This old chestnut, again

@divegeester said
I apologise, you are totally correct your post was not a non sequitur, I completely misread and misunderstood it. Too early, not enough coffee and no crumpets with butter and marmite. This has been remedied.

Yes I get your point; in fact I was also talking earlier in the thread about definitions. I think we in this thread are in fact arguing about definitions. My defi ...[text shortened]... o spirits and souls, spiritualism even, etc. Not character, white spirit, or other uses of “spirit”.

Thought I'd have a read through and pop back here for a minute, and I note we haven't got very far with this. In the first place, when I referred to, what was it, your 'literary sensibilities' which put you on the defensive, I wasn't sneering, you do have literary sensibilities, you don't like the word 'spiritual' being used in anything other than a theist context. I would just say that Buddhism is generally referred to as being a 'spiritual' belief system, the human 'spirit' is a well coined expression, and I don't think any of the atheists among us are saying that these things exist anywhere other than between our ears. Like I said, it's just a word, and words can be used in many different ways in different contexts. You, I and others disagree about its' usage, which doesn't make any of us wrong, we have different points of view, and I can't think of another word which cuts the mustard, and I asked you for another one. That's all, I ain't going to fight about it, life's too good and too short, but we've got hung up on something which negates further and broader discussion. Never mind, this comes with all good wishes to you and yours, friend.

@indonesia-phil said
Thought I'd have a read through and pop back here for a minute, and I note we haven't got very far with this. In the first place, when I referred to, what was it, your 'literary sensibilities' which put you on the defensive, I wasn't sneering, you do have literary sensibilities, you don't like the word 'spiritual' being used in anything other than a theist context. I w ...[text shortened]... urther and broader discussion. Never mind, this comes with all good wishes to you and yours, friend.

It’s clearly an attempt to hobble non theists in this forum by arguing that only theists can discuss spirituality because only they believe in God or Gods.
It’s obvious that the argument for the existence of Spirit does not rely on the existence of a God or Gods.
There may be a spiritual aspect to existence or there may not, there may be God or Gods or they may not but the two possibilities are neither mutually exclusive or inclusive.

@bigdoggproblem said
@FMF
I like to think that even people who do not believe in metaphysical things, at all, can practice spirituality. [I am such a person.]

Okay, you are such a person.

And others who are not like you are not practicing spirituality?
Is that the point?

Or you are here to inform them that your spirituality is valid and non-atheistic "spirituality" is not valid ?

@sonship said
Okay, you are such a person.

And others who are not like you are not practicing spirituality?
Is that the point?

Or you are here to inform them that your spirituality is valid and non-atheistic "spirituality" is not valid ?

I cannot recall BigDoggProblem ever once, in all these years, suggesting that only his take on spirituality is valid and that non-atheistic spirituality is not valid. And I don't think he is suggesting it now either

@sonship said
Okay, you are such a person.

And others who are not like you are not practicing spirituality?
Is that the point?

Or you are here to inform them that your spirituality is valid and non-atheistic "spirituality" is not valid ?

He said or implied none of that.