Can an atheist experience 'the spiritual'.

[peter]

[I'm a couple of chapters into 'NonZero; The Logic of Human Destiny' now and as would be expected, am finding it a fascinating and challenging read (one of those you need a pencil and notebook by your side as you read, such are the thoughts that arise as you read almost every sentance). In respect of the arguments here, I'll start a thread in a day or so over in the Literature forum relating to the thesis of the book, which more than deserves a serious consideration in it's own right.]

[JIkj fjds j]

* previous page

gee whizz! You guys didn't half tear up Dondarion's post for toilet paper!

[Dondarion]

Orlion wrote:

Instead, the "religious hope" is just that: a mere hope with no justification and no satisfaction or realization.

Of course such a conclusion conveniently ignores the thousands of years of testimonials, revelations, appearances, Jesus' coming and his undeniable affects on the world like no other person in history, etc., etc. The "satisfaction and reality" you speak of requiring has indeed been testified to throughout the experiences of mankind's living history. The stories of the saints are well recorded, as are multitudes of others, those well known and not so well known. These are special graces of revelation for our benefit. If we choose to chalk them up to mere fantasy, wish, magic, fabrication or some grand conspiracy at work, then that's the choice we make. At least do so with some level of understanding of these documented lives and happenings, which are "real" and meet my definition of "proof".

Vizidor wrote:

You guys didn't half tear up Dondarion's post for toilet paper!

Thanks for the encouraging words. I'm sure the gang has ample store already, and don't want to clog their bowls up. But at least they've been kind enough to never state it so succinctly.

[Orlion]

So, since testimonials and accounts are so important to you, do you believe in Zeus? Achilles? Beowulf? Gilgamesh? Osiris? Kokopelli? Little Red Riding Hood? Talking foxes grumbling about sour grapes? Krishna? Vishnu? Joseph Smith?

No? Imagine that... just the fictional accounts that support your position...huh...

Edit to "soften" my confrontational tone: accounts and such are fine to a point. If all we have are "eye witness accounts" (particularly ones that are after the fact) then I am loathe to draw conclusions based on those accounts alone. Particularly since humanity is, by nature, a fairly mendacious species. Often to the point of deceiving itself. (Cognitive dissonance is our term for the day).

[Zarathustra]

* previous page

gee whizz! You guys didn't half tear up Dondarion's post for toilet paper!

Adults discussing religion.

This is a thread about atheism, after all. Anyone is welcome to avoid ideological confrontations (if they wish) by not preaching in such a thread. Not only is it off-topic, but it invites a strong rebuttal from atheists. It shouldn't be surprising, given then thread title.

[aliantha]

if peeps are being virtuous for any reason, wish, or hope other than the fact that they personally believe it is virtuous, it ain't virtue. [just like that old formulation that believing in god was the "best bet" cuz of worst outcomes if, by chance, s/he does...isn't really believing.].

Yup. In both cases, they're just hedging their bets.

And Orlion is right. Every sacred text is mythology -- except for one's own, which is undeniably true.

And I'll say again that Christians don't have a lock on the whole dying-for-their-beliefs thing. Just as an example: Plenty of pagans were put to death in the Middle Ages when they refused to convert.

[JIkj fjds j]

* previous page

gee whizz! You guys didn't half tear up Dondarion's post for toilet paper!

Adults discussing religion.

This is a thread about atheism, after all. Anyone is welcome to avoid ideological confrontations (if they wish) by not preaching in such a thread. Not only is it off-topic, but it invites a strong rebuttal from atheists. It shouldn't be surprising, given then thread title.

Well, that's me told off!

[aliantha]

I think he meant to be on your side, Vizidor.

[Dondarion]

Aliamtha wrote:

I think he meant to be on your side, Vizidor.

Uh, yes. That's the way I read it as well.

V, Z and O: Simply because one disagrees with another's position or rationale, or mode of argument, does not mean the other is preaching at them. Listening and responding (to the best of one's ability) is not preaching. I accept the source of the atheist's argument, and fully expect the scientific, hard and fast proof demands that come with it. I do not call the atheist out for taking this approach. I expect it. I certainly do not consider it as some thin and sheer paper product used for dispensing with waste. Arguments on these kinds of matters aren't always simply scientific or entirely supported by objectivity. That might make them less persuasive in the mind of an atheist, and I accept that and try and search for other ways to penetrate the argument (and all too often fall short). In doing so, oftentimes the argument necessarily touches on such things as faith, hope, testimonials, witnesses, etc. That's part of the argument, that changing one's perspective in the first place (based on faith, trust, witnesses, etc) can indeed open one's eyes to important truths in the second place (truth about God and creation, etc). That is a paradox that can be considered. It's not meant to be preaching, rather simply conveying another possibility for looking at things.

[Dondarion]

And Z, this thread's title is "Can the atheist experience 'the spiritual'". I believe the word "spiritual" qualifies most of what I posted as "on topic". And as I answered 'yes' to that question, I felt it important to provide why I think the answer is 'yes', that IMHO spiritualism is a capacity that is sourced in something outside ourselves whether we realize it or not, etc., etc. I say this not to reargue these matters, and certainly not to preach, but merely to point to why I believed these arguments to be "on topic". I assure you that in no way am I laying in the weeds attempting to sabotage blog posts for an opportunity to convert people. I am simply an SRD fan who was shocked to learn that he was an atheist when I came across this forum, and found these discussions to be fascinating. My purpose is to simply try to provide my own vantage/viewpoint, both as it relates to my interpretation of The Chronicles more specifically (stated in other topics along the way), and to my own world/philosophical/spiritual views more generally (for which this forum has provided some means of doing).

[Orlion]

V, Z and O: Simply because one disagrees with another's position or rationale, or mode of argument, does not mean the other is preaching at them. Listening and responding (to the best of one's ability) is not preaching.

I agree. I ought not to be surprised if, in debating a believer that believer responds as such. If I don't want that sort of response, I simply will not debate. Often, I debate to try out new ideas or sharpen my own position. Convincing you or anyone else would be (in my opinion) a futile endeavor at best if done for that sole purpose.

I accept the source of the atheist's argument, and fully expect the scientific, hard and fast proof demands that come with it. I do not call the atheist out for taking this approach. I expect it. I certainly do not consider it as some thin and sheer paper product used for dispensing with waste.

I, however, do have an issue with such an approach...namely because it so often does not involve science as such, but rather Science and its all-knowing decrees. That replaces one nebulous god for another and still denies rational thought and personal experience.

Arguments on these kinds of matters aren't always simply scientific or entirely supported by objectivity.

I'd take the agnostic stance and say that they can not be. Or rather, any information with regards to these matters that could be determined scientifically or objectively wouldn't matter.

That might make them less persuasive in the mind of an atheist, and I accept that and try and search for other ways to penetrate the argument (and all too often fall short). In doing so, oftentimes the argument necessarily touches on such things as faith, hope, testimonials, witnesses, etc. That's part of the argument, that changing one's perspective in the first place (based on faith, trust, witnesses, etc) can indeed open one's eyes to important truths in the second place (truth about God and creation, etc). That is a paradox that can be considered. It's not meant to be preaching, rather simply conveying another possibility for looking at things.

Which is why I mention rational and personal experience. This leads to the underlying nature of the Universe being subjective, but that just seems to be the case. I've gone from the "see God in everything and communicate with His angels" to "seeing the absence of any god concerned with the affairs of man." Pretty much the whole spectrum. And as ali pointed out, whichever position I find myself in will be considered the superior one in my opinion.

But, I can say this: the idea that spirituality requires belief in the supernatural is not true. It simply is not. Not in my experience or the experience of others. It may not work for you (in which case, avoid my suggestions! Destroying your happiness for the sake of "objective truth seeking" is absurd). In either event, it certainly works for many other people.

[Zarathustra]

* previous page

gee whizz! You guys didn't half tear up Dondarion's post for toilet paper!

Adults discussing religion.

This is a thread about atheism, after all. Anyone is welcome to avoid ideological confrontations (if they wish) by not preaching in such a thread. Not only is it off-topic, but it invites a strong rebuttal from atheists. It shouldn't be surprising, given then thread title.

Well, that's me told off!

I'm not trying to tell anyone off. I was giving my perspective on the flow of the debate. Though I quoted you, it wasn't really a response to you. Your comment just got me thinking in that direction.

Don has insisted that he's not preaching, but in my opinion that's like insisting that Creationism is not religion masquerading as science. If "The purpose of the universe is the glorification and pleasure of God," in a thread about atheism isn't preaching, then what is?

There's nothing wrong with spreading the word of God in the Close. We've had many Christian oriented threads. I don't usually take part in them because they don't interest me. I've let many of Don's posts go unanswered for the same reason. However, when he directly responds to one of my points with religious dogma, I become (slightly) more interested.

Anyway, my interest has about waned. Peter, glad to hear you've purchased the book. If I weren't currently reading Krauthammer's latest book (THINGS THAT MATTER), I'd join you for a reread. Let me know what you think.

[Dondarion]

When cosidereing the purpose of the Universe, no one individual or group could ever have a corner on what that specific purpose might be. Moreover, within the context of a strand of this thread related to the idea of the universe's "purpose" (as introduced by Peter IIRC, wheein purpose, conscience and creation were all being considered), for one to opine that said purpose might simply be to provide glory to a higher power, is hardly tantamount to preaching religious dogma. It may be consistent with dogma, but it's not necessarily mutually exclusive from a viewpoint that purpose can be beyond our human understanding, known only to a greater power.

Z wrote:

Anyway, my interest has about waned...

Understood, this has been quite a thread. But hey, youve been posting a lot longer than I have. I just noticed that this response will be my 100th post in The Watch. I haven't quite figured out my place (if at all), but I do want to thank you all for engaging with me. It's not too often one can share these thoughts, and while many see things differently than I do, I respect all of you, and I certainly am humbled by your collective intellect. Not swayed, but humbled. More often, I am frustrated with myself in my inability to craft arguments that could be more persuasive, but that's part of my own journey. But most of all, I am impressed and appreciative that these kinds of questions are given such high regard and importance.

[Vraith]

When cosidereing the purpose of the Universe, no one individual or group could ever have a corner on what that specific purpose might be.

Sure they can...if they happen to be right.
Now being right isn't exclusive/owning...everyone can have a piece of it if they go after it, anyone can join the club.
Not only that, anyone can claim a purpose for the universe, and/or themselves...more power to them...except NOT more power to them. They should NOT have any power [except over themselves, which is inviolate] UNLESS they are right and can show it.

[Dondarion]

Vraith wrote:

They should NOT have any power [except over themselves, which is inviolate] UNLESS they are right and can show it.

Hence my point, that nobody can claim the right to know the true purpose. Of course if someone were to KNOW that purpose, they would have not oly the right, but the duty. But that is merely semantics. Anyway, my only point was to say that a discussion about the purpose of the universe may include the concept of glorification while not being deemed a sermon about "glory to God in the highest".

[JIkj fjds j]

Anyway, my interest has about waned.

I'm sorry you feel this way, Zar. Really. I'm not proud of myself. Another one of those times when I should just keep my big mouth shut.
So don't mind me, I'm a smelly grubby little oink!

Anyway, as my name suggests I am only a Vizidor, and that's really enough winter Watch for now, I'll see ya'll in the Spring.

[aliantha]

Wait! Come back, Vizidor! We need to get the Watch to 1 million posts!

And Dondarion, congrats on 100.

[Fist and Faith]

Here's a good one!


An atheist was walking through the woods one day in Alaska, admiring all that evolution had created. "What majestic trees! What a powerful river! "What beautiful animals!" he said to himself. As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. Turning to look, he saw a 13 foot Kodiak bear beginning to charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could down the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was rapidly closing in on him. Somehow, he ran even faster, so scared that tears came to his eyes. He looked again and the bear was even closer. His heart pounding in his chest, he tried to run faster yet. But alas, he tripped and fell to the ground. As he rolled over to pick himself up, the bear was right over him, reaching for him with its left paw and raising its right paw to strike him. "OH MY GOD!..."

Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving. As a brilliant light shone upon the man, a thunderous voice came from all around, "YOU DENY MY EXISTENCE FOR ALL THESE YEARS, TEACH OTHERS THAT I DON'T EXIST AND EVEN CREDIT CREATION TO SOME COSMIC ACCIDENT. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO HELP YOU OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT? AM I TO COUNT YOU AS A BELIEVER?"

Difficult as it was, the atheist looked directly into the light and said, "It would be hypocritical to ask to be a Christian after all these years, but perhaps you could make the bear a Christian?"

"VERY WELL," said God. The light went out. The river ran. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped down on his knees, brought both paws together, bowed his head, and spoke: "Lord, thank you for this food which I am about to receive."

[Vraith]

Hee...that's amusing.

And proper characterizations...the bear's natural, the atheist half-blind, and god a narcissist with a wicked sense of humor.

[Zarathustra]

Why would god care if we believed in him or told others about our doubt? I wouldn't care if Joe Schmoe down the street knew about my existence. And if it were a big deal to me, I'd probably go down and introduce myself.

If god actually cared about people believing in him, he could easily do something about it. Omnipotent, and all that. To place the burden of doubt on the heads of a few atheists when it's god's utter absence from the world that causes it seems a bit disingenuous.

Anyway, funny little story.