Some Christian philosophers including Alvin Plantinga tried to offer a slogan like 'Faith and Rationality'. Plantinga claims that theistic beliefs are basic or rational. (I disagree with him.)
Some atheists like Richard Dawkins used to say that atheists can be spiritual. They think that naturalists like them can be spiritual.
Some atheists like Christopher HItchens may deny any spiritual or supernatural things...

Well, you have told me what other people think, but what do you think?

I think that religious beliefs are not basic. There is no evidence that religious beliefs are rational. I think that atheists can be spiritual. The whole scenario fabricated by Christian theologians has nothing to do with spirituality.

I think that Plantinga is a skillful and technical philosopher. Plantinga is known as one among top 4 possible worlds theoreticians (the others are Lewis, Kripke, Stalnaker, anyway).
If the most important thing in philosophy is clarity, then Plantinga is a good philosopher. He deserves to be spoken as the best philosopher of religion. However, most of his conclusions are somewhat ridiculous. So, I disagree with his opinions.

I stared this same thread in a religious forums if anyone wants to read their responses:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/rational-theist-spiritual-atheist.194040/

I did this with another thread, and it is interesting to compare the differences.

Here is one of the better replies. I would be interested to see what people here think of what Sunstone had to say.

The mystical experience of oneness, which is sometimes interpreted as an experience of god, and which comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ceases while some sort of experiencing continues, is certainly not confined to any single religious tradition or practice. Doesn't matter whether you're Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Daoist, or from some other tradition -- that experience seems to be at its core something that can occur to anyone. However, how one interprets the experience, what they think it was all about -- whether, for instance, one thinks it is an experience of some god or not -- tends to depend on the predominant tradition or practice that one comes from. — Sunstone, post: 5012843, member: 499

This was my response to his post:

Are the interpretations necessarily exclusive due to religious views? Or is it possible that one person can interpret it many different ways regardless of their beliefs? Then it is further possible for a person to interpret it many different ways, but only accept one of those interpretations? — Jeremiahcp, post: 5012919, member: 61265

As Einstein said of himself, at the moment, I am a deeply religious non-believer. That is, I meditate, pray, practice celibacy, and try to emulate Jesus, the Buddha, and other religious figures, but I do not formally belong to any church or religion and cannot bring myself to believe in certain dogmas sensu proprio. I think, given my temperament and intellectual trajectory, I will either remain a religious, non-believing hermit, as I am now, or will formally convert to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Buddhism.

That is not what Einstein said.
He even clarified this.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

But he's not really refuting the phrase I used. Read your quote again. Obviously, what he means by "religious" is not what I mean by it. That's why I clarified what I mean by it in the very next sentence in my post.

Maybe you have a source where Einstein himself said that he meditates, prays, practices celibacy, and tries to live like Jesus did.

I am pretty sure that this was not something he had said himself, even if it is something that was said of him.

Maybe you have a source where Einstein himself said that he meditates, prays, practices celibacy, and tries to live like Jesus did. — m-theory

I never said nor meant to imply that he did these things. I was talking about myself, which I have now said twice.

I am pretty sure that this was not something he had said himself, even if it is something that was said of him. — m-theory

I am, too. Now don't make me repeat myself again, ffs, man.

I've been reading Max Jammer's (love that name!) Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology. It's a great book, if you want to understand Einstein's view of God and Religion. He didn't believe in a personal God and did not follow any religion, but he was not an atheist. He believed in an impersonal God and strict determinism. He referred to his belief system as a cosmic religion.

The mystical experience of oneness, which is sometimes interpreted as an experience of god, and which comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ceases while some sort of experiencing continues, is certainly not confined to any single religious tradition or practice. — Sunstone, post: 5012843, member: 499

The analytic in me would like to suggest that there is no way of knowing whether the variety of experiences encompassed under this single description really can be grouped together. They are generally grouped together by people who believe there is a profound meaning in 'the mystical experience of oneness' as they interpret it.

