a moral artifact (their own selves). Secularists shun the life of addiction whether in the direction of visible or in the direction of the invisibles. (They are also people addicted to religion; they are the professional religionists or clerics. Non-clerics who are addicted to living by the sanctuary, or fanus in Latin, are called... fanatics.)

Now, it happens to be the case that man consists of matter and spirit, or body and soul, or brain and mind. (In another thread, I described human phenomena which are classifiable as material (physical) or spiritual, corporeal or psychic, cerebral or mental, and I hastened to point out that man does NOT consists of two types of substance. A man is ONE being which, as self-experiencing appears as "spiritual", and as observed by others is "material." There is no ontological duality in man.) Insofar as one lives materially (physically), one moves, works, eats, has sexual interactions, takes or gives things, and so forth. But I like to call this "somatic living," for the human organism consists of two interwoven systems: the soma [body system]and the brain [cerebral system]. The brain is an electric powerhouse, , the regulator of organism fuctions, the voluntary agent of movements, and anything else it has to do with the soma.

At the same time, the brain has a life of its own. It has sensory and conceptual consciousness, feeling-consciouness, beauty-consciouness, will-thrust consciouness, attitude-cosciousness, memory (or consciouness preserved), etc. This cerebral life is also called mind. And all things of the minds have characteristics antithetical to what is bodily. The Mind or Spirit is the human being as it experiences itself. Mind or Spirit is not a substance amonst others. So, a man can be said to live spiritually insofar as he perceives things, love beauty, desires people, hates people, seeks knowledge, contemplates the nature of things, invents and engineers, creates beautiful things, excogitates mathematical systems, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, a man might say that he is a spiritualist rather than a materialist, if he devotes himself predominantly to living the spiritual life [creating, inventing, exogitating, contemplating, seeking or exploring, and so forth]. So, one can be called a materialist if fe devotes himself predominantly to living a somatic life.

As you can see, it would be best for a secularist not to use the words "materialist" and "spiritualist" since they are most likely to be misleading or to be taken in the way religionists or monks use them. Perhaps "somaticist" and "noeticist" are sufficient to designate the DIRECTIONS in which men predominatly live or lead their lives, whether by circumstance or by design. That is also an old pair of terms which is suitable for a secularist, as they describe personality: EXTROVERT and INTROVERT.

[Amedeo]

The spiritual living of secularists has historically given rise to philosophy, science, mathematics, historiography, works of beauty (from music and poetry to architecture and usables-design), technolody, undustries, and so form. All of thse belong to what Vico called the Age of MEN (in contradisticion to the Ages of Gods and Heroes). Human wisdom and human creativity are far beyond theological mythology and lordly domination. And yet some petty religionists today still claim that moral wisdom was provided by God (a god) and that indeed man could not attain a moral life except through divine grace. This, of course, is a theological doctrine, not a historical [researched] statement of the source or morality and of moral actions.

The truth of the matter is that the alleged theophany of moral wisdom is nothing but a collections of laws which humans have created and instituted (before they were arrogated and attributed to a divine source). For instance the 10 Commandments is a puny collection (containing also orders by clerics or prophets concerning allegiance to and respect for a god), which, at any rate, is explicitly and implicitly a set of precepts unto the Israelites, not unto mankind. [The god of Moses was a tribal God, not a catholic god.]

Moral teachings which are not identical with political laws (edicts emanating from the will of lords) come from secular prophets (oracular speakers) and philosophers. Plato was the first to formulate a code of morals or of the moral qualities [virtues] which ought to be pursued: Moderation or Temperance, Justice, Wisdom, and Fortitude or Courage. For the first time in history it was declared that man has the moral duty to be wise, to seek and attain true knowledge rather than just being honest in a court of law (where one bears witness to what he BELIVES to be true). Socrates had said that one acts evilly out of ignorance. So, to act morally correctly, one has to have true knowledge of what is morally good. (One is not morally correct by obedience to law or commandments, but by enacting what IS morally good!)

