What do you get from being atheist?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I try to be, but then posts like #51 from @Evangelicalhumanist make that approach unfortunately difficult and cause me to question it regularly.

I'm sorry, Ev, but there's a distinction to be made between having an experience - all experiences actually happened to the person they happened to unless they're outright lying to you - and how one interprets those experiences or goes about explaining them away or finding meaning in them. But then there are the subset of "atheists" who are happy to paint me as a liar when I tell them about an experience because they would prefer to dismiss as "100% fantasy" instead of something I... you know... actually experienced? Having had this happen on a routine basis makes it a lot more dfificult to avoid seeing "atheists" as precisely what RestlessSoul described earlier - prideful, hubristic creatures full of prejudice against anything that doesn't conform to their way of seeing the world. Who are you to tell others how to understand what happened to them and gaslight them into believing it didn't happen? It's gross.

How many people do you actually know who regularly, or even just occasionally, have "experiences" that cannot be observed by others around them? My suspicion is likely not very many. I personally know of none.

What I do know is that the following are just a couple of stories about people who have such experiences, and I would ask you to tell me if you think their interpretations of the experiences "happened as they experienced them."

The woman who was haunted by dragons. Last fall, Sacks was a co-author on a case study published in The Lancet, which told the story of a Dutch woman who reported to her physicians that human faces would transform into dragon visages, right before her eyes. A face that would at first appear normal would soon turn “black, grew long, pointy ears and a protruding snout, and [display] a reptiloid skin and huge eyes in bright yellow, green, blue, or red.” Other times, the hallucinations appeared out of nowhere: Throughout the day, she would see “similar dragon-like faces drifting towards her … from the walls, electrical sockets, or the computer screen … and at night she saw many dragon-like faces in the dark.”​

​

The man who mistook his wife for a hat. The title of one of [Dr. Oliver] Sacks’s most famous books is taken from the case study of Dr. P., a man with visual agnosia, who could, technically, see the world around him — he just didn’t always understand it correctly. Sacks determined that Dr. P. was suffering from visual agnosia, a rare condition caused by damage to the brain’s occipital or parietal lobes, which is “characterized by an inability to recognize and identify objects or persons,” according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.​

​

And his visual confusion didn’t end with mistaking poor Mrs. P. for a hat, as Sacks recounts in the 1998 book. “For not only did Dr. P. increasingly fail to see faces, but he saw faces when there were no faces to see: genially, Magoo-like, when in the street he might pat the heads of water hydrants and parking meters, taking these to be the heads of children; he would amiably address carved knobs on the furniture and be astounded when they did not reply,” Sacks wrote.​

My own example: when I was young (pre-teen) in a group home for disturbed children in Ottawa, I frequently felt myself surrounded by ghosts -- my certainty was absolute -- so much so that I would run at top speed to the safety of the office of the Head Counsellor of the home. Today, I don't believe in ghosts. I interpret, today, those early experiences as products of my own mind. Do you think I was wrong? Do you think that I was being singled out, out of all those other children in the home, by malevolent spirits?

 

[PureX]

Let's note that a "higher power" is not factual, and atheists don't accept the popular social idea. Atheists, and even some believers, don't have any use for what "higher power" means.

It is a fact that nature is a power greater than us, i.e., a "higher power". A power that controls our circumstances and destiny in countless ways that we cannot.

Faith is the antithesis of logical.

And yet you engage in it every single day, many times a day, because you can't ever really know what will result from your actions and you need to keep taking action, anyway.

At the core it is an emotional decision making that can be highly flawed.

Faith is not an emotion. It's a choice. And any process we use to make our choice will almost certainly be flawed, because we are not omniscient. Nor that clever.

No, atheists are atheists because they apply reason to religious ideas, and don't assign meaning to these ideas that are proliferated through social experience and pressure to conform. No one comes to a reasoned conclusion that religious ideas are true.

Yet, atheists do seem to be constitutionally incapable of recognizing the difference between religious representations and theism as an act of faith.

A claim, but no evidence. Let's note that atheists have the right to be critical of any social movement including religion. Religion isn't exempt just because it has belief about some god. Again you show your biased and disdain for atheists, and you fail to articulate what is wrong about what you detest. It tells us more about your than anything atheists are doing wrong.

This proving my point that atheists seem to be constitutionally incapable of recognizing the difference between religious representations and traditions, and faith in action.

That's a bad indictment of religion, and how useless its ideas are for practical uses, and for reason.

Religion is not really the subject at hand, though. Being anti-religious is not atheism. Nor is being religious, theism. But I can easily predict that you will continue to ignore the difference, because you have apparently somehow rendered yourself cognitively incapable of recognizing it.

No atheists would be so arrogant as to think they got help from a God while so many kids are dying from diseases in hospitals that God has turned his back on.

Yet they are clearly arrogant enough to presume this is what is happening, and that they have the right to stand in judgment of it. Funny how the arrogance comes and goes according to whether or not it serves their own presumed righteousness.

Atheists are vastly more self-reliant, and save cognitive activity for problem solving rather than prayers that don't work.

I pray every morning on my way to work and it works every single time. And I'm not even a "believer". I'm an agnostic acting on faith.

Heck, even churches and charities ask for money, and that's because God is not coming through to solve their needs.

Money is probably not what they really need.

Krishnamurti often criticized blind belief because the person has no freedom over that behavior.

I criticize the blindness of belief constantly. But the theist and atheist "true believers" never listen. Why would they? They have convinced themselves that they are right. That's what "truly believing" is.

He advocated for people to detach from the dependency on belief, and to understand why the self needs to believe in non-factual ideas for the sake of identity. Only then does the self have freedom and authority over their own mind.

And I agree with that 100%. It's why I am not religious.

Could it be that you recognize that atheists use reason, and don;t make assumptions about religious ideas, and this is a more logical position?

I've read more insane, irrational, dishonest, downright idiotic BS on this site coming from the self-proclaimed "rational" atheists then I've ever seen coming from the religious theists! WAY more!

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, and I'm neither selfish nor insane.

Hardly. Most people could not do what you have done given your background and education, nor would they care for a loved one as you have done. I admire you.

 

[Quintessence]

How many people do you actually know who regularly, or even just occasionally, have "experiences" that cannot be observed by others around them?

. . . Er... all of them? All the humans? All the time? That... that's kind of how thoughts and feelings just work? Or did you learn to read people's thoughts and emotions somehow without telling the world you are the most powerful psychic that ever lived?

Okay, okay. What am I thinking. Right. Now. Observe my thoughts and emotions right now. Since you can do that, apparently?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you think all this is somehow supposed to apply to everyone else? That because you chose no help from God that everyone else can do the same, and should? Do you think you're superior to them because of it? Could it be that you received help from God without asking and without knowing it?

The thing I can't understand about atheists is why they think everyone else should also be atheist. And why they think they are superior for it. Why they come here to tell theists how wrong and stupid they are.

And are you not doing precisely the same? Your repeated admonitions to me about how I would benefit if only I modified my beliefs? You never let up on that.

In this thread, I tried to take an opposite, less confrontational stand in my OP. I tried to show that for many people, seeing precisely zero evidence for fire-breathing dragons leads us to believe they do not exist, and all the wishful thinking in the world will not make our minds truly believe in them. And thus it is with "higher powers." We see no evidence -- none. And thus, we can't believe.

And yet, post after post after post you tell us that we should -- you know, for our own good.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is a fact that nature is a power greater than us, i.e., a "higher power". A power that controls our circumstances and destiny in countless ways that we cannot.

And yet, if you suggest that this "higher power" can be called upon to change circumstances we don't like, you are giving it a form of volution -- for which, once again, there is no evidence. Spinoza defined his God as "a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence" and Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"

Spinoza and Einstein suggest that there is no "help" available from that higher power.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

. . . Er... all of them? All the humans? All the time? That... that's kind of how thoughts and feelings just work? Or did you learn to read people's thoughts and emotions somehow without telling the world you are the most powerful psychic that ever lived?

Okay, okay. What am I thinking. Right. Now. Observe my thoughts and emotions right now. Since you can do that, apparently?

I'm sure you know full-well that is not what I was referring to. I am well aware of how much interpretation goes on inside our heads, but I know this too: you could not survive for long if you were unable to see things as they are, in agreement with others around you. Stand at a busy city corner, and tell me that without being able to correctly interpret traffic lights, pedestrian guides, the vehicles, their movement, direction and speed along with all the other people around you, and have the same survival likelihood as the person who is correctly seeing what is in front of her. Go back to the post and and answer the questions: were their dragons? was the wife a hat? And then maybe answer,, did Moroni talk to Joseph Smith and show him where to find "golden tablets and seer stones?"

 

[Quintessence]

I'm sure you know full-well that is not what I was referring to.

No, I did not - my thinking is along another lines entirely. I can try to explain.

The only thing that makes a religious experience religious is the interpretation that goes on inside our heads - the label we decide to put to things. "Gods" are one such label or granted title, so in the context of the topic of this thread I assumed we were talking about the power of storytelling (aka, the power of naming, the power of interpretation, the weaving of meaningfulness and meaning). This drastically impacts how we contextualize and understand our experiences - whether "inner" or "outer" - in theistic or non-theistic terms. I'm not talking about something as pedestrian as traffic lights and street corners and survival instincts. I'm driving at the difference between seeing gods and not seeing gods. The difference between two humans witnessing a Winter Solstice sunrise where both feel a sense of awe and wonder but only one of them understands this experience as divine, of the gods, or sacred.

The atheist isn't "missing out" on anything by not using a particular word. Just as the theist isn't "delusional" because they did. Yet far too many "atheists" enjoy gaslighting theists and calling them nutters for doing so. It's every bit as disgusting as the "theists" going on about how atheists are "missing out" on things.

 

[F1fan]

It is a fact that nature is a power greater than us, i.e., a "higher power". A power that controls our circumstances and destiny in countless ways that we cannot.

So when a theist uses the phrase "higher power" they are meaning natural phenomenon, like tornados, hurricans, tidal waves, and not some abstract supernatural that is a softer version than saying "God"? If not, then why bring this up except as a distraction, and deception?

And yet you engage in it every single day, many times a day, because you can't ever really know what will result from your actions and you need to keep taking action, anyway.

Another deceptive comment. The sort of "faith" that is defined as an every day expectation of normality is NOT the definition of religious faith, which is the context of my comment. If you need to deflect then you must have awareness that your beliefs and positions are weak and not defendable.

Faith is not an emotion. It's a choice. And any process we use to make our choice will almost certainly be flawed, because we are not omniscient. Nor that clever.

Religious faith is a voluntary unjustified belief in some non-factual idea. The motivation to make such judgments is the emotioanl satisfaction it brings. It's learned behavior.

Yet, atheists do seem to be constitutionally incapable of recognizing the difference between religious representations and theism as an act of faith.

Do we? Notice you haven't explained any difference.

This proving my point that atheists seem to be constitutionally incapable of recognizing the difference between religious representations and traditions, and faith in action.

Notice no explanation that your assessment is correct.

Religion, snbb/ is not really the subject at hand, though. Being anti-religious is not atheism. Nor is being religious, theism. But I can easily predict that you will continue to ignore the difference, because you have apparently somehow rendered yourself cognitively incapable of recognizing it.

We are well aware of your special definitions that are outside of normal discourse.

Yet they are clearly arrogant enough to presume this is what is happening, and that they have the right to stand in judgment of it. Funny how the arrogance comes and goes according to whether or not it serves their own presumed righteousness.

