This is an important point. Being atheist doesn't say anything about your beliefs in ethics or the nature of the universe. It's just the absence of some set of other beliefs.

It is quite possible to find the negation of belief in God itself be a spiritual/freeing experience, especially if this follows prior subjugation/belief in an organized religion. Relinquishing religion can itself be a "spiritual" experience precisely because of how shitty religions tend to be.

Also, many mathematicians find a spiritual purity in certain equations and proofs. There need not be anything religious about such an experience. Something can be "deep", completely devoid of the paranormal.

Moreover, it is really a word semantic point. If someone says that their spiritualism is atheism, they are just using the word atheism for something other than "non-belief in gods", like "non-belief in gods, in combination with some other kinds of beliefs".

So, I am not tone deaf: I do hear that. Just let's use "atheism" right, too.

But note that someone identifying as an atheist, but with spiritual beliefs, might not be found to actually be an atheist, if their beliefs were examined by hard-line atheists. It is possible that a belief can have the trappings of being free from gods, but when you examine it critically, the entities in that belief can be identified as god-like after all.

Strawman examples:

"I believe everything has a purpose; but there is no such thing as god". Sorry, a purpose requires a being to articulate the purpose and set it into motion. If you mean inherent purpose (rather than a human interpretation which ascribes a non-inherent purpose) you have a god hidden in there.

Or "There is no such thing as god, but the world was clearly created". Oops again. Creation without a creator?

> Or "There is no such thing as god, but the world was clearly created". Oops again. Creation without a creator?

Is it possible to has have a creator but that creator not to be a god? For example, if we are living inside a simulation created by a software engineer, is that engineer our god?

I would say that if you believe that we are living inside a simulation created by a software engineer, then I am not certain whether you are theist or atheist, but leaning toward theist.

You’re missing the point. I don’t believe it one way or the other. It’s a hypothetical question meant to stimulate conversation about your “creator created” comment.

I mean, the rhetorical "you".

I'm not an atheist nor have I attempted to define what it means. So please know this is a genuine question.

Does your definition mean the rejection of all spiritual or supernatural beings requires one to become hold views inline with existential nihilism?

Suppose that without supernatural beings, life has no meaning or value (taking that to be "existential nihilism").

If it is revealed to such a world that there are in fact supernatural beings, how does that create meaning and value?

And how do those supernatural beings derive meaning and value; don't they need another level of meta-supernatural beings?

I want everyone to have meaning; I don't want there to be supernatural beings which are kind of slaves to provide me with meaning by their existence, but are themselves starved of meaning since they have nothing more supernatural than themselves to believe in.

One useful definition of meaning is the evolution of possibilities. A situation of no meaning is one which is a dead end in terms of possibilities.

If the universe dies in a heat death, then at that point there are no future possibilities distinct from the current state, and so there is no more meaning.

There might be no permanent meaning; no value that will endure forever, but people can be content with the temporary meaning, in which they enjoy new experiences and explore new possibilities in any endeavor.

Human lives end come to an end on a time scale vastly shorter than the death of the universe, yet people are able to find meaning.

OP here. I am an atheist with zero spiritual beliefs in the sense you are talking about. When I say "spiritual" I mean "dopamine-inducing", full stop. There is some cool stuff in math, science and in our crude attempts at morality that can be seen as "deep"/"spiritual" in its poetic purity, but this can be appreciated completely devoid of any belief in any kind of higher power. That is what I'm referring to.

The absence of certain beliefs is an objective differential from a other perspectives, and therefore does say something about one's beliefs (both on a relative and absolute scale) about the nature of the universe (as the nature of the universe is such that many agents within it perceive that there is a God involved).

Here's my take. I don't believe in G-d, but I believe there is a circuit in my brain, created by early education, that makes me feel good when I behave. Besides, I realize that such a circuit carries social benefits - if everyone behaves, society as a whole is better off. Looks like closed circuit logic and doesn't require any superstitious beliefs.

I think this doesn't reflect the standard spectrum of usage for the term. For instance, if you look up "atheism" in Merriam-Webster, the second definition is:

"a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"

By that definition, a rock is not atheist since it has no philosophical or religious positions (ha, I hope so, at least).

Honestly, I'm a little confused by your very strict understanding of the term, as I think people often (as above) use this second definition; and most people would find your statement "a rock is atheist" a little unusual.

> strict understanding

Rather, a definition of atheist which allows rocks to be atheists by the fact that they lack philosophical positions is logically less strict, or weaker than a formulation that additionally requires the ability to hold such a position.

A predicate which adds restrictions is stronger, which can have disadvantages.

The weak definition lets me assign a value of true or false to is_atheist(P) for any P whatsoever. (Other than perhaps some kinds of P that create a some sort of syntactic self-referential paradox.)

> By that definition, a rock is not atheist

atheist is the negation of theist; it means "not theist". If a rock is not a not-theist, it must be a theist. Well, we don't want that, so we need to complicate things with three-valued logic, whereby is_atheist(P) can be "undefined" when P is a rock. Or else be happy with partial functions: P = rock is outside of the domain is_atheist.

The atheist rock is a rhetorical tool that uses the simplest possible definition of atheism and strictly two-valued logic.

> weak definition

Dictionary definitions are not meant to be combined like logical predicates. Rather, they provide a spectrum of possible meanings for a term. By recognizing multiple standard meanings for a word, I’m not tightening the space of entities that can match, but rather broadening it. But usage can still shift under a broader definition.

> atheist is the negation of theist

In one sense of the word, but that’s also the sense of the word in which you say that rocks are atheist, and probably not the (perfectly legitimate)sense of the word in which GP describes himself as “100% atheist.”

———

Taking a step back: is there any value in this line of inquiry other than semantics? I think so. It comes down to whether there is an active and lively philosophy of atheism in a positive sense, one that is chiefly distinguished by rejecting theism and building alternative moral, social, epistemological frameworks, but still fundamentally religious - a set of beliefs and practices and values for guiding one’s life, providing answers for the great questions.

I think this comes up because of the desire from some to make atheism seem essentially the default belief— no more notable than a lack of belief in fairies and elves. But in the world and culture most of us are embedded in, that’s just not accurate. It’s still a minority position, there are many important consequences to building one’s life on atheism vs theism, and there is an ongoing battle in the marketplace of ideas and the popular consciousness for each one. I think it’s galling to some to see atheism described as a philosophy or religion on the same “shelf” as theism, but practically speaking that’s what it amounts to for most people.

It is not the absence of belief in gods, it's the positive belief there is no god who put us here for a higher mystical purpose and plan, from which important ethical conclusions can be derived as listed by GP.

This.