Should atheists offer something more than disbelief?

[Straw Dog]

you cannot even crawl out of the first wet cardboard box of a arguement you posted.

WRONG again

heres a little vid by Neil Degrasse Tyson called gap of the gods

One of the smartest men on the planet blows your statement above right off the planet.

[youtube]0vrpPPV_yPY[/youtube]

How does it blow my statement away? Which statement? I just pointed out that you said lacking belief in gods aids scientific discoveries yet Newton was a monotheist and principally founded modern science. I never made any god of the gaps arguments anyway so this is a distraction.

 

[Straw Dog]

nature also lacks spirituality.

Nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"nature" often refers to geology and wildlife.

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or what is man-made (man-made).


yep no religion or divinity there AT ALL

I never said that nature in its totality possesses 'spirituality'. I'm claiming that human beings possess the quality of spirituality and that we're direct extensions of nature, so we should utilize our spirituality to expand ecological consciousness. It's an aspect of human nature.

Nature creates order through chaos. I don't see how claiming its all random and meaningless makes any sense since we know through science that there's an underlying order to things.

You really don't understand what naturalistic spirituality means. You just brushed off my previous links claiming that you're familiar with the subject matter, but that's impossible given your demonstrated ignorance of it. Please read at least some of the links I send. Here's some describing atheist spirituality and naturalistic spirituality, which are the same thing.

Daylight Atheism > Book Review: The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality

Naturalistic Spirituality

Spiritual Naturalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And stop saying PROVE IT! Unless you tell me what exactly I'm suppose to be proving since all my beliefs are based on philosophical naturalism, which I assume you share.

 

[outhouse]

Some of the world's greatest scientists and philosophers were God-believers. Many were even pantheists,

not once have I done what you are doing and attack your belief or lack of, there is no need to defend pantheism.

 

[outhouse]

How does it blow my statement away? Which statement? I just pointed out that you said lacking belief in gods aids scientific discoveries yet Newton was a monotheist and principally founded modern science. I never made any god of the gaps arguments anyway so this is a distraction.

you posted this after what 7 minutes

you would be a liar if you stated you just watched it.

watch it before you post

 

[Willamena]

nature also lacks spirituality.

Nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"nature" often refers to geology and wildlife.

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or what is man-made (man-made).


yep no religion or divinity there AT ALL

Since when does having geology and wildlife mean lacking in spirituality?

 

[outhouse]

Since when does having geology and wildlife mean lacking in spirituality?

when does it mean spirituality???

if you read the post a little better you might have caught this little tidbit about the supernatural and spirituality [which is man made]

Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or what is man-made (man-made).

 

[Willamena]

when does it mean spirituality???

if you read the post a little better you might have caught this little tidbit about the supernatural and spirituality [which is man made]

Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or what is man-made (man-made).

"Spirituality" is, nevertheless, found in nature. I'm curious what the term means to you.

Edit: To me, it refers to the exploration of ideas and practices, sometimes called a "path," that define a person in relationship with the world.

 

[outhouse]

Spirituality" is, nevertheless, found in nature.

how so

I didnt know anyone could find the supernatural

I'm curious what the term means to you.

spirituality is the defenition of a religious belief

I dont buy a alledged immaterial reality.

I dont believe in a spirit as people have tried to define

and guesses dont cut it

 

[outhouse]

it might do you well to understand im not attacking pantheism or the OP's belief.

I am however defending my lack of belief against what I find to be overall ignorance of the whole thread.

 

[Willamena]

how so

I didnt know anyone could find the supernatural

Spirituality is not the supernatural, they are two different things.

spirituality is the defenition of a religious belief

I dont buy a alledged immaterial reality.

I dont believe in a spirit as people have tried to define

and guesses dont cut it

I see a religious belief as being a belief about "god." Such an idea can include an "immaterial reality" of various types, or not. Spirituality, on the other hand, can be an exploration of metaphysics, i.e. philosophy. It's purpose is to define "me."

 

[Willamena]

it might do you well to understand im not attacking pantheism or the OP's belief.

I am however defending my lack of belief against what I find to be overall ignorance of the whole thread.

