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



## RegularJoe (Jun 19, 2022)

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


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 19, 2022)

Atheist means "A" (without)- "Theist" (belief in God(s))

That's the only qualifier.  

One can be an atheist and still believe in werewolves, ghosts, other dimensional creatures and realms, and Santa Clause.  Many people's atheism is based on a strong requirement for evidence and rationality as a precursor to belief, but it also appeals to those who want to reject traditional values in support of a "Progressive" agenda.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 19, 2022)

like your sig line.

_"Brains and abundant information are only as good as one's common sense."_

If one were lacking in common sense, do you think they, and the rest of us, would benefit from them lacking in information or intelligence?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 19, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


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



Gtreat question! Generally atheism is not believing in the existence of any deity. 
Certainly a deity is under the umbrella of the "spiritual" realm, so I would say I am not aware of any form of atheism that would believe in the spiritual but not a deity that goes along with it.

HOWEVER do some atheists believe in the_ supernatural_?   In other words ghosts and whatnot, but maybe that would be more of a paranormal thing. 

Just as a point of reference, I would consider myself a hard agnostic. By this I mean a deity of some type could, maybe exist, but that the God of The Bible for example does not, because The Bible was written by humans with no divine wisdom or intervention.
In other words, the Bible has been debunked many times over. It does contain some kernels of truth, but nothing that would indicate the presence of a deity that can be confirmed by sources outside the Bible. But that doesn't preclude the existence of _some type of deity_ existing in the past, in the present, or in the future at some point. I can't debunk what I haven't even seen or heard of yet. But I can debunk blatant inconsistencies, inaccuracies, contradictions, and outlandish claims when they are in a book open for investigation & scrutiny. 

I guess I would be a hard agnostic of the "spiritual realm" because so far all of it seems to exist only in the human imagination so far anyway.

Bottom line, many hard-core atheists do not believe in the spiritual realm at all nor the supernatural realm. It's a slippery slope, and if you don't see sufficient evidence for the spiritual why should you lower your standards for anything supernatural? Nothing should get a pass when it comes to skepticism and the burden of proof.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 19, 2022)

Old - Thank you for your time and for your thinking. - Joe.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 19, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Atheist means "A" (without)- "Theist" (belief in God(s))
> 
> That's the only qualifier.
> 
> One can be an atheist and still believe in werewolves, ghosts, other dimensional creatures and realms, and Santa Clause.  Many people's atheism is based on a strong requirement for evidence and rationality as a precursor to belief, but it also appeals to those who want to reject traditional values in support of a "Progressive" agenda.



Yes there are those who want to reject a belief in a deity for the purpose of supporting a "progressive" agenda. Then again as you mentioned, many atheists believe in evidence and rationality. There are those like myself who reject a personal belief in the God of the Bible, but are conservative and practice traditional values such as family & country, hard work, equal opportunity (but not equal outcome) and reject almost all of the "progressive" agenda. 

It is funny how some people believe in every crazy unproven nonsensical thing under the sun but won't believe in God, and some people believe in God but reject all the other crazy unproven nonsensical thing under the sun!   Here is what works for me:

1. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!

2. Science has questions that may never be answered, while religion has answers that should never be questioned.

3. The most likely reason for something usually turns out to be the truth, so begin your search there.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 19, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> If one were lacking in common sense, do you think they, and the rest of us, would benefit from them lacking in information or intelligence?


The more information/intelligence the better (if I my understanding of your question is doing your question justice : ).


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 19, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> The more information/intelligence the better (if I my understanding of your question is doing your question justice : ).



I guess it's important to define common sense.  It's a bit of a squishy term and will probably be hard to get consensus on what it is.  Broken down into its constituent parts, "common" would mean that it's ubiquitous, found everywhere like dirt or air.  "Sense" is the hard one.  For something to make sense or be sensible, I believe that it comports with reality or established truths.  

If a person were lacking in common sense, that would mean that they either haven't been exposed to long understood truths, that they reject them out of hand, or that they lack the ability to internalize them.  In the case of that individual, I don't think that more information/intelligence would help them, indeed, too much information might confuse them or they may be lacking in intellectual horsepower.  If you could convince them to adopt a "ready guide" system of belief, it might actually benefit them and the rest of us.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 19, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> I guess it's important to define common sense.  It's a bit of a squishy term and will probably be hard to get consensus on what it is.  Broken down into its constituent parts, "common" would mean that it's ubiquitous, found everywhere like dirt or air.  "Sense" is the hard one.  For something to make sense or be sensible, I believe that it comports with reality or established truths.
> 
> If a person were lacking in common sense, that would mean that they either haven't been exposed to long understood truths, that they reject them out of hand, or that they lack the ability to internalize them.  In the case of that individual, I don't think that more information/intelligence would help them, indeed, too much information might confuse them or they may be lacking in intellectual horsepower.  If you could convince them to adopt a "ready guide" system of belief, it might actually benefit them and the rest of us.



Good points here!  Your "world view" would influence the definition of what is "common" sense. Fact X might seem like common sense among those who share your worldview, but fact X is nonsense to those sharing a different worldview. Or perhaps you are of a different mindset, and fact Y might seem like common sense among those who share your worldview, but fact Y is nonsense to those sharing a different worldview.

That's a big reason why all the "facts" available on any subject (take religion....please!)   won't change a person's mind, because they too have all the "facts" that counter your "facts". Because with any worldview other things come along for the ride, like
FILTERS, confirmation bias, selective listening, etc.

*This is why IMHO science and faith are 180 degrees in opposition most of the time*.
Here's an analogy I came up with, but I'm sure others have too:

Let's say Christianity is an FM (frequency modulated) radio signal. You can pump out Bible facts 24/7 and the storehouse of information might grow and grow and all the other Christians with an FM radio get pumped full of Bible facts and they can call in to the FM radio with their own ideas on the Bible facts and everyone gets educated to the nth degree in Bible stuff.

But science is an AM (Amplitude Modulated) radio signal. Those with an AM radio are unable to hear one word of the Bible facts broadcast on FM radio. They FM Bible signal can be transmitted with a gazillion watts of power and the AM science fan's radios can be turned up all the way to eleven, but nothing will get though. The science lovers out there in radioland with an AM radio can get all the science facts from the AM radio signal they could ever want. Of course, the FM radio listening Christians will never hear a word of the AM science signal. I hope this made sense!

Anything based only on faith_ cannot_ be tested or proven by science because if it _could_ be proven, everyone (to include those without "faith") would believe it, which would make the concept of (and the need for) faith meaningless. 

IMHO if you have Christian faith and want to keep it (nothing wrong with that, it's a free country) I would advise you to be very careful reading your Bible! 
Eventually tuning out all the science thoughts you are bombarded with might not work. All the moral contradictions might get too hard to ignore. You might be reading the Bible for the hundredth time in good faith, but a switch might flip in your brain when things just aren't adding up anymore. Perhaps more things that you accepted as true & accurate might not seem to add up no matter how hard you try to get them to add up. You may start to actually question what's in the Bible with a more open mind. Just something to think about, that's all.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 20, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> If a person were lacking in common sense, that would mean that they either haven't been exposed to long understood truths, that they reject them out of hand, or that they lack the ability to internalize them.
> In the case of that individual, I don't think that more information/intelligence would help them,
> indeed, too much information might confuse them or they may be lacking in intellectual horsepower.
> If you could convince them to adopt a "ready guide" system of belief, it might actually benefit them and the rest of us.


