for we know that most primitive cultures believe in such a "being" or "beings" — Manuel

Primitive cultures believe thunders are caused by a god's will. We know today it is not the case.

If by God you are speaking about a "personal creator", by this you mean a being that has the power to give life to people? If that's what is being argued, then I do not think it is a strong argument. — Manuel

I don't understand this.

If you mean that there is "personal creator" of some higher being who created the universe. — Manuel

I am not making ontological commitments here, that's what theists do. I, instead of relying on religious conceptions, delineated the most generic God-concept possible, stripping it of all its accidents and sticking to the essence, the necessary meaning of the word "God". In my understanding, this concept is of a mind (so it is personal), it is outside of space and time (and by that of course I am excluding hippie distortions like "the universe is god", not to be confused with Spinoza's pantheism), and it is the cause of the world we see — I think my rendition of the concept is minimal to all theistic religions.

My point is simple, this insistence on agnosticism applies not just to the God question but to most questions. Yet we reply to most questions with "yes" or "no". There are those that reply "I don't know", surely, but we don't say the people that said "no" are being unreasonable, especially when "yes" would be more unreasonable then. That much says that you are applying a special ad hoc epistemic standard to God.

Back to the problem of my father, yes, you are correct, I do not know with 100% accuracy that he is my father. I have plenty of evidence to suggest that he is, but pictures of me being a baby could be faked, maybe the baby in the picture is not me, etc.

Given the options I have, then I opt to believe that my father is my real father with, say, 99% accuracy. Hence, I have no good reason to be agnostic about this issue, because what my father is, is much better defined than God, or a higher being. — Manuel

Now you are working with degrees of certainty and, by that standard, agnosticism, in practice, doesn't really exist — a claim that I set to prove in this post. Graph:

Source.

Primitive cultures believe thunders are caused by a god's will. We know today it is not the case. — Lionino

Yes. The point is that there seems to be an innate mechanism that causes us to believe in these things, which is why I do not think they should be dismissed that easily.

I don't understand this. — Lionino

You said:

let's take a universalist generic theist: "I believe a personal creator beyond the universe exists — Lionino

This creator is personal, meaning applies to one person, the one who believes? Or does this refer to people who claim a creator creates everything?

These are not the same.

The first claim is significantly weaker than the second one.

In my understanding, this concept is of a mind (so it is personal), it is outside of space and time (and by that of course I am excluding hippie distortions like "the universe is god", not to be confused with Spinoza's pantheism), and it is the cause of the world we see — I think my rendition of the concept is minimal to all theistic religions. — Lionino

So it's a mental concept, which postulates something outside of space and time. Ok, a mental concept, is a mental concept if we can apply it to something empirical, we can either affirm or dismiss the claim.

If a person believes in Unicorns, but we find no unicorns in the world, then this belief is a fiction, because empirical evidence goes against such a claim.

If you speak of a being outside of space and time, how are we to verify or dismiss it? I don't know how, so I don't know if such a being exists.

If in addition to this a theist says, I believe this being is all good and all powerful then we have plenty of evidence to show that this claim is false, we show them the world.

My point is simple, this insistence on agnosticism applies not just to the God question but to most questions. Yet we reply to most questions with "yes" or "no". There are those that reply "I don't know", surely, but we don't say the people that said "no" are being unreasonable, especially when "yes" would be more unreasonable then. That much says that you are applying a special ad hoc epistemic standard to God. — Lionino

Most people say yes or now to these questions, but I don't think most people care much about epistemology, or if they do, it's to a quite limited range. But you are asking for certainty, I cannot give you that.

