Calling all atheists

[Misshalfway]

Are atheists spiritual??

[rameumptom]

I think some are. I read Camille Paglia's monthly Salon article, and she shows great admiration for religion, even though she is atheist. She sees value in it, as she does with great art or music.

OTOH, there are militant atheists, who seek to destroy religion and the belief in God. They are definitely not spiritual.

[hordak]

Buddhist and Satanist are atheist (depending on the "denomination") and follow religious rites.

[Generally_Me]

According to another forum I used to frequent a lot, yes. It is apparently much harder to believe in no creator than it is to believe in one. Since they consider their atheism to be a faith, they consider themselves spiritual.

When I pointed out how a certain person there (other forum) was just participating in a certain discussion to destroy people's faith, and was asked by someone else "what, your god can't take it?" was about the time I came here.

Like Ram, I believe spiritual atheists exist; but I haven't met any yet.

[beefche]

Are atheists spiritual??

Define spiritual.

[Guest Godless]

By definition, an atheist is a person that doesn't believe in the existence of a deity. Technically, that's the only thing we have in common. Personally, I'm not spiritual at all. However, there are many atheists who follow Eastern religions like Buddhism and Taoism, both of which are generally non-theist religions. So yes, atheists can be spiritual, and even religious, but it all comes down to personal preference.

[cofchristcousin]

I have a friend in my church who is atheist, and definitely spiritual. Here is a poem he wrote a couple of years ago.

"What is more Sacred than to recognize what is living?

What is more Sacred than to seek what is real?

Sacred is what lives in the deepest wells of our hearts

To look at someone I do not know and to feel goodness is sacred

To lift someone up in encouragement is sacred

To value and respect the inner soul of a person is sacred

In helping the poor, I will meet the sacred

In feeding the hungry, I will meet the sacred

In loving my enemies, I will meet the sacred

It is sacred to forgive and to be forgiven

It is sacred to stand against a tide of hatred and say no

it is sacred to stand in reverent silence before the universe into which I have been born

and to rejoice

Richard

[Misshalfway]

Define spiritual.

I didn't on purpose.

[Elphaba]

According to another forum I used to frequent a lot, yes. It is apparently much harder to believe in no creator than it is to believe in one.

No true atheist in that forum said anything of the kind. Your comment reflects the opinion of a theist, not an atheist.

Since they consider their atheism to be a faith, they consider themselves spiritual.

Again, no true atheist in the forum said any such thing. Your comment still reflects your theist opinion, which is not an accurate description of atheism.

Additionally, your circular reasoning is faulty. You claim, a) atheism is a faith; b) all faiths are spiritual, therefore, all atheists are spiritual.

Your fallacy fails, in that not “all“ atheists are spiritual--most are not.

Elphaba

[thews]

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.

[Guest Godless]

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.

This isn't necessarily true. There are many worldviews that support belief in a spiritual realm without supporting belief in a supreme being. Atheism doesn't automatically exclude the possibility of spiritual forces, or even the existence of an immortal soul, for that matter. It only eliminates the existence of God/gods. That's it.

That being said, I think it's safe to say that spiritual/religious atheists are a minority. Most of us don't believe in anything supernatural.

[thews]

This isn't necessarily true. There are many worldviews that support belief in a spiritual realm without supporting belief in a supreme being. Atheism doesn't automatically exclude the possibility of spiritual forces, or even the existence of an immortal soul, for that matter. It only eliminates the existence of God/gods. That's it.

That being said, I think it's safe to say that spiritual/religious atheists are a minority. Most of us don't believe in anything supernatural.

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.

[Elphaba]

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.

Why is a god is required for spirit forces to exist?

How can you define your "belief" as atheist and believe in Spirit forces?

Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. That's it.

It is entirely possible there are natural forces in the universe we just aren't aware of. Perhaps someday, admittedly far far in the future, we will have the science necessary to recognize these phenomena, including spirit forces, that have nothing to do with a deity.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Elphaba

[thews]

Why is a god is required for spirit forces to exist?

Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. That's it.

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?

It is entirely possible there are natural forces in the universe we just aren't aware of. Perhaps someday, admittedly far far in the future, we will have the science necessary to recognize these phenomena, including spirit forces, that have nothing to do with a deity.

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?

[Barter_Town]

If by "spiritual" you mean belief in the "spirit" or "spirit world", then I would say no, atheists are not "spiritual".

[Moksha]

Your fallacy fails, in that not “all“ atheists are spiritual--most are not.

Elphaba

Might this change if a non-spiritual atheist was pinned down in a fox hole with Pauly Shore or Gilbert Gottfried? After a day or two would they not be pleading with with God for their deliverance?

[Moksha]

How can a "spirit force" exist without God?

Perhaps if it was defined as a universal interconnectedness with all things, without specifying a source of that interconnectedness.

[Jamie123]

To begin with, I'm not sure I really understand the meaning of the word "spiritual":

(1) The Latin spiritus literally means "breath" or "air", which is not immediately helpful.

