Atheists and spirituality

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Right, which is why I was asking earlier--even if we somehow discovered a being that could be called a "god", who is to say that it would not be "natural?"

Who indeed?

So, has anybody discovered such a being yet? That they can show us?

 

[epronovost]

Does no belief in supernatural phenomenon relate to why you're an atheists or do they have different reasons between each other?

There are points in common, for example my apistevism, but some god concept that I reject aren't supernatural per say like worship in god-king like figure and personnality cults. I reject supernatural god concept for the same reason I reject the existance of other supernatural phenomenon.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thanks. I haven't heard of any atheists (only met two in person but religion isn't really on our minds) separate spiritual and deities. Most of the time it's all put together. Hm.

I knew one quite well, but I have to admit it didn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Exactly -- why don't more people understand that there may yet be laws of nature that we just don't happen to understand completely yet?

With that in mind, then you are left with the idea -- that I and many of the people I know and talk to understand -- that those laws are open to our investigation, and that one day we may well understand.

The problem with defining something as "supernatural," meaning beyond any natural or potential natural cause, is that you then must look for some other cause -- and you can invent any such things as you like, but until you can point to it and demonstrate, it remains nothing but your invention.

Just personal opinion here, but...
I think you need to look at it (ie. supernatural) more as a term with utility than anything else. Trying to define it in scientific terms is kinda self-defeating, since it effectively represents the unknowns outside of science. And as science expands (and we become full aware of these things...whatever they may be) they move from 'outside' science to within.
And from 'supernatural' or 'imaginative' or 'hard to believe' to something we can measure and test.

However, I'd look at something as being supernatural if we became consistently aware of it...let's say God appeared to the world all at once...but that even after awareness we were unable to measure or test it, there appeared no mechanism of creation, nor decay.

Do I think such a thing exists? Nope. But that would be the difference to me between 'natural but beyond our current knowledge' and 'supernatural'.
Like I said, to me, the definition is more about utility than technical accuracy.

Can't speak for @ChristineM though.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Who indeed?

So, has anybody discovered such a being yet? That they can show us?

No of course no one's discovered it. It was just a hypothetical.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you as an atheist (and do you call yourself an atheist -personally-) because you don't believe in any thing and any one supernatural or -just- that you do not believe in any deities period?

I was wondering because I'm sure many atheists do believe in supernatural things and people (say deceased) or near death experiences and so forth and still not believe in deities.

Not believing in anything (other than what is in mind) is solopsism (I may not be the first to point it out in the topic). I do not believe in deities or even in the possibility of their existence - hence, strong atheist. I find it so strange that some atheist will believe in supernatural, soul, ghosts. But it is a free world.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you as an atheist (and do you call yourself an atheist -personally-) because you don't believe in any thing and any one supernatural or -just- that you do not believe in any deities period?

I was wondering because I'm sure many atheists do believe in supernatural things and people (say deceased) or near death experiences and so forth and still not believe in deities.

I'm mostly an atheist but allowing for the fact that we might not now or ever know the full truth of existence (being a bit agnostic then), and hence allowing for some kind of creative force that plays some role (but not necessarily in our human existence). And it is more down to probability for me as to the existence of anything in the 'spiritual' (or supernatural) realm, as it is for UFOs and such - just not being likely. Because there are so many other explanations often to account for such and one should generally choose the least problematic unless one can demonstrate quite substantially any particular belief.

 

[ChristineM]

Let's talk about that for a moment.

Whatever you perceive as a "sight" in your mind, got there in one of two way: either you saw it (through light entering your eyes and all complex nerve play that ensues), or it was "implanted" some other way directly into the area of your mind that processes vision.

Now, if it was the latter, then nobody else should have seen it, or we're dealing with some sort of entity that not only invades multiple minds at once, but does so in a way that ensures that -- from their different vantage points -- everybody sees the same thing in the same place. Pretty complex, that.

If, on the other hand, the thing is seen in the usual way -- why then, there is absolutely nothing whatever that prevents other tools that we have at our disposal (like CAMERAS) from seeing it too. Light is light -- whether it passes through the lens of your eye onto a retina, or the lens of a camera onto film treated with silver nitrate.

