Atheism

Originally posted by inimalist
atheists and others:

why is the question, [b]"Is X a religion" actually relevant to anyone?

like really, what is the actual importance of debating this? [/B]

Sorry, it started with over generalizations.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, it started with over generalizations.

yes, but it is something that comes up pretty frequently

Originally posted by Mindship
Atheists:

IYO, what is the biggest disadvantage of theism? For fairy-tale/wish-fulfillment extremists, the answer seems obvious. But for those theists who adopt a more realistic and compassionate attitude, what do you feel is still "missing" from their lives? I don't mean to imply judgment, but for lack of better words, what are they still doing "wrong"?

The idea of living in sin is, imo, underrated as a negative psychological influence. As the theists in American culture are almost exclusively Christian, I see this a lot.

Take sex for an extreme example. If two consenting adults have sex, enjoy it, and nothing particularly awful comes from it, there is no intrinsic bad that comes from it. But it's a sin, so there's a violent clash with the secular nature of our society on the issue. And rather than simply embrace one or the other, I've seen people repress their sexuality to meet a religious ideal, or sometimes just feel very guilty about their actions. This is harmful to the person over a long period of time.

There are, of course, smaller examples on an everyday basis. My mom feels guilty about missing church regularly, despite the fact she has to keep multiple jobs to get by and that is what keeps her from church. These are anecdotes, but the larger point is there. There are numerous "sinful" actions that, on an objective level, someone would have a hard time convincing me are bad things. It's an appeal to authority at that point.

Theists can argue that the religion is not about punishment or guilt all they want, but that's a philosophical argument. What I'm saying is that it does affect people that way, right or wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
The idea of living in sin is, imo, underrated as a negative psychological influence. As the theists in American culture are almost exclusively Christian, I see this a lot.

Take sex for an extreme example. If two consenting adults have sex, enjoy it, and nothing particularly awful comes from it, there is no intrinsic bad that comes from it. But it's a sin, so there's a violent clash with the secular nature of our society on the issue. And rather than simply embrace one or the other, I've seen people repress their sexuality to meet a religious ideal, or sometimes just feel very guilty about their actions. This is harmful to the person over a long period of time.

There are, of course, smaller examples on an everyday basis. My mom feels guilty about missing church regularly, despite the fact she has to keep multiple jobs to get by and that is what keeps her from church. These are anecdotes, but the larger point is there. Theists can argue that the religion is not about punishment or guilt all they want, but that's a philosophical argument. What I'm saying is that it does affect people that way, right or wrong.

I agree. I have even seen sexual perversion come of this kind of repression. However, that is a problem unique to a few religions, but not all.

Originally posted by Digi
To answer the final paragraph, it was really just a slow, laborious process by which I slowly began to doubt, investigate, and deconstruct my religious worldview. There was never a moment like there was with you. At some point it just sort of dawned on me that I hadn't really been a Christian for a while. Then after that came other paranormal and/or mystical concepts, just as methodically.

don't get me wrong, it wasn't that I was like BAM! "I'm an atheist", more that the experience sort of primed a way of thinking for me that eventually, almost inevietably, lead to atheism.

I really like your approach better though. Its a better biography at least/

Originally posted by Digi
I get your other stuff though. Like how the single most determining factor in your religion is what your parents are. If you're taught to think a certain way about the world, everything else will mold itself to that approach.

I don't really know how to describe it at this point, but I'm so interested in this kind of stuff. About how the mechanisms we use to test reality are themselves built by our experiences and how we are told reality works...

Originally posted by Digi
The idea of living in sin is, imo, underrated as a negative psychological influence. As the theists in American culture are almost exclusively Christian, I see this a lot.

Take sex for an extreme example. If two consenting adults have sex, enjoy it, and nothing particularly awful comes from it, there is no intrinsic bad that comes from it. But it's a sin, so there's a violent clash with the secular nature of our society on the issue. And rather than simply embrace one or the other, I've seen people repress their sexuality to meet a religious ideal, or sometimes just feel very guilty about their actions. This is harmful to the person over a long period of time.

