Topic: Atheism

[Andy @ Allerton!]

If we make the assumption that reality exists, then here is clearly evidence he exists.

If reality doesn't exist then it doesn't matter anyway.

Why doesn't it matter? Depends on your belief of what reality/unreality is doesn't it?

Perhaps it doesn't matter if this is 'real' or 'not' if it doesn't make any difference to our lives within that reality/unreality.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

In which case you're talking to yourself.

I might not exist either. Perhaps we're just two parts of another entity thinking we're discussing things.

If that was the case, I'm not sure how you'd prove it. Most of our 'proof' of the world depends on it actually existing in the way we think it does/has.

[TepidT2O]

Why doesn't it matter? Depends on your belief of what reality/unreality is doesn't it?

Perhaps it doesn't matter if this is 'real' or 'not' if it doesn't make any difference to our lives within that reality/unreality.

You brought up reality...

[Yorkykopite]

I'd disagree that it's fixed. History shows you that it's been modified many times.

Thank you.

Like I said historians do wonderful work in showing how the Bible and the Koran have been adulterated, fabricated, changed at certain points over the centuries. They also show how both are partly works of plagiarism. That's scientific scholarship if you like. If Christians and Muslims admitted the conclusions of this scientific scholarship we'd be making progress. But on the whole they don't - and cannot. They believe, instead, that Scripture is the Word of God and that it is not the responsibility for man to refine or alter the message of Jesus and Mohammed. These things are eternal.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You brought up reality...

Because 'reality' is key to quite a few things. I'm not sure 'we' know what reality is. Our bit of it seems to be a remote part of a mass of stuff that most of which is undetectable/invisible that seems to have started nearly fourteen billion years ago for no apparant reason to create a load of 'stuff' for no apparant reason that appears to have no apparant purpose. What is outside the edges of the universe that we think we know about and is everything (as we assume/believe) the 'same' everywhere? Is there anything outside the edge of that expanding universe - what is it and what is it expanding into and for what purpose and is it all there is?

Even with the bits of the 'known' universe with all the dark matter and dark energy and expansion into.. what.. it seems that we've enough problems on our plate before we can even think we know all about it.

We've experienced how many years out of 14 billion (nearly) and how much distance of all time and space in our universe have we actually visited?

Not much. Assuming any of it is, in fact, real.

[Yanwoo]

Contrast that with religious belief. Scripture is never changed, never amended, never moderated, never scrutinised for error, never de-bunked (except scientists and historians and archaeologists of course). It is permanent and changeless. It has to be.  And that's why religious faith has nothing in common with the faith in science.
 

I think it's a bit more complex than that. Whilst the original doctrines mostly persist, there's plenty of cultural and social adaptation that's evident throughout the centuries, which leads to different interpretations and emphasis on different parts of the teachings. There's also a lot of ongoing scholarly attention that evolves or changes our understanding, new translations etc.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Thank you.

Like I said historians do wonderful work in showing how the Bible and the Koran have been adulterated, fabricated, changed at certain points over the centuries. They also show how both are partly works of plagiarism. That's scientific scholarship if you like. If Christians and Muslims admitted the conclusions of this scientific scholarship we'd be making progress. But on the whole they don't - and cannot. They believe, instead, that Scripture is the Word of God and that it is not the responsibility for man to refine or alter the message of Jesus and Mohammed. These things are eternal.

You're assuming that the opposite of atheism is organised religion. It clearly doesn't have to be. Plenty of people believe in 'something' without ever going to a church or mosque or the like.

A lot of what seems to be getting railed at is organised religion - but then the 'religious' (Regardless of how they approach their belief) are dumped into a 'one-size-fits-all' argument.

[Yanwoo]

No offence, but does this actually mean anything?

I could argue this supports the point I was making. I gave an example of something deeper that is part of most (maybe all) religions (in the broader sense) - and it made no sense to either of you. What I briefly touched on there at a high level you could spend the rest of your life delving into via religious and philosophical teachings.

