As an atheist i struggle to understand how people can wholeheartedly believe in god.
Is it possible (especially the dark ages etc) that everyone had their own skepticism but it was too taboo in the society they lived in to even mention any sort of disbelief?
For a lot of people, might makes right above all other considerations. What's imposed upon them by their parents and society is what they ultimately feel is most moral, and most popular systemic religions feature a god of ultimate power but not necessarily a true monastic god, the domain of philosophy.
>>788826
>What's imposed upon them by their parents
Sheeple
>>788809
Imagine if you only knew one language and never talked to someone of different language. Thats the theistic mindset.
Now imagine someone from above later interacted with another person of another language and then happen to understand some parts of it. Then they try to explain to the person above how its stupid to believe in the fact that you only need one in this life. This is the reactionary atheists.
>>788809
What you're talking about (dark ages) is what happens today, only now the same reason that made people believe in God back then nowadays makes them atheists.
Its the same type of narrow minded reasoning. Both decided to believe or not to believe.
>>788846
But most atheists are raised theist
>>788871
>most
Read the second line carefully again. Thats what I've suggested.
![20130121[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/A0jhHP1.jpg "20130121[1].jpg")
>>788809
When you look into the history of popular superstitions and folk magic in Europe you realize that most people were not skeptical about the supernatural. Even those who rejected church orthodoxy held some kind of religious belief.
>>788809
>In 1318, Fournier interrogated Aude from the village of Merviel. Aude had initially expressed doubts about the transubstantiation, and had subsequently also discussed her nonbelief in the existence of God with her husband and aunt. To her husband she said: "Sir, how is it possible that I cannot believe in our Lord?"[1]
>And she asked her aunt: “Aunt, what might I do to believe in God, and to believe that the body of Christ is really on the altar?”[2]
>Another woman, Guillemette of Ornolac, was brought in for interrogation because she doubted the existence of the soul. She expressed the opinion that what is referred to as the “soul” is nothing more than blood and that death is final. When Fournier asked her if anyone had taught her these ideas, she answered: “No, I thought it over and believed it myself.”[3]
>An even more outspoken villager who was called in for questioning by Fournier, was Raimond de l’Aire. Witnesses had heard him say that "God never made the world, that the world had always existed, that the resurrection was a myth, that the Eucharist was nothing more than bread and wine, that the rituals of the priests meant nothing, and that he gave to the poor not for his soul but so that others would see him as a good man." [5]
>A witness told Fournier that Raimond deserved to be put to death for saying that Christ was not created through divine intervention, but "just through screwing, like everybody else.".[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fournier_Register
>>788809
>Is it possible (especially the dark ages etc) that everyone had their own skepticism but it was too taboo in the society they lived in to even mention any sort of disbelief?
You're dealing with an older conception of God then.
Divine Conservation was pretty academically supported, which led to an outright rejection of atheism and kept the discussion between types of theism.
>>788809
I was like you before, atheist. Never feared god when I was young, still don't today. But I have still changed, I'm a believer now. Not into the big three, or any truly dogmatic religion, but still. I believe most atheist simply haven't had that experience yet that makes you think that there might be more than just us.
Take a walk in the woods. Observe your surroundings. Be contemplative. Also be a skeptic. That's what lead me today to some sort of personal pantheism.
And yes, I believe hisyory didn't record it, but atheism and disbelief must have been as old as religion itself.
>>788979
i have done, and i contemplate the existence of life quite regularly - but i find that it can be appreciated all the more because of its seemingly random existence. So many random, lucky coincidences that created our existence and that around us.
>>788963
More like any ideas that did not support the metaphysical necessity for a God were banned and the books associated with it were destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condemnations_of_1210%E2%80%931277
>That the world is eternal
BANNED
>threat of the medieval Inquisition
and being murder-tortured if you go against it!
Gee no wonder everyone thought the universe had to have a creator!
