Atheism is a Religion (Split from Blessing Human Rights thread)

[Rathji]

Since the topic was brought up, I was raised atheist and 'found religion' on my early 20s,

I don't believe in God as described by a typical Christian, despite being an active member of a Church. What I do know is that despite not believing in God is there is something about the whole thing that makes sense.

If I say a prayer, I get an answer - not like some guy talking in my ear or anything, but just knowing. Now some people in the room will scream and shout and might even call me nuts, but I don't mind. I know that answer isn't from the traditional definition of God, but I don't know for sure where it is from. My guess is that it is a result of my subconscious telling me something I already know, spurred on by the calm of the situation or the expectation that I have. Probably the same type of therapeutic effect as screaming into your pillow or sitting in a dark room meditating etc.

There are many other manifestations of the same concept in my life, and my life is better for it. I know the religious institutions I attend are not perfect, but I also know that my life is better now that I have these tools, so it is a trade off I make. I also know that I could find another replacement for these things, but I don't think it is worth the effort.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Fair enough, but is it possible people are "setting aside" or "turning down" their intelligent self to believe some of the more absurd things in their religion? Is there any way for somebody like me to understand talking to demons or having two-way conversations with god as perfectly reasonable? It honestly seems so incredibly stupid. Maybe I have blinders on or something.

If you believe in God, then you automatically believe in demons, and talking to either them really isn't that much of a stretch. Although the talking to demons is quite a bit more of a stretch than talking to God, I would think.

So your real problem comes down to someone believing strongly in God, which certainly can seem insane to a staunch atheist, but really isn't when you consider all the factors. It is like how someone can be raised (or become) a white supremacist. They have things happen in their life like taught by parents, taught my friends, had a major life altering experience amplify previous feelings. These things are not a big stretch to understand given human nature, so why is understanding how someone can believe in religion any different?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If you believe in God, then you automatically believe in demons, and talking to either them really isn't that much of a stretch. Although the talking to demons is quite a bit more of a stretch than talking to God, I would think.

So your real problem comes down to someone believing strongly in God, which certainly can seem insane to a staunch atheist, but really isn't when you consider all the factors. It is like how someone can be raised (or become) a white supremacist. They have things happen in their life like taught by parents, taught my friends, had a major life altering experience amplify previous feelings. These things are not a big stretch to understand given human nature, so why is understanding how someone can believe in religion any different?

I understand how people believe in religion. There was never any question there. What has me baffled is how normal some posters are pretending it is to have two-way conversations with god and demons.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Fair enough, but is it possible people are "setting aside" or "turning down" their intelligent self to believe some of the more absurd things in their religion? Is there any way for somebody like me to understand talking to demons or having two-way conversations with god as perfectly reasonable? It honestly seems so incredibly stupid. Maybe I have blinders on or something.

I may have been a little rude in this conversation, and for that I'm sorry, but I totally agree with you on this statement.

Blinders are common for people to have. They influence what people think and what they believe to a greater extent than most people realize. Blinders are one of the biggest reasons that there are partisan issues in the world today.

Admitting you have some is not a weakness. It's a first step. There is nothing that says you need to agree with a different position than yours in order to understand that position. You do not need to agree that these people are talking to God, or that demons exist, in order to understand their world, and their experiences. Obviously I don't consider the easy opinion that they have a mental deficiency as "understanding". Understanding another person's point of view is important to interacting with other people. You'll get farther in arguments if you at least try to see the other point of view.

[Lobotroth]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Since the topic was brought up, I was raised atheist and 'found religion' on my early 20s

Opposite for me but I do sometimes wonder if I had not grown up going to church and Catholic schools would I have naturally gravitated towards God and religion. I don't regret growing up with it, from an early age I knew that it wasn't for me and more often than not experiences I had with strong believers and practitioners were unpleasant. I remember having to pray the rosary every Friday in grade 7, the lights were turned off and we all sat quietly praying to ourselves while the teacher (she was a horrible human being) patrolled the aisles. It always rubbed me the wrong way.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I understand how people believe in religion. There was never any question there. What has me baffled is how normal some posters are pretending it is to have two-way conversations with god and demons.

Let me explain then:

If you believe in the typical Christian's God, you probably believe that he is an all powerful, omnipotent being.

As a result of this, you believe that he can see/hear/etc you at all times.

You also believe that because he is all powerful that he can talk to you- I don't think talk is the right word, but strong feelings, visions, voice hearing and such claims are common for all types of religions, so I assume that is what the person perceives as happening. I think there is an explanation for what they are experiencing, that I touched on in my previous post, that I won't go into further.

So if he can hear you when you speak and you can 'hear' him, then that is a conversation, although probably not in the most commonly accepted form.

Now the demon thing is a different story. I assume most Christian denominations think that demons are evil entities of some type that influence people to do 'bad things', someone will correct me if I am drastically wrong, but I think it is a safe assumption. So if there is a tangible something that is doing the influencing, you could 'talk' to it and if it is able to influence you, obviously it can 'hear' you. Now I think that if God answering your prayers is a 'good' vision, feeling, small voice in your head, then it would stand to reason that the bad versions of those things could be seen to be demons.

Bottom line is, everyone has walked into a room and got a chill down their spine or felt something strange at some point in time. Everyone has felt some type of overwhelming good feeling, exhilaration etc. A religious person simply views these things through the lens by which they are conditioned, that God is a power that has influence in our lives, rather than a non-religious person who looks at them from another perspective because they really don't understand, or have disregarded that as a possibility.

This is how people are, they use their experiences to shape their understanding of the world around them. If you are raised in a rural home, you have a different perspective that someone who was raised on the streets vs someone who was raised in war-torn Bosnia, vs someone who grew up to hippie parents. No one questions how these people have different perspectives on life, so is it really that big of a stretch to understand why someone might have a religious (or non-religious) perspective?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

...So if I don't believe in encounters with demons, does that mean I'm less impressionable and less prone to group think and generalizations? Isn't that a better way to be? I'll answer that for you...yes, it is.

It is absolutely better, but I don't believe that one can so confidently assert his own immunity. I suspect that under a variety of different circumstances you, like every one of us, would experience outside and internal pressure to think or to do things that might seem absurd. We all like to think that we would have opposed the Nazis had we been born and raised in early 20th cent. Germany, and yet millions of otherwise normal, well adjusted and fully capable, fully functioning people fell in line and believed the lies of the Third Reich. If nothing else, it is a testament to our collective gullibility.

Originally Posted by Sliver

...That's a pitiful analogy. First of all, pets are real so talking to them is an actual interaction. They communicate back and can respond to words, tones, gestures, etc. It's not crazy to talk to your dog...

I actually think it is quite apt: The billions of people who talk to God do so because they think he is real. How many of those are certain of it? Millions of people seek out and perceive "messages" from God because they are convinced he is real. Some people will talk to their dead relatives, often because they are lonely, feel isolated, or simply because they miss them. This sort of behaviour is not crazy. Is it not possible that these all stem from the same place cognitively? It seems to me that it is all pretty irrational, and yet there are social conventions that tolerate most of it.

Originally Posted by Sliver

There's nothing arrogant in saying I am immune from a powerful religious experience when in fact thus far I have been immune from a powerful religious experience. The fact that I was raised in an areligous house probably has something to do with that. I understand you'd concede that as you're acknowledging that these experiences stem from a social atmosphere, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous for a grown person educated in Canada to believe in demons. It's utter nonsense.

It is arrogant to assume that your religious experiences or social atmosphere is parallel to those who are certain of God's existence. It is arrogant to assume that you possess an intellectual or mental superiority over a generalized swath of people who think and do things that you consider absurd.

Originally Posted by Sliver

We can absolutely conclude that their belief in demons is a completely unintelligent, uneducated belief, yes.

I suppose that's fair, but I must concede that we must also conclude that significant numbers of people hold to such beliefs in spite of their average to above average intelligence and education.

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm not missing the point at all. You're muddying the point with your eloquent nonsense. Of course it's reasonable to belittle people for believing stupid things...

I guess this is where you and I will disagree. I guess that because of my near proximity to this sort of a situation, and because I intimately understand how and why these sorts of irrational ideas can develop, I just can't simply dismiss these people as "stupid".

Originally Posted by Sliver

Don't pretend this exchange came about organically...it's exactly what you wanted when the only thing you have ever said about your MIL was that she has imaginary friends. If you told us she liked to volunteer her time rescuing orphans I would have thanked your post. You gave us the tidbit about her that was going to raise eyebrows.

Of course I did, but my intent was to illustrate that it is not so simple to be dismissive of these sorts of ideas and behaviours as the product of some sort of mental or psychological handicap. I think if you encounter enough of these people who harbour these irrational ideas and thoughts, you will come to see that this is not a matter of intelligence or the quality of brain function.

Originally Posted by Sliver

...Guy, demons don't exist. Quit pretending I have some warped sense of reality or unreasonable standards of evidence.

I never suggested that. In fact, I am pretty sure that we both hold to similar standards, which is why neither of us believes in the existence of demons. But many people do; many people are certain of their belief, and this is not because of some sort of psychological flaw. What I find unreasonable in your responses is your failure to acknowledge that perfectly normal, well-adjusted, mentally and socially capable people will not apply the same standards of evidence, and this does not render them somehow mentally inferior.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Fair enough, but is it possible people are "setting aside" or "turning down" their intelligent self to believe some of the more absurd things in their religion?

It's just not that simple, nor is it a conscious choice like you seem to be implying here. I think part of the problem here is that the idea of "setting aside" one's "intelligent self" presumes that we are all naturally predisposed to thinking critically and correctly employing evidence to form conclusions. In actual fact, this is a learned discipline, and most people either lack the patience or simply do not care to learn.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Is there any way for somebody like me to understand talking to demons or having two-way conversations with god as perfectly reasonable? It honestly seems so incredibly stupid. Maybe I have blinders on or something.

Maybe "reasonable" is not the right word to use. Perhaps "conventional"? "predictable"?

[Flash Walken]

I think it's important to clarify my position here.

My position in this thread has always been that those people who use their own religious existentialism to unduly or unjustly influence the lives of others are nuts. Not people who talk to god in the trees, or see love in the world or who, like Rathji said, say prayers and 'hear' answers.

I'm very open to different interpretations of intelligence and by no means is my point of view derived from an arrogance or dismissal of religion. In my family we were raised religious, attended church on Sunday, was confirmed etc. etc. My mother is still spiritual, and until recently, so was my sister.

My position and comments are still in relation to zealots.

Yes, Textcritic, without having met your mother in law, speaking to her or knowing any more than what you've said, I would conclude that she was nutty. I wouldn't conclude that she was a bad person, malicious in intent or a pariah in her community, and it wouldn't prevent me from engaging in social activities with her. I'd still think she was nutty, though.

Why these two statements can't be accepted as any other kind of value judgement I would make about her, I don't understand. Like I said previously, if I was talking to the moon and getting advice from Jupiter, you'd probably think I was a bit nutty, but it wouldn't prevent me from being a genuinely good person.

If I interpret Leviticus 19:28 to be literal and take it upon myself to punish those violating the will of God, I would be a zealot and should be treated as such.

If I believe in a literal word of the lord and believe all those who don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal saviour will burn in hell for all eternity, that's fine to. Most people may think it's nutty, but it's fine as long as I'm not taking my own misguided certainty and using it to unduly influence the lives of others.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If you believe in God, then you automatically believe in demons...

Not so. I believe in God and I do not believe in the existence of angels or demons—that is, I do not believe in the existence of "spirit beings" whose sole intent is to either help or harm humanity.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Not so. I believe in God and I do not believe in the existence of angels or demons—that is, I do not believe in the existence of "spirit beings" whose sole intent is to either help or harm humanity.

Makes sense, because believing in God and believing the Bible, which mentions the existence of such things, to be the true are not necessarily mutually inclusive.

Not something I had really considered before though. Probably safe to say there is a rather small minority of people who would fit into that category though.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think it's important to clarify my position here.

My position in this thread has always been that those people who use their own religious existentialism to unduly or unjustly influence the lives of others are nuts. Not people who talk to god in the trees, or see love in the world or who, like Rathji said, say prayers and 'hear' answers...My position and comments are still in relation to zealots.

I get that, but I take issue with the equation of all "gnostic theists" with "zealots". This is really where this part of the discussion began, and my contributions have been meant to illustrate how people quite naturally develop a certainty in the existence of God that absolutely does not require some form of "mental deficiency" (to use your words). There are many gnostic theists, and most of them are not psychologically unbalanced; most of them are not zealots.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yes, Textcritic, without having met your mother in law, speaking to her or knowing any more than what you've said, I would conclude that she was nutty. I wouldn't conclude that she was a bad person, malicious in intent or a pariah in her community, and it wouldn't prevent me from engaging in social activities with her. I'd still think she was nutty, though.

Why these two statements can't be accepted as any other kind of value judgement I would make about her, I don't understand. Like I said previously, if I was talking to the moon and getting advice from Jupiter, you'd probably think I was a bit nutty, but it wouldn't prevent me from being a genuinely good person.

Is "nutty" the same as being "mentally deficient"? I also think my mother-in-law is nutty, but its more in line with being eccentric.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If I interpret Leviticus 19:28 to be literal and take it upon myself to punish those violating the will of God, I would be a zealot and should be treated as such.

Agreed. But most people whom I would classify as gnostic theists do not fit this description. Most people who interpret Lev 19:28 literally do not take it upon themselves to punish anyone for violating God's law. Gnostic theists are not all zealots, according to your definition.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Exposure to Analytical tasks or Rodin's statue reduces the likelihood of believing in organized religion says a new study.

Intuitive thinkers are more likely to believe in religion

http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/An...014/story.html

Cowperson

Interesting - here is a Scientific American article on the research.

Perhaps they way we perceive the world is hard-wired into our brains. Some of us are more intuitive, some of us are more analytical. Neither is crazy.

Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief

A series of new experiments shows that analytic thinking can override intuitive assumptions, including those that underlie religious belief

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...dermine-belief

The researchers, for their part, point out that both reason and intuition have their place. "Our intuitions can be phenomenally useful," Gervais says, "and analytic thinking isn't some oracle of the truth."

Greene concurs, while also raising a provocative question implicit in the findings: "Obviously, there are millions of very smart and generally rational people who believe in God," he says. "Obviously, this study doesn't prove the nonexistence of God. But it poses a challenge to believers: If God exists, and if believing in God is perfectly rational, then why does increasing rational thinking tend to decrease belief in God?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I get that, but I take issue with the equation of all "gnostic theists" with "zealots". This is really where this part of the discussion began, and my contributions have been meant to illustrate how people quite naturally develop a certainty in the existence of God that absolutely does not require some form of "mental deficiency" (to use your words). There are many gnostic theists, and most of them are not psychologically unbalanced; most of them are not zealots.


Is "nutty" the same as being "mentally deficient"? I also think my mother-in-law is nutty, but its more in line with being eccentric.


Agreed. But most people whom I would classify as gnostic theists do not fit this description. Most people who interpret Lev 19:28 literally do not take it upon themselves to punish anyone for violating God's law. Gnostic theists are not all zealots, according to your definition.

There is obviously a lack of communication on my part with how I think I am housing my comments.

The most religiously 'convinced' (convicted?) people I have know in my life have generally all intimated to me a deep personal and ongoing questioning of their faith. Most fascinatingly, this impression is populated mostly by faith or religious leaders. Like I said previously, this is not an area that I don't have a deep understanding of, going by familial history of the religious and ordained.

This, to me, is a stark contrast to those who I have met without a deep personal conflict of their faith. The 'righteousness' of religion, I have little doubt to be that of zealotry and mental deficiency.

[edslunch]

I was raised in the church. My father was very involved, my grandfather was a bishop. After years of reciting "I believe in...." I had the courage to say no, I don't believe in that.

I believe there is more to our existence than our physical bodies and that there are great unknowns in the spiritual realm. But I also believe that all religion is man made, supported by legend and myth passed down through the generations. I don't believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful supreme being. I don't believe in a god that answers our prayers or allows bad things to happen because 'it's his will' or 'he works in mysterious ways'.

I am not one to say religion is the root of all evil. Religion has helped many achieve great peace and great achievements. As any human institution it can also aid, abet and foster evil, which is much more a comment on human nature than on religion.

So I guess this makes me an atheist, but still spiritual. It seems many describe themselves this way.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I was raised in the church. My father was very involved, my grandfather was a bishop. After years of reciting "I believe in...." I had the courage to say no, I don't believe in that.

I believe there is more to our existence than our physical bodies and that there are great unknowns in the spiritual realm. But I also believe that all religion is man made, supported by legend and myth passed down through the generations. I don't believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful supreme being. I don't believe in a god that answers our prayers or allows bad things to happen because 'it's his will' or 'he works in mysterious ways'.

I am not one to say religion is the root of all evil. Religion has helped many achieve great peace and great achievements. As any human institution it can also aid, abet and foster evil, which is much more a comment on human nature than on religion.

So I guess this makes me an atheist, but still spiritual. It seems many describe themselves this way.

I agree with everything you said but the part where you say your "still spiritual" kind of baffles me as you didn't explain it.

I truly admit to being an atheist in a religious sense therefore I can't be "spiritual" as somehow that has a religious tone to it. I believe we as humans are just another form of animals that evolved on this planet, we have larger brains than most and with that our species has grown to fear death and we don't want to admit when were dead there is nothing..we are just another dead animal in the cycle of life.

To me a perfect world would be to people to stop fearing death and living life and enjoying life around them, religion and it's fears has destroyed this IMO.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by T@T

I agree with everything you said but the part where you say your "still spiritual" kind of baffles me as you didn't explain it.

I truly admit to being an atheist in a religious sense therefore I can't be "spiritual" as somehow that has a religious tone to it. I believe we as humans are just another form of animals that evolved on this planet, we have larger brains than most and with that our species has grown to fear death and we don't want to admit when were dead there is nothing..we are just another dead animal in the cycle of life.

To me a perfect world would be to people to stop fearing death and living life and enjoying life around them, religion and it's fears has destroyed this IMO.

Yeah, spiritual isn't the right word - it sounds like I worship Gaia or some nature religion, which isn't what I meant. Like I said I think there is more than just our flesh and blood, and that our consciousness is more than the byproduct of chemical reactions in our brain. While I haven't experienced such things, I am inclined to not dismiss people who have had out of body experiences, have seen ghosts or have had some sort 'supernatural' experience. If real, I think those are natural phenomena we don't understand yet, possibly operating at some level outside the physical world. I do not need to create a deity to explain this.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by troutman

Interesting - here is a Scientific American article on the research.

Perhaps they way we perceive the world is hard-wired into our brains. Some of us are more intuitive, some of us are more analytical. Neither is crazy.

Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief

A series of new experiments shows that analytic thinking can override intuitive assumptions, including those that underlie religious belief

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...dermine-belief

The researchers, for their part, point out that both reason and intuition have their place. "Our intuitions can be phenomenally useful," Gervais says, "and analytic thinking isn't some oracle of the truth."

Greene concurs, while also raising a provocative question implicit in the findings: "Obviously, there are millions of very smart and generally rational people who believe in God," he says. "Obviously, this study doesn't prove the nonexistence of God. But it poses a challenge to believers: If God exists, and if believing in God is perfectly rational, then why does increasing rational thinking tend to decrease belief in God?

This is why I put a moratorium lately on neuroscience books, I was hooked for a long while on it. The more we learn, the less we are actually determining our own beliefs, and that our brains as they become less mysterious are starting to resemble a probability machine.

[onetwo_threefour]

^ Yep, my undergrad was psychology, but heavy on the neuroscience/neurobiology aspect. By the time i graduated, I really questioned whether we even have free will in a true sense. Everything about consciousness seems like it's just a matter of emergent properties of a highly complex system, but that would seem to make all of our activities deterministic even if we don't understand the mechanism. If that is the case then how can we exercise free will at all? We are just slaves of the electrochemical processes of our bodies after all and free will may just be an ad hoc ex post facto justification that our brains give us to explain our behaviour to us.

I don't really believe that, but stuff I learned in my studies about things like optical illusions, cognitive dissonance, how emotional reactions can actually precede thought and other strange findings of neuropsychololgy all makes me wonder how close we even are to actually studying consciousness. Somehow our consciousness really does seem separate from the biochemical/electrochemical processes of our bodies and if there's any spirituality I may still subscribe to it would just be the mystery of how we can have a consciousness that seems more than the sum of its parts. I certainly do think that there is a natural explanation for this, but it's the one thing that i have a somewhat open mind about, that our animating spirit is something more than just an emergent property of our physical makeup. We don't yet have even the tools to explore that proposition but it's something I wonder about.

[Thor]

Then there is the dark side of the knowledge, neuro economics, did you get into that at all.

All I can see is deeper understanding means powerfully effective advertising and abuses galore coming up, talk about never being able to lie again, and crazy things like that.