I am trying to climb back up off the floor from rolling all around with laughter.  That was a fun reply to read. : ))))))).  I.e., so much truth in what you said (e.g., I would could benefit from a "ready guide." ... heading on over to Amazon/Books next.).


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 20, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


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


my understanding of Atheism is simply a disbelief in a God or gods. The end.
So any other belief, such as in a "spiritual realm", would not fall under a "version of Atheism".
I have no doubt you could find Atheists who believe any number of things, including a spiritual realm of sorts. Just not a God or gods.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 20, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> my understanding of Atheism is simply a disbelief in a God or gods. The end.
> So any other belief, such as in a "spiritual realm", would not fall under a "version of Atheism".
> I have no doubt you could find Atheists who believe any number of things, including a spiritual realm of sorts. Just not a God or gods.



That sums it up well. There are many types of atheists just as there are many types of theists.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 21, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


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


While the strict definition of atheism points to there being a possibility there could be an atheist that believes in ghost. I sure hope that is not the case. To use logic, critical thinking, and common sense to come to the conclusion there are no gods only to throw it all down the toilet for other supernatural beings, well...not cool.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 21, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> That sums it up well. There are many types of atheists just as there are many types of theists.


Yep.
I think lots of folks waaaaay over complicate or assume way too much about Atheist "beliefs".
"If you dont believe in God, you must support abortion".
"If you dont believe in God, you must view yourself as a god".
"If you dont believe in God, you can not be spiritual".
And all sorts of wacky stuff.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 21, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> oldfella1962 said:
> 
> 
> > That sums it up well. There are many types of atheists just as there are many types of theists.
> ...


To try to gain a netted out / simplified / core understanding I have studied the book entitled Humanist Manefestos I & II.
[ https://www.amazon.com/Humanist-Man...ix=humanist+manefesto+2,stripbooks,126&sr=1-1 ]
It provided a base and this forum has been confirming, while helping to expand my understanding further.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 21, 2022)

660griz said:


> While the strict definition of atheism points to there being a possibility there could be an atheist that believes in ghost. I sure hope that is not the case. To use logic, critical thinking, and common sense to come to the conclusion there are no gods only to throw it all down the toilet for other supernatural beings, well...not cool.



Hold on now! So you're telling me that all those "ghost hunting" shows on TV might not be on the level?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 21, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Yep.
> I think lots of folks waaaaay over complicate or assume way too much about Atheist "beliefs".
> "If you dont believe in God, you must support abortion".
> "If you dont believe in God, you must view yourself as a god".
> ...



 I cannot STAND being pigeonholed * concerning political beliefs and religious beliefs! There's a video online - made by an atheist whose views I normally share - entitled (paraphrasing here) "you can't be a Republican and an atheist". Granted the guy might debunk this claim and he needed a catchy title for the video, but if he's serious then my respect for him just plummeted. I'll watch it just to see later today.

* with the whole LGBLTKFC+ thing going around, "pigeonholed" might mean something different than it used to.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 21, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I cannot STAND being pigeonholed * concerning political beliefs and religious beliefs! There's a video online - made by an atheist whose views I normally share - entitled (paraphrasing here) "you can't be a Republican and an atheist". Granted the guy might debunk this claim and he needed a catchy title for the video, but if he's serious then my respect for him just plummeted. I'll watch it just to see later today.
> 
> * with the whole LGBLTKFC+ thing going around, "pigeonholed" might mean something different than it used to.


Like…………you can’t be Christian without suspending common sense and logic??


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 21, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Like…………you can’t be Christian without suspending common sense and logic??



Not really. I said I don't like pigeonholing religious beliefs into political beliefs, and vice versa.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 21, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Not really. I said I don't like pigeonholing religious beliefs into political beliefs, and vice versa.


Sorry, I thought you said this - "I cannot STAND being pigeonholed * concerning political beliefs *and* religious beliefs!" 

I am going back to my whole now. Working on a water wheel with a hand-crank pump to pump water out of a creek without using electricity.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


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


Yes. There are a couple Atheist friends of mine that believe a spiritual realm and even a higher power might exist..............but it is not connected to God or a god. 

As an example - they believe in ghost. Do someone wrong and they will haunt you. They believe in karma, they believe in sending "good vibes", etc.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Yes. There are a couple Atheist friends of mine that believe a spiritual realm and even a higher power might exist..............but it is not connected to God or a god.
> 
> As an example - they believe in ghost. Do someone wrong and they will haunt you. They believe in karma, they believe in sending "good vibes", etc.


Those are great examples but I dont think they are a "version of Atheism".
They are just individual beliefs that are separate from Atheism.
At least thats how I see it.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 22, 2022)

I suppose that this is where I have gotten to where I need some further advice in understanding Atheism (_this is in no way intended to be argumentative at all - I am earnestly looking to understand_) ....

1.  How does the Atheist know with certainty that there is simply no chance of there being some sort of spiritual realm?  I.e., how much knowledge would one have to have (omniscience?) to be so certain? 

or, then... 

2.  Okay ... then if not 100% certainty, but the Atheist holds to the said 'certainty view' being based on '_in all likelihood _there is no spiritual realm, then is it 'ok' to view Atheism as being a faith based ideology?

Thanks.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 22, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Sorry, I thought you said this - "I cannot STAND being pigeonholed * concerning political beliefs *and* religious beliefs!"
> 
> I am going back to my whole now. Working on a water wheel with a hand-crank pump to pump water out of a creek without using electricity.



Yes I did say that, so let me clear it up. I don't like being pigeonholed concerning if you are a Liberal then you have to believe X concerning religion, but if you are a Conservative then you have to believe Y concerning religion. It's counter-productive for both politics and religion.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 22, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> I suppose that this is where I have gotten to where I need some further advice in understanding Atheism (_this is in no way intended to be argumentative at all - I am earnestly looking to understand_) ....
> 
> 1.  How does the Atheist know with certainty that there is simply no chance of there being some sort of spiritual realm?  I.e., how much knowledge would one have to have (omniscience?) to be so certain?
> 
> ...



Just my 2 cents, but if an atheist posits the point that there_ might _be a spiritual realm in general I would say that it's not a matter of faith (hope in things unseen) in what might exist as much as their usual level of skepticism. In other words it wouldn't be fair for an atheist to lower or raise the bar on "the burden of proof" for one spiritual issue (let's say demons or angels or spirits or whatever) but demand a different standard of proof for one all-powerful God. Most atheists just want the Truth.
So far, no religion (or spiritually driven organization or philosophy) has provided
any evidence that can be proven to the standards of people outside their circle of followers.

Bottom line no atheist knows for certain that there isn't a spiritual realm and would welcome proof that won't be shot down in flames eventually. Of course, "the burden of proof" will vary from atheist to atheist.

As I've mentioned before IMHO Jesus walking on water would be a_ great _example of a_ possible_ spiritual ability unknown to modern science. 
I can get a mental image of this actually occurring without any major conflict with the laws of science. There's nothing outrageously ridiculous about it as a stand-alone miracle.

