Rejection of All that is Holy

[Neo-Scholastic]

I really do hate to bring this issue up again. At the same time, I find it necessary if only to reconcile an intellectual acceptance of the atheist position and a lingering discomfort with the same. Previously I have publicly apologized for not accepting the AF consensus definition of atheism as only the lack of belief in god(s). My mistake had been to confuse atheism per se with atheistic philosophies like ontological naturalism.

My discomfort stems from my belief that ideas have consequences. The simple act of defining something places it in relationship with other meanings within the cultural context of the definer. That is a basic principle of semiotics. Dictionary definitions are fine in themselves as long as we remember that they are cultural artifacts that enforce homogeny under the pretense objectivity. As it relates specifically to atheism, I believe that in Western culture it is impossible to disentangle the lack of belief in god(s) from the realization of that idea as the rejection of the spiritual experiences of the divine in oneself and others.

By way of analogy, my belief that horses not a food source (a uniquely American attitude) remains passive until I am presented with a plate of horse meat and I actively reject it in disgust. Something important is missing by failing to consider that simply holding a specific belief, like ‘horses are not a food source’ fosters a disposition in the person holding the belief.

Spiritual experiences of the divine are a common and normal part of the human experience. Fitting those into our model of how the world works depends on how people tag those experiences. The atheist, acting in accordance with disbelief, rejects attributing these extraordinary states to divine influence. What I am saying is that within Western culture there is no conceptual vacuum in which atheism is the default position; atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.

[Brian37]

"Normal" does not mean literally real anymore than a cat reacting to their reflection in a mirror is "real". The cat falsely perceiving it's real reflection in a real mirror does not mean it knows what is actually going on. "Spiritual" is merely our species mistaking their own physical reaction and brain activity which is merely a "sense of awe" and conflating it to something that does not exist. Same with the word "divine". It is our species evolutionary brain chemistry that reacts to what we think is positive even if that is not a real thing.

Our "experiences" are real yes. But that does not mean we are interpreting that "experience" in real terms.

And no, not even with atheists. We cannot ourselves even think by proxy of label that we get it right. I run into pe,ople who call themselves atheists who make absurd claims about 9/11 being an inside job. Have run into others who think JFK was a conspiracy. I run into others who claim the transporter in Star Trek will be a reality in the future.

"Atheist" still is only the "off" position on one claim, it is nothing more than that. It does not address the individual's education level, or critical thinking skills. It merely means "off" on god or god claims. It does not even address why the individual rejects god claims. Atheists are just as diverse in their reasoning and views and can be flawed in their perceptions as well.

You can only talk in terms of sample size in overlap between atheists, but we are still individuals.

Flawed perceptions are normal just like seeing the butterfly in the inkblot. Just like it was understandable because of our scientific ignorance to think the sun went around the earth, which we now know is not true.

[The Grand Nudger]

By way of analogy, my belief that horses not a food source (a uniquely American attitude) remains passive until I am presented with a plate of horse meat and I actively reject it in disgust.

Right, so, my atheism is passive until presented with a god.

Something important is missing by failing to consider that simply holding a specific belief, like ‘horses are not a food source’ fosters a disposition in the person holding the belief.

Right, and since we're talking about horses not being a food source your disgust or rejection wouldn;t have anything to say on the reality of the matter. That horse -is- a food source can be objectively established. Whether or not you feel like eating Flicka is a matter entirely seperate from whether or not it is a food source. Now, kindly establish something about a god after having first presented one so that this analogy can hold?

Spiritual experiences of the divine are a common and normal part of the human experience. Fitting those into our model of how the world works depends on how people tag those experiences. The atheist, acting in accordance with disbelief, rejects attributing these extraordinary states to divine influence.

Meh, I don't "act in accordance with disbelief". I act in accordance with a body of knowledge regarding human experiences and the limits and ticks of our biological machinery. My "disbelief" is a product, it isn't producing anything itself. My disbelief isn't even why I'm not a christian, for example.

What I am saying is that within Western culture there is no conceptual vacuum in which atheism is the default position; atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.