There are, of course, smaller examples on an everyday basis. My mom feels guilty about missing church regularly, despite the fact she has to keep multiple jobs to get by and that is what keeps her from church. These are anecdotes, but the larger point is there. Theists can argue that the religion is not about punishment or guilt all they want, but that's a philosophical argument. What I'm saying is that it does affect people that way, right or wrong.

do you see that opinion as being at odds with your Libertarianism at all?

not that I do, I just have a weird moral argument in my head about whether someone's willingness and psychological "choice" to engage in religion sort of makes it so that they want that guilt to be there. Not necessarily that they want to feel guilty, but that they want, even for themselves, there to be some sort of ultimate justice for things done on earth. Under that perspective, I don't know whether I see the guilt they experience as overly negative, as the uncertainty of eternal justice might be worse. From a psychological perspective, I'd almost argue that if it weren't worse, these people wouldn't believe in sin.

lol, don't think I'm just trying to tear you up in the thread or anything, its that I know you and me have similar opinions on a lot of this stuff, so its fun to just run ideas by you.

Originally posted by inimalist
If you mean, rather, why don't I, as an atheist, ascribe to ideas of a "realistic" supernatural...

I suppose the other way to word my question could be: What is the biggest advantage of atheism?

I don't think there is an "advantage" to atheism... though if something does no good, it's kind of just unnecessary baggage to worry about, so you might as well drop it.

Originally posted by inimalist
...
not that I do, I just have a weird moral argument in my head about whether someone's willingness and psychological "choice" to engage in religion sort of makes it so that they want that guilt to be there. Not necessarily that they want to feel guilty, but that they want, even for themselves, there to be some sort of ultimate justice for things done on earth. Under that perspective, I don't know whether I see the guilt they experience as overly negative, as the uncertainty of eternal justice might be worse. From a psychological perspective, I'd almost argue that if it weren't worse, these people wouldn't believe in sin...

JIA once told me that if it was not for god (or as I took it, his religion) he would be doing great evil. There is a possibility he was right. Is it possible that some people know they need boundaries to keep them for doing wrong? In other words, has religion, somewhere, kept a potential serial killer from killing in the first place?

Originally posted by Mindship
Atheists:

IYO, what is the biggest disadvantage of theism? For fairy-tale/wish-fulfillment extremists, the answer seems obvious. But for those theists who adopt a more realistic and compassionate attitude, what do you feel is still "missing" from their lives? I don't mean to imply judgment, but for lack of better words, what are they still doing "wrong"?

The problem is that theism supports what my (semi-religious) Mother deems the "god-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it" attitude. That's scary to me, no argument and no evidence can convince such a person that they're doing something wrong. Worse culture's that think that way move forward very slowly.

Now obviously there have been millions of thoughtful theists in the course of human history but they are in the minority. That is probably the result of a minority of people in general being thoughtful but atheists are still (usually) less resistant to change.

Originally posted by Mindship
I meant more realistic in that some theists embrace science enough to know how the material world works (eg, they don't depend on prayer alone to cure disease).

My bad. My answer is generally the same, I see no reason why they shouldn't believe that or think that it reflects poorly upon them in any way, but I see no evidence for their God, and would probably question the intellectual honesty of thinking there is a God that can and has interviened to do some things, but those other things, thats unrealistic and crazy. It seems like too subjective of a line for me

Originally posted by Mindship
I suppose the other way to word my question could be: What is the biggest advantage of atheism?

isn't that sort of putting it like Pascal did though?

to be tongue in cheek, my answer would be that the advantage is that it is correct. Basically, it is what is congruent with how I understand reality and the narratives that I have regarding how things work, and I have experienced nothing that has made me question those narratives to a substantial degree.

As arrogantly as that might have been put, I sort of come at belief from a psychology perspective, so I don't really ever think the "advantage" of atheism was a part of it to me. The narratives I had were not congruent with those of religion or the supernatural, so I don't believe in them...

...

my world is so cold...

lol, ok, more seriously though, if there were something that I would say is beneficial to, at least the way I think about atheism and belief, is that you can at least begin to question your own knee-jerk opinions and assumptions without also having to question your entire personal narrative. But this is tied much more deeply into my ideas about personal identity and affiliation, where I strongly believe that attempting to deaffiliate oneself from issues of "who i am" is a necessary cognitive excersize. I think that atheism allows for this type of thing easier than would belief in a God that is anything other than what I described before. It allows introspection and self-doubt to become useful tools rather than something which is problamatized and ruminated upon.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
JIA once told me that if it was not for god (or as I took it, his religion) he would be doing great evil. There is a possibility he was right.

I don't think there is a possibility he was right at all.

There are numerous psychological studies that have emerged largely in the last 4-5 years about people's conscious and unconscious moral preferences. It turns out that many moral axioms, including some that we aren't even aware of, are ubiquitous in humans. There are moral ways we tend to nearly unanimously act in, which hold up accross cultures, that we cannot even identify if asked why we acted in that way.

If JIA was a good person, as in, not someone who actively had to prevent himself from hurting others (as none of us do, and I'm not talking about "bar-fights" and that, I mean like psychopathy), he wouldn't have behaved that way without religion. Religion provided narratives and justification for how he was predisposed to react to the world, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is it possible that some people know they need boundaries to keep them for doing wrong?

see, this is a totally different issue though. I've always thought that if I ended up in jail I would probably adopt a religon, for no other reason that having that kind of structure, and something to occupy your mind and time with, would probably be something I'd want if my life were out of control (to me, prison is a good measure of this).

The story of Malcolm X is really illustrative in this way. He turned from a pimp hustler into a strict Muslim, and became a world renown intellectual because he was able to channel himself into something productive.

I don't think this quality is something unique to religions or political affiliation or whatever, it is just that more secular and rational institutions don't really exist for this type of thing, yet [hopefully].

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In other words, has religion, somewhere, kept a potential serial killer from killing in the first place?

I'd be a fool to say no to question with such a broad scope, but in general, no, I'd say that is not something that would likely happen. Crazier things certainly have though.

I think it is important to balance this, however. The moral certainty that comes from some religions has negative implications. Studies show that people who consider themselves moral have no difficulty doing things they agree to be immoral, and doing these things has no impact on how they see themselves.

So, you can ask someone "do you think it is immoral to lie?", then give them a test where the ability to lie is available (almost encouraged), then, confront them, and ask if they believe they had acted in an immoral way. They will say no, because they are a moral person, and come up with some cognitive mechanism to reduce their own culpability in lying. The same is not seen of people who do not define themselves as strictly moral.

By telling people they know the right way to live, religions actually might be predisposing them to justify all their wrong acts. I'm not saying religion causes any of these things, or that irreligious people can't also fall victim to this.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think there is a possibility he was right at all.

There are numerous psychological studies that have emerged largely in the last 4-5 years about people's conscious and unconscious moral preferences. It turns out that many moral axioms, including some that we aren't even aware of, are ubiquitous in humans. There are moral ways we tend to nearly unanimously act in, which hold up accross cultures, that we cannot even identify if asked why we acted in that way.

So, these moral axioms are berried deep within the human mind?

Originally posted by inimalist
If JIA was a good person, as in, not someone who actively had to prevent himself from hurting others (as none of us do, and I'm not talking about "bar-fights" and that, I mean like psychopathy), he wouldn't have behaved that way without religion. Religion provided narratives and justification for how he was predisposed to react to the world, not the other way around.

So, his movement to religion was a natural outcome of the person he is?

Originally posted by inimalist
see, this is a totally different issue though. I've always thought that if I ended up in jail I would probably adopt a religon, for no other reason that having that kind of structure, and something to occupy your mind and time with, would probably be something I'd want if my life were out of control (to me, prison is a good measure of this).

Sometimes a religious structure helps people find control over their lives.

Originally posted by inimalist
The story of Malcolm X is really illustrative in this way. He turned from a pimp hustler into a strict Muslim, and became a world renown intellectual because he was able to channel himself into something productive.

I don't think this quality is something unique to religions or political affiliation or whatever, it is just that more secular and rational institutions don't really exist for this type of thing, yet [hopefully].

So, in this case theism had a positive outcome that helped Malcolm X realize his true potential?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd be a fool to say no to question with such a broad scope, but in general, no, I'd say that is not something that would likely happen. Crazier things certainly have though.

I think it is important to balance this, however. The moral certainty that comes from some religions has negative implications. Studies show that people who consider themselves moral have no difficulty doing things they agree to be immoral, and doing these things has no impact on how they see themselves.

So, you can ask someone "do you think it is immoral to lie?", then give them a test where the ability to lie is available (almost encouraged), then, confront them, and ask if they believe they had acted in an immoral way. They will say no, because they are a moral person, and come up with some cognitive mechanism to reduce their own culpability in lying. The same is not seen of people who do not define themselves as strictly moral.

By telling people they know the right way to live, religions actually might be predisposing them to justify all their wrong acts. I'm not saying religion causes any of these things, or that irreligious people can't also fall victim to this.

Don’t you think this would also be true for someone who believes that atheism is the moral and correct way?

