Any Downside to Atheism?

[Smoke]

My father could bend your ear for hours about the neurological effects and benefits of drumming. Fascinating stuff.

It's also possible to invest drumming with all kinds of mythological significance. Personally, I prefer it as bare experience, without the myth, but I've heard some pretty involved pagan and New Age elaborations on the experience.

 

[Kerr]

it depends ,

there are some people spend threre lifetime to earn money and have fun.

then they act according to thier purpose, they follow the rules which leads to thier purpose.

So you think money, fun and desires are the only thing that drives an atheist? That we are only driven by things like greed, what benefits us, and what feels good? If that is what you believe, then you simply do not know what it means to be an atheist.

 

[Storm]

It's also possible to invest drumming with all kinds of mythological significance. Personally, I prefer it as bare experience, without the myth, but I've heard some pretty involved pagan and New Age elaborations on the experience.

Yeah, Papa doesn't care for all the mythology, but he still speaks of the "drum magic."

It's a very primal thing.

 

[Jeremiah]

Only for those who have those needs in the first place.
We apparently don`t all have them in the same manner.



The symbolic act of eating human flesh and drinking human blood should hold some beauty for me?


This seems such a silly question to me.
Objective fact is and always has been a superior foundation for knowledge than myth ever was.
I could right endless essays on the confusion and suffering caused by individual human myth.



Some of us have taken great pains and made great strides in the endeavor to be cut off from our heritage.
The heritage of humanity isn`t especially positive.
I`m all for ditching it and finding something that works.





That sounds a bit devalued.



If you are right and myth isn`t about fact then it is completely worthless.

Myth is how we understand the "facts" of the world around us.
You`re saying that the myth of original sin holds no facts? no truth?

If human myth doesn`t at the very least attempt to explain the human condition then myth isn`t just valueless it`s negative.

"If human myth doesn`t at the very least attempt to explain the human condition then myth isn`t just valueless it`s negative."

Well, a myth is just a tale, primarily birthed from an oral tradition. A myth in and of itself has no more value then a bedtime story. A myth only gains its worth from the speaker and listener.

Take Greek poetry, for example, which is derived and inspired from their mythology. Greek poetry have been universally recognized masterpieces for over 2000+ years and has greatly influenced several aspect of the western society.

But would have the story of Prometheus and his imprisonment to a rock had been so far reaching if Aeschylus had never written his play Prometheus Bound? No, and we can see this, as his is the only extant play about that myth from the ancient Greeks. So the myth itself really only gained its value through Aeschylus.

Albert Camus said, "Myths are made for the imagination to breathe life into them". The value of the myth is not in thee interpretation of the world around us; the value of a myth is that it is a muse. It inspires us and in that inspiration we get things like Greek poetry.

 

[Autodidact]

let us illustrate the following relation
servant ===> worship===> God.

what is the meaning of worship?

does it mean sanctify only?

or does it mean sanctify and obey?

it depends.

according to my religion My God "Allah" didn't create our universe for nothing

Qura'an Ch.21

16 We created not the heaven and the earth and all that is between them in play.

17 If We had wished to find a pastime, We could have found it in Our presence - if We ever did.

18 Nay, but We hurl the true against the false, and it doth break its head and lo! it vanisheth. And yours will be woe for that which ye ascribe (unto Him).

19 Unto Him belongeth whosoever is in the heavens and the earth. And those who dwell in His presence are not too proud to worship Him, nor do they weary;

and worshipping is meaning both
-to beleive that there is no God but Allah(sanctify)
-to follow his path (obey his rules).

Qura'an Ch.46
13. Verily those who say, "Our Lord is Allah," and remain firm (on that Path),- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

this is my belief background.

as for natural law: yes we are slaves for the one who created them, we have no choice.

:Kerr


it depends ,

there are some people spend threre lifetime to earn money and have fun.

then they act according to thier purpose, they follow the rules which leads to thier purpose.

O.K., then I don't worship anything. The post is wrong.

 

[linwood]

"If human myth doesn`t at the very least attempt to explain the human condition then myth isn`t just valueless it`s negative."

Well, a myth is just a tale, primarily birthed from an oral tradition. A myth in and of itself has no more value then a bedtime story. A myth only gains its worth from the speaker and listener.

No,a tale is just a tale, a story for any reason.
A myth is a tale with a analogous meaning.

A story becomes a myth when it`s value/meaning is recognized by it`s carriers.

But would have the story of Prometheus and his imprisonment to a rock had been so far reaching if Aeschylus had never written his play Prometheus Bound? No, and we can see this, as his is the only extant play about that myth from the ancient Greeks. So the myth itself really only gained its value through Aeschylus.

Exactly, the value of the tale of Prometheus was recognized and exalted by Aeschylus and carried by him through his art to others who perhaps then held a better understanding of the analogous meaning of the tale.
It then became myth and has been carried on for the purpose of spreading it`s moral or meaning.

