ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

this is not contributing to this discussion but i had to post this hilarious rapture image YT link somewhere

btw I'll cop to being mostly a nihilist but it doesn't mean I'm not capable of awe and wonder and I'll those other "spiritual" things

"I could easily imagine a beef between an atheist who says the Bible is a bunch of stories meaning that it is all fiction and should be treated as on a par with the last Steven King novel, and a Christian who says the Bible is a bunch of stories meaning it is a guide written by spiritual leaders full of allegories that help one to live ones life."

Stuff like this, though, doesn't feel like an interfaith beef. I mean, I don't feel the Bible is bereft of life lessons, so I could theoretically have the same beef with this godless dude tag-teaming with my new Xian buddy, also because I like Stephen King.

Oh God (ha), did I spell Stephen King wrong? Sorry, I've been quite careless with my post editing today.

But anyway, surely it isn't an interfaith beef, because atheists by definition don't have faith. Also, there are many gradations between my two examples, those two were merely illustrations to prove that there IS a practical difference in attitude.

I get there would be a kind of 'tude divide between atheists who have no use for the church and those who
do voluntarily attend, but I can't imagine atheists that do attend going to hear scary stories, unless it's
some hellhouse kind of thing.
also, i spelled it wrong, too! but i felt compelled by an unseen presence to change it.

cad, the point i want to make is that atheism doesn't really have a cultural traditions parallel to religious culture. and i said 'atheism' -- i'm not trying to describe any particular atheist as lacking wisdom, values, or a sense of community. but it seems to me that an atheist those things have to be found outside of atheism -- or if you crib these things from a religion, in spite of it.

just -- i think of atheism as negating the existence of god and by extension, religion. that void gets filled somehow, and it'd be nice to see atheists advocating humanism / an ethical life / whatever rather than see certain atheists shitting on ppl's beliefs and giving y'all a reputation.

agree with all of that--i think most reasonable atheists do advocate an ethical life! but i don't think it's a failing of atheism not to provide those things (why would it want to) and disagree that it doesn't have virtues beyond "being right."

i disagree completely tbh. the assumption that these behaviours/instincts somehow come from religion as opposed to religion being perhaps the prevalent way of celebrating these existing and natural behaviours- that seems backwards to me.

Okay CAD now I'm kind of confused, partially because I'm not sure which things you mean by "those things" and therefore it seems contradictory to be okay with atheism not providing the values I'm thinking of yet still argue it has virtues beyond "being right".

I mean, you look at religions and most of them have a moral code baked directly into them. If you are granting that atheism does not have an inherent moral code, what are its actual virtues?

xp: that feels like a tomayto/tomahto objection but I can't put my finger on exactly why

yep. esp considering that said behaviours are actually pretty much across the board beneficial in an evolutionary sense xpost

hi dere jj just splained why it isn't and btw tomato is just pronounced tomato fyi also

those things being the things elmo mentioned originally.

i think it's a virtue of atheism that i wake up every day knowing (to the extent i can) that no supernatural force is acting on my life. i think it's a virtue knowing that if i want to change something in my life, i can do it without something like prayer.

I'm atheist, but I will stan for the King James bible as a) a work of literature b) a work of literacy in the sense that it opened up reading to those outside the 'privileged' class because you had scripture in English and other vernacular languages all of a sudden and that, like Greek myth or whatnot, there are recurring tropes that people are expected to know as canon (lol) in literature and the other arts, as well as popular culture.

However, I have this thing where I think forms of Christianity which use what I call 'Bibles for slow readers' are full of people who are generally not very bright.

BTW my atheism has always been underpinned by a very specific moral code: that I don't need some notional supreme being thing to reinforce my idea of the difference between right and wrong/good and evil because any intelligent person should be able to work out that hurting other living things or telling lies are shitty things to do.

