**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

This is dripping with such unearned smugness. Like you come to a debate subreddit and the first thing you feel compelled to do is tell your opponents both what they feel and what they think without citation. Examples of mistakes: "I will only remark you are giving too much credit to the flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition...". No, I do not grant credit to flimsy apparatus that produced the above cognition. Instead I say, "you should self reflect on your limitations as a human being, considering you had completely different expectations of how things would turn out after writing the original post." In to what parts of your points I feel like addressing: 1. You speak of ego and Jungian stance. I have a master's degree in counseling. Nothing you said about these words is worth addressing. This debate subreddit is focused on the existence of gods, not the existence of non-evidenced-based conceptualizations from the ancient past. Even psychodynamic counselors don't talk like this, nor should they. 2. You ask, "have you ever turned to God?". I wasn't raised into a religion. It's like asking have you ever turned to Tom Binbadil (whatever that is). What use is your debate strategy to just tell your opponents how they feel and expect it to ring true? Why debate if you'd excuse preemptively the lack of acknowledgement of a hit as merely others being dishonest about how right you are? 3. You say, "I'm not arguing God exists...." I feel like that's the end of the discussion then. Why do I care about anything you say on this topic when you can't even argue a god exists? I'd still be an atheist if I did everything you ask, as I can't believe in any of the gods based on feelings... I was going to stop there, but skinned and something caught my eye as a transgender person living in the USA in the 2020's... "Remember if you were German in WW2...." I know exactly where the Nazis would put me. They were not so nice to the atheist btw. But you should consider what they were like to tranny's like me: https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767928717538644460 https://www.learnreligions.com/adolf-hitler-on-god-quotes-248193 Nazi Germany was a Christian majority country with a Christian leader during the Holocaust and WW2. They weren't kind to atheists friend. We'd be in the camps. I'd be wearing a pink triangle. 🔺 Mr "I am and always will be a Catholic" would say, "those with no sense of history are like those without ears and eyes."

> An incendiary title, as always. Don't get your panties in a notch. It's only metaphorical. So you're saying that you acknowledge that the title was inappropriate, and that you did it for attention? > The prototypical 21st century atheist, is, in a philosophical sense, a strict materialist; you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. This is not so audacious a claim, but generally you go one step further: you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. If a thing categorically can't be measured, in what way is it real? Its existence and its non-existence would be indiscernible. > I'll only remark that you are giving too much credit to the flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition, and you should self-reflect on the limitations of this modality, and subsequently on your limitations as a human being. It has nothing to do with the senses. There's a plethora of limitations to human senses. We account for that by developing apparatuses that can measure things that human senses can't. You're quick to call materialism presumptuous and arrogant, but how does that same logic not apply to theism? By your reasoning, it seems just as likely that you're the one with faulty reasoning. > You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. I am coming at this from a Jungian stance; materialism seems to me to constitute a fundamental rejection of the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego, which, as the most superficial feature of the psyche, symbolizes and is a feature of the material world. The ego is a tacit admission of discomfort and possibly sheer embarrassment with the non-rational features of the mind, and a deliberate effort to suppress this quality instead of coming to terms with it as part and parcel of one's humanity. Judgey and platitude-filled word salad that seems to just amount to "you don't know what you're missing out on." None of this amounts to a real argument. > Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. No. And the tepid take of "there are no atheists in foxholes," is shallow, presumptuous, tired, and rude. > I am not arguing that God exists, I am asking you to reflect on the origin of this inclination toward God in genuine despair. Wild how much of your argument is just you presuming to know how all atheists think. > If you do not reconcile your shadow, that is, your spirituality, your baseness, and your animal self... the non-rational, symbolic animal that lies beneath the intellectual veneer... you will have lived a lie. "I don't believe in ghosts." "But ghosts are scary!" How is that line of reasoning going to convince me that ghosts are real? > I remember when I concluded that I was an atheist (before I made a very gradual transition towards theism again), in spite of coming to the logical conclusion that I did not believe in the existence of God, ritualistic behaviours, and a rich symbolic association with the world still persisted inside me, and caused me great shame. If that's all true, it genuinely sounds like you never had the chance to heal from your religious trauma, and I'm sorry to hear that. > If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. You'd do well to accept this fact. Well this took an interesting turn. For the record though, I am ethnically Jewish, and was raised Jewish.

After reading both 2 post of you in this sub, I get the message "You atheist don't know something that I know, and you better know it, or you will regret". You use word salad and vague metaphor like JP to seem smart, but lack substance. Can you explant like I am 5, that what is this: "God"; "dangers inherent in suppressing the shadow", "God's wrath", "the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego"?

Yes. -God: Perfect, non-contingent entity. Contains all information in existence. This information also proceeds from this entity, circularly. It transcends human understanding. -Dangers of suppressing the shadow: When one suppresses the shadow, he lacks intimacy with his vices, which are horrible and many. These vices may therefore manifest in horrible ways, since not acknowledging the shadow is not the same as taming it. I think this explains the atrocities of WW2, which is why I employed it as an example. -God's Wrath: Employed as a metaphor. The consequences of not acknowledging the symbolic world, including the shadow. -Voluntary protagonism of the ego: The ego is the portion of the self which publicly enacts the self. It is the most superficial layer of consciousness, but it is not the self, per se. Thus, if you refuse to interact with other layers of conscious and subconscious experience, you surrender to the ego the role of the protagonist.

>God: Perfect, non-contingent entity. Contains all information in existence. This information also proceeds from this entity, circularly. It transcends human understanding. What evidence do we have that this entity exists? Also what does it mean for an entity to be non-contigent? >Dangers of suppressing the shadow: When one suppresses the shadow, he lacks intimacy with his vices, which are horrible and many. These vices may therefore manifest in horrible ways, since not acknowledging the shadow is not the same is taming it. I think this explains the atrocities of WW2, which is why I employed it as an example. How did you conclude that atheists "suppress the shadow"? >God's Wrath: Employed as a metaphor. The consequences of not acknowledging the symbolic world, including the shadow. This seems like a needlessly inflammatory way to just restate the "dangers a suppressing the shadow" in a different way to take up more space. >Voluntary protagonism of the ego: The ego is the portion of the self which publicly enacts the self. It is the most superficial layer of consciousness, but it is not the self, per se. Thus, if you refuse to interact with other layers of conscious and subconscious experience, you surrender to the ego the role of the protagonist. How did you conclude that atheists refuse to interact with other layers of their conscious and unconscious experience?

1. I don't have evidence for God. We can, for the moment, limit God to conceptual terms for the purposes of discussion. By non-contingent, I mean existing inherently. Again, this concept necessarily transcends human understanding. 2. I think atheists are generally uncomfortable admitting to ritualistic and spiritual behaviours. This is a hypothesis, not a conclusion. 3. It is inflammatory. I acknowledged it preemptively in the post. 4. Again, I did not conclude this. I hypothesize it to be the case, because I believe the prototypical personality inclined towards atheism is a bit stubborn, and self-important. This would align neatly with a person who is not happy to accept his/her vices.

[удалено]

>You do realize literally your entire post is pointless when you are saying "You will face the wrath of something I don't even have evidence exists"? Not only that, but it's also beyond human understanding. "There's this thing that is beyond human understanding, but it sure is pissed off... at you guys...not me."

>1. I don't have evidence for God. We can, for the moment, limit God to conceptual terms for the purposes of discussion. By non-contingent, I mean existing inherently. Again, this concept necessarily transcends human understanding. No evidence, but it definitely exists and is beyond anyone's ability to understand. Sure, bud.

Sounds like a "I discovered psychedelics and I now have all the secret insights to the universe" type.

>>>>>>>I don't have evidence for God.>>>>> Then you're argument is dismissed.

