Can atheists talk about spirit?

[Beargryllz]

Here's an extensive analysis that touches upon the matter:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/10/magic-versus-metaphysics.html

Magic/superstitions by nature are unintelligible whilst divine power or more simply God is rationally intelligible.

So, one could say that, if a superstition was rationalized and the meaning was comprehensible, it would certainly become divine

 

[Sniffles]

So, one could say that, if a superstition was rationalized and the meaning was understood, it would become divine

One could say that - and they wouldn't know what they were talking about.

 

[Beargryllz]

One could say that - and they wouldn't know what they were talking about.

How would you say it?

At what point does the unnatural become the divine?

Would it require one mind to comprehend the unnatural and birth divinity? Or would it require something more?

 

[Sniffles]

How would you say it?

Like I said it before.

 

[Nicodemus]

How would you say it?

At what point does the unnatural become the divine?

As soon as the Vatican newsletter is out.

 

[Beargryllz]

Like I said it before.

You have not said enough for me to understand

Is divinity natural or unnatural?

 

[Sniffles]

You have not said enough for me to understand

Is divinity natural or unnatural?

It's supernatural - or metaphysical to put it one way.

 

[Beargryllz]

It's supernatural - or metaphysical to put it one way.

Is supernatural divine, or does it merely encompass the divine?

Could a thing be supernatural, but not divine?

 

[Sniffles]

Could a thing be supernatural, but not divine?

Yeah - those would be like angels to use the most famous example.

 

[Beargryllz]

Yeah - those would be like angels to use the most famous example.

Are angels a superstitious or a miraculous existence?

 

[Sniffles]

Are angels a superstitious or a miraculous existence?

I would say they are neither, although angels often are transmitters of miracles(if that's the right term), like the Archangel Raphael healing the eyes of Tobias.

 

[Beargryllz]

I would say they are neither, although angels often are transmitters of miracles(if that's the right term), like the Archangel Raphael healing the eyes of Tobias.

Would an angel be considered natural (part of the observable universe)?

Personally, I have always considered angels to be divine

 

[Sniffles]

Would angels be considered natural (part of the observable universe)?

I established earlier that angels are supernatural in essence, so they're not natural. On occasions they can be observable:

 

[Beargryllz]

I established earlier that angels are supernatural in essence, so they're not natural. On occasions they can be observable:

If they are observable, what do we definitely know to be true of angels? What can we deduce from their existence? What are the qualities of an angel?

I would say that being observable would necessitate a natural existence (though not necessarily exclude an unnatural/supernatural existence)

 

[Sniffles]

What are the qualities of an angel?

For that, I guess we would have to consult The Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.

 

[Omission1234]

This thread is super interesting: question though ? are we following a specific religion or someone's own beliefs? I don't want to sound like a jerk? just curious.
i'm finishing my undergrad in folklore and religious studies soo this is right up my alley not that I have a phd in it. I just like reading about these topics. I'll be back and post stuff here tomorrow. It's really late here, and I'm too tired to go through books at this hour. I'll be back tomorrow

 

[nanook]

i would say that atheists can't "talk spirit" because they don't get it. of course, in saying this i define atheism/atheists. and there is justification for this definition, if you look at the cultural wave of new atheists through the lense of developmental psychology.

but spiritual people, i don't mean all of them, but some of those who have differentiated/conscious knowing of spirit firsthand, can interpret spirit in extremely atheistic/naturalistic third person terms. like U.G. Krishnamurti, maybe.

as an integral nondualist i can say plenty of things about god to one person, believing in the things i say, and then i can say that i don't believe in god and i mean it, too. really mean it. not everyone can follow my meaning.

nevertheless i guess, that someone who is totally down with spirit would never limit his interpretation to the third person. not sure though.

 

[Scott N Denver]

^ integral non-dualist, very interesting. I would call myself integral and advaita vedanta [which in english basically means/translates as nondualism]

Anyways, sure they can! I view Ken Wilber as atheist [and enlightened] and he uses the word spirit quite frequently in his writings. I think a lot of the answer depends on what one means by theist. I think many people try to avoid it, but an extremely strong case can be made that Buddhism is atheistic. By extension, other religions that hold the same ultimate viewpoint would be as well.

I think of theism as " an external ultimate independent creator god stood outside of creation and made creation, and said creater god is not us/ we are not said creator god." Under such definition Buddhism is absolutely atheistic, as would be Hinduism as well, for example. I think we could define theism in such a way that Buddhism, and others like it, then became theistic. So, like I said earlier, a lot of the answer comes down to "what does theism mean?"

Personally, I've viewed myself as atheist polytheist before, but then I decided there were better words available and that it didn't matter.

 

[Daemon Corax]

Indeed, there was thread here about how one study showed that atheists tend to be more superstitious than theists. It was noted for example how superstitions didn't die out in the Soviet Union, despite officially being an atheist country. At least within the Abrahamic religions, superstitions have been continually condemned.

As far as I am concerned, the article which featured that so-called study may raise some questions (and eyebrows) after analysing it and reading it more than once. I am especially talking about ambiguous formulations, such as:
"The irreligious [...] tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.",
"While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did." or
"21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven."

"The irreligious" and "people who never worship" are categories which include more people than just atheists. Of course, the thread doesn't discuss that particular article, so I will refrain from making further comments. I simply do not consider it a solid basis for conclusions like: "Atheists are more superstitious than theists". It may or may not be true, but that study doesn't convince me.

 

[entropie]

I think people who see the world according to types, categories and their allowances of operation have the least spirit of them all