A Chance for Atheists to Recover

[UnTheist]

I don't think mball was saying that you were proven wrong for being a Theist, if that's what you were thinking

 

[Father Heathen]

The last two posters are chaff and now on my ignore list. They go to show most atheists in RF like to criticize and (in their own minds, anyway) disprove theistic beliefs without trying to offer a better alternative.

:sad4:

 

[Father Heathen]

if that's what you were thinking

No, I don't think he was doing any of that.

 

[Magic Man]

The last two posters are chaff and now on my ignore list. They go to show most atheists in RF like to criticize and (in their own minds, anyway) disprove theistic beliefs without trying to offer a better alternative.

Not that you're giong to see this, since I've now made your (ignore) list of honor, but...I wasn't trying to say that they disproved your theism, just your wild assertions about all atheists. You overgeneralize about atheists, and make assertions about atheism in general. Some atheists might do things you think are wrong or dishonest, but you can't apply that to atheism or all atheists, and that's all I've, and most others have, wanted.

I'm perfectly fine with you having your theistic beliefs. I'm happy you found something that works for you. I'm not the one trying to prove your beliefs wrong here, it's the other way around.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I hope that other members will work with me, in trying to help pull Father Heathen and Mball back from the precipice of that Great Void that is known as Rolling Stones' Ignore List.

Surely darkness shall surround them, throughout their days.

 

[Kungfuzed]

As for number 6

The problem with atheism isn’t lack of belief, but wrong belief. In other words, it is always possible to formulate a conception of God that stands up to critical examination

I wonder what the point of redefining God is. If I were to discover something new I would study it and then give a name to it. But it seems like number six is claiming that there is something undefined called a God that surely exists and then tries to discover and define it after the fact. Can I just make up any word I want, claim it exists, and then find out what it is later?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree in principle, but there are times when evidence one way or the other is unavailable.

I'm not sure that this is one of those cases, though.

I don't think there's enough evidence to definitively prove one side of the argument or the other, but I think that there is evidence on both sides (and I do acknowledge that there is evidence for the side of theism: everything from Padre Pio's stigmata to a believer's feeling of connectedness with God is in one way or another evidence of God... I just happen to have decided that this evidence doesn't deserve much weight, based on my own judgement).

The Hindus have a saying: "God (Brahman) was one, and being one, he became lonely and so he became many." But this is neither here nor there. It was only a suggestion (not an original one, but one I have no problem with.) My own beliefs go far beyond that and are constantly being refined.

I just think that your analogy reversed Hindu belief to the point where it doesn't fit. In the "entanglement" model, if a consciousness were to arise, it would be caused by the interaction between its many disparate parts. In the Hindu model, the consciousness was what created the disparate parts to begin with.

Anyhow, I think I see what you describe as a special case of the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis, and I wouldn't consider a Boltzmann Brain to be a god.

Nevertheless, an atheist cannot define God for the theist

The correctness of language is determined by mutual agreement. Atheists and theists alike all have a role in defining to what the label "God" can and can't be applied validly.

I agree with every word you said, and it is said beautifully. But on a personal level it still comes to naught and I can't help but believe it effects the quality of our lives and our relationship with cosmos. Why? First, we're human. Second, while what you wrote is beautiful (really), it is sentiment, not reason.

Fair enough that it's sentiment. It makes sense to me, though, and in the end the only frame of reference I have is myself.

As far as quality of our lives goes, I've found that mine hasn't suffered by being an atheist. I've had some interpersonal conflicts with loved ones over it (mainly them worrying about the fate of my immortal soul, and me worrying about both things that cause them worry and personal honesty), but that comes more down to difference of belief rather specifics, and could be just as easily attributed to their theism as my atheism.

And as far as my relationship with the cosmos goes, I don't think I need one. I certainly care about my relationship with other people (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the living world), but that's about it.

It's not spiritual (some atheists say it is, I don't know if you do) because while spirit-mindedness is (in my view) sentimental, it is not sentiment. Spirit is dynamic, acting on the basis of a perceived, or believed in, reality. True, it sometimes acts foolishily and even irreligiously, but it acts.

I don't have much use for the word "spiritual" myself. I think it's normally used as a synonym for either "thoughtful" or "supernatural", and I don't like the idea of making a link between these two concepts.

But why does it have to be spiritual anyway, however you define the term?

It's steeped in the images of religon, perhaps. I don't know how it is where you are, but here the religion section of the newspaper, if it has one at all, is a once a week and hidden somewhere in the back. The magazine rack has about as many atheistic magazines as religious, and for every one of those, forty or more of evrything else secular. Apart form the paid commercialism of TV evangelists, there is only one religous program, Religion and Ethics, and that's mostly about secular events associated with various organized religions. Heck, even the church I was raised in (Mormon) was more of a social event than a religious gathering. (My apologies to Mormons who might read this, but it's the way I saw it.)

... and yet even with all that, it's virtually impossible for an openly atheist to be elected to public office in the United States.

Your federal government has an entire office (the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives) that is charged with nothing but having religion put its "stamp" on the distribution of government services. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of people in the United States has heard the words "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" from someone they personally know at least once over the past year.

Every NASCAR race starts with a Christian prayer.

But as for here (Canada generally, Ontario specifically), I can remember when Sunday shopping was illegal here. We still have a law on the books (though I don't think a lot of people realize it) that forbids Catholics from ascending to the throne of our country. When a secular group launched a campaign earlier this year to get the Town councils in my province to stop saying a Christian prayer before their meetings, it was met by a very strong opposition.

The French version of our national anthem says in part (translated, of course):

As our arms have carried the sword,
So shall they carry the cross!

and

And thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and rights

Basic cable where I am includes one specifically Christian channel and one multi-faith religious channel. If you get the right package on top of that, IIRC, you can get up to four or five more. We have our share of televangelists, but we also have everything from the Catholic "Mass for Shut-Ins" to the ecumenical discussion show "A Priest, A Monk and a Rabbi".

Catholic schools receive full public funding in my province.

And what else is on TV? Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ghostwhisperer,and The Supernatural, among others.

Sure... but those shows aren't exactly atheistic, are they?

Sure, our currency has "In God we Trust," but the only people who pay attention are those who want it removed.

And the people who stand in strong opposition to them. If only the secularists cared about the motto, it would have been removed by now.

No one wanted to make Mel Gibson's movie The Passion (which I haven't seen), so he financed it himself.

IMO, they didn't want to make it because it is horribly violent and anti-Semitic. Hollywood has no problem with infusing their movies with religion... case in point, consider last year's the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which is really nothing more than a thinly-veiled Gospel allegory for children. Its sequel, Prince Caspian, is in theatres right now.

It was a hit, but the fact he had to finance it himself says a lot about about the people who have no qualms about backing movies that put religion is a negative light. Churches used to be the most imposing structures in a town, now it's the banks or other business institution.

Unless your town is home to a megachurch, in which case the church still wins. I've seen smaller malls than the megachurch off Highway 400 in Toronto, and it's by no means the largest of its kind.

I'm pretty sure you know I can go on (and on and on), but I think I've made my point.

I agree that there is a lot of secular culture out there, but my point is that there's a lot of religious culture out there, too. It's nearly impossible to go through life without being exposed to it.

 

[McBell]

I hope that other members will work with me, in trying to help pull Father Heathen and Mball back from the precipice of that Great Void that is known as Rolling Stones' Ignore List.

Surely darkness shall surround them, throughout their days.

Are you sure they WANT off his ignore list?

 

[logician]

I hope that other members will work with me, in trying to help pull Father Heathen and Mball back from the precipice of that Great Void that is known as Rolling Stones' Ignore List.

Surely darkness shall surround them, throughout their days.

Being ignored sometimes is a good thing.

 

[Riverwolf]

Being ignored sometimes is a good thing.

Amen to that.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I don't think mball was saying that you were proven wrong for being a Theist, if that's what you were thinking

I know that, but mball does fit the sterotypical image.

As for number 6

I wonder what the point of redefining God is. If I were to discover something new I would study it and then give a name to it. But it seems like number six is claiming that there is something undefined called a God that surely exists and then tries to discover and define it after the fact. Can I just make up any word I want, claim it exists, and then find out what it is later?

This post is an example of what many atheists don't get, and I don't understand why. They have no difficulty in understanding, or at leact accepting, bioligical evoultion and diversification, but are confounded by the evolution and diversification of religous concepts. The concept of God evolves because man's relationship with the universe evolves: the God of the NT is different than the God of the OT, the Hindu God Brahman is different than the Christian concept. So what? Human beings looking to the infinite are surely going to have different conceptual interpretations.

I'm not sure that this is one of those cases, though.

I don't think there's enough evidence to definitively prove one side of the argument or the other, but I think that there is evidence on both sides (and I do acknowledge that there is evidence for the side of theism: everything from Padre Pio's stigmata to a believer's feeling of connectedness with God is in one way or another evidence of God... I just happen to have decided that this evidence doesn't deserve much weight, based on my own judgement).

I don't think there can be conclusive evidence, and certainly not enough to tip the scales for a skeptic, but, it does seem to me that developments in science took a bite out of atheism's ability to use it in its arguments.

I just think that your analogy reversed Hindu belief to the point where it doesn't fit. In the "entanglement" model, if a consciousness were to arise, it would be caused by the interaction between its many disparate parts. In the Hindu model, the consciousness was what created the disparate parts to begin with.

In my model too. It goes to the co-eternality of disparate parts: there was never a beginning, but one is primal and causative. But this is a different topic.

Anyhow, I think I see what you describe as a special case of the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis, and I wouldn't consider a Boltzmann Brain to be a god.

I'm aware of the Boltzmann Brain, and there may indeed be something like it, but while in a certain sense it may be an immanent god, it's far below being God.

The correctness of language is determined by mutual agreement. Atheists and theists alike all have a role in defining to what the label "God" can and can't be applied validly.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagee on this one. I've seen atheists put God in a box and call it a unicorn too many times to allow them to have a say. Unless I miss my guess, you can't do that with infinity.

Fair enough that it's sentiment. It makes sense to me, though, and in the end the only frame of reference I have is myself.

As far as quality of our lives goes, I've found that mine hasn't suffered by being an atheist. I've had some interpersonal conflicts with loved ones over it (mainly them worrying about the fate of my immortal soul, and me worrying about both things that cause them worry and personal honesty), but that comes more down to difference of belief rather specifics, and could be just as easily attributed to their theism as my atheism.

And as far as my relationship with the cosmos goes, I don't think I need one. I certainly care about my relationship with other people (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the living world), but that's about it.

I can respect that, but it's not enough for me (maybe it's the "lowest common denominator in me"). It's a big universe and I want to have a relationship with its ultimate cause whatever (or whoever) it is.

I know what you mean about the conflicts, though.

I don't have much use for the word "spiritual" myself. I think it's normally used as a synonym for either "thoughtful" or "supernatural", and I don't like the idea of making a link between these two concepts.

But why does it have to be spiritual anyway, however you define the term?

Well, I can see why you would think that. The word "spirit" is misused and absed about as often as the word "love."

... and yet even with all that, it's virtually impossible for an openly atheist to be elected to public office in the United States.

Yeah, and the only one that was (probably) sincere about it was "W," and look what that got us.

Your federal government has an entire office (the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives) that is charged with nothing but having religion put its "stamp" on the distribution of government services. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of people in the United States has heard the words "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" from someone they personally know at least once over the past year.

A lot more have heard desparaging remarks about God and religion, on TV, no less. That doesn't seem to be a problem, though.

Every NASCAR race starts with a Christian prayer.

Yup, and people complain. And football coaches lose their jobs for jouning in a prayer initiated by the playes.

But as for here (Canada generally, Ontario specifically), I can remember when Sunday shopping was illegal here. We still have a law on the books (though I don't think a lot of people realize it) that forbids Catholics from ascending to the throne of our country. When a secular group launched a campaign earlier this year to get the Town councils in my province to stop saying a Christian prayer before their meetings, it was met by a very strong opposition.

The French version of our national anthem says in part (translated, of course):

As our arms have carried the sword,
So shall they carry the cross!

and

And thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and rights

Basic cable where I am includes one specifically Christian channel and one multi-faith religious channel. If you get the right package on top of that, IIRC, you can get up to four or five more. We have our share of televangelists, but we also have everything from the Catholic "Mass for Shut-Ins" to the ecumenical discussion show "A Priest, A Monk and a Rabbi".

Catholic schools receive full public funding in my province.


Sure... but those shows aren't exactly atheistic, are they?


And the people who stand in strong opposition to them. If only the secularists cared about the motto, it would have been removed by now.


IMO, they didn't want to make it because it is horribly violent and anti-Semitic. Hollywood has no problem with infusing their movies with religion... case in point, consider last year's the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which is really nothing more than a thinly-veiled Gospel allegory for children. Its sequel, Prince Caspian, is in theatres right now.


Unless your town is home to a megachurch, in which case the church still wins. I've seen smaller malls than the megachurch off Highway 400 in Toronto, and it's by no means the largest of its kind.

And it goes on and on and on on both sides.

I agree that there is a lot of secular culture out there, but my point is that there's a lot of religious culture out there, too. It's nearly impossible to go through life without being exposed to it.

Sure, but is it freedom of religion or freedom from religion? Sounds to me if you had it your way it would be the latter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can respect that, but it's not enough for me (maybe it's the "lowest common denominator in me"). It's a big universe and I want to have a relationship with its ultimate cause whatever (or whoever) it is.

But I don't take it as given that the ultimate cause of the universe would be something I could have a relationship with anyhow.

I think that Colorado River and the Bay of Fundy are awesome things, but I'm not about to try to have a "relationship" with water pressure and viscosity. I don't even know where to begin trying.

Sure, but is it freedom of religion or freedom from religion? Sounds to me if you had it your way it would be the latter.

I'm trying to describe the situation, not complain about it. Going back to what started this was that you claimed that atheism or secularism was "inside the box" and religion (or at least aspects of religion) were "outside".

My point is just that there's a whole lot of religion "inside the box", and that getting "outside the box" can as easily mean atheism as theism.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

But I don't take it as given that the ultimate cause of the universe would be something I could have a relationship with anyhow.

I don't either.

I think that Colorado River and the Bay of Fundy are awesome things, but I'm not about to try to have a "relationship" with water pressure and viscosity. I don't even know where to begin trying.

I agree. Relationships can occur only between personalities.

I'm trying to describe the situation, not complain about it. Going back to what started this was that you claimed that atheism or secularism was "inside the box" and religion (or at least aspects of religion) were "outside".

My point is just that there's a whole lot of religion "inside the box", and that getting "outside the box" can as easily mean atheism as theism.

Your point would probably have more impact were it not for the fact that at more than 90% of what passes for religion ain't.

I'm curious. Would you be sensitive to, or offended by, the presence of religion if you were a guest in, say, a predominately Hindu or Buddhist country?

 

[Magic Man]

I know that, but mball does fit the sterotypical image.

Stereotypical image of what? An atheist? I know you're ignoring me and all, but I'd love to hear your idea of what a stereotypical atheist is. If it means doing all of the things in your OP, then you're just plain wrong. I'm sorry that I've tried to point out the flaws in your logic. I guess I should just let you continue to live by all of your fallacies, at least that would be the "theist" thing to do, huh?

 

[Scott C.]

We don't need God.

I assume by this statement that you really mean "since God doesn't exist, we don't need to believe in him". Am I right?

Would you agree that if God did exist, that you actually might need him?