[Yorkykopite]

You're assuming that the opposite of atheism is organised religion. It clearly doesn't have to be. Plenty of people believe in 'something' without ever going to a church or mosque or the like.

A lot of what seems to be getting railed at is organised religion - but then the 'religious' (Regardless of how they approach their belief) are dumped into a 'one-size-fits-all' argument.

Yes I think that's a fair point.

Certainly for me it is organised religion that I take most notice of - for the obvious reason that it has done most damage to the world. The squiffier types of personalised spirituality are harmless, I think, if not exactly benign. And like most atheists I don't care a damn whether people hold religious beliefs or not. I only object to religion poking its nose where it doesn't belong (in government, in state education). Indeed one of the attractions of living in a secular society is that people aren't victimised for what they believe in.The squiffy stuff is impossible to adhere to in theocracies for example (see the recent experience of the Yazidis in Islamic State territory). In atheistic societies people tend to say "live and let live". I suppose that's why godless California has spawned more 'spirituality' than anywhere else in the world. 

[Yanwoo]

You're assuming that the opposite of atheism is organised religion. It clearly doesn't have to be. Plenty of people believe in 'something' without ever going to a church or mosque or the like.

A lot of what seems to be getting railed at is organised religion - but then the 'religious' (Regardless of how they approach their belief) are dumped into a 'one-size-fits-all' argument.

Very good point. And also with many religious or philosophical systems, there is enormous variance within.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Yes I think that's a fair point.

Certainly for me it is organised religion that I take most notice of - for the obvious reason that it has done most damage to the world. The squiffier types of personalised spirituality are harmless, I think, if not exactly benign. And like most atheists I don't care a damn whether people hold religious beliefs or not. I only object to religion poking its nose where it doesn't belong (in government, in state education). Indeed one of the attractions of living in a secular society is that people aren't victimised for what they believe in.The squiffy stuff is impossible to adhere to in theocracies for example (see the recent experience of the Yazidis in Islamic State territory). In atheistic societies people tend to say "live and let live". I suppose that's why godless California has spawned more 'spirituality' than anywhere else in the world. 

Fair point - but I think that many Religious people (All the ones I've met for instance of many faiths) are very much 'live and let live'.

I do see some apparent nutjobs on the TV that appear to be very much the opposite, but I don't think you can even really compare (for instance) the US and UK.

That's the problem that we're all guilty of we all make points, assumptions and unfair accusations because once you get outside the 'one' then you're talking about the 'many' and anything that may be applied to just one really can never be applied to the many.

But that's humanity for you. Religious or not.

[Yanwoo]

Certainly for me it is organised religion that I take most notice of - for the obvious reason that it has done most damage to the world.

You need to look at the other side of that equation, too.

Although, picking apart the contributions of organised religion from the development of society over the last few thousand years is a near impossible task, given how deeply intertwined they are.

[Corkboy]

I could argue this supports the point I was making. I gave an example of something deeper that is part of most (maybe all) religions (in the broader sense) - and it made no sense to either of you.

Probably because it didn't make sense, full stop. Let's have another look.

The nature of reality, for example, which differs (at a high level) between non-dualistic and dualistic traditions. Part of the deeper immersion in the practices of some religions, for example, is understanding/interpreting that directly through experience, not through explicit knowledge (which is limited by language and is inherently an abstraction).

...and, of course, various schools of philosophy have interesting things to say the nature of reality as well.

The first and last bits of your post are simply naming things, without any further examination or demonstration of how or why they might be relevant. The middle bit, your deeper immersion quote, is actually meaningless. You seem to be saying that one can experience religion, rather than approach it by gaining (second hand?) knowledge of it. Again, while I'm sure that might mean something to you, it offers nothing to anyone else.

Where is the "example of something deeper"?

[Yorkykopite]

Fair point - but I think that many Religious people (All the ones I've met for instance of many faiths) are very much 'live and let live'.

They are. But largely because the sting has been drawn.

