Many people don’t use term “atheism” in that way. They equate it with asserting that theistic God exists, that creator dude. Which is illogical. You can’t say unicorns don’t exist. Of course they don’t to very high certainty, but arguing about it is silly.
My atheist friends feel very much that way, me included.
And I think it perfectly reasonable to argue (or not as wished) about God’s existence or non-existence.
It’s clear that no divine existence can be proven; it can only be imagined or assumed.
Don't write off the transcended experience. Sure, it can be purely a brain thing that can be caused by drugs or high tech interventions. But it does occur. And, is at root of a "faith".
Maybe Saint Teresa was not just having a big one.
Transcendence is a human psychological phenomenon, and how we interpret it, whether through a religious, philosophical, or a purely naturalistic one, can vary widely.
Many people experience awe, wonder, interconnectedness, or even ego dissolution without attaching it to supernatural claims or faith!
Science hasn't even defined/understood human consciousness. Anyway, some people who have these experiences do claim supernatural origins and I respect that. I don't know Anything.
I respect people’s freedom to interpret their experiences as they wish. I don’t necessarily respect their claim!
There are people who have certain experiences involving visions, voices, extreme melancholy, which today might be diagnosed as symptoms of depression, bipolar disorder, or psychosis.
There is religion and there is the 'religious experience', as written about by many people, like William James in 'The Varieties of Religious Experience'.
Is it really ambiguous? People use the word to describe a broad range of experience and behavior nowadays. If course, that tax free attracts some “religious” organizations.
Absolutely
‘Religious’ here is used to describe different experiences, like
- Deeply emotional or awe-inspiring
- Often feel profound or transcendent
- May involve a sense of unity, timelessness, or meaning beyond oneself
- Sometimes interpreted as encounters with the divine — but NOT necessarily.
I respect that it has become a very modern take, to separate the ways the word can be used. Perhaps I'm hung up on the fact that the word religion (from 'religio' in Latin) originally meant "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods".
I read it a long time ago, but remember not being very impressed.
It’s also biased towards his own religion, and it doesn’t help that he smears those who do not have ‘transcendent experiences’ with having some version of a "world sick soul.
Not my kind of book.
It lacked proof, integrity, etc.
It’s scientific. The hypothesis “god exists” could no be proven using any sort of data collection, experimentation, or actual facts. In the event that anything changes, most atheists would revisit the hypothesis, analyze the new data, and draw a new conclusion. We’re not blind haters.Just need proof
Yup. That’s why I’m still atheist. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, and the Catholic Church is the reason why I don’t believe. Nuns are the most horrible people I’ve ever met in my life.
Comments
And I think it perfectly reasonable to argue (or not as wished) about God’s existence or non-existence.
It’s clear that no divine existence can be proven; it can only be imagined or assumed.
Maybe Saint Teresa was not just having a big one.
Many people experience awe, wonder, interconnectedness, or even ego dissolution without attaching it to supernatural claims or faith!
There are people who have certain experiences involving visions, voices, extreme melancholy, which today might be diagnosed as symptoms of depression, bipolar disorder, or psychosis.
Just curious. :)
‘Religious’ here is used to describe different experiences, like
- Deeply emotional or awe-inspiring
- Often feel profound or transcendent
- May involve a sense of unity, timelessness, or meaning beyond oneself
- Sometimes interpreted as encounters with the divine — but NOT necessarily.
Anyhow. Curiosity sated. :)
It’s also biased towards his own religion, and it doesn’t help that he smears those who do not have ‘transcendent experiences’ with having some version of a "world sick soul.
Not my kind of book.
It lacked proof, integrity, etc.