Should some atheists take the time to study religion/rituals/magic ect.?

[Deathbydefault]

.

My initial observation of this thread is that @Theweirdtophat is conflating atheism with a number of things that are not necessarily paired with it.

Atheism does not mean one is irreligious.
Atheism does not mean one doesn't practice spellcraft/magic or rituals.
Atheism does not mean someone rejects preternatural, paranormal, and/or supernatural experiences and ideas.
Atheism does not mean one is a skeptic.
Atheism does not mean one isn't a mystic.

That is very correct.
I should have said in my initial post (#5) that Atheism is only one response to one belief, Theism.

You can only draw a line from Atheism to lack of belief in a God claim.
That's it. That's the entire composition of the Atheist belief.

Any other added belief isn't an atheist belief, even if many atheists may believe it.
That includes all of what you have so graciously listed.

 

[Shad]

bollox

Lots of atheists will demand proof, yet they don't even bother to attempt to do what other religious people do, like participating in rituals or ceremonies to see if such religions or magic is true. They just say "Nope nuh uh, it's all fake, because my text book says so and if it's not right in front of my face this very instant, it doesn't exist." It just sounds arrogant, close-minded and depressing to me, to not believe in anything. It's especially rude quite a few consider such beings as imaginary and look up to scientists of the past, when very few of them realize that such scientists were religious whether they were monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic or something else. The scientists like George Washington Carver, Newton and Vinci all had religious backgrounds and practiced magic and mysticism. Why would scientists of today dismiss such things as imaginary yet the scientists they try to emulate have practiced the things they criticize about.

Religious rituals are just a form of social rituals. These rituals do not more to provide evidence that a religion is true anymore than any other social ritual people perform. Taking sporting events for example. Rituals done by players before the game does not guarantee or provide any evidence that they will win. It only shows the mental and emotion state of those taking part. Some rituals are considered superstitions by social norms.

People follow these scientists due to their actual work having merit not their religions or superstitious views. People admire Newton due to his work on what is now called Newtonian mechanics not his belief in alchemy or that angels move planets.

Has it ever occurred to some atheists that maybe there is some truth to it? That there is a life force animating us? Has it ever occurred to them that may such souls are present in all things, or that magic is real. Or with people having near death experiences, seeing bright lights, seeing their families and seeing their body as they move up before they go back into their body. But I guess every single one just made up such experiences for no reason, right? Don't you think an atheist would scratch their head and say hmmm

Depends on the ritual. I can acknowledge that rituals have subjective meaning to those that practice it but have no objective meaning on if their religion is true or not. Considering magic is real is not the same as provide evidence it is real. So people can consider it all they want but fail at convincing those that do not consider magic as real. The problem with NDE is not that it's made up but that many experiences are mutually exclusive. People experience events that have references point to their experiences in life; family, religion, friends, places, etc. There is also an issue when one NDE experience contains say Jesus while others include say Muhammad. A better conclusion than accepting mutually exclusive NDE religious experience as all true is to view the NDE as a mental experience rather than some non-corporeal spirit/soul event. This is actually what medical fields have concluded.

"Hmmm. Maybe there is some truth to this. Maybe there's a reason why people have spent such time and effort practicing magic or spirituality. Maybe there's a reason scientists practiced such things. Maybe meditations and rituals and words and other things have power. Maybe I should look into it and find out for myself"

There could be truth but the evidence is lacking to support a claim of it being a true spirit/soul event rather than a mental event.

What can't be proved can at least be experienced. They want proof but they should know that some things can't be proven. It doesn't make it fantasy because you can't prove it. Maybe if an atheist at least attempted to do what religious people have done it'd make more sense.

I have had many "religious" experiences from mutually exclusive religions. In my own experiences I was able to falsify or show what I experienced was a illusion or wishful thinking. I tried magic, tarot cards, commune with nature, a few different Christian denominations and each set of rituals, even entertained Islam due to the "appearance" of unity. Each failed. Once I accepted that my subjective experiences led to dead ends I moved on to philosophy since it does not rely on my subjective experiences. My experience with philosophy has led me to reject a number of idea. For example using philosophy I have rejected Hawking's no-boundary proposal as only a universe with space but no matter is produced. The injection of matter in his arguments is of a religious nature not supported by anything.

I know this because I was atheist. I didn't believe such things either until I looked into it myself and thought "Maybe I shouldn't just dismiss it as if it was all fantasy just because the evidence isn't right in front of me." I felt foolish for dismissing such things when I really had no reason to. I found out myself and knew magic and souls was real. If atheists don't want to take the time to find out themselves, that's their loss, and I feel sorry for them.

