Atheism

This is a personal account of what spirituality means to me. I was born into a Christian, but very non-religious, family, and am not part of a religious congregation. I practice Buddhist meditation now and consider myself Buddhist. I participate in some Buddhist educational activities. That is about the extent of my involvement.

My take on the whole debate is that most who call themselves atheist have an image of religion based on old words, old buildings, people in medieval garb, dogma and belief. This is after all how religion is presented and I perfectly understand why it is thought of that way. I don't think that is 'the bottom line' though. That is religion as a social phenomenon or institutional culture. To me, it is about an experience. And I think that is what it is to many people who actually have gotten through all of the externalities and discovered the heart of the matter. It is really the only thing that accounts for its vitality.

What kind of experience is it then? At this time, and for a while now, it has been the experience of a feeling of joy, like some spigot has been opened internally and is outputting happiness. Of course, it is hard to describe. But now I understand what a lot of the symbolism means. It is not anger and dreads and weight and oppression. It is actually a feeling of lightness, connectedness, and compassion and freedom - the very opposite of what I would have thought it to be.

So what has this got to do with theism, or atheism? Honest belief: mostly that discussion is just words on a page, beliefs about things, ideas that have been picked up. The reality is something completely different. I don't know whether the source of this feeling is 'God'. It doesn't have a name, but I do call it Lord, sometimes. But mostly, I think of it as simply the Not: not anything you can think or say, not any thing whatever.

Now this is not a conversion attempt, I couldn't convert anyone to this, they would have to do the work to find it themselves. All it is, is some advice, that what we take these things to mean, is often not what they mean at all. You need to be clear about what you reject and what you believe, because things may not be as simple as they seem. Looking behind all the words and inherited meanings takes a lot of doing.

This is a thread by and about atheists. Why do you want to push your faith on us? Meanwhile telling atheists to not preach.

thought it might help to provide a perspective, that's all. And I haven't said anything about atheists not preaching. I have taken issue with atheist arguments, mostly ones that have been published in books.

You are perfectly free to disregard anything I write, of course.

Well, all it does is keep the focus on you and your faith, which is really not what this thread is about. I frankly no longer care what you think about us.

well that's OK, I don't think anything of you. Words on a screen. It's just a perspective, that's all.

Khethil wrote--



I was pondering that as I strolled down to the pub last night.

In my pub there are bookshelves. They contain mostly rubbish but I placed Tristram Shandy there for those evenings when my mates are constrained for various reasons to not show up. Monday nights usually. I had got up to Chapter VIII of Volume VII and there I read, most serendipitiously--



Now the received wisdom of the scientific fraternity is that the ideas in the jelly are derived from the carnal sensuality of the organism when no psychological conditioning is involved.

Religious conditioning is designed to inhibit such gross animality and it can easily be argued, as many atheists have done, that its success is at best patchy.

So--if we get rid of religion the atheists need to offer some guidance on replacing this function of it. If they duck the issue they are making the assumption that religion should remain and therefore their atheism should not go so far as preaching it but should remain a private matter.

My contention is that the "preciptancy of a man's wishes" hurry them to promiscuity and thus to attack those forces constraining them. It has nothing to do with God of which concept we know nothing nor can we do. It has to do with what God means to us. Which we decide. Obviously. Belief in God empowers what we decide. No atheist can prove that religious people believe in God rather than act as if they do. All their arguments are infantile, anti-social and subversive. They are like the chap who farts at the dinner table on the grounds that nature intended he do.

Let's have the atheist agenda for dealing with the precipitancy of a man's wishes and, what is more to the point, woman's. Let's get that under scrutiny.

Avoiding that scrutiny is why no politician of note has preached atheism. Avoiding it on here is a flounce out.

Ah, I get you now. And yea, anyone wanting to trespass on someone's right to speak out ought to press back. I'm with ya

Spendius,

Thanks for responding; very honest and straightforward. I'd like to offer a few comments in return for what they're worth to you.


Nicely worded passage. Thanks for sharing.


I see what you're saying as a basis there. I disagree that any wisdom can be received from science. Scientific observations are just that; observed conclusions about "X". They can't imbue wisdom since wisdom needs more than just facts. Further, I don't believe that all our ideas come from carnal sensuality and am not sure why anyone would want to narrow the playing field of human thought to just this.


Interesting... from a historical point of view it certainly appears that religious conditioning was designed to inhibit some behaviors, but that's painting the totality of religious thought with one motive - and I'm not sure I'd agree. Actually... scratch that... its simply not relevant to me why any religion was designed. It has no basis in my evaluation of religion in general, nor is it relevant to the 'good' or 'bad' which religion brings. But I am following you and it certainly does appear that this is the case for many religions.