However, "God making the sun and moon stand still" in the OT Joshua chapter 10 for Joshua to finish his military battle is laughable on many levels, the worst point being stopping the Earth from spinning (since that's what causes night versus day) at about 1,000 MPH WOULD DESTROY THE EARTH.  And starting back up to 1,000 MPH from a standing stop would also DESTROY THE EARTH. Google that, it's pretty amazing & terrifying really. The point is that is a miracle that *I am 100 percent certain *did not happen since the Earth didn't get destroyed.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 22, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Yes. There are a couple Atheist friends of mine that believe a spiritual realm and even a higher power might exist..............but it is not connected to God or a god.
> 
> As an example - they believe in ghost. Do someone wrong and they will haunt you. They believe in karma, they believe in sending "good vibes", etc.



Yes, I've met a few of those type of people too. There's zero evidence (so far anyway) for that stuff too.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Yes, I've met a few of those type of people too. There's zero evidence (so far anyway) for that stuff too.


I’ve always heard about good luck, gotta be lucky, as luck has it……

They’ll do their little ceremony of rubbing their hands together, marking an x on the windshield when a black cat runs across, etc.

Those folks don’t like me because I tell them there’s no such thing as good luck or bad luck. Luck is nothing but where opportunity and preparation / lack of preparation meet.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 22, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> ....Bottom line no atheist knows for certain that there isn't a spiritual realm ...


Thank you.
How is an Atheist who does not know for certain different from an Agnostic?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Thank you.
> How is an Atheist who does not know for certain different from an Agnostic?


Im interested in the responses on this.
I put myself in the Agnostic bucket simply because I dont know for CERTAIN.
But I dont believe in the existence of a God or gods (due to a lack of demonstrable evidence) which is the definition of Atheism.
This is why I hate buckets.
And great question by the way.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 22, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Thank you.
> How is an Atheist who does not know for certain different from an Agnostic?



IMHO there is no such thing as a 100 percent atheist, nor 100 percent agnostic. I think there is some overlap here & there.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Thank you.
> How is an Atheist who does not know for certain different from an Agnostic?


The Atheist (or literally No One) knows anything about what may possibly be.
The Atheist just does not beleive in any god or gods.
No different than a believer  who believes in a god or gods but equally has no greater clue about their actual existence.
The Agnostic says , Gee, Maybe I guess, I don't know if or if not.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The Atheist (or literally No One) knows anything about what may possibly be.
> The Atheist just does not believe in any god or gods.
> No different than a believer***  who believes in a god or gods but equally has no greater clue about their actual existence.
> The Agnostic says , Gee, Maybe I guess, I don't know if or if not.


And "... a ***Believer... " _readily_ views his / her ideology as _thereby_ 'faith based,' 
due to the whatever degree of uncertainty / lack of measurable tangible evidence.
The Agnostic's position would _seem_ to me to not be 'faith based' at all??????  
The Atheist ideology would _seem_ to me to be 'faith based' if the conclusion is arrived at with any degree of uncertainty .... 
in that faith is what overcomes the whatever degree of uncertainty??????


----------



## 660griz (Jun 23, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> And "... a ***Believer... " _readily_ views his / her ideology as _thereby_ 'faith based,'
> due to the whatever degree of uncertainty / lack of measurable tangible evidence.
> The Agnostic's position would _seem_ to me to not be 'faith based' at all??????
> The Atheist ideology would _seem_ to me to be 'faith based' if the conclusion is arrived at with any degree of uncertainty ....
> in that faith is what overcomes the whatever degree of uncertainty??????



The ol saying, 'I just believe in one less God than you do', comes to mind. I do find it fascinating how folks try to attach 'faith' and 'ideology' to just not believing in Gods or supreme beings. It is almost like they are upset they are stuck with it and just want to make sure everyone gets the label. In reality, atheist is the easiest thing to be.  I don't have to prove anything.  Shouldn't everyone start as an atheist until proven otherwise? Sadly, that is not the case. You are most likely born with folks telling you how you believe. Have you checked out the other Gods to see if they are more viable or just wrote them off as false idols?  

"Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future."  ---PENN JILLETTE


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 23, 2022)

660griz said:


> ....Shouldn't everyone start as an atheist until proven otherwise?
> ....Have you checked out the other Gods...?


Respectively to your above questions
(as relates to _me_, i.e., _not_ speaking for others : ):
1.  _My_ starting point is that I am not all knowing, until _I_ can prove otherwise.
2.  Yes Sir.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 23, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Respectively to your above questions
> (as relates to _me_, i.e., _not_ speaking for others : ):
> 1.  _My_ starting point is that I am not all knowing, until _I_ can prove otherwise.


Didn't answer the question but, ok.
Now, if you are saying you started as an atheist but, your currently worshipped God was proven to you, please share.
What about the other Gods made you say, "Nah, that's crazy."?


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 23, 2022)

RegularJoe said:
Respectively to your above questions
(as relates to _me_, i.e., _not_ speaking for others : ):
1. _My_ starting point is that I am not all knowing, until _I_ can prove otherwise.

Griz replied:
Didn't answer the question but, ok.

Griz - _My_ answer would be _for me,_ simply 'no, not in _my _particular case, in that I do not know enough to say


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 23, 2022)

660griz said:


> made you say, "Nah, that's crazy."?


Come on Griz ... give me a break - I did not say even close to "Nah, that's crazy."
I have not in anyway suggested such.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 23, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Come on Griz ... give me a break - I did not say even close to "Nah, that's crazy."
> I have not in anyway suggested such.


Ok. I can ask the question in a more boring way.
What about the other Gods made you not believe in them and pick the one you did?

I also understand I am getting off topic and into the weeds. Sorry. To answer your original question..."Does any version of atheism include belief that there is a spiritual realm?" No. Mainly because there is only one 'version' of atheism. Lack of belief in existence of gods. That's it. The end.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 23, 2022)

660griz said:


> To answer your original question..."Does any version of atheism include belief that there is a spiritual realm?" No. Mainly because there is only one 'version' of atheism. Lack of belief in existence of gods. That's it.


Many thanks Griz ... Got it.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

" In reality, atheist is the easiest thing to be. I don't have to prove anything. Shouldn't everyone start as an atheist until proven otherwise? Sadly, that is not the case. You are most likely born with folks telling you how you believe. Have you checked out the other Gods to see if they are more viable or just wrote them off as false idols?"
660 Griz

The two biggest factors determining which religion you follow are:
1. geography
2. your parents

So yes, we are generally, usually, "born into" our religions.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> " In reality, atheist is the easiest thing to be. I don't have to prove anything. Shouldn't everyone start as an atheist until proven otherwise? Sadly, that is not the case. You are most likely born with folks telling you how you believe. Have you checked out the other Gods to see if they are more viable or just wrote them off as false idols?"
> 660 Griz
> 
> The two biggest factors determining which religion you follow are:
> ...


Yep. I was baptised as an infant. Couldnt read, talk, walk etc so didnt get much of a chance to do much research of other gods/religions


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Yep. I was baptised as an infant. Couldnt read, talk, walk etc so didnt get much of a chance to do much research of other gods/religions


That’s pretty wild. I know it happens but still crazy. We don’t baptize anyone until they understand what they’re doing abs why they’re doing it.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 25, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Yep. I was baptised as an infant. Couldnt read, talk, walk etc so didnt get much of a chance to do much research of other gods/religions





Spotlite said:


> That’s pretty wild. I know it happens but still crazy. We don’t baptize anyone until they understand what they’re doing abs why they’re doing it.


