Theists, do you understandatheists are fine without religiin?

[steve_bank]

For the theists, do you grasp the idea that us atheists are just fine without relgion? No afterlife. No creator. No god watching over us?

Or do you think you have something special no non believer can experience? Happiness ,joy, love, fulfillment, wonder.

 

[Treedbear]

For the theists, do you grasp the idea that us atheists are just fine without relgion? No afterlife. No creator. No god watching over us?

Or do you think you have something special no non believer can experience? Happiness ,joy, love, fulfillment, wonder.

Absolution.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not a traditional theist, but your question implies that you mean "non-religious", so:

For the theists, do you grasp the idea that us atheists are just fine without relgion? No afterlife. No creator. No god watching over us?

Or do you think you have something special no non believer can experience? Happiness ,joy, love, fulfillment, wonder.

Define "fine". Most people seem pretty miserable much of the time, regardless of their philosophical positions.

That said, I don't think "joy and wonder" require accepting a label, nor that atheists are ignorant of faith, community, mystic insight, or euphoria, superficially offended though many might be by the suggestion that there is anything religion-ish about their lives. It's very clear to me, dealing with young Zoomers all day long, that they have found a lot of ways to replace the emotional support and communal truth-making that religion used to provide, from fictional fandoms to political cults. I'm not concerned that religion, if defined by function rather than aesthetics, is in any danger of extinction, certainly not from atheism. The younger generation never believed in gods to begin with, but they aren't ignorant of them, they just find them in other places and call them by other names. The line between Jesus and Harry Potter is a thin one if you're looking at how they effect lives rather than ontological assertions, and even the latter line is blurry (observe how that fandom is suddenly at war with the author who ostensibly created it over who her characters "really" are and what they "really" stand for.)

Now, are you cut off from some experiences you might otherwise have? Of course. Spiritual forces are at work in your life, and you aren't able to see them clearly; a lot of things happen to you that you must not quite understand, or must put yourself through mental contortions to reframe in terms of science or logic or other aesthetically acceptable magisteria. And you're definitely cut off from other people and communities, and any experiences that you might have if you were building bridges instead of walls between yourself and others. Atheism is inherently philosophically conservative, and you suffer from many of the downsides of conservatism as well as the advantages. Social isolation and inability to practice syncretism are downsides, but on the other hand absence of distraction and dedication to certain core principles can also be great advantages. You're apt to do better at certain things, or pursuing certain fields, where a religious affiliation would only be a barrier to success.

 

[steve_bank]

I suppose the question is impossible to answer for the Christian. It can involve the negation of belief and self image.

 

[Politesse]

I suppose the question is impossible to answer for the Christian.

You just got two answers. Do you have reading troubles?

Or this one of those "statements disguised as a question" that are not intended to grow into a genuine conversation? If so, enjoy yourself. Autofellatio is a difficult trick to master, but as Scott O'Hara taught us, not impossible.

 

[Treedbear]

I suppose the question is impossible to answer for the Christian.

You just got two answers. Do you have reading troubles?
...

I for one am just a former Christian adding some perspective to the question. I found your input interesting though, especially here:

...
Now, are you cut off from some experiences you might otherwise have? Of course. Spiritual forces are at work in your life, and you aren't able to see them clearly; a lot of things happen to you that you must not quite understand, or must put yourself through mental contortions to reframe in terms of science or logic or other aesthetically acceptable magisteria. And you're definitely cut off from other people and communities, and any experiences that you might have if you were building bridges instead of walls between yourself and others. Atheism is inherently philosophically conservative, and you suffer from many of the downsides of conservatism as well as the advantages. Social isolation and inability to practice syncretism are downsides, but on the other hand absence of distraction and dedication to certain core principles can also be great advantages. You're apt to do better at certain things, or pursuing certain fields, where a religious affiliation would only be a barrier to success.

