Does any version of atheism include belief that there is a spiritual realm? Thanks.

[WaltL1]

I can see "vary" accounting for different spiritual experiences or none at all, but no one denies the existence of these despite being unable to measure, quantify or reproduce them. That's where I think this argument against theism fails. JMHO

"Vary" allows for different personal interpretations.
Theism/Christianity tells you EXACTLY what God is, says, does, expects etc.
Think of the never ending disagreements with different denominations. The other one is always wrong as opposed to the other because there is supposed to be only one way to view it. No varying allowed.

 

[WaltL1]

to a degree I suppose. Scientists can hook up sensors to our brains for example to physically measure what parts of the brain are activated under certain stimulation & whatnot. But still, what your brain is doing as it relates to the unique "you" of your own internal reality can't be conveyed with 100 percent accuracy to another person's unique "them" that encompasses their internal reality. Science is making great strides in that area however, which is interesting & exciting.

I wish I knew some way to get what I dream about nearly every night (generally at least a couple of long, weird & bizarre dreams that I remember when I wake up) onto a movie screen because that would blow your minds! Most are PG with a few being PG13 or rated R but rarely anything graphic.

The name of the test escapes me but the one where they project color on the different parts of the brain and then do different stimulations and you watch the colors change and move around the brain according to the different stimuli is wild to watch.

 

[oldfella1962]

I get that. I get your point, but it doesn't detract from the fact that we believe non-physical "concepts" are just as tangible as the physical. We don't doubt the concept of love, beauty. That's my point: Everyday we believe and act according to our belief in non physical yet tangible "concepts". To say we don't believe in God because he isn't quantifiable, reproducible, or physical is flawed reasoning in light of that.

I can see your point in that regard. But the main difference between belief in & experiencing love or beauty and a belief in & experiencing God is the completely supernatural aspect of God. We know that romantic "love" can make people lose all semblance of rationality and do crazy, dangerous things at times. But I don't think that anyone attaches anything supernatural to what love can make people do. In retrospect we can look back and see that love was inspiring us or clouding our thinking or getting our adrenalin pumping or whatever effect love had on us while we were "in love" but rarely would we bring the supernatural into the conversation.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

"Vary" allows for different personal interpretations.

"Vary" with regards to different interpretations is never-the-less an affirmation. We all have varied spiritual experiences while hunting, fishing, etc. Though they may be varied, each individual experience is in and of itself an affirmation, a tangible yet unquantifiable, un- replicatable, yet personal proof. We accept these non-physical experiences as proof of an unseen experience without question, yet when it comes to a big G God spiritual experience, many an A/A will say "NOPE. No evidence." It's bad reasoning with regards to that argument. That's all I'm saying.

Theism/Christianity tells you EXACTLY what God is, says, does, expects etc.

Christianity does. Theism Doesn't. It's as broad as Atheism as it posits only God. That's as far as it goes.

Think of the never ending disagreements with different denominations. The other one is always wrong as opposed to the other because there is supposed to be only one way to view it. No varying allowed.

As to the "never ending disagreements", IMHO that just comes down to personal pride. It may serve as a great example of hubris among the believers who think their experience defines how God relates to everyone else, but it's not a valid argument against the existence of God. Heated arguments on Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge don't disprove the existence of automobiles, just how narrow minded people can be over irrelevant details and personal preferences.

 

[WaltL1]

"Vary" with regards to different interpretations is never-the-less an affirmation. We all have varied spiritual experiences while hunting, fishing, etc. Though they may be varied, each individual experience is in and of itself an affirmation, a tangible yet unquantifiable, un- replicatable, yet personal proof. We accept these non-physical experiences as proof of an unseen experience without question, yet when it comes to a big G God spiritual experience, many an A/A will say "NOPE. No evidence." It's bad reasoning with regards to that argument. That's all I'm saying.



Christianity does. Theism Doesn't. It's as broad as Atheism as it posits only God. That's as far as it goes.




As to the "never ending disagreements", IMHO that just comes down to personal pride. It may serve as a great example of hubris among the believers who think their experience defines how God relates to everyone else, but it's not a valid argument against the existence of God. Heated arguments on Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge don't disprove the existence of automobiles, just how narrow minded people can be over irrelevant details and personal preferences.

yet when it comes to a big G God spiritual experience, many an A/A will say "NOPE. No evidence.

No overwhelming evidence of the God you are giving credit for the experience.
Nobody denies the experience itself was had.

Christianity does. Theism Doesn't. It's as broad as Atheism as it posits only God. That's as far as it goes.

Tell me about the G(god), any of them, that doesnt have claims behind them of what they do, have done, are responsible for etc.

As to the "never ending disagreements", IMHO that just comes down to personal pride. It may serve as a great example of hubris among the believers who think their experience defines how God relates to everyone else, but it's not a valid argument against the existence of God.

Agreed. Its not a valid argument against the existence of God or a god.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I can see your point in that regard.

That's scary. That can mean only one of two things: we're both crazy or my ramblings are, for some reason, somewhat intelligible today.

But the main difference between belief in & experiencing love or beauty and a belief in & experiencing God is the completely supernatural aspect of God.

Which is, in part at least, exactly what threw me with @WaltL1 s point regarding atheism and the supernatural. If you allow for the least bit of of supernatural belief how can you possibly deny God. His very existence is synonymous with, if not the very definition of "supernatural". If the argument is, and I've heard it here many, many times before, "I don't believe in God, because he's supernatural and thus by definition unable to be seen, reproduced or quantified. You can't rationally make that argument and then allow for some spiritual/supernatural.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

No overwhelming evidence of the God you are giving credit for the experience.

"Overwhelming???" Whoa now Walt. Don't go moving the goal post on me.

