• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Crossbreed atheism with spirituality

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is case that aggressive strand of atheism: in the Soviet case, Khrushchev-era atheist propaganda and in the contemporary Western case, the “New Atheism” had been/is a factor in giving rise to atheist spirituality.
The problem is to decide what 'spirituality' means. If all it means is tender concern for one's emotional state, then presumably some atheists will subscribe to that.

If it refers to the 'soul', or the 'immaterial', or the 'supernatural', then perhaps there are people who are atheists in that they reject the reality of gods, but not the reality of the supernatural ─ I recall surveys showing that some atheists believe there's life after death, though philosophically I don't know how that's done.

Otherwise I don't foresee much activity in the atheist spirituality market.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
And if you want to know where your linked article completely lost me:

Atko Remmel and Mikko Sillfors - for shame. This sentence is borderline delusional. To imply that the terms "atheist" and "spirituality" are on equal footing with the amount of amorphousness they bring to the table is completely asinine. The only argument one can possibly make for atheism being an umbrella term is to take all of the misinformation, generalization and downright lies that people (mostly theists) have told over the years to try and paint atheists out to be some form of "wrong," and accept that utter CRAP as being colloquial additions to the word's definition. Again... completely asinine. Just stupid beyond belief.

While the term "spirituality" is completely nebulous, and can literally mean a grand ton and a half of things. All one has to do to confirm this difference in nebulousness between "atheist" and "spiritual" is compare the number of entries for each in a dictionary. Hands down, "spiritual" will always have more, while it would shock me if anyone could find a dictionary in which "atheist" is more than a one-liner. Duh. Absolute freaking duh.

You suggest that there is only one kind of atheist?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The problem is to decide what 'spirituality' means. If all it means is tender concern for one's emotional state, then presumably some atheists will subscribe to that.

If it refers to the 'soul', or the 'immaterial', or the 'supernatural', then perhaps there are people who are atheists in that they reject the reality of gods, but not the reality of the supernatural ─ I recall surveys showing that some atheists believe there's life after death, though philosophically I don't know how that's done.

Otherwise I don't foresee much activity in the atheist spirituality market.

I like to ask why would an atheist meditate? What in philosophical naturalism indicates that meditation can be beneficial? And do most atheists have a similar or common view on this?
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I like to ask why would an atheist meditate? What in philosophical naturalism indicates that meditation can be beneficial.
I have lunch with a Buddhist friend once every month or two, and he holds with non-supernatural Buddhism and also with meditation. As he tells it, some decades back he had work stress and high blood pressure, and noticed an article suggesting meditation could lower blood pressure without medication, which appealed to him. In the course of exploring kinds of meditation, he came to the Buddhist tradition, and has never looked back. Somewhat to my surprise, he has a mat and emblems which he uses for meditation, which rather reminds me of prayer, but he says he just finds them helpful shortcuts to where he wishes to be, meditationally.
And do most atheists have a similar or common view on this?
I'm not aware of any common view. I don't meditate ─ having tried it I find it boring ─ but plainly it suits a lot of people. (Although I still use a simple relaxation technique I picked up back then.)
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Doesnt spirituality have something to do with belief in something along the lines of a soul?

Im an atheist, but i understand the motivations for a god to be real.

I am spiritual because i regard something like a soul exists. Im willing to bet that atheists are not all alike and differ drastically from individual to individual.

The reason i am a spiritual atheist is because there is simple and what used to be common language in spirituality. I find people become so scientific minded about life that its like trying to learn an alien language when talking to them.

People are not individuals anymore they are mental states, and products of evolution, free will the illusion, identity an illusion also. Hard determinists, some people deny existence is real. Just reading through all the alien comments on social forums i think people are starting to lose all sense of commonality. Everything must be backed with so called foolproof data.

Its like you have to write a research paper just to speak to someone. The knowledge explosion of today makes intellectuals seem infallible. I prefer plain language, people are way to deep in their own hubris. Spiritual atheist suits me just fine.