I've never considered myself as philosophically conservative, so I had to do a search on the meaning and found this interesting article in Areo Magazine:

Is Philosophy Conservative or Progressive? May 23, 2019, Matt McManus
... At the basis of these critiques is a belief that philosophy is disconnected from the concerns and needs of vulnerable people. Progressive critics of philosophy from Marx onwards emphasize that one cannot simply be content to interpret the world as it is, since the world is riddled with injustices and exploitation. To be useful, philosophy needs to keep one eye on the concrete world people inhabit, and demonstrate its value to the welfare of humanity as a whole. More often than not, philosophy is just a talking shop for the affluent and powerful, who debate highly technical epistemological matters, or analyze five different readings of Hegel in order determine whether he was a true idealist or a secret materialist. These are topics of esoteric interest, but they contribute little to, say, the provision of healthcare for all or the cause of women in patriarchal societies. Much progressive philosophy is centrally concerned with attempting to solve this dilemma. Many progressive philosophers suggest that there must be an immanent relationship between philosophical theory and the praxis of agitating for social change. ...

(My bolding.)
Which is what I believe. In fact a morally just society needs to be based in philosophy. I've come to atheism through philosophical inquiry. And my philosophy informs my progressivism.

 

[Politesse]

I for one am just a former Christian adding some perspective to the question. I found your input interesting though, especially here:

...
Now, are you cut off from some experiences you might otherwise have? Of course. Spiritual forces are at work in your life, and you aren't able to see them clearly; a lot of things happen to you that you must not quite understand, or must put yourself through mental contortions to reframe in terms of science or logic or other aesthetically acceptable magisteria. And you're definitely cut off from other people and communities, and any experiences that you might have if you were building bridges instead of walls between yourself and others. Atheism is inherently philosophically conservative, and you suffer from many of the downsides of conservatism as well as the advantages. Social isolation and inability to practice syncretism are downsides, but on the other hand absence of distraction and dedication to certain core principles can also be great advantages. You're apt to do better at certain things, or pursuing certain fields, where a religious affiliation would only be a barrier to success.

I've never considered myself as philosophically conservative, so I had to do a search on the meaning and found this interesting article in Areo Magazine:

Is Philosophy Conservative or Progressive? May 23, 2019, Matt McManus
... At the basis of these critiques is a belief that philosophy is disconnected from the concerns and needs of vulnerable people. Progressive critics of philosophy from Marx onwards emphasize that one cannot simply be content to interpret the world as it is, since the world is riddled with injustices and exploitation. To be useful, philosophy needs to keep one eye on the concrete world people inhabit, and demonstrate its value to the welfare of humanity as a whole. More often than not, philosophy is just a talking shop for the affluent and powerful, who debate highly technical epistemological matters, or analyze five different readings of Hegel in order determine whether he was a true idealist or a secret materialist. These are topics of esoteric interest, but they contribute little to, say, the provision of healthcare for all or the cause of women in patriarchal societies. Much progressive philosophy is centrally concerned with attempting to solve this dilemma. Many progressive philosophers suggest that there must be an immanent relationship between philosophical theory and the praxis of agitating for social change. ...

(My bolding.)
Which is what I believe. In fact a morally just society needs to be based in philosophy. I've come to atheism through philosophical inquiry. And my philosophy informs my progressivism.

I meant conservative in the sense of receptiveness to greatly differing ideas, not neccessarily political liberalism. I'm aware that atheists tend to be politically liberal. But when it comes to philosophy, the vast majority of metaphysically ideas that have ever been conceived of are dismissed as religiously tainted "woo", etc, and there's this feeling that in order to be judged valid, it must be within the rubric of an atheistic epistemology -- ie., it's okay to consider Buddhist ideas as long as they are "rational" or "scientific", but if they are "mystical" they should be bookended at the very least. It leads to a bit of tunnel vision, from an outside perspective. I respect science, I use science, it's my career. But it isn't my only standard of truth, and could never be.

