My problem with atheism

[_Bret Ripley]

for what it's worth, I am an atheist that keeps getting bothered by angels and gods.

If you believe in the latter, then you can't be the former.

We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.

[_zeezrom]

...I've been spending the last few days here...

And the voice cried: `Ah, Urizen! Love!
Flower of morning! I weep on the verge
Of Nonentity -- how wide the Abyss
Between Ahania and thee!

[_Blixa]

for what it's worth, I am an atheist that keeps getting bothered by angels and gods.

If you believe in the latter, then you can't be the former.

We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.

Exactly.

[_marg]

A very clever analogy. Atheists are in the same boat as true believers of any religion.
Neither know. For me, it's best to admit that I don't know. I'm happy with not knowing. I'd rather admit ignorance than pretend.

It is a misrepresentation of "atheism" that it entails a claim to knowledge about God's existence. If you are not a theist Quasi, by default you are an atheist. You can further refine the concept by adding a descriptive such as you are an agnostic atheist or one who does not believe in a God and doesn't claim knowledge to a God's existence. A theist could also be an agnostic theist.

[_mikwut]

Zeezrom,

I find your observation mostly satisfying and corresponding to my own experience with the atheism label.

The "there isn't sufficient evidence" or "I am without belief in" a God or Gods or the supernatural has become a distinction without much of a difference. But that conversation is an old hat. I find it more interesting to discuss particular beliefs the atheist does hold such as materialism, naturalism, meaning and the reasons they hold them as more satisfying dialogue.

I think possibilianism coined by David Eagleman to be a more interesting, open minded, scientific and satisfying position and label than "atheism" which has morphed and left to be a description of a blank mind rather than an engaged and weighing mind.

I am unsatisfied when an atheist all to often simply turns out to be debunker, hyper cynical skeptic, "freethinker". These terms have nothing to with God or Gods existence and can be shared by theists and non theist a like.

I also find the atheism position to be unsatisfying with our human experience. Research has shown there is no God switch or gene or spot in the brain. Studies with Carmelite nuns at the university of Montreal have demonstrated spiritual experiences are complex experiences, like our experiences of human relationships. They leave signatures in many parts of the brain. That fact is consistent with (though it does not by itself demonstrate) the notion that the experiencer contacts a reality outside herself. Beauregard, Mario; O'leary, Denyse (2009-03-17). The Spiritual Brain . Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition. These experiences whether spiritual or mystical or in between happen to the vast majority of mankind. The atheist is never a blank slate after they pass infancy anymore than one could say they are a a-relationshipist. We swim in the experiences in our concrete lives, they are fundamental. If they are rejected it isn't because of a lack of belief but a rejection of a believing or at least open attitude toward the experiences.

Spirituality is fascinating, curious and compels investigation by our human minds. I just find it like you grey and dull to not appreciate that and delve into its mysteries and meanings. So atheism is just not very interesting or satisfying to me. I suppose the atheist could respond that truth is what they are following and so interesting and curious aren't proper motivators - but that simply begs the question that the truth of the matter is already settled which it clearly has not been. It also just shows the attitude the party labeling themselves atheist holds.

my 2 cents, mikwut

[_Bond James Bond]

Christians are pretty boring when compared to worshipers of the Roman deities. Toga! Toga! Toga!

[_Dr. Shades]

If you believe in the latter, then you can't be the former.

We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.

Who is "we?"

[_zeezrom]

Christians are pretty boring when compared to worshipers of the Roman deities. Toga! Toga! Toga!

The Romans adulterated the Greek deities.

[_Bond James Bond]

The Romans adulterated the Greek deities.

Partly but they changed the character of them.

[_EAllusion]

They leave signatures in many parts of the brain. That fact is consistent with (though it does not by itself demonstrate) the notion that the experiencer contacts a reality outside herself.

What a strange comment. Hallucinations/delusions do the same thing. Most cognition, really, involves multiple areas of the brain so specific instances of it do not suggest or fail to suggest whether the content of an experience is "real." And of course anything as complicated as spirituality would involve the interaction of mutiple genes. Anyone looking for a "God gene" outside of cheeky news article titles is hopelessly confused about the nature of genetics.

I didn't realize Denyse O'Leary had branched out from her central role in the intelligent design movement to this periphery now. I just pulled it up and it looks interesting. Every page I skimmed is wall to wall misleading, as is typical for the author. I also see the it is infused with the ID movement and skepticism in evolution as a central related thesis, so I guess Denyse isn't branching out as much as I first thought. I'll read it some time in the near future and get back to this thread. I don't think it could be productive to try and refute the work though. The few pages it dedicates to showing that humans and chimpanzees aren't evolutionarily related (and thus have related brains) is so filled with error that it would take something much, much longer to disabuse. And that's just a blip.