As pointed out above I found the opposite. Lack of evidence for the soul and magic is enough to justify not accepting it. I need no have evidence right in front of me. I can point out the lack of evidence for both over centuries. Both have always been assertions. Beside I accept the philosophy of self and identity. The basis of each is found in religious identifications of the soul. It just forgoes the attachment and "baggage" of religion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Physics and metaphysics have their uses but it's not like it's incompatible. Really it all amounts to physics.

Then why did you say "Physics can only explain so much"? Are you now going back on that?

Different name, but it amounts to the laws of the multiverse. No laws are being broken. Gathering ki to shatter something you normally wouldn't shatter isn't breaking the laws of physics. Just like the super natural really isn't super, but it part of the natural world that most people have little to no knowledge about.

Please give a demonstrate of somebody shattering something they "normally wouldn't shatter". You have made very specific claims that the ability that humans are capable of breaking objects that they "shouldn't be able to". Give an example.

You're not really giving me too many questions to answer.

That is a lie. I have asked you dozens of very direct questions.

You have this idea that because magic is usually described as something you see in movies, that must mean all magic is like that. It isn't.

I've never once said anything even remotely like that. In fact, I have asked you REPEATEDLY to explain how "real" magic works. Please stop lying.

As I said real magic doesn't work like that. If I told you how it really works, it'd take all day but I'll try to shorten it. Working with the life force to cause change, be it physical, mental or spiritual. Causing change in one's attitude, working with forces to cause certain changes involving healing, luck, physical means, ect. It doesn't mean throwing fireballs or teleporting from one country to another. Research on how it's actually practiced and you'll understand what I mean.

So is there any way to clearly show that any of these things are caused by any kind of magic rather than natural, physical forces? What is the difference?

 

[Bunyip]

Lots of atheists will demand proof, yet they don't even bother to attempt to do what other religious people do, like participating in rituals or ceremonies to see if such religions or magic is true. They just say "Nope nuh uh, it's all fake, because my text book says so and if it's not right in front of my face this very instant, it doesn't exist." It just sounds arrogant, close-minded and depressing to me, to not believe in anything. It's especially rude quite a few consider such beings as imaginary and look up to scientists of the past, when very few of them realize that such scientists were religious whether they were monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic or something else. The scientists like George Washington Carver, Newton and Vinci all had religious backgrounds and practiced magic and mysticism. Why would scientists of today dismiss such things as imaginary yet the scientists they try to emulate have practiced the things they criticize about.

Has it ever occurred to some atheists that maybe there is some truth to it? That there is a life force animating us? Has it ever occurred to them that may such souls are present in all things, or that magic is real. Or with people having near death experiences, seeing bright lights, seeing their families and seeing their body as they move up before they go back into their body. But I guess every single one just made up such experiences for no reason, right? Don't you think an atheist would scratch their head and say hmmm

"Hmmm. Maybe there is some truth to this. Maybe there's a reason why people have spent such time and effort practicing magic or spirituality. Maybe there's a reason scientists practiced such things. Maybe meditations and rituals and words and other things have power. Maybe I should look into it and find out for myself"

What can't be proved can at least be experienced. They want proof but they should know that some things can't be proven. It doesn't make it fantasy because you can't prove it. Maybe if an atheist at least attempted to do what religious people have done it'd make more sense.

I know this because I was atheist. I didn't believe such things either until I looked into it myself and thought "Maybe I shouldn't just dismiss it as if it was all fantasy just because the evidence isn't right in front of me." I felt foolish for dismissing such things when I really had no reason to. I found out myself and knew magic and souls was real. If atheists don't want to take the time to find out themselves, that's their loss, and I feel sorry for them.

I hate these threads attacking unidentified atheists. Try to stick to addressing what somebody said or did - not just 'them'. Do you have a person in mind?
Who demanded proof from you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

[/COLOR][/FONT]

No, I've done quite a lot of reading in the academic literature on the anthropological perspectives of magic. At no point has the practice of magic been considered about obtaining or prescribing "objective truth." It has always primarily been about satisfying the human desire to have control (or a sense of control) over one's lot in life. From there, some anthropologists have approached it from a sociological perspective (i.e., O'Keefe's "Stolen Lightning: A Social Theory of Magic"), while others have looked more at the functions it serves for individuals (i.e., Greenwood's various works on the subject).

You just said it yourself: magic was about control over one's lot in life. It wasn't "art" about control; it was a real attempt to gain real control by means that were thought to be actually efficacious.

Alhough this may be unintentional, and I rather hope that it is, comparing practices of mysticism and magic to shooting yourself up with heroine isn't exactly endearing. Next time you want someone to respect your point, perhaps try making a comparison that isn't so easily equated with blatant slander of someone else's practices.

