Questions Concerning Atheism As A Positive Worldview

[florduh]

I like the way Julia Sweeney addressed her atheism in "Letting Go of God."

 

She said the word 'atheist' is still rooted in theism and is a comparison to same so she calls herself a "naturalist" since she accepts the natural world as it is. She instead calls the theists "a-naturalists" thus making the non-theist position the default.

 

Too many people, even a lot of atheists, still consider theism the default position, and it is not. We are born without religious beliefs and depending on which society we happen to be born into, specific versions of a god or gods are taught from childhood. That turns the natural child into an "a-naturalist" or theist.

[centauri]

...If you simply do not care about god or any religion then how come you want to "argue" against religion. are you just atiast becuse you can not understand gods word? I am not here to disprove anyone simply asking questions.

I'm agnostic but will answer the last parts.

Aggressive forms of Christianity have but one primary goal, which is to expand and dominate.

It's an industry set up to pump propaganda and insert itself into every aspect of life.

Sites like this offer an alternative to the propaganda.

You've made some assumptions that are not established as facts for either atheists or agnostics.

You haven't defined what "god's word" is nor shown why it should be defined that way.

You haven't established that you understand it.

You haven't established that your version of "God" actually exists.

[agnosticator]

I like the way Julia Sweeney addressed her atheism in "Letting Go of God."

 

She said the word 'atheist' is still rooted in theism and is a comparison to same so she calls herself a "naturalist" since she accepts the natural world as it is. She instead calls the theists "a-naturalists" thus making the non-theist position the default.

 

Too many people, even a lot of atheists, still consider theism the default position, and it is not. We are born without religious beliefs and depending on which society we happen to be born into, specific versions of a god or gods are taught from childhood. That turns the natural child into an "a-naturalist" or theist.

 

Man, I'm gone for a couple days and I missed alot! I never read her book, but that's exactly how I see it florduh. I have told people I'm a naturalist, but many are too ignorant to know what I was talking about. They thought I worked in the wild studying animals.

[Snakefoot]

i did not want to take the time to make a new forum and i would like to ask a few questions.

 

Starting a new thread is not hard. Just got to the appropriate forum (e.g. Lion's Den or General Theological Issues) and click the "Start New Topic" button. Enter a topic title and then your post or questions. Scroll down and flick "Post" and you're done.

[ContraBardus]

i did not want to take the time to make a new forum and i would like to ask a few questions.

 

Starting a new thread is not hard. Just got to the appropriate forum (e.g. Lion's Den or General Theological Issues) and click the "Start New Topic" button. Enter a topic title and then your post or questions. Scroll down and flick "Post" and you're done.

 

Seriously. You have to fill out one line more than simply posting a reply to do it. The only difference is adding a title to it.

 

It actually took you more time and effort to type "I do not want to take the time to make a new forum." than starting a new thread would have.

 

That's an odd way to save yourself effort, you actually did more work trying to be lazy that it would have taken you not to.

[skepticalme]

Stude asked where athiest get there morals. This topic broad and there is so much to say on it could take several BOOKS just to touch on every thing. Human behavior is THAT COMPLEX. Thiest try to boil it all down to "God tells me whats right and wrong". This is a VAST over simplification. I don't think you can really see the motives behind morals by looking at absolutes like killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, don't lie. The true nature of morals is more evident in the "grey areas" where things are morally ambigious. Most people would agree that killing is wrong, but what if you ask "Is killing one person to save a million lives OK?" You are going to get to get mixed answers. "What if that one person was an innocent child?" You may still have mixed answers but people will lean heavily toward it being wrong. "What if that one person was Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden?" Again, mixed answers but this time it would lean more toward it being OK. This would indicate that we view some lives as having more "value" than others. The child is much more likely to induce a protective parental instinct while Hitler would invoke an instinct to destroy an enemy. What would "God" have you do in each of these situations? Its no coincidence that the answers are going to very along the same lines as asking without invoking WWJD. Now ask yourself "Are you basing your choice on what you think "God" would do? Or are you making the choice yourself then attributing it to an imaginary "God" as a way to justify YOUR decision.

