Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 31 of 276 (538101)
12-03-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Straggler
12-03-2009 2:51 PM


No soup for you!
No help for you!
Mostly because I don't know how to help... or else my attempts would not have failed miserably

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 12-03-2009 2:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 1:55 PM Stile has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 32 of 276 (538208)
12-04-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Stile
12-03-2009 3:43 PM


Re: No soup for you!
Stile in the OP writes:
Basically, I would like this to be a thread where people can voice whatever it is they think is the weirdest or hardest part to being an atheist.
Straggler writes:
Debating with deists.
My flippant answer aside.....
Stile writes:
I continue to seriously pursue the reasons behind religious motivations and thoughts every day. In fact, that's one of the reasons I've started this topic.
On a more serious note.....
Finding that you have fundamental differences of underlying "world view" or belief with people who in every practical sense you agree with strikes me as very bizzarre.
In any way that matters in practise people can agree with the way the world works. But scratch a little deeper and you find that those common conclusions are derived from deeply opposing points of view. Points of view that are academic in soooo many senses of the word but which are fundamental in so many others. Questions about the nature of evidence, the role and meaning of "faith" etc. etc.
I find it fascinating that those so similar can be so fundamentally different. I guess it is just all part of life's rich tapestry......
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Stile, posted 12-03-2009 3:43 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 12-04-2009 3:03 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 33 of 276 (538217)
12-04-2009 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Straggler
12-04-2009 1:55 PM


The same but different
Straggler writes:
In any way that matters in practise people can agree with the way the world works. But scratch a little deeper and you find that those common conclusions are derived from deeply opposing points of view.
Agreed. This is what I attempted to touch on when I posted about "Plane 1" being our thoughts and "Plane 2" being our actions.
I see why sometimes the two should be seperated (tentativity, for example, where we think we could be wrong, but we don't act as if we're wrong until shown otherwise). But I like to align my thoughts with how I need to act... for efficiency purposes if nothing else
And making a division like this doesn't really help matters too much. Where does Plane 1 stop and Plane 2 begin?
Is thinking about a deity crossing into Plane 2?
Is talking about a deity crossing into Plane 2?
Obviously worshipping a deity crosses into Plane 2...
Is hoping for a deity crossing into Plane 2?
What about only hoping when we're scared?
The lines are so fuzzy and difficult to micro-manage that it's no wonder "different strokes for different folks" gets such validity.
Or, perhaps, maybe it just seems like we act the same because we haven't yet identified the situation in which we would act differently...
I find it fascinating that those so similar can be so fundamentally different. I guess it is just all part of life's rich tapestry......
Agreed.
And I'm puzzled by those who don't find such things interesting. But, again, different strokes...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 1:55 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 276 (538281)
12-05-2009 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
12-08-2008 10:37 AM


There's the problem of trying to keep one's temper when confronted with banal and stupid arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 12-08-2008 10:37 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Stile, posted 12-05-2009 11:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 35 of 276 (538302)
12-05-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
12-05-2009 6:05 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
There's the problem of trying to keep one's temper when confronted with banal and stupid arguments.
There's also the problem of forgetting to change your Hallowe'en Avatar back to normal... or is this the new, improved v2.0?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2009 6:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 36 of 276 (538318)
12-05-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by CosmicChimp
12-10-2008 11:45 AM