I think I speak for everyone when I say no one will deny you your right to lack belief, hence it doesn't need defending.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think I speak for everyone when I say no one will deny you your right to lack belief, hence it doesn't need defending.

But others that are not smart may fall for it, and we're trying to show that we have an explanation.

 

[Willamena]

Re religions and spirituality, it can be said that most, if not all, religions incorporate some exploration of "self" and what it means in the bigger picture(s). But while religions may have this spiritual side, religion and spirituality are distinct things.

You can have one without the other.

 

[outhouse]

Spirituality is not the supernatural, they are two different things.


I see a religious belief as being a belief about "god." Such an idea can include an "immaterial reality" of various types, or not. Spirituality, on the other hand, can be an exploration of metaphysics, i.e. philosophy. It's purpose is to define "me."

thats all fine and dandy

its just not for me.

 

[Willamena]

thats all fine and dandy

its just not for me.

Obviously not the thread for you, right--I think that was mentioned earlier.

 

[outhouse]

Obviously not the thread for you, right--I think that was mentioned earlier.

ya ya you got me

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

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.

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less. Atheists are not required to debunk religious claims or to supply 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.

Exactly.

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.

Right, atheism defines one singular aspect to my personality. It is not the ONLY thing. I hold hundreds of other positions. Just because theism is dear to some religious people does not mean I hold an equally fervent lack of belief. I also lack belief in unicorns and such. I don't define myself as an a-unicornist, and neither do I define myself as an atheist. Just because religious people define themselves as christians,muslims and so on does not mean I define myself an equally fervent opposite, because god is of no importance to me, whereas god is of huge importance to a christian or a muslim.

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.

Not technically, literally. Atheists have to requirements other than to have a lack of belief in god.

In practice, atheists tend to focus on just debunking religious claims without offering any of their own positive beliefs as an adequate replacement.

Just because religious people believe in a fairy tale for comfort does not mean that an atheist has also to come up with a comforting story to make the religious come into the fold. In fact, you wont see many atheists proselytizing. Atheism is a position of enlightenment, and when you are enlightened, you don't need the comfort of a fairy tale. Instead, you can find comfort and joy in discovering the beauty of the universe.

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.

Then they are just plain stupid. If reality is too much for them, then perhaps they should stay in their cocoon, too afraid to come out.

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?

Then they are still caterpillars in the cocoon and atheists are the butterflies roaming and discovering the natural world.

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.

Why should atheists have to make up a comforting story instead of the truth? It would be just as bad as a religion.

People need an optimistic belief system to give them something to hope for.

I don't think so. Hope and reality often don't match. If you want something, don't hope it will come to you. work towards it.

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.

What they are hearing from atheists is to examine their own beliefs and come to their own conclusion on whether they want to believe what they do. If they do, then their faith is strong. If they are undecided, their faith wasn't all that strong to begin with and they only used religion as a crutch.

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?

You just said one side is closing their ears and going lalalala! at the fist sign of their world falling apart. How is a rational person to make progress in dialog when one party is clearly not interested in dialog? Most religious people are very touchy about their beliefs. Any questions are seen as threats and attacks on their beliefs.

And wouldn't it be more beneficial to society at large for atheists to promote naturalistic spirituality anyway?

Why does nature have to be spiritual? Why bring in an element of supernatural to something completely natural? Why not find beauty in the wonderful workings of nature without wrapping them in spiritual babble?

 

[Willamena]

Why should atheists have to make up a comforting story instead of the truth?

Fortunately, no one suggested that.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Fortunately, no one suggested that.

Well, I took his suggestion that atheists should advocate for natural spirituality to mean that. Why make nature into something religious people are familiar with find comfort in?

 

[Straw Dog]

Well, I took his suggestion that atheists should advocate for natural spirituality to mean that. Why make nature into something religious people are familiar with find comfort in?

Naturalistic spirituality isn't in conflict with the scientific facts. It's based on philosophical naturalism. All I'm suggesting we add is our innate human ability to contemplate and meditate on our profound connection to the ecosystem and cosmos. It's an experiential lifestyle intended to expand social and ecological consciousness. It doesn't require any leap of faith whatsoever beyond the scientific evidence. It just requires a choice to embrace the truth that we are literally made of the cosmos.