Are any atheists superstitious?

[il_Topo]

*Originally posted by Apos *
I’ve met plenty of people that don’t believe in gods, but believe all sorts of strange things.

Like what?

Even if there weren’t such people, you have to at least admit that there is no necessary bar to such beliefs simply because someone happens to lack a particular belief in god.

god who? I don’t think mere denial of a particular personal god is atheism. We all deny the personal gods of faiths other than our own (if we have a faith), and that does not make us atheists (if we have a faith).

The point of your statement seems to be that the term “atheism” encompasses individuals that have definite and positive beliefs in supernatural phenomena. Correct? I will “admit it” if I am using the term “atheism” incorrectly, and you are saying I am. If that is the consensus, yes, I will admit it.

By the way, I also don’t consider pantheism to be atheism.

[il_Topo]

Does anyone know of any good atheistic message boards out there where I can ask this question directly of atheists?

[astorian]

Are atheists superstitious? Sure, some of them. And many of them are honest and humble enough to admit it.

ALL of us can be irrational at times, and when we come to our senses, we admit it and laugh about it. I recall a passage from Peter Benchley’s “Jaws” in which Captain Quint said something like, “When a plumber is having a tough time fixing a leak, he may curse at the pipe and even bang on it with his wrench. But that doesn’t mean he REALLY believes the pipe is a person.” And when the pipe is finally fixed, the plumber is probably amused by his own silly behavior.

In the same way, I’m sure that self-proclaimed rationalist non-believers sometimes find themselves, momentarily, pleading with a higher power (not seriously, of course, just the way I sometimes find myself talking to my malfunctioning car!), or following silly “good-luck” rituals. But if you call them on it, they’ll probably laugh at their own silliness.

A non-theist may wear a pair of “lucky socks” for special occasion, but I wouldn’t take that to mean he REALLY believes those socks are magical.

[Apos]

–Like what?—

Ghosts, power crystals, astrology, John Edward, ESP, knocking on wood, magic, coincidence, etc.

—I don’t think mere denial of a particular personal god is atheism.—

Lack of belief in something that one would characterize as their God.

—We all deny the personal gods of faiths other than our own (if we have a faith), and that does not make us atheists (if we have a faith).—

But theists do believe in at least one God. That is not true of atheists.

----The point of your statement seems to be that the term “atheism” encompasses individuals that have definite and positive beliefs in supernatural phenomena. Correct?—

Yep.

—I will “admit it” if I am using the term “atheism” incorrectly, and you are saying I am. If that is the consensus, yes, I will admit it.—

Well, is you definition of atheism simply a descriptive of the abscence of god belief, or does it also contain all sorts of ideas about atheists being, by definition, rationalists, materialists, that religion is stupid, that it is impossible that gods exist, etc.? It’s one thing to define: it’s quite another to try and lay all your particular convictions on the doorstep of whatever classification you claim for yourself.

—By the way, I also don’t consider pantheism to be atheism.—

Why should anyone?

[il_Topo]

*Originally posted by Apos *
Well, is you definition of atheism simply a descriptive of the abscence of god belief, or does it also contain all sorts of ideas about atheists being, by definition, rationalists, materialists, that religion is stupid, that it is impossible that gods exist, etc.? It’s one thing to define: it’s quite another to try and lay all your particular convictions on the doorstep of whatever classification you claim for yourself.

Good point. I guess that’s what I’m asking. I thought belief in the supernatural was belief in the supernatural, of whatever type, and I thought atheism in accordance with the common definition precluded belief in the supernatural. I figured those that believe in supernatural phenomena were really pantheists, panentheists, or polytheists or other theists of some sort–by definition, regardless of what they called themselves to others. Some here apparently agree, others disagee.

[UDS]

*Originally posted by il Topo *
**Good point. I guess that’s what I’m asking. I thought belief in the supernatural was belief in the supernatural, of whatever type, and I thought atheism in accordance with the common definition precluded belief in the supernatural. I figured those that believe in supernatural phenomena were really pantheists, panentheists, or polytheists or other theists of some sort–by definition, regardless of what they called themselves to others. Some here apparently agree, others disagee. **

Well, it really is an argument about definition, then, and like all arguments about definition it is basically pointless. If you equate “supernatural” and “divine” then atheists should not believe in the supernatural. However relatively few people equate “supernatural” and “divine”. I don’t think there’s much more that can be said about this.

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by il Topo *
I agree with your (unquoted) analysis.

Yet atheists rarely get into the game of defining the term “god.” They allow the person who believes in the god to define the supernatural entity (“supernatural” typically [uniformly?] being the only consistent trait of “gods” across the board), then they deny the entity’s existence if they are unconvinced. I find it hard to conceive of an intellectually honest atheist who would believe in a supernatural being, and say, well, I’m an atheist because I don’t call him/her/it “god,” he/she/it is just a “demi-god.”

Hm, several points.

First of all, superstitions do not need to be beliefs in supernatural beings. They could be beliefs in things such as fate, luck, psychic powers, the Cosmic Soul, etc. So an atheist who rejects the notion of supernatural beings can still believe in supernatural forces.

Secondly, not defining god is a common trait, particularly in causal conversations as opposed to formal debates and discussions. While the notion of god is fuzzy, most people have some sort of conventionally accepted idea of what a god is.

Thirdly, directing a question at atheists is like directing a question at Brits or Canadians. Atheists have a lot less in common than Christians (for example). Atheists don’t have a set of orthodox doctrines and certainly they have different worldviews.

[Apos]

—I figured those that believe in supernatural phenomena were really pantheists, panentheists, or polytheists or other theists of some sort–by definition, regardless of what they called themselves to others. Some here apparently agree, others disagee.—

Uh how? The tipoff is that all those words contain the root “theist” which implies a belief in a GOD of some sort, not just ghosts, goblins, magic, or John Edward.

[il_Topo]

*Originally posted by Apos *
**The tipoff is that all those words contain the root “theist” which implies a belief in a GOD of some sort, not just ghosts, goblins, magic, or John Edward. **

I think I see your point–I’m sure it’s surprising to you that it took me this long, but bear with me. I suppose magic could be an impersonal quality of the universe, like matter and energy, which can be accessed in as yet mysterious, seemingly supernatural but actually natural ways. I suppose ghosts could be a product of an as yet misunderstood but natural extension of the process of life in this universee.

But given your statement, let me ask you: What particular quality differentiates a “god” from a “goblin”? I don’t even know what a goblin is, but I assume they have magical powers of some sort. At what point does an atheist who believes in a goblin become a theist? When the goblin in which he believes gains certain characteristics? What characteristics are those? In other words, what characteristics can be attributable to a magical creature which will turn the believer in the magical creature from an atheist to a theist?

[Urban_Ranger]

To me, a god is bigger than this world. A god is somehow involved with a creation myth, how this world came to be. A goblin, on the other hand, is part of this world. In other words, a god can exist without this world, a goblin can’t.

[loinburger]

Only with the broadest possible definition of “god” (“Any supernatural force/being, no matter how trivial or mundane”) does the claim “all atheists are not superstitious” become a given, and I for one have never seen “god” be given such a broad (and essentially redundant) definition – it has always been qualified somehow, as in “a god is more good than evil” or “a god is a being/force deserving of worship” or “a god is more powerful than the average human” etc.

I think that “deserving of worship” is the major qualifier here that distinguishes a “god” from a “ghost/dryad/pixie/whatever.” This would explain why Buddhists are generally considered to be atheists, despite the fact that powerful supernatural entities exist (or can exist) in their cosmology – Buddhists (may) acknowledge these entities, but they do not worship them.

[il_Topo]

*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *
To me, a god is bigger than this world. A god is somehow involved with a creation myth, how this world came to be.

This is a modern view. Now that we can explain fire and the motion of the sun and the seasons, we don’t need fire gods, sun gods and fertility gods. But we can’t explain creation, so now all theists must believe in a creation god? But there still are people who believe in the older, “lesser” gods, and I think everyone agrees they are theists. I’m not sure your definition is broad enough.

Originally posted by loinburger
Only with the broadest possible definition of “god”…does the claim “all atheists are not superstitious” become a given, and I for one have never seen “god” be given such a broad…definition – it has always been qualified somehow, as in “a god is more good than evil” or “a god is a being/force deserving of worship” or “a god is more powerful than the average human” etc.

The problem is, any definition of a god used to define a theist must be broad enough to cover all the different qualifications offered and offerable by man.

I think that “deserving of worship” is the major qualifier here that distinguishes a “god” from a "ghost/dryad/pixie/whatever."

Does a pantheist “worship” his god? Many of the old gods weren’t really worshipped in the modern sense, were they? Did the Druids “worship”? Do wiccans “worship”? Were/are they theists? Honest questions; I really don’t know.

Nonetheless, yours is a good suggestion, if a subjective one. I suspect we would get different beliefs as to what is “worthy of worship.” Is Woden “worthy of worship”? Your answer may differe depending on who you ask, so we get a definition of atheism which is a little too flexible.

Indeed, there is one very spiteful god who is worshipped by some fundamentalist Christians I know. He differs greatly from the merciful Christian God I was raised with, and I honestly don’t think the spiteful version is worthy of my worship, and yet, I think his followers are theists.

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by il Topo *
This is a modern view. Now that we can explain fire and the motion of the sun and the seasons, we don’t need fire gods, sun gods and fertility gods. But we can’t explain creation, so now all theists must believe in a creation god? But there still are people who believe in the older, “lesser” gods, and I think everyone agrees they are theists. I’m not sure your definition is broad enough.

How so? Even the ancient Egyptians and Babaylonians had creation myths. In Greek mythology, Zeus didn’t create the world, but he was tied into it.

If you have lesser gods, it is most likely that they are part of a pantheon which include one or more gods that created the world.