The Atheism Thread - Part 5

[redhawk23]

Just a casual observation. It seems to appeal to a lot to people who have low degrees of empathy. Religion, particularly the spirituality portion of it, seems to appeal to people's emotional connections. It's also seems to be why it's so easily co-opted.

I must admit, atheism doesn't really make me feel emotionally connected to other people.

I think its more of a matter of fact that people who are able and willing to be prominently "out" as an atheist, basically along the lines of the whole "New Atheism"/Dawkins area of thought are people who aren't as constrained by community obligations.

I personally know many atheists and agnostics who stay with their religious congregations because the alternative would be isolating from their families and communities. They don't have the option to go out there and run atheism blogs and wear Dawkins' Scarlet letter t-shirts.

 

[Mad Love]

Spirituality seems to me to have a lot to do with empathy, something I notice many atheists lack.

In that case, your observations are extremely limited and far from truth.

In fact, some atheist do believe in a kind of spirituality except it isn't metaphysical. It's about well-being, connectivity, etc.

Empathy isn't correlated to spirituality. There are plenty of psychopaths who believe in spirituality.

 

[enterthemadness]

In recent months, I haven't been praying as much to what I believe in...but still consider myself a follower of what I believe in. So, my question is, is it normal to lose a bit of faith when times get rough and one gets stressed?

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think its more of a matter of fact that people who are able and willing to be prominently "out" as an atheist, basically along the lines of the whole "New Atheism"/Dawkins area of thought are people who aren't as constrained by community obligations.

I personally know many atheists and agnostics who stay with their religious congregations because the alternative would be isolating from their families and communities. They don't have the option to go out there and run atheism blogs and wear Dawkins' Scarlet letter t-shirts.

Yeah, I'm not making an across the board statement (I said "many" not "most"), although the ones that think so sort of prove my original point.

In fact I'm not sure being a Catholic (I was baptized/confirmed Catholic) and being an atheist (which I guess I would say I am) are mutually exclusive. You can believe the teachings of Jesus had merit, without believing all the wild stories about him. Also, I think you are correct to point to the "out" movement because Atheism is really not something you have to "out"; there's simply nothing to proselytize. I don't go around reminding people, or myself, that I don't accept fairies, Santa or Superman either.

Also, I'm not sure religious people are to blame for all the times religion acted horribly. I'm sure many deluded, religious people have caused wars, but like you say, many times there were more important reasons underneath the guise of religion, and many religious leaders have been known to speak out both sides of their mouth. Several didn't believe in the religions they preached, but knew it gave them power.

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah, I'm not making an across the board statement (I said "many" not "most"), although the ones that think so sort of prove my original point.

In fact I'm not sure being a Catholic (I was baptized/confirmed Catholic) and being an atheist (which I guess I would say I am) are mutually exclusive. You can believe the teachings of Jesus had merit, without believing all the wild stories about him. Also, I think you are correct to point to the "out" movement because Atheism is really not something you have to "out"; there's simply nothing to proselytize. I don't go around reminding people, or myself, that I don't accept fairies, Santa or Superman either.

The vast majority of Jesus's teachings pertain of believing in him and believing in his father. You can't really parcel that out.
Most of the "crazy theories" come straight from him and his own teachings. He was very much building off a foundation set by John the Baptist and the whole point was cleansing yourself in preparation for the coming kingdom of God.

His purely moral teachings are available from plenty of other sources.

As far as the whole "out" thing, there are many people who are not in a position to answer truthfully when asked "Do you believe in God."

Its not so much a matter of proselytizing but rather a matter of identity for many people.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Just a casual observation. It seems to appeal to a lot to people who have low degrees of empathy.

Funny, my observations run directly counter to yours.

Religion, particularly the spirituality portion of it, seems to appeal to people's emotional connections. It's also seems to be why it's so easily co-opted.

I must admit, atheism doesn't really make me feel emotionally connected to other people.

Your response is a great example: you immediately act snarky. Classic signs of low empathy.

Really? It makes me feel more emotionally connected to other people. If you accept the premise that there is no god, then accountability for one's actions is not a matter between man and god, but between man and his fellow man. My ethical and moral conduct is the result of a rational consideration of the effects of my actions on others as well as myself. That requires empathy to a very, very large degree.

Think about that for a while.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Your response is a great example: you immediately act snarky. Classic signs of low empathy. It also seems to indicate you think this is directed at you, a sign of narcissism, another sign of low empathy.

Tell me more about your expertise in psychology.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The vast majority of Jesus's teachings pertain of believing in him and believing in his father. You can't really parcel that out.
Most of the "crazy theories" come straight from him and his own teachings.

His purely moral teachings are available from plenty of other sources.

That doesn't seem to really matter though. Why would you have to go to another source? Some people like reading Jesus, some people like other moral teachers too, big f***ing deal. When you get down to it, Jesus seemed like a really nice guy most people can relate to, not merely a religious icon. You can't really parcel out MLK's teachings from his religion either, although many Neo-atheists love to try.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Funny, my observations run directly counter to yours.

Good for you

Really? It makes me feel more emotionally connected to other people.

You never act that way here.

If you accept the premise that there is no god, then accountability for one's actions is not a matter between man and god, but between man and his fellow man.

Or between you and yourself, which doesn't really preclude being incredibly selfish. Ultimately though you have to ground it in something.

My ethical and moral conduct is the result of a rational consideration of the effects of my actions on others as well as myself. That requires empathy to a very, very large degree.

Rationality can only take you so far. Sacrificing yourself to save your one child (let's assume you have several) is not rational.

Think about that for a while.

Irony right there.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Tell me more about your expertise in psychology.

Enlighten me?

Why'd you think that was directed at you?

I'll tell you one thing. I believe people act pretty consistent online to the way they carry on in real life, baring some of the differences you get when you put things in writing.

 

[KalMart]

Well, I think someone might reasonably be able to argue that science can't answer certain types of questions, but this assumes that those types of questions can be answered in the first place. I think it's asinine.

The great error is in appointing a god or supreme intelligence as the default 'answer' to questions that are as of yet unanswered.

 

[redhawk23]

It just makes me laugh when atheists try to say they like the teachings of Jesus, considering you have to ignore 90% of the lessons attributed to them.

And the great strength of MLK Jr. is that he was perfectly willing and able to step outside of his own motivations and make non-religious cases for the things he stood for to make appeals to different groups. Reading his own actual writings is an inspiring case of how to relate to people different to yourself and make well rounded arguments.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The great error is in appointing a god or supreme intelligence as the default 'answer' to questions that are as of yet unanswered.

Agreed. "I don't know" is a far better default.

 

[KalMart]

And the great strength of MLK Jr. is that he was perfectly willing and able to step outside of his own motivations and make non-religious cases for the things he stood for to make appeals to different groups. Reading his own actual writings is an inspiring case of how to relate to people different to yourself and make well rounded arguments.

Or at least those that he plagiarized from, according to some.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me as long as he felt it from the heart.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

It just makes me laugh when atheists try to say they like the teachings of Jesus, considering you have to ignore 90% of the lessons attributed to them.

And the great strength of MLK Jr. is that he was perfectly willing and able to step outside of his own motivations and make non-religious cases for the things he stood for to make appeals to different groups. Reading his own actual writings is an inspiring case of how to relate to people different to yourself and make well rounded arguments.

His case was highly religious. It's fairly disingenuous to claim otherwise. He personally was guided by his religion, and his religion affirmed his belief in equality. Many will say he willfully ignored the parts of the Bible that upheld slavery, which may be a fair point to make, but at least, he wouldn't have said that. He was very much guided by God in his mind, or what he called 'God'.

 

[KalMart]

Agreed. "I don't know" is a far better default.

Never mind default, but appropriate direction in where to look...a la inward instead of to some unknowable being/presence proliferated through dogma and indoctrination.


Some say that science cannot answer the question of 'why are we here?', and point to that as somehow strengthening the likelihood of divinity or what have you. I think that's a prime example of erroneous thinking on the part of religion...in that if/when/however an answer to that can be found, be it symbolically or otherwise, it's to be found within humanity because it is borne of a human condition...one which has been reached solely and independently through evolution and our intellectual development, not somehow designed/controlled/administered by some higher power. The great delusion is in somehow viewing that as 'meaningless', in having such focused blinders on as to constrict one's perspective. Owing humanity's existence to the whim and design of some omnipotent being is the quintessential lack of 'meaning'.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Never mind default, but appropriate direction in where to look...a la inward instead of to some unknowable being/presence proliferated through dogma and indoctrination.

To me, the problem with God is it ultimately is looking inward, rather than outward, although it acts as though it's looking outward. Ultimately God can be whomever you want; the loving teacher or the brutal dictator, and he'll probably take on whatever that person is bias to already. However this is also why I kind of like Jesus, because if he truly was as good a man as he seems to be, then you have an outward thing in reality to live up to. Of course you could swap in all sorts of figures in his place: I personally think Lincoln is probably the best person ever.

It's like if you had back pain you wouldn't think inwardly "well what does this pain mean". No! You go to the effing doctor and say "my back hurts!".

 

[redhawk23]

His case was highly religious. It's fairly disingenuous to claim otherwise. He personally was guided by his religion, and his religion affirmed his belief in equality. Many will say he willfully ignored the parts of the Bible that upheld slavery, which may be a fair point to make, but at least, he wouldn't have said that. He was very much guided by God in his mind, or what he called 'God'.

I never said that he wasn't highly religious or that that wasn't the main thrust of his message but he was not a one note motivator.

He was able to engage different audiences in different ways. He wasn't afraid to argue his case for equality in the context of biology and anthropology, history and politics or to appeal to non-Christians in the context of their own faith.

He was able to draw from many inspirations and argue his point in many contexts and see past his own personal motivations in order to engage with other people.

That was my point.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Or between you and yourself, which doesn't really preclude being incredibly selfish.

You're grasping at straws here.

Ultimately though you have to ground it in something.

What were you trying to say here?

Rationality can only take you so far. Sacrificing yourself to save your one child (let's assume you have several) is not rational.

This is a strawman.

I've been using the word, "straw," a lot lately. Hmm.

Enlighten me?

Why'd you think that was directed at you?

Because you quoted me and then used the word, "you?" Who else could you have been referring to? Are you trolling me at this point?

I'll tell you one thing. I believe people act pretty consistent online to the way they carry on in real life, baring some of the differences you get when you put things in writing.

The internet is my one sociopathic outlet. I have no problem admitting that.

 

[Doctor Evo]

The great error is in appointing a god or supreme intelligence as the default 'answer' to questions that are as of yet unanswered.

Agreed 100%. Absolutely.

 

[Dr.]

Yes there are certain kinds of questions science cannot answer, but I've never understood how that's a reflection on the things that it does and can answer.

The remainder of questions are the purview of philosophy, but philosophy need not be religion. Not saying that you are, but it drives me nuts when people try to equate a non religious viewpoint entirely with science and try to criticize it with the limitations of science.

If science is just the thing that scientists do then, clearly, there are questions it’s not equipped to answer. But in this context, “science” might be more broadly described as a systematic method for acquiring knowledge (i.e., “rationalism”). And under this definition, a plumber or auto mechanic is doing “science”; history, philosophy, the law and teaching are forms of “science.” Perhaps, even aspects of the “arts” (to the extent that they’re systematic, self-consistent, etc.) are “science” too.

Religion often tries to insulate itself from criticism by claiming that there are “other ways of knowing” beyond science (religion being one of those ways). But survey those (above) listed disciplines and describe the different system of “knowing” that they employ. Seems like there’s only one system; rationalism works for everything.

Even the argument that “rationalism isn’t everything” has to be rational to be convincing.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I meant, if you have moral qualms about torturing and slaughtering animals, it's as good an argument as any can be made.

If you don't, well, it's not much of an argument.

I found this a few pages back. I have to say, I think about this a lot. I mean if you consume meat you do contribute to the killing of sentient animals, even animals with very complex emotions, like pigs. Currently the best argument I have is I eat them mostly because I can, it tastes good and is an easy source of protein. However there are other sources of protein and other ways to maintain a healthy diet...so...yeah...animals are cute and have personalities...maybe I shouldn't kill them. Some people would have no problem eating my cat, despite him being a great little guy.

 

[Doctor Evo]

If science is just the thing that scientists do then, clearly, there are questions it’s not equipped to answer. But in this context, “science” might be more broadly described as a systematic method for acquiring knowledge (i.e., “rationalism”). And under this definition, a plumber or auto mechanic is doing “science”; history, philosophy, the law and teaching are forms of “science.” Perhaps, even aspects of the “arts” (to the extent that they’re systematic, self-consistent, etc.) are “science” too.

Eh...I'm really not sure about this. I think that, within this context, science is simply the application of the scientific method. I usually take issue with these types of expanded definitions because they tend to create confusion.

Religion often tries to insulate itself from criticism by claiming that there are “other ways of knowing” beyond science (religion being one of those ways). But survey those (above) listed disciplines and describe the different system of “knowing” that they employ. Seems like there’s only one system; rationalism works for everything.

Even the argument that “rationalism isn’t everything” has to be rational to be convincing.

I can get behind this line of reasoning, however.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

You're grasping at straws here.

How so?

What were you trying to say here?

What do you not understand about that. Seems fairly straightforward.

This is a strawman.

Okay, don't respond to that part that.

I've been using the word, "straw," a lot lately. Hmm.

Yes, you repeat yourself a lot and use many of the same words in every thread.

Because you quoted me and then used the word, "you?" Who else could you have been referring to? Are you trolling me at this point?

My first post didn't implicate you at all and yet you responded to it?

The internet is my one sociopathic outlet. I have no problem admitting that.

Okay?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I found this a few pages back. I have to say, I think about this a lot. I mean if you consume meat you do contribute to the killing of sentient animals, even animals with very complex emotions, like pigs. Currently the best argument I have is I eat them mostly because I can, it tastes good and is an easy source of protein. However there are other sources of protein and other ways to maintain a healthy diet...so...yeah...animals are cute and have personalities...maybe I shouldn't kill them. Some people would have no problem eating my cat, despite him being a great little guy.

Funnily enough, given our argument about empathy, the religious viewpoint is that animals were put here for our own convenience and we should simply do with them as we please, because **** pigs.