The Solution To Theism

[steve_bank]

Christians lay a trap, declare god exists and then demand those who do not believe explain why. By declaring theism those who do not believe as atheist, the battle never ends. A self fulfilling and self sustaining state of conflict for theists to hold on to.

I stopped identifying as atheist a ways back. I identify as a skeptic in all things, nor just religion.

The best response to Christians is consider the question as the same as the question of unicorns. Identifying as an atheist is the same as being a-uncornian. Equally silly positions.We let Christians emotionally pigeon hole us into a defensive position where we feel compelled to respond. They win.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You're on the right track. If it works for you then by all means carry on.

Technically speaking, atheist is a religious word so it's already weakened your position by referring to yourself in religious terms imho. Therefore I find other ways to describe religious words and claims, essentially ignoring religious significance and turning religious conversation into a secular discussion.

 

[steve_bank]

the point is discussion is pointless. Theists and atheists become mirror images.

When I was on the forum years back the theist/atheist debate was pretty lively. After a while the some of the atheists seemed to be the flip side of the agressive theists.

There is no resolution, otherwise it would not be faith, it would be sconce.

Maybe I should have put this thread on the other forum. I've always tried to find a compromise, mostly in the work environment. Now just say it means nothing at all and I don't want to hear it.

As a skeptic I am equally skeptical of both theists and atheists..how's that for metaphysical gymnastics.

 

[bigfield]

As a general rule, you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into. There are exceptions to this among people's deconversion stories, but generally-speaking, the decline in religion can be attributed to the declining psychological need for religion.

If your endgame is to eradicate religion then you must produce a society where people can form an existential philosophy that is emotionally satisfying without resort to supernatural ideas. Humans need to be able to find purpose and a feeling that the universe makes sense. You don't need religion for that if people have prosperity, freedom and knowledge.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

the point is discussion is pointless. Theists and atheists become mirror images.

When I was on the forum years back the theist/atheist debate was pretty lively. After a while the some of the atheists seemed to be the flip side of the agressive theists.

There is no resolution, otherwise it would not be faith, it would be sconce.

Maybe I should have put this thread on the other forum. I've always tried to find a compromise, mostly in the work environment. Now just say it means nothing at all and I don't want to hear it.

As a skeptic I am equally skeptical of both theists and atheists..how's that for metaphysical gymnastics.

Discussion is not pointless except with persons with whom discussion is pointless or destructive. I have a couple people in my ignore cache here because discussion with them is pointless.

Sometimes the discussion is just good for me, that's okay.

We don't have a word for people who don't believe Santa is real anymore. But, yes, I wouldn't discuss Santa belief with a three year old.

Maybe what's needed is a better definition for atheism.

I still remember a conversation I had about ten years ago with a workmate. He's very christian and I told him he's also very atheist. We had a very good exchange. The good that came out of it was that he'd never met someone who dismissed claims about magical divine leaders and didn't mind be labeled atheist. I don't feel like I wasted my time even though we both left with our convictions intact.

 

[Copernicus]

Speaking just for myself, I don't mind assuming the label of "atheist". It accurately reflects my rejection of belief in gods. I'm not too worried about being "put on the defensive" by believers, because I have no trouble defending that rejection. Nor do I think it important to try to tell believers that they carry the "burden of proof", even though I think that they do. The fact is that proof depends on what premises one holds to be true, and that is usually where differences lie. I have rejected some of the beliefs that are necessary to sustain theism, so arguing about the existence of a god or gods is really looking at the wrong end of the stick. If you are a physicalist or reject belief in an independent "spiritual" plane of existence (i.e. substance or Cartesian dualism), then it follows that deities are implausible beings. If you do accept belief in the independent existence of physical and spiritual "realms" of existence, then such beings start to become possible. In the end, I won't convince anyone who can't convince themselves, nor will I be convinced by anyone else to change my mind about the nonexistence of gods unless I can feel comfortable with the foundation of beliefs that sustain their credibility.

 

[abaddon]

Christians lay a trap, declare god exists and then demand those who do not believe explain why.
It's not a trap, they're just amazed anyone would "choose" atheism. They puzzle about us, how we live in randomness, without guidance, with no ultimate explanation for all reality.

The best response to Christians is consider the question as the same as the question of unicorns. Identifying as an atheist is the same as being a-uncornian. Equally silly positions.We let Christians emotionally pigeon hole us into a defensive position where we feel compelled to respond. They win.

I don't think they pigeonhole us, nor "win". Atheists pigeonhole themselves by reacting to theism with science. They make it a science vs. religion war simply because theists attack science, thinking it's the threat to the basis of their lives.

Which, it is... but you can't make science appealing by affirming "Yes, this is the end of your source of meaning, so you need to update from 2000 year old answers to ones relevant to the world as we know it today".

Answer instead to their real concern. Show why secular modernity isn't the hell they think it is. "Science says" isn't good enough.

 

[abaddon]

If I were discussing philosophy broadly and someone asked "So what is it you believe?" among the last things to come to mind would be "I'm an atheist" because it's relevant only when theism's the topic.

What they say about atheism is like being a non-stamp collector is true. But, in a society of fanatic stamp collectors intent on making their personal problem into a societal problem, that can matter. So, within the right context, "Yes, I'm an atheist" can matter very much. It still doesn't define me in any other context than theism. But, it's important to address the negative images that "atheist" evokes in Christian minds.

When I was a theist, the scariest thing I could imagine is I might ever become an atheist. I was "saved" so hell wasn't scary. I might displease God but could also make amends. But the loss of belief... THAT was terrifying. Backsliding felt like coming close to "falling off the wagon" and if I fell all the way off, that'd be ruination of my life. Atheism was that ruined state, should that ever happen. So I couldn't wrap my mind around "How can anyone possibly willingly be an atheist? What is wrong with those wretched people?!"

The irony is I was miserable myself with the struggle of trying to belief crazy things. The fear/hate of atheism was defensiveness against my own self and what I feared might possibly happen to me.

If you wanted to reach me in my theist years, you'd have had to address my real concerns. Which weren't metaphysics, wasn't the value of science, wasn't if the world were 6000 years old or what-the-fuck-ever age. Even though I had my Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter ready to go if any evolutionist-atheist wanted to argue that. But a dialogue rather than a battle would have addressed the underlying concerns: identity, belongingness, meaningfulness.

Theists carry on about the science of origins only because they think that's where they derive their identity, belongingness, meaningfulness. They feel if their individual self was not intended then they're just decaying skinbags... "mere animals" stuck inside a "random" universe.

If the secular world has answers to that concern, it needs to make them more clear. Atheists tend to avoid self-disclosure. Instead we look for bad science and bad word choices to skewer. Maybe the theist will learn to reason better, and reason his way out of theism? But, probably not.

It's not really reason alone that informs such choices. Where reason takes us depends a lot on how we value things. Atheists are amazed that a theist can want to be a theist, thinking "But God is a monster!" Theists are amazed that an atheist can want to be an atheist, thinking "But without God existence would be horrible!" What God seems like is an issue of which "facts" are salient to your value-system. There's no dialogue unless we recognize the values underlying the ideas we present as true.

So for a dialogue, you have to say what's valuable in your lives and stop acting like it's a sectarian squabble: "Science is true, your religion is false, so nyeh!" Though I do understand some people enjoy the back and forth regardless that everyone (almost always) walks away still believing what they did before.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Atheism doesn't have those answers, though. It is nothing more than "your claim is wrong".

Asking it to provide the same kind of meaning as theism is like asking a non-stamp collector "Well, what is it that we do with the stamp albums, then?". That answer isn't part of not wanting to collect stamps. I'm an atheist because I don't find theistic claims to be credible. Full stop. Any life philosophy I then end up having is a second thing in addition to that, not a central part of that.

