If you're an Atheist, what comforts you?

[Cherub786]

Your objection that we have left behind "the excitement" strikes me as puerile.

Well let's see. It's all subjective but based on my observation of the grandparent generation. The typical atheist among them live in suburbia and focus their energies on gardening, cooking, if they are better off financially, touring the world, playing golf. The retired life. When exactly are they doing anything meaningful apart from enjoying themselves? Now sure they will say they deserve it after a long life spent laboring away countless hours. But if they engaged in religious or even political activities during their youth or middle age, they would not have given up those activities and gone into retirement. In fact, retirement would have given them greater time and opportunity to focus more on the religious and political activities which bring meaning to life and gives an individual a legacy to leave behind other than the beautiful tomato garden.

Now if you compare the typical atheist with those individuals who engaged in what you would call "religious adventurism" it's quite clear who led more exciting and meaningful lives, even if you put aside the veracity of religion for the moment. Look at prophets and mystics. They never retire. In fact they are at the height of their career in old age. They aren't playing bingo, they're getting imprisoned by the authorities, or influencing and interacting with a large number of people, still raising their fist against the powers that be. I'd rather follow their path than that of atheism.

---

3) If you think that the purpose of yoga or meditation is to numb oneself, I would suggest you really don't understand it. Those who pursue it seem to think of it as an enhancement and a path to a fuller life. The question of suffering is largely one of attitude and perspective. See Buddha.

Okay, so how exactly does meditation enhance one's life making it "fuller"?

[Crossless2.0]

Your objection that we have left behind "the excitement" strikes me as puerile.

Well let's see. It's all subjective but based on my observation of the grandparent generation. The typical atheist among them live in suburbia and focus their energies on gardening, cooking, if they are better off financially, touring the world, playing golf. The retired life. When exactly are they doing anything meaningful apart from enjoying themselves? Now sure they will say they deserve it after a long life spent laboring away countless hours. But if they engaged in religious or even political activities during their youth or middle age, they would not have given up those activities and gone into retirement. In fact, retirement would have given them greater time and opportunity to focus more on the religious and political activities which bring meaning to life and gives an individual a legacy to leave behind other than the beautiful tomato garden.

Now if you compare the typical atheist with those individuals who engaged in what you would call "religious adventurism" it's quite clear who led more exciting and meaningful lives, even if you put aside the veracity of religion for the moment. Look at prophets and mystics. They never retire. In fact they are at the height of their career in old age. They aren't playing bingo, they're getting imprisoned by the authorities, or influencing and interacting with a large number of people, still raising their fist against the powers that be. I'd rather follow their path than that of atheism.

I've never actually used the phrase "religious adventurism" but wish I had. I may steal that one.

As for the rest, you yammer on about 'typical atheists', but all I'm hearing is 'typical older people'. Shit, man, people age and not all alike. Even a lot of religious folks slow down and smell the flowers when they reach a certain time of life. Others, as you note, become more devout and passionate in their worship. Some atheists play golf. Others volunteer their time to help others, write poetry, engage in the political process, pursue their spiritual practices, etc. Not all "retire" to your private suburban hell. Your unearned contempt doesn't really rise to the level of an argument, and that's why I'm still inclined to view it as puerile. But I salute your desire to live passionately.

And, no, in the end I don't put aside the veracity of the religion -- yours or anyone else's. That's kind of the point of this site. That you require an old book's narrative to be given to you to feel a sense of meaning and excitement is an interesting little piece of personal psychology and not much else. Abrahamists are a dime a dozen.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you can't find anything else to build yourself upon, except (solely) religion, race or ethnicity, I pity you.

 So what should I build myself upon? Secular humanism 

If you have to ask the question, and can see no alternative to your silly beliefs beyond ethno-nationalism, then I hope you never...ever...have a crisis of faith. The rest of us, however, just aren't as fucking shitty as you are, I guess?

