The need to believe?

[Whateverist]

So what? Words are repurposed all the time. That's the word that fits my obviously subjective feelings. Whether or not you agree with my usage, enough people are generous enough to extend to me understanding when I use it this way that I find the word itself useful. I'm doing so in this case because I think Deidre understands my usage, and I was trying to communicate my take on it in reply to her question. You're welcome to see it this way or not as you see fit, but applying your definition to my sense of it is obviously inaccurate (as I've already made clear in the post which has garnered this reply of yours).


Yeah, as I already said, I attach no faith nor woo to the word in my usage. If it still offends you, oh well. Your offense is not my responsibility.

---

Call it what you will, ma'am. You're a good person and that's what is really important so far as I'm concerned. I know how hard it was for me when I lost my faith ... so I don't hold anyone else's struggles with preconceived or preprogrammed notions against them.

---

I spent the first five years of my disbelief wandering through fields of woo and charlatanism and other forms of superstition. Dispensing with my beliefs wasn't hard, but dispensing with the need to believe was indeed difficult. And to Khem's point, I do find myself at times thinking, "Of course I don't believe this crap any more, but what about this coincidence, or that lucky ending ... and that old siren song still clearly echoes in my brain. And I've been an atheist for almost four decades. "What are the odds?!" I ask myself. And then, well, I pick up a calculator and get to work.

Nobody is arguing you are not entitled to your own beliefs, that is a legal matter.

Pretty sure there are zero places in the world where there are statutes agains holding our own belief.

You should, FOR YOURSELF, not me, be willing to self examine to insure what you hold to be fact, is just that, fact. You certainly are not obligated by law to switch to my position because I say so. But others are not obligated to simply swallow it because you claim it. Nor are others obligated to never respond to your claims because you like what you believe.

How fortunate we all are to have someone on these boards who knows better what we need to than we do ourselves. This comes off as sooooo pompous. And again with the law-talk. What's that about?

What "offends" me isn't human rights. But bad logic does.

Weird. Why? You assume everyone is perfectly capable of handling logic well but then blows it just to piss you off?
 

You personally may not attach woo or faith to the word "spiritual" no. I am not arguing how you personally use the word. But to me that is no different than when a Muslim woman in the west argues that she isn't being forced to wear a Hijab. That still would not change the history of that garment and it's sexist roots and in other parts of the world she would be forced without consent.

I don't know about how you are with logic but your facility with analogies is seriously suspect.

"Spirituality" is an old word rooted in superstition, there is no polite way to put it. Your new interpretation or desire to water it down, does not change that far more people in the world are far more traditional and superstitious and view the word in a very literal magic way.

Now, it is still your choice to continue to use it, sure. But that does not change the facts that others do still to this day use it in a very superstitious way. 

I don't use that word myself precisely because it has so much baggage. I simply chalk the really neat stuff to a very intense sense of awe.

You sure do go from your own idiosyncrasies to pronouncements regarding what everyone SHOULD do about as quickly as any theist. It's almost as if you got rid of the god belief but kept the fundamentalist mindset. Why do that?