As if you have the right to criticize, but not atheists who you deplore. I suspect this illustrates your frustration at not being able to retort atheists' criticisms with factual defences.

I pray every morning on my way to work and it works every single time. And I'm not even a "believer". I'm an agnostic acting on faith.

I don't pray and have the same record.

Money is probably not what they really need.

If feeding people is your aim then prayer ain't going to get it done.

I criticize the blindness of belief constantly. But the theist and atheist "true believers" never listen. Why would they? They have convinced themselves that they are right. That's what "truly believing" is.

Your bias is what your criticisms reveal, not sound arguments and reasoning.

And I agree with that 100%. It's why I am not religious.

Yours is an odd and shielded form of belief. You show is the shadows of what you believe, but not directly what you believe. It seems your abstraction of God is a sort of antithesis of what other theists imagine. Whereas most theists have a clear idea of what they see as god, you see uncertainity and confusion, your cherished mystery.

I've read more insane, irrational, dishonest, downright idiotic BS on this site coming from the self-proclaimed "rational" atheists then I've ever seen coming from the religious theists! WAY more!

The more BS you think it is then the more confusion you are finding. We are happy to be of service.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We are well aware of your special definitions that are outside of normal discourse.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master——that's all.”

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, I did not - my thinking is along another lines entirely. I can try to explain.

The only thing that makes a religious experience religious is the interpretation that goes on inside our heads - the label we decide to put to things. "Gods" are one such label or granted title, so in the context of the topic of this thread I assumed we were talking about the power of storytelling (aka, the power of naming, the power of interpretation, the weaving of meaningfulness and meaning). This drastically impacts how we contextualize and understand our experiences - whether "inner" or "outer" - in theistic or non-theistic terms. I'm not talking about something as pedestrian as traffic lights and street corners and survival instincts. I'm driving at the difference between seeing gods and not seeing gods. The difference between two humans witnessing a Winter Solstice sunrise where both feel a sense of awe and wonder but only one of them understands this experience as divine, of the gods, or sacred.

The atheist isn't "missing out" on anything by not using a particular word. Just as the theist isn't "delusional" because they did. Yet far too many "atheists" enjoy gaslighting theists and calling them nutters for doing so. It's every bit as disgusting as the "theists" going on about how atheists are "missing out" on things.

The thing that makes that so difficult to understand is that it too often ignores what is most likely. As in the case of your solstice -- whatever it is seeking, it does not seem to be seeking the simple truth. I am not awed by a winter solstice sunrise, because I know it for what it is, no more than I am awed by eclipses, for the same reason. I am not awed by my tinnitus, supposing there to be a source of high-pitched hum, because I know that there is none. It's annoying (as hell!), but needs no special interpretation.

Maybe that's just the difference between two ways of seeing and thinking; one, to try to understand what it has experienced, and another to try to explain it. One is investigative, the other creative.

It is well known in neuroscience that the left brain really does engage in a constant stream of inventive story-telling, over the simplest and the most complex things. Thousands of carefully controlled experiments have demonstrated this conclusively. The great neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga has said: "our minds often invent events that never happened and people who don't exist just to “hold the narrative together.”

We seem “hardwired” to tell stories. Evolutionary biologists have hypothesized this idea. They propose that we humans are bombarded with so much sensory information coming into our brains via our senses (seeing, smelling, touching, tasting, feeling) that we can process only a fraction of it. The initial act of storytelling (telling a story to ourselves) enables us to “connect the dots” and makes the world and our place in it more coherent. According to Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist and author of Cognitive Science: The Biology of the Mind (2014), coherence in the story we tell is more important than its truth because coherence produces a pattern and provides a structure for our experience; it gives our story a beginning, a middle, and an end. Thus, our brains assemble and “confabulate” a narrative to help us make sense of our experience. (“Confabulate” — tell a story — is a word that both Gazzaniga and another famous scientist, Edward O. Wilson, use to explain the process by which our brains transform raw sensory data into useful patterns.)

