Gods Are Everywhere Because It’s Hard to Bargain With Them
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Why do so many people worship invisible beings, accept the authority of millennia-old texts, or or congregate on weekends in buildings for no apparently practical reason? The cognitive and bio-cultural sciences of religion are burgeoning as researchers attempt to answer these questions in the context of our secularizing culture. According to one popular hypothesis , people naturally tend to be religious because our brains, evolved to survive in the dangerous Paleolithic era, are hyper-sensitive to signals of agency, or personhood – and as a result, we’re constantly “seeing” signs of disembodied agents everywhere around us. In a new paper , my colleague John Shaver and I advance a different possibility: gods and spirits are ubiquitous because it’s really, really hard to bargain with them.
Tags
Who is online
464 visitors
Or maybe it's because humans are just plain nuts?
Hmm, Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Mao, Napoleon, Pol Pot, most of the French Monarchs and Popes of the Middle ages, not to mention some of the Caesars and Pharaohs of Egypt.
and that's just written history .......
Yes, fucked up DNA and lack of education on display.
Well, those are really more of this:
Notice the kid is glued to watching it.
That song was killer then and now! Interestingly, at the time I did not know this band was black men. I guess I never saw a live performance of the song!
It is easier than thinking for themselves.
Not only do they not have to think, they get to avoid responsibility when their choices turn out to be disastrous. It wasn't their fault, it was the Devil or maybe, possibility Gods plan, but definitely not their fault...
It appears that this is the working definition of conservative Christian morality.
My thought is that it is plain old simple fear.
Both fears exist, even today, Organized religion has taken those fears and encouraged them claiming that only they can convince the imaginary sky fairy to protect you, as long as you drop coin in their collection plate and pay their tithe.
There's also the part about some religions convincing their followers that they are inherently evil, and that only joining that specific cult will save them from eternal torture.
The seed offers a number of hypotheses. Interesting.
Here is my hypothesis.
People believe in a god(s) because it brings comfort to do so. Alternatively, people believe in a god(s) because it is discomforting to consider that we are on our own with no supreme entity who will ensure that -when all is said and done- all will be taken care of.
More specifically:
So, in short, I suspect people believe because -ultimately- faith makes them comfortable, content, happy.
In other words, a mental comfort mechanism.
Research has found that many hardcore criminals find it very comforting to have a belief in a religion that allows them to lie, cheat, steal, slander, swindle, rape and murder and be forgiven by the Christian god.
On a personal note, I have found that abusive and/or violent people, who have managed to escape the penal system, are equally adept at trying to use the Christian forgiveness doctrine as way to manipulate others into allowing the abusers to still be included in family and/or social gatherings where they really are not welcome and should not be.
I'm surprised some of these characters aren't preachers
One should first assume life is comfortable in its random expression, before one assumes people subtract naturalness in order to add organization. People of faith demonstrate an ability to do both, by combining faith and reason.
It is so odd, and telling, that negative atheists find so much time to mock and ridicule peoples of faith, when professing to hold no position all their own. I ask you; is this not a demonstration of a persistent bias?
You continually fail to understand that many of us atheists are driven entirely by logic, so we find theistic religious beliefs to be utterly illogical. You can pray to an Edsel hubcap if you want, just don't ask us to take part, to allow you legislate those beliefs as secular law or act like that what you believe is rational.
Many of us have tried to reach across the divide to help you understand, but you continually misstate our positions as a way to attack and to misrepresent the beliefs of others. I don't know if it is a mental block, it's intellectual dishonesty as a way to protect your beliefs because they are being threatened or maybe you are just trolling.
Trolling? You have got to be kidding. You show up "as you please" on any article you choose spouting your views and the first message I deliver here I am ACCUSED of something? I am not buying it.
You are 'driven' by logic to express negative atheism? If as you and others stress your style of atheism is a, lack of belief and disbelief, then what reason can you provide for behaving as if the question of God's existence has been decided? Because if the matter under discussion has not been concluded why the demonstrations of bias in mocking and ridiculing (see above)?
Who are atheists to inform us of our faith and reason? Confront extremists in religion yes, but ultra-criticize the free exercise of world religions?
How am I supposed to show up in a thread? I see them on the tracker and I click to enter if it is a subject that interests me. I am not aware that an alternate method exists.
if I am a negative atheist then what is positive atheism? Why do you insist on creating new terms instead of using the existing terms, such as agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist?
The failure to prove the logical burden of proof that god exists has decided the debate. You made a positive claim of your god existing that you have not been able to support or defend.
You are not being mocked because people who do not believe respond to your posts, so drop the persecution complex.
Faith and reason are opposing concepts. Faith is subjective and reason is objective.
Because of our free speech rights, you do not have the right not to be criticized, just as I do not have the right not to be criticized for my beliefs or actions. My free speech rights do not stop at the front door of your church. The Bible is not kryptonite to the US Constitution or the concept of logic, despite what you may believe.
you do not have the right not to be criticized, just as I do not have the right not to be criticized for my beliefs or actions.
You got that right! And, you shall appropriately.
I have never claimed otherwise when you did. It is illogical for someone to come to a political/social news discussion site and then whine when someone has a debate with them.
You do not know what you atheistic belief (or lack of belief) is named? You ought to look it up! (Hint: It is not as "new" as you think and it certainly did not originate from me!)
Your ideology (lack of belief in God/gods) is not positive atheism either!
Who is whining? Stop this nonsense projection. Furthermore, if I permitted myself to whine; you would not know anything about it. Bet!
How am I supposed to show up in a thread? I see them on the tracker and I click to enter if it is a subject that interests me. I am not aware that an alternate method exists.
I entered too! Please explain how you determined I am trolling to be here. You should 'applaud' any theist for entering the discussion! Stop "whining"! Write something deep and interesting. Leave all those tired and defeatist 'sayings' you carry to every discussion in the hall, please!
Why are there so many different and contradictory views of God?
What is positive atheism, as I have asked you previously?
I used the proper terms of agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist in post #3.1.3.
You made the claim, so defend it.
Do you also want a cookie and a gold star for your actions?
I'm not whining. I don't whine because it is neither mature or productive.
You are an atheist, no? Logic dictates you should want to go find out for yourself what it means and inform me. (You are not it.)
After all, you might not want to trust the understanding of a "nut." /s
Continuing to dodge questions and challenges I see.
So I expect such nonsense 'insults' to end immediately.
