Comments on: Can Atheists be Spiritual?

By: Jonathan Blake

Jonathan Blake — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:17:15 +0000

Thanks for the link. Sounds intriguing. It should be interesting to see how transhumanism and Mormonism get reconciled.

By: Lincoln Cannon

Lincoln Cannon — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:29:24 +0000

The Mormon Transhumanist Association may be of interest to you.

http://transfigurism.org

By: Jonathan Blake

Jonathan Blake — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:33:50 +0000

I see this spirituality (or whatever) firmly grounded in the naturalistic/materialistic bedrock of typical atheism. No spirits or deities involved (lesser or greater). It’s just the search for a feeling of connection and wellbeing.

I’ll have to post sometime on the materialistic sources of “spiritual” experiences.

By: cybr

cybr — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:26:51 +0000

I still dare venture that this sounds more agnostic than atheistic.

By: Jonathan Blake

Jonathan Blake — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:33:34 +0000

Although modern atheism is a-spiritual (naturalist), there is something attached to the word “spiritual” that I don’t think atheists should relinquish. The problem is that “spiritual” is overloaded: it has meanings which aren’t dependent on each other. I can be spiritual without believing in a spiritual world. Some atheists reject spirituality because of its guilt by association with supernaturalism. Some theists believe that the good things associated with spirituality are out of reach to atheists. Both groups are mistaken.

By: Flasher702

Flasher702 — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:53:28 +0000

While technically an “atheist” can believe in all kinds of paranormal stuff so long as none of them are gods without any hypocrisy the modern atheist movement is most certainly an a-spiritual one. Buddhists can be atheists, ancestor worshipers can be atheists, people who believe in unicorns can also be atheists. Being certain there is no god (or at least certain that there is no evidence of deity) but also being certain that there are lesser boogey men running around most certainly is oxyMORONIC which is why modern atheists tend to be a-spiritual. There is, however, no denying that there are people who do, in fact, believe in unicorns but don’t believe in god. Their existence doesn’t bother my stance as an atheist in the least… they are idiot believers just like the rest of their more theistic cousins and not part of my group. I can’t stop them from calling themselves atheists no more then I can stop violent nihilistic anarchists from calling themselves atheists but I can choose to not associate myself with either of those groups. That’s the thing about secularism: it’s not a defining attribute. An “atheist” organization or person must stand on it’s own feet without borrowing good will by claiming affiliation to a system of magic. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “I have a dream that one day people will not be judged by their declared religious affiliation but by the content of their character.”

People need to read dictionaries more. That’s the main problem with this question.

By: Jonathan Blake

Jonathan Blake — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:25:47 +0000

One phrase that I’ve been mulling over is self-transcendence. I think it encapsulates what I mean by spirituality. I just doubt that it would be immediately comprehensible to everyone, though it might start conversations.

By: Stephen Merino

Stephen Merino — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 02:59:19 +0000

I enjoyed this post and offer my own “yes” to the question of whether atheists can be spiritual. I am agnostic, not atheist (and the distinction is very important to me), and I also consider myself spiritual in a sense. See a post on my blog for more on this. I agree - the word “spiritual” is problematic because it suggests some supernatural element, which I feel compelled to reject. I wish there were a better word for it. What I believe it is is a connection that we share with each other and with all living things. The connection compels us to be kind and caring to others and to take care of our planet. This view does not require belief in separate spirits from our bodies, nor does it require a belief in deity or in the supernatural. One author basically calls this “humanistic religious naturalism.”

It doesn’t really matter what you call it, it’s just important that us non-believers find meaningful ways to be spiritual and to connect with something larger than ourselves. That’s what I think.

By: Jonathan Blake

Jonathan Blake — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:31:11 +0000

I agree that if there is a God, he/she/it may be too large for our small, human thoughts, but can he really blame us for that?

String theory while compelling still remains a conjecture. I hope we can find a unified theory to explain everything, but it’s taking string theory a long time to produce results. Not that its slow pace makes it false, but the situation is becoming less hopeful. Prominent physicist are starting to voice their skepticism of string theory openly.

By: cybr

cybr — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:23:46 +0000

Either dad (if he exists) has something to answer for or we are thinking on too limited of concepts to understand the grand scheme of things, In which case, we might possibly have something to answer for.

I’ll relate back to string theory. Mathematically it’s possible, and even could help merge the many concepts about the universe as we understand it. Is it provable by our physical capabilities? Probably not in our lifetime. So some of us continue to mull over the concepts in an effort to better understand it and see if it works till that far fetched day comes. Yes, there is a possibility that we’re shooting in the wrong direction. But, I see so many pluses along this line.