Albert Camus said, "Myths are made for the imagination to breathe life into them". The value of the myth is not in thee interpretation of the world around us; the value of a myth is that it is a muse. It inspires us and in that inspiration we get things like Greek poetry.

Inspires us to what exactly?
To live out or at the very least understand the reason/meaning of the myth.

A myth with no meaning is nothing more than a forgettable story.

 

[linwood]

We all share the same basic psychological needs. Ritual is a deep one.

In your opinion.
It`s my opinion that humans simply work better and recognize meaning better within patterns.
This has been evidenced to be the case.

Bear in mind, I'm not talking about RELIGIOUS ritual. That's just the most common form we have now.

But you seem to be assuming that religious ritual is the only thing that can fill this need you posit.
I say it`s not.

If you'll go back and reread, I didn't say that it should. Intellectually, I understand that different people have different tastes. Emotionally however, I just don't grok how you can fail to appreciate it. It's like if someone told me sunsets were ugly. OK, not a big deal, but I don't get it.

Because people are different, you aren`t supposed to "get it".
I don`t :get: for a moment why anyone would have a need to believe the value of myth is anything more than the lesson it leaves.
You see beauty in communion and I see something horribly ugly within the ritual.
There is nothing beautiful about it to me.

People are different.

For knowledge, yes, uncontested.

For what to do with knowledge, not so much.

Completely disagree.
I`d rather apply knowledge through a rational system than apply knowledge through the tenets of myth.
The second option is how the Inquisition started.

That just seems tragic to me.

It is tragic, it`s also true.

... We require facts to navigate the outer world. We require mythic truths to navigate the inner. I hold neither to be superior.

I don`t require myth at all.
I navigate my inner world quite well with facts..not myths.

Fact =/= truth in the same way Christiantiy =/= religion. One is a form of the other, but not the only one.

I disagree again but we obviously have different definitions of "Truth".

Myth does speak to the human condition, but not in the bright, logical language of the intellect. It speaks on a shadowy, primal level that resonates much deeper. It speaks of things so profoundly visceral that to state them as bald fact strips them of meaning, as does ritual.

This I agree with and am saddened that it`s so common in my culture to state myth as fact.

My concern on both points is that we are repressing this primal side of ourselves, probably due to its messiness. That can't end well.

I think we need to suppress our primal side.
If we don`t we can`t function in any accepted society.
This is why chimps never built the Golden Gate Bridge or wrote Dantes Inferno.

Myth has no place in the "truth" column as I define truth.
It is a wonderful way to describe or teach truth but that`s about it.

 

[Storm]

In your opinion.
It`s my opinion that humans simply work better and recognize meaning better within patterns.
This has been evidenced to be the case.

And ritual provides them in a unique way.

But you seem to be assuming that religious ritual is the only thing that can fill this need you posit.
I say it`s not.

*I* said it's not, many times. I'll say it again: neither myth nor ritual need be religious. Can you find a single instance in which I said otherwise?

Please don't attribute your assumptions to me, especially when I've explicitly and repeatedly denied them.

Completely disagree.
I`d rather apply knowledge through a rational system than apply knowledge through the tenets of myth.
The second option is how the Inquisition started.

I'm not saying mythos should replace logos. Just that it should have a place of its own.

This I agree with and am saddened that it`s so common in my culture to state myth as fact.

I phenomenon I think is directly linked to the devaluation I'm speaking of.

I think we need to suppress our primal side.

Repression doesn't make things go away. It makes them "come back all ****** off to bite you in the ***." (Wonderfalls)

If we don`t we can`t function in any accepted society.
This is why chimps never built the Golden Gate Bridge or wrote Dantes Inferno.

The question of sapience has no bearing, obviously. :sarcastic

Myth has no place in the "truth" column as I define truth.
It is a wonderful way to describe or teach truth but that`s about it.

That's basically what I've been saying, just from another angle.

 

[Cobblestones]

So you think money, fun and desires are the only thing that drives an atheist? That we are only driven by things like greed, what benefits us, and what feels good? If that is what you believe, then you simply do not know what it means to be an atheist.

I don't know what it means to be an atheist either. I mean (as someone pointed out on another thread), atheism is the default setting for humans. Theism has to be taught. To me, the word "atheist" is synonymous with "human being" and the term has no meaning in and of itself as if "athesim" was some kind of belief system.

 

[Cobblestones]

No,a tale is just a tale, a story for any reason. A myth is a tale with a analogous meaning.

Can you name a tale that has no analogous meaning? I'm not clear on what you are implying here.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So you think money, fun and desires are the only thing that drives an atheist? That we are only driven by things like greed, what benefits us, and what feels good? If that is what you believe, then you simply do not know what it means to be an atheist.

Or a theist, for that matter.

