Prejudice against atheism

[Scarlett Wampus]

Not sure how I can put this question in a straightforward way, or even if it is a question, so here is some roundabout query: -

The experience of being, and the capacity to be, deeply moved by things constitutes what I feel to be the core of 'spiritual' life. Natural beauty, music, literature, the heroic actions of another, meditation, euphoric dancing, group ritual (symbolic gesture), contemplation, etc. all these can affect people profoundly, bringing meaning and changing them.

Thinking about this earlier it occured to me that many of my friends and the people I admire are atheists and are just as (if not often more) open and receptive to the profound than religious people I'm close to. Despite this I have a prejudice concerning atheism: I associate it with over-emphasis on rational thought, diminishing the importance of other aspects of human experience. This isn't correct is it?

 

[linwood]

Thinking about this earlier it occured to me that many of my friends and the people I admire are atheists and are just as (if not often more) open and receptive to the profound than religious people I'm close to. Despite this I have a prejudice concerning atheism: I associate it with over-emphasis on rational thought, diminishing the importance of other aspects of human experience. This isn't correct is it?

It may be correct in certain situations.
I know atheists who speak as if we`re all just meat robots doing what we`ve been programmed to do.

I like to think I can understand all human experience from a rational perspective and still be awed by it`s greatness.
Sometimes understanding it rationally makes it all that much more wonderous to me.

Truth is almost like fiction so very often.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I take this beautiful little granddaughter,

raise her high in the air,

lower her,​

lift her up again,

and watch her break out in an utterly amazing smile!​

She is absolutely beautiful, and I know 4 things as sure as I can know anything ...

1. I love her dearly.
2. My feelings are the result of evolved neurochemistry.
3. I still love her dearly.
4. She is drooling all over my face.

Amen.

 

[michel]

I take this beautiful little granddaughter,

raise her high in the air,

lower her,​

lift her up again,

and watch her break out in an utterly amazing smile!​

She is absolutely beautiful, and I know 4 things as sure as I can know anything ...

1. I love her dearly.
2. My feelings are the result of evolved neurochemistry.
3. I still love her dearly.
4. She is drooling all over my face.

Amen.

Very well answered!:clap

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Jayhawker Soule that was lovely

Been thinking about this. When linwood said 'just meat robots' that sparked something in my mind. If someone said your love was just evolved neurochemistry that would dismiss so much of what it means for you to love your granddaughter.

Its that reductionist way of arguing that I think has perturbed me in the past, becoming something I associate with atheism. For instance some neo-darwinists I used to debate philosophical issues with had a view of human behaviour influenced by a simplistic model of the 'selfish-gene'. So often they'd adopt a reductionist explanation of things such as romantic love and family while denying other or additional models without even considering them. Typically romantic love was just an aid to reproduction, family was just a way of increasing the chances of survival. That they didn't recognise aesthetics as a valid branch of philosophy should've made me realise what was going on but its only now in reflection I see why they got on my nerves so much.

 

[linwood]

Its that reductionist way of arguing that I think has perturbed me in the past, becoming something I associate with atheism. For instance some neo-darwinists I used to debate philosophical issues with had a view of human behaviour influenced by a simplistic model of the 'selfish-gene'. So often they'd adopt a reductionist explanation of things such as romantic love and family while denying other or additional models without even considering them. Typically romantic love was just an aid to reproduction, family was just a way of increasing the chances of survival. That they didn't recognise aesthetics as a valid branch of philosophy should've made me realise what was going on but its only now in reflection I see why they got on my nerves so much.

I would agree with those Neo-Darwinists emprically.

The difference with me is that I can see and understand the beauty and or emotion derived through those simplistic deconstructions and enjoy it not regardless of their rationality but often times "because of" their rationality.

Things like romantic love and family may very well have their roots in a basic evolutionary process but they themselves seem to have evolved far beyond that simple deconstruction.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Things like romantic love and family may very well have their roots in a basic evolutionary process but they themselves seem to have evolved far beyond that simple deconstruction.

