Atheism, the discussion

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Sat, 13. Jun 20, 13:16

fiksal wrote:
Sat, 13. Jun 20, 03:47
How does that work exactly, do people pray to them directly?
As mentioned above, often churches will have a dedicated secondary/tertiary altar dedicated to a saint patron. Much like with Roman gods, saints have specific traits, like some are specialists in healing, some a protectors of the travelers, others are specialized in helping the poor or lost causes. If you need help in a specific thing, you pray to that specific saint.

Mary is special though, she has multiple traits and "incarnations" often related to locations where she appeared or did some miracle, thus will have all sorts of places of worship and also depending on the local specialization specific "cures" will be provided. As also mentioned before, she is much more prominent in culture than Jesus and or even God himself. While most if not all recognize the power structure of the trinity and who is in charge, Mary as the mother figure is the one to go to when in need of help, much like with real life, especially in a society where woman are the ones actually doing the caring and feeding people. Unless there is a very specific saint available, Mary is the go to and also will be featured in all Churches even if with "just" a statue.

MFG

Ketraar
Image

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Sun, 14. Jun 20, 00:27

Ketraar wrote:
Sat, 13. Jun 20, 13:16
fiksal wrote:
Sat, 13. Jun 20, 03:47
How does that work exactly, do people pray to them directly?
As mentioned above, often churches will have a dedicated secondary/tertiary altar dedicated to a saint patron. Much like with Roman gods, saints have specific traits, like some are specialists in healing, some a protectors of the travelers, others are specialized in helping the poor or lost causes. If you need help in a specific thing, you pray to that specific saint.

Mary is special though, she has multiple traits and "incarnations" often related to locations where she appeared or did some miracle, thus will have all sorts of places of worship and also depending on the local specialization specific "cures" will be provided. As also mentioned before, she is much more prominent in culture than Jesus and or even God himself. While most if not all recognize the power structure of the trinity and who is in charge, Mary as the mother figure is the one to go to when in need of help, much like with real life, especially in a society where woman are the ones actually doing the caring and feeding people. Unless there is a very specific saint available, Mary is the go to and also will be featured in all Churches even if with "just" a statue.

MFG

Ketraar
But never, ever pray the wrong saint.
There's a joke in Italy that I now try to translate (somatic components were important in this one, but I hope my tranlsation's gonna do the job):
A man is falling from a palace, and while falling he closes his eyes and starts praying: "Please, Sant'Antonio, please save my life and I promise me and my family are going to worship you, and praise you" - Suddently, the man feels like a hand under his back, slowing is fall, and a voice sounds in his head - "Da Padova or d'Abate?" - the man, confused at first, after a some seconds replies - "Da Padova!" - and then - "Him? Why it's always him???" - SPLAT!
There are two (probably more) different St. Anthonies... And both are woshipped very seriously.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Sun, 14. Jun 20, 05:03

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Sun, 14. Jun 20, 00:27
But never, ever pray the wrong saint.
There's a joke in Italy that I now try to translate (somatic components were important in this one, but I hope my tranlsation's gonna do the job):
A man is falling from a palace, and while falling he closes his eyes and starts praying: "Please, Sant'Antonio, please save my life and I promise me and my family are going to worship you, and praise you" - Suddently, the man feels like a hand under his back, slowing is fall, and a voice sounds in his head - "Da Padova or d'Abate?" - the man, confused at first, after a some seconds replies - "Da Padova!" - and then - "Him? Why it's always him???" - SPLAT!
There are two (probably more) different St. Anthonies... And both are woshipped very seriously.

It's a good joke :)

So is this generally a Catholic thing or Itallian Catholic uniqueness?

to add a little bit to the topic.
as I was saying Russian pre-christian gods were turned into Saints in Christianity. For example this "guy", who Russian still celebrate the pagan way by this day, without remember who or why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupala_Night
Kupala Night, (Russian: Иван-Купала, Belarusian: Купалле; Ukrainian: Івана Купала; Polish: Noc Kupały), called Ivanа-Kupala, is a traditional eastern Slavic holiday which is celebrated in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and Russia during the night from 6 to 7 July (on the Gregorian calendar). (This corresponds to 23-24 June on these countries’ traditional Julian calendar.)
...
[Kupala] a pagan fertility rite later adapted into the Orthodox Christian calendar by connecting it with St. John's Day which is celebrated on 24 June.[2]
...
The night preceding the holiday (Tvorila night) is considered the night for "good humour" mischiefs (which sometimes would raise the concern of law enforcement agencies). On Ivan Kupala day itself, children engage in water fights and perform pranks, mostly involving pouring water over people.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Sun, 14. Jun 20, 10:53

fiksal wrote:
Sun, 14. Jun 20, 05:03
BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Sun, 14. Jun 20, 00:27
But never, ever pray the wrong saint.
There's a joke in Italy that I now try to translate (somatic components were important in this one, but I hope my tranlsation's gonna do the job):
A man is falling from a palace, and while falling he closes his eyes and starts praying: "Please, Sant'Antonio, please save my life and I promise me and my family are going to worship you, and praise you" - Suddently, the man feels like a hand under his back, slowing is fall, and a voice sounds in his head - "Da Padova or d'Abate?" - the man, confused at first, after a some seconds replies - "Da Padova!" - and then - "Him? Why it's always him???" - SPLAT!
There are two (probably more) different St. Anthonies... And both are woshipped very seriously.

It's a good joke :)

So is this generally a Catholic thing or Itallian Catholic uniqueness?

to add a little bit to the topic.
as I was saying Russian pre-christian gods were turned into Saints in Christianity. For example this "guy", who Russian still celebrate the pagan way by this day, without remember who or why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupala_Night
Kupala Night, (Russian: Иван-Купала, Belarusian: Купалле; Ukrainian: Івана Купала; Polish: Noc Kupały), called Ivanа-Kupala, is a traditional eastern Slavic holiday which is celebrated in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and Russia during the night from 6 to 7 July (on the Gregorian calendar). (This corresponds to 23-24 June on these countries’ traditional Julian calendar.)
...
[Kupala] a pagan fertility rite later adapted into the Orthodox Christian calendar by connecting it with St. John's Day which is celebrated on 24 June.[2]
...
The night preceding the holiday (Tvorila night) is considered the night for "good humour" mischiefs (which sometimes would raise the concern of law enforcement agencies). On Ivan Kupala day itself, children engage in water fights and perform pranks, mostly involving pouring water over people.
I don't know about outside Italy, as I'm a non believer and I can only see what happens around me, but patron saints are very common in Europe, even if they're probably not as worshipped as Italian saints.

The importance of the figure of Mary, and her worship, is another curious thing, because if you think about it, she's not a Saint and she's literally the only non-divine figure around. Nevertheless, she's often considered more important than both Jesus and god himself.

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Sun, 14. Jun 20, 14:31

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Sun, 14. Jun 20, 10:53
The importance of the figure of Mary, and her worship, is another curious thing, because if you think about it, she's not a Saint and she's literally the only non-divine figure around.
You are mistaken here, see Jesus is not a Saint either, yet he is divine, Mary is divine by default or "by osmosis" if you like when giving birth to god's son and then become his first "disciple". It rubbed off so to speak. Unlike Saints, Mary didnt need to be canonized so technically she is not a Saint, but is still very much divine and as I mentioned above, her being the mother is the go-to figure in times of need, like most mothers.

Maybe this is a thing more embedded in the southern, more "roman" regions of christianity, where roman paganism was stronger and people felt the need to keep some worship practices and thus made use of the saint patrons to fill this gap. Considering that roman catholicism was created by decree it would make sense to keep most rituals to avoid shocking people, so a re-branding makes much more sense than a complete restructure. This can be seen all over the colonized world where imposed christianity is adjusted to include some strong local rituals. And this is what makes me look at it more of a source of control then actual spirituality, because I would expect the "truth" wrt to any deity being one and not many. So this abrahamic god is very bad a communicating its wishes and doctrine... :roll:

MFG

Ketraar
Image

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Sun, 14. Jun 20, 21:10

Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 14. Jun 20, 14:31
BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Sun, 14. Jun 20, 10:53
The importance of the figure of Mary, and her worship, is another curious thing, because if you think about it, she's not a Saint and she's literally the only non-divine figure around.
You are mistaken here, see Jesus is not a Saint either, yet he is divine, Mary is divine by default or "by osmosis" if you like when giving birth to god's son and then become his first "disciple". It rubbed off so to speak. Unlike Saints, Mary didnt need to be canonized so technically she is not a Saint, but is still very much divine and as I mentioned above, her being the mother is the go-to figure in times of need, like most mothers.

Maybe this is a thing more embedded in the southern, more "roman" regions of christianity, where roman paganism was stronger and people felt the need to keep some worship practices and thus made use of the saint patrons to fill this gap. Considering that roman catholicism was created by decree it would make sense to keep most rituals to avoid shocking people, so a re-branding makes much more sense than a complete restructure. This can be seen all over the colonized world where imposed christianity is adjusted to include some strong local rituals. And this is what makes me look at it more of a source of control then actual spirituality, because I would expect the "truth" wrt to any deity being one and not many. So this abrahamic god is very bad a communicating its wishes and doctrine... :roll:

MFG

Ketraar
Romans did the re-branding thing a lot while conquering and annexing tribes and primitive nations, so it makes sense doing the same for catholicism.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 01:28

The last couple pages has been an interesting and enlightening read. They gave me new insights I did not have before, so thanks to all participated. :)

I have always thought it's a Buddhism thing that adapt and meld itself into whatever local culture it spreads to, but apparently Christianity also does the same thing to a degree. And some may think that kind of inconsistency serve as proof that religion has no merit (I got that thrown at my one time when discussing Buddism) but you know what, I think that is actually a good thing! The more flexible something is, the less friction it will create. In fact, if the line can be blur that religion become less religious and more cultural, that would be great.

As ironic as this may sound, I think religion is a good thing as long as one doesn't dwell too deep about it. Keep a few core principle/belief and use that either as a moral compass and/or a spiritual support during hardship, I feel the purpose of religion can be accomplished with just those tasks. Path to enlightenment, the truth of the universe ...etc... as an average person I don't really care about things like that. In term of religion, I don't put much emphasis on what one should believe or even if what you believe is true or not, as long as the things you choose to believe compel you to do good and become a better person. Naturally, if the thing you believe is actually prove-able, and it's actually the truth, but that belief compel you to do the wrong thing than it would still be bad, wouldn't it?

So ultimately, the debate of real or not real doesn't seem to be even that important, to me anyway. I have a scenario question for the atheism folks, consider this:


- I can say with great confident I'm not a good nature person. I don't think I'm at the 'evil' level, but I know I have many desire (on the darkside), greed, and my compassion pool is probably shallow.
- However I can also speak with confidence that for the most part, I carry myself (through act and deed) decently. Whether it be refraining myself from doing bad things to doing good deeds. But again, the source of that decency is more about discipline rather than personal good nature.
- And I can also speak with confidence that in turn, the source of that discipline is from my Buddhism belief. When I'm about to do bad thing, sometime my belief help me stay my hand, and even if it fails to stop me (hey, temptation is a bitch) at the very least my belief make me antagonized over the decision so that I don't just do it imprudently. Like wise, I'm fairly sure I'm rather apathetic person, while it's not exactly made of ice my heart is hardly a blazing ball of compassion. But, I still (force myself to) do good things for the people around me and my community because of my belief in Karma. Some of you often accuse the rich doing charity for fame and tax-evasion, I do charity for the good karma, and I say that with no shame :D.

Note that the reason I'm using myself here is to emphasize that this is not a hypothetical or philosophical question about "people", but to make it a practical question.

And, the question is this: for the good of myself as a person, and also for the good of the community around me, should I stop believe in Buddhism and its teaching, even if you have reason to believe it is false or unprovable?

If you can answer that question objectively, than I think you may understand why someone like me believe that religion is an important part of our life. I know one of the most favorite and common saying among Atheist is something like "I'm my own person, I can control and judge my own action without the guidance of some god!" Well, good for you, to those who say that I believe, or at least hope you are a 'good' nature person. But the sad fact of life is not all of us are. Rather, MOST of us are not. That's why I believe not because I think I can prove it, but I 'choose' to believe it because I hate the person I would become without the belief. :)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 02:21

I dont hink of myself as a good person at all, I know this because it feel hard to not fall to do the easy thing, always trying to do the right thing and its hard. I dont do it because of karma, or a god or in the expectation of a reward. I do it because I think its right. Dont always achieve it and sure as hell sometimes it wasnt the best thing to do or the most ideal or even sensible, but at the time it may have felt like the right thing to do. This gives me pause and makes me sleep like baby (not the ones that cry all the time, the ones that actually sleep). I draw this inspiration from my late grandfather, he was the one that infused me with this, others will find inspiration in books, religion, peotry, ect dont really care tbh everyone has to find their own path and live with the consequences.

As for the blending of religions with local culture, I dont mind either, again dont really care what people believe. What does strike me odd though is that if religion can be as adaptive, does it hold any value on its own? Cant people just skip the middleman and just do the "natural" thing, the being in tune with nature. Would not science and culture be the best source for enlightenment? Is the understanding of nature alone not a great source of awe, why the need for a father figure that serves a deterrent to "bad behaviour"?
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 01:28
for the good of myself as a person, and also for the good of the community around me, should I stop believe in Buddhism and its teaching, even if you have reason to believe it is false or unprovable?
You should believe whatever you feel like, just when you start contradicting science and make policies based on it I might have an issue with it, otherwise I could not care less if you or anyone else likes to read words from a book or make enchantments, sing songs or whatever ritual anyone feels the need to do. As long as it does not impact other peoples freedoms to do the same or inflicts any harm.

MFG

Ketraar
Image

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 04:23

Ketraar wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 02:21
I dont hink of myself as a good person at all, I know this because it feel hard to not fall to do the easy thing, always trying to do the right thing and its hard. I dont do it because of karma, or a god or in the expectation of a reward. I do it because I think its right.
Than you're still 1" closer to being a good person than me. I'm sensible enough to tell what is right and wrong ... most of time. But that fact alone often is not enough to compel me to both do or not do something, and I need that extra push. Whether you're a atheist or believer, I think anyone can acknowledge that kind of power belief hold over a person who has it. I personally don't think that kind of influence is inherently evil, and can be used to good end.

One of my favorite teaching in Buddhism is this: Buddha has fears too. Like I said the Buddhism's belief (and Karma) itself centered around cause and effect. Buddha's fear lie with the cause, so he tries to teach people to avoid the causes so we don't have to worry about the effect. But we human tend to put our fear in the effect, we're usually either apathetic or uncaring about the cause, yet we fret over the consequence and try to mitigate its effect when it finally hits us. I like it because I find it funny, I find it funny because I think it describe me, and most people I know really well. :D

So in a way, you can say I am someone who are trying to learn how to fear the cause instead of the effect ... and failing a lot of times. :shock:

What does strike me odd though is that if religion can be as adaptive, does it hold any value on its own? Cant people just skip the middleman and just do the "natural" thing, the being in tune with nature. Would not science and culture be the best source for enlightenment? Is the understanding of nature alone not a great source of awe, why the need for a father figure that serves a deterrent to "bad behaviour"?
I intended to answer each of these sentence with a paragraph but on second thought ... that would probably annoy some people with how long it would be. So best way way I can think to answer this is "try to get out of the Science vs Religion" things, and abstract it into "people has need".

- One of my favorite dilemma is: you're good at what you do, but hate what you do, and you suck at what you like to do, so WHAT will you do?

We have done it with animal and plants, selective DNA treatment to get the result we want. It's only a matter of time we can do the same thing with human, or at the very least test the natural apptitude of someone for certain task. You probably can eventually create something like a "scientific good way of life", but at that point, then what?

I think science and religions are two separate facets of the human life and "best kept separated". It's often the debate is centered around religions try to over-reach its bound into something that best left explained by science, but I would point out under the same prejudice that neither science should try to impose itself as a complete substitution for religion, or the spiritual need (some people has no religion, but are still spiritual). That is a path that at the end would make the term 'the church of science' carry a very literal meaning. :P

Like I said, people just have to accept on an abstract level that people have different needs, and those needs are not necessarily rationalized, or explained scientifically, and even if it can it wouldn't matter anyway (think about the question in the dilemma above). The best we can ask for is to not trying to step on each other toe, or our own toe for that matter. :wink:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 05:09

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 01:28
But, I still (force myself to) do good things for the people around me and my community because of my belief in Karma. Some of you often accuse the rich doing charity for fame and tax-evasion, I do charity for the good karma, and I say that with no shame :D.

Note that the reason I'm using myself here is to emphasize that this is not a hypothetical or philosophical question about "people", but to make it a practical question.

And, the question is this: for the good of myself as a person, and also for the good of the community around me, should I stop believe in Buddhism and its teaching, even if you have reason to believe it is false or unprovable?
I think there are multiple ways I can answer it. Because I see more than one question. So I will try to be concise.

If we remove emotion and try to be objective, to the question (which I know you haven't asked this way) - should you believe in supernatural? - you should not because it's not there.

Onto the second part, as a way to be a better person, should you follow teachings that help you get there - yes you should.

In the manner that you have described your beliefs and I trust you were truthful, I think you can accomplish that.

Can one do it fully, following the same teachings, realizing that supernatural concepts don't exist? I see why not. With one downside, one would inadvertently become an atheist.




If you can answer that question objectively, than I think you may understand why someone like me believe that religion is an important part of our life. I know one of the most favorite and common saying among Atheist is something like "I'm my own person, I can control and judge my own action without the guidance of some god!" Well, good for you, to those who say that I believe, or at least hope you are a 'good' nature person. But the sad fact of life is not all of us are. Rather, MOST of us are not. That's why I believe not because I think I can prove it, but I 'choose' to believe it because I hate the person I would become without the belief. :)
Atheists are not superiorly built. The evidence and reasoning they hold is held by everyone else. The experiences and upbringing however differ wildly. But I get it.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 07:12

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 05:09
I think there are multiple ways I can answer it. Because I see more than one question.
Nah it's just one question, I think you're just trying to inject your own statement into what I'm not asking. :P

Not that I mind. :)

Can one do it fully, following the same teachings, realizing that supernatural concepts don't exist? I see why not. With one downside, one would inadvertently become an atheist.
Not necessary. Again I said this many times, unless you go full stereotype, it's not like it's rare for you to find a religious scientists, or those you found are fake scientist. Here is an example: even astronaut can be religious.

- The three Astronauts on Apollo 8 read the book of Genesis as their craft orbit the moon.
- Buzz Aldrin performed a self-communion service on board Apolo 11.
- David Scott left a Bible on the Lunar rover on Apollo 15.
- In 2010-2011, Russian Cosmonauts celebrated Christmas on the international space station ... twice, one on Dec 25 and one on Jan 7 for the Orthodox Christmas.

And those are just a few example among many of such occurrences happened on earth orbit. If you go look for more detail, you may be surprise the length some astronauts go to keep a connection and practice their faith even in space. So, as the flat earth stereotype argument is often brought up as the beating stick ... I would ask who among us would be more qualified to use that stereotype to refute religion than astronauts/cosmonauts? Yet ... doesn't seem to be a problem for these folks. Hum, maybe they are not just scientific enough? Question, do you think you are 'more' scientific than these astronauts? :wink:

I think there was a lawsuit against the astronauts back then- predictably enough from some atheism organizations on the ground of inappropriate use of government facility (the space crafts) and violation of first amendment. Well, I somehow doubt that was the 'real' reason for the lawsuit. This goes back to the debate near the beginning of the thread about what is atheism, and some brought up the idea of "real atheism" and "fake atheism". Well, I won't claim to know the real answer to that, but I would so far based on the opinion expressed, Ketraa would fit the bill of my version of a real atheist (assuming he is an atheist, don't think it was ever expressed explicitly).

Again, I believe the key to 'harmony' is an open mind, that's why flexibility and adaptability is good, together with keeping a respectful distance between the two sphere of influence. I believe 'purity' is bad.

Atheists are not superiority built. The evidence and reasoning they hold is held by everyone else. The experiences and upbringing however differ wildly. But I get it.
I never said they are, I just said may be they are or at least I hope they were. Btw, "experiences and upbringing" are something I always find both meaningful and useless at the same time. It's great as a retrospective study: you see where a person ends up, trace back their life and satisfy yourself that "oh it makes sense this person turned out like this given what he/she went through". The problem is, if the person had the same life experience but with a completely different end point, than that same retrospective study would still make sense in most cases. Mathematically, it means that they make poor predictors, as you can not say "if a person go through this and this and that, their life would turn out like this" with any kind of certainty.

Human are creature who are capable of thinking and acting both rationally and irrationally (and that's not saying rational is always good or irrational is always bad). Science or math, being a tool that only capable of explain rational thought will never be sufficiently explain our relationship with the universe by itself. That's why we need another tool, or tools to cover the irrational aspects. The pitfall of (some) religion was that it tried to assert itself as the one ultimate tool for everything, and there is no saying that science would not fall into the same pitfall if it tries to make the same assertion. :sceptic:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 09:24

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 01:28
And, the question is this: for the good of myself as a person, and also for the good of the community around me, should I stop believe in Buddhism and its teaching, even if you have reason to believe it is false or unprovable?

If you can answer that question objectively, than I think you may understand why someone like me believe that religion is an important part of our life. I know one of the most favorite and common saying among Atheist is something like "I'm my own person, I can control and judge my own action without the guidance of some god!" Well, good for you, to those who say that I believe, or at least hope you are a 'good' nature person. But the sad fact of life is not all of us are. Rather, MOST of us are not. That's why I believe not because I think I can prove it, but I 'choose' to believe it because I hate the person I would become without the belief. :)
I'm atheist, I don't follow any belief and I consider some of them not just "moral guides", but more "means of control of the masses". And, as I said before, it's the fault of religious institutions, not of religion itself.

From what you say, you're the "average person", which as a role player I'd describe as "lawful neutral, with an inclination to good".

To answer your question: if you believe in something so deep, invisible and unprovable (and I'm not trying to give any negative accent to that, it's just probably my vocabulary having limits) like a god or a spirit or, to cut it short, you have faith, how can any word I say make you change your mind? Therefore, I don't think one should stop believing in the set of moral principles, civil rules and behaviour his faith gives him. From what I can tell, I might in theory be as buddhist as you (on the "moral principles" thing, not the "faith thing"), who knows?
And I tell you one more thing: I like your approach, the last word I quoted, even if I disagree in principle on the fact of "most of us are not". On the contrary, most of people is good people in nature, no matter their beliefs. Most of people follow the rules and respect others. The fact is the one you can see as "the strongest", or "the dominant" are there because they didn't follow some rules and didn't respect someone: you don't become filthy rich by following rules and being a literal good person, because a literal good person, much before reaching the "filthy rich" level realizes he doesn't need to be "filthy rich", because "rich" is more than enough and the "filthy" part can be used better to help unlucky people.

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by pjknibbs » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 12:43

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 09:24
And I tell you one more thing: I like your approach, the last word I quoted, even if I disagree in principle on the fact of "most of us are not". On the contrary, most of people is good people in nature, no matter their beliefs.
There are definitely people out there who believe otherwise. There was a member of a writing group I was part of, many years ago, who professed to be an atheist, yet also was convinced that the only reason people followed society's rules was because they secretly believed they'd go to Hell otherwise. His story ideas all revolved around the idea that some event had happened which finally, totally disproved the existence of God, and society had collapsed as a result. Needless to say, nobody really agreed with his viewpoint, and also pointed out how contradictory his own position was as an atheist who (as far as we were aware) didn't go around robbing and murdering people for the lulz, and his only counter-argument was that he must really, subconsciously, believe, even though he didn't have any conscious faith.

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 13:26

pjknibbs wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 12:43
There are definitely people out there who believe otherwise. There was a member of a writing group I was part of, many years ago, who professed to be an atheist, yet also was convinced that the only reason people followed society's rules was because they secretly believed they'd go to Hell otherwise. His story ideas all revolved around the idea that some event had happened which finally, totally disproved the existence of God, and society had collapsed as a result. Needless to say, nobody really agreed with his viewpoint, and also pointed out how contradictory his own position was as an atheist who (as far as we were aware) didn't go around robbing and murdering people for the lulz, and his only counter-argument was that he must really, subconsciously, believe, even though he didn't have any conscious faith.
Indeed they are, but I won't say they're the majority of people.

God was a good reason to follow rules in the past. Religion has been used this way to mantain order and avoid people robbing and murdering other people for the lulz.

From a theoretical point of view, in my opinion, disproving (or proving) the existence of God may in fact collapse society as we know it. It's a possibility. The same way, if an alien race would contact us and show themselves, even if benevolent, may collapse society. That's very human: if you break their deepest belief apart, they're going to lose their mind. It makes sense, in some way.
Imagine a man suddently discovering his wife cheats on him: he was sure about her love, yet the thing he was deeply, completely sure about was a lie. He's going to lose his mind.
If something like that happens not to a single man, but to humanity, the consequence would be the same.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 07:12
fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 05:09
I think there are multiple ways I can answer it. Because I see more than one question.
Nah it's just one question, I think you're just trying to inject your own statement into what I'm not asking. :P

Not that I mind. :)
But do you think I answered your question?
Can one do it fully, following the same teachings, realizing that supernatural concepts don't exist? I see why not. With one downside, one would inadvertently become an atheist.
Not necessary. Again I said this many times, unless you go full stereotype, it's not like it's rare for you to find a religious scientists, or those you found are fake scientist. Here is an example: even astronaut can be religious.

- The three Astronauts on Apollo 8 read the book of Genesis as their craft orbit the moon.
- Buzz Aldrin performed a self-communion service on board Apolo 11.
- David Scott left a Bible on the Lunar rover on Apollo 15.
- In 2010-2011, Russian Cosmonauts celebrated Christmas on the international space station ... twice, one on Dec 25 and one on Jan 7 for the Orthodox Christmas.
Yes there are good examples of people who believe both. It's a bit unclear to me how much in supernatural they believe, as curiously none can be applied to their profession.

I would have to ask some detailed questions of them
Yet ... doesn't seem to be a problem for these folks. Hum, maybe they are not just scientific enough? Question, do you think you are 'more' scientific than these astronauts? :wink:
Really if one doesn't figure in force of friction against a god on the rocket, then I think the scientific approach is on the right level)

I am only trying to be as scientific as some people. There's still some work for my mind to do.
This goes back to the debate near the beginning of the thread about what is atheism, and some brought up the idea of "real atheism" and "fake atheism". Well, I won't claim to know the real answer to that, but I would so far based on the opinion expressed, Ketraa would fit the bill of my version of a real atheist (assuming he is an atheist, don't think it was ever expressed explicitly).
I could have brought it up once before, but that in relation to question of what's really agnosticism vs atheism.

Why Ketraar?
Again, I believe the key to 'harmony' is an open mind, that's why flexibility and adaptability is good, together with keeping a respectful distance between the two sphere of influence. I believe 'purity' is bad.
Agreed, but math is deterministic and exact.


Btw, "experiences and upbringing" are something I always find both meaningful and useless at the same time.
Of course it's not very scientific. Where and how we grew up determines what we believe in, in part. I was Christian Orthodox because I grew up in Russia. I turned atheist due to growing up in USSR, whose priorities eventually had impact on my parents and me.

This would have been different if I were in US then.
Human are creature who are capable of thinking and acting both rationally and irrationally (and that's not saying rational is always good or irrational is always bad). Science or math, being a tool that only capable of explain rational thought will never be sufficiently explain our relationship with the universe by itself. That's why we need another tool, or tools to cover the irrational aspects. The pitfall of (some) religion was that it tried to assert itself as the one ultimate tool for everything, and there is no saying that science would not fall into the same pitfall if it tries to make the same assertion. :sceptic:
I remember some articles on why humans have both irrational and rational thoughts.
One idea is the speed - irrational thoughts are faster, and they can be hardwired through generations, on an instinct. In that context rational way to think is harder to train.

Math indeed will never and should never try to explain our "relationship" with the universe.
Going back to my earlier posts, I never included that in "everything".
pjknibbs wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 12:43
BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 09:24
And I tell you one more thing: I like your approach, the last word I quoted, even if I disagree in principle on the fact of "most of us are not". On the contrary, most of people is good people in nature, no matter their beliefs.
There are definitely people out there who believe otherwise. There was a member of a writing group I was part of, many years ago, who professed to be an atheist, yet also was convinced that the only reason people followed society's rules was because they secretly believed they'd go to Hell otherwise. His story ideas all revolved around the idea that some event had happened which finally, totally disproved the existence of God, and society had collapsed as a result. Needless to say, nobody really agreed with his viewpoint, and also pointed out how contradictory his own position was as an atheist who (as far as we were aware) didn't go around robbing and murdering people for the lulz, and his only counter-argument was that he must really, subconsciously, believe, even though he didn't have any conscious faith.
This reminds me of this popular idea - that there are no atheists in trenches.

Or that if you press hard enough, everyone believes in god, just doesn't know it, as not believing is impossible.

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 13:26
From a theoretical point of view, in my opinion, disproving (or proving) the existence of God may in fact collapse society as we know it. It's a possibility.
Maybe, maybe to a deeply religious society.

But I can think of already two examples. USSR was making largely atheist society, and people were fine. One could argue maybe it didn't succeed in that, since the religion has returned since.

So then we have Iceland. Country with something like 90% of atheists. Their change was probably gradual, but nothing has collapsed
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:47

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09
BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 13:26
From a theoretical point of view, in my opinion, disproving (or proving) the existence of God may in fact collapse society as we know it. It's a possibility.
Maybe, maybe to a deeply religious society.

But I can think of already two examples. USSR was making largely atheist society, and people were fine. One could argue maybe it didn't succeed in that, since the religion has returned since.

So then we have Iceland. Country with something like 90% of atheists. Their change was probably gradual, but nothing has collapsed
The key word is "gradual".
If change is gradual, like in Iceland or, in a less gradual way, the USSR (which is huge and underpopulated and was technically a dictatorship, so I don't know how "fine" people disliking atheism were), there is no "shock", which was in fact the cause of collapsing society in my hypotesis.
Society doesn't need to be so deeply religious or atheist to be shocked by a revelation of that kind.
What I mean is there are basically 4 situations:
1) Religious society, which discovers there is no god: that brings to panic.
2) Religious society, which discovers there is god: political establishment is going to be deprived of authority in a relevant way, because human laws are going to have less meaning. But that depends on how religious based laws are close to what actually god wanted in the first place.
3) Atheist society, which discovers there is no god: probably nothing changes.
4) Atheist society, which discovers there is god: this of course is impossible, if you know what I mean. :wink: But there's likely going to be some panic and riots. In some cases a war against god will be attempted.
5) I lied, there is a 5th scenario, involving all middle grounds: this will show some grade of mass panic. Perhaps some civil war, especially in case there is god.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 17:58

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09
But I can think of already two examples. USSR was making largely atheist society, and people were fine. One could argue maybe it didn't succeed in that, since the religion has returned since.

I don't claim to know the truth behind USSR, but what you described is pretty much the same routine in Vietnam once Communist toke over. And it was just a fart.

Yes, there were a real crack down on religions on the ground of them being superstition nonsense unproductive to the society ...etc... Religious leaders were jail and made disappeared, large gathering were prohibited and thing like that. Enough that there was a period Communist and Faithless were a synonym. But that's only on the surface. As mentioned before, my mother clan have some dabbling in spiritual works and I can tell you for a fact while the Communist leaders put on a atheism face, the kind of ceremony, ritual they request to be perform behind the door on their own behalf, these guys were HARDCORE believers. The irony sometime put us on the spot to back there too. Like, given what was happening on the surface, my clan was supposed to be in a pinch, but when someone come through the door the were taken back seeing some big shots (both from civil government and military) sitting at the table sipping tea with the elder, engage in conversation with a very respected tone ... people were like "are you guys snitch?" :doh:

Ultimately, the 'purge' of religions has nothing to do with belief, it's just one of the many routines done to consolidate power and simply political. Communism by itself is a dictatorship, and as such it always look out and afraid of what can challenge its rule. Once all creditable political and military opposition were suppress, the next biggest threat is religions, so they became the target. And they are right in that regard though. Do you know the Pope in the pasts had offered to visit Vietnam, but the government denied access because they didn't want Vietnam to become the next Poland?

I also challenge your notion that Russia managed to become atheism under the USSR. We know from history religion is perhaps one of the most endured element of human society, even when it's subjected to much bigger pressure than whatever the USSR did for thousands of year. Do you honestly think just a few decades of USSR rule was enough to make such a major change? You say religion came back. No, it just resurfaces after long period of going underground once the oppression ease up, it doesn't come back because it never went away. ;)
Last edited by Mightysword on Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:23, edited 1 time in total.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09
I could have brought it up once before, but that in relation to question of what's really agnosticism vs atheism.

Why Ketraar?
It's because of his "I don't care attitude". If I remember correctly that's how some people differentiate between agnosticism and atheism. Atheist don't believe, but neither they care what other believes as long as it doesn't encroach on their comfort zone. Agnostics while also don't believe, but are also conscious about what OTHER believes, and often eager to prove that those are wrong while their own belief is right.

If I can be a a bit presumptuous, someone like him would probably make a good Buddhist. :wink:
This reminds me of this popular idea - that there are no atheists in trenches.

Or that if you press hard enough, everyone believes in god, just doesn't know it, as not believing is impossible.
I interprete that saying differently. Because if you push hard enough, then atheism itself can become a belief like any others. I think that's the line that Atheist need to watch out for. Without moderation to keep it in check, giving enough zeal atheism may become a religion all but in name. And as I demonstrate, not all religion needs a god (and FYI, Buddhism is not the only one without a god).

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09
Yes there are good examples of people who believe both. It's a bit unclear to me how much in supernatural they believe, as curiously none can be applied to their profession.
And I tell you, it's not that big of a deal. It's similar to the question Kestraa asked ealier how can religions hold merit when it's so flexible. Ironically, I think the two groups that concern themselves and antagonize over that kind of question are the super devout/fanatic and some atheist. To us general practitioners, it's not hard to reconcile even in the face of contradiction. I have a feeling that you - as an atheist - are imagining it to be a much bigger deal that it actually is for us :gruebel:

I don't know what the astronaut think, but I would ask why would you think there gotta be a relationship about applying their faith to their profession? My guess would be ... may be they don't even think about it at all? You know, keep things separate and all that. :P

I'm actually a dual faith, in fact most Asian Buddhists are. Buddhism's adaptability is still a bit different from that of other religions, it's not much that it changes itself to appease the local, it just doesn't care if you hold several faiths at the same time. In Vietnam, that means most Buddhist also have a 2nd, our traditional folks religion. Just like if you look at Japan, most Buddhist there are also a followers of Shinto. And the things is, Buddhist and these local religions have a lot of contradictions in their belief system. And I don't mean just on small, irrelevant stuffs. Like for example, Vietnam Folk's religion belief on the afterlife is pretty much on a direct collision course of the Buddhist belief of the circle of life. And guess what ... I practice both belief, daily, no problem at all. :D


In another word, you don't have to think too hard about it. The astronaut example wasn't meant as a vindication for religion in the sense "hey even if these people can believe, that means it must be real!". The point is, out of the 7.8b people on this planet, few would stand above or can claim to be as close to science as cosmonauts. They are not simply pilots who take a craft into space, but remember they are also scientists who perform experiments in vacuum that no other scientists can do on Earth. Plus, they are the few who actually see the "Earth is round" - which some of them had described as a religious experience. (Reminder, while most of us know the Earth is round, it's still via theoretical proof and secondary images, we don't have the privilege of physically see the proof directly with our eyes). Yet, these people can still have faith. It's just to refute the notion you implied with your previous post. I can be scientific and religious at the same time, being atheist is not a pre-requiste to believe in science, neither becoming an atheist is a natural outcome/progression of being scientific.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 22:11

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:47
In some cases a war against god will be attempted.
I like that :D

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 17:58
I also challenge your notion that Russia managed to become atheism under the USSR. We know from history religion is perhaps one of the most endured element of human society, even when it's subjected to much bigger pressure than whatever the USSR did for thousands of year. Do you honestly think just a few decades of USSR rule was enough to make such a major change? You say religion came back. No, it just resurfaces after long period of going underground once the oppression ease up, it doesn't come back because it never went away. ;)
Interesting, I wasnt sure if other countries that attempted "communism" went the same route with atheism.

In Russia it's a bit of both. Yes, it's valid to say the religion never went away and just resurfaced. In the daily life of a USSR citizen, the religion was gone almost entirely. For those that were born during USSR however, this became more than just on the surface, that was a reality. So if their parents didn't intervene in this, at least two generations under USSR had large % of atheists. Such is the case with my family, where grandparents while religious, didnt really make sure their children were. Still hard to count how many really.

Now I've no idea how to count either, there's an idea that the current resurgence of religious is also on the surface and for show.

And I dont really want to keep on guessing as it's not good info.

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09
I could have brought it up once before, but that in relation to question of what's really agnosticism vs atheism.

Why Ketraar?
It's because of his "I don't care attitude". If I remember correctly that's how some people differentiate between agnosticism and atheism. Atheist don't believe, but neither they care what other believes as long as it doesn't encroach on their comfort zone. Agnostics while also don't believe, but are also conscious about what OTHER believes, and often eager to prove that those are wrong while their own belief is right.

If I can be a a bit presumptuous, someone like him would probably make a good Buddhist. :wink:
While maybe a friendlier attitude, but "I dont care" is not really relevant to atheism or agnosticism. It's a personal choice / philosophy / approach, and it's not part of either.


Did you make a typo / swap meanings between Atheist and Agnostics ?
If not, I can give a (my) simplified definition / correction.

Agnostics leave the possibility that god / supernatural being discovered to exist. An even stronger position of an Agnostic is that - the answer to the question of whether a god exists can never be known.

Atheist supposed to reject all supernatural explanations, forever. That in itself doesn't mean a God cant be discovered ever, it just means he/she/it will not be supernatural. Atheists generally reject the idea that whether or not a god exists is impossible to know. Maybe unlikely, but not impossible. I'd personally also add - that this all depends on what god we are talking about. Some people choose to separate each statement above into a different flavor of Atheism, I find it needlessly complex and not necessary.


Since we are making distinction between "care" and "not care", maybe I am not necessarily clear on what I mean with these discussions. Can talk more on this later.



Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
I interprete that saying differently. Because if you push hard enough, then atheism itself can become a belief like any others.
Well the point is that when people are afraid or under stress, they'll pray to a god, including atheists.
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
I think that's the line that Atheist need to watch out for. Without moderation to keep it in check, giving enough zeal atheism may become a religion all but in name. And as I demonstrate, not all religion needs a god (and FYI, Buddhism is not the only one without a god).
I think the trick with atheism is to understand why one is atheist, if one is truly one, and not mimic what others are doing without understanding. I can see how mimicking can lead to a pseudo religion.
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
To us general practitioners, it's not hard to reconcile even in the face of contradiction. I have a feeling that you - as an atheist - are imagining it to be a much bigger deal that it actually is for us :gruebel:
As an atheist I take every scientist to be one for the purpose of their work.
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
I practice both belief, daily, no problem at all. :D
Seems complicated :)
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
I can be scientific and religious at the same time, being atheist is not a pre-requiste to believe in science, neither becoming an atheist is a natural outcome/progression of being scientific.
I agree with that. The mind has the ability to go with both ideas, even if they contradict.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 23:33

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 22:11
Did you make a typo / swap meanings between Atheist and Agnostics ?
Nope, I don't know about accuracy, seeing it was still a matter of debate, I did say it fits 'my' image of atheism, but regardless I meant what I typed.
As an atheist I take every scientist to be one for the purpose of their work.
Kinda like how people tend to think special force soldiers are all macho-no-nonsense-stoic figures? :P
While there are some truth to your perception, holding a singular image for 'every' members of a group is hardly a good thing, no matter how typical you think the image is.
Seems complicated :)
Not at all, at least more simple than a physic equation for sure. :D

And you'll be surprise how an open mind help simplify things. You are only burden with finding the solution if you make it a problem in the first place.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”