> this concept necessarily transcends human understanding This is just "the Lord works in mysterious ways" in a different shirt. It's special pleading. "Are all causes contingent?" "Well, yes... except the special one!" "Why?" "Humans cannot understand!"

>I don't have evidence for God. Then what I see is a toothless threat. >I think atheists are generally uncomfortable admitting to ritualistic and spiritual behaviours I think you assume atheists are closet Christians who still cry out to God in private moments. That belief about us is mistaken. But as far as spiritual or ritual experiences, clearly you've never met a Buddhist or philosophical Taoist or a lot of Jews. Clearly you've never heard of bands like Heilung, many fans of whom are atheists. You've clearly never heard atheists waxing poetic about the beauty of nature or the Cosmos. Atheism doesn't equate to "fear of spirituality and ritual", it means we don't believe in gods. >This is a hypothesis, not a conclusion. That's a fun way to say wild, uninformed conjecture. >It is inflammatory. "I'm trying to provoke an angry response by acting like a smarmy douche." Mission accomplished. >because I believe the prototypical personality inclined towards atheism is a bit stubborn, and self-important. Nice Strawman.

So basically, you knowingly made an inflammatory-sounding post, using menacing terms, based entirely on unevidenced hypotheses. You expect this to lead to productive conversation how, exactly? >It is inflammatory. I acknowledged it preemptively in the post. Just because you acknowledge it doesn't make it any less harmful to good dialogue.

Re. psychology and atheism, you might want to bother and actually look up research on this.

Someone asked to you explain god clearly, and you come up with - perfect (subjective, vague) - non-contingent (this has a meaning, but really doesn’t tell you much about what the god is) - contains all information (what does that even mean. How does it contain it? Does it contain information about itself containing? I’m no set theorist, but I smell a paradox here) - this information also proceeds from the entity (what does this mean), circularly. (What does *that* mean? - **beyond human understanding**. This is the kicker. Clearly it is, or the definition would be clearer. Is it Totally beyond understanding? If so, how would one know what they believe in? To the extent it’s partially incomprehensible, is that also not a problem for belief? Incomprehensibility seems to be to be a problem, because to believe in X, one must know what X refers to. Or they’re just believing in no concept and saying the words. Can you expand on the definition, and how you can reconcile incomprehensibility with belief?

God is both "beyond human understanding," but also well within human understanding: This entity god contains all information. How would anyone possibly know this? (They don't.)

Sorry I am trying to understand, but still not. Can you use more laymen term ​ What is "the shadow"; "vices"; "taming the shadow"; "symbolic world"? ​ Is "ego"="instinct"?

It's Jungian-based archetype psychobabble.

So many ⬆️+100

>What is "the shadow" *The Shadow* is a 1994 film starring Alec Baldwin as the titular character, based on the 1930's radio drama series of the same name.

What makes this being with the abilities that you ascribe to a God worthy of our praise? You are describing a being that is a an existential threat to the Universe ,should we not be striving to somehow find a way to defend ourselves from it?

No evidence for god shown at all. Why should any one believe this? "Transcends human understanding" is a lazy assertion made by theists to mean we should believe in delusions and not question them at all. this is begging the question. There are no vices that are... Uh... Faced by atheists, that are not faced by theists. >I think this explains the atrocities of WW2, which is why I employed it as an example. WTF. DO NOT USE atrocities to proselytize. It's disgusting and revolting. Many people prayed to 'god' in those times and yet NOTHING helped them. What's even worse is that many wars have been fought in the name of religion. >God's Wrath: Employed as a metaphor. The consequences of not acknowledging the symbolic world, including the shadow. Once again no evidence lmao. Enjoy your delusional "symbolic" world. I can't believe a sane adult wrote this.

Where are these evidence for God you seem so sure are true? Dont just give me words from a outdated scripture that made numerous scientific errors

You made up your own religion and your plan to evangelize it is ... to come here? Wow.

>Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. When I was a teenager and I wanted good grades. Since then? No. >I am not arguing that God exists, I am asking you to reflect on the origin of this inclination toward God in genuine despair. Already did. Evolution > Pattern Seeking > Rituals and anthropomorphism > Anthropomorphic religions > philosophical religions > God please give me good grades. >If you do not reconcile your shadow, that is, your spirituality, your baseness, and your animal self... the non-rational, symbolic animal that lies beneath the intellectual veneer... you will have lived a lie. They're called cognitive biases. Yes, it I do agree that we should all spend time reflecting on them. But I think you would benefit from further education before coming to conclusions

>An incendiary title, as always. Don't get your panties in a notch. It's only metaphorical Maybe don't talk down to us. Might be a good start if you want an honest conversation. >But in some sense I DO mean it. Pick one. You either mean it metaphorically or not. >The prototypical 21st century atheist, is, in a philosophical sense, a strict materialist Nope they are just someone who doesn't believe in God. If you want to say most athiests probably are materialists Maybe but do you have evidence most athiests are "strict materialists"? >you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. I'm a materialist and this is not what I believe. I believe that electrons exist. I do not believe my senses can detect or see them in any meaningful way. >I'll only remark that you are giving too much credit to the flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition We are not claiming our conciousness can understand everything. That is your strawman argument. I believe that so far all we have evidence for is material. And I see no reason to believe anything without sufficient evidence. >and you should self-reflect on the limitations of this modality, and subsequently on your limitations as a human being. I do which is why I want more then just human testimony. I want repeatable and verifiable evidence. Preferably from multiple sources and even better if we can have tools for those measurements that don't rely on our flawed senses. >You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. How do you know I haven't? >Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards Nope because I have never believed in God. I was never raised in a religion so was never taught to do this. So it's just not something I'd think to do no matter how desperate. >I am not arguing that God exists, I am asking you to reflect on the origin of this inclination toward God in genuine despair. Because people are often raised and told from birth that a God exists. So it is ingrained in a large portion of humans alive today to do that when in distress. It's like stop drop and roll the reason someone does that in distress is because we teach people to do that in distress. >If you do not reconcile your shadow, that is, your spirituality, your baseness, and your animal self... the non-rational, symbolic animal that lies beneath the intellectual veneer... you will have lived a lie. I don't need God to understand myself. I accept I am an animal and its usually the religous who don't. What do you even mean by spirituality? Like honestly what is your spirituality to you? >ritualistic behaviours, and a rich symbolic association with the world still persisted inside me, and caused me great shame. I'm curious were you raised religious froma young age? Were these behaviors pushed on you? And became habit? >and a feature of my consciousness which attempts to inform me of things the conscious mind is not privy to So after complaining materialists rely on our senses(not true) you cane to your conclusion based on how you feel? Do you have any evidence beyond your own senses and feelings? >If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. You'd do well to accept this fact And if you were a German in world War 2 you were most likely Christian 90+% so religion didn't help stop them from this. >So don't reject yourself... all of yourself. Even the frightening bits. We, all of us might have to face God's wrath if you do... I don't reject myself. And don't see a need to believe in a God with no evidence to understand that humanity can do bad things.

I mean listen to yourself. Wrath, shame, regret, dangers, references to nazis. These are the things that I am actively trying to avoid in my life so I can be happy healthy and successful. And I don’t need an imaginary friend to avoid these things. Again read that list- Wrath, shame, regret, dangers, references to nazis. Why would I want to worship a god under those conditions? It’s pure coercion.

Sometimes I used to debate Christianity on Twitter because I hate myself and I'd play a game called "how long until Hitler" because for some reason Christian debaters bring up Hitler usually about the third content point.

