A "real" atheist...

[arthwollipot]

Apart from the domestication of plants and animals and the development of abstract representation i.e. language your right not much understanding required for that.

Still not getting it, sorry.

How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true?

 

[kbm99]

Never mind, "!Kaggen" is one of those liars who feigns innocence while spreading his hatred of science and reason, isn't he?

I'd accuse him of being a Gerry sock-puppet but the style isn't the same, just the content. Or lack thereof, I suppose.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.

Name one.

creationism

Wrong. Do your research

 

[Foster Zygote]

Still not getting it, sorry.

How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true?

Such as: when we scatter these seeds on the ground, the food we need to eat tends to grow.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your right bad example.

Of what? I still don't see what any of this has to do with your claims regarding an atheist belief system/mythology. What is that belief system/mythology? Surely you can describe it clearly.

 

[Wolfman]

Surely you can describe it clearly.

Seems to me that's like telling a person with advanced Parkinson's that "surely you can draw a straight line".

 

[Georg]

Of what? I still don't see what any of this has to do with your claims regarding an atheist belief system/mythology. What is that belief system/mythology? Surely you can describe it clearly.

I´m not sure what he wants to explain either, but I think he did not talk about a certain belief system, he wrote

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations.

as in "everyone needs some belief system/mythology."
It doesn´t make sense to me either, but that´s at least how I understand him.

 

[Nogbad]

Another form of atheist is like that of the asexual and apolitical.

They are aware that some people are interested in these things but for the life of them they can't see why.

 

[fls]

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public.

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

 

[Mar\/in]

I don't like "bright". It implies that everyone else is dim.

I kinda dig "bright," for more or less the same reason. (Slap my hand.) Of course I don't think everyone else is dim, and that's certainly not the explicit intent of the word, but I like the uppity quality. I wouldn't mind ruining "bright" for aggressive theists the way "gay" has been (allegedly) ruined for homophobes.

That being said, I fail to see much energy in the Brights Movement these days, and I think most of its goals -- promoting positive naturalism, creating an online constituency, advocating church-state separation and civil equality -- are being better met by JREF, FFRF, and so on. And the online constituency kind of takes care of itself. What really succeeded about the meme "Bright," thanks in large part to Dawkins and Dennett, was the promotion of the idea that it's time for atheists to get out of the closet. The idea that nonbelievers need to organize and get loud the way the gay community did 40 years ago seems to have really been embraced.

 

[Dancing David]

You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic thiest or a gnostic atheist. The gnosis part refers to certainty and knowledge, not the specific conclusion.

Or a pagan atheist who also labels himself a buddhist nihilist.

I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism.

I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans.

 

[Dancing David]

I'd accuse him of being a Gerry sock-puppet but the style isn't the same, just the content. Or lack thereof, I suppose.

I disagree, !Kagen is much nicer and more accepting. There is more of a language barrier. Yrreg can be very clear in his use of english, recently he has taken to a very pompous style. He is channeling his Pachomius character more.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't think pigeonholing people into particular mental frameworks is so important. It's their actions beyond their beliefs or philosophies that is important. Whatever philosophy or belief a person may have they are not like every one else with that particular philosophy or belief. For such broad terms to mean something you need an incredibly large number of descriptors that it becomes impractical. It really doesn't matter except if they say something or do something. Then each of these actions can be evaluated for their own merit.

Heartily agreed. The need for pigeonholes is directly proportionate to the lazyness of the thinker, IMO.

For myself, I'm a Discordian Polypseudotheist.

 

[Mar\/in]

the humble meatling's reply

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. It is not simply that they "do not need" a belief system of religious experience as the evidence is not forthcoming.

I think that this is probably true (at least for some of use -- I don't want to generalize too much) if we understand mythology in Joseph Campbell's sense of the term, in which case a mythology isn't necessarily false or true, but it refers to the way we organize our values around our beliefs to create an interpretive worldview that we use to make sense of events. My Star Trekkish hope and belief that long-term human progress is possible in terms of science, economics, and culture, could be considered a mythology. It doesn't entail dogmatic faith claims, but it's an image of the future that I hope -- and really want to believe -- can be made true. Because I tend to evaluate the morality and decency of the acts of people and nations according to whether I think they will help to bring about such a future, all the assumptions I might use to make those evaluations -- beliefs about economics, human nature, and so on, many of which I know I can't prove -- may be considered parts of my personal mythology.

I suggest that by changing our observation point of view, by for example entering an alternative state of consciousness (other than the analytical waking consciousness common to skepticism) we can resolve this problem by experiencing the subliminal source of this need to mythologize.

This, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense to me. I'm openly conscious of my need and desire to mythologize. I'll grant that activities like seated meditation (or taking a long, quiet walk) can make a person more aware of feelings and judgments he or she tends to suppress when otherwise engaged, but I wouldn't call that an altered state of consciousness. It's really just redirecting one's attention.

Then we will not need any abstract -isms. If we then feel inclined to want to adopt an -ism we could just take a break from our skepticism enter an alternate state of consciousness then proceed again with normal life free from the need to relate to abstractions.

We will always need abstract -isms for the same reason we use abstractions in general. We use them because it's impossible and wasteful to talk about exact individual specifics all of the time. No amount of altered consciousness experiences will change this, I suspect. I also suspect that the need to mythologize and the tendency to fall back on abstractions and generalizations are closely related. It's all a side-effect of trying to get by in a complicated universe while being made of meat.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public.

Good job it's just you and me on the internet.

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

I agree. Most people do not.

 

[tsig]

Or a pagan atheist who also labels himself a buddhist nihilist.

I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism.

I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans.

Without humans the gods are nothing.

 

[!Kaggen]

Still not getting it, sorry.

How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true?

Your childhood is full of examples of things which would have been useful at that stage, nursery rhymes for example, and would not be now, but they did contribute to your understanding. However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language and it is bleeding obvious that language is useful in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true then it follows that alternate states of consciousness played a role in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true. I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason.
Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything.

 

[paximperium]

Your childhood is full of examples of things which would have been useful at that stage, nursery rhymes for example, and would not be now, but they did contribute to your understanding.

No. Nursery rhythms are useful in teaching language and rhythm and many were useful memory tools.

However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language and it is bleeding obvious that language is useful in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true then it follows that alternate states of consciousness played a role in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true.

If and when you decide to one day backup any of the multitude of your claims with silly things called "evidence" is when your "Hypothesis" leaves the realm of mindless speculation to actual science.

I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason.

This is called a False Dichotomy. Altered states could still lead to creativity and still be completely useless to understanding of reason.

Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything.

No.

PS: You really need to look up the dictionary definition of "dilemma", it seems like you don't know what it means at all.

 

[Piscivore]

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public.

Why not in public?

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

Because there is/were a specific set of attributes that "aether" was meant to have, and when tested for those attributes did not appear or were better explained with other forces or processes.

"Gods" do not have such fixed attributes as a class. Some gods are said to have certain attributes, and these can be tested, but even regulating all of those to the dustbin we haven't even scratched the surface as far as "gods" go.

But all this goes back to several lengthy discussions we've had in the past where I've fruitlessly tried to explain to you the difference between a class and a member of the class that unfortunately has the same name.

 

[arthwollipot]

...However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language...

I don't.

I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything.

You're putting it badly, but I still understand what you're trying to say. And exactly what is it that makes you think that skeptics undervalue creativity and its role in understanding?

What we say is that creativity and imagination cannot replace reason. Without reason, there is no way to determine that the moon is not made of green cheese, or that the cute kitty is actually a vicious sabretooth that wants to kill and eat me.

Reason allows us to answer fundamental questions about the universe. Creativity and imagination allow us to work out what questions to ask.