I'm assuming you're talking about how we might fill the "How do we inhibit gross animality"-void, were religion somehow gotten rid of. If i take your meaning right. I think that's a good question: Whomever advocates the abolishment of "X", where "X" provides something vital, should - in their arguments - account for how such a void should be filled.

But I don't believe that the productive reigning in of destructive behaviors has anything to do with religion, all we need to know to prove this is to come up with but one example of a religious person doing evil; though this is an extremely hard case to prove since human history (upon which a large majority of our learned and socialized behaviors) is utterly saturated with it. In any case, where human urges are destructive - and where behaviors are damaging - morality needn't have any religious intonation to be effective.

This is all woefully academic, since we can neither get rid of religion nor can it be proved that moral/ethical behavior is/was a direct result of it. So, as you might have seen, I've relegated this to the realm of belief: I don't believe we need religion at all as a system of control for behavior. I also don't know that I would (if I could) abolish religion all together.

This is a touchy scale that's precariously balanced, and our views are skewed by our own experiences and socialization - we can't step out of them so "objective" evaluation is virtually impossible. That being said, my feeling is that religious thought and practice has great benefits to the individual - and some positive correlate effects for the social structure. As I mentioned before, in my evangelistic past, I might well have argued differently, but time and experience has softened my views in light of the vast diversity of religion's effects. Once again, it can't be painted as all good or all bad. But we're flying off a cliff here in this evaluation/examination, I think. We're missing the whole picture if we try to evaluate solely on utilitarianistic criteria.

There is, I believe, a need in the human mind that prompts many to believe in something greater than our coporeal existences. My take is that this is a side-effect of the sheer amount of self-awareness, combined with intelligence and multiplied by emotion. No matter where this "need" for many comes from, my personal endeavor has been - for the longest time - to feel, understand and accept what I see to be the reality of our situation, and THEN deal with how best to live within that - to be completely honest and responsible. My conclusion was (and is) that we're intelligent, self-aware creatures - that it is up to us to use these tools to live well, smartly and responsibly. Sorry for going on so long here - I felt that a longer explanation was necessary since this whole issue is fraught with misunderstandings.


I get you - and that's a very popular assertion. If we see bad behaviors, destructive actions and promiscuity as worthy of being fought; then yes, it would follow that belief systems that hurry our goal should be seen as productive or good; to the extent that this is really what's happening.

But the idea that those who don't buy in to these potentially-successful control systems just want an excuse to be promiscuous sounds like the product of someone who can see that to be the ONLY possible motivation. Or its a not-so-veiled insult - a wide-reaching condemnation of those that don't think like they do; ostebsibly to inflame or condemn wholesale. And to the extent that this is the case, I'd term it narrow-mindedness.

If this is at all close to what you're asserting, then I'm not quite sure what to tell you except: What people honestly believe or don't, in my experience, hasn't much at all to do with what they think that belief will allow them to "get away with". Folks who want to destroy, hurt, steal or judge will likely do so regardless of their religious background.


Agreed - nor should anyone try. Absence or presence of Belief is a private matter that no one can or should try to 'prove' upon another. I sense the Wager in this... and tying this with what you've said previously, is it your feeling that whether or not we believe isn't relevant, but that we act as if we do in order to accept/reflect the behavioral controls that might come with religion is important?

If so, this has some real merit on various levels. I couldn't do it because I refused to feign belief, nor (again) do I feel its necessary to live a responsible, prudent, moral and compassionate life.


Oh my gosh: Dealing with the precipitancy of a woman's wishes? This feels way left-field, care to clarify? Specifically what has gender to do with this? Are women's wishes somehow more volatile or seedy?

If there's an atheist agenda, I'm not sure what that would be. Unless I've missed some inter-office memo, there's no agenda whatsoever. I can't speak for others, but my lack of belief in a god or gods hasn't anything to do with any agenda. Mine is a product of an extremely long inner search that leads me to this conclusion as being the reality of my condition; part of me living an authentic life. I suppose sometimes I wish that weren't the case, but I won't try to lie to myself or others. And truth be told, I often wish I had the inspiration to honestly make that "reach". Its simply not there...


Well, since neither you nor I know all the inner thoughts and motivations of every politician that's ever existed, then this is just a guess; and actually, I think you're probably right in some cases.

I believe its more common that those who don't believe in any god or gods aren't vocal about it because of the vast-number of people who believe that such belief somehow must be grounded in the wish to get away with being bad. As I mentioned above, its very difficult for me (in my mindset) to try and wrap my head around why someone would want to do this (or for that matter, what one has to do with the other).

Evil will be done by those inclined to do it - regardless of religion. And while there is comfort and benefits to be had of many religious belief sets, such isn't requisite to living a good, responsible life. Historically, someone being religious hasn't stopped immoral actions no more than not having them as caused them to be responsible; it's simply not the single hinge-point that determines whether or not someone is going to act morally.