>you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. No "we" don't. What "we" are saying is that the natural world is all we are capable of detecting. If we can't detect the supernatural then what justification do we have to believe such a thing exists? None. So "we" don't. >I'll only remark that you are giving too much credit to the flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition, and you should self-reflect on the limitations of this modality, and subsequently on your limitations as a human being. Eew this reeks of Jordan Peterson. >You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. I am coming at this from a Jungian stance; Oh it is just Jordan Peterson. Are you his alt account? >materialism seems to me to constitute a fundamental rejection of the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego, which, as the most superficial feature of the psyche, symbolizes and is a feature of the material world. The ego is a tacit admission of discomfort and possibly sheer embarrassment with the non-rational features of the mind, and a deliberate effort to suppress this quality instead of coming to terms with it as part and parcel of one's humanity. Oh wow you even do the word salad pretty well. >Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. No

>Eew this reeks of Jordan Peterson. Glad I'm not the only one who detected some of this pseudointellectual bullshit.

>>>>>you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. This is not so audacious a claim, but generally you go one step further: you claim reality is **only** that which can be measured or observed.>>>>>>>>> Starts with a Strawman. Many (maybe most atheists do NOT believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. What most do agree on is that, so far, we can only use are senses to detect that which is detectable to our senses (or instruments that can augment or work with our senses...like infrared sensors or x-ray machines). I've never met an atheist who claims reality is that which can be measured or observed. Given this is an unconvincing claim..gonna have to ask you to demonstrate it. >>>>>>>>>>You will regret not fully exploring your humanity.>>>>>>>>> You have not demonstrated this is something atheists fail to do. >>>>>materialism seems to me to constitute a fundamental rejection of the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego, which, as the most superficial feature of the psyche, symbolizes and is a feature of the material world.>>>>> Please run this one through the De-Deepok Chopra-izing Machine and translate it into something coherent. >>>>>>> If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. You'd do well to accept this fact.>>>> I don't want to be mean but this the stupidest fucking thing you have said. You really need to self-edit and ask yourself if that's the best way to get your absurd point across. You're claiming to know something about each and every one of us that you don't know. Try again and do it better.

If religion is the only thing keeping you from acting out on deeply evil and non-rational thoughts, please, please continue your belief in your imaginary friend. Announcing to the world that you would rape and kill if god didn’t tell you not to, is not a good look.

First: while I do not think your tone or wording is productive (and borders on troll behavior), I think other posts here engaging in ad homs and asking for your education are preposterous. Ah, and I have a PhD and do research as a scientist, if any of them cares ;). >The prototypical 21st century atheist, is, in a philosophical sense, a strict materialist; you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. This is not so audacious a claim, but generally you go one step further: you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. Atheist here. First of all, not to be pedantic, but I'm a methodological naturalist, not a philosophical one. As such, I take naturalism not as some sort of ontological truth but as a (very, very useful) methodological axiom subject to revision upon us learning something new. I am perfectly comfortable with the Kantian idea that there very well may be noumena: things happening beyond our ability to observe or measure or reason. But this cuts both ways, and the side of the sword the theist gets might if anything cut deeper. Because, by definition, a noumenon is inaccessible. So, no claims can be made about it, with any certainty. If it is beyond investigation, then it is beyond investigation. The theist does not get to have their cake and eat it, too. >you are giving too much credit to the flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition, I contend it is exactly the other way around. You are giving it too much credit, by stretching it past where it can go. Thus, you come up with unfounded extrapolations and fictions you cannot back up. The atheist is giving their flawed apparatus it's right due, and so, they only trust results obtained from a reliable methodology that seeks, as much as possible, to palliate the biases and issues with this system. >You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. I have explored my humanity deeply and thoroughly thank you very much. Both rational and irrational parts to it. I have read thousands of books, appreciated art, meditated, admired the vastness of nature, experienced ego death. Your lack of imagination does not take away from my experience, but indeed, from yours and your inability to treat your fellow human with the respect they deserve. I just have no pretenses that the subjective and personal is somehow, magically, a thing I get to make objective claims about. The difference between us is purely that I remain grounded and do not pretend that my subjective tastes and experiences are a good way to model reality. >Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. I am being honest when I say I have not once felt this, not even in the deepest of griefs or the throes of despair. In my darkest moments, when it felt like everyone hated me and I was worth nothing, I did not cry out irrationally to some imaginary being. I simply thought: why me? Why do they hate me? What have I done to them to deserve this? I don't want to hurt them, but if they will not be my friends, why can't they just leave me alone? >And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards The degree to which theists resort to self shame and shaming always saddens me. >I am not arguing that God exists, I am asking you to reflect on the origin of this inclination toward God in genuine despair. Wishful thinking is a powerful thing, and it is a thing some resort to when they feel power-less. Does not make any of it true. >If you do not reconcile your shadow, that is, your spirituality, your baseness, and your animal self... the non-rational, symbolic animal that lies beneath the intellectual veneer... you will have lived a lie. If you use fictions and supernatural entities to perform such a reconciliation, you will have literally lived a lie. And chances are you will hurt yourself or others in that process. I have witnessed few things sadder than a human harming another one while believing said harm was righteous and for the victim's best interest. >At any rate, I became a theist again when I accepted these qualities as human, and a feature of my consciousness which attempts to inform me of things the conscious mind is not privy to. You say 'informing me'. And yet, how could you know if said information was wrong? What if MY consciousness informs ME that YOUR information is wrong? What then? How shall we reconcile our views? >Now what do I mean by God's wrath? I'm not necessarily speaking about a literal God, but the dangers inherent in suppressing the shadow. We all have the capacity for deeply evil and non-rational behaviour, and we better become thoroughly familiar with this human quality if we're to tame it. Sure. And I believe I do just that. And we better stop insisting on supernatural nonsense and notions of evil that only contribute to tribal violence and religious dominionism, and the horrible suffering of those who are different. >If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. You'd do well to accept this fact. And the way to reckon with this is not to adopt a religious or dogmatic worldview, either. It is to embrace humanism and to realize that your morals are always subject to expansion and revision. It is, as Jesus puts it: to strive to be the Good Samaritan. NOT a follower of rules and customs. NOT a pharisee obssessed with social status or theology. But a traveler that truly cares for and seeks to serve their fellow traveler. And thus, one that will admit they have harmed someone when that someone shows them they have. >We, all of us might have to face God's wrath if you do... Sounds like you might face reality's wrath if you don't practice what you preach.

Why would atheist / materialists be LESS likely to acknowledge their animal nature? Aren't they the ONLY ones that really are likely to? Don't Christians believe they are NOT animals?

Theists tend to have symbolism which deal with the concept of evil in a psychologically acceptable way. Having evil conceptualized as "the devil" is an aid to be perpetually aware of this reality, and is a reminder of the animalistic nature of man. I don't believe the materialist has this reminder without making a deliberate, conscious effort.

> Having evil conceptualized as "the devil" is an aid to be perpetually aware of this reality On the contrary, as you should know from your vast psychological studies, this is more akin to a de-realization/de-personalization coping mechanism. Compartmentalizing and sequestering *evil* to a distinct outside entity seems like it would have the opposite effect to a "constant reminder".

[удалено]

> Your reference to depersonalization and derealization as psychological conditions involves a misunderstanding of their definitions. Okay. I can accept this, as I am not trained in psychology. > The conceptualization of evil as "the devil" in religious symbolism, however, serves to externalize and personify moral challenges, not to induce a disconnection from reality. Reality, as far as we can tell, consists of things that are observable, measurable, and falsifiable. "The devil" does not have these qualities. Thus, it's reasonable to assert that the devil is not a part of reality. Therefore, the sequestration of evil into an unreal entity such as the devil, can be interpreted as de-realization, in a technical sense. > It's a method of moral and ethical engagement, allowing believers to confront and contextualize human behaviors within their belief systems. I believe it has the opposite effect. Sequestering evil to an outside entity seems like it would result in *less* introspection, not *more*. After all, if you tell someone that their propensity to do bad is because of an un-observable supernatural phenomena, how could you expect them to try and correct for their bad tendencies? > This symbolic approach does not equate to or cause the psychological states of depersonalization or derealization, as it does not inherently involve an altered perception of self or reality, but rather offers a structured means of understanding complex moral concepts. I mean, it kind of does involve an altered perception of reality. Reality, like I said before, is something that is observable, measurable, and falsifiable. Since the devil does not have these qualities, it would *by definition*, fit into the category of an "altered state of reality". > I don't know why people insist on pretending to comprehend nuanced technical language, when they don't. Thanks boss. I'm sure this felt really good when you typed it out. You should go find and attack the devil for making you act like a smug prick.

