Understanding the Mentality and World View of the Christian Fundamentalist

[Derideo_Te]

Please also remember that the austere atheist philosophy has never attracted a large number of believers. Under 3% of the world population is atheist.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Dot Com]

theres just something about fundies that sends me into a rage

 

[BluePhantom]

What did Jesus mean only thru me can you enter heaven?


By the way I use to be a liberal theist too. You aren't telling me anything I dont already know about how religion has been twisted. If all you guys did was worship our creator we wouldnt care. Its all the extra baggage you bring. Lol

I hear you. Like I said...fundamentalist, extremist whack jobs annoy us just as much as they annoy you. They give us a bad name and lead to discussions like the one we are having now.


As far as "only through me can you enter heaven". That is in the Gospel According to John. I don't think it's anywhere else...at least not so forcefully. John.....ugh.....John is really a pain in the ass. There is a reason why John is the most loved gospel by Christian fundamentalists and the most hated by the rest of us. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Luke, and Matthew) John really goes to extreme extents to demonstrate that Jesus and God were one. None of the other gospels say this. In Mark, Jesus is a teacher. In Matthew He is the new Moses with the authority to interpret Torah. In Luke/Acts he is a philosopher and sage giving wisdom to all mankind. But in John....oh shit...He is God in the flesh and He acts totally different than He does in the other three. There are a lot of reasons for this that would be a thread unto itself, but in short, John was the last Biblical gospel written and whoever the author was, he had a real desire to establish Jesus as not just a man, but God Himself.


So when you look at a scripture, it's important to put it into the proper context. I would say that that verse means just what it says....only through Jesus will you enter heaven. BUT I will point out that the author of John wasn't exactly the most fair and balanced guy to ever walk the Earth. I would also point out that it is not written that the alternative is hell. It simply says you will not get to heaven without Jesus, it doesn't specify what happens in any other situation. This is actually very important when you consider the points I made above regarding the concept of hell. Since hell did not develop until far later, it is notable that hell was not given as an alternative. The concept was still in its infancy.


The Gospel of John, to me, is a lot like Paul's writings. Take them with a grain of salt and with care and delicacy, because there are a lot of problems associated with them

 

[BluePhantom]

You will probably be disappointed to discover, however, that the learning you provide strengthens my faith instead of diminishes it.

Please do not make the mistake of believing that I am trying to "convert" you "from your faith". I support your right to your beliefs and I am willing to die fighting to support your right to freely believe as you wish.

My only concern is with those who fail to comprehend that there is no freedom OF religion WITHOUT freedom FROM religion.

It seems that the average theist around here has a really hard time grasping that concept. I am not including you in that category.

No I don't think you are trying to convert me any more than I am trying to convert you. We each have the right to walk our own path. I understand what you mean about freedom from religion as well. That really should not be a big deal. It only becomes an issue, as with all things, when the two overlap which is actually pretty rare...or should be at least

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is actually very important when you consider the points I made above regarding the concept of hell. Since hell did not develop until far later, it is notable that hell was not given as an alternative. The concept was still in its infancy.

Ummm, not to start an argument or anything but hell is mentioned in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and James but not John!

What Are the Verses That Mention Hell in the New Testament King James Has More Verses Gahenna Hades Tartaros

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Gospel of John, to me, is a lot like Paul's writings. Take them with a grain of salt and with care and delicacy, because there are a lot of problems associated with them

Amen!

 

[BluePhantom]

The light particle experiment is not "supernatural". It is clearly a natural event that we are still trying to fully understand. In order for it to be "supernatural" it would have to occur only when invoked via prayer, seance or some other religious ritual. Instead it is a completely natural event because it can be easily reproduced and studied. Your use of the term "supernatural" is completely out of context in this regard.

