I posted my answer to the OP's question. my answer to the fishes person, is not about the trininty, although thats a good subject to talk about for sure, why don't you start a thread for us....

Well its clearly all down to semantics.

Points.

Who is the observer. Someone who believes in spiritualism could describe an experience someone else has as spiritual even if the person having the experience does not.

Spiritualism does not imply god, unless made explicit in the definition. There are people who consider themselves both atheists and spiritualists.

You can describe as a spiritual experience an experience considered by spiritualists to be spiritual. There is no implication of any underlying spiritual mechanism being real, just a way to label events inspired by spiritualists. Or you can decide not to do this.

Overall I think yes meets the most interpretations of the question.

Find out

Its semantics, not something you can deduce by experimentation.

Not sure if this has been addressed yet in this thread, and it seems a little obvious, but I'm going to put it out there anyway.

I don't think anyone is doubting that people have experiences that they deem to be spiritual. Those experiences and feelings are happening whether or not there is a God. So from the atheist perspective, of course atheists can have spiritual experiences - they just might call it something else. From a theist perspective, I imagine the answer must be: atheists can have spiritual experiences if God wants them to. From the mystic experience, I would imagine they would say: anyone can have a spiritual experience but they have to be in the right mindset and that might be tougher for atheists.

I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the atheist wing of Buddhists would have black belts in spiritual experiences?

If the atheists realized what exactly atheism is they would have to vote that their only experiences consists of matter upon matter.All of their experiences in creativity, love, hate etc. would be a matter of weight driven and measurable unbouncing balls. A clear headed atheist( is this possible?) would be dumbfounded by the question and answer in the negative, appropriately.

Of course in our time we have many shades of atheism from theoretical to the "I hate my religion" type which reaches out and therefore the results of this poll. In truth a "real" atheist would have contracted his whole being into matter such that he would be in need of therapy;atheism is an illness that calls for remedy and there are very few if any, of these types amongst us and we can be hopeful and gladdened by an improvement of their vital state.

Probably should have said "most" atheists, but I think this is consistent with my overall point there.

Again, this just boils down to how we're labeling the experience. If atheists are right, that doesn't negate all the spiritual experiences people have had, just how we describe them.

I want to be a clear-headed atheist. Please tell me how atheism implies that "creativity, love, hate, etc." are only a matter of "weight driven and measurable unbouncing balls."

Two choices here; Non measurable or measurable(weight,distance,etc). If everything is measurable then there cannot be a spiritual reality. In my presentation "atheism" states there cannot be this reality and of course will believe that the presentation of love, hate, etc. are products and in fact contain materiality or in fact measurable. This is the world of scientific materialism.

"Ghosts" as presented by the materialist will have to be seen with our earth bound senses and therefore are in the realm of materiality. Color surnamed "qualia" is likewise in this realm and thus the idea that color as a wave length is the overriding factor and therefore brought into the realm of measurable materiality.

"Feelings" are also material( in the materialist/atheist view) and if not now, in the future will be able to be measured and weighed. Some quantum theorists state that light is mass-less yet treat it according to mechanistic conceptions and therefore not seeing it as to what they have concluded as to mass-less.

Of course i am attempting to relate the consequences of atheistic thinking which demands a material or materialistic substance. My point is that there are those who call themselves '"atheist" are not and consequently have a wide variation in their answers to OP's question. I see atheism in what might be known as "strong atheism" and as noted there are very few who actually see the world in this way.

Scientific materialism is an activity of atheism but to believe one is an atheist is quite a different story. Thus the myriad shades of "atheism". Of course "thinking" is a prime spiritual activity to which even the 'strong atheists" cannot escape even if they do not see it in this way. Thus, in materialism( atheism), with this thoughtful activity we have theoretical materialism.

Addendum: in considering the word"atheism" =not theos or no higher reality whether big or little "gods" which states that no formed discernible non physical entities. I would consider this to negate any non physical materiality even if some would believe in some nebulous realm , diffuse in nature which does not contain "form". To believe in a higher realm without the "form" given to humans is a non starter.

