Are You A "Dictionary Atheist"?

by cofty 36 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  Sorry I must have misenterpreted this: - When Myers says that rejection of god

  Cyberjesus, I think you are being pedantic. It illustrates precisely the point that Myers is making.

  Unshackled thanks for the analogy. To take it a step further I suppose Myers is encouraging believers to more than stand aloof from the fueds of the sun & moon zealots and to promote a posisitve case for discovering the truth about thier world in a more rational way.

  Newchapter I sympathise with your point. I do wonder though if the apathetic aloofness or detachment from the world of belelivers is realistic or helpful? Many of them are actively trying to promote the teaching of unscientific nonsense in schools, to deny human rights to people based on their sexuality and in other ways mold the world to their ideals.

  From the perspective of the dictionary yes we simply reject the evidence for god, but in fact we also stand for a great deal of positive things that are informed by the same way of seeing the world that led us to that conclusion.

  Tammy - the psychological tendancy to look for a higher power is no evidence of its objective existence
• 

  Murray Smith

  Even the very term "Dictionary Atheist" highlights to me a couple of limitations which often prejudice human thinking . . .

  1. Because of our reliance on language we feel a need to 'label' things . . . often with a single word. And yet that label will often hold a huge variety of meaning depending on the preconceptions, biases, life experience, knowledge etc of the interpreter. When we use a 'label', we use it only within the confines of our own variables and these can only be limiting to our understanding of others who use the same label . . . others who may have a very different interpretation.

  2. Humans tend to come to "conclusions" based on current knowledge, making little room for the yet "unknown". We can't stand a 'hung jury' but a definitive stance on a matter tends to close us off to the unknown, if and when it becomes knowable, simply because it is contrary to our definitive stance. This can be very limiting . . .

  Many believe they are completely receptive to new knowledge, but are in reality "barrow-pushers" of thier definitive position and receptive only to that which reinforces it . . . committed JW's are a perfect example. Beware of labels . . . and be generous in allowing for the unknown . . . we don't always have to take a definitive position . . . nor is it weak or shameful to change what you believe.
• 

  NewChapter

  Newchapter I sympathise with your point. I do wonder though if the apathetic aloofness or detachment from the world of belelivers is realistic or helpful? Many of them are actively trying to promote the teaching of unscientific nonsense in schools, to deny human rights to people based on their sexuality and in other ways mold the world to their ideals.

  I think I can defend science and education without getting into endless word games and discussions with believers about my personal beliefs--and they are beliefs, not non-beliefs. I respect people's need to have gods, and it really is not up to me to convince them otherwise. On the other hand, I really just don't think I need to answer to them. It would not necessarily be "helpful" to try to convince them of anything at all. My experience is that if you use logic on a believer, they cling ever tight to their theology. It is precious to them. I get that.

  In the meantime, I will concern myself with social justice, expanding my capacity to love, intellectual curiosity, and living my life in order to be happy, not to be an example to prove anything.

  Also, this is not apathetic aloofness. This is INTENTIONAL aloofness. I spent most of my life trying to convince people that my way was best, in that freaking ministry, I'm certainly not going to take up another ministry. Now, all that said, I am always open to discussion from people who really want to discuss and share ideas. That is a huge difference. In that case, I am not defending anything at all, and I can totally dig that.

  And just to make this point stronger. I do not need to discuss atheism or my beliefs in order to protect education and civil rights. Not in depth anyway. I simply need to argue those cases. I don't necessarily need to tell them why their religion is wrong, I only need to tell them why they cannot impose it on others. I am always up to that.
• 

  WontLeave

  Sadly, the more ignorant someone is, the more they cling to their "beliefs". More people need to stop believing and start knowing, and knowing requires information rather than just picking what you wish to believe and looking for websites that promote that belief. I saw a quote recently that I liked - I believe it was from Abraham Lincoln: "Once a man forms a theory, he sees evidence for it everywhere he looks." Conspiracy theorists do it, Evolutionists do it, theists do it - and actively seeking "proofs" while summarily rejecting or avoiding any disproof only polarizes someone even more.

  The way I look at it, I don't have a dog in the race: I didn't write the Bible, the Q'ran, Book of Mormon, Origin of Species, etc... I just want to know. Knowing is difficult and arduous, with all the agendas. Reading through the BS, spin, and propaganda requires a lot more effort than the vast majority of people are willing to expend. But, maybe that's a choice each must make: Know about life or have a life, because there isn't enough time in the day to do both. So, most just pick a belief system that fits their lifestyle, run with it, and hope for the best.

  Far too many people seem to fall at the opposite end of the spectrum, though. People who know absolutely nothing and cling militantly to their beliefs, while demanding all around them adopt those same beliefs. The more ignorant and brainwashed someone is, it seems the more angry and demanding that one is. It's as if somewhere in their minds, they know they look stupid, but elevating one's self is a lot more difficult than bringing others down to your level. In cases where they refuse to adopt our belief, simply deluding ourselves to the knee-jerk reaction that person is "a goat", "arrogant", "infidel", "apostate", "stupid", "redneck theist", etc. is more pleasing to the ego than admitting our argument was unpersuasive.