Yeah.
Many differing views on baptism....
not the least of which, directly or indirectly, 
includes 'the thief on the cross' 
who is reported as 'saved' without being baptised.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 25, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Yeah.
> Many differing views on baptism....
> not the least of which, directly or indirectly,
> includes 'the thief on the cross'
> who is reported as 'saved' without being baptised.


Yes Sir, I’m familiar with that argument.

Until Jesus was actually crucified “the comforter” wasn’t here, yet. The old work wasn’t finished, the new work hadn’t began fully. Remember in Acts He told them to tarry in Jerusalem until they received power…….and there the church was born and it was there the commandment came for baptism. Many argue that the water is the mothers womb, the rest of Acts disagrees with them. They even found a “watering hole” at one point and asked who forbid…….

There were many before the crucifixion that were “saved” by faith alone.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That’s pretty wild. I know it happens but still crazy. We don’t baptize anyone until they understand what they’re doing abs why they’re doing it.


The only thing I understood was a dude in a bathrobe was pouring water over my head for some reason


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 25, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> The only thing I understood was a dude in a bathrobe was pouring water over my head for some reason


?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 25, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Yeah.
> Many differing views on baptism....
> not the least of which, directly or indirectly,
> includes 'the thief on the cross'
> who is reported as 'saved' without being baptised.



as I was reading this, and I got to "the thief on the cross" I got a mental image of someone being baptized (full submersion) while tied to a cross which would be REALLY AWESOME but perhaps dangerous. 
No more dangerous than handling rattle snakes, but still pretty risky.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 25, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> The only thing I understood was a dude in a bathrobe was pouring water over my head for some reason



Or as I like to call it "Tuesday!"


----------



## Mean Bone (Jun 26, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> . . . the Bible has been debunked many times over.



Wasn't aware of that.  Can you elaborate?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 26, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> Wasn't aware of that.  Can you elaborate?



Yes, I can, but google can articulate my ideas much more eloquently & accurately than I can. That said I have shared already what I consider one of my FAVORITE examples of "sorry dude, this myth is busted" but I don't mind repeating it. Let me preach on it:

In the Old Testament God "makes the sun stand still" in the sky to give Joshua more daylight to kill his enemies during his successful military battle. For those of us not living in the Bronze age, the Earth orbits the sun and spins at about 1,000 miles per hour. The Earth is about 24,000 miles in circumference thus one full spin is 24 hours.
This is what makes it "night" or "day" depending on our location on the Earth. So, the only way to give more daylight than would be expected in any given location would be to stop the Earth from spinning! 

So, you ask, what would happen if the Earth went from spinning 1,000 MPH to a complete stop? The centrifugal force would pretty much tear the planet to shreds and destroy civilization as we know it. And when we started spinning again, it would trash the world again. So yeah, that "stopping the sun from setting" doesn't synch up with reality. But don't just take my word for it:

What would happen if Earth stopped spinning? | Astronomy.com 

What Would Happen if the Earth Stopped Rotating? and More Questions From our Readers | History| Smithsonian Magazine 

What If the Earth Stopped Spinning for 5 Seconds? - YouTube


----------



## Mean Bone (Jun 27, 2022)

Yeah, I agree.  That's hard to comprehend.

I can find other things that make me pause.

To me your statement implied that the entire Bible had been debunked which ignores the rich historicity of the Old and New Testament verified through archeology.  Especially the last few decades.

Did I misunderstand?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 27, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> Yeah, I agree.  That's hard to comprehend.
> 
> I can find other things that make me pause.
> 
> ...


I think the predominant belief on this subforum is that yes, the Bible contains some factual places, people etc.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 27, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Or as I like to call it "Tuesday!"


TMI


----------



## Mean Bone (Jun 27, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I think the predominant belief on this subforum is that yes, the Bible contains some factual places, people etc.



Well, actually it does much better than just "some."


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 27, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> Yeah, I agree.  That's hard to comprehend.
> 
> I can find other things that make me pause.
> 
> ...



The entire Bible is not debunked. But debunking a significant percentage of it would IMHO indicate that it was written & compiled by humans. Factor in also how do the readers determine what is true and what is not? The Bible itself claims that God is not "the author of confusion" yet here it is thousands of years later and there are entire industries and careers/occupations that exist based around trying to decipher it.

As for archaeology verifying the rich historicity of the Bible, you might want to research that a little more. Notice I don't present one-sided links here. 
Granted archaeology by its nature doesn't allow repeated testing & experimentation like other fields of science do, so absolute accuracy is impossible. But the reality of what all of us non-scientists see around us and live in measured against how much of the Bible contradicts reality would indicate IMHO that the Bible was not "inspired & guided" by anyone other than humans.

Camel archaeology contradicts the Bible | The Times of Israel

On the Misuse of Archaeology for Evangelistic Purposes | Bible Interp (arizona.edu)

4 Reasons Archaeology Cannot Prove the Bible (thegospelcoalition.org)


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 27, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> Well, actually it does much better than just "some."


Im not sure having factual places or people lends a whole lot of credibility to a story.
I went to Atlanta last night and leaped tall buildings in a single bound.
I in fact exist.
Atlanta in fact exists.
Atlanta in fact has tall buildings.
The leaping tall buildings part doesnt become credible because of that.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 27, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Im not sure having factual places or people lends a whole lot of credibility to a story.
> I went to Atlanta last night and leaped tall buildings in a single bound.
> I in fact exist.
> Atlanta in fact exists.
> ...



That is a good point!


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 27, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Im not sure having factual places or people lends a whole lot of credibility to a story.
> I went to Atlanta last night and leaped tall buildings in a single bound.
> I in fact exist.
> Atlanta in fact exists.
> ...


But if you couldn’t even find Atlanta, that doesn’t mean Atlanta doesn’t exist.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> But if you couldn’t even find Atlanta, that doesn’t mean Atlanta doesn’t exist.


If archeologists use the clues in a supposedly infallible book and go to the place where Atlanta is said to exist and there is no trace of it...then not only does the whereabouts of the city come into question but now the fallibility of the book is exposed and deservedly scrutinized.
The cries of "you didn't dig deep enough" by those that are not archeologists but wishful thinkers are not proof that it will will ever turn up.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> If archeologists use the clues in a supposedly infallible book and go to the place where Atlanta is said to exist and there is no trace of it...then not only does the whereabouts of the city come into question but now the fallibility of the book is exposed and deservedly scrutinized.
> The cries of "you didn't dig deep enough" by those that are not archeologists but wishful thinkers are not proof that it will will ever turn up.



And if you’re convinced the clues are wrong and decide you’re listening to the last guy that was looking for Atlanta down in Tampa…….and you agree with him…….still doesn’t mean Atlanta isn’t there.

The proof isn’t in archeologists.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> But if you couldn’t even find Atlanta, that doesn’t mean Atlanta doesn’t exist.


Sure. My only point is there can be factual elements to a completely made up story.
For example the Bible undoubtably contains some facts. Those facts dont make the entire Bible "true". Same with any other book or story.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure. My only point is there can be factual elements to a completely made up story.
> For example the Bible undoubtably contains some facts. Those facts dont make the entire Bible "true". Same with any other book or story.