Anyone can see now that Temperance refers to "somatic" living; the excesses would be the addictions we talked about. Justice is what is right in inter-human relations; it is the "unicuique suum" of the Justinian Code of Roman law [to each his own]. In that Code, it is called one of the three PRINCIPLES of laws, the others being, Do no harm unto others, and Be honest. Justice is the "JUS" or Right which was calculated in the courts of the Roman republic (not edicts by any lord or ruler). Jurisprudence is the elaborated secular wisdom about What Is Right.

And then came Cicero, who reached the understanding that the basis for the possibility of being virtuous is love. It is out of love for others, for oneself, and for the world that one will aim at becoming morally good [virtuous]. Love is the precondition of virtue or, as Augustine was to put it, the first moral "law."

[IvanJames]

I think it means you want to date a Buddhist.

---Ivan James

[Eudaimonist]

What is spirituality for secularists? Certainly not devotion to invisible supernatural realities.

True, though I don't think there is just one type of spirituality possible for secularists.

As for morality or general purity of character, a secularist will act as he chooses, but he does not spend his life to the formation of a moral character or personality.

It seems to me that this is a valid choice for a secularist. But, then, I don't confuse "the formation of a moral character or personality" with the sheltered life of living in a monestary. One can develop moral character out in "the world".

A man is ONE being which, as self-experiencing appears as "spiritual", and as observed by others is "material."

Agreed here. :) It is in this sense that I refer to spiritual pursuits. We all have a spiritual aspect --a "self" -- to attend to, even if there is no ontological split in our natures.

[Kosh]

I've never understood what people mean when they say they are spiritual, yet they're Atheist or Agnostic.

I always thought it was just a pick-up line.

[southernhybrid]

If you don't like the word, that's fine. I'm not saying you should like it as much as I do. What I'm saying is that there is no popular word that means what you want it to mean, so the burden of explanation is always present. I just happen to prefer words in the dictionary over neologisms.

Amen!

Oh no! I said Amen. I used a religious word and gave it a secular connotation. I'm a bad atheist. :D

Argument from celebrity status.

Carl Sagan used the word spritual and I really liked Sagan. Sagan knows the true atheist dogma and the proper atheist words. ;)


I hope you all will excuse the humor, but can't you see how ironic it becomes when an atheist starts telling other atheists what words they can or can't use? I'd much rather see atheists promote tolerance for each other's unique viewpoints. Perhaps the need for dogma is too much a part of human nature and infects even the atheist. :confused:

[trendkill]

Perhaps the need for dogma is too much a part of human nature and infects even the atheist. :confused:
And what a unique sentiment that is on this board--how clever, comparing atheists to theists. :rolleyes:

No one has said what atheists "can't" do, only what they think they should do. But it's convenient to cloak your irrational distaste for a legitimate discussion about the effectiveness of words behind unfounded accusations of dogmatism and authoritarianism.

[bernie43]

spirit, spiritual and spirituality spiritualistic and soo forth.

they are words. words are tools for communication. If the tool fail again and again due to the listerner getting their own connotation and making them go into completely wrong thinking what we try to say then I think it is more practical to find less ambigious words to have in our toolbox.

suppose we do go into a dark age. 1950 coming back. Much support such a view. Authoritarian views get political upperhand all over the world.

the oppression of us who don't ascribe to faith in the superantural could soon be a reality. To get a job as an atheist could become harder in more companies.

It could be related to such terms as "to fit in", to have "social competence".

It doesn't need to be expressed in terms of lack of faith in God although such do exists even now for example in Norway if it has not changed lately.

If you wanted a job in child care you would promise to reach them in a christian way. That could be why so many as 64,000 are paying members of their atheist org. compare this with only 1400 members in Sweden.

I interp Carrier to say that for us to have any political say we "ought to".

Not that SH or anybody else must do this. Any atheist make up their own mind on this but to be effective politically we need to show that we have common goals. He looked for those he thougth we statistically could agree on. That means that he knew some would opt out.

To not even be able to talk about it would seem odd behavior.

Don't the Moderators tell us what rules to abide to here too. If no atheist is to tell me what is ok and not ok why accept that they do such things?

Bernt