(2) We use "spirit" to mean something like "attitude" or "courage" (as in "Now that's the spirit!"). This seems to apply (1) as a kind of analogy for "life". (Dead people neither breath, nor have much in the way of attitude or courage.) But this doesn't help us very much either.

(3) "Spiritual" sort-of means something like "non-material". "Spirit" in this sense is synonymous with "ghost" - the non-material manifestation of a dead person. Also a "spiritual person" is not concerned with material possessions or wealth.

This seems closer to the mark. But what is a spiritual person concerned with? Anything non-material? But consider...

(a) Knowledge (such as mathematical knowledge) is non-material. Does that make it "spiritual"? There is nothing to stop an atheist from having knowledge. So atheists can be spiritual.

(b) Love is non-material, and I'm sure atheists live their wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends, children, pets etc. as much as anyone who believes in God. Again atheists can be spiritual.

But is our definition of "spiritual" sufficient? Maybe it also requires some concept of God, in which case an "atheist" (someone who does not believe in God) cannot by definition be spiritual.

But we cannot go any further without defining what we mean by this word "God".

Some would answer "God is the Supreme Being". But is this helpful? Supposing that Man were the most powerful and intelligent creature in the universe, would this make the most powerful and intelligent man alive God? And if we believed in the existence of this "most powerful man", would this make us theists?

OK...so perhaps God also needs to be "omnipotent". But what do we mean by this? An omnipotent being is one who can do absolutely anything...including the drawing of four-sided triangles and the creation of objects too heavy for him/her to lift. This is obviously absurd.

Some theologians define omnipotence differently, as "God's ability always to achieve His purpose". But suppose my only aim in life were to eat peanuts until I die, and were left for 50 years in a warehouse full of peanuts. Would that make me omnipotent? The more I think about it, the less I think the concept of "omnipotence" is very helpful.

Turning to the specific beliefs of Mormonism (I'm not LDS so please forgive me if I get this wrong), there are supposed to be an infinity of "Gods" throughout the universe, none of whom has any universal supremacy, and none of whom can violate certain universal laws. The being Mormons refer to as "Heavenly Father" is only one of these many "Gods" and therefore has no claim to be considered "The Supreme Being".

So does this mean that Mormons are atheists?

OK - so let's redefine "God" to mean "Local Supreme Being". But suppose there was a tyrant who somehow managed to take total control of a portion of the world - let's say (for argument) the United States. Would this tyrant qualify for the title of "God" within the US, and would those who believed in his existence correctly be called "theists"? And would this form of "theism" have any connection with "spirituality" in the sense of non-material belief? Obviously not.

(I think human thought has gone this way at times: Roman Emperors - the most extreme example was Caligula - were regarded as "gods" within the territories that they ruled.)

In short, I don't think I know the answer to the question!

Edited September 10, 2009 by Jamie123

[Guest Godless]

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?

No. The concept of the human soul does not require the existence of a god. Non-theist spiritualism is based on the idea that the spiritual realm needs no supreme ruler. As I mentioned before, some of the Eastern religions don't dictate belief in a deity. For example, Buddha is generally considered to be an enlightened being, not a deity. Buddhists pray to him because he is sacred, not because he is omnipotent. Another example of what I'm trying to get at would be belief in reincarnation. This belief absolutely does not require belief in a deity.

This doesn't make sense to me. How can a "spirit force" exist without God?

I can't adequately answer that question since I'm not one of the spiritual types. If I had to guess though, I'd say that the spiritual realm isn't all that different from the natural realm. There are pre-existing laws that govern spiritual things, just as there are pre-existing laws that govern nature.

Wouldn't you then be defined as "agnostic" because you don't discount that God exists?

Agnostics can also be spiritual and/or religious, but spiritualism isn't limited simply to those who believe in God and those who are unsure. The point that Elph and I are trying to make is that God and spiritualism can be completely independent of each other. Some people like the idea of having an immortal soul but can't bring themselves to believe in God. Someone who fits that description could be described as a spiritual atheist.

Bottom line, the idea of God is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to supernatural beliefs. There are many worldviews out there that accomodate spiritualism and belief in supernatural forces, but leave no room for God. I think this concept may be a hard one for many theists to grasp because they/you are trained to believe that God is unquestionably in control of the spiritual realm, whereas here in mortality we at least have our "free agency". You're programmed to think that way, so it's hard to imagine a spiritual existence without God. To be honest, it's difficult for me as well, which is why I'm not spiritual at all. However, just because you and I have a difficult time grasping the concept of non-theist spiritualism doesn't meant that it has no logical foundation.

I'd strongly urge you to read up on some of the Eastern belief systems like Buddhism and Taoism. I think you'd be surprised by how deeply spiritual people can get without believing in God.

