Atheism & Spirituality

Can you be both anti-theist and spiritual? I'm not sure what i believe. I'm not sure where i stand, but it seems that most people who call themselves Atheists also reject any form of 'world' beyond our perception. To put it another way, who here believes in Heaven?

Tags: atheism, belief, heaven, spirituality

Views: 2

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Avarice on September 14, 2008 at 5:05am
Well the term spirituality implies the existence of the human spirit. I am a naturalist, so I believe in the physical universe as the entirety of existence, so no afterlife. I do value meditation and karma in the secular sense. Meditation has proven neurological benefits, and I believe what one puts into the world causes a chain reaction which could eventually find its way back to that person, but I don't believe this connectivity is governed by god.
Permalink Reply by Fizzy on September 14, 2008 at 5:29am
I know people who claim to be both atheist and spiritual, though they usual just mean that the don't believe in the Abrahamic god. I don't think it's a coherent position, personally, but they have come up with a pretty good rationalization for their tarot cards.

But anti-theist? I apply that label to myself to mean that I take a rather hard line stance against all of that nonsense. In that sense, I don't know how you can take an active stance against the spread of non-physical or supernatural beliefs and maintain an active set of spiritual beliefs.
Permalink Reply by Phil Hale on September 14, 2008 at 8:26am
I guess you could believe in a 'realm' of some sort that exists, but which isn't governed by God.

@The Fury: The universal 'chain reaction' is surely what theists refer to as God, only now it has been easier to explain it through science, psychology etc.
Permalink Reply by Dawn K on September 14, 2008 at 9:16am
It is quite possible to be anti-theist and still believe in the supernatural. Up until about 10 years ago that's how I would have described myself. I had rejected all formal forms of religion as being man made, ridiculous and harmful. There was no 'god' in my view, but still believed in the soul and afterlife, reincarnation even. I actually had my own 'theory' about souls becoming part of a god-like collective (too much Star Trek maybe?) and being able to reincarnate at will. LOL It was certainly not the most logical position, it was completely emotion for me. I still had the need to believe in an afterlife and a soul. Over the years though I just found I had no need for that anymore.

To confuse the issue, I have also heard of atheists referring to themselves as 'spiritual' but not meaning supernatural. Using the word to describe the a strong emotional connection, typically to something natural. Watching a sunset for example can be a 'spiritual' thing. While I understand the sentiment, I find that use of the word confusing. Awe/awesome is a better choice but it's impact is watered down by the frequent use of awesome to describe things that are anything but awesome.
Permalink Reply by LeaT on September 14, 2008 at 4:49pm
Then why not stick to something like "strongly emotional" or "touching"? :)
Permalink Reply by Sarah on September 14, 2008 at 9:47am
I don't believe in heaven or other worlds. The definition of spiritual doesn't really leave much room for me because it concerns the soul. There are several definitions but I don't feel like I could use that word. What I feel is a connection. I feel connected to my children, to nature, to humanity, to the universe. It might all be in my brain, but sometimes it feels overwhelming and huge, this connection. So I wouldn't say I am spiritual, but that I can sometimes feel very connected to the world.
Permalink Reply by LeaT on September 14, 2008 at 4:48pm
I don't see spirituality and atheism merging well together... because for me, claiming to be an atheist is to take a definite stand to deny everything which can be related to a metaphysical plane of existence. This means spirits, ghosts, other sort of forces, may it even be a sort of "force of good". Anyway, it doesn't ring well in my ears. Spirital atheist. I could fall into that definition, but pagan suits me better and defines me better too imo. I never claim to take a definite stand in the issue, since I am more for subjectivity than objective truths.
Permalink Reply by Chiropteran on September 14, 2008 at 5:05pm
Oohh, I like this question! Really made me think of how exactly I would define my 'beliefs'.

I think, like some of the others that have posted, I steer clear of using the word 'spiritual' because of it's religious connotation. For me, after leaving the church (christian) and in the intrum before I fully embraced atheism, I would answer the religious with the standard " I'm not religious but I am spiritual". It was my way of easing out of a terribly fear based indoctrination, it was a transitional word that gave me time to strengthen my critical thinking skills (something antithetical to all religions) and to find MY ground. I needed that word for a time.

Now, I find, I would describe myself as 'worldly' (lol..a word xians use as derogatory) in that, this world as I know it from my senses (experiences in and of themselves) and the constant discoveries in the sciences ( ie...quantum mechanics, cosmology, technology...) have become my the inspirations.

As to the vocabulary of heaven, hell, spirituality, etc... it just does not translate to my world view any longer and I assign that language to a different culture...while I understand it, it can no longer convey my experience.

~Bats :)
Permalink Reply by Kevin on September 14, 2008 at 6:52pm
I agree with some of the other replies here in that the word "spiritual" is too close to a religious or belief in a supernatural idea. As an atheist I do not believe in heaven or hell or an afterlife. I do not believe in anything supernatural. However I do admit there are many mysteries that get even myself wondering about. Anything that people would call supernatural can and will be explained in a natural way. These explanations could set believers and non-believers to re-think their whole concept of life and the universe. For now I prefer the atheistic approach as it is far too simple to say god is the reason for anything that we do not comprehend.
Permalink Reply by Phil Hale on September 15, 2008 at 12:22pm
Many people here say they wouldn't class themselves as spiritual because it suggests belief in the paranormal. There are many scientific theories (perhaps soon to be proved) which although i have a fairly good grasp of, can't claim to think are true without belief. For example, the possibility that a particle called a strangelet will, through a series of chain reactions, quickly turn every piece of matter on the earth into a giant ball of strangelets, namely a quark-star. i know this is just theory, but I'm certain that the actual hard 'science' behind much of today's physics is not understood by most of the population. But not just the usual intellectual divide, probably only a handful of physicists in the world can understand the complexity of unified field theory.

you're probably wondering how this fits into the original post, and I guess it doesn't - off topic but relevant!

In converting from Christianity, haven't you just transferred your faith from belief in God to belief in scientists?
Permalink Reply by Skylar on September 15, 2008 at 12:51pm
I don't have "faith" in science. I am well aware that scientists are sometimes wrong, or perhaps offer an incomplete picture. Scientists themselves I think relish the opportunity to be proven wrong.

Knowledge and understanding of the universe are dynamic. New discoveries are made. Evidence is presented, reviewed, tested.

How is this in any way similar to religious faith?
Permalink Reply by Phil Hale on September 15, 2008 at 3:15pm
i think that oftentimes the religious leaders are asking the same questions that the scientists ask, albeit with different method. They spend their time contemplating about big questions, whereas scientists seek the answers using theory, evidence; in effect proof. But when either of these groups present their findings, they rely on a similar attitude from the public; one of trust and faith.

In a similar sense, i think that many religious people would welcome arguments that oppose their belief, although as religious questions are more abstract and free from the requirement of evidence, proving someone's faith to be wrong is less likely.

I suppose the difference is that we know scientific theories derive from proof and absolutes, something which can be relied upon, whereas faith is concerned with less static assumptions.

Still, i think this is just a more compelling reason to believe in science, it makes the argument more convincing. It doesn't change the fact that we aren't aware of the evidence, we take their word on faith.

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service