@ghost-of-a-duke saidIs “trifling fingerprints” still yours?
You've said 'appertains' at least 5 times now. Is that your new word of the month?
@divegeester saidOur metaphysical dimension is rooted in our faculties and capacities and need not be supernatural in any way.
Spirituality appertains to the metaphysical elements of the human condition which are of the spirit, the soul of a person. If one does not accept that a human being has a spirit, a soul an actual part of them which transcends the temporal then human beings by definition cannot be “spiritual”.
Our each and every "soul" is that personhood which is founded on exclusive access to our each and every narrative, in harness with the unique moral compass that each of has, which is interwoven with that narrative, and which guides us as we continue the narrative into the future.
That unique personhood is the human "soul", I reckon. It's utterly astonishing, so it's no wonder many [most] people think that it's created by a deity and that it's supernatural in substance.
@fmf saidWithout the supernatural spirit then surely everything you have just described, as fine sounding as it is, is merely a function of the complex of neurones which make up the various interconnected dynamics of brain function.
Our metaphysical dimension is rooted in our faculties and capacities and need not be supernatural in any way.
Our each and every "soul" is that personhood which is founded on exclusive access to our each and every narrative, in harness with the unique moral compass that each of has, which is interwoven with that narrative, and which guides us as we continue the narrative int ...[text shortened]... onder many [most] people think that it's created by a deity and that it's supernatural in substance.
Either way God doesn’t have to be involved unless one chooses to view it that way.
12 Oct 20
@divegeester saidYes. Brain function. And the unique narrative and moral compass this brain function affords us gives us an identity which is the same thing, to my way of thinking, as what theists are referring to when they talk about our "souls". Except, they think it's of supernatural origin while I think it of metaphysical origin.
Without the supernatural spirit then surely everything you have just described, as fine sounding as it is, is merely a function of the complex of neurones which make up the various interconnected dynamics of brain function.
I find no credible reason to believe any of the "revealed" Gods are involved.
@divegeester saidSo you can positively deny the existence of souls and still discuss the spiritual aspect of existence without being illogical.
Absolutely not, as I explained in an earlier post.
@fmf saidI don’t disagree with anything you’ve written here. In fact I would say that from the atheists POV “spirituality” and “a (certain) way of thinking” are indeed exactly the same thing. In fact I think that is what my point has been in this discourse.
Yes. Brain function. And the unique narrative and moral compass this brain function affords us gives us an identity which is the same thing, to my way of thinking, as what theists are referring to when they talk about our "souls". Except, they think it's of supernatural origin while I think it of metaphysical origin.
I find no credible reason to believe any of the "revealed" Gods are involved.
My contention is that irrespective of applied nouns and adjectives such as “spiritual “ and “spirituality” ~ this “thing”, this “way of thinking” cannot actually be spiritual because there is nothing supernatural with it.
@bigdoggproblem saidFor sooth, some people want not soothing.
Hah! Another "soothing irrationality"!
Then again, who are theists to talk in this respect!
@divegeester saidIt’s neither but that’s irrelevant anyway dive. I’m just tying to get clarification on who can and cannot discuss ‘spirituality” whilst maintaining the internal logic of their philosophy.
That’s a non sequitur Kev. Also it’s a false dichotomy.
I think the actual problem is that this forums title and brief rubric is too restrictive if we use the dictionary definitions of ‘spirituality’. It almost precludes the question regarding the nature of reality and sets up a two dimensional bun fight between theists and atheists along with a good dose of trench warfare between the Christians of different interpretational dogmas. None of which is really in the spirit of a genuine search for truths concerning the nature of existence IMO.
@kevcvs57 saidAtheists keep bringing theism into into this discourse, I don’t.
I think the actual problem is that this forums title and brief rubric is too restrictive if we use the dictionary definitions of ‘spirituality’. It almost precludes the question regarding the nature of reality and sets up a two dimensional bun fight between theists and atheists along with a good dose of trench warfare between the Christians of different interpretational dog ...[text shortened]... which is really in the spirit of a genuine search for truths concerning the nature of existence IMO.
This discussion is basically about the definition of the word spirituality but the only reason I’m interested in it is that I see those here who like to enjoy their platform of science, rationality and logic attempting to also enjoy the eclectic nebulous irrationality of the spiritual.
It’s fake, and I’m calling them on it.
13 Oct 20
@bigdoggproblem saidMore appeals to theism...
Hah! Another "soothing irrationality"!
Then again, who are theists to talk in this respect!