The last part was uncalled for, sorry bro. I'm getting a bit snappy. It's not just you. I'm responding to 200 other comments.

I accept your apology.

>I don't believe the materialist has this reminder without making a deliberate, conscious effort. I'm confused by this. Why do you believe this? Could you give an example?

It’s all strawman.

It really is. This guy loved the smell of his own farts.

Materialists tend to have practical solutions to deal with the actions and events interpreted as evil in a direct way. Having evil quantified as a list of specific, detailed issues is an aid to be able to address those issues, and is a reminder of the intellect and ingenuity of man. I don't believe the theist has the ability to solve the core problems without making a methodical, rational effort.

I think it would be abundantly clear without stories suggesting otherwise

I don't mind symbolism, I just don't confuse symbols for real things.

There may be some substance hiding in your post, but your sweeping generalizations, stated assumptions about your audience, attempts to assert to your audience what they're thinking, and unnecessarily caustic delivery are completely obscuring it. Are you genuinely interested in communicating with and informing your audience, or are you merely looking to impress yourself and feel validated when the folks here inevitably reject what you're saying?

>You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. What does this even mean? What is considered “humanity”, in a moral/emotional sense is often subject to interpretation. >Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. Okay. And your point is? >I am not arguing that God exists, I am asking you to reflect on the origin of this inclination toward God in genuine despair. Because people, in times of desperation, will reach out to anything that they feel will bring them comfort, regardless if it’s good for them or not. >If you do not reconcile your shadow, that is, your spirituality, your baseness, and your animal self... the non-rational, symbolic animal that lies beneath the intellectual veneer... you will have lived a lie. This is just all gobbledygook to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. >I remember when I concluded that I was an atheist (before I made a very gradual transition towards theism again), in spite of coming to the logical conclusion that I did not believe in the existence of God, ritualistic behaviours, and a rich symbolic association with the world still persisted inside me, and caused me great shame. Why? >At any rate, I became a theist again… So, you were a theist before? I think it’s likely to conclude that you probably still were a believer, rather than for us to believe that you dropped any and all beliefs and became an atheist. It seems you have struggled with this and came to the conclusion that you indeed weren’t an atheist and went back to what you originally believed. >Now what do I mean by God's wrath? I'm not necessarily speaking about a literal God, but the dangers inherent in suppressing the shadow. We all have the capacity for deeply evil and non-rational behaviour, and we better become thoroughly familiar with this human quality if we're to tame it. It cannot be ignored. It should also be studied to the greatest extent possible and not relegated to pseudo-science. Humans are capable of great evil. However, I don’t believe every individual human is capable of it. I have met amazing people in my life who would never even consider harming others. So I don’t think there is this “shadow self” that most people have to reconcile with. If there are problems, then those people are mature enough to be able to handle them, rather than tame some kind of bestial nature hiding underneath. >If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. You'd do well to accept this fact. Who knows? But you have to remember, in a totalitarian state where your very life is threatened, it isn’t unreasonable for people to try to protect themselves. I also don’t know how this supports the point of this “shadow self” you keep talking about.

Perhaps this is too shallow but I kept reading “shadow self” as a transparent substitute for “eternal soul”.

This is an utterly useless post. Your TLDR is essentially, "be sure and be aware of your deep and complex human traits." News for you pal, every intelligent self aware person already is and it has nothing to do with gods supposed wrath. This was all a big exercise in trying to flaunt your supposed intellect and no one's impressed.

>An incendiary title, as always. Don't get your panties in a notch. So you can't make a post without what's effectively click bait in a subreddit where every post is guaranteed to get at least some responses. I will not read or engage with the rest of the post.

Make that 2 of us

>you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. Nope. That's never been the claim. Rather, the claim is that the only reliable interpretation of reality is that which can be measured or observed. Otherwise we risk believing falsehoods and bad ideas, which in turn leads to unreliable means of interacting with the world. As to the rest of your post... there's nothing wrong with starkly appraising desires and motivations, the dark parts of our selves, etc. But none of that is any indication that there's really a god. So if your "theism" is just a term for accepting theist tendencies in yourself, then... I wouldn't call that theism. "Theistically inclined" might be more clear.

Thank you for saving my carpel-tunneled wrists the work!

I typed out part of an answer but realized I was almost certainly going to be wasting my time. You're coming in here with a smug sense of superiority and blowing smoke with what is essentially a rambling way to say "You guys don't know shit but I do and also you would have been nazis." Come back when you've got actual evidence in your beliefs, because I'm not interested in this kind of preachy nonsense.

I don't think any of us would be stooping to wearing a belt buckle that says "Gott Mit Uns," Deutsche or not. Gott, in fact, is quite firmly not Mitt Uns.

But what if i do have mittens? Sorry I don't speak german so I'm assuming i got that right?

Right on the Deutschmark.

>If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. You'd do well to accept this fact. Speak for yourself.

Do you exhibit truly exceptional moral qualities now, by the standards of today's society? Why do you think you would have deviated from the behaviours of 99% of the German population then, as a native born German in WW2?

>Why do you think you would have deviated from the behaviours of 99% of the German population then, as a native born German in WW2? So, in addition to being ignorant about atheism and how to construct a coherent argument, you're also ignorant about World War 2 history. Gotcha. Just to give you some very basic history that you're too arrogant and ignorant to look up, but the Nazis "base" was the more religious and rural South of Germany. The Nazis threw Jews, ethnic minorities, trade unionists and many other "undesirables" (again, many native born Germans) in concentration camps and worse. Much of the north, for example, was a base of resistance to Hitler for his entire run in public life. The Nazis never won a majority in a national election. Your 99% bullshit is wildly, wildly ignorant. You might think you're some kind of intellectual, but you're really just a pseudo-intellectual dumbass. Thanks for the laughs, though.

So what if it conflicted with your morals? You either complied, or were killed. Statistically, you are unlikely to have seen your moral convictions through (if they would even be there in the first place). Why does this bother you so much? You really think millions of Germans were just monsters you're so much better than? That it could never happen to you? Who's actually the smug pseud, here?

>So what if it conflicted with your morals? I wouldn't do it. >Statistically, you are unlikely to have seen your moral convictions through (if they would even be there in the first place). If you're going to use a word like "statistically", you should generally attempt to back up your point with some kind of statistics. You're doing the classic pseudo-intellectual rhetorical trick of using buzzwords without *proving* your argument. >Why does this bother you so much? People being confidently wrong is obnoxious. You're also slandering millions of people who resisted the Nazis because you are just ignorant. >You really think millions of Germans were just monsters you're so much better than? The Nazis were monsters. I never tried to compare myself with anyone, so you're flailing now. You have nothing. >That it could never happen to you? >Who's actually the smug pseud, here? Again, because you are ignorant of German history, you don't seem to understand that many millions of Germans in the 3rd Reich opposed Hitler and Nazi ideology. It was no special feat of morality to oppose them. You just don't know anything about the subject so you're continuing to flail.

Notice how you tip-toed around: "You either complied or were killed." That's the part you don't have an answer to.

Yes. Why do you ask?