Well I guess it depends on how you define supernatural. If we use the following definition: "unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc" it would apply because it cannot be explained...at least not currently. However, I would agree that as it happens in nature on a consistent basis it is "natural". But this pre-supposes that the acts of Jesus, those that actually happened at least, are not natural. It is possible, and frankly this is my belief, that Jesus didn't do anything that we cannot do ourselves. In fact, He made mention of this a couple times. It is possible that all men and women have the abilities Jesus did. We simply don't understand how to do it or we simply don't realize that we can, thus we lack the knowledge to harness it. This would be very similar to the light particle experiment in that it appears to be impossible according to our level of understand, but it is simply that we lack the knowledge to explain it. Now...let me add in, that I believe the reports of Jesus' miracles to be probably highly exaggerated by later authors who wished to give the story some spice.

Supernatural Definition of supernatural by Merriam-Webster

The 11 dimensions are quite logical and are based upon what we already know of the current 4 space-time dimensions. There is no theoretical reason why time should only move in one dimension. We can look backwards in time just by looking up into the night sky. The light that we observe from those stars was first produced many light years ago.

Yes I understand the time thing. However, the 11 dimensions concept is somewhat controversial. Now I won't pretend to understand all the mathematics that go into it, but I understand the concepts, and my brother, who is a physicist, understands it very well. When you mention the 11 dimensions to him, his lips twist up a little bit and he gets a pretty uncomfortable look on his face. Suffice it to say he is hopeful, but not convinced.

Not at all. The language of science is mathematics. We can use math to describe these dimensions.

Care to explain how we would use math to describe God? How about the number zero? That would be an accurate result because there is nothing that can be measured that is an attribute of God or something that God has impacted. Nothing in the Universe contains any evidence of God. Therefore the scientific methodology for the measurement of God is zero.

But math, like all things, can also be used to reach false conclusions that appear to be correct or at very high levels become theoretical. As far as a mathematical proof of God, I suppose there is Godel's Ontological Proof, which I know very little about. I know the absolute basics about it. It's on my list of stuff to study which means I will get to it in about 5 years or so. I have no idea how well that is accepted by the scientific community and do not throw it out there because I support it. I throw it out as an example that mathematics can become theoretical at some point, depending on the application.

That might not be the answer you wanted to hear but science is not about proving the existence of God. Science doesn't care one way or the other. If there was any such measurable evidence for the existence of God then the math would produce a result that was greater than zero and that would validate your belief.

Math doesn't lie. Math simply produces the results given the values provided. Now you are welcome to belief that we just haven't found these values yet but so far every result has been zero. I don't expect that to change in the future either but that shouldn't discourage you from hoping for a different outcome. After all that is what faith is all about. You have your faith and we Atheists have our math and science. We can always rely on them to tell us when we are are right or wrong because we know the math doesn't lie.

Science also considers all possibilities and very rarely takes an absolute stance on much of anything. Science gives the best explanation at the current time. This is why the scientific community seems to constantly be changing its mind. As time passes, they learn new things and suddenly they have a better explanation than the previous one. Still, in order for scientific understanding to advance, scientists must rule out nothing, but instead look for the best explanation. The old adage of 'one who thinks they know everything cannot continue to learn' is applicable.

Faith is similar, in that a theist should always keep their mind open to all possibilities, including those they don't like - such as 'it's all a bunch of bullshit', so as to allow their faith to grow. Someone who believes the exact same things as they did 10 years ago is not growing in their faith. They have become stagnant. The same adage about learning applies here as well.

What I note in my discussion with you and others is a great deal of similarities but from different perspectives. In other words, you all say 'give me evidence of God and I will believe' where I, and other theists say 'give me evidence that God doesn't exist and I will stop believing'. It occurs to me that throughout this entire thread, indeed the boards as a whole, there is probably not a single element of debate between atheists and theists that has not already been argued for thousands of years by those with a far greater understanding than us. And yet neither side seems to have won out or yielded. I don't see it happening any time soon.

