Atheism and agnosticism thread

[alice]

I'm writing a book on religion now, so I'm full of thoughts.

I'll go out on a limb and tentatively hazard a speculative guess that the title of this book might possibly bear some resemblance to "The Religion Construction Kit".

FWIW: Somewhere between atheist and agnostic, not sure which.

[zompist]

If anything, spirituality and revolution agree strongly that the status quo-- the situation of the world-- is bad. They tend to disagree on what to do about that.

Are you sure that you're not overgeneralizing from Christianity here?

Yes. This is basically the position of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and modern belief systems like communism and fascism. Dàoists and Confucians are more optimistic that the world could be run better, it's just that no one is doing it their way.

But everything in religion has an exception, and I'm told that Native North American religion has a positive view of the world, at least when it was run by Native North Americans.

[Raphael]

If anything, spirituality and revolution agree strongly that the status quo-- the situation of the world-- is bad. They tend to disagree on what to do about that.

Are you sure that you're not overgeneralizing from Christianity here?

Yes. This is basically the position of Judaism,

That's basically the example that made me ask the question, because I had recently stumbled about this old blog post (the relevant part is after the first boldfaced line):

https://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2005/05/word.html

[zompist]

That's basically the example that made me ask the question, because I had recently stumbled about this old blog post (the relevant part is after the first boldfaced line):

https://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2005/05/word.html

Judaism is a religion that's experienced 2500 years of bad news. (More, rather than less, if you take the Bible literally.) It's a religion that lost its homeland and its main place of worship twice, and had to reinvent itself each time. Then a couple thousand years of living as a minority in lands that distrusted or oppressed them. All this took a lot of theological explaining. There have been a lot of millennial movements; for the last few centuries the strongest idea has been tikkun olam, repairing or improving the world, whether by spiritual or social action.

I don't really see that Schraub would disagree with any of this. He's right that Christian apocalyptism is not universal, but historically Christian apocalyptism came out of Jewish apocalyptism.

[hwhatting]

My position on this is similar to that of some others here -
1) I don't belive in god(s) because I haven't seen any evidence or argument that has convinced me they are a necessary part of explaining the world, and
2) I have specific issues with believing in the Christian god because assuming his existence creates a lot of issues that need to be explained away, depending on which of the assertions made about him by various denominations and thinkers are assumed to be correct (as far as I know, that's the case for other gods as well, but the Christian one is the only one I've heard and read about sufficiently to argue that).
I guess that makes me an atheist. My understanding of agnosticism is that it should be reserved for those who either haven't made up their mind, or refuse to engage the question whether gods exist at all.
Now, I'm not a militant atheist - I don't go around telling people "god doesn't exist", and I'm happy to leave other people to the comfort of their religions. That's because I'm a polite person; I don't tend to impose my opinions on other people in general, and especially not on a question which is at the same time so important for many people and relatively inconsequential for me.

[Raphael]

My understanding of agnosticism is that it should be reserved for those who either haven't made up their mind, or refuse to engage the question whether gods exist at all.

I think I vaguely remember hearing once somewhere that there's a different specific term for the second of those positions, but I don't remember what it is.

[Raphael]

My understanding of agnosticism is that it should be reserved for those who either haven't made up their mind, or refuse to engage the question whether gods exist at all.

I think I vaguely remember hearing once somewhere that there's a different specific term for the second of those positions, but I don't remember what it is.

OK, a quick web search brought me this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

[hwhatting]

I think I vaguely remember hearing once somewhere that there's a different specific term for the second of those positions, but I don't remember what it is.


OK, a quick web search brought me this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Good to know!

[masako]

No religion, spirituality, or notions of divinity seem to reside outside the imagination of humanity. All known belief-systems are by human design.

Show me a pack of wolves making the sign of the cross, or a flock of robins engaged in meditation, even an alligator lighting a menorah, then, maybe, I'll find some value in it.

[Raphael]

Speaking of belief and lack thereof, there's currently a bit of a disagreement among left-of-center bloggers about how likely or unlikely it is that Donald Trump believes in God.

Amanda Marcotte argues that he doesn't:

https://www.salon.com/2024/02/21/donald ... theocracy/

Not because he's carefully engaged the many philosophical proofs for atheism that are out there, of course. He's simply too much of a sociopathic narcissist to believe in anything higher than himself.

Steve M. of No More Mr Nice Blog disagrees:

https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2024/ ... n-god.html

He brings up Mob bosses who were devout Catholics, and thinks that Trump might have a kind of what he calls "Bing Crosby religion".

As much as I often dislike bothsideism, I think they both make good points.

[keenir]

Presently, I am a...I try to avoid the issue of whether God or gods exist & whether I feel able to prove it or state strongly my view...I prefer to try to abide by the guidelines for upright behavior in pretty much any faith (do not strike anyone with curses, support those in need, assist parents and siblings, donate without seeking attention, etc), ma'at and little-j Jewishness and little-m Muslim (abide by the rules, but have not converted)

(and before someone says "well religions have some bad rules and some rules that no longer apply - thats true, and so do societies...there are US cities where it is against the law to walk your elephant without a leash, off the top of my head)

At some point, I heard or read that the three omnis were a post-Second Temple and possibly post-medieval development. (would a perfect mind be capable of being persuaded of doing something else or changing its mind?)

And remember, the Biblical G-D used the Assyrians as instruments, and if I had done better in debate classes (or at least in English class), I probably would have tried at some point to use that as an argument to dismantle, or at least wound theodicy.

I agree that the Abrahamic G-D would be immortal (at least inside the universe/multiverse...i sometimes change my mind about before and after that - as an analogy, think of a video game: we are immortal entities relative to anything in the game, and we existed before most games, and we'll likely be around after the game stops being played)

My experience tells me I ought to dissuade people from spirituality if I know what's good for me. The furthest from rationality I'm comfortable with is the kind of "intuition" you get when you are thinking about a chess move, a math problem or how to approach an art piece. You don't need the supernatural to explain that.

Need, not neccessarily...but one can use the supernatural to explain it. (emphasis in either spot). Logic is nice, but I come from a tradition of staring at the game board for half an hour, then finally seeing the move to make...the phrase "it just came to me" or "the light bulb went on at last" apply.

[keenir]

I'm writing a book on religion now, so I'm full of thoughts.

I'll go out on a limb and tentatively hazard a speculative guess that the title of this book might possibly bear some resemblance to "The Religion Construction Kit".

please please please

[Linguoboy]

But everything in religion has an exception, and I'm told that Native North American religion has a positive view of the world, at least when it was run by Native North Americans.

Yeah, it took widespread enslavement and genocide plus exposure to Christian eschatology to give us movements like the Ghost Dance. Pretty much everything I've read about Native North American religion focuses on the natural cycle and living in harmony with it.

Honestly, I think this generalises to all indigenous religions I know anything about, from Northeast Asian shamanism to traditional Polynesian polytheism. Seems like it takes authoritarian empires to make the world nasty enough that folks crave escape from it.

[rotting bones]

his is basically the position of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and modern belief systems like communism and fascism.

Buddhism doesn't traditionally concern itself with social justice. This made some Western Buddhists leave the religion.

From the inside, Islam looks rigidly apolitical. Typically, political discussion (that doesn't have to do with charity, praying for Muslims, etc.) is forbidden inside a traditional mosque. The sheikhs are terrified of "fitna".

[rotting bones]

Presently, I am a...I try to avoid the issue of whether God or gods exist & whether I feel able to prove it or state strongly my view...I prefer to try to abide by the guidelines for upright behavior in pretty much any faith (do not strike anyone with curses, support those in need, assist parents and siblings, donate without seeking attention, etc), ma'at and little-j Jewishness and little-m Muslim (abide by the rules, but have not converted)

According to Badiou, the "oppression of religion" is that religion says for mortals to grasp the infinite is "both impossible and forbidden", forcing us to remain within the narrow confines of false finitudes. Humbled sinners of the world, unite!

(and before someone says "well religions have some bad rules and some rules that no longer apply - thats true, and so do societies...there are US cities where it is against the law to walk your elephant without a leash, off the top of my head)

If the law were defined as being absolutely good, it wouldn't exist either. I'm more open to the possibility that this world was made by Satan. Humans certainly behave like the spawn of Satan.

At some point, I heard or read that the three omnis were a post-Second Temple and possibly post-medieval development.

It probably came from Platonism and Aristotelianism. Aristotle liked thinking so much, he said the most noble mind will be thinking all the time about the most noble subject, itself.

(would a perfect mind be capable of being persuaded of doing something else or changing its mind?)

Not really, but maybe as a deceptive stratagem?

Need, not neccessarily...but one can use the supernatural to explain it. (emphasis in either spot). Logic is nice, but I come from a tradition of staring at the game board for half an hour, then finally seeing the move to make...the phrase "it just came to me" or "the light bulb went on at last" apply.

We know that parts of the mind are unconscious. Besides, a Deep Learning model's predictions are famously uninterpretable.

[rotting bones]

No religion, spirituality, or notions of divinity seem to reside outside the imagination of humanity. All known belief-systems are by human design.

Show me a pack of wolves making the sign of the cross, or a flock of robins engaged in meditation, even an alligator lighting a menorah, then, maybe, I'll find some value in it.

According to Islam, the natural world is revealed to the faithful as an eternal prayer. The Quran says so over and over. After an (IIRC) antisemitic bit, it says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0iX--2fhZs

[zompist]

I'm writing a book on religion now, so I'm full of thoughts.

I'll go out on a limb and tentatively hazard a speculative guess that the title of this book might possibly bear some resemblance to "The Religion Construction Kit".

please please please

Oh yes, this is ongoing. Here's the intro on my Patreon page (this post is open to all).

[zompist]

This is basically the position of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and modern belief systems like communism and fascism.

Buddhism doesn't traditionally concern itself with social justice. This made some Western Buddhists leave the religion.

Sure, because the Buddhist response to "the world is rotten" is "find nirvana instead".

But this sort of generalization always has exceptions. Look up Thich Quang Duc and his imitators, for instance.

[rotting bones]

Sure, because the Buddhist response to "the world is rotten" is "find nirvana instead".

Maybe. I'm not sure personal attachments can be equated to the political status quo.

But this sort of generalization always has exceptions. Look up Thich Quang Duc and his imitators, for instance.

There were whole Buddhism-flavored peasant rebellions in China.

[malloc]

From the inside, Islam looks rigidly apolitical. Typically, political discussion (that doesn't have to do with charity, praying for Muslims, etc.) is forbidden inside a traditional mosque. The sheikhs are terrified of "fitna".

That seems remarkable given the centrality of empire-building, dynastic conflicts, and religious law in Islamic history. There is nothing apolitical about Muhammad and other early leaders of Islam conquering vast territories and establishing themselves as political sovereigns. Likewise the main division in Islam between the Sunnis and Shiites arose when early Muslims sparred over who should rule the Islamic empire after Muhammad died with theological differences mostly evolving secondarily. Now granted, that is looking at Islam from the outside and perhaps you're right that it looks very different from the inside.