Nobody denies the experience itself was had.

OK and this is the crux of it. Experience is an always an affirmation, a proof if you will. All day every day we live our lives based off of our experiences. We form our goals, define our desires, base our want and needs, all off experiences. Many if not most of these experiences/affirmations/proofs are not physical, quantifiable, reproducible, or measurable, yet they guide our daily lives, day in and day out. It's so ingrained we do it subconsciously without even thinking about it. Yet, yet when it comes to a non quantifiable, non-physical, non-reproducible, non physical experience with the G man, we say, " No. Absolutely not. Not any measurable, physical, reproducible, yada, yada, yada evidence and that's what I demand before I believe in something." Just food for thought, but it strikes me as a bit shortsighted and possibly hypocritical.

Tell me about the G(god), any of them, that doesnt have claims behind them of what they do, have done, are responsible for etc.

For the sake of Atheism itself it's irrelevant, only Theism need be. As I understand it that was as far as Einstein (and Hitchens according to some) allowed themselves to go. As to the claims of various beliefs, I'm not here to preach, besides I save all the bad emotions for the believers these days. This is all I will say to that end. It's my wish that each of you will find God as I've found him to be.

 

[WaltL1]

That's scary. That can mean only one of two things: we're both crazy or my ramblings are, for some reason, somewhat intelligible today.



Which is, in part at least, exactly what threw me with @WaltL1 s point regarding atheism and the supernatural. If you allow for the least bit of of supernatural belief how can you possibly deny God. His very existence is synonymous with, if not the very definition of "supernatural". If the argument is, and I've heard it here many, many times before, "I don't believe in God, because he's supernatural and thus by definition unable to be seen, reproduced or quantified. You can't rationally make that argument and then allow for some spiritual/supernatural.

Which is, in part at least, exactly what threw me with @WaltL1 s point regarding atheism and the supernatural.

We were discussing spirituality not the supernatural.
2 very different things.

 

[WaltL1]

"Overwhelming???" Whoa now Walt. Don't go moving the goal post on me.



OK and this is the crux of it. Experience is an always an affirmation, a proof if you will. All day every day we live our lives based off of our experiences. We form our goals, define our desires, base our want and needs, all off experiences. Many if not most of these experiences/affirmations/proofs are not physical, quantifiable, reproducible, or measurable, yet they guide our daily lives, day in and day out. It's so ingrained we do it subconsciously without even thinking about it. Yet, yet when it comes to a non quantifiable, non-physical, non-reproducible, non physical experience with the G man, we say, " No. Absolutely not. Not any measurable, physical, reproducible, yada, yada, yada evidence and that's what I demand before I believe in something." Just food for thought, but it strikes me as a bit shortsighted and possibly hypocritical.



For the sake of Atheism itself it's irrelevant, only Theism need be. As I understand it that was as far as Einstein (and Hitchens according to some) allowed themselves to go. As to the claims of various beliefs, I'm not here to preach, besides I save all the bad emotions for the believers these days. This is all I will say to that end. It's my wish that each of you will find God as I've found him to be.

"Overwhelming???" Whoa now Walt. Don't go moving the goal post on me

Well there is evidence. It just doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

experience with the G man,

I believe an experience was had.
I believe the person believes the experience was with God.
Before I can believe the experience was with God, God would be have to be proven to exist.

It's my wish that each of you will find God as I've found him to be.

I'll take that as a kind gesture from you and say Thank You.

 

[oldfella1962]

Just to clear things up with "theism" versus "deism" according to what I googled:

"A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation. A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government."

Okay that doesn't really clear it up for me. I think a deist is someone who believes there is some type of higher power who created the universe. I know a soldier who claimed this as his religion, and it was on his dog tags and whatnot.

 

[oldfella1962]

"Tell me about the G(god), any of them, that doesnt have claims behind them of what they do, have done, are responsible for etc." - Walt 1 (I think)

IMHO the more broad/general your tribe keeps its concept of "God" the less chance that it can be used to have absolute control over that tribe or even other tribes.
In other words, once your small scale & simple belief becomes a full-blown organized "religion" then the real trouble begins.

 

[660griz]

As Bullet and Griz says above its a "feeling". When you sit in a tree stand watching the sun come up you may FEEL close to God. An A/A may FEEL close to nature. Or be in wonder at the beauty of it all. Or FEEL connected to nature etc etc.
That feeling and/or wonder of it all could be described as "spiritual".

Exactly. There is spiritual 'FEELING', and then there is the spirit realm mentioned in the OP.
While I personally cannot say I believe in a spirit realm, how or what other folks come to their conclusion, atheist, agnostic or theist, I cannot say. Since atheism has no 'versions' it is just people deciding what to believe.

This may help. Folks just believe what they wanna believe.


Did yall watch the movie, "The Discovery"?
A scientist whose proof of an afterlife caused a rash of suicides.

 

[oldfella1962]

Exactly. There is spiritual 'FEELING', and then there is the spirit realm mentioned in the OP.
While I personally cannot say I believe in a spirit realm, how or what other folks come to their conclusion, atheist, agnostic or theist, I cannot say. Since atheism has no 'versions' it is just people deciding what to believe.

This may help. Folks just believe what they wanna believe.
View attachment 1160881
View attachment 1160882
Did yall watch the movie, "The Discovery"?
A scientist whose proof of an afterlife caused a rash of suicides.

Proof of an afterlife caused suicide? I'm not surprised. Something similar happened to my mother-in-law. After her husband died from Alzheimers she often talked about wanting to die to "be with Jesus and see her husband in heaven".
Eventually she got overwhelmed by a run of bad luck in her life, and she killed herself.