Any Downside to Atheism?

[Storm]

I am not putting words in your mouth, Storm. I am just understanding what you said and that is why you are upset with me.

No, you're really not. You're ignoring the parts inconvenient to your attempt to pick a fight.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I'm really not. The OP didn't ask for problems exclusive to atheism, it asked if there were ANY.

It kinda did ask for that:

"Is there or is there not a god?"

Someone please explain to me why the answer to that question matters.

Is there any real demonstrable negative to not acknowledging god (hint: stories of hell and eternal damnation are not demonstrable)?

If theists and atheists both do something or posess some characteristic in roughly equal numbers, then it's not exactly a "negative to not acknowledging god"... it's just a characteristic that's common to everyone.

 

[Jeremiah]

No, you're really not. You're ignoring the parts inconvenient to your attempt to pick a fight.

No, Storm, you are the one who is trying to pick a fight; as you commonly do.

Tell me if it so equal between atheist and theist then why say anything in the first place?

 

[Jeremiah]

It kinda did ask for that:



If theists and atheists both do something or posess some characteristic in roughly equal numbers, then it's not exactly a "negative to not acknowledging god"... it's just a characteristic that's common to everyone.

"It kinda did ask for that:"

It is silly reasoning. In that line: Do you know what the problem with atheist are? They have brown hair.

 

[Storm]

It kinda did ask for that:

If theists and atheists both do something or posess some characteristic in roughly equal numbers, then it's not exactly a "negative to not acknowledging god"... it's just a characteristic that's common to everyone.

My take on it was a bit different. If it was unwelcome or in error, I'll apologize once the OPer has clarified.

No, Storm, you are the one who is trying to pick a fight; as you commonly do.

Then why was I so careful in my phrasing?

If you object to my point, fine. Object. But don't tell me what I REALLY meant unless you want to seriously **** me off. You have no insight into my motives.

Tell me if it so equal between atheist and theist then why say anything in the first place?

Because everyone should be aware of the pitfalls of their chosen path. Atheism, like religion, should be open to criticism.

And atheistS should be able to tell the difference between constructive criticism and bashing.

 

[Cobblestones]

No, Storm, you are the one who is trying to pick a fight; as you commonly do.

I've read this carefully and it is clear that you are the one picking a fight. Storm has merely posited her positions and willingly admitted when she is wrong. THAT is what she commonly does, not pick fights.

You would do well to read your avatar a little more closely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"It kinda did ask for that:"

It is silly reasoning. In that line: Do you know what the problem with atheist are? They have brown hair.

I don't follow. Either you didn't understand what I wrote, or I'm not understanding what you wrote.

Because everyone should be aware of the pitfalls of their chosen path. Atheism, like religion should be open to criticism.

Sure. But universal human failings are not "pitfalls of our chosen path".

 

[Cobblestones]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin
It kinda did ask for that: If theists and atheists both do something or posess some characteristic in roughly equal numbers, then it's not exactly a "negative to not acknowledging god"... it's just a characteristic that's common to everyone.

My take on it was a bit different. If it was unwelcome or in error, I'll apologize once the OPer has clarified.

Actually, I think you are both right. You just have different base assumptions. As in most discussions of probabilities or possibilities, our assumptions account for a greater portion of our conclusions. I think that reasonable people would be able to look at it from both points of view and understand both conclusions but since we don't really "know" whether one or both are right or wrong, let's just be sure we are clear that we understand one another.

1,000 point to both of you for keeping it both civil and thoughtful.

 

[Storm]

I've read this carefully and it is clear that you are the one picking a fight. Storm has merely posited her positions and willingly admitted when she is wrong. THAT is what she commonly does, not pick fights.

You would do well to read your avatar a little more closely.

THANK YOU!

Sure. But universal human failings are not "pitfalls of our chosen path".

*shrugs* That, I think, is a matter of perspective. A truly universal failing is, to me, a pitfall of every path.

Also, while (again) the pitfalls I mentioned are neither universal nor exclusive to atheism, the atheists I've known do seem to fall in more often. Especially the ritual one.

Actually, I think you are both right. You just have different base assumptions. As in most discussions of probabilities or possibilities, our assumptions account for a greater portion of our conclusions. I think that reasonable people would be able to look at it from both points of view and understand both conclusions but since we don't really "know" whether one or both are right or wrong, let's just be sure we are clear that we understand one another.

1,000 point to both of you for keeping it both civil and thoughtful.

Fair enough, and thanks again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*shrugs* That, I think, is a matter of perspective. A truly universal failing is, to me, a pitfall of every path.

