Understanding atheist perspective

This much is certainly true, particularly when Christians try to claim atheists are lying about not believing in God and decide to call it hating God or rebelling against God. It is also true in the above posts which quotes the Bible calling those who say there is no God fools.

But this part of the OP is both preposterous and weird. The frank fact is that most atheists describe themselves precisely in this fashion… saying they just lack a belief in gods. Of course, I don’t think this is the best definition: which is someone who has decided they don’t see enough good reasons to believe there is a person who created the universe.

To me, atheists are not special. Not believing in gods is not very much more true of them than Christians, Muslims, Zoastrians, Jains, Native Americans, or any of the myriad other religions that have existed… All of them don’t believe in most of the gods other people believe in. Many atheists just haven’t considered an idea of God they see as worth believing in and many others do have an idea of God they see as worth believing in, even if it is not the personal God creator of the Christians or the gods of most other religions.

This makes me think of the difference I just heard about between the Lefthand Path and the Righthand Path in Buddhism. The RHP represents the way of the village and the ancestors. It prescribes standards for living in harmony for the common good. But not everyone is fulfilled by that and so there is the LHP which requires people to find their own way. It is parasitic on the RHP in that the traditional forms evolved by the RHP inform the domain of concerns which before traditions evolved we would be blind to.

This one minute clip from Joseph Campbell gets at this too.

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxz1KB0cKUryIP90odv-8lQzrUA1aQ_nYb?si=RFOKFQsISHofdvWc

It illustrates I think how POV’s can diverge depending on which path one is on. From the POV of those on the RHP, those on the LHP are just disloyal, selfish and disrespectful. But from the other side, it can seem that the path they take on the Left is the fulfillment of the traditional RHP.

My first thought in response to this, largely objecting to the use of the term “parasitic,” was no matter how necessary something is, like garbage collectors, if everyone chose that path it would be a disaster. So this boils down to the value of diversity as opposed to uniformity.

My second thought was a little better analogy to the role of mutation in the process of evolution. Sure the majority sticks with the proven methods, but without those willing to step out of this to try something else the result is stagnation and a lack of adaptability.

A third thought was to improve the first analogy by replacing garbage collectors with farmers since the first is not quite as indispensable by comparison. And this brings the first idea more into alignment with the second, since everyone being farmers is not so disastrous but partaking more of stagnation and a lack of adaptability.

But I think it is the second thought that really hits the nail on the head and shows how this impulse to what Campbell calls a LHP can be considered a fundamental impulse going back to our most primitive biological origins.

2 Likes

Evolutionarily that makes a lot of sense.

Jesus does not refer to Job 31:1-4 in the Sermon on the Mount.

He refers to the law and the prophets as a whole. He refers to the commandments from Exodus and Deuteronomy, to the verses on divorce and oath-making from Deuteronomy, to the verses on retaliation from Leviticus (and elsewhere), and to the command to ‘love thy neighbour’ from Leviticus.

He does not refer to that passage from Job.

This thread is supposed to be about atheist perspectives. The perspective here is that despite the commandment against bearing false witness, enough Christians blatantly misrepresent not just the words of others but even the text of their own scriptures, to the extent that whenever a creationist or apologist cites some text the expectation is that, as is the case here, the text does not match their claims.

Why would anyone ‘consider an idea of God they see as worth believing in’? Isn’t that rejecting reality and substituting personal preference?

I have seen many people make claims about ‘the God I believe in’, as if their belief can somehow change God. This comes across as avoidance of truth. I prefer to accept reality and try to change things for the better, and you can’t do that by pretending things are different.

The lefthand path is also very known among those who dabble in the occult.

Seemingly why the left is also called sinister.

1 Like

LOL And you have a perfect knowledge of the totality of reality. I don’t believe this in the slightest.

“God” is a word. It is word people define differently. And thus according to those various definitions it may or may not refer to an objective or subjective reality. An objective reality requires sufficient reason to expect others to agree like the consistent results of measurement procedures in science. Since I don’t believe God is part of the space-time structure which makes this possible, the reality I believe God refers to is necessarily subjective. There is no possible microscope to examine this God objectively.

The doesn’t make the God I believe in any less real. It simply acknowledges that as a finite being my perception of God will always fall short of the reality. Rather than a problem, for me this is the whole point of believing in God at all. Something that will always be more than what we have already understood and attained.

Everyone will look at various definitions for “God” by others and have little reason to believe that such a use of the word has any real meaning. But others find the find the word useful in referring to something they see as meaningful. For example, Einstein used the word even though he explicitly denied he believed in any personal God. So he used the word “God” to refer to the way the universe worked to be explored by science in the discovery of laws of nature.

In any case, we were talking about atheists. And don’t think finding a use for the word “God” necessarily makes them theists rather than atheists.

Obviously I don’t have perfect knowledge of reality, and just as obviously I didn’t say that I did.

Perhaps not, but it does make the God you believe in less likely to match what is real.

I disagree that ‘God’ being outside of space/time would make ‘God’'s nature subjective.

No more than using the word ‘unicorn’ make some-one a believer in unicorns. But one problem with using the word ‘God’ in something other than the traditional way is that it comes with an awful lot of existing baggage and assumptions about what is meant.

Less likely than some other person’s necessarily subjective idea of God? LOL On the contrary, those who don’t even understand the basic subjectivity of their beliefs are less like to be correct about them, for the simple fact that there is at least one way in which they are wrong.

Different definition of “objective” and frankly one I suspect to be little more than hot air. i.e. you believe something is real and then use the word “objective” just to mean you really really believe it is real. Like I said, for me the word means we have a reasonable expectation that others should agree like in the case of the measurements of science which always give the same results.

True. But in this, other words are much the same. And the other side of that coin is that the meaning of words are always changing and by these changes we also transform ourselves – finding new meaning in words and things.

Some of the divergence in this discussion makes it painfully clear that a lot of people really do not understand the atheist perspective. One one is asking anyone to agree, only to try.

1 Like

It’s great you‘ve posted this song because I have always and unironically perceived it as one of the most “chilling” songs ever made.

It wasn’t really necessary for you to make my point for me, but thanks … I guess?

1 Like

I didn’t think that was your point actually.

Just to clarify: when I wrote, “It’s great that you posted this song, because I have always, and quite unironically, regarded it as one of the most chilling songs ever written”, I meant that I see it as one of the greatest and clearest manifestos of nihilism I have ever heard.

The line “Imagine there’s no countries / It isn’t hard to do / Nothing to kill or die for / And no religion too” is paradigmatic because, in my view, having something worth dying for is precisely what makes life worth living.

Allow me to translate an article by the Italian journalist Massimo Fini, who is also a well-known atheist. Taken from here Cerco ideali. E sono disposto a tutto , the following are his words, not mine, I simply made the translation

“ I wish I were a Taliban fighter, possessed of absolute values that sanctify the sacrifice of life, one’s own and that of others. For the same reason, I wish I were an Islamist suicide bomber. I wish I were an Afghan, an Iraqi, a Chechen, fighting for the freedom of my country against an arrogant, stupid occupier. I would have liked to be a Bolshevik, a Fascist, a Nazi who truly believed in what he was doing. Or a Jew in a concentration camp, struggling with all his inner strength to remain a human being. I wish I were one of the ‘boat people’ who land, and so often die, on our shores. Because they are driven, at least, by hope.

I wish I were, and wish I had been, anything except what I am and have been for more than sixty years: a man who has lived in Italian democracy. Without the possibility of collective emotion, of deeply held values. Of a true act of courage. Dragging out existence amid cowardice, opportunism, political shape-shifting, pettiness, cynicism, sophistry, in a society that has lost every shred of dignity, every code of loyalty and honor; ruthless and ferocious without being virile, with eyes always ready to fill with tears, yet having forgotten mercy.

Much is said these days about the ‘crisis of politics.’ But that is not it. That is not it. It is the despair of living in a society without greatness, where people’s goals are to change their car, buy the latest mobile phone, keep the house gleaming, achieve their ‘regularity’ with Activia, and where women have lost their most false and most beautiful flower, once called modesty.

A daily mediocrity made up of PINs, CINs, credit cards, ATM cards, in which the dominant figure is the entrepreneur, that is, the merchant, who in every culture and in every age, before the advent of Modernity and Democracy, was placed on the lowest rung of the social ladder, beneath even slaves, because men, so long as they remained men, always regarded trading for profit as the very height of dishonor.