To you and bullet, I agree.

There are things written the Bible that are facts that can be proven, of course I believe all are accurate but I’m looking from different lenses - sone can only be accomplished by a source we can’t grasp its abilities and limitations.

Ultimately these lead into God…… there or not. Although there are facts written, the actual proof of God takes place within an individual when they get that revelation. That’s why I always say I don’t believe in God just because the story is there.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> To you and bullet, I agree.
> 
> There are things written the Bible that are facts that can be proven, of course I believe all are accurate but I’m looking from different lenses - sone can only be accomplished by a source we can’t grasp its abilities and limitations.
> 
> Ultimately these lead into God…… there or not. Although there are facts written, the actual proof of God takes place within an individual when they get that revelation. That’s why I always say I don’t believe in God just because the story is there.





> the actual proof of God takes place within an individual


Yep, for now, thats all there is.


----------



## Mean Bone (Jun 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 thanks for the links.  Found them interesting.

Regarding camels in the Genesis account being anachronistic.  The study you referred to was addressing domesticated camels in Canaan.  The Genesis account is referring to Mesopotamia which most likely had domesticated camels during that time period.

LINK:  Did Camels Exist In Biblical Times?

I found no major conflict with Drs. Cargill and Osborne in your other two links.  In fact, I like Dr. Osborne's definition for Biblical Archeology:  “the use of modern archaeological methods to study the material remains of sites and civilizations related to the biblical text, with an intent to understand how those findings interact with the biblical record.”

As noted by Dr. Osborne, archeology can only confirm, not prove, the Bible.

I'll stand by my statement that the Bible, both New and Old Testaments, has no reason to hide from reputable archeological discoveries.  It can reliably stand along side other ancient writings.


----------



## Mean Bone (Jun 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Im not sure having factual places or people lends a whole lot of credibility to a story. . . .
> The leaping tall buildings part doesnt become credible because of that.



Agreed.  That would only confirm the location.

Leaping tall buildings?  You would need a reliable witness for that.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 28, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> Agreed.  That would only confirm the location.
> 
> Leaping tall buildings?  You would need a reliable witness for that.



But what if you really, really believe the stories you hear from a bunch of guys who knew other guys who knew other guys who could totally vouch for the first guys who read about the building leaping but then lost the reports?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 28, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> oldfella1962 thanks for the links.  Found them interesting.
> 
> Regarding camels in the Genesis account being anachronistic.  The study you referred to was addressing domesticated camels in Canaan.  The Genesis account is referring to Mesopotamia which most likely had domesticated camels during that time period.
> 
> ...



This article might shed more light on not just camels, but other likely inaccuracies. It's not just about camels despite the title!
It turns out REALITY/FACTS weren't as important to ancient cultures as they are now. It's all about CREATIVE IMAGINATION! 
The general emotional gist of the story takes precedent. So even if camels weren't in specific areas during specific times when specific people existed, it wouldn't matter. If a story has King Boomshackalacka riding a Brontosaurus (and mating with it) and taking on Moses in a freestyle rap battle that's just the way story tellers rolled back in the old days! Style over substance was entertaining back then, just like it is now.

There Were No Camels During Time of Biblical Patriarchs, Study Says | Time


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Yep, for now, thats all there is.



So, one aspect of "faith" could be wanting to believe that something is true so badly that if your belief is strong enough it can warp the very fabric of reality (but only you and other believers can see the "true" reality) because what you believe in has the actual ability to do so.


----------



## Mean Bone (Jun 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> This article might shed more light on not just camels, but other likely inaccuracies. It's not just about camels despite the title!



Actually, it didn't.

Instead of shedding light, it's more like covering up the archeological evidence.

The author, Elizabeth Dias, referenced the same study you did which referred to camels in Canaan not Mesopotamia.  Thus, the whole title of her article is wrong.  There were no "Phantom Camels."

Leads me to question her other statements.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 28, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> Actually, it didn't.
> 
> Instead of shedding light, it's more like covering up the archeological evidence.
> 
> ...



Small world, after giving other examples of biblical time/location inaccuracies - and explaining how facts aren't as important as is telling a good story - it leads me to question_ everything_ in the Bible, not just the fantastical stories! To be fair, it's not just the Bible stories, it's pretty much all religious/mythical/legendary stories. Why should the Bible get a pass on being either straight-up fiction or "based on true story" (sort of) fiction?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Small world, after giving other examples of biblical time/location inaccuracies - and explaining how facts aren't as important as is telling a good story - it leads me to question_ everything_ in the Bible, not just the fantastical stories! To be fair, it's not just the Bible stories, it's pretty much all religious/mythical/legendary stories. Why should the Bible get a pass on being either straight-up fiction or "based on true story" (sort of) fiction?


The biblical truth is the truth, the fiction is metaphors, the inaccuracies are accurate if you can suspend belief and the things that are not as they say are because we have not waited long enough for them to be discovered even though we've looked for them right where we were told they would be. It is quite the system.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The biblical truth is the truth, the fiction is metaphors, the inaccuracies are accurate if you can suspend belief and the things that are not as they say are because we have not waited long enough for them to be discovered even though we've looked for them right where we were told they would be. It is quite the system.



I totally agree - it's bulletproof! You could keep this gravy train on the track forever.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 29, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> Agreed.  That would only confirm the location.
> 
> Leaping tall buildings?  You would need a reliable witness for that.


For such an extraordinary claim I would much prefer to see it for myself. 
Witnesses are rarely 100% reliable but in alot of cases thats the best we've got.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> So, one aspect of "faith" could be wanting to believe that something is true so badly that if your belief is strong enough it can warp the very fabric of reality (but only you and other believers can see the "true" reality) because what you believe in has the actual ability to do so.


Sure.
But to be honest I think the same thing applies to a multitude of subjects. However, God/gods/religion does seem to be at the top of the list of things alot of people "want to be true so badly".


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 29, 2022)

It was posited earlier that _some_ Atheists do accept / are 'okay' with the existence of a 'spiritual realm' (re: original post) ...
would those Atheists likely have hard tangible measurable type evidence 
enabling them to conclude that the spiritual realm is something that is for real?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 29, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> It was posited earlier that _some_ Atheists do accept / are 'okay' with the existence of a 'spiritual realm' (re: original post) ...
> would those Atheists likely have hard tangible measurable type evidence
> enabling them to conclude that the spiritual realm is something that is for real?



Not at all, because there could be a spiritual realm that no human has ever imagined, conceived of, or conceptualized yet. Nobody would need evidence for something that hasn't been defined yet, or its existence discussed. But once that newly discovered realm is presented as fact, a healthy skepticism should be in order.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure.
> But to be honest I think the same thing applies to a multitude of subjects. However, God/gods/religion does seem to be at the top of the list of things alot of people "want to be true so badly".



I think this is because humans see all the amazing & complicated behaviors and activities of nature and specifically the behavior of their fellow humans and can't stop wondering "why/how" things happen and since they can't get answers, they imagine that something beyond their senses must be pulling the strings.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I think this is because humans see all the amazing & complicated behaviors and activities of nature and specifically the behavior of their fellow humans and can't stop wondering "why/how" things happen and since they can't get answers, they imagine that something beyond their senses must be pulling the strings.