But thanks for your reply. I believe I see where you're coming from; and sense some simmering resentment. While I can respect your views and concerns, I simply don't share most.

Thanks again

littlek
I appologize for my part in wrecking this thread. I will withdraw for the time being.

I would say that that is the best and most respectful response I have had to one of my posts in all my time on this site. (I don't go on other sites--A2K is quite sufficient for me.)



If you liked that you will like all Laurence Sterne's output. He is a one man advanced course in education as long as you go slowly and carefully with it and bear in mind the need he had not to be strung up. Puritans were abroad.



Wisdom starts from facts I would say, if we are in the pub. Discovering the fact that copulation makes babies is necessary before decisions to control the mechanisms of reproduction can be found. And it is not an easy thing for primitive societies to discover it. The female is sterile from conceiving up to weaning which can be three years and with the amount of copulation taking place in that time the connection is not apparent.



All other ideas do not create the continuity of the tribe as that one does. That one is the key question. It is not narrowing the playing field to just that. It is placing it on top. Didn't Shakespeare say "Think! They all have mothers".

It is also linked intimately to such things as property and hierarchies and stability. The marriage customs of many tribes have been such that they defeat attempts to understand them. How many works of art are based on "love" across class barriers? Or race barriers? There's a dynamic between endo and exogamy which needs managing. How does an atheist manage it for the collective? Is a theologian just a scientist who works in that area?

To what extent do you think that the motherhood concept is vulnerable to a concerted attempt to attack it. We take it for granted because the propaganda for it is the norm. What is the atheist position on that? The atheist can't go ooooing and aahing surely? It's a straightforward scientific problem to the atheist. He can address it just as he does a bank of test tubes. Huxley invented his bottles to save himself dealing with the alternative. We know the eugenicist's solution. Blokes like him do all the shagging. How many scientists have contributed to the sperm banks? One might think the logic of his case, and the Darwinian case, would have him panting at the door given the methods likely to be employed. I would love to be a fly on the wall at the Christmas party for the "sampling co-ordinators". Next time Dawkins is taking questions somebody should ask him about that. One can't imagine him rationing his DNA because of some quaint, old-fashioned sentimental superstitions. Unless his bullshit has widened the playing field enough to keep scientific rigor at bay with a snowstorm of irrelevant banalities.

I'll pop back a little later.

Yes, I know theism isn't a religion, but religion is contained within theism. you're previous use of it to describe people who believe in climate change etc only evaporates any meaning of the word.

Atheists aren't religious because they hold a conviction to their beliefs. Atheism doesn't give any beliefs. It's only a outcome of skepticism.

A
R
T

Who are you talking about? Specifically. It seems very telling that you wish to craft your arguments to address some sort of other almost mythological atheist instead of simply talking to the atheists who have presented themselves and their actual beliefs.


Because you say so, I suppose.

I don't know of any atheists who don't believe in gods, but believe in unicorns or fairies.

If it is as you say, what is the terms for an atheist who believes in the supernatural but not god?


By your loose definition of religion, I'm sure you'd be successful at finding a religious atheist, yes. I don't know what point you're trying to make here. It seems you're desperate to make atheists into religious people so that the the collateral of being religious is somehow lessened by it's greatest critic: The atheists.

Is bald a hair color? Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

A
R
T

Cute term. I suppose any atheist who decides to write a book about the topic will be an evangatheist.


Philosophy need not be spiritual. Certainly the internal reflection can be very profound and deeply emotional, but to force it into the mold of spirituality seems small and limited. Certainly many atheists feel very romanticized by the enormity of the universe, it didn't require some sort of spiritual stamp to make this kind of experience profound and rewarding.


As I asked you in my thread, and you did not answer: Do you think that atheists are any less fulfilled in their life? You answered that atheists can find fulfillment, but when I pressed you to be clear on if they could achieve the same degree of fulfillment, you did not reply.

I am no less fulfilled as an atheist as I was before I was not. I'm no less happy. I'm no less curious. I'm no less poetic. I'm no less humorous. I'm no less anything.

The idea that you believe yourself to have some sort of elevation on atheists to the degree where you think you have something that they don't is self flattery. You perhaps want something more, but thats not me missing out on something. Oh, the religious entitled.

A
R
T

For sure fa. Skepticism about the Christian position on certain delicate matters as a seed from which all else follows automatically. There is a massive archive out there from which to draw arguments to make the seed grow and reach towards the sun and you have hardly scratched the surface of them. And who is to say they are not right. Not me. Nobody can ever know who is right on the transcendental aspects. (Transcendental being an onomatopoeiaistic metaphor for having your false teeth back to front.)

We are talking about preaching atheists now. And preaching implies an attempt at conversion. So what we want to know is not what a ball of shite Christianity is, most of us already know that, but what the atheist position is on the certain delicate matters which are not in the least transcendental and on those institutions which are charged with handling them delicately. Births, Marriages and Deaths.

I'm not going to give you what you want here spendi. I'm not going to make Christianity any more special or worth consideration in critique than any other religion. You want Christianity to be the center of the topic, and I'm sorry but it'a not. Christianity is on par with all other beliefs. Atheism is relevant without Christianity.


It's not like the atheists of the world are so lost as to what to do in these circumstances. Plenty of options arise, and all people (atheist or theist) have the choice how we ceremonialize these things.

A
R
T

But it is a motive like no other. Emperor Augustus could not get the Roman citizens to have enough children. Stalin offered inducements for babies. Cash. Imagine the Material Girl with that. The price of beer and smoaks would go through the roof. Atheists would have to offer cash because Romance is a load of bollocks.



I think it's relevant for those who argue about it. Justifying the design is necessary to justify the procedures and resist attacks on them by those who only concern themselves with those aspects. Justifying the motive for the design is another matter. A long-distance "suck-it-and-see". It might depend on whether you like sliced bread or seaweed.

I think "certainly appear" and "certainly does appear" is an attempt to make a fact have less density.



The atheists simply ignore that question. Astute readers here don't ignore that they do so.



But that would show how powerful the destructive urges are. Strong enough for a religious person to set aside his/her beliefs to satisfy. So what of an irreligious person? Is Law strong enough?



History seems to show that religious "intonations" were needed to have any morality at all. A morality is held to at all times. An "Honour" code can be switched off when not being witnessed. A morality switched on and off is not a morality.



I don't think it is woefully academic and I don't think being academic is woeful either. I think we can get rid of religion if we have a need to and I think I can prove that Christian moral/ethical behaviour is the direct result of the Christian religion just as the aboriginal moral/ethical behaviour is the direct result of the aboriginal religion. And there might be differences and similarities between the moral/ethical behaviours of differing aboriginal religions. It's a bit complicated.

It's my bath time Khettie. I'll look at the rest of your post in a while.

We can try to step out of them. We might not entirely succeed but if we don't try we are bound to remain enmeshed in them as we were when we started out.



But evolution theory requires that we evaluate on the basis of utility and it might be that it doesn't matter if we don't because evolutionary forces will do it for us whether we like it or not.



I'm arguing that the excuse for promiscuity was the seed, probably long forgotten about, and that the justifications got tangled up with pride once the position was taken and grew to try to avoid ever backing down when those justifications have been broadcast loud and long. I don't think many who have participated in an abortion can ever back down. And there have been 50 million of those since Roe Wade and mostly participated in by a few others apart from the patient. There's pre-marital sex to be justified. Adultery. Divorce. Homosexual acts by males. Wanking even for those who think the Church does more than raise an eyebrow at it.

Now it's pub time. Don't the days fly by.

Thanks - I don't always do very well, but I do always try.



Yes, agreed


While I agree that sensuality - in its many forms - plays a role in the origin of ideas, I'm not sure that with all that one can hope, fear, hate, love, pursue or otherwise have dominate their mindset, that I'd put this at the top. But I'm following...


Hmm... I'd definitely concede that religious teaching have influenced the pervasiveness of endo/exogamy. But I don't think one is founded in the other. That one should or shouldn't marry within their own cast, group or race (or that such doesn't matter) varies wildly by religion, caste, group, area, and (as you mentioned) locality.

With all these variables: 1) I don't understand what has this to do with atheism. -and- 2) I'm not sure it should be 'managed' at all, by anyone (or, that that marriage mores/taboos are justified at all).


Any conception of what role someone 'should' play is vulnerable to attacks; some less, some more. Do you believe there's a concerted attempt to attack the concept of motherhood? If so, I'm curious to hear more... and what part of motherhood that might apply to (aside from the biological function, of course).



What propaganda is this? Are you talking about a concerted, propaganda based effort to attack the concept of motherhood? If so, I haven't seen nor know anything about it, so I likely won't be able to help.

If so, I'm happy to engage you, but we seem to have taken a turn here and you've not caught me up on what your concerns on motherhood have to do with atheism.

Thanks again for your reply

Just a point of order - as I clearly stated I had read 'atheist' where you said 'sceptic' because a previous post had said sceptic=atheist. The point that was bollocks was the idea that you can't be an atheist without being indoctrinated into atheism.

Can you be buddhist without knowing any buddhist teachings?

Isn't that what jeeprs was gettiing at with the whole skepticism stems from Buddhism bit? I mean, I didn't even know I was a Buddhist!

Ohhhhmmmmm

A
R
T