07 Aug 06
Originally posted by 7ate9Well, Seven-Eight, it is the question that gets right at the divide between theists and non-theists, supernaturalists and non-supernaturalists.
this is a bit hard to explain, but i believe in a spiritual aspect which many could describe as 'God' or 'Satan'. i believe fully in how the bible focuses in on this spiritual and physical from time to time, but to explain what spirituality is may be very hard for some to explain.
i don't know why this hasn't been discussed much in here as this is what thi ...[text shortened]... better or worse.
i don't care what your belief is or none at all.... give it a shot!
Some of us once discussed the question of whether the word “spirituality,” divorced from supernaturalism, is a word left with sufficient meaning for those of us who are, say, Zen Buddhists. Bbarr, who hasn’t been one here for some time, suggested that it was still a useful handle for those of us seeking “the real.” Or something like that.
If this thread can avoid being degraded into nothing but discussions about, “Well, then, what about morality?” maybe it will be a good one. Maybe lucifershammer, LemonJello and I could continue our discussion on the “Why does the devil torture sinners in hell” thread over here—since it really is not directly on point there. (I suggest you read, if you haven’t yet, our discussion on the last page of that thread....
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by 7ate9Sorry 7, but I do not believe that you ever really threw yourself into atheism. If you had, you would never have reconverted to christianity.
i don't mind if you discuss what you want here or there, it's just some of you lot get way over my level of understanding at times. i suggested about having diverting threads so those with opposing views could travel the roads they want further, but that would also be good for differing levels of intellect.
i guess my point is it doesn't matter what you be ...[text shortened]... ht one with many battles it was like hell with all the abuse.
i'm done..... fire away!
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by 7ate9I'm not exactly sure because it's difficult to follow your style (word salad with stream of consciousness dressing -- that's not a criticism, btw), but I think that's the second time in as many posts that you have asserted that we all have a 'spirituality within', or an inner 'spiritual being' or some such. If you are trying to advance the idea that we all have some sort of locus of inner conscious identity that is immortal or permanent, I would disagree entirely. But that doesn't preclude spirituality.
i don't mind if you discuss what you want here or there, it's just some of you lot get way over my level of understanding at times. i suggested about having diverting threads so those with opposing views could travel the roads they want further, but that would also be good for differing levels of intellect.
i guess my point is it doesn't matter what you be ...[text shortened]... ht one with many battles it was like hell with all the abuse.
i'm done..... fire away!
Also, why do you associate atheism with a lack of spirituality? The definition of 'spiritual' from dictionary.com is
spir·i·tu·al
adj.
1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.
Atheism would, presumably, preclude spirituality related to definitions 3 and 4 (and possibly 5 if the atheist is a naturalist). But those definitions are lacking, anyway. That leaves 1 and 2, which certainly seem compatible with atheism. I find the first part of 1 confusing (in exactly the same way I find 5 confusing), but 2 is the definition that I would default to the term 'spiritual', where "soul" is employed in the modern philosophical sense as being synonymous with mind. Indeed, I would view spirituality as a quality related to the (sober) production of effects in the mind; I guess in a pure sense, I would relate it to conscious practices that are aimed at mindfulness, awareness, attentiveness, calmness, etc. That's why I view meditative practices -- both for intent and effect -- as basically the purest form of spirituality. And last I checked, there are a whole lot of atheists who meditate -- Buddhists, as one example. Many forms of expressive art I would also consider 'spiritual'.
Others may disagree with my characterization of 'spirituality', but I would submit that definitions 3,4,5 above do not convey a substantive representation in this context. Defs. 3 and 4 simply confuse spirituality with theism and religiosity. And I have to take a stance of ignorance on number 5 (and the first part of 1), since it walks and talks like gibberish to me.
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by 7ate9I have several times tried to ask difficult questions about the soul in this forum. I get extremely few biters from amoungst the 'spiritually inclined' and they all seem to have vastly different views on what the soul actually is. They are also usually rather vague about what it is. I find this rather strange considering that most religions foundation is based on the existence of a soul which is immortal in some way (or at least longer lived than the body.) In fact the primary reason given by most followers of religion for following the dictates of thier beliefs is to ensure that thier soul is well taken care of. It seems strange therefore that very few people can give even the most rudimentary description of what the soul is.
i don't know why this hasn't been discussed much in here as this is what this forum is about...... spirituality? our souls are a spiritual being that we all have, 'no matter what'.
You say we all have souls, can you answer:
1. do non humans have souls
2. is conciousness required for the existence of a soul
3. are souls divisible
4. related to 2. above - when do human beings aquire souls
5. do souls after death consist of a direct continuation of conciousness from the point of death or a sum of all memeories etc throught the life of the being.
6. are souls after death concious
7. are memories lost, say due to alzheimer's, regained after death
8. do we have any genuine motivation for ensuring that our souls are well taken care of after death.
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI suspect that the concept of soul is useful only when it isn't rationally analyzed. When it is, all sorts of thorny problems quickly emerge. Vagueness is essential to the practice of what many people refer to when they say "spirituality".
I have several times tried to ask difficult questions about the soul in this forum. I get extremely few biters from amoungst the 'spiritually inclined' and they all seem to have vastly different views on what the soul actually is. They are also usually rather vague about what it is. I find this rather strange considering that most religions foundation is ...[text shortened]... e have any genuine motivation for ensuring that our souls are well taken care of after death.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloAs an atheist I personally would have issues with all of those definitions, that’s not to mean that there aren't definitions that I might not find applicable, but certainly none of those. Take number 2, which talks about the nature of the soul, this has no meaning to someone who doesn't believe they exist, like wise talking about spirit. (Meaning here some mystical entity as opposed to saying someone has 'spirit'😉
I'm not exactly sure because it's difficult to follow your style (word salad with stream of consciousness dressing -- that's not a criticism, btw), but I think that's the second time in as many posts that you have asserted that we all have a 'spirituality within', or an inner 'spiritual being' or some such. If you are trying to advance the idea that we a 5 (and the first part of 1), since it walks and talks like gibberish to me.