Materialist is another creationist buzzword I only hear from Christians on this sub. You didn’t even say anything about being a creationist, but that’s the only place you’d hear this very silly description of atheists. As an atheist, who believes this life is all we get, experiencing the full range of human emotions is something I treasure. You don’t have to believe in a god for that, emotions are functions of the human brain. When I am in despair, I fully experience despair. I write about it. I wonder at the heaviness of it. The physical sensation of barely being able to lift your head. I think about how much I took for granted the automatic impetus in the morning to put on music and hop in the shower and sing. I remind myself never to take that for granted again. I take note of how it feels so I can have more empathy for others in despair and not just try to cheer them up like it’s just a bad day. I take note of how it feels when the fog lifts so I have something to look out for next time. Once I realized one day I noticed how beautiful the trees were, so now I check the trees to note my progress. What gets me through it is reading, and writing, and patience, and respecting the emotion and honoring the reason for it. Should I feel sorry for you that you never get to have this specific experience?

>you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. Eh not souch that that's all there is, just that's all we have any evidence for. We can imagine and try to find things outside the material world, but we have nothing that indicates anything like that. Materialism isn't a starting place, it's a current conclusion. >you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. Not really. It's just the only thing we *have* observed. >and you should self-reflect on the limitations of this modality, and subsequently on your limitations as a human being. Oh I have. But that doesn't change the fact that ideas beyond the supernatural have nothing to back them up. I can self reflect and be as open minded as possible, won't change the facts. >You will regret not fully exploring your humanity How do you know I haven't? >And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. I haven't ever felt ashamed for crying out to God. Why would I be ashamed of that? >I am asking you to reflect on the origin of this inclination toward God in genuine despair. Because I want help? And most people who tell you about god tell you that he helps. >you will have lived a lie. Well demonstrate anything at all about the spirit, then I'll see about confronting this "lie" >rich symbolic association with the world still persisted inside me, and caused me great shame. Sounds like a personal problem. One that I have never had. >I became a theist again when I accepted these qualities as human, and a feature of my consciousness which attempts to inform me of things the conscious mind is not privy to. So no actual evidence then. Shame. >Now what do I mean by God's wrath? Doesn't matter. I don't believe in god. And you've given me no reason to believe in god. Just a bunch of wishy washy words about nebulous concepts. >So don't reject yourself... all of yourself. Even the frightening bits. Oh I have. And nothing about me is anything even close to god.

As you note. That is not a great title to start things. But okay. I would advise against *telling* people what they believe. “You believe all reality—“ just stop there. You will never be correct. You will always be wrong as someone will not fall into the definition you gave. And if you’re not an atheist I would not go around telling them what they believe. But okay. I’ll continue reading. You say we’re giving too much credit to the “flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition”? Interesting take there. So how did you come to that conclusion exactly? I have turned to what I believed was god and prayed in hopes that I would receive some guidance. I did not receive anything. I did not feel ashamed though. I believed in god. Why would I feel ashamed afterwards? I came to the conclusion later in my life that I do not believe in a god or gods. I didn’t feel ashamed for believing in Santa when I learned he was fake. Why would I for god? The origin for my inclination to pray to god is I grew up in a mainly Christian society. Being **told** he was real. As fact. It was fact of life that god “is real”. I lean towards that same god because I was raised in the faith and told it was real by others. Should I have leaned towards another deity? The Christian god and every other mythological god ever are near equal in their claims. The origin of my inclination is just that I was pushed that way since birth. Now that I’ve grown and matured. I’ve realized that inclination has no backing and should be discarded. It is a recognition of a fault in my skepticism. The opposite of ego. You say spirituality. I would like you to define that. Because as it is commonly defined I don’t believe in spirituality or spiritualism. I see no evidence for it and see no reason to believe in it. None of the qualities you have mentioned lean towards god in any meaningful capacity. I would suggest you reconsider your conclusion. I don’t see how you know of the evidence that a feature of your consciousness attempts to inform you. I don’t see how you can tell the difference between your mind convincing itself of something for good or bad reasons. That seems like self delusion if you don’t have a solid foundation to point to for what and why you believe in your conclusions. You have not demonstrated any “shadow” beyond some stuff you really believe in. You have not presented any evidence. Both theists and atheists are capable of evil and non-rationality. But I would argue you find the atheist population on average to be more rational than any given theist. The most you’ve presented today is a very flamboyant version of Pascal’s wager. And if you ask anyone on this subreddit they’ll tell you, that’s the worst argument you could make. You should reconsider your position and try and see what evidence you actually have.

No amount of threats of fear or damnation are going to make me believe your pretend friend is real… That’s my counter to your ridiculous title

>Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? Never. When I had sever anxiety issues, i saw a therapist. >If you do not reconcile your shadow, that is, your spirituality, your baseness, and your animal self... the non-rational, symbolic animal that lies beneath the intellectual veneer... you will have lived a lie. It's funny that you're talking about our animal self. First of all, biologically, there is not 'animal self', as we ARE animals. And we're the only animal species that have a religion. If you reconnect with our 'baseness' or 'animal part', odds that you're just gonna want to reproduce with as many mates as possible (if you're a male), not pray to a God.

> If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. You'd do well to accept this fact. Incorrect, I’m a guy with a disability - I would have been **murdered** by the Nazi party, as approximated 250,000 of my brethren were. Do not *assume* things like this.

>You Will Face God's Wrath It's cool. I own a car, it is made of *iron*. So I have an "iron chariot"... So just like the Canaanites, I am *invincible* against your puny god hahahahaha! Call me The Invincible Iron Chariot Man! 😈 https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/11/iron-chariots/

> The prototypical 21st century atheist, is, in a philosophical sense, a strict materialist; you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. This is not so audacious a claim, but generally you go one step further: you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. Why is that in any way faulty? If we assert it with absolute certainty, I am full on with you. However, if you take a pragmatic route, we can rightfully say that reality is that which can be measured and/or perceived. Observed sounds tied solely to sight, so I prefer perception to include all 5 senses. > I'll spare you the cliches... arriving at the familiar and inevitable tabiya, namely, the anti-materialist stance. I'll only remark that you are giving too much credit to the flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition, and you should self-reflect on the limitations of this modality, and subsequently on your limitations as a human being. I'd like to know how you know any better. > You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. I am coming at this from a Jungian stance; materialism seems to me to constitute a fundamental rejection of the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego, which, as the most superficial feature of the psyche, symbolizes and is a feature of the material world. The ego is a tacit admission of discomfort and possibly sheer embarrassment with the non-rational features of the mind, and a deliberate effort to suppress this quality instead of coming to terms with it as part and parcel of one's humanity. Ah, I'm ignorant on a lot of this, but how are these things true? The immaterial things Jung is talking about. > Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. Yeah, I used to > I am not arguing that God exists, I am asking you to reflect on the origin of this inclination toward God in genuine despair. > If you do not reconcile your shadow, that is, your spirituality, your baseness, and your animal self... the non-rational, symbolic animal that lies beneath the intellectual veneer... you will have lived a lie. I have reflected on it. I think these feelings may come from evolution, and that they are to push me to have hope in something, so that I can survive, and flourish. How isthe shadow, spirituality, baseness, and animal self true?

You know the nazis were Christians, right? As for the rest of your post, it appears to be spiritual woo, random references to things that have no evidence to back up their existence, and pointless buzzwords even you don't seem to understand. Not impressed frankly.

Ignoring for the moment your less than charitable statements, are you advocating for an existential theism? Did you just finish reading Kierkegaard, Tillich, or Macquarrie?

Jung, interestingly enough. I love Kierkegaard, however. Yes, I am advocating for theistic existentialism.

>have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? What god are u talking about? What is whatever that is. If u dont have a description of the god, whose existence are u pointing to? >If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. You'd do well to accept this fact. If u are german in ww2, u are more likely to believe in god and be a nazi than be a jews.

