Spirituality as an atheist?

[Reflex]

Finally, that the spiritual is a result of the ineffable may very well be true, but attributing it to (ineffable) mechanism or chance, which are the only logical alternatives to it's source or cause being something personal (i.e., God), has logical consequences which are spelled out by Alan Watts in Behold the Spirit.*

Thanks for your kind words about my ex-.  She's a good woman, a dear friend, and a great mother.

1) The language of religion fails to express the ineffable, too. It's a sort of Platonic thing, language: the words are the shadows on the cave-walls, and the emotions are the actual things those words seek to describe.  The process is inherently imperfect even with everyday thoughts, concepts, or things; and that's not even considering the fact that in using language, you are seeking to communicate with another mind, which adds yet another layer of interpretation on the conversation. So when you experience the ineffable and attempt to eff it (), you are using a language that isn't equipped to deal with those sorts of rare and intensely personal events, sending it out in words to a listener and reader, and you have to hope that your words capture that experience. Then you have to hope that your listener or reader imbues your words with the same connotations and denotations such that a sense of your ineffable experience is transmitted to their mind. The language of religion uses the same words as the rest of the world. Some of them have special religious connotations or denotations; all that is is religion modifying the language to suit its purpose. And even then it fails.

2) As for whence spirituality, you forgot the person experiencing the feelings. Simply asserting that it must be "(ineffable) mechanism or chance" doesn't mean that that is true.  It's entirely possible for someone to have feelings arise directly out of themselves, and still be mysterious. Do you honestly think people always know why or even what they feel, or how to express their feelings precisely, or even generally at times? How do you explain, then, the psychotherapy industry, which is based on getting people to the roots of their emotions? When I watched my son being born ... man, I still can't tell you exactly what I was feeling. And I'm a writer, who uses the language as a plaything. Finding your god in the limits of language doesn't seem very convincing, to me.

Furthermore, if you're going to posit your god as a source of anything, you're going to have to demonstrate his existence.  I don't dabble in myth and am not interested in poisoning this discussion with PIDOOMA assertions.

So far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to pontificate on the spirituality of others when you experience their emotions.  Until then, the circumspect thing to do is limit your discussion to your own spirituality, if you have any.

I have no disagreement with #1. 

As for #2, I was talking about logical possibilities, not proofs, certainties or demonstrations. Now, this is an atheist forum and I respect that, but atheists go to religious forums all the time and take great pride in being "logical" (and generally get pissed-off when logic fails them). So, let's stick with logic (which amounts to a bit of role-reversal) because atheists generally claim it is their strength whereas I believe it is their weakness.

Either the living God is, or he is not. Either the ultimate Reality is alive, conscious and intelligent, or it is not. If it is, then it is what we call God. If it is not, it must be some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it. Nobody has ever been able to suggest a reasonable alternative. (Alan Watts)

If there is a reasonable alternative to the above choice, feel free to express it. I'm all ears. But simply calling it "ineffable" won't do in a rational exchange of ideas. If you cannot articulate a reasonable alternative, then, logically, either "spirituality" is the result or product of "blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it," or it is the effect of something we call "God" or "Spirit." If it is the former, then there are inevitable logical consequences. Let's deal with them and stop confusing terms. For clarity's sake, atheists should call it "projection" or simply "awe" instead of hijacking the word "spiritual." Awe is just the beginning of spirituality, not spirituality itself.