This is where Christianity has an advantage over Islam (I'm talking about its social development rather than its doctrine). It doesn't sting as much as it used to. It doesn't spawn Crusades anymore or host Inquisitions. One of the great achievements of the state religion (C of E) was to go very light on doctrine from the 1850s onwards.

Whereas it's still tough for Muslim children to become apostates - even in the UK it can cause big problems, let alone in Egypt. That's not the "live and let live" attitude at work there.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

They are. But largely because the sting has been drawn.

This is where Christianity has an advantage over Islam (I'm talking about its social development rather than its doctrine). It doesn't sting as much as it used to. It doesn't spawn Crusades anymore or host Inquisitions. One of the great achievements of the state religion (C of E) was to go very light on doctrine from the 1850s onwards.

Whereas it's still tough for Muslim children to become apostates - even in the UK it can cause big problems, let alone in Egypt. That's not the "live and let live" attitude at work there.

That does seem to be the case, but I don't generally perceive the targets of atheist sarcasm/attacks/belittlement to include these people generally (Though I may be wrong)

For instance, people saying "Well your church did this or that or the other" and where do you stop with that? That random bit of land that has been called 'Bogland' or whatever for 8,328 years commited some atrocity in 164 and 821 and 901 - so that means everyone from 'Bogland' is 'guilty' forever? In the same way that if the Church or members of it commited atrocities then everyone is 'guilty' by association?

A dark and troubled path to go down that one.

Casting the first stone and all that.

[RedRabbit]

But only those ten were transcribed by the hand of God. Supposedly. The all loving God who cared more about you worshiping him and keeping the sabbath holy than abusing kids.

He gave moses more than 10 cause moses got pissy with the boys and girls having a party.

[Corkboy]

For instance, people saying "Well your church did this or that or the other" and where do you stop with that? That random bit of land that has been called 'Bogland' or whatever for 8,328 years commited some atrocity in 164 and 821 and 901 - so that means everyone from 'Bogland' is 'guilty' forever? In the same way that if the Church or members of it commited atrocities then everyone is 'guilty' by association?

A dark and troubled path to go down that one.

You're kind of generalising there. I don't really care what horrors the Christian church carried out 500 years ago, or if I do, I'm certainly not looking to blame anyone currently in the church for it. The guys that are still there, however, and still committing awful acts or covering them up? Fuck those guys.

[Yorkykopite]

That does seem to be the case, but I don't generally perceive the targets of atheist sarcasm/attacks/belittlement to include these people generally (Though I may be wrong)

Does the sarcasm bother you, really?

You may be right that Christians catch more flak than Muslims from the jokers. There's a good reason for that of course. It's called Salman Rushdie. It's called Charlie Hebdo.

It's been proved time and again that the really devout in that religion do not have a sense of humour, or a sense of proportion.

[Yanwoo]

Probably because it didn't make sense, full stop. Let's have another look.

The first and last bits of your post are simply naming things, without any further examination or demonstration of how or why they might be relevant.

ha, ok. It didn't make sense to you.

The split between dualistic and non-dualistic is a critical distinction in how religions understand/hypothesise about the nature of reality, that's why I mentioned it. It's a pretty fundamental attribute of religions and spiritual traditions, which in the context of this discussion, I assumed it didn't need further explanation.

The middle bit, your deeper immersion quote, is actually meaningless. You seem to be saying that one can experience religion, rather than approach it by gaining (second hand?) knowledge of it. Again, while I'm sure that might mean something to you, it offers nothing to anyone else.

Again, it's meaningless to you. For some, my comment would be an obvious statement and would be glanced over!

Beyond the surface stuff, this deeper introspection and reflection through religious or spiritual practices, is at the core of many traditions - when you get beyond the surface level stuff and dogma. That those practices lead to (claimed) altered perspectives, experiences and insights, again is hardly controversial or a novel claim. One lens is that all the surface level stuff - much of the codified religion - is just about 'clearing the way', to provide a foundation for these practices and subsequent 'learnings' which is where the real action is.

I'm not asserting the 'truth' or otherwise of these claims or experiences here, but that this is what lies beneath the surface of many religions is reasonably obvious if you take a look.

[Corkboy]

ha, ok. It didn't make sense to you.

Alright, let's recap.

You bowled into the thread to opine that some of us were approaching the whole religion thing in a rather superficial manner. You were asked for examples of deeper stuff that we were missing. You came up with three things, if one counts your oblique allusion to "philosophy". The others were as follows:

Dualism. Yes, I knew what it was. It's the familiar nonsense at the heart of most religions, the idea that we are divided into body and soul, or body and spirit, or whatever. There's no evidence for that assertion, and there never has been. That doesn't advance the discussion, it's simply a different name for something atheists don't accept anyway.

Deeper reflection. You seem to be saying that if we atheists simply thought harder, we might gain more knowledge about religion, to get to the real action, as you said. Needless to say, that's fanciful, not to mention arrogant. It's also a familiar religious trope, this idea that one has to open one's mind to religion and then the light will somehow shine through.

I can't see how any of your examples buttress your condescension about atheists, much less inform them about anything.

[Alan_X]

If more people ate cheese and ketchup on toast, we'd all be happy.

Spot on Andy. Food of the gods.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Alright, let's recap.

You bowled into the thread to opine that some of us were approaching the whole religion thing in a rather superficial manner. You were asked for examples of deeper stuff that we were missing. You came up with three things, if one counts your oblique allusion to "philosophy". The others were as follows:

Dualism. Yes, I knew what it was. It's the familiar nonsense at the heart of most religions, the idea that we are divided into body and soul, or body and spirit, or whatever. There's no evidence for that assertion, and there never has been. That doesn't advance the discussion, it's simply a different name for something atheists don't accept anyway.

Deeper reflection. You seem to be saying that if we atheists simply thought harder, we might gain more knowledge about religion, to get to the real action, as you said. Needless to say, that's fanciful, not to mention arrogant. It's also a familiar religious trope, this idea that one has to open one's mind to religion and then the light will somehow shine through.

I can't see how any of your examples buttress your condescension about atheists, much less inform them about anything.

Does seem a bit strange this argument. Because you see no worth in Religion (Because there is nothing actually there in your view) - you just see the actual practice of Religion - which to an atheist is meaningless.

If you look beyond that to what the Religion is about then that should give you a few clues.

[Alan_X]

They are. But largely because the sting has been drawn.

This is where Christianity has an advantage over Islam (I'm talking about its social development rather than its doctrine). It doesn't sting as much as it used to. It doesn't spawn Crusades anymore or host Inquisitions. One of the great achievements of the state religion (C of E) was to go very light on doctrine from the 1850s onwards.

Whereas it's still tough for Muslim children to become apostates - even in the UK it can cause big problems, let alone in Egypt. That's not the "live and let live" attitude at work there.

Essentially, CofE has become more secular. It's very different for Christianity in other countries - America being the most obvious.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Priest says he collected child porn to get revenge on God for poker losses

[Corkboy]

If only he had reflected on his dualist nature.

[Yanwoo]

Alright, let's recap.

You bowled into the thread to opine that some of us were approaching the whole religion thing in a rather superficial manner. You were asked for examples of deeper stuff that we were missing. You came up with three things, if one counts your oblique allusion to "philosophy". The others were as follows:

Dualism. Yes, I knew what it was. It's the familiar nonsense at the heart of most religions, the idea that we are divided into body and soul, or body and spirit, or whatever. There's no evidence for that assertion, and there never has been. That doesn't advance the discussion, it's simply a different name for something atheists don't accept anyway.

Deeper reflection. You seem to be saying that if we atheists simply thought harder, we might gain more knowledge about religion, to get to the real action, as you said. Needless to say, that's fanciful, not to mention arrogant. It's also a familiar religious trope, this idea that one has to open one's mind to religion and then the light will somehow shine through.

I can't see how any of your examples buttress your condescension about atheists, much less inform them about anything.

We seem to be talking at cross purposes!

My point was that there is more to religion that the dogma and scriptures, yet when I stumble across critique of religion from atheists on forums, it nearly always is on that level. As it was in this discussion. No condescension.

You asked for an example of a deeper level, and I mentioned that often involves religious practices, which it's claimed provide a deeper connection to God, or a more direct experience of reality, create space for deeper realisations etc etc. I made no assertions about the accuracy or otherwise of those claims. My argument was that actually this stuff is * actually * the meat and veg of many religions when you peak under the surface, closer to the core of what they're really about, that is often lost in the dogma and the attempt to translate what's perceived to be spiritual realisations into language for the 'masses' (my world view).

So, specifically, my argument is: If you're going to critique religions, you need to spend time on that stuff, rather than just the surface level stuff. For sure, critique away!

Also: challenge my argument that they're more at the core - I have no doubt there are many in organised religions that would disagree!

But you seem to be arguing against points I'm not making!

[electricghost]

Yanwoo, with respect, you are not offering anything of substance to critique. It is a collection of vagueness, woo, word salad and deepities.   

[Derzyjudek]

Yanwoo, with respect, you are not offering anything of substance to critique. It is a collection of vagueness, woo, word salad and deepities.   

Which is also a perfect description of religion itself.

[Yanwoo]

Yanwoo, with respect, you are not offering anything of substance to critique. It is a collection of vagueness, woo, word salad and deepities.   

 

well, I think we're having trouble finding a common language...

I was making a meta point, but it kept getting dragged into content.

[Corkboy]

Yanwoo, with respect, you are not offering anything of substance to critique. It is a collection of vagueness, woo, word salad and deepities.   

I did not know either of those words.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

Everyday learnin' on Rawk.

[Yanwoo]

I did not know either of those words.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

Everyday learnin' on Rawk.

Ha...me too...

Although the only woo I see is in my name...although I may splurt out the odd deepity...

[Elmo!]

Ha...me too...

Although the only woo I see is in my name...although I may splurt out the odd deepity...

Pretty sure splurting out deepities is frowned upon in most religions.

[NaivetyinBlack]

My point was that there is more to religion that the dogma and scriptures, yet when I stumble across critique of religion from atheists on forums, it nearly always is on that level.

Mainly because they are inherently connected to each other ? To quote one of my childhood fancies, 'Neither can live while the other survives'.

Scripture is how religion will be defined socially. Any depth or experience of duality you claim will only be on a personal level, that too in the top 1% of the followers of that religion. Most religious people have scripture as a set of rules for morality and social behavior and wouldn't bother delving that deep anyway.

[Yanwoo]

Mainly because they are inherently connected to each other ? To quote one of my childhood fancies, 'Neither can live while the other survives'.

Scripture is how religion will be defined socially. Any depth or experience of duality you claim will only be on a personal level, that too in the top 1% of the followers of that religion. Most religious people have scripture as a set of rules for morality and social behavior and wouldn't bother delving that deep anyway.

Good points. I would guess the proportions vary by religion, traditions within religions, and in different cultural contexts - depending on the emphasis on scripture vs practice? Some traditions within eastern philosophies, for example, strongly emphasis 'spiritual' practice and individual realisation e.g. zazen in zen buddhism is prioritised over the sutras.

Someone recently shared an interesting viewpoint with me, which sounds plausible: that where religions are 'imported' there tends to be more critical assessment (e.g. christianity in India or buddhism in the west), whereas when it's the cultural tradition (e.g. christianity in the west, buddhism in india) it more tends to be superficially incorporated as a social construct.

[Corkboy]

Someone recently shared an interesting viewpoint with me, which sounds plausible: that where religions are 'imported' there tends to be more critical assessment (e.g. christianity in India or buddhism in the west), whereas when it's the cultural tradition (e.g. christianity in the west, buddhism in india) it more tends to be superficially incorporated as a social construct.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you work in PR?

[Yanwoo]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you work in PR?

ha, even for me that was clunky!

Nah, even worse, I'm working on a PhD in psychology...

[NaivetyinBlack]

Someone recently shared an interesting viewpoint with me, which sounds plausible: that where religions are 'imported' there tends to be more critical assessment (e.g. christianity in India or buddhism in the west), whereas when it's the cultural tradition (e.g. christianity in the west, buddhism in india) it more tends to be superficially incorporated as a social construct.

Erm...any 'exported' religion establishes its stronghold by one of 3 practices. Charity, bribery or intimidation. So when Christian missionaries started their forceful conversions in Kerela, Bengal and other parts of India, fear and greed were the reasons for it being acceptable. Rest assured, there will never be any kind of a 'deeper' understanding of spirituality or a 'connection with oneself' or any such abstract religious connections in these cases.

In fact, what you're describing as a 'deeper understanding' is almost unheard of in Christianity and Islam these days. Extremely rare. They are a lot more prevalent in eastern religions because their scriptures or pillars of religion included a component of the metaphysical, rather than fanciful stories of miracles and angels. Even then, a monastery in Tibet will subscribe to your views, while a normal visitor to a Buddhist temple would be happy to just pray for his / her own benefit and disconnect.

[Yanwoo]

Erm...any 'exported' religion establishes its stronghold by one of 3 practices. Charity, bribery or intimidation. So when Christian missionaries started their forceful conversions in Kerela, Bengal and other parts of India, fear and greed were the reasons for it being acceptable. Rest assured, there will never be any kind of a 'deeper' understanding of spirituality or a 'connection with oneself' or any such abstract religious connections in these cases.

Yeah, I hear you. The chap who shared that view provided some anecdotes from his travels, but was no scholar etc. I suppose, perhaps, Buddhism into the west over the last 50 years or so is an exception to the 3 practices you highlight? But I could believe historically much has fit into that model.

In fact, what you're describing as a 'deeper understanding' is almost unheard of in Christianity and Islam these days. Extremely rare. They are a lot more prevalent in eastern religions because their scriptures or pillars of religion included a component of the metaphysical, rather than fanciful stories of miracles and angels. Even then, a monastery in Tibet will subscribe to your views, while a normal visitor to a Buddhist temple would be happy to just pray for his / her own benefit and disconnect.

I can believe that too. I can see the argument that that's where many of the issues lie, not inherently in organised religion, but the literal interpretation of scripture and reliance on dogma which, as you say, is quite pervasive in Christianity and Islam, at the expense of 'deeper understanding'. And that's to not make any claims about what deeper understanding is or isn't.

[Corkboy]

I can see the argument that that's where many of the issues lie, not inherently in organised religion, but the literal interpretation of scripture and reliance on dogma which, as you say, is quite pervasive in Christianity and Islam, at the expense of 'deeper understanding'. And that's to not make any claims about what deeper understanding is or isn't.

This is your problem. You take a vague, trite phrase like "deeper understanding", drop it in as a main component of your point and then promptly disclaim any responsibility for the use or indeed the meaning of the phrase.

[TepidT2O]

Yeah, I hear you. The chap who shared that view provided some anecdotes from his travels, but was no scholar etc. I suppose, perhaps, Buddhism into the west over the last 50 years or so is an exception to the 3 practices you highlight? But I could believe historically much has fit into that model.

I can believe that too. I can see the argument that that's where many of the issues lie, not inherently in organised religion, but the literal interpretation of scripture and reliance on dogma which, as you say, is quite pervasive in Christianity and Islam, at the expense of 'deeper understanding'. And that's to not make any claims about what deeper understanding is or isn't.

I think you're describing what the romans would have called religio rather than religion.  Religio being the religious onbligation of people to their god/gods, or as that old hound Cicero described it,  "the proper performance of rites in veneration of the gods.". That's forms habit and part of culture, but is quite different (for me) from religion which (in western tradition) requires workshop of a deity and adherence to scripture.
Often the religion but is forgotten and all that's left is the husk, the religio.... the habit or superstition that is ingrained over decades or centuries into the culture.