I dont know how many times people have insulted other people over not knowing expert knowledge. Seems to me that intellectuals of today like to intimidate others with their expertise and uncommon knowledge. Instead of communicating their knowledge effectively and be respected for it.

Words people dont like get changed around and abused, spirituality is an example of a much abused word.
People have lost a sense of spirituality, and in the process kindness and manners. It is a sign of weakness that people like to bash other people with knowledge. I mean its a defensive thing to do.

Language like spirit, soul, heart, mind, will, faith, love, joy, peace. These words get pummeled. People are too mechanistic. Spirituality does not have to be about anything mythical, mystical or fantastical.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
I like to ask why would an atheist meditate? What in philosophical naturalism indicates that meditation can be beneficial. And do most atheists have a similar or common view on this?
What does "know thyself" (meditation) have to do with atheism or theism? This is what I'm puzzled about.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Doesnt spirituality have something to do with belief in something along the lines of a soul?

Im an atheist, but i understand the motivations for a god to be real.

I am spiritual because i regard something like a soul exists. Im willing to bet that atheists are not all alike and differ drastically from individual to individual.

The reason i am a spiritual atheist is because there is simple and what used to be common language in spirituality. I find people become so scientific minded about life that its like trying to learn an alien language when talking to them.

People are not individuals anymore they are mental states, and products of evolution, free will the illusion, identity an illusion also. Hard determinists, some people deny existence is real. Just reading through all the alien comments on social forums i think people are starting to lose all sense of commonality. Everything must be backed with so called foolproof data.

Its like you have to write a research paper just to speak to someone. The knowledge explosion of today makes intellectuals seem infallible. I prefer plain language, people are way to deep in their own hubris. Spiritual atheist suits me just fine.

I dont know how many times people have insulted other people over not knowing expert knowledge. Seems to me that intellectuals of today like to intimidate others with their expertise and uncommon knowledge. Instead of communicating their knowledge effectively and be respected for it.

Words people dont like get changed around and abused, spirituality is an example of a much abused word.
People have lost a sense of spirituality, and in the process kindness and manners. It is a sign of weakness that people like to bash other people with knowledge. I mean its a defensive thing to do.

Language like spirit, soul, heart, mind, will, faith, love, joy, peace. These words get pummeled. People are too mechanistic. Spirituality does not have to be about anything mythical, mystical or fantastical.

You write “I prefer plain language, ....,,.”

But I found your post delicious. :)
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
What does "know thyself" (meditation) have to do with atheism or theism? This is what I'm puzzled about.

Know thyself will likely lead one to the unborn chitta. But isn’t that out of scope of ‘empirical only’?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I have lunch with a Buddhist friend once every month or two, and he holds with non-supernatural Buddhism and also with meditation. As he tells it, some decades back he had work stress and high blood pressure, and noticed an article suggesting meditation could lower blood pressure without medication, which appealed to him. In the course of exploring kinds of meditation, he came to the Buddhist tradition, and has never looked back. Somewhat to my surprise, he has a mat and emblems which he uses for meditation, which rather reminds me of prayer, but he says he just finds them helpful shortcuts to where he wishes to be, meditationally.

As per many spiritualists, truth is beneath the bundles of thoughts like this. :D or ;) or :p

Emblems help to focus mind away from ever rising bundles of thoughts.

I'm not aware of any common view. I don't meditate ─ having tried it I find it boring ─ but plainly it suits a lot of people. (Although I still use a simple relaxation technique I picked up back then.)

The goal of meditation is relaxation. You might have (or might not have) noted that complete relaxation will lead you to lose the sense of boundary of your physical self. That happens with loss of tension, which is equal to our body/mind/self. Loss of tension is equal to loss of self ( but not loss of existence) — like it happens in deep sleep. In meditation it is supposed to be a conscious process wherein “I am meditating” thought is the sole obstruction.