So, like, a reasonably liberal-minded Christian might personally favor the idea that Scriptural teachings are a good thing to consider a priori, and they can also understand that the same might apply to the Holy Qur'an or the Gita, since even if they don't believe in those texts particularly, they get the general idea of divine or holy revelation and grasp the argument that is being made, able to take it seriously since it doesn't fall far from their own position. But an atheist who considered an argument from (any) holy scripture to be a valid line of reasoning would doubt herself and certainly be ridiculed by her atheistic peers. There is, to an atheist, only one standard of objective truth. This is more like the way conservative Christians or Muslims and so forth think about their epistemological assumptions.

 

[abaddon]

Atheism is inherently philosophically conservative...

... when it comes to philosophy, the vast majority of metaphysically ideas that have ever been conceived of are dismissed as religiously tainted "woo", etc, and there's this feeling that in order to be judged valid, it must be within the rubric of an atheistic epistemology...

The name of what you're talking about is positivism. Alternately, scientism.

Your error in characterizing atheism as inherently positivist or scientistic is a faulty generalization. You saw some black swans and concluded swans are black.

If ever you'd like to convey that not all christians are fundies , remember your own faulty generalization.

 

[Politesse]

Atheism is inherently philosophically conservative...

... when it comes to philosophy, the vast majority of metaphysically ideas that have ever been conceived of are dismissed as religiously tainted "woo", etc, and there's this feeling that in order to be judged valid, it must be within the rubric of an atheistic epistemology...

The name of what you're talking about is positivism. Alternately, scientism.

Your error in characterizing atheism as inherently positivist or scientistic is a faulty generalization. You saw some black swans and concluded swans are black.

If ever you'd like to convey that not all christians are fundies , remember your own faulty generalization.

Perhaps so. I'm aware that I'm making generalizations. Atheists are as easily herded as cats. If one wants to get technical, an "atheist" is only one who happens to lack a belief in god. But the OP obviously conceives of a much more expansive definition, someone who opposes all "religion". And if we desired to go Socratic, we would certainly find upon interrogating that person as to what they mean by "religion", and... well, you see where I am going, I should think.

Now, I do know how I would establish that not all Christians are fundies. I would either demonstrate the existence of non-fundamentalist Christians through evidence, or establish the logical possibility of such a person through logical argumentation.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I'm not a traditional theist, but your question implies that you mean "non-religious", so:

For the theists, do you grasp the idea that us atheists are just fine without relgion? No afterlife. No creator. No god watching over us?

Or do you think you have something special no non believer can experience? Happiness ,joy, love, fulfillment, wonder.

Define "fine". Most people seem pretty miserable much of the time, regardless of their philosophical positions.

That said, I don't think "joy and wonder" require accepting a label, nor that atheists are ignorant of faith, community, mystic insight, or euphoria, superficially offended though many might be by the suggestion that there is anything religion-ish about their lives. It's very clear to me, dealing with young Zoomers all day long, that they have found a lot of ways to replace the emotional support and communal truth-making that religion used to provide, from fictional fandoms to political cults. I'm not concerned that religion, if defined by function rather than aesthetics, is in any danger of extinction, certainly not from atheism. The younger generation never believed in gods to begin with, but they aren't ignorant of them, they just find them in other places and call them by other names. The line between Jesus and Harry Potter is a thin one if you're looking at how they effect lives rather than ontological assertions, and even the latter line is blurry (observe how that fandom is suddenly at war with the author who ostensibly created it over who her characters "really" are and what they "really" stand for.)

Now, are you cut off from some experiences you might otherwise have? Of course. Spiritual forces are at work in your life, and you aren't able to see them clearly; a lot of things happen to you that you must not quite understand, or must put yourself through mental contortions to reframe in terms of science or logic or other aesthetically acceptable magisteria. And you're definitely cut off from other people and communities, and any experiences that you might have if you were building bridges instead of walls between yourself and others. Atheism is inherently philosophically conservative, and you suffer from many of the downsides of conservatism as well as the advantages. Social isolation and inability to practice syncretism are downsides, but on the other hand absence of distraction and dedication to certain core principles can also be great advantages. You're apt to do better at certain things, or pursuing certain fields, where a religious affiliation would only be a barrier to success.

I may be unusual but I am inherently not miserable and it's a result of my philosophy although I suppose there is no way to be sure which is the result of which. I am also not a true atheist in the Scotsman sense although I see religion is an attempt to put the divine in a box and that the idea of God is just that, an idea and cannot be otherwise.

 

[Tigers!]

For the theists, do you grasp the idea that us atheists are just fine without relgion? No afterlife. No creator. No god watching over us?

Or do you think you have something special no non believer can experience? Happiness ,joy, love, fulfillment, wonder.

I accept you that consider yourself to be 'fine'.

 

[southernhybrid]

I tend to be a very happy person, and my atheism has nothing to do with that. I personally think that I inherited a tendency to be a lot like my mother, who oddly enough is a fundamentalist Christian. I think that basic optimism and pessimism are probably genetic traits, although environmental influences can also. have a huge influence on how happy or unhappy we tend to be. Of course, I've lived through very difficult times, a bad marriage, poverty, etc. The older I become, the more content I am. For me, happiness comes from love and giving. One can be a theist or an atheist to find happiness in caring for other, but of course there are many ways to achieve happiness if one has the inborn ability to experience it.

I really can't relate to what Politesse has said. I came to atheism through religion. I was never, even interested in formal philosophy, although I did enjoy reading a book on the philosophy of humanism, decades after realizing my atheism. When I left evangelical Christianity, at first I considered myself a liberal Christian who embraced the nicer parts of the Christian message. Then I tried to read books about other religions, while quickly rejecting them as they didn't make any sense to me. Finally, before I became an atheist, I married a Baha'i and since there were many elements of that religion that I embraced, like racial and sexual equality, world peace and all those nice hippy things, I simply was unable to accept the supernatural elements of the religion, no matter how hard I tried. And, it probably didn't help that my ex was a religious fanatic, who only cared about himself. It took me a long time to realize that. As with all belief systems, some Baha'is are wonderful people and others aren't.

The truth is that once I had my aha moment, when I came to terms that no gods existed, I had an experience that might be similar to what new converts to Christianity often claim they feel. I've never looked back or felt any remorse. In other words, when one believes they have discovered the truth, one often experiences an emotional reward, regardless if one is a religious convert or an atheist convert. I don't hate religion. It just doesn't work for me, unless it was something like Unitarians, which allow and respect each other's liberal beliefs, including atheism.

But, going back to genetics, it always amused me when I visited my parents and saw my mother's bookshelves were full of books on Christian apologetics, while my own bookshelves were full of books on social science, primatology and a few atheist books. I came to understand that we both were searching for truth but found different pathways. She was drawn in by the emotional appeals used in the conservative Christian ideology. I was looking for a more rational explanation of the universe.


I don't think religion, aka mythology will ever go away, and although religious beliefs have often caused wars, hatred, and cruelty, religious beliefs sometimes help guide people through life, give them a sense of purpose and a chance to find a supportive community. I have friends like that. They are very good people who love their church communities. They also love me, and I love them.

I always loved visiting the Atlanta Freethought Society for the same reasons that Christians love their churches. I understand the need for community that most humans have. It's harder for atheists to find such groups although I do have some atheist friends in real life from our little fragile groups. I say fragile because as the saying goes, it's hard to herd cats. Atheists tend to be introverts too, so we don't do a great job or organizing or finding people willing to lead a group, or take responsibility for keeping a group intact. But, we do have places like this and some of us have been here for a very long time.

 

[rousseau]

Yea it seems like there's often a kind of .. over-assurance involved in genuine belief. Feeling that one has a definite understanding of existence providing a psychological benefit takes a kind of feeling of righteousness. Those who do not believe in the things I believe - pity for them.