I guess I can understand that point of view. I approach it more as a sunk cost: a negative that's common to all options and therefore can be disregarded when trying to decide between them.

Also, while (again) the pitfalls I mentioned are neither universal nor exclusive to atheism, the atheists I've known do seem to fall in more often. Especially the ritual one.

Mmmm... maybe. I'd say that any "I don't have a religion, I have a personal relationship"-type Christian has rejected ritual (in word, if not in action) as much as any atheist. And I think Biblical literalism is as much a failure to understand what myth is as flat-out rejection of scripture as fiction is.

Also, to go back a bit, I'm not sure you've even established that these things are necessarily negative. While I can see usefulness in some ritual, I also see the potential for harm in ritual as well; for instance, I see infant baptism as profoundly negative (though I'm sure many readers of this will disagree). Whether blanket acceptance of all of a given religion's rituals would be better than a blanket rejection of all of them is a matter of some debate, IMO.

 

[Storm]

I guess I can understand that point of view. I approach it more as a sunk cost: a negative that's common to all options and therefore can be disregarded when trying to decide between them.

A fair perspective.

Mmmm... maybe. I'd say that any "I don't have a religion, I have a personal relationship"-type Christian has rejected ritual (in word, if not in action) as much as any atheist.

I don't think a lip-service rejection matters much. Rituals are all about the action.

And I think Biblical literalism is as much a failure to understand what myth is as flat-out rejection of scripture as fiction is.

Oh, honey, who do you think I had in mind?!

Also, to go back a bit, I'm not sure you've even established that these things are necessarily negative. While I can see usefulness in some ritual, I also see the potential for harm in ritual as well; for instance, I see infant baptism as profoundly negative (though I'm sure many readers of this will disagree). Whether blanket acceptance of all of a given religion's rituals would be better than a blanket rejection of all of them is a matter of some debate, IMO.

Then would you mind responding in detail to my elaboration in post #563?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think a lip-service rejection matters much. Rituals are all about the action.

I thought your point was about how we value ritual.

I do think that just about everyone engages in some sorts of ritual, atheists included. It's just what people tend to do.

Then would you mind responding in detail to my elaboration in post #563?

This thread has that many posts? Sure.

I think everything depends on what you mean by "ritual" and "myth". I think that atheists do engage in pattern, habit and storytelling, so if that fits the bill, then atheists have these things covered. If you mean something more than that, then I'd question how truly vital these things are.

 

[Cobblestones]

I think everything depends on what you mean by "ritual" and "myth". I think that atheists do engage in pattern, habit and storytelling, so if that fits the bill, then atheists have these things covered. If you mean something more than that, then I'd question how truly vital these things are.

I recently watched a programme about Stone Henge in which the researchers took interest in the acoustics of the place. They took ancient drums and started beating them at different locations on the site and found that the stones had been modified especially to produce a kind or resonance.

There's a reconstructed site in America where they conducted a full scale test and learned that drum beats at a certain pitch and interval cause the alpha waves in humans to increase, thus causing a kind of trance.

The point of this is that I think that rituals fulfill more than just a "spiritual" need. This all goes along with meditation and whatnot but it seems that humans are wired to respond to rituals in certain ways and that their value (and certainly their potential for misuse) stems from biological needs and reactions. In essence, going into a trance feels good and perhaps has other body-healthy attributes just like sleep does. Perhaps rituals are simply a natural result of trying to fill a biological need.

 

[Storm]

I thought your point was about how we value ritual.

Poor and thoughtless phrasing on my part, sorry. The innate need is fulfilled by action whether we value it or not. However, the less we value it, the more likely we are to abandon it.

Also, it's just sad to me. Intellectually, I realize that not everyone shares my passion for religion in all its manifestations. Emotionally, however, I cannot grasp their disinterest. How can you not find Communion beautiful, for instance (that was rhetorical)? On that level, I just don't get it, and find it wholly depressing.

I do think that just about everyone engages in some sorts of ritual, atheists included. It's just what people tend to do.

See, I see our entire society engaging in it less and less. COmmunal ritual, anyway, which is just as important as personal.

I think everything depends on what you mean by "ritual" and "myth". I think that atheists do engage in pattern, habit and storytelling, so if that fits the bill, then atheists have these things covered. If you mean something more than that, then I'd question how truly vital these things are.

Well, the rituals I see as endangered are primarily the communal ones. We celebrate birthdays and have graduation ceremonies, but they're shallow, unfulfilling. Ritual only works if it's invested with meaning. Baptism is a successful one, I think, but (understandably) many people shun it because the meaning is religious.

The devaluation of myth is subtler. In this increasingly literalistic age, I see the great stories, whatever their source, dismissed as worthless. It's not limited to Biblical Literalism. People just seem to think that if it isn't factual, it isn't meaningful, in ever increasing numbers.

But facts, useful as they are, are shallow truths. They can't explain who we are, much less inspire who we become. Mythos and Logos are both vital to our wellbeing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Poor and thoughtless phrasing on my part, sorry. The innate need is fulfilled by action whether we value it or not. However, the less we value it, the more likely we are to abandon it.

Also, it's just sad to me. Intellectually, I realize that not everyone shares my passion for religion in all its manifestations. Emotionally, however, I cannot grasp their disinterest. How can you not find Communion beautiful, for instance (that was rhetorical)? On that level, I just don't get it, and find it wholly depressing.

Funny... I tend to find Communion depressing.

Well, the rituals I see as endangered are primarily the communal ones. We celebrate birthdays and have graduation ceremonies, but they're shallow, unfulfilling. Ritual only works if it's invested with meaning. Baptism is a successful one, I think, but (understandably) many people shun it because the meaning is religious.

Personally, the thing that bothers me about baptism, at least for infants, is its non-religious implications. And while I see value in the idea of a ritual that welcomes a (literally) new person into the community, I think the negative aspects of baptism outweight the good.

 

[Storm]

Funny... I tend to find Communion depressing.

*puts on rational cap*

To each his own.

Personally, the thing that bothers me about baptism, at least for infants, is its non-religious implications.

Really? What would they be?

And while I see value in the idea of a ritual that welcomes a (literally) new person into the community, I think the negative aspects of baptism outweight the good.

That's your decision to make, and I'm not arguing it. My point is, it's not being replaced, and that worries me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really? What would they be?

I think it takes away (or at least purports to take away) a decision that rightfully is the child's to make when he or she is old enough to make it.

And when I combine the idea of baptism with original sin, hell and other Christian ideas, I come to a point where the ritual implies that, until the baby undergoes the ritual, he or she is so sinful and evil that we can't exclude the possibility that it would be good, right and just to make that child suffer for all eternity. I just don't think this is a healthy thing to think about a newborn infant, especially for the parents.

 

[Storm]

I think it takes away (or at least purports to take away) a decision that rightfully is the child's to make when he or she is old enough to make it.

And when I combine the idea of baptism with original sin, hell and other Christian ideas, I come to a point where the ritual implies that, until the baby undergoes the ritual, he or she is so sinful and evil that we can't exclude the possibility that it would be good, right and just to make that child suffer for all eternity. I just don't think this is a healthy thing to think about a newborn infant, especially for the parents.

Oh, ok. I just consider those religious implications.

 

[Erebus]

I think it takes away (or at least purports to take away) a decision that rightfully is the child's to make when he or she is old enough to make it.

Completely agree here...

Well actually...

Is the baptism more for the child's benefit or for the peace of mind of the parents? My mum had me Christened because she believed it would protect me from evil spirits and help her to sleep at night (a mother just doesn't need fear of evil spirits adding to her stress levels) rather than to devote me to her god.

Good thing too really considering I've wholeheartedly rejected that god

 

[Cobblestones]

Also, it's just sad to me. Intellectually, I realize that not everyone shares my passion for religion in all its manifestations. Emotionally, however, I cannot grasp their disinterest. How can you not find Communion beautiful, for instance (that was rhetorical)? On that level, I just don't get it, and find it wholly depressing.

For my part, the answer to that one is simple. When I was a Christian, I did find such experiences to be beautiful but also out of sync with reality. That was OK though. What killed it for me was that we were manipulated (in multiple churches so it was not an isolated incident) by the priest or pastor via our open emotions. The last time this happened was so very painful that it would be unreasonable to submit ourselves to any such potential in the future. It is difficult to get that level of communion on one's own and after a while I realized that I could do without entirely. That is when I began to question the Christian faith as a whole which led to the reality that all that "communion" stuff was purely emotion without substance. Having strengthened my intellect since that time, it is really impossible for me to abdicate my intellect and return to the emotional "spiritual" realm.

Do I miss it? To be honest, sometimes I do. The music and the socializing at church were huge in my former life. I miss them both a great deal, actually. But I can't bring myself to show up when I know in my heart of hearts that to do so would be a form of lying since I don't believe all the stuff that is preached from the pulpit. So, what's a boy to do?