Oh OK... So now you are talking about intentional obfuscating meaning. That's different than just using a word that may not know the meaning of.

So, can you say what you mean? I sense a bit of a shifting stance, I.e., use of the words in general was bad to intentional use of the to create confusion is bad.

By describing it as borderline criminal I was pointing out that saying people shouldn't use certain words is absurd. Sorry you weren't able to understand. Lastly, you should try to avoid the ad hominem - it doesn't help you make a point.

I just saw this after re reading op. I think this ignores the importance of the origins of words and language. I imagine Chopra to be someone immersed in the ancient knowledge of words not only their meaning but also their origin which can be equally important.

Surely (scholars?) like that are great for clarifying the meanings to words in conversations but its also important and possible to extrapolate concepts from the origins of words as their transformation goes as far back as any recorded history we could possibly have.

As I understand it 'words' have their roots in pronunciation which some of the ancient Indian lore goes back further than language itself (one such theory I could propose is we did evolve from a soup but rather sound vibrations that eventually became monks chanting wordless songs?!)

But exploring the root of the word 'God' or 'Spiritual' can itself lend to debate and understanding.

This I think points to this being a discussion that fits multiple categories which is a good reason to interlace it into a fabric. Its should be sewn with another thread on Semantics as well.

No. But it is against the scientific method to make up things and insert them as real answers to questions that are unknown. If something is unknown, then the position to take is, "I don't know, or I don't yet know". You don't get to plug in your most preferred or comforting answer in the meantime.

Occam's razor doesn't imply any assumption is correct. It simply states that you eliminate the unnecessary assumptions.

But the thread is not about unintentionally using the wrong word! OP is making the argument that it's a good idea to (mis)use the word "God" and "spirituality" because they have positive connotations.

I've never argued that the words are "bad in general". I've said that they shouldn't be used when not referring to the their proper definitions as per the OP which you obviously didn't read. I even gave two very clear examples of what sort of misuse I was referring to:

Everyone can do whatever they want, but it's going to be misleading for me to say "I believe in god" if what I mean is "..and I think god is the natural world", or to say "I'm a very spiritual person" when what I mean is "I cry at the end of Of Mice And Men".

Just fyi, it's only an ad hominem if I state that your argument is wrong because you sound hysterical. I have not done this, most because I have literally no idea what your argument might be since you moved from agreeing with adsf (with caveat) to branding the discussion "borderline criminal".

I would need to use wikipedia for all of these words. If I were trying to discuss worldviews with a layperson (not that I'm not a layperson) this would be totally useless dialect unless they had a dictionary in hand. You guys and gals are all too smart. Dumb it down a bit and people will get you more And it's not somewhat dishonest from my point of view because I am not that smart!

ahh well I'm trying to remove the assumption that 'god' can't act outside our laws...

if we prove something like the law of thermo dynamics...did we really just show gods limitations?

We can use the game described in the OP here to ask whether or not laws in the game effect 'god'.

Without that assumption science can't touch the big things. But that doesn't prove thats its not possible to touch the big things.

Well, if you think the people you are interacting with have limited vocabularies, just make sure you explain how you are using the words. So if you're saying something like "Well, to me, spirituality means x,y,z..." that's cool. But if you're saying "Yeah I'm spiritual just like you guys, now check out this Carl Sagan video" then that's a bit tricksy.

Personally, I don't just want the God-botherers to 'sign on the dotted line' of science and skepticism - I want them to get there of their own accord. As such, I prefer to be straightforward with my terminology and approach to discussion. But that's just my 2 cents, as you asked for it

Which is it - very confusing when you switch you words around like that.

So basically - its not really saying anything. People should use words that express what they mean. *YAWN* You have watered it down to really not saying much.

So, I stand by my posts. OP was asking why people shouldnt use woo words. I agreed, that people use words confusingly, but its not just spiritual, it also happens in other areas.

People say these words should be avoided. I dont get this - why say people shouldnt use words?

Unless someone who I know is sane (adsf, husker, dominic etc) comes in to confirm that you are making a coherent point, I'm done.

Sorry if that sounds patronizing, but I literally have no idea what you are talking about right now. I made a very simple, non-controversial point, and you seem to be attacking me for 'watering down' an argument I never made.

I don't know dude. Like I said in my first post, you have to use your own.intellect, you are the boss. You seem to be all over the place with your argument. Generally confusing, intentional , not making an argument - I mean come on, just some consistency.

Saying "I am spiritual" but meaning "I cry" fairly well waters down the point I think you wish to make. I mean really why doesn't this apply to anything instead of whatever people decide woo words are.

Just take some time and formulate a point of view and stay on point. Maybe we can go from there.

Suddenly all becomes clear. I have made a point, and made it clearly. You, however, think the point I 'really' wish to make is something else. Can you tell me what the point you think I wish to make is?

As I said in post 25, I agree that this problem is not confined to spiritual or woo words. However, the subject of the OP is confined to those types of words. This is the nature of discussions in a forum about a specific subject.

As established above, the problem here is that you are unable to differentiate between what someone is saying, and what you want them to be saying. Having re-read your posts a dozen or so times, you seem to want to create an opponent who believes that using spiritual words is always wrong, regardless of context. I am not that opponent, and furthermore, I don't believe any such person exists.

I mean, are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? It seems completely illogical to accuse my original argument of "watering down my argument".

It's a 'no' from me.

Yeah see, I still don't understand this. This is a general problem in language as a whole. Responsibility in communication rests with both speaker and listener.

Sure its misleading if you say "green" but you mean "blue" but that's is an extremely watered down point.

Why try to avoid using words? I don't understand this classification, and it seems to be denegrating a word because it may be difficult to define.

It's your responsibility, use your intelligence - figure what you want to say and what was said.