Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice explanation of the origins of myth, seriously. While it may have been the natural science of its day, it isn't natural science anymore. And in fact, people don't think the greek myths are factual anymore. They are appreciated for what they are, but not held up as fact.

In contrast, current religious beliefs are often seen (among believers) as "gospel." People go to great lengths to show their beliefs are right and others' beliefs or nonbeliefs are wrong and right here on this board, there are those who discount the similarities between ancient myth and cherished religious beliefs.

So maybe pp's call of "nonsense" it was not about discounting the value of ancient myth, but of the folly of placing it over what we now know about literature and science.

"Modern myths", or modern religions, if you want to make that analogy, serve a different function in society, not as a precursor to natural science as perhaps in the olden days of Greek mythology.

But they do serve a function. Perhaps it is social or psychological. If you want to understand "why" people adhere to beliefs which strike you as completely illogical, then you need to try to understand what benefits these "believers" are getting out of it.

No one engages in behaviors for an extended period of time without getting a benefit or the possibility of a future benefit. Even religious people.

So people who believe in religions do so because they feel it provides answers to certain questions they have.

Atheists on the whole seem to believe they can come up with their own answers, or that science will provide the answers. The problem is when those answers aren't sufficient, what then? THAT is the question atheists need to answer for themselves.

They are getting community, acceptance of friends and family (sometimes lost if a person leaves the religion) a sense of being loved and protected by a powerful being and in the case of Christianity, eternal life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice explanation of the origins of myth, seriously. While it may have been the natural science of its day, it isn't natural science anymore. And in fact, people don't think the greek myths are factual anymore. They are appreciated for what they are, but not held up as fact.

In contrast, current religious beliefs are often seen (among believers) as "gospel." People go to great lengths to show their beliefs are right and others' beliefs or nonbeliefs are wrong and right here on this board, there are those who discount the similarities between ancient myth and cherished religious beliefs.

So maybe pp's call of "nonsense" it was not about discounting the value of ancient myth, but of the folly of placing it over what we now know about literature and science.

"Modern myths", or modern religions, if you want to make that analogy, serve a different function in society, not as a precursor to natural science as perhaps in the olden days of Greek mythology.

But they do serve a function. Perhaps it is social or psychological. If you want to understand "why" people adhere to beliefs which strike you as completely illogical, then you need to try to understand what benefits these "believers" are getting out of it.

No one engages in behaviors for an extended period of time without getting a benefit or the possibility of a future benefit. Even religious people.

So people who believe in religions do so because they feel it provides answers to certain questions they have.

Atheists on the whole seem to believe they can come up with their own answers, or that science will provide the answers. The problem is when those answers aren't sufficient, what then? THAT is the question atheists need to answer for themselves.

Not everything needs an answer. While we have figured out many things, humanity still has a lot to learn. I don't find that discomforting at all. On the contrary, think of everything we will continue to learn in our lifetime, our childrens' lifetimes. I think it's pretty cool.

-atheist (op of atheists only)

+1 and when questions arise, it's not likely that atheists will assume the answer is that a God they haven't believed in is responsible after all. This argument seems more like what believers have been taught about atheists -- that something will happen to make them finally see the light.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice explanation of the origins of myth, seriously. While it may have been the natural science of its day, it isn't natural science anymore. And in fact, people don't think the greek myths are factual anymore. They are appreciated for what they are, but not held up as fact.

In contrast, current religious beliefs are often seen (among believers) as "gospel." People go to great lengths to show their beliefs are right and others' beliefs or nonbeliefs are wrong and right here on this board, there are those who discount the similarities between ancient myth and cherished religious beliefs.

So maybe pp's call of "nonsense" it was not about discounting the value of ancient myth, but of the folly of placing it over what we now know about literature and science.

"Modern myths", or modern religions, if you want to make that analogy, serve a different function in society, not as a precursor to natural science as perhaps in the olden days of Greek mythology.

But they do serve a function. Perhaps it is social or psychological. If you want to understand "why" people adhere to beliefs which strike you as completely illogical, then you need to try to understand what benefits these "believers" are getting out of it.

No one engages in behaviors for an extended period of time without getting a benefit or the possibility of a future benefit. Even religious people.

So people who believe in religions do so because they feel it provides answers to certain questions they have.

Atheists on the whole seem to believe they can come up with their own answers, or that science will provide the answers. The problem is when those answers aren't sufficient, what then? THAT is the question atheists need to answer for themselves.

Not everything needs an answer. While we have figured out many things, humanity still has a lot to learn. I don't find that discomforting at all. On the contrary, think of everything we will continue to learn in our lifetime, our childrens' lifetimes. I think it's pretty cool.

-atheist (op of atheists only)

+1 - diplomatic atheist

I have to come to peace with the idea of randomness in the universe and the general lack of a higher purpose in my life. I find meaning by living a good life, enjoying it, helping people, seeing the world. Basically taking advantage of winning the lottery of life and being able to explore earth as a sentient being and helping other people do that too.

I know there are things I don't know and things humans will never know but I believe that's because of the limitations of our size and spot in the universe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice explanation of the origins of myth, seriously. While it may have been the natural science of its day, it isn't natural science anymore. And in fact, people don't think the greek myths are factual anymore. They are appreciated for what they are, but not held up as fact.

In contrast, current religious beliefs are often seen (among believers) as "gospel." People go to great lengths to show their beliefs are right and others' beliefs or nonbeliefs are wrong and right here on this board, there are those who discount the similarities between ancient myth and cherished religious beliefs.

So maybe pp's call of "nonsense" it was not about discounting the value of ancient myth, but of the folly of placing it over what we now know about literature and science.

"Modern myths", or modern religions, if you want to make that analogy, serve a different function in society, not as a precursor to natural science as perhaps in the olden days of Greek mythology.

But they do serve a function. Perhaps it is social or psychological. If you want to understand "why" people adhere to beliefs which strike you as completely illogical, then you need to try to understand what benefits these "believers" are getting out of it.

No one engages in behaviors for an extended period of time without getting a benefit or the possibility of a future benefit. Even religious people.

So people who believe in religions do so because they feel it provides answers to certain questions they have.

Atheists on the whole seem to believe they can come up with their own answers, or that science will provide the answers. The problem is when those answers aren't sufficient, what then? THAT is the question atheists need to answer for themselves.

Not everything needs an answer. While we have figured out many things, humanity still has a lot to learn. I don't find that discomforting at all. On the contrary, think of everything we will continue to learn in our lifetime, our childrens' lifetimes. I think it's pretty cool.

-atheist (op of atheists only)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is your logical basis for believing that the existence of "human suffering, natural disasters, prayers not being answered" is consistent with the existence of God?

The Hebrew and Christian Bibles are chock-full of catastrophe and overwhelming human suffering and yet also chock-full of God.

God is not like Macy's Santa Clause who sits you on your knee and asks you what you want for Christmas. Is that an atheist's conception of what religious people think God is?

If so, think again.

Right -- this is an argument or justification I've heard for why some prayers are not answered. it's suggesting that such an expectation is childish and unrealistic. Maybe it is, but it's also the way a lot of people are taught to think about God -- a powerful being who will protect you if you worship him and make an appeal to him.

When it appears to work, God gets the credit, and when it doesn't, arguments like the above are made. This can be comforting and convincing, but some people take it as a clue that there is no one listening.

Of course, the most simplistic level of any religion or philosophy is going to be at a child's level of understanding. And lots of believers can never get beyond that level of understanding. I don't think it's fair to religion to take the simplistic child's version as the basis for what the religion is about though.

Anonymous wrote:Nice explanation of the origins of myth, seriously. While it may have been the natural science of its day, it isn't natural science anymore. And in fact, people don't think the greek myths are factual anymore. They are appreciated for what they are, but not held up as fact.

In contrast, current religious beliefs are often seen (among believers) as "gospel." People go to great lengths to show their beliefs are right and others' beliefs or nonbeliefs are wrong and right here on this board, there are those who discount the similarities between ancient myth and cherished religious beliefs.

So maybe pp's call of "nonsense" it was not about discounting the value of ancient myth, but of the folly of placing it over what we now know about literature and science.

"Modern myths", or modern religions, if you want to make that analogy, serve a different function in society, not as a precursor to natural science as perhaps in the olden days of Greek mythology.

But they do serve a function. Perhaps it is social or psychological. If you want to understand "why" people adhere to beliefs which strike you as completely illogical, then you need to try to understand what benefits these "believers" are getting out of it.

No one engages in behaviors for an extended period of time without getting a benefit or the possibility of a future benefit. Even religious people.

So people who believe in religions do so because they feel it provides answers to certain questions they have.

Atheists on the whole seem to believe they can come up with their own answers, or that science will provide the answers. The problem is when those answers aren't sufficient, what then? THAT is the question atheists need to answer for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is your logical basis for believing that the existence of "human suffering, natural disasters, prayers not being answered" is consistent with the existence of God?

The Hebrew and Christian Bibles are chock-full of catastrophe and overwhelming human suffering and yet also chock-full of God.

God is not like Macy's Santa Clause who sits you on your knee and asks you what you want for Christmas. Is that an atheist's conception of what religious people think God is?

If so, think again.

Right -- this is an argument or justification I've heard for why some prayers are not answered. it's suggesting that such an expectation is childish and unrealistic. Maybe it is, but it's also the way a lot of people are taught to think about God -- a powerful being who will protect you if you worship him and make an appeal to him.

When it appears to work, God gets the credit, and when it doesn't, arguments like the above are made. This can be comforting and convincing, but some people take it as a clue that there is no one listening.

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is your logical basis for believing that the existence of "human suffering, natural disasters, prayers not being answered" is consistent with the existence of God?

The Hebrew and Christian Bibles are chock-full of catastrophe and overwhelming human suffering and yet also chock-full of God.

God is not like Macy's Santa Clause who sits you on your knee and asks you what you want for Christmas. Is that an atheist's conception of what religious people think God is?

If so, think again.

17:19/diplomatic atheist here.

Of course that is not how I think religious people conceptualize god. I was raised catholic, went to catholic school and everything. I'm very well schooled in catholic theology and I am a philosophy major who took a lot of religious studies courses as well. Not that this makes me an expert but I'm not someone who just disregarded religion as stupid, I have studied it and out a lot of thought into it.

I understand the religious argument for the coexistence of pain, suffering and God. Free will combined with knowing time on earth is a trial/temporary before eternal life. At the end of the day you either find this explanation satisfying or you don't. Plenty of religious people struggle with this as well. Why toddlers in Aleppo are dying horribly or being orphaned because of the 'free will' of evil men. Those aren't easy questions asks men and women of faith consistently struggle with it.

Nice explanation of the origins of myth, seriously. While it may have been the natural science of its day, it isn't natural science anymore. And in fact, people don't think the greek myths are factual anymore. They are appreciated for what they are, but not held up as fact.

In contrast, current religious beliefs are often seen (among believers) as "gospel." People go to great lengths to show their beliefs are right and others' beliefs or nonbeliefs are wrong and right here on this board, there are those who discount the similarities between ancient myth and cherished religious beliefs.

So maybe pp's call of "nonsense" it was not about discounting the value of ancient myth, but of the folly of placing it over what we now know about literature and science.

As an atheist, I'd say there is no "appeal". Either you believe or you don't. I think I am an atheist because I can discern mythology for what it is. Whether we are talking about Osiris or Odin or Zeus or Jesus, it's all the same human impulse to make up fantasy stories to try to explain and/or codify The Rules. Usually The Rules of Patriarchy.

It's all nonsense.

This kind of dismissive tone "it's all nonsense" is superficial. PP, you recognize many different variations on mythology and leap to the conclusion that it's "fantasy stories" to justify "The Patriarchy."

Yet you don't seem to comprehend the irony in your statement. "The Rules of Patriarchy" is simply another mythology which you must have learned in freshman or sophomore Feminism 101 class or some similar mode of edumacation.

Why do you think that what you call "The Rules of Patriarchy," whatever that's actually referring to, isn't similarly a product of what you've called the "human impulse to make up fantasy stories"?

Another thing you don't seem to understand, is that mythological tales were the ancients' version of natural science, the best available explanations of why the world worked the way it worked. The Sun rose every day because obviously, there must be a superpowerful intelligent being pulling it behind a chariot. Because that's how we move large objects on Earth. Get a chariot with a lot of horses with a big strong guy in the chariot to keep the horses under control, and tie the object to the back of the chariot. So it must be the same way in Heaven, only because it's the Sun, whoever the guy in the chariot is, must be someone who is awesomely super powerful, so he must be a God. [Not an actual myth, just my example of one.]

Where does lightning come from? It looks like it's coming from the clouds on the top of that big mountain over there. It kind of looks like gigantic terrifying spears, the way our spears look glinting in the sunlight. Also when we had that storm last summer and one of those lightning bolts hit my cousin Zorba, it fried the shit out of him. Therefore there must be some giant guy up in the clouds on top of that mountain and the lightning bolts are his superpowerful spears. We better not fuck with that guy. To make sure he doesn't get angry at us and fuck us up, and helps us win battles with our enemies, let's build a temple to him, to worship him and tell him how much we love him, because when you are nice to powerful people, they are less likely to destroy you, and more likely to help you out.

Anonymous wrote:And that's a big part of the appeal?

On the other thread someone posted that Jesus would be an atheist because he was a "nonconformist" and as a not-particularly religious person I found this fairly interesting.

In my experiences with atheists, ideas that they are somehow "bucking conformity" seem to be a huge part of the appeal.

And yet, if you look at a lot of the discourse nowadays, it's heavily secular and anyone who gives religious advice is generally seen as a lunatic.

Like I said, I'm not religious, and I receive 0 pressure to go to church, 0 people who come up and try to make me be Christian.

But talking to some of the atheists on here you would think that everyone in the world is upset that they are an atheist and they constantly have to struggle and fight off pressure to convert.

So... is this a core part of the "atheist identity"?

As an atheist, I'd say there is no "appeal". Either you believe or you don't. I think I am an atheist because I can discern mythology for what it is. Whether we are talking about Osiris or Odin or Zeus or Jesus, it's all the same human impulse to make up fantasy stories to try to explain and/or codify The Rules. Usually The Rules of Patriarchy.

It's all nonsense.

"INconsistent with the existence of God"

Also, what is your logical basis for believing that the existence of "human suffering, natural disasters, prayers not being answered" is consistent with the existence of God?

The Hebrew and Christian Bibles are chock-full of catastrophe and overwhelming human suffering and yet also chock-full of God.

God is not like Macy's Santa Clause who sits you on your knee and asks you what you want for Christmas. Is that an atheist's conception of what religious people think God is?

If so, think again.

Personally, I've never heard an atheist, here or IRL, assert that God does not exist, only that they don't see sufficient evidence to believe in a god and see a sufficient lack of evidence to not believe (e.g., human suffering, natural disasters, prayers not being answered).

The definition of "atheism" is a non-belief in a supernatural deity. It's a tautology. An atheist doesn't have to separately "assert that God does not exist." The non-existence of god is fundamental to atheism.

What you are describing is more correctly called "agnosticism."

Also, you need to answer two questions:

1) What evidence would prove to you that God exists?

2) How would you be able to know that the evidence of God's existence, if provided to you, was real as opposed to a delusion?

Anonymous wrote:Hmm I identified myself as "vocal atheist" a few pps ago. I'm 17:19 and didn't realize I was identifying with thextraordinarily militant atheists pp was describing. I meant vocal in this thread not in life generally

"Need a handle" atheist her - I got that! I was more distinguishing because you often post things that align closely with my thought patterns, so I figure if I start reading and can only tell the difference because I know I didn't write it, that it's even less clear to other posters.