Sorry. Gave in to temptation.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
There are people who recognize that the scientific method has BY FAR been the most reliable method of determining how the universe works. The method requires a means of confirming a claim with verifiable evidence that can be replicated by others. Suggesting that people employing this method that has served to advance human understanding of how the world around them functions is in some way shape or form 'inhumane' is truly bizarre.
Understanding how something functions is useful to we humans because we survive and thrive by manipulating our environment to our own advantage, and by manipulating ourselves in relation to our environment. But the presumption that such knowledge is the sum of all truth, and that the physical functionality of the material realm defines what is 'real' from what is not, is blindingly limiting, and wildly inaccurate, to the degree that it denies the validity of human nature and perception, itself. And is thus perceived by many as being anti-human. It stinks of the kind of mechanical arrogance that lead fascist regimes in th past to justify eliminating their society's means of honest value assessment, through religion, philosophy, and art. We have been down this ultra-materialist, super-science road before, and it led us into one of the most inhumane and horrific eras in human history.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
No, meditation (at least insight meditation) is totally empirical.

Okay. I understand what you mean.

I, however, distinguish between ‘clear seeing’ employing ‘vijnana’ (sensual-intellectual) versus ‘clear seeing’ employing ‘prajnana’ . The latter is empirical yet not limited to the sensual-intellectual.

YMMV.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Authors suggest:

There is case that aggressive strand of atheism: in the Soviet case, Khrushchev-era atheist propaganda and in the contemporary Western case, the “New Atheism” had been/is a factor in giving rise to atheist spirituality.

There is recognition in some that opposition to something or even factors that are often associated with atheism (such as rationality, naturalism, science, criticism of religion) do not necessarily provide a deeper meaningfulness or purpose in life. Instead, failing to produce a positive alternative for religion in combination with the aggressive rhetoric results in a bad reputation for atheism.

Secularism and Nonreligion

Does any atheist agree?

Wouldn't it be more direct and honest
of you to just say "Atheists are bad." ?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You suggest that there is only one kind of atheist?
Not at all. I am speaking of the FACT that the word is a descriptor that reveals one specific attribute about the person it is being applied to.

While "spiritual" is anything, everything... who knows what it implies? One thing? Ha! That'd be the day.

And yet these authors are brash and dishonest enough to call atheist "an umbrella term." It simply isn't. Not in the way that "spiritual" most certainly is anyway.

This is why I insist that to call "atheist" an "umbrella term" you have to already be of the mindset that some of the lies and misinformation spread about the term "atheist" are truly able to be applied to the definition. Which, to my mind, is proof that the authors of this article were not without biases and poor modes of thinking.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Authors suggest:

There is case that aggressive strand of atheism: in the Soviet case, Khrushchev-era atheist propaganda and in the contemporary Western case, the “New Atheism” had been/is a factor in giving rise to atheist spirituality.

There is recognition in some that opposition to something or even factors that are often associated with atheism (such as rationality, naturalism, science, criticism of religion) do not necessarily provide a deeper meaningfulness or purpose in life. Instead, failing to produce a positive alternative for religion in combination with the aggressive rhetoric results in a bad reputation for atheism.

Secularism and Nonreligion

Does any atheist agree?

To me spirituality means the flow of "Love". All humans can flow in "Love"
So this includes Atheists, therefore this also includes Atheism
So Atheism and Spirituality can go perfectly together
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Authors suggest:

There is case that aggressive strand of atheism: in the Soviet case, Khrushchev-era atheist propaganda and in the contemporary Western case, the “New Atheism” had been/is a factor in giving rise to atheist spirituality.

There is recognition in some that opposition to something or even factors that are often associated with atheism (such as rationality, naturalism, science, criticism of religion) do not necessarily provide a deeper meaningfulness or purpose in life. Instead, failing to produce a positive alternative for religion in combination with the aggressive rhetoric results in a bad reputation for atheism.

Secularism and Nonreligion

Does any atheist agree?

Hasn't Dawkins and Dennett both made this point? I know Dennett at least has a book out about this.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Authors suggest:

There is case that aggressive strand of atheism: in the Soviet case, Khrushchev-era atheist propaganda and in the contemporary Western case, the “New Atheism” had been/is a factor in giving rise to atheist spirituality.

There is recognition in some that opposition to something or even factors that are often associated with atheism (such as rationality, naturalism, science, criticism of religion) do not necessarily provide a deeper meaningfulness or purpose in life. Instead, failing to produce a positive alternative for religion in combination with the aggressive rhetoric results in a bad reputation for atheism.

Secularism and Nonreligion

Does any atheist agree?

For me atheism reveals a fundamental failure on the part of theism to grow up. Much of our religious literalism should be relegated to the realm of Santa Claus as transitional stories supported by our culture for children but transcended by adults into an adult understanding where literalism is contained within fantasy and not the other way around.

Atheists who look to want to understand how one can effectively go about meaning making will need to look to religion as an expression of the arts and the arts as operating best on our imaginations when it incorporates modern experience and scientific understanding rather than forget or ignore it.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
No, they do not, but that is not the value of reason. Knowing what is true by itself is of no immediate value. By itself, reason is empty of all things that make life worth living. The value of reason is in its application in helping us manage our feelings, emotions and deeper experiences. With nothing going on in consciousness except reasoning, life is as empty as some imagine it is for all atheists.

The mature, contemplative, self-actualized secular humanist has many more faculties and types of experiences at his disposal than just reason, including a faculty for experiencing a sense of mystery, awe, gratitude, and connectivity when contemplating reality, which are among the richest of experiences available to any human being. This is atheist spirituality. No gods involved.

The value of reason and a liberal education are to learn how to think critically, and to amass a useful data base of facts and values in order to navigate the world more effectively, and to have a greater experience living within one's head. By themselves, such ideas generate nothing worth living for.

For example, an understanding of what stars are, their distances, and their life cycles deeply enriches the experience of gazing up at the night sky. The following is an excerpt from an Internet video from an anonymous atheist that illustrates how reason and understanding can lead to an authentic spiritual experience in an atheist:

"When I looked at the galaxy that night, I knew the faintest twinkle of starlight was a real connection between my comprehending eye along a narrow beam of light to the surface of another sun. The photons my eyes detect (the light I see, the energy with which my nerves interact) came from that star. I thought I could never touch it, yet something from it crosses the void and touches me. I might never have known. My eyes saw only a tiny point of light, but my mind saw so much more.

"If God exists, God made this [photo of a galaxy]. Look at it. Face it. Accept it. Adjust to it, because this is ... how God works. God would probably want you to look at it. To learn about it. To try to understand it. But if you can’t look — if you won’t even try to understand — what does that say about your religion?"

[snip]

"To even partially comprehend the scale of a single galaxy is to almost disappear. And when you remember all the other galaxies, you shrink 100 billion times smaller still. But then you remember what you are. The same facts that made you feel so insignificant also tell you how you got here. It’s like you become more real, or maybe the universe becomes more real. You suddenly fit. You suddenly belong. You do not have to bow down. You do not have to look away. In such moments, all you have to do is remember to keep breathing."

[snip]

"The body of a newborn baby is as old as the cosmos. The form is new and unique, but the materials are 13.7 billion years old, processed by nuclear fusion in stars, fashioned by electromagnetism. Cold words for amazing processes. And that baby was you. Is you. You’re amazing. Not only alive, but with a mind ... When I compare what scientific knowledge has done for me and what religion tried to do to me, I sometimes literally shiver."

I assume that that kind of thing - atheistic spirituality - is foreign to most theists. It would be to the believers who depict atheists as empty, robotic reasoners.

We don't expect theists to understand or acknowledge these experiences. They tend to confuse spirituality with spirits like angels and gods, and then label unbelievers as empty vessels for not holding such beliefs.

I see it the other way around. I find nothing spiritual about choosing to believe in creatures not in evidence.



Atheism's bad reputation comes from theists demeaning atheists. As Christianity has receded in the West, so has the marginalization and demonization of atheists. In fact, with these changes, atheists have finally gotten a voice, and they are using it to contradict the theists, which is routinely called militant atheism. Remarkably, we're asked to respect the beliefs of people who do this, people who never offered any respect for atheists, the same people who once made it difficult or impossible for atheists to teach, coach, adopt, serve on jury, or hold elected office because of the derogation of atheists as immoral and unfit for such activities.

Any "aggressive rhetoric" from atheists in reaction to that is just. We are mostly honest, hard-working, productive members of society trying to live our lives decently and constructively, and to leave the world a little better place than we found it. If somebody wants to make us out to be mindless, empty, spiritually dead automatons, they're going to see a rebuttal like this one.

And we have a positive alternative to religion. Secular humanism, which celebrates mankind even as Christianity tells us that we are all sinners that need to be cured of that sickness so as not to be punished forever, a cure man is incapable of providing for himself. You don't find anything that dark in secular humanism. It will tell you that human beings are born with the potential to become peaceful, kind, loving, industrious, honest, and the like on their own if nurtured and educated under the proper circumstances..What religion offers a more upbeat worldview than that?

Isn't anything that substitutes for religion and generates equal or higher quality people living equally or more happy lives better than religion? Sure, it's great that people with needs that can only be met with religions have those needs met by it, but that is not an envious position to be in. Better to have those needs met without religion, just as it's great that eyeglasses are available for people that can't see well without them, but isn't it better to not need them in the first place - to have clear vision without help?



I am proud to be an atheist and secular humanist. I have no need to mock the religious for being religious.

As for having the truth, the sine qua non of a correct idea is the ability of that idea to predict outcomes so that desirable ones can be maximized and undesirable ones minimized. The best ideas of modernity come out of the Enlightenment and the eventual replacement of faith-based systems of thought like astrology, creationism, and the divine right of kings. These are all sterile or oppressive ideas that slowed the progress of mankind. These were replaced with the modern, liberal, secular democratic state with guaranteed rights and freedoms for all improving the lives of former serfs and subjects subject to the whim of an autocrat. And astronomy replaced astrology, another rich and useful set of ideas replacing a sterile, faith-based system of thought.

By that reckoning, we atheists do have the truth, or are much closer to it than the religious, whose ideas, like creationism, can't be used for anything.



There is no such thing as atheist religion. There are no hierarchies in atheism, so there is no top to go down from, and nobody to give or take orders. People like Dawkins and Harris have no more authority than the persuasive power of their words.

What religion should be is a fostering of the experience of wonder, not authority, the teacher of inner, moral growth, not the believer in a specific moral code, the engager in the experience of modern life and not a hood or mask thrown over ones creative intellect...

It may be that some atheists will need to school religions about how to grow up and let go of humanities' love of dogma in favor of actual personal human experience of the truth of "God's" creation.
 
Last edited:

ajay0

Well-Known Member
So Atheism and Spirituality can go perfectly together

Atheism is a general non-belief in God, gods and deities. However this lack of belief does not necessarily guarantee spirituality.

Atheism and spirituality can go perfectly together, when there is a well-established value system or code of virtuous conduct in the atheist belief set which is firmly adhered to. However this too is seemingly impractical in the west due to popular philosophies like nihilism and existentialism, which believes that all values and virtues are abstractly contrived and are part of mere social conditioning.

As per eastern philosophy, on the other hand, proper virtuous conduct and behavior is potent on its own to bring the mind to meditative awareness and attain enlightenment, even for non-theists and agnostics.

I have created a thread in this regard, citing the example of female enlightened master Rajini Menon who had attained enlightenment by strict adherence to virtuous conduct alone.

Female enlightened master Rajini Menon on attaining enlightenment by adhering to virtuous conduct...
 
Top