From B and D, when we ask someone whether they believe in God they should say yes or no, the uncertainty of the topic is already implied, stating whether you are an agnostic theist/atheit is redundant, and any gnostic theist/atheist has an almost impossible-to-meet burden of proof, so I say the gnostics here are either lying or confused. The agnostic label should be reserved for those who are truly divided (even if the evidence sways their mind in another direction) and prefer to suspend judgement in the await for more evidence. — Lionino

As I said, if you are speaking about the Abrahamic tradition, of which I belong to and whose arguments I understand to some degree, then I am an atheist. I don't believe in heaven, I don't believe in hell, I do not believe a person rose from the dead, etc. Those are rather specific claims, which are capable of being shown to be wrong.

As to whether there is such a thing as "God" or a higher being, I do not know, I cannot verify or deny this. Ergo, I am an agnostic on the God question.

which is why I do not think they should be dismissed that easily. — Manuel

Yet we dismiss a guy sitting on clouds causing thunder. In any case, primitive societies are animists. I remember reading good psychological investigation into animism — like how we see faces on rocks and clouds even though there are no faces —, without any appeal to the actuality of those beliefs.

This creator is personal, meaning applies to one person, the one who believes? — Manuel

It means it is a person, it has a mind, it thinks.

Or does this refer to people who claim a creator creates everything? — Manuel

I don't think that is what I am referring to, as "a creator creates something" is a nonsensical phrase.

I am using the most basic concept of God we can deal with before it stops classifying as God. It is straightforward like that. Every God we may find is a mind, it is not fully physical, it is a creator. If something is not one of these, it is not a God. It is a matter of grammar.

So it's a mental concept — Manuel

No. Every concept is mental. The God concept is a concept that refers to a mind.

If a person believes in Unicorns, but we find no unicorns in the world, then this belief is a fiction, because empirical evidence goes against such a claim.

If you speak of a being outside of space and time, how are we to verify or dismiss it? I don't know how, so I don't know if such a being exists. — Manuel

You are changing your terms. Empirical evidence doesn't go against the unicorn, there is a lack of empirical evidence for the unicorn. Likewise, there is a lack of evidence for a being outside of space and time.

"If you speak of a being outside of space and time, how are we to verify or dismiss it?"

This question is about grammar in the end.

I don't believe in heaven, I don't believe in hell, I do not believe a person rose from the dead, etc. Those are rather specific claims, which are capable of being shown to be wrong. — Manuel

Are you sure there is no heaven? It is outside of space and time as we know, too.

But you are asking for certainty, I cannot give you that. — Manuel

You can't give me certainty. So let's just say we are agnostic about everything and call it a day. Deal?

Yet we dismiss a guy sitting on clouds causing thunder. In any case, primitive societies are animists. I remember reading good psychological investigation into animism — like how we see faces on rocks and clouds even though there are no faces —, without any appeal to the actuality of those beliefs. — Lionino

Sure. And these are quite interesting to discover out psychological constitution which could bear fruit in other areas of inquiry.

You are changing your terms. Empirical evidence doesn't go against the unicorn, there is a lack of empirical evidence for the unicorn. Likewise, there is a lack of evidence for a being outside of space and time. — Lionino

Ha, now I think this is semantic. Ok, there is lack of evidence for the mental entity unicorn. So it is a fiction, fine with that.

How do you know there is no evidence for something outside space and time? Can we go to this place to verify or reject such a claim?

Are you sure there is no heaven? It is outside of space and time as we know, too. — Lionino

The Christian tradition posits a person who raised from the dead and said there was a heaven. In this world, I do not know of any cases in which a dead person has come back to life after several days.

Ergo, I do not believe there is something called heaven based on this tradition. Such a person today would be called a charlatan, correctly.

Am I certain there is no heaven? I don't reach certainty, but if you like, I'd say I think there is a 99.9% chance that heaven does not exist.

You can't give me certainty. So let's just say we are agnostic about everything and call it a day. Deal? — Lionino

That's too hasty. But if forced between certainty and agnosticism, I think agnosticism is a safer bet. I cannot go outside myself, much less outside of space and time to see what may or may not exist.

How do you know there is no evidence for something outside space and time? — Manuel

The word evidence already invokes a "how to know". Next you will ask me how do I know that I know there is no evidence.

Ha, now I think this is semantic. — Manuel

Because it is, the issue is that you are not being consistent. You want to be sure about some things and but then claim you can only be unsure about a specific matter — for no reason.

The Christian tradition posits a person who raised from the dead and said there was a heaven. In this world, I do not know of any cases in which a dead person has come back to life after several days. — Manuel

Again lack of evidence. It doesn't prove there is no heaven.

I don't reach certainty, but if you like, I'd say I think there is a 99.9% chance that heaven does not exist. — Manuel

Degrees of certainty. See:

Now you are working with degrees of certainty and, by that standard, agnosticism, in practice, doesn't really exist — a claim that I set to prove in this post — Lionino

But if forced between certainty and agnosticism, I think agnosticism is a safer bet. — Manuel

Ok, so we don't know anything for sure, not just the matter of whether there is a God. handshake

You should have a theist side and an atheist side, but more an atheist side. God is not a theory you can rely on...

God - whichever culture's god - is an idea. It's the idea of a human entity, only with a lot more knowledge and power over the natural world that humans cannot predict or control, that humans have reason to fear.
Where primitive cultures had incantations and spells, dances and chanting to ask supernatural beings for magic solutions to their problems, modern religions have prayers and processions and church services and hymns to ask one of their gods for miracles.
It's all just looking for a parental figure to fix things in our favour.
Another thing both kinds of religious ritual have in common is fire - bonfires, torches, sconces, candles. I think we still haven't quite gotten over the magic/miracle of tame fire.

Ok, so we don't know anything for sure, not just the matter of whether there is a God. — Lionino

Well, the first half of that is debatable, but let's save that for another time. You seem to have agreed on an agnostic position.
From observation of philosophical debate it is clear that both (some?) theists and (some?) atheists agree (though I've not seen either side explicitly acknowledge the fact) that the question whether there is a God is empirical. Let's have a closer look at it.

First, it implies that there is a concept of God - in fact several concepts, but let's take the minimalist one. Let's treat it as a hypothesis. Both sides, presumably have an answer to the question what is to count as evidence, either for or against. It comes down to experiences. Theists will cite certain experiences, which are not universal, but are not uncommon, and the various mysteries that exist in the sciences, and possibly the idea of an experiment, in the form of prayer. Atheists will cite the lack of any experiences that specifically prove God exists (and discount all the evidence given by the theist). On top of that, I think that they will not be able to explain what experiences might convince them. Certainly, I can't and I've never seen anyone try.
There has been considerable debate about where the burden of proof lies. Each side makes a case that the burden of proof is with the other side. So no agreement there.

Transcendent experiences may well convince the person who has these experiences, but are of little or no value to the atheist, because they are so subjective. Experimental prayer doesn't stand up to scrutiny by the standards commonly applied in science. A God of the gaps certainly won't convince anyone who isn't already convinced - it comes down to interpretation of the evidence.

Atheists seem to be in a stronger position if the burden of proof lies with the theist. However, proving that unicorns, for example, don't exist is at least very hard. Arguably the only reliable case is a proof that they could not possibly exist - i.e. that the concept of a unicorn is incoherent in some way. The same applies to the concept of God. But that's not going to convince a theist.

I don't see what might happen to resolve this. Suggestions welcome.
For me, both theism and atheism are irrational, even if they are empirical claims. Which leaves agnosticism as the only rational position.

For me, both theism and atheism are irrational, even if they are empirical claims. Which leaves agnosticism as the only rational position. — Ludwig V

Not to re-bump that extremely frustrating argument from earlier this year but this is a common problem with misusing the word 'atheist'(or, at least, not adequately paying attention to it). There are four words we can use to adequately, discreetly and clearly delineate the four positions of relevance:

A. Theism=I know there's a God;
B. Atheism = I do not know whether there's a God;
C. Agnosticism = I cannot know whether there is a God; and
D. Anti-Theism = I know there is not a God.

Given all discussions that refuse to accept an adjustment such as the above all turn out into the same mess of bollocks every time, It doesn't matter to me that others might disagree on the format. The above solves the semantic issues and makes it quite clear which position makes the most sense given any S's particular perspective. From my perspective B. is the only rational take. For others, the other three may meet that benchmark based on what they believe.

There are four words we can use to adequately, discreetly and clearly delineate the four positions of relevance — AmadeusD

I remember that discussion. Thanks for the reminder.

In the context of the assumption that it is an empirical debate, I'm content with C. In favour of it is the idea that existence claims are always empirical. That's more complicated than it appears.

But in any case, the fact (and I do think it is a fact) that the empirical debate cannot be resolved suggests that it is not simply an empirical debate. The heart of the problem is that the debate is not about the evidence, but how the evidence is interpreted. That means that the proposition that God exists is not empirical, but is a principle of interpretation.

Short story, it is an extension of the concept of a person and the associated language-games. The gods of animism are much more like a personification of their various powers than anything else and monotheism is an extension of that.

So that brings into question whether there is a coherent minimalist (or maximalist) concept of God. I think that there is not. D may be more appropriate to that.

But if I think that theism is irrational, I must think that anti-theism is also irrational, which suggest that D may be more appropriate.

Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife. — Scarecow

Who cares about divine favor, especially if you don't believe in God? Your argument, if you want to call it that, assumes that some religious God exists. Your presupposition that God exists, forces you to assume that divine favor is important. It's rather circular.

That means that the proposition that God exists is not empirical, but is a principle of interpretation. — Ludwig V

Do you not think this could just be a result of 'mistake'?
That there really is possible 'evidence' for God which is 'true' regardless of how any particular human sees it? This is essentially my position. I don't know why we would somehow attribute an ontological free lunch to the concept of God simply to avoid having to resolve the issue.

That there really is possible 'evidence' for God which is 'true' regardless of how any particular human sees it? — AmadeusD

Well, I was accepting the widespread belief that the issue is empirical and trying to think through the consequences. I hope I demonstrated that, as at present conducted, the debate will not be resolved, because the two sides talk past each other. On that assumption, agnosticism is the only rational possibility.

I don't rule out the remote possibility that something might turn up that would work as empirical evidence for God. But I can't imagine what that might be. If God did turn up in some way, I would have a great many unanswerable questions to discuss with them.

My actual position is that the concept of God is incoherent, which means that I can neither assert not deny that such a person exists - the concept would have to be coherent for either assertion to be meaningful. So I can't classify myself under any of the four propositions you listed. (I suggested D earlier, but I've changed my mind.)

However, on my understanding of what a religion is - a way of life and a collection of practices and attitudes, if the existence of God is treated as an axiom, it may well be rational. Atheism, then, would be the adoption of the non-existence of God as an axiom, and could well also be rational. (Geometries based on different axioms are all rational - consistent and complete.) Axioms are not adopted on rational grounds, they can only be assessed by their results.

I don't know why we would somehow attribute an ontological free lunch to the concept of God simply to avoid having to resolve the issue. — AmadeusD

I don't quite understand what you mean. What could I do to bring matters to a head?

as at present conducted, the debate will not be resolved, because the two sides talk past each other. On that assumption, agnosticism is the only rational possibility. — Ludwig V

Ah ok, this clarifies. Thank you.

If God did turn up in some way, I would have a great many unanswerable questions to discuss with them. — Ludwig V

LMAO yes - this might be the more intractable issue.

My actual position is that the concept of God is incoherent, which means that I can neither assert not deny that such a person exists — Ludwig V

Perfectly reasonable, IMO. It does seem to exist by definition, rather than anything else (conceptually).