Mechanism: Mentalizing, mind-perception, or Theory of Mind [75]
Description: Thinking about and inferring the mental states of others
Role in religious tendencies: Intuitive grasp of the minds of gods and spirits as personified beings with intentions and mental states (what they think, want, wish, etc.), allowing simulated interactions with them [25-28,30,31,63,76,77]
Supernatural agents are overwhelmingly described as personified beings with beliefs, desires, and intentions who use their powers to enter into social relationships with humans, relieve existential anxieties, and monitor their social behavior. Therefore, conceptualizing a personal God or gods requires mentalizing abilities, and individuals with poor mentalizing abilities may exhibit mind-blind atheism resulting from difficulties to intuitively conceptualize mindful supernatural agents.
Converging evidence from cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology, and social psychology highlights the centrality of mentalizing to the mental representation of gods [23,24]. Neuroimaging studies find that thinking about or praying to God activates brain networks known to be implicated in mentalizing [25,26]. Moreover, children’s reasoning about God’s mental states tracks the cognitive development of mentalizing tendencies [27,28]. Finally, mentalizing tendencies are associated with a greater tendency to personify God [29], and the same mentalizing biases that are typically found when reasoning about other peoples’ minds are also found when inferences are made about God’s mind [16,30,31].
>>789102
If mentalizing supports the mental representation of gods, then weaker mentalizing tendencies, associated with the autistic spectrum and also commonly found in men more than in women, may undermine the intuitiveness of supernatural agents and reduce religious belief. Recent studies provide support for this hypothesis. First, the autism spectrum is associated with lower levels of belief in a personal God [24]. Second, men tend to be less religious than women, and men are overrepresented among atheists [32]. Crucially, mentalizing tendencies statistically mediate both of these effects, controlling for a number of potentially confounding factors [24].
Norenzayan, Ara, and Will M. Gervais. "The origins of religious disbelief." Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17.1 (2013): 20-25.
>>789105
Recently, the "cognitive science of religion" has emerged as a research program in which religion is understood as a product of cognitive aspects of the mind, such as an exaggeration of the normal human ability to infer agency, impose patterns on noise, and infer others mental states (Guthrie, 1993; Barrett, 2004). We suggest that individual differences in cognitive styles is an important predictor of human belief systems, including religious belief. An extreme type of cognitive style is high functioning autism. The 2 studies reported here found that individuals with HFA have a higher rate than neurotypicals of endorsing atheism and agnosticism.
We hypothesized that traits typically displayed among HFA individuals such as attraction to scientism and hyper rationality would render these individuals less likely to embrace supernaturalism and religious belief. Consistent with this, Atheism and Agnosticism were more frequent in the HFA group than the NT group. Previous research has established systemizing (Baron-Cohen et al. 2003) and low-conformity (Frith 1991) as prominent traits among HFA individuals. We proposed that HFA individuals would be likely to construct their own belief systems, drawing on their interest in systemizing and lack of need to conform to approved social behaviors. The belief orientation category of "own Construction" was more frequently endorsed by individuals in the HFA sample as compared to the NT sample.
Caldwell-Harris, Catherine, et al. "Religious belief systems of persons with high functioning autism." Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA. 2011.
>>789069
I see where you're going, and I tell ya, sometimes I worship Eris.
>>788809
Look here's what I believe.
A deity is a character that personifies a concept in order for you to comprehend it, in the same way these squiggly markings your reading are used to comprehend and share thoughts.
A god does not literally exist in the physical world, just like these words do not exist in the physical world.
Therefore a god is as real as the concept it is used to describe, be it a concept of Nature, Morality, or even a Person (a cult of personality, like Jesus with Christians, or Trump with /pol/)
Some people then once they understand the concept are unable to detach the metaphor used to explain it, and begin to think the character's literally exist outside their mind, like people who think numbers literally exist outside of being a description.
>>788963
How relevant were scholastic arguments to people outside the universities?
>>788956
Interesting hadn't heard of this before. Thanks Anon
>>789154
Not the arguments themselves but the world view spewed by local priests was pretty much handed down from the theology department I'd reckon.
>>788809
What did you achieve in your strugge? Have you lectured the whole tehology of entire religions of the planet?