That's what I think! Much more survives than is immediately useful for survival. Also, especially in us humans behaviour that is extraneous to survival gets passed down from one generation to the next and takes on a life of its own of immense proportions. If that were not the case then communities that share almost identical genetic pools would not develop such diverse cultures. Such cultures even feed back into the evolutionary process so that we genetically engineer other species around us (and soon maybe much more). We are not just replicating selfish-genes, we are all sorts of things in addition to that.

Family values beyond not killing your offspring (for instance, by neglect), romantic love, art, science, religion, etc. these are all things that are not necessary for survival but yet hold great importance to us.

 

[linwood]

Family values beyond not killing your offspring (for instance, by neglect), romantic love, art, science, religion, etc. these are all things that are not necessary for survival but yet hold great importance to us.

I agree wholeheartedly.

The almost nihilistic view you mentioned about these things isn`t inherent in atheism itself but is an effect of attempting to make atheism itself a worldview or religion if you will.

I do know alot of atheists who hold those views.

I disagree with them.

Atheism to me is nothing more than a lack of belief in god.
While atheism does have an impact on my worldview it doesn`t entirely define it.

 

[gnostic]

I think that it is over-exaggeration that atheism have to do solely with scientific or rational people. I know a lot of atheists, and agnostics, who have nothing to do with science or darwin's evolution, let alone being rational people. There are whole range of atheists (and agnostics), with different background, and like linwood said, just don't have belief of any god.

As to lacking recognition of aesthetic, I would disagree. I don't think aesthetics have anything to with theism or atheism.

 

[Magic Man]

Atheism to me is nothing more than a lack of belief in god.
While atheism does have an impact on my worldview it doesn`t entirely define it.

DING DING DING! this is it. Atheism is one of the many beliefs or lack thereof that make up my worldview. I love comic books too, but that doesnt define me completely. There is a lot more to me than just my love of comic books, just like there is much more to me than my lack of belief in God.

 

[Dunemeister]

DING DING DING! this is it. Atheism is one of the many beliefs or lack thereof that make up my worldview. I love comic books too, but that doesnt define me completely. There is a lot more to me than just my love of comic books, just like there is much more to me than my lack of belief in God.

Unfortunately, on a debate site like this, we don't get to know each other in a fully-orbed way that would engender more respect (except for those of us who aren't respectable ).

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Long before I declared myself an atheist, I discarded the notion of a higher power for that of a higher purpose. How we got here is but a trivial catalyst for never ending circular coffee house discussion. How we conduct ourselves here is what is actually important. Science can strip love down to brain chemistry and evolutionary advantageous attachments having much to do with proximity and an innate desire to procreate and protect ourselves. But again, it is not how it happens but what we do with it that greatly defines love.

Being an atheist does not mean you have a cold black heart. I have a rational mind, but am also greatly moved by music, art, and those around me. Despite the assumptions of the ignorant, I have a capacity for love and an affinity for all things beautiful that bitter nasty fundamentalists like my grandmother, who thinks God is responsible for every thing that happens in this world, including every time she has ever found a good parking space, cannot come close to comprehending.

I do not necessarily believe that there is a being greater than me that causes such events and emotions, rather these events and emotions cause me to become a greater being.

 

[heavyarms553]

I suppose I could fall into the category of one who describes humans as "walking meat robots."

But that does not mean that life should not be treasured!

While the cause of our emotions may be biochemical, that does not make them any less real or important. They are an important coping mechanism for dealing with ourselves, others, and the world in which we live. We did not develop our emotions needlessly. Accordingly, they should be respected and treasured.

I love my family, and I would be stricken with grief beyond contemplation should I lose them. They are the most precious thing I have in my life. I treasure my love.

Chick peas are the most disgusting food on earth. I detest them and all that they stand for. I wouldn't bat an eye should someone commit chick pea genocide. I treasure my hate.

Bears are big, and strong. In a one on one fight, I would probably lose to a bear. I dont want to lose a fight with a bear. I fear bears. I treasure my fear.

