I personally believe people have an innate spiritual sense. I believe there are good and evil forces although they may not be represented by a figure named god or satan.
I personally believe people have an innate spiritual sense.
What does this even mean? A spiritual sense of what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
I believe there are good and evil forces although they may not be represented by a figure named god or satan.
What good and evil forces? I think people account well enough for the good and evil that they do without having to make up some other forces.
As for the comments about Dawkins, every time this comes up I ask for specifics and I almost always never get them. I think Dawkins' reputation for being combative and aggressive are VASTLY overstated, I've seen far more interactions where he's been nothing but polite. Disagreeing with someone and telling them that they are wrong is not combative and aggressive, sometimes people are just wrong.
There was one where he was discussing with a woman and she kept saying the transitional fossils don't exist, and he kept telling her that they did exist and she only had to go to a museum to see them, and she kept repeating that they didn't exist.. An aggressive and combative person would have told her she was blind and stupid etc, but he was just polite and insistent.
The only time I've seen Dawkins actually aggressive was with respect to the Pope and the systemic covering up of child abuse issue, and I think that was warranted.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I personally believe people have an innate spiritual sense. I believe there are good and evil forces although they may not be represented by a figure named god or satan.
Well...some people are bad (see evil) and some good...there is no doubt that either genetics or poor family upbringing can trigger the bad side, but I dont think that's what you intend in your explanation. Its relative to personal experience as well because what some people see as evil others may not...see today's Muslim or Aryan nations. Most devout Christians would certainly see me as evil, yet I probably give more of my time and money than most.
Outside of that you are stuck with the idea that some outside force is the cause of these forces...that in itself deserves an explanation beyond the realms of today's religious or scientific connotations.
The religious ideas of good and evil are so heinous it does nothing but help the atheist cause.
I personally believe people have an innate spiritual sense. I believe there are good and evil forces although they may not be represented by a figure named god or satan.
Yes, Atheism rejects the notion that there are "Good" and "Evil" forces and recognizes that good and evil are human concepts that do not relate to any universal Truths.
Atheism also, generally, rejects the idea of 'spirituality', the notion that there is any aspect of an individual which is separate from the physical, material body - a 'spirit' or 'soul'.
Personally, I am an Atheist - I deny that there is any higher universal power worthy of worship - but I do, utterly irrationally, believe in the existence of a soul. I recognize that these ideas may be inconsistent, and am currently trying to work out my own personal philosophy that can accomodate both notions.
Right now, I feel that if I am not able to develop a personal belief system incorporating both rejection of the notion of "God" and the existence of "Soul", I will be forced to reject the idea of "Soul" as the idea of there being a God seems so far beyond improbable as to be ludicrous.
Also, I think the world would be a better place if everyone was an Atheist, and would classify myself as a "New Atheist" in that I will try to actively convert people to my point of view, if given the chance.
Yes, Atheism rejects the notion that there are "Good" and "Evil" forces and recognizes that good and evil are human concepts that do not relate to any universal Truths.
Atheism also, generally, rejects the idea of 'spirituality', the notion that there is any aspect of an individual which is separate from the physical, material body - a 'spirit' or 'soul'.
Personally, I am an Atheist - I deny that there is any higher universal power worthy of worship - but I do, utterly irrationally, believe in the existence of a soul. I recognize that these ideas may be inconsistent, and am currently trying to work out my own personal philosophy that can accomodate both notions.
Right now, I feel that if I am not able to develop a personal belief system incorporating both rejection of the notion of "God" and the existence of "Soul", I will be forced to reject the idea of "Soul" as the idea of there being a God seems so far beyond improbable as to be ludicrous.
Also, I think the world would be a better place if everyone was an Atheist, and would classify myself as a "New Atheist" in that I will try to actively convert people to my point of view, if given the chance.
there is such a tag as Spiritual atheist, thats probably where you fit right now...I prefer not to label.
Spiritual Atheists do not believe in a literal "God" (thus the term "Atheist"), but still consider themselves to be (often deeply) "Spiritual" people. Even so, there is no consensus among Spiritual Atheists regarding the literal existence of one's own "spirit" or a collective "spirit". However, there is consensus that if any "spirit" does exist, it is not external to the Universe and it is not "supernatural". Spiritual Atheists believe that all aspects of the Universe are strictly natural.
Yeah, I'm familiar with the "spiritual atheist" tag and, if pressed is what I would identify as. I am just engaging in an exercise in personal philosophy so that, if asked, I can articulate what I believe and why in a more cogent manner than: 'that's just what I believe'.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
What does this even mean? A spiritual sense of what?
What good and evil forces? I think people account well enough for the good and evil that they do without having to make up some other forces.
I think of spirituality as those things that cannot be explained by science. This of course, probably drives you insane, but that's all I got for now. Thinking about this stuff is kind of a mind-f_ck for me.
I also don't really think of good/evil as "external forces". I agree that any person has the capacity to be one or the other.
I can't be a hardcore atheist because I refuse to think of people as nothing but flesh and blood animals driven purely by genes. I think there is something more to human nature than that.
I think of spirituality as those things that cannot be explained by science. This of course, probably drives you insane, but that's all I got for now. Thinking about this stuff is kind of a mind-f_ck for me.
"Cannot be explained at the present moment" or "cannot ever be explained"?
If the former, I can think of "neutrino mass". Is that spirituality? If the latter, could you provide an example and show evidence that it exists?
Quote:
I also don't really think of good/evil as "external forces". I agree that any person has the capacity to be one or the other.
I can't be a hardcore atheist because I refuse to think of people as nothing but flesh and blood animals driven purely by genes. I think there is something more to human nature than that.
False dichotomy. Atheism doesn't necessitate that people are driven purely by genes, nor does modern science. If you think otherwise, please tell us why.
I think of spirituality as those things that cannot be explained by science. This of course, probably drives you insane
Not really, because most of those things usually fall into two different categories.. things that science can't explain yet but in principle could be, and things that haven't been shown to even exist.
If something isn't detectable or inferable, then it doesn't have any impact on our reality and its existence is a pointless discussion because nothing revolves on the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
I think there is something more to human nature than that.
Like what?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
It's been a long journey for me coming to grips with the idea that I am an atheist, but I am slowly doing so. It's hard given a Catholic upbringing and all that goes along with it. I'm not saying this as if it is a virtue of mine, but I have begun accepting this. That being said, I also accept that others are not atheists, and won't push my beliefs on them so long as they don't push theirs on me.
Stories like this certainly don't paint the church in a positive light as far as I am concerned. To me, it just shows that what really matters to church leaders is the preservation of power over salvation of people, or at least that it matters far more than they let on. I'd have more respect for a church group that was so confident in themselves that their practice allowed others to come to them if they wished rather than selling their views like some sort of product.
The Following User Says Thank You to Antithesis For This Useful Post:
I think quitting religion is as tough as quitting smoking or drugs for many people. Religion is something we are brought up with, something we are told is the right thing by parents and grandparents. That trust is a difficult thing to break, but our family did not have the information we have at our fingertips today. Education is the great equalizer.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
That being said, I also accept that others are not atheists, and won't push my beliefs on them so long as they don't push theirs on me.
I generally stay out of these religious debates, but still read them as I like good discourse. To me, regardless of what religion you are (or lack thereof) the above quote says everything.
Let people believe what they want to believe as long as you don't negatively impact others.
I consider myself Christian, I do believe in God. My belief solidified when my grandfather passed away, I was very close to him, and couldn't cope with the thought of never seeing him again. My belief in Heaven allows me to believe that someday I will (and subsequent loved ones that have passed on).
Right or wrong (in the scientific sense) what does it matter?
If your faith gives you the confidence to be a better person, and achieve your goals, what does it matter?
I don't believe in forcing beliefs on anyone (be it religious, political, or even sporting). Put the information out there and let people choose for themselves.
I do have a problem with people abusing religion and using it for bad purposes, I also have a problem with political figures that use an agenda of hate, and sports fans that hate someone because of the logo they're wearing.
I think it boils down to tolerance, tolerance for people of other religions, tolerance for people of any belief (religious or not).
For those that want to berate me for my belief in religious at its core being emotional, go ahead. But ask yourself do you berate people, and get worked up because someone doesn't cheer for your team and they cheer for another?
. . . now back to lurking, I just wanted to give Antithesis props for the above quoted statement, cheers
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Last edited by Maritime Q-Scout; 02-06-2011 at 07:50 PM.
Reason: mixed up their and they're, damn it!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
I didn't bother reading all the back and forth in this thread. I will just throw something out there that I hope will clear up some confusion regarding the term "atheism".
Atheism is commonly misused, as it is context sensitive. There are no recognizable atheistic institutions, so it does not have any universal cultural or religious connotation. Instead, it is seen as synonymous with non-believer as is relevant to whatever the religious affiliation of the user. When a Muslim declares anyone to be Atheist, this often means "They don't believe in Allah". If a Christian... They don't believe in the Christian deity. If a "spiritual" individual uses the term, they are generally indicating that the person rejects the notion of spirituality.
The term has become an umbrella for anyone that rejects the faith of mainstream society, or that of the proclaimer. Though there exists a valid definition for Atheism, it is hardly ever used. Atheists themselves vary greatly in how they define their "faith".
The term has since regressed to a synonym of paganism.
Just to be clear, understand the etymology of the word Atheism. Theism is the belief in a superlative being; the "a" denotes a negation of this. Simply put: Atheism is the rejection of a superlative, supernatural being.
Imagine if people walked around saying they were theists? This would be just as equivocal to suggesting oneself as an atheist. Get it?
So when the church uses the term "atheism" they create a vague classification of those who reject Christianity, yet do not subscribe to any other theistic faith.
Right or wrong (in the scientific sense) what does it matter?
If your faith gives you the confidence to be a better person, and achieve your goals, what does it matter?
Great post, I honestly appreciate your words so long as you practice what you preach.
However, I found this portion of your post interesting and wanted to ask the following:
What, in the scientific sense, is right and wrong?
Also, from what criteria do you derive of your faith an understanding of what makes you a better person? Does your faith provide you with this criteria? What about secular thought?
What gives you that impression? The reason I made a concession about Christopher Hitchens being militant (it's still the wrong word) is that he is so adversarial. I do not think that Dawkins hates anyone. He just thinks they are wrong and that teaching the next generation things that are false has negative consequences.
I disagree with this comparison. Dawkins isn't out for revenge, nor is he denying the religious perspective a position in the debate. He is concluding that their perspective has insufficient evidence to back up their claims.
It is very easy to flip that comparison around and argue that it is the clergy who suit the position of the militant feminists who hate secular forces that threaten their position of influence.
Neil deGrasse Tyson I think addresses this type of thing pretty well:
I agree with a lot of Tyson's sentiment. *If* his overall goal is to educate people and sway them to his side of the debate, Dawkins' methods are not as effective as they could be.