Atheism, then, would be the adoption of the non-existence of God as an axiom — Ludwig V

I don't quite understand why this would be the case? There's no commitment at all behind atheism, on my account (and the one i'm importing into the above table of possible positions.. feel free to just not use them though. That' sjust my account).

What could I do to bring matters to a head? — Ludwig V

I think what I'm highlighting here (and in retrospect, is not likely to be part of your position) is that many agnostics (on the account given above) take that position to avoid the discomfort of either anticipating, or failing to find, the evidence required (the latter would be your religiously-inclined atheist, the former, the neutral atheist) for God. A girl/woman (dunno what she'd prefer) from my class last night was outlining why she thinks objectivity is impossible, but it boiled down to just not liking uncertainty. I think this the case for a lot of agnostics - they can just leave off the issue entirely by claiming that looking for the evidence is a fools errand.

The existence or non-existence of "god" - a word for which people have very different definitions and descriptions - was never the issue with atheism. People who rejected the prevailing christian version of a creator/presiding deity were called a-theist (godless) and persecuted. Like other collective pejorative nomenclature, we simply took it over and owned it.
I'm a full-blown unbeliever in any and all of the theist stories, and I will not wimp out with the "maybe there is a supernatural something somewhere" agnostic line.

Perfectly reasonable, IMO. It does seem to exist by definition, rather than anything else (conceptually). — AmadeusD

Yes. The trouble is that believers wouldn't buy that. They think that God is real, so the problem is to discover and describe him/her/it.

I don't quite understand why this would be the case? — AmadeusD

I was thinking what might persuade me to think that a religion was rational. If someone posited God as an axiom, and thought through the consequences for their life and lived accordingly, that would be rational, wouldn't it? Then, if religion was rational, atheism could posit (or just not posit) the axiom but still be rational, if they thought through the consequences and live accordingly. However, if both ended up living the same sort of life, it would follow that the axiom was unnecessary and could be abandoned. That would be a rational approach to religion. Not altogether implausible.
There is a school of theology, known as presuppositionalists, (look up a theologian called Van Til) who do adopt this approach. However, they posit that the Bible is true, which is a whole different ball game. I've never seen a philosophical discussion of this, but that's understandable. If you presuppose that the Bible is true - well, other than as a historical document and evidence for history - there's very little to argue rationally about.

think this the case for a lot of agnostics - they can just leave off the issue entirely by claiming that looking for the evidence is a fools errand. — AmadeusD

"Can't be bothered" as opposed to "Don't know". I'm sure there are people, perhaps many, who are like that. They'll go with the crowd in the end.

it boiled down to just not liking uncertainty. I think this the case for a lot of agnostics - they can just leave off the issue entirely by claiming that looking for the evidence is a fools errand. — AmadeusD

Yes. A lot of philosophers are very bothered by that, as well.

I'm a full-blown unbeliever in any and all of the theist stories, and I will not wimp out with the "maybe there is a supernatural something somewhere" agnostic line. — Vera Mont

A good strong position. I hold the same view regarding such stories. But isn't there something "behind" the stories that a person cannot wimp out on even if she tried?

But isn't there something "behind" the stories that a person cannot wimp out on even if she tried? — Astrophel

Like what?

But isn't there something "behind" the stories that a person cannot wimp out on even if she tried? — Astrophel

Sure there is: human psychology. That subject interests me greatly in all its variety and complexity. I'm interested in mythology and anthropology. Obviously, the lure of magic, wish-fulfillment, personification of natural phenomena and all those impulses that begin with ritual and eventually culminate in huge international institutions like the RCC, is very much a part of that interest.
But if you mean some kind of anima or spirit in the real world, no, I don't think there is such a thing.

Obviously, the lure of magic, wish-fulfillment, personification of natural phenomena and all those impulses that begin with ritual and eventually culminate in huge international institutions like the RCC, is very much a part of that interest. — Vera Mont

RCC = Roman Catholic Church?