As far as I can tell, the extreme form of reductive materialism you claim follows from atheism doesn't actually follow from atheism. Instead, you use a special definition of atheism, a "stronger" version, where you essentially identify atheism with extreme reductive materialism. But that is a mistake. These two views are not the same. For example, Thomas Hobbes was an extreme reductive materialist, but claimed that his view was consistent with theism--it just meant that God was a material being. On the other side, there are numerous examples of people who reject the extreme reductive materialism you describe here who do not believe in any supernatural deities (e.g. David Chalmers, John Searle, Tom Nagel).

The ontological status of consciousness is not an easy question, but I don't see how it necessitates one view or the other about the existence of God.

No, deal with what I wrote. I never mentioned the "G" word nor should you go to the extreme without going through the middle. We're not talking about belief as if its the last word and why attempt to argue from authority? What I said was clear whether Thomas Hobbes says something different or the others likewise.

This is not a speculation as to the existence of a spiritual reality and what I said is that the myriad forms of atheism snatch bits and pieces of what one might call a spiritual reality which is OK with me. You can call it what you want but the real work is the connection of spiritual reality with what one might call "material reality". Truth being, the material is the perceptive expression of the spiritual as we see the ice berg without seeing the water underneath. The material is an expression of the spiritual.

The entry into this "connection" is via thinking and no amount of materialistic experimental methodology can "prove" the spiritual and therefore we have to depend upon thinking.

If Thomas Hobbes states that a higher spiritual reality( my words not his) is material( I don't like to use the "G" word which is no more than an abstraction) then he's confused and just put a meaningless word on our sense bound world for what he is saying is that there is only material and it seems like we are part of a big materialistic monad. He would be considered a real "atheist" who won't give up the "G" word and i would assume he accepts a material causality. In theory( our evaluation not his) of course, for he denies the supersensible. The supersensible is approached through thinking which is a spiritual activity.

Of course we come back to the salient point; is thinking produced by the brain as the liver/gall bladder produces the bile? If so we have Hobbes and if not then it has a spiritual/supersensible reality and is not measurable or weigh-able. This is a matter(no pun intended) in which in which each of us have to come to by experiencing thinking within ourselves and coming to our individual conclusion.

In a similar vein I believe there have been scientists who have attempted to find the soul materially via a type of combustion process. Dennett states there is a soul and it is material; an oxymoron and no more.

Yeah, the fact that you seem to think that atheism has nothing to do with god is a bug, not a feature, of your view. However, I'm not that interested in arguing over what atheism "really" means. The point is that the view about the existence of god held by most people on this forum who call themselves "atheists" doesn't have the implications that follow from the view you call "atheism."

Also, I wasn't arguing from authority, I was presenting counterexamples to your claim.

I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of this.

I also don't think that atheism relies in any important way on a "materialistic experimental methodology" so it doesn't really matter whether such a methodology can provide evidence for the existence of spiritual beings.

This is pretty funny. You explicitly admit that you are redefining what Hobbes says to something that is not what he says, and then you say that according to your redefinition what Hobbes said is nonsense. I agree!

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Thomas Hobbes was a materialist who argued that the Christian God was a material being. Obviously, his claim was a bit unusual (although I believe that Mormons also claim that God is material), but that doesn't mean it wasn't actually what he claimed. As for it being meaningless, why? I'm not having a difficult time understanding what he said. Anyway, unlike you, I don't think that "God" is an abstraction--I'm not even sure what you mean by saying so.
So again you make my point for me. For you, "atheism" means extreme reductive materialism. If that is what you mean by "atheist," then obviously it follows that all "atheists" are extreme reductive materialists. But now being an "atheist" doesn't imply that you believe that God doesn't exist (or that you lack a belief in God). You admit it here--you say that even though Hobbes claims there is a God he is really an atheist.

Edit: I see you changed your post in a few ways, but my response still seems adequate. I do want to correct you on one point. Dennett claiming that the soul is material is certainly not oxymoronic. This is a very old view characteristic of both Epicurean and Stoic philosophy.

If spiritual experience means experiencing something outside of the norms of reality, yes.

I was really desperate to go to the toilet and just took a huge dump. That was a pretty spiritual experience