What are the main differences between spiritual atheists and fundamentalist atheists?
First of all I am not sure there is a formal group that call themselves fundamentalist atheists. There are people who call themselves anti-theists whom I would lump in with fundamentalists. The term fundamentalist atheist is a provisional term I use here to describe a certain type of atheist I have encountered over the years.
I once attended a group that held meetings once a week. They declared that the Bible was an evil book. Period! End of discussion! This is the kind of atheist I am talking about when I say "fundamentalist atheist." For the sake of brevity, I will henceforth refer to them as the fundies.
Even though I agreed with their basic premise that the god Jehovah does not exist, I was turned off by what I believe is atheist dogma: "We own the truth and anyone who disagrees is evil!"
They also believe that if there was no religion in the world, there would be no persecution. Essentially they believe they are saints riding white unicorns. Now, I'm sorry but I find that hard to believe.
I think any group that thinks other groups are evil simply because those other groups have a different take on things is quite capable of persecution. It seems likely that if the fundies were in charge, they would put theists in jail or kill them. Why? "Because theists are evil!"
Some fundies, who also happened to be communists, showed conclusively that outlawing religion does not reduce or eliminate persecution. Millions of theists were either murdered or sent to gulags.
Unfortunately, when fundies reject religion, they often reject the morality that goes with it. And, they don't replace that morality with any formal moral code of their own.
If the Bible is evil, then so are the ten commandments, so is the golden rule and other things that make civilization possible. It is no surprise to me that the Soviet Union, having outlawed religion, only lasted a couple of generations.
Fundies don't build a civilization, they tear it down.
Spiritual atheists, by contrast, see the value in things like the ten commandments and the golden rule. Like the fundies, we don't believe in Jehovah, but we believe that morals are essential for the success of any civilization.
As far as I know, this life could be the only life. That is why life is precious to me. I want this life to be as good as possible, and I think morals help me to achieve that. I am not moral because I fear hell and look forward to heaven. I am moral because I fear jail and seek the praise, love and friendship of real people.
As a spiritual atheist, I won't argue with success. If your vision of god works for you, so be it. I will only argue against fallacies that some theists use to prove the existence of their gods.
As a spiritual atheist, I don't have a problem with the word God appearing on my paper money or on public buildings. I only have a problem if you try to force me to worship said God or prohibit me from being a spiritual atheist.
The fundies, by contrast, want to annihilate any reference to God because they simply believe all religion is evil. They completely discount the fact that every great and free civilization that has ever existed had a spiritual base.
Spiritualism has value whether you believe in God or not. Since spirituality is not owned by any particular faith, it can therefore be owned by anyone--including an atheist.
In my humble opinion, spirituality in its purest form is simply the ability of people to see things not as they are--but as they can be. It is people striving for a greater good. Some reach for an unreachable star; some reach for the light at the end of a dark tunnel; some ponder the sound of one hand clapping; some try to be more like Jesus.
In all these instances, it is the same process--the human ability to rise above the quagmire--to improve oneself and the world.
When it comes to the religions and philosophies of the world, spiritual atheists like to separate the wheat from the chaff. We reject religious fallacies and persecution while preserving spirituality, morality and tolerance.
By contrast, theists have erred by taking the chaff with the wheat and fundies err by throwing out the wheat along with the chaff.
Check out the Spiritual Atheists.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 41
Sounds like religion to me.
Recently I watched the PBS special on the life of Buddha. It must have made the vast network of temple drones and monks very uneasy, for it stated that he thought that there was no need for either.
In my life I have found that there are few things more dangerous than a reformed anything, be it a political person or a 'former' party girl.
People that use generic excuses to avoid looking closely at themselves are always to be avoided if possible, or failing that, watched carefully.
I would agree with that. And whether one believes in a higher power or not, that should be the case with all people.
I think one of the strongest currents right now in the world is fear and it is moving people to express their basest instincts of tribalism. Personally, I really hate grouping and naming in these instances. It serves to separate. But, when a group does name, and then betrays their precepts in their daily living, it should be called out and cited as hypocrisy. If for no other reason than hoping the practionners will self-examine and realize that they have been deluding themselves.
If you are going to uphold evil and destructive principals, then at least be honest enough to say it, not try to claim you follow the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed or any other spiritual guide.