The failure to prove the logical burden of proof that god exists has decided the debate. You made a positive claim of your god existing that you have not been able to support or defend.
Why not stick to the topic? Did you read the article? It has nothing specifically to do with atheism. It brings together several theories on how so many different religions have become social norms and why and concludes that "the reason gods and spirits become the center of cults and religious traditions is that, because gods and spirits aren’t embodied, they can’t take part in normal transactional social life".
They theorize, based on the thousands and thousands of disparate faiths throughout history, that religion, and God by extension, are akin to the many institutions we accept and take for granted every day.
"Institutions are entities like universities, marriage, nation-states, court systems, and landlord-lessee relations. They’re different from basic physical entities like rocks, tigers, and the Pacific Garbage Patch in that they only exist because we say they exist. They consist of binding agreements between participants that constrain our behavior, impose obligations, and stipulate roles."
Thus it's reasonable to conclude "supernatural beings don’t offer" the "same kinds of strategic incentives" as would a physical peer with an expectation of you. You can't tell God your dog ate your homework, or that you have to get a B on this paper or your dad will beat you. You can't reason with something that doesn't give any feedback, so "gods and spirits tend to become central in religious traditions precisely because the only way to interact with them is according to obligations, not strategic incentives."
As they state in the article, "You pray before meals simply because that’s what you’re supposed to do. You don’t hunt in the forest during the rainy season because the spirits will get angry. All over the world, religious worship is filled with taboos, obligatory requirements, and strict rules. In human affairs, rules often get broken because we face strategic incentives to break them. But in interactions with gods, those incentives aren’t valid. So, if we interact with gods at all, we tend to do so according to the rules.*** Consequently, god and spirit “roles” play a key function in stabilizing cooperation with norms in general. They provide a core locus in the social structure where strategic self-interest isn’t as operative, and so they anchor the norms that characterize the rest of the structure’s periphery."
So instead of attacking atheism, which isn't the topic of conversation, why not try and speak to their claims, that God and religion rely on imagination and humans ability to believe in a thing that doesn't physically exist but exists as an idea. And you're welcome to do so from the perspective that your idea is the right one out of the billions of differing ideas on this planet, and to defend the use of imagination to submit and follow your personal God of choice, but simply going back to the tired arguments you've had against atheism is like a broken pencil, pointless.
You trust 'nuts'? You shouldn't!
Your deflection is noted. I am well aware of what an atheist is. What does the "positive" modifier add to it and why do you insist on using that term instead of the previous terms of agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist?
(comment deleted)
Say that you’re in your room, praying. (If you’re not the praying type, imagine that you are.) Unless you’re having a very unusual sort of day, you probably don’t actually see whatever god or spirit you’re praying to in front of you. Rather, you act as if you were speaking to a real being. This isn’t too cognitively different from playing make-believe, where, say, one child decides that she’s a princess and the other pretends to be her lady-in-waiting.
Er, how does scientist researchers intend to prove this claim? Science tests statements about the natural world against the natural world, no? Is it a contradiction for scientists to test the spirit world?
Do scientist "sense" ETI on remote planets in far-flung galaxies? It is natural, after all. (Don't waste time explaining probability-I know that.) Theists tell you what we sense and have been sensing since recorded history, and the come back: we must be 'nuts.'!
They don't have to, it's an established fact. They aren't claiming that you aren't reaching some believed in deity, they are saying that based on millions of personal experiences people do "act" as if they're speaking to their God, it's an exercise in imagination because as of yet, no one has ever been able to produce any physical proof of contact during a prayer session. So whether you believe or not has nothing to do with the brain functions being used in order to communicate with an invisible, empirically unproven being. The only thing you have is a "faith" that the communication was successful since there is zero actual, physical feedback.
More deflections. How intellectually dishonest!
Without them, none of us would exist...
Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? The Chicken of course, the only g-spot on an egg is in its name...
For the record: faith is the opposite of disbelief. For believers 'walk by faith.'
Well, you will have to apply reason which allows for more than science (systematic and rational examination) and/or scientism (considering natural causes only). This is correct! You will have to investigate the reasons for Christianity without a presupposition which does not allow the supernatural to occur. (I know. You are not open to that!)
It's still the opposite of reason too!
Unless there is evidence, then something cannot be reasonably explained or assumed, especially when trying to infer a supernatural explanation.
Christianity and other religions only claim supernatural phenomenon or entity/ies. It is still irrational and there is no logical reason to assume or accept the supernatural without evidence.
We are open to evidence or proof, which you have yet to provide. We are not open accepting baseless claims (especially the supernatural) as valid without question, especially when there is no evidence to support it.
While that is technically true, you don't need even a single "disbeliever" in order to have faith since you can believe something no one else knows you believe and thus no one else "disbelieves" you. For example, if one human held the belief that sticking your right hand pinky in your left nostril while you simultaneously stuck your left hand pinky in your right nostril, your IQ will slowly raise, it doesn't require him to tell someone and have them "disbelieve" him for him to have faith. He could sit there, hands crossed, pinkies stuffed deep, looking like an idiot for hours. And the fact is, I can't prove his IQ isn't going up slowly, just like I can't prove God/gods don't exist, I merely disbelieve in the notion you can raise your smarts with certain finger placement. And even though I'd never accept causality in the fingers being important, if during that time the person was meditating and doing math problems in their head, it has been shown that brain exercise can heighten IQ.
Why do I make this distinction? Because no one "disbelieves" things someone else hasn't already claimed was true. Someone who had never been exposed to the concept of God would not "disbelieve" in God, yet he would also, simultaneously not believe in any Gods making him, by definition, an atheist even before he knew he was an atheist. This is why religious adherents often seem so eager to share their beliefs with others, they want to force others into one of two boxes they have created in their minds, believer or non-believer, theist or atheist. What they seem to keep forgetting is that there aren't just two boxes, there aren't just two possible outcomes to Pascal's wager, there are an infinite number of boxes and an infinite number of possible outcomes.
This is why atheists often point out that Christians are just one God away from being atheists, since Christians disbelieve in all other Gods/goddesses that have previously been believed in and worshiped, from Allah to Zeus, just as atheists disbelieve in their father, son and holy ghost, but they can't seem to wrap their heads around why anyone would or even could disbelieve in their God. It's this phenomenon that I believe most non-believers get exasperated with and often accuse theists of trolling, because they feel as if they've pointed this out time after time but it never seems to sink in and never gets an honest reply.
Religious faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven or logically supported.
Some people need religion to tell them answers to life and so they do not need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves when they believe that they have a god that will care for them, both physically and emotionally. It also allows them to claim to enforce and protect conservative social ideas that their god supports.
No, but they are trying to sense any ETI. And the fact is, no one disbelieved in little green alien men before we were able to get a better picture of our universe and understand what stars and planets are and that there is a lot of "stuff" out there we know virtually nothing about. That's why before then virtually all the imaginary "aliens" invented were described in spiritual terms. There were many stories of gods/goddesses, both animal and human in concept, that travelled across the stars, some even describing the sun being pulled across the sky by a chariot. But no concept of some other life form on another planet (of which humans at the time didn't even know existed, nearly everyone believed the planets in our solar system to be stars until the telescope was invented) because no one had ever wondered about it. It took the very first person who, upon hearing or seeing the planets in a telescope, to proclaim "What if there are other people up there?" to create the first non-believer in extraterrestrials.
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
2. Acts 17-28 (There you can find an answer with context. I do not want to get a charge of proselytizing because of the protracted length of the explanation!). That said, here is a short verse at the end:
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
As you can begin to see people are inclined to several aspects of looking at God:
1. In superstitions.
2. Idols and idolatry.
3. Through having the liberty to choose.
How do you know what spiritual contact was made or not made? Huh? Where did you get this notion you carry around that communication with God is physical anyway? Besides if you knew the answer to whether God exist or God does not exist you would not be a negative-atheist (a lack of beliefer).
The facts of the matter is scientists tests statements about the natural world against the natural world. Science does not test for the supernatural. So this is all so-called "head-knowledge" for these men! You and other atheists support me (it is a bias), because you want comforting statements from science that you are not missing out on something important and needful.
If someone claims to have made contact with the supernatural, then they have to prove it. Otherwise, it's just an empty and invalid claim. Many people claim to "communicate" with the supernatural. Funny how there is not one shred of evidence to collaborate such claims.
By definition, the supernatural is outside of the natural realm. Therefore, it cannot interact with the natural realm. Therefore, there is no reason to assume, much less believe any claims of contact with the supernatural. If the supernatural did interact with the natural realm, then it wouldn't be supernatural anymore, but rather natural, and subject to the same conditions and observations within the natural realm. The supernatural makes for a nice flight of fantasy, but one has to be emotionally needy or gullible to actually believe or even accept supernatural agents as real or true.
Emotional appeals like that is for religion, not science. It's also an erroneous presumption on your part!
...aliens?
1 In the past The Aliens spoke to our ancestors through the History Channel at many times and in various ways and episodes of Ancient Aliens, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by an aliens son, Donald Trump, whom the supreme alien appointed heir of all things on earth, and through whom also he made the universe his domain.
2. Alien Acts 17-28 (There you can find an answer with context. I do not want to get a charge of proselytizing because of the protracted length of the explanation!). That said, here is a short verse at the end:
29 “Therefore since we are Aliens offspring, we should not think that the divine Alien being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past the Supreme Alien overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."
What convinced you that the bible was the word of God and not the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita? After reading and studying all the other faiths out there, what made you chose Christianity? What was it that stuck out that was different than all the other faiths on the planet that left no doubt in your mind as to the veracity of the biblical claims of spirit beings versus the claims other religions have had of their interaction with the spirit realm and their understand of who and what God is?
I ask, because the answer to that question might actually get you closer to understanding how the authors of the above article might have come to the conclusion that belief is based far more on where you were born and what "religious beliefs and rituals facilitate in-group cooperation and pro-sociality" has evolved in the region and become a local institution, than it does with truth.
Human beings have envisioned all sorts of gods (and still do). A passage in the Bible, noting that people (in the past relative to biblical times) worshiped gods (and unknown gods) other than the biblical god, acknowledges that disagreement among people about 'god' is ancient.
Apparently we agree that there has always been (and continues to be) "... many different and contradictory views of God". Implicitly, by your context, you hold that all of these gods other than the biblical god were simply imagined by people. Many people with many imaginations will clearly result in many different and contradictory views of god(s).
Nowadays, the super majority of these gods are considered to be fiction. So let's concentrate on the biblical god (God) since that really was the focus of my question:
Do you recognize the many varied and contradictory views of the biblical God?
I'm actually a very positive atheist. Life has never seemed rosier to me than it has since I ditched the last of my dwindling faith and accepted the fact that after all those decades of study I had no more evidence of the supernatural than when I started.
"The facts of the matter is scientists tests statements about the natural world against the natural world. Science does not test for the supernatural."
Yes, I get the fact that you can't test for unobtainium with any know metal detectors we have invented so far, likely due to the properties of unobtainium, specifically that of being fiction.
All I was saying about prayer is that millions of people pray, and all the ones I've ever talked to never mentioned God talking back and telling them how to live and who to hate. So far people who pray go through the "act" of praying and the VAST majority will readily admit they have never heard an actual voice in their heads answer their prayers. Millions of believers have of course attributed many things happening shortly after their prayers as supposed answers to such. But that would be pretty silly if God listened to your prayer about making sure you got to a job interview on time so He made the bus 1 minute late which was exactly how long you needed in order not to miss it, and you got the job, but that same day a four year old was dying of cancer in his parents arms, literally while they are praying. That would be pretty silly indeed.
So there is zero evidence prayer works, and there are virtually no people who claim to hear Gods voice in reply. So what do you supposed people do when they're praying? As the article pointed out, they "act as if " they "were speaking to a real being". It's not saying they don't believe they are speaking to God, they don't have to be aware that they are "acting" in order to be acting.
Except by faith and reasoning the supernatural which you can not allow for in a scientism worldview (considering natural causes only).
One can imagine anything. That does not make it real or even true. Faith is not fact.
This still boils down to holding as truth that which is unjustified (and likely unjustifiable).
Anyone who points to the supernatural as their fact base while arguing that the supernatural cannot be evidenced needs to then answer the question: how then does anyone know anything about the 'supernatural'?
Which is the opposite of what you'd expect to find if there was, in fact, one specific deity, a single creator being who knows us and has communicated with us and given us clues as to his identity. If this were true, the picture humanity would paint of the God that has been contacting them telepathically for all these years would look very similar if not identical, would it not? If all faiths are inspired of the same creator, wouldn't they most likely resemble one another in doctrine? But instead we get wildly differing description of God/gods, both physically and emotionally, with some Gods being adulterous womanizers (Zeus) and others being jealous war Gods (Yahweh) demanding their followers fealty along with the tip of their foreskins.
