You're missing the point. Even if we accept as incontrovertible that "God is spirit", it absolutely does not follow that everything spirit is "God". For my money, I think the word "spirituality" is a sloppy one, with far too much loaded baggage. I would much rather a cleaner label for such experiences. But we're stuck with it, for reasons of linguistic tradition. To cream over "ramifications" of the limitations of language is not only to tilt at windmills, it's attempting to run before you learn to crawl. First you need to demonstrate that all spiritual experiences have a godly source and no other; then we can talk about what the ramifications are for non-theists.

(December 16, 2015 at 5:02 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You're missing the point. Even if we accept as incontrovertible that "God is spirit", it absolutely does not follow that everything spirit is "God". For my money, I think the word "spirituality" is a sloppy one, with far too much loaded baggage. I would much rather a cleaner label for such experiences. But we're stuck with it, for reasons of linguistic tradition. To cream over "ramifications" of the limitations of language is not only to tilt at windmills, it's attempting to run before you learn to crawl. First you need to demonstrate that all spiritual experiences have a godly source and no other; then we can talk about what the ramifications are for non-theists.

Your logic presupposes a finite God, something most theists explicitly deny. (Note my religious preference in the top left corner.)

But, yes, I agree that the word "spirituality" does has a lot of baggage, but only because of being used sloppily over time. That's why I added the definition from the online etymology dictionary to my previous post.

As far as to demonstrating "that all spiritual experiences have a godly source and no other," I've already listed the only logical alternative.

I'm not presupposing any kind of god; you're the one clinging to the concept, not me. I don't care what model of god you're invoking. All I'm saying is that a god, let alone "God", has no place in a discussion about spirituality without justification. Simply reiterating what you want to insert as the definition of the word "spirit" doesn't do that.

(December 16, 2015 at 5:23 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I'm not presupposing any kind of god; you're the one clinging to the concept, not me. I don't care what model of god you're invoking. All I'm saying is that a god, let alone "God", has no place in a discussion about spirituality without justification. Simply reiterating what you want to insert as the definition of the word "spirit" doesn't do that.

YOU might not be presupposing any kind of god, but your words certainly do.

I don't understand. You want me to ignore the etymological definition of a word just to make it conversant with atheistic points of view? 

Like I said, we'd still be living in caves if everyone was that careless with words. No wonder the word "spirit" has so much baggage!!

No, I'm asking that you not impose your parochial definition of "spirit" - and "God", for that matter - onto a subject that you haven't shown requires it. More especially, I'm asking that you certainly not impose it onto others merely to insinuate a theistic point of view - particularly when they themselves state quite clearly that they do not have one. It's just plain rude.

This is my final say. (You're probably thinking, “Whew!”)


Look, the question is really quite simple: Can an atheist have a spiritual experience? Atheists here are divided; some say 'yes' and others say 'no.' I have nothing to say to the latter because I agree with them. From the former I want clarity, not agreement and not the careless use of words or their redefinition.


An atheist who answers 'yes' should expect to be cross-examined because they are encroaching on traditionally religious grounds. They should also realize that such a belief carries with it logical consequences; i.e., either the experience is the result of “some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it” ― in which case the word is arbitrary and devoid of any meaning save what they put into it ― or Reality itself (or its source or cause) is itself alive, conscious and intelligent.


Although it may seem like it, this is not a “gotcha” choice put out there by some shyster lawyer. Rather, the atheist put themselves at the crossroads by saying 'yes.' Instead of reconsidering their answer for clarity's sake, the most common response to this conundrum is, “We make our own meaning!” Well, yes, but if you want to have any social order at all, if you want to communicate at all, words have to have a shared meaning: the word “fish” cannot be used in place of the word “bird” and still communicate.


“I'm spiritual but not religious” is quite faddish nowadays, and quite empty. Atheism has picked-up on that emptiness to give “spirit” and “spiritual” a whole new meaning that is equally empty. But this confusion is really just a small chip off a very large iceberg. It's not possible for me to make a list of words that have lost meaning because of the sloppy or 1984-ish use of words.

I'm seeing a lot of assertions, but no support.

(December 16, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Reflex Wrote: This is my final say. (You're probably thinking, “Whew!”)


Look, the question is really quite simple: Can an atheist have a spiritual experience? Atheists here are divided; some say 'yes' and others say 'no.' I have nothing to say to the latter because I agree with them. From the former I want clarity, not agreement and not the careless use of words or their redefinition.


An atheist who answers 'yes' should expect to be cross-examined because they are encroaching on traditionally religious grounds. They should also realize that such a belief caries with it logical consequences; i.e., either the experience is the result of “some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it” ― in which case the word is arbitrary and devoid of any meaning save what they put into it ― or Reality itself (or its source or cause) is itself alive, conscious and intelligent.


Although it may seem like it, this is not a “gotcha” choice put out there by some shyster lawyer. Rather, the atheist put themselves at the crossroads by saying 'yes.' Instead of reconsidering their answer for clarity's sake, the most common response to this conundrum is, “We make our own meaning!” Well, yes, but if you want to have any social order at all, if you want to communicate at all, words have to have a shared meaning: the word “fish” cannot be used in place of the word “bird” and still communicate.


“I'm spiritual but not religious” is quite faddish nowadays, and quite empty. Atheism has picked-up on that emptiness to give “spirit” and “spiritual” a whole new meaning that is equally empty. But this confusion is really just a small chip off a very large iceberg. It's not possible for me to make a list of words that have lost meaning because of the sloppy or 1984-ish use of words.

We all have spiritual experiences, every time a thought goes through our heads. The idea that anything you have experienced exists elsewhere is nothing more than an idea without proof, which you do not have, therefore it likely resides as a neighbor within your skull to the processes by which you post your vaunted assertions.

(December 16, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Reflex Wrote: When logic fails, obfuscate or get pissed-off.

No answers to my questions, then? I'll ask you again: what makes you so sure of pontificating on the personal experiences of others? You came into this thread taking a swing at others, but you never established your spiritual credentials.

You'll need to lay out why your evaluation of spirituality, with its apparent (in your view) levels of validity, should mean anything to anyone else. And because you've chosen to speak in objective terms, you should justify your own values in objective terms as well.

Protip: a smiley is not an argument -- it's a tacit concession.

(December 16, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Reflex Wrote: I'm sorry. That was harsh and out of line.

Obviously, we are the creators of our own meaning, but human beings would still be living in caves if everyone went around (as is so common nowadays) using words to mean anything they want. That's all I'm saying. If, as an atheist, one is going to use the word 'spiritual' to express an emotional response, that's fine. But don't ignore the ramifications because they imply something with which you happen to disagree.

The keel of a ship is not the ship itself, and "awe" is not "spiritual" or "spirituality" for the same reason.

Using the word "spiritual" doesn't mean the person using the word believes in spirits, any more than using the word "magician" implies that the speaker believes in magic.

Language always evolves. Your refusal to recognize that fact does not mean it's not a fact; it only means you have a bit more to learn before you log in and start pontificating.

Your arrogance in attempting to define the feelings of people you don't know and have never met is enervating -- and it tells me that your understanding of the matter is probably less than you credit yourself with. I think you have a lot more to learn about spirituality than you think you do, I'll bet.

And I'll also bet that I'm right.