I was reading through an old thread about atheism and it got me thinking about an acquaintaince of mine (Facebook friend) who refers to herself and her family as “militant atheists.”. Anytime a topic even tangentially related to religion comes up she makes sure we all know that she thinks anyone who believes in god is stupid, dangerous, and mentally ill. Just the idea of belief makes her incredibly hostile.
Considering her extreme viewpoint, I was surprised to see her mention that her dead husband “attended” her daughter’s birthday party the weekend before. Her proof? A glare on a couple of photos that she referred to as “orbs.”. It just doesn’t seem like a person who has zero tolerance for things that can’t be proven could believe in supernatural bs.
I guess technically it’s compatible. Atheism is lack of a belief in god(s). Nothing to do with ghosts. It does seem awfully incongruous, though; I agree with you there.
Buddhism does not believe in any gods, but depending on which particular strain you believe there is reincarnation, and Tibetan buddhism believes that the “soul” (not really a soul the way west understands it but thats the best way to describe it) stays in Bardo for a period of time before being reincarnated. Those in Bardo are pretty much equivalent to ghosts in western terminology.
People can be selectively critical. Being an atheist generally only shows you have the skillset to reject one particular set of beliefs. I suppose that’s not the only way to atheism - if you were raised in a completely irreligious environment somehow or you were one of those vanishly small “mad at God” psuedo-atheists that the religious people seem to think are everywhere.
People have their sacred cows that on some level they decide not to apply their critical thinking skills to.
So when you ask if it’s “compatable”? It depends on what you mean. Can those views simultaneously exist with someone without causing irreparable damage to their world view? Yeah, of course. Can that person have a logically consistent worldview? Probably not.
It’s actually pretty overwhelmingly common for people who have enough skepticism to reject some sort of bullshit to believe in another. What percentage of people are actually perfectly and consistently skeptical? 2% tops, probably much less?
If you’re so inclined, you can put them to the test and see whether they value their rational, consistent, skeptical view point or their sacred cow comfortable view by having them understand and describe the mental tools they’re using to reject religion, and then make them try to apply those same tools to another unsupported/irrational/whatever belief. If you get them thinking on those terms they’ll have to make a more deliberate effort to acknowledge and rationalize their sacred cow. Chances are they will, and just eat the cognitive dissonance, rather than reject it.
The Universal Church of Atheism is pretty disorganized. Except for the not believing in God thing, they don’t have much else consistent dogma. So it’s probably not mainstream Atheism, but as long as you don’t believe in God, and get all offended if someone calls Atheism a religion, you should be fine with some sect.
Atheism is either the lack of belief in god(s), or the belief there is no god(s)
EVERYTHING ELSE IS OPTIONAL
Want to be atheist and not believe in evolution? You can.
Want to be an atheist and still think the universe was created? As long as you believe it was created by something other than a god, you can
Want to be atheist and not believe science? You can.
Want to be an atheist and do or not do absolutely anything you can think of, as long as you’re not having a belief in god, you can!
I’m not a ‘militant’ atheist anymore, but I have a phobia about ghosts. Scared to death of them for sure! Funny thing is, I don’t believe in them, but I’m still scared.
Well, a phobia is, by definition, an irrational fear, so it’s not really any stranger to have a phobia about something that doesn’t exist than it is to have one about something that exists, but presents no real threat.
[nitpick]G(ilbert) K(eith) Chesterton[/nitpick]
A lovely writer, but some distance from reality with that little aphorism.
Yeah, I understand that atheism really only means that you don’t believe in god, and doesn’t extend to beliefs about other things. It’s just kind of funny, and more than a little hypocritical, for her to say that belief in god is irrational, and a crutch for people who can’t deal with life. Then turn around and state that her dead husband’s ghost attends birthday parties, without a hint of irony.
It seems to me a person who doesn’t believe in god wouldn’t believe in any other supernatural phenomenon either unless their whole belief system is inconsistent. But like someone already said, humans are inconsistent.
What makes you think that the supernatural automatically implies gods, much less a singular all powerful one? People believed in the supernatural for millennia before the idea of “God” existed, much less became common.
Well, in the case of the OP the atheist described is almost certainly just an anti-Christian, who for personal reasons has a deep seated hatred of Christianity. I do not doubt however that if questioned she would display similar hostility to all organized religion, but given the virulence with which she bashes people of faith she sounds like a textbook “anti-Christian” who has some sort of pathetic little childhood-based disgust for the religion that has lead her to hate all organized religion.
Myself, I’m an atheist because it’s all absolute, 100% bullshit. No religion (at least none that presupposes anything supernatural) has any basis in a rational understanding of the world, there has never been even the thinnest proof of any supernatural anything in the history of the world. However I understand why people believe, and it is not a reflection on mankind’s evil but on mankind’s tools to cope with great hardship and on mankind’s natural inquisitiveness.
Ghosts are as fantastical and unrealistic as a sky God who is extremely obsessed with whether I blow my load inside my wife or spray it all over the floor, or who “sent his son” down to Earth to redeem mankind but then denied all of Africa, the Americas, and most of Asia any means of hearing about his teachings and thus denying them a clear path to heaven.
But is “zero tolerance for things that can’t be proven” her reason (alleged or real) for being a militant atheist? I think Martin Hyde may be on the right track, that her militant atheism may be more about hostility toward God or religion or religious people or something like that, and she may well have Issues stemming from people or events in her life that have engendered hostility toward religion, but not toward supernatural ideas such as ghosts.
Sounds like the Op’s friend might be an Anti-theist with animist or spiritist tendencies as opposed to a proper atheist who generally disavow the existence of any supernatural phenomena.
However, Your mileage may vary wildly on what you define as supernatural. If human “souls” persist in some form after death, then it is not supernatural; but rather simply a portion of existence that we have not been able to explore or confirm yet. Those holding this as a solid belief (a position held without regard to actual evidence) are engaging in some form of inconsistent thought though.
I think it is totally consistent to believe in a human soul that persists after death while also not believing that there is a divine power that created the universe.
However, holding those positions indicates, IMHO, a willing suspension of critical thought with regard to ghosts, that one is not willing to apply to god(s), and that is a wee bit hypocritical.
I have a friend who does not believe in god, but has had experiences that he feels are proof of ghosts. I find it kind of silly, but he’s my friend so I don’t push the issue.