So if there are no Gods, we'd have almost as many versions of God's invented by humans as there are imaginations. But if there was an actual active creator trying to make itself known to all humanity, we'd have a singular description and doctrine being delivered no matter where you lived on the planet. I think it's pretty easy to see which one appears to be the case.
I fully "embrace" an atheist lack of acceptance of a belief in God. I did not always have this belief in God for myself! And, I was "brought up" in the Church and walked away from it. Becoming an agnostic (not knowing whether God exist or not). My situation is not unique: Many believers were former agnostics and atheists, respectively. Moreover, its vice versa. I am a case in point.
What baffles the heck out of me is militancy (activism) by some atheists. Activism that is so abrupt, mocking, scoffing, and unfocused that it seeks to disrupt and uproot world religions and all their virtues (though some atheists deny this as a strategy). Should militancy not be your expressed brand of atheism, then you should have no qualms about calling out these purveyors of militancy in the ranks of atheism, even as I call out right-wing evangelicals who are busybodies, meddlers, and prejudiced against atheists! By the way, some online atheists do call out the militants in their midst for all the rancor they stir.
Natural causes are the only causes known. There is nothing to suggest or support otherwise. Anything else is just imagination or wishful thinking.
This is the only portion of your comment that has any value, in my opinion. The rest was more of condescending nonsense, in my opinion.
This quote is interesting to me. Because as Jesus impressed upon the people of his day, we, as people, ought to let love do our largest share of example for all the world to see
Exactly. Yet this is never addressed by theists. It, like many other observations, is ignored because it contradicts the narrative.
A prime example of how the mind can filter reality to its liking.
I was not trying to be condescending.
Christian conservatives reject the teachings of Jesus that tell them to not judge, to always love others and that they have an obligation to care for others.
WHAT
If the supernatural did interact with the natural realm, then it wouldn't be supernatural anymore, but rather natural, and subject to the same conditions and observations within the natural realm.
That's nice. (I suppose you logically determined supernatural laws can not operate in a natural realm in any shape, form, or spirit). Now prove it!
Look at this tragic thing you have done?
I have read the other spiritual books (in part) and I study logic and reason. It is obvious to you world religions are scattered throughout this land of 'milk and honey,' no? Moreover, I am well-traveled. It is the New Testament Books which opened up my spirit to clasp hands with the Spirit of God in witness and draw in closer, nevertheless.
Now and again, that will mean mostly or absolutely nothing to you. And, that is not any thing I can help your negative atheism (lack of belief) with right now. For you do not accept that God, gods exist or God, gods, do not exist.
The scientists? Maybe they can answer this question: Why I cut myself off from the 'local' churches in my surrounding and yet dwell in a virtual 'wilderness' surrounded by my books and the likes of negative atheists who do not commit to even a wholehearted stamp of hard atheism (God does not exist). Even though it is on full display in their contemptuous writings. For no person who "questions" could be so deliberately nasty and spiteful about the unknown.
Now then, about what into one is born: DP, on background, you have not always been a negative atheist have you? What was your former "in-group sociality" you walked out on?
absolutely needs to be repeated. This same concept also applies to the Bible - unless someone is willing to state that the "supreme entity" isn't able to effectively communicate with it's own creations so there'd be no error in interpreting it's own word - especially since this "supreme entity" created these beings and knew in advance the hundreds of ways the creations could misinterpret it's own "divine" word.
What recognition? Christian liberty? The presence of one universal church (Catholicism) which split into Protestantism and continues to divide? Do you understand that world religions are man-made institutions and God is not "dwelling in the temple" of any one sanctuary? What am I stating? Nothing much has changed in this age. Jews still practice Judaism. Christians, Christianity. And other folks whatever. Believers still walk by faith also. What? Ddd you think this 'order' is the promised kingdom of God and God's presence with the creature?
As a negative atheist (one with lack of belief) probably you can or can not understand. We divided over our texts, because we have the liberty inherent in the New Testament to do so.
That said, I do not plan to get 'absorbed' into long-winded discussion with you over distracting matters which will avail nothing in the end—for you or me!
I do not think you are a positive atheist, for to be that you must declare outright God/gods do not exist! Are you explicitly declaring it right here and now?
It took you "decades" to decide your prayers were worthless?!
Here is probably what you are referring to:
Seems like a very straightforward question.
Yes. Interesting that you recognize that.
Again, we agree on the obvious.
Sure. People routinely come up with their own versions of stories. We see this all the time. The result is that there are all sorts of 'truths' posited. Every group has its own truth. This applies to religion and other areas such as partisan politics.
Because you refuse to address the clear contradiction of a world replete with varying, contradictory religions all holding that their particular view is truth. As DP noted:
You recognize that the world's religions are man-made. You recognize that most of these religions draw from the Bible. You recognize the religions are at odds - sometimes entirely contradictory. Yet you do not find it even remotely significant that they all think they hold the true interpretation of the Bible and that that is impossible.
By the way, since you are clearly going out of your way to repeatedly use a derogatory-sounding synonym for 'agnostic atheist', others might follow suit and refer to you as a 'negative theist' at every turn.
Is there any other way?
What are "supernatural laws?" Considering there is not one iota of valid evidence to collaborate any claims or ideas of supernatural phenomenon having any effect on or interaction with the natural world, it can be logically concluded that the supernatural does not operate in the natural realm. If it did, it would no longer be supernatural, as I already said. But you seem to think there is an interaction between the natural and supernatural. So how about you prove that!
Still the facts remain: Humans have a continuous line of faith strung out from ancient times straight through to the Space age/Beyond. Its pantheon Includes many important scientists, great thinkers, and experts in this world's fields.
how then does anyone know anything about the 'supernatural'?
How do we know anything in this life? Through endeavors. We persist. We stick with it. Consider: When you wish to study logic you acquire a book. Science - a book. Critical thinking - a book. God and spirituality: book(s). Books serve specific purposes. You simply have to pick one up and explore as if your spiritual life depends on 'it.'
CB!
You are becoming my favorite Don Quixote!
Kudos!
Is that yet another claim or it is part of the same? That's nice, prove it.
You first!
Yes. Evidence that our minds are susceptible to believing what we wish to be true.
Books are a means of communication. What they communicate varies from pure opinion to hard facts. While science too is communicated via books, magazines, videos, etc. what makes science different is that the communicated claims are corroborated by solid evidence and logic.