 

[BluePhantom]

This is actually very important when you consider the points I made above regarding the concept of hell. Since hell did not develop until far later, it is notable that hell was not given as an alternative. The concept was still in its infancy.

Ummm, not to start an argument or anything but hell is mentioned in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and James but not John!

What Are the Verses That Mention Hell in the New Testament King James Has More Verses Gahenna Hades Tartaros

That's right, but those words do not mean "hell" as we think of it today...as a place of eternal torture and damnation. I went over this already, perhaps you missed it but I explained it all here --> Understanding the Mentality and World View of the Christian Fundamentalist Page 24 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What those words meant to people in the first century is not what they mean today. Similar to "admire". In the Elizabethan Age, to "admire" someone meant to be astonished by them in a negative way. In the King James Version, for example, there are a couple verses where it says someone looked upon something that was bad and "admired" it greatly. When you read those verses today it can create a lot of confusion because one asks "why would someone admire that?" It's because back then the word meant "appalled". Over time, it has changed. Those words, Gehenna, Sheol, etc, are the same.

 

[sealybobo]

You will probably be disappointed to discover, however, that the learning you provide strengthens my faith instead of diminishes it.

Please do not make the mistake of believing that I am trying to "convert" you "from your faith". I support your right to your beliefs and I am willing to die fighting to support your right to freely believe as you wish.

My only concern is with those who fail to comprehend that there is no freedom OF religion WITHOUT freedom FROM religion.

It seems that the average theist around here has a really hard time grasping that concept. I am not including you in that category.

No I don't think you are trying to convert me any more than I am trying to convert you. We each have the right to walk our own path. I understand what you mean about freedom from religion as well. That really should not be a big deal. It only becomes an issue, as with all things, when the two overlap which is actually pretty rare...or should be at least

It seems to me all our problems will be solved without religion. Poverty global warming cures for diseases eventually getting off this rock alternative energy crime racism pollution equality and every other issue we have will be solved without religion.

Unless you think praying matters?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It occurs to me that throughout this entire thread, indeed the boards as a whole, there is probably not a single element of debate between atheists and theists that has not already been argued for thousands of years by those with a far greater understanding than us. And yet neither side seems to have won out or yielded. I don't see it happening any time soon.

Absolutely agree 100%.

In essence we agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

In which case there is nothing to be gained from trying to rehash arguments that neither of us will "win". Our time is probably better spent trying to find common ground on which to move forward.

Keep me honest here but am I correct in assuming from your posts that the fundamentalists mentioned in the OP are as much of a PITA for you as they are for everyone else?

If that is true then I suggest that we find a way to move past them since they are only part of the problem and are incapable of ever being part of the solution.

Right now there are more than enough serious issues to address rather than to waste any further time on those who have adopted a blind adherence to dogma irrespective of the harm it causes to others and even themselves.

 

[BluePhantom]

It seems to me all our problems will be solved without religion. Poverty global warming cures for diseases eventually getting off this rock alternative energy crime racism pollution equality and every other issue we have will be solved without religion.

Perhaps. But I am not sure what crime has to do with religion, for example. I would be pretty confident arguing that our prisons are not filled with people who were very faithful adherents to religion at the time they were arrested. I think what the community of faith can do in regard to the things you list is offer support and love. Eliminating famine or poverty comes from a motivation of love for one's fellow man. Theists do a great deal in that regard. Developing alternate energy, perhaps not so much, but according to scripture we are to be good stewards of the planet, thus we should support environmental causes.

Unless you think praying matters?

Well people generally pray for thanks or to ask for something they want. In a sense they are making a choice. So if, for example, a person prays for racism to be eradicated from society, they are, in a sense, choosing that. If enough people pray for it, it means by extension, more and more people are choosing it, and therefore it has a greater likelihood of becoming reality, not so much through the power of God but through collective choice.

