Do you believe someone can be a spiritual atheist?


When someone asks my religion I always say “I’m a spiritual atheist”, most of the time the person who asked looks at me confused and says there can be no such thing. I explain to them that I don’t believe in god, which is my definition of atheist, but I do believe everyone has a soul and that there is more to life than just chemicals in the brain. If they understand they tend to ask more about what I believe in, but plenty of times they just shake their head and move on, still puzzled.


What do you think? Can there be someone who is, by definition, a spiritual atheist or do they count as some other religion?


To get your brain churning, here are a few questions:

  • What’s your definition of atheist/atheism?
  • What’s your definition of spiritual?
  • Can the two ever coincide?
  • If you think there is such thing as spiritual atheism what qualifies someone as being that?

Views: 1864

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Thank you for conveying my thoughts so precisely while I was at work.  I can't even think of any other way of wording that response that would be more accurate.


Please read my reply to Unseen

Unseen you definitely have the right to spend the night in the house. The owner wasn't having anymore of it. You can put on blinders or investigate the source of the mystery or familiarize yourself with any research by reputable science. But this kicking up at everything you hear, most certianly won't allow you to swing on a star and be better off than you are.

Michael, you need to learn that there's a fine line between having an open mind and having a hole in the head. As far as I'm concerned all you do in these cases is act like a metaphysical gossip and pass around ridiculous rumors.

What standards does someone have who believes what they see on an entertainment program on a channel devoted to fiction of all things? or on Youtube? I'd expect a middle school boy to be that credulous!

Is there anything dubious or ridiculous or impossible that you DON'T believe?

Unseen your logic escapes me. "Oh this is the SciFi channel, therefore everything on it is SciFi." 

Be careful not to close your mind too tightly.


Are you seriously suggesting that intelligent, rational people should spend time considering the potential authenticity of haunted houses featured on the SciFi network?

Dear Michael:

Hope you are well.

It is unclear if we can practically speeking 'entertain everything'. This is a tall order even for the best minds.

Making it your job to 'not leave people comfortable in their established paradigms', seems interesting, but might also be unworkable. Some atheists seem to also desire this job, but I for one desire a greater degree of peace.

It is unclear if absolute truth is obtainable, but very good provisional truths seem possible and a few obtained. From these few, atheists and others, have made determinations, atleast for themselves that the state of the 'world and universe' does not include or demand the existence of diety. Some deeper truths might/will still rest ahead of us, but will that deeper understanding demand a different determination for that existence? We know that pure water boils at approx. 212 degrees F., but will adding ten more desimal places be of any help?

It would be wonderful to find one more great detail about the world via the supposed picture/vids of 'spirits', but it appears that n+1 pictures will not help. Something more might be demanded of a real researcher with high end sensing equipment, and/or a detail in present/future theory that might account for it. What would be needed? What would be the cost? Who would take on the task? So far it seems that only hobbyists with limited means and the desire to sell some sensationalist drivel. This might be sad to some of us.   

Would the knowledge be useful? Maybe we are looking at the behavior of dark matter, or the expression of something never ever conceaved of, or the creative work of a charlatine seeking to create belief via fraud.

I happily I am not a complete cynic. 

A neutrino can change flavor or enity in mid flight:

Particles don't oscillate--change from one "flavor" to another--as they travel through the ether. Or do they? The mysterious neutrino, shot from the interior of the Sun through space, through Earth's atmosphere, through you, through your pet cow Bessie, through your schoolhouse walls, starts out as one flavor and becomes one of-or alternately both of-two other possible flavors. The three neutrino flavors are muon, tau, and electron. This and many recent discoveries hint of a deeper reality than we undersand. Not to mention that 95 % of the universe is dark energy, an energy that we can not detect with any instrumentation.  We might as will call it ghost energy. So with most of the matter and energy in the universe being undectable, why are we so arrogant rule out unseen enities that may pervade and permeate our realm.


Obviously there is a light that moves around.  That is about all we can ascertain from this video.  We do not have sufficient information. 

When and where was it shot?  WAS it actually shot or was it ditially produced in post?  What kind of equipment (I assume camera) was used?  What were the settings used?  Apperture, shutter speed, fps, infrared device, standard definition, hi def, all camera settings?  Was this a tube camera or chip?  Knowing that it was shot in the early 1990's it is quite probably it was shot using a tube camera.  The effect of a video cameras with a tube pickup device of the era could account for the appearance of a trailing light after the overexposed object moved across the screen.  Also, when shot with a camera on normal auto averaging aperture which averages light for the entire picture in stead of "spotlight mode" which averages for the highs intensities in the picture, an object would appear washed out while the rest of the area would appear black.  These two effects in essence could give it an eerie trailing effect while at the same time diminishing the clarity of the original object.  Also, in the 1990's it is extremely probable this was shot on standard definition which has less resolution than what we are accustomed to today.  In addition, the low light situation would also reduce clarity. 

Who shot it?  What is the reliability of the person who shot it and/or found it?

Would it be logical to say it is god, spirits or a ghost?  I think not.  There is not enough information here.   

Please read my reply to Heather and Unseen above, so not to be redundant.

I really commend this crew, because they do not jump to keeping a case open for further investigation until they have ruled out C G (computer generation), hoax and natural phenomenon. They will somethings humor the notion of a listening entity  just to humor the claimant and to prove that it does not exist.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service