-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Spiritual Atheist?
- Thread starter Runt
- Start date
Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
Having never been an atheist I really don't know. I would guess, though, that the answer is yes. If one had qualities of mercy, compassion, justice, humility, gave to others, sought self-improvement, honesty, integrity, he/she could be considered to be spiritual. I have never known an atheist in person. I met one on a forum, but didn't know enough about the person to judge spirituality. He fought and argued every theistic thread on the board. I think he might have been too closed off to be spiritual. Great question, Runt.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
i don't believe it to be so. spiritual people only become religious when they want to fit in with people and not feel alone. if you are spiritual, than its hard to be atheist. even if you believe that it is all energy, that energy has the same meaning to you as god would have to a religious person. take the force from star wars, the force is not a god, but serves the same purpose. so not believing in the christian or jewish god and believing in an energy that takes on the same purpose would be pretty weak atheism.
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Folks -
All of this comes down to semantic definitions, I feel. If the definition of "atheist" we are using means "one who does not believe in [God]" then I would venture to say most if not all Buddhists are more-or-less spiritual atheists. Of course, one is then left with deciding exactly what is meant by [God] (which is why I bracketed it).
If "atheist" means something different to you, then we need to come up with a working definition of the term for the purposes of discussion.
Then there's the term "spiritual". I know some Buddhists who would be offended by being termed spiritual, and some who would be offended if they weren't termed that; again it depends on what "spiritual" means.
All of this comes down to semantic definitions, I feel. If the definition of "atheist" we are using means "one who does not believe in [God]" then I would venture to say most if not all Buddhists are more-or-less spiritual atheists. Of course, one is then left with deciding exactly what is meant by [God] (which is why I bracketed it).
If "atheist" means something different to you, then we need to come up with a working definition of the term for the purposes of discussion.
Then there's the term "spiritual". I know some Buddhists who would be offended by being termed spiritual, and some who would be offended if they weren't termed that; again it depends on what "spiritual" means.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
there are different kinds of atheism too. there are the atheists that just don't believe in the christian or jewish god, but believe in another one. and there are the atheists that don't believe that any form of god(s) exists anywhere.
i use spiritual in a sense that anyone who recognizes life as more than physical would be such. and this leads to the idea of a spiritual being not being able to be completely atheist. for if you have a part of you that is more than physical, than there must be something that causes that spirtuality. but then if your not completely atheist, why even say that you are.
i use spiritual in a sense that anyone who recognizes life as more than physical would be such. and this leads to the idea of a spiritual being not being able to be completely atheist. for if you have a part of you that is more than physical, than there must be something that causes that spirtuality. but then if your not completely atheist, why even say that you are.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
it is most definitely possible to be a spiritual agnostic though. some people get atheist and agnostic confused. agnostics are people who recognize that a (god) exists but realize that we will never be able to understand or find out what it is.
Master Vigil said:
No; a- theism = no- god[belief]. Atheists are not theists, pantheists, polytheists or any kind of theist. And they usually can't stand agnostics, who are just atheists who won't admit it or want to be PC!
Atheism can be said to be pretty much synonomous with rationalism - that is, no faith. Technically, atheists are simply people that are more inclined than not to believe that god as we normally understand it does not exist; but realistically, atheists tend to dismiss all religious and spiritual talk as mumbo-jumbo (the respect each atheist has for religion and spiritual beliefs varies wildly from atheist to atheist - some repect religion and spirituality as interesting and useful alternative ways of looking at the world, others think of religion as a mental illness). They are often moral relativists, but not always. They usually have great respect for the scientific method, and they usually base their beliefs on evidence and reason rather than how misty-eyed it makes them.
I agree with Engyo that we really need to define 'spiritual' first. If it's anything with souls and dualistic ideas of the separation of the mind and body, then most atheists would pass. If it's just about understanding yourself and 'nurturing the inner you' etc, then sure, we can be spiritual.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
rationalism does not mean "no faith." especially due to the fact that most of the greatest rationalists have proved of the existence of god using logic and reason. Descartes for example. And his 13 step argument is a hard one to argue against. therefore atheism cannot be taken as synonmous to rationalism. and no agnostics are not just atheists but don't want to admit it. especially because i am an agnostic, but i definitely believe in a perfect essence that superseeds everything and causes everything. however, i understand my "don't know mind" as many zen buddhist's would call it. I just don't know and never will. unless i become enlightened which i am in no way sure of. And about your definitions of spiritual, i believe both of your definitions to be the same. That "inner you" you talk about, thats your soul man. and the first one, the mind and body are separate. if you cut off your arm, are you still a human? i believe you would agree to that. but, your body cannot live without your mind, however, your mind can live without your body. And some rationalists equate the mind and the soul.