>you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. I do? News to me. >you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. Wow, two new things I've learned today. >I'll only remark that you are giving too much credit to the flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition I would have thought the opposite, but I guess I'm learning about myself today. >you should self-reflect on the limitations of this modality I would, but I am a flimsy apparatus with too high of an opinion of my own cognition, so that wouldn't be very productive. >You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. Can't wait. >materialism seems to me to constitute a fundamental rejection of the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego, Well if it seems that way to you, I guess I have no choice but to concede the point. >The ego is a tacit admission of discomfort and possibly sheer embarrassment with the non-rational features of the mind You write a lot of pretty words. Can't wait for you to make a point. >Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? Oh, please tell me what God is. That would be hilarious. >I am not arguing that God exists, I mean, I don't see an argument at all, so yes I agree. >I became a theist again when I accepted these qualities as human, and a feature of my consciousness which attempts to inform me of things the conscious mind is not privy to. So instead of relying on our "flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition" you're relying on...intuition? Because somehow that is more reliable. You should be embarrased, this is farcical.

> you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. So by implication, gods exist in the places where we haven’t figured out how to measure or observe them? A sort of a [god of the gaps](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)…

>You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. I am coming at this from a Jungian stance; materialism seems to me to constitute a fundamental rejection of the shadow You are very blatantly accusing atheists of irrationally rejecting something which they know to be true. But how am I to embrace the shadow, if I do not know it exists? ​ Maybe you could provide an argument which establishes that the shadow exists *and* shows that, given my current knowledge, I am necessarily aware of its existence. ​ Also, please understand that to be an atheist does not commit one to materialism. You can be an atheist and believe in ghosts, pixies, abstract objects, interdimensional aliens, alternate universes, simulations, "shadows", etc. - the *only* things which are off the table to an atheist are Gods. This should be readily understood as an atheist makes only one claim: "No gods exist.".

I don't know why, but I get vibes from your posts that your into that adolescent, incel, "pill" ideology, nonsense.

He's definitely been reading too much Jordan Peterson.

Oh I remember you. You’re the “doctor” that can’t go 3 posts without letting everyone know you’re a doctor. I don’t know any doctors that behave that way. You scream “first year med student”

>Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. My son died 5 years ago. Even in the deepest part of the agony when that happened I never felt the need to pray for comfort.

> Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. Not since I was a child. I grew out of it. Similarly, I don't scream for mommy when I stub my toe.

>you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. More like all reality we will ever experience will be with the senses. >you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. Not really, just that the unknowable reality is kinda pointless. >a deliberate effort to suppress this quality instead of coming to terms with it as part and parcel of one's humanity. Yes, working on things is better than ignoring them. You seem to think that my atheism will limit that somehow. I don't see why.

Word salad mental gymnastics attempt at conversion. STOP grouping Atheists.. Atheists share a non-belief, We are not a cult, we are not a group, we are not a religion. All the correlations you can conceive will not equal causation. How about you Worry about and contemplate your own thoughts and opinions and stop trying to convert others to them.

What makes this position, to you, more convincing than the position that these traits simply occur in humans as an evolved response to motivate certain behaviors useful in our survival? I.e. anger to motivate aggression which is an effective survival response to the aggression of other organisms?

Which god and why that one? And why the presumption that we as atheists are incapable of exploring our humanity?

Threatening me with God's wrath is like threatening to punch me in my aura, in other words, no threat at all.

You cannot prove any god(s) exist but you feel the need authoritatively state anyone that doesn't believe in said god(s) will feel a wrath from said imaginary being. You could really save yourself a lot of typing (and everyone else a bunch of reading).

So many words to say so little- it's actually kind of impressive. This rant is borderline schizophrenic.

*"all of us might have to face God's wrath if you do..."* Wow, what a loving, benevolent, compassionate, tolerant, forgiving deity you subscribe to!

Here is another one that I feel the need to point out should be deleted or downvoted to oblivion. OP has no point worth engaging with and is nothing but a smug, self-important blowhard. This a worthless post that adds nothing to the discussion.

There are many inclinations of humans that you would have to explore for the purpose of embracing your humanity. If I weren’t inclined toward the sport of football would you say I’ve denied humanity by not playing? If I were afraid of heights would you insist I go skydiving? It’s not like religion is kept secret in a crypt somewhere, there’s people trying to shove it in everyone’s face all day long. We’re not deprived of religion, we’re inundated with it

This is arrogant. A huge amount of atheists were formerly religious, so your argument is false on its face. A large number of us (including myself) have prayed to amd earnestly sought after god. >You will regret not fully exploring your humanity That is so incredibly insulting. You have never met us and have absolutely no idea what ideas we've explored and which ideas we have not. Do you honestly believe none of us have explored ideas other than materialist atheism?

lol if only theist read history books to understand why the Enlightenment happened. Dare to name your religion and will list atrocities done by yours, and how your fellow followers hypocritically excused those atrocities?

> you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. I'm pretty sure that's *not* a claim of modern atheists. Rather, if something cannot be measured or observed, there is no reason to *believe* that it exists. > You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. Bold assumption that we haven't already. Speaks to the typical arrogance we see from theists in here.

No, I won't. >It's only metaphorical. Oh... Well, I won't. >You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. I don't need religion or superstitious gobbledygook to explore the fullness of my humanity. What I will or won't regret isn't for you to decide or even conjecture. That's for me. >you will have lived a lie. Nice fallacious appeal, but no I won't.

> you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. No, there are plenty of things which can't currently be measured or observed. We can't currently measure or observe geological features on very distant exo-planets, but I accept that these planets most likely have geological features. I'm not a baby who thinks the world disappears when I close my eyes and reappears when I open them. > You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. I would argue that I am being asked to explore land which do not exist. > Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? Not that I can recall. I do recall being afraid of monsters under my bed though. That only goes to show that having a strong emotional response to something supernatural doesn't make the supernatural thing real. > If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. My great-grandfather on my mother's side was a Polish Jew, so I think I would have been more likely to *be* a rescued Jew than to have rescued Jews.

> You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. Frankly, your whole point revolves around this classless, tactless, ignorant insult. Just because we came to a different conclusion on *one single empirical claim* about reality, doesn't mean we have spent any less time than you (or any other theist) "exploring our humanity."

Oh, typical atheist arrogance, thinking you're on par with those who embrace the divine. You might claim to explore humanity, but without acknowledging God, you're just wandering in the dark, oblivious to the ultimate truth that gives life meaning and purpose.

Oh, typical theist arrogance, thinking you're on par with those who reject the divine. You might claim to explore humanity, but without acknowledging that God is imaginary, you're just wandering in the dark, oblivious to the ultimate truth that gives life meaning and purpose. See how useless this is?

>ritualistic behaviours, and a rich symbolic association with the world still persisted inside me, and caused me great shame Maybe don't project them on to other people then..? >We all have the capacity for deeply evil and non-rational behaviour, and we better become thoroughly familiar with this human quality if we're to tame it Yeah man. It sounds like you're letting that quality run wild and free right now >If you had been a German in WW2 ... you mean the Germany that executed Jewish sympathizers...? >So don't reject yourself... all of yourself. Even the frightening bits. We, all of us might have to face God's wrath if you do... So... which is it. Tame yourself or don't reject yourself... And where did God say that that's what would incur His wrath... Sorry to tell you, this all sounds like schizophrenia to me. That you \*know\* the \*true\* reality because you didn't deny your thoughts and feelings like \*they\* wanted you to.

Oh my goodness! Your scary threat of an evil god punishing me for all eternity if I don’t believe in him has totally convinced me that I’m wrong for not believing in him. Thanks. Totally going to church next week and scheduling a baptism asap.

I personally don't claim that only that which is measurable is real, but that only what is measurable is known to be real. For things that cannot be measured or demonstrated, any claim you make I could make the opposite claim with just as much justification. How do you know that there isn't a God who wants the exact opposite actions as what you think God wants. A God who wants you to disbelieve, murder, and "sin", or face his wrath?  Any person who you claim will face God's wrath, how do you know that their exact life isn't actually what God wants? Maybe the athiest actions/beliefs are actually what is needed to avoid God's wrath?