[thews]

No. The concept of the human soul does not require the existence of a god. Non-theist spiritualism is based on the idea that the spiritual realm needs no supreme ruler. As I mentioned before, some of the Eastern religions don't dictate belief in a deity. For example, Buddha is generally considered to be an enlightened being, not a deity. Buddhists pray to him because he is sacred, not because he is omnipotent. Another example of what I'm trying to get at would be belief in reincarnation. This belief absolutely does not require belief in a deity.

I can't adequately answer that question since I'm not one of the spiritual types. If I had to guess though, I'd say that the spiritual realm isn't all that different from the natural realm. There are pre-existing laws that govern spiritual things, just as there are pre-existing laws that govern nature.

Agnostics can also be spiritual and/or religious, but spiritualism isn't limited simply to those who believe in God and those who are unsure. The point that Elph and I are trying to make is that God and spiritualism can be completely independent of each other. Some people like the idea of having an immortal soul but can't bring themselves to believe in God. Someone who fits that description could be described as a spiritual atheist.

Bottom line, the idea of God is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to supernatural beliefs. There are many worldviews out there that accomodate spiritualism and belief in supernatural forces, but leave no room for God. I think this concept may be a hard one for many theists to grasp because they/you are trained to believe that God is unquestionably in control of the spiritual realm, whereas here in mortality we at least have our "free agency". You're programmed to think that way, so it's hard to imagine a spiritual existence without God. To be honest, it's difficult for me as well, which is why I'm not spiritual at all. However, just because you and I have a difficult time grasping the concept of non-theist spiritualism doesn't meant that it has no logical foundation.

I'd strongly urge you to read up on some of the Eastern belief systems like Buddhism and Taoism. I think you'd be surprised by how deeply spiritual people can get without believing in God.

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.

[Guest Godless]

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.

I'd be interested to hear more about this viewpoint.

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.

Atheism is defined as non-belief in God or gods. That's it. The textbook definition of atheism says nothing of non-deified spirits or any other supernatural concepts. Your view of atheism seems to be a purely materialistic one. While it's true that many atheists, including myself, are materialists, materialism/naturalism is not an all-encompassing feature of atheism. It's just one of multiple ways of viewing a godless world.

To put it into some sort of perspective, the relationship between materialism and spiritualism could be compared to monotheism and polytheism within the theist worldview. Monotheism and polytheism are two very different concepts, but they both fall under the realm of theism. If I were to say that all theists believe in only one god, I'd be just as wrong as those who claim that atheists can't believe in spiritual things.

To your point, if one subscribes to an Eastern religion, they would define their beliefs by that religion and not claim to be atheist.

True. Most spiritual/religious atheists I know prefer to either be called non-theists or referred to by their specific religious categoration (Buddhist, Taoist, etc). However, they are still atheists by definition because they don't believe in the existence of a god.

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.

Again, you're taking on a very materialist/naturalist view of atheism. As I mentioned before, there are many dimensions and possibilities within the atheist worldview. The only thing that unites us is our lack of belief in god/gods. Everything else is fair game.

[Elphaba]

I don't understand your point. Are you saying a person can believe in spirit forces and not God?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Doesn't this make the "spirit force" God?

No, it does not. It makes it a spirit force.

This doesn't make sense to me. How can a "spirit force" exist without God?

The same way everything exists without a god.

Wouldn't you then be defined as "agnostic" because you don't discount that God exists?

Your circular argument is a fallacy:

~~God creates spirit forces; atheists believe in spirit forces; therefore, atheists believe in God.~~

Atheists lack a belief in gods, period. Therefore, if a spirit force does exist, it does so without a god.

This doesn't make sense to me. How can a "spirit force" exist without God?

The same way everything exists wiithout a god.

Wouldn't you then be defined as "agnostic" because you don't discount that God exists?

I don't discount that your God exists. I don't believe there is any god to discount. Thus I am an atheist, not an agonistic.

Elphaba

Edited September 10, 2009 by Elphaba

[Misshalfway]

Everything else is fair game.

Perhaps it is the "everything else" that I want to talk about.

How do they make one "spiritual" if there isn't a God to try and please? Is being spiritual a way to master self? or more about explaining the universe or the human self?

[Elphaba]

Might this change if a non-spiritual atheist was pinned down in a fox hole with Pauly Shore or Gilbert Gottfried? After a day or two would they not be pleading with with God for their deliverance?

Possibly.

But what if I was pinned down in a fox hole with Johnny Depp? Now that might make me believe in a god.

[Elphaba]

Perhaps it is the "everything else" that I want to talk about.

How do they make one "spiritual" if there isn't a God to try and please? Is being spiritual a way to master self? or more about explaining the universe or the human self?

I have met a few atheists who do believe they are spiritual, but I don't really understand what they mean when they try to explain it.

Theirs is a connection to the universe kind of spirituality. I know of two atheists who seem very at peace with this worldview, and their resulting spirituality. I've tried to believe the same, but I can't. It makes no more sense to me than believing in a deity does.