timepiececlock | (no subject)

(no subject)

I looked up "atheism" in a search engine to make sure I hade the spelling right (I did), and on a lark I ended up reading this page which basically defines atheism and answers a lot of frequently asked questions about atheism and the logic behind it and in relation to religious beliefs.

It's a fairly long page, but I ended up reading the whole thing out of curiousity. I have to say their definition pretty closely matches my approach to the idea of religion and I would say I'm probably an example that fits their definition of atheist-- the "probably" being left in because I'm not entirely sure I accurately understood all the preconceived definitions of certain theological or philosophical words/terms used. One thing I particularly liked about the article was discussion of charity in relation to religious organizations.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I found this very interesting (and comforting, as a weak atheist, that someone else is out there breaking down the misinformation). I'm a rather atypical atheist, in that I was raised that way... it results in interesting culture clashes with people who were raised otherwise just like me... their default assumption, barring some kind of major disaffection, is in the existence of God... my default assumption, barring some kind of mystical visitation, is in the non-existence of God. But like this person said, it's not a major deal to me... it's like today not being my birthday. It doesn't require much thought.

But, I find it generally very comfortable to participate in non-belief oriented rituals, or meditations concerning less deist concepts like chi. I once performed a Native American ritual called a medicine wheel walk. The mindset I took into it was sort of open-minded and respectful. Like, "this may or may not work for me, since I'm new to this, and a white girl," but I was sincere and humble about trying it. It took me hours, and led me all over campus in the cold and the snow. And it actually was very powerful spiritual experience, and taught me things about myself. And for me, it didn't actually matter that much what that meant... I could equally conceive of some Great Spirit speaking to me, or the ritual working on a deep psychological level to quiet my surface mind and allow my own subconscious knowledge to surface and become conscious. Does that make any sense?

Anyway. Thanks for the link.

I found it somewhat ccomforting as well-- to hear someone else give their definition as formally as possible and to realise that it did in fact so closely match what I knew about myself without ever having read a formal definition or breakdown of atheism before. For me it is also most of the time like that analogy about today not being my birthday.

I am probably more on the side of stong atheist rather than weak (though I really don't know if I actually understand the difference-- both definitions sounded exactly the same to me), because I have a distrust of religious organizations. While I ascribe to the "live and let live" analogy the article talks about in terms of individuals I meet, my political views have tended to give me a negative view of mass religious organizations, particularly in their political activisms on topics I disagree with. And I don't particularly like the idea of missionaries or the product/sell aspect of convertig others anyway, so I don't really trust mass religious groups and I'm cynical of the people running them.

I'm a rather atypical atheist, in that I was raised that way... it results in interesting culture clashes with people who were raised otherwise just like me... their default assumption, barring some kind of major disaffection, is in the existence of God... my default assumption, barring some kind of mystical visitation, is in the non-existence of God.

That's my default assumption too; I was raised in a mix of atheism, agnosticism, and Protestant Christianity. My dad was a Christian and had attended church as a boy, but he didn't attend as an adult and religion wasn't something he thought about too much. He thought about the values he was taught quite a bit, but he kept the praying and stuff all internal if he did it at all. My mother, on the other hand, was raised with a mix of atheism, agnosticism, Luthern Christianity, and Scientology. Which ended up with her having a deep distrust of religion (especially the big ones) and a sort of weak agnosticism, and some beliefs about reincarnation. When they got married she told my dad that if he wanted my brother and I to be Christian that he could get up and go to church in the mornings with us but don't expect her to go too. End resutlt of that being that he didn't go at all because if he wasn't going to do it on his own he certainly wasn't going to do it with only part of his family coming along.

The biproduct of this is that my brother is a Christian who attended church for a while in high school of his own volition, and I am an atheist through and through. I've looked at religions, even attended a Protestant mass twice and a Catholic mass once (the experiences were sort of forced by circumstance, though I did go once out of curiousity), but so far I just can't buy into the idea of a supreme being. And I've even tried praying before but it just feels dishonest.

And it actually was very powerful spiritual experience, and taught me things about myself. And for me, it didn't actually matter that much what that meant... I could equally conceive of some Great Spirit speaking to me, or the ritual working on a deep psychological level to quiet my surface mind and allow my own subconscious knowledge to surface and become conscious. Does that make any sense?

Yeah, it does. I get some of that experience out of martial arts-- I do aikido and there's a spiritual aspect to aikido that involves very Eastern concepts of spirituality (influenced by Bhuddism, probably), but is something that I find to be spiritual without being religious.

Exactly. I used to do karate, and it was spiritual. And with Buddhism (while it is really a religion in Asia, even if Americans are encouraged to treat it like philosophy) the basic sine qua non of the religion isn't belief. That's really quite a Christian view of religion, and particularly a Protestant one. I had one excellent professor who told us how one Western scholar decades ago went to Japan and asked people, "Do you believe in God?" They were all, "...?" He came back and reported, "There is no religion in Japan." She said that was like concluding there was no music somewhere, because there were no pianos.

I also greatly distrust organized religion... it makes me uneasy for a variety of reasons, not least the justifications people take from religion for oppressions or violence. And people who think God takes sides or approves their own worldly goals just scare the crap out of me, because then logic, not to mention empathy for others, goes out the window. (Plus it makes anyone who disagrees on the wrong side of God, conveniently enough.) But because I also see people take comfort, and positive teachings, from their religions, I don't think it's always a force for evil. Just... far too often.

I don't consider myself a "weak atheist" in the sense that I'm wishy-washy about it... I think the difference he/she was stating has to do with how a person's non-belief interacts with belief. If I'm getting it correctly, a strong atheist would be someone who would say, definitively, "There is no god. There is no higher power. I am sure He/she/it does not exist." Whereas a weak atheist would be someone who says, "I don't believe there is a higher power." But they're not, I guess, as definitive about it? I think. I guess a weak atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in God, but also is sort of a militant agnostic: "I don't know, and you don't either." At least that's how I read it, but I could be wrong.

It's a very interesting and well reasoned site,coming at it from the opposite end of the the spectrum from you (and with a background in theology).
Not sure I agree with the following statement:

So the sceptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.

I think the later part is flawed since it seems to apply a level of scientific/formal logic to an area that to the best of my knowledge, 4000 years of human though has fallen down generally on the side of it being untestable. If God(s)/no God(s) was testable there would be no need for faith on ether side.

Still a wonderful site thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Yeah, I sort of was wishy-washy on the whole logic-test section of the document. I think I understood it mostly, but I've never had any formal classroom training in philosophy or debate that deals with logic tests and following their terminology/concepts was a bit awkward.

So I would say that I understood it in general but I don't think I could break down pieces of it and debate it and be totally certain I accurately understood the statement I was debating.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only