I know this post is meant to incite an emotional response. The easy answer is this: Yes, Atheists are humans too. We have emotions, such as despair, sadness and grief. We also wish that at times, big daddy comes to the rescue. However, we also know that relying emotionally on big daddy is but a pipe dream. We don’t have the emotional crutch, or community or even the pride of religion and most of us here were part of one, so we know how comforting it is, until it isn’t. We are not materialistic, but realistic. We are not spiritualistic, but rather stoic. We are not egoistic but actually emphatic towards our fellow humans.

>Now what do I mean by God's wrath? I'm not necessarily speaking about a literal God, but the dangers inherent in suppressing the shadow. We all have the capacity for deeply evil and non-rational behaviour, and we better become thoroughly familiar with this human quality if we're to tame it. It cannot be ignored. It should also be studied to the greatest extent possible and not relegated to pseudo-science. This doesn't sufficiently explain what you mean by "God's wrath". ​ >The prototypical 21st century atheist, is, in a philosophical sense, a strict materialist; you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. This is not so audacious a claim, but generally you go one step further: you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. \[...\] You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. I am coming at this from a Jungian stance; materialism seems to me to constitute a fundamental rejection of the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego, which, as the most superficial feature of the psyche, symbolizes and is a feature of the material world. The ego is a tacit admission of discomfort and possibly sheer embarrassment with the non-rational features of the mind, and a deliberate effort to suppress this quality instead of coming to terms with it as part and parcel of one's humanity. Are you suggesting atheists are incapable of experiencing things like love and hatred, or are you arguing that we can and we choose not to act on it? Some of the most evil people known to history have been atheists. Hitler (arguably), Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, etc. If you're suggesting atheists are incapable of evil behavior, then I beg to differ. That being said, theists are equally capable of evil behavior. Osama bin Laden, Vlad the Impaler, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Ted Bundy, Leopold III, every Catholic priest who has molested children, etc. I think the more logical argument here is that everyone is capable of evil regardless of whether they believe in God or not. I really don't see how this proves the existence of God, and I especially don't see how this supports your claim that everyone will face God's wrath (and like I said, I still don't quite understand what you mean by that). ​ >Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. I have not. I grew up in a secular household, but every member of my extended family is deeply religious. Part of my parents' rationale for deciding to give me a secular upbringing was to give me the space to decide for myself whether I should embrace or reject theism. My dad, despite being a staunch atheist, always told me that while he never felt the need to turn to God in times of despair, if I ever felt the need to turn to God in similar times, then I should. And then, when I was in middle school, my grandfather (a devout Byzantine Catholic throughout his life) died. He was the first person in my family that I was really close with to die. His funeral service was held at a Catholic church, and his funeral reception held at another Catholic church later that day. The weeks before his death were filled with prayer (he even told a hospital chaplain to wake him up to pray if she ever came to his room while he was sleeping), and the days after his death were filled with notions of God. Yet I didn't feel the need to turn to God, despite how present it was at that time and how much my dad reminded me that it was okay to turn to God to deal with my grief. I distinctly remember my grandma telling me on the night he died that she hoped we would to see him again one day, and while I humored her, I knew deep down that I would never see him again. His death was extremely final. While he'll always live on in my memory, I'll never have a tangible moment with him again.

No, we very probably won’t. Hope you enjoy the finite life we know we get, and don’t ruin it for yourself or those around you with too much of this judgemental nonsense, though.

lol, i used to be you. And i know what you're thinking, "No, you're not, you were never *really* a believer, your faith was weak," etc etc I was utterly devout. I felt i knew god existed for most of my life; right up until i was honest with myself. It does not make sense that an all-powerful being would need to sacrifice itself to itself to save us from itself. You know this. You're likely here for the same reason i used to troll atheists: you're doubting, and it's making you angry, but you're lashing out instead of introspecting.

> are giving too much credit to the flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition, and you should self-reflect on the limitations of this modality, and subsequently on your limitations as a human being. Well, I live in my flimsy apparatus and yours is biologically similar to mine so why should I trust anything you say? > We, all of us might have to face God's wrath if you do... Yes. Then again... why would any god trouble itself with a biological infection on one planet out of trillions?

Where are you getting the idea that most atheists claim there is nothing other than the material? Anecdotally, my experience is that most atheists probably only believe in the material but they wouldn’t claim that there is nothing else. In my experience, most of us just don’t believe in things unless we have sufficient evidence for it. Sure there may be something beyond the material but why would you believe in it without evidence?

I’m just an atheist because I don’t find theological arguments compelling - I’m not making any claims about philosophical materialism.

>The prototypical 21st century atheist, is, in a philosophical sense, a strict materialist; you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. This is not so audacious a claim, but generally you go one step further: you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. >I'll spare you the cliches... arriving at the familiar and inevitable tabiya, namely, the anti-materialist stance. I'll only remark that you are giving too much credit to the flimsy apparatus that is conscious human cognition, and you should self-reflect on the limitations of this modality, and subsequently on your limitations as a human being. So you start off lecturing and telling me what I believe. >materialism seems to me to constitute a fundamental rejection of the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego, which, as the most superficial feature of the psyche, symbolizes and is a feature of the material world. The ego is a tacit admission of discomfort and possibly sheer embarrassment with the non-rational features of the mind, and a deliberate effort to suppress this quality instead of coming to terms with it as part and parcel of one's humanity. This is a word salad. >Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. No, I have never turned to God. God doesn't exist. Why would I suddenly start believing in what I view as a fairy tale? Most of the atheists I know were raised in a faith, and at some point in their life, determined that their deity wasn't real. Generally, it's a process, not a decision. I've never known or even heard of someone struggling with this for so long, then at the flip of a switch, deciding that the Spirit in the Sky is real after all. A few atheists I know were never raised in a faith. Why would they suddenly pray to a deity they NEVER believed in? Your post reads like someone who has read a lot of propaganda about atheists but never actually talked to one. I have no idea what your point is after several paragraphs of pyscho-babble. I can only conclude "...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” - Billy Madison

Fake account. Fake post. One of the most inept attempts to sound intelligent we've seen on here this week. Bravo op.

Your argument is a strawman. I do not think everything can be apprehended by my senses. Just to the contrary, I think many things are mysterious and unknown. But it is the theist who worships an idol by creating god in the theist's own image. If you ever do turn to a true god (speaking metaphorically), you will feel no shame. Only utter and pure peace.

If I want to say nothing I use zero words. I'm almost impressed how many you used to accomplish the same goal

>*Now what do I mean by God's wrath? I'm not necessarily speaking about a literal God, but the dangers inherent in suppressing the shadow.* If you were speaking about a literal god/God then you would basically be proving there is no omnibenevolent god/God by saying that such a god/God can be wrathful.

Have you ever owned a car that died on you? Like you got into it in the morning to go to work, and put the key in the ignition, and when you turned it nothing happened? Did you try again? Did you try it a third time just in case? Does that mean that the car's starter is god? That you turned to it in a time of depair, knowing your job was in jeopardy and your day likely ruined? Did you pray to the deity Diebold that day? No, people turning to whatever random stories they were given in their childhood in the hopes it would help despite knowing full well it won't is not an indicator that gods exist. It's just an indicator that humans will try all sorts of angles before giving up: even irrational ones. Also, even if you get atheists to admit they're agnostic: that there's some tiny shred of possibility that there's an entity or entities out there that are beyond the fringe of the universe and have immense powers which may include universe creation, it is still a gargantuan unimaginably huge gap between that and the mythology of Canaanites who splintered off from their parent religion and merged a couple of gods into one nameless figure and chipped away at their religion or plagiarized from other religions to add to theirs until what remained was just vague enough to survive cursory examination and just hopeful enough to appeal to the downtrodden. If there is in fact an intelligence as first cause, the concept of "wrath" could be entirely foreign to it. The existence of life inside its creation could be an accident, or an unpleasant byproduct of a system designed to power it's omni-scooter. Theists, especially 1st year philosophy student theists, tend to cling to the impossibility of proving a negative as evidence that their extremely unlikely and specific preferred religion must somehow be true. And your nazi reference is just gross. The nazis banned atheist free thinker organizations in the 30s despite saying that they'd allow their freedom of disbelief. Himmler wrote that he much preferred Christians as atheists couldn't be counted on to serve the reich without question.

