Bored at work, Ask an Atheist

[goout]

Atheism is a position on one question, Do you believe that the supernatural exists? - Nope. That’s all. Now from that answer, can you get to any other conclusions about this person? No. No you can’t. It’s like telling someone that you met bob yesterday and they didn’t believe you. Ok now could you make any predictions about that person’s politics, values, belief systems? No of course you couldn’t. And not everyone uses the same logic to not believe that you met bob yesterday. Some a-bobists are reacting to being a previous probob, and many other reasons. Not all atheists came to this conclusion through logical means, but are reactions to being antitheists. But you can’t know this till you talk to that specific person.

This is why it is problematic to begin with the assumption that atheism has the same structure as religion, with decrees, written books of do’s and don’ts, leaders that proclaim what it is to be an atheist, etc. That doesn’t exist for us. You can be proscience and still theist, you can be liberal, gay, all the groups that religion demonize and still be theists.You can be anti-theist and still be spiritual.

If you want to know my specifics, you’d have to ask. But remember, these are my conclusions, not any atheist manifesto.

Which once again sidesteps the question “what do atheists believe in”?
There are unavoidable questions like these:
“Where did I come from, how did I get here, where am I going, what is the meaning of life, who am I?”

Seems to me atheists hide behind the word “no” in response to life’s mysteries. Atheists refuse to be pinned down, which is convenient but not very productive.
Or in response to these questions, atheists throw up their hands and say “it’s all unknowable”, which is not atheism, but rather agnosticism. (which also makes atheism sort of self-refuting)

 

[Russell_SA]

Russell, I missed a bunch of posts and I apologize for getting responses out of line but I went back and read this one where you want to know if you could recreate experience A without supernatural involvement… what would that look like in my situation at visiting Eucharistic Adoration? It was a late night event. No one knew I was coming… there were only two other people there, praying and they didn’t move a muscle when the voice said to move on up… why didn’t those other folks move up, too? What would someone have had to do to recreate the experience. Have speakers and a recording set up behind the altar for my ears only? Be watching from behind to see my reaction? Maybe make a youtube video? Sometimes you just can’t recreate the experience. If it could be done that way I would try it all the time…
There are lots of supernatural stories on the internet told by humble people. Read some and see what it would entail to recreate. The effort would be astounding in itself… Maybe the event didn’t happen, but what if it did? You sound like you are ready to throw the story away if it can’t be scientifically proven. You can’t do supernatural like that…JMHO

As to how to recreate the experiment, I assume they would ask for all the conditions that you were in and attempt to recreate them. Then if they can’t and no one could find a way to see if anything was left out, then you’re right. We couldn’t tell the the difference between what caused the voices and the voices you heard in your head. But if the evidence is only given to you, then why should we believe that that is what happened. You are apparently being subjectively selected out of information that the rest of us can not access. So you’re justified in your belief about what happened, but not the rest of us because we can not have access to that data. See why that is a problem? If your access to the supernatural is not revealing itself to everyone, then not everyone has the same data. As such, not everyone would be justified in believing that the supernatural is even there at all.

 

[Techno2000]

I don’t know yet, what is the full context of the quote that is referencing? Taking one line out of someone’s conversation wouldn’t let you fully understand what someone was talking or referencing when they replied that way. What is it in it’s entirety?

“It is the** spirit** that gives life, while the** flesh** is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” John 6:63

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are **spiritually **appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14

For the** mind of the flesh** is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace:
Romans 8:6

The flesh (Human Reason) is of no avail in trying to understand the** Supernatural** .

 

[Russell_SA]

Which once again sidesteps the question “what do atheists believe in”?
There are unavoidable questions like these:
“Where did I come from, how did I get here, where am I going, what is the meaning of life, who am I?”

Seems to me atheists hide behind the word “no” in response to life’s mysteries. Atheists refuse to be pinned down, which is convenient but not very productive.
Or in response to these questions, atheists throw up their hands and say “it’s all unknowable”, which is not atheism, but rather agnosticism. (which also makes atheism sort of self-refuting)

I don’t see how my response didn’t address your question. I’ll appeal to the fair-mindedness of the readers to see if what you’re presenting is what I described as an addressment to your point. You come across to me as grouping atheists into a group that has more to it than it does. I don’t see why you don’t believe me when I said what I said. That is the reality as I understand it. Atheism is a response to a single question. Do you believe that the supernatural exist? No, no I don’t. It’s like not believing that someone ran into a fairy yesterday. You can’t get from “not believing that someone ran into a fairy yesterday” to concluding that this group has a manifesto, political agenda, social belief system, a book of Do’s and Don’ts, leaderships that direct their agenda, etc. Its only a response to a single proposition. That’s all. Please trust me when I say this is how I understand the reality of presenting to you. If you can’t then there’s no point in talking to someone that won’t address what I am actually saying instead of what you believe is the case.