Noone has ever proven the existence of God, Vigil - not even theologians agree, hence the concept of and reliance on 'faith'. People can't even define God (He's always conveniently 'unknowable'). Give me these 'proofs', and I'll show you where they are wrong, if you like. It's a favourite pasttime of many atheists!
Faith is blind belief; as in, you have faith if you believe in something irrespective of reason or evidence. Rationalists only believe in what makes sense to them.
You are not an agnostic if you believe in a perfect essence. Agnostics are those who believe that we cannot know whether there is a God or not, and that belief or non-belief is simply a matter of preference. Which is baloney because there is as much rational and evidential support for souls and gods as there is for goblins and Santa Claus.
If you cut off your arm, it doesn't (I assume) affect your mind. Remove a part of your brain, and it does affect your mind.
Explain how the mind can live without the body.
They equate the mind and soul because they understand that when many people use the word 'soul' they really mean 'mind'. As in, the individual's personality, not something eternal.
Faith is blind belief; as in, you have faith if you believe in something irrespective of reason or evidence. Rationalists only believe in what makes sense to them.
You are not an agnostic if you believe in a perfect essence. Agnostics are those who believe that we cannot know whether there is a God or not, and that belief or non-belief is simply a matter of preference. Which is baloney because there is as much rational and evidential support for souls and gods as there is for goblins and Santa Claus.
If you cut off your arm, it doesn't (I assume) affect your mind. Remove a part of your brain, and it does affect your mind.
Explain how the mind can live without the body.
They equate the mind and soul because they understand that when many people use the word 'soul' they really mean 'mind'. As in, the individual's personality, not something eternal.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
first off, it is impossible to completely prove or DISprove the existence of god. also, why must we as imperfect, finite beings be able to define a perfect, infinite being. that is against logic. from what i have always gathered, agnostic was one who believed in the existence, but believed against the ability to know it. i will do more research on that, but that was always my take on it.
and no rationalists do not only believe in what makes sense to them, they believe in what makes sense. period. if they are the former, they are not true rationalists. also, there is no way you can compare the existence of god, and the existence of santa claus, or demons. first of all, i will use some of descartes argument. I have to look it up to put the whole thing in here later, but right now i will focus on the main parts. being that god must be perfect and cannot be to the contrary, we as imperfect beings are logically not able to create an idea of a perfect being. so that idea of a perfect being must of come from somewhere. it of course didn't come from inside our minds, for our imperfect minds logically cannot form an idea of perfection. but its still there. therefore, something must of allowed us to have this idea of a perfect essence. again i will put his whole 13 step argument in here later.
and about santa claus, its easy to understand where santa claus came from... sure, he might not exist, but his characteristics do. we all have an idea of a jolly fat man. a red suit. we have reindeer, and we have things that fly. we can put it together and make up something that is santa claus. however, back to god. there is nothing in the physical world that is perfect or infinite, so where did we get the idea from? Our minds cannot create what doesn't already exist in the world. Yet we are able to create an idea of something that can not be measured in the physical world. so i ask you, where then did the idea come from?
and no rationalists do not only believe in what makes sense to them, they believe in what makes sense. period. if they are the former, they are not true rationalists. also, there is no way you can compare the existence of god, and the existence of santa claus, or demons. first of all, i will use some of descartes argument. I have to look it up to put the whole thing in here later, but right now i will focus on the main parts. being that god must be perfect and cannot be to the contrary, we as imperfect beings are logically not able to create an idea of a perfect being. so that idea of a perfect being must of come from somewhere. it of course didn't come from inside our minds, for our imperfect minds logically cannot form an idea of perfection. but its still there. therefore, something must of allowed us to have this idea of a perfect essence. again i will put his whole 13 step argument in here later.
and about santa claus, its easy to understand where santa claus came from... sure, he might not exist, but his characteristics do. we all have an idea of a jolly fat man. a red suit. we have reindeer, and we have things that fly. we can put it together and make up something that is santa claus. however, back to god. there is nothing in the physical world that is perfect or infinite, so where did we get the idea from? Our minds cannot create what doesn't already exist in the world. Yet we are able to create an idea of something that can not be measured in the physical world. so i ask you, where then did the idea come from?
