What aspects of the atheist religion do you like/dislike?

[L2R]

^makes perfect sense to me.

I'd only not hold as much sway from emotions.

 

[qwe]

ahint, what about the possibility that your brain did all of that on its own? if our brains can make us feel the extremes of emotion and sensation that we feel, and it can trick us into believing people are with us when they are not; if we can induce an experience of god/jesus with electrodes and with drugs; then do our brains have the power to make reality *seem* magical in that way? "naturally..."

when in reality, we have the capability of "taking the reins" of our brains and perception, with the goal of self actualization (which can be reached far better when we've consciously recognized and taken over the cognitive mechanisms we previously attributed to god).

"having a relationship with god" (much of the language of your post, and most theists, could use a psychiatrist, imo) could simply be communicating with a relatively unknown part of your own mind. and if there is something "out there" (communication with something in another dimension, for example) it's still part of the universe (not metaphysical) and aliens (and a whole lot of other things) have a much higher probability of existing than a personified deity perceived/written by humans.

 

[ahint]

qwe, thanks for your reply. I've already stated my theism is definitely not logical, which is why I don't attempt to convert anyone else etc, so in essence I agree with everything you've just said. (I know, I sound like such a contradiction!)
I do not believe in a creator as such nor do I conform to any religion - as said, I believe God is so far beyond human understanding that He could simply be a higher expression of my own consciousness and beauty, but I don't feel right identifying as Pantheism as I also believe that if I follow Him (which, as said, could simply be my own intuition) He will lead me along the right path. I choose to have a relationship with God (who emotionally I believe in, almost blindly because it IS purely emotional), because it brings me happiness and comfort and hurts nobody else.

EDIT: Just because I acknowledge it's not logical for me, doesn't make it any less real for me. I think God is an incredibly personal thing.

 

[Psyduck]

ahint, what about the possibility that your brain did all of that on its own? if our brains can make us feel the extremes of emotion and sensation that we feel, and it can trick us into believing people are with us when they are not; if we can induce an experience of god/jesus with electrodes and with drugs

I've never understood the materialistic/neurological argument against such experiences. Of course is it our brain that induces such reactions, what else would it be? But that's like saying love is the "same" as eating chocolat because it induces the same pleasure-chemicals in the head. This "category mistake" goes back to Descartes' dualism and the primacy of primary observations (bits of matter) over secondary (qualia). The later is not "reducible" to the first, both are not even "equatable" because they are different "categories." That's like rejecting the "yelowness of the sun" because one only finds bits of matter. Experience is INCARNATED in the material flesh. Don't ask me how, I don't know.

 

[ahint]

^ Exactly... In a sense that He is so beyond my understanding that of course the only way I'm going to be able to experience Him is through my own emotions, experiences, thoughts etc. I don't expect anyone else to feel the same way though.

 

[ebola?]

I know the mods are tough in this forum, but just b/c you disagree with me I feel this thread has merit and shouldnt be deleted.

FFS! The only reason we'd close this topic is because it is a repeat, and people should use the search function to avoid retreads of discussion. Your persecution complex is unwarranted, particularly given your apparent penchant for trolling.

Also, I don't consider atheism a body of belief, but rather a rejection of another set of beliefs (the latter usually ill defined). Your atheist caricature sure sounds like a prick, but is it relevant?

ebola

 

[Dave]

There is a fascinating book that came out recently, called: On being Certain. I'd recommend that anyone who is interested in the question of what sets religion apart from non-religious fables give it a read.

In short: the sensation of 'being sure' of something is an exclusively emotional response, and as such is by definition irrational. The propagation of religion relies upon this, either by training it into children or other vulnerable people. The surety of religious experience in the absence of any external proof is a side effect of the same response used to reinforce learning, albeit taken to an extreme.

The author explains it far better than I do, and with far more primary sources too.

As an atheist, I would consider atheism as the simple lack of belief in any deities. Personally, I would extend that to supernatural phenomena as well, but that lies outside the scope of atheism proper, although there is often a lot of common ground between the two worldviews. Questions of morality, history etc... are irrelevant. One can be purely good or purely evil (or as much as either of those exist as anything other than abstractions) with or without religion: one would simply make use of a different set of rationalizations. One might argue that one worldview has more shortcuts for rationalizing certain behaviours (e.g. slavery being considered OK biblically), but that doesn't mean that any worldview has a monopoly on any behaviour, good or bad.

