If religion is the opiate of the masses, what gets atheists high?

[spidergoat]

Other people are excited,
as though they were at a parade.
I alone don't care,
I alone am expressionless,
like an infant before it can smile.

Lao Tse

 

[spidergoat]

What's so wonderful about the existence of the universe? Obviously, a large collection of subatmoic particles have combined in mostly predictable ways creating larger structures that we see today. Ho hum! The fact that it exists is really only good for pondering a little while, as you don't get any good answers and are left stumped. Boring.

"If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

Jesus Christ, Gospel of Thomas, Verse 29

 

[KennyJC]

Atheists seems like a very dull group. What gets you guys excited?

It is a myth what you think about religious people getting more happiness out of life. That 'religious' feeling is exactly that which atheists can feel too, but since we don't believe in god, we don't credit it to such a thing.

 

[iceaura]

I think the percentage of functional atheists attending church because they get to sing would be higher than than most people's initial guess.

What's so amazing and wonderful about reality?

If there is a characteristic thought of the theistic worldview, that may be it.

Marx used opiates himself, btw, and valued them - they were blessed relief of pain, in the times before anesthesia and modern dentistry.

 

[Why?]

Against, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. What trash!

 

[Enmos]

How does reality and truth get you excited? There's no mystery. No hope. Just plain old truth.

It's not like we have a choice is it ?

 

[spidergoat]

Against, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. What trash!

Blasphemy!

 

[alexb123]

Truth

 

[Absane]

While I am what one would call an "agnostic-atheist," I'm not atheist in the sense that I DENY a god exists. But, I imagine that what gets an strong atheist "high" is his own arrogance. The same could be said for a religious nut case, too.

 

[glaucon]

The OP seems to have misunderstood the quote.

The point is that a theist has been opiated, that is to say, sedated, inured, out of touch with reality.

Nevertheless, atheists 'get high' in the recognition that there is nothing beyond their very own life. What they choose to do with it, is the only source of meaning.

 

[lightgigantic]

The OP seems to have misunderstood the quote.

The point is that a theist has been opiated, that is to say, sedated, inured, out of touch with reality.

what is the difference between saying "any theist is out of touch with reality" and "God does not exist"?

Nevertheless, atheists 'get high' in the recognition that there is nothing beyond their very own life. What they choose to do with it, is the only source of meaning.

given that th every phenomena of life is mysterious what are they "recognizing"?
(IOW "recognizing" isn't the right word to use)

 

[glaucon]

what is the difference between saying "any theist is out of touch with reality" and "God does not exist"?

Irrelevant; I mentioned neither of these statements.

...
given that th every phenomena of life is mysterious what are they "recognizing"?
(IOW "recognizing" isn't the right word to use)

I stated quite clearly what it is that is the subject of their recognition. And I certainly didn't mention your fallacious 'universality of mystery'.

 

[lightgigantic]

Irrelevant; I mentioned neither of these statements.

in what way is this statement different from saying all theists are out of touch with reality?


The point is that a theist has been opiated, that is to say, sedated, inured, out of touch with reality.

 

[glaucon]

in what way is this statement different from saying all theists are out of touch with reality?

In the way that the two are completely different.

My statement was a clarification of the quote referenced by the OP.

Yours was an attempt to derive a conclusion regarding a deity from a statement regarding the mental state of a theist.

 

[lightgigantic]

In the way that the two are completely different.

My statement was a clarification of the quote referenced by the OP.

and you used some quite absolute terms in that statement -particularly the word "reality"

The point is that a theist has been opiated, that is to say, sedated, inured, out of touch with reality.

you lead to the use of such a word with other suggestions (sedated, opiated etc) - certainly doesn't help your case
:shrug:

Yours was an attempt to derive a conclusion regarding a deity from a statement regarding the mental state of a theist.

I am not pushing any direction specifically at the moment - i am just trying to get a clarification of your statement which seems to suggest that the words "theism" bears in inextricable link with other words like "out of touch with reality" etc

 

[glaucon]

and you used some quite absolute terms in that statement -particularly the word "reality"

The point is that a theist has been opiated, that is to say, sedated, inured, out of touch with reality.

you lead to the use of such a word with other suggestions (sedated, opiated etc) - certainly doesn't help your case
:shrug:

Indeed it helps my case greatly: as I said, I was characterizing the point of view of the atheist, not making any ontological statement. From the perspective of the atheist, it is the case that the theist is ignorant of Reality. This is a character of the point of view, not a commentary on the nature of reality per se.

I am not pushing any direction specifically at the moment - i am just trying to get a clarification of your statement which seems to suggest that the words "theism" bears in inextricable link with other words like "out of touch with reality" etc

Fair enough.
I would be willing to admit that there is an implicit relation there.
Simply from a semantical perspective, regardless of what the object of concern may be, to say that one's perspective is "opiated" necessarily implies that the perspective is, at the very least, subject to fallibility.
Alas, this discussion is ultimately concerned with two opposing metaphysical perspectives, both of which have their own ontological implications...


WRT the quote itself: this was of course, Karl Marx'. It's important to remember that what Mark was getting at here is the notion that Religion was made use of as a means to sedate, and thereby control people. As such, we're really talking politics here, strictly speaking.

 

[scorpius]

Who can part the red sea? Or kill every first born using a ghostly spirit of death? Reality pales in comparison.

no one,that fairy tale is just a rumor.

 

[scorpius]

Atheists seems like a very dull group.

unlike theists whos only hope is having fun after they die!
get real.

 

[Nutter]

Atheists seems like a very dull group. What gets you guys excited?

Take a look around here. You will quickly realize that bitterness is the opiate of the atheists.

 

[KennyJC]

Take a look around here. You will quickly realize that bitterness is the opiate of the atheists.

Largely true - I remain extremely bitter about my education. Only people who know how ridiculous religion is can come to understand how wrong it is to blanketly indoctrinate all new children into the world with it. And into adulthood, it doesn't stop there. FULL GROWN adults actually believe this stuff, and as part of its evangelical nature is broadcast into public life where it does not belong.

Can you imagine Astrology being taught in schools as though undoubtedly true? Crazy huh? Well that's what religion is afforded in most schools in the UK.