Personally I've experienced something like that, and I regard it as an illusion. Pluralism can be spiritual too. I enjoy the pluralism of sciences or of multi-deity religions, the multitude of nature and of works of art and humanity. I am distrustful of One God One Truth, and it strikes me that some science-as-the-ultimate believers are as guilty of a univocal view as monotheists: that there's a single theory of everything behind the plurality we seemingly experience.

This is the crossroad I have come to so far:

If the experience shapes the belief (or "interpretation") the experience would be accessible to all; however, if the belief shapes the experience than it would be exclusive to that belief.

But that would raise a few more questions: Does one belief lead to one experience or is there more than one path? Does a belief have to be accepted as true or can it be assumed for the purpose of the experience?

Also, this does not fully address the other half of the question: Are there any rationales that are exclusive to a person because of their religious views or lack of religious views?

I never said nor meant to imply that he did these things. I was talking about myself, — Thorongil

It would be a good idea to change the first sentence of that post, because it reads to me as well as though you are quoting Einstein. The best option would be to leave Einstein out of it altogether. He is probably the second most quoted source after the Bible in religious arguments and, just like the bible, one can always find a quote that supports either side of an argument.

Nah, I think it fit and I'm not changing it. I've clarified it and that's that. Nor am I making any arguments.

Rational Theist? Spiritual Atheist?

"Rational Theist" seems to be a contradiction in terms.
"Spiritual Atheist" sure if by "Spiritual", deeply felt connection with others is meant, Oscar Wilde in his last work De Profundis , which was written while he was in prison wrote:

When I think of religion at all, I feel as if I would like to found as order for those who cannot believe: the Confraternity of the Faithless, one might call it, when on an altar, on which no taper bured, a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling, might celebrate with unblessed bread and chalice empty of wine. Everything to be true must become religion. And agnosticism should have its ritual no less than faith.

The striking statement in this is "Everything to be true must become a religion" The meaning of the word true is not in its logical sense, its sense is existential.

Religion is a system of beliefs, that strongly affect those who believe. It provides believers with an order of practice, a way of living along side others who practice similar beliefs.

""Rational Theist" seems to be a contradiction in terms."

Are you seriously suggesting that a theist cannot be rational?

I don't think the belief in god can be rationally justified. You got one?

I am sure you have many irrational beliefs. Like the idea that theist cannot be rational. Try thinking about what you said.

That's no argument. We all have beliefs that we may not be able to justify. I am saying in principal god can't be justified on a rational basis, god is kinda a paradigm case man.

Theist are people; theism is the belief in god. It is one thing to say theism is not rational, but to say theist are not rational is to say anyone who believes in god is not a rational person.

""Rational Theist" seems to be a contradiction in terms."

Well, they do seem to be contradictory terms...reason versus magical thinking to put it in rationalistic terms.

I think you are clearly bias. I don't even believe in gods and I consider your argument absurd.

I don't think that should be controversial.
Everybody is irrational to some degree, we all suffer from cognitive biases.

Nobody is completely rational, and likely it is especially true of those that believe they are.

I shouldn't be, but it is. There is a clear us vs. them mentality divided along the lines of believers and non-believers.

Well that should not be surprising being that there is a disagreement about what it is rational to believe.

Theist are not much better in my experience, and regard atheist as irrational for their lack of belief.

"Theist are not much better in my experience"

Of course, people are people are people are people.

I can't conceive of religious beliefs not having a rational component. That's because I wouldn't even characterize them as beliefs without a rational component. However, note that all that I take "rational" to refer to in this context is the process of taking intuitions, other beliefs, empirical data and so on to have implications (that one then assents to when we're talking about belief). I don't see rationality as referring to any particular beliefs in a normative manner.

Re "spiritual atheists," I see the term "spiritual" as extremely vague and flighty, but sure, depending on how one defines it, there can easily be "spiritual" atheists. I've had a few different people in the past say that they saw me as being "spiritual" even though I'm an atheist, although it was never clear to me what they meant.

practice celibacy, — Thorongil

Ummm . . . skip

You'd have in mind something very different than I do by "rationality" if you don't consider Aquinas' five proofs, for example, to be examples of rational justifications for belief in God.