@divegeester saidIt is not a case of atheists hijacking the word, it's you mistakenly believing you have a monopoly to it.
Yes I do believe that, absolutely.
But you find me a scientist who believes it.
Besides this is an explosion of the word “spirituality” which I assert gets hijacked by those who do not believe in spirits, souls, or indeed anything supernatural.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI hardly ever use it.
It is not a case of atheists hijacking the word, it's you mistakenly believing you have a monopoly to it.
You’re welcome to use it of course, just know that when you do I’ll be chuckling at your pretentiousness.
@divegeester saidBut you previously used the word 'object.'
I hardly ever use it.
You’re welcome to use it of course, just know that when you do I’ll be chuckling at your pretentiousness.
Have you reconsidered your objection?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI know where the word comes from. The origin of the word doesn’t mean the discipline isn’t a science.
Again, psychology is to do with the psyche.
'Psyche comes from the Greek psykhe, which means “the soul, mind, spirit, or invisible animating entity which occupies the physical body.'
www.vocabulary.com
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNo I object on an intellectual level, but you are MOST welcome to make yourself look pretentious by using it.
But you previously used the word 'object.'
Have you reconsidered your objection?
Have a go...
12 Apr 21
@divegeester saidYou don't actually have to believe in these things to accept the possibility of their existence.
Yes I do believe that, absolutely.
But you find me a scientist who believes it.
Besides this is an explosion of the word “spirituality” which I assert gets hijacked by those who do not believe in spirits, souls, or indeed anything supernatural.
12 Apr 21
@avalanchethecat saidOf course.
You don't actually have to believe in these things to accept the possibility of their existence.
12 Apr 21
@divegeester saidApologies. I didn't know you had such a level.
No I object on an intellectual level, but you are MOST welcome to make yourself look pretentious by using it.
Have a go...
@divegeester said“ Yes a theist can be a scientist, but it does not logically follow that a scientist can be committed to a spiritual belief. ”
This is a class example of a non-sequitur.
Yes a theist can be a scientist, but it does not logically follow that a scientist can be committed to a spiritual belief.
Unless like ghost of a duke you wish to conflate spirituality with the meditative concepts related to consciousness. Which I maintain are simply cognitive processing.
This is a classic case of making a statement without any rationale in support of it. It does not logically follow that a scientist, by virtue of being a scientist, is excluded from a spiritual belief.
I do not think I’m making the same argument as Ghost, I’m not interested in conflating spirituality with psychology or religion, as I’ve mentioned I think the latter is the antithesis of spirituality whilst the former is probably unrelated to it, if it exists at all.
13 Apr 21
@divegeester saidThen... can we not all, atheist and believer alike, consider the spiritual?
Of course.
@avalanchethecat saidSure, if you believe in the metaphysical, that which appertains to spirits and souls.
Then... can we not all, atheist and believer alike, consider the spiritual?
If one doesn’t believe in spirits and souls etc, then talking about being more “spiritual” is a misnomer in my opinion. Calling the meditative experience, seeking inner calm or centredness, or whatever makes sense from a biological and scientific POV. That which can be rationalised as an aspect of the working of the mind.
It’s not really about atheism, it’s more about does one believe in spirits or consciousness outside of the body, perhaps astral projection etc all that type of stuff I would say is “spirituality”. What happens within the mind and body is biological science.
13 Apr 21
@divegeester saidBut, as I say, it is possible to not hold a belief in these things but to allow that they might nevertheless still exist. I don't currently hold any belief in spirits and souls, but I'm not absolutely certain that I am right. I find value in discussing the subject with others to find their views and the basis for their beliefs, and I accept that their paradigm may more accurately represent reality than my own.
Sure, if you believe in the metaphysical, that which appertains to spirits and souls.
If one doesn’t believe in spirits and souls etc, then talking about being more “spiritual” is a misnomer in my opinion. Calling the meditative experience, seeking inner calm or centredness, or whatever makes sense from a biological and scientific POV. That which can be rationalised a ...[text shortened]... of stuff I would say is “spirituality”. What happens within the mind and body is biological science.
13 Apr 21
@divegeester saidI believe in a spirit 'inside' the body. It makes us who we are. Sometimes there is a disconnect with this spirit, which is where therapies comes in, like mindfulness or CBT. It is religion that seeks to give this spirit an other world dimension.
It’s not really about atheism, it’s more about does one believe in spirits or consciousness outside of the body, perhaps astral projection etc all that type of stuff I would say is “spirituality”. What happens within the mind and body is biological science.