I will say this...it certainly doesn't hurt. I have yet to run into an atheist who was in a desperate position and told me not to bother when I said I would pray for them to have a positive outcome.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You will probably be disappointed to discover, however, that the learning you provide strengthens my faith instead of diminishes it.

Please do not make the mistake of believing that I am trying to "convert" you "from your faith". I support your right to your beliefs and I am willing to die fighting to support your right to freely believe as you wish.

My only concern is with those who fail to comprehend that there is no freedom OF religion WITHOUT freedom FROM religion.

It seems that the average theist around here has a really hard time grasping that concept. I am not including you in that category.

No I don't think you are trying to convert me any more than I am trying to convert you. We each have the right to walk our own path. I understand what you mean about freedom from religion as well. That really should not be a big deal. It only becomes an issue, as with all things, when the two overlap which is actually pretty rare...or should be at least

It seems to me all our problems will be solved without religion. Poverty global warming cures for diseases eventually getting off this rock alternative energy crime racism pollution equality and every other issue we have will be solved without religion.

Unless you think praying matters?

Prayer matters to those that pray. Prayer doesn't change actual outcomes for those who need very real physical help. In that instance the old adage that "God helps those who help themselves" is more appropriate. Those who can't help themselves are the ones who need actual help in resolving the problems mentioned above.

Prayer can be used as a form of meditation or as an act of supplication. The former is means of gaining personal insight while the latter is largely a waste of time IMO. I don't expect anyone to "pray for me" and I most certainly don't want to be in anyone's "prayers". That isn't going to help me or them.

Getting off my butt and doing something for those who are suffering in Nepal is what is going to make a very real difference even if it is nothing more than a donation it will still be more effective than a prayer IMO.

Needless to say others may have differing opinions so that is just my own 2 cents worth.

 

[BluePhantom]

Keep me honest here but am I correct in assuming from your posts that the fundamentalists mentioned in the OP are as much of a PITA for you as they are for everyone else?

Absolutely.

If that is true then I suggest that we find a way to move past them since they are only part of the problem and are incapable of ever being part of the solution.

That is very true. I would say that any extremist is not going to offer much in regard to solving the problem. They ARE the problem....part of it at least.

Right now there are more than enough serious issues to address rather than to waste any further time on those who have adopted a blind adherence to dogma irrespective of the harm it causes to others and even themselves.

I could not agree more.


Now...changing the subject....let me bounce something off you and this is purely theological so please attempt to view it from that standpoint and assume for the mere sake of argument that God exists. I return to the question of an omnipotent God. I would like to get input from you and Sealy on this and challenge you to think about this from a philosophical standpoint instead of a purely scientific one.

As I mentioned prior, if God is bound to his own Laws and his hands are tied (explaining suffering from natural causes), then He is not omnipotent. Wouldn't you agree? If that is the case, does God really have any value to society? Through God, a theist believes all things are possible, but if all things are not possible even for God, then what application for God does a theist have aside from a theoretical application? Does God have to be omnipotent in order to be God?

 

[BluePhantom]

Prayer matters to those that pray. Prayer doesn't change actual outcomes for those who need very real physical help. In that instance the old adage that "God helps those who help themselves" is more appropriate. Those who can't help themselves are the ones who need actual help in resolving the problems mentioned above.

Agreed to some extent. Here's where we will differ and this is just based upon my personal belief. I think God answers prayer in the sense that He provides opportunities for the individual to make their prayers come true. It has happened too many times in my life for me to dismiss, that I have prayed for something and shortly afterwards the opportunity came available to me. But I still had to seize the opportunity. So I agree with you, but I do think God grants us the opportunities we ask for. There's no proof behind that...it's purely belief. Those who cannot help themselves, yes that's where the community needs to step up and help.