[Angrboda]

If, hypothetically, I were an atheist, my atheism would be incidental and not the basis of my identity. Atheism is rejection of something, you can't build an identity on that.
Therefore, I would have to make my identity based on my race or ethnicity. What else would I have for the basis of my identity except something as superficial as race or ethnicity to contrast myself from other people? No wander ideologies like racism, ethnic nationalism, communism, and other harmful isms are the so appealing to atheists and non-religious people.

I'll point out that in Canaan, the Jews made a part of their identity being different from the other people in the area. While lack of belief in a God may not be a substantial source of identity, cultural or religious difference is, a fact you implicitly acknowledge by emphasizing that it is important to, in your words, "contrast myself from other people." I'll also point out that there is little relation between lacking an identity or having an identity based in something insubstantial and choosing to identify with racism, ethnic nationalism, communism, and so on. One is no more likely to identify with those ism's on that account than one is to identify with say conservatism or capitalism or healthy nationalism. Your argument simply doesn't wash. You appear to have convinced yourself of some bullshit largely because it is comforting to you to believe that bullshit and you wish that it were true so that you can feel good about not being an atheist when you don't have other reasons for doing so. Ultimately it comes down to penis measuring. You want to diminish the size of the atheist peener so that yours will look bigger in comparison. Such concerns always stem from a deap seated fear of inadequacy.

---

If you can't find anything else to build yourself upon, except (solely) religion, race or ethnicity, I pity you.

 So what should I build myself upon? Secular humanism 

Why not? Before you laugh, you need to establish that you have cause for laughter.

---

How about your own interests, achievements, and the loves you forge with others? No "isms" involved. No gods, either.

No matter how great an individual I become I will always seek something greater than myself.

It's fine to seek something greater than yourself. Indeed, that is one of the core definitions of existential meaning, to be a part of something larger than yourself. This is all well and good until you start imagining yourself a part of something that doesn't exist, like God. Then your meaning derives solely from your imagination and wishful thinking that narcissistically feeds upon itself, ultimately doing great harm to you and those around you. So you're right in that one should strive to connect with something greater than oneself, such as improving the human condition, but you are wrong when your reaching exceeds the bounds of reality and leads you into delusion and narcissistic self worship.

I'm a weak, fallen human being with few achievements.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. However, I will accept your proposition ex hypothesi.

There is nothing to atheism but loss and more loss. Loss of identity and any sense of community too.

You cannot lose what you never had, meaning God. Whether atheists are lacking in any of these other areas is an unproven assertion. It does not follow from anything you've said so far and so it is nothing but a free floating assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

That's why young non-religious people are turning to toxic ideologies like the "Alt-Right". They need it to fill the void.

Interesting theory. Got any facts to back that up? I do. The fact of the matter is that the right is far more religious than the left. If anybody is turning in large numbers to the alt-right, it is because of religion and God, not because of atheism. You're hoist on your own petard. If the alt-right is a bad thing, then belief in God is a main contributor to that evil.

---

As I understand it, the majority of active atheists on this forum are from an older generation that is just content with being grandparents or having a beautiful garden and manicured lawn. They seem to have left behind the excitement a long time ago. I for one hope I never enter into such a condition even if I reach my 90s!

Yep! That's me! Just an old cronie, sitting in a rocking chair on her front porch. Whiling away the hours.

Now get off my lawn!

---

You should try it.

Nah dude. I'm not just a religious person, I'm pretty much a mystic. If you saw me you'd see a man with shoulder length black hair, a full beard, dressed in a white robe and wool shawl, with a rosary in his right hand, head covered with a skullcap. That is a kind of indication at what kind of thinking and way I'm upon. You can't go from that to straight up atheist. It's a 180 degree difference.

You can keep all that and still be an atheist, you know. Apparently your problem is not a lack of options but a lack of knowledge about those options.

---

As for meditation, it cannot be compared to the kind of worship we do which requires a certain mindset, belief in God, to Whom we direct our complaints, sorrows, beg, cry, and generally debase ourselves. I've never seen that done in yoga or meditation. So how can they result in the same psychological state?