I wasn't saying that magic is like heroin; I'm just calling attention to one example that illustrates that a "don't knock it until you try it" approach isn't a universally good idea. If you want to argue that the experience of magic or religion is generally good (like sex) and not generally harmful (like heroin), be my guest, but that argument hasn't been made yet.

We're limited human beings who can't immerse ourselves in every experience. As I tried to point out, it's also just not a good idea to immerse ourselves in EVERY experience. We necessarily have to make judgments, often without full knowledge, about what to experience and what to set aside.

We only have limited time and resources. Why should we prioritize religion or magic over other pursuits.

I asked a question (not of you) that got ignored the first time: why should I consider the study of religion more important than the study of Robert's Rules of Order (i.e. the thing I'm doing now that would be the thing I'd drop if I devoted more time to religion). I've found learning Robert's Rules of Order to be beneficial (I'm on a couple of non-profit boards and I've already found ways to streamline our meetings); what reason do I have to think that studying religion would be beneficial enough to make up for what I'd be giving up?

Yeah, but I aim to salvage... mostly because I can't stand for poor representation for students of the esoteric.

Consider the possibility that theweirdtophat is presenting his own arguments that you disagree with, not presenting your arguments badly.

 

[Underhill]

Lots of atheists will demand proof, yet they don't even bother to attempt to do what other religious people do, like participating in rituals or ceremonies to see if such religions or magic is true. They just say "Nope nuh uh, it's all fake, because my text book says so and if it's not right in front of my face this very instant, it doesn't exist." It just sounds arrogant, close-minded and depressing to me, to not believe in anything. It's especially rude quite a few consider such beings as imaginary and look up to scientists of the past, when very few of them realize that such scientists were religious whether they were monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic or something else. The scientists like George Washington Carver, Newton and Vinci all had religious backgrounds and practiced magic and mysticism. Why would scientists of today dismiss such things as imaginary yet the scientists they try to emulate have practiced the things they criticize about.

Has it ever occurred to some atheists that maybe there is some truth to it? That there is a life force animating us? Has it ever occurred to them that may such souls are present in all things, or that magic is real. Or with people having near death experiences, seeing bright lights, seeing their families and seeing their body as they move up before they go back into their body. But I guess every single one just made up such experiences for no reason, right? Don't you think an atheist would scratch their head and say hmmm

"Hmmm. Maybe there is some truth to this. Maybe there's a reason why people have spent such time and effort practicing magic or spirituality. Maybe there's a reason scientists practiced such things. Maybe meditations and rituals and words and other things have power. Maybe I should look into it and find out for myself"

What can't be proved can at least be experienced. They want proof but they should know that some things can't be proven. It doesn't make it fantasy because you can't prove it. Maybe if an atheist at least attempted to do what religious people have done it'd make more sense.

I know this because I was atheist. I didn't believe such things either until I looked into it myself and thought "Maybe I shouldn't just dismiss it as if it was all fantasy just because the evidence isn't right in front of me." I felt foolish for dismissing such things when I really had no reason to. I found out myself and knew magic and souls was real. If atheists don't want to take the time to find out themselves, that's their loss, and I feel sorry for them.

Many atheist I know came from a religious background. I was deeply rooted in christian faith with church 3-4 times a week, sunday school, private school and even a year at bible college. Years of study is part of what led me to my lack of belief.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

On the physics involved in breaking cinder blocks;

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/the-body/11-turn-your-fist-into-a-blocking-breaking-machine

 

[JustWondering]

I have never been an atheist, but I can certainly see where they are coming from with threads like this. Atheists, generally, seem to know a lot more about religions (both historically and theologically) than the theists who follow them. That is a startling and sad truth.

I once worked with someone who was a devote Christian who was studying to be a pastor. We talked religion every so often and during one of those discussions he said Jews were Christians. I had to explain to him (what little I knew) what Judaism entailed. Mostly, that they did not except Christ as their savior and son of god. After I told him this he said he would look into it (I think he honestly thought I was wrong or trying to mess with him). He was in his thirties at the time and had been putting in serious time studying to be a pastor for over a year.

 

[outhouse]

Lots of atheists will demand proof, yet they don't even bother to attempt to do what other religious people do, like participating in rituals or ceremonies to see if such religions or magic is true

Unsubstantiated rhetoric

MOST atheist started as theist.


Reality Is most atheist know the religion better then most theist, do you have an excuse?

 

[outhouse]

Why would atheists and scientists dismiss rituals and magic and such things as fantasy when the greatest scientists such study things.

You cannot substantiate that claim in any way.

