Biggest problem with athiesm

[Dustnite]

Spirit is just stuff you feel. It's not just your brain, but it's your kidneys and your pancreas and your shitty knees that don't like to sit down for more than an hour and it's all those things combined to make the spirit. It's not something that can be detached from the body, because it's a result of that body in connection with a super charged brain.

If your mind was a computer, the spirit would be the operating system. Periodic background virus scans and windows updates would be spiritual experiences, things you don't think about consciously and don't have any obvious input stimulus to make them go. Obviously there IS some kind of stimulus but without a perfect understanding of how the computer is working, it seems very random. (Imagine for a second that your computer didn't have an internal clock you could see and there was no calendar to keep track of when those pesky updates are scheduled. Obviously they're just scheduled regularly)

Not sure if I'm understanding this metaphor (if that's what your going for.) or if you are trying to describe a physical process...

I mean your describing autonomic responses as akin to a spirtual essence, when I could just describe them as autonomic responses. Why are we assigning more meaning to things that are a part of anatomy or part of the brain rather than marveling at the operation of the human body in and of itself. I see no need to tack on spirituality to grant special meaning to something like love, creativity, or experience when you already can see wonders in the actual human ability to process these sensations.

 

[Unwardil]

Because to the outside observer they're autonomic responses, to the person experiencing them, they aren't, unless you are of sufficiently detached mindset to be able to recognize them as such. Knowing that your head ache is being caused by a slight inflammation of some muscle somewhere doesn't make loud noises any less painful. Basically, it's spiritual because you can't detach yourself from your body and watch it happening to you with the cold indifference of an impartial observer... Well, not yet anyway.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The biggest problem with atheism is the lack of rich atheist organizations that will pay me to sit at home and bitch about the evil and stupidity of religion.

 

[kenandkids]

So very true...

 

[Demojen]

I want atheist organizations to get tax exempt status for helping humanity escape the dogma of religion.

There is no reason that a charity can not be formed that is tax exempt and is inherently atheist. It doesn't happen enough. Instead, atheists help their respective communities with absolutely no recognition.
With no fear.
With no shame.
With no loss.

Hunter Patch Adams: You treat a disease, you win, you lose. You treat a person, I guarantee you, you'll win, no matter what the outcome.

 

[Andiferous]

Because to the outside observer they're autonomic responses, to the person experiencing them, they aren't, unless you are of sufficiently detached mindset to be able to recognize them as such. Knowing that your head ache is being caused by a slight inflammation of some muscle somewhere doesn't make loud noises any less painful. Basically, it's spiritual because you can't detach yourself from your body and watch it happening to you with the cold indifference of an impartial observer... Well, not yet anyway.

I find that explaining 'spirit' as consciousness outside of a religious context difficult to understand - unless the word is used as a symbol or metaphor for self-awareness . It tends to get confused with the traditional definitions of soul, I think. I have no problem addressing emotional attachments as spiritual either, because it seems we lack a perfectly unemotional understanding of emotions so there's little accuracy anyway.

It might be legitimately used in plural (as opposed to singular). Spirit may be a brand of energy/motivation that a person can volley back and forth among other people, or even a shared 'energy' among different folks. I didn't check, but I'm sure there's a definition somewhere that would make the word perfectly understandable and valid in plural. It may also pertain to that shared recognition of consciousness among an individual being and others.

And finally, some people see spirit as the 'spark of life' that we can separate from other physical processes, but not yet fully account for. That part lacking in robots right now.

I don't believe in the traditional definitions at all, but I won't rule out all the others until they're all fully explored...

 

[Laurens]

What you have to think is this:

What are people's initial reactions going to be towards you describing yourself as spiritual?

Is their initial reaction to the word an accurate portrayal of you intended to use it? (I'd say in this case people are most likely not going to think 'atheist' when you describe yourself as spiritual)

If not, can you be bothered explaining to everyone how you did actually mean to use the word?

If you can't be bothered then use a different word...

 

[Welshidiot]

@ ALL

When I hear the word "spiritual" used in it's colloquial context it seems to me that it refers to things of the mind and emotions, and it also refers to an inclination to dedicate oneself to something larger than oneself.

So could we usefully redefine "spiritual" as "empathic and altruistic"...?

 

[Unwardil]

What you have to think is this:

What are people's initial reactions going to be towards you describing yourself as spiritual?

Is their initial reaction to the word an accurate portrayal of you intended to use it? (I'd say in this case people are most likely not going to think 'atheist' when you describe yourself as spiritual)

If not, can you be bothered explaining to everyone how you did actually mean to use the word?

If you can't be bothered then use a different word...

Well, absolutely agree that words mean what people think they mean, not what you meant which is why I wouldn't describe myself as spiritual. I try as often as possible to notice when my state of mind is being affected by some kind of abnormal chemical process, but I'm not going to deny that it can feel powerful. Try not snapping at someone the next time you have a 3 day long headache. Just try. Your state of mind will not reward you for it. Of course you'll feel no better if you DO snap at someone either, but that's just the point. It will definitely feel like the right thing to do, even though it's very obviously not if you look at the situation rationally. This will further be backed up by evidence when whatever it was you might have hoped to achieve is only made worse, but you'll probably do the same thing again because it's just really really hard not to.