[Snakefoot]

Most people would agree that killing is wrong, but what if you ask "Is killing one person to save a million lives OK?"

 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one.

--Mr. Spock

 

And some people just need killing.

[par4dcourse]

And some people just need killing.

That's still a valid defense in the deep south.

[chefranden]

It could be possible that Christians come and go so quickly because we make sense and that could be very scary for a believer who expects the raving non-sense that they are taught must exist outside of belief in God.

 

The writer of this OP strikes me as perhaps a bright young bible college student that has spent his life in a sheltered Christian environment seeking to confirm his worldview.

[Snakefoot]

It could be possible that Christians come and go so quickly because we make sense and that could be very scary for a believer who expects the raving non-sense that they are taught must exist outside of belief in God.

 

The writer of this OP strikes me as perhaps a bright young bible college student that has spent his life in a sheltered Christian environment seeking to confirm his worldview.

 

I hate to seem cynical or prejudicial (which I honestly am), but I think most xtians who come here with questions are not equipped to understand the answers. Xtians/theists are by nature prime candidates for P.T. Barnum's law. Else, they would not be xtians--or, as is mostly the case here, would be ex-xtians.

 

Par4dcourse gets a lot of repeat mileage out of his sig around here: If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. --Dr. Gregory House

[brick]

I was preparing to post a reply stating to yee, my brethren, that this fool won't take off his blinders at any cost when alas, he bailed as most do. He was a clever fish (make that fish-symbol-lover, pun inteneded) but so full of other people's shit and circular arguements...well, its an old story for most of us.

 

Pax

[insanezenmistress]

My reguards to the Op and last edit here; unless.... danged exceptions.

 

 

Stude said "then you can confidently say, “I have the truth. Anything that contradicts this divine revelation is wrong.” Since the divine knowledge comes from one who is omniscient."

 

I'd like to add. "Omniscience is everyone.

There is nothing a human can confidently say about anything. Yet we believe in truth, and seek truth.

 

Or we should. We find that there are ideas we conform our truth too. This is when it becomes a lie. At the point of certinty.

 

The best we can hope for is agreeing. And at the heart of matters the christian and atheist can learn where they agree. Perhaps even see salvation in each other.

 

And in this thread I precieve that the god belivers with a biblical method of reality really want to explore it for usefull knowledge too. But then attach the burden of their truth, and make it into lies.

 

Perosnally I really love the bible, and the image of god and father that I can get from it. As do many chrisitans. But it is cognitively trapping to keep trying to proove it as the truuuuuuuthhhh absolutly.

 

But... well... all the same, if my default position is atheist, becasue i am a human.

Then i have to understand that the god i am taking from the bible is my own creation.

 

And find that truth is a weird complex and ugly thing... I am kinda thankfull god broke it down into stepping stones, starting with "religion".

 

I wish you the best on your journey, Stude, if you have really disappeared.

 

izm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All religions are equally wrong and equally right. The distinction comes about in the manner in which they are applied. Are they used in the service of the ego or are they used as containing spiritual truths?.... And .... Indeed I do understand that to be the case, but that truth isn't subjected to human understanding. Truth is paradoxical. It is felt, not "known". Once put through the filter of human thought, it becomes subjective and looses truth. It is never the symbol used to discuss it. It becomes absolute when the symbol becomes the object of worship. If divine truth is absolute, we can never understand it because we are it. We can never be the object of our own inquiry. Nothing to contrast.

 

 

 

ha not blinded by the light, i think you've cleared up something of the crap on my thread with that line. ahh so how does a typical no god beleiving atheist argue/define moments of both serindipity, striking coinsidence, enlightening synchronisity?

 

Things anyone believing in a personal god would take to be his subjective proof?