But isn't there something "behind" the stories that a person cannot wimp out on even if she tried? — Astrophel

For me, phenomena like personification and our ambivalent (or complicated?) attitude to animals is a clue. The concept of a person can be applied to things that are like people in some ways, but not others and it is particularly tempting for societies that don't have the benefit of modern science. If you think that some sort of super-human being is throwing the furniture around in heaven it is less alarming than not knowing. You can take steps to appease its wrath, which is comforting even if ineffective.
I have a feeling that some conspiracy theories have the same origin.

RCC = Roman Catholic Church? — Ludwig V

Yes; I believe it's the biggest and most powerful religious organization in history.

I don't put much credence in the scary thunder idea. We evolved in the natural environment, including weather. We've been hearing thunder since the development of an auditory organ, and it's always been associated with a certain kind of weather, from which all animals take shelter if they can. I think explanation of cause only gains importance after the concentration of humans in walled cities - after we cut ourselves off from nature and felt we had to master or conquer nature.

However, in native mythologies, it's common to put human-like gods in charge of natural phenomena, where thunder, lightning, wind, rain, fire and heavenly bodies become tools, weapons or vehicles for the use of the gods. These stories are a way of 'taming' natural phenomena: if there is someone made in our image who can control those forces, perhaps we can convince that entity to refrain from using them against us. In some mythologies, of course, the storm or fire is itself depicted as a personality with a human-like mind.

Much more important than stories about the elements are stories about dead people. It's very difficult to accept the loss of people we love and depend on. The idea of ghosts, spirits, transformation into trees or stars or guardian angels - essentially, denial of their death - is a way of coping with grief. From this kind of make-believe come all the rituals of burial, grave decoration, markers, shrines, funeral pyres, feasts in honour of the departed; caverns, pyramids, cemeteries and mausoleums to preserve the remains.

Like what? — flannel jesus

Like screaming children in burning cars. Suffering, that is. That is not a story.

But if you mean some kind of anima or spirit in the real world — Vera Mont

Not that. To talk about such a thing would imply one understands what existence "really is," meaning, you can't go on about how spirit is not the case if there is no existing basis for what is the case, and this is impossible: existence as such doesn't have an identity one can talk about. If you say there is no spirit, loosely construed, in the real world, I would ask, what is it that you refer to when the matter of thoughts and feelings and intuitions arises? If one is curious or envious, say, this surely is outside of the category of being a couch or a shoe. This is purely a descriptive matter: things and not at all like state of mind.

I think, Vera, you are for some reason insisting that what people say about God is all there is. Given you've acknowledge the wide breadth of what's said about God, it seems entirely irrational to simply ignore that in almost all other cases, there is something empirical behind that swathe of (potential) nonsense. Thunder/rain Gods are one.

The idea that because people are necessarily limited, you're allowed to rationally reject, wholesale, the concept of god (not God) is bizarre to me. Its patently not rational.
This is weird wording though - obviously you're allowed to do what you want intellectually - I'm pointing out the hilarious irony in trying to rationally achieve a position which is irrational.

I'm not really sure how that connects to the theist stories Vera was talking about. I doubt very many of them feature cars.

I would ask, what is it that you refer to when the matter of thoughts and feelings and intuitions arises? — Astrophel

My internal experience.

If one is curious or envious, say, this surely is outside of the category of being a couch or a shoe. — Astrophel

Without intelligent makers, there would be no couches or shoes.
Of course some matter is alive, while most matter is inanimate. But what's that to do gods? Zebras and lemurs don't worship anything, and they do all right in what's left of their environments. Human are story-tellers. It's not likely other animals make up stories.... though I sometimes wonder whether cats, dogs and apes star in their own imaginary movies that same way humans do.

The idea that because people are necessarily limited, you're allowed to rationally reject, wholesale, the concept of god (not God) is bizarre to me. — AmadeusD

Fair enough. We can be bizarre to each other.

I'm not really sure how that connects to the theist stories Vera was talking about. I doubt very many of them feature cars. — flannel jesus

Errrr, really? My question asked about what could be "behind" those old bible stories so easily dismissed, referring tosomething substantive to religious belief and practice that is logically prior to story telling, as, say, there was ethics prior to politics. You see? Children in burning cars was just a vivid example of what this could be. "Suffering" I did explicitly indicate was what I had in mind.

My internal experience. — Vera Mont

This is a question about your reference to "spirit". So when you examine your internal experience, what you find is a kind of content that really doesn't conform to the standards of existence that are generally in mind when one dismisses this concept. What you find is an undeniable qualitative distinction between this internal world of moods, attitudes, thoughts, ambitions, fears, desires and on and on, and whatever external world descriptions you can think of.

Put it this way: when you say you don't think there is such a thing as spirit, you implicitly draw on some standard of what the world really is that rejects the positing of spirit, and so I am assuming this standard refers to what is not your internal experience, but in your external experience. But since the two, internal and external, are qualitatively so different, one is given to wonder why the internal should at all be subject to what the external standards have to say.

Without intelligent makers, there would be no couches or shoes.
Of course some matter is alive, while most matter is inanimate. But what's that to do gods? Zebras and lemurs don't worship anything, and they do all right in what's left of their environments. Human are story-tellers. It's not likely other animals make up stories.... though I sometimes wonder whether cats, dogs and apes star in their own imaginary movies that same way humans do. — Vera Mont

Couches and shoes are objects. The point really was to simply say that a human "world" when observed closely, as a scientist would observe, is found to be not a world of objects. An inquiry intent on discovery of the nature of what is "there" in one's "internal experience" will notw above all that this is nothing at all like the external counterpart of this world: the world of shoes, rocks, telephone polls, morning dew, etc.

Before there was worshipping, Gods, and all the trappings of these churchy fetishes (I like to call them), there was a basic problematic built into existence that gave rise to the worshipping and the rest. It is not psychological because psychology presupposes this fundamental problem. Fetishes are parasitic on a more basic phenomenon. Here, I am asking what this "original" problematic is. One has to move to another order of questions, those about the presuppositions of psychology, biology, and any other category of science. Why? Because the discovery of what spirit IS lies outside of these. After all, if one is going to dismiss spirit, it has to be made clear what the term even means apart from the mundane casual thinking. One has to inquire after it, so to speak.

This is a question about your reference to "spirit". So when you examine your internal experience, what you find is a kind of content that really doesn't conform to the standards of existence that are generally in mind when one dismisses this concept. — Astrophel

I don't understand. What is the standard that comes to the general mind when [some?]one dismisses the concept of spirit? Is there some reason I should meet that putative standard?

Put it this way: when you say you don't think there is such a thing as spirit, you implicitly draw on some standard of what the world really is that rejects the positing of spirit, and so I am assuming this standard refers to what is not your internal experience, but in your external experience. — Astrophel

Is there a boundary between internal and external experience? How does one discern that boundary? And these very different kinds of experience transmit different kinds of information? Can you give a neurological explanation as how that works?

The point really was to simply say that a human "world" when observed closely, as a scientist would observe, is found to be not a world of objects. An inquiry intent on discovery of the nature of what is "there" in one's "internal experience" will notw above all that this is nothing at all like the external counterpart of this world: the world of shoes, rocks, telephone polls, morning dew, etc. — Astrophel

Sorry. I can make no sense of that paragraph. My best guess is something like: delving into the human psyche reveals that it differs from inanimate objects. That much, I have already stipulated as self-evident. If that difference between life and non-life is supposed to be a "spirit", I accept that as a metaphor, not as a physical entity.

Before there was worshipping, Gods, and all the trappings of these churchy fetishes (I like to call them), there was a basic problematic built into existence that gave rise to the worshipping and the rest. — Astrophel

That's a widely held opinion.