 

[Yerda]

This post is an example of what many atheists don't get, and I don't understand why. They have no difficulty in understanding, or at leact accepting, bioligical evoultion and diversification, but are confounded by the evolution and diversification of religous concepts.

I was unaware that this is the case. Where have you seen atheists "confounded by the evolution and diversification of religous [sic] concepts"?

The concept of God evolves because man's relationship with the universe evolves...

Well put!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your point would probably have more impact were it not for the fact that at more than 90% of what passes for religion ain't.

What is it, then?

I'm curious. Would you be sensitive to, or offended by, the presence of religion if you were a guest in, say, a predominately Hindu or Buddhist country?

I don't get offended by the presence of religion. I am offended by the imposition of religion on those who don't want it, and certain effects that certain religious beliefs have on the world at large.

I don't think that my approach to religion in society would depend simply on the predominant religion. If the differences in religion meant that the approach that the religion in power took to non-believers was different, or that the effects of the religion were, then that'd affect my attitude toward things.

Also, I recognize that in most Western countries, freedom of religion is enshrined in law. If I were in a country where that wasn't the case, that would affect my approach, I think.

 

[Father Heathen]

I hope that other members will work with me, in trying to help pull Father Heathen and Mball back from the precipice of that Great Void that is known as Rolling Stones' Ignore List.

Surely darkness shall surround them, throughout their days.

I guess he wasn't emotionally/intellectually equipped or secure enough to handle opposing view points. It's clear that he really lets it eat him up on the inside. Oh, well.

 

[Magic Man]

I assume by this statement that you really mean "since God doesn't exist, we don't need to believe in him". Am I right?

Would you agree that if God did exist, that you actually might need him?

I just mean that we don't need a God concept. We can structure our lives just as well without such a thing as with. The quote I was responding to implied that you might as well make up a God concept, because you can make one up that is logically consistent and rational. My point was just that, while I could do that, I have no need to.

To your second point, of course that could be the case, but that's merely hypothetical.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What is it, then?

Personal experience.

What follows is sure to offend a lot of people and give atheist some ammunition, but only because it's taken out of a larger context.

I asked what I did in order set a foundation to illustrate the pervasiveness of secularism. The secular West in general has not been kind to religion.

Religious concepts are symbolic of something other that what their images conjure up. Religious ideas, not the secular traditions of your examples, symbolize an experiential reality, a felt relationship that exists between the person and his/her highest ideal.

Everyone knows what happened on 9-11-01 and most think they know why, but how many actually understand why? Damned few, I’d say, because they see it through secular eyes. There’s no excusing it, of course, but with understanding comes compassion.

In the mind's eye conjure up a picture of one of your primitive ancestors of cave-dwelling times--a short, misshapen, filthy, snarling hulk of a man standing, legs spread, club upraised, breathing hate and animosity as he looks fiercely just ahead. Such a picture hardly depicts the divine dignity of man. But allow us to enlarge the picture. In front of this animated human crouches a saber-toothed tiger. Behind him, a woman and two children. Immediately you recognize that such a picture stands for the beginnings of much that is fine and noble in the human race, but the man is the same in both pictures. Only in the second sketch you are favored with a widened horizon. You therein discern the motivation of this evolving mortal. His attitude becomes praiseworthy because you understand him. If you could only fathom the motives of your associates, how much better you would understand them. If you could only know your fellows, you would eventually fall in love with them. (UB)

It was reported that the night before attack, Mohammed Atta partied, doing everything he opposed. It wasn’t talked about much, and when it was, people scratched their heads and passed it off as hypocrisy or a last hurrah. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was a very deliberate and serious ceremony, a testimony against the depravity of the secular West and to remind himself of why he was doing what he was about to do. For with the advances of technology in the hands of a depraved and insensitive West, it seemed inevitable that it would infiltrate and contaminate his world. In his mind, it was self-defense.

It was the act of a primitive and fearful religion, but in view of the threat the decadent and secular West posed, understandable.