I don't blame those who end up in this kind of trap, because for the most part it's a positive experience for them. This is why I think many whose beliefs are only tenuous tend to try to block out the atheist argument - deep in their mind they may doubt, but they'd rather just push those doubts aside and enjoy the assurance of a benevolent, omniscient being. Being psychologically congruent is more desirable than an accurate understanding, and that's ok.

 

[Ruth Harris]

...I see religion is an attempt to put the divine in a box and that the idea of God is just that, an idea and cannot be otherwise.

Not to start a thread drift here, but that is very well stated. You might be surprised to learn that there are a lot of people who have faith in God that would agree with what you said. I am among those people. Religion and faith are two separate things.

Ruth

 

[Keith&Co.]

Or do you think you have something special no non believer can experience? Happiness ,joy, love, fulfillment, wonder.

Absolution.

Is that supposed to be a plus for the theists?
A belief that their every act in life, no matter their emotional state at tge time, hormonal balance, and general outlook due to their upbrining, is summed at their death to determine their posthumous disposition? Which may be eternal paradise, but may not. Not if they turn out to worship the wrong god, or the right god in the wrong way, or right god, right way, but forgot to atone for one or more sins, OR any of their predecessors, unto the 7th generation, was a bastard and they're punished for it as scripture promises?

To the best of my knowledge, the universe cares not one whit about me or my actions, positive or negative. My guilt ends with me, as does my glory. My crimes might have a lasting effect, but the 'sin' is contained. I go nowhere after this, and need no intercessor for a blind, blithe universe. My only fear at death is my browser history.

 

[Politesse]

I am also not a true atheist in the Scotsman sense although I see religion is an attempt to put the divine in a box and that the idea of God is just that, an idea and cannot be otherwise.

Indeed. This is much why I do not consider myself a traditional theist.

 

[abaddon]

Now, are you cut off from some experiences you might otherwise have? Of course. Spiritual forces are at work in your life, and you aren't able to see them clearly; a lot of things happen to you that you must not quite understand, or must put yourself through mental contortions to reframe in terms of science or logic or other aesthetically acceptable magisteria. And you're definitely cut off from other people and communities, and any experiences that you might have if you were building bridges instead of walls between yourself and others. Atheism is inherently philosophically conservative, and you suffer from many of the downsides of conservatism as well as the advantages. Social isolation and inability to practice syncretism are downsides, but on the other hand absence of distraction and dedication to certain core principles can also be great advantages. You're apt to do better at certain things, or pursuing certain fields, where a religious affiliation would only be a barrier to success.

Of these several items from that one paragraph...

1) spiritual forces at work in atheist lives invisible to them
2) things happen to atheists they must not quite understand
3) the contortions atheists put themselves through to reframe lots of things in terms of science
4) atheists are definitely cut off from other people and communities (in a way, I guess, different from what other groups do??)
5) atheists building walls instead of bridges (with what "others" that are themselves bridge-building people, I wonder??)
6) social isolation
7) inability to practice syncretism
8) atheism is inherently philosophically conservative

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

Thanks

 

[rousseau]

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.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I am also not a true atheist in the Scotsman sense although I see religion is an attempt to put the divine in a box and that the idea of God is just that, an idea and cannot be otherwise.

Indeed. This is much why I do not consider myself a traditional theist.

Yeah, I kinda got a feel for your positions on SC. I think we may have some similar views but I tend to let myself fall in the atheism camp just because the word theos is fraught with unwanted baggage.

What I am not is an ontological materialist. When atheism is used as synonymous, then i don't fit. But ontology is a subtle and personal issue and not very interesting in many respects so it's easier to just call myself an atheist in most cases.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

...I see religion is an attempt to put the divine in a box and that the idea of God is just that, an idea and cannot be otherwise.

Not to start a thread drift here, but that is very well stated. You might be surprised to learn that there are a lot of people who have faith in God that would agree with what you said. I am among those people. Religion and faith are two separate things.

Ruth

I'm not sure what faith really means beyond some kind of vague hope that the stuff beyond individual control works out on its own. But thank you for the nice thing you said.