In general, all religions speak of the same kind of human decency. Meaning, coming to the conclusion of being a decent human being isn't exactly extraordinary, and therefore necessarily spiritual.
However, the key component of religion is connecting us to the spiritual. An effort to explain how it works within our lives, and it's purpose. Atheism does absolutely nothing to add to that, or than to say that there, ultimately, may or may not be a purpose to our existence.
And in my experience, that is an utterly foolish concept to posit.
Agnostic is the closer term. Though OP did use the phase
I do note believe fake and gay shit.
Tends to denote that there is no belief in God. And very often, they claim (smugly), God is something man made, so therefore invalid to most atheists. Agnostics just aren't as vehement in their condemnation of God.
They just won't go any further in confirming God, either. Practically speaking, though, I find the former to be zealous and arrogant. The latter is impotent and foolish.
Writing off the spiritual as not known, and therefore cannot be opined on with any valuable answer is as effective as saying all unknown variables should just be labeled as 'zero' in an analysis.
It may be more effective writ large, but it's also guaranteed to be wrong. And sometimes it is extremely important that you get it right.
In general, all religions speak of the same kind of human decency. Meaning, coming to the conclusion of being a decent human being isn't exactly extraordinary, and therefore necessarily spiritual.
However, the key component of religion is connecting us to the spiritual. An effort to explain how it works within our lives, and it's purpose. Atheism does absolutely nothing to add to that, or than to say that there, ultimately, may or may not be a purpose to our existence.
And in my experience, that is an utterly foolish concept to posit.
Agnostic is the closer term. Though OP did use the phase
Tends to denote that there is no belief in God. And very often, they claim (smugly), God is something man made, so therefore invalid to most atheists. Agnostics just aren't as vehement in their condemnation of God.
They just won't go any further in confirming God, either. Practically speaking, though, I find the former to be zealous and arrogant. The latter is impotent and foolish.
Writing off the spiritual as not known, and therefore cannot be opined on with any valuable answer is as effective as saying all unknown variables should just be labeled as 'zero' in an analysis.
It may be more effective writ large, but it's also guaranteed to be wrong. And sometimes it is extremely important that you get it right.