 

[MSizer]

...atheism is the default setting for humans. Theism has to be taught...

No, I disagree. I think the default setting for humans is theism (though the details are taught based on local culture). Humans are common sense dualists by socio-biological predisiposition. Superstitious tendencies are part of our developmental heritage. We attribute agency where agency doesn't exist & we draw spurious relationships between events, so we're by default I think theists.

 

[Storm]

Or a theist, for that matter.

No, I disagree. I think the default setting for humans is theism (though the details are taught based on local culture). Humans are common sense dualists by socio-biological predisiposition. Superstitious tendencies are part of our developmental heritage. We attribute agency where agency doesn't exist & we draw spurious relationships between events, so we're by default I think theists.

I think the "defult setting" (if there is such a thing) is agnosticism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the "defult setting" (if there is such a thing) is agnosticism.

Why's that?

Philosophically, I'd say that the "default" setting if we were starting from a blank slate is weak atheism. However, we humans don't start from a blank slate, so I'd say that if I had to pick one default position, it'd be animism... though there's probably a fair bit of variation.

Edit: I know it was that way for me. I don't think I ever had a serious belief in God growing up, but I did have an instinctive leaning towards treating inanimate objects as if they had some sort of thinking, feeling "soul", even to the extent of feeling uncomfortable at the idea of talking about throwing an object out while in the object's presence. It still makes me a bit uneasy to talk about the prospect of selling my car while I'm driving in it, though conciously, I don't think this feeling has any rational basis.

 

[Storm]

Why's that?

Because, until we know what X is, we have no idea whether we believe in it or not.

Philosophically, I'd say that the "default" setting if we were starting from a blank slate is weak atheism.

1) Bringing weak atheism into it onlly serves to blur the line between agnosticism and atheism, imo.

2) Even weak atheism is saying "no, I don't believe in that." Babies simply don't have enough information to do that.

However, we humans don't start from a blank slate, so I'd say that if I had to pick one default position, it'd be animism... though there's probably a fair bit of variation.

Well, since none of us remember being a newborn, it's all speculation. For all we know, we're born with perfect knowledge of God and forget it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because, until we know what X is, we have no idea whether we believe in it or not.

But agnosticism is a knowledge claim. IMO, it's a position that can't be reached until the claims and evidence are assessed.

1) Bringing weak atheism into it onlly serves to blur the line between agnosticism and atheism, imo.

The line is blurry. Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.

2) Even weak atheism is saying "no, I don't believe in that." Babies simply don't have enough information to do that.

Babies don't have enough information to say "God is unknowable" either.

Well, since none of us remember being a newborn, it's all speculation. For all we know, we're born with perfect knowledge of God and forget it.

We can't remember for ourselves, but it is possible to do behavioural studies on infants.

 

[Storm]

But agnosticism is a knowledge claim. IMO, it's a position that can't be reached until the claims and evidence are assessed.

Agnosticism, at its core is "I don't know."

The line is blurry. Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.

I know that, but we don't need to blur it further.

Babies don't have enough information to say "God is unknowable" either.

No, but just as atheism is not inherently a claim that God does not exist, neither is agnosticism inherently a claim that God is unknowable. Only that God is unknown.

We can't remember for ourselves, but it is possible to do behavioural studies on infants.

Yes... but behavioral studies don't address the question of theology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agnosticism, at its core is "I don't know."

I think it's more subtle than that. I think that agnosticism is the rejection of knowledge claims.

I know that, but we don't need to blur it further.

I don't see how I'm blurring it any more than it was already blurred.

No, but just as atheism is not inherently a claim that God does not exist, neither is agnosticism inherently a claim that God is unknowable. Only that God is unknown.

I think we're operating with different definitions of "agnosticism".

Yes... but behavioral studies don't address the question of theology.

They can if beliefs manifest themselves in behaviour, which just about all beliefs do in one way or another.

 

[Storm]

I'm going with very simplistic meanings of each stance:
Theism: I believe in God
Agnosticism: I don't know
Atheism: I don't believe in God

I realize that these are oversimplified if you get into it, but the more nuanced meanings strike me as inappropriate to a discussion about how we're born.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm going with very simplistic meanings of each stance:
Theism: I believe in God
Agnosticism: I don't know
Atheism: I don't believe in God

With those definitions, I think you have two ways of looking at it:

- both agnosticism and atheism apply equally (the baby doesn't know and doesn't have belief)
- none of the terms apply (the baby hasn't evaluated or adopted any of these positions)

I realize that these are oversimplified if you get into it, but the more nuanced meanings strike me as inappropriate to a discussion about how we're born.

If the nuance is important to the definition, then I think it matters. However, I do think that this is somewhat moot, since we don't start out as blank slates anyhow. Just as babies are predisposed to language and co-operative behaviour, they're probably also predisposed to some sort of belief. It's just hard to determine what that belief is.