 

[Nagelfar]

In short: the sensation of 'being sure' of something is an exclusively emotional response, and as such is by definition irrational.

I wrote the following on such an idea, months ago:

Assurance is satisfying and the very reason to why confirmation is sought; the goal of satisfaction drives one to be sure of a fact, rather than to have a fact confirmed. Driving those of hope and faith to bypass the logical use of confirmation to whatever end in a bid to simplify and ultimately to relegate oneself to facing an untested doubt rather than a tested one. That is to leave open whatever gulf of possibility for their wanted outcome rather than to what maybe would be to work against the last vestiges of that specific hope's own current territorial reach by quarantining what remains to its sphere as unchecked.

The crux of the dichotomy is that for certainty to be attained truly it must be not assurance itself but rather confirmation, as it has the all encompassing quality of standing as a fact were it either satisfying or nonsatisfying and outstripping any reliance upon other alterior precepts contingent to assurance: here one precept being, paradoxically, satisfaction itself. The action taken under such pretenses effectively being the placing of the verification outside of ones own self for the neutrality purpose of omitting a bias arising from in oneself from occurring, while making a legitimate and purposed analysis of what is an external to ones own internal understanding's consideration. Though that assurance would be seeking confirmation to achieve its own answer outside of what would be its native dynamism, and instead having confirmation's. It would be as if the method of assurance was presupposing in such venture what for all intent was different than itself, from within itself, and would put as a result confirmation into a mode that must be indifferentiated from assurance in the specific instance for which it was to deviate from self identification.

Therefore confirmation's mode must always be the nonsatisfying and could then never satisy assurance's aims. The externality of the possibility for confirmation in such externalness being therefore what must not be the same to the self is putting oneself into the power of a foreign windowless monad that shall never yield a law pertinent to the necessities that are required of the self. The logic of confirmation is a grasping way for what is already had in full for where it is originated as a method without regard to what exact origin it ever may be. Meaning whichever self in question so doing. However, assurance and confirmation followed to completion in their respective modes rather than being put over to the power of one for the ends of the other, both to the same issue at the same time, may be understood to yield opposing results but both be used for their former rational and latter empirical outcomes and thusly then establish methodologies, for to act in one mode to satisy and the other one to comport with further interactions when crossed.

Confirmation innately can never make the self happy by its very natural laws of what it means to be confirming, and assurance of anything projected out from you will never pose any use to the world at large. Too however, as the paradox mentioned earlier if assurance is put over to confirmation without supposition, then it is the private laws of confirmation that answer for assurance in which leaving the internal dynamics of the laws of assurance abandons satisfaction for satisfactions sake, and on its first volition before the logic takes to having confirmation's nonsatisfying answer always prevail if so sought. This shows the congruency between all closed systems of windowless monads which does make them appear to be so windowed and acting in the interest of another if put in the power thereof. When however it is simply the pure act of separated systems as they are wholly autonomous to fit as they are enumerated in the greater scheme that has its own unperturbing laws itself as such without having any for the range of lawed systems whether if construed as subordinates or not to a conceived plane of collegiality among untouching rules of differed operating principles.

I think that "confirmation" is 'assured object', and "satisfaction" is 'assured subject'. Creating a closed circle. Satisfaction can only be an ends in itself, but confirmation is needed to make satisfaction real.

 

[keeprollin123]

i dont know if its been said or not but i feels like a lot of atheists a just so fucking arrogant sometimes. but people who believe can also be pushy, if im talking religion
with people it seems the agnostic people are the easist people to talk to IMO

 

[Nagelfar]

i dont know if its been said or not but i feels like a lot of atheists a just so fucking arrogant sometimes. but people who believe can also be pushy, if im talking religion
with people it seems the agnostic people are the easist people to talk to IMO

I'd say agnosticism is really just a detached and open manner of communication more than a belief, a belief in a methodology to belief but not belief itself.

To profess to be agnostic can really either mean one believes but does not intend viable rationale for proselytizing, or does not believe but does not harbor any truth to a utility possible for disproving.

 

[qwe]

In short: the sensation of 'being sure' of something is an exclusively emotional response, and as such is by definition irrational.

could our cognition be inherently emotional? emotions aren't just an "extra layer" added to our thoughts/experience, i think they are very integrated with our "rational" idea-making.

In short: the sensation of 'being sure' of something is an exclusively emotional response

i don't know why i'd feel "absolutely sure" about anything, and i never really do (unless it's something irrational). but i feel levels of probability with different thoughts, and i think i can go about ascertaining these probabilities rationally. and some thoughts are designated 99% probable, which i suppose is basically belief.

then again, i did read RAW's prometheus rising a bit early. that may have influenced how i believe things

 

[Pegasus]

could our cognition be inherently emotional? emotions aren't just an "extra layer" added to our thoughts/experience, i think they are very integrated with our "rational" idea-making.

Yep, I totally agree. Rationality can only exist within an emotional context, IMO.

 

[MrM]

Who is "right" is a matter of opinion and their opinions are no more valid, or better, than a religious persons imo.

This is about as clearly and demonstratably wrong as anything ever.

If i think that i have enough of an understanding of gravity etc that stepping of a 500m cliff face will kill me, that may be my opinion, but it also has a firm basis in reality. You could test for it experimentally (using a cow or something so you'd be alive afterwards to observe the results) or you could just use the theory to work out what is likely to happen to a large living organism when it hits the bottom of a cliff at terminal velocity.

Now you may be mistakenly under the opinion that throwing cows off 500 meter cliffs is fine (for example). It might be part of your religion or you might just be a bit strange (difference?).

Do you now understand why under certain circumstances some people's opinions ARE more valid that other people's?

Some people's opinions are more valid that others. That's why if you are hiring someone to do your stocks you hire a stockbroker. If you need surgery you find yourself a doctor. If you want to understand science talk to a scientist (ideally lots of different scientists) because their opinions WILL be worth more than some layperson in the street who's read the bible or some preacher with a religious agenda.

 

[Lazyscience]

dislike the trendiness that currently surrounds it

if you let fashion dictate what you believe then youre a bit stupid

They're suggesting that their beliefs are somehow of higher quality because they are based upon what they believe is right

the only belief is there is no reason to believe in any god or supernatural. theres never been one single piece of evidence to suggest the existence of these. i think, technically, we all have to be agnostic about god though because we cant disprove his existence.

Aside from that their arrogance

what is arrogant about simply saying that we just do not know all of the mysteries of the universe? if anything, religions are arrogant because they claim to know things that we just cannot know.

don't they understand that a religious person can truly believe that they are right?

yes atheists know this and it is pretty scary. anyway believing you are right and being right are totally different.

Who is "right" is a matter of opinion

nope, i surely dont need to say more.

 

[TheAppleCore]

Atheism really irritates me, because it's generally completely negative. Almost every self-proclaimed "atheist" I have ever heard or seen, has been focused entirely on shooting down, undermining, and ridiculing other belief systems. Which, IMO, is utterly pointless! You don't change people's beliefs by telling them how stupid they are.

Any real spirituality or worldview should be an affirmation, not an attack.

 

[Daikomyo]

My problem with existential claims about the nature of reality - whether they are theist or atheist based - is that the proposer often assumes an overriding correctness, or that his view is somehow separate from anyone else's.

Think about the idea of God for a moment (whether or not you actually believe in this being/force). What is a cornerstone characteristic of God? That he (she/it) is infinite. Well, if he is infinite, then you are part of him. Yet you think you are separate and different. Are you part of the Universe, or are you not? You are. So all this individualistic mumbo jumbo about who is more correct ultimately does not matter. You are connected right now, at all times. No middle man (religion or atheism) is necessary. This as good as it's going to get. The Old Testament talks about Hell simply being the absence of God. Well, if God is infinite and you are part of Him now, then how can he be absent? The answer is: your ego creates the illusion that you are separate. The debate between theism and atheism is a false duality - neither has any relevance to the truth. They are both projected ideas of an ego that isn't real, though it tenaciously wants to be. Hence we have conflict, war, and people trying to be superiorly correct all the time.

One evening in Berlin, Einstein and his wife were at a dinner party where a guest expressed an interest in astrology. Einstein ridiculed the notion as pure superstition. Another guest stepped in and similarly disparaged religion. Belief in God, he insisted, was likewise a superstition.

At this point, the host tried to silence him by invoking the fact that even Einstein harboured religious beliefs.

"It isn't possible!" the skeptical guest said, turning to Einstein to ask if he was, in fact, religious.

"Yes, you can call it that," Einstein replied calmly. "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."

 

[MrM]

"Yes, you can call it that," Einstein replied calmly. "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."

