Theists, do you understandatheists are fine without religiin?

[Testy Calibrate]

I assumed it was a reply aimed at steve_bank, rather than atheists more generally. I find some of those points are true for the more militant type of atheist / materialist. A kind of smugness that is diametrically opposed to that coming from the theist.

As for atheism more generally, it really doesn't need to be a philosophical position at all. To me that seems to be what comes from the majority of atheists - lack of belief in God but absolutely no more thought put into it than that.

That tends to be a more tolerable way of doing things.

 

[steve_bank]

I assumed it was a reply aimed at steve_bank, rather than atheists more generally. I find some of those points are true for the more militant type of atheist / materialist. A kind of smugness that is diametrically opposed to that coming from the theist.

As for atheism more generally, it really doesn't need to be a philosophical position at all. To me that seems to be what comes from the majority of atheists - lack of belief in God but absolutely no more thought put into it than that.

There is no singular atheist. An atheist can be any number of things.

 

[steve_bank]

Spiritual forces, cosmic spirit, all the same kind of mysticism.

 

[Politesse]

Of these several items from that one paragraph...

1) spiritual forces at work in atheist lives invisible to them


... could we maybe see a couple examples of #1?

I meant that religious people often have dealings with all manner of spiritual forces and persons; gods, spirits, angels, jinn, the sensation of the tao, mana, etc. While atheists aren't necessarily incapable of having such experiences and conversations, they are much less likely to, and are apt to respond to such experiences by attempting to disprove the testimony of their own senses. At the very least, this is going to widen a social gulf between atheists and other people, and if there is any reality behind such experiences an atheist would be particularly disabled in comprehending that reality. Atheists, too, tend not to dabble in intentional magical practices. They might, and I have known some atheist magical practitioners, but very few if any who self-identified as "atheists", so much as being Pagans or Satanists who happened to lack a belief in God(s). So that's a whole other major fragment of the human experience that one might not realize is even there, absent conscious practice.

 

[James Brown]

While atheists aren't necessarily incapable of having such experiences and conversations, they are much less likely to,

Really? Why not?

and are apt to respond to such experiences by attempting to disprove the testimony of their own senses.

I would suspect that disproving a thing is more difficult than believing a thing. Why go to the extra trouble?

 

[Politesse]

While atheists aren't necessarily incapable of having such experiences and conversations, they are much less likely to,

Really? Why not?

A good question. It seems, looking frankly at the data, that we have more control over what we do or do not perceive than most people realize or are comfortable acknowledging. By and large, we encounter the world we expect to encounter, with only occasional unexpected intrusions to upset the apple cart of our consciousness.

I would suspect that disproving a thing is more difficult than believing a thing. Why go to the extra trouble?

Because we already have beliefs, and they are often balanced against one another to build something of a cohesive worldview. If a new experience contradicts the inertia of most of your other beliefs, you are highly motivated to rationalize it away. Say, to take a non-atheist example, that a conservative Christian wakes in the early morning one day having received through her dreams a oracular message from the Goddess Juno, telling her to leave her abusive husband. Is it easier for her to accept the new message and rip apart almost all of her other beliefs about what exists in the universe and how to decide what one must do in society, or to assume that "Hera" is a in fact a disguised demon like pastor warned about in last week's sermon, and therefore virtuously discard the advice? In most cases, people would rather rationalize away an outlier that got through the screen than question the whole screen.

If dismissing unexpected experiences and personal encounters were as hard to do as you suggest, I suspect the entire world would look very different. Humans are great recontextualizers, we live our lives as characters in a narrative only partially of our own making, and that narrative always comes with a built-in defensive mechanism. There is almost no perceptive experience a committed Christian cannot dismiss fairly readily as a demonic encounter, or an atheist as a hallucination, or a Buddhist as a construct of the disordered mind, etc. When I was doing my graduate research on conversions and vocational experiences, I noted that a lot of my informants had indeed converted or radically changed their lives in response to unexpected spiritual encounters that they could not, for whatever reason, put out of their mind. But they also seemed to be the exception case, and their inability to accept the "standard explanation" for their uncommon encounter often delved a massive rift between themselves and their old friends and kin networks

 

[James Brown]

Maybe I misunderstood. You originally stated (I'm paraphrasing) that "religious people have spiritual experiences, but atheists are far less likely to." I was wondering why the difference, i.e. a genetic component? From your follow-up, it sounds like your speaking about biases. A person who firmly believes in religious phenomena is far more likely to interpret an event as a spiritual one compared to a skeptic.

And where do our biases come from? From our social influences, our education, our emotional life, etc.