Meditation doesn't bring about an actual improvement in your personality, it's purpose is to achieve calmness and get rid of anxiety. I'm sure that's why loads of people smoke pot too.
Sometimes it's good to feel anxiety and the inner pain, that's what being human is about, that's what being alive is about. I don't agree with those eastern philosophies which are all about numbing oneself to feeling as the way to end suffering.

So I consider such exercises as meaningless and deficient compared to genuine religious mystical experiences and visions.

Again, your failure lies in ignorance and a lack of imagination. Some atheists who are Buddhist in their outlook meditate to get in touch with the true and ultimate nature of reality. This is no different than what you do, except that you and they have a different view as to what constitutes ultimate reality. These both stem from the same source. As evolved animals, we recognize that having accurate information about our environment allows us to better predict the consequences of our actions and thus promotes our survival. It's genetic. You do what you do because of your genes, and they do what they do, which is essentially the same thing, just in a different form, because of their genes. You simply believe that what they do is different and less than what you do because you're ignorant and believe a lot of bullshit.

---

Your objection that we have left behind "the excitement" strikes me as puerile.

Well let's see. It's all subjective but based on my observation of the grandparent generation. The typical atheist among them live in suburbia and focus their energies on gardening, cooking, if they are better off financially, touring the world, playing golf. The retired life. When exactly are they doing anything meaningful apart from enjoying themselves? Now sure they will say they deserve it after a long life spent laboring away countless hours. But if they engaged in religious or even political activities during their youth or middle age, they would not have given up those activities and gone into retirement.

Your characterization of older people is based solely in your imagination. You claim that older people have given up political activity and that this is largely the province of youth and middle age. This is contradicted by the rather well known fact that older people turn out to vote in greater numbers than the young and the middle aged. It would be a stretch to suggest that older people are politically less active except on this one measure of political activity, and so it is more likely that you are simply wrong on the facts, due to ignorance and belief in things you simply imagined.

For nearly 40 years, the turnout of voters over age 45 has significantly outpaced that of younger Americans. In the 2016 presidential election, for example, 71 percent of Americans over 65 voted, compared with 46 percent among 18- to 29-year-olds, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. While analysts point to increased energy among younger voters over the past couple of elections, people over 65 continue to show up at the polls far more than any other age group.

The Immense Power of the Older Voter

[Cherub786]

I'll point out that in Canaan, the Jews made a part of their identity being different from the other people in the area.

The basis of that difference was theology not DNA. The ancient Israelites were worshipers of the one God Yahweh, while all the surrounding nations like the Canaanites were pagan idol worshipers.

conservatism or capitalism or healthy nationalism.

Conservatism and capitalism are weak foundations for a strong identity. I mean is there a capitalist association I can join? Definitely not a non-profit one.
And what is "healthy" nationalism?
All these ideologies are are weak and superficial. Nothing can substitute the power of Religion and the strength of a religious identity.

[quote pid='1863703' dateline='1543933337']

Why not?  Before you laugh, you need to establish that you have cause for laughter.

[/quote]

Humanism is about building an identity on our common humanity. Now the thing with a basis for identity is that it has to have a large degree of meaningful commonality for all concerned within the category. I say that my humanity is an incidental attribute and not at all a basis for my identity.

What do I have in common with those servile Korean peasants in North Korea whose whole existence is about serving their state and fearing big brother? Or for that matter those primitive aboriginals that live naked in the Amazon rain forest? Apparently we are all human, but I view them the same way I view the zebra I come across at the African Lion Safari. So why not just expand humanism to creaturism and we can all unite and identify with each other on our common animality?

[Angrboda]

I'll point out that in Canaan, the Jews made a part of their identity being different from the other people in the area.

The basis of that difference was theology not DNA. The ancient Israelites were worshipers of the one God Yahweh, while all the surrounding nations like the Canaanites were pagan idol worshipers.

conservatism or capitalism or healthy nationalism.

I never said that their difference was based in their DNA, only that difference could serve as a substantial ground for identity.  A fact which you simply confirm.