I think that's a pretty vacuous definition of religion and many people who state themselves to be non-religious or atheist would agree with the sentiments expressed by Einstein above, simply because they are so open ended and non specific in terms of venerating 'that which we find ourselves existing within without a complete understanding of'.

I don't think Einstein was quite so signed up for christianity, organised religion or God in any commonplace sense of those ideas as proponents of those ideologies would have the rest of us believe.

 

[Daikomyo]

I think that's a pretty vacuous definition of religion and many people who state themselves to be non-religious or atheist would agree with the sentiments expressed by Einstein above, simply because they are so open ended and non specific in terms of venerating 'that which we find ourselves existing within without a complete understanding of'.

I don't think Einstein was quite so signed up for christianity, organised religion or God in any commonplace sense of those ideas as proponents of those ideologies would have the rest of us believe.

Who says that Einstein was trying to define religion for everyone, for all times? I think he was just talking about himself, in reference to his own spirituality.

It's not very atheist or secular to have veneration for a force that cannot be measured or proven, is it? I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just wondering why it's not okay (according to some atheists) to believe in something called God, yet it's okay to believe in a background force which governs all of us, and is perpetually beyond our comprehension?

Einstein was not into organized religion, no... and that wasn't really the purpose of why I posted what I did.

 

[Daikomyo]

This is about as clearly and demonstratably wrong as anything ever.

If i think that i have enough of an understanding of gravity etc that stepping of a 500m cliff face will kill me, that may be my opinion, but it also has a firm basis in reality. You could test for it experimentally (using a cow or something so you'd be alive afterwards to observe the results) or you could just use the theory to work out what is likely to happen to a large living organism when it hits the bottom of a cliff at terminal velocity.

I think you overestimate the "basis of reality".

All studies I have read on neuro cognition and perception of the world revolve around the brain taking raw data, processing and filtering it, and then projecting an image of that data into itself, which is then experienced. In other words, when you look at a rose, your brain has to inwardly project that rose, and your entire experience of the rose is based on that. There is no "objective" outside. This means that every person looking at the same rose will have a different experience of that rose, because everyone's life experiences that have brought them to that moment will be different.

Then add a psychedelic to the picture like LSD. Suddenly gravity isn't such a simple matter anymore, is it? A lot of things are going up and down in that state of mind. Sometimes I have felt stuck to the ceiling even though I am lying on the floor - or sometimes I can't tell which is which.

This reality you speak of... it's just a state of projected mind. We can relate across the divide with language, but words are filled with presumed meanings as well, since language is also a projected experience. It's why humans disagree so much - we don't transmit ideas as well as we wish we could. The fact that we can communicate at all is miraculous!

Given that... I don't agree that it's possible to objectively judge opinions as being worth or less than others. I can appreciate you saying so from your perspective, but it's one in a sea of many and it's not possible to derive objective value outside of the system of mind.

 

[MrM]

Who says that Einstein was trying to define religion for everyone, for all times? I think he was just talking about himself, in reference to his own spirituality.

Most religious demagogues since he died.

It's not very atheist or secular to have veneration for a force that cannot be measured or proven, is it? I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just wondering why it's not okay (according to some atheists) to believe in something called God, yet it's okay to believe in a background force which governs all of us, and is perpetually beyond our comprehension?

Einstein was a Jedi?

But seriously, aren't unknown forces affecting us part and parcel of physics and science. Gravity itself would be a good example of this. All those bits we haven't worked out yet. And the universe is infinite so there's likely to be plenty to keep us occupied in this category.

It's the difference between the search for understanding through questioning of reality in all it's detail (known and mysterious) and veneration for an unproven god.

All studies I have read on neuro cognition and perception of the world revolve around the brain taking raw data, processing and filtering it, and then projecting an image of that data into itself, which is then experienced. In other words, when you look at a rose, your brain has to inwardly project that rose, and your entire experience of the rose is based on that. There is no "objective" outside.

You are confusing our perception of reality with reality. There is a simple test you can do to distinguish one from another. Find yourself a high enough cliff and jump off with the perception that reality is completely different and flat.

Then add a psychedelic to the picture like LSD. Suddenly gravity isn't such a simple matter anymore, is it? A lot of things are going up and down in that state of mind. Sometimes I have felt stuck to the ceiling even though I am lying on the floor - or sometimes I can't tell which is which.

You must have some kind of intuitive understanding that one experience is closer to objective useful reality than the other. Otherwise we'd get more reports of people trying to fly out of windows or peel themselves like oranges under such states of mind.