So when you originally said to stevebnk:

Spiritual forces are at work in your life, and you aren't able to see them clearly

Were you talking about independent objective events? Or were you talking about subjective interpretations of them?

abaddon asked you for an example or two, and I don't think you provided any.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Of these several items from that one paragraph...

1) spiritual forces at work in atheist lives invisible to them


... could we maybe see a couple examples of #1?

I meant that religious people often have dealings with all manner of spiritual forces and persons; gods, spirits, angels, jinn, the sensation of the tao, mana, etc. While atheists aren't necessarily incapable of having such experiences and conversations, they are much less likely to, and are apt to respond to such experiences by attempting to disprove the testimony of their own senses. At the very least, this is going to widen a social gulf between atheists and other people, and if there is any reality behind such experiences an atheist would be particularly disabled in comprehending that reality. Atheists, too, tend not to dabble in intentional magical practices. They might, and I have known some atheist magical practitioners, but very few if any who self-identified as "atheists", so much as being Pagans or Satanists who happened to lack a belief in God(s). So that's a whole other major fragment of the human experience that one might not realize is even there, absent conscious practice.

The power of assigning a word to a feeling is a two way street. It also obscures by drawing boundaries.

 

[Politesse]

I was wondering why the difference, i.e. a genetic component?

This strikes me as very easy to rule out, given that religious affiliations do not reliably correspond to genetic descendency. This has been established by going on a century of study into culture and inheritance. Religion is a partially cultural, partially individual phenomenon that occurs in an explicitly social context.

So when you originally said to stevebnk:

Spiritual forces are at work in your life, and you aren't able to see them clearly

Were you talking about independent objective events? Or were you talking about subjective interpretations of them?

I suppose the latter, since the former seems impossible to me. What would an "objective observer" of supernatural phenomena even look like? I explicitly try to maintain an agnostic reference frame when encountering religious ideas, but even I would not be so foolish or deluded as to imagine that I am without bias in this regard. It's like having an objective perspective on gender, or language, or sexuality; when it comes to universal social experiences, we are awash in bias whether or not we would like to be.

I don't see what is so complicated about the idea that specific examples would be necessary. Perhaps:

• Speaking to deities
• Receiving help from angels or fending off demonic attacks
• Perceiving fundamental Oneness with the universe
• Seeing or hearing the dead
• Communicating with the "spirit" of a plant or animal
• Participating in divination
• Receiving supernatural warnings against an action
• Changing the basic pattern of one's thoughts through meditation on a sacred text
• Being granted premonitions of a future event
• Being granted special insight into the "true meaning" of an event
• Leaving one's body and "traveling" to another location or dimension
• Becoming possessed by a supernatural entity
• Performing or receiving miraculous healing

In all cases, an atheist might well experience those things at an unexpected moment, but they would feel a very strong impulse to re-frame them in a non-supernatural light in order to protect their predisposed views on religion and mysticism, and they also have such experiences far less often to begin with. They aren't daily realities, or a deeply enmeshed component of the social interactions with fellow atheists.

Again, I am using "atheist" here in the sense that the OP uses it, to refer to someone who consciously rejects all religion, not merely someone who happens lack a belief in deities.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

According to your definition there, I am a strong atheist. I don't think it is a good way to frame it. The words are too vague. There is a materialist perspective and other perspectives. I can pretty solidly reject all religions' claims regarding attempts to pin down the divine with words.

There are no gods in the sense of sky people who created our universe and who are interested in human appeals. That doesn't mean that some other model is correct though. Models are how we frame things and are all faulty and none are reality in the sense of reflecting a true ontology. They are either useful or not.

 

[steve_bank]

I am a strong atheist, I am up to lifting 25 pound weights for 45 reps on each arm.

To me ots binary. You are theist or atheist.

Agnostics are fence sitters. I am not theist but maybe there is something....

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I am a strong atheist, I am up to lifting 25 pound weights for 45 reps on each arm.

To me ots binary. You are theist or atheist.

Agnostics are fence sitters. I am not theist but maybe there is something....

Meh. I'm not agnostic at all. Maybe I should just call myself a mystic to confuse everyone.

 

[Politesse]

I am a strong atheist, I am up to lifting 25 pound weights for 45 reps on each arm.

To me ots binary. You are theist or atheist.

Agnostics are fence sitters. I am not theist but maybe there is something....

Certainty, in the absence of facts, is no virtue.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I am a strong atheist, I am up to lifting 25 pound weights for 45 reps on each arm.

To me ots binary. You are theist or atheist.

Agnostics are fence sitters. I am not theist but maybe there is something....

Certainty, in the absence of facts, is no virtue.

Are you referring to faith?

 

[Politesse]

I am a strong atheist, I am up to lifting 25 pound weights for 45 reps on each arm.

To me ots binary. You are theist or atheist.

Agnostics are fence sitters. I am not theist but maybe there is something....

Certainty, in the absence of facts, is no virtue.

Are you referring to faith?

I'm referring to certainty in any matter where the truth cannot be known.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't understand people who say that we can't be sure about the non existence of gods. There is no evidence for any supernatural creatures other than the imaginative things that our brains do to make us think that we've seen a vision, or heard the voice of an angel or something else similar.

I don't care what other people believe as long as the beliefs are positive and unifying, and while I don't understand everything there is to know about the universe, I just can't find any rational reason to think that there are supernatural creatures in existence. Furthermore, I don't think a god would care what we believe either, if such entities existed. The universe and nature are amazing in themselves, without introducing any supernatural elements.

So, Politesse, I ask respectfully for you to explain this to me. If there is something wrong with saying that I'm certain that no gods exist, do you think that it's also wrong to say that I'm certain that no garden fairies exist? Or are you agnostic when it comes to garden fairies too? Just because we've never seen garden fairies certainly doesn't mean that we can be certain that they don't exist. I see no difference between the belief in other little creatures that we humans have invented, then I do in the belief in gods.

I'm 70 years old. I searched for god during my childhood and early adulthood before I realized that my search was in vain. I studied various religions. I prayed for guidance. I was open minded and seriously seeking truth. It was an interesting ride, sometimes stressful and frustrating, but when I came to the end of that road, I felt relieved of the cognitive dissonance that had haunted me since early childhood. The truth had set me free.

I've decided this week that my mythology is going to be that God is Love, or Love is God. I use the term god as a metaphor, not as a term to describe an actual entity. Love is the only thing that unites us and inspires us to do good things for others. Love is what bonds us together, and lack of love is what divides us. It's a myth to believe that love will ever unite the entire world, but it's a myth that I like. Sometimes we fail at giving love and other times we will feel an emotional high from giving or receiving love. So, it's a myth to believe that love is all we need, but it's a positive myth that doesn't hurt others.

. And, let me add that religion and the belief in gods are two very different things. I have no doubt that there are some atheists sitting in the pews of churches. In fact, I have met at least 3 of them. They loved some of the aspects of the Christian message, and they loved the community that church offered them. They just didn't take any of it literally. I get that. Many Unitarians are atheists. If there was a UU fellowship in my city,, I'd give it a try, but I don't have that option. Religion is one thing. Literally believing in religious mythology is something else.

 

[Politesse]

I don't see gods and garden fairies as similar "claims" actually, but neither belief offends me. Nor do I think there is anything "wrong" with being an atheist, why would there be? Just because we disagree about something doesn't mean we have to bash each other until one of is proven right and one wrong. Please note that I described both what I see as the strengths and the weaknesses of the atheist position in my initial response to the OP. Just because I do not concede the unassailable correctness of your philosophy does not mean I find it intolerable, and I don't.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I have been to our local UU church a few times. The sermons have been mostly excellent and I've never felt any kind of faith requirement. It's a very humanist thing in my experience.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't see gods and garden fairies as similar "claims" actually, but neither belief offends me. Nor do I think there is anything "wrong" with being an atheist, why would there be? Just because we disagree about something doesn't mean we have to bash each other until one of is proven right and one wrong. Please note that I described both what I see as the strengths and the weaknesses of the atheist position in my initial response to the OP. Just because I do not concede the unassailable correctness of your philosophy does not mean I find it intolerable, and I don't.

I agree that we can disagree without an malice. My post wasn't meant to be insulting. I have always been pleased that you decided to hang out with us atheists. In fact, I see Christians like you as allies even if we don't agree on all the details.

I was just expressing why I find it difficult to understand how people can believe in a god. And, to me, garden fairies are in the same category as gods. I love garden fairies. I have a tiny statue of one inside my foyer, along with some gargoyles. I love gargoyles too and I wish they could keep the evil spirits away, but I'm afraid nothing can keep evil away, but sometimes love helps.

I even have a statue of St.Francis in my garden area because he loved birds. Or so the story goes. For all I know, that's a myth too.

 

[Politesse]

It is said that St. Francis knocked holes in his chapel so the horses outside could witness the adoration of the Host along with the rest of the congregation, if they so chose. It's amazing such a man managed to found such a dour order as the historical Franciscans turned out to be! Though such monks as I have met in the present seem to be more in the mindset of their founder, thankfully! And studious. The course I took on logic down at the Franciscan school in Berkeley is one of the few classes that managed to make me feel like the dumb one in the room.