I realized that my other thread was too fixated on promoting my own brand of pantheism to the detriment of another important point. The point being whether it's enough for atheists to just disbelieve and debunk traditional religious claims without offering something more to replace them with.
I know that atheism is just the absence of belief in traditional deities. By definition, it cannot actually offer anything more than that. Although there's a variety among individuals, atheists themselves usually also believe in physicalism, naturalism, pantheism, and/or other related beliefs. Personally, I find the label of "atheist" to be rather limited in expressing who a person really is to begin with. It only says what you don't believe in within expanding on what you do believe in. I mean, technically, you don't even have to believe in naturalism to be an atheist. In practice, atheists tend to focus on just debunking religious claims without offering any of their own positive beliefs as an adequate replacement.
Essentially what traditional religious folk are hearing is that their most profound and meaningful beliefs are completely baseless and absurd. They don't see any viable alternative coming out of naturalism so they're only left with a sense of spiritual nihilism. That's why they believe inaccurately that atheists believe in nothing. Do you think they prefer that sense of nihilism over their outdated belief system? Or will they just continue to believe what they do, even if in the back of their heads they know it's baseless, because it's still preferable to any alternative they're getting from naturalism?
I'm suggesting that perhaps some form of naturalistic spirituality should be expressed much more often by atheists as a possible replacement for the fantasies being destroyed by science and logic. People need an optimistic belief system to give them something to hope for. Atheists are debunking their primary sources of hope without offering anything to replace them with. I'm not saying it has to be scientific pantheism, or my variation of it, just something better than what they're hearing from most atheists. Even though it is in part just their own faulty interpretation of naturalism, it still causes them to close their minds at the first hint of meaninglessness. Don't atheists need to prevent that unfortunate reaction to make any sort of meaningful progress in dialogue? And wouldn't it be more beneficial to society at large for atheists to promote naturalistic spirituality anyway?
I know that atheism is just the absence of belief in traditional deities. By definition, it cannot actually offer anything more than that. Although there's a variety among individuals, atheists themselves usually also believe in physicalism, naturalism, pantheism, and/or other related beliefs. Personally, I find the label of "atheist" to be rather limited in expressing who a person really is to begin with. It only says what you don't believe in within expanding on what you do believe in. I mean, technically, you don't even have to believe in naturalism to be an atheist. In practice, atheists tend to focus on just debunking religious claims without offering any of their own positive beliefs as an adequate replacement.
Essentially what traditional religious folk are hearing is that their most profound and meaningful beliefs are completely baseless and absurd. They don't see any viable alternative coming out of naturalism so they're only left with a sense of spiritual nihilism. That's why they believe inaccurately that atheists believe in nothing. Do you think they prefer that sense of nihilism over their outdated belief system? Or will they just continue to believe what they do, even if in the back of their heads they know it's baseless, because it's still preferable to any alternative they're getting from naturalism?
I'm suggesting that perhaps some form of naturalistic spirituality should be expressed much more often by atheists as a possible replacement for the fantasies being destroyed by science and logic. People need an optimistic belief system to give them something to hope for. Atheists are debunking their primary sources of hope without offering anything to replace them with. I'm not saying it has to be scientific pantheism, or my variation of it, just something better than what they're hearing from most atheists. Even though it is in part just their own faulty interpretation of naturalism, it still causes them to close their minds at the first hint of meaninglessness. Don't atheists need to prevent that unfortunate reaction to make any sort of meaningful progress in dialogue? And wouldn't it be more beneficial to society at large for atheists to promote naturalistic spirituality anyway?