Where I come from? is the same question to me as “How did I get here.” - Well I am made of star dust and evolution. I answer questions about reality based on what I can demonstrate is part of reality and then extrapolate from there. Since we do not have tools to determine if the supernatural realm exists and do not have the tools to determine if an event had supernatural involvement, I do not apply that to the explanation. Once we can, then I’ll add it to the explanation, but not until that is the case. I am fine with supernatural being the case, but currently we can not tell the difference between event A with supernatural involvement and just event A without it.

Meaning of life - to me changes as I understand reality better. That’s all. My meaning may not be your meaning. I don’t see why this isn’t a personal subjective question. This seems very obvious to me.

Where am I going? - I’m going down a path that I am choosing for myself in reaction to what I’ve learned about myself and what I expect to come up in the future. I believe that is what we are all doing.

What “no about life’s mysteries” are you talking about? Really don’t know what you’re referencing here.

Atheists can be pinned down about individual questions about themselves. You just have to ask. But as a group - this was addressed earlier.

I wouldn’t say “it’s all unknowable”, just that we currently do not know up to a point. Science has made understand reality a lot clearer, just that there are areas that it can not study yet. That is where we can say, we don’t know yet. Key word, YET. Proposing a solution that is indistinguishable from just not there, is not an answer that is satisfactory for some people.

 

[Russell_SA]

“It is the** spirit** that gives life, while the** flesh** is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” John 6:63

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are **spiritually **appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14

For the** mind of the flesh** is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace:
Romans 8:6

The flesh (Human Reason) is of no avail in trying to understand the** Supernatural** .

Ok those points appear to be related but are all taken from different conversations it appears. What I am asking for is for the full text that the original quote was taken from. Then I can understand the context. I don’t want to be accused of quote mining or taking a passage out of context.

 

[Techno2000]

No, no I don’t. It’s like not believing that someone ran into a fairy yesterday.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Techno2000]

Ok those points appear to be related but are all taken from different conversations it appears. What I am asking for is for the full text that the original quote was taken from. Then I can understand the context. I don’t want to be accused of quote mining or taking a passage out of context.

The context of that is… John 6 where Jesus is trying to explain why one must drink his blood, and eat his flesh… but it can only be understood in a Supernatural way.

 

[Russell_SA]

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14

Either supernatural manifests in reality it some detectable way or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t it is no different than just not being there. How are people that are claiming that an event involved supernatural intervention able to show the difference between that event and an event that does not have supernatural intervention? It has to manifest in reality in some detectable way. Just stating that you believe that is only telling me that you believe that. I’m trying to communicate to you that is not enough for someone that did not witness the event as first person. Even if I did witness the event in first person that still does not mean that I am justified in concluding that event was supernatural in nature. I’d have to run some more tests to see what caused it. This type of arguement is the the pathway for sudomedicine and healing crystals and all that other such justification. Once we’ve learned how it works and that it works, the sudomedicine just becomes…medicine. Once we’ve learned how it works and that it works for the supernatural it just becomes…reality.

 

[Russell_SA]

The context of that is… John 6 where Jesus is trying to explain why one must drink his blood, and eat his flesh… but it can only be understood in a Supernatural way.

OK to bible quotes: quoting the bible doesn’t really put any weight in an argument for me because it was biblical. Either the points stand on their own or they don’t.

To address this passage: it comes across to me as ritualistic for his group. Practices that only this sect would partake to show their allegiance to this group. That’s why its meaning is important and significant to its followers. This does not mean that it can not be understood for what it was for. Its just that people that do not take stake in this group do not place much emphasis on its practices.

Now if this practice did something like levitate a book or something, then we would want to investigate it further of course. But I’d suspect we’d learn how to levitate the book without the ritual required. Such as praying to heal the sick while administering a tonic. Well we learned about the germ theory and medicine. We were able to attain the same healthy results without the prayer involved by only using the tonic. The prayer was redundant.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Lets say a poison that has no medical or healthful benefits. Like battery acid or any level of toxin that kills a normally sane, non-suffering, wanting an end of life assistance issue. That type of poison is objectively bad in the reference of human well-being.

Hey Russell_SA, to be transparent here, I think you should know I converted to Catholicism from atheism. I was a humanist and also had nihilist tendencies.

Humanism, is based on ever-changing subjective ideas of what constitute the well-being of humanity. I understand the attraction, that is, that humanity and working toward well-being is a giant scientific experiment, with faith and hope that one day humans will get it right.

Let’s just say, I lost faith and hope in humanity and the grand humanist experiment. I still view it as people of good will working towards, generally, good.

Where Catholicism differs is defining what is good.

Human life is good.

Even when suffering is a major component, life itself is still intrinsically, good.

Is it for the general good of humanity to prevent suffering by preventing life? Such as, is the answer to poverty, hunger and the suffering that comes with it, the removal of human life from the equation? No human life, no suffering. Problem solved?

The removal of human life, as a solution to human suffering, is a really, amazingly, terrifying view to take of humanity.

To your analogy of poison, as I said in my first post in your thread here, it is in practice, where the subjectiveness fails. A) Poisoning a human in one circumstance is murder, in another it is mercy.

Or, B) the circumstance doesn’t change the nature of the act of poisoning someone (or oneself). It is still the desire to take a life put into practice.

Option A is subjective, based on circumstance. Option B is objective, based on the act.

 

[Techno2000]

OK to bible quotes: quoting the bible doesn’t really put any weight in an argument for me because it was biblical. Either the points stand on their own or they don’t.

To address this passage: it comes across to me as ritualistic for his group. Practices that only this sect would partake to show their allegiance to this group. That’s why its meaning is important and significant to its followers. This does not mean that it can not be understood for what it was for. Its just that people that do not take stake in this group do not place much emphasis on its practices.

Now if this practice did something like levitate a book or something, then we would want to investigate it further of course. But I’d suspect we’d learn how to levitate the book without the ritual required. Such as praying to heal the sick while administering a tonic. Well we learned about the germ theory and medicine. We were able to attain the same healthy results without the prayer involved by only using the tonic. The prayer was redundant.

“The Song of Bernadette” -

“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible”.

 

[Russell_SA]

“The Song of Bernadette” -

“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible”.

This comes across as 'blind faith" no explanation is necessary. That’s fine for you take as long as your endeavors are not in anyway required to advance human understanding of reality or if the endeavors are not part of educating people about how to think.

Those who do not believe are not convinced of the arguments for why we should be convinced. Just because you haven’t convinced someone of an idea does not negate that you may be true. It may be that your approach was not enough for them to be convinced. If there is a supernatural being that wants people to know about it and its using people with these methods, it’s not the best way to convince people it would seem. Science works regardless of your personal belief system. We all believe in gravity, so why can’t this supernatural being present itself in this fashion as well. I am telling you how to convince me. Why can’t you accept that for what I am telling you is true to do?

 

[goout]

You come across to me as grouping atheists into a group that has more to it than it does.

I simply take your word for your self identification. You and many others identify as “atheist”. Why should “Christians”, or “theists”, be subject to grouping, but not “a-theists”? Atheists have a common belief, so . In fact atheism is more lockstep in it’s minimalist beliefs than the widely divergent hodgepodge of theism. Why shouldn’t people claiming a common belief be a group like any other?

Atheism is a response to a single question. Do you believe that the supernatural exist? No, no I don’t.

If your “no” is all there is to your life, why are you even here worrying about it? The fact that this all makes enough difference to you that you spend time on a Catholic message board should inform you that your “no” is not enough. Or you wouldn’t be here. Let’s be honest.
This statement bears further examination:

Atheism is a response to a single question.

A common definition of faith is: God’s active grace to which I** respond**.
Every human being responds to the world around him with belief, consent, trust, whether it be organized religion, personal religion, or a-religion.

Its only a response to a single proposition. That’s all.

I get that, but the word “only” does not fit.
When a person comes to Christian faith, there are varying degrees of response, just like you are observing with yourself and other atheists.
One can have a minimal response, a “that’s all” response, or one can have a relationship response. A relationship response involves the whole of the person. The person is oriented to something outside one’s self and gives the self to the other.
The problem with atheism is it turns inward to rationalism, using the self and the senses and individual reason in place of God. (which is not reason at all)

 

[Techno2000]

This comes across as 'blind faith" no explanation is necessary.

Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”

John 20:29

 

[Russell_SA]

Hey Russell_SA, to be transparent here, I think you should know I converted to Catholicism from atheism. I was a humanist and also had nihilist tendencies.

Humanism, is based on ever-changing subjective ideas of what constitute the well-being of humanity. I understand the attraction, that is, that humanity and working toward well-being is a giant scientific experiment, with faith and hope that one day humans will get it right.

Let’s just say, I lost faith and hope in humanity and the grand humanist experiment. I still view it as people of good will working towards, generally, good.

Where Catholicism differs is defining what is good.

Human life is good.

Even when suffering is a major component, life itself is still intrinsically, good.

Is it for the general good of humanity to prevent suffering by preventing life? Such as, is the answer to poverty, hunger and the suffering that comes with it, the removal of human life from the equation? No human life, no suffering. Problem solved?

The removal of human life, as a solution to human suffering, is a really, amazingly, terrifying view to take of humanity.

To your analogy of poison, as I said in my first post in your thread here, it is in practice, where the subjectiveness fails. A) Poisoning a human in one circumstance is murder, in another it is mercy.

Or, B) the circumstance doesn’t change the nature of the act of poisoning someone (or oneself). It is still the desire to take a life put into practice.

Option A is subjective, based on circumstance. Option B is objective, based on the act.

In reverse order:
I was referencing nutrition for the betterment of humanity. So yes poison is objectively bad in the subjective point of reference of Nutrition. Once you subjectively pick your point of reference you can have objectively bad ideas. Another analogy: Chess - there are numerous good moves, even some that seem terrible, like losing your queen. But it is objectively bad to deliberately place your king into a checkmate position.

When you address my point of “Poison”, you seem to point to the betterment of humanity as a reference point while I was using nutrition. So yes that has a wider application of how to determine if poisoning people is subjectively bad. I would argue that poisoning a group of people over limited resources to ease the burden is objectively bad because your group could be targeted next.

But how does appealing to a reference point of a deity clear up this argument. It’s just an appeal to the biggest bully in the room that makes the rules. We are the ones directly affected by the application of the conclusion of these arguments.

Yes we have problems with over population in the world as well as many other issues that are part of the psyche of the human condition. We are tribal orientated and guard access to women too much and many other ridiculous qualities that sustained us through the savanna of the past. The empowerment of women, education, and proper use of birth control seems a better option than these constant wars over limited resources and the frailness of the male ego. Just because someone comes up with a quick solution does not make it correct in any since.

“life is intrinsically good” - this appears to be the argument for “life is preferable to death” but not in all circumstances. Once there is a line crossed where someone believes they can not go back to a life they want to continue, then death is preferred. Where that line is may be different for each of us, but we can find lots of overlap and very little extreme examples.

“where one day we will get it right” - well by every measure of the human condition, we are improving. What is the point where you think that would be reached? It’s like asking when is good, good enough? Looking for perfection is a ridiculous standard to attempt to reach.

People always have the ability to be good because each new generation is a blank slate for who they are to become. I believe the idea we mostly hate about bad people is that our society created the conditions that nurtured that person to grow into that terrible person. We are responsible for the world that person was brought into and its still producing people like that. They still need to be held accountable but we hate it when people attempt to turn the light on us or our favorite groups and point out where we are fostering that environment.

 

[Russell_SA]

Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”

John 20:29

Then why perform the miracles? Why not just let his message stand on its own as a proper way to live life? It seems he came with a message of what to think and what to do instead of teaching people how to think and live the ethical life. His followers came across as wanting access to a divine power that their peers couldn’t gain access to. Appeasing the dear leader for favors of power over the people they were competing with. Plato could have existed or not, it doesn’t matter to me, but it matters that his approach to teaching people how to think and question as well as the Socratic method has made the world a much better place than what Jesus attempted.

 

[Techno2000]

Appeasing the dear leader for favors of power over the people they were competing with.

Do you think Christians are appeasing God (dear leader) so as to have power over others ?

 

[Russell_SA]

Do you think Christians are appeasing God (dear leader) so as to have power over others ?

Some but not all. Everyone has their reasons for following a path. Just that this one comes across as any other reason to follow a message along with the access to channel powers. To be a conduit for the supernatural to work through. Except every time we attempt to justify that these people can do this, it comes across as no difference than random chance.

 

[Russell_SA]

I simply take your word for your self identification. You and many others identify as “atheist”. Why should “Christians”, or “theists”, be subject to grouping, but not “a-theists”? Atheists have a common belief, so . In fact atheism is more lockstep in it’s minimalist beliefs than the widely divergent hodgepodge of theism. Why shouldn’t people claiming a common belief be a group like any other?
If your “no” is all there is to your life, why are you even here worrying about it? The fact that this all makes enough difference to you that you spend time on a Catholic message board should inform you that your “no” is not enough. Or you wouldn’t be here. Let’s be honest.
This statement bears further examination:

A common definition of faith is: God’s active grace to which I** respond**.
Every human being responds to the world around him with belief, consent, trust, whether it be organized religion, personal religion, or a-religion.

I get that, but the word “only” does not fit.
When a person comes to Christian faith, there are varying degrees of response, just like you are observing with yourself and other atheists.
One can have a minimal response, a “that’s all” response, or one can have a relationship response. A relationship response involves the whole of the person. The person is oriented to something outside one’s self and gives the self to the other.
The problem with atheism is it turns inward to rationalism, using the self and the senses and individual reason in place of God. (which is not reason at all)

Atheist are grouped in one identity, the disbelief that the supernatural exists. That’s the only grouping they fit in. What an atheist does believe is up to the individual, they just don’t believe this. How can you get from knowing what someone wasn’t convinced of to knowing what they are convinced of? You can’t unless you ask them.

Whether its a minimalist belief or not is a point I don’t that is relevant. Fine if you want another label to box this idea up for you. But I’m just espousing this side of the conversation. I’ll make it as fluid as I see it.

I believe you are overlapping two ideas of the word group here. Using grouping of atheists in the common identity of what I just stated and the grouping of what christians and other religious groups identify as. These latter groups have more to their groups than just a belief in the supernatural. They have tenants, books, leaders, commandments, etc. You know this and I know you know this, so move on from this point and stop this tom foolery here.

“No is all that there is in your life” - I’ll appeal to the fair mindedness of the readers. Did I imply this ever in this conversation. Stop projecting you’re own bias and assumptions on to someone when you haven’t either asked them, accepted their response to the question, etc. I have a full life. I just don’t see it as less full because I am not convinced yet of the supernatural.

I am on the catholic message board as a response to christianity’s affect on people outside of and within their traditions. This is soo blatantly obvious as a response that I’ll just leave it as this. Please address points that are not this absurd.

I understand your version of the word faith. Faith as I see it is the belief in something without a good reason. If you had a good reason, it would be a belief. Like I believe I will not fall out of my chair in the next 10 seconds. I believe that if I cross the street without looking, during rush hour, I’ll be hit by a car. I can’t have a belief that the supernatural exists if it does not manifest in reality in any detectable way. That to me is no different than just not being there at all. That is an example of faith.

Sorry you didn’t approve of my use of only, but I used it as I understand the situation. That has not changed. I am describing my understanding of the conversation, not yours.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In reverse order:
I was referencing nutrition for the betterment of humanity. So yes poison is objectively bad in the subjective point of reference of Nutrition. Once you subjectively pick your point of reference you can have objectively bad ideas. Another analogy: Chess - there are numerous good moves, even some that seem terrible, like losing your queen. But it is objectively bad to deliberately place your king into a checkmate position.

When you address my point of “Poison”, you seem to point to the betterment of humanity as a reference point while I was using nutrition. So yes that has a wider application of how to determine if poisoning people is subjectively bad. I would argue that poisoning a group of people over limited resources to ease the burden is objectively bad because your group could be targeted next.

But how does appealing to a reference point of a deity clear up this argument. It’s just an appeal to the biggest bully in the room that makes the rules. We are the ones directly affected by the application of the conclusion of these arguments.

Yes we have problems with over population in the world as well as many other issues that are part of the psyche of the human condition. We are tribal orientated and guard access to women too much and many other ridiculous qualities that sustained us through the savanna of the past. The empowerment of women, education, and proper use of birth control seems a better option than these constant wars over limited resources and the frailness of the male ego. Just because someone comes up with a quick solution does not make it correct in any since.

“life is intrinsically good” - this appears to be the argument for “life is preferable to death” but not in all circumstances. Once there is a line crossed where someone believes they can not go back to a life they want to continue, then death is preferred. Where that line is may be different for each of us, but we can find lots of overlap and very little extreme examples.

“where one day we will get it right” - well by every measure of the human condition, we are improving. What is the point where you think that would be reached? It’s like asking when is good, good enough? Looking for perfection is a ridiculous standard to attempt to reach.

People always have the ability to be good because each new generation is a blank slate for who they are to become. I believe the idea we mostly hate about bad people is that our society created the conditions that nurtured that person to grow into that terrible person. We are responsible for the world that person was brought into and its still producing people like that. They still need to be held accountable but we hate it when people attempt to turn the light on us or our favorite groups and point out where we are fostering that environment.

Not everyone, by every measure. It is impossible for humans to reach perfection on their own, so yes, I agree that attempting to achieve perfection alone is a worthy effort, but unattainable. People are by and large, indifferent. Bad stuff happens to “other people”. But we’re ok by every measure.

Nature vs nurture. I agree people are born destined for good. While also having a nature that is attracted away from good. The nurturing one receives in family and society plays a part, but nature cannot be discounted.