Agreed.
We (humans) dont deal well with just leaving it at "I dont know".
So we come up with answers that make us feel better.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 29, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> It was posited earlier that _some_ Atheists do accept / are 'okay' with the existence of a 'spiritual realm' (re: original post) ...
> would those Atheists likely have hard tangible measurable type evidence
> enabling them to conclude that the spiritual realm is something that is for real?


I think it was posited that some atheist _*COULD *_*accept the existence of a spiritual realm since atheism by definition is just the disbelief in God(s).*
I am pretty sure you would have to present that question to an Atheist that accepts the existence of a 'spiritual realm'. I suspect one is going to be hard to find.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 29, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> It was posited earlier that _some_ Atheists do accept / are 'okay' with the existence of a 'spiritual realm' (re: original post) ...
> would those Atheists likely have hard tangible measurable type evidence
> enabling them to conclude that the spiritual realm is something that is for real?


Something to consider -
A spiritual realm is a "concept". Not defined.
God has been defined ad nauseum from what he thinks, wants, does, says, had for breakfast etc etc.
Either should require evidence of existence but one of them is going to require a whole lot more evidence because a whole lot more claims have been made.


> would those Atheists likely have hard tangible measurable type evidence


If they do, I'd be interested to hear what it is.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> If they do, I'd be interested to hear what it is.



Me too...from anyone.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 29, 2022)

660griz said:


> I think it was posited that some atheist _*COULD *_*accept the existence of a spiritual realm since atheism by definition is just the disbelief in God(s).*
> I am pretty sure you would have to present that question to an Atheist that accepts the existence of a 'spiritual realm'. I suspect one is going to be hard to find.



I would say however that if the question were posed to an atheist "do you accept the _possibility _of the existence of a spiritual realm?" you would get a "yes" from many of them. They would probably explain their answer as _so far _there is no evidence of a spiritual realm, but they would like to see some evidence.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 29, 2022)

660griz said:


> Me too...from anyone.



That's all I'm asking for - evidence. Even some plausible if not concrete evidence would be something to hang your hat on anyway. Some way to steer & focus scientific testing would get things rolling at least. Some type of reliable pattern aside from cultural beliefs and preconceptions would be needed would suit me for now.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Something to consider -
> A spiritual realm is a "concept". Not defined.
> God has been defined ad nauseum from what he thinks, wants, does, says, had for breakfast etc etc.
> Either should require evidence of existence but one of them is going to require a whole lot more evidence because a whole lot more claims have been made.
> ...



I would think too that any definition of "spiritual" would overlap with "supernatural" or "paranormal" so IMHO evidence of anything under this very broad umbrella (that hasn't been debunked of course) would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> ....evidence of anything under this very broad umbrella (that hasn't been debunked of course) would be greatly appreciated.


That is for dog gone sure.


----------



## Mean Bone (Jun 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> . . . leads me to question_ everything_ in the Bible . . . Why should the Bible get a pass on being either straight-up fiction or "based on true story" (sort of) fiction?



Why should the Bible get a pass?  It _shouldn't!_

Question everything in the Bible?  Not a problem.

I have questions, too.

But if you study the Bible just as you would any other ancient manuscript (not as religious writings) you will find that it stands up very well compared to other ancient documents.

Compare the documentation historians rely on regarding Julius Caesar, Aristotle, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Demosthenes, Thucydides, Herodotus, etc.

For the Bible?  It's not even close.  _Overwhelmingly_ better!


----------



## 660griz (Jun 29, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> But if you study the Bible just as you would any other ancient manuscript



Oh, i do. *some of the information contained in those texts is unreliable, biased, incomplete or even false*.

Of course, those others don't have God telling them what to write.
Should they be held to a higher standard?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 29, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


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



I hate to answer for someone else as memory may fail me, but I think @bullethead believes in a all powerful "force" beyond our universe. I'm unsure whether he believes it is an intelligent "force" capable of will and again, I may be completely wrong.  I AM almost certain he identifies as a A/A.  He will be along to answer soon I'm sure and correct me where I'm mistaken.

Oh and yeah, I'm late to the party and didn't read all the posts.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Yep.
> I think lots of folks waaaaay over complicate or assume way too much about Atheist "beliefs".
> "If you dont believe in God, you must support abortion".
> "If you dont believe in God, you must view yourself as a god".
> ...



WHOAAAA!!!! This:



> "If you dont believe in God, you can not be spiritual".


threw me for a loop.

Spiritual implies spirit, therefore not existential.  I can't square that with my understanding of spiritual.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jun 29, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> ...Oh and yeah, I'm late to the party...


 No worries Semp ... as you can see, we knew you were coming around the bend in the trail & have accordingly been saving you your regular place. : ).


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 29, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> Why should the Bible get a pass?  It _shouldn't!_
> 
> Question everything in the Bible?  Not a problem.
> 
> ...



I agree that pretty much all ancient manuscripts you mentioned would be about on par with the New Testament. Of course, the New Testament has the supernatural twist added, which would make sense since that's pretty much the point. The Old Testament is off-the-rails *crazy *but then again, all the myths & legends it borrows from were like that too.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I hate to answer for someone else as memory may fail me, but I think @bullethead believes in a all powerful "force" beyond our universe. I'm unsure whether he believes it is an intelligent "force" capable of will and again, I may be completely wrong.  I AM almost certain he identifies as a A/A.  He will be along to answer soon I'm sure and correct me where I'm mistaken.
> 
> Oh and yeah, I'm late to the party and didn't read all the posts.


I/we know Energy exists. What may or may not exist "higher" than that I just do not know of it.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 29, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I/we know Energy exists. What may or may not exist "higher" than that I just do not know of it.



IMHO there very well could be some type of force or energy that permeates the universe, but it would have nothing to do with "good" or "evil" or humanity in general.
I say humanity because it's a mathematical certainty that life exists on other planets/moons because life exists here on Earth so life is obviously possible, and Earth is not a special planet. Earth may be special within our solar system, but there are billions of other solar systems.


----------



## Mean Bone (Jun 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> IMHO there very well could be some type of force or energy that permeates the universe, but it would have nothing to do with "good" or "evil" or humanity in general.
> I say humanity because it's a mathematical certainty that life exists on other planets/moons because life exists here on Earth so life is obviously possible, and Earth is not a special planet. Earth may be special within our solar system, but there are billions of other solar systems.



Mathematical certainty . . . have you seen this worked out and published or is this intuitive?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 30, 2022)

Mean Bone said:


> Mathematical certainty . . . have you seen this worked out and published or is this intuitive?



These people (links) have a theory. I'm by no means that smart, but my_ basic_ reasoning is life elsewhere in the universe is all about odds. First, let's pretend that the Earth doesn't have life. * Next, let's assume that life in the universe is very rare, because a lot of environmental conditions have to be met for life to exist. If the universe only had 10 planets the odds of *1 planet having life *would be pretty low. If the universe had 100 planets the odds would be a little better, but hardly a sure thing. But if the universe had 100,000,000,000,000 planets it would be a miracle if not even 1 planet had life. I would certainly "bet the farm" that there was at least 1 planet that had life with 100,000,000,000,000 chances to win. Just the way I see it anyway.

* Earth does currently have life so that proves that life is possible. Personally I've never seen or heard of only ONE of anything. Also factor in that the Earth didn't _always _have life but as the environment changed enough to support life, it did indeed emerge. Thus many planets may eventually support life, or to flip things around many planets that did support life do not support it anymore.

