• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Characterization of Atheism

I tend not to characterize myself as an atheist, although obviously I acknowledge that I am one as I don't believe in any gods.

If I'm looking for a positive descriptor for my stance on the spiritual, I'd be more likely to say humanist or skeptic, as they both describe things I affirm.
 
A definition of 'spiritual' would be helpful.

I can't have a 'spiritual' position as there is no such thing as 'the spirit'.

I have considered carefully the arguments of those who believe they are being 'spiritual' and would refer you to my sig line.
 
HikakaGirl said:
I am an atheist, and recently got a tattoo of a scarlet "A" to signify said atheism.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought it physically possible but that is both cool and hot at the same time ;)
HikakaGirl said:
A friend commented that she thought it was ill-advised to get a tattoo that signified atheism, as that was "a spiritual issue, and people's spiritual beliefs change all the time". Now, let's put aside the last part of the phrase, regarding beliefs changing "all the time" (although I suspect some among you may not be able to resist that little nugget). When I reflected on her comment, I realized that I don't consider atheism to be a spiritual issue. I did not arrive at the conclusion that I was an atheist from a spiritual journey. I then began to ask myself, and others, the question of how to characterize atheism. Is it a spiritual issue? Philosophical? Intellectual? Scientific? I haven't yet figured it out, but I'm enjoying the thought exercise.
Click to expand...
I've asked myself the same and find that there are different kinds of atheism.

There's the "scientific atheism" which regards the existence of gods as just another statement about reality and finds it false.
Another kind of atheism often gets overlooked because you don't find it on its own but only coinciding with "scientific atheism". Let's call that "ethical atheism". Belief in a god doesn't just mean believing that such an entity exists but also pledging allegiance to it and obeying its commands. Most "scientific atheists", in my experience, believe in human rights, democracy and all that. They're also humanists. Even if they received solid evidence of a god, they would still not commit atrocities on its command.

That kind of scientific/ethical atheist pretty much never lapses because the change is just too big, requiring abandonment of rationality and ethics.


Another kind of atheist is the "angry-at-god" atheist. That's the believer approved kind and is usually temporary. They see all the evil in the world and can't believe that a god would allow this. Clearly this is just fallacious wishful thinking. Without a rational or ethical foundation, their opinions shifts with their moods. More generally, when someone justifies their atheism with fallacious arguments, that's the type that will find god sooner or later. And perhaps all sorts of woo.


Finally there's, let's call it "religious atheism". Sometimes you encounter new agers, woo-woos, who believe in all sorts of nonsense but not god. I have no idea what goes on inside these people.

Eventually, atheism is just about what one is not. It says nothing about what one is.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
I hadn't thought it physically possible but that is both cool and hot at the same time ;)

I've asked myself the same and find that there are different kinds of atheism.

There's the "scientific atheism" which regards the existence of gods as just another statement about reality and finds it false.
Another kind of atheism often gets overlooked because you don't find it on its own but only coinciding with "scientific atheism". Let's call that "ethical atheism". Belief in a god doesn't just mean believing that such an entity exists but also pledging allegiance to it and obeying its commands. Most "scientific atheists", in my experience, believe in human rights, democracy and all that. They're also humanists. Even if they received solid evidence of a god, they would still not commit atrocities on its command.

That kind of scientific/ethical atheist pretty much never lapses because the change is just too big, requiring abandonment of rationality and ethics.


Another kind of atheist is the "angry-at-god" atheist. That's the believer approved kind and is usually temporary. They see all the evil in the world and can't believe that a god would allow this. Clearly this is just fallacious wishful thinking. Without a rational or ethical foundation, their opinions shifts with their moods. More generally, when someone justifies their atheism with fallacious arguments, that's the type that will find god sooner or later. And perhaps all sorts of woo.


Finally there's, let's call it "religious atheism". Sometimes you encounter new agers, woo-woos, who believe in all sorts of nonsense but not god. I have no idea what goes on inside these people.

Eventually, atheism is just about what one is not. It says nothing about what one is.
Click to expand...