 

[abaddon]

Right, atheism doesn't have the answers. That's exactly correct. I had thought I included that, but maybe wasn't clear enough. It's meaningless outside the context of theism and says nothing but you're not a theist.

My post doesn't ask for answers from atheism. It asks for answers from secular philosophy. Which is something different from atheism.

You say atheism is "nothing more than 'your claim is wrong'" but still you view life philosophy as secondary to atheism. That's odd because that leaves basically nothing as your life philosophy. Surely it's the life philosophy, or some tendencies to one, that made theistic claims seem incredible? If so then the life philosophy is why you're atheist and why the life philosophy matters more.

So if you find meaning in that life philosophy and it does anything to "console" about mortality or not having a "sky daddy", if it informs what seems credible and what more solid ground there is to stand on than the house of cards that is theism, presenting it would address the concerns I talked about since atheism cannot.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, my life's philosophy isn't what makers theistic claims seem incredible. It's the fact that theistic claims seem incredible that has them having no impact on my life's philosophy.

You could probably find some atheistic philosophies which console you about mortality and all that, since that sounds like the type of thing that somebody's probably tried to come up with. I think secular humanism has some stuff about that. It's all entirely subjective, so just find something which sounds nice to you and pretend it's true.

 

[fast]

The prefix 'a' sometimes means "not."

Sometimes, as in not always.

Language is complex. It's not nice and neat like math equations.

The opposite of believing God exists was never meant to be construed as a mathematical negation.

Of course, science has progressed, and meanings have evolved.

Still, there's a subset of atheists that hold a very clear belief that isn't ... lacking.

 

[Juma]

Right, atheism doesn't have the answers. That's exactly correct. I had thought I included that, but maybe wasn't clear enough. It's meaningless outside the context of theism and says nothing but you're not a theist.

My post doesn't ask for answers from atheism. It asks for answers from secular philosophy. Which is something different from atheism.

You say atheism is "nothing more than 'your claim is wrong'" but still you view life philosophy as secondary to atheism. That's odd because that leaves basically nothing as your life philosophy. Surely it's the life philosophy, or some tendencies to one, that made theistic claims seem incredible? If so then the life philosophy is why you're atheist and why the life philosophy matters more.

So if you find meaning in that life philosophy and it does anything to "console" about mortality or not having a "sky daddy", if it informs what seems credible and what more solid ground there is to stand on than the house of cards that is theism, presenting it would address the concerns I talked about since atheism cannot.

I think there are two ways of seeing this:
1) believe what you want to be true. (How can there be ”meaning of life” without god -> there must be a god)
2) believe what what has been shown to be true, whatever that is. (It us more important to see the world at it really is than to believe that there is a ”meaning of life”)

The error religious people make is conflating the ”meaning of life” with the feeling of
belonging to a group of people. That is the basic brainwashing method. And it is extremely common.

 

[steve_bank]

As a general rule, you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into. There are exceptions to this among people's deconversion stories, but generally-speaking, the decline in religion can be attributed to the declining psychological need for religion.

If your endgame is to eradicate religion then you must produce a society where people can form an existential philosophy that is emotionally satisfying without resort to supernatural ideas. Humans need to be able to find purpose and a feeling that the universe makes sense. You don't need religion for that if people have prosperity, freedom and knowledge.

I understand your point. When I was here in the past I asked those who want to eradicate religion, what do you replace it with. Never got an answer.

I am not anti religion. Soviet and Chinese communism tried to eradicate religion and failed. It appears North Korea has an underground religion.

 

[bilby]

As a general rule, you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into. There are exceptions to this among people's deconversion stories, but generally-speaking, the decline in religion can be attributed to the declining psychological need for religion.

If your endgame is to eradicate religion then you must produce a society where people can form an existential philosophy that is emotionally satisfying without resort to supernatural ideas. Humans need to be able to find purpose and a feeling that the universe makes sense. You don't need religion for that if people have prosperity, freedom and knowledge.