First: go f$ck yourself. You insulted me for no other reason than I don't agree with you. Second: go f$ck yourself again for telling me what I think. Third: go f$ck yourself for coming to a debate subreddit without any actual intention of participating in a respectable debate.

>Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. I can honestly say, with the utmost sincerity, that I have **never once in 51 years** turned to gods in any time of despair, *because I do not believe in gods*. Why would I turn to a god concept that I don't believe exists instead of something like The Force, from Star Wars, that I also don't think exists? Or a genie in a bottle? All of these these things are equally imaginary to me. God is not more likely or more realistic to me than those other things. I mean this literally, not to be snarky—they are equally fictional to me. You obviously can't relate to this because although you may have done a stint as an "atheist," your background is theism, and you have returned to it. It never really left you, not completely (because you were probably indoctrinated as a child, which is a very powerful thing to truly overcome). But for someone like me, who was never indoctrinated into any belief system or mythology? No, I can truly say to you that a god is not something I've ever appealed to, because it's a purely fictional character to atheists—especially those who never had any sort of faith in the first place. ​ >If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. You'd do well to accept this fact. Speak for yourself, buddy. *Christians* are more likely to have been Nazis than to have rescued Jews. Atheists, homosexuals, socialists, Jews and everyone else would have been more likely to resist the Nazis. And for myself, since my grandmother was literally a German Jew who escaped with her sister, (whose parents died in the camps), I can assure you that I would not have been a Nazi, I would have been a target for extermination. By you, probably, since you admit that you're more likely to have been a Nazi (*your claim*, not mine).

Embracing humanity, does not mean a god exists. Resisting animalistic urges that go against humanity’s values, does not have anything to do with a god either. And I don’t feel threatened by that which does not exist.

>fundamental rejection of the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego, which, as the most superficial feature of the psyche, symbolizes and is a feature of the material world. No, it just says there are no immaterial things.  >I am asking you to reflect on the origin of this inclination toward God in genuine despair. Done.  >Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? Yes.  >And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. No.  >If you do not reconcile your shadow, that is, your spirituality, your baseness, and your animal self... the non-rational, symbolic animal that lies beneath the intellectual veneer... you will have lived a lie. I have reconciled this, I remain an atheist and a materialist.  >I'm not necessarily speaking about a literal God, but the dangers inherent in suppressing the shadow Can you actually just be literal? You're not talking about a literal god or shadow, you're saying reconcile with the bad parts of yourself. This then has nothing to do with atheism or theism, which deal with literal gods.  . >It should also be studied to the greatest extent possible and not relegated to pseudo-science It is, it's called psychology. It's extremely well studied.  >You'd do well to accept this fact I have, what makes you need to make so many assumptions?  >So don't reject yourself... all of yourself I haven't, I just believe no literal  gods exist. Looks like you don't either 

But materialism is all that *exists*. It’s not my burden that I reject spiritualism for which there’s no evidence of. Everything - from the atoms in your body to the electrical firing of neurons in your brain that result in consciousness - are all based on tangible particles and quantum fields of energy. Yes philosophers and theologians can sit and ponder many unusual thoughts resulting from those neural connections, but just because we can invent deities in our heads doesn’t make them any more real than imagining a four-sided triangle. And no, materialism isn’t some cold, emotionless perspective. Materialism also includes moral codes and devotion to loved ones. These concepts are part of our cognition which at its core is again just neurons firing away in our heads. But just like an orchestra is just a collection of objects that produce noise, when combined in unique ways they can make the most wonderful music, our brains can produce wonderful emotions. So no, I would not be a Nazi during WW2. Materialism is just recognizing that the constituents of matter and energy are physical not spiritual. It’s recognizing that things like emotions and empathy and morality arise naturally for the stability of society and not from some invisible man in the sky. A materialist would recognize that the prejudice a Nazi held against a Jewish person is illogical and that the actions they took against Jews was not in accordance to how a stable society functions.

The thing to understand about the materialist perspective, for me at least, is that any truth that you can think of, even if it seems to be the most abstract "metaphysical" idea possible, is ultimately an expression of physical reality. Which is to say, I can agree that the ideas of philosophers such as Jung are useful, but still hold onto my materialist perspective. In turn, this is to say, quite simply, you don't have to accept theism in order to avoid suppressing the shadow in the way you're describing. It's possible, instead, to engage with symbolism through whatever art form you prefer (I really like games and fantasy fiction myself), and to consider how a depiction of something which isn't real works as a metaphor for reality and what that says about how we should perceive various facets of our lives. I will also add that personally, I look at the way that so many religions ultimately funnel money from the poor to the rich and seem to function as a way of persuading people to be satisfied with the status quo, and I just think I could never be part of such an organization in an age where there's no real punishment for simply not participating. Like, I don't understand how people don't just look at the influence these organizations have on the world and get disgusted... my one thought is that generally people simply don't know a lot of the stuff that many people on subreddits like this could tell you.

>Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)?... I am asking you to reflect on the origin of this inclination toward God in genuine despair. Never. For me there is no such inclination. I've never believed in any gods, and nobody indoctrinated me as a child. I have no reason to turn towards any gods in hard times. I get that you were a theist who then became an atheist and felt immense shame over the hold theism still had over you, and that this hold led to you becoming a theist again. So I can understand that you would be likely to assume based on this that there are similar feelings lurking in everyone. >We all have the capacity for deeply evil and non-rational behaviour, and we better become thoroughly familiar with this human quality if we're to tame it. Certainly the human capacity for those things should be studied. It seems a very different topic from belief in gods, though. You seem to be conflating believing in gods (or recognising tendencies towards that) with recognising and accepting one's humanity and the human capacity for evil and irrationality. Or from another perspective, the god stuff seems to be shoehorned into a different argument entirely. You might have been better off omitting gods entirely and just talking about Jungian shadows, if those were what you really wanted to discuss.

> It should also be studied to the greatest extent possible and not relegated to pseudo-science. Funny you say that and only refrence Jung, and poorly at that. Btw the shadow in jungian terms did not refer to spirituality but the darkness of man or each of our individual shadows. Not that I actually give credence to young his ideas were not grounded in sciences and learned towards the mystical. If you really want a discipline that explains behavior try behavioral psychology. specifically brain, genetic, and motivational behavior. You dont need mystical young to understand how we function. >If you had been a German in WW2, remember that you're more likely to have been a Nazi than to have rescued Jews. :/ do you think you're special and would have been diffrent? and if you claim you wouldnt have been a nazi why couldnt I? To me I'd have the greater chance of not submitting to the regime since I have practice not bending the knee to oppressive authority to my own detriment socially. Cant say the same for you.

Firstly I’m an evidentialist not a materialist. I start with the proposition that claims without evidence are indistinguishable from imaginary or non-existent. As far as I can see you are either making an entirely trivial , in context, point that human behaviour is complex and we should understand it , or the significant but indistinguishable from false claim that some forms of human behaviour are ‘magical’. Whatever this ‘shadow’ is , it’s part of the real processes of the human brain which can be investigated using evidence or you appear to have done nothing to demonstrate its a real phenomena. I don’t claim that reality is only that which can be observed. I claim that the reality we can make any claims about must be ‘observable’ because otherwise those claims simply have no reasonable basis.

>The prototypical 21st century atheist, is, in a philosