Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We all agree that we share one common thing and that is that we don't believe in God but I suspect that there may be other beliefs that a great many of us share as well. One obvious belief that most of us must believe in is evolution and the fact that the origins of life are the result of natural processes. I can't even think of an alternative that's not religious. As far as our philosophy of life is concerned there's probably a wide range of beliefs among atheists. I believe in the philosophy of humanism and generally in a live and let live kind of attitude. I don't really care what other people believe as long as they're not trying to force me to believe the same thing. I support rights for gays and lesbians, I'm pro choice, I'm a liberal to moderate democrat and I always vote. Generally we atheists tend to get along quite well on this forum so I do feel that we must share certain common points of view even though our philosophies may be very different. What are your thoughts about it?
I was reading the old threads and think I see something else here. Most Atheists are not afraid to question the established dogma. I think they actually take some joy in breaking down the myths religion claim would send you to hell for questioning.
1. Self-congratulatory self-perceptions of one's mental capabilities relative to the general public . . . especially believers?
2. Over-reliance on left brain thinking and understanding of reality while unfairly devaluing right brain intuition and insights.
3. Completely discount personal experiences as too subjective to be factual . . . even to the individual who experienced them.
4. Would distrust their own perceptions or sanity before accepting their personal experience of a deity or phenomenon that has psychic or supernatural implications or overtones.
1. Self-congratulatory self-perceptions of one's mental capabilities relative to the general public . . . especially believers?
Gee, believers do make it pretty easy to feel good about ourselves by willfully and repeatedly denying reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
2. Over-reliance on left brain thinking and understanding of reality while unfairly devaluing right brain intuition and insights.
This ties directly to believer self-delusion. When the facts don't fit what believers want to be true, they revert to intuition and insight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
3. Completely discount personal experiences as too subjective to be factual . . . even to the individual who experienced them.
Well, I don't know about this one. I would agree that we discount the personal experiences of others when there does not see to be any reality-based way for them to be true. We can all agree that your religious experience seems real to you, but since the faithful have yet to present any evidence, we discount it and base our actions on what we can lay our hands on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
4. Would distrust their own perceptions or sanity before accepting their personal experience of a deity or phenomenon that has psychic or supernatural implications or overtones.
I think that atheists would exhaust all possible explanations for a supernatural experience before conceding that it is, in fact, supernatural. Why you consider this a shortcoming, I'll never understand.
I agree with almost all of what I have read on this thread. Although atheists run the spectrum of political thought, all agree to start from a position grounded in reality instead of ancient books or self-serving dogma for their thinking. It seems very doable for atheists to talk over the issues and at least consider voting as a block on issues from a secular humanist perspective. I for one would like to get away from the notion that the beginning and end of atheist thought is whether or not a god exists. To me, sound, sane, and just atheist reason springs from this, it does not end there.
Unlike faith-based voting, at least atheist voting can always take a position of "what is the most ethically sound solution?," or "what is the least harmful solution to a problem?" It is potentially always consistent and, in my opinion, hard to debate against except from a "my god doesn't like that" position.
The fantasy I run over in my mind is running an atheist presidential candidate who pulls 15% of the vote. That would raise some eyebrows.
Discussion between an atheist refugee scientist brought up in the former USSR and a
novelist trying to question the religion-based culture he can only disown but not forget:
You would, ideally, replace God with your own Self (not reduced to any fractional ego!) in order to fulfill or at least "match" mankind's Utopia.
Anything wrong with that?
Am I, in that case, left to talk with myself for the rest of eternity?
Hmm - 4 potential reference points. Let me check them on myself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
1. Self-congratulatory self-perceptions of one's mental capabilities relative to the general public . . . especially believers?
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
2. Over-reliance on left brain thinking and understanding of reality while unfairly devaluing right brain intuition and insights.
I don't think so. If anything it's my right brain that has run wild and led me to extreme openness. I can't see how anybody can believe anything based on the vast amount of knowledge that humans have collectively accumulated through the use of both brain hemispheres.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
3. Completely discount personal experiences as too subjective to be factual . . . even to the individual who experienced them.
I do this in a way...especially to the individual who has experienced them. I don't discount them because I see them as patently untrue, though. Rather, I discount them because when people put forth the truth as they have experienced it - and then go on to say that everybody needs to recognize that truth as universally appliable to everybody, then it becomes clear that the experiencer is clinging to an experience rather than continuing to experience reality in an open manner. It seems that an experience can be "factual" at one point, and then cease to be relevant later. Especially when it is not being experienced currently but only forever echoed as truth in the mind of the experiencer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
4. Would distrust their own perceptions or sanity before accepting their personal experience of a deity or phenomenon that has psychic or supernatural implications or overtones.
No, not me. I trust my own experience, intuition, etc. but I won't cling to it. That is, I won't let those (past) things control my current or future perception. I'm fairly convinced that - as the Buddhists think - reality is only manifest in each moment. In that case how could I (or anybody) claim to know the truth now based on a truth that was valid at some previous point?
1. Self-congratulatory self-perceptions of one's mental capabilities relative to the general public . . . especially believers?
Um, no, not really. I am always checking my perceptions and analysis with data from outside of myself because I know well the all too human tendency to self-justify a preconceived bias. This is not something I see the true believers do.
Quote:
2. Over-reliance on left brain thinking and understanding of reality while unfairly devaluing right brain intuition and insights.
Um, no. Wrong again. Both have their place in the analysis. I myself am quite intuitive but that is not the same as self-delusional. Right brain information often is correct as it can be using data that the left brain doesn't quite comprehend. But if the right brain is just wishing something to be true when it is likely to not be true, then that just self-delusion.
Quote:
3. Completely discount personal experiences as too subjective to be factual . . . even to the individual who experienced them.
No. Personal experience is information. But when a claim of some supernatural occurrence is every single time shown to fly in the face of real data, then I discount it as self-delusional or manipulative if there is something to be gained by the claim. Occam's razor applies here - don't go taking the least likely explanation when a perfectly reasonable and highly likely reason is right there to explain it.
Quote:
4. Would distrust their own perceptions or sanity before accepting their personal experience of a deity or phenomenon that has psychic or supernatural implications or overtones.
See the one above. Same thing applies. I don't entertain the likelyhood of a supernatural reason when there is a perfectly natural reason to explain it. To do otherwise is not rational but rather self-deluding or manipulative.
1. Self-congratulatory self-perceptions of one's mental capabilities relative to the general public . . . especially believers?
2. Over-reliance on left brain thinking and understanding of reality while unfairly devaluing right brain intuition and insights.
3. Completely discount personal experiences as too subjective to be factual . . . even to the individual who experienced them.
4. Would distrust their own perceptions or sanity before accepting their personal experience of a deity or phenomenon that has psychic or supernatural implications or overtones.
This is all wrong and probably a waste of time to debate since faith talkers won't believe what is actually true since it contradicts their belief system.
I just found this forum, and may I say it is SUCH a relief to finally find a group of logical, reality based thinkers such as myself.
Just wanted to say hello, and now I will go back to reading and get caught up on what you all discuss here.
Welcome and hello BacktoNE! This is a comfy place for a free thinker.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A very very humble input, if i may..
.
