• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

When you break it down: is atheism unappealing?

The term 'spirit' seems vague. It seems to me that the term spirit is metaphysical, and has no real definition. Its just chemistry.
How is it "chemistry?"

LIfe is nothing but chemical reactions. Interrupted the chain of chemical reactions, no more life.
Right, I get that. "Spirit" would seem to be something less than chemistry unless you're just talking neural chemistry.
What, exactly do you mean when you say 'spirit'
The word 'spirit' has several meanings. Some like describing alcohol or a group's enthusiasm make sense. However, for those who mean some 'essential' or conscious part of themselves that continues on after they die, it is a word describing the hope that they rely on to ease their fear of death.
In other words, a metaphysical concept that they can not accurately define, or show exists.
Not only can't define or show exists but have no rational reason to believe exists, only they really, really hope that it does. it's sorta like they believe that if they say it enough times it will come true.
 
Not only can't define or show exists but have no rational reason to believe exists, only they really, really hope that it does. it's sorta like they believe that if they say it enough times it will come true.
Right. At best it is an abstraction. Lots of spooky woo, at least in that religious sense. It's a ghost and ghosts aren't real.
 
You really don't understand the spirit? Aretha knew what spirit meant.
https://genius.com/Aretha-franklin-spirit-in-the-dark-lyrics
I-i'm getting the spirit in the dark
(Um-hum-hum)
I'm getting the spirit in the dark
(um-hum-hum)
People moving oh and they grooving
Just getting the spirit
(Um-hum-hum) in the dark
Tell me, sister, how do ya feel?
Tell me my brother-brother-brother
How do you feel?
A do you feel like dancing?
Get up and let's start dancing
Start getting the spirit
(Start getting in the spirit)
Spirit in the dark
(In the dark)

The spirit is the emotional side of life. It's what makes us wanna get up and start dancing. If anybody knew the spirit, it was Aretha.
 
Understanding what is being meant when people discuss Spirit, a pre-scientific term for to describe a very complicated concept, requires quite a lot of work.

There is a very complicated structure of communications, infrastructural systems, images, image interpreters, and other less easily comprehensible things like "stories" and "neural structures that exist in common configurations regularly impacted by such stories".

If you can look at the language of spirit, and then carefully, gingerly overlay your materialism to translate the words of the mystic into the words of an academic, it might dawn on more folks that there is an available compatibilism, assuming that the spiritualist can accept the slight 'offense' of being so crass as to say a fairy is a semi-shared hallucination generated by madness and stories and subtext between communications about it rather than a flesh and blood thing separate from and independent of humans who walks the world unseen, and would even were we no more
Not to mention the fact that it apparently doesn't stop at spirit 1. I would think that people who claim to have spirits must need to think about those spirits and whether they also have spirits to give their mundane spirit life some reality. Don't spirits ask "Is this all there is?" That's the logical progression anyway.
 
Understanding what is being meant when people discuss Spirit, a pre-scientific term for to describe a very complicated concept, requires quite a lot of work.

There is a very complicated structure of communications, infrastructural systems, images, image interpreters, and other less easily comprehensible things like "stories" and "neural structures that exist in common configurations regularly impacted by such stories".

If you can look at the language of spirit, and then carefully, gingerly overlay your materialism to translate the words of the mystic into the words of an academic, it might dawn on more folks that there is an available compatibilism, assuming that the spiritualist can accept the slight 'offense' of being so crass as to say a fairy is a semi-shared hallucination generated by madness and stories and subtext between communications about it rather than a flesh and blood thing separate from and independent of humans who walks the world unseen, and would even were we no more
Not to mention the fact that it apparently doesn't stop at spirit 1. I would think that people who claim to have spirits must need to think about those spirits and whether they also have spirits to give their mundane spirit life some reality. Don't spirits ask "Is this all there is?" That's the logical progression anyway.
So, imagine for a moment that "you" are going to be represented by a class structure, a software object.

