I don't understand Strong Atheism, can someone explain it?

[human1111]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

While it is irelevant and again your position is based in ignorance, free thought is characterised by objective standards, evidence and reason. Free-thinkers are free from religious dogma, for instance, because it is baseless to them using the criteia above.

Please read the whole article.

There are plenty of emperic methods that allow a practitioner/researcher to percieve the reality that other's have. There is sufism, some other mystic traditions, kabbalah, and even Buddhism (to some extent). So there is evidence, you just need to be objective and not filter out evidence and experiences that challange your preconcieved beliefs.

sincerely,

[brucegdc]

Discussion is impossible when people are attacked. Preceeding posts have been edited to remove the personal attacks - feel free to disagree about ideas, but do not attack others, nor use putdowns as an argument. Please refer to the Code of Conduct for appropriate behavior on this forum. Personal attacks will not be tolerated, nor abusive language. Posts containing either will be edited &/or removed by the moderators. I've edited the worst out - and what remains is at best borderline, so cool it.

[Vimalakirti]

Let me offer an idea I've already tossed out on these forums several times - though perhaps to no measurable effect!

I see people on both sides forgetting that fundamentally we're dealing with a problem of language, and so reacting more to words and verbal formulations than to reality. All traditions agree that the a word like "God" refers to reality in some ultimate sense and by definition in a sense beyond language. To use the Zen analogy, the word "god" is a finger pointing at the moon; it shouldn't be mistaken for the moon.

Of course, like every other word "God" carries different connotations and emotional baggage for different people. For example, the difference between a "personal" and "impersonal" notion of God may depend more on an emotional tone than on any meaningful difference in definition. Embedding the word in a doctrinal system brings its own problems. For example, if we didn't have theologies of a Divine Will in absolute control of history, than the problem of God allowing suffering would hardly present itself, or at least would be framed in much different terms.

Obviously, there are innumerable other ways of pointing at the moon. As another poster has already pointed out, one can experience a sense of the divine from a segment of Nova as much as from some theological argument - and this sense is quite independent of whether we verbalize the experience as designed by God or not.

As for the hardnosed variety of atheist, other posters have made some good points about why one would take that position, given some of the woeful injustices committed in the name of religion. On the other hand, following on what I've said about not confusing words with reality, I agree there can be a kind of (and please allow this, moderator, it's meant with the best of intentions!) bloodymindedness in a certain kind of atheist that equals the bloodymindedness of the worst sort of dogmatic. Both are I think talking less about the exisentence/non-existence of God as an idea than about the feelings and anxieties they have about reality.

However we conceptualize it, what ever words we use, or systems of thought we invent, the reality we're failing to adequately describe in words is extraordinary. We should measure one another not by the words we use but by the benefits the words bring and by the actions they lead us to.

[hammer]

I guess I'm what you could call a strong Atheist.

- path of one kinda nailed it, the only thing that I can add is that Atheists believe that Man created God.
.

[dayaa]

hello again
i sort of suspect that man created God (in the dogmatic religious sense) but i also feel aware of a God above and beyond all that. i wonder if God gave us all an instinct to be aware of him and nothing more and that human efforts at religion may be some manifestation of that.....but at the end of the day what is actually required from us is to think with the minds God gave us.

[THUNK]

Originally Posted by Flutter_Fli

I have met alot of athiests and it occured to me that they:

If we are born and just die, no afterlife, doesn't that make it seem that there is no purpose in the lives that we live?

PLANET EARTH IS HEAVEN - why would I want for more? Certainly nothing Man made comes close to the beauty of nature.

Whilst Man reaks havoc - there is always practical work to be done, so religion and worship for me are not a priority. I guess my frustration with Mankind is that we spend to much time worrying about other worlds when our own is being destroyed.

What is truly important is the stewardship of the only space we have - Planet Earth.

Its only luck that you were born a Human. If you were an Ornag - u - Tang, would you want a selfish Human to obliterate your home just so they could have a Teak table? The sea beds are destroyed by trawling just so we can enjoy the abstract concept of a fishy taste??? These sea beds may not exist anywhere else - yet we allow them to be ruined for our petty passing desires??

BTW, I eat 'welfare' meat but I take care my petty needs arent causing destruction or misery.

[THUNK]

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

We should measure one another not by the words we use but by the benefits the words bring and by the actions they lead us to.

Problem is, the actions or 'outcomes' arent as helpful as they could be.
Some religions worship for hours each week, but in the end this benefits just themselves, in that they seek gratification in one form or another.

Couldnt this time energy and cash be better directed? Remember 150000 babies die each month in Africa. AT THE SAME TIME THE LOCAL VICARAGE IS WORTH £1.2M yet only the vicar and his wife reside - what a terrible and indefensible waste. Thats a religous outcome we can do without.

[THUNK]

Originally Posted by human1111

There are plenty of emperic methods that allow a practitioner/researcher to percieve the reality that other's have. There is sufism, some other mystic traditions, kabbalah, and even Buddhism (to some extent). So there is evidence, you just need to be objective and not filter out evidence and experiences that challange your preconcieved beliefs.

sincerely,

You ask us not to 'filter evidence' yet you have filtered the other several hundred religions out in favour of your preferred model. We just take the final step that filters all models out.

I have no evidence that Hansel & Grettel is true or false, only rumour and text, similar to any religious text. I do have natural testible evidence for the prescence of water in air though.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Flutter_Fli

I have met alot of athiests and it occured to me that they:

-Don't want to spend the time and energy,
-Felt no connection to god.
-Or maybe if there is no afterlfe they will not be disapointed so they just expect the worse.(Does that make since?)

This may sound really quite rude, because I have met alot of wonderful athieistic people, but isn't being athiest taking for granite the beauty of life. If we are born and just die, no afterlife, doesn't that make it seem that there is no purpose in the lives that we live?

Some just cannot see beyond a material world. The things that cannot be touched & seen with flesh.

Both believers & atheists can take things for granted.

As a believer, I can usually acknowledge the material (things) an atheists sees, but they cannot acknowledge the things I see in spirit, because of unbelief.

What is funny is there are some who feel they are so spiritual, they go just the opposite & say all the material things are illusions.

[Vimalakirti]

Words, words, words. Where would we be without these misleading labels and the dramas they provide? Wouldn't that be a bore? How fortunate it is that all we need to do is say I'm A, you're B, and the play is on!

[Bandit]

words words words. just where would we be without words & all that drama & all those misleading labels.

it looks to me more like it is set up for a group discussion of everyones beliefs on the subject & the play is on. Not just an A & a B point of view.

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by Bandit

words words words. just where would we be without words & all that drama & all those misleading labels.

it looks to me more like it is set up for a group discussion of everyones beliefs on the subject & the play is on. Not just an A & a B point of view.

Sure, but my point is that these kinds of discussions are more about working through emotions - as happens in any good play - than about any meaningful theist/atheist divide. It's not to say that these exercises aren't useful, only that it's not a bad thing to remind ourselves not to be caught up in mere words and lose sight of reality. Besides, you must have already noticed how this purgation of emotions can easily lead to exacerbation of emotions.

I've quoted this before: what makes no difference is no difference (William James). And the atheist or theist label usually tells you very little about the way a person actually experiences reality (or God), how happy they are, how wide or positive their view of the world is, or most importantly how they treat or benefit other people.

But I admit this is very much my view of things, and that many others would say that all happiness is false unless filtered through a particular belief or doctrine.

[Bandit]

good points there Vimalakirti

sometimes the emotions do rise, especially hurt when someone does not see it the same way. other times anger. i rarely get angry over beliefs but do feel pain sometimes but have learned how to accept & go into that pain & let things go.


there are both, some mean angry atheists & theists &, there are some nice ones.

so i wont filter my beliefs through your beliefs & doctrines & you do the same & I bet we can talk about cars, baseball & movies, & become friends & neighbors & get along pretty well. at least i will try to.

what do you think?

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by Bandit

good points there Vimalakirti

sometimes the emotions do rise, especially hurt when someone does not see it the same way. other times anger. i rarely get angry over beliefs but do feel pain sometimes but have learned how to accept & go into that pain & let things go.


there are both, some mean angry atheists & theists &, there are some nice ones.

so i wont filter my beliefs through your beliefs & doctrines & you do the same & I bet we can talk about cars, baseball & movies, & become friends & neighbors & get along pretty well. at least i will try to.

what do you think?

Well, okay, but up to a point. Baseball is the exception. I'll have no one question the divinity of baseball!
Cheers.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I was a very strong atheist for a long time, from age 14 to 22. Then I became a Buddhist, but I think my reasons for atheism are still there.

I have always seen "God" as an excuse, or even a placebo. To me, God is a reason not to be scared of death, or a reason not to be too upset about how bad your life sucks because "God moves in mysterious ways".

There is a woman I know who is a very devout, church going catholic. Her parents are dead, her husband left her, her kids dont talk to her and I think she is unemployed but she is the most devout Catholic I know. My family all think she is an amazing person to still believe in God after the terrible life she has had, but to me it is simply a mechanism for dealing with the pain. i.e. "At least God loves me".

I get the impression that many spiritual people pity Atheists, but in my experience most atheists pity spiritual people just as much because an Atheist believes that he is strong enough to face life and deal with what comes along while a spiritual person has to ask for God's help. As an Atheist I always felt very frustrated that so many people cling to what I considered to be a fanciful delusion.

There is also a moral aspect, a spiritual person must do the right thing because of the inevitable judgement after death. An Atheist does the right thing for no reason other than a personal, real desire to spread good feeling. (I think Neitche said something about that)

Now I know that Im going to get a lot of nasty nasty replies for some of the things Ive said here and I'll take it because this is my opinion and it is impossible to ever convince me otherwise because the more you tell me that your God is real and you love him, the more I will believe that you are clinging to your psychological defence mechanism and I think this, in my case at least, is the root of strong Atheism.