New study estimates the odds of life and intelligence emerging beyond our planet -- ScienceDaily

There may be more Earth-like planets than grains of sand on all our beaches - CNET

The future of spectroscopic life detection on exoplanets | PNAS

https://www.centralmaine.com/2013/11/04/study__planets_like_earth_might_be_common/

Here is a segment of the third linked article:

For thousands of years, people have wondered, “Are we alone?”. Astronomers have now ascertained, statistically speaking, that every star in our Milky Way Galaxy should have at least one planet (1) and that small rocky planets are extremely common (2, 3). Our own Galaxy has 100 billion stars, and our Universe has upwards of 100 billion galaxies—making the chance for life elsewhere seem inevitable based on sheer probability. We can say with certainty that, for the first time in human history, we are finally on the verge of being able to search for signs of life beyond our solar system around the nearest hundreds of stars.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> WHOAAAA!!!! This:
> 
> 
> threw me for a loop.
> ...


I'm not 100% sure Im getting your point but, and this is my opinion -
Spiritual does not = a God or gods only.
So that leaves open that an Atheist can be "spiritual" depending on ones view of what spiritual means.
If we arent talking about a God or gods then we arent talking about Atheism. We are just talking about what someone/anyone may or may not believe can exist.
If that makes any sense at all.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not 100% sure Im getting your point but, and this is my opinion -
> Spiritual does not = a God or gods only.
> So that leaves open that an Atheist can be "spiritual" depending on ones view of what spiritual means.
> If we arent talking about a God or gods then we arent talking about Atheism. We are just talking about what someone/anyone may or may not believe can exist.
> If that makes any sense at all.



I don't think I have ever met an Atheist that didn't deny the existence of God based on (at least) the grounds of existentialism with existentialism as I understand it, as the ability to scientifically prove existence, or something along those lines.  It just seems to me that once you open up the "spiritual" can of worms that argument goes out the window and it opens the door to the ALL supernatural which by definition IS unprovable/ un-reproducible.   I may be missing something, or even your whole line of reasoning, but that's just my understanding.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I/we know Energy exists. What may or may not exist "higher" than that I just do not know of it.



I've been meaning to ask you this for some time and just haven't got around to it, but given the orderly, understandable/intelligible laws governing this "energy" do you see it as an intelligent "energy".  Just curious.  For some reason this question has been bouncing around in my head for the last year or so.  I have no idea why.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've been meaning to ask you this for some time and just haven't got around to it, but given the orderly, understandable/intelligible laws governing this "energy" do you see it as an intelligent "energy".  Just curious.  For some reason this question has been bouncing around in my head for the last year or so.  I have no idea why.


I do not see any intelligence in energy or governing qualities mainly because of the things that are disorderly, stuff we cannot understand and are unintelligible that go right along with it. I recognize pro and con and realize that what can happen does happen and it can be wiped out in a second in chaotic random fashion no matter how much meaning "we" think it has.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I do not see any intelligence in energy r governing qualities mainly because of the things that are disorderly, stuff we cannot understand and are unintelligible that go right along with it. I recognize pro and con and realize that what can happen does happen and it can be wiped out in a second in chaotic random fashion no matter how much meaning "we" think it has.



I was thinking more along the laws of physics that govern the universe like the law of gravity, the speed of light, etc.  They are understandable and immutable.  Not a physics major so my understanding is pretty limited regarding this kind of stuff, but to me, those kinds of things, even it it's seen as "an energy or force" is orderly.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've been meaning to ask you this for some time and just haven't got around to it, but given the orderly, understandable/intelligible laws governing this "energy" do you see it as an intelligent "energy".  Just curious.  For some reason this question has been bouncing around in my head for the last year or so.  I have no idea why.


Basically "we" the human species and whatever else is in existence on this planet and anywhere else in the Universe right now are here because conditions allow it. Using Earth as an example human existence constitutes an extremely short period of time in the 4+ Billion years. We aren't here longer than we are because we couldn't be. 99% of every species that has ever lived on this planet over that time is extinct. They are gone because conditions which include variable reasons stopped being favorable to their life. We are 1%ers with every other species at this point in time. I don't get the feeling that we are hanging on by a thread as far as any environmental or geographical threat but there are many human threats and threats from beyond our planet that could send 99% of the 1% to extinction at any given moment.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> That's all I'm asking for - evidence.



I think this is the gist it, because this is where I cannot find reason in most A/A rationale.   What exactly is "evidence"?  For most A/As cite "evidence" with regards to God, Theism, the supernatural, (whatever you want to call it) as that of the scientific nature: tangible, reproducible, experiential, etc....along those lines. Yet much of our lives (ALL of us Atheist and Theist alike) we conduct ourselves and our actions on much less evidence and think nothing of it.  Love, beauty, mercy, justice are all "real experiences" none of us would deny exist, yet to quantify them or reproduce them????


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think this is the gist it, because this is where I cannot find reason in most A/A rationale.   What exactly is "evidence"?  For most A/As cite "evidence" with regards to God, Theism, the supernatural, (whatever you want to call it) as that of the scientific nature: tangible, reproducible, experiential, etc....along those lines. Yet much of our lives (ALL of us Atheist and Theist alike) we conduct ourselves and our actions on much less evidence and think nothing of it.  Love, beauty, mercy, justice are all senses non of us would deny exist, yet to quantify them or reproduce them????



It was my understanding that you believed in an "original" energy or energy that predated the universe.  That's what I was thinking of regarding my previous comments.  If I misunderstood you forgive my memory.  It's been a while.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I was thinking more along the laws of physics that govern the universe like the law of gravity, the speed of light, etc.  They are understandable and immutable.  Not a physics major so my understanding is pretty limited regarding this kind of stuff, but to me, those kinds of things, even it it's seen as "an energy or force" is orderly.


They are what they are and seemingly have always been. Humans have not found a manifesto of the Universe where these laws have been explained to us from an outside source.  These seemingly constant happenings had to be discovered by humans, observed, tested, re re re re tested 10^, reviewed confirmed, agreed upon and then given the definition of being a Law due to their consistent nature. Like the Sun, which at least for Billions of years has been a constant, we all know that at some point it will change even slightly to a state where conditions here will change dramatically. Life as we know it now absolutely will not be the same when that happens and only what can survive in the new conditions will. Eventually our now life giving Sun will cease to exist itself and so will life on this planet. Luckily for many of us we are able to exist while the conditions are ideal.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think I have ever met an Atheist that didn't deny the existence of God based on (at least) the grounds of existentialism with existentialism as I understand it, as the ability to scientifically prove existence, or something along those lines.  It just seems to me that once you open up the "spiritual" can of worms that argument goes out the window and it opens the door to the ALL supernatural which by definition IS unprovable/ un-reproducible.   I may be missing something, or even your whole line of reasoning, but that's just my understanding.


I think the issue may be that we are viewing "spiritual" differently.
By the way, I dont disagree with your statement/understanding above. But Im viewing spiritual from this direction -


> Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches us all. People may describe a spiritual experience as _sacred_ or _transcendent _or simply a deep sense of aliveness and interconnectedness.
> Some may find that their spiritual life is intricately linked to their association with a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue. Others may pray or find comfort in a personal relationship with God or a higher power. Still others seek meaning through their connections to nature or art. Like your sense of purpose, your personal definition of spirituality may change throughout your life, adapting to your own experiences and relationships.


