The evolution of an atheist.

(The following comments are not so much a reply to GDR as they are a general reply in the "evolution of an atheist" sense... I don't mean to comment specifically on GDR's current conversation with Bikerman so much as to comment more generally on the topic of "Evolution of an Atheist") If "promoting an altruistic life style to the highest degree" is the goal, shouldn't we consider doing away with all theologies? After all, it would seem that man has learnt that the best way to "promote an altruistic life style to the highest degree" is to form a free, democratic-infused government that is specifically separated from theology. That shouldn't be something we ignore. Right, and I would agree that you are on the right path. It is best to know yourself and be happy with your own decisions before trying to mold yourself into following other's advice on how to live. Finally understanding yourself and making decisions in light of that understanding is a seemingly-magical source of personal happiness and confidence.Similarly with myself, I subjectively believe so many things have only "happened" in my life after I stopped worrying about following Christianity and God in any way. You may attribute such an elevation in personal happiness to God, whereas I attribute such a thing to an internal alignment with knowing one's own personality and staying true to such... in which case avoiding many, many "inner turmoils" of fighting against one's own personality (whatever that may be).The benefit of my stance is that I can accept your life as being "equal" and "the right path for you" as much as this is the right path for me.Can you say the same from your perspective on my stance? Or is there anything that requires you to believe (or simply think) than my path is lesser or perhaps even just "slightly mis-aligned"... even though there's absolutely no difference in any of our subjective abilities to "be unfathomably happy" or "draw unlimited strength" or even experience a phenomenal connection with something we feel is greater than ourselves?(Again, GDR, these questions are not meant to be specifically directed at you. Feel free to answer if you wish, but my intent here is more to ask general questions to those religiously inclined with perhaps a "stronger, negative conviction" towards those outside their congregation. I don't mean to imply that you yourself have these negative thoughts of those who don't believe exactly the same... you don't seem to come off that way).

Seriously? What are you talking about?
Why can I not avoid philosophy to come to an agreement with anyone that a table is real in an actual, objective sense?I don't need to talk electrons or even science.
Perhaps the table isn't "totally, 100% solid", maybe it's nothing more than fields interacting with each other, maybe it's God's will holding it together... maybe so, but who cares? This is all irrelevant in determining if the table is real in an actual, objective sense. The table's existance could depend on one of these, all of these, or some combination... that has no effect on the fact that the table exists independantly of the observer.In order to determine if the table is real in an actual, object sense... all that is required is to have all other rational, reasonable people agree that it exists. Most likely because they can see it and bump their hips into it as easily as I can.Bringing theoretical possibilities into the picture such as "universe-wide mass hallucinations/illusions" is irrelevant.
If such things occur on the scale of the universe then they're still actually, objectively real for as long as we remain within this universe.

My point is not that all truth can be found through science. My point is that theology isn't a required path to find all truth For example: I agree that science isn't a path to determine who I should marry and spend my life with. However, I disagree that theology is required to determine who I should marry and spend my life with.Another, more religious example: I agree that science isn't (at least currently...) a path to determine what may or may not happen in the afterlife. However, I disagree that theology is required to pursue any possible "truth" that can be identified about the afterlife.I agree that we should not limit ourselves to strict, rigorous, objective pathways to knowledge (although they're the only way we have for objective verification... but that's another point...). What I'm saying is that we can pursue "other truth's" that science can't touch without using theology. Not only that, we can pursue them more efficiently and effectively. My point is that theology may (and this can easily be corrupted and turned into an almost "always" by certain... negative-theologies...) add a certain level of "baggage" that is not required and can possibly become restrictive. Strip that baggage, and you can at worst get to the same level as if you used theology, and at best you can go even further. Agreed. Yes, I understand this is where you're coming from. It's greatly appreciated. I did not intend my use of the word "happiness" to be limiting or specific. It was intended, in fact, to be so broad as to include what you say above, and any other pursuit anyone else may have that they would deem "positive" for themselves.Again, I should note that I am enjoying having this conversation with you, but my comments are not really specifically geared towards you. I'm just sort of using our dialogue as a spring-board to make general comments towards anyone who may be reading and be unaware as to what options are available.
I understand that what I have written can easily be seen in a "your stance isn't good enough" tone... that is not my intention. Your stance certainly is good enough for you (and possibly even "best" for you) as far as I'm concerned... as long as you're being honest with yourself and your personality... this is not something I believe can be judged by others (myself included), this can... even "must"... be judged by one's self, on one's own.

Yes, agreed. But notice that your conclusion of this point did not require theology. I can understand my own priorities and understand that I hold theology (or the lack of it) higher than average. I can understand that spending (hopefully) 50+ years with someone else would be... difficult... if they did not respect some of my highly-held priorities. This logic/"commone sense" works for any theology (or lack of) that someone may hold. My imagination and the imagination of others.
Afterall, theology and imagination have at least one thing in common... they have the same amount of verifiable evidence to back them up.
With no verifiable evidence available from theology regarding the afterlife, we may as well use other sources with an equal amount of verifiable evidence for they have the same claim to reality (strictly rationally speaking).
Subjectively we may feel more inclined towards one over the other.
However, since this is subjective, there's no rational reason to think that "theology" somehow has a "better shot" at being a part of reality than pure imagination does... for as long as no verifiable evidence is available.
One person may find theology to be more subjectively compelling to them about the afterlife.
Certainly not myself, though.
With no verifiable evidence to support the claims... theology (in my subjective opinion) is therefore equivalent to the imagination of folks from far in the past.
I subjectively find my own imagination to be much more compelling than the imagination of those long dead.Perhaps some certain theological aspects are more than "other's imagination"... if so, verfiable evidence will come about, and at that point I will certainly take a longer look in that direction.
However, if it is not anything more than other's imagination, then there will never be verifiable evidence either way. No matter how long or hard we look.
It should also be noted that it is equally possible that some verifiable evidence will come about that will coincide with what my imagination comes up with.My imagination vs theology - rationally there is no difference (because there is currently zero verifiable evidence for both).
I will always know that my imagination is not "something I know".
However, within theology, it is possible for me to feel that "I know something" just because of the theology and it's background and history and popularity. And there are plenty of theologies that take advantage of this very point to try and abuse it's followers. That is the potential baggage of theology I was talking about. Now, certainly not all theology is bad... there certainly do exist theologies where this is avoided. I'm just saying that because of this pitfall it is possibly less efficient than pure imagination in the search for subjective answers. And, since both imagination and theology have the same amount of verifiable evidence to back them up (none at all)... rationally speaking, they are both predicted to be equally successful in determining any "subjective truths".And, so far, I have understood many, many more subjective truths about my life since I abandoned theology than when I was within it.
It turned out that, for me, the pitfall of theology was very large. I constantly found myself thinking "I know this already" and telling myself to not "waste time" searching for the actual answer... however, a part of me knew that the theological answer I had was not "known" and not "good enough" and I needed to do more searching. For me, theology was the cause of my confusion, as opposed to helping me find answers. However, I am not everyone So it certainly is not something that everyone will have to deal with. In fact, I fully believe that some people require theology in order to find the answers they are searching for in their life.
It could even be argued that I required theology in order to find my path. That is, perhaps it is banging my head against the wall of theology for so long that gave me the courage I needed to look past it into other areas. Sort of how some young kids need to be pushed by "the bully" a few times before they overcome that fear and find their own inner-strength to resist outside oppression.
...but that's just my own subjective reasoning and rambling

Only if one is a rational and consistent and knowledgeable-about-origins atheist.Not all people are rational and consistent and knowledgeable-about-origins.However, if you would like to give the benefit of the doubt and say that all atheists necessarily must be completey rational and consistent and all of them are educated well enough to be knowledgeable about origins... just because they are "atheists"... then I will thank you for the compliment