I don't get it.

I don't think Harry potter or Luke Skywalker exist either. Do there exist the different types of apotterism and askywalkerism too?
 
3point14 said:
I don't get it.

I don't think Harry potter or Luke Skywalker exist either. Do there exist the different types of apotterism and askywalkerism too?
Click to expand...

Hmm. There were 2 points I was making.
One is that belief in something can mean 2 different things depending on context. One is acceptance of something as a fact, the other is allegiance. When a US american says 'I believe in the constitution', they are not trying to say that they believe that the physical document exists.
The other point is that there are different ways how one can form an opinion. Some rational, some not.

I would indeed say there are different kinds of apotterism, etc. I think eg the difference between someone who does not believe because he knows the entity is fictional and someone who has never heard of it is relevant.
 
As 3point14 says... I have a definition of "spiritual" that says:
"How human beings think about and react to things that they only imagine to exist."

Just from talking to people it's obvious that definitions of the term vary wildly. To some, it might mean actual "Supernatural" items. To others, merely being concerned with one's fellow man is "spiritual".
 
Online dictionaries are pointing me to religiosity when I look up "spiritual." So the word has a strong religious connection, obviously. It also seems to have a strong correlation with emotionality, whether of the religious sort or not. It is defined largely as what it is not: not tangible, not material.

So the term serves more than one purpose, but overall regards emotions and emotional abstractions, rather than tangible concretions.

I'm atheist, but a beautiful sunset can give rise to feelings of awe within me. It could be called a spiritual sensation, but as the word is tied so firmly to religiosity, I prefer to say and think that I have just had an emotional experience, not a spiritual one.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
Hmm. There were 2 points I was making.
One is that belief in something can mean 2 different things depending on context. One is acceptance of something as a fact, the other is allegiance. When a US american says 'I believe in the constitution', they are not trying to say that they believe that the physical document exists.
The other point is that there are different ways how one can form an opinion. Some rational, some not.

I would indeed say there are different kinds of apotterism, etc. I think eg the difference between someone who does not believe because he knows the entity is fictional and someone who has never heard of it is relevant.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. :)

I just get a little fed up of being told I have to treat one fictional being differently to any other. I have a whole list of things that someone mad up that I have no real position on. god is just one of them.
 
Bikewer said:
As 3point14 says... I have a definition of "spiritual" that says:
"How human beings think about and react to things that they only imagine to exist."

Just from talking to people it's obvious that definitions of the term vary wildly. To some, it might mean actual "Supernatural" items. To others, merely being concerned with one's fellow man is "spiritual".
Click to expand...

I like that.

I get a funny feeling when listening to a good production of Pachelbel's canon, sort of a fuzzy electricity in my head.

There was a fellow on UK TV some time ago who was played his favourite opera piece while in an MRI scanner (I think) and his brain lit up like a christmas tree, apparently. not just bits of it, but all of it.

This is the sort of stuff that gets labelled as 'spiritual' simply because it's not understood.

I just think that if there's no such thing as the (metaphysical) spirit, then there can't be spirituality. It's a fuzzy, useless label.
 
Halfcentaur said:
I define spirituality as coming from the word spirit, as in a spirited horse. Not a ghost horse, but a horse with vibrant burning passion. And spirituality would be the experience one has when reflecting upon a sense of profound meaning to their existence, those moments when the now is loud and apparent and one feels awe or wonder or great appreciation for one's place in reality which cannot be summed up in words adequately. Some feel this passion more than others, but it has nothing to do with non corporeal beings, disembodied consciousness which is intrinsic to the universe, or dogmatic systems of belief. Religion and new age hucksters currently have a monopoly on wonder and indescribable depths of emotion. Horse hockey.
Click to expand...
The term you want is elevation, which is defined as the opposite of disgust.

I personally think they picked the wrong word to coopt, and would have gone with "exaltation" instead, but I understand that comes with pretty heavy religious overtones as well.
 
