When you break it down: is atheism unappealing?

[Shadowy Man]

I'm not an atheist because I find it appealing. It is just what makes sense to me based on everything I have learned and experienced in this world.

Exactly. It's like any other lesson learned based on observation and experience. It's not a big deal, except to religious people who think they have a god.

My observation and experience led me to atheism, but my experience of the world is, viscerally, very similar to those who believe in God. I know the world around me is material and can be mathematically modeled, but I don't feel like it's intrinsically empty of meaning, just an arbitrary 'nothing' which we assign whatever we want to.

You'll scoff, but that's what we call directly experiencing the divine. If you don't see it, that's fine.

But what I'm getting at is that there is a kind of logic and correctness to God belief. That doesn't mean there literally needs to be a guy with a beard, just people with a vague perception of the mystery of the world around them. For them it's easier to understand the mystery by giving it a concrete label and ontological system.

If you want to talk about hard material facts and why, mechanically, a God can't exist, you're missing the point entirely, imo.

I may be missing *your* point, but that doesn't bother me.

If there actually exists *intrinsic meaning* as you suggest then an atheist might wonder from where this intrinsic meaning arises and what is meant by "meaning" if it is used in a non-subjective manner.

In case it wasn't clear, I was replying to T.G.G. Moogly, and not you.

But sure, you can still explore that meaning, and maybe if we take this logic to it's conclusion we decide that the universe is an arbitrary nothing. And that's fine. But what I'm getting at, is that the logical conclusion of reason isn't really nihilism, it's positivism, and the recognition that the world and our lives are ultimately a mystery tied up with a good amount of beauty, joy, and pleasure.

Those who are religious have a sense of this, but they give it concrete labels. Buddhists / Non-Dual Hindus experience it directly.

What I'm getting at is that by attacking theism, we're attacking an arbitrary label that is actually a placeholder for a real, human experience. To the hard atheist it's a cold game of logic, while missing the forest for the trees.

Sorry if I misread your post with respect to the target of your response.

I agree that atheism doesn't necessarily mean nihilism, though many atheists may come to that conclusion for themselves. I do not. But I also do not believe that whatever meaning we may find in life isn't an intrinsic quality of reality that exists independent of our interaction with reality. I believe that there indeed do exist experiences that can be considered "spiritual", but that these are emergent properties of our own consciousness. Things like joy, beauty and pleasure may indeed be *subjective* in that they aren't absolute properties of an external universe, but that does not mean that they aren't real things that we as humans experience.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I'm getting at is that by attacking theism, we're attacking an arbitrary label that is actually a placeholder for a real, human experience. To the hard atheist it's a cold game of logic, while missing the forest for the trees.

But religious experiences are generally self-induced and filtered. Any natural experience in the world or event is feng shui, our literally reaction to our environment, without filters. That is real.

Religious experiences are tainted with presumption or desperation. Religious experiences have to be explained after the fact. It reminds me of "footprints in the sand". Your footprints were gone... oh no... I was carrying you. No... you wear flip flops those weren't flip flop prints!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problems of the theoretical Judeo-Christian concept of God are evidence that God does not exist.

An agnostic is simply someone who has not thought this counter evidence about theological claims to their logical conclusions.

I find it frustrating that so many atheists cannot get past the Abrahamic image of god.
The many and varied images of "bumbling Sky King with superpowers" are not the only conception of the Divine. They're among the most primitive images. Even many Abrahamic religionists aren't as attached to that primitive god as many atheists.
Tom

Yes,there are many varieties of gods to consider. All fail in the end. But the numerous versions of the Judeo-Christian God are the major are the source of the pest religions of America. If Christinity was not so in everybody's face we would care as little about it as say, Wiccan. Therefor that God needs debunking. Yes,theists wiggle, and wriggle to explain away these embarressing little God problems. Some, like WLC make a living trying to do it. We have vast swarms of Xian apologists trying to explain all these problems away. Yes, little Atheist, when the Bibles claims X it does not really mean X. "If you have read the works of Saint Bumbles of Paris, or Saint Gooficus, the doctor Incomprehensibilis, you would know this."
Having read more ancient theology than is good for a human brain, and debated apologists on the net than I can count, I can safely say I have done due diligence as far as God goes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sure sounds like god and divine are emotional experiences in humans.

I guess a religious person would claim that those experiences are not possible without a god, that they are more than emotions, that god is revealing itself to you. If so, show me your god. Show me your divine.