Atheism cannot have an inherent moral code, because it is not a belief system. It is an absence of belief in God. But the reason why religions have moral codes at their core is because they are created by people. Atheists are people. Therefore they are just as equipped as the religious to provide morality etc.

suzy otm about another virtue of atheism

I think my argument is that it doesn't particularly matter where they came from; they got baked into the social construct we call religion and, barring some massive cataclysm that drastically reshapes humanity, they are going to stay there, so arguing that those behaviors are totally independent from religion is kind of akin to arguing that black and white are not actually colors; yes, in strict terms you are correct, but it is not a practical distinction to make.

so yes I did basically concede the point, you're welcome

Just because there's no deity involved, that doesn't mean atheism isn't a belief system. Non-belief is also a belief of sorts /ouroborous

also suzy's virtue is pretty easy to classify as "being right", to go back to elmo's original argument

I think my argument is that it doesn't particularly matter where they came from; they got baked into the social construct we call religion and, barring some massive cataclysm that drastically reshapes humanity

I think maybe the Enlightenment provided for a means (in Western culture obvs) of ascertaining morals and ethics and values that were independent of, and in some cases contrary to, religious values and ethics. Like, they ran on a parallel track and could be derived independently and practiced independently.

if atheists had awesome embroidered robes and geodesic temples and rites and folklore and shit i would be all over in a heartbeat.

The Enlightenment also brought us non-Latin Bibles, yo.

A few years ago someone used the gambit of 'you should thank God blah blah blah' on me and I pointed out that whenever people use the G-word on me it has more to do with what they want emotionally from me than what is actually necessary - also a bit like blaming your own fart on the dog.

jeez hi dere i think it's a pretty big distinction to make when someone (or a lot of people? i dunno) claims atheists somehow are at a disadvantage in their ability to relate to those behaviours

re: robes and domes, wouldn't you prefer we take over catholicism? we'd get a whole city.

Just because there's no deity involved, that doesn't mean atheism isn't a belief system. Non-belief is also a belief of sorts /ouroborous

Only when you make it so. It certainly isn't analogous to a religion. Perhaps for someone like Dawkins, or people who identify as 'Humanist' in a certain way. But certainly not for me.

atheism isn't a 'belief' as i'd understand it. in fact just whatever emily says i'll go with itt tbh

"Bibles for slow readers" is like the best thing I've seen all day btw.

I'm not sure skepticism operates on a physical level the same way that belief does. I think you have to on some level hold the belief in order to be skeptical of it. Someone with neuro-bio help me out here.

i think you have to on some level be cold to be hot

I think you have to on some level hold the belief in order to be skeptical of it.

Not true. You have to be able to consider it, which would include viewing it from both (or, if you want to reject binaries, multiple) sides. This is not the same as 'holding the belief', which would mean believing it. But of course, the only reason why I consider this particular belief, which is entirely unimportant to me, is because society asks me to make a decision. Really, I would've been much happier had it not been a question at all.

jeez hi dere i think it's a pretty big distinction to make when someone (or a lot of people? i dunno) claims atheists somehow are at a disadvantage in their ability to relate to those behaviours

This is where I assert that you are conflating atheism with humanism.

don't think so, am merely reacting to what was said upthread re: what atheists as misisng out on, tbh

'are missing'

what i mean is that whatever neural construct is formed to model/consider the belief is on a physical basis equivalent to having that belief, and the act of skepticism is one of dismissal, where this construct is inhibited, not one where a new 'non-belief" construct is formed.

this solves the ouroborous problem, which requires an equivalency between belief and non-belief, though it requires you to accept an equivalency between belief and consideration, at least on a neurological level.

i'm pretty sure i misspelled ouroubroous.

whatever neural construct is formed to model/consider the belief is on a physical basis equivalent to having that belief

although this sounds impressive, it's really quite mad

ie visualisation for appreciation/valuation != belief on a physical nor any other level, and i can't think for a second how you'd claim it

but it seems to me that an atheist those things have to be found outside of atheism

Well sure. Atheism is sort of a non-thing. It's like you're saying that baldness doesn't come with a hat included so bald people have to look outside of their baldness to find a way to cover their head. Of course. Baldness just means that you have no hair. It doesn't mean that you have no hair but you're also part of some organized community that provides free hats. I think.

fwiw i never said that atheists are missing out on anything; i said atheism doesn't provide much

i might be conflating the studies where people imagining themselves making free throws activated the same parts of the brain as people actually training, and both groups improving by about the same amount. that and something about mirror neurons.

fwiw i never said that atheists are missing out on anything; i said atheism doesn't provide much

seems i'm picking you up wrong in any number of small ways, elmo, but can you pls explain what the sentiment was, in context of 'here's what religion provides, and atheism doesn't'

what i mean is that whatever neural construct is formed to model/consider the belief is on a physical basis equivalent to having that belief, and the act of skepticism is one of dismissal, where this construct is inhibited, not one where a new 'non-belief" construct is formed.