That's spirit, that nearly insatiable urge to do something regardless of experience and often flying in the face of reason because the chemicals in your brain made you do it. It probably has something to do with the fact that we used to by rodent creatures a very long way back in our genealogy and there's a small part of us that's still very rat-like. Rats are, among other things, noted for how distinctly inhuman they act and if you thought it was easy to make a human act like an idiot using drugs, you should see the hilarious things they can make rats do.

Where so many people go wrong of course is by making the classic fallacy that because they don't know what is causing them to act in this way, that the question is inherently unknowable (possible true yet unlikely) and therefore supernatural (very certainly not true). So when people speak to me of spirituality I can empathize with them on the basis of experience and the very real power that it can have, while at the same time maintaining that they're completely full of shit if they think that it's because of some god or other supernatural dealamajig that's responsible for it.

 

[televator]

@ ALL

When I hear the word "spiritual" used in it's colloquial context it seems to me that it refers to things of the mind and emotions, and it also refers to an inclination to dedicate oneself to something larger than oneself.

So could we usefully redefine "spiritual" as "empathic and altruistic"...?

So why not just use "empathic and altruistic" instead of obscuring it as "spiritual"? Who is to say that that's what every non-believer who uses it means by it?

 

[Welshidiot]

@ ALL

When I hear the word "spiritual" used in it's colloquial context it seems to me that it refers to things of the mind and emotions, and it also refers to an inclination to dedicate oneself to something larger than oneself.

So could we usefully redefine "spiritual" as "empathic and altruistic"...?

So why not just use "empathic and altruistic" instead of obscuring it as "spiritual"? Who is to say that that's what every non-believer who uses it means by it?

I feel it necessary to point out that I asked a tentative question, I did not make any suggestions or recommendations.

To address your questions:
Because the word "spiritual" seems to encapsulate a state of mind/emotional experience that is composed of a variety of other states/experiences, most of which are very hard to adequately describe in words. So having one word which wraps them all up in a package we can all recognise could be useful.

 

[televator]

I honestly missed the question mark at the end. Anyway, you could try to redefine "spiritual" all you want, but there are a lot of people who claim the word already as an identifier and the vast majority tend to be the ones using it in a supernatural sense. So if successfully redefining a word means being effective in getting other people who identify with it to accept it, I don't think that'll be possible any time soon.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

So why not just use "empathic and altruistic" instead of obscuring it as "spiritual"? Who is to say that that's what every non-believer who uses it means by it?

I can think of one very important instance where this can be useful:

It's called trying to communicate with another human being by using words that the other person understands.

If I were in a conversation with another human being I would ask them what they mean when they use a specific word or phrase. If I can reduce what is meant by the words that are used by trying to understand the other individual then I think we have found some sort of common ground.

This depends on your motives in a conversation. Are you trying to win a debate or are you trying to understand the other human being? If you are trying to understand and learn then using words that are familiar with them is probably the best way to understand using communication as opposed to using communication to dictate.

 

[Welshidiot]

I honestly missed the question mark at the end. Anyway, you could try to redefine "spiritual" all you want, but there are a lot of people who claim the word already as an identifier and the vast majority tend to be the ones using it in a supernatural sense. So if successfully redefining a word means being effective in getting other people who identify with it to accept it, I don't think that'll be possible any time soon.

Even when the word spiritual is used by a theist with a supernatural connotation, it is still describing a number of other emotional/intellectual states. There are deists, pantheists, and atheists who still find utility in the word because it describes those emotional and intellectual states.

So perhaps if we could agree on the non-supernatural connotations of the word "spiritual", then we would be left with a word that we all understand, and describes experiences that are common to nearly all humans.......which sounds like a useful word to me.




PS: Which is kind of like what Common Enlightenment said.

 

[RichardMNixon]

So having one word which wraps them all up in a package we can all recognise could be useful.

Sure, but I don't see why you want to use a word with religious connotation. There are other options.

Humanistic
Beneficent
Hell, make some up - Panevolent

 

[Welshidiot]

There are other options.

Humanistic
Beneficent
Hell, make some up - Panevolent

Hmm,....spiritual also covers other things like "transcendent", "ecstatic", etc. It covers a lot of bases, and yet describes a particular type of common experience that most of us have had. Coming up with a new word that does exactly the same without any religious connotation seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction against the religious connotation, rather than a considered reaction as to the utility of the word.

Sure, but I don't see why you want to use a word with religious connotation.

I don't want to use a word with a religious connotation, I want to use word that has utility outside of it's religious connotations, because it's already widely used, and seems to have a generally understood common meaning. All I'm trying to do here is to bring some clarity to it's use.

 

[Noth]

I want to use word that has utility outside of it's religious connotations...

What about 'Numinous' ?
That has both pre-defined religious connotations as well as a completely independent meaning perhaps well-fitting.

 

[nefariousvirtuoso]

atheism needs spirituality as much as a shark needs a motorcycle.

 

[nemesiss]

the real problem with atheism is that it doesn't have a lobby-group to influence (or extort / bribe / intimidate / other indecent act to promote your worldview) politics like religious groups.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

the real problem with atheism is that it doesn't have a lobby-group to influence (or extort / bribe / intimidate / other indecent act to promote your worldview) politics like religious groups.

This right here^^^^. I agree with the second half of the statement.

I'm not so sure that's a problem though.