Latest post of the previous page:This is an interesting article, and not overly long.
You can be spiritual without the church.
I'm reading a fascinating book entitled: The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, by Andre Comte-Sponville. It is not a volume of cutsie quotes, it is a very thoughtful series of very readable philosophical essays. Nearly 1/2 of the book is dealing with the issue of "Can there be an atheist spirituality" and his answer is a resounding and moving yes. "Spirituality" should not be confined to religion and its language. It is a way we have of experiencing the universe we are a part of.FloatingBoater wrote:I rather lean toward the expression spiritual atheism if only to differentiate myself from the more derogatory connotaition of atheist, which in common use implies badness or less worthy than anyone who professes allegiance to just about form of religious attchment.
Take back the language I say, interpretation is for others to define.
I think you've given a classic example of what I think of as a spiritual experience. It is deeply awesome but also undeniably human and it's an experience that, so far as we know, no other members of the animal kingdom experience in the same way.FloatingBoater wrote: Seeing my daughters borne for instance, I regard as a deeply spiritual experience that moved me to tears and humility, joy and awe.
Thankfully it only exists in re-runs. Sorry that it's lifeless body washed up on your shores.Ted Harvey wrote:'Everybody Loves Raymond' was on 'Faith'. It's not a programme that I would normally watch,...I could not bear watching enough of this unfunny episode...
I wonder if we just sometimes have to drop a word as being not suitable. Clearly, it means so many things to so many people, and, as you will know, the more meanings a word has, the less meaning it has (you have only to look at how modern writers foul up our language by using words inappropriately: are we to drop uninterested now, for instance, because so many people say disinterested, and don't really mean disinterested?).Occam wrote:Unfortunately, Zoe, that definition you got from the Oxford Compact Online doesn't get us anywhere.
Amen.Andy Armitage wrote: Sometimes it's nice to have a vague word that sort of conjures up meaning in other people, even though you may not know exactly how it's affecting them. And perhaps that's a good way to leave it: let's use the word vaguely, because sometimes it's handy to be vague.
Jem wrote:I see broadly two irreconcilable points of view on this subject. Clearly, the people who don't like the word aren't going to use it and the rest of us will continue to do so. I don't think there's any problem really.