OccultForum.org

Does anyone exercise a form of 'Spiritual Atheism'...
...and if so, what's it look like?

It may perhaps be worth distinguishing Theism (personal god) from Deism (impersonal god). Thus a Deist is necessarily a spiritual atheist.

Deism is common in Asia.

I really appreciate the deistic view of the East, but lately, I've been resonant with Christianity. I wonder if there are any deistic Christian texts? That seems like it'd be unheard of or looked down on in most churches, but it makes sense to me. Possibly the Judaic tradition leaves more room for an impersonal God. Of course, personifying the Tao would have advantages, especially if you want to teach laymen. If you dig into the esoteric mysteries of Christianity, I wonder if you'll find a deistic core.

I'm an atheist and a practitioner. I don't think I'm very spiritual.

Desecrated wrote:I'm an atheist and a practitioner. I don't think I'm very spiritual.

Heya Desecrated... I remember you from when I frequented in the past.

Do you consider magic inherent in the world or issuing from yourself? ... if as an atheist, you don't consider it from a divine source?

manofsands wrote:

Desecrated wrote:I'm an atheist and a practitioner. I don't think I'm very spiritual.

Heya Desecrated... I remember you from when I frequented in the past.

Do you consider magic inherent in the world or issuing from yourself? ... if as an atheist, you don't consider it from a divine source?

That is a good question.
I think I worked from the assumption that there is energy outside of me in the beginning. You know, a waterfall has lots of energy and so does the sun and so on.
But I've started to go down a more mental route were I just see that kind of energy as my own interpretation. I mean it's not like a waterfall actually gives of energy that you can tap into (unless you are a waterwheel) but it certainly feels good to imagine that kind of energy flowing through you.

Oddly enough, I still work with a lot of sympathetic magic. But I think I'm viewing whatever "paranormal" qualities herbs and crystals have, more like a hypnotic anchor than actual magical power.
Basically, they have an affect on us because we imagine that they do.

Some would say that the crystals and herbs have inherent qualities they receive from the seven classical planets. I think that's the basis of a lot of the magic correspondence lists you see, or it's at least related. As far as whether a rose plant shares an energy or vibration with that of Venus, I'm not sure but I'll go with that. After all, if you adhere to a traditional system, it gives you confidence, even if it's just symbolic power.

chowderpope wrote:Some would say that the crystals and herbs have inherent qualities they receive from the seven classical planets. I think that's the basis of a lot of the magic correspondence lists you see, or it's at least related. As far as whether a rose plant shares an energy or vibration with that of Venus, I'm not sure but I'll go with that. After all, if you adhere to a traditional system, it gives you confidence, even if it's just symbolic power.

It also gives you a certain rhythm to follow. If you start working with planetary magic, you have to adapt to the movement of the planets.

Desecrated wrote:... I still work with a lot of sympathetic magic. But I think I'm viewing whatever "paranormal" qualities herbs and crystals have, more like a hypnotic anchor than actual magical power.
Basically, they have an affect on us because we imagine that they do.

Is your form of magic then self contained... affecting only yourself and not things outside yourself?

manofsands wrote:

Desecrated wrote:... I still work with a lot of sympathetic magic. But I think I'm viewing whatever "paranormal" qualities herbs and crystals have, more like a hypnotic anchor than actual magical power.
Basically, they have an affect on us because we imagine that they do.

Is your form of magic then self contained... affecting only yourself and not things outside yourself?

Not at all.
I'm assuming that other peoples brains work somewhat similar to me, so if I use symbols that triggers my mind, I can also use symbols to trigger their mind. So enchantments, manipulation, curses and so on still work perfectly fine.
The difference is that I believe the effect to be psychological, not spiritual.

I think the mind is connected to a deeper, shared reality, so psychological effects could be passed to the other side, so to speak. I don't know where I get that exactly. Probably Jung. Unfortunately, his work has eluded me so I only get fragments through the grapevine.

I think I could probably fit into that category, although "agnostic" might be a better word than "atheist" - I have a spiritual practice and view the universe in a spiritual manner, but I don't integrate the idea of a personal or anthropomorphized God into my worldview.

jamesw wrote:It may perhaps be worth distinguishing Theism (personal god) from Deism (impersonal god). Thus a Deist is necessarily a spiritual atheist.

Deism is common in Asia.

I have read...

Deism - God created the world and does not interact with it

Pantheism - All is God, always was God. No interaction

Pandeism - God created the world by becoming the universe. No interaction

Panendeism - God is all and more. Interaction

Panentheism - God is all and more. Observes only

Does that look correct?

manofsands wrote:

jamesw wrote:It may perhaps be worth distinguishing Theism (personal god) from Deism (impersonal god). Thus a Deist is necessarily a spiritual atheist.

Deism is common in Asia.

I have read...

Deism - God created the world and does not interact with it

Pantheism - All is God, always was God. No interaction

Pandeism - God created the world by becoming the universe. No interaction

Panendeism - God is all and more. Interaction

Panentheism - God is all and more. Observes only

Does that look correct?

That approach is a bit gnostic. But it is probably correct.

However, There is a lot of people who feel that deism or deistic is more like "an unknown creator god", maybe some sort of force behind the universe, or even the universe itself.
So they will claim to be a deitist, when they should really claim to be a pandeist.

My model of magick is like hacking a larger program that I'm just a small part of. The rules are arbitrarily defined, so I can rewrite them if I can get past security. Then of course, security is likely to undo my changes at some point. Regardless, as long as I can get a small window of opportunity, I can break the normal rules.

It's spiritual in the sense that I see reality like a hyper stable dream, or a matrix where there is no wake. I'm atheistic in that whatever "god" is, is just a force stronger than me. That force doesn't have to be humanized or intelligent. I don't believe in a creator. I think existence has no beginning and has no end. So, even if there were a god, that god would just be a god created by another bigger god. The concept of any limited (single or pantheon) number of gods just seems wrong.

I'd probably qualify as a spiritual atheist.
I know a divine being very intimately, but her nature, and the nature of our relationship is so far from any religious concept of deities, or deity/human interaction that I may as well be classified as atheist, as an organized religion would define theism.
If 'infinite consciousness' is deific, then i'd be theist, or polytheist, depending on whether you're looking at the root or the branches...
but anyway, i generally prefer the company of atheists to mystics who just believe whatever seems cool to them, or whatever helps them escape reality.