I understand your point. When I was here in the past I asked those who want to eradicate religion, what do you replace it with. Never got an answer.

I am not anti religion. Soviet and Chinese communism tried to eradicate religion and failed. It appears North Korea has an underground religion.

The North Korean regime IS a religion, with the three Kims as their holy trinity.

Stalin is still worshipped as a God in some parts of the former Soviet Union.

Totalitarian regimes oppose religion not because they want their people to be freethinkers, but because religions are rivals for the worship and obedience of the masses.

Anglican Protestantism started the same way; Henry VIII (and later Elizabeth I) opposed the Pope not because of any particular doctrinal argument, but because they wanted to be beholden to nobody as head of the church. It's all about power. It always was.

 

[Kharakov]

Christians lay a trap, declare god exists and then demand those who do not believe explain why. By declaring theism those who do not believe as atheist, the battle never ends. A self fulfilling and self sustaining state of conflict for theists to hold on to.

I stopped identifying as atheist a ways back. I identify as a skeptic in all things, nor just religion.

The best response to Christians is consider the question as the same as the question of unicorns. Identifying as an atheist is the same as being a-uncornian. Equally silly positions.We let Christians emotionally pigeon hole us into a defensive position where we feel compelled to respond. They win.

I consider bilby to be a cornian.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As a general rule, you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into. There are exceptions to this among people's deconversion stories, but generally-speaking, the decline in religion can be attributed to the declining psychological need for religion.

If your endgame is to eradicate religion then you must produce a society where people can form an existential philosophy that is emotionally satisfying without resort to supernatural ideas. Humans need to be able to find purpose and a feeling that the universe makes sense. You don't need religion for that if people have prosperity, freedom and knowledge.

I understand your point. When I was here in the past I asked those who want to eradicate religion, what do you replace it with. Never got an answer.

I am not anti religion. Soviet and Chinese communism tried to eradicate religion and failed. It appears North Korea has an underground religion.

Aside from the social aspects religion is just a body of pseudo knowledge. I even hesitate to call it pseudo knowledge because including the word "knowledge" gives it an air of legitimacy.

My Mom was one of the most religious people I ever knew. She also loved reading romance novels and had zero scientific curiosity. Therefore religion fit her well. She didn't have to live without all the benefits of modern medicine and science because of her religion. She could have her cake and eat it too. If she had to forego those amenities I don't think she'd have been as religious.

I don't know what would adequately replace her christian religious worldview because she was totally content. Her world was small. She wasn't a proactive person. She didn't reflect of wars, never considered what might have prevented them. She didn't think about environmental issues. She wanted to go to heaven. I think for her there is no substitute.

 

[bilby]

Christians lay a trap, declare god exists and then demand those who do not believe explain why. By declaring theism those who do not believe as atheist, the battle never ends. A self fulfilling and self sustaining state of conflict for theists to hold on to.

I stopped identifying as atheist a ways back. I identify as a skeptic in all things, nor just religion.

The best response to Christians is consider the question as the same as the question of unicorns. Identifying as an atheist is the same as being a-uncornian. Equally silly positions.We let Christians emotionally pigeon hole us into a defensive position where we feel compelled to respond. They win.

I consider bilby to be a cornian.

I am an a-un-dis-anti-cornian.

 

[steve_bank]

As a general rule, you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into. There are exceptions to this among people's deconversion stories, but generally-speaking, the decline in religion can be attributed to the declining psychological need for religion.

If your endgame is to eradicate religion then you must produce a society where people can form an existential philosophy that is emotionally satisfying without resort to supernatural ideas. Humans need to be able to find purpose and a feeling that the universe makes sense. You don't need religion for that if people have prosperity, freedom and knowledge.

I understand your point. When I was here in the past I asked those who want to eradicate religion, what do you replace it with. Never got an answer.

