So now they add ad populum to ad verecundiam.

Oh, my.

I understand that images of 'the sky-father' have roots in an earlier age of mankind - actually the name 'Jupiter' is derived from the Indo-European root 'Sky Father'. But such images are couched in terms which were meaningful to peasant farmers and herdsmen in pagan agrarian societies. They simpy don't translate to modern post-industrial culture. — Wayfarer

So, how are we to explain the advance of Islam in sprawling Pakistani or Indonesian cities and even in Western cities like Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam and London?

I think people feel the need of a symbolic father figure as much as others feel the need of martyrs.

Maybe atheists would benefit from taking up Buddhism or some other religion, seeing that according to Pew many of them do covertly harbor religious and other beliefs. They certainly should seriously consider it. Nothing to lose in any case, aside maybe their unfounded pride. — Apollodorus

You appear to be saying that the cure for atheism (and the inherent anger and groundless pride that comes with it) is cured by religion because atheists have been culturally influenced by religion to begin with, and they have nothing to lose regardless.

What's to lose? Starting with Buddhism, potential losses might be along the lines of this kind of thing, if nothing else. Obviously there are all manner of cults and evangelists of various persuasions who would love to take advantage of "covertly" superstitious people.

how are we to explain the advance of Islam in sprawling Pakistani or Indonesian cities and even in Western cities like Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam and London? — Apollodorus

I'm not particularly interested in trying to explain it.

I'm exploring the symbolic and allegorical dimensions of religious ideas in the light of philosophy.

I don't think anyone here is on team Spinoza. — praxis

Yes, I noticed that and thanks for heads up.

I knew it, he was a Jedi. — praxis

:rofl:

the chapter after the Sick Soul called The Divided Self, talks about Buddhist philosophy /discipline relative to purging anger and worry. — 3017amen
I must concur.

"First, Admit You Are Angry

This may sound silly, but how many times have you met someone who clearly was angry, but who insisted he was not? For some reason, some people resist admitting to themselves that they are angry. This is not skillful. You can’t very well deal with something that you won’t admit is there. — Apollodorus

Yep. I agree that on the surface it might sound silly, but it's a reality for many. Cognitive science 101 says you can't fix the problem unless recognize you have one. Once again, it manifests in things like ad hominem, trolling, disparaging one's character, lack of mutual respect, so on and so forth. As the existentialist would say, nothing new under the sun there.

Buddhism teaches mindfulness. Being mindful of ourselves is part of that. When an unpleasant emotion or thought arises, do not suppress it, run away from it, or deny it. Instead, observe it and fully acknowledge it. Being deeply honest with yourself about yourself is essential to Buddhism. — Apollodorus

Yes. Early Greek philosophy endorsed the 'know thyself' mantra which has stood the test of time. One of the greatest gifts we can give to ourselves is to know thyself. Sure it's an ongoing effort, but so is all of life.

And it is funny you mentioned how effective it can be to control one's thoughts. In James' chapter on the Divided Self, the story of that angry person came to a victorious conclusion with him being able to positively control his thoughts about anger. Metaphorically, " The baby discovered it could walk. It would scorn to creep any longer. From the instance I realized these cancer spots of worry and anger were removable, they left me. With the discovery of their weakness, they were exorcised. From that time life has had an entirely different aspect."

In that story, it was a freeing and liberating experience.

Maybe atheists would benefit from taking up Buddhism or some other religion, seeing that according to Pew many of them do covertly harbor religious and other beliefs. They certainly should seriously consider it. Nothing to lose in any case, aside maybe their unfounded pride — Apollodorus

Absolutely. Life is good!

Being an atheist is not like supporting one football team over another (like being religious is). It's more like not giving a shit about football. So, generalizing about atheists in this way is laughably silly.

Ahhem...if you didn't give a shit you wouldn't have commented. Stereotypes are given for reasons. Are you too, an angry atheist?

You need to consider the broader picture outside of, for example, the bubble of online forums. For the vast majority of the world's atheists, religion isn't an issue, and there is no connecting psychological thread between atheists. I mean, consider the one billion Chinese. Almost, everyone is an atheist. Do you think there's anything at all significant in that? Are they angrier than, say, Americans?