So from where I sit, God/gods/Atheism/the associated personality traits associated with Atheism dont come into play.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It was my understanding that you believed in an "original" energy or energy that predated the universe.  That's what I was thinking of regarding my previous comments.  If I misunderstood you forgive my memory.  It's been a while.


I do not know what "was" before the Big Bang. I do not beleive that there was ever a time of "nothing". Something cannot come from nothing despite that thought being wrongly credited to Atheists.
Whatever conditions existed prior to the B.B. were obviously ripe for the B.B. to happen. I'd love to find out more about what it was/is in my lifetime but I am ok not knowing and admitting that I do not know until then.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I think the issue may be that we are viewing "spiritual" differently.
> By the way, I dont disagree with your statement/understanding above. But Im viewing spiritual from this direction -
> 
> So from where I sit, God/gods/Atheism/the associated personality traits associated with Atheism dont come into play.



How do you square what you describe as "spirituality" with the requirement for proof.  That's what I don't get.  It seems to me once you require "hard" proof" spirituality of any type has to be sacrificed.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think this is the gist it, because this is where I cannot find reason in most A/A rationale.   What exactly is "evidence"?  For most A/As cite "evidence" with regards to God, Theism, the supernatural, (whatever you want to call it) as that of the scientific nature: tangible, reproducible, experiential, etc....along those lines. Yet much of our lives (ALL of us Atheist and Theist alike) we conduct ourselves and our actions on much less evidence and think nothing of it.  Love, beauty, mercy, justice are all "real experiences" none of us would deny exist, yet to quantify them or reproduce them????


Love, beauty, mercy, justice ALL vary between individuals.Think of how much each vary from your tastes to that of someone else's.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I do not know what "was" before the Big Bang. I do not beleive that there was ever a time of "nothing". Something cannot come from nothing despite that thought being wrongly credited to Atheists.
> Whatever conditions existed prior to the B.B. were obviously ripe for the B.B. to happen. I'd love to find out more about what it was/is in my lifetime but I am ok not knowing and admitting that I do not know until then.



Yeah, thinking outside of "time" is something I simply cannot fathom.  I may as well try breathing underwater.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Love, beauty, mercy, justice ALL *vary* between individuals.Think of how much each vary from your tastes to that of someone else's.



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


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> How do you square what you describe as "spirituality" with the requirement for proof.  That's what I don't get.  It seems to me once you require "hard" proof" spirituality of any type has to be sacrificed.


Like with all individual tastes things vary.
I get a spiritual feeling and appreciation when in a treestand or on a boat and the Sun is rising. Rays blaze through the clouds. I do get a feeling of something greater than me has caused that to happen. But I do not feel the need to pinpoint and define what that something is or give it a human name or face. It cannot be human-like any more than humans can be anything more than human such as god-like or force-like. Basically things all around us within our own planet and beyond are happening trillions of times every second. There are forces that make these things happen and I am content with accepting the explanations which make more sense to me than not while also realizing that I can never know everything or what may be the source of those sources. I cannot conceive that there is one factor responsible for all or that I not only know what it is by name but it has included me into it's plans or grace.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think this is the gist it, because this is where I cannot find reason in most A/A rationale.   What exactly is "evidence"?  For most A/As cite "evidence" with regards to God, Theism, the supernatural, (whatever you want to call it) as that of the scientific nature: tangible, reproducible, experiential, etc....along those lines. Yet much of our lives (ALL of us Atheist and Theist alike) we conduct ourselves and our actions on much less evidence and think nothing of it.  Love, beauty, mercy, justice are all "real experiences" none of us would deny exist, yet to quantify them or reproduce them????



Because all the things you mentioned (love, justice, etc) are human concepts that exist only in our individual & collective human minds & imaginations. That said it's not a stretch to think that some of the delusions that are developed & encouraged in our human brains can become shared & codified to develop into religions, which spawn even more delusions that keep the religion afloat or maybe even expand the religion.
Yada yada yada we have Christianity, which will exist for as long as it's believers will it to exist, until it goes extinct or rendered as ancient mythology.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 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


How many times has someone felt 100% that they were in Love and lived accordingly only to find out that it was no such thing? Because of such variations each individual's version of love, beauty etc is a different definition from anothers. Emotions cloud thruths.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> despite being unable to measure, quantify or reproduce them.


But emotions can be measured and quantified.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Because all the things you mentioned (love, justice, etc) are human concepts *that exist* only in our individual & collective human minds & imaginations. That said it's not a stretch to think that some of the delusions that are developed & encouraged in our human brains can become shared & codified to develop into religions, which spawn even more delusions that keep the religion afloat or maybe even expand the religion.
> Yada yada yada we have Christianity, which will exist for as long as it's believers will it to exist, until it goes extinct or rendered as ancient mythology.



I think this is a good point. We all agree on "*that exist*".  Now whether we call them(love, justice, etc) "concepts" which you do, or with regards to theism/atheism, "God" I think we will both agree that we find these concepts valid enough to act on them. They are REAL to us.  Real enough that we live much of our lives devoted to them, yet they are as unquantifiable and reproducible as a ghost.  To me that's where the "provable/reproducable/quantifiable argument against God falls flat.  It's demanding evidence for the existence of something in order to act: evidence we don't require for any other non-physical "concept" which we readily accept and act on without question every minute of every day.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

bullethead said:


> How many times has someone felt 100% that they were in Love and lived accordingly only to find out that it was no such thing? Because of such variations each individual's version of love, beauty etc is a different definition from anothers. Emotions cloud thruths.



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.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 30, 2022)

660griz said:


> But emotions can be measured and quantified.



Quantify @bullethead's feeling of "I get a spiritual feeling and appreciation when in a treestand or on a boat and the Sun is rising."  Reproduce it exactly at will.  Yet is it not real?   It's 100% real yet the spiritual aspect of it is immeasurable.   If it's like mine I couldn't reproduce it if I tried a million years.  The weather, the conditions, the environment, etc. may all be exactly as the time before, but the spiritual feeling may be there or it may not.  If it is, it may have a totally different feel.  It's still just as real and just as moving.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's 100% real yet the spiritual aspect of it is immeasurable.


 "Spiritual" is just a way to convey an emotion or feeling. Feelings and emotions can be measured. Numerous ways. I get a 'spiritual' feeling in the tree stand when the sun starts coming up too. It makes me happy.

Emotions are physical and instinctive, instantly prompting bodily reactions to threat, reward, and everything in between. The bodily reactions can be measured objectively by *pupil dilation (eye tracking), skin conductance (EDA/GSR), brain activity (EEG, fMRI), heart rate (ECG), and facial expressions*.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> How do you square what you describe as "spirituality" with the requirement for proof.  That's what I don't get.  It seems to me once you require "hard" proof" spirituality of any type has to be sacrificed.


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".


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 30, 2022)

660griz said:


> But emotions can be measured and quantified.



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.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> "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 (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> 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 (Jun 30, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


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





> "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 (Jun 30, 2022)

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 (Jun 30, 2022)

"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 (Jul 1, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2022)

660griz said:


> 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.
> ...



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.


----------