Prayer can be used as a form of meditation or as an act of supplication. The former is means of gaining personal insight while the latter is largely a waste of time IMO. I don't expect anyone to "pray for me" and I most certainly don't want to be in anyone's "prayers". That isn't going to help me or them. Getting off my butt and doing something for those who are suffering in Nepal is what is going to make a very real difference even if it is nothing more than a donation it will still be more effective than a prayer IMO. Needless to say others may have differing opinions so that is just my own 2 cents worth.

I don't necessarily disagree. But sometimes there is very little one can do. I agree that action is far better than a mere prayer, but if someone has been in a car accident and is in the operating room fighting for life, there's not much I can do to impact that situation except offer up some prayers. Will it help? Pfft....who the fuck knows? But it can't hurt and it can certainly contribute to the comfort and sense of hope for the person's loved ones sitting in the waiting room. Now someone on the street who needs food...yeah....feeding them is a hell of a lot more effective than praying that they get fed. I agree with you there.

 

[BluePhantom]

Prayer matters to those that pray.

AH!!! Let me tie this in to my question about an omnipotent God. If God is not omnipotent, doesn't that render prayer useless aside from self-assurance and meditation? If God is bound by His own laws, then all God can do in response to prayer is to say "Hey, pal. My hands are tied here. Good luck. I hope it all works out for you". But if that is the case, doesn't it relegate God to being a mere observer with no power to influence real events?

 

[Derideo_Te]

As I mentioned prior, if God is bound to his own Laws and his hands are tied (explaining suffering from natural causes), then He is not omnipotent. Wouldn't you agree? If that is the case, does God really have any value to society? Through God, a theist believes all things are possible, but if all things are not possible even for God, then what application for God does a theist have aside from a theoretical application? Does God have to be omnipotent in order to be God?

Great question!

If I were a theist who believed in an omnipotent God and discovered that the reason my prayers were never answered was not because I was a sinner but because God was not omnipotent and therefore incapable of answering my prayers then I would be pissed off at being deceived.

How many prayers have been offered up over the centuries for an end to wars, disease, poverty, famine, et al and yet all of the above are still very much a part of life today and in the foreseeable future. Is that evidence for a God that is not omnipotent?

But the question you asked was does there need to be an omnipotent God for him to have any value to society and that is not answered by what I posted above.

Religions are responsible for the creation of an omnipotent God because they need followers in order to have a reason to exist. (FYI I highly recommend that you read Small Gods by Terry Pratchett as a tongue in cheek expose on the basis for the existence of both religions and gods. ) So omnipotence is a self serving invention of religion rather than a must have attribute of God. God does not have to be omnipotent in order to exist.

From a societal point of view what difference does it make if God is omnipotent but refuses to use his powers or not omnipotent and incapable of intervening for the benefit of mankind. The end result is identical because the value derived in both instances is none whatsoever.

How this plays in to the mindset of the theist to have to come to terms with the concept that all things are not possible reminds me yet another Pratchettism. "There is no justice, just us." Putting my atheist hat back on I have more "faith" in We the People that I do in any deity. We the People decided that the divine right of kings was bogus and chose instead to govern ourselves. As an experiment it has proven to be way more beneficial overall in preserving life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness than all of the combined pious sermons praising God throughout history IMO.

And again, it is actions by people, not prayers to God, that have made that happen.

Not sure if I fully answered your question but that is where I stand.

 

[BluePhantom]

As I mentioned prior, if God is bound to his own Laws and his hands are tied (explaining suffering from natural causes), then He is not omnipotent. Wouldn't you agree? If that is the case, does God really have any value to society? Through God, a theist believes all things are possible, but if all things are not possible even for God, then what application for God does a theist have aside from a theoretical application? Does God have to be omnipotent in order to be God?

Great question!

If I were a theist who believed in an omnipotent God and discovered that the reason my prayers were never answered was not because I was a sinner but because God was not omnipotent and therefore incapable of answering my prayers then I would be pissed off at being deceived.

How many prayers have been offered up over the centuries for an end to wars, disease, poverty, famine, et al and yet all of the above are still very much a part of life today and in the foreseeable future. Is that evidence for a God that is not omnipotent?

But the question you asked was does there need to be an omnipotent God for him to have any value to society and that is not answered by what I posted above.

Religions are responsible for the creation of an omnipotent God because they need followers in order to have a reason to exist. (FYI I highly recommend that you read Small Gods by Terry Pratchett as a tongue in cheek expose on the basis for the existence of both religions and gods. ) So omnipotence is a self serving invention of religion rather than a must have attribute of God. God does not have to be omnipotent in order to exist.

From a societal point of view what difference does it make if God in omnipotent but refuses to use his powers or not omnipotent and incapable of intervening to the benefit of mankind. The end result is identical because the value derived in both instances is none whatsoever.

How this plays in to the mindset of the theist to have to come to terms with the concept that all things are not possible reminds me yet another Pratchettism. "There is no justice, just us." Putting my atheist hat back on I have more "faith" in We the People that I do in any deity. We the People decided that the divine right of kings was bogus and chose instead to govern ourselves. As an experiment it has proven to be way more beneficial overall in preserving life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness than all of the combined pious sermons praising God throughout history IMO.

And again, it is actions by people, not prayers to God, that have made that happen.

Not sure if I fully answered your question but that is where I stand.

A well reasoned opinion. And I will check out Small Gods. As far as what difference it makes between whether God is incapable or unwilling, I agree that the net result is the same. But in the former, God is powerless, and in the latter He is perhaps apathetic. Neither are very comfortable possibilities for a theist. I suppose God could be unwilling because He sees the need to sacrifice for some greater good that transcends human understanding. Or perhaps God is of the opinion that no harm can be done to the spirit, so death and human suffering is really not anything that has long term consequences in the grand scheme of it all.

I don't know...I am still bouncing it around my brain .

I have also considered the tongue in cheek possibility that the multi-verse exists because God is still trying to get it right. So He created one universe and said "nope, that's all fucked up. Let's try another one".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Or perhaps God is of the opinion that no harm can be done to the spirit, so death and human suffering is really not anything that has long term consequences in the grand scheme of it all.

Now that is a completely different topic. The existence of a spirit is not purely theoretical. It can, and has been, measured scientifically.

Asking those who can achieve spiritual trance states to do so and then measuring brain activity it is possible to show that this is a different "state of mind" to that of someone not in that state. If I recall correctly these same states can be detected in animals too.

As someone who does experience my own spirituality, mostly when closer to large bodies of water, there is the legitimate question of how do I reconcile that as an atheist?

The answer is quite simple. As mammals we are capable of self inducing a trance like state of mind under given circumstances. The more we practice the better we become at it.

However I don't conflate being in a "spiritual state" with the existence of any deity. Religion has nefariously co-opted our natural ability to reach a trance like state as "evidence" for the existence of their deity since they have nothing else to use. Simply because we can achieve a measurable state of mind is not evidence for anything "supernatural". We can do it therefore it is perfectly natural.

You will note that religions denied that animals have "souls" and yet animals can also go into the same trance like states. Religions made that pronouncement because they had no "evidence" that animals could achieve those states. Now that science has established they can religions are going to have to adapt.

So to be precise I am a self described spiritual atheist and yes, there are others just like me out there too.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As I mentioned prior, if God is bound to his own Laws and his hands are tied (explaining suffering from natural causes), then He is not omnipotent. Wouldn't you agree? If that is the case, does God really have any value to society? Through God, a theist believes all things are possible, but if all things are not possible even for God, then what application for God does a theist have aside from a theoretical application? Does God have to be omnipotent in order to be God?

Great question!

If I were a theist who believed in an omnipotent God and discovered that the reason my prayers were never answered was not because I was a sinner but because God was not omnipotent and therefore incapable of answering my prayers then I would be pissed off at being deceived.