Originally posted by inimalist
isn't that sort of putting it like Pascal did though?

my world is so cold...

I'm sure there's an app for that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The problem is that theism supports what my (semi-religious) Mother deems the "god-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it" attitude.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don’t you think this would also be true for someone who believes that atheism is the moral and correct way?

You'd be hard-pressed to find such a person. Correct way, sure, those atheists exist. But I have yet to meet an atheist that believes in absolute morality, or at least a version of it that we can actively know. Pointing out moral faults with religion is one tact, but it's not equivalent to saying that atheism is more moral, which would be a hard statement to defend.

Originally posted by Mindship
I suppose the other way to word my question could be: What is the biggest advantage of atheism?

I wouldn't characterize it in those terms. It's what I believe, period. You can't simply change what you believe, except superficially. So to me the advantage is that it makes more sense to me than religion. But it's not in an atheism > theism sort of way.

There are disadvantages to religion, mind you. Normally they're easier to identify in extremist religion. But that fact doesn't mean religion is wrong or the "lesser" worldview.

Originally posted by inimalist
do you see that opinion as being at odds with your Libertarianism at all?

not that I do, I just have a weird moral argument in my head about whether someone's willingness and psychological "choice" to engage in religion sort of makes it so that they want that guilt to be there. Not necessarily that they want to feel guilty, but that they want, even for themselves, there to be some sort of ultimate justice for things done on earth. Under that perspective, I don't know whether I see the guilt they experience as overly negative, as the uncertainty of eternal justice might be worse. From a psychological perspective, I'd almost argue that if it weren't worse, these people wouldn't believe in sin.

lol, don't think I'm just trying to tear you up in the thread or anything, its that I know you and me have similar opinions on a lot of this stuff, so its fun to just run ideas by you.

I think we're talking about mostly people who were brought up with their particular religion, and so the idea of guilt for sin was introduced to them. I don't see it as a need for an objective moral judge or the "desire" for guilt. I don't think it's a deeper psychological need for moral guilt that gave rise to it in religion.

Because, realistically, fear and guilt as a motivator works very well for religion. It might not be conscious use of such tools, of course, but I'm thinking of it from a memetic standpoint. An institution where guilt, sin, punishment for deviating or leaving, etc. exists is more likely to keep its adherents than one in which there is no negative consequence for leaving, because it creates a powerful self-sustaining meme within a person or society.

In short, I do see ingrained religious guilt as a negative thing. As you mentioned, people are 'moral' because of factors having nothing to do with religion. They don't need such potentially destructive motivators to maintain morality.

I'll be honest and say I'm not sure how any of this could clash with Libertarianism though. Though, off topic, I kinda avoid the 'L' word these days. I've found that most people equate L-ism with something more akin to anarchy. I've retreated to "economic conservative, social liberal" to avoid the semantic discussion before the substantial one. It also has the benefit of painting myself as less of an extreme, and as such my ideas are less likely to be met with unthinking incredulity.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, these moral axioms are berried deep within the human mind?

they are probably natural, yes, as opposed to learned through culture. The best evidence for this is that we are unaware of some of these axioms, meaning we are deciding to behave in a certain moral way without any conscious rationalization.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, his movement to religion was a natural outcome of the person he is?

yes, but almost moreso from the interaction between this and a nearly infinite number of social and contextual variables he would have experienced through his life. I would tend to believe that someone's specific religious belief or religiosity, rather than say, a tendency to desire certainty or an intolorance for ambiguity, would be more socially determined.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, in this case theism had a positive outcome that helped Malcolm X realize his true potential?

no, but only because I don't believe in "true potential", I would say it allowed him to motivate himself toward a goal that was motivated by a drive for self improvement rather than crime. However, I think it is the institutional qualities of religion, rather than philosophical theism, that have the ability to motivate and channel people's energies in this way. Theism may help motivate self-improvement though, that is an interesting thesis...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don’t you think this would also be true for someone who believes that atheism is the moral and correct way?

well, it certainly could be, but I don't think it likely. Most atheists I've met, and I believe the majority of those on this forum, don't believe in any objective morality, so it is highly unlikely that they would feel they were always morally justified in everything they did. In the minority of atheists who do believe in some form of objective morality, myself included, there is, imho at least, no real consequence for immorality, and there is no implicit desire to make the world "sin" free [EDIT: I mean compared with the religious imparitave to struggle against human nature and the idea that the only proper human life would be sin free]. Rather, it is like certain guiding principles for how people should behave toward one another, tempered with the understanding that we are all fallible humans. There is a totally different perspective on "sin", which makes it far less likely that we would see ourselves as being 100% moral, unless we thought we had somehow personally escaped the human condition.

Originally posted by inimalist
its that I know you and me have similar opinions on a lot of this stuff, so its fun to just run ideas by you.

I've found this to be true as well. I have a hard time conversing on "big" topics with someone with whom I share no opinions. There's no common ground. It's much easier to talk with someone who you agree with for the most part, but disagree on smaller aspects of it. There's some common footing that doesn't need to be hashed out, instead of having to argue on the basic premise of the topic in the first place.

I do try to actively seek out theists to debate this with though. Not in an evangelical sense, but because I never want to be accused of being insulated by my influences. The internet is good for that.

Originally posted by Mindship
Pascal was a biased gambler. I'm just...curious.

no, I understand. However, in a lot of ways I'd argue there are clear advantages to theism over atheism if you want to do a cost/benefit analysis

Originally posted by Mindship
😂

I'm sure there's an app for that.

😆

i hope so

Originally posted by Digi
I do try to actively seek out theists to debate this with though. Not in an evangelical sense, but because I never want to be accused of being insulated by my influences. The internet is good for that.

Unfortunately the internet is also terrible for that. You no longer have to have conversations with people who disagree with you. Dedicated forums make it very easy to feel like everybody is on your side and that the only reason things don't conform those views is a conspiracy.

Originally posted by Digi
I think we're talking about mostly people who were brought up with their particular religion, and so the idea of guilt for sin was introduced to them. I don't see it as a need for an objective moral judge or the "desire" for guilt. I don't think it's a deeper psychological need for moral guilt that gave rise to it in religion.

Because, realistically, fear and guilt as a motivator works very well for religion. It might not be conscious use of such tools, of course, but I'm thinking of it from a memetic standpoint. An institution where guilt, sin, punishment for deviating or leaving, etc. exists is more likely to keep its adherents than one in which there is no negative consequence for leaving, because it creates a powerful self-sustaining meme within a person or society.

In short, I do see ingrained religious guilt as a negative thing. As you mentioned, people are 'moral' because of factors having nothing to do with religion. They don't need such potentially destructive motivators to maintain morality.

but, not all people who are religious feel such compulsions toward "guilt" and "sin". There are religious people for whom eternal justice is not a primary concern (though I'll give you that there are fewer religious than atheist people for whom this would be true) and there are atheists who feel guilt and have moral expectations of eachother.

I guess I tend to put the cart a little bit before the horse. I tend to think that people with the disposition toward needing certainty or other such qualities will seek out the things that affirm those beliefs, and people motivated the other way will similarly find other paths. I'm not suggesting there are natural differences between theists or atheists, because I totally believe people of any tolorance for ambiguity or whatever could fall into either camp.

I do see where you are coming from, and I guess I agree, but would also question if you would extend such skepticism to other governmental and social institutions? We indoctrinate our children in so many ways without religion, and sure we can debate severity, but how would we create a society in which we don't impress moral values on people? [save having a society in which people are no longer motivated by their more unsocial instincts]

Originally posted by Digi
I'll be honest and say I'm not sure how any of this could clash with Libertarianism though.

i dont really think it does either, but it does bring up interesting questions of rational self interest as a real motivator of human bahaviour.

Originally posted by Digi
Though, off topic, I kinda avoid the 'L' word these days. I've found that most people equate L-ism with something more akin to anarchy. I've retreated to "economic conservative, social liberal" to avoid the semantic discussion before the substantial one. It also has the benefit of painting myself as less of an extreme, and as such my ideas are less likely to be met with unthinking incredulity.

tell me about it

Originally posted by Digi
I've found this to be true as well. I have a hard time conversing on "big" topics with someone with whom I share no opinions. There's no common ground. It's much easier to talk with someone who you agree with for the most part, but disagree on smaller aspects of it. There's some common footing that doesn't need to be hashed out, instead of having to argue on the basic premise of the topic in the first place.

the perspective is also nice. We believe a lot of the same things, but it appears for different reasons and from fairly different life experiences.

Originally posted by Digi
I do try to actively seek out theists to debate this with though. Not in an evangelical sense, but because I never want to be accused of being insulated by my influences. The internet is good for that.

I've got to admit, I don't have the paitence for that anymore.