Are you too, an angry atheist? — 3017amen

Dog help anyone who's angry about being an atheist. It's the freer and more fun position to be in, surely.

You need to consider the broader picture outside of, for example, the bubble of online forums. For the vast majority of the world's atheists, religion isn't an issue, and there is no connecting psychological thread between atheists. I mean, consider the one billion Chinese. Almost, everyone is an atheist. Do you think there's anything at all significant in that? — Baden

Great question. Let's talk about the Chinese culture.

Let's parse it one question at a time:

1. Would you like to live there? If not, why not?

Also, you're wrong about 'For the vast majority of the world's atheists, religion isn't an issue, and there is no connecting psychological thread between atheists."

It's all about religion for the Einsteinian fanatical atheist, like yourself. And that's simply because if there were no religion, there would be no a-theism. What's more, the connection to cognitive science is that which Einstein alluded to in that your "grudge" against organized religion is what's bringing you down.

Getting emotion out of the equation would bode well for the atheist. Try using pure reason :razz:

BTW, I'll be happy to debate you one-on-one about atheism.

Being an atheist is not like supporting one football team over another (like being religious is). It's more like not giving a shit about football. So, generalizing about atheists' in this way is laughably silly. — Baden

Well, I do agree that this is the case in some atheists. But according to the OP this is not so in all cases:

"Another SK irony to this thread relates to emotion itself. The atheist, who is agitated or angry and defensive [...] Are they angry and resentful about something?" — 3017amen

So, the question seems to be:

1. Why are they atheists? Some may have good reason, others may not.

2. Why are they "angry and resentful"? Obviously, this refers to those who are angry and resentful, not to those who aren't.

At the end of the day, it's just a question. People shouldn't take it personally IMO.

1. Would you like to live there? If not, why not? — 3017amen

I did live there for three years. I think I'd prefer Sweden, also atheist, but less polluted.

It's all about religion for the Einsteinian fanatical atheist, like yourself — 3017amen

Hm, I think I've made one post on atheism and religion in the past year. So, the bar for fanatical atheist is pretty low there. :lol:

BTW, I'll be happy to debate you one-on-one about atheism. — 3017amen

I don't think you get it. I really don't give a fuck. You can believe what you like.

I don't think you get it. I really don't give a fuck. You can believe what you like. — Baden

...now now, there atheist. Like I said, your emotion is getting the best of you :joke:

Oh well, come back when you have the courage, otherwise, as some would say, put up or shut up.
LOL

Well, I do agree that this is the case in some atheists. But according to the OP this is not so in all cases: — Apollodorus

I've gone through the stage myself of being vocal and angry about religion. But I don't think it applies to most people outside online forums and I don't think it lasts for most people to whom it applies temporarily. It's an exaggerated phenomenon based on a small biased sample size in my view.

I've gone through the stage myself of being vocal and angry about religion — Baden

Dude! You haven't shaken it; you're still angry!!! I mean, dropping the F-bomb :razz:

The provocation stuff doesn't work on me, Amen. Nor should it on anyone, considering how long you've been doing it and how obvious it is.

The provocation stuff doesn't work on me, Amen. Nor should it on anyone, considering how long you've been doing it and how obvious it is. — Baden

I agree it's obvious it bothers you by you dropping the F-bomb. So are you lying to us on the forum then?

You'll need to get back on topic. As I said, this stuff is obvious, boring, predictable and no one cares.

But I don't think it applies to most people outside online forums and I don't think it lasts for most people to whom it applies temporarily. It's an exaggerated phenomenon based on a small biased sample size in my view. — Baden

I tend to agree with that. Atheists I talk to in real life do not normally get angry and, as I said, some even admit that they can't be absolutely certain about the non-existence of God. I think it tends to happen more on forums where some people vent their anger and frustration that often has nothing to do with beliefs about religion.

I also agree that @3017amen assumes a slightly "provocative" tone on occasion.

