thews

Ok, I'm sort of understanding your point regarding Eastern religions, but I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't make sense to me. I've had many conversations with atheists, and while it's just my opinion, I find that most are really (by definition anyway) agnostic and claim to be atheists because of disdain for right-wing politics. My logic: If you have a soul, then God exists. "God" as defined as a supreme being is your point if I understand you, and you claim that belief in one supreme God can be replaced with some sort of different scenario where the afterlife isn't ruled by one being, but by some otherr definition (spirit forces comprise the soul). If that is one's belief, it really claims to define a dimension of what cannot be (or isn't) known. Since we cannot (or don't) have any factual knowledge of the afterlife and what it encompasses, I'll go back to the question asked, which asks if an "atheist" can be spiritual. In the answer your argument, someone who believes in spirit forces, but discounts the possibility of one supreme God, is really splitting hairs in its conviction to what encompasses the afterlife, and would more accurately (or probably) define themselves as agnostic. An agnosic only claims to not know if God exists, where an atheist claims to have come to the conclusion that God does (in fact) not exist. To your argument, while it's seemingly possible someone could be so convinced that "spirits" exist without God, categorically they would be define themselves as agnostic, or would seem (to me anyway) to be quite arrogant in claiming to have come to the conclusion that God does not exist but spirits do. To your point, if one subscribes to an Eastern religion, they would define their beliefs by that religion and not claim to be atheist. Spirituality is based on belief in the unknown (no one "knows" for sure {fact} they are correct). In theory, I would assume an atheist believes in the big bang, evolution, life from mixed chemicals, etc. Also believing in the result of mixed chemicals producing a soul is really a reach, and again points towards an agnostic view.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying a person can believe in spirit forces and not God? Doesn't this make the "spirit force" God? This doesn't make sense to me. How can a "spirit force" exist without God? Wouldn't you then be defined as "agnostic" because you don't discount that God exists?

I don't understand this. Can you explain what doesn't sit quite right with you? Thanks

I'm not following your logic. How can you define your "belief" as atheist and believe in Spirit forces? I would assume that a theist could believe in spirit forces, but how can you believe in spirit forces and not God? This isn't just semantics IMO, but the root of the definition.

To answer your question, I’d have to say categorically no. The difference between an agnostic and an atheist is the conclusion that God does not exist, rather than may exist. To connect “spiritual” to a non-theist would imply a sense of spirituality, and in doing so would side towards one defining themselves as an agnostic rather than an atheist. JMHO.

Hello all. Just wanted to say hello for my first post and I look forward to meeting some of you. :)