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
now the body and mind thing...
we define ourselves as human. but if our arm or even alot of our body is severed away, we are still human. however, the mind still functions the same. now that is how the mind functions without the whole of the body. the body however cannot function in the same way without the whole of the mind.
also, they don't say the soul is not eternal, they say it is immortal. big difference!
also, we prove that trees, and wolves, and humans exist. yet none of us have the same opinions on what they are.
we define ourselves as human. but if our arm or even alot of our body is severed away, we are still human. however, the mind still functions the same. now that is how the mind functions without the whole of the body. the body however cannot function in the same way without the whole of the mind.
also, they don't say the soul is not eternal, they say it is immortal. big difference!
also, we prove that trees, and wolves, and humans exist. yet none of us have the same opinions on what they are.
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Master Vigil -
With regards to Descartes' argument: Can the human being not contain the seed of perfection (then of course we get into defining what perfection is)? While not *being perfect*, having a potential for perfectability would certainly allow for the concept of perfection, would it not?
Also, without that potential, how can even a concept of perfection imposed from without take root? If I have absolutely NO frame of reference, how could anyone grasp or frame this concept, let alone have it be as ubiquitous as it is within humanity?
Curious as to your thoughts.
With regards to Descartes' argument: Can the human being not contain the seed of perfection (then of course we get into defining what perfection is)? While not *being perfect*, having a potential for perfectability would certainly allow for the concept of perfection, would it not?
Also, without that potential, how can even a concept of perfection imposed from without take root? If I have absolutely NO frame of reference, how could anyone grasp or frame this concept, let alone have it be as ubiquitous as it is within humanity?
Curious as to your thoughts.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
humans have no potentiality for perfection. for we will die. this in itself is an imperfection.
and about your second remark. this is where descartes says that god comes in. for god gave us the idea.
and about your second remark. this is where descartes says that god comes in. for god gave us the idea.
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Master Vigil -
OK, we are back to definitions again. Perfection can mean different things to different people.
Do you want to live forever? I am pretty sure I don't, at least in this particular incarnation. So based on that particular definition of perfection, it isn't something I desire.
How can God or anyone/thing else give us an idea if we cannot contain this idea? This seems inconsistant to me, but of course I am imperfect. Are you?
OK, we are back to definitions again. Perfection can mean different things to different people.
Do you want to live forever? I am pretty sure I don't, at least in this particular incarnation. So based on that particular definition of perfection, it isn't something I desire.
How can God or anyone/thing else give us an idea if we cannot contain this idea? This seems inconsistant to me, but of course I am imperfect. Are you?
Vigil
however, back to god. there is nothing in the physical world that is perfect or infinite, so where did we get the idea from? Our minds cannot create what doesn't already exist in the world. Yet we are able to create an idea of something that can not be measured in the physical world. so i ask you, where then did the idea come from?
That is the very crux of belief. Our minds most certainly can create anything that doesnt exist in the world. It is the mainstay of this concept that allows Hollywood to function and profit.
The universe is boundless, yet infinite; therefore something does exist that is infinite. Whether the universe is perfect is left to the philosophical.
Religion came before science. Therefore, belief came before understanding. If we were able to understand our world and our environment, religion may never have existed.
however, back to god. there is nothing in the physical world that is perfect or infinite, so where did we get the idea from? Our minds cannot create what doesn't already exist in the world. Yet we are able to create an idea of something that can not be measured in the physical world. so i ask you, where then did the idea come from?
That is the very crux of belief. Our minds most certainly can create anything that doesnt exist in the world. It is the mainstay of this concept that allows Hollywood to function and profit.
The universe is boundless, yet infinite; therefore something does exist that is infinite. Whether the universe is perfect is left to the philosophical.
Religion came before science. Therefore, belief came before understanding. If we were able to understand our world and our environment, religion may never have existed.
Vigil, there is nothing about the concept of God that we couldn't imagine ourselves except through God Himself putting the idea in our heads. We know the concepts of 'big', 'powerful', 'good', 'vast', 'loving' etc. We have vague and inaccurate ideas of 'infinite' and 'omnipotent'. But we have no idea of 'perfection'. We say perfection is just a state of having no flaws, and we can know flaws, but we have no idea what a flawless being is like. So we can't imagine, understand, know, or love God. God tends just to be 'the rest', or 'that which we can't explain', but if we can't explain it, then we don't have any idea that it would take a God to inform us of, and we certainly have no reason to believe in it (we don't even know what it is we're believing).
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
First off, i don't believe that god even has the concepts of big, powerful, good, vast, or loving in it. However, you are missing my point. Its the fact that we as finite, imperfect beings are not able to create the idea of something that is infinite or perfect. Therefore it had to have come from somewhere. The only place it could have come from is something that is infinite and perfect. Since there is nothing in nature or the physical world that is, it must of come from something outside of it. or as some would call it, god.