Have you visited all the scared places, spoke with all religious leaders?
Done thousands of experiments and just for the sake of testing it - letting you go with the belief and spiritual systems?
I guess no, but you're an atheist because you've googled it on internet and now you think it's cool to insist with it.
>>788809
Belief transcends reason.
Read your Kierkegaard, OP.
>>789203
I have never personally conducted any experiment proving the existence of black holes. However, the standards of evidence I hold for for believing in such a thing has been met.
Nobody advocating anything supernatural has met the same criteria.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE DARK AGES
IF ANYTHING, THE MEDIEVAL WORLD CONTRIBUTED MUCH MORE THAN THE GREEKS/ROMANS BEFORE THEM, AND A SHIT TON MORE THAN THE FEDORA TIPPERS OF THE RENAISSANCE AND """""""ENLIGHTENMENT"""""""
THE MIDDLE AGES WAS THE TRUE AGE OF REASON
>>788979
>I was like you before, atheist.
No.
That's bullshit. It only means that you never were an atheist. You were only an atheist to be hip and wear fedoras.
>Also be a skeptic
You can't be a skeptic and a god believer at the same time. You're contradicting your own beliefs.
>I believe most atheist simply haven't had that experience yet that makes you think that there might be more than just us.
Having experiences don't lead to facts. Experiences are subject to distortions and falsehoods.
>>789770
>That's bullshit. It only means that you never were an atheist.
This is the exact same argument Christians use to say apostates were never actually Christian. It is intellectually dishonest. Belief systems and perspectives change as the humans who hold them humans do.
When the basics make sense, most take the rest on faith.
Worked for religion in the past, works for science now, will work for whatever follows science.
>>788809
Beleif in God is simply a manifestion of your super ego, the semantics of which are based on your forefathers and geographically where they are from (ex: people of Pakastani heritage have Islam as part of their societal super-ego).
Of course there were always doubters it's just the modern conception of free speech allows us to talk about it more bluntly instead of masking it in the arts (like in times past).
>>789106
thanks for these sources dude fascinating stuff
>>789808
freud has been debunked for decades now
>>789835
The importance of childhood sexuality has been debunked. If you synthesize Fredus model for our behavior (id, ego, & super-ego) with Jung's collective consciousness (among other things) the world makes a whole lot morse sense.
>L2 think for yourself and don't listen to academic circle jerk of modern day pseudo-science psychology
>>788809
I struggle to understand how people can wholeheartedly NOT believe in god.
>>789869
>"I struggle to understand... [Trivial topic]..."
Maybe you are just unintelligent.
>>788809
as humans we put faith in things that promote our wellbeing and other's
>>789791
Well okay, he wasn't an atheist for rational reasons. He was an irrational atheist.
>>789869
Because the Abrahamic God is a total sham.
There may always be a God, but your religion is dead wrong.
>>788809
God exists whether you believe or not.
>>789963
>>789770
>You can't be skeptical of atheism, you heretic.
Yeah no
>>790084
Of course you can't.
Atheism is the disbelief of God until proper evidence shows up.
How can anyone be sceptical of atheism is beyond me.
>>790185
>sceptical of atheism
Isn't that agnosticism?
>>790190
No it's not.
>>790204
Well you're being sceptical of Theism and Atheism so it kinda is.
>>790190
It's the original definition of agnostic, although agnostic has morphed over the years into a more wishy washy position.
It is the weak atheist or agnostic atheist or just the normal atheist position in modern parlance as opposed to the string atheism of say Victor Stenger.
>>790185
>Atheism is the disbelief of God until proper evidence shows up.
Isn't that agnosticism? Why do you act like Atheism and Agnosticism are the same exact thing? Atheists don't just not believe in God, they believe God does not exist.
>>790218
>string atheism
Kek, strong atheism.
>>790219
>Atheists don't just not believe in God, they believe God does not exist.
That's awfully pedantic, really just two ways of saying exactly the same thing.
>>790219
>Atheists don't just not believe in God, they believe God does not exist.
