Atheists, theists, outside views, and empiricism

[PoetPhilosopher]

You know, the atheists I've met have been great comforters. If they see me upset, they tend to focus on whatever emotion I'm feeling, without saying things like, "Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you." or some other inspirational quote that I don't quite understand.

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Some atheists would say that introduces errors into my judgement. But I think you can have everything down to fine details, and still get it wrong, due to not looking outside the box you do the experiment in - to use an analogy. It's kind of like when two great debaters go off on each other - both sides may have facts and arguments that reduce your average person to dust. Yet the average, untrained debater might still get it right due to being outside the linear path of thought going from point A (debater 1) to point B (debater 2) as the two argue the fine details of just a few points.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nice, do not disagree. It is your choice. No question in the OP.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You know, the atheists I've met have been great comforters. If they see me upset, they tend to focus on whatever emotion I'm feeling, without saying things like, "Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you." or some other inspirational quote that I don't quite understand.

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Some atheists would say that introduces errors into my judgement. But I think you can have everything down to fine details, and still get it wrong, due to not looking outside the box you do the experiment in - to use an analogy. It's kind of like when two great debaters go off on each other - both sides may have facts and arguments that reduce your average person to dust. Yet the average, untrained debater might still get it right due to being outside the linear path of thought going from point A (debater 1) to point B (debater 2) as the two argue the fine details of just a few points.

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Perhaps you can help me understand what you're saying here. I also have a great sense of fantasy/imagination and love to ask the what-if questions, which is why I enjoy writing fiction, especially sci-fi and fantasy. It allows me to fully explore all sorts of what-ifs in great detail. And if when you say you 'want it beside me' you mean you want to have your ability to fantasize/imagine readily available, I agree that's something I want as well.

What I'm confused about is why having this great sense of fantasy/imagination and wanting it readily available has led you to the belief that some god or gods actually exist in reality?

 

[Brian2]

You know, the atheists I've met have been great comforters. If they see me upset, they tend to focus on whatever emotion I'm feeling, without saying things like, "Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you." or some other inspirational quote that I don't quite understand.

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Some atheists would say that introduces errors into my judgement. But I think you can have everything down to fine details, and still get it wrong, due to not looking outside the box you do the experiment in - to use an analogy. It's kind of like when two great debaters go off on each other - both sides may have facts and arguments that reduce your average person to dust. Yet the average, untrained debater might still get it right due to being outside the linear path of thought going from point A (debater 1) to point B (debater 2) as the two argue the fine details of just a few points.

"Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you."

 

[Audie]

You know, the atheists I've met have been great comforters. If they see me upset, they tend to focus on whatever emotion I'm feeling, without saying things like, "Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you." or some other inspirational quote that I don't quite understand.

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Some atheists would say that introduces errors into my judgement. But I think you can have everything down to fine details, and still get it wrong, due to not looking outside the box you do the experiment in - to use an analogy. It's kind of like when two great debaters go off on each other - both sides may have facts and arguments that reduce your average person to dust. Yet the average, untrained debater might still get it right due to being outside the linear path of thought going from point A (debater 1) to point B (debater 2) as the two argue the fine details of just a few points.

We notice an extreme disability of
"theists" to think outside their box.

Just try facts on a flood believer.

 

[Kenny]

"Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you." or some other inspirational quote that I don't quite understand.

Thank you for sharing... just a point... I don't quite understand that statement either

 

[F1fan]

You know, the atheists I've met have been great comforters. If they see me upset, they tend to focus on whatever emotion I'm feeling, without saying things like, "Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you." or some other inspirational quote that I don't quite understand.

There is a disturbing and ironic prejudice against atheists that we are soulless, not spiritual, evil, not capable of faith, and so on with more religious "deficiencies" they believe are real. I see many atheists often more compassionate and understanding than theists which we do not get credit for at a human level. I see many theists want to feel compassion and empathy but can only relate through the beliefs they hold, which can be a limiting experience and even more hurtful than intended.

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Some atheists would say that introduces errors into my judgement. But I think you can have everything down to fine details, and still get it wrong, due to not looking outside the box you do the experiment in - to use an analogy. It's kind of like when two great debaters go off on each other - both sides may have facts and arguments that reduce your average person to dust. Yet the average, untrained debater might still get it right due to being outside the linear path of thought going from point A (debater 1) to point B (debater 2) as the two argue the fine details of just a few points.

Reason is the best cognitive tool we have to discern true from false. What you describe here sounds like a person might have an idea about something being true without evidence and be correct by chance instead of skilled thinking. It's like throwing a dart at the wall and then drawing a bullseye around it.