I am not anti religion. Soviet and Chinese communism tried to eradicate religion and failed. It appears North Korea has an underground religion.

Aside from the social aspects religion is just a body of pseudo knowledge. I even hesitate to call it pseudo knowledge because including the word "knowledge" gives it an air of legitimacy.

My Mom was one of the most religious people I ever knew. She also loved reading romance novels and had zero scientific curiosity. Therefore religion fit her well. She didn't have to live without all the benefits of modern medicine and science because of her religion. She could have her cake and eat it too. If she had to forego those amenities I don't think she'd have been as religious.

I don't know what would adequately replace her christian religious worldview because she was totally content. Her world was small. She wasn't a proactive person. She didn't reflect of wars, never considered what might have prevented them. She didn't think about environmental issues. She wanted to go to heaven. I think for her there is no substitute.

That certainly opens the wider discussion. Back in the 70s I knew a woman who paid for a pyramid frame to sleep under. Pyramid Power was alleged to slow aging among other things. A common Star Trek, humans are irrational. Back in the 70s in Hartford for a few weeks I got up early and did yoga in an ashram in the neighborhood. It was called 3HO for happy, healthy, holy. Based on Kundalini yoga. The top dog guru was in India. American Sikh converts. Grew beards and long hair, wore turbans, took on Indian names, and had ceremonial daggers. It was a cult. The guru decided who married who.

Then there was the Endive Light Mission, EST, the Moonies, TM who at one had levitation classes. ...

As to education, the majority of engineers I knew were Christian. They compartmentalized. They may be creationists and believe god winked the universe into existence, but when it came time to design it was based on hard science.

In high school my best math teacher was a nun. My best science teacher was a priest who taught chemistry.

How the hell did some of us find our way out of it.

From my experience those with science degrees weer less likely to be religious than those with engineering degrees.

The way I look at it is in 50 year lifespans end to end. Since the gospels it has only been around 40 end to end lifespans. It could take another 2000 years for religion to diminish. We are still dealing with Civil War cultural issues.

We are seeing the beginning evidenced by claims of attacks on religion. It is that people are beginning to get tired of having it shoved down their throats..

 

[steve_bank]

As a general rule, you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into. There are exceptions to this among people's deconversion stories, but generally-speaking, the decline in religion can be attributed to the declining psychological need for religion.

If your endgame is to eradicate religion then you must produce a society where people can form an existential philosophy that is emotionally satisfying without resort to supernatural ideas. Humans need to be able to find purpose and a feeling that the universe makes sense. You don't need religion for that if people have prosperity, freedom and knowledge.

I understand your point. When I was here in the past I asked those who want to eradicate religion, what do you replace it with. Never got an answer.

I am not anti religion. Soviet and Chinese communism tried to eradicate religion and failed. It appears North Korea has an underground religion.

The North Korean regime IS a religion, with the three Kims as their holy trinity.

Stalin is still worshipped as a God in some parts of the former Soviet Union.

Totalitarian regimes oppose religion not because they want their people to be freethinkers, but because religions are rivals for the worship and obedience of the masses.

Anglican Protestantism started the same way; Henry VIII (and later Elizabeth I) opposed the Pope not because of any particular doctrinal argument, but because they wanted to be beholden to nobody as head of the church. It's all about power. It always was.

As usual you miss my point. For many people religion fills what appears to be a deep need. We are hierarchical by nature probably part genetics. As Campbell pointed out, the Abrahamic god is the ultimate alpha male. We see it in politics. Congressional republicans treat Trump as the alpha male and derive personal power from that.

Belief in the Abra-mic god mentally puts allegiance away from any Earthly power. Very satisfying to many.

People have been caught and jailed smuggling bibles into NK. There is likely a small underground community.

China gavbe up outlawing religion. They opted for making it a sate approved function. They presumed to select the next Dali Lama and Catholic clerics.

Religion can riot be ended.