And all of it marked by the ceaseless, relentless background noise of television and its voices: Bongiorno, Baudo, Bonolis, Ventura, Chiambretti, Costanzo, Vespa, Santoro, Ferrara, Mentana, Gabibbo, the clowns, the sycophants, and the whores. A society of racket that no longer knows the values of silence and self-restraint, and even applauds its own dead.

When I feel within myself and around me, in a world now more virtual than real, these abyssal voids, I am seized by vertigo. And I wish I were a Taliban fighter, a suicide bomber, an Afghan, one of the ‘boat people,’ a starving man from Darfur, a Jew tortured by his tormentors, a Bolshevik, a Fascist, a Nazi. Because more horrifying than horror itself, to me, is nothingness .

1 Like

Another article by Massimo Fini that I found very interesting, and chilling the first time I read it. I obviously disagree with him, but I think his view is extremely coherent when considered from his own perspective. I believe his words are worth reading because they offer a rather unusual view of atheism, one that doesn’t try to sugar coat the nihilism and meaninglessness that atheism, in my opinion, unavoidably and logically (if one is coherent, and not all people are coherent: and maybe it’s a good thing) leads to. And in fact, when I was an atheist, my view was the same as his.

The following is the translation of Massimo Fini’s article, “Noi vecchi, senza illusioni né sogni”

The bolded emphasis is mine, just like in the previous article

I was walking through the streets of Petersburg and felt lonely, and that was strange, because for twenty-seven years I had lived alone in Petersburg.
(White Nights, Dostoevsky)

I walk through the streets of Milan and watch the boys hurrying off. With a bit of effort, I could keep up with them, but no one could give me back their ease, or the radiance of the skin that I too once had as a boy. I walk on and see old women, bent, shrunken, shriveled, grey-haired, leaning on walking sticks, and yet, I tell myself, they too were once girls, perhaps even beautiful girls, and it seems impossible to me. I walk on and see women who are old, though a little less old, and realize with horror that they are the girls of my own generation, the ones we courted and sometimes loved. The young never think that the old were once young too.

I had placed my mother in one of those facilities now called nursing homes, decent enough places, after all. We had never talked much, but one afternoon she said to me almost point-blank: “The only thing that ever worked between your father and me was sex,” and an electric shock ran down my spine. I could not imagine my mother and father in an embrace, and yet my sister and I were born from precisely that. As an aside: because she had emphysema, the doctors wanted to stop her from smoking. I said “ this woman has nothing left in life, do you want to deprive her even of the one pleasure she still has?” And so I used to bring her cigarettes in secret: Nazionali Semplici, the blue pack.

In the sweltering summer of 2003, when old people were dying in droves, especially in the big cities, I was sitting near a table of young men playing cards at a beach bar. One of them, wearing a huge pair of shameless sunglasses, gangster-style, with the air of someone who thought himself untouchable, commented: “Excellent! There’ll be more parking spaces in Milan.” And the one facing him shot back: “I wouldn’t get your hopes up. Those people don’t drive anymore anyway.” They were just swaggering remarks, of course, and inwardly I smirked. Young people, at times, are fond of us too, in their own way. The fact was that those two rascals could afford to joke, while the entire over-sixty beach crowd was gasping for breath and every morning, trembling, scanned the weather charts in the newspapers to see how many more degrees the temperature had risen. And in the eyes of the oldest among them one could read, even if concealed, the fear of feeling ill at any moment.

At one point in my life I lived, with my friend Giagi, in a squalid apartment block in Piazza Amati, on the far western outskirts of Milan, at the edge of an immense terrain vague where here and there one could still see little “war gardens,” remnants of a half-rural, half-urban reality that the city was in the process of devouring.

That apartment block was so dismal that, across eight floors, only three families lived there. One was Giagi and me; another was two girls who claimed to be models but in fact were kept women; and in the third, the most ordinary of the lot, lived a certain Visinalis, a man in his fifties already defeated by life, married to a hideously ugly English wife and father to two small children. Since my parents were out of the picture, my place became a gathering spot for every layabout around. Hardly an evening went by without our making merry. Not that anything especially sinful usually happened. The girls kept their distance; sexual permissiveness, which would arrive with the hippie generation, was still to come. They did not “concede themselves,” and with them it was an endless, exhausting business, especially in third-run cinemas, fumbling above and below blouse and skirt, “all fuss and no result,” as Jannacci put it.

We played the guitar, blasted records at full volume, and made noise until three or four in the morning. One evening Visinalis, beside himself, rang the doorbell. I went to answer. He was understandably upset: with all that racket, we regularly woke his children. Since he raised his voice a little, I told him, “Be more civil.” The poor man, thinking it an insult, got even angrier and shouted, “YOU be more civil!” So I grabbed him by the collar and sent him tumbling down the stairs. A stupid, easy, cowardly stunt, done to impress my friends at the expense of a man who could not compete with my twenty years, a thing I am still ashamed of today. Or perhaps above all today, now that I know that if I picked a fight with young men, I would end up like Visinalis.

In old age everything declines except those horrible hairs that sprout from the nose and ears.

And yet the most dramatic aspect of old age is not physical decay, but the impossibility of any life project, existential, sentimental, professional. Time is lacking. The future is lacking. Hope is lacking. Sister Death has already raised her scythe. It is true that one may die at any age, even at twenty, and that death is certain. But it is one thing to imagine it in some indefinite future, another when it walks beside you. It is one thing when it is a distant certainty, another when you know you are in the final stretch of the game. And that there will be no extra time.

One afternoon I asked my dear friend Giorgio Bocca, the only true friend I had in this profession, together with Walter Tobagi, who believed he had a brilliant future ahead of him as editor of the Corriere della Sera and would surely have reached that goal - had it not taken just two idiots to cut him down, proof that life is Chance- whether he was afraid of death. “Yes,” was his honest answer. And it could hardly be otherwise. It is not a physical fear, since when the moment comes all of us are capable of facing it, but a metaphysical one. It is the horror of Nothingness. The terrifying Nothing. Nonexistence. Everything you have lived, loved, known, seen, heard, read, thought, all of it suddenly erased, plunged into a darkness without time and without awakening.

Man tries to fill the meaninglessness of existence with every sort of activity. Deep down we know it perfectly well, we all know it, always have, that nothing has meaning, that life is a game. But in order to endure it, we need to fill it. With actions, thoughts, myths, hopes, passions, beliefs, illusions, dreams. And old age is without illusions and without dreams. Because there is nothing left to dream of. Nothing left to await. Nothing except death.

If an old man can no longer dream, he can at least remember. Once, when I had gone to visit a great stage actress, Paola Borboni, who was living out her final years in a home, I had the imprudence, in trying to comfort her, to say: “Still, you must have so many beautiful memories…” She let out a cry that was almost a roar (she was, after all, a great actress) and, lifting herself halfway from her bed, hissed: “Memories? Beautiful memories are the most tormenting thing for an old person.” Because, by contrast, they intensify the pain of the present.

The world you knew and sometimes, with the energy and recklessness of youth, even mastered, has vanished too. The landscape has changed, the places as well; objects are different, and so are the myths, the idols, the actors, the books people look to. The world of the old lies neither in the future nor in the past: it lies in the present. In the memory of dead friends. Everything is muted, remote, far away. Evening has fallen. You are a survivor.”

He lost me at “It’s easy if you try”.

1 Like

For me it’s

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can

The problem is that I can. I can see that it would totally not work.

3 Likes

I take it you do not care for nihilism. :wink:

I see this conflation of atheism and nihilism sometimes, I’m sure there must some who are both, but one does not necessarily entail the other. I see this as a lack of imagination, the inability to see there are multiple positive views the world, and how that could also be a good thing.

There is an essay by PZ Myers, that while not really on this same topic, really resolved things for me. The key point:

And most atheists have positive goals and values, possibly even the nihilists (I can’t say that I’ve ever met one). After reading this essay I stopped worrying about what label applies to me (atheist, agnostic, etc.) and more about the positive values I aspire to; humanism, ethics, learning. I generally choose “Agnostic” as the label that comes closest, and because it’s a nuisance to type out two paragraphs for how I really feel about it every time it comes up.

Atheism is not “a mob of individuals who lack a belief”, all of them have belief of some sort, and that’s why there are so many labels which might apply; atheist (hard and soft), anti-theist, agnostic, agnostic-atheist(somehow different from either), apathist, unbeliever, ignostic, deist (sometimes), skeptic, freethinker, and even Ralien. I’m sure I missed a few. It’s a fair criticism to say that atheism is far from being a unified movement. There is no single belief to unify them all.

4 Likes