So arguing something like: 'the Bible is a book; science textbooks are books; therefore religious beliefs are as credible as scientific theories' is silly. You recognize that, right?
I am inclined to agree with you when Christian conservatives go too far. I wish they would dail it back a bit. Moreover, I wish all extremists would pull their hands inward to their chest quite a bit!
BTW Tig, what is derogatory "sounding" about the term, negative atheist? And, beyond what it "sounds" like is the term legit, in your opinion?
As I stated, it's Christian liberty. Apostle Paul introduced the concept of not being under a tutor, but walking by faith as ultimately the way to God. So we have all manners of "steppers" plowing their way to God. Some of whom are following the paths cut by others, and others cutting their own paths to God! Christian liberty.
And there it it!
But if there was an actual active creator trying to make itself known to all humanity—.
Whatever gives you the notion that at this point in time, God has intentions of making its presence know to ALL HUMANITY? Is it reasonable to think that Christians and other world religions can tell God is not 'sitting out in the open field of this world'?!
Answer me this: Do you actually think adherents to world religions believe God is visible to their 'naked' senses? Really? Well, we do not! The Books of the Bible have a culmination. Yeah, I know—you're "skeptical"!
I'm not so inclined to put much believe in things thought to be true that were "discovered" back when the earth was flat, only birds flew and not much was verified.
I do believe man's knowledge of the world has changed and grown since then.
That is undeserving of this comment.
Of course, knowledge has increased. And one day, you and I am going to look as backwards as a dung beetle to onlookers too! To the dung beetle in its day- a 'wad' is as good as it gets!
Does 'negative theist' sound like a good thing to you? How about 'negative politician', 'negative thought', 'negative viewpoint', 'negative comment', etc.?
Probably why the term, albeit legit, is rarely used.
I have no such notion.
As noted in my comment (the one to which you replied):
Your response, it would seem, is that you do indeed recognize that the religions are all over the map. You explain this by stating that God apparently has not been clear to everyone. Implying of course that some people 'know' the truth while others (most) do not. For whatever divine reason, God wants humanity to have a contradictory understanding of what God wants and what God plans for His creations.
Confusion is exactly what one would expect if human beings were pretending to speak for God. What we see correlates well with that. But you see this as a divine plan. Interesting.
Please be more vague.
Some claim that.
Have a chat with LFOD on this. He claims to have had a physical interaction with God. In a more abstract sense maybe ask Drakk. I suspect Drakk would speak of certain direct communication with God but would probably not describe it as an experience through 'naked' senses (depending upon what that actually means).
The books of the Bible have been and continue to be interpreted in wildly different ways. You know this. So how can anyone know that their interpretation is truth? That they are the ones to whom God has revealed Himself? People claim to be able to communicate with God and have this knowledge. Do you buy it? Why / why not?
Negative-atheism/atheist is legit for the majority of atheists on this thread. And it has little to nothing to do with connotation.
For whatever divine reason, God wants humanity to have a contradictory understanding of what God wants and what God plans for His creations.
Of course, religions are mankind-made. What does God need with our methods and styles of learning and teaching ourselves service? Mankind needs organization, structure, and development. Rituals and discipline instills it. But, you are looking at this as a natural man without any spiritual insight!
That man has provided world religions for its generations to pass on, that man has written it all down in books to remember, just enhances the point: God has provided spiritual development and insights in a specific locale to be accessed in any number of ways. Of course, skeptics refuse to accept it. Could it be the environs are the problem?
God clearly has divine reasoning. I would certainly venture such reasoning to be superior to humanity's and its "human condition." That is just my opinion.
Tig! You are a negative-atheist yes or no? You lack of believe in God, gods. I am fine with it as you!
We are nearing an end to this line of communication, so why would I wish to delve into a waste of time fielding God questions with you?
You believe that God wants humanity to have a contradictory understanding of what He wants and what He plans for His creations.
Interesting.
You almost never actually field questions. Typing words is not 'fielding questions'. Fielding a question would be a direct answer.
Negative theist it is.
You hold to a lack of belief in God and gods. Yeah, you. . .care?
A bit too vague. Care about what, specifically?
Theists do not have "lack of belief" in God. So. . . .
If negative-atheist is used as a derogatory synonym for agnostic-atheist then negative-theist correlates with agnostic-theist.
Okay, shoot. What is the definition of "negative-theist"?
@3.1.73
You made up "negative-theism" on your own just now? How long before you get it accepted into an online dictionary somewhere? Just curious.
I believe you're the one who started using the term "negative atheism" which paved the way for "negative theism" since you're trying to redefine something that doesn't need to be redefined just so you can literally add a "negative" context to it.
I attempted to alter your negative labeling by humorously pointing out that I'm a positive (attitude) Atheist but you apparently didn't get the humor because you then tried to point out my definition wasn't your definition, which should have been obviously intentional by my response.
But if you insist on trying to redefine agnostic atheist because you just can't let other people self identify, I can point out how your "negative atheist" label is flawed.
A "negative" atheist, in your apparent definition, is one who doesn't "positively" assert there is no God. Thus a "positive" atheist must be one who does assert there is no God.
But by your relabeling you actually miss the point of Gnostic and agnostic atheism. I can positively assert that I believe there is no God, while also accepting that I do not know everything so I humbly wait to be proven wrong. I'm an agnostic atheist. I am not a Gnostic atheist which is what you're claiming a "positive atheist" is. A Gnostic atheist is closer to a Gnostic theist than they are to an agnostic atheist in that it requires an enormous amount of faith to claim you definitely do know there is no God, just like it takes that same amount of faith to assert there definitely is a God with no empirical evidence.
Agnostic atheists and agnostic theists are closely related in that both lack faith, and while the agnostic atheist sees no evidence for God and thus doesn't believe, they lack a certain amount of faith and are open to changing their minds if evidence were ever produced. They aren't opposed to the idea of a God, but find no motivation to believe (other than the constant nagging of believers merely trying to validate their own faith) and thus they simply can't put faith in something that has no evidence. And their counterpart, agnostic theists actively like the idea of a God, but still have trouble putting faith in the specifics of one, naming it, deciding what it does and doesn't like and then altering behavior to align with a specific deity.
Go team! The negative-atheist asserts that she or he has a lack of belief in God and gods.
The negative theist recognizes the possibility that God might not exist.
Claims of existence require facts to support said claim that something exists but for more than 2000 years there have been no facts. Religious belief or faith doesn't create anything except for maybe a group delusion.
Why did you create the phrase "positive atheism"?
Atheist Philosopher Antony Flew, in The Presumption of Atheism 1976, coined the expressions, "negative atheism" and "positive atheism" and should appropriately get the credit due him (and/or your ire). This is where you derive your redefinition, leading to atheism meaning: "a lack of belief in God and gods."
Originally, atheism meant (and still does in its oldest forms. 500 years thereabouts): Someone who asserts that there is no such being as God .
The presumption of atheism which I want to discuss is not a form of presumptuousness. Indeed it might be regarded as an expression of the very opposite, a modest teachability. My presumption of atheism is closely analogous to the presumption of innocence in the English law; a comparison which I shall develop in Section 2. What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist .
The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays [1976] the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively . I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels ' positive atheist ' for the former and ' nega tive atheist ' for the latter.
The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?' It is too soon to attempt a full answer to this challenge and this suggestion. My justification for introducing the notion of negative atheism will be found in the whole development of the present chapter. Then in Chapter Two I intend to argue for a return to the original usage of the word 'agnosticism', as first introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley. In the meantime it should be sufficient to point out that, following the present degenerate usage, an agnostic is one who, having entertained the proposition that God exists, now claims not to know either that it is or that it is not true. To be in this ordinary sense an agnostic you have already to have conceded that there is, and that you have, a legitimate concept of God; such that, whether or not this concept does in fact have application, it theoretically could. But the atheist in my peculiar interpretation, unlike the atheist in the usual sense, has not as yet and as such conceded even this. This point is important, though the question whether the word 'agnosticism' could bear the meaning which I want now to give to the word 'atheism' is not .
What the protagonist of my presumption of atheism wants to show is that the debate about the existence of God ought to be conducted in a particular way, and that the issue should be seen in a certain perspective. His thesis about the onus of proof involves that it is up to the theist : first, to introduce and to defend his proposed concept of God; and, second, to provide sufficient reason for believing that this concept of his does in fact have an application.
I "created" no such thing, epistte! See @3.1.82 .
Religious belief or faith doesn't create anything except for maybe a group delusion.
That's nice. Prove it!
If there are positive and negative atheists, then there must also be positive and negative theists for people are absolutely convinced that there is a god and for those who believe in god but also allow for the possibility that god may not exist. TiG explained these two terms as gnostic theists and agnostic theists last week.
Are you again on this nonsense claim that 'agnostic atheism' is a redefinition?
Believing in what you cannot prove is a delusion. When groups of people take part in that activity is a group delusion. The fact that religion is socially acceptable doesn't change the core idea that they are believing in what cannot be rationally supported. Religious people believe in talking snakes and bushes that burn but are not harmed. They also believe in a flood that could not have possibly occurred for many reasons. Zombies do not exist and neither does immaculate conception.
No believing is something's that you can not prove is faith. Everyone has faith in something, even you can I am sure if you honestly looked at the things you believe some of themyou do so not based on any proof but on faith that the they are true and accurate. I don't expect that you will give or even think about it honestly. For you to show that you have faith that something withiut proof is just to hard to do with
Do we have to have denominations of atheists now? This hair splitting is getting worse than religious differances
(also comment number 100)
How long do you plan to believe when there is nothing to support that religious faith for more than 2000 years?
The more that you know about religious belief the more obvious it becomes that is it a bad myth. Why is your belief more acceptable than the Greek, Roman or Hindu deities? Why cant you apply to the same criteria to your beliefs that you apply to those religious beliefs and/or deities? How would your life change if you stopped believing in the Christian god?
Do not ever project your ideas on to me as a way to defend your illogical beliefs or your religious faith. I am not like you so do not attempt to project your beliefs as a way to make them acceptable to yourself or to others.
I was thinking the same thing.
I don't care what anyone else believes or if they don't believe at all. All I want is the same rights as all of those people. I want to be able to celebrate my feast days, wear my jewelry and enjoy Mother. Too bad I cannot do all those things as others are allowed.
Never said they weren't . They are not my beliefs but may be just as valid. I do not now nor gave I ever believed one side fits all..
Thank the Lord!
Did not think you would give an honest answer and I see I wasn't disappointed at you
Well, I am 65 now. I guess I have about another 20 years or so.. Why do you care what I believe? How does it effect you?
Where and how are you prevented from doing any of those things?
Do you believe that worshipping Zeus, Jupiter, or Thor would be considered a rational action in the 21st century?
You're not half as thankful as I am to praise FSM.
I am interested in learning why you believe my previous answer wasn't honest.
It is just a logical question. Why would you want to believe in what you cannot prove? Is your faith an emotional comfort mechanism? I see theistic religion as emotional junk food to be discarded.
Logic to me is a critical concept of who I am and I question what I believe or why I do something every day and discard what I cannot support. The idea of "An unexamined life not being worth living" is at the core of who I am. I strive to learn something new for a minimum of 30-45 minutes a day. Some days its as simple as reading a book or maybe it is a university lecture on YouTube.
I am not allowed to wear my pentagram necklace to work because it makes other people uncomfortable, however Christians are allowed to wear torture devices (some with dead bodies on them) around their necks even if I am uncomfortable with it. In an equal country I should be allowed to wear my necklace even though others are uncomfortable with it.
I am forced to take off the Christian holiday of Christmas, but have to take vacation days to celebrate my own feast days. In an equal country then I should be allowed to trade Christian holidays for my own without being forced to take vacation days.
I really do not care what, how or who other people believe in it really is not my concern.
Because you refuse to acknowledge that there are something's you believe are true because of faith.
We'll stick to "agnostic atheist" - that's a far more widely accepted term. You apparently prefer "negative atheist" because of the "negative" connotation. I'm an agnostic atheist. You are a gnostic theist, apparently.
Do you play these games of semantics with your friends and family in real life?
I figured that too, but Cal has recently stated that he does indeed recognize the possibility that the Christian God does not exist.
What would those be, if you know so much about what I am supposed to believe?
if this were truly the case, then i can't imagine why you would state this:
@3.1.88 - for someone who "doesn't care" - there seems to be enough caring to comment and assert that another poster has beliefs (even tho you apparently "don't" care, right ?). If you truly didn't care... then i would venture to say that you wouldn't bother commenting on the article/topic at all since it's all about other people's belief's which you claim:
correct ?
wait.. what ? who cares if that poster refuses or not ? the whole topic is other people's beliefs and you already claimed to not care, right ?
Excuse you? You do not want to hear the 'clapback' from this one. So keeping it real. Drop that rock!