The fact that you are a product of millions of years of evolution is not a fact that should depress you. It is a fact that you should exult in. You stand on the bones of thousands of ancestors who lived so that you may live. By virtue of the fact that you still draw breath, and they do not, you are better than them. But remember, the progeny of the human race will be better than you. Treasure your life, and listen to your emotions. Logic should play a crucial role in your decision making process, but let your emotions decide where you want your life to take you.

 

[Random]

I suppose I could fall into the category of one who describes humans as "walking meat robots." But that does not mean that life should not be treasured!

Merciful God...if there were a Commodities market for walking meat bots, you'd just have taken the bottom out of it.

The fact that you are a product of millions of years of evolution is not a fact that should depress you.

It doesn't.

It is a fact that you should exult in.

Well, no need to overreact. Let's keep perspective, eh? I haven't evolved into an immortal or anything...

You stand on the bones of thousands of ancestors who lived so that you may live. By virtue of the fact that you still draw breath, and they do not, you are better than them. But remember, the progeny of the human race will be better than you. Treasure your life, and listen to your emotions. Logic should play a crucial role in your decision making process, but let your emotions decide where you want your life to take you.

Thanks for the advice, as my emotions seem to me to be aspects of my spiritual nature, I'll keep storing my treasures for that Kingdom inside each and every one of us.

 

[heavyarms553]

Well, no need to overreact. Let's keep perspective, eh? I haven't evolved into an immortal or anything...

I wasn't suggesting anything to that effect. I just think it is amazing and marvelous that I could evolve the faculties that I possess today. Many people take their sentience for granted.

Merciful God...if there were a Commodities market for walking meat bots, you'd just have taken the bottom out of it.

I don't really understand what that means. I don't want to buy any walking meat bots... they eat too much. I think I would rather wait a couple years and buy a walking plastic and steel bot. =D

 

[Random]

I don't really understand what that means. I don't want to buy any walking meat bots... they eat too much. I think I would rather wait a couple years and buy a walking plastic and steel bot. =D

Frubals.

 

[texan1]

Unfortunately, on a debate site like this, we don't get to know each other in a fully-orbed way that would engender more respect (except for those of us who aren't respectable ).

This is so true! I have "let go of God" you could say. But I am still a very emotional, spiritual person if that makes any sense. I am passionate about music, art, and nature. I actually spend a lot of time doing volunteer work, etc. I don't know a lot about science and if you asked my husband if I was always rational he would probably burst into laughter. I bet if we all met in a coffee shop somewhere you wouldn't be able to pick out who the theists and non-theists were. I don't ever analyize or criticize anyone's religious beliefs in the "real world" so to speak. But for some reason it can be fun to pick it all apart and debate about it on this site.

 

[GadFly]

I have enjoyed the discussion thus far on this thread. You have answered several questions that I have had about atheist. You may classify me as a theist in my belief in God but a fundamentalist Christian in my religion. There are several concerns I have about people being atheist which do not necessarily relate to my belief in God like heavyarms553 and mball who say there is more to them than their no God belief. There are many outstanding qualities and attributes that man has that do not necessarily relate to religion. There are two fears that I have where atheism is a threat, one is more social and the second is more political. Your view could be helpful in search for common ground upon which to debate issues.

I equate atheism, humanism in this case, with moral relativity. With or without God it is not acceptable to me for humans to represent moral authority or create moral law. I simply do not trust human nature to be the frame of reference for the development of society. You atheist are undoubtedly aware of the arguments that moral relativity leads to communism, mercy killing, killing for the good of the state, free sex, and a threat to many of the values that liberty loving people claim holds society together. With atheism and without my God, where and how can we trust that morals will not change to meet the needs of the mighty in society?

In politics, the growth of atheism has had on the world has opened the door to the evils of communism. The former USSR and China are prime examples. Political liberalism such as we see all over the world, not just in the USA, threatens to undermine all of Western Civilization. This is a real fear that the vast majority of people in the USA has. We see the belief in God as a stop to this evil. Can atheism raise up a standard against these real threats and if so, how?

