Peace pipes?
Wow, very good point. Congrats, Tiassa, you have convinced me to try to understand the idea of religion better. A strong man can admit when he's made a mistake.
I'm very happy we could have this moment of accord. With luck and faith (not religious faith, but faith in people) we can hopefully build something useful for ourselves and others.
I have always viewed religion as filling in the blanks. I've never had any hatred or even uncomfortableness with religion. I have a 6 year old cousin, and he has been raised very religiously. He often asks me to pray with him, which I do. I don't think any God is hearing me pray, but I don't see any harm in it either.
I have to admit, you've got me puzzled.
Specifically, you have dismissed a number of notions which I generally figure to be the motivations of such inquiries as this topic seemed to be headed for. Cool enough: I accept your dismissals and rejections of those motivations. Without irony, sarcasm, or cruelty, I find myself scratching my head and saying, "Why is it important? Oh, well."
I figure that will either become clear or not. But I'm curious enough to want to figure it out.
Incidentally,
Foucault's Pendulum is a
great read for an atheist. It's a massive pseudo-historical, magicoreligious mystery tale with a hell of a twist at the end.
The way I see it, it opens the door to knowledge, but it's up to the individual to walk through it. Now before you say it isn't fair that athiesm opens the door to knowledge and theism doesn't. Theism opens the door to spirituality, something equally important.
I wouldn't say that's unfair. Especially in the modern day. Theism as a form of knowledge is long-past. In that sense, religions often served as templates by which people viewed the Universe. It was not
knowledge in the sense that quantifying the temperature of a piece of burning pine in your fireplace. But it was a subjective assertion of reality. Science has changed much of that, filled in the blanks that necessitated such projections of reality. One of my disappointments with Western religions is that they have not kept abreast of the times except to complain about them. If I hope the Bible should remain in existence for thousands of years, it's only because it would be entertaining and enlightening to see what such myths equal and what they become in the face of real knowledge. Religions represent so much of what people do not understand about the Universe that it is entirely possible that they will invent theological icons forever. While questions of "Why are we here?" seem somewhat immature on some occasions, people do still wonder. And until science answers
that question as well as "What else is there?" people will continue to invent mythical and allegorical representations.
In that sense, religions can serve as doors to knowledge, but that requires an act of will on the part of the adherent; the condition is not inherent in religious acceptance. But there are plenty of Christian, Hindu, Islamic, &c. people who do see the principles of science as learning the miracles of God's creation.
But I agree that atheism is
supposed to be a door to knowledge. I agree that for most, shaking the fetters of religion would be a good thing, and allow them much learning. We'll leave the other side of that "supposed to be" for another day. I think we both know what goes in those blanks. It's one of the things that makes me wish to transcend theist/atheist and look at the
problems in human terms. The philosophical arguments of what to do about those problems will make themselves known if we get past the divisions 'twixt people as to what the problems really are.
All I meant by "the rest" was the paragraph about a book you read to make a point that could easily have been made without it. Know what I mean?
Fair enough. I had thought you were referring to the nature of our extraneous words.
But I'm not inclined to trim my words as often as I am inclined to expand them. Simply, I'm quite used to a certain barrage of "standard" challenges to an idea that I don't think are part of it. Many of those extra words address those side issues in order to put them down. For instance, our disagreement over the nature of counsel I give people. In the end, I should have spent at least as much as we spent in total on the subject when I started on it. In the future, I will have to guard against that interpretation, and hence my explanation of the point grows a little longer in the future.
It must be tough sticking by a belief and being concidered mentally ill for believing it, especially since you cannot produce and physical evidence that you're not (Not saying you are)
It's an interesting situation. The only part of it I would resent is that my own mental illness should come from religion. There are those that doubt my psychological condition, and I'm not going to pretend that I blame them. But regardless of religion or lack thereof, I'm not about to hand someone the idea that I'm non compis mentis for the wrong reasons. In fact, when my family would haul me down to see this or that professional as a child, I generally scared them. Psychologists, for instance, tend to think the problem is that I'm too sane. That's a simplification of it, but it's acknowledged that one of the main reasons I make so little sense to people is because they're simply not thinking. I've honestly found that, coincidentally, the more education someone has, the more sane I seem to them. I can't understand that, because I'm not always right in my higher assertions. What I hope to convey is that given the complexity of considerations attached to any one person, I do find it a little bit lusty to seek to classify religion as a mental illness.
However, that is actually a
lesser issue. What bugs me about those who suggest mental incompetence is that they're proving certain religionists right. Christians are awfully abusive of atheism, for instance. (Oh-oh, I didn't say "some" ... I wonder if I just upset
GB-GIL?) Now, you and I might call a good deal of that religious criticism of atheism inflammatory, inaccurate, narrowminded, &c. I find the atheistic presumption of mental illness, substance addiction, or other such factors to be not only unnecessary but detrimental. And the big offense is this: Those atheists that play insanity and addiction cards are demonstrating two vital issues: (A) narrowmindedness equivalent to those that they oppose, and (B) a lack of compassion for the mentally ill. Somewhere in all those atheism-related topics you can find me blasting a couple of people for ridiculing the mentally ill.
That point having been stated, it does not seem to be a factor in the present state of the topic, so I should probably drop it.
And these people NEED physical evidence to believe you
The irony of the physical-evidence argument is that the atheist would be holding a religious assertion--an unproven concept held in faith--as an argumentative point.
But in the same coin toss, as an athiest, I am often concidered void of emotion, like some sort of logical calculater. I assure you I have strong emotions, in fact I find emotion to be incredibly beautiful to me, since I cannot logically explain it. So you see, we are in the same boat.
You just hit something relevant to why I'm
not atheistic anymore. To be honest, most of the atheists I know personally
are void of much emotion. Their primary emotion seems to be self-satisfaction, and second to that is self-righteous anger. I went through it during my own atheist phase.
But I think it comes with the broad rejection of religious ideas as ideas which cannot be demonstrated. A lot of the human experience cannot be demonstrated or quantified, and it seems almost (
almost) hypocritical to me to reject something on grounds that one accepts elsewhere. I think we see a lot of the logical-calculator routine here at Sciforums. I have a joke I use when I think someone is too deeply into their atheism: I ask if they read novels. Having had many conversations with the logical-calculator side of the atheistic experience, I sometimes come to wonder what that person would be like while reading a novel.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times ..., says the novel and the atheist responds, "You can't
prove that."
The joke doesn't go over well, as you can imagine.
But what you describe is similar to my own actual rejection of atheism. I found that my most beautiful words and ideas were suddenly without any place to be in my Universe, and there went my ability to communicate with people, such as to counsel them to their best benefit. It was too high a price to pay.
But, being in the same boat, perhaps we can sail it to brighter shores. Of course, who says we ever have to come ashore?
You want to know what I think? I think athiests miss God, and we're making up for it with "swings". As you can imagine, being in a universe all alone, with no heavenly father, can be a little intimidating.
Wow ... that's a tall assertion. I think it has truth, though. I don't know if atheists miss God, and the reason for that is that they reject God while accepting other myths. To wit: the only reason political boundaries mean anything is because people agree that they do. This is similar to the idea that the only reason God means anything is that people agree it does. Patriotism, state, economy, &c. Of any such acceptance of asserted authority, the myth of God is the only one that generally does not offer a profit during this lifetime. By accepting the state, by accepting equality, by accepting my patriotic duty to my people, I can profit immensely in terms of money and property. By accepting God, I have faith that I will profit after my life is over. I seriously wonder about that line. It does make some logical sense, but that implication of greed does, in fact, make me doubt the integrity of an objectively-based rejection of God-concepts. If the objectively-based rejection has integrity, then as near as I can tell all atheists should be anarchists, too, in order to strip away other subjective conventions of reality.
I don't know if atheists "miss" God, per se. I do think there's a part of the communal experience they're not in on, but I cannot assert that experience to be either positive or negative, and likewise the lack of that experience. I do find the atheist's focus on familiar religion both expected and intriguing. It is expected. After all, we might take a poll and find out how many of Sciforums atheists are born-and-raised atheists as compared to those who have come to atheism by rejecting formerly-held religious beliefs. I know we've got some of each; as an atheist, I was the latter. But I do find the insistent focus common to what seems like most (happy,
GIL?) atheists on the religion most local and statistically present to be curious in one aspect: Many atheists--and it seems to be habitual around here--go from their rejection of that local, prevalent religion (e.g. Christianity in the US) and apply that rejection to all gods and religions, regardless of what they do or don't know about them.
And that dedicated focus is what really rings a bell when you say atheists might "miss God". However, if I might be allowed a moment of levity, it
does make sense when we stop to consider the couple of atheists who assert that atheism is the natural state one is born in. While I usually make jokes about being unable to walk, speak, feed oneself, and so forth about the natural state in which we are born, I find your notion of missing God and taking swings to compensate intriguing in the same way. It does point toward a natural child-like state. And, yes, that does unfortunately imply that atheists in this condition are childish. But, hey ... at least we get to look at the idea.
This is so much easier. In less than 3 posts I've gone from despising you (sorry) to actually liking you... Lol, ah how the tides turn.
Again, I am so happy we can have this accord.
And I do owe you at least the acknowledgment of my respect. All it really bugged me was the beginning of this topic, which reflected a few unpleasant weeks not long ago. To the other, we have better things to talk about now, so I'm exceptionally happy.
I couldn't agree more. Have something to lean on, not hold them up.
See, that's the thing about all those "manipulations". One need not proselytize against a religion. Frequently, to do so will only reinforce the religion. But a successful result when operating within reality is a strong testament to a way of thinking. People have a right to grow in their faith, and I find the fixing of perspectives an unfortunate symptom. If religionists keep learning, the things they do to annoy others in the name of their religion will be greatly reduced over a fairly short period. That's why I'm happy about the internet generation: there is almost no excuse for a person of faith to not go out and track down the heritage of his or her religion. And there is no excuse for an atheist to not get "somewhat correct" materials to justify their criticisms (after all, what is "correct" in religion; "somewhat correct" is about as well as any of us can do with those materials). And one of my favorite pieces of advice to offer atheists: Not only do those available materials make it easier to state the case, but as the atheist states a proper case more and more, the machinations of religion will be less cause for fear. As far as religions go, Christianity is higher on my "wish-it-was-gone" list than (gasp) Islam. Part of this is familiarity. Part of it is because I know Christianity to be an irreconcilable doctrinal mess, and I haven't reached that conclusion for Islam. But, unlike so many atheists, I cannot transfer from Judaism to Christianity to Islam without starting the process over. I'm obviously rambling on this part, though, so ...
But I do not look at myself as better than thiests. Just more correct in a certain area, and certain area alone. Which is why I realize that just because I may be right in one area, it does not mean that I am the shit and can force feed it to whomever I feel. That would only show how ignorant I would be in other certain areas myself.
Like I said: you've got me puzzled. Over time, your perspective might come to revolutionize the ongoing debate here at Sciforums.
I'll say, "Can I get a hallelujah," but only if you promise to hear my voice dripping with the standard, knowing sarcasm.
You've made a beautiful point. Little can I add, good Jedi.
Well I've dropped the hatchet, I hope I can trust you not to take advantage of that.
It seems to me we're getting more done in the cooperative mode.
No I haven't, if you have a moment, please explain.
It's a little hard to explain because whenever I do, I have a hard time believing it's real. Essentially SDA, Seventh-Day Adventism, is a strange sect of Christianity that finds additional scripture in the prophecies of a deceased woman named Ellen White. They are Sabbatarians (worship on Saturday, not Sunday), and there's nothing wrong with that. But in the six and a half years I've been with my current partner (an SDA "escapee" as they refer to themselves) I've had a consistently scary interaction with the idea. While SDA's are quite prominent in society (regular medicinal breakthroughs, such as baboon-human heart transplants), they are particularly ... chilling ... about other things.
I've seen the following in books sold at SDA bookstores:
• The US government is conspiring against Sabbatarians, passing laws to force them to worship on Sunday
• The UN will sweep across the US at night, arresting all the Sabbatarians and putting them in tiger-cages while they await their execution in the electric chair. (I'm not kidding; the author of that one was a 14 year-old girl who was considered to be somewhat "prophetic".)
•_Dead Latin American and South American cults will conquer the world
• The Pope is the Devil because the Latin phrase "Vicari angus Dei" (I'm unsure if that's the proper rendering), when translated into Greek, I think, equals 666
• The grandfather of my coming daughter once sent me a book called
The Keys of This Blood, by Malachai Martin (I think is the name). It was out-of-date when I got it, given its subject matter, but it seemed to assert either a conspiracy or a condition whereby the US, USSR (that's how out of date) and the Catholic Church were bringing about the triumph of Satan. It even went so far as to accuse pagans of supporting communism in the United States specifically to augment Satan's authority in God's kingdom, or something like that--I don't pretend to understand the detail of it. I can't figure out what the guy was aiming for. But then again, it was so terrible a book that I couldn't finish it, so let that be whatever testament it is.
And of my personal associations:
• A scary coincidence is how my partner/girlfriend/call-her-what-you-will keeps running into other SDA "escapees". It really is fairly easy to tell, and though I know there is cultural diversity within the church, I can tell you this much about the surprisingly high number of former SDA's of my association. I do not claim to understand the phenomenon enough to tell you why the following are important: they're all white, they're all of pacifist and occasionally subordinate subcultures, they all hold exceptionally bizarre views of the world (statistically speaking), they all are paranoid to a certain degree that I am capable of recognizing, they are all seeking something to fill the philosophic void left in the absence of their former faith, and they all have difficulty with standard human relationships to a certain degree that I am capable of recognizing. Like I said, I do not claim to understand what that means in any definitive sense. However, as I go down the list, these people are even more screwed up than I am. It is enough that I'm willing to look to the church culture for explanations, and within the writings of prominent SDA's on my friends' bookshelves I've found a vivid,
almost delusional perception of reality. (Okay, some of them are downright delusional, but I expect that within
any ideological paradigm.)
• My child's grandfather (he will never be my father-in-law; I won't marry the woman) has held some odd theories about the government. He thought Lexis-Nexis was the Devil, although I'm generally of a mind to agree, but for obviously different reasons.
• Some of the SDA's I know were stripped and spanked as punishment until they were 18. This may be a human-level deviation, though; "spare the rod, spoil the child" seems to be an issue of some debate, since others I know were raised by pacifist parents who refused such methods.
• Dietary restrictions of varying degrees do exist, although I'm told they're voluntary, and not religious law.
• This one puzzles me. It's a great story, though. Apparently, Ellen White, the prophetess of SDA history, once criticized bicycles. This was a while ago, when bicycles were still uncommon, and automobiles had not arrived. Apparently, her objections centered around the expense and the status-indication so prevalently perceived among bicycle owners (I will not vouch for this condition except to say that yes, I can imagine it). The prophetess apparently had some commonsense reasons to not want a bicycle. However, I'm told that into the 1980s and 1990s, there were still SDA parents who would not let their children ride bicycles for some abstract reason of sinfulness.
In other words, they're as human as anyone else. But I do find them generally bizarre. If I could understand the motivation for it better, it might make sense to me, but in terms of the running point, I don't think of it as "committing to a lie". I don't think the poor bastards have a chance to begin with.
Only reason this debate was so heated at first is many people were rippin on me for my generalized thread, and you came in at the wrong moment and mentioned something about making my debate or shut the hell up (don't bother explaining, water off the duck's back now) and something just snapped.
Yeah, well ... all I can say is that it, uh ... smelled suspicious as a topic. Something like that. In light of the duck's back, though, I shan't dwell on it. I think we're almost out of the heat.
One of those theist friends of mine, is now the closest to athiesm as a theist can be, thanks to me. And I've watched it happen. Once I mentioned the fact that truth doesn't tend to our needs, it is what it is, like it or not, it's up to you wether you seek truth or hapiness... Well he suddenly changed his philosophy in the journey of life.
We are definitely on a common page. 'Nuff said on that.
But likewise, with his intelligent remarks as a theist, I am now as close to a theist as an athiest can be.
The best hope is always that it ceases to matter at all, but that's another day. The world is always brighter with a little bit of faith. Even if it's just faith that you're reading a poem the way the author hoped and therefore appreciating its full beauty.
I doubt you have seen this side of me in this debate ....
I do believe we're starting to, at least.
I fell victim to pride, wasn't willing to let my previous statements go. Phew, that's hard to admit. I do agree with your subtle but helpfull religous advice method, and do follow it when in that sort of situation.
I'm hoping to not compel you to feeling the nee to admit anything else. Er ... um ... well, yeah. But what I cannot say the same of you is in the fact that, unlike most atheists who have the tone that we, uh, disputed, you seem to belong to a different school of thought, one that does not work to destroy, eliminate, crush, reduce, or otherwise diminish religious thought, but one that seems to deal with the fact of religion's presence in the world and seeks to make the best of it.
And I do admit that it caught me
way off guard. It's been ages since I've met a thinker of what degree I see in your perspective.
Fair enough, though I hope with my previous statements I have convinced you I do not hold myself above anyone.
I would like to think that all is cool and breezy
And here I was worried earlier about the proper degree of sarcasm, and it seems you already have it. Or, perhaps sarcasm is wrong. Nonetheless, there I was, worried about perspective issues ....
Lol, if you ever talk to Empty Dragon (the real one), he is one of those, though very deep, so don't shrug him off!
I won't. In fact, the only reason I was so hard on that is that multiple posting ID's have contributed to unnecessary vociferous debates. I am more forgiving when I'm not in one of those sardonic moods and smelling what I think is blood. Most days, I wouldn't care. It was just one of ...
those days, I guess.
But yes, I will give E.D. fair hearing. It's the least I can do.
I first started out as an athiest with a grudge against religion ....
(And all that follows in that paragraph.)
You are among a fairly rare breed at Sciforums to declare that. Personally, though, I would say you ought to hang with a couple of mystics. You'd find it a trip. It's all fascinating speculation, and at no time do you have to take it seriously since, technically, the mystics don't. Mysticism is cool that way. And, frankly, a good dose of mysticism and metaphysics will put textbook religion in a very clear context.
I'm not sure what the one has to do with the other. Two cents, two cents.
I completely retract that statement. I know, now that we have dropped the "mechanisms" all together, you ARE just here to learn and teach. My bad, truly, sorry.
Well, thank you. And I don't hold human nature against human beings. How the hell are you to know how bad a day I've had, as such. Many days I wouldn't have noticed at all. Other days, I might have handled myself better. But I am puzzled at how to communicate with other people. Since civility works about as poorly as a complete lack thereof in some cases, I am certainly happy that we've found a better level to communicate on.
And yes, I am full of myself. For instance, I would be arrogant enough to put a condition on that confession: I have a pretty good degree of just how full of shite I really am, and use
that knowledge to neutralize any conflicts of ego and propriety. Of course I'm willing to sling with the best and worst of them, but only my freakin' ego says I need to. There is that, so I'll happily trade one
mea culpa for another.
You caught me on a day when I seem to have wanted to fight with somebody about something. For that I can only apologize.
And that is what attracted me BACK to this forum which I had originally planned on abandoning.
Honestly, I got a big boost at some point from
Spookz's point about a debate about a debate. It struck me as so funny that I actually thought it was a good idea. I'm glad you came back. It's turning out to be much better than I expected. I think sometimes we just have to get out some of the stuff we are, which for some of us is long-seeded and so low-level that we've not wasted time on the specifics, such as a debate about a debate. Personally, I might have been itching for an open ground to have it out on a couple of issues. I've grinned all the way through this thing, bad as well as good. I'm happier with the good, but it's been all over the place and entertaining for that fact.
I have really begun to notice that in this conversation ....
(And all that comes after in that paragraph.)
It's a hard thing. I know exactly why certain atheists are angry with theism in general. But as many are aware, I'm not about to hold with theists for the sake of theism; that is, I still think most organized religions are nuts, I do see a good many religious people as being in need of human help, and so forth. There are a couple of atheists who have been around the Exosci/Sciforums boards long enough to recall when I stood in their trenches and helped fend off a bunch of angry Christians. It's a dynamic perception. We all learn and grow and a whole bunch of hippie shite that probably goes here. But if we bust enough generalizations, hopefully we can get more people to simply stand and represent themselves and to present their issues accurately.
Or something like that.
Have peace, man. Really. I'm going to smoke a bowl for peace.
thanx,
Tiassa