Interest in religion or spirituality is not based on reporting the facts of observations.

Many scientist are theist, why do their findings go against claims in theology?


As a strong atheist, I study and teach biblical history. So what is your REAL point here?

 

[Seeker of Ka]

Most atheists are aware of religion to some degree, often not out of any choice of their own.

You make it sound you do not have much of a natural tendency towards atheism. Or perhaps more specifically, skepticism.

You cannot apply scepticism to something outside of your realm of study.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric

MOST atheist started as theist.


Reality Is most atheist know the religion better then most theist, do you have an excuse?

True most Aethist do start as Theist and more often than not understand their orignal religion better than most of it's practitioners. However most Aethist I ahve interacted with know little of religions that they where not orignally a part of. Many Aethiest I have know rejected the Bible (understandbly) but then renounced ALL religions becuase the Bible was incorrect. That seems very close minded to me.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

Proper technique.

As a martial artist I would like to comment upon this. Yes it is proper technique and conditioning, this is one aspect of martial arts which does not have a psychic component. However there are some psyhic aspects of some martial arts.

 

[Koldo]

As a martial artist I would like to comment upon this. Yes it is proper technique and conditioning, this is one aspect of martial arts which does not have a psychic component. However there are some psyhic aspects of some martial arts.

Such as?

 

[Seeker of Ka]

Such as?

 

[Deathbydefault]

True most Aethist do start as Theist and more often than not understand their orignal religion better than most of it's practitioners. However most Aethist I ahve interacted with know little of religions that they where not orignally a part of. Many Aethiest I have know rejected the Bible (understandbly) but then renounced ALL religions becuase the Bible was incorrect. That seems very close minded to me.

You make a very fair point here.
My knowledge of Christianity is immense compared to my knowledge of any other religion.
That does not make me close-minded to all religions though.
My lack of belief in Gods is based on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove a God exists.
I have yet to find a religion that meets those standards even halfway.

I'll gladly listen to your religions teaching, read and study, or even interpret, your literature.
But if your God cannot be proven real, then I would have only gained knowledge helpful in discourse.
The same goes with any religion, we could learn all about them but we'd more than likely reach the same conclusion we did with our first one.

I can give you a link to helping you find out why many atheist, whom were once Christian, converted to atheism.
It may also explain to you why these atheists reject all religions and not just the one they may have grown up with.

Here you go.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

You make a very fair point here.
My knowledge of Christianity is immense compared to my knowledge of any other religion.
That does not make me close-minded to all religions though.
My lack of belief in Gods is based on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove a God exists.
I have yet to find a religion that meets those standards even halfway.

I'll gladly listen to your religions teaching, read and study, or even interpret, your literature.
But if your God cannot be proven real, then I would have only gained knowledge helpful in discourse.
The same goes with any religion, we could learn all about them but we'd more than likely reach the same conclusion we did with our first one.

I can give you a link to helping you find out why many atheist, whom were once Christian, converted to atheism.
It may also explain to you why these atheists reject all religions and not just the one they may have grown up with.

Here you go.

My religion is based on personal experience, if I told you my beliefs and you accepted them I would think that your are not being sceptical. Becuase if I was you I would not accept my beliefs.

I read the article and it still does not seem to help me understand why they rejected other faiths as well.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

You make a very fair point here.
My knowledge of Christianity is immense compared to my knowledge of any other religion.
That does not make me close-minded to all religions though.
My lack of belief in Gods is based on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove a God exists.
I have yet to find a religion that meets those standards even halfway.

I'll gladly listen to your religions teaching, read and study, or even interpret, your literature.
But if your God cannot be proven real, then I would have only gained knowledge helpful in discourse.
The same goes with any religion, we could learn all about them but we'd more than likely reach the same conclusion we did with our first one.

I can give you a link to helping you find out why many atheist, whom were once Christian, converted to atheism.
It may also explain to you why these atheists reject all religions and not just the one they may have grown up with.

Here you go.

What are your requirments for a religion to even be possibly true?

 

[LuisDantas]

You cannot apply scepticism to something outside of your realm of study.

Except that I can, and that the field of study are at the very least the natural sciences in the first place.

Maybe you want to elaborate?

 

[Seeker of Ka]

Except that I can, and that the field of study are at the very least the natural sciences in the first place.

Maybe you want to elaborate?

If you have never seen the color orange you cannot perceive it. You could be told that it is between red and yellow and have a vague idea of it.

If you have not participated in the paranormal then it is intensely difficult to apply critiscism in that area, becuase to have proper criticism you need to see every possible angle of the object of criticism. In my paranormal team I require us to have a sceptic in order to make share we are not falling into confirmation bais.