 

[Magic Man]

I have enjoyed the discussion thus far on this thread. You have answered several questions that I have had about atheist. You may classify me as a theist in my belief in God but a fundamentalist Christian in my religion. There are several concerns I have about people being atheist which do not necessarily relate to my belief in God like heavyarms553 and mball who say there is more to them than their no God belief. There are many outstanding qualities and attributes that man has that do not necessarily relate to religion. There are two fears that I have where atheism is a threat, one is more social and the second is more political. Your view could be helpful in search for common ground upon which to debate issues.

I equate atheism, humanism in this case, with moral relativity. With or without God it is not acceptable to me for humans to represent moral authority or create moral law. I simply do not trust human nature to be the frame of reference for the development of society. You atheist are undoubtedly aware of the arguments that moral relativity leads to communism, mercy killing, killing for the good of the state, free sex, and a threat to many of the values that liberty loving people claim holds society together. With atheism and without my God, where and how can we trust that morals will not change to meet the needs of the mighty in society?

In politics, the growth of atheism has had on the world has opened the door to the evils of communism. The former USSR and China are prime examples. Political liberalism such as we see all over the world, not just in the USA, threatens to undermine all of Western Civilization. This is a real fear that the vast majority of people in the USA has. We see the belief in God as a stop to this evil. Can atheism raise up a standard against these real threats and if so, how?

I'll answer these biefly, although they've already been answered in other threads. Communism is not inherently bad. It has not worked for the same reason monarchies have not worked in the past, human nature. Let someone be king, and more often than not, it goes to their head, and they become at least somewhat tyrranical. The same thing happened with Communism. If it worked the way it was meant to, it would be great.

Morality is relative, whether you want to admit it or not. Every culture differs in what it thinks is acceptable and what isn't. Some "liberty loving people" think that mercy killing, killing for the good of the state and free sex are fine ideas, and don't threaten anything. Moral relativity doesn't lead to those things, human nature does. Although, since moral relativity is part of human nature, I guess you could say that it does indirectly lead to those things.

I do like how you say that political liberalism is a threat to Western society, meaning it is a threat to "liberty loving people". You see the irony in saying that liberalism contradicts liberty, right?

As to the question in bold: we can't. In almost every society ever, morals have been twisted to meet the needs of the mighty. That is again human nature. Even with God, that is going to happen. It has happened. Even with the Bible, the "direct word of God", people, including the Church, have twisted it to make their own lives more comfortable. In fact, many would say that many parts of the Bible are an attempt to twist spirituality to meet the needs of the mighty.

One last point is that whether or not you believe in God, you have to know that laws and goverments or created and run by humans, not God. Human nature is going to be a part of any government and moral law we have, even if God exists.

This was not quite as brief as I had planned, but I hope it helps.

 

[Alceste]

I think negative stereotypes come about thusly: We often come across a group of people that share a number of qualities we find offensive or threatening, and the loudest and most offensive of them often seem to put an unusual amount of weight on one particular group identity. The most obvious examples might be the swishy, promiscuous, effeminate gay man or the fundamentalist activist undermining the separation of church and state. The dogmatic, condescending atheist pooh-poohing some of our most personal and treasured beliefs and experiences is another.

We only notice such people because they live at the extreme parameters of the complicated mass of humanity, most of whom do not become overly identified with one narrow group. For for every placard waving anti-abortionist there are tens of thousands of fairly moderate (and therefore practically invisible) church-goers quietly going about their business, and for every reductionist, angry atheist there are tens of thousands of people who aren't interested enough in the concept of god or religion even to identify themselves as atheists (and are therefore practically invisible).

Still, knowing this doesn't eradicate my irritation with an entire group when those who live at the extremes are doing something offensive. I am content to just be aware that my feelings are irrational and do my best not to blurt out something that paints the entire category with a bigoted brush.