  The reality is, most people we encounter have chosen their belief system by what fits their lives and they really don't feel like taking the time and effort to completely reassess that belief unless something major happens in their lives to shake that foundation. Something happened in my life that made me doubt everything I'd been spoon-fed and put me on a "journey of enlightenment". Sometimes that happens, but most will simply be repelled to what they feel is "the other side" of whatever dichotomy they perceive and settle into another belief system that fits their current mindset and move on with life.
• 

  mindmelda

  By JINGO, I think he's an Atheist! (that was a joke, if you know what "jingoism" is...go look it up in the dictionary)

  I think this guys bumper sticker-ish comments only prove that there are bumper sticker thinkers everywhere. And simplistic thinkers.

  If only life could be summed up in slogans...boy, wouldn't that be convenient?

  It's human to doubt, to disbelieve, and it's also human to believe something strongly for no good reason, but it's a terrible reason to commit genocide or persecute people or endlessly annoy those who don't agree with you.

  After a lot of careful thought, (while drinking coffee) I've decided there's no way humans can prove something as BIG as a God who made the universe exists, because that is what the Christian God is and what absolute belief in him requires to satisfy rationality, which supposedly, he also blessed me with. Wow, I can't even imagine the universe, but I'm supposed to PROVE whatever or whoever caused it exists?

  GOD, why you make me rational and then give me no rational proof you exist? You make my head hurt!

  I'm not up to that, I can barely get through an article on basic quantum physics in Discover magazine. Maybe we can get Stephen Hawkings on this? Is he an atheist? I have no idea.

  I also cannot prove that God does NOT exist for the very same limitations. I can't say for sure either way. I'd kind of like there to be a God, because I have a list of questions for him.

  Some of them are probably gonna piss him off. The first one was up there, that one about making us rational but not giving us a rational way to prove he exists. That leads to all sorts of fighting over his nature and existence, which makes me wonder if that's how God amuses himself. The Greeks used to think so. At least their gods didn't pretend not to occasionally be douchebags.

  You start thinking rationally about God and there you are...he always ends up seeming like Sybil, all these personalities, some good, some bad, if you think he's responsible for EVERYTHING, which seems to be the claim.

  As Epicurius said: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he either able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

  There's an atheist I can get behind...one that just asks some good questions and lets you think for yourself, instead of sloganing you half to death.

  I always come out on the God question with a big. "I dunno, good question, though." *shrug*
• 

  tec

  Tammy

  -the psychological tendancy to look for a higher power is no evidence of its objective existence

  Sure it is. It's circumstantial evidence; albeit not proof or direct evidence.

  Either way, the tendency or search for something cannot be dismissed. Any other implied conclusion of why this tendency or search came about is also only circumstantial evidence.

  Tammy
• 

  zoiks

  Good thread.

  Myers' comments got me thinking as well. I know that I am guilty of wishfully thinking that my atheism reflects a sort of "platonic ideal", as he says, a pure-as-light lack of belief. But with any belief, stance, or ideal, a critically thinking mind helps us to reflect on why it is that we think a certain way. Upon reflection, I know that it has been my experience in life - physical and cognitive - has led me to my current atheism. Does this require me, or any other atheist, to take some sort of stand or push for some sort of social goal? Good question.
• 

  mindmelda

  Social goals are just part of being human too. We're social creatures who are always "looking for group". Churches are just another way to group up, albeit as human society evolves (or devolves), we'll come up with different versions of it, some of them will be and are secular.
• 

  cofty

  Interesting comments. I agree with Zoiks' remarks in particular.

  I'm sure there is no possibilty of me ever joining anything again but I'm not sure if that's the pont. Its made me more aware of the positive things that lurk behind the seemingly neutral statement that I don't believe in god.

  There is a significant social tension in the world between reason and "belief" and not just in the field of religion.

  Alternative medicine, anti-vaccination, climate change denial, all sorts of conspiracy theories, homeopathy, angels and a multi-billion dollar woo woo industry are different facets of the same thing.

  As Myers points out non-belief in god is just one aspect of the rational mind,
• 

  mindmelda

  But, after I read a scientific article on quantum physics and then one on how we perceive pain BEFORE the stimulus, which is recorded with scientific instruments, and not anticipatory because the subject was unware of when the stimulus was administered), I wonder how much that seems to be magical or metaphysical is just science or the nature of things poorly understood as YET?

  How things function on the quantum level, including medicine and our bodies, is just beginning to be understood. WE affect the nature of things on the quantum level, that has been proved years ago. How that translates into so-called metaphysical experiences has yet to be understood. Or even examined much.

  Thirty years ago, Western doctors thought that acupuncture was woo woo, and now it's proven to actually affect the nervous system positively in various ways, pain, healing and systemic strengthening. Studies done now show that transcendential meditation does indeed restructure the brain positively, particularly the hippocampus and amigdula, parts of the brain associated with healing, memory, and trauma in childhood. It's being taught by therapists to soldiers suffering from PTSD with positive measurable results.

  Woo woo is just what you don't understand, can't prove or maybe it's woo woo, but to think that YOU are the final word on what is woo woo because you know everything is as close minded as people who think The Flintstones is a documentary!

  I dislike close mindedness on either side, scientists and strict rationalists who think there is no room to expand their thinking are as bad as fundamentalists who unquestioningly believe in fairy tales.

  Both kinds of thinking are alike in one way, smugness.