Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"Why do I need to prove something YOU described to be real?"
Because I offered a definition of my interpretation of "soul"
But even now, you have not offered a definition of "soul" that is rational.
Please offer YOUR definition of "soul".
@David ...and I know, “have” it!!!! Lol.
Not “be it” ....or as you described previously with music ...
BUT who knows - maybe it’s only Sheldon?!?! Or, us three together are the “some people” (Homer leaves things “unsaid”, because he doesn’t communicate well).
Debate is to “challenge” your thinking.
My current impression is (analogy):
You are like a happy, excited dog that chases a vehicle on a highway. Like the dog, you don’t think about “if you can catch” the vehicle or even “what you’d do with it once caught”, but it’s the chase that excites you.
As a fellow dog (see pic), I once enjoyed the chase myself. Loved it and can relate. But, now I’m an older dog and just asking a fellow dog “can you catch it, and what can you do with it”? That’s it. As a young pup, you are explaining how you are looking for a pack to help you in the “chase”...and how this will benefit you.
Great. Have fun. Enjoy yourself. Once you get “tired”, maybe we’ll chat again. As an old dog,
I’ve decided I’m going to go bury a bone, and dig it up later.
BTW - closest analogy I could find because at least the vehicle is “evidenced objectively”.
Straw man. Here's my actual post verbatim:
"One of the principles being that they never challenge theistic beliefs with critical scrutiny,"
Just how "one of" translates into "everything", only you can know.
Imaginary unevidenced poorly defined ideas can be difficult to grasp. I often find theists have a tendency to "shoot the messenger" as it were.
The anagram YMMV is one I'm not familiar with, sorry.
It is far from a straw man. Making a discussion about spiritual fellowship without a supernatural element regardless of belief system to be about asserting and challenging belief is the straw man.
I apologize that the idea of nonsupernatural spirituality is something I am having trouble communicating in a manner that is graspable. Sam Harris, who I have to believe you are familiar with, wrote a book called "Waking Up" on it, maybe I'll check it out and hone my skills there. I see where gaining the atheist perspective on the subject may help me to convey the concept.
YMMV - Your Mileage May Vary
Homer - thank you for this....” Sam Harris,”
Never heard of him. I normally don’t have the to read - but there is a shitload of videos on YouTube and some debate and his own podcasts ... so, like you, I’m going to investigate what he has to say.
I like to leave off at least learning or investigating something- (I encourage my boys to do this to me...)
OK, back to covering up the bone.
There is no atheist perspective.
With regret Homer, since you persistently engage in dishonest dialogue, I shall cease responding to you.
Lol, you might want to mention it to the atheists sharing their perspective.
Lol - you are a shit smuggler!!!! You aren’t honest in any meaning of the word.
Your previous mention of Sam Harris was so you could smuggle in his “book title” ...but you won’t buy it or listen to a podcast. I did listen to him this morning, btw.
You can take your shit, blend it with some sugar
and an egg. Mix and shape it like a cookie. You enjoy eating it.
IT IS NOT A COOKIE that meets my standard for “ingestion”.
Btw, you have now fully earned, what will be in future discussions - full out, untapped and open ridicule.
The audiobook is posted on YouTube.
Sam Harris reason (his own words) why he picked “spiritual”.
Now, he’s not here, so I can’t debate him and offer a simple question as to “why” that word even needs to be “re-acclaimed” (as did atheist or heathen and pagan) - however I would listen to his reasoning and ponder...
Homer, on the other hand, offers nothing of his own thinking. There is no “mind” that I have engaged with so far. The best he could do is offer a argument by “authority” (hahahahaha) BECAUSE he can’t figure out his own shitfest mindfuck.
I'm trying to explain my take, but it has been rejected as too vague, so I'm trying to explore another take to help. I figure if I get an atheistic take, I can better learn to explain my own, since I can't see any requirement to believe in the supernatural to be spiritual in much of the context I see spirituality encompassing. Of course there is an extra unfalsifiable aspect to some of what "spiritual" can mean that I absolutely am not referring to in this discussion,. I can see that area as beyond the scope of a nonsupernatural spirituality, and apparently so can this guy I'm listening too right now.
Then I'd say you were subjectively cherry picking the definition, both primary and secondary, in an ad hoc fashion.
That's your choice of course, but I can see why others here are suspicious of that, given you have already stated your core beliefs involve believing in the supernatural and a deity. In that context one would have to wonder why you are so determined to remove those aspects from the definition, especially given your stubborn insistence thus far in adhering to those beliefs without any objective evidence that you now seem determined to insist from no part of your belief in spirituality. It seems like your compartmentalising those parts of the definition so you can question why atheists are rejecting something that is by your reckoning entirely material or natural.
This reminds me of those theists who sometimes come here and ask, why are you an atheist? You tell them and they say ah but god to me is the universe, and love, so are you saying you don't believe in the universe or love?
As Nyarlathotep said a while ago, words steadily lose their meaning as we start to alter their primary definitions.
He is just playing the victim card now
Really? I'm pretty content in what I've accomplished here. I don't feel victimized at all.
@David Killens, it is a tactic many theists adopt. For Christian's they appear to emulating the example they've embodied in the biblical character their religion has assigned divine status to
Sheldon “ Nyarlathotep said a while ago, words steadily lose their meaning as we start to alter their primary definitions.”
Agreed. And this thread is an example of why I normally don’t “go here”, however I’ve learnt thing about “Homer” ...
Also context is important...
Self identified middle aged, white guy on black community form insisting “they” are racist because “they” use the term “nigger/nigga” amongst themselves and in “their” music. However, he’s really there to just learn how to be more “inclusive” and “un-offensive”.
Lol, two of you were going on about using the word "soul" in the nonsupernatural form our one side of your mouths while decrying the use of "spiritual" in a nonsupernatural form out of the other. And when called on it it turns into a semantic explosion complete with expletive laden fireworks and additional "I'm not talking to you anymores" and now some "he was the one using a different definition".
I just wanted to know who here might have attended a certain place. I found out two had a bleh experience while one actually has positive things to say about it. So the core of this thread was satisfied long ago.
All the other fun has been provided by you guys and I found out some great things about people's views on spirituality.
P.S. I'm about an hour into the Harris audiobook. He's got some really spot on insights. I probably won't agree with him on everything, but I like a great deal about what he says. Maybe I can do a better job of enunciateing the qualities of secular spiritualism after listening to him. But I've had a good time doing it my way as well.
Now Homer, I know dictionary definitions are not your thing, but the word soul has a secondary definition that excludes the supernatural.
2.emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance
The both primary and secondary definitions of the word spiritual contain supernatural aspects.
1.relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
2. relating to religion or religious belief
So unless you are using it as a noun to describe a song, then it is you who being subjective and therefore using semantics.
So I really have three of you argued into the stance of backing the use of "soul" in a nonsupernatural context whilst at the same time "spiritual" shouldn't be?
You're the one ignoring the dictionary here, and adding an ad hoc interpretation. It's sad you can't see the idiocy of your position, if indeed you're not being deliberately obtuse, but idiotic it is nonetheless.
Ok, get out of your echo chamber here, and float the "soul ok, but spiritual bad" schtick somewhere else and see how it works.
The dictionary definitions are based on common usage ffs, so that's another gem of comedy gold there.
You will learn nothing Homer, until you learn to admit when you're wrong. A large clue for you here is others posting the dictionary definitions verbatim, and you responding with naught but rhetoric. Sadly it's a clue wasted o you.
Nice poisoning of the well fallacy though, you never disappoint.
Ok, I'll keep your whole stance here in my pocket for use later.
You do whatever you are minded to champ, but it's not my stance, that's just more perfidy from you.
The dictionary is what you're disagreeing with, all I have done is point that out, and as usual your ego isn't allowing you to participate in honest rational debate. Which is why you are resorting to these vapid petulant and irrelevant outbursts, rather than addressing the facts.
Again it's a little sad, but if that's how you wish to conduct yourself it's your call.
Soul is defined in the secondary dictionary definition without any supernatural aspect.
In contrast, both dictionary definitions of spiritual define supernatural aspects.
Now are you even capable of offering anything relevant or cogent to address this fact?
Or is your sulking petulant teenager routine all we can expect on this, as on all else?
I'll just have to remember when I describe that soul you all recognize as real that I won't use the word spiritual as the adjective for it because that would be descriptive of the other one.
Another evasive response, that's something of an own goal. As it illustrates the point that soul according to the dictionary, can be used in a purely natural material context, whereas spiritual can't according to the dictionary.
I shan't even feign surprise, that you yet again favour rhetoric over substance.
The dictionary offers a secondary definition of the word soul. That doesn't include any supernatural aspect.
Both the dictionary definitions of the word spiritual do include supernatural aspects.
So you can be as flippant and evasive as you like, it won't alter these facts.
Just so I'm all caught up.
Had I found Gattaca "to stir my soul", that's cool.
But since I found Gattaca "spiritual", that was a problem?
Just trying to get my verbiage proper, as I am told I'm too vague.
You're being deliberately obtuse, it's not impressive. FWIW both those claims sound like they have supernatural aspects to me.
Try saying I found the film very moving, if vague is what you're going for. Otherwise offer a precise critique. The script was well written and excitingly engaging, the cinematography was precise yet artistically pleasing, the actors performances were mesmerising, and story emotive without being sentimental, and exciting but with depth and precision. The themes offered moral depth and presented ethical dilemmas, etc etc
If you think "I found it spiritual" conveys more, then that's your choice of course.