 

[abaddon]

What I'm getting at is that by attacking theism, we're attacking an arbitrary label that is actually a placeholder for a real, human experience. To the hard atheist it's a cold game of logic, while missing the forest for the trees.

I agree. It can be a placeholder for that. I know people who call consciousness "God". They venerate it and consider it the ground of being and it's sacred to them. Right or wrong isn't the point here (though, personally, I won't pretend to know that they're wrong). The point is that the christocentric atheist's focus on Jehovah-esque beings doesn't cover all the varieties of "possible gods".

I think a common atheist response to an idea like that is the very one I used to make until recently: "But that's not a REAL god". But ALL words are arbitrary labels; all language is a social convention. People tend to think a word somehow captures the essence of a thing. But even Jehovah isn't inherently a god, he's a god for no other reason than there's a tradition of using that word that way. Atheists can ask "what do you mean by god?" but cannot rightly say "let me tell you what it means!" unless (like is often the case) they're forcing religions into christocentric shapes that'll fit their christocentric criticisms.

 

[abaddon]

Are divine and god supposed to be the same thing?

My answer to that would be no. "Divine" means "to do with god". So it's related to God, but not synonymous. If "God" is a placeholder term for what's of the most ultimate value in all existence, then "divine" is to do with that value. So you're getting a taste of that out in nature when you feel more or less 'one' with nature. Don't want to call it a god? Fine... so don't. If the word "divine" evokes images of the bearded man in the sky then, fine, don't use it. I don't like it either and would have said "sacred" instead of "divine" and would say "nature" instead of "God".

What's of interest to me (and it seems like it's some interest to @rousseau) is THE GIST of what religions get at. If we skip the gist of what religionists are getting at, and insist that the way they say things must be exactly accurate and scientifically true, then it's easy to slice and dice their posts and feel like we've "defeated" them. It's easy to miss something of potential value there if that's the only thing we're doing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Are divine and god supposed to be the same thing?

My answer to that would be no. "Divine" means "to do with god". So it's related to God, but not synonymous. If "God" is a placeholder term for what's of ultimate value in all existence, then "divine" is to do with that value. So you're getting a taste of that out in nature when you feel more or less "one" with nature. Don't want to call it a god? Fine... so don't. The word "divine" still evokes images of the bearded man in the sky? Ok, then don't use it. I don't like it either and would have said "sacred" instead of "divine" and would say "nature" instead of "God".

What's of interest to me (and it seems like it's some interest to rousseau) is THE GIST of what religions get at. If we skip the gist of what religionists are getting at, and insist that the way they say things must be exactly accurate and objectively true, then it's easy to slice and dice their posts and miss the point but feel like we've "defeated" them. It's easy to miss something of value in them if that's the only thing we're doing.

So you are saying there is more than human emotions and human experiences involved?

 

[abaddon]

So you are saying there is more than human emotions and human experiences involved?

Sometimes there are real things they're pointing at but it can be hard to see it.

 

[rousseau]

But religious experiences are generally self-induced and filtered. Any natural experience in the world or event is feng shui, our literally reaction to our environment, without filters. That is real.

Religious experiences are tainted with presumption or desperation. Religious experiences have to be explained after the fact. It reminds me of "footprints in the sand". Your footprints were gone... oh no... I was carrying you. No... you wear flip flops those weren't flip flop prints!

Sure, but that people don't think clearly is likely a feature of our nature, not a bug. Basically you can choose to denigrate and invalidate the experience these people are having, or not. Personally, I prefer to validate than spend my life complaining about how 'irrational' everyone is.

It's a bit tangential, but I have a young sister-in-law who isn't great at thinking for herself. Not necessarily religious, but clearly living a life that is clouded in illusion. Years ago I decided that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, and to go where she is, versus trying to make her go where I am. Personally, I've found that approach a lot more fulfilling.

Which I think comes back to the point that if politics and religion were completely separated, nobody would rightly care what others believed. It just wouldn't matter, and it would be a lot easier to passively accept.

 

[bilby]

An agnostic is simply someone who has not thought this counter evidence about theological claims to their logical conclusions.

That is true but the question is how it occurs. The same evidence yields two different outcomes, two different conclusions about what the evidence demonstrates in two different individuals. That can only be the result of something internal to the processor and its programming. What exactly is a "divine spark?" For someone who processes information dispassionately it's recognized as nothing more than just a bunch of woo. For someone who processes their environment through different channels dominated by different priorities it's the result of some important command in the program.