3point14 said:
I don't think Harry potter or Luke Skywalker exist either. Do there exist the different types of apotterism and askywalkerism too?
Click to expand...
The difference between Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker on the one hand and God on the other, is that the former are well-defined, though fictional, concepts, whereas the latter is essentially a gibberish word which has been infused with so many disparate meanings through the years as to have been rendered meaningless in the general case.

Theological non-cognitivism for the win.
 
HikakaGirl said:
Hi all,
At the risk of opening Pandora's Box, I have a high level question to put to you all. I am an atheist, and recently got a tattoo of a scarlet "A" to signify said atheism. A friend commented that she thought it was ill-advised to get a tattoo that signified atheism, as that was "a spiritual issue, and people's spiritual beliefs change all the time". Now, let's put aside the last part of the phrase, regarding beliefs changing "all the time" (although I suspect some among you may not be able to resist that little nugget). When I reflected on her comment, I realized that I don't consider atheism to be a spiritual issue. I did not arrive at the conclusion that I was an atheist from a spiritual journey. I then began to ask myself, and others, the question of how to characterize atheism. Is it a spiritual issue? Philosophical? Intellectual? Scientific? I haven't yet figured it out, but I'm enjoying the thought exercise.

I know there is a significant amount of content on this forum addressing the question of whether or not the existence of God can or should be subjected to scientific inquiry. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for your opinions on how you would characterize atheism. Feel free to qualify your answer (i.e. strong or weak atheism, compare and contrast to agnosticism), but please state assumptions where appropriate so that I, and others, understand your thoughts correctly.

Thanks in advance for your considered responses.
HG
Click to expand...

Most people are atheist before they seek an explanation as to why they are atheist. So there really isn't a way to characterize it based on how you got there. You were born atheist and never saw a reason to change. The simplest and most honest characterization would be just to say it is a common sense view of the place religion has in your world.

Your consideration of the question of your atheism can certainly be a spiritual journey if you look to the description of secular spirituality from Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia, "Spirituality",
"Secular spirituality emphasizes humanistic ideas on qualities such as love, compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, responsibility, harmony, and a concern for others, aspects of life and human experience which go beyond a purely materialist view of the world, without necessarily accepting belief in a supernatural reality or divine being. Spiritual practices such as mindfulness and meditation can be experienced as beneficial or even necessary for human fulfillment without any supernatural interpretation or explanation."
 
Personally, I think it's a scientific position. And I don't mean that science can disprove the existence of God.

It's religion proposing the existence of God. The burden of proof is therefore on religion to prove that God exists, and I would expect that to be done via the scientific method. They haven't done it, to my satisfaction. Hence, I see no reason to believe in God.
 
AdMan said:
Personally, I think it's a scientific position. And I don't mean that science can disprove the existence of God.

It's religion proposing the existence of God. The burden of proof is therefore on religion to prove that God exists, and I would expect that to be done via the scientific method. They haven't done it, to my satisfaction. Hence, I see no reason to believe in God.
Click to expand...

But did you, or anybody you know of, come to be an atheist because there was no scientific proof of god?
 
Beelzebuddy said:
The term you want is elevation, which is defined as the opposite of disgust.

I personally think they picked the wrong word to coopt, and would have gone with "exaltation" instead, but I understand that comes with pretty heavy religious overtones as well.
Click to expand...

How about "elation"?
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
But did you, or anybody you know of, come to be an atheist because there was no scientific proof of god?
Click to expand...

I didn't start out that way, but I ended that way.

I started from an emotional base, but the science was just too big to be ignored. Once I paid attention to it, it became overwhelming, from an evidentiary standpoint.

And once I reached that point, my emotional foundation no longer mattered. What I now think about the non-existence of god rests firmly on a scientific foundation.

So, I can answer your question with: "Yes, definitely. I am one such."
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
The difference between Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker on the one hand and God on the other, is that the former are well-defined, though fictional, concepts, whereas the latter is essentially a gibberish word which has been infused with so many disparate meanings through the years as to have been rendered meaningless in the general case.

Theological non-cognitivism for the win.
Click to expand...

Not a concept I'm familiar with. I quite like it. I might be one of those. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom