RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
How do you define Atheism?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The gulf between us
- Thread starter Corvus
- Start date
PureX
Veteran Member
Corvus, it's true that theists and atheists are nearly always "talking past" each other rather than with each other, and as a result they gain no understanding of each other's views, become frustrated, and give up or get angry. The atheist thinks he's "pursuing truth through logic" when he's really just confusing truth with physicality, and then blindly presuming that he's found it when it falls on his foot. While the theist thinks he's "pursuing truth through faith" when he is in fact just exercising the act of faith, and then presuming that he's found the truth when what he'd been hoping for, or something close enough, manifested in some form he deemed acceptable.
The key for these two sets of people to understand each other is this:
1. Realize that YOU'RE BOTH WRONG. Neither of you is any closer to "the truth" than the other. Because faith is not truth, and neither is physicality.
2. Realize that no human being will ever gain "the truth" and be able to know that they have done so. Because "the truth" is a singular whole, and we humans do not have the capacity to perceive nor understand this singular whole. It's vastness and complexity is FAR beyond our ken. So if we think we are pursuing "the truth", in earnest, we are fools on a fool's errand. It just AIN'T HAPPENING. What we can pursue, as best we are able, and what we should be pursuing in earnest, is HONESTY, not truth. And honestly begins with humility. And that means accepting our profound limiations, and learning to live and think within them.
3. Realize that what we humans refer to as "the truth" is really just WHAT WORKS for us in our experience of existing, and in relation to the way we understand our experience of existence up to this point. That does not make it "the truth" of anything, by any stretch of reasoning. It simply makes us useful to us.
This last one is especially important because it's how we all are establishing what we believe to be "the truth" of things: that is, that "it works" for us in our experience and understanding of reality. And this is just as true for the atheist as it is for the theist, and so this is where the two camps can meet and find affiliation. Theists believe as they do because doing so works for them in their experience and understanding of life. Just as atheists reject those same beliefs for exactly the same reason. And once both sides understand this, and stop blindly presuming that their own experience and understanding of life can be the ONLY POSSIBLE TRUTH, they can begin to explore the other side's experience and understanding, in earnest.
The key for these two sets of people to understand each other is this:
1. Realize that YOU'RE BOTH WRONG. Neither of you is any closer to "the truth" than the other. Because faith is not truth, and neither is physicality.
2. Realize that no human being will ever gain "the truth" and be able to know that they have done so. Because "the truth" is a singular whole, and we humans do not have the capacity to perceive nor understand this singular whole. It's vastness and complexity is FAR beyond our ken. So if we think we are pursuing "the truth", in earnest, we are fools on a fool's errand. It just AIN'T HAPPENING. What we can pursue, as best we are able, and what we should be pursuing in earnest, is HONESTY, not truth. And honestly begins with humility. And that means accepting our profound limiations, and learning to live and think within them.
3. Realize that what we humans refer to as "the truth" is really just WHAT WORKS for us in our experience of existing, and in relation to the way we understand our experience of existence up to this point. That does not make it "the truth" of anything, by any stretch of reasoning. It simply makes us useful to us.
This last one is especially important because it's how we all are establishing what we believe to be "the truth" of things: that is, that "it works" for us in our experience and understanding of reality. And this is just as true for the atheist as it is for the theist, and so this is where the two camps can meet and find affiliation. Theists believe as they do because doing so works for them in their experience and understanding of life. Just as atheists reject those same beliefs for exactly the same reason. And once both sides understand this, and stop blindly presuming that their own experience and understanding of life can be the ONLY POSSIBLE TRUTH, they can begin to explore the other side's experience and understanding, in earnest.
Last edited:
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
Tell me about it. I am not interested in converting people, I think people do have to come to their own conclusions, I am asking theists and anyone else, why they believe in God. If someone actually tells me why they do, instead of leaping to the defensive, or making assumptions, or creating strawmen, then that might be productive. I know I have stated I resolutely believe in the scientific method and I extol the supremacy of empirical knowledge. That does not mean I will ridicule other evidences. A few people have responded with their take on it, which has been useful and made sense, given the needs and aspirations of human beings.
Last edited:
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
I do not concur. Demonstrable truth is demonstrable.
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
It works for them? Does it work also for the victims of religious intolerance, religious extremism and/or oppressive theocratic governments? To mention but a few issues.
Last edited:
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
Your definition of truth is fascinating, but I do not concur. Truth is testable observable and verifiable. Anything else has to be opinion or hearsay.
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
Personally? The assigning of a near zero probability of God(s) existing.
PureX
Veteran Member
There is no truth for us, except as delusion. There is only what works, and what doesn't. Until you understand this, you will remain trapped in the delusion of your own pretense.
PureX
Veteran Member
We are all victims of each other's idiocy. Stop pretending that theists are somehow more responsible for this than anyone else is. Or than YOU are.
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
Only one of us is trapped in a delusion, and it isn't me.
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
I do not do idiotic things.
And I recommend this article. It's quite clear that psychopathy and lack of morality are synonymous. It is also well known that moral intuitions are well near universal and shared by everyone else in human society, though overt legal rules are dependent on social conditions. Morality is not about following laws, but the inbuilt capacity to recognize other human beings as ends in themselves and value them as such.
Born to kill? How to spot a psychopath
But for a small – but not that small – subset of the population, things are very different. These people lack remorse and empathy and feel emotion only shallowly. In extreme cases, they might not care whether you live or die. These people are called psychopaths. Some of them are violent criminals, murderers. But by no means all.... . “It stuns me, as much as it did when I started 40 years ago, that it is possible to have people who are so emotionally disconnected that they can function as if other people are objects to be manipulated and destroyed without any concern,” he says.....
The list in full is: glibness and superficial charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, cunning/manipulative, lack of remorse, emotional shallowness, callousness and lack of empathy, unwillingness to accept responsibility for actions, a tendency to boredom, a parasitic lifestyle, a lack of realistic long-term goals, impulsivity, irresponsibility, lack of behavioural control, behavioural problems in early life, juvenile delinquency, criminal versatility, a history of “revocation of conditional release” (ie broken parole), multiple marriages, and promiscuous sexual behaviour. A pure, prototypical psychopath would score 40. A score of 30 or more qualifies for a diagnosis of psychopathy....
. On average, someone with no criminal convictions scores 5.
Of course a small minority of people score moderately high (20-30) and exhibit some but not all features of psychopathy. They will be good at manipulating other people and this makes them suitable for some roles. But the fact that they lack in the moral dimensions remains true, making them dangerous for people who are around them.
And no, I am not going to buy a book that praises psychopathy. It's a condition to be identified and treated, just like any other psychological illness. Empathic blindness is a form of blindness, worse than visual blindness in my opinion.
Finally to answer your question. Morality is the valuing of other human beings and taking their interests into account in decisions. It's a necessary trait for a cooperative complex society to come together and function. The moral rules are context dependent, but morality itself is well defined and objective.
Is Morality Innate and Universal? | DiscoverMagazine.com
As Babies, We Knew Morality
Bloom was even more surprised when babies as young as three months old showed moral awareness. When Bloom’s research colleagues suggested that they look at babies just twelve weeks out of the mother’s womb, Bloom objected. At that age, babies "really are sluglike," he writes in his book—they’re "mewling and puking in the nurse’s arm," as Shakespeare put it. They can’t reach for puppets the way 6-and-10-month-olds can and it’s unclear what their awareness of the world is.
But even in their slug-like state, these young babies can control their eyes, which “really are windows into the baby’s soul,” as Bloom writes. You can tell what a baby likes by what it looks at. So the researchers showed the three-month olds the same morality play with the helping and hindering puppets and then placed the puppets in front of them afterward. Most of the babies looked toward the nice puppet.
“Babies,” Bloom writes, “have a general appreciation of good and bad behavior.” Beyond distinguishing between good and bad, young children also have an understanding of fairness and justice. In one version of the helping/hindering study, one of the babies actually reached over to the mean puppet and smacked it on the head.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
No, physicality is testable, observable, and verifiable. Thus, you have foolishly come to believe (as nearly all atheists do) that physicality equates to truth. And therefor you presume that your "truth" is superior to (closer to) "The Truth" than the theists.
And you are not only wrong in this, but your mind has become trapped by your own false presumption.
No worries. I was on my phone, and being a little too economical with my words (typing on it is a chore at times).
On a laptop now, I'll try to explain my meaning. This is pretty general, obviously, since I don't know you, so take it with a grain of salt.
'Theism' appears to be a placeholder (or perhaps example) of irrational thought in your OP. I read it as basically suggesting that you don't understand people who make decisions divorced from rationality, with theism being a common (and relevant to this forum) example of that.
Whilst I could try and defend some forms of theism in a rational manner, I have little interest in doing so. Instead, my point is that all humans make 'irrational' decisions. Relations with the opposite sex (or same sex...or even plants, based on another thread I was reading today) is a simple example of an area filled with 'irrationality'. However, the same applies to any sphere. I work in IT, and see some amazingly logical people fall prey to the same pitfalls and human foibles as others, albeit with a better ability to rationalise their behaviour after the fact.
Rather than focusing on theism in particular, it might be beneficial to think more about human behaviour as a whole. It's not just that we are not completely 'rational' beings, but also that 'rational' is not always the optimal method for decision making. There are a lot of areas where being overly rational is counter productive, and the rational response to this is to...err...wind back the rationality. Act rashly, within reason.
Anyways, just a conversation starter, really. Not sure if you're interested in this line of thought, since it's at a bit of a tangent to the OP. Suffice to say that most people in RL would think of me as a very rational thinker, and my wife and some friends like to joke that my emotional highs and lows are more like blips than spikes/troughs. But even as that sort of person, I'm very aware of the limits of 'rational' thought in terms of succeeding in life, almost without exception (ie. regardless of what 'success' means for you). Both rational and 'irrational' thought are required by all functioning humans. Whilst I find it hard to understand some theistic thought, I only really care where that impacts on me or mine.
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
If it cannot be tested observed or otherwise evidenced of verified empirically, then it does not exist. If something has no physical presence in the form of particle or field, then it does not exist. My truth is the scientific method, which as you say, works. It is the only sure fire way of establishing what is real from what is mere imagination.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
So you are a Gnostic Atheist?
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
Yes I know. However definitions of what constitutes moral behavior varies considerably from culture to culture, generation to generation. It remains subjective, despite universal moral fundamentals common to the human species.
Hey, actually wanted to mention that I appreciate your use of the word 'nearly'. As in 'nearly all atheists', rather than 'all atheists'. Incidentally, I'm not sure that is actually true. But it is a common position on the internet, far as I can tell. Less so in my observations in RL. Or maybe just less so in Australia. Not sure.
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
In fact your response nails the issue directly. Many thanks, I will consider what you said.