I had no idea there were groups like this who were so obsessed with ridding the world of religion. I can see being upset about what organized religious groups have done in the supposed name of their god, but certainly not being hostile to someone naming a higher power and following the teachings of people/concepts like Jesus. Would it be nice if we didn't have religious groups, each competing for souls and fighting each other? Yes, that would be nice. But, the freedom to conceive of one's own vision of their spirit and how they relate to the world should not be challenged, unless it is founded in evil in the first place.
I consider myself sort of in the middle of all things.
I believe in God. But, I don't believe he's vengeful. Or that he punishes evil, per se..
Everyone has their own internal punishment system. Either, through jealously, murder, and other unholy things.
We were all given free will. And, I believe that whatever bad you do in life, comes back to you full force.
I believe everyone has a right to believe whatever they wish. And, no government should have the right to take that away from them.
Thank you for your submission to:
“FAITHFUL SEEKERS” Your post is FEATURED! Excellent read!
This does however remind me of when the 'great church divide' came about and everything went from being called Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran and all the other denominational titles to being either Denominational or Non Denominational - the Non-Denoms being those who believed in the laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, and sometimes having just a 'Holy Ghost Free-For-All' during services. I hope you got that pinky finger sewn back on ;).
Here's a question: Where do theists who go with ineffability fit in your categories? They believe that God is not knowable. That we humans can't wrap our pea brains around God. Though Lord knows we tried. And always get it wrong. How close would these people be to spiritual atheists?
I go with the ineffability crowd. The notion of God, even in the Bible, evolved. God did not make man in his image and likeness, it was the other way around. We really don't debate or believe in God. We debate and believe in concepts of God. Alas, such god/concept making seems to have stopped. I say we get back into the business. Create a god for our age. Create a concept that seems to work with all we know.
And just recently, say in the last hundred or two hundred years, there has been an explosion of knowledge. From the size of the universe (Its really big) to the inner workings of the atom and DNA and psychology and psychiatry and brain chemistry and even literary criticism of ancient writings like the Bible. All these areas impinge on legacy concepts of God.
Some folks see perfection in the Bible. As if God wrote it word for word. I now see it as a collection of writings about God. Part of the aforementioned process of creating God. Of defining God. Of working out the right relationship with God. Of working on the concept of God. The writers (and editors and canonizers) did their best. Gave their version of the truth about God. We need to continue the process.
The question we need to address is actually a pleasant one: What do we want to believe about God? What should be the right relationship with God? Which of course depends on the nature of God.
Here's my take: God is creator. OK you can say God is redeemer too, but redemption may well be a mode of creation. A sort of recycling. As in we redeem the alcoholic from his or her gutter. We are composed of stardust recycled from ancient explosions of stars. All our elements were created in the fiery furnace of a solar interior. So in creation God recycles. Repurposes.
And we are happiest when we attune to this God and align ourselves with the creation and redemption process.
A total of two assertions about God. Those are the main tenants. Simple isn't it. And yet, they may be enough. Note the absence of any judgmental role.
OK we could add theories of saints and prophets. Gifted people. Who gives gifts? God. And so, hereby, we have a theory of Jesus and a theory of Siddhartha and St. Francis and all the rest.
And yet it contains the secret of happiness. It does raise questions about how one attunes and aligns. And I believe the best way is meditation.
And that's about all one needs to say. Whether or not we need to organize ourselves to worship this God says more about human nature (our need for ritual) than about God.
Could we say that a spiritual atheist is one who hasn't found a good working concept of God?
Cheers.
Jim
No, a spiritual atheist acknowledges that there is a lack of empirical evidence in support of the existence of god. We understand the human need and the advantage of spirituality but don't believe that spirituality is owned by those who believe in gods. Any working concept is valid because it works, not because it evokes God, per se.
It depends....(Sorry, that was the best answer I could come up with.)
Gary, you said,
"I am not moral because I fear hell and look forward to heaven. I am moral because I fear jail and seek the praise, love and friendship of real people."
Thank you for sharing this. It's always interesting to know the reasons why something or someone, "IS what it IS".
I am a Christian because I have had a taste of NOT being a Christian, and of being a Christian, and by far, the latter is more to my liking. I've heard people mention surveys that stated that Christians are the happiest people in this country -- I cannot speak for anyone else, and since I don't have any reference for these surveys, I will only say that if this is true I understand why.
I mentioned being able to discern the difference between being a Christian and NOT being a Christian. I never knew there WAS a difference until I received the Holy Spirit, and then my spiritual awareness was awakened, and my spiritual eyes were opened. Unless you've been there, you won't have any idea as to what the Hell I'm talking about, and that's okay; it would be impossible for you to understand.
As far as moral or religious beliefs, I try to not judge, except on a personal level. What that means is, if you tell me you're a child molester and an Agnostic, I'm going to judge your actions as being wrong, but I won't just ALL Agnostics, or the philosophy of Agnosticism as being wrong simply because an Agnostic turned out to be a child molester; that would be short-sighted, simple-minded, silly, and just plain wrong.
As far as Atheists go, I have met my fair share of them, even was involved with one for quite some time. It has been my experience that Atheists were not accepting of me, and not vice versa; I'll exclude the one with whom I was involved with for so long, because, while he didn't like my beliefs, he accepted ME. Love can be funny like that.
Whatever the reason, Atheists DO show strong animosity against Christians. I remember one with whom I worked -- his name was Ted. That man was an imposing figure. He towered over me, and while I never criticized his Atheistic views, he would seek me out every chance he got to debate "religion". I mean, as soon as I saw him coming I KNEW that he was coming to start up an argument, and it did no good for me to say, "Ted, I don't want to discuss it." He was determined to argue with me about Christianity, and belittle my personal beliefs. No, no -- Ted was not a bit shy or intimidated about discussing Atheism, nor were any of the other Atheists I knew and/or worked with.
Maybe the reason for that is because San Francisco is quite a bit more liberal, and more accepting of various lifestyles, and belief systems than the rest of the country. Gary, you live close enough to San Francisco to confirm what I'm saying. San Francisco is quite liberal in that sense, and there is no need to be "in the closet", whether you worship Satan, or a holy donut. (For those not living in the Bay Area, there was a church by that name, and the "pastor" was on public radio, until he was indicted and imprisoned for child pornography.) With the leader behind bars, I don't know if the church still exists.
You are absolutely correct. Jesus didn't (at first I wrote doesn't) try to convert people. He allowed people to come to him. What interesting is that, my mom (also a minister) has been deceased for MANY years, and yet people are still trying to get to HER through me. I have to tell them that they cannot mistake me for HER. I don't do the things she did.
Thus far, I have rejected the ministry, although ordained ministers have told me I am called to it, and want to ordain me. If that ever happens, my belief system tells me that I cannot participate in politics, and YOU KNOW I have NOT stopped that yet. What happens will happen in my own time. Alwasys good to see you; I haven't seen you in awhile!
It sounded kind of odd to me and I'm curious......
Is this group a new religious belief of yours? Are you looking for followers?
Thank you for the additional information. But, the comment you made in the second bubble -- well, it's disappointing, and it's beneath you. Therefore, I'll take it as part of your sense of humor, and laugh with you.
Gary (The Eclectic) Timothy,
The thing that strikes me first and foremost is your talent in knowing Tom Gerace's and /or Sam Gerace's philosophical and/or religious beliefs. (I'm assuming they are "the owners" of whom you refer.) To the point: have you ever heard "the owners" say they do not believe in God?
I've never read anything about them (quotes from him), and admittedly, I have read few of his articles beyond the general Gather status articles. I doubt he has expressed his thoughts, and suggest you are jumping to conclusions.
Putting myself in "the owners' place, I wouldn't be pleased with someone saying things in a way that may cause others to believe that I have said them when I didn't; in other words, someone who has lied on me. That's interesting. Have a nice day.
I knew there was some reason I like you Gary :)
Civilizations rise on the creative force of love and fall on the destructive force of anti-love (AKA hate).
I have never seen a definitive definition of GOD, any more than I have ever seen a definitive definition of love. It would be a terrible world to live in if there were no one embracing love.
We cannot live on logic alone.
That being said, we are most creative when we are happy and experiencing love. We are least creative when we are experiencing fear and/or hate.
There for .... love .... for humans .... is a primal creative force.
All my emotions spark my creativity. Love is not the only basis for creativity.