 

[Quintessence]

The thing that makes that so difficult to understand is that it too often ignores what is most likely. As in the case of your solstice -- whatever it is seeking, it does not seem to be seeking the simple truth. I am not awed by a winter solstice sunrise, because I know it for what it is, no more than I am awed by eclipses, for the same reason. I am not awed by my tinnitus, supposing there to be a source of high-pitched hum, because I know that there is none. It's annoying (as hell!), but needs no special interpretation.

Maybe that's just the difference between two ways of seeing and thinking; one, to try to understand what it has experienced, and another to try to explain it. One is investigative, the other creative.

In some ways, yes, though I think this is presenting a false dichotomy and oversimplifies the multitudinous ways of seeing and thinking. It really is not difficult to do both and beyond - certainly not for me and not for many others . I do not understand the humans who limit themselves to their projections of "what it is" when the "what it is" is a matter of one's own interpretation... and different ways of telling the tale serve much different functions (e.g., sciences cannot and will not do what the humanities do and both are vital and necessary).

 

[Vinayaka]

I saw this question (or one very like it) over the last few days. I can't remember in which thread, or who asked the question, and it doesn't matter. But it does bring up something that I think is really important to the endless arguments between theists and atheists. (I'm not picking any particular theism, no individual religion.)

The reason the question is interesting is because it seems to make a deep assumption, but one that doesn't really seem appropriate -- and that deep assumption is that there is "something useful, something good, something valuable or precious" in holding a belief (or beliefs) about deities, and that the same must hold true about NOT holding such beliefs.

Let me try an example or two: if I don't have any theistic belief, I have my Sundays (or Fridays, or Saturdays or longer periods of religious observance) free. If I don't have any theistic belief, I am free to do anything I like (including murder and rape!).

This is analogically false!

I understand that having a belief in a loving deity, or a saviour, or an afterlife in a heaven or Valhalla can feel comforting and precious. I can see how having a set of rules (positive and negative) can feel as if difficult questions have been pre-decided or answered for you. I can even see how those rules might help you feel more comfortable rejecting -- or even mistreating -- those who aren't like you in those rules.

But here it is: there is nothing to be gained, nothing of value, nothing to provide comfort or guidance, in not believing in deities. We don't get anything from it. It doesn't comfort us, or frighten us. It demands nothing of us. It does not inform our morals any more than it informs our food preferences.

Which brings us the question that theists will immediately ask: "so why disbelieve, why not believe in a deity and gain all the benefits I feel I get?"

And the answer is perfectly simple: because we cannot change our belief on the basis of hoped-for benefits -- any more than theists can change their beliefs on the basis of a desire to be free of all those commandments and rules. To pretend to accept the idea of a deity gives us nothing, because it is pretense. The only thing that can change a deeply-held belief is convincing evidence to refute that which informs those beliefs. And therein lies a deep, deep blockage -- "convincing" is totally subjective: what convinces me isn't necessarily what convinces you.

As a kid we went fishing at the river, or skating on the home-made ice rink Sunday mornings. A couple of families did pickup ball at the community diamond half a mile away from the church. We got to do all kinds of things those poor Christians couldn't do. But now, in my religion, I only do the stuff I want to do, not the stuff I feel pressured or obligated to do. So not much has changed. Tools not rules.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In some ways, yes, though I think this is presenting a false dichotomy and oversimplifies the multitudinous ways of seeing and thinking. It really is not difficult to do both and beyond - certainly not for me and not for many others . I do not understand the humans who limit themselves to their projections of "what it is" when the "what it is" is a matter of one's own interpretation... and different ways of telling the tale serve much different functions (e.g., sciences cannot and will not do what the humanities do and both are vital and necessary).