You can figure anything you wish. Does not mean it can or will be indulged.
How old is your "lack of belief in God and gods" and agnostic-atheists, et ceteras definition? Ball park it please. If you know, that is.
You did not actually read what I wrote.
Well, there is movement. . . you affirm the terms "positive and negative atheists" are not my creations. Moreover, I assume you can see they are atheist philosopher Antony Flew's terms from 1976. That is a start!
It gets even more interesting, Charger!
I want and demand diversity in my life, Veronica! I have always expected much out of myself and others different from me. I respect your freedoms to be blessed.
I agree! Everybody is fighting for the rights and privileges to legally exist as long as they hurt no one else. You should look for occasions and situations to safely and securelty advocate for yourself and others in your community. It has to start somewhere. For example, the movie industry is responsible for a lot of bad imagery on the topic of witches (fictional) and although that makes great entertainment, it is not real. You can begin a letter writing campaign or conversation by phone with industry folks (suggestion lines, et ceteras) to balance the imagery with what is WHOLESOME about who you are and continue to be.
I know it won't be easy. I know what the barriers are - having experienced them firsthand in life. However, looking at it positively, you're get to make life better for the next 'crop' to walk with their shoulders held high; let them stand on your shoulders too! That can be a really stellar feeling inside!
How about that for a beginning 'getting to know you'? It is time for good people of all stripes to start talking to each other and not just at each other. After all, we're good - people, right? RIGHT?
I shall let you in fully on what I apparently prefer. What I prefer is that the atheists on NT cut the crap and talk about who they are as atheists, and what they are as atheists, and what that means to them to be atheists. Instead of this chickenshit of mocking, ridiculing, and trashing others different from them. That is what I prefer. And, I can get on with discussing what I feel is worthy to share about theism. It's called equal output of diversity!
But, NT atheists will persist in attempting oneupsmanship and being "all slam all the time." Even if being just so, can not satisfactorily change one soul from the love of God it is truly experiencing.
"Negative-atheist" is older than agnostic-atheist, I am pretty sure, but I am double-checking. Correct me if you know different.
Anyway, both terms are getting at is this: A neutral position. Of, neither claiming (to know) god does NOT exist, but holding to a lack of belief in God, gods. Here is what it looks like in practice:
It is to live life like a full-on atheist, without accepting any responsibility for stating God does not exist!
You are painting with a wide brush there Cal.
Forgive me, in my 'haste' I neglected to write, "some atheists on NT". . . . An important and necessary distinction!
Agnostic atheism is simply not being convinced that a god exists while recognizing that a god might exist.
Accept responsibility for a claim that is only made by gnostic atheists? That makes no sense. And given the amount of time we have spent explaining the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheists this cannot be a result of ignorance. So why are you making such a senseless claim?
Point-blank: How long has the term, "agnostic-atheist" been in public use, ball park it if you do not know for sure, please.
Why are you asking about etymology rather than replying to the content of the comment to which you 'replied'?
You have my question.
Then my response is sorry. Thoughtful discussion involves actually responding to the content of posts and, crucially, staying on a train of thought. Veering off on irrelevant tangents is obnoxious. An oft-repeated practice of doing so drains the patience of those who might be willing to discuss things with you.
Why are you trying to move the goalposts, again? Do you have a problem with the use of gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists or is there an attempt to use this man's linguistics and then claim a gotcha when you tell people that he later converted to being a Christian when he was senile?
Maybe you do not have any answer to the question. Oh well. Games.
Agnostic atheism is a euphemism for negative atheism: A lack of belief in god, gods; disbelief in gods, gods.
Atheist Philosopher Antony Flew:
What the protagonist of my presumption of atheism wants to show is that the debate about the existence of God ought to be conducted in a particular way, and that the issue should be seen in a certain perspective. His thesis about the onus of proof involves that it is up to the theist: first, to introduce and to defend his proposed concept of God; and, second, to provide sufficient reason for believing that this concept of his does in fact have an application.
|
In other words, a agnostic-atheist ("one who lacks belief in god, gods; disbelief in gods, gods) insist that a theist CONVINCE them of what they as an ATHEIST, for intents and purposes, will not allow themselves to be PERSUADED OF, if possible!
It is a sham. A scam. A futile task.
Where is the objective evidence of god existing? Your religious belief and faith are not objective evidence.
A group I belong to (not a coven) have been doing that for a couple of years now. I have written to sponsors of TV programs that have portrayed witches in the worst possible light. I do not know how much it helps, but I have seen a rise in characters on shows actually state that the violence ascribed to witches as being inaccurate.
As far as getting to know people & having open discussions I am all for it. I hope I am a good people.
I appreciate anyone that actually stands up and supports diversity.
As long as far as I care you can believe anything you want to .
As except for being a bit too liberal for my tastes, you are a good person. ( just don't turn me into a newt🦎 )🤗😜
I consider myself a social conservative. I believe that we should help those less fortunate within reason (even with my taxes), but believe that the government should make a budget & stick to it.
Since I believe in the Power of Three, turning you into a newt would not be a good thing for me.
Negative atheist dates from 1976. The term agnostic atheist dates from the late 1800s. Robert Flint wrote (from Wikipedia):
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other"
Why would I accept any responsibility for stating God does not exist when I am not claiming definitely that no gods exist? I take responsibility for stating that I don't believe any gods exist, because that is what I think. Your constant attempts to make atheists out to be something they aren't is curious ... and seems to be tying your brain in knots.
But he could get better!
I find it outrageous that you can't wear your religious symbol at work but everybody else can wear their crosses/crucifixes. You're not being allowed to express your religious beliefs and that's discrimination. If your pentagram is disallowed, then all religious symbols should be banned.
As far as TV, "Charmed" did a good job of showing witches/Wiccans in a positive light
I now wear necklaces of my totem animal, but it still bothers me. I am lucky to have a supervisor who allows me to schedule vacation days for all my feast days when they fall within the work week. She lets me off even if my co-worker is off on vacation.
I did watch Charmed (another guilty pleasure). However; I was very disappointed in Supernatural when they mispronounced Samhain.
I watched a few season of Supernatural and then got bored
Emphasizing (above) the critical observation.
This relabeling game is not new. A while back the game was to use the term 'militant atheist'. Now it is 'negative atheist'. This silly campaign ignores the fact that virtually every atheist on NT identifies as agnostic atheist with a consistent interpretation of that well-defined term. This has been explained to CB endlessly, yet he remains on a solo mission tacking up posters and handing out bumper-stickers with the label 'Negative Atheist'.
Note this:
CB wants to have an honest thoughtful discussion about atheism (@ 3.1.111 ) and his approach for encouraging such discussion is to try, pathetically, to relabel atheists (@ 3.1.121 ) with a pejorative term.
Seems to me you are frustrated that you cannot persuade people to your belief. My advice is to not try to convince agnostic atheists that your god exists. You have not provided facts or logic to make even a lukewarm argument. You have no evidence. You have no rational rebuttal to the evidence against biblical divinity. Your entire argument, netted down, is basically: 'you need to open your heart to Jesus' and 'the Bible is divine'.
Agnostic atheists are not convinced there is a god. You will not be able to persuade people to your belief by emotionally insisting you are correct or by going on a pejorative label campaign. What you would need is evidence and logic. To date, you have shown very little of either on this topic, IMO
Sounds like a socially liberal fiscal conservative. We are of like mind in that regard.
so a SLFC....
Trout Giggles also falls into this camp.
I enjoyed it the first couple of seasons, but also grew bored & they kept killing off the people I liked.
You ARE good people, in my book! I
good people! Yes, I doooooo!!!
Can I point out, CB, that by the definition of Atheism you are also an Atheist?
Throughout history there have been tens of thousands of Gods or deities. You disbelieve all except for 1. The definition does not indicate a requirement for lack of belief in ALL gods.
You disbelieve in the existence of thousands upon thousands of "Gods". Welcome to the club.
Ironically, it is the "eye-gate" of television and media which magnificently affects culture. We see, we learn, we sympathize, and most certainly can EMPATHIZE with little known groups to us when they open up and be themselves. For example, despite my stark image here (some say), you would never know of my love for all God's people unless I open up a lane and let it pour out. That's when we see the heart of a person who held at a distance can seem cold and dry.
Even when I find something to disagree with another person, I can cherish the good coming out from that same one. Diversity? I am all about it. I appreciate people, my dear!
I can't 'link' to your quote as written. You assistance would be appreciated. (Smile.) Oh, and my brain is fine. Thank you very much.
I'm sorry. You seem to think theists on these many, many, discussions are interested in CONVINCING a hardened non-believer like yourself of God? But, that would be proselytizing. And, that is a big fat no-no. Not too many "proselytizing' red flags flying about are there? Because that is not what is occurring (as anyone can honestly discern.)
I encourage people of faith to present themselves in "god discussions" because their perspectives can help! If the "lack of beliefers" can offer anything to a god discussion-surely, the faithful can offer as much or more!
I am a bit confused that no one atheist has leapt to explain this to you, but no matter. The atheist on this site have a lack of belief in ALL Gods. I fully understand they are not breaking the term down to a specific Hebrew God or a listing of other 'lesser' gods. The 'shorthand' here is understood to be a lack of belief in GOD-gods, inclusive.
Ozzwald, I hope this helps!
I have a necklace with a Celtic knot charm. I've only ever had one person identify it as a religious symbol in the 20+ years that I have owned it
99.5% of people can't get that pronunciation correct. It took me a long while even after someone helped me with the pronunciation.
A discussion / debate forum is a very poor venue to have echo chamber religious discussions. The web is replete with religious forums where believers can discuss every aspect of religion they wish.
Here, however, you are posting to a mixed group in an environment where people ideally do not see eye-to-eye and ideally are willing to honestly discuss and debate their differences.
Best to understand the dynamic. Launching campaigns to attach pejorative labels to those whose arguments you consistently fail to counter is counter-productive.
Ozzwald was explaining that you experience lack of belief with thousands of gods - with one exception.
So you should fully understand what is involved in 'lack of belief' and should have numerous reasons to explain why you lack belief in Odin, Vishnu, Zeus, etc.
To wit, you fully experience atheism every day regarding thousands of gods and theism every day regarding one god.
Nice pivot. How obvious it is to charge and identify spiritual discussions as "echo chambers" and atheists' activism as debate. Actually, it is noted some here have a singular focus of debate—against world religions, its adherents, and faith. Even catching people of faith unawares!
As to the "mixed environment" it is ripe with divisive exploitation. Not sure if anybody expects or invites atheists who SAY they are neutral (lack a belief in God, gods) about God to show up to 'EXPLAIN' God, religion,and FAITH to the, wait for it,. . . faithful. Now there is a "dynamic," full-frontal!
And? How does that change anything for a monotheist? (Oh, all the labels to choose!) Some SAY they have a lack a belief in God and gods, inclusive.
Yet it is clear to anybody who can read that some atheists have a strong opinion that NO GOD, gods exist—full stop. After all, some atheists CERTAINLY know the three Abrahamic religions followers are peoples of faith! Yet, these atheists appear non-stop to hold so-called evidential "debate" anyway.
An entirely dishonest mangling of my words.
Not going to re-explain what I just explained. Read more carefully or ask someone else.
The problem is that many atheists do not understand why people have that faith. Faith should be earned, not given freely.
Although there is a Prince in a foreign country that needs your help, and he will reward you generously for your faith in him along with a small donation to help him out so he can access his funds.
Ozzwald, you should be careful with your thoughts. Remember, you are speaking about something another is living and breathing into life.
Hebrews 11: (NT Moderators: This section is foundational to comment @3.1.150!)
32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets,
33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions,
34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.
35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.
36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment.
37 They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—
38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.
So there is nothing 'free' or cheap about faith in God from olden times to even now in this world. The United States' and the western world experiences of faith in the present era may appear to be seamless with rewards only; but believers do pay and count the cost for having a faith unlike others.
Which explains why the Christian religion gave up on the vow of poverty.
Be careful, or what? While the Bible is rife with stories about your God coming down and striking at enemies, or providing miracles, there is an amazing lack of them in real life, or anywhere else other than the Bible and other works of fiction.
“All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
“Go back to the abyss! Fall into nothingness that awaits you and your master!”
I can quote too.
Okay, wasn't expecting that! I am not going to argue about it, either.
Turn beliefs on? What is this nonsense? If recitation turns beliefs "on," what role does faith serve?
That's how indoctrination works. Faith is the result of indoctrination or, in some cases, brainwashing.
Insults are not argument. (Smile.)
Pointing out facts is not an insult.
Or, just accentuate the negative and call up, "Debbie Downer" from the abyss! It won't change a thing about a life of faith accompanied by the indwelling Spirit.