Conservatism and capitalism are weak foundations for a strong identity. I mean is there a capitalist association I can join? Definitely not a non-profit one.
And what is "healthy" nationalism?
All these ideologies are are weak and superficial. Nothing can substitute the power of Religion and the strength of a religious identity.

This is nothing more than moving the goalposts.  Your claim was that atheism leaves people vulnerable to identify with certain isms, which you now apparently acknowledge as false.  Whether these isms form a good basis for identity is a separate question, and one which I wasn't addressing.  Try to keep up.

Why not?  Before you laugh, you need to establish that you have cause for laughter.

Humanism is about building an identity on our common humanity. Now the thing with a basis for identity is that it has to have a large degree of meaningful commonality for all concerned within the category. I say that my humanity is an incidental attribute and not at all a basis for my identity.

What do I have in common with those servile Korean peasants in North Korea whose whole existence is about serving their state and fearing big brother? Or for that matter those primitive aboriginals that live naked in the Amazon rain forest? Apparently we are all human, but I view them the same way I view the zebra I come across at the African Lion Safari. So why not just expand humanism to creaturism and we can all unite and identify with each other on our common animality?

What do they have in common?  You mean other than being human and thus having essentially the same human nature and ultimately the same goals and aspirations?   You mean other than that?  As a matter of fact, some humanists do consider our interconnectedness and interdependence with the animal and plant world an important plank in their humanism.  You haven't shown anything wrong with this, or that it is an unsound basis for identity, you've simply ridiculed it.  An appeal to ridicule is worthless for making a point.  As earlier discussed, identifying with something larger than yourself is a fundamental source of meaning and significance, so identifying with the human race and indeed all of life on this earth itself would be very significant and a rich source of meaningful identity. That you find more meaning in believing yourself different from the Koreans or the Zebra is simply a choice that you have made. Your having made that choice does not in any way show that your choice is better than that of such humanists, especially on the core value of a meaningful identity. Meaning is based upon associating with something larger than yourself, remember? That's why you've chosen to associate yourself with God. By considering themselves a part of the larger animal and plant world, the humanist is actually associating themselves with something larger than you are in associating with a much smaller religious group. You've actually shown the reverse of what you intended to show.

(And you "considering" being human incidental to being human is just laughable.)

[Cherub786]

I never said that their difference was based in their DNA, only that difference could serve as a substantial ground for identity.  A fact which you simply confirm.

Blatant dishonesty. We all know what you meant in the context of that statement. I said that harmful isms like racism appeal to non-religious people, then you attempted to cite the example of the ancient Israelites, being separate from the Canaanites supposedly because of race/ethnicity, to counter my statement.

Now you claim the religious difference could serve as a substantial ground for identity. No that's not what you originally meant, if it was, that's what I've already been arguing.

What do they have in common?  You mean other than being human and thus having essentially the same human nature and ultimately the same goals and aspirations?   You mean other than that?  As a matter of fact, some humanists do consider our interconnectedness and interdependence with the animal and plant world an important plank in their humanism.  You haven't shown anything wrong with this, or that it is an unsound basis for identity, you've simply ridiculed it.  An appeal to ridicule is worthless for making a point.  As earlier discussed, identifying with something larger than yourself is a fundamental source of meaning and significance, so identifying with the human race and indeed all of life on this earth itself would be very significant and a rich source of meaningful identity.  That you find more meaning in believing yourself different from the Koreans or the Zebra is simply a choice that you have made.  Your having made that choice does not in any way show that your choice is better than that of such humanists, especially on the core value of a meaningful identity.  Meaning is based upon associating with something larger than yourself, remember?  That's why you've chosen to associate yourself with God.  By considering themselves a part of the larger animal and plant world, the humanist is actually associating themselves with something larger than you are in associating with a much smaller religious group.  You've actually shown the reverse of what you intended to show.

(And you "considering" being human incidental to being human is just laughable.)

What same goals and aspirations? Do I have the same goals and aspirations of a zombie peasant in North Korea or a naked hunter-gatherer in the Amazon? I don't even have the same goals and aspirations as you have, unless you are willing to admit that secular humanism seeks to impose its own goals and aspirations on the rest of us.

Interdependence is a basis for identity? I'm also dependent on the sun for its heat and light.

Humanists have not found anything greater than themselves. They are trying to make themselves greater. Big difference.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, you probably do...maybe you should look into it?

[Angrboda]

I never said that their difference was based in their DNA, only that difference could serve as a substantial ground for identity.  A fact which you simply confirm.

Blatant dishonesty. We all know what you meant in the context of that statement. I said that harmful isms like racism appeal to non-religious people, then you attempted to cite the example of the ancient Israelites, being separate from the Canaanites supposedly because of race/ethnicity, to counter my statement.

Now you claim the religious difference could serve as a substantial ground for identity. No that's not what you originally meant, if it was, that's what I've already been arguing.

You've got a healthy imagination, I'll credit you with that. My only point was that human differences in general can and do provide a significant foundation for identity. The differences the Jews were basing their identity upon was neither stated, nor was it implied that it was the same as those who found their identity on difference in race. The difference between the Jews and other Canaanites was some mix of ethnic and religious differences, although it's possible race was involved as well, I'd have to see some support of that before I draw any conclusions. So, no, I didn't claim what you think I claimed and your accusation of dishonesty is without merit. I was referring to difference in general, and specifically the difference between an atheist and a theist in that one is motivated by religion and the other is not. It had absolutely nothing to do with race or DNA. That idea is solely a product of your imagination.

What do they have in common?  You mean other than being human and thus having essentially the same human nature and ultimately the same goals and aspirations?   You mean other than that?  As a matter of fact, some humanists do consider our interconnectedness and interdependence with the animal and plant world an important plank in their humanism.  You haven't shown anything wrong with this, or that it is an unsound basis for identity, you've simply ridiculed it.  An appeal to ridicule is worthless for making a point.  As earlier discussed, identifying with something larger than yourself is a fundamental source of meaning and significance, so identifying with the human race and indeed all of life on this earth itself would be very significant and a rich source of meaningful identity.  That you find more meaning in believing yourself different from the Koreans or the Zebra is simply a choice that you have made.  Your having made that choice does not in any way show that your choice is better than that of such humanists, especially on the core value of a meaningful identity.  Meaning is based upon associating with something larger than yourself, remember?  That's why you've chosen to associate yourself with God.  By considering themselves a part of the larger animal and plant world, the humanist is actually associating themselves with something larger than you are in associating with a much smaller religious group.  You've actually shown the reverse of what you intended to show.

(And you "considering" being human incidental to being human is just laughable.)

What same goals and aspirations? Do I have the same goals and aspirations of a zombie peasant in North Korea or a naked hunter-gatherer in the Amazon? I don't even have the same goals and aspirations as you have, unless you are willing to admit that secular humanism seeks to impose its own goals and aspirations on the rest of us.

Interdependence is a basis for identity? I'm also dependent on the sun for its heat and light.

Humanists have not found anything greater than themselves. They are trying to make themselves greater. Big difference.

If you don't have the goal of living and thriving and seeing your plans come to fruition, then I'd like you to prove it by killing yourself, here, and now. You can videotape your suicide, or livestream it for us.

Otherwise you can do a whole lot of shutting up.

[Cherub786]

If you don't have the goal of living and thriving and seeing your plans come to fruition, then I'd like you to prove it by killing yourself, here, and now.  You can videotape your suicide, or livestream it for us.  

Otherwise you can do a whole lot of shutting up.

Hmmmm...what a projection!

Every single organism is programmed to want to live and thrive in that life. There's nothing unique about that.

Identity and solidarity is based on stuff a lot more specific than that. My differences with atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, communists, primitive tribes, so on and so forth, outnumber any of our superficial commonalities.

The purpose of my life is to bring glory to the Royalty. The purpose of many others is to get drunk on Friday night.