The atheist mindset

RichieO wrote: »

I have found that the vast majority of atheists seem to have a quite different mindset than theists, inasmuch that atheists also discard the likes of astrology, psychics, the supernatural, superstitions, lucky charms, magic, voodoo and just about everything that cannot be proven or explained in sensible, logical terms, on the other hand theists tend to accept some or many of these, so I was wondering is there a “gullible gene” or is it the way the brain is wired, or a combination of some other reasons…

Are there any atheists or agnostics who buy into any of the above mentioned?

Richie, you can't paint all theists, or atheists for that matter, with the same brush. There's a whole spectrum of beliefs.

Personally, I reject all the things you mentioned except the supernatural. I believe in God, his angels, fallen angels (daemons) and human spirits.

I have well thought out reasons for believing in God and the rest follows from that.

This whole debate has been going on since the dawn of civilization. There are intelligent people on both sides of the debate and it's pure arrogance for anyone to suggest that atheists are more intelligent or rational than theists.

There is an invisible bridge between belief and non-belief and those who cross that bridge often have a hard time explaining why they crossed over but they will tell you, it makes a world of difference. I can vouch for it. Short bridge in my case, but a bridge nonetheless.

My belief is that the invisible bridge is in keeping with God's desire to grant us genuine free-will. We are invited to cross that bridge and nobody is coerced. True love (on our part) can not come from being forced.

smacl

Odd to use the archaic spelling of demon, I tend to think of background computing tools, a decent sci-fi novel and Greek mythology. Is daemon often used in a Christian context?

smacl wrote: »

Odd to use the archaic spelling of demon, I tend to think of background computing tools, a decent sci-fi novel and Greek mythology. Is daemon often used in a Christian context?

Ha ha, force of habit

I'm a programmer working in a Unix environment, so I work with "daemons" daily.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Ha ha, force of habit I'm a programmer working in a Unix environment, so I work with "daemons" daily.

OT, but the book of the same name is worth a punt too for a programmer if you're inclined towards sci-fi. Just noticed there's a sequel I wasn't aware which is now on my Kindle, so cheers for prompting that.

RichieO

kelly1 wrote: »

Richie, you can't paint all theists, or atheists for that matter, with the same brush. There's a whole spectrum of beliefs.

Personally, I reject all the things you mentioned except the supernatural. I believe in God, his angels, fallen angels (daemons) and human spirits.

I have well thought out reasons for believing in God and the rest follows from that.

This whole debate has been going on since the dawn of civilization. There are intelligent people on both sides of the debate and it's pure arrogance for anyone to suggest that atheists are more intelligent or rational than theists.

There is an invisible bridge between belief and non-belief and those who cross that bridge often have a hard time explaining why they crossed over but they will tell you, it makes a world of difference. I can vouch for it. Short bridge in my case, but a bridge nonetheless.

My belief is that the invisible bridge is in keeping with God's desire to grant us genuine free-will. We are invited to cross that bridge and nobody is coerced. True love (on our part) can not come from being forced.

First, I did not "paint any group with a brush" and second QED...

You cherry picked the list in same way way you have to cherry pick the bible, then makes sense to you because it now fits in with your beliefs...

Turtwig

smacl wrote: »

Odd to use the archaic spelling of demon, I tend to think of background computing tools, a decent sci-fi novel and Greek mythology. Is daemon often used in a Christian context?

Ever since I read his dark materials trilogy I subconsciously spell it daemon too.

branie2

How about Tarot cards and Ouija boards?

With Tarot cards, I tend to find that the interpretations are so broad that one can find a connection to one's own circumstances pretty easily with them. Ouija boards are a nonsense party game that builds on the atmospherics of the lights being out, the tableful of people being nervous and everyone touching the pointer.

I do remember my religion teacher considering them the devil's work and thoroughly freaked out two of us at an age to be interested in playing with them by saying that it was opening a conversation, but we had no idea what with. (The implications were pretty clear regarding demons. It worked!)

Hotblack Desiato

branie2 wrote: »

With regard to Mary, we pray to her, as opposed to worship her

Who's we?

branie2 wrote: »

With regard to Mary, we pray to her, as opposed to worship her

Missed that. Well, one of those goddess cards I mentioned was Mary, so apparently there are those who take her as part of their personal pantheon.

branie2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who's we?

We, as in Catholics

Pherekydes

branie2 wrote: »

We, as in Catholics

Why would you pray to a dead person?

branie2

She's not dead, she was assumed into heaven.

No-one was talking about Mary within the Christian tradition, so that's all a bit irrelevant. She's not a god in Christian lore, she's just been adopted as a minor goddess for certain spiritual folks who worship various unrelated deities.

branie2 wrote: »

She's not dead, she was assumed into heaven.

Feeling a bit embarrassed to have to point out that the Assumption of Mary has been catholic doctrine only since 1950:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munificentissimus_Deus

Prior to that, the Assumption was - well - a bit of an assumption.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/aofmary.htm

robindch wrote: »

Prior to that, the Assumption was - well - a bit of an assumption.