Conversely, if a believer has doubts or questions about his faith, does his brain instantly go into a state of non-belief that mimics the brain function of an atheist?

not even that- if a believer considers non-belief as a concept their brain function is therefore atheistic

fwiw i never said that atheists are missing out on anything; i said atheism doesn't provide much

It doesn't "provide" anything. It's not supposed to! Atheism doesn't make the kinds of claims or promises that religion makes, which is why I don't think it's really an "ism."

i think if you considered non-belief as a concept, it'd be more like you believed there is such a thing as non-belief, rather than non-believing.
it would have to be something more along the lines like, "what would it be like to live like a heathen athiest? could I go skiing in the summer?"

Also, all of the talk about skepticism and considering various beliefs presupposes that you're coming from a religious point of view. This is what the people who claim that atheism is a religion or belief system are missing. You don't have to do anything to be an atheist. It doesn't take any deep thought or painful transformations if you haven't already been indoctrinated into a religious mindset. It's just the default state of being.

xpost-- I'm not sure what you're saying there.

hmm think we're getting to the root of something here. atheists can conceive of stuff without automatically believing they exist.

i'm pretty sure most people can tbh, but you have me worried

I think saying "religion" provides all these things that "atheism" doesn't is conflating an awful lot of things, where "religion" is being used as specific shorthand for "monotheism." Religion encompasses everything from Christianity to animism to wicca to Buddhism to Scientology. I just feel like someone is skipping an awful lot of steps, here.

I think the things that bother me about these arguments is the tendency for atheists to argue in an (essentially) ad hominim way - i.e. 'theists think I'm going to hell/ believe that you pray and illnesses are cured/ hate homosexuals or some other group' - and think that this is a refutation of the idea of theism. I think that a lot of the new atheists argue like this - the couple of times I've met Dawkins I always felt that he was arguing against an imaginary, right-wing, american fundamentalist standing next to me - the fact that I possessed none of the characteristics he was criticising seemed to be beside the point.

The other problem is the tendency for theists to try to make the argument a fight for the fundamental claim to be human; suggesting that morality, community, values etc. are exclusively religious qualities is frankly insulting to pretty much everyone.

On a side note, I came to my theism through radical skepticism - sort of a move through Descartes, reaching a dead end, ideas about subjectivity, Wittgenstein, and then moving through Kierkegaard to my own ideas about God and self. This was over a period of about 15 years of introspection, however, and the idea that my faith is 'blind' seems kind of odd to me. I'm also aware that my faith is incapable of communication between people (placing me in the 'mystic' camp, I guess) so I'm really not that interested in trying.

Also, I'm a (fairly hard left) socialist (my faith informs my political beliefs, but my political beliefs do not rely on my faith), and, frankly, I find myself much more concerned by poverty levels, preventable disease, the need for democratization of our socio-economic system, climate change etc. than whether or not one guy gets pissed off by someone preaching in the streets, or another gets pissed off because someone thinks that Christ and God are eternally coexistent rather than Christ being begotten of God. I'll pick the crude Left vs. Right dividing line over the time-wasting theist vs anti-theist dichotomy.

Actually, don't know how much sense that makes...

makes perfect sense

the couple of times I've met Dawkins I always felt that he was arguing against an imaginary, right-wing, american fundamentalist standing next to me

yeha totally. so frustrating to see him chase down these easy and unrewarding paths time after time

aware that my faith is incapable of communication between people (placing me in the 'mystic' camp, I guess)

Squarely. Not such a bad place to be, and one that generally proves a bafflement to the standard issue atheist.