are you an atheist?

they'll just about always have the "yeah sure ok humans can explain the ins and out of things, but God put it all in motion"

"...that was before he decided to settle down and have a lil god of his very own..."

My main defense against the inerrancy crowd (which is shrinking) is the pure number of differing Christian sects. For a divinely inspired book (their words), it's a lil telling that several billion believers can't come to a consensus on some pretty significant things like WHETHER HELL IS REAL

In my mind atheism has a kind of "origin myth" of the moment when an early ocean traveler had been to enough different islands to realize that people believed a variety of different things equally fervently

i am starting to think that being an atheist is psychologically harder than having faith in some sort of spiritual something, especially vis a vis coping with loneliness and loss.

Def is for me

I have had this fascination for a while with the modern idea of "belief" as separate from knowledge, which seems to be the level on which a lot of "theistic scientists" (i.e. actual scientists who are religious, not intelligent design people) believe. I imagine there was a time when this kind of "belief" virtually did not exist, because if your religion was the only knowledge game in town, it was as literally true as anything else you knew to be literally true.

So today, perhaps to maintain the kinds of spiritual comforts that you're referring to, Treeship, we have this category of "belief" that exists outside of verifiable knowledge for the skeptical who still want religion. Yet I find sort of a paradox in that kind of belief for me, because for me to truly believe I feel like I have to let go of my skepticism, but I can't fully let go of my skepticism without some kind of empirical evidence. So even though I rationally understand the idea of accepting religion without taking it as literally true, I can't put myself into it. Also because that kind of "belief" requires you to choose a faith, but when all faiths seem equally untrue in the literal sense and true in the metaphysical sense, I have a hard time committing to one faith.

A.P.: The most important ground of belief is probably not philosophical argument but religious experience. Many people of very many different cultures have thought themselves in experiential touch with a being worthy of worship. They believe that there is such a person, but not because of the explanatory prowess of such belief. Or maybe there is something like Calvin’s sensus divinitatis. Indeed, if theism is true, then very likely there is something like the sensus divinitatis. So claiming that the only sensible ground for belief in God is the explanatory quality of such belief is substantially equivalent to assuming atheism.

This is the line of argument that contends that since many cultures independently and almost without exception have created some concept of god or gods, there must be some validity to them? I just don't know how someone schooled in logic can arrive at this conclusion.

Many species all over the globe respond to their own reflections as though they were other creatures.

I dig the conceptual comforts of faith (I had it growing up) but damn if I don't feel like I'd have to lie to myself an awful lot to roll with it.

yeah that's basically what I was trying to say with my pretentious post, in many fewer words

ha I kinda forgot about this til now...being 11 and having a very religious best friend, going to his church a couple times due to sleepovers, then going bowling with him and his fam and testing out prayer by asking the Lord for a strike or 2. Didn't help my score at all, so that was the end of that.

...the modern idea of "belief" as separate from knowledge...

Where mysticism comes in handy is that it rests on personal experience, rather than some system of belief acquired through tradition, teaching or intellect. It doesn't so much confirm anything you can point to as it does disrupt, disconnect from and evade tradition, teaching and intellect. Which experience has positive value, even if it is hard to express apart from negatives.

Doesn't say spit about god, though.

hurting i saw something on the history of the word 'believe' which i can't recall properly which i think maintained that the old, original sense of belief was as in "i believe in you" & that the empirical sense is modern & this was to inform yr reading of ancient texts &c.

The idea of God as default is alien to me cos even as a seven year old i was grilling my mom about why people believed. Not out of skepticism but due to genuine curiosity.

I was raised religious and was also skeptical early, but even into my late teens or early twenties I think I had a sense of God as "default" where even my skepticism was against the backdrop of a possible God figure out of the old testament. I think it just takes a long time to overcome the emotional weight of that concept when you are raised with it. But now that I (think) I have, it's very hard to go back to that state.

I had it briefly due to being forced to go to Fundie church and i have "whats it all mean" moments now and then...having it rubbed in your face does make it harder to eradicate.

I think a big turning point is when you realize you don't ALWAYS auto-pray when there's turbulence on a plane.

i think something like prayer would be really good for me, but i'm not sure i could force myself to believe even if i was sure that's what i wanted. also, what God would i believe in? i was raised catholic and have an affection for the rituals and imagery but ideologically it's not an institution i see eye to eye with. i think it's tough.

one of the main things that pisses me off about the "new atheists" is that they disparage god as an "imaginary friend", implicitly accusing people who look there for solace of weakness and disdaining them for it. fuck that. people want to feel connected to something. i think that belief in god is a way for people to feel connected to humanity in general, to be one link away from everyone else. i guess this is like what feuerbach and later marx said, that god is just man's alienated essence and after the revolution, when society is a harmonious, cohesive totality, there will be no need for him.

I Think where most of this falls down is the supposition that an argument is needed in the first place.

― tsrobodo, Monday, February 10, 2014 6:29 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's the whole reason I don't get the apologetic movement. Well, I mean I 'get' it but I think it's the wrong angle. In the end, nobody's stance on religion is going to be wholly based on holistic data (shaky or not). I get that it's a response to the 'yay science' crowd but like, I have plenty of intelligent believer friends who present arguments that are internally sound (just not for me, personally).

― Lesbian has fucking riffs for days (Neanderthal), Monday, February 10, 2014 6:30 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

These are pretty obvious defense mechanisms though. If rational justification doesn't suffice to ground your beliefs, it's highly convenient to be able ground them somewhere else where arguments can't affect them. Apologetics at least makes itself open to discussion.

What's wrong with a simple admission of "this is not rational, but I believe it anyway"? Why does that have to be a "defense mechanism"?

^This. I would say this right away. I wouldn't have it any other way. God shouldn't be a rational thing imo. If he was, then he would be part of science.

How do you judge whether the concept is legitimate?

What do you mean by "legitimate"?

Well that's up to each individual person. Here's where the "personal God" comes in. It doesn't mean God is a person you talk to, it means it's a personal experience.

How can a particular explanatory concept of our universe not be part of science?

It's not explanatory.

Unless you are a Young Earth Creationist.

What do you mean by "legitimate"?

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (1 minute ago)

As in what would drive you to subscribe to it.

It is explanatory. YEC is just a particular belief in how.

I guess what I really mean is a utilitarian approach to belief. I'm fine with any belief that doesn't interfere with a person's rational interactions with the material world. In other words, if a person says "prayer will help me get through my cancer treatment," I have no objection to them praying, and I recognize that that may on some level be a true statement. If they say "prayer IS the best cancer treatment" that's where I get off the train. When otherwise logical, rational people "believe" in God, this is often the kind of belief they have. The belief in an immaterial "spirit" or "soul" that transcends the body does not necessarily interfere with a person's ability to otherwise function rationally, and if it provides a source of comfort and meaning, then why not? Same with the abstract idea of an eternal God, as long as you don't think you can ask God to move objects for you or put the $100 in your wallet that you owe and don't have.

If you want someone to move objects for you and give you free money you should probably just be less selfish for a start.

Yeah, it should have very little to do w the material world. Particularly politics!

tend to agree with Hurting and AB. there are rational reasons that I don't believe in gods (or at least, not the Judeo-Christian one), but the crux of it is based on underwhelming personal experience while actively seeking out religion in my youth.

also think Hurting's summation above is good. there's a diff between someone having a comforting belief, and there's also the brain-dead girl's family and their attorney who don't accept "death".

It is interesting that in debates the theist holds their beliefs to different standards of evidence than they do with things in daily life. But to Hurting's point that is often a good thing.

also completely unrelated, but when someone's having a rough time of it, and you know they're not particularly religious, best not to immediately reply with the consolation "You know there's someone called God that can help you out." HOW ABOUT "I'M SO SORRY TO HEAR THAT!" INSTEAD.

used to get that all the time from one of my hyper-religious friends and...ugh.

People being patronizing sucks whether God is invoked or not.

I thought the most telling part of the Nye/Ham debate was a question from the audience directed at Mr Ham: "what evidence would be necessary in order for you to change your beliefs?". His answer...nothing would ever change his mind. So why go thru the pretense of debates, couching your faith in science/rationality, claiming to just not be convinced by the vast amount of evidence to the contrary, etc etc??

WLC, though far more intelligent than Ham (then again, who isn't) said something similar. His five points always end with "it all boils down to the warm fuzzy feeling inside your chest".

for you that's God. for me that's acid reflux.

It is interesting that in debates the theist holds their beliefs to different standards of evidence than they do with things in daily life. But to Hurting's point that is often a good thing.

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:20 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think most people have some things in their daily life that do not withstand rational scrutiny.

Agreed. But I mentioned debates because that's where they try to justify religious belief much more intellectually than one might casually participate in a superstition for instance.

How can a particular explanatory concept of our universe not be part of science?

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:06 AM (5 hours ago)

science is a means of explanation. it is not the only conceivable means of explanation. other means of explanation may not pass scientific scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they've failed on their own terms.

I am always amazed that reading animal entrails to discover clues to the intentions of the god(s) ever caught on. The movements of birds being read as omens, ok, it's not so far a leap, but the entrails of eviscerated victims, hoo boy, that's some mighty craziness.

WLC, though far more intelligent than Ham (then again, who isn't) said something similar. His five points always end with "it all boils down to the warm fuzzy feeling inside your chest".

for you that's God. for me that's acid reflux.

― Lesbian has fucking riffs for days (Neanderthal), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:50 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

i suspect you've never suffered from acid reflux if you'd describe it as a warm fuzzy feeling

How can a particular explanatory concept of our universe not be part of science?

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:06 AM (5 hours ago)

science is a means of explanation. it is not the only conceivable means of explanation. other means of explanation may not pass scientific scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they've failed on their own terms.

― CANONICAL artists, etc., etc. (contenderizer), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:50 PM (8 minutes ago)

Like what?

fwiw the principle of sufficient reason does not withstand rational scrutiny.

that aside, it's interesting to me how "creationism" has sort of manifested itself as a sort of (materialist?) ideological formation within Christianity. it almost feels like they've ceded the terms of the game before even playing.

like, this "debate" is basically a political con job and a joke.

Like what?

The brain works with symbols in ways that are not limited to language, logic or math. An explanation that makes no sense when viewed factually or logically can still satisfy that part of the brain that interprets life through such symbols.

Well, would that be an example of something we cannot yet measure scientifically?

Before we get off track, I was saying how can a God, who is attributed with creating the universe, not be an element of scientific concern if he is the cause of everything material? How could God be separate from science if he is such an important variable in the material origins and behavior of the universe?

God shouldn't be a rational thing imo. If he was, then he would be part of science.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:00 AM (6 hours ago)

Responding to that.