 

Know i am not eluding to god finding my parking spaces for me but real life synchronisity).... pssst if it is good can i steal this to my thread

 

izm

 

ediited to add stuff as i read.

[insanezenmistress]

(Devalight)

 

 

Stude said " My worldview necessitates assuming certain things about mankind and also about his or her purpose (and so also what leads to fulfillment, happiness et cetera)."

 

You said "Hey Stude, I do appreciate how you are really trying to address everyone on here. Oftentimes I am just ignored.

Look, I don't think anything is permanent, including happiness.

 

Since nothing is permanent, there is no such thing as a "final" judgment.

 

I thought, "But then isn't each realisation a termorary finial judgment? i mean things are born and things die. Each sin is tried and knowedge gained. As it where. Now is the finial judgment... erm... sorta."

 

 

Deva light not ignored by me. I am afraid to appraoch you. Becasue i am not such a great buddhist and fear if i try to ask quesitons to you i will be kicke dout like in the old renzi days. before i have any kind of place to argue or ask.

 

Irrationality sucks!

 

I am now trying the jump in and if i drown so be it, it was fun on the raft too.

 

izm

[NotBlinded]

 

All religions are equally wrong and equally right. The distinction comes about in the manner in which they are applied. Are they used in the service of the ego or are they used as containing spiritual truths?.... And .... Indeed I do understand that to be the case, but that truth isn't subjected to human understanding. Truth is paradoxical. It is felt, not "known". Once put through the filter of human thought, it becomes subjective and looses truth. It is never the symbol used to discuss it. It becomes absolute when the symbol becomes the object of worship. If divine truth is absolute, we can never understand it because we are it. We can never be the object of our own inquiry. Nothing to contrast.

 

 

 

ha not blinded by the light, i think you've cleared up something of the crap on my thread with that line. ahh so how does a typical no god beleiving atheist argue/define moments of both serindipity, striking coinsidence, enlightening synchronisity?

 

Things anyone believing in a personal god would take to be his subjective proof?

 

Know i am not eluding to god finding my parking spaces for me but real life synchronisity).... pssst if it is good can i steal this to my thread

 

izm

 

ediited to add stuff as i read.

 

I can't really tell you how an atheist might describe those moments. Probably one of complete coincidence and nothing more. I have experienced a few things that I can't explain away by pure coincidence myself, but this is just something personal that can't be proven to be anything more than coincidence.

 

Personally, I don't believe in a personal God, but I do think that one can be in "tune" with the force of life in order to notice things happening that might have gone unnoticed before.

 

(It's not that good, so you probably won't want to steal it! But, you can if you want. )

[Shyone]

 

I can't really tell you how an atheist might describe those moments. Probably one of complete coincidence and nothing more. I have experienced a few things that I can't explain away by pure coincidence myself, but this is just something personal that can't be proven to be anything more than coincidence.

 

Personally, I don't believe in a personal God, but I do think that one can be in "tune" with the force of life in order to notice things happening that might have gone unnoticed before.

 

(It's not that good, so you probably won't want to steal it! But, you can if you want. )

I assume by "those moments" you mean something spiritual and transcendent.

 

The mind can do wonderful things, and weird things. Orgasm and dreams don't fit in well with what we think we know about how the mind works, but they are not ordinary things either. Music transports me and makes me have something like an orgasm, although not physical. Good art can move me in ways that reality can't. I also see art in things that some people don't see art, and find meaning in things others overlook.

 

It just the way that things work, and if it's enjoyable and not harmful to yourself or others, then I say go for it whether it's meditation, singing, or sitting outside naked.

[insanezenmistress]

yes i was refereing to spirtiaul transcendent and even previously unnoticed bits of reality.

 

Now bear with my psychosis for a min. but does the idea to enjoy something as long as it does not hurt yourself or other safely include.... hallusinations?

 

For example Shamans. Who via drugs or simply sitting a circle for three weeks come to mental places and reach previously unnoticed intrigues and insights and interpret some mannor of wisdom that their people can dig.

 

And as to the "those moments are just pure coincidence" thinking. Naturall, in a natural sence i agree. The thigns that happened or that you saw was the result of testible coincidences. But in the moment it happened to you it had transformitive meaning. You connected with a spritiaul place even though you cant recreate the conditions or prove it to others. Such as when you see recognition and lvoe in your baby's eyes for the frist time.

 

I call those special moments "god-moments" also.

izm

[Snakefoot]

yes i was refereing to spirtiaul transcendent and even previously unnoticed bits of reality.

 

Now bear with my psychosis for a min. but does the idea to enjoy something as long as it does not hurt yourself or other safely include.... hallusinations?

 

For example Shamans. Who via drugs or simply sitting a circle for three weeks come to mental places and reach previously unnoticed intrigues and insights and interpret some mannor of wisdom that their people can dig.

 

And as to the "those moments are just pure coincidence" thinking. Naturall, in a natural sence i agree. The thigns that happened or that you saw was the result of testible coincidences. But in the moment it happened to you it had transformitive meaning. You connected with a spritiaul place even though you cant recreate the conditions or prove it to others. Such as when you see recognition and lvoe in your baby's eyes for the frist time.

 

I call those special moments "god-moments" also.

izm

The brain is capable of "thinking" apart from consciousness. Sometimes you see something, feel something, smell or taste something, or some combination thereof, and it spawns a unique thought or sense of awareness. You think it is "inspiration." In reality, it is your brain pulling disparate thoughts together into a cohesive thought. It is not mystical, just brain biology.

 

Hallucinations are just the brain running amuck. People on an LSD trip "see" swirling colors and whatnot, but the outside observer knows they are not really there.

 

Click on this link to see an interactive example of how the brain "fills in the blanks" in another way we are not consciously aware.

[Shyone]

yes i was refereing to spirtiaul transcendent and even previously unnoticed bits of reality.

 

Now bear with my psychosis for a min. but does the idea to enjoy something as long as it does not hurt yourself or other safely include.... hallusinations?

 

For example Shamans. Who via drugs or simply sitting a circle for three weeks come to mental places and reach previously unnoticed intrigues and insights and interpret some mannor of wisdom that their people can dig.

 

And as to the "those moments are just pure coincidence" thinking. Naturall, in a natural sence i agree. The thigns that happened or that you saw was the result of testible coincidences. But in the moment it happened to you it had transformitive meaning. You connected with a spritiaul place even though you cant recreate the conditions or prove it to others. Such as when you see recognition and lvoe in your baby's eyes for the frist time.

 

I call those special moments "god-moments" also.

izm

The brain is capable of "thinking" apart from consciousness. Sometimes you see something, feel something, smell or taste something, or some combination thereof, and it spawns a unique thought or sense of awareness. You think it is "inspiration." In reality, it is your brain pulling disparate thoughts together into a cohesive thought. It is not mystical, just brain biology.

 

Hallucinations are just the brain running amuck. People on an LSD trip "see" swirling colors and whatnot, but the outside observer knows they are not really there.

 

Click on this link to see an interactive example of how the brain "fills in the blanks" in another way we are not consciously aware.

Well said. I tried to say something like this in another thread, but I don't think I conveyed what I was thinking well. This does it. The "transcendent feeling" of many religious people falls into the area of the brain creating some sense of awareness of new thought - even subconciously. Similar to delusions and hallucinations which are not, I contend, solely found in the insane.

[insanezenmistress]

i am comprehending what you said. but can only think to type...

 

oh so it is all mastibatory?

 

and when others want to play along we have "religion"

[Snakefoot]

yes i was refereing to spirtiaul transcendent and even previously unnoticed bits of reality.

 

Now bear with my psychosis for a min. but does the idea to enjoy something as long as it does not hurt yourself or other safely include.... hallusinations?

 

For example Shamans. Who via drugs or simply sitting a circle for three weeks come to mental places and reach previously unnoticed intrigues and insights and interpret some mannor of wisdom that their people can dig.

 

And as to the "those moments are just pure coincidence" thinking. Naturall, in a natural sence i agree. The thigns that happened or that you saw was the result of testible coincidences. But in the moment it happened to you it had transformitive meaning. You connected with a spritiaul place even though you cant recreate the conditions or prove it to others. Such as when you see recognition and lvoe in your baby's eyes for the frist time.

 

I call those special moments "god-moments" also.

izm

The brain is capable of "thinking" apart from consciousness. Sometimes you see something, feel something, smell or taste something, or some combination thereof, and it spawns a unique thought or sense of awareness. You think it is "inspiration." In reality, it is your brain pulling disparate thoughts together into a cohesive thought. It is not mystical, just brain biology.

 

Hallucinations are just the brain running amuck. People on an LSD trip "see" swirling colors and whatnot, but the outside observer knows they are not really there.

 

Click on this link to see an interactive example of how the brain "fills in the blanks" in another way we are not consciously aware.

Well said. I tried to say something like this in another thread, but I don't think I conveyed what I was thinking well. This does it. The "transcendent feeling" of many religious people falls into the area of the brain creating some sense of awareness of new thought - even subconciously. Similar to delusions and hallucinations which are not, I contend, solely found in the insane.

 

While under the influence of too much opioid pain medication augmented with brandy (due to an extremely painful bout of chronic idiopathic sciatica), I experienced both visual and auditory hallucinations, so I know what you mean.

 

Of course, you would not have to look far to find supporters of the insanity argument when I am part of the equation.

[Snakefoot]

i am comprehending what you said. but can only think to type...

 

oh so it is all mastibatory?

 

and when others want to play along we have "religion"

 

[Antlerman]

*yawn*

 

Of course you could theoretically trigger parts of the brain to reproduce those sensations of transcendence, just as you could pump chemicals in to make you feel love like you do with your 'soul mate'. It all happens in the body!

 

But to flip certain neurological triggers manually, in no way imparts the substance, essence, meaning, or elevating existential qualities of the experience of being human, that adds to our substance and depth. Congratulations, you discovered that what we experience in life is tied to our bodies! An amazing discovery.

 

"Sweat heart, my love is an illusion, a delusion of my mind because there are chemicals released in my body when I think of you, triggering this emotions. And yes, you too are delusional. There ultimately is no 'heart', it's just my chemicals. Yes, I so-called love you, but there is no real such thing as love".

[Snakefoot]

*yawn*

 

Of course you could theoretically trigger parts of the brain to reproduce those sensations of transcendence, just as you could pump chemicals in to make you feel love like you do with your 'soul mate'. It all happens in the body!

 

But to flip certain neurological triggers manually, in no way imparts the substance, essence, meaning, or elevating existential qualities of the experience of being human, that adds to our substance and depth. Congratulations, you discovered that what we experience in life is tied to our bodies! An amazing discovery.

 

"Sweat heart, my love is an illusion, a delusion of my mind because there are chemicals released in my body when I think of you, triggering this emotions. And yes, you too are delusional. There ultimately is no 'heart', it's just my chemicals. Yes, I so-called love you, but there is no real such thing as love".

 

Oh, for the love of Bob, AM! Don't start up with that love thing again! I still have a headache from that thread.

[insanezenmistress]

gee i'd like to pretend there is more to it than that Antlerman. I cant argue with you about it, I see the illusion part.

 

I think during my buddhist study when I came close to "realiseing" what your saying and would have had to face not being a "self" I ran screaming away. Becasue I could not comprehend it. ( perhaps still cant) Becasue I dont know how to take life if it is just a bunch of chemicals. Which is what alot of christians think of atheism.

[Antlerman]

Oh, for the love of Bob, AM! Don't start up with that love thing again! I still have a headache from that thread.