Topic: Thoughts on religion for a Sunday morning - page 2. (Read 3179 times)

People's needs that give them feelings of well being or allow them to reach places where they can nurture feelings of well being are described by Maslow.  I must have missed the part about religion being necessary for the best self-actualization results.  Religion can certainly fit the bill for some people to move from one rung of the hierarchy of needs to another, but it is not required.  Religion may boost love, belonging, self esteem in people and help them fulfil self actualization, but so too can many things.

You don't think atheists have hope?  I'm not a true atheist, but as a pretty hardcore agnostic, I can tell you I have every bit as much hope as a person can have.  Hope to live a good long life.  Hope to do well.  Hope to take care of my family.  Hope for my genetic line and their prosperity and eternity.  Hope for mankind.    What kind of hope do you think I am missing?   Hope to see my parents in heaven?  I didn't think that that was hope....I thought that was faith.   Christians "know" it on faith.    You don't hope it's going to work....right???

Please expand on the hope you have that I don't have, and when complete, explain how it makes my life bleak.

I'm sorry, its nothing more than human arrogance and nearsighted worldview.  Something very common in every religion since the beginning of time.

"You simply cannot be as (whole, happy, hopeful, insert your favorite adjective here) since you do not share my particular spirituality or religion".

 I could say the same about my atheism. I didn't wake up one morning and discover I was an atheist. It came from years of study, contemplation, debate, doubt and uncertainty and a fierce desire to know the truth. At 18, I gave up any belief in any religion { I was raised a Catholic and educated mostly by Jesuits} sometime later I gave up any belief in God. It hurt. However I felt it was the pain that comes from years of wearing chains and I was ecstatic that I had removed them and cast them aside. I felt free and still do. I am a recovering theist and a very happy one. I write about God and Religion because I am interested in the subject. I also know that unless I raise some anger or annoyance in the OP people will not get involved in the discussion.  I mean no harm. I have been around the cyberspace block a few times and am well tanned by the experience.

My point is that every life experience we have, no matter how deeply spiritual or emotional we feel they may be, have been experienced by others of different faiths and no faiths long before us.  It is arrogant and naïve to think that only those spiritually afflicted in one way can truly feel emotions deeply.

Right but it was expressed with the sort of condescension I am often accused of showing theists. They certainly are free to complain about it and so am I. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is a leap into the abyss of superstition. Its like saying "you will never enjoy the sense of flying until you jump off a cliff"

There's only the bible, after 20 years you should know globally what's inside - even if you did not read it - or you have been sleeping in church for the last 20 years. The existence of a higher power is very discussable, as we will see in this thread 

Sana,just because your parents took you to church when you were young doesn't mean you automatically know anything about Christianity.  Your comments concerning Christianity only indicate that were exposed to a dysfunctional person that claimed to be Christian. That person could be yourself or someone else. Only you would know, or would you?
Then, it seems as if you experienced a difficulty in life, blamed it on this "God" of your making and then decided you hated "God" or believe there is no higher power in this universe because you didn't like what your life was. Gotta blame somebody right?

Quite beautifully put- mostly I feel the same way though hedge just a little on the 'continuing forever' part, for which  everyone else could rightfully take me to intellectual task, so we will not elaborate.  Read recently "Death Takes No Holiday" an excellent essay and meditation by Joseph Epstein (whose writing I love), who expressed also beautifully same sentiments, and was looking for a place to c&p closing his paragraphs.  This is it!
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/death-takes-no-holiday/

My atheism is as simple and direct as the childhood religiosity that I finally, and completely, abandoned in early adulthood. I can't remember an anti-road to-Damascus moment, but I do know it happened way back then because I was trying to romance an extremely comely and intelligent (and Jesus-committed) C.S. Lewis fan. (If you've never read that guy, do yourself a favor and do so; for an easy entrance, I recommend Surprised by Joy). The eventual romance was short but sweet, and its conclusion had nothing to do with theodetic issues (nevermind evil -- she wasn't a fan of baseball, or the blues, or stupid comedy . . . I mean, c'mon). But that's when it happened.

Anyway, because I have never once observed even a scintilla of evidence for the existence of anything but that which physically exists, I am, as I have already said, a pretty simple atheist. I also have no problem with becoming worm poop, the prospect of which has never once made me feel hopeless. I remember that back when I felt persuaded to consider the possibility of the existence of a higher power, whether it was the Holy Trinity of my childhood or the Guiding Oneness -- whatever that means -- of my agnostic stage, I didn't feel any day-to-day difference from how I feel now. I was still quite displeased, for example, about the party continuing without me. I still am -- I mean, who wants to miss a good party? Envious? Yup. Angry? A little (less so as I age, because, well -- life). But no more "hopeless" now than then.

I do hope, though, that when the moment of my extinction (my disappearance) comes, it will be in circumstances that allow me to shout: "I was alive! What a lucky, fantastic coincidence it has been!" Like everyone else, I will have no control over those circumstances, but . . . a guy's gotta hope for  somethin', right? Me, continuing forever? A nice idea (at least from my vantage point), but hardly a necessary one. I'll disappear one day, or one night, but I'm a big boy and I can take it.

A new study of almost a century’s worth of data shows that the smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe in God.
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/08/16/are-atheists-smarter-than-believers-not-exactly/

This study says just what I was saying.  Smarter people are more likely to find more basic needs  met by things outside of religion, but met nonetheless.  While religion can serve that purpose.  It is not necessary.  People on both sides can be just as fulfilled.

It should also be noted that this does not mean religious people are dumb.  Some are WAY dumb for sure, but some are very smart as well.  The human mind is amazing.

Oddly enough the things they found where religion provides benefit include self-esteem and being in control.....as evidenced herein by those who believe their religion makes them more fulfilled than others.

People's needs that give them feelings of well being or allow them to reach places where they can nurture feelings.  I must have missed the part about religion being necessary for the best self-actualization results.  Religion can certainly fit the bill for some people to move from one rung of the hierarchy of needs to another, but it is not required.  Religion may boost love, belonging, self esteem in people and help them fulfill self actualization, but so too can many things.

Of course you are - but our subjective impressions of the tone of her message obviously differ then.  I see the religionist’s imaginative picture of the quality of the non-believer’s existence not as necessarily arrogant or condescending (though it can be), often more on order of empathetic wish for atheist's to be enriched similarly.  This mindset needn’t imply the religionist looks to elevate themselves, demean others.  


And while the atheist might reject the possibility their lives would not be changed positively were they to ‘get religion’, there’s no way  they can  know that to a certainty.  Obviously through the contrast, they might see their former perspective as limited, and even bleak - countless testimonies exist to this effect.
More like leaping over slough of despond, which comprised your only view, onto a promontory from which can be seen heretofore unimagined vistas, colors, landforms, a perspective inconceiveable and unavailable until action taken. Or switching lenses to 3-D. This transformation would not have been possible had you stayed where you were.
Anyway, that sounds very like the extravagant, enthusiastic accounts of some religionists. ;-) Far be it from me to dispute the ecstasy that followed when you shed those painful chains. More to point, I wasn't making claim about process through which you renounced religion and god, or saying it was facile. I was observing you were young - and you can’t possibly know what a more fully informed faith might be like now, your world view having almost certainly considerably changed in subsequent years.

I must have missed the part about religion being necessary for the best self-actualization results.  Religion can certainly fit the bill for some people to move from one rung of the hierarchy of needs to another, but it is not required.  Religion may boost love, belonging, self esteem in people and help them fulfill self actualization, but so too can many things.

Right but it was expressed with the sort of condescension I am often accused of showing theists. They certainly are free to complain about it and so am I. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is a leap into the abyss of superstition. Its like saying "you will never enjoy the sense of flying until you jump off a cliff".

I cant believe people are agreeing with this frankly.  You don't think atheists have hope?  I'm not a true atheist, but as a pretty hardcore agnostic, I can tell you I have every bit as much hope as a person can have.  Hope to live a good long life.  Hope to do well.  Hope to take care of my family.  Hope for my genetic line and their prosperity and eternity.  Hope for mankind.    What kind of hope do you think I am missing?   Hope to see my parents in heaven?  I didn't think that that was hope....I thought that was faith.   Christians "know" it on faith.    You don't hope it's going to work....right???

Please expand on the hope you have that I don't have, and when complete, explain how it makes my life bleak.

I'm sorry, its nothing more than human arrogance and nearsighted worldview.  Something very common in every religion since the beginning of time.

I would agree completely with you that it rejecting one's childhood faith in favor of atheism isn't the same as "experiencing" both...real faith requires a certain maturity of mind that children don't have. I think it's because they've only processed the words of say the Bible AS stories that, when they become adults, they reject them and turn to atheism--they've never really given themselves the opportunity to examine faith with all the tools of their intellect because they've rejected it before all those tools were at their disposition. You CAN'T, honestly, make a decision about faith at 10 or 15 years old, I would even doubt that 20 were a decent age to make that decision. Sadly, too many people, having made the decision when they were young, now are set in their ways and refuse to reexamine it to see if they jumped to conclusions too quickly.

This is becoming an interesting conversation with many differing and intelligent views being expressed.  It what I always hope for when I put up an opening post. Instead I usually get a troll screaming "FOOL" or yelling "BAIT THREAD" without them even thinking about the OP and the issues it might raise. Worse they may take the OP, change a few words and repost it under their own nic. The goal is too ridicule rather than any attempt at satire or parody. They simply do not have the intelligence or imagination to put up their own rebuttal. And they get away with it.

I agree that it is called reason, but there is reason that makes sense and flawed or weak reasoning.  "Reasoning" your way to a belief in magic and other fairy tales doesn't make it valid reasoning.  If what you don't understand is therefore "reasoned" to be the work of a god, this is called the God-of-the-gaps argument, and it fails the test of actual reason.   If humans cant explain it, God built it.  That isn't reason.  However, I agree with you that a force of creation cannot be wholly discounted....this doesn't make it the most logical reason.

And you are wrong about a number of things in your line of "reasoning"....we don't know if matter popped into existence or was just going through a big crunch.  And, once in existence....all things don't happen randomly.  Matter interacts in unique ways due to gravity and its own unique physical and chemical properties.  Gravity is really god.   Its the unifying force and we have no good theories about how it works.  If I put 50 metronomes on a board with wheels and start them all off at different times, I can calculate the time until they will all synchronize.  One might look at that and ask how I did that....seemingly magic.  No, its how matter interacts.  The board starts moving slightly on its wheels with the majority of metronomes throwing their centrifugal force together, they all eventually get forced to fall into line.  There are a billion examples of how matter can create complexity and order in nonrandom ways.  This is not to say a bearded man didn't create matter just to watch it expand and crunch for all eternity....you just cant really "reason" your way there with any earthly logic.

Bleak existence?  It would be very easy for me to describe the beak existence under the yoke of superstition of religion, but I will refrain because I believe even those who are indoctrinated to fables and folk lure can also experience love and uplifting emotions of hope and joy just like anyone else can regardless of their religious convictions.  Other's existence may not be any more or less than anyone else's when it comes to fulfillment or bleakness regardless of what we believe.  You are filled with the holy spirit and it uplifts you in ways that make you rejoice.  I am not filled with the hocus pocus and I am uplifted me in ways that make me rejoice just as deeply as you do.  The things that blow me away every day and uplift me in spiritual ways are just different than the things that do this for you.  But all humans feel deeply about the things they feel deeply about.  You hold no dibs on feelings just because you believe in a guy named Jesus that makes your loins twitch.  ...and please spare me the "oh its so much more than that".   Its not.

It is the height of arrogance to assume people who don't share your beliefs must have a bleak existence.  You guys need to read the teachings of the Buddha. Thoughts expressed by you like  "You don't know what you are missing"   "its like the difference with talking about being in love and actually being in love" is nothing more than the words of an arrogant and ignorant person about the human condition that thinks they feel something special that others who are not like them have never felt.   Its horseshit.  100%  complete and total horseshit.  Our existence is undefinable, transcendent and miraculous with or without god in equal amounts.  The fact the religious don't see that is something they are missing, not the non-religious.

I didn't get disgust at all from zolace's thoughts towards non-believers, rather more the proposition they perhaps can't know what they're missing.  It's not a new thought - Kierkegaard, the Danish theologian/philosopher proposed that it was only through a 'leap of faith' that the religious perspective could be apprehended and known.  That is, without faith, humans are more or less stranded in their own limited universe, their every experience processed from that viewpoint.

On your spiritual evolution account - I'm wondering if the experience of a default faith (the childhood variety) meaningfully compares to that of adult who has reached (or sustained, enriched) theirs through contemplation, testing and trial from a more informed viewpoint.

Well Zolace....you are really fixating on a lot of presumptions and this "love" analogy is getting really tedious. May I remind you that I am the one who has known both worlds and you are the one who has known only one. I was a Christian and am now an atheist. You.... I presume..... have never been an atheist so how can you make such sweeping wrong statements about atheism and atheists motives? How can you know that which is harder to be [ Christian or atheist] when you have never been an atheist? Atheism is the fastest growing bracket concerning peoples religious beliefs or lack of them in America { so says the last census}. I have no interest in debating if philosophers are smarter than scientists or in claiming atheists are necessarily smarter than theists. That's of no importance to me. I really think your disgust toward atheism, non believers in general or just me perhaps has clouded your judgement. You claim no one can understand love if they have never been in love and yet you claim with your statements that you seem to know what atheism is all about. Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.