I dont understand religion...

This has nothing to do with a prisca theologica.
Not all religions worshipped the planets.

Please try this one again, now with some explanatory content.

Besides. Are you positing that the planets are indeed Gods???

I know it sounds ridiculous, but thats basically it.

And your exercises will cause people to believe this?

Well, the planets known before the 18th century. Plus the Sun and Earth’s Moon. Those are the eternal gods of all humanity, if we would only open ourselves to the Truth.

Why do I bother? Well, to be honest I used to be locked into exactly the same perspective as most people here, and I was the most rabid and unforgiving atheist I knew. So when I discuss it here and now it feels like I am talking to a previous version of myself, I have used exactly the arguments they do and refused to recognize any other perspective than my own as valid. It’s natural. Modern rationalism is very totalitarian, it refuses to accept anything other than its own reductionist view. But, just as religion (or pre-modern ways of thinking) leads to modernism, modernism in turn leads to post-modernism, which in turn leads to integralism. I can see the benefit in all of them, although I of course think that later stages in the evolution are “better”. Now I find it a bit ironic (and perhaps there is a justice in it) that I am subjected to the very same treatment that I have given religious people during my three decades as a logical empiricist and rationalist.

The perspective that I have found that is fresh, and that both understands and respects its predecessors is for example Integral Theory. If you’re looking for an avant garde meta-system that puts all these things into a holistic context, I can very much recommend that. Currently I am reading Sex, Ecology, Spirituality by Ken Wilber and it seems to sum it up rather perfectly. Another school would be Spiral Dynamics, which very clearly shows how humans individually and collectively go through these stages.

No it doesn’t. Scientific rationalism fails to solve the problem of consciousness, for example, either reducing it to ”the ghost in the machine” or into cartesian dualism. It also posits that the universe randomly sprung into existence out of nothing for no reason at all, which is frankly a quite pathetic explanation. Admittedly ”God did it” isn’t much of an explanation either, but rationalism has basically just replaced ”God” with ”Ooops!”.

And that is not a ”correction” since my statement was that they provided an answer (which they did and do), not that the answer was correct. You are arguing against a straw man. Again.

Why? The underlying issue is, why does there have to be a why as well as a how?

Actually it’s quite reasonable. The planet earth creates as and sustains us and we are at all times subject to its’ whims. The Sun is the source of all life and energy, and once again, is so unimaginably large and powerful that it is obviously god-like. I view the earth as a living super-organism (which it obviously is), and compared to myself it is indeed a god.

This again? What is with this claim that a lot of people pushing this woo stuff make that they used to be hard-line atheists, when most of them eventually show through their words that they have no idea what atheism really is?

God is a mindless clump of dirt covered in vegetation and infested with parasites?

Absolute bull. You said that science doesn’t provide answers, but that religion does, and you certainly implied that this makes the latter superior to the former. In what possible way is a hundred different made-up answers in any way superior to one honest answer of “We don’t know yet, but we are striving to find out and here is the evidence we have gathered so far?”

Revering the Earth and Sun has a sensibility to it. Worshiping Mercury and Saturn (but not Neptune!)… not so much.

Most people like order and rules. Things that they can understand. Religion makes God understandable, it provides a framework of what God wants of us. It provides physical people that one can go to with any questions, and a visible structure and heiarcy and authority. It is comforting for them.

Though religion has nothing to do with God. It is a family that God has provided for us, as God knows that we need families, even if God Him (& Her) self is not at the proper head, God still knows how important family is for us, His children that He is willing to allow other heads, even if that causes problems, the alternative is far worse.

These families are not just religious but everywhere, it could be the brotherhood of firefighters, could be the Appalachian Trail thru hikers, motorcycle riding club, etc. Where people go and feel at home, a sense of belonging.

Agnostics in general are what I would call intellectually honest, they have not seen proof or evidence of God’s existence, so chose to live their lives in a way consistent with that observation and open to change depending on if God wants to reveal him/herself.

Atheism to me is a religion, with one major statement and one main guiding commandment that has to be taken on blind faith, as it is unprovable, “There is no God, so you must live your life as if there is no God”. It falls into the category of a religion as it is a false structure given to help one understand and make sense of the world. Atheists also are more likely to proselytize, to try to convince others to accept their view then agnostics IMHO.

Also in general, as I see it, the agnostic/atheists tend to want proof of God in the scientific sense, they want to use their heads. That (again as I see it) is the wrong way to find God, so if they have looked and not found that is usually the reason, for they have seen but not seen, heard but not heard, etc. God lives in the heart, not the head. God is Love, love is a emotion not a thought, or logic. Love is a guiding and living force and entity that is with us always. Love is coordinated and not random. If love is somehow blocked in one’s life there is a loving reason, a lesson to learn and once learned that channel of Love will start flowing, it is us that usually block the flow of Love because of past hurts, we have walled up our hearts. In that Atheists and Agnostics usually have pains of the heart that they have walled up, and chose a more logical/inside the mind way of living. Religion is responsible for much of this pain and also walls up hearts in those who believe in God as well.

Finally though religion (including Atheism) does restrict God’s work and the Love (God respects our free will) that flows from and through you, it does not stop it. A person’s disbelief in God does not stop God from using the atheists/agnostic’s/ or any theistic’s heart. In short God does not care if you don’t believe in God, or believe in Zeus, He is still going to use you for His plan if you have love in your heart. God does what He wants to, regardless of our beliefs.

You’ve been here since 2003, any examples here on SD displaying where you were “the most rabid and unforgiving atheist” you claim to be?

So, as stated: there are answers, you just don’t like them.

No it doesn’t. Instead we get an infinite amount of answers which leads more to it being incomprehensible. And God wants something of us? Is He in need? Does He need our help?

Only fundies say such things. And let me guess, whatever you worship really isn’t a religion? I’ve never once had an atheist come to my door, or stop me in the street proselytizing to me, and every Sunday morning on the TV set, who do you see on almost every channel doing the proselytizing?

I would say atheists probably do feel the most comfortable with their arguments, which is why in settings such as this on SD and other places on the internet, you’ll probably find them more engaging, but outside of the internet, I’m guessing most go about their business spending little or not much time at all on the subject.

I identify as a theist. (I use the word God to refer, non-ironically, to something I consider to be real)

Religious experiences are experiences that are out of the ordinary: for the individual person who has them, that leads to descriptions that tend to contrast the religious experience with the “natural”, a description that I don’t much care for but have sympathy for. But never mind that for the moment…

The point is, they are experiences that are out of the ordinary. So along comes someone who says they haven’t had an experience that is out of the ordinary. I should be surprised??

Atheists and agnostics should logically be the majority of people, perhaps the overwhemling majority. And if we control for the public-shaming and social-necessity history of obligatory religion, that has probably always been the case. For every person who has seen the light, another 10,000 people who identify as theistic have felt the heat instead.

Go in peace and rejoice in your courage and authenticity that you refuse to give lip service to something that isn’t true for you.

You changed the criteria.

Can you give an example of a religious explanation for qualia? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a religious tradition even talk about the subject. Maybe an Eastern one has. AFAIK it’s a mostly a debate started by Western philosophers, which tend to be secular rationalists.

You won’t find a lot of scientists espousing dualism. I’m not sure why monism isn’t an acceptable explanation. Some religions follow it, i.e. everything has one true substance, which is God.

I think a lot of scientific explanations can be poetic and even sound like something a hippie dippie spirtualist would say. Stellar evolution - we’re all star dust. Biological evolution - all life is interconnected, we’re all brothers and sisters and more alike than not. Even proud man depends on “lowly” bacteria. Extinction events - nothing lasts forever. There are cycles of death and rebirth. And so on. I believe this was the premise of Dawkin’s book Unweaving the Rainbow.

I would agree that some atheists completely miss the point of (mostly Abrahamic) religious discomfort with scientific conclusions. No, creationists aren’t wrong when they characterize it as life coming from slime. Positing that maybe life evolved on hot rocks or whatever is missing the point - they don’t like that humans weren’t specially created. Afterall, many religions hold that humans were made out of dust or mud (the Aztecs, corn meal), but the main point is that a creator breathed life into them and set them apart from animals.

And humans are monkeys. We’re clever monkeys who wear pants. Having a linguistic debate about what “monkey” means is also missing the point. Sometimes I think these atheists are uncomfortable with their own beliefs.

If you want to go old school we should incorporate Venus statues. Actually, this isn’t too far off from modern culture. Really though, worshiping gods is just so…historical. Organized. It’s all about that animism. Shamans are cooler than priests anyhow.

Okay, maybe save it for later then, because I hope you get back to that, and explain what was so out of the ordinary about your religious experience that convinced you.

Theists are certainly the majority, although often in the upper echelons of academia, particular the sciences, and in particular the leading scientists, atheists are by far the vast majority.

Are theists, particularly Christians really feeling all that much heat in America though? Faith is held on a very high pedestal in this country, and others, in most circles. Often what heat they do feel, is coming from other theists. Polls show that atheists in America are among one of the least trusted groups. Do you think it is deserved?