Nervous Wreck

When you assume, you make an ass of you and Mary.

kelly1 wrote: »

https://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/aofmary.htm

Feeling a bit embarrassed to have to point out that the Assumption of Mary has been catholic doctrine only since 1950.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munificentissimus_Deus

robindch wrote: »

Feeling a bit embarrassed to have to point out that the Assumption of Mary has been catholic doctrine only since 1950.

I know that!

I was pointing out that it was a belief early on in the Church, not something fabricated for the fun of it.

kelly1 wrote: »

I was pointing out that it was a belief early on in the Church, not something fabricated for the fun of it.

You didn't point out anything - you posted a link to a page owned by a hard-right broadcasting organization.

Anyhow, yes, lots of people have believed different things down through the years about what happened to the woman generally known as "Mary" when she died.

Since 1950, though, catholics are required to believe that she physically flew up into the sky and somehow disappeared into heaven thataway.

Hotblack Desiato

If nothing else it explains all the Assumptas born in the 50s and, in exponentially diminishing numbers, later decades.

robindch wrote: »

Since 1950, though, catholics are required to believe that she physically flew up into the sky and somehow disappeared into heaven thataway.

No, they're not.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, they're not.

Well, they are actually. It's a Holy Day of Obligation in the Catholic Church, and it was indeed taken as doctrine on November 1st 1950. The idea of it is the "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" and it was asserted as dogma by Pius XII claiming papal infalliability over it in the Munificentissimus Deus apostolic constitution. The general feel of it is that she was assumed into heaven wholesale, but whether or not she did have a physical death isn't specifically covered.

I can't find anything wrong with the sentence you just categorically denied, bar perhaps a minor quibble with the word "flying".

I'm not sure that the omission of any reference to flying is a minor quibble.

I'd also point out that the word "physical" is missing, as is the word "sky". It's simply not true to say that Catholics are required to believe that the Virgin "physically flew up into the sky". Every element of the claim is pure invention.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'd also point out that the word "physical" is missing, as is the word "sky". It's simply not true to say that Catholics are required to believe that the Virgin "physically flew up into the sky". Every element of the claim is pure invention.

Not sure which claim you're referring to - the religious one which clearly is invention, or mine, where I'm simply reporting what the religious claim is

Anyhow, you can read the full dogma here - with plenty of references to "bodily assumption":

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

Please note that it was considered important, following her death, for the body of Mary to remain pure - and for much the same reason that she remained a virgin while alive - namely, that decomposition was associated with impurity in much the same way that sex was associated with impurity. The virgin Mary avoided both - sex, death and decomposition. The Vatican document lists a few more reasons why the transfer had to be physical - not the least of which was to confirm that this is possible in the first place, thereby tying in with the religious promise to "raise everybody up on the last day" - if god couldn't do that to his own mum, what hope could there be that he could do it for everybody else? So that's the reason why she was moved physically.

As to the "flying" bit, well, Tizian's painting represents the physical understanding of the assumption well enough - that is, the physical transportation of a physical body away from the earthly domain of corruption, decomposition and hell and upwards into the radiant purity of a heaven beyond the clouds.

The usual word for physically transporting something through the air is "flying", so I trust that I'll be forgiven for using it - though I fully accept that by stating this religious belief in the simplest vernacular, the belief is shown to be the very silly thing which it actually is

I'm sceptical that there's an "atheist mindset", as hypothesized in this thread. But, if there is, it's evidently a strong temptation to biblical literalism, and indeed to a similar literalism when reading any text dealing with religion, and even when looking at religious art.

Catholics aren't required to believe, Robin, that the paintings of Titian are a photographic representation of Christian teachings. Nor are they required to believe that "bodily assumption" can only mean "physical flight". Or that heaven has a physical location, which is upwards from here.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Catholics aren't required to believe, Robin, that the paintings of Titian are a photographic representation of Christian teachings. Nor are they required to believe that "bodily assumption" can only mean "physical flight". Or that heaven has a physical location, which is upwards from here.

I've described the reason for the religious requirement that Mary is held pure and how that can work out in practice via one specific way which has been promulgated via dogmatic pronouncement and art.

I do accept, of course, that almost no catholics believe this nonsense, but that's a problem for the Vatican, not for me.

As for it being a requirement, well, the Vatican believes it's a requirement:

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS wrote:

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

[...]

47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

It doesn't appear to be a problem for the Vatican. But is it a problem for you that it's not a problem for the Vatican?

RichieO

We laugh and learn from many ancient beliefs, not just the deity aspect but what was accepted as factual in many areas, they did not have the means to prove or disprove anything, that is not quite the case now. For the most part polytheism preceded monotheism, with a few exceptions... What is difficult to understand is why so many could drop the notion of a large family of gods for just the one, why is it such a great leap from one to none? Could it be that grasping at straws is so much easier than letting go completely, or just the Pascal’s wager effect? Or even the family attraction, Jesus, Joseph and Mary, mother, father, sister, brother, all theist and family titles…