Clearly you are not the whole thing as far as "awareness" goes. There are parts of you which you are not physically conscious of.

You are really a child class of the whole, with sibling classes within the parent. Some are more or less "friend" classes with accessible linkage between them but some are wholely private to one another, protected as it were by an absence of connection where it would need to exist.

You might expect most such things to be simple entities, like an shifter or an adder, or a simple transform.

Sometimes they are an idea of a whole person being inflated by your own capability of empathy into a personality that you can communicate with, talk to, and which thinks about things through a different physical structural "process" than the one that you experience as yourself.

Sometimes, that capability of empathy is for some fictional entity of formal description. When it is, it's called by those who use spiritualistic and mystic language as "fairy", or "angel" or "demon" or whatever else they may call the thing.

I call it as much only because "social/communication induced hallucinations" and "personality fragments" are a bit vague and don't really capture the significance of such experiences.
 
re-opening
 
Last edited:
Thread re-opened. Please cosider if you have a tangent topic to start a new thread for it.
 

Not an organized belief system, but it typically does come with a cascade of corollaries.
It's not consistent at all. It's often perceived as such but really isn't. The inverse set of "believes in god" is quite large and diverse (and leaves room for plenty of woo woo other than god...)
 
Thinking about this a little more, maybe there's also a reverse side to it: many find belief more fun.

Even for the secular it seems like we need some fantasy to airbrush a world that's actually pretty dull. Sports, music, film, art, collecting, drugs, sex, all things to distract from an otherwise not that interesting life. Maybe this speaks to why world religions have done such a great job at surviving, the storytelling is pretty appealing, almost magical.

There's a lot of toxicity involved, but I have to think there's many people who essentially prefer a story to the lack of one.
 
Thinking about this a little more, maybe there's also a reverse side to it: many find belief more fun.

Even for the secular it seems like we need some fantasy to airbrush a world that's actually pretty dull. Sports, music, film, art, collecting, drugs, sex, all things to distract from an otherwise not that interesting life. Maybe this speaks to why world religions have done such a great job at surviving, the storytelling is pretty appealing, almost magical.

There's a lot of toxicity involved, but I have to think there's many people who essentially prefer a story to the lack of one.
That's the thing though... You can have the fun and the story without the belief.

I've been doing it as much as possible all my life and things have gotten more fun, not less.

There is magic in there, and wonder, but it's all got to function in the space of the stuff we have, nonetheless.

I didn't need religion or belief to look at a tree in a garden and make a nice stick that I like walking with a lot... but people ask me if I am a wizard on occasion, and say they really like my stick and imply if I leave it laying around where they can see it that they will steal it.

The fact is I have no right to ask most people to believe me. I can't spend the time on most people to do it justice, so I don't tilt at those windmills.

At other times I stand as a windmill who is entirely myself such as to be tilted at by the incorrigible, mostly for amusement purposes.

I think we can take back fun from the lands of "belief" using the lever of materialist acknowledgement of neural entities.

Maybe then I might actually be able to discuss [redacted] in open forums with people who aren't going to go off the deep end and lie their asses off sewing disinformation rather than discussing how to test hypotheses, thinking that's what all the cool kids are doing.
 
Thinking about this a little more, maybe there's also a reverse side to it: many find belief more fun.

Even for the secular it seems like we need some fantasy to airbrush a world that's actually pretty dull. Sports, music, film, art, collecting, drugs, sex, all things to distract from an otherwise not that interesting life. Maybe this speaks to why world religions have done such a great job at surviving, the storytelling is pretty appealing, almost magical.

There's a lot of toxicity involved, but I have to think there's many people who essentially prefer a story to the lack of one.
That's the thing though... You can have the fun and the story without the belief.

I've been doing it as much as possible all my life and things have gotten more fun, not less.

Maybe for many the fun comes from both places, enjoying the fruits of science while also having a pleasant story on the side. Double the benefit.