One of my arguments with my friend, and like a true fundimentalist it had the same effect as casting smoke to the wind.

 

[ChristineM]

Can't speak for @ChristineM though

If something can be shown as natural, even if we can't understand it i see no problem with that. To show it, measure it, observe it, then it must physically exist.

Next i guess someone will say, "so what about dreams". My answer is, although not fully understood, how they form can be measured using mri technology. I understand gods also can be detected on mri, which shows, to me, they are in our (some people's anyway) imagination.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not believing in anything (other than what is in mind) is solopsism (I may not be the first to point it out in the topic). I do not believe in deities or even in the possibility of their existence - hence, strong atheist. I find it so strange that some atheist will believe in supernatural, soul, ghosts. But it is a free world.

Hm. Souls and ghosts aren't deities. You would put all the supernatural together for the same reasons of disbelief?

Atheists just don't believe in dieties but many have their own additions, subtractions, and adaptions to the term.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, there are different views, although such superstition among atheists surprises me. How come they stop at half-way mark? Run half a Marathon?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you as an atheist (and do you call yourself an atheist -personally-) because you don't believe in any thing and any one supernatural or -just- that you do not believe in any deities period?

I'm a skeptic: I don't accept claims without good reason. Because of this, I don't accept most claims about things called "supernatural," including gods.

The fact that I don't believe in any gods is what makes me an atheist.

I was wondering because I'm sure many atheists do believe in supernatural things and people (say deceased) or near death experiences and so forth and still not believe in deities.

Sure. Being an atheist isn't a guarantee of rational thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right, which is why I was asking earlier--even if we somehow discovered a being that could be called a "god", who is to say that it would not be "natural?"

I think the whole "natural/supernatural" divide is a red herring. The actual divide is epistemological. In practice:

- "natural" means "things I have good reason to believe exist"
- "supernatural" means "things that I don't have good reason to believe exist but want to believe in anyway."

Once the existence of something becomes well-established with evidence, it stops being "supernatural" and becomes "natural."

 

[Heyo]

Do you as an atheist (and do you call yourself an atheist -personally-) because you don't believe in any thing and any one supernatural or -just- that you do not believe in any deities period?

I was wondering because I'm sure many atheists do believe in supernatural things and people (say deceased) or near death experiences and so forth and still not believe in deities.

I'm an Agnostic and because of that also an atheist.
I do believe
1. That the universe is real
2. That the universe is orderly
3. That the universe is knowable
I hold judgement over any claim that has no or only little evidence for or against it.
This makes me able to recognise any phenomenon that has no natural explanation yet but reject an explanation that doesn't come with evidence in tow.
I feel vindicated in my belief of the axioms of science because they have never been shown wrong and always been shown more right than any "supernatural" explanations.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Heyo:
1. Agree. Universe is real. But what about appearances? Is it actually like what we perceive it with our eyes?
2. What do you mean by that? I see chaos, randomness, uncertainty in the universe.
3. Agree. Universe is knowable. Is there any time-frame? We do not know the whole of it at the moment (Dark Matter, Dark Energy). It may be completely known in a hundred years, five hundred years, two thousand years?

 

[Heyo]

@Heyo:
1. Agree. Universe is real. But what about appearances. Is it actually like we perceive it with our eyes?

No. Our theories are just models of the real world and sometimes we even have to use different models to explain different aspects of a phenomenon. But our models are "good enough" and they only get better by time.

2. What do you mean by that? I see chaos, randomness, uncertainty in the universe.

By that I mean that we assume (and have never encountered a phenomenon that didn't fit the assumption) that the laws of nature are equal all over the universe and all over time. Sometimes our understanding of a law is incomplete but we were always able to refine our models to fit with the data. Never had we to through up our arms and admit it had to be magic.

3. Agree. Universe is knowable. Is there any time-frame? We do not know the whole of it at the moment (Dark Matter, Dark Energy). It may be completely known in a hundred years, five hundred years, two thousand years?

I'm very reluctant to answer that. We have been at points when we thought there were just a few wrinkles to tighten, only to find a whole new mess of unknowns beneath. My most educated guess is that scientist won't be out of a job for a long time.