Why Do People Become Atheists?

I may have missed a part of the discussion where someone addressed this, but andrae09's comment seems to be dependent upon some type of dualist philosophy. I dare say that dualism is an immature perspective.

Some scientists today are so bold to say that "philosophy is dead" in reference to all the knowledge that science offers us today. As for religion, you have already discussed Stephen Hawkings assertion about the irrelevance of God in explaining the origins of the universe. I will momentarily refrain from fortifying either of these particular statements about the whole of philosophy or ontology. However, I will say: Dualism is dead. I'm not often one for these kinds of shorthanded statements anyway, so I'll elaborate .

There is much which is yet unknown about the mind, but it is apparently a physical structure. I don't know what to say for the use of "metaphorical," but "metaphysical" I must refute. I posit that all the workings of the mind should be considered part of the workings of a physical universe. To refer to the metaphysical is simply to express a lack of understanding of, or to eschew any knowledge about, the physical. As for how ideas come into fruition before being investigated and proven, I will offer instead the word 'intuition,' and additionally 'association,' which can also be explained physically.

To quote the Polish scientist Dr. Piotr Wozniak "Intuition is not magic."

Intuition is an inability to explicitly express what is wired into the neural network of the brain. I would also say that more specifically it represents an inability to explicitly express the formulation of ideas, concepts, or any reaction to stimulus (that reaction being subject to the neural network of the brain.) 'Mind' is in fact an intuitive term. It is used to say "what I am thinking" without being able to express the specific workings of the organ involved. Thus 'mind' and 'brain' are somewhat interchangeable. In any case, the brain has many physical workings (you might think of these as formulas) for responding to the world. These are hard-wired. Basic things like walking and talking, seeing. One need not know the intricacies of how a tool works in order to make use of it. One need only know the result of an actions when it is implemented.

On this train of elucidation, I would like to discuss the associative nature of the brain, savantism, and other topics, but those are topics of formidable scope. I will say simply that the mind is associative, and that ideas are formulated based upon abstract recollection and speculation, which is to say a repetition of neural activity similar to an initial stimulus, or neural activity for creative, abstract speculation. The more experiences and recollections, the more which is available for association and, thus, new ideas. They are not simply pulled from some type of hammerspace. Also, some people, whether intuitively or through deliberate association, have far more tools in ther "magic satchel."

As for Spinozism, I suppose the highest thought is intuitive, but to me that is somewhat oppositional to science, where science involves being able to formulate and communicate specific knowledge between people. In this sense, a thought resting unexpressed in the mind is useless to all but the individual. Afterall, scientists want to explain the intricacies of even the most 'obvious' of things, such as how grass grows. If intuition is expressed as idealism, it suggests a world much different from ours.

You are right to refer to semantic complications. I used "optimistic" in doing my best to decipher what appears to be optimism toward "God." An intelligent designer could be anything, but you said "God." That is very specific. Your specificity seemed meaningful. Perhaps I was mistaken. Only you know.

On a note unrelated to your specific comment: Since in a question of faith or even what might be referred to as intuition, the burden of proof rests upon the person positing the actuality of something, I question when in argument, the appeal for God becomes one for any type of intelligent designer, and if a person again refers to 'God.' It tells me that an Christian apologist would prefer to leave doubt which allows for any type of grand unknowable entity, but preferably their choice unknowable entity.

I believe there is room for doubt. That doubt is generally a further cue for science. However, science does not lead to the conclusions or hypotheses of intelligent design. That requires faith.

 

I think you've misunderstood a lot of what I said. For one I do agree the mind is a physical thing but the thoughts created are as tangible as atoms themselves. Thoughts are considered energy which can be percieved as metaphysical. As far as magic and science are concerned, again the same thing to me. To the uneducated many scientific things would be considered magic even the practices of alchemy were considered magic but it led us to chemistry. The great thing about humans are we don't just want to know how things work, we need to know why. The why is such a spiritual thing that transcends simple knowledge of functionality. And its not something that plagues and interests the dumbest of us but it drives the most intelligent of us as well. Does the word God bother atheists so much or is it what the word implies? The idea of a monotheistic or polytheistic being that is/are the beginning point of what we consider life. Is it just easier to believe all things happened randomnly?

 

To me it is the meaning of the word 'God' and it's implications. Otherwise the word means nothing. If the word has no implications or no meaning, then how do I react to it? If I've misunderstood, please explain.

God, the both wrathful and benevolent creator of so many religions, is part of a creation stories based upon flawed logic. The story does not bother me as artwork. I enjoy all types of art and fantastical derivations from an assumption of certain impossibilities being true. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and I enjoy it as a piece of literature. I enjoy it knowing the furvor and seriousness surrounding it's nature. But morally, how can I ignore the implications of anything? I'm not a big fan of Harry Potter, but I find nothing reprehensible or threatening in the stories or events based on it, dressing up like characters and going to conventions, but if someone claiming to be a graduate of Hogwarts kills someone and claims they were using magic against evil, that gives me pause. That would represent a real affect of Harry Potter on humans. It would be only one case of harm, so the seriousness depends on your individual position. Perhaps it was a matter of the sanity of the guilty individual. Yet, think of how the public has reacted to violent video games in the wake of violence commited by teenagers. That doesn't happen often, but it is worth questioning the substance of materials we are engaging. Compare the history of effects which religion has had. If a single school shooting, an isolated case of violence is cause for examining the whole of the video game industry, because of some sentiment such as "a single life is enough," then how should we react to the annals of religious furvor?

Therefore, when I speak of the Bible and God, the implications do bother me. The institutionalized thinking based upon what is contained therein bothers me. Education systems the world over fail to be effective in teaching children about the real world because of the intersection of things which cannot be analyzed or verified accept to generate further abstractions where no data actually exists to be analyzed. Thus, people learn not to use their intuition or creative ability to think abstractly to analyze in a logical manner, not to handle their fears, not to deal with reality, but to be pacified by what is false. Eventually this becomes the modus operandi of a person in day-to-day living, and people spend money on things like homeopathic healing and faith-based remedies to real maladies.

I think history has shown that it is more difficult for humans to avoid creating answers to questions, particularly existential questions, when they do not have the means to provide sufficient answers. Thus the intelligence that we evolved as a necessity for survival and the ability to think abstractly has also allowed us the ability to ponder our own existence. Abstraction is useful for planning future actions, but if your actions never lead to a sufficient solution, how long before you simply create your own story to appease your curiosity and fear about life and death? Why does a person who has been suffering from an illness for years go to a priest to be 'healed' by the touch of their hand and the power of something invisible? We know a person cannot be cured of AIDS or arthritis this way, yet such practices persist. Questions drive even scientists to madness. There are problems in mathematics which have driven persons to suicide over their failure. If we all share the same fears about life and death, then no, it is never easier to believe that there is nothing to ease the weight of knowing that your life will come to an end. Therefore, it is theists who take the easy road by believing in the fantastical.

Rather then batting the question of some cabal trying to acquire some unearned existential reprieve, consider why creation stories come into existence. If you consider something like a timeline of the human species and its intelligence, much of scientific discovery has been compounded into a relatively short period of comparable intelligence as humans build upon the knowledge of previous generations. A long time ago we didn't have answers to basic questions, but eventually things like Dualism no longer have any merit. It is up to the individual to avail themselves of current knowledge and their own capacity for discovery. There will always be further questions, so we must strive for further discovery, and while it may be appealing to create answers when veritable discover is difficult to achieve, this represents a failure of logic and reason, a failure against the fragile intuition of a health brain, and spreading the fallacious results might be considered morally reprehensible.

 

Part of the reasons why humans react the way they do is that, as animals, we are still programmed to deal with pressing matters with immediate reactions that provide immediate results. For human beings, it is no longer simply the lion or bear chasing us in the wilderness, in which case we often die. Now we live longer, safer lives and the threat is our impending biological decline. Thus the questions of life remain a matter of survival.

Humans process traumatic events with immediacy, bypassing the higher cortical centers which mediate rational thought. This is a basic intuitive function, but the result run amock in human civilization is contrary to our ideals regarding civility and rationality, which we certainly don't conjur up while falling to our death or being chased by wild animals, but in our time of safety and leisure. Anything which causes fear demands a solution which is immediate. Afterall, why would one prolong suffering?

But there is no river to cross to escape the predator that is time. Time is the animal whose teeth are always upon our heels, the fire in which we burn. If death is a problem, the only solution is to die.

There is nothing one can do to avoid death or answer the question of why we lead lives which are unsatisfyingly short (we may ponder), to soothe a conscience which is guilty and doomed to recollect that which is regrettable until death. Assuming that another world exists wherein life is eternal and blissful sounds like an appealing prospect to me. What about you?

As for depictions of the divine, they are hopeless. We have said that God created man in his image. But it is rather more rational to come to the conclusion that we created God in our image. Such is the inescapable, biologically irrepresible ego of man.

 

Yes, science is not concerned with the "why"... the Scientist, may however draw their own conclusions regarding intelligent design "on the side" sort of speak - that does not interfere with their day to day research.
I was a Scientist for many years before I went to Big Pharma, and the more research I did, the more I truly believed in some sort of force behind it all... many many of Scientists are actually spiritual and religious. Its far from uncommon, they are able to separate it or marry the two, science and religion.

Im not truly a Christian, my faith is a bit all over the place but a lot of Christianity I simply cant believe. Im also drawn to Buddhism so your I might not be the correct person to have this discussion with in regards to God as my view might be a bit different. Im not married to a specific view of a god, So when you bring up the X-men etc, to me, its fine... I feel like people are just having different views of the same thing... some have different needs for "it" to fit in a box. I dont - I just know I believe in an all encompassing force.

 

What type of discussion would you have with someone who believed what you believe? I think a safe and reassuring one, not at all challenging. It seems not like an interesting path upon which one is constantly reaffirmed by the familiar. Perhaps you value something different.

 

Que??

I have stimulating and challenging discussions all the time about the subject. Im not sure why you think it would be safe and reassuring....

Besides, Im not on my spiritual path or any spiritual path because it should be "interesting".
I find your statement above quite odd, it doesn't compute to me as far as why one chooses a spiritual path - what you discuss above has nothing to do with why you choose a specific spiritual path...

If you need that in your believe, you can always have a religious discussion with pretty much anybody and you will find it interesting and challenging.

Thats just my thought.

and fyi - I am a person who constantly search stimulus, challenges etc.. it helps you grow and it helps you re-evaluate and/or reconfirm what ever it is you believe in. Your conclusion above - doesn't compute to me.

 

Well, why would I be the wrong person "to have this discussion with in regards to God as my view may be different"?

 

Now, where did I say you were the wrong person to discuss it with???

I said I was - in reference to your specific discussion.

Where you want to take this specific discussion, is not where I have an opinion that would apply to where you were going.

 

What did I misunderstand?

 

The "I might not be the correct person"

 

FG let it rock. Homeboy doesn't want to debate. He ultimately wants tp hear he's right.

 

Oh, I know that. and a few other things as well.:-D
That must have been the most bizzare discussion Ive been in.
It was kinds amusing.

 

How utterly ridiculous for you to insinuate something so childish. Do I threaten or disturb you for some reason because I try to engage in discussion? If there's something you don't like about it, ask a question or spit it out without making assumptions. I don't have a problem being wrong, but don't accuse me of wanting to be right as if there is something objectionable about it. It sounds weak and anti-intellectual. All you need do is try to prove me wrong. You are as free to be argumentative as I am. You could have helped point out the misunderstanding, but maybe you took the opportunity to express your true feelings.

FlyingGeek, I see now where our misunderstanding came. The problem is you typed "...your I..." and I came to the false conclusion that you meant "you." So we had a misunderstanding. I apologize for my part in it. In any case, based on my response, it should be clear that I didn't think you were the wrong person to have a discussion with. I'm not sure I feel the same way now since you clearly agree with andrae09's assumptions about me.

 

sorry, didnt even see I wrote "your" - problem solved.