Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

I lost my faith gradually. First I disbelieved in the specific, Christian God, and only then in anyone at all. There was no crisis or epiphany and I only really realized it when a friend pointed out that I was an atheist. It took several years and my faith just... faded away. Like my joy for children's toys or my interest in Dinosaurs.

edited 11th Aug '17 7:57:45 AM by Antiteilchen

I would like to express my condolences for your loss of interest in dinosaurs.

Whaaaat? I thought they really existed. Those fossils must've been a test of my... non-existent faith after all.

edited 11th Aug '17 8:59:19 AM by MerryMikael

Baggini this, Baggini that, but I like that Baggini points out someone can have strong beliefs without being closed to counter-evidence. And yes, he says (both in the very short introduction of atheism and What's it all about?) that evidence better damn be good or else it's just another ghost story, weird coincidence or whatever. It makes sense that the more measured atheists want to avoid dogmatism shown by fundamentalists and militant atheists alike.

Easy as it could be to retort how using common sense is the answer, it's nothing new to say that humans aren't completely logical, even those who do use common sense just fine most of the time. Seems intelligence can make it easier to rationalize things, since even scholars have been misled into believing pretty outlandish things.

But if someone believes in God, I have no problem. Maybe this supposed "God" (whether it's called such or not) is a psychological potential of sorts encouraging persons to develop for the better like I've understood when talking to some people(although there's an entire industry riding on this desire to improve as a person - a.k.a self-development). I don't claim (or believe) that's how many others conceptualize God. But I do believe some people, believers or not, have transcendental experiences that help them psychologically.

Looking back, I can't recall ever really believing in God. To be honest it wasn't something that I thought of much. In the abstract I did, just not for me personally. My family was nominally Christian, but it didn't mean much. I found the Bible stories repellent, and the Virgin Birth unbelievable, along with of course the Resurrection. Later on I developed an interest in Wicca but it didn't go anywhere. Once at fifteen I declared myself an atheist. My mother didn't react to this well, so I stopped. It wasn't until about eight years later I again give it thought and realized that's my stance.

Regarding your question Mikael, I'm not sure what you mean. By an external source of meaning, do you mean God or what? I never really thought much about that either. Anyway, why do you ask?

edited 11th Aug '17 7:01:00 PM by Fireblood

Yes, I meant a transcendental source, call it God or whatever else you like. I must have been unclear about the types of deniers of such "external source meaning" Baggini talks about. According to him, the despondent deniers are the ones finding such a lack troublesome(which Baggini goes on to dispute) and the phlegmatic deniers(Charles Schulz, the creator of Snoopy, is given as an example) revel in such a "lack". I'm simply curious if you think of yourself as that kind of a denier, no special reason.

But I don't believe it's that stark a distinction, either. I guess I could describe myself as an "agnostic apatheist" (There's no mention of apatheists in the thread name, so this thread's oppressing and discriminating against apatheists) and the Very Short Introduction on agnosticism is waiting for me to read it. Besides, why couldn't someone think that a supposed transcendental or just an objective external source could be a welcome bonus while not essential? I don't think of myself as a denier, but I don't think of myself as a believer, either. I also like it how a Mormon Terryl Givens, in God Who Weeps, does admit fairly that some people seem more predisposed to believe, some to doubt. Givens is obviously pro-faith, but I don't find him dogmatic or zealous at all, but very measured and civil. In the beginning pages he mentions that believing and doubting can both be a starting point(although I don't agree it needs to be a dogmatic one) and a thought-out, considered end point.

I myself am open to the idea that perhaps there is some hidden beneficial transcendental source and connecting to it brings psychological benefits. It would be a huge extra.

I don't know. Does the universe count as a transcendent source? If not, then I guess I'd be one of the phlegmatic types, though I'm not "reveling". Despairing over it seems silly.

I think that Nature itself gives meaning in some sense, possibly, which is beyond ourselves. As for apatheism, I think that can fall under both atheist and agnostic, just not antitheist obviously :D It does seem people are predisposed to believe or not. As mentioned before, I'm one of the latter. I seem to be a skeptic at heart, at least in regards to God and religious doctrines. Like you I'd also agree that if there's not some transcendant meaning, it would be a plus, but isn't necessary.

edited 12th Aug '17 2:29:00 PM by Fireblood

External or transcendent meaning/purpose is kind of an overrated concept, imo. The pigs at the farms outside my city all have a purpose to their lives, assigned to them by "higher beings" (well, that's debatable I guess), and live their short lives according to a "greater plan", but I doubt they'd be very happy if they understood what it was all about...

And all those biblical metaphors about sheep and shepherds can't be a coincidence, right?

It's always sheep or goats or grain.

I'm not saying God is going to eat us, but God is definitely going to eat us.

Once again, I recommend Terry Eagleton's "very short introduction" to meaning of life. He doesn't try to claim that the meaning-of-life -question can be settled, but he's very comprehensive and the sheer volume of detail can feel overwhelming at first. I sure first thought "Whoa, how am I gonna remember half of this stuff?!", but it's the matter of rereading. I did feel I understood enough on the first read alone. This book calls for a re-read, several ones in fact. Haven't read other books from Eagleton, but it doesn't seem to be that any drastic Marxist bias is rearing its head and bombarding ideology.

Reading Eagleton's take I did note that I'm one of these people, who like the meaning-of-life -conversation itself (okay, I don't necessarily like all of them.... and I don't think I'm gonna like most of what I hear) and prefer that to snapping the mind shut with some definite answer, at least at this stage. As long as I'm not swayed into any ideological fundamentalism, I should do fine. But that seems pretty much like a given to me. Who knew that just reading a few "very short introductions" could feel so inspiring?

Baggini could very well lecture me about not becoming a chronic fence-sitter, the guy downright says that the mind is supposed to narrow on something if one's to get anywhere at all. While I can't argue with Baggini's assertion that it's impossible to examine all alternative viewpoints thoroughly (again, some indeed demand a long time or lifetime of practice) nor that it's unreasonable to say someone has no right to reject so-and-so -viewpoint without having entered "deeply enough" into it (circular logic hooray!), I do think, hypothetically, that one could familiarize oneself enough with more than just two or three different worldviews(say, ten ) and find a workable synthesis. I'm so for syncretism. He's openly anti-agnosticism, which shows both in What's it all about? and the atheism "introduction". And why would that have to be so black-and-white, either? If I'm of the opinion that many conflicting viewpoints nonetheless have valuable things to say without being equally open to every thing (and still being downright closed to some, of course), am I still a global agnostic?

And like I already said, Baggini disputes the notion that unexamined life isn't worth living. He doesn't deny the value of philosophy, but doesn't exalt it, either (more like dethrones).

I've recommended both Baggini and Eagleton's books already. As for me enjoying the chattering of viewpoints, I am taking a huge time out here, like now chatting. What about you?

Oh, and Corvidae, perhaps a supposed spiritual source would work better as an internal psychological source. I am so heretical. Sue me. And why am I seeing similarities to what Baggini writes? You've secretly read him, too?

Wait, I thought he does that in any case when we die! How should we battle this horrible Lovecraftian, Thomasligottian fate?!

edited 12th Aug '17 5:11:00 PM by MerryMikael

Not entirely sure what you mean here. Without the claim that it comes from something other than yourself, what makes it different from any other regular old subjective judgement?

We need to hide our souls in a place where the hungry god can't reach them, and wait until we have enough of them that they'll coalesce into a new, benevolent god who can kick the hungry god's ass. Obviously.

But then again near-death experiences can be viewed from a purely "reductionist" standpoint as drastic physiological changes of a brain - which, surprise oh surprise, change a person dramatically. I find it hard to see that kind of a change as just a "subjective judgement". I can see the value of some "spiritual" practices in lessening emotional distress or even just clearing the mind of distracting and cumbersome chatter(like good ol' mindfulness meditation). Spiritual experiences don't prove that there's a transcendental reality. I have heard and read psychopathology with religious content exists(if you can recommend literature about them, I'd appreciate you telling me), but what about psychological benefits brought by some practices? Sure there are those, too, even if you view these practices in a secular way. I can see the value of so-called faith if it's a matter of connecting to a psychological power source that sustains a person through difficulties, harsh circumstances and especially despair (pay special notice after the 15:50 mark in the video). Doesn't everyone need something they perceive of worth to live by? People, who usually think they have nothing to live for, commit suicide, but faith could be seen as something helping a person through despair to rebuild their life. Why would it need to be religious faith in that case? If it truly helps a person and sustains them, then that's the kind of faith I can see the value in.

At the same time I can't deny that there absolutely are frauds that leave people worse, not better off as well as unhealthy types of faith and belief systems. It shouldn't be forgotten that there are also dangerous, controlling groups and that it's possible for a spiritual group to become harmful. It seems to me "spiritual harm" would refer to a huge blow to attempts at developing as a person and living a worthy life.

So on some accounts, Corvidae, I disagree with you. But I still have heard a bit too much the adage about surrendering to a higher power. I'm gonna say more about that soon(after you, of course).

edited 13th Aug '17 12:45:00 PM by MerryMikael

Like Mormonism. Festering wound of a cult, seething with lies and deception... Then again, maybe I'm just mad because their attempts to subdue me have picked up again.

Picked up again? The gall! That's just despicable.

How's that happening exactly?

"Quantum physics" is totally the new "some kind of energy", isn't it?

Getting back on topic, what are you disagreeing with, more specifically? I don't think I've actually said all that much yet.

edited 13th Aug '17 1:30:00 PM by Corvidae

I'm disagreeing that some experiences are just subjective judgements. Yes, we do process things subjectively, but that's not all there is to it.

Prayer as a psychological calming technique is something I can understand, but praying for others not so much. That is unless someone praying does it to psyche themselves up to help someone. That's the only way I could imagine praying for someone else working.

This is from another part of that Psychologytoday -article.

Oh, and great straw man, Corvidae. There were many other things I said and linked to, by the by.

edited 13th Aug '17 1:58:34 PM by MerryMikael

Well, I'm not a solipsist or anything along those lines. I was just wondering what the "spiritual" part of assigning meaning to things is supposed to be if you don't believe that "meaning" is some kind of external/objective thing that's been magically revealed to you, for lack of better words. Honestly speaking I think we both just misunderstood a comment or two.

And the quantum thing was a jab at that article itself, not at you. I just found it weird and kind of funny how it casually glosses over freaking psychic reality warping partway through and then just keeps going like it was no big deal.

Good thing you clarified it.

Btw, I recall the convo between you, Faemon and me. I liked "translating" her.

Many things attributed to an external source relating to these spiritual practices and experiences make more sense to me attributed to an internal source(even if someone doing whatever-praxis-he/she-prefers may experience it coming from another source entirely). The effects are psychophysiological(well, duh), just among more drastic ones. It would be a bonus if there was an external transcendental source with its own kind of meaning to be discovered from it, but I doubt it exists and sure there's a lot of meaning of to be found in material life.

You saying we haven't disagreed at all?

Pretty much, except for the idea that the existence of an "external transcendental source" would necessarily be a good thing, but I guess I'm not entirely unbiased about that.

Oh, you know how it is, with the leaving comments on my Facebook post about how the devil has real power over his followers and how the church is true and why can't I just have a little faith, and the saying "You know, girls are pretty great, if you give them a chance," to my face, in the car, on the drive home from college orientation, after I had just finished talking about the super-cute guys I met and the awkward group photo where they made me pose as a couple with a female, while I was wearing my adorable purple jacket over a hot-pink T-shirt holding a USU Love Is For Everyone (the school LGBT group) flyer in my hands, after I had just come out of the closet to everyone not even three weeks ago, and the incessant prodding and pointed comments—and I'm single and alone here and literally dying of loneliness—

I am losing my mind.

All that sounds coercive and controlling. I'm sorry that's going on.

That's why I added "beneficial". Both Baggini and Eagleton dispute the notion of a higher purpose necessarily serving us (in their "very short introductions" to atheism and meaning of life, respectively). Eagleton mentions the views of Schopenhauer and Freud. Gosh, I must be turning into a preacher or something.

Another thing coming to mind as an example of a negative external transcendental source would be Satan-worshipping.

How old are you? I'm guessing that moving away from your family isn't really an option?

With theistic Satanism, you've got both a negative and a positive source though, just reversed from how it's typically done. (Or possibly two negative/positive sources, or one that's slightly less negative than the other. Depends on the branch, I guess.)

Mikael, beliefs can be helpful in times of crisis. I don't know whether I'd say they're always "faith", at least in the religious or spiritual sense. That's a notoriously difficult word to define.

Satanism—particularly LaVeyan Satanism—is more of a positive than a negative, given its focus on freedom from dogma and personal morality.

I'm an 18 year old working dead-end, minimum-wage temp jobs barely scraping by to go to college to get an English degree and get a computer to do animation. I'm "moving away" from them in the sense that I'm going to be living on campus but I'm not moving away from them. I have nowhere to go.

I'm sorry to hear that.