How many prayers have been offered up over the centuries for an end to wars, disease, poverty, famine, et al and yet all of the above are still very much a part of life today and in the foreseeable future. Is that evidence for a God that is not omnipotent?

But the question you asked was does there need to be an omnipotent God for him to have any value to society and that is not answered by what I posted above.

Religions are responsible for the creation of an omnipotent God because they need followers in order to have a reason to exist. (FYI I highly recommend that you read Small Gods by Terry Pratchett as a tongue in cheek expose on the basis for the existence of both religions and gods. ) So omnipotence is a self serving invention of religion rather than a must have attribute of God. God does not have to be omnipotent in order to exist.

From a societal point of view what difference does it make if God in omnipotent but refuses to use his powers or not omnipotent and incapable of intervening to the benefit of mankind. The end result is identical because the value derived in both instances is none whatsoever.

How this plays in to the mindset of the theist to have to come to terms with the concept that all things are not possible reminds me yet another Pratchettism. "There is no justice, just us." Putting my atheist hat back on I have more "faith" in We the People that I do in any deity. We the People decided that the divine right of kings was bogus and chose instead to govern ourselves. As an experiment it has proven to be way more beneficial overall in preserving life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness than all of the combined pious sermons praising God throughout history IMO.

And again, it is actions by people, not prayers to God, that have made that happen.

Not sure if I fully answered your question but that is where I stand.

A well reasoned opinion. And I will check out Small Gods. As far as what difference it makes between whether God is incapable or unwilling, I agree that the net result is the same. But in the former, God is powerless, and in the latter He is perhaps apathetic. Neither are very comfortable possibilities for a theist. I suppose God could be unwilling because He sees the need to sacrifice for some greater good that transcends human understanding. Or perhaps God is of the opinion that no harm can be done to the spirit, so death and human suffering is really not anything that has long term consequences in the grand scheme of it all.

I don't know...I am still bouncing it around my brain .

I have also considered the tongue in cheek possibility that the multi-verse exists because God is still trying to get it right. So He created one universe and said "nope, that's all fucked up. Let's try another one".

The multiverse is just the flip side of the universe. Often the B side has a better song on it than the A side. All of the multiverses are stacked up in God's jukebox and he is only listening to one of them at a time which is why he is ignoring your prayers.

 

[BluePhantom]

Or perhaps God is of the opinion that no harm can be done to the spirit, so death and human suffering is really not anything that has long term consequences in the grand scheme of it all.

Now that is a completely different topic. The existence of a spirit is not purely theoretical. It can, and has been, measured scientifically.

Asking those who can achieve spiritual trance states to do so and then measuring brain activity it is possible to show that this is a different "state of mind" to that of someone not in that state. If I recall correctly these same states can be detected in animals too.

As someone who does experience my own spirituality, mostly when closer to large bodies of water, there is the legitimate question of how do I reconcile that as an atheist?

The answer is quite simple. As mammals we are capable of self inducing a trance like state of mind under given circumstances. The more we practice the better we become at it.

However I don't conflate being in a "spiritual state" with the existence of any deity. Religion has nefariously co-opted our natural ability to reach a trance like state as "evidence" for the existence of their deity since they have nothing else to use. Simply because we can achieve a measurable state of mind is not evidence for anything "supernatural". We can do it therefore it is perfectly natural.

You will note that religions denied that animals have "souls" and yet animals can also go into the same trance like states. Religions made that pronouncement because they had no "evidence" that animals could achieve those states. Now that science has established they can religions are going to have to adapt.

So to be precise I am a self described spiritual atheist and yes, there are others just like me out there too.

Very interesting, indeed. So help me understand your belief. You mention a spirituality but not one connected to a divine deity. I am understanding you to mean a spiritual force that is within us that links us to nature and the universe around us but is not an eternal soul as theists see it. Is that it? If that's the case what happens to the spirit upon death? Does it die with the body? This is quite interesting.