Please don't get me wrong -- I am a huge fan of the arts: music, theatre, visual arts, literature. I spend a lot of time in galleries, in theatres and concert halls, and even more in reading (I love reading plays and poetry). I know that what I am doing is providing myself mechanisms for perceiving life differently. Everywhere in the wrold I go to, I explore the local arts scenes.

(If you've seen my posts, you might remember how often I quote sometimes very odd source material. I did with Alice Through the Looking Glass and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I do it very often with Shakespeare, but also other playwrites and authors.)

But when I experience something I can't readily explain, my first instinct is always an investigative one -- what was that? what caused it? should I do anyting? What should one do, for example, if they suddenly feel a little light-headed, disconnected from the world, and the actual sounds you hear change register -- and then after maybe 4 or 5 seconds, you suddenly feel "yourself" again? Perhaps there are those who might suppose, "I've had a near encounter with the spiritual -- I'll have to try to hold onto it longer next time." Myself, I would get myself to medical attention to see whether I might have had a transient ischemic attack, as I have had them before. These are mini-strokes that just might be precursors to more serious events in the future.

Just last February, Lindsay Clancy of Massachussetts killed her 3 very young children because she "heard a man's voice telling her to kill the kids and kill herself because it was her last chance." I'll grant you that the "experience of hearing a voice" was a real experience. What I don't think I can grant is that it was caused by a real voice speaking. I think that voice was a fabrication of her own mind -- a delusion.

I simply cannot permit myself to accept the inexplicable as something to act upon, rather than to investigate the cause of.

 

[Quintessence]

Please don't get me wrong -- I am a huge fan of the arts: music, theatre, visual arts, literature. I spend a lot of time in galleries, in theatres and concert halls, and even more in reading (I love reading plays and poetry). I know that what I am doing is providing myself mechanisms for perceiving life differently. Everywhere in the wrold I go to, I explore the local arts scenes.

(If you've seen my posts, you might remember how often I quote sometimes very odd source material. I did with Alice Through the Looking Glass and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I do it very often with Shakespeare, but also other playwrites and authors.)

But when I experience something I can't readily explain, my first instinct is always an investigative one -- what was that? what caused it? should I do anyting? What should one do, for example, if they suddenly feel a little light-headed, disconnected from the world, and the actual sounds you hear change register -- and then after maybe 4 or 5 seconds, you suddenly feel "yourself" again? Perhaps there are those who might suppose, "I've had a near encounter with the spiritual -- I'll have to try to hold onto it longer next time." Myself, I would get myself to medical attention to see whether I might have had a transient ischemic attack, as I have had them before. These are mini-strokes that just might be precursors to more serious events in the future.

Just last February, Lindsay Clancy of Massachussetts killed her 3 very young children because she "heard a man's voice telling her to kill the kids and kill herself because it was her last chance." I'll grant you that the "experience of hearing a voice" was a real experience. What I don't think I can grant is that it was caused by a real voice speaking. I think that voice was a fabrication of her own mind -- a delusion.

I simply cannot permit myself to accept the inexplicable as something to act upon, rather than to investigate the cause of.

Thank you for clarifying. It's interesting that we actually have a similar response to such things - to question and investigate and learn - but ended up in dramatically different places theologically.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thank you for clarifying. It's interesting that we actually have a similar response to such things - to question and investigate and learn - but ended up in dramatically different places theologically.

Well, of course, I can't wind up any place, theologically.

 

[Bthoth]

But here it is: there is nothing to be gained, nothing of value, nothing to provide comfort or guidance, in not believing in deities. We don't get anything from it. It doesn't comfort us, or frighten us. It demands nothing of us. It does not inform our morals any more than it informs our food preferences.

No guilt of having to lie to your own self to participate.

Which brings us the question that theists will immediately ask: "so why disbelieve, why not believe in a deity and gain all the benefits I feel I get?"

Anyone can read the material and learn the lessons and wisdom without having to lie to the self.

The believer does not own what is good.

Just as the theist does not own god or what a god did (or) did not do.