Huh? If you don't believe in God, then you automatically thinks he doesn't exist.
Or are you talking about the imaginary atheist made up by god believers who think that atheists are just mad at god?
>>790238
think*
>>790229
The key difference is the idea of absolute knowledge versus uncertainty.
The agnostic is not certain, while the atheist is certain.
>>790244
I'm not aware of any atheist that claims to be certain. There are so many different unprovable claims about God that it is impossible to disprove them.
>>790229
For some reason, they always say Atheism is a "lack of a belief" rather than a belief. If they really just "aren't sure", why do they not call themselves agnostics?
>>790229
One is a positive claim, one is a failure to accept a positive claim.
"Nessie does not exist" is different from "there fails to be satisfactory evidence that Nessie exists." For all we know, there is a tiny section of the Loch that nobody knows about and there is a monster who lives there, but at least until now nobody has ever provided any real evidence of it existing. The same is true for a deity.
>>790264
Because religious people love to fuck about with the word agnostic and take it as some sort of approval of their belief system.
I certainly don't mind being called an agnostic, although I prefer ignostic I think. Old Dicky Dawko has even called himself an agnostic on many occasions.
The truth is that most non-religious people don't give a fuck. This entire conversation is one manufactured by religious people so they can argue over the meaning of words rather than their dumb made up beliefs.
>>790275
>One is a positive claim, one is a failure to accept a positive claim.
In your mind. You don't get to pick the opinion of people that describe themselves as atheist by arguing over the meaning of the word.
The best you can ever logically achieve is to ask they should describe themselves as agnostic.
>>790264
Agnosticism is much stronger position about how you never can be sure instead of I just don't know now but maybe tomorrow will know for sure.
I feel like strong atheism is reasonable but held back by the technicality.
Like obviously stuff that people make up in their imagination doesn't exist, but by sheer brutal logic you can still say "maybe way out in space it just so happens to be coincidentally what he made up" so you have to shrug your shoulders and say "I don't know for sure".
Like you try really hard not to break the rules but no one else seems to follow that courtesy, they are looking to cheat at every stage.
>>790338
Strong atheism held back not by the technicality but by the fact that our knowledge is limited. This is what allows such technicalities to exist.
>>790338
> Like you try really hard not to break the rules
Rules will never be without holes. This is one of the most greatest philosophical discoveries and problems of the last century. Basically breaking the rules is an outdated concept. Even is one of the side or other does it. Real problem isn't here and it is about how knowledge can be closed by one set of laws or by single simple formula. It is great shame that problem of God rarely properly discussed from this point of view instead of form where standard arguments just circles forever to prove one point or another.
Faith works differently than rational thought.
>>788809
> I'm a ableist and i struggle to understand how can people have a different opinion than mine
>>790573
This is the real answer.
It's very hard to describe having faith. It's like a knowing, but not a knowing. A knowing beyond knowing, really. It's sort of the mental equivalent of standing on solid ground.
>>790580
An ableist?
Is this some kind of funky SJW shit?
>>789942
Most atheists I meet are atheist out of a reaction against their theist upbringing. That's not really rational either.
Well its easy to explain. The human mind has evolved to find patters in chaos. However, this leads to finding patterns in things that are not there.
Which lead to early man believing in super powers beyond their control.
How could they explain the sun rising and setting if they didn't have science.
Suffice to say I don't blame early man for believing in God, however modern man has no excuse as the religious texts have scientific errors in them.
/rel/ when, Hiro? ;-;
How? Through extremely depressing nihilism and desperation of hope. At least that's how I did it.
>>790222
You can't prove to me that string exists, idiot.
>>790275
>For all we know, there is a tiny section of the Loch that nobody knows
Nope. We checked.
T. Amateur Cryptozoologist.
>>788809
I think you may be equating organized religion, scripture and inherited beliefs with God.
What if the underlying spiritual principles that humanity has been raised on have guided us to where we are today?