I'm mainly thinking about the why, not the ought.
 
Thinking about this a little more, maybe there's also a reverse side to it: many find belief more fun.
At a funeral the believe can offer statements about the decedent being in a better place etc.

The atheist saying, "When you die you rot won't cut it."
Or maybe more aptly, Theists can pretend that the loved one is still currently around and they can be happy with what remains to be, where as the Atheist must accept the impermanence of life and be content with what was.
 
Thinking about this a little more, maybe there's also a reverse side to it: many find belief more fun.

Even for the secular it seems like we need some fantasy to airbrush a world that's actually pretty dull. Sports, music, film, art, collecting, drugs, sex, all things to distract from an otherwise not that interesting life. Maybe this speaks to why world religions have done such a great job at surviving, the storytelling is pretty appealing, almost magical.

There's a lot of toxicity involved, but I have to think there's many people who essentially prefer a story to the lack of one.
That's the thing though... You can have the fun and the story without the belief.

I've been doing it as much as possible all my life and things have gotten more fun, not less.

Maybe for many the fun comes from both places, enjoying the fruits of science while also having a pleasant story on the side. Double the benefit.

I'm mainly thinking about the why, not the ought.
Well, I can't say exactly why human brains grow off the vine umbilical with nodes that are highly compatible with "fairy ideation", and which, when presented stories about fairies, readily empathize those personalities into existence inside themselves.

I've seen a couple people who are properly Infested with a practical  swarm of fairies, for example.

They're absolutely real things: interactions between nodes of their very human brain and stories that they have heard and tell to others and themselves.

But if you exist as nerves in your head and as nerves in your head have access to the power of reification through action, these things can in fact have real power within that landscape of control over who you are and what you think.

Someone could even potentially sell themselves to such a structure, until who they were once is now equivalent enough to being the subordinate party in an anglerfish relationship (see also:  simp).

Not all these stories are pleasant and fun, after all. Some can be terrifying.

We can call these "neurosis" or "psychosis", but really that fails to capture the full depth of the reality in any useful way as to allow someone to navigate that bizarre battle of wills within their own mind, and the various forms people have tried to discuss across the eons. Really, neurosis describes the character of the "hole" that is being filled in the human mind but it fails to capture the various things that hole can be filled with, sometimes with gnostic intent.

We know that the things we can cram into those cracks in our minds are often recorded of in stories, like DNA sitting in a cell waiting for the protein of the human mind to start transcribing it into new chunks of that selfsame protein's structure.

Even so, this ideation is literally dependent on the aptly named "Tinkerbell principle" with regards to fairies: disbelief, or at least a lack of caring and thus a guaranteed lack of contribution to their activity within the network, causes atrophy and eventual pruning of such systems.

Thinking about this a little more, maybe there's also a reverse side to it: many find belief more fun.
At a funeral the believe can offer statements about the decedent being in a better place etc.

The atheist saying, "When you die you rot won't cut it."
How about "when you die, the enduring pieces of yourself that you have infected others with via the open channel of their freely offered empathy will survive, to be seen and treated as they saw you in life. To some you were a villain. To others you might have been a hero. To many more you were a mere cardboard cutout placed on the street. Some day someone may even tell the stories that allow such empathetic constructs to propagate to someone who has the same core neural structures which originated the wave, and thus cause partial re-instantiations of relationships that were originally unique in you while you lived."

It's all material.

Of course there COULD be some kind of "exit interview", assuming that the universe is a research project, but that's unlikely and unimportant. That other thing I mentioned, the propagation of bits of your (soul?) Through empathy and stories being told? That's quite real, and trivially so.
 
Thinking about this a little more, maybe there's also a reverse side to it: many find belief more fun.

Even for the secular it seems like we need some fantasy to airbrush a world that's actually pretty dull. Sports, music, film, art, collecting, drugs, sex, all things to distract from an otherwise not that interesting life. Maybe this speaks to why world religions have done such a great job at surviving, the storytelling is pretty appealing, almost magical.

There's a lot of toxicity involved, but I have to think there's many people who essentially prefer a story to the lack of one.
That's the thing though... You can have the fun and the story without the belief.

I've been doing it as much as possible all my life and things have gotten more fun, not less.

Maybe for many the fun comes from both places, enjoying the fruits of science while also having a pleasant story on the side. Double the benefit.

I'm mainly thinking about the why, not the ought.
Well, I can't say exactly why human brains grow off the vine umbilical with nodes that are highly compatible with "fairy ideation", and which, when presented stories about fairies, readily empathize those personalities into existence inside themselves.

I read a bit of Buddhism from a number of centuries ago recently, and the frankness was interesting to read. Basically, respect those who get it, feel sorry for those who don't. The assumption being that the Buddhist stream of thought actually gets you to the logical conclusion of understanding.

We're all trying to figure it out, some are able to move at a faster pace. Some stop because they like the view. Personally, I wouldn't call any type of belief a neuroses. It's just a thing that happens in the minds of people who don't think super clearly, and there may be some logic to not thinking clearly.

We all have a bias here because we're largely on the edge of the bell curve, but we're really the outliers.
 
Thinking about this a little more, maybe there's also a reverse side to it: many find belief more fun.

Even for the secular it seems like we need some fantasy to airbrush a world that's actually pretty dull. Sports, music, film, art, collecting, drugs, sex, all things to distract from an otherwise not that interesting life. Maybe this speaks to why world religions have done such a great job at surviving, the storytelling is pretty appealing, almost magical.

There's a lot of toxicity involved, but I have to think there's many people who essentially prefer a story to the lack of one.
That's the thing though... You can have the fun and the story without the belief.

I've been doing it as much as possible all my life and things have gotten more fun, not less.

Maybe for many the fun comes from both places, enjoying the fruits of science while also having a pleasant story on the side. Double the benefit.

I'm mainly thinking about the why, not the ought.
Well, I can't say exactly why human brains grow off the vine umbilical with nodes that are highly compatible with "fairy ideation", and which, when presented stories about fairies, readily empathize those personalities into existence inside themselves.

I read a bit of Buddhism from a number of centuries ago recently, and the frankness was interesting to read. Basically, respect those who get it, feel sorry for those who don't. The assumption being that the Buddhist stream of thought actually gets you to the logical conclusion of understanding.

We're all trying to figure it out, some are able to move at a faster pace. Some stop because they like the view. Personally, I wouldn't call any type of belief a neuroses. It's just a thing that happens in the minds of people who don't think super clearly, and there may be some logic to not thinking clearly.

We all have a bias here because we're largely on the edge of the bell curve, but we're really the outliers.
Well, it's not about belief being the neurosis read my post again and let me know where you think I'm calling the nerurosis a belief per se, and we can look closer at that
 
I'm going to preface this thread with the fact that these comments aren't an attack on atheism. Whenever something looking like a critique of atheism is presented at this forum, we seem to get a few defensive responses. So to be clear this thread isn't intended to promote religiosity by any means. It's just a quick thought experiment for your consideration.

A few months ago I was reading a title called The Sociobiological Imagination which discussed, in part, why the field of Sociology was hesitant to integrate hard evolutionary theory into it's own theories. I found the answer interesting, and I think it is very relevant to why religiosity survives in our world:

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
Although a little more nuanced, that was it in a nutshell. Between the two worldviews it's obvious which one would appeal to more people. So as Atheists, we're all obviously invested in the lack of God because it appeals to us, but when you break the problem down to it's basic elements we're trying to sell the religious a bit of a shithole. Their religion shields them from what is a cruel and indifferent world, they do not want to accept materialism because it isn't much of a cakewalk.
That's not a description of an atheist worldview. It's a theistic fantasy of an atheistic worldview.

If you're saying that religion survives in part because theists lie about atheists, then I agree with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom