Atheist here (Ask me anything)

[ephraimanesti]

Representing grey matter. Neurons. What else?

Atheist posters often come across as brainy, and demand rational arguments and evidence for the existence of God, so that symbol seems to fit well enough.

Personally, I would have preferred a light bulb, brightly lighted, as a symbol, but no one listens to poor Zathras, no.


eudaimonia,

Mark

MY BROTHER,

Do brains trump spirits?


ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[nicknack28]

MY BROTHER,

Do brains trump spirits?


ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

If I may respond to a question directed at Eudaimonist, brains unquestionably trump spirits when deciding what's true, something religion tries far far far too often to do.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do brains trump spirits?

Assuming here that the brain is symbolic of critical thinking and logic, and spirit has more to do with feelings, intuition, etc, then:

...when sifting truth from falsehood, yes.

...when enjoying the beauty of a symphony orchestra, no.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Janser]

MY BROTHER,
Do brains trump spirits?

It's Brains the winner every time because Brains exist while Spirits don't, unless you mean Alcohol?
but I have a feeling you don't mean alcohol, do you MY BROTHER?

 

[Dragons87]

Well, the possibilities range within the same part of the probability spectrum as UFO-abductions, Joe Smith's Golden Plates from the pre-columbian American Jewish colony, or evil Emperor Xemu's body thetan gatherers.

Not completely impossible, but unlikely and spurious enough to merit a sense of healthy skepticism.

The difference between such matters and those associated with religion, or faith, is that these matters do not affect my life today, whereas the claims of a religion do--nobody says, for example, that to live a better life now, I must believe that there have been UFO abductions. On the other hand, all faiths claim that to live a better life now, and possibly to obtain a better in the future, I should believe this and that. I will therefore investigate these claims more closely.

Hence, for the matters you suggest, I don't even have to have an opinion; as opposed to "I believe" or "I don't believe", my answer is "I don't care, because I don't have to care".

For me, the objective veracity of a claim is less important to ascertain than the potential impact of that claim on my and others' present lives.

Reading over it once more, I'd agree - and apologize.

Apology accepted. You have always been honest and forthright, which I appreciate.

 

[Wicked Willow]

The difference between such matters and those associated with religion, or faith, is that these matters do not affect my life today, whereas the claims of a religion do--nobody says, for example, that to live a better life now, I must believe that there have been UFO abductions. On the other hand, all faiths claim that to live a better life now, and possibly to obtain a better in the future, I should believe this and that. I will therefore investigate these claims more closely.

Personally, I think that advice that allows us to live a better life can hardly depend upon or even be affected by some extraordinary claim attached to the messenger: it's the advice that matters, and whether it holds any water, not whether the messenger was an ordinary preacher of little worldly means or a levitating, halo-surrounded (demi-)god turning ordinary metal to gold with a touch. I can see why some people would be more impressed with the latter, and might wish to make up such tall tales about their founders - but in the end, it's all about the MESSAGE.

Hence, for the matters you suggest, I don't even have to have an opinion; as opposed to "I believe" or "I don't believe", my answer is "I don't care, because I don't have to care".

Who says that you don't have to? If there were UFOs out there, protecting yourself from being abducted ought to be high on your priority list. If the LDS got it right, and Mormon really existed, then you'd be missing out on the latest newscast from the Almighty. And if Scientology got it right, then your only chance of getting rid of your thetans would be dianetics.

So you see, just because a claim seems far-fetched from the outside doesn't mean that believers don't attach life-changing importance to them.

For me, the objective veracity of a claim is less important to ascertain than the potential impact of that claim on my and others' present lives.

Ah, NOW we're talking! See, I'm not one of those post-Age of Enlightenment weirdos who'd judge myths by the same standard as a factual account of history (and you'll find those on both sides of the trench war, in the form of literalists and "new atheists", respectively.)
I do think that myths can be important AND have something to tell us even if it is perfectly clear that they never actually happened in the sense of factual history.

 

[Dragons87]

Personally, I think that advice that allows us to live a better life can hardly depend upon or even be affected by some extraordinary claim attached to the messenger: it's the advice that matters, and whether it holds any water, not whether the messenger was an ordinary preacher of little worldly means or a levitating, halo-surrounded (demi-)god turning ordinary metal to gold with a touch. I can see why some people would be more impressed with the latter, and might wish to make up such tall tales about their founders - but in the end, it's all about the MESSAGE.

Of course. However, Christianity is unique, because "message" and "messenger" are one. I don't know whether anyone has tried to claim to be the "message" as well as the "messenger" before Jesus. Maybe someone has, but I don't think that person has made the impact that Jesus has done so in human history.

Who says that you don't have to? If there were UFOs out there, protecting yourself from being abducted ought to be high on your priority list. If the LDS got it right, and Mormon really existed, then you'd be missing out on the latest newscast from the Almighty. And if Scientology got it right, then your only chance of getting rid of your thetans would be dianetics.

So you see, just because a claim seems far-fetched from the outside doesn't mean that believers don't attach life-changing importance to them.

Of course I understand that; I'm Christian, remember? I was hoping to point out to you the logic behind my thinking, and I think you've demonstrated that you've got it.

I understand that you disagree, but at least I know you understand.

Ah, NOW we're talking! See, I'm not one of those post-Age of Enlightenment weirdos who'd judge myths by the same standard as a factual account of history (and you'll find those on both sides of the trench war, in the form of literalists and "new atheists", respectively.)
I do think that myths can be important AND have something to tell us even if it is perfectly clear that they never actually happened in the sense of factual history.

You are very welcome to hold your own view and live by it, though I'm not so sure that callously labelling other people as "weirdos" will earn you any points in an exchange of views such as this one.

But apart from that, I think there's a much more complex relationship between fact and myth.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Of course. However, Christianity is unique, because "message" and "messenger" are one. I don't know whether anyone has tried to claim to be the "message" as well as the "messenger" before Jesus. Maybe someone has, but I don't think that person has made the impact that Jesus has done so in human history.

As a birth-death-rebirth deity, Jesus is hardly alone. In fact, it was quite a common motif at that time. It's only the vicissitudes of history and politics that elevated this one figure over others, if you ask me.

Of course I understand that; I'm Christian, remember? I was hoping to point out to you the logic behind my thinking, and I think you've demonstrated that you've got it. I understand that you disagree, but at least I know you understand.

Oh, I did understand that the first time around. But I do wonder whether you can detect the double standard in your assessment of things, as you do not treat other extraordinary claims the same way you treat Christianity, a priori.
You see that it's belief in these things that gives them vital importance, that only assuming them to be true beforehand empowers them to the point where they can rule your whole life - and yet you treat one differently from all the rest.
People are changed for the better by the "power of Jesus", and people are changed for the better by the "power of auditing".

You are very welcome to hold your own view and live by it, though I'm not so sure that callously labelling other people as "weirdos" will earn you any points in an exchange of views such as this one.

Oh, I didn't know that you were a literalist. No offense. It's just that I can't take people seriously who believe that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old and was ravaged by a global flood. In the light of what we know about the natural universe by now, such beliefs rank in the same ballpark as a flat earth with the stars attached to its "roof".

But apart from that, I think there's a much more complex relationship between fact and myth.

That, of course, depends on the myth we're talking about.
There are "how do we explain a phenomenon that we don't understand yet"-myths, typically dealing with phenomena like weather, natural disasters, diseases, aging, the fate of the departed and so on and so forth.
There are historical myths that ascribe a very specific and identity-building meaning to an actual event that gets shrouded in legend, gaining significance.
There are archetypal myths that deal with the "Human condition" in encoded form, addressing fundamental issues of what it means to be human.

And so on and so forth. In each case, the relationship between the myth and factual history is decidedly different.

As far as I am concerned, we can pretty much ignore the "explanatory" myths these days. We *know* how languages develop and split apart - no Tower of Babel is necessary for that to happen. We *know* how diseases come to be, and again, no supernatural explanation is necessary. We *know* why the earth may shake or lightning may strike, and again, the old supernatural explanations have become obsolete.
Of course, these myths are still interesting as examples of cultural history. But not as building blocks for our world view.

 

[Dragons87]

As a birth-death-rebirth deity, Jesus is hardly alone. In fact, it was quite a common motif at that time. It's only the vicissitudes of history and politics that elevated this one figure over others, if you ask me.

I must respectfully point out that you've shifted the subject slightly. I didn't ask for a "birth-death-rebirth" deity; I asked for someone who claimed that they were the divine messenger as well as the divine message. It would be most interesting if you could name an individual apart from Jesus.

Oh, I did understand that the first time around. But I do wonder whether you can detect the double standard in your assessment of things, as you do not treat other extraordinary claims the same way you treat Christianity, a priori.
You see that it's belief in these things that gives them vital importance, that only assuming them to be true beforehand empowers them to the point where they can rule your whole life - and yet you treat one differently from all the rest.
People are changed for the better by the "power of Jesus", and people are changed for the better by the "power of auditing".

I don't really understand where the charge of double standard applies. Could you please clarify?

Oh, I didn't know that you were a literalist. No offense. It's just that I can't take people seriously who believe that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old and was ravaged by a global flood. In the light of what we know about the natural universe by now, such beliefs rank in the same ballpark as a flat earth with the stars attached to its "roof".

Sorry, but I must be a literalist--I simply have no other way to judge your comments, and I am all too aware of the temptation to invent the emotion and motive with which somebody else's comments are made, and I don't want to do that. But emoticons are helpful in that respect.

When you say "you can't take people seriously", what exactly do you mean? Just on those words alone, I detect a certain haughtiness, if not arrogance--a very western type as well, which kind of says, "I'm better than you because I think I use my brain better than how you use it". Would that be an accurate assessment, or am I missing or misreading something?

That, of course, depends on the myth we're talking about.
There are "how do we explain a phenomenon that we don't understand yet"-myths, typically dealing with phenomena like weather, natural disasters, diseases, aging, the fate of the departed and so on and so forth.
There are historical myths that ascribe a very specific and identity-building meaning to an actual event that gets shrouded in legend, gaining significance.
There are archetypal myths that deal with the "Human condition" in encoded form, addressing fundamental issues of what it means to be human.

And so on and so forth. In each case, the relationship between the myth and factual history is decidedly different.

As far as I am concerned, we can pretty much ignore the "explanatory" myths these days. We *know* how languages develop and split apart - no Tower of Babel is necessary for that to happen. We *know* how diseases come to be, and again, no supernatural explanation is necessary. We *know* why the earth may shake or lightning may strike, and again, the old supernatural explanations have become obsolete.
Of course, these myths are still interesting as examples of cultural history. But not as building blocks for our world view.

Hm...I choose to view it not in natural scientific terms (i.e. viewing each myth on its own and then blowing a scientific hole through it), but in terms of its use, development and impact in universal anthropological terms. Myths are real not because of how they explain things and stuff, but because they form part of our collective conscience--because they are human. Myths may not convey scientific fact, but they tell us something about the people who believed in them, and that is very real; each myth contains with it some philosophy, or at least a part of it.

Even today, in the scientific west, there are so many, many myths. Myths haven't died with science; in fact, some myths are perpetuated by science, or at least incomplete science (well, science will never be complete, will it?).

Reason doesn't have monopoly over our brains. Brains also have a capacity for creativity, emotions and judgment. Therefore using reason alone to think about things, including building our world views, under-uses our brain.

 

[Skeptic90]

You cannot call yourself an atheist without declaring that there is no God. That is the very definition of the word. You would then be labeled an agnostic.

noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Disbelief of one just. We don't know, we think its is improbable more or less, and we lack the knowledge of one.

 

[Skeptic90]

Ooh...I think once this question of whether Jesus existed comes up, we have to question our claims that of the existence of many historical figures, especially those before the middle ages.

I think Socrates is a case in point. He wrote nothing down, and all that we know of him is what Plato and others wrote about him, but Plato's "The Republic" seems to be a fictionalised account. But somehow we credit Socrates as the father of western philosophy.

I'm not saying that that somehow proves that Jesus is historical. I'm only saying that there is a very slippery slope ahead. If one believes that Jesus is fictional despite all the accounts, they must be prepared to defend their corner for their belief in other, "proven" historical figures.

But in some ways, this is unnecessary, and I accept that. Julius Caesar, for example, doesn't claim to affect people in the future. So whether he existed or not is not that big of a problem for us. Whereas the existence of Jesus, who claims to have a universal and timeless impact on people, is much more contentious because of his claims. But I hope to propose that it is not the lack or abundance of historical evidence that makes the historicity of Jesus so important, but because of the controversy of his claims. If he existed, and he made those comments, he may well affect us today.

At the end of the day, unless we see the characters, or their biographers, appear and explain to us, what we are going to have is only guesswork. That leaves room for individual judgment.

I think of socrates too lacks evidence of his existance. But I do not see much reason to create a character such as socrates compared to Jesus. Its like why bother fake an orange when you can easily attain one. But jesus is like a rare species that is worth enough that some may claim its real.

 

[b&wpac4]

I must respectfully point out that you've shifted the subject slightly. I didn't ask for a "birth-death-rebirth" deity; I asked for someone who claimed that they were the divine messenger as well as the divine message. It would be most interesting if you could name an individual apart from Jesus.

I don't even think Jesus did, so there

 

[ephraimanesti]

Assuming here that the brain is symbolic of critical thinking and logic, and spirit has more to do with feelings, intuition, etc, then:

MY BROTHER,

Unfortunately, the above is a false assumption. The mind is largely controlled by electro/chemical events which are highly influenced by feelings, emotions, desires, etc., which are endemic to man's material being.

It is the spirit in man which channels the TRUTH because it is not influenced by externals as is the mind, but is directly plugged into the Source of all TRUTH--God. It was for this reasons that Jesus could rightly state, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE." (John 14:6)

Secondly, the mind is merely a glorified computer--processing data fed into it by the senses--and the prime law of computers--"Garbage in/garbage out"--pertains. Given that the atheist mind has, for whatever reason or lack thereof, programmed itself to accept a world-view devoid of God or all that this basic and overarching Reality entails--is it any wonder that the atheist mind produces faulty ideas and concepts as a result of the skewed data fed into it?

...when sifting truth from falsehood, yes.

...when enjoying the beauty of a symphony orchestra, no.

Ya gots it bassackwards!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Janser]

Assuming here that the brain is symbolic of critical thinking and logic, and spirit has more to do with feelings, intuition, etc.

Unfortunately, the above is a false assumption. The mind is largely controlled by electro/chemical events which are highly influenced by feelings, emotions, desires, etc., which are endemic to man's material being.

If what you say is true and your God is not just a feeling why do Christians when ask how they know there's a God usually reply: "I know because I can feel God, God is inside me, God makes them feel good, I talk to God, God is a friend, I can rely on God, I know God, I love God" people believe with their brains and if something makes them feel good they want to keep doing it, how can someone be reborn? how can someone 'convert' if they don't change their minds and change how they feel about something?

If someone is able to convince themselves that a feeling is somehow real all I can say is good luck to them in their delusion, and I guess it's a lot cheaper than using drugs to escape from the harsh realities of life.

 

[Mela Monkey]

I've got a question, do you guys believe that there is any sort of afterlife? Or is it, you die and that's the end of everything.

 

[b&wpac4]

I've got a question, do you guys believe that there is any sort of afterlife? Or is it, you die and that's the end of everything.

The overwhelming majority of atheists would not believe in any sort of afterlife.

 

[Janser]

Given that the atheist mind has, for whatever reason or lack thereof, programmed itself to accept a world-view devoid of God or all that this basic and overarching Reality entails--is it any wonder that the atheist mind produces faulty ideas and concepts as a result of the skewed data fed into it?

Atheist programming themselves not to believe in Gods has got to the craziest idea ever, do Christians programme themselves not to believe in Allah? no because they don't believe Allah (or any other Gods) exists which makes Christians Atheists except for one God.

Atheists 'accept a world-view devoid of God', show me a God and I will believe in a God and so would every other Atheist, you believe in nothing and tell us we are wrong for not believing as you do!!!

 

[b&wpac4]

Atheists 'accept a world-view devoid of God', show me a God and I will believe in a God and so would every other Atheist, you believe in nothing and tell us we are wrong for not believing as you do!!!

Not all theists do this. Put away the broad brush ok?

 

[Skeptic90]

I've got a question, do you guys believe that there is any sort of afterlife? Or is it, you die and that's the end of everything.

More than likely we die, and thats about it. So that is why we must make our lives as meaningful as possible. If you waste just one second, you don't understand the meaning of life.

I really hope there is an afterlife, that would be awesome, but to be realistic, I doubt there is any.

 

[Janser]

I've got a question, do you guys believe that there is any sort of afterlife? Or is it, you die and that's the end of everything.

When we die we die just like all the other animals on the planet,
some people can not live with that hanging over their heads so they manufacture a God to stop it happening and 'ay Presto!' we have a religion.