What a believer is required to do is accept what is personally realized as not true. For example a creation from nothing and a woman coming from the rib of a man.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I saw this question (or one very like it) over the last few days. I can't remember in which thread, or who asked the question, and it doesn't matter. But it does bring up something that I think is really important to the endless arguments between theists and atheists. (I'm not picking any particular theism, no individual religion.)

The reason the question is interesting is because it seems to make a deep assumption, but one that doesn't really seem appropriate -- and that deep assumption is that there is "something useful, something good, something valuable or precious" in holding a belief (or beliefs) about deities, and that the same must hold true about NOT holding such beliefs.

Let me try an example or two: if I don't have any theistic belief, I have my Sundays (or Fridays, or Saturdays or longer periods of religious observance) free. If I don't have any theistic belief, I am free to do anything I like (including murder and rape!).

This is analogically false!

I understand that having a belief in a loving deity, or a saviour, or an afterlife in a heaven or Valhalla can feel comforting and precious. I can see how having a set of rules (positive and negative) can feel as if difficult questions have been pre-decided or answered for you. I can even see how those rules might help you feel more comfortable rejecting -- or even mistreating -- those who aren't like you in those rules.

But here it is: there is nothing to be gained, nothing of value, nothing to provide comfort or guidance, in not believing in deities. We don't get anything from it. It doesn't comfort us, or frighten us. It demands nothing of us. It does not inform our morals any more than it informs our food preferences.

Which brings us the question that theists will immediately ask: "so why disbelieve, why not believe in a deity and gain all the benefits I feel I get?"

And the answer is perfectly simple: because we cannot change our belief on the basis of hoped-for benefits -- any more than theists can change their beliefs on the basis of a desire to be free of all those commandments and rules. To pretend to accept the idea of a deity gives us nothing, because it is pretense. The only thing that can change a deeply-held belief is convincing evidence to refute that which informs those beliefs. And therein lies a deep, deep blockage -- "convincing" is totally subjective: what convinces me isn't necessarily what convinces you.

It feels like it must have felt when Maui lifted the sky so people didn't have to crawl.

 

[George Washington]

I've trained myself, over time, to be helpful and respectful to others - something I learned through other rare, and interesting individuals who work behind the scenes and often go unnoticed by the competative types. I see these individuals as something special, and so, over time, I have tried to learn and adopt these traits, or perceived traits.

Atheism does not work well as an ideology for me while possessing these traits. What works better, is if there is some all-knowing God that sees all my good deeds, and knows my intentions and goals.

If I were to shift over to Atheism, my personality would seem senseless. Instead, I would have to shift back over to the boring 'competitor' type, for gains. Because without the supernatural, for me, there is only gains or losses. There is no artisticness. No good vibes. No feelings. No love. No joy. And most importantly, nothing that seperates me from the boringness of everyday life as another basic human being.

 

[PureX]

And are you not doing precisely the same? Your repeated admonitions to me about how I would benefit if only I modified my beliefs? You never let up on that.

I have no idea if you would benefit or not. I just know tat a lot of people do. And I admonish AGAINST belief because I feel it is irrational and dishonest. Faith, i the other hand, can be very positive ad useful to any of us. Without the dishonest pretense of belief.

In this thread, I tried to take an opposite, less confrontational stand in my OP. I tried to show that for many people, seeing precisely zero evidence for fire-breathing dragons leads us to believe they do not exist, and all the wishful thinking in the world will not make our minds truly believe in them. And thus it is with "higher powers." We see no evidence -- none. And thus, we can't believe.

The problem is that "evidence" has nothing to do with theism. So when you insist on getting it, and yot don't get it, you are basically blowing smoke up your own backside.

And yet, post after post after post you tell us that we should -- you know, for our own good.

You will not find any posts of mine telling anyone that they should be a theist. I am somply pointing out that there are benefits to be had, and no logical reason not to enjoy them.