Atheism = No Spiritual Dimensions To Reality?

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Someone who believes that there is no spiritual dimension to reality is a materialist - everything that exists can be described as purely natural, and nothing that it is outside of the physical world participates in the causal chain.

All materialists are by definition atheists, but not all atheists are materialists.

Now I've got that Madonna song stuck in my head. Living...

[skysidhe]

If humanity is any indication of an inherent spiritual nature then I would say yes, I've met althiests who seem to posses a spiritual nature and some spiritualists who are kooks and some Christains who have no humanity at all.


I know that was overkill of an answer btw.

[DanaC]

Wasn't overkill. I think it demonstrates the problem of definition quite nicely.

[Ruminator]

Thanks guys.

Zengum, you are picking up exactly my line of thought.
That holding an atheistic belief doesn't necessitate an automatic disbelief in all things spiritual, ie. that if all of the physical universe came into existence without a Creator, then a spiritual realm might well have also done so.

So I'm wondering if there is any developed body of thought along this line at this point.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

I think that's a bad analogy for the theist/atheist comparison. Gentile is a label for an out group, not an in-group appellation. The atheists I know label themselves such, while no gentile I know uses that label unless referring to themselves from a Jewish perspective.

There would be no need to refer to oneself as an atheist except from a religious perspective. If not for religion, there would be no need for the word atheist. It would just be the way things are.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

There would be no need to refer to oneself as an atheist except from a religious perspective. If not for religion, there would be no need for the word atheist. It would just be the way things are.

That's true, but I think it denies the importance of the social aspects of the issue. There's a big difference between labeling oneself and being labeled by others. Which might be a tangential point in this conversation.

[Ruminator]

"might be"... :p and not the first, but we all know threads go various places in their evolution.

[sweetwater]

Perhaps it can be the form that the spiritual world(s) take, too. Rather than a human-shaped supernatural being with a name who takes an interest in human affairs, the spiritual world can be life forces that share space with the physical. I can't go for the superhuman being(s), but I'm not a-spiritual. The physical world is easier to deal with but the non-physical has its attraction, too.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

"might be"... :p and not the first, but we all know threads go various places in their evolution.

"So you do believe in evolution," HJL advanced.

[Number 2 Pencil]

Atheism does allow for spirituality, though the few flat-out atheists i have known seem to tend to the 'no supernatural soul and nothing metaphysical in this world' camp.

Buddhists, however, can be atheists yet still hold to the idea that the soul lives on in rebirth until nirvana? That I would call a spiritual dimension.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Someone who believes that there is no spiritual dimension to reality is a materialist - everything that exists can be described as purely natural, and nothing that it is outside of the physical world participates in the causal chain.

All materialists are by definition atheists, but not all atheists are materialists.

It almost sounds like, according to what you are saying, I am a materialist. I don't even think "supernatural" should be a word--it's impossible.

But I don't consider myself an atheist. At all. Why does God have to be outside of the physical world? I think of the universal intelligence as the all-inclusive organization of the patterns of the physical universe.

And I don't discount the existance of what is percieved as a spiritual realm. It's simply a part of nature we don't understand yet; and probably aren't designed to ever understand. But that doesn't make it not exist.

I struggle with the fact that people percieve a conflict here. I can, quite easily, agree with everything believed within religion, without violating everything believed within science.

[Cicero]

Ah well, you are among the first atheists I have known that have not denied a spritual realm. Usually when I spoke to my atheist friends about it, they acted like they wanted to vomit, then argue.

So you are special. So you are our unique little atheist.

Atheists can talk all day about natural law. I've just never heard one advocate the existence of a spiritual realm. They usually chalk it up to superstition and are done with it. And by "superstition" they mean, getting a shitty look on their face.

[Pie]

Heh. Maybe someday, we can create our own spiritual realm; some sort meetingplace of the minds where the flesh is unimportant.
We shall call it --

Teh Interwebs.


Other than that smart-aleck comment, I agree completely with what jinx said:

Originally Posted by jinx

The spiritual world doesn't really interest me, I'm pretty happy just checking out the natural world. The spirituality of others doesn't offend me in any way, but like I said to Els the other night, it just seems like roll playing games to me.

[Ruminator]

"So you do believe in evolution," HJL advanced.

HLJ, yes I sure do believe in evolution. It is a readily observable process within various species; or like in the example of this threads development.

I don't even think "supernatural" should be a word--it's impossible.

Flint, I couldn't agree more.

Why does God have to be outside of the physical world?

Flint, how do you mean that?
I believe God must be "outside of the physical world" in the sense that He isn't reliant upon it for His existence. The physical universe exists within the realm of time, and God transcends time.
God created time for the physical universe to exist in.

I think of the universal intelligence as the all-inclusive organization of the patterns of the physical universe.

If I believed in a "universal intelligence" that definition would work well for a start. But I don't believe it exists.

And I don't discount the existence of what is percieved as a spiritual realm. It's simply a part of nature we don't understand yet; and probably aren't designed to ever understand. But that doesn't make it not exist. I struggle with the fact that people percieve a conflict here.

That speaks to me as well.

I can, quite easily, agree with everything believed within religion, without violating everything believed within science.

Though I don't understand how you manage that?

jinx and Pie,

The spiritual world doesn't really interest me, I'm pretty happy just checking out the natural world.

There is so much beauty and mystery in the physical natural world I totally understand how you feel.
But the mysteries of time, eternity, and the spirit realm fascinate me and stir my mind.

[ZenGum]

Sounds like Flind might be a Deist.

A theist believes in a God which is Immanent (fills the universe) and Transcendental (goes beyond the universe).

A deist believes in a God which is immanent but not transcendental. That is, there is a "God", and that God just is the sum total of the universe and everything in it, considered as a whole.
It is quite possible to break this Deity down into specific local spirits and personal spirits if you want, but this is not compulsory (and I guess could be named Animism).