Atheist opinion polls in America

[Fanman]

Felix,

Not compelling to you because you (apparently) cannot leave the bounds of logical thought. But to someone whose experience of Life is unitive, who doesn't feel a sense of separation from life, "God" is a way of being, not a belief system.

I can't really disagree with you. I don't doubt that God is a way of life for believers. But I do think that people who live with God in mind or according to a particular doctrine also have a belief system. They seem to me at least, to be two-sides of the same coin. In terms of compelling reasons to believe that God exists, the atheist or even agnostic, doesn't find any. I don't think this means that “we” are unable to leave the bounds of logic. I've experienced a few things where logic cannot provide any satisfying answers, where I've thought “could there be a spiritual explanation,” but with the knowledge I have and the explanations available, I tend to leave such issues as God and spirituality in the “I don't know box” where it would seem presumptuous to draw any conclusions.

[Fooloso4]

Felix:

Not compelling to you because you (apparently) cannot leave the bounds of logical thought. But to someone whose experience of Life is unitive, who doesn't feel a sense of separation from life, "God" is a way of being, not a belief system.

It is not a matter of being incapable of leaving the bounds of logical thought but of knowing that there are limits to knowledge. The problem arises when someone believes that they have transcended those limits, and talk about what they imagine and believe and feel a sense of as if that must correspond to something beyond. They may prefer the term inspiration to imagination, but the distinction begs the question. It assumes or claims the existence of something transcendent that inspires.

Knowing that there is more than our limited knowledge and limited experience does not mean that we can thereby see beyond those limits. There is a great deal of meaning and value in the creations of the imagination. If someone makes or finds something that resonates with them, something that compels them, something that brings significance to their lives, that should be acknowledged and respected. But when one goes further and begins making ontological claims about what moves them then critical philosophy plays an important function in questioning the veracity of such claims.

Consistent with the limits of human knowledge we cannot deny the existence of what lies beyond those limits, but neither can we confirm it. Belief is not knowledge. What one believes, whether it can properly be referred to as a system or not, shapes one’s “way of being”. One should, of course, be free to believe what they want about such things. Once again, the problem arises when one insists that what they believe is true and is therefore something known. When one claims that those who do not believe or live as they do is limited, but that they are not. That they can see below the surface. And yet what they claim is see is not what others claim to see or experience or know.

[Dark Matter]

Fanman: There is no compelling reason (I'm aware of) for someone without spiritual beliefs to believe in God, and by compelling in this sense I mean empirical.

Not compelling to you because you (apparently) cannot leave the bounds of logical thought. But to someone whose experience of Life is unitive, who doesn't feel a sense of separation from life, "God" is a way of being, not a belief system.

I think you hit the nail on the head. That's what I meant by seeing the surface of the ocean and thinking they know it's depths.

-- Updated May 21st, 2017, 12:01 pm to add the following --

Skeptics like fan an and F4 don't seem to realize that they, too, rely on a belief system; one that they believe gives them exclusive access to knowledge. At least, that's what it sounds like. It's all illusion, of course. There is no "knowledge," no certainty and no separation. Every impulse of every electron, thought, word and deed is an acting unit of the whole.

"I refuse to be intimidated by reality anymore. What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch." -- Lily Tomlin

[Fanman]

DM,

A belief system that gives us exclusive access to knowledge? What belief system is that? If such a statement were correct, it wouldn't be a belief system. Neither myself or F4 have implied anything like that. We both readily accept that we're working with limited knowledge and that there are an unquantifiable amount of things that we don't know. You're describing caricatures of us, not the real deal. As for knowing the "ocean's depths" I don't think that anyone has or does, because in the context of our discussion, surely the ocean contains and infinite amount of "depth?"

[Eduk]

So based off of your certainty that there is no certainty you are certain that people who say they aren't certain can certainly only see the surface and not the depths. While never describing anything that is below the surface. You seem pretty certain of yourself.

[Dark Matter]

,

You're describing caricatures of us, not the real deal.

I'm describing what I see.

-- Updated May 21st, 2017, 2:17 pm to add the following --

You caricaturize religion and that's okay; but it's not okay for me to caricaturize your style of atheism?

[Felix]

What I was trying to say is that a religious knowledge that is founded on mental concepts alone is like a sand castle, it will soon become unrecognizable and eventually fall when the waves of Life wash over it. And that's mostly what people here argue about: definitions of God and religion and what seems true or false. If one's faith is not founded on direct experience, which could be an intuitive sense of the infinite, it's just a funny idea one happens to subscribe to, more or less useful or restrictive.

In another thread, Burning ghost mentioned Husserl's idea of the "prescientific man," which one might define as the man who has not become corrupted by superficial knowledge, become so mentally top heavy and outer directed that he has developed a sort of tunnel vision towards Life, and reality is whatever can filter through his mental lens. Perhaps one has to spend time with a "prescientific man" to really understand this - whether it's a genuine yogi, native american shaman, mystic, or whatever. When you're always surrounded by people who think and see the world as you do, that world-view is constantly being reinforced, becomes normal and natural to you, and you develop a tendency to reject whatever is contrary to it. This is not to say that the prescientific man couldn't become just as biased emotionally against the scientific world-view (as is seen in religious fundamentalism), but that too is a form of corruption by exoteric knowledge.

[Fooloso4]

Fanman:

As for knowing the "ocean's depths" I don't think that anyone has or does, because in the context of our discussion, surely the ocean contains and infinite amount of "depth?"

The assumption is that we cannot look below the surface but they can. It is the classic story of Narcissus where one falls in love with his own image that they see reflected back at themselves. Of course in this context it is not a physical image of themselves they see but rather an image of what they imagine is below the depth.

That is not to say that one cannot look and see something at a deeper level, but what is seen should be something that others too can see. Not surprisingly, what is seen by those who claim that others who do not share their beliefs or concerns cannot see varies.

Felix:

In another thread, Burning ghost mentioned Husserl's idea of the "prescientific man," which one might define as the man who has not become corrupted by superficial knowledge …

This is not what Husserl means. He is not talking about “the man who” but rather he is pointing to consciousness at the level of lived experience as primary for an understanding of science and consciousness. In other words, he is denying that a proper understanding of consciousness can be arrived at via the science but can only come through an investigation of subjective experience which is prior to and in the Kantian sense a transcendental condition for the possibility of science.

[Sy Borg]

Skeptics like fan an and F4 don't seem to realize that they, too, rely on a belief system; one that they believe gives them exclusive access to knowledge. At least, that's what it sounds like. It's all illusion, of course. There is no "knowledge," no certainty and no separation. Every impulse of every electron, thought, word and deed is an acting unit of the whole.

This harks back to my earlier comment bout spirituality being about the self, and that's where intuition is important. Science is about the self largely insofar as it's a minuscule part of the whole.

As far as I can tall there certainly is knowledge, separation and certain somewhat conditional certainties, but I agree that everything is part of larger dynamics - and in quite a few layers.

[Fanman]

DM,

I think that religion is helpful to a great many people, which is why I think that its at its best when pursued on a personal basis – with a view to self reflection, self development and spiritual growth. Although I don't advocate belief in God, I think that it can be useful for the reasons I've mentioned and others. But in many respects religion is also a corporation, with it's own views, stance on life and politics which are very old and set in stone. Because of this, I don't think its beneficial that religion have state authority. By all means apply it's best teachings as ethical models and examples for effective social morality, but it's tribal aspects I think are antithetical to a culturally diverse society and other freedoms afforded by secularism. I think that secularism supports the development of society with freedoms that religion doesn't advocate. There are also controls and safety measures that govern the advancement of secularism. In that respect it is not the “wild beast” that religion tends to portray it as. A “beast” it may be in many respects, but secularism is a beast with reins living in a reserve. I don't mean to caricaturize religion, but that is how it seems to me.

In respects of knowledge and the metaphorical ocean you describe, I think that F4 makes a valid point. If there is indeed some deeper level of knowledge that can be found through the study of religion – then that knowledge should be able to be seen by everyone, not just those who believe or are inclined to intuitive understanding through experience. I think that the nature of knowledge is that it is visible to all, not just those who have a special interest. If believers possessed knowledge of the transcendent, after all of this time shouldn't they be able to present it as knowledge rather than ideas?

[Dark Matter]

The arguments posed by those who discount religion are circular, ad hoc, evasive, full of inconsistencies and contradictions and invariably proceed from bias and a profound ignorance of religion. They are mind-numbingly superficial. It's like talking to two-dimensional “flatlanders.”

And quite frankly, Fanman, your post proves it. Example: "Knowledge should be able to be seen by everyone, not just those who believe or are inclined to intuitive understanding through experience." If you can't see why this is "mind-numbingly superficial" and shallow, then you cannot possibly understand the explanation as to why it is.

-- Updated May 31st, 2017, 1:47 am to add the following --

You must explain why your statement is true and you must present your evidence, else it must be regarded as a dogmatic statement of belief, something you believe simply because you want to.

[Eduk]

Dark matter you are going off topic. This is not supposed to be a discussion on the logic of religious beliefs.
Such a discussion is pointless if basic rules of logic can't be agreed upon before hand. And doubly pointless if not engaged in an intellectually honest and charitable manner.
Please try to stick to the topic. Or maybe start a new thread.

[Sacrontine]

The arguments posed by those who discount religion are circular, ad hoc, evasive, full of inconsistencies and contradictions and invariably proceed from bias and a profound ignorance of religion. They are mind-numbingly superficial.

I see you are a master of vague counterarguments. It's very easy to say everyone around you is illogical and biased as long as you don't bother explaining why.

[Eduk]

Sacrontine there is little point in arguing who is illogical if what is logical can't be agreed upon.

For example if I said 'I can turn invisible'. What arguments can you make that I should prove that I can turn invisible instead of that you should prove that I can't?

[Dark Matter]

I should have added 'double standards' to the list.