Re: What is unique about religion? Everything
From the OP:
Stile writes:
I would like this to be a thread where people can voice whatever it is they think is the weirdest or hardest part to being an atheist.
From CosmicChimp:
CosmicChimp writes:
... in the church setting you have the participation of the group of church members whereas in the nature scene it is to me more of a personal experience. That feeling of group participation is by no means any small effect and not to be underestimated.
That is an understatement. What sets the atheist or agnostic PoV apart (making it "harder" or maybe even "weird" in some sense), is the fact that it cannot appeal to "resonant group experiences," such as chanting or singing in unison, for any sort of substantive support of its position (public demonstrations by atheist mobs parading in the streets notwithstanding -- and how many of those have ever happened?).
With the possible exception of certain forms of Buddhism (not all forms, mind you), the sharing of rhythmic activity (chanting, singing, dancing, clapping, stomping, various other ritualized behaviors) has been a mainstay of all religious practice, and when it "succeeds" (from the religious PoV), the individual has a sense of experiencing something exceptional that cannot be experienced otherwise. I suspect that for many people who profess having first-hand "religious" (revelatory) experiences, this sort of activity is the foundation for those experiences.
Atheists and agnostics generally don't do this. While this does not mean we are denied such sensations entirely (we do still experience awe and wonder and stirring, inspirational emotion), our experiences of this sort tend to be more isolated, and perhaps even less frequent, relative to those who actively pursue this sort of thing through various group rituals.
This places atheists/agnostics at a kind of disadvantage, in terms of professing the profundity of our own experience. The "religious experience" as invoked by group (or mob) behavior has a reality to it that many can witness directly. An individual's inspiration, occurring in isolation, is harder to substantiate.
Another related "difficulty" for the atheist is that dreams and hallucinations cannot count as any sort of evidence with respect to their content. If I had a dream this morning about someone offering me a job, this does not count in any real sense toward my prospects of actually getting a job. The fact that dreams and hallucinations happen is instructive and interesting and deserves whatever research we can do to understand these things better, but we can't put any stock in their content, as is routinely done among religious believers.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : small grammar repair

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by CosmicChimp, posted 12-10-2008 11:45 AM CosmicChimp has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2009 9:12 PM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 276 (538341)
12-05-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Otto Tellick
12-05-2009 3:04 PM


Re: What is unique about religion? Everything
Hi Otto,
With the possible exception of certain forms of Buddhism (not all forms, mind you), the sharing of rhythmic activity (chanting, singing, dancing, clapping, stomping, various other ritualized behaviors) ...
Think rock concerts, folk concerts, etc, where people are actively participating, dancing, singing, etc. ... and have an enjoyable experience. I think this was a large part of the youth movement in the '60's and contributed to a sense of unity of youth rebellion against the status quo\tradition.
This places atheists/agnostics at a kind of disadvantage, in terms of professing the profundity of our own experience. The "religious experience" as invoked by group (or mob) behavior has a reality to it that many can witness directly.
Yes mob behavior is well known for coercing people into behavior they would not otherwise engage in: vigilante justice, for example.
This is one of the reasons I personally dislike organized religion/s.
But there is a second kind of religious experience, one that is common to all religions I know of, and that is the ascetic experience, one that is personal, and often done as part of a "Coming of Age" testing (see Native Americans, etc).
And a third type of religious experience is found in meditation\prayer, whether in a group setting or in private, which is an internal process. This has been compared between Buddhist Monk meditation and Catholic Nun prayer, and found to involve the same area of the brain, indicating they are comparable experiences.
This same kind of meditation can be done without specific religious intent, as a way of focusing your mind and body function for improved health. There used to be a machine one could get to help one control heart-beats and other normally autonomous body functions and pain responses (as Buddhist Monks also learn to do). See Transcendental Meditation (there's an old joke about a buddhist that went to the dentist to have a tooth extracted and refuse the Novocaine, because he could transcend dental medication ..... ).
See .../Medical_research
And .../Research_on_cognitive_function
The fact that dreams and hallucinations happen is instructive and interesting and deserves whatever research we can do to understand these things better, but we can't put any stock in their content, as is routinely done among religious believers.
I don't think this is limited to religious people, and it seems that all societies have some kind of "dream interpretation" mechanism (including psychiatric). Personally I have found some instances where solutions to problems came to me in dreams, however my personal conclusion is that this involves the subconscious working out the solution and communicating it through the dream.
My personal opinion is that people can become "enlightened" in the way Buddhism teaches, and that a modern example of this was Gandhi. I also don't think this necessarily carries a religious connotation, as I think of Thoreau, Muir and others that seem to transcend their time.
Perhaps one can become an "enlightened" evolutionist.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-05-2009 3:04 PM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
Statman
Junior Member (Idle past 5038 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 12-06-2009


Message 38 of 276 (538354)
12-06-2009 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-03-2009 10:05 AM


Re: Should Atheists Logically be Evil?
Jumped,
I'm new here and have only read a dozen or two posts but yours makes the most sense. I fully agree that cooperation is the basis of morality. Some think this is solely a competitive world and society. They grossly underestimate the enormous value of cooperation.
Some years ago, Robert Axelrod held a simple tournament to play iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. He invited philosophers, and others to each submit a program to play in the tournament. Initially, the nasty strategies were successful at the expense of the patsy strategies. But they were eventually overtaken by one or two 'nice' strategies. The most successful and simplest was called 'Tit for Tat'. He wrote up the results of the tournament and asked the orginal participants to submit programs again to play in the tournament. The author of 'Tit for Tat' resubmitted it and again, it won. Axelrod has since held other tournaments. His findings were published in "The Evolution of Cooperation' It's probable his work is discussed on the internet. Another book in the same vein is "The Origins of Virtue" by biologist Matt Ridley who discusses cooperation in and between species.
Tit for Tat was nice in that it always started by cooperating. But it was no patsy because when paired with another program a subsequent time, it always cooperated or reneged depending on whether the other program had cooperated or reneged on the previous move. So it did retaliate. It was also nice in that it forgave another program if it cooperated on the previous move.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-03-2009 10:05 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 12-06-2009 8:50 AM Statman has replied
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2009 7:42 PM Statman has replied
 Message 44 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-07-2009 4:53 AM Statman has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 39 of 276 (538380)
12-06-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stile
12-10-2008 9:04 AM


Re: Irrational Atheism
Yes, sort of how some theists get called atheists for simply not believing in a 100% literal bible.
Like who? Could you give me a few names ?
Evidence?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stile, posted 12-10-2008 9:04 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 12-06-2009 8:33 AM jaywill has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 276 (538384)
12-06-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jaywill
12-06-2009 7:54 AM


Re: Irrational Atheism
Hi Jaywill,
Like who? Could you give me a few names ?
I have. Which I find rather ironic given my debate/s about the possibilities of god/s with atheists.
I've seen it many times applied to other posters that I know are not atheists, usually by newcomers who are caught in a false dichotomy world of us v them (where all them == atheists).
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jaywill, posted 12-06-2009 7:54 AM jaywill has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 276 (538386)
12-06-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Statman
12-06-2009 1:15 AM


Re: Should Atheists Logically be Evil?
Hi Statman, welcome to the fray,
The most successful and simplest was called 'Tit for Tat'.
Wasn't this proven mathematically by John Forbes Nash Jr?
John Forbes Nash Jr. - Wikipedia.
quote:
In 1978, Nash was awarded the John von Neumann Theory Prize for his discovery of non-cooperative equilibria, now called Nash equilibria. He won the Leroy P. Steele Prize in 1999.
Of course, in this respect, populations can act as a large computer in trying multiple schemes of cooperation and selectiing the one that works best.
This has also been observed in capuchin monkeys
The Times & The Sunday Times
quote:
The animals were asked to perform a set of simple tasks and then rewarded with food or affection. The rewards were varied, seemingly at random. De Waal found the animals had an acute sense of fairness and objected strongly when others were rewarded more than themselves for the same task, often sulking and refusing to take part any further.
Other researchers, said de Waal, have found the same qualities in capuchin monkeys, which also show spontaneous prosocial tendencies, meaning they are keen to share food and other gifts with other monkeys, for the pleasure of giving.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...17_monkeyfairness.html
quote:
Researchers studying brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have found that the highly social, cooperative species native to South America show a sense of fairness, the first time such behavior has been documented in a species other than humans.
Brosnan said the response to the unequal treatment was astonishing: Capuchins who witnessed unfair treatment and failed to benefit from it often refused to conduct future exchanges with human researchers, would not eat the cucumbers they received for their labors, and in some cases, hurled food rewards at human researchers.
So yes, an evolved behavior, due most likely to humans and other primates being social animals.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Statman, posted 12-06-2009 1:15 AM Statman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Statman, posted 12-06-2009 1:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2009 7:36 AM RAZD has replied

  
Statman
Junior Member (Idle past 5038 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 12-06-2009


Message 42 of 276 (538407)
12-06-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
12-06-2009 8:50 AM


Re: Should Atheists Logically be Evil?
Razd,
The Wiki / Nash link didn’t work. Perhaps it does now. In any case, I found the article. Interesting. However, I can’t tell from it whether Axelrod’s findings and Nash’s work are related. Understanding Nash would take a lot of work on my part.
The other 2 links are interesting and I’ve copied them to a file. Here are a few random thoughts that may have some bearing on the topic:
1. Asexually reproducing bacteria pass genetic material among themselves.
2. There is at least a brief period of cooperation when a male and a female of a species mate.
3. There is a longer period of cooperation when a female cares for it’s young (in some species).
4. In gregarious species like humans, those groups that allow the killing of members of the group are less likely to survive because their numbers are diminished. Those groups that discourage killing of members of the group are more likely to survive because their numbers are increased and they are stronger in any conflict with another group.
5. In the same way, if theft is permitted in a group, the motivation to produce is reduced to the immediate needs of the producer.
6. Finally, I am reminded of the division of labor Adam Smith discusses in the very first chapter of his monumental 1775 work, The Wealth of Nations. In it, he discusses how long and difficult it would be if individuals made nails for their own use and how vastly more productive a worker is when he performs a single task repetitively as one step in the nail making process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 12-06-2009 8:50 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 43 of 276 (538429)
12-06-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Statman
12-06-2009 1:15 AM


iterated dilemmas
Some years ago, Robert Axelrod held a simple tournament to play iterated Prisoner's Dilemma...Initially, the nasty strategies were successful at the expense of the patsy strategies. But they were eventually overtaken by one or two 'nice' strategies. The most successful and simplest was called 'Tit for Tat'.
It should be noted that Tit for Tat doesn't always win and it does depend on the initial pool. For example, if there were lots of Tat for Tits (defect initially and the cooperate if the opponent cooperated) Tit for Tat would lose against Tit for two Tats (Cooperate first. If the opponent defects then cooperate on the next turn, if the defect again then defect and only begin the cooperation stage again if the opponent begins to cooperate).
Axelrod noted this first in fact - he calculated that Tit for Two Tats would have won the first tournament he held, but would have done poorly in the second which was more 'aggressive' (I believe people were trying to 'beat' Tit for Tat.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Statman, posted 12-06-2009 1:15 AM Statman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Statman, posted 12-07-2009 12:17 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 92 by Statman, posted 01-21-2010 10:02 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 44 of 276 (538441)
12-07-2009 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Statman
12-06-2009 1:15 AM


Re: Should Atheists Logically be Evil?
I'm new here and have only read a dozen or two posts but yours makes the most sense. I fully agree that cooperation is the basis of morality. Some think this is solely a competitive world and society. They grossly underestimate the enormous value of cooperation.
Thanks for your comments. It's a fascinating subject: the fine line that exists between individual competitiveness and social cooperation. It's also incredibly complex. I'd like to start reading up on this topic. I've been thinking about it a lot the last few days in order to answer Stile's point about "honour". I'm not quite there yet!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Statman, posted 12-06-2009 1:15 AM Statman has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 45 of 276 (538448)
12-07-2009 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
12-08-2008 10:37 AM


My two personal atheist dilemmas.
One problem I am finding with my relatively newfound sense of atheism is the thought of my grandmothers. I have always imagined them to be "in a better place" and I want so much for that to be true. However, with myself, I am perfectly OK with nothingness occurring upon/after death. Maybe it is something that is engrained, i.e.: my family always telling me they were in heaven. It just stuck with me. I like the thought of them being able to still watch over me and me maybe making them proud someday. Pipe dreams, I know, but we can all dream, right?
The other thing is explaining to my kids about death. They have encountered 2 pet deaths, 1: my childhood dog and 2: their dog. I find it easier to tell them they are in heaven, a happier place, than just to say they are dead.
I suppose both of these dilemmas shed light on what ancient peoples conjured up for post-death occurances to cope with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 12-08-2008 10:37 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 12-07-2009 12:07 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024