It strikes me that it’s an evolutionary thing. Humans are tribal animals, and the development of a strong inclination to accept what we are told by those in authority, rather than questioning it, is fairly strongly selected for in that situation. We are also just animals, and they tend to be selected for rapid decision making over accurate decision making; It’s often better to be wrong than to be slow.

Neither is completely dominant though; Tribal species do better with a certain number of mavericks who challenge for leadership rather than submitting to it, and getting the wrong answers quickly is sometimes not as effective for survival as getting the right answers slowly.

Authoritarianism, oversimplification of complex problems, and a tendency to jump to conclusions on inadequate evidence, are the core traits you would expect from most members of a species of moderately intelligent tribal (but not eusocial) animals; And you would also expect to see these traits vary quite significantly between individuals within a given population.

These are the core traits of religious belief, and, if you add inertia against change, and low empathy for tribal out-groups, they are the core traits of right-wing political beliefs too.

It’s hugely unsurprising that many humans are strongly religious, or that they find change of belief very difficult (even to the point of changing only superficially, while clinging to the axioms of their childhoods), or that they are willing to go along with both fascism and genocide.

It’s very encouraging that we appear to mostly be sufficiently intelligent to overcome those traits given only a few generations of exposure to the idea that we need not be imprisoned by these genetic legacies.

 

[bilby]

...conception of the Divine.

What exactly is that?

I believe a drag queen.

Heh.
Must be nice to be a part of the woke ideological bubble.

“I hope some day you will join us,
And the world will live as one”

- John Lennon, Imagine

 

[bilby]

I recognize that atheism is the most likely correct answer.

I also recognize that there's no way to prove that, only to disprove it.

That depends on your standard of proof.

Philosophers will (correctly) point out that “you can’t prove a negative”, but in doing so they are talking about absolute proof, of the kind beloved of mathematicians.

But most of human existence is predicated on the much less demanding “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this second, much lesser kind of “proof” that we use when we cease to gaze at our navels; And it’s good enough for negative claims such as “The Moon is not made from cheese”.

The existence of gods, based on our observations of reality, falls somewhere below the Selenotyroic Hypothesis in terms of plausibility.

That is to say, if your response to “The Moon is made of cheese” is to say “No it’s not, that’s ridiculous, we have proven it to be false”, then as it is even better evidenced that gods don’t exist, than it is that cheese isn’t a major component of lunar structure, it’s even more ridiculous to respond to the god claim as though it were worthy of consideration, than it would be to respond to the Selenotyroic Hypothesis with ‘I am agnostic on this question’.

You can’t “prove the negative” that the Moon doesn’t contain cheese as a major component. You are still batshit crazy if you are agnostic on this question, though.

 

[bilby]

I'm not an atheist because I find it appealing. It is just what makes sense to me based on everything I have learned and experienced in this world.

Exactly. It's like any other lesson learned based on observation and experience. It's not a big deal, except to religious people who think they have a god.

My observation and experience led me to atheism, but my experience of the world is, viscerally, very similar to those who believe in God. I know the world around me is material and can be mathematically modeled, but I don't feel like it's intrinsically empty of meaning, just an arbitrary 'nothing' which we assign whatever we want to.

You'll scoff, but that's what we call directly experiencing the divine. If you don't see it, that's fine.

But what I'm getting at is that there is a kind of logic and correctness to God belief. That doesn't mean there literally needs to be a guy with a beard, just people with a vague perception of the mystery of the world around them. For them it's easier to understand the mystery by giving it a concrete label and ontological system.

If you want to talk about hard material facts and why, mechanically, a God can't exist, you're missing the point entirely, imo.

I may be missing *your* point, but that doesn't bother me.

If there actually exists *intrinsic meaning* as you suggest then an atheist might wonder from where this intrinsic meaning arises and what is meant by "meaning" if it is used in a non-subjective manner.

In case it wasn't clear, I was replying to T.G.G. Moogly, and not you.

But sure, you can still explore that meaning, and maybe if we take this logic to it's conclusion we decide that the universe is an arbitrary nothing. And that's fine. But what I'm getting at, is that the logical conclusion of reason isn't really nihilism, it's positivism, and the recognition that the world and our lives are ultimately a mystery tied up with a good amount of beauty, joy, and pleasure.

Those who are religious have a sense of this, but they give it concrete labels. Buddhists / Non-Dual Hindus experience it directly.

What I'm getting at is that by attacking theism, we're attacking an arbitrary label that is actually a placeholder for a real, human experience. To the hard atheist it's a cold game of logic, while missing the forest for the trees.

On the contrary, theism attempts to hijack a response that’s both enjoyable and wonderful, and at the same time has exactly fuck-all to do with their claims.

“Without religion you cannot have meaning or a sense of wonder” makes exactly as much sense as “Of course there’s a silicon heaven. Where else would the calculators go?”.

We don’t need any baggage tied to our placeholders for inexplicable awe. It detracts from the reality, it doesn’t add to it.

 

[bilby]

But religious experiences are generally self-induced and filtered. Any natural experience in the world or event is feng shui, our literally reaction to our environment, without filters. That is real.

Religious experiences are tainted with presumption or desperation. Religious experiences have to be explained after the fact. It reminds me of "footprints in the sand". Your footprints were gone... oh no... I was carrying you. No... you wear flip flops those weren't flip flop prints!

Sure, but that people don't think clearly is likely a feature of our nature, not a bug. Basically you can choose to denigrate and invalidate the experience these people are having, or not. Personally, I prefer to validate than spend my life complaining about how 'irrational' everyone is.

It's a bit tangential, but I have a young sister-in-law who isn't great at thinking for herself. Not necessarily religious, but clearly living a life that is clouded in illusion. Years ago I decided that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, and to go where she is, versus trying to make her go where I am. Personally, I've found that approach a lot more fulfilling.

Which I think comes back to the point that if politics and religion were completely separated, nobody would rightly care what others believed. It just wouldn't matter, and it would be a lot easier to passively accept.

Sure, but they aren’t.

So it becomes our social and political duty to refuse to give any respect to religion and religious belief, unless and until those beliefs are completely removed from the political arena.

Belief isn’t worthy of respect. People are, but (despite the claims of the major religions), people are not their beliefs, and nonsensical beliefs are not harmless.

 

[rousseau]

But religious experiences are generally self-induced and filtered. Any natural experience in the world or event is feng shui, our literally reaction to our environment, without filters. That is real.

Religious experiences are tainted with presumption or desperation. Religious experiences have to be explained after the fact. It reminds me of "footprints in the sand". Your footprints were gone... oh no... I was carrying you. No... you wear flip flops those weren't flip flop prints!

Sure, but that people don't think clearly is likely a feature of our nature, not a bug. Basically you can choose to denigrate and invalidate the experience these people are having, or not. Personally, I prefer to validate than spend my life complaining about how 'irrational' everyone is.

It's a bit tangential, but I have a young sister-in-law who isn't great at thinking for herself. Not necessarily religious, but clearly living a life that is clouded in illusion. Years ago I decided that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, and to go where she is, versus trying to make her go where I am. Personally, I've found that approach a lot more fulfilling.

Which I think comes back to the point that if politics and religion were completely separated, nobody would rightly care what others believed. It just wouldn't matter, and it would be a lot easier to passively accept.

Sure, but they aren’t.

So it becomes our social and political duty to refuse to give any respect to religion and religious belief, unless and until those beliefs are completely removed from the political arena.

Belief isn’t worthy of respect. People are, but (despite the claims of the major religions), people are not their beliefs, and nonsensical beliefs are not harmless.

I think's that's why we see so many Americans bent out of shape about it. I get it, but the experience of having to fight religious dogma is completely foreign to me.

In Canada, most hot-button religious issues are non-starters politically, even our Conservatives won't touch them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've always likened being raised in a religious home to being in kindergarten or first grade. You learn structure that carries along all these cultural values that are the important things you learn. Naturally when you get older structure and organization are still important components of your life but you hardly need kindergarten structure everyday or ever again. You've grown up. Be an adult. Do you still venerate Santa and await his return on the winter solstice? No. Many of us still would if it was popular with adults because that's how we're wired.

In the end atheism is freedom and many people are afraid of freedom. They need structure imposed upon them. Maybe agnosticism is pretending there is still a kindergarten kind of structure ordering your life. It's just warm and comfy with good memories. and that freedom that is having no personal responsibility for anything. It's not the same as outright theism but retains a bit of theism.

 

[Rhea]

The argument went something like this:

Acceptance of evolutionary theory

• The world and your life is intrinsically meaningless other than what you assign to it
• Anything negative that happens to you is primarily random and indifferent
• Your well-being is entirely up to you, and if you fail it's because you failed / aren't skilled enough
• When you die you will cease to exist. When your friends die they will cease to exist

Belief in God

• Everything you see and feel was designed / has purpose
• Anything negative that happens to you happened for a reason and can be justified
• Your well-being is in someone else's hands, and failure is ok
• You'll never lose your life or friends and family

It s interesting to start off the thought exercise knowing that there’s an imbalance in the equations. I felt as I read this that the lsit of the “aceptance of evolution” was the straw man of it that religionists believe that we believe - not what we really believe.

To wit:

Anything negative that happens to you is primarily random and indifferent
Your well-being is entirely up to you, and if you fail it's because you failed / aren't skilled enough

These are incompatible. First they say it’s randome then they say we blame ourselfs. But I don’t agree that atheists think that. It’s what religionists feel, not what atheists feel. When random things happen to us, WE know they are random. We get that. We don’t immediately launch self blame. Sometimes random bad obstacles happen. We don’t move to guilt and self doubt. Fixing random bad things is up to us if we can or want to. But they are not our fault.

So atheism is of course unappealing to the people who are fed a doctrine that atheism is unappealing; wouldn’t we all agree with that?

But **atheism** is not unappealing. The religious straw man of atheism is unappealing.
(By design)

Sure, but that people don't think clearly is likely a feature of our nature, not a bug. Basically you can choose to denigrate and invalidate the experience these people are having, or not. Personally, I prefer to validate than spend my life complaining about how 'irrational' everyone is.

That is some you can do without negative consequence when….

I think's that's why we see so many Americans bent out of shape about it. I get it, but the experience of having to fight religious dogma is completely foreign to me.

In Canada, most hot-button religious issues are non-starters politically, even our Conservatives won't touch them.

So it costs you nothing to “ validate than spend my life complaining about how 'irrational' everyone is.”
Wait till they start passing laws that outlaw you.

You may find yourself refusing to validate.

 

[rousseau]

So it costs you nothing to “ validate than spend my life complaining about how 'irrational' everyone is.”
Wait till they start passing laws that outlaw you.

You may find yourself refusing to validate.

Maybe 'bent out of shape' was poor phrasing. Like I said.. I get where Americans are coming from, but I do try not to overstate how important discussion at IIDB is. Sometimes it's nice to just have a pleasant conversation about an interesting topic, without the pretense of 'change'.

And in the original post I'm pretty clear that I'm not attempting to validate the religious mindset. The post you're referring is more about intrinsic respect, than anything else.

 

[Rhea]

I do get that, and I apologize for the detour - I don’t want to derail a conversation. But I was interested in it evven more with a level playing field for the premise.

 

[rousseau]

It s interesting to start off the thought exercise knowing that there’s an imbalance in the equations. I felt as I read this that the lsit of the “aceptance of evolution” was the straw man of it that religionists believe that we believe - not what we really believe.

To wit:

Anything negative that happens to you is primarily random and indifferent
Your well-being is entirely up to you, and if you fail it's because you failed / aren't skilled enough

These are incompatible. First they say it’s randome then they say we blame ourselfs. But I don’t agree that atheists think that. It’s what religionists feel, not what atheists feel. When random things happen to us, WE know they are random. We get that. We don’t immediately launch self blame. Sometimes random bad obstacles happen. We don’t move to guilt and self doubt. Fixing random bad things is up to us if we can or want to. But they are not our fault.

I think it's more of a question of the religious ideology in opposition to the lack of one. God belief provides a type of psychological cover that's not available to the atheist. We have our own hacks too, but religion is a pretty available, and immediately obvious solution to hardship. Where the lack of religion just looks like a competitive, lonely struggle to a lot of people.

That doesn't mean you're wrong about the Atheist position, but I think that's largely how it appears to believers. Which explains why religion is such a comfort, why so many turn to it when they face problems, and why it appeals.

For example, I have a younger cousin whose life is an absolute mess. Both of his parents are alcoholics, he has fetal alcohol syndrome, and his employability has been borderline his whole life. At one point a few years ago he turned to, and found a lot of comfort in, Christianity. Somehow this made his life acceptable. Right or wrong, I can't envision trying to convince him that he shouldn't hold on to those beliefs. There is no other real comfort in his life.