LOL, "I've apologized for my confusion, but I would like to reassert the thing I apologized for - and add some more shit to the pile while I'm at it"

[pocaracas]

Spiritual experiences of the divine are a common and normal part of the human experience.

Unexplained phenomena are part of the human experience... Often, the human experiencing those phenomena simply doesn't have enough information to properly understand them. Extrapolation and pattern seeking then takes over the reasoning... but, with lacking data, the result can only the woeful.

Fitting those into our model of how the world works depends on how people tag those experiences. The atheist, acting in accordance with disbelief, rejects attributing these extraordinary states to divine influence.

It's more like... I don't even consider that as an option! Unless I'm joking!

What I am saying is that within Western culture there is no conceptual vacuum in which atheism is the default position; atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.

Speak for yourself... the western culture is quite broad. I'm not sure that notion would stick in Norway, where the majority of the population is non-believing.

[Esquilax]

My discomfort stems from my belief that ideas have consequences. The simple act of defining something places it in relationship with other meanings within the cultural context of the definer. That is a basic principle of semiotics. Dictionary definitions are fine in themselves as long as we remember that they are cultural artifacts that enforce homogeny under the pretense objectivity. As it relates specifically to atheism, I believe that in Western culture it is impossible to disentangle the lack of belief in god(s) from the realization of that idea as the rejection of the spiritual experiences of the divine in oneself and others.

You're right, of course; ideas do have consequences. Where you err is in the types of consequences you ascribe to atheism, the strength with which those consequences impact our beliefs, and in some sense the way human minds work.

The first and second are fairly easy to explain, in that you're still trying to categorize atheism as a rejection of a proposition (it isn't) that necessarily entails an additional rejection of supernatural beliefs (it doesn't.) But the third is, I think, perhaps more important. To be blunt, people aren't these perfectly rational idea machines that can determine the consequences of their beliefs with total clarity. People special plead, they make exceptions for beliefs they'd prefer to be true, they have biases. Atheism doesn't exempt you from that. Even if what you are saying is exactly true, it still wouldn't be true in practice simply because of this fact; we are great at making room in our heads for cognitive dissonance. You could be one hundred percent correct and still have to approach every atheist on an individual basis, because the actual definition of an atheist and what you perceive the consequences of that to be don't necessarily match up as a matter of course.

I still disagree with you about what you think atheism entails, for reasons I'll make clear below, I just felt that needed to be pointed out.

What I am saying is that within Western culture there is no conceptual vacuum in which atheism is the default position; atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.

No, not really. I doubt you'd find an atheist here who, when presented with a clear, unambiguous divinely inspired spiritual experience, for which no more likely explanation can be found, would actually reject it. Disagreement is not rejection, Chad; atheism simply disagrees with the claim that currently observed spiritual experiences are divine, mostly owing to their vague and subjective nature. But that disagreement withers and dies in the face of a divine experience that has all of those mitigating circumstances stripped away. The absolute best you could say, if you really wanted to push your case as strongly as you could, is that atheism is a rejection of all currently claimed spiritual experiences as divine, and even that's not entirely true as this "rejection" would also vanish if new evidence came to light that proved a past spiritual experience to be divine.

Can it really be called a rejection at all, if the threshold for acceptance is "must be really divine"?

[abaris]

What I am saying is that within Western culture there is no conceptual vacuum in which atheism is the default position; atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.

Speaking for the largest part of Europe, the default position is secular. Meaning that religion doesn't have a place in politics or public affairs.

[Minimalist]

atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.

I regard spiritual "experiences" as delusional.

[Brian37]

atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.

I regard spiritual "experiences" as delusional.

Yes, some try to water that word down by claiming it is not a standard claim of old books. Some try to use it in a new age sense but it still amounts to gap filling and the ignorance of how your own brain works and can feel intense.

When I feel something intense I chalk that up to my body reacting to stimuli. I don't conflate it beyond my own biology.

[LostLocke]

atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.

What about those of us who have never had spiritual 'experiences' in the first place?

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you feel as left out as I do Locke..lol?