Still, as suggested by the Pew report, atheism seems to be a minority phenomenon and it would have been nice to be able to look into it in a polite and rational manner - as far as this is possible. If not, it doesn't really matter, it's not the end of the world. Life goes on, as they say.

Yes, I think that outside of very specific contexts, most people who identify as religious and as atheists are hardly different in any significant way at all. Thats been my experience at least.

I also agree that 3017amen assumes a slightly "provocative" tone on occasion. — Apollodorus

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or euphemism. In any case...

Cognitive science 101 says you can't fix the problem unless recognize you have one. Once again, it manifests in things like ad hominem, trolling... — 3017amen

:rage: :lol:

Well, I've been called all sorts of names for no apparent reason, including "troll" (on my own thread). People do seem to have a tendency to resort to "things like ad hominem, trolling ...".

It shouldn't really happen but it does. It doesn't normally happen in face-to-face situations because people know who you are or it may result in altercations that you may come to regret. But, as I said, on online forums people sometimes feel it's safe to vent their anger and frustration that often has nothing to do with the topic discussed.

I think there may be some connection, or as Einstein suggested, a "grudge" against religion which in turn somehow does not allow them to accept those virtuous things that are associated with Christian philosophy. Again they seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What do you think? — 3017amen

Well, I wonder whether there are, as you claim, atheists who are unable to accept virtuous things that are associated with Christian philosophy.

A preliminary question would be what those virtuous things are, in your opinion. If they are like the Golden Rule, which as you note is one accepted by many groups and traditions, some of which predate Christianity by centuries, then they're only "associated" with Christian philosophy in the same sense as they are with non-Christian philosophy. The concept of virtue itself and its significance, of course, was a fixture of pre-Christian pagan philosophy.

Regardless, if you're referring to such as the Golden Rule and virtue as a guide to living, I'm unaware of anyone, let alone any atheist, who reject them because they are associated with Christian philosophy or the belief in any personal God. They may do so because they claim to be nihilists or radical skeptics or something else, but not because they have a "grudge" against Christianity or religion.

I think it's apparent that one doesn't have to be Christian to accept the Golden Rule or the desirability of living virtuously. I also think it's clear that one doesn't have to believe in a personal God like the God of Christianity and other religions to do so. One doesn't even have to believe in a creator God; the ancient Stoics, for example, did not but managed somehow to be rather fond of virtue as a goal (in fact, the ultimate good, essential to a good life), and didn't believe in a God which created the world and would monitor the lives of humans to see if they were being nice, punishing those who would not and saving and benefiting those who did.

The comment was aimed more at Amen, but you have been supporting the ad hom towards atheists.

Rather than address atheist critiques you attack their character. They’re angry, you claim, therefore their criticisms are invalid because they’re based in irrational emotion.

It doesn't normally happen in face-to-face situations because people know who you are or it may result in altercations that you may come to regret. — Apollodorus

I’m not scared of you. :rofl:

After more than a little back and forth with 3017 over a long time, I'm persuaded that, to use technical language, he is one sick puppy even by internet standards. Pretty clearly much of his rant is projection, and much of his content just bait. As with many such people, he's learned to be thick-skinned, impervious to suggestion, defensive, and pretty good at being annoying. It's a hazard to mental health to interact with him, not least because whatever he says, is not what he means.

At least NOS’s trolls have a bit of sophistication.

I’m not scared of you. — praxis

I meant "altercations that you may come to regret" between people in general.

On a philosophy site presumably interested in truth and insight, such people are the enemy, either stupid or vicious or both. Harsh language, but I do not think I'm wrong. And for a while we've been a microcosm of the larger world in which viciousness is striving to claim the day just through its viciousness. Or madness. Does Marjorie Taylor Greene buy her own nonsense when she's at home? Is Matt Gaetz sincere in suggesting he might run for president? Or most of the US GOP which apparently has self-coded itself to be publicly absurd and dangerously so? Perhaps there might be some room for appreciation that for one of ours it's simply a matter of personality disorder. But nos4 doesn't get that break, whether he qualifies or not.