 

[Windwalker]

We notice an extreme disability of
"theists" to think outside their box.

Just try facts on a flood believer.

Actually that is true. It just goes to show you how that theism and atheism tends to be just different sides of the same "believer" coin.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

We notice an extreme disability of
"theists" to think outside their box.

Just try facts on a flood believer.

But it's unfair to group all theists like that possibly 20% or so. Since you seem to be talking more of the Ken Ham type, going by the statement about "flood believers".

In the US for example, a lot of Christians aren't really that vocal or set in their ways, but the ones who are, are sure good about getting attention and camera time.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Thank you for sharing... just a point... I don't quite understand that statement either

I think F1Fan explained it well:

I see many theists want to feel compassion and empathy but can only relate through the beliefs they hold, which can be a limiting experience and even more hurtful than intended.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think F1Fan explained it well:

Whoops, I misread your post, KenS, if you were agreeing with me.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Perhaps you can help me understand what you're saying here. I also have a great sense of fantasy/imagination and love to ask the what-if questions, which is why I enjoy writing fiction, especially sci-fi and fantasy. It allows me to fully explore all sorts of what-ifs in great detail. And if when you say you 'want it beside me' you mean you want to have your ability to fantasize/imagine readily available, I agree that's something I want as well.

What I'm confused about is why having this great sense of fantasy/imagination and wanting it readily available has led you to the belief that some god or gods actually exist in reality?

Because I feel that a love of fantasy can sometimes direct one to more out-of-the-box thinking.

There's really no proof of a god or gods that isn't stories and spiritual experiences or possible wisdom one feels they gain from books.

But I like to keep that idea and option open.

One could say that my post sounds a bit "agnostic", but the reason why I practice religion is I feel I gain things from it, that it suits me well from the practices. And the gods for some may be a tool in that practice.

 

[Windwalker]

Reason is the best cognitive tool we have to discern true from false.

That all depends upon what it is you are considering. Not all things fall under true/false dichotomies. And if you try to apply that rule to those areas of life and reality, you create a false reality.

So reason in fact may not be the best tool of perception to discern truth, which can in fact be able to encompass multiple perspectives. In fact, there are those who argue that most of life fits into that "messy" category. I would be one of those.

What you describe here sounds like a person might have an idea about something being true without evidence and be correct by chance instead of skilled thinking. It's like throwing a dart at the wall and then drawing a bullseye around it.

If I understand the OP's point here, I would put it this way. Imagination, or better stated a "visualization" of some all-encompassing "God", allow us to move with our minds beyond tightly defined categorical boxes of reason and cognition. And the result of that, is a greater perspective.

A simple analogy would be "taking a break" from thinking about something you're focused on, in order for light that you've blocked by that narrow focus to help illuminate the mind. That is the nature of inspiration. That is what 'belief' in a "God" allows to happen.

But make no mistake, if someone is cognitively trying to fit God into a "reason model", they are making the same mistake as the atheist in placing faith in what the mind can think, as the true measure of reality. You cannot treat God as if it were an object of nature, like a cat, or a tree.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Reason is the best cognitive tool we have to discern true from false. What you describe here sounds like a person might have an idea about something being true without evidence and be correct by chance instead of skilled thinking. It's like throwing a dart at the wall and then drawing a bullseye around it.

To some extent, perhaps - however I feel that oftentimes, when we're dealing with a complex subject, and an expert who is still human trying to wrap their head around it, that to take the side of suspending judgement against the expert's ideas, while still carefully studying them and taking weight - I feel that can sometimes lead one to a better understanding, perhaps. Or a better way of wrapping their head around the subject.

For an atheist, to use an analogy, you might liken this to "holding out for greater peer review".

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If I understand the OP's point here, I would put it this way. Imagination, or better stated a "visualization" of some all-encompassing "God", allow us to move in our thoughts beyond tightly defined categorical boxes of reason and cognition. And the result of that, is a greater perspective.

A simple analogy would be "taking a break" from thinking about something your focused on, in order for light that you've blocked by that narrow focus to help illuminate the mind. That is the nature of inspiration. That is what 'belief' in a "God" allows to happen.

Yes. However, I also want to state that not every theist may achieve this. As already mentioned in this thread. But I feel it's a good thing to inspire to.

 

[F1fan]

But it's unfair to group all theists like that possibly 20% or so. Since you seem to be talking more of the Ken Ham type, going by the statement about "flood believers".

In the US for example, a lot of Christians aren't really that vocal or set in their ways, but the ones who are, are sure good about getting attention and camera time.

I think the more fervent and literalist Christians have had a bigger influence than we assume. I dated a Christian girl some years ago, and she was a regular church goer to a progressive church. She was also a 3rd grade school teacher, so she was educated. We had great religious debates, and she was often very frustrated with me. Faith versus reason seldom goes the way of faith. That's just the way it is.

What surprised me one day is that she expressed some possibility that the Genesis accounts were true and that evolution might not be accurate. Her basis for this was only that she heard so many talk about creationist ideas in church and family that there must be something to it. This is how propaganda works, whether deliberate or incidental. Just being exposed to ideas gives people reason to assume they could be true, and not because they have evidence or an argument, but because they appeal to established religious/cultural beliefs.

That really made me wonder how many moderate Christians think creationist ideas could be valid interpretations of the Bible.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes. However, I also want to state that not every theist may achieve this. As already mentioned in this thread. But I feel it's a good thing to inspire to.

Yes, very much so. Which is why I made the qualifier at the end of that post, where theism when treated as matter of doing science and reason, is reducing God to a mental object. "God" needs to engage the whole person, which is more than just reason.

Any authentic mystical realization of Reality, recognizes that "thought world" is not reality. It is "maya" or the world of illusion. So reasoning God, is a mental construct, not God, or as Meister Eckhart might put it, "God beyond God".

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think the more fervent and literalist Christians have had a bigger influence than we assume. I dated a Christian girl some years ago, and she was a regular church goer to a progressive church. She was also a 3rd grade school teacher, so she was educated. We had great religious debates, and she was often very frustrated with me. Faith versus reason seldom goes the way of faith. That's just the way it is.

What surprised me one day is that she expressed some possibility that the Genesis accounts were true and that evolution might not be accurate. Her basis for this was only that she heard so many talk about creationist ideas in church and family that there must be something to it. This is how propaganda works, whether deliberate or incidental. Just being exposed to ideas gives people reason to assume they could be true, and not because they have evidence or an argument, but because they appeal to established religious/cultural beliefs.

That really made me wonder how many moderate Christians think creationist ideas could be valid interpretations of the Bible.

I don't know the answer to that. Online though, I've met a lot of Christians lately who are considering themselves "spiritual but not religious", as a label, and don't agree with their religion's views on "no sex before marriage".

 

[F1fan]

To some extent, perhaps - however I feel that oftentimes, when we're dealing with a complex subject, and an expert who is still human trying to wrap their head around it, that to take the side of suspending judgement against the expert's ideas, while still carefully studying them and taking weight - I feel that can sometimes lead one to a better understanding, perhaps. Or a better way of wrapping their head around the subject.

It sounds like you are referring a scenario where there could be a new vaccine that meets professional and expert standards, but that some citizens might have extreme anxiety about getting the vaccine, and the experts don't understand this because they have data about the effectiveness of the vaccine but not understanding the anxiety of those who are reacting to their uncertainty about vaccine safety.

If this scenario reflects what you mean, it's a valid observation. But This scenario has causes and solutions that reason and emotional intelligence could remedy. Humans are social animals, and we do learn from social experience for the better and worse. Some accept contempt for expertise and government and this fear expands as more social media is consumed that exaggerates the fear. Bad mental habits can lead to this.

For an atheist, to use an analogy, you might liken this to "holding out for greater peer review".

There is a "greed for truth" felt by those with anxiety, and they will opt for a wrong answer when no correct answer is available. Being patient and emotionally calm can be a difficult skill for some folks, and they will make poor decisions. I think atheists have an advantage of skilled reasoning and can problem solve better than the average person.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It sounds like you are referring a scenario where there could be a new vaccine that meets professional and expert standards, but that some citizens might have extreme anxiety about getting the vaccine, and the experts don't understand this because they have data about the effectiveness of the vaccine but not understanding the anxiety of those who are reacting to their uncertainty about vaccine safety.

I'd say no. But I don't really care to explore this vaccine analogy further because then I'd probably want to talk about covid, personally, which is something I don't want to do here, for obvious reasons - we've got a moderated covid board for that.

I think atheists have an advantage of skilled reasoning and can problem solve better than the average person.

You might be right.

I think atheists and theists both have their strengths and weaknesses in different areas. I feel atheists make more trustworthy friends, but that theists understand me better when I start talking the abstract concepts from my own mind. Just from my personal experience.