Why am I an atheist?

[GeorgeK]

This is a very good question, CD. It ties exactly to the differences between us in what constitutes 'definition', 'proof' and 'acceptable hypotheses'.

I'd like to respond to it, but not when you're irritated and swinging. Also I shouldn't continue if you don't believe I'm doing so in good faith. (Good faith and integrity all we have in this rarified medium.)

This has been a very interesting, informative and stimulating discussion. I thank you sincerely for it.

Let's take a break and perhaps, if you wish, come back to it another time.

Regards and respects,

Ruv.

Am I the only one who was actually looking forward to reading a debate? I'm about 1-2 posts from putting Ruv on ignore, and I'm kind of liberal, well that depends on the comparison. I'm left of Jerry Falwell and right of that guy who was right of that other guy....does anyone have a napkin to wipe up the drool?

[Autodidact]

Well, God. That's the one and only difference. The word was coined in the 16th century; at the time, nobody really believed in all these other entities. The one and only entity in which belief was common was the monotheistic Judeo-christian God. Indeed, that's the only entity in which belief was acceptable. They were killing everyone else.

The word is well-defined. The problem is that you don't like the definition. Surely you didn't mean nobody. Maybe, nobody in Europe? Cuz I'm pretty sure that Hinduism is older than that.

That and the bit of history important to us Jews that just believing in our friend Yahweh wasn't good enough--you had to accept his baby boy as your own personal savior as well. And of course even that didn't necessarily save you, if you failed to do it right.

[Autodidact]

Please, if you would, explain how my lack of belief in the deities I mentioned is somehow not representative of world thought.



That would be the prevailing opinion in a world where the majority of people believe in God. Like, say, this one.



Who are the prevailing religious group in the world.

Why, exactly, are you complaining that I'm defining atheism against a frame that is the socially prevailing worldview? Isn't that exactly what I ought to be doing? Your opening statement implies that it is.



The word "atheism" dates back to the 16th century, when the overwhelming majority of the literate world was christian. I suggest that it has undergone less evolution, and that its underpinnings are by definition judeochristian. If you don't like that, perhaps it is the wrong word.



Likewise, atheism has had a lot of other properties attached. These are not essential qualities of atheism, any more than the properties you name are essential qualities of God.

(I'm assuming your list of questions is rhetorical, and you don't really expect answers. If I'm incorrect in this assumption, let me know, and I'll answer them.)



Question #1 is too specific.

"Do you believe that at least one transcendent entity may exist which may have been responsible for creating some aspects of existence?"

I believe that if you answer "no" to that question, you must by definition be an atheist. Indeed, I don't believe it's in any way unfair to demand that you restrict your answer on that question to "yes" or "no".

There is then a second question:

"Do you believe that at least one transcendent entity does exist which is definitely responsible for creating some aspects of existence?"

If you answer "no" to this question but "yes" to the preceding one, you are an agnostic.

Note that answering "yes" to both questions does not make you a monotheist. Nor, indeed, does it make you a theist at all.

The remaining questions you ask are not really about God, but about religion. #5 isn't even relevant. There may be a purpose to human existence entirely independent of the existence of God. It exists purely to ask other questions that relate such a belief back to God.

Imagine we were talking about a human being. "Does Bob exist" is a very simple question, which can be very simply defined. "Is Bob a carpenter" is also a very simple question, which can be very simply defined. But the failure of Bob to be a carpenter doesn't mean Bob doesn't exist, no matter how many people believe he's a carpenter. The questions are independent. If a person cannot believe Bob exists if Bob is not a carpenter, that person is simply irrational.



God can be well-defined. There is a fundamental core concept. What frustrates atheists about this is that once you nail down that core concept, they lose a great many of their favorite tools to argue against it.

Well yes, but asserting that Bob doesn't exist only makes you an a-Bob-ist. Atheists are not just a-Yahwehist, they're a-theist.

What is the core concept of God? For me, defining that (for myself) was what helped me understand that there is no such thing, at which point I realized that I was an atheist.

[Autodidact]

I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply not requiring any particular answer.



You can't seem to make up your mind.

If I define very specifically and very clearly what God is, then God is not well-defined because not everyone agrees on it.

If I define very broadly and generically what God is, then God is not well-defined because it doesn't really mean much of anything.

In essence, you're making an impossible demand. That isn't a problem with God, or with me, or with religion. It's with your question. Or maybe with the concept of God.

[Autodidact]

Aaaaand here we have "let's establish what ordinary means".

I must be psychic! Either that, or God told me this would happen... right? How else could I know what you were going to do?



Then why is it that you ask a question about a "transcendent entity", and when I clarify what kind of transcendent entity we need to be talking about, you start demanding that I define "transcendent entity"?

If "transcendent entity" isn't a good definition, why did you use it? I only used it because your usage implied it was acceptable to you. Why is it suddenly not acceptable?



Omitted: "Religious" means "concerned with religion". A statement about religion is, by definition, a religious statement.



Incorrect: I never said an opinion of God is a theistic opinion.



This is simply false. The Encyclopedia Britannica quite clearly states that some atheists prefer a broader definition of atheism, because atheism is a disbelief in God and many other things.

This implies that some atheists disbelieve in God, but may not disbelieve in the larger framework. A definition of all atheists must necessarily account for this. Insisting that I define it only in its most restrictive sense disenfranchises those atheists, which is unfair.

Indeed, wouldn't you be complaining about this very thing if I defined atheism exclusively under your terms? After all, that would be discussing your views rather than world views.



I don't believe you. I think you're pretending not to know, so you can change the definition whenever it suits you.



I never said that. I said God can be well-defined, if you make an effort to do so.



Not only did I never say this, it actively contradicts my beliefs. If God is real, then He's a part of reality.



Since I didn't say anything about being outside reality, let's not go with that at all. Instead, let's replace this fiction with something closer to what really happened:

Ruv: If you ask a theist these N questions, they'll all give you different answers.
CD: You don't have to ask all these questions. You only have to ask a more specific version of this one. The overwhelming majority of theists will answer "yes" to that question, and no atheist will answer "yes" to it.



What, pray tell, is the difference between a "fiction" and a "hypothetical"?



I'm not propagating any belief. I'm simply asserting that theism can be a rational belief system consistent with observable reality. The existence of theism which is not such a belief system is irrelevant. You might as well claim that the Copernican theory is false because the Aristotelian model isn't proven.



There is rather a large difference between someone's inability to give you a definition, and your refusal to accept a definition.

I gave a perfectly good definition, and you demanded that I define a word you chose. If you don't know what the word means, don't use it.

If I follow your logic (questionable) then beliefs about the non-existence of God are atheistic beliefs and since you (I think) disbelieve in the non-existence of God you have an atheistic belief, is that right? Religion is therefore an atheistic belief. Do you find this mode of analysis helpful?

[Melisande]

However (to illustrate my point), most modern theologies wouldn't accept either of us being hurt as an excuse not to love. They'd say: forgive and try harder.

And their devout do.

But many atheists (maybe most?) don't.

The doctrine of forgiveness has its origin in theistic thought, but is immensely powerful in (for instance) trauma recovery. It's a powerful secular tool, but most of the knowledge in how to wield it lies among our sectarian subcultures. In rejecting the religion as benighted, perhaps we atheists are also rejecting some valuable cultural tools too.

Do you know many (or any atheists) who are skilled at genuine forgiveness? I don't, but I know a lot of consummate grudge-hoarders. If you want to learn how to forgive properly, I'd say: don't talk to the average atheist. Talk instead to an old Jewish rabbi, or a sixty year-old Catholic nun rape survivor... those guys typically run rings around us.

It's not pleasant to hear that our own subculture has poor values. I don't like the idea any more than you do. However, I can see evidence that this is true and I've yet to see evidence that it's not. And if I'm going to believe that atheism somehow improves people, it had better be on more solid criteria than just...

...faith. :tongue

I'm not quite done reading through all the posts in this thread yet, but I really feel that I would like to respond to this before I continue reading... (and please bear with me if it gets long...but this is something I feel very strongly about and I hope I will be able to explain it right)

As a non-believer (don't really like the word atheist) I am often met with the argument of forgiveness. My response is always the same. To try and clarify I often present my argument in two parts;

First; I think that the concept of forgiveness is basically a religious concept; as in "To err is human, to forgive Devine". The very implication of the word is to place judgement, i.e. God is good - you are not. He will forgive you, though, out of His goodness and because you can't help being a sinner (after all -at least in Christianity everyone is born a sinner)... Since God is not present, He has a representative on Earth to make the decision of wether to forgive or not. It has even gone so far that absolution can be bought - even pre-bought. But that's another story.

Anyway, the whole concept has evolved to the point where the words "I forgive you" have become almost prostituted. And to me they sound almost smug, they sound like "I know that I have the right to place judgement over you, I know you did something stupid (or cruel, or unacceptable or whatnot) but I have decided that you did it for * - * reason (fill in the blank). I now I have taken it upon myself to place myself in a better place than where you are and I hereby extend my forgiveness to you, and you had better be grateful or I will take it back".

That's part one.

Part two;
Since I do not confess to any kind of belief, I also find it hard to embrace the thought that anyone is better than anyone else. Better to the extent that one would have the authority to place judgement. (Unless, of course we are talking about the Law, which is a whole different concept, and not included here).

Instead I prefer the word 'Acceptance', as in accepting the fact that all people are different, all people make mistakes, all people make erroneous decisions etc. To accept that I do the same. To accept that it's a natural thing.

From this point of view there is no need for forgiveness, no need for judgement, no need for placing oneself on a different plane than the rest of humanity. There is also no need to ask for forgiveness, because that would be like asking to be judged by someone equally imperfect.

I could never say that I am in any way skilled in forgiveness, but I would like to believe that I am skilled in understanding, and accepting, human flaws, because I'm such a master at being flawed myself.

- - -

Again; this doesn't apply to scumbags who rape children, or kill innocent animals or what have you. The law will, and should, deal with them - harshly!

And now I'll go back to reading this very interesting thread...

[GeorgeK]

If I follow your logic (questionable) then beliefs about the non-existence of God are atheistic beliefs and since you (I think) disbelieve in the non-existence of God you have an atheistic belief, is that right? Religion is therefore an atheistic belief. Do you find this mode of analysis helpful?


Two negatives do not necessarily make a positive. Sometimes they make an intensified negative.

[Autodidact]

All beliefs about religion are not necessarily religious beliefs. All beliefs about America are not necessarily American beliefs; they may be Chinese beliefs about America. To say that a belief that God does not exist is a religious belief does not comport with the way we normally use these words. A belief that communism doesn't work is not a communist belief, although it is a belief about communism.

I do wonder why the poster thinks it's important or valuable to label atheism a religious belief?

[Ruv Draba]

As a non-believer (don't really like the word atheist) I am often met with the argument of forgiveness.

First; I think that the concept of forgiveness is basically a religious concept; as in "To err is human, to forgive Devine". 8<---Snip---8<Since I do not confess to any kind of belief, I also find it hard to embrace the thought that anyone is better than anyone else. Better to the extent that one would have the authority to place judgement.

Hi Melisande and thanks for your thoughts.

As an atheist (one who doesn't at all mind being labelled with the word - here at least), I also have had a problem with forgiveness, and I think it's the same conceptual and moral problem you have. If there's no absolute moral authority (i.e. some divinity or primary arbiter of justice) then is the word forgiveness even meaningful? Indeed, is the word 'wronged' even meaningful?

Anyway, the whole concept has evolved to the point where the words "I forgive you" have become almost prostituted.If by that you mean corrupted, deceitful and hypocritical, then I entirely agree. It's frequently corrupted in the theist use, and an atheist/nontheist use hasn't improved it much.

Instead I prefer the word 'Acceptance', as in accepting the fact that all people are different, all people make mistakes, all people make erroneous decisions etc. I'd suggest that 'acceptance' (or maybe I'd use 'reconciliation') is a potential end-state in recovering from hurt. But before that, there's outrage, hurt, humiliation, resentment, anger. These things happen regardless of whether you're a theist or something else -- it's because we're human and we believe that we're entitled to be treated with consideration, respect, and to have some claim to dignity.

And here I'm going to launch in an alternative direction.

We have strong and good reasons to have the feelings we do when we're hurt. We survive in this world by laying a moral and physical claim to survival. In a competitive, often indifferent and sometimes outright hostile environment we have to wake up every day believing that we're important, that we're not to be trodden on, that our safety, comfort, dignity and prosperity matter.

These feelings don't arise from an absolute, objective sense of justice - they arise from an individual yet shared sense of morality. In a modern viewpoint: I may not be any better than anyone, but I'm not unworthy to live and thrive either. This gives me certain self-claimed entitlements - and leads to me feeling irritated or outraged when I'm slighted, overlooked, humiliated, physically hurt.

But it's possible to let outrage drive us mad. It's possible to keep an obssessive-compulsive score over our worth relative to others -- are they getting more than me , are they hurting me more than other people? Am I ahead or behind in the game? That's a form of insanity because it binds us to our pasts. Our presents and futures simply become reaction to events that have gone before, and we lose ability to choose well. And it creates fractures in our relationships and our community.

Here's my departure from Melisande: I believe that we are (and often need to be) judgmental creatures. We're competitive, social creatures with great self-awareness and a lot of self-interest, and that makes us judgemental. We don't really need some objective framework in which to be judgemental because we're so adept at forming subjective frameworks: "Does he like me more than her?" "Am I the most attractive/wealthy/popular/desireable/best dressed/strongest person in the room?" "Where am I in the status stakes?"

We also have a (reasonably) common sense of right and wrong. We're able to form cultures, families and communities around some shared sense of morality and mutual obligation. So if you have some shared sense of morality coupled with subjective judgements, there's your framework for who's done good and who's done bad. You get together as a community and nut it out -- and that's exactly what we do, whether it be a jury in a law-court or the panel at the Academies, or voting people out of Big Brother or Idol. It's flawed, but it also works.

But when we're hurt, somehow we need a path or a process to go from being a wronged person to a reconciled person. We can't simply suppress our notion of being wronged, because that also suppresses our survival instincts. Firstly, it goes against how we've evolved (we didn't evolve to get killed without complaint or protest), and secondly... well, there is no secondly. It's just stupid. (Edit: well, maybe not stupid. Maybe well-intentioned but doomed)

Whether you call the process acceptance or reconciliation or forgiveness, there's a process there. I believe that the first step is to note what the wrong is, and protest it. A later step is to grieve for whatever has been lost from that wrong. A later step is the recognition that we humans have a common and shared condition - which leads us to compassion, even for those who wrong us. The details themselves might vary but I believe that those three steps are necessary and in that order. Skip one of them and I think we're not really reconciled - at most we're just pretending.

And that too, I believe, applies to theists and nontheists alike.

[Melisande]

Don't worry, Elwood, I haven't come to save you.

Good enough, Sarpedon. I think I understand you. However, you keep talking about evidence. There is no evidence to prove that there's a God. There's no evidence to prove there is not. Such discussions trying to prove/disprove are pure folly as far as I'm concerned.

It was the title of this thread that drew me here. There is a reason each one of you is an atheist. I came in order to shed light from a psychological perspective....not judge.

Peace.

Okay, while at dinner tonight I was wondering about you folks. This is kind of funny and I'm curious. I'm not bashing, I swear. Anyway, atheists agree there is no God. That there is "nothing" out there. What is it that you all have in common when you gather here? I mean, is it "we gather because we believe in nothing"? But surely, you guys don't just talk about how you believe in nothing all the time, do you? Like, are there any gun collectors out here?

Rob (a "Christian" who's probably more comfortable around brainy atheists than he is other Christians)

I'm still reading this very interesting thread, and once again I have to halt to respond. (Yeah, I'm a slow reader, but I was also busy volunteering at the VFW all day and half the evening.)

All I felt a need to say here is (and I guess that I might be 'off' and painting with a bit of a wide brush here, but nonetheless) that it has been my experience that the atheists (or as I prefer to call us; non-believers) I know (and they are not too many) are in no way into the whole 'evidence' kind of discussion. Actually, I (and my other 'non-believing' friends) hardly ever get into that discussion with believers either.

Reason? Because it's futile. It doesn't lead anywhere, and all that happens is that both sides withdraws with an "agree-to-disagree" kind of truce if one is lucky. If not - well, just look around...

I've said in other threads here at AW, that I don't feel a need to disprove the faith of believers (or their Deities), and that I find it equally uninteresting to try and prove MY point of view, as the two can never meet.

I have an immense respect for people of all kind, religious and non-religious; believer and non-believers. It is not for me to place judgement, or require 'proof' that my best friend is right (or wrong) for being a devout Christian. I love her, and if that's her choice - good! It makes her happy. It is part of her and makes her who she is.

I also do not feel smug about having other friends that share my indifference to anything 'religious' for lack of a better word. And no, we don't sit around and talk about that indifference. We are always able to find interesting topics outside the 'spiritual-v/s-secular'. I guess mostly beacuse we generally (at least my tiny little clique of equal-minded) actually DO consider ourselves spiritual, without feeling the need to ascribe that to some kind of source outside ourselves.

[Melisande]

The word "religious" - like most words - has multiple definitions. Its use in one sense does not in any way invalidate or contradict its use in others.

When one describes oneself as "spiritual, not religious" it means that one has religious beliefs, but is not a member of any organised religious group. The attempt to re-brand the religious beliefs as "spiritual" is an ingenuous effort to avoid association with the organised religions that attempt to impress their opinions on others.

Of course, it is occasionally a disingenuous attempt. I had four "spiritual, not religious" people invite me to their church last year, where Jews were certainly welcome because they have some Jewish members, see? Here are two of them right here to wish you a happy Yom Kippur and quote some biblical passages in very bad Hebrew. How exactly they can have a church and members without being religious eludes me, but I'm of the personal opinion they were just plain lying.


And here I have to stop again (I know - should have done this from post one - or was it six?)

It is perfectly possible to be a spiritual person outside religion. The NERVE of all believers to think that they alone have this option makes me so angry....

Spirituality includes "the preoccupation with what concerns human inner nature" (a quote from the Free Online Dictionary).

It upsets me to no end that a lot of religious people (Sorry, I'm generalizing here) tend to have the notion that 'not-to-believe' equals 'anti-humanism', 'anti-philantrophy', 'anti-empathy', and almost any other 'anti' you can find in every known language on this planet.

That is not the fact. The urge to do 'good', to help your fellow man, to reach out, to ponder life, to question our existance, to be kind, to embrace, to accept different train of thoughts, to even acknowledge the urge to believe in a deity - any deity -, to risk your life while doing it, to protect those who do - these are all qualities that are equally applicable to any atheist, as they are to believers of any religion.

[loquax]

Melisande, have your seen the Four Horsemen videos (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=four+horsemen&sitesearch=)? About 9 minutes into the first hour, Sam Harris discusses spirituality in atheism. Very good watching if you have the time.

[Sarpedon]

I guess I would object to the terminology. 'Spirit' is a term associated with the incorrect idea of mind-body dualism.

Why not say 'psychology?' True, this term comes from a greek term that is similar in meaning to 'spirit,' but it has come to mean a more precise way of thinking of 'inner' existence. I put 'inner' in quotes because it is a term of convenience.

My attitude is that they can have the word if they want it. As I've touched on many times is that one of the primary grounds of misunderstanding between different groups of people is that each group uses terminology differently. We should use our own terms (or better yet, scientific terms) for real phenomena, and let them describe their superstitions as they wish. I have no interest in fighting them for words, when there are more important things to fight about.

[MacAllister]

I'm going to caution everyone to please take a deep breath if you find yourself emotionally effected by this conversation -- and step away from the keyboard, if need be. There are enough sweeping generalizations in this thread alone to force me to hire extra janitorial staff for the duration.

We don't typically encourage religious debates anywhere on the forums because they just don't end well for anyone involved. However, articulate, passionate discussion is what writers are all about.

If everyone involved can remember to respect their fellow writers in this conversation, I think we'll be okay.

[Autodidact]

Re: the spirituality/atheism issue: this one is complicated for me.
On the one hand, I consider myself a metaphysical naturalist and take the view that "supernatural" is for all intents and purposes the functional equivalent of "non-existent," which is a long roundabout way of saying there ain't no such thing.
On the other hand, the more I learn about science, the more parallels I find with some spiritual traditions, and the more amazing, infinite, mystifying, transcendent and a bunch more adjectives I find reality.

For example, it turns out that I really am at one with the universe. Wow. And that my individual consciousness is probably an illusion. It appears that the body and soul are one, that the world is without end, and bunch of other really cool stuff that many people would consider spiritual. So I take an attitude of reverence toward reality that goes where many people put their spirituality.

I don't feel that metaphysical naturalism is limiting, pedestrian, or denies the essential wonder, ineffability or infinity of the universe; quite the contrary.

[Sarpedon]

A stopped clock is right twice a day, and 6 thousand years of recorded religious history is a long time for vaguely correct platitudes to pile up.

[veinglory]

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Neil Peart, Free Will

At the age of 17 I spent three days choosing to be Christian--the living forever sounded like a good deal to me.

It didn't work.

[Ruv Draba]

I guess I would object to the terminology. 'Spirit' is a term associated with the incorrect idea of mind-body dualism.

Why not say 'psychology?'
I understand the viewpoint, Sarpedon, and I believe that 'psychology' validly covers: a) thoughts and behaviours of individuals; b) thoughts and behaviours of groups - so it covers most of what I want to talk about.

Two minor problems for me though:

Psychology is about clinical study. It's an external, objective, dispassionate perspective. It's not necessarily the perspectives of the participants. A model for what's going on is not the experience of what's going on - any more than (say) literary criticism is about the experience of writing, or a book on childbirth is delivering the baby.

Psychology overlaps with sociology, but stops somewhere short of what I want to talk about: human identity, morals, values, relationships, motivation and aspirational purpose. Some of these things have cultural elements that make me want to draw from sociology or anthropology too.

If I want to collect these and talk about them together from a subjective, empathic, sympathetic participants' perspective (something I want to do a lot as a person and as a writer), then I need something that's not quite psychology, sociology or anthropology but draws somewhat from each. I use the term 'spirit' for that -- not to connote any notion of immortal soul, but to connote a subjective impression of what we think we're all about. It's well-grounded in etymology, and comes with enough intuitive understanding that I think it's worth using, despite certain religious baggage.

My attitude is that they can have the word if they want it.Nah. I can't let religion lay sole claim to words like spirit and faith. They'd get all the morality, all the great art, and leave atheists with a bunch of dry, amoral models and second-rate landscapes. :tongue

[Melisande]

If by that you mean corrupted, deceitful and hypocritical, then I entirely agree. It's frequently corrupted in the theist use, and an atheist/nontheist use hasn't improved it much.

Yes, that was basically what I meant.

Whether you call the process acceptance or reconciliation or forgiveness, there's a process there. I believe that the first step is to note what the wrong is, and protest it. A later step is to grieve for whatever has been lost from that wrong. A later step is the recognition that we humans have a common and shared condition - which leads us to compassion, even for those who wrong us. The details themselves might vary but I believe that those three steps are necessary and in that order. Skip one of them and I think we're not really reconciled - at most we're just pretending.


I can only speak for myself here, but I do not agree. Let's say someone stole something from me. That would indeed make me angry for a moment, but I wouldn't dwell on it. What was stolen was most likely an item. They can be bought again, and I'm not into items anyway. Let's say that the police contacted me weeks later and said they had cought the thief. Would I like to speak with him? No, I wouldn't. Most likely I would have forgotten about the whole matter, accepted the fact that someone needed that item more than I do and I wouldn't think that the thief deserved importance enough in my life for me to speak with him, let alone extend my compassion. Like some very wise person once said; "Shit happens".

I realize that this might sound arrogant, but that is honestly how I feel. Same if someone 'wrongs' me on a personal level. I usually accept the fact that this person has some kind of reason for doing it, but I don't find it necessary to try and find out what that reason is. Everyone has the right to a bad day... Besides, I'm strong enough to take heaps of crap if I feel that a friend needs to vent. If the 'wrong' is harsh enough, I leave that person behind and continue my life. Simple as that.

[Autodidact]

I understand the viewpoint, Sarpedon, and I believe that 'psychology' validly covers: a) thoughts and behaviours of individuals; b) thoughts and behaviours of groups - so it covers most of what I want to talk about.

Two minor problems for me though:

Psychology is about clinical study. It's an external, objective, dispassionate perspective. It's not necessarily the perspectives of the participants. A model for what's going on is not the experience of what's going on - any more than (say) literary criticism is about the experience of writing, or a book on childbirth is delivering the baby.

Psychology overlaps with sociology, but stops somewhere short of what I want to talk about: human identity, morals, values, relationships, motivation and aspirational purpose. Some of these things have cultural elements that make me want to draw from sociology or anthropology too.

If I want to collect these and talk about them together from a subjective, empathic, sympathetic participants' perspective (something I want to do a lot as a person and as a writer), then I need something that's not quite psychology, sociology or anthropology but draws somewhat from each. I use the term 'spirit' for that -- not to connote any notion of immortal soul, but to connote a subjective impression of what we think we're all about. It's well-grounded in etymology, and comes with enough intuitive understanding that I think it's worth using, despite certain religious baggage.

Nah. I can't let religion lay sole claim to words like spirit and faith. They'd get all the morality, all the great art, and leave atheists with a bunch of dry, amoral models and second-rate landscapes. :tongue

Maybe a good term to use would be "wisdom"?

[Higgins]

Nah. I can't let religion lay sole claim to words like spirit and faith. They'd get all the morality, all the great art, and leave atheists with a bunch of dry, amoral models and second-rate landscapes. :tongue

I prefer to dump the spiritual and the faithful and the morality and look at
religion as an aesthetic problem. Aesthetically, one needs a position that is approximately atheistic in order to enjoy all religious art. However to be really religiously/aesthetically neutral you can't reject religious propositions on the grounds that there is no god any more than you can reject painting because the pictures of fruit are not edible.

[Melisande]

I realize that words are indeed explosive, and because I am still not 100 percent familiar with the english language I took some time to try and read up on the word spiritual, and it was really interesting.

I can now understand that the word 'spiritual' is considered by (I guess) most people as a word connected with religious growth and religious experience.

I realize that I might have been using the word rather sloppily and I will henceforth be more conscious in how I express myself.

That said, I still would like to emphasize the fact that areligious people like myself are quite moral, have aestetic minds, appreciate culture and beauty and are perfectly able to unselfishly perform 'good' deeds. This, of course, was a generalization, and I am naturally aware that the opposite exists.

I've been trying to think what other word I would prefer, rather than spiritual, and I think that Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit) gave me the answer; Conscious. I think I'd prefer that word rather than 'psychology' as suggested by Sarpedon, or 'wisdom' as suggested by Autodidact. (I could never claim to have wisdom)

[Higgins]

All beliefs about religion are not necessarily religious beliefs. All beliefs about America are not necessarily American beliefs; they may be Chinese beliefs about America. To say that a belief that God does not exist is a religious belief does not comport with the way we normally use these words. A belief that communism doesn't work is not a communist belief, although it is a belief about communism.

I do wonder why the poster thinks it's important or valuable to label atheism a religious belief?

I agree the rhetoric is puzzling. Suppose I say that it is pretty clear that there is no God-thing, but that prayer and worship are
potentially virtuous activities? Does that make me a religious atheist? Only not in the usual framework or does saying atheism is "religious" just confuse things to the point of absurdity?

[Ruv Draba]

I prefer to dump the spiritual and the faithful and the morality and look at
religion as an aesthetic problem. Aesthetically, one needs a position that is approximately atheistic in order to enjoy all religious art. However to be really religiously/aesthetically neutral you can't reject religious propositions on the grounds that there is no god any more than you can reject painting because the pictures of fruit are not edible.

Nice point as it applies to appreciation. It's hard to appreciate the myth of one culture when you've signed up to the myth of another. :D

But I believe these myths appear for a reason: from an intensity of concern about purpose, meaning and morality. If you want to produce strong myth (in writing, say), I think it helps to share those concerns, and in to understand/appreciate the perceptual frame (not just the conceptual frame) in which it occurs.

[Autodidact]

I agree the rhetoric is puzzling. Suppose I say that it is pretty clear that there is no God-thing, but that prayer and worship are
potentially virtuous activities? Does that make me a religious atheist? Only not in the usual framework or does saying atheism is "religious" just confuse things to the point of absurdity?

Some random thoughts:
--"potentially virtuous" is pretty weaselly. Do you mean that you pray? That you think prayer is a good thing?
--Obviously this is an extremely unlikely hypothetical. That's O.K., if exploring it adds to our understanding, but does it? How? Otherwise, why worry about this unlikely eccentric atheist?
--If there is no God, why would worshiping a non-existent entity be virtuous? Is dishonesty virtuous?
--I have heard of people who continue to attend church or whatever after deciding that there is no God, and I guess you could call those people religious atheists. They not religious because they're atheists, but just atheists who happen also to be religious. Hey, there's lesbians out there who are married to men, so anything is possible.

[Sarpedon]

Suppose I say that it is pretty clear that there is no God-thing, but that prayer and worship are
potentially virtuous activities?

I fail to see how ritualisticly displaying submission to a non existant being can be considered 'virtuous.'

It may be said that prayer and other rituals induce a certain brain state that may be healthy, but that is not the same as 'virtue.'

And I guess I don't get your aesthetic argument. I can't reject religious 'propositions' because there is no god? Do you mean that I can't reject religious 'art' because there is no god? What is a religious 'proposition?'

[Higgins]

I fail to see how ritualisticly displaying submission to a non existant being can be considered 'virtuous.'

It may be said that prayer and other rituals induce a certain brain state that may be healthy, but that is not the same as 'virtue.'

And I guess I don't get your aesthetic argument. I can't reject religious 'propositions' because there is no god? Do you mean that I can't reject religious 'art' because there is no god? What is a religious 'proposition?'

One might consider humility to be a virtue and what is more humble than submitting to a non-existant being?

I'm not sure there are healthy and unhealthy brainstates, but the kind of generalized attention to detail and respect for arcane events that proper attendance at a ritual supposes could be considered virtuous (as pietas for example).

It seems to me that rejecting religious 'propositions' (such as "It is proper to expect that the Savior is not the same as the Creator"...an anathematized view from the orthodox perspective, but one well-grounded in the New Testiment as it existed before say 300 AD) simply because there is no Creator/God etc. is merely a way of redrawing cultural boundaries that are already obvious so as to make them even less comprehensible. By the same logic, one should not reject even say very bad classical art without at least noting in passing that such a rejection signifies the affirmation of many cultural boundaries, none of which really need any emphasis and most of which could use some constructive explication...a point I've been making off and on for quite some time. (eg...here:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97726

)

[Sarpedon]

Ok, I really don't see the point of this.

IF humility is a virtue, then one would think that showing humility to real people would be more virtuous than showing it to an imaginary being. After all, showing humility to an imaginary being can be nothing more than an act.

I don't see why the concept of peity is not made obsolete by the non-existence of god. IF there is no god, then the concept of both humility and piety as virtues would probably have been invented by religious leaders in order to establish their dominance over the layman and protect their priveleges. I fail to see how it is virtuous to preserve the trappings of an unjust social system.

And in the absense of a creator, any propositions about his nature or comparing anythings nature to him is nonsensical. It is as meaningless as to speculate as to whether or not a chimera can run faster than a unicorn. Or that whether the Enterprise D could defeat a Star Destroyer. I most certainly can and do reject such propositions. I fail to see how this is useful, virtuous or aesthetic to pursue them.

If beauty is truth and truth is beauty, then such false sophistries certainly have no aesthetic value. If honesty is a virtue, how can speculation based on falsehoods be virtuous?

[Melisande]

One might consider humility to be a virtue and what is more humble than submitting to a non-existant being?


Excuse me, I'm not very intelligent, but how can one 'submit' to something that one doesn't acknowledge? How can something 'non-existant' be a 'being'?

I'm not sure there are healthy and unhealthy brainstates, but the kind of generalized attention to detail and respect for arcane events that proper attendance at a ritual supposes could be considered virtuous (as pietas for example).

Pietá. As in piety, or as in an artpiece of the mourning Virgin Mary? It seems to me that, after having looked it up, both carry religious implications. So my question is; Why would areligious people even seek to attend religious rituals?

It seems to me that rejecting religious 'propositions' (such as "It is proper to expect that the Savior is not the same as the Creator"...an anathematized view from the orthodox perspective, but one well-grounded in the New Testiment as it existed before say 300 AD) simply because there is no Creator/God etc. is merely a way of redrawing cultural boundaries that are already obvious so as to make them even less comprehensible. By the same logic, one should not reject even say very bad classical art without at least noting in passing that such a rejection signifies the affirmation of many cultural boundaries, none of which really need any emphasis and most of which could use some constructive explication

If I choose to reject a piece of art, I would do it because I didn't like it, not because I would analyze wether it had religious undertones or not. In fact, I find a lot of religious art beautiful, even if I don't believe in the concepts portayed.

I tried to look up 'religious propositions' and understand that it is a philosophy that criticizes religion in society, and maybe even that words with religious under- (or over- for that matter) tones should be abolished (edit; by non-believers as I understood), though I had a hard time finding anything I didn't have to pay dearly for. And since I can't afford to pay, I'm still somewhat in the dark (quite honestly - completely in the dark).

But if it sums up to mean that non-believers should segregate themselves from believers I am afraid that I can not agree. There is (still) room enough for all kinds of poeple and convictions. We, as humans, ought in fact applaud the diversity in thinking that flourishes on this planet.

Being a non-believer doesn't prevent me from loving believers, or admire their art or writing. Like I said in a previous post, I've frequently used words with religious implications about myself (spiritual is just one of them). If I were to try and use the English language without any word with a religious etymology, I think my language would be very poor. And trying to be a writer, that would be like amputating myself, wouldn't it?

But if I am wrong in my understanding (which I most likely am) of religious propositions I sincerely hope to be enlightened.

[Ruv Draba]

If beauty is truth and truth is beauty, then such false sophistries certainly have no aesthetic value.Then again, 'beauty is truth' is advice given by an Hellenic urn in a poem (http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html). I try not to let pottery instruct my world-view any more than mythical religious figures do, lest I become a verse in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khaiyam (http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Fitzgerald-Rubaiyat/pages/086-did-the-Hand-then-of-the-Potter-shake/). ;):D

[Higgins]

IF there is no god, then the concept of both humility and piety as virtues would probably have been invented by religious leaders in order to establish their dominance over the layman and protect their priveleges. I fail to see how it is virtuous to preserve the trappings of an unjust social system.



Hmmm. I don't see how the existence or non-existence of some thing meeting a specific definition of God has any bearing at all on human virtue.
So what if there is no God? The people who "invented" piety and humility were not doing anything any more reprehensible than any other human action. Or to put it another way, all human social complexes are invented in the same sense as piety and humility as virtues are invented. The existence or non-existence of any possible or impossible set of imaginary things has no bearing at all on actual human behavior.
Moreover, all kinds of social heirarchies and statuses have existed and to single out a social structure that values piety as being more unjust than one that say values human sacrifice seems ill-founded.

[Ruv Draba]

And I guess I don't get your aesthetic argument. I can't reject religious 'propositions' because there is no god? Do you mean that I can't reject religious 'art' because there is no god? What is a religious 'proposition?'In fairness to Higgins, I think it was a reply to an argument of mine: my argument is not that atheists can't appreciate religious art (we clearly can); it's that a lot of the best art in the world is about human spirit. Not specifically human psychology, nor culture nor aspirations and sense/lack of purpose (though all these are represented). It's the intuitive amalgam of those things that makes art so impactful.

Historically, most concerns of religion are focused on matters of human spirit. It's no surprise then that religious myth has been used and reused to explore these concerns -- and has produced some of the world's best art in doing so.

But the reverse clearly isn't true. Interest in matters of human spirit are not necessarily religious interest.

Ian McEwan for instance, is an avowed atheist, but clearly immensely interested in not just what makes people tick, but how they perceive the world and carve out their sense of purpose and morality in it. I don't know whether he'd describe his writing as 'spiritual' (I rather suspect not!) but it clearly works to crystallise matters of psychology, purpose, culture, values, needs and morality, so I call it spiritual -- in the sense of 'writing about human spirit'.

[Higgins]

If I choose to reject a piece of art, I would do it because I didn't like it, not because I would analyze wether it had religious undertones or not. In fact, I find a lot of religious art beautiful, even if I don't believe in the concepts portayed.


But if I am wrong in my understanding (which I most likely am) of religious propositions I sincerely hope to be enlightened.

I gave an example of a religious proposition. I had no idea there was something movement-like about it. I just meant a proposition with some religious terms in it. To use my example again: "It is reasonable to suppose that the Savior is a different type of being than the Creator."
Now the fact that one doesn't "believe in" either one is....well it is a bit confusing even in purely heretical terms. For example if I believe I will be "saved" (whatever that means) by "believing in" the Savior...does this imply I don't have to "believe in" the Creator in the same way? In fact some types of Gnosticism made that quite explicit since the Creator was insanely evil and the Savior was an entirely different type of being.

Anyway, the propositions make sense and rejecting them on grounds there is no something or other (Gods tend to be pretty poorly defined no matter how you look at them anyway) is not relevent to a sensible discussion of the propositions. After all we talk about Achilles in the Iliad despite the fact that we can be pretty sure there was no Achilles, there are no gods, there was no Trojan War and not even a Homer. Religious propositions have that same globally ficitve status.

[Writer???]

For some reason, many people lately have been questioning me on this. Exactly why am I an atheist? Why dont I believe in god? Let me explain.

1. I do not believe in god mainly because almost all religon requires that you "surrender" to god. I will not surrender my individualism and my freedome to a figure which, in my eyes, does not exist. - That's perfectly acceptable. If you don't believe, you don't believe. Many can't accept another's choice on many different issues, to me, it's sad from both sides. You have (excuse me) the God given right to believe whatever you choose and live the way you choose, within the rules (man's or God's). It's not my job as a sinful Christian to drag you, kicking and screaming, into my beliefs, it can't be done in any sincere, lasting way. It is my job to live my life and be willing to help you understand why I believe the way I do should you ever ask the question. Other than that, all I should do is respectfully disagree with you.

While there are many aspect to it, largely, the "surrender" that bothers you is basically just asking you to live an honest helpful life, caring about others. That's the only "work required" part, the rest is just belief you carry in your head and heart when you actually break it down.

2. The concept of god is crazy to me. The universe was not created in seven days, its just a fairy tale. I personally believe that religon was created at a time when humanity was on the brink of chaos, and so the people needed something to guide them in the right direction, i.e. religon. We are much more mature now, and religon just causes problems . (wars and whatnot) - The only thing that has matured is the way in which we kill and mistreat people. It's (war) becoming clean and surgical almost. As for chaos, I think we have much more chaos because of the global "closeness" of all peoples now, than was ever known back when you say religion was created. And most wars have little to do with religion, a few yes, but most are from greed and fear. Remove God for those that do believe AND have power, and I'm pretty sure war and devestation would escalate beyond anything we've seen.

3. I do not need a 2000 year old book to decide what is right and wrong for me. I can do that myself. - Well, actually YOUR opinion of right and wrong stem very much from that and other books that formed the early sets of moral and civil laws and established right and wrong.

From a spiritual standpoint Adam and Eve knew nothing of right and wrong until they were told a set of rules. From a worldly standpoint the same holds true for whoever decided (in your mind) first, that this is wrong and this is right.

A moral and civil code has existed and been instilled in every human being since way before you and I. We can have the choice to agree and follow, but not really the opinion that "we" decide right and wrong.

4. Absolute faith has rules, therefore it takes away personal choice in freedom. To me, god is just a pair of handcuffs. - Absolute faith takes away nothing. I have absolute faith in God and that Christ existed and is my Lord and Savior, but I am the biggest sinner I know. Absolute "faithfulness" to God and His ways may be what you'd call "handcuffing", but that ignores the change in heart and attitude that takes place. They are handcuffs that come with keys you (anyone) are free to use at anytime. Surrender without love and belief is just false surrender, like living in a loveless, phoney marriage for the sake of image, or the kids, or something. It's just not real and you (the universal "you") won't feel anything but the handcuffs when it's not real.

5. Faith in such an absolute being, in a being who wields absolute power over the entire universe, seems dangerous to me. - Why? Do you think He's out to hurt you or something? Human greed, deprevation, and power over others is what leads to the danger and the screwed up world we live in. A lot of this sounds as though you blame a God you don't believe in.

6. Religon is built on fear. Why should you do what god says? So you dont go to hell, of course. If religon did not acknowledge that there was a hell, there would be a lot more atheists out there. - There are religons, even within Christianity, that don't believe in or preach Hell or the Devil, it has not attracted atheists mainly, I believe, because of the same thing that bothers you, surrender.

And, it's only about fear for those that choose to focus on fear. It's really about living the best life you can and helping to improve the world and the lives of others, it just depends on which side of the coin we choose to live.

That's it. I understand this is a touchy subject, and I tried to be respectful. I am not saying religon is bad, just that its not good for me. Nor am I saying that religous PEOPLE are bad. I know that most people who believe in god and religon are good people. I am just discussing my viewpoint, that is all.

It's your choice and if it's not for you, it's not for you. The only thing I would offer is that most atheists I have run across don't really care to get to the truth. They listen to sermons or read the stories maybe and never understand the metaphore, the difference in language, the culture of the time, etc.

If you are one that has studied and bothered to find out the truth, the meaning, and it's not for you, fine, live your life and be happy. I hope others come to understand it's your choice. But if you haven't, if anyone believer and non-beleiver alike, have not given the Bible a full perusal then they really have no idea what they believe, or what they are professing to believe.

Anyone spoonfed their religion, or conversely, those rejecting it off-hand are merely making statements that have no merit, no support, and essentially mean nothing to them or the world at large.

I respect your choice. I wish it were different but like I said, that's not my job, it's not anyone's job, only God makes Christians.

Thanks for an oportunity to respond, I hope I have not offended, and like always, please feel free to ignore.

[Melisande]

I gave an example of a religious proposition. I had no idea there was something movement-like about it. I just meant a proposition with some religious terms in it. To use my example again: "It is reasonable to suppose that the Savior is a different type of being than the Creator."



Well, (and here I ask all of the Biblical believers out there to correct me if I am wrong) as far as I have understood the (and guess we're talking Christian-Judaism here) concept of it all is that there was a Creator; God, as described in the Old Testament of the Bible, and then there was the Savior -Christ-, as described in the New Testament.

God, according to the OT, is both omnipresent and omniscient. His powers are well defined. Then there is the Savior, the Messiah, (in Christianity) the Son of that God; born to take the sins of man on His shoulders, sacrifice himself for them and thus become the Savior of Man, as described in the NT.

As far as I can understand (not being in any way educated in these things) there is a huge defference between the two because one (the Savior) was sent to Earth to perform a task on behalf of the Creator. Ergo, the Creator is not just a Father, he is also the Power to decide that humanity needed being saved.

But there is a separation between the two religions -Judaism v/s Christianity; Jews do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah (the Savior). They are still waiting for the Messiah to emerge. (again, I apologize if I've gotten this wrong)

And also; since the OT God actually IS described as omnipresent and omniscient He is not even a being, unlike the Savior, who was created into a being, a human, in order to show human kind the Way. (Again, if I have offended anyone of either Jewish or Christian belief by summarizing like this, I most sincerely ask you to accept my incompetence and correct me).


Now the fact that one doesn't "believe in" either one is....well it is a bit confusing even in purely heretical terms. For example if I believe I will be "saved" (whatever that means) by "believing in" the Savior...does this imply I don't have to "believe in" the Creator in the same way? In fact some types of Gnosticism made that quite explicit since the Creator was insanely evil and the Savior was an entirely different type of being.


As far as I have understood - Yes.

I have no idea as to which type of Gnosticism you are referring, but it sure does sound like a very unlikely concept.

Though I am not a believer in any way, I have tried to understand these things for such a long time, and read lots about it. I've done it without guidance, though, and guess that my replies might be waaaayyy off. Nowhere have I been led to believe that the Creator would be "insanely evil". Unless of course, I have missed out on sectarian writings or fundamentalistic thoughts.


Anyway, the propositions make sense and rejecting them on grounds there is no something or other (Gods tend to be pretty poorly defined no matter how you look at them anyway) is not relevent to a sensible discussion of the propositions. After all we talk about Achilles in the Iliad despite the fact that we can be pretty sure there was no Achilles, there are no gods, there was no Trojan War and not even a Homer. Religious propositions have that same globally ficitve status.

Though I do not believe in (the Jewish - or any other) God, I still recognize the fact that it is hard to ignore the cultural impact it has had on us today.

We; the westerners (guess we're talking mostly about us here), are the sum of our (mythological) history, which also includes Homer, Troy, God, Jesus and what-have-you.

Our values, our very foundation, is built on ideas that we might, or might not, accept as true. This foundation, whether we choose to believe in it or not, is still the foundation we stand on. Had it not been there we would most certainly be like a daffodil seed in the wind; aimless. Whether we confess to ancient beliefs or not, we ought to accept the fact that our ancestors built this foundation. It is the ground for our thoughts; the scale to which we compare our measurements, the root to our thinking.

I question the truth in old myths, but I will never, ever, question the fact that these old myths gave me the opportunity to challenge them.

[Writer???]

I gave an example of a religious proposition. I had no idea there was something movement-like about it. I just meant a proposition with some religious terms in it. To use my example again: "It is reasonable to suppose that the Savior is a different type of being than the Creator."
Now the fact that one doesn't "believe in" either one is....well it is a bit confusing even in purely heretical terms. For example if I believe I will be "saved" (whatever that means) by "believing in" the Savior...does this imply I don't have to "believe in" the Creator in the same way? In fact some types of Gnosticism made that quite explicit since the Creator was insanely evil and the Savior was an entirely different type of being.

Anyway, the propositions make sense and rejecting them on grounds there is no something or other (Gods tend to be pretty poorly defined no matter how you look at them anyway) is not relevent to a sensible discussion of the propositions. After all we talk about Achilles in the Iliad despite the fact that we can be pretty sure there was no Achilles, there are no gods, there was no Trojan War and not even a Homer. Religious propositions have that same globally ficitve status. - emphsis mine


First highlighted statement -
To a Christian, no. It is not a reasonable supposition for those who have studied the Bible. The Father and the Son are One, both eternal, both existing without creation and without end. Different entities of the same substance. Not like you or I are our father's sons and daughters, but God on earth in human form. Fully God, fully human. The closest analogy I can think of is water: Ice, fluid, vapor, each a different entity of the same substance, but even this falls woefully short in terms of understanding the nature of God.

People want to, but can not successfully understand God in terms of human condition, motives, emotion, etc. He is God, He won't fit in our box and people just refuse to accept that.

As for the second statement, you need to understand what a Christian believes. They (God and Christ) are One. And, Christ was "in the beginning" and in fact was the creator.

John 1 - 1,5
"1 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He existed in the beginning with God. 3 Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life brought light to humanity. 5 And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out." - NIV

and it's not just the New Testament, the Old Testament supports Christ's existence in several places, but I'll only bore you with one:

Genesis 3:22
"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," - NASB

Of course there is debate and division even among Christians over this, but that's all the more reason to read it, study it, compare all the books of the Bible to one another and see the relationships and meaning, and make up your own mind. You can't get Christianity from sound bites, you'll never know what exactly others believe or what you're talking about.

I'll just ignore the "insanely evil" comment. accept to say that hyperbole and rhetoric have there place, but there not really helpful in a search for understanding each other.

[oscuridad]

Just a thought - but doesn't this thread really highlight every reason for being an atheist - that you get to think for yourself, make your own mind up and not have to abase yourself. You take responsibility, not abrogate it.
Sorry if that seems offensive or dismissive but atheism is not a belief, as put across so much more eloquently in this thread than I could ever do, it is an acceptance of self, responsibility, accountability and intellectual freedom.

[Melisande]

Sorry if that seems offensive or dismissive but atheism is not a belief, as put across so much more eloquently in this thread than I could ever do, it is an acceptance of self, responsibility, accountability and intellectual freedom.

I soooo agree! And I admire how you condensed it so well!

[Just Jack]

Sorry if that seems offensive or dismissive but atheism is not a belief, as put across so much more eloquently in this thread than I could ever do, it is an acceptance of self, responsibility, accountability and intellectual freedom.

Exactly.

I did not choose to be an atheist. I didn't wake up one day and say, "im going to stop practicing this religous nonsense."

It just happened.
It was a natural thought progression that lead to the eventual conclusion that I do not believe in any form of a higher power, be that deities or other.

[Higgins]

- emphsis mine


First highlighted statement -
To a Christian, no. It is not a reasonable supposition for those who have studied the Bible. The Father and the Son are One, both eternal, both existing without creation and without end. Different entities of the same substance. Not like you or I are our father's sons and daughters, but God on earth in human form. Fully God, fully human. The closest analogy I can think of is water: Ice, fluid, vapor, each a different entity of the same substance, but even this falls woefully short in terms of understanding the nature of God.

People want to, but can not successfully understand God in terms of human condition, motives, emotion, etc. He is God, He won't fit in our box and people just refuse to accept that.

As for the second statement, you need to understand what a Christian believes. They (God and Christ) are One. And, Christ was "in the beginning" and in fact was the creator.


For the last say 1600 years, yes its true, most Christians appear to have been strict Trinitarians, but that has not always been the case and the apparent scriptural authority for the orthodox/trinitarian position appears to have been introduced into the NT since say 300AD. See:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_199501/ai_n8717483

Anyway, my point was that a peason doesn't have to "believe in" religious propositions in order to make judgements between them in terms of their conventional value, just as it would make little sense to say that Achilles' mother was not the nymph Thetis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetis

[Autodidact]

Hmmm. I don't see how the existence or non-existence of some thing meeting a specific definition of God has any bearing at all on human virtue.
So what if there is no God? The people who "invented" piety and humility were not doing anything any more reprehensible than any other human action. Or to put it another way, all human social complexes are invented in the same sense as piety and humility as virtues are invented. The existence or non-existence of any possible or impossible set of imaginary things has no bearing at all on actual human behavior.
Moreover, all kinds of social heirarchies and statuses have existed and to single out a social structure that values piety as being more unjust than one that say values human sacrifice seems ill-founded.

Well, only if you don't regard honesty as a virtue.

[Higgins]

Well, only if you don't regard honesty as a virtue.

So you figure that when people sacrificed to their various domestic and civic gods, say in ye Olde Rome about 200 BC...they were somehow not being honest? So anyone who ever lived before modern science was doomed to always being dishonest because his explanations of how the world worked involved supernatural things?

[AMCrenshaw]

"Hmmm. I don't see how the existence or non-existence of some thing meeting a specific definition of God has any bearing at all on human virtue.

So what if there is no God? The people who "invented" piety and humility were not doing anything any more reprehensible than any other human action. Or to put it another way, all human social complexes are invented in the same sense as piety and humility as virtues are invented. The existence or non-existence of any possible or impossible set of imaginary things has no bearing at all on actual human behavior.

To further this argument, the irrelevance is due to our lack of knowing. The meaning is created and we still don't know- and probably will not- know whether or not God exists. And yet piety and humility and all manner of meaning exists

Moreover, all kinds of social heirarchies and statuses have existed and to single out a social structure that values piety as being more unjust than one that say values human sacrifice seems ill-founded."

It would be pure presentism; for certainly, the people who had done the human sacrifices thought they were doing 'good' deeds, right? My question (which can be dealt with elsewhere, if you'd like) is, exactly how far can we push relativism?

[Devil Ledbetter]

It would be pure presentism; for certainly, the people who had done the human sacrifices thought they were doing 'good' deeds, right? My question (which can be dealt with elsewhere, if you'd like) is, exactly how far can we push relativism? Relativism can be pushed until its victims stand up on their own two feet and fight back, or until someone else fights for them.

[Higgins]

It would be pure presentism; for certainly, the people who had done the human sacrifices thought they were doing 'good' deeds, right? My question (which can be dealt with elsewhere, if you'd like) is, exactly how far can we push relativism? [/I]

Once you carry out an analysis of what people like to call relativism, you realize that if the fixed standard is analytic coherence, then relativism is
relatively absolute and absolutism is merely a rather crude rhetorical attempt to substitute declaration for analysis.

For example: would a pious Roman senator inflict more units of injustice on the world than a pious Aztec Sun Priest? Both might effectively exterminate and enslave whole city states, but the Senator would have the dubious redemptive virtue of doing it admittedly merely to extend the fame and fortune of his gens and his clients...ie he would see some moral (relativistic) contigency to it whereas the Aztec Sun Priest would only see an absolute cosmic contigency to his deeds...ie should they fail the whole cosmos may fall into (absolute) chaos (and Cortez might turn up to fulfill a seemingly cosmic role) whereas the Roman Senator would admit that his fame and fortune might decline (relatively) without causing the cosmos to enter a chaotic state.

[AMCrenshaw]

"you realize that if the fixed standard is analytic coherence, then relativism is
relatively absolute and absolutism is merely a rather crude rhetorical attempt to substitute declaration for analysis."

Which sums up relativism. Good.

Does this side-step one question inherent in the probing of relativism: who in your example has expressed greater virtue? Has either? If we cannot come up with an answer, we can say: It's Because of Relativism! If we come up with an answer, we can say: It's Because of Relativism!

How do atheists escape that? (I know theists do...)

AMC

[Sarpedon]

The morality that atheists generally practice is no more relativistic than that of religious people. We just don't pretend that morality is absolute. Thats all.

We don't 'escape' it. We just admit that its an imperfect system that is nevertheless useful. Much like the bus system.

[Higgins]

"you realize that if the fixed standard is analytic coherence, then relativism is
relatively absolute and absolutism is merely a rather crude rhetorical attempt to substitute declaration for analysis."

Which sums up relativism. Good.

Does this side-step one question inherent in the probing of relativism: who in your example has expressed greater virtue? Has either? If we cannot come up with an answer, we can say: It's Because of Relativism! If we come up with an answer, we can say: It's Because of Relativism!

How do atheists escape that? (I know theists do...)

AMC

In my view the Roman Senator, destructive though he may be, inflicts less
absolute injustice per relative unit of injustice because he absolutely has a more relativistic opinion of the justification for his deeds.

So...if you want to get all the angles to a question, you have to admit a lot of relativistic elements, but to come to some definite answer, you have to name some absolute points for evaluation: for example "injustice per relative unit of injustice" and we can say absolutely that his view is more relativistic on grounds that chaos befalling the whole cosmos is a more absolute frame than the fame and fortune of one's gens and clients.

[AMCrenshaw]

(Sorry) but the argument is about evaluating 'intent' or 'motivation' as it relates to the degree of absolutism...in the relativism?

Can we apply this unit of evaluation to good deeds then?

For example, if the intentions of an atheist to do good are human-centered (which is a wonderful thing in its own right, don't get me wrong here) and the intentions of a theist to do good are to be "right with God" who, between the two here, has the more Absolutely-relative motivation to do good?


Sarp: "The morality that atheists generally practice is no more relativistic than that of religious people. We just don't pretend that morality is absolute. Thats all.

We don't 'escape' it. We just admit that its an imperfect system that is nevertheless useful. Much like the bus system.

I tend to agree. Which makes, in my opinion, the existence of God as a master narrator who imparts Absolute morality very hard to swallow.

I was also wondering about this. Has there been any movement towards a scientific-ethic [like, there is something grounded in hard science that compels people to think it's wrong to commit murder], which would then assume one that is perhaps absolute (as absolute as science can be at a given moment, anyway)?

And if morality is a tool, it is a tool toward maintaining a reasonably peaceful community? Or...

AMC

[Sarpedon]

Yes there is, AMC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Here's the wiki on the 'mirror neuron' which is common among primates and is believed to be the basis for moral behavior. They are the source of empathy, in that they fire in response to the actions of others, making the observer's brain mimic to some extent the other that is being observed. Eg, I see someone crying, I get a sad reaction. So, naturally, people are thus disinclined to kill. It takes a bit of work to desensitize this reaction.

[AMCrenshaw]

Thank you! And yet you end on a sad note (thinking about desensitization of America, at least).

[Higgins]

(Sorry) but the argument is about evaluating 'intent' or 'motivation' as it relates to the degree of absolutism...in the relativism?

Can we apply this unit of evaluation to good deeds then?



Well...What is the unit of evaluation? A single good deed? Does it
have to be done in an absolutely conscious way by a person who
is absolutely competent enough to judge absolutely all the causes and effects
and ramifications? And moreover his judgement is absolutely correct? Or can it be an accident committed by a
foolish bumbler?

[AMCrenshaw]

We will use your example. "In my view the Roman Senator, destructive though he may be, inflicts less
absolute injustice per relative unit of injustice because he absolutely has a more relativistic opinion of the justification for his deeds."

But in place of a Roman Senator or Aztec priest compare a Christian saint and an atheistic self-sacrificial, human-centered person.

And what if we measure instead whoever 'contributes more absolute justice per relative unit of justice' to have the greater virtue.

Would the Christian saint have the greater virtue because he has a more absolutist framework for the justification of his deeds, according to this 'fixed standard of evaluation'?

If this doesn't make sense, I will try again...

[Higgins]

Would the Christian saint have the greater virtue because he has a more absolutist framework for the justification of his deeds, according to this 'fixed standard of evaluation'?

If this doesn't make sense, I will try again...

Makes sense...but what if the visions of the saint imply a cosmic lack of fixity? As with Saint Teresa of Avila (what follows is from the Wikipedia on Bernini's depiction of STA):


Some modern critics have derided the semi-syncopal religious experiences as veiled orgasmic phenomena rather than spiritual encounters; in particular, the body posture and facial expression of St. Teresa have caused some to assign her experience as one of climactic moment.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_of_St_Theresa#cite_note-3) However, Robert Harbison has expressed his doubt that Bernini, a follower of the mystical exercises of followers of St. Ignatius of Loyola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Ignatius_of_Loyola), would have intended to depict here an episode of lust fulfilled[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_of_St_Theresa#cite_note-4). Instead, Bernini aims to express the facial and body equivalents of a state of divine joy. It is arguable that in the seventeenth century, it was possible to draw distinctions between religious and erotic experience that are more difficult to make today.
Teresa is experiencing a transfiguring coma, the so-called Sleep of God, described by mystics, in which a glimpse of glory is received. Mystics like Teresa would pray for days, often unfed, to achieve such visions. It would have not been unusual for devout daily church-goer like Bernini to spend hours at prayer each day, seeking this experience. The expression here is more like that of the joy of heavenly encounter found in Bernini's Blessed Ludovica Albertoni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beata_Ludovica_Albertoni) in her deathbed.
This scenographic chapel unites lifelong themes for Bernini. True to Baroque sentiment, it illustrates a moment where divinity intrudes on an earthly body. Irving Lavin said the transverberation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverberation) becomes a point of contact between earth and heaven, between matter and spirit[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_of_St_Theresa#cite_note-5). But the dichotomy of the conceit in this artwork echoes further in conjoining joy and pain in Teresa's expression and the conjunction of gilded rays with rippled stone. The unity of architecture, theater, and sculpture found in this complex is a quintessential baroque feature, with the Holy Ghost as light bathing or guided by the gilded rays framing the stature from windows atop the chapel, allowing the sky to enter church.
The effects are theatrical, including the discourse the saint renders among the flanking Cornaro pedigree.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_of_St_Theresa#cite_note-6) The cherubic details around Teresa may repel a secular minimalist, yet they add to the notion that we are seeing a moment of time where God has intruded into one woman's soul, if not pierced her literal body.
Furthering the dynamics, Bernini has untamed stone into ripples of fabric, evoking of the spiritual earthquake enveloping Teresa, and defiling the immaculate petrous conception of the virgin marble. A divine wind ripples the angel's gown. The angel grins almost with mischief. The unpolished cloud looks superfluous; Teresa's gown would appear to suffice in her levitation, if not wreak on observers the undertowing swoon of Stendhal syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome).

[AMCrenshaw]

"Makes sense...but what if the visions of the saint imply a cosmic lack of fixity? As with Saint Teresa of Avila (what follows is from the Wikipedia on Bernini's depiction of STA)"

This is a great point as well, but outside of what we were discussing, since then this could apply to the Aztec priest as well. What I mean, anyway, is that in our former framework, it was the absolutely relative/relatively absolute motive of the people. This is a more detailed, though perhaps more appropriate, framework of evaluating virtue. And even then, a lack of cosmic fixity does not apply that the cosmic isn't absolute.

Experience is change, and so if the cosmic absolute experiences (as we're told it has) then it is subject to change. But that change is in such a way, according to theists anyway, that we cannot understand it. In the example above, one could argue that the experience of 'the divine' is what has changed (or been lost to secularized/merchantile forms of organized religion) more than the divine itself. Thus the innate desire to recover the experience of the divine still falls within the relatively absolute.

(interesting article, btw)

[Higgins]

"Makes sense...but what if the visions of the saint imply a cosmic lack of fixity? As with Saint Teresa of Avila (what follows is from the Wikipedia on Bernini's depiction of STA)"

This is a great point as well, but outside of what we were discussing, since then this could apply to the Aztec priest as well. What I mean, anyway, is that in our former framework, it was the absolutely relative/relatively absolute motive of the people. This is a more detailed, though perhaps more appropriate, framework of evaluating virtue. And even then, a lack of cosmic fixity does not apply that the cosmic isn't absolute.

Experience is change, and so if the cosmic absolute experiences (as we're told it has) then it is subject to change. But that change is in such a way, according to theists anyway, that we cannot understand it. In the example above, one could argue that the experience of 'the divine' is what has changed (or been lost to secularized/merchantile forms of organized religion) more than the divine itself. Thus the innate desire to recover the experience of the divine still falls within the relatively absolute.

(interesting article, btw)

On the other hand it would be much easier to demonstrate that it is female orgasmic experience that has not changed, which suggests that the basic absolute unit of virtue is whatever induces female orgasms.

[AMCrenshaw]

:S Perhaps! But what of this?

"Instead, Bernini aims to express the facial and body equivalents of a state of divine joy. It is arguable that in the seventeenth century, it was possible to draw distinctions between religious and erotic experience that are more difficult to make today." Erotic experience hasn't changed, but religious experience has?

And let's say that the female orgasmic experience hasn't changed. The conditions for achiev[ing] such visions [you know, orgasms] are:

Pray[ing] for days, often unfed. .....


Perhaps!

[Higgins]

:S Perhaps! But what of this?

"Instead, Bernini aims to express the facial and body equivalents of a state of divine joy. It is arguable that in the seventeenth century, it was possible to draw distinctions between religious and erotic experience that are more difficult to make today." Erotic experience hasn't changed, but religious experience has?

And let's say that the female orgasmic experience hasn't changed. The conditions for achiev[ing] such visions [you know, orgasms] are:

Pray[ing] for days, often unfed. .....


Perhaps!

You are going to have a tough time showing that human physiology has changed more than religious experience.

It seems to me that if one assumes that orgasms have remained constant, then the religious experience becomes purely relative and the evaluation of orgasms proves a more reliable absolute for looking into the virtues of saints and sinners.

[Eckolake]

You're right of course. That is a trick question. People don't believe or disbelieve in logic just as they don't believe or disbelieve in arithmetic. They may not like either one. They may try to avoid contact with both as much as possible in their everyday lives. They may believe in magic. In fact, most people nowadays prefer the Lovin' Spoonful song to the Aristotle original. Incidentally, Aristotle played the zither, not an autoharp, when he performed the song.

So, which it the more useful tool?

Many people find both useful. Each has limitations.

If you often use words like ontology, epistemology and metaphysical, you're a strong candidate for the logical approach. Even more so, if you actually know what they mean. Nevertheless, consider this. As compelling as you may find one or more of the hundreds of arguments for or against the existence of God, or of this kind of God or that kind of God, in order to take them seriously you probably need to be comfortable with the assumption that you live in a logical universe. That used to be so easy before physicists like Albert Einstein, Buckaroo Bonzai and Stephen Hawking introduced us to things like relativity, string theory, worm holes and parallel universes. Still, if you can keep an open mind and have an above average attention span you should definitely spend a month or two examining propositions, premises and, if that doesn't wear you out, truth tables.

Let's try one example.

Argument
God says the world is only 4000 years old.
But scientists found shells and carbon dated them and they were really 16000000000 years old.
Therefore God is either wrong or lying or doesn't exist.
But God is supposed to be infallible and all knowing and all truthful.
Therefore God doesn't exist.

Rebuttal
When God made the world he preset the dates in all its' carbon to 16000000000 years, less 4000.
Therefore God does exist.

Redirect
Did not!

Flame War
Did too. Stupidhead!
Did not! &*(!~$# IDIOT.
Did! Did! DID!

Magic can be just as persuasive. Combine it with myth, miracles and mystery, mix for several hundred years, and you have the recipe for a powerful and popular religion. Anyone who might have been disturbed by the carbon's premature aging can be reassured by the M word.

Magic demands belief. It won't work without it. But look at the rewards.

You want to be good but you're a little lacking in willpower. Not the self-starter kind of person. You've got your eye on a nice religion that offers you that little kick in the ass you need in the form of eternal damnation. But you're a bit troubled by some minor inconsistancies in the stories, lore and fables you're told you must accept to join.

Or, eternal life ranks high on your wish list but the religion that guarantees it for you demands actions on your part that just don't fit your little preconceptions of morality.

Haven't you ever gone to the movies? You know you won't enjoy the experience if you spend the ninety minutes looking for continuity errors in the script, or characters behaving out of character or a plot twist that's not quite a reflection of reality. But you buy your popcorn, sit down and suspend that kind of critical judgement until the final credits run because you know in the end you will have spent a truly pleasant hour and a half sucked in to the story.

So. What's your problem? Just look at a religious life as no more than an extra-long ninety minutes in the dark. And enjoy that popcorn!

[AMCrenshaw]

Higgins: I tried to find articles about the male orgasmic / religious experience, but couldn't find one. Do you know of any? I'm curious because females are not the only saints, nor the only ones who have claimed to have religious experiences. What I do know is that for both men and women it is more difficult, especially as you grow older, to have an orgasmic experience without intercourse (of some kind).

But this is another side step, I understand. Because, as you seem aware already, the picture of the relationship between Man and God is meant to resemble the relationship between two lovers. That is, the moment of consummation between two people is a moment that feels like it is outside of time. The experience feels timeless. And of course, as Aquinas and Augustine would tell us, that union with "God" or the "divine" can only happen in moments that "are in time, but that do not resemble a moment in time."

So a depiction of a saint with the appearance of a lust fulfilled seems a perfectly biblical approach to the experience. Some could take this literally and say: The female orgasm was the actual goal, and the religious experience was the perceived goal. Or that the material orgasmic experience is primary and superior to the metaphysical experience, and in fact denies the possiblity of metaphyical experience altogether.

And I would contend that the orgasmic experience must have changed whether or not the physiology of the orgasm has changed. We alluded to it earlier: the experience of sacrificing humans to a God in ancient mesoamerican culture is not the same experience as sacrificing a human to a God in 2008 America.

[...Or is it? jest kiddin!]

Eckolake: Have you read The Tempest? The last portion of your post sounds like Shakespeare. But the idea you're presenting is that subscribing to religious experience is like going to the movies without trying to pick the movie apart. It's a nice analogy, considering that both religion and film attempt to re-present reality. What strikes me as off, I guess, is that the spiritual life is guided by doubt more than it is blind belief. So by finding continuity errors (in a BOOK! written by HUMANS!) you necessarily have to consider the implications of such a text. Sure, for many religious folk out there, they eat the popcorn. But what about those who pick it apart? Is religion, even without God, lost on them because they cannot subscribe to a set of beliefs? Or must they simply buy another movie and sit in that theater?

I am certain that there is no perfect movie (although I like a bunch) just as there is no perfect religion (although I like a bunch of those too).

AMC

[Eckolake]

Sure, for many religious folk out there, they eat the popcorn. But what about those who pick it apart? Is religion, even without God, lost on them because they cannot subscribe to a set of beliefs? Or must they simply buy another movie and sit in that theater?
AMC

Most of the many religious folk who eat the popcorn also voted for a man who has brought the world eight years of disaster. I had them in mind and have no quarrel with any one else. The pursuit of religion only turns ugly when attempted in the dark.

I read and enjoyed The Tempest many years ago and even saw and liked the Paul Mazursky film. Magic, both.

[Higgins]

Higgins: I tried to find articles about the male orgasmic / religious experience, but couldn't find one. Do you know of any? I'm curious because females are not the only saints, nor the only ones who have claimed to have religious experiences. What I do know is that for both men and women it is more difficult, especially as you grow older, to have an orgasmic experience without intercourse (of some kind).


And I would contend that the orgasmic experience must have changed whether or not the physiology of the orgasm has changed. We alluded to it earlier: the experience of sacrificing humans to a God in ancient mesoamerican culture is not the same experience as sacrificing a human to a God in 2008 America.



Hmmm...I have my doubts that orgasmic experience has changed, but then, maybe that's just me. Ian Hacking might back me up to some degree (maybe there is a limit to historical ontology):

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HACSOC.html

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/hacking.htm