Chemistry, once known as Alchemy, was part of a religion known as Hermeticisim. Hermetics got their religious ideology from the Zoroastrains. The teachings of Zoroaster lead to the Abrahamic religions, while the things and people that it influenced gave us the basis of modern science.
I would say the old pagan/ethnic religions are the best fit for people today. Simple, communal, for the greater good mentality that considers the earth they live on holy.
And for smarty-pants scientist types, you could go with the concept:
That God is the force that enacts upon all atoms to give them shape and form, from the twisting of the universe, moving fluids down on Earth, to the rays of the Sun that provide heat and radio-waves to stimulate cell expansion.
I personally fancy the teaching of Zoroaster myself, but don't follow any religion; I have my own beliefs with solid roots in my heart, but the idea of what the are is always changing.
>>788809
It is possible, because it did exist. People, especially the educated upper classes were very much skeptical about religion and the existence of god/gods/goddesses. It was all very "hush-hush we can only talk about this between a select few families within our inner circle". It is this skepticism that gave rise to atheism: way way down the line.
The reality was that those in the educated upper classes were able to talk to one another and discuss a variety of issues simply because they had the opportunity to be educated, and because they had money. If you dared talk about any of this in the eyes of the public it meant certain death: usually being accused of heresy, burning, or whatever.
You have to remember that religion was a way to control your everyday peasants, and middle caste. It was also a massive business (and it still is today), because let's be real who the fuck wants to end up in purgatory for 40 years, or even worse hell for eternity... >*ooooooooooooooohhhhhhh ghost noises*
So, to be clear, not everyone had their skepticism, the lower classes (the majority of the people), were most likely not skeptical of god, because they were not educated enough to be able to be skeptical. They just did as they were told. The upper classes were for a definite.
OP, there's also a reason for why religion is still around today, and why people still claim to be "believers in god", and all that horse shit, especially people who have power.
A. religion has been embedded into society for the past what 5000 years. That's a really long time (in regard to the length of a human life).
B. Even though it has become normal to see and hear people denouncing religion, there still are 6 billion people on this earth who believe in a god (any one of the different 200 gods that "exist"). So, if you want to hold a position of power in any place in the world, you can't denounce religion, it is a HUGE no-no. That's why you don't see any politicians claiming to be atheists.
>>793705
Cont.
B. If they are atheists, they don't claim to be atheists and just state "well I was brought up, blah blah blah". As to get a sense that religion is still in their life.
C. As long as the majority of the population around the world continue to be religious, you won't hear people in important governmental positions admitting that they are atheists. It is political suicide to do so (same applies to corporate position: mainly anything to do w/ power).
P.S. If there are any politicians around the world who are and have said to be atheists, (I'm sure there are like 2 or 3), I'm sorry, I can't fucking know what goes on around the world all the time.
>>789846
>L2 think for yourself
that's ironic coming from a proponent of the unfalsifiable theories of jung and freud
>>789963
>t. believer
>>788809
I'd assume it exactly the opposite as in: everyone had their own mysticism but it was too taboo in the society they lived in to even mention any sort of belief?
Religion happened independently in all societies, whereas atheism did in no societies. It stands to reason to believe that humans are an inherently spiritual bunch.
Also, before you spout some bullshit about people explaining the unknown with magic and spirits as a proof of why religion is stupid, do note that
1. even in our "enlightened" age we must, ultimately use belief for 99% of thinking since this is how the world and our cognition works so you're no better than a zeus worshipper, just different regardless of how sophisticated your mental derivations are
2. the very concept of an animated spirit must have come from somewhere, concepts don't just pop up from non-existence, while we can imagine non-existent things, we can only use what we know to describe them, but this is isn't a strong argument, just food for thought
>>789089
>Condemnations in the 13th century
Were exclusive to a specific university.
Also
>world is eternal
>not support the metaphysical necessity for a God
Aquinas lived in the 13th century and upheld an eternal universe.
What you're saying doesn't make much sense.
>>789154
About as relevant as universities had been to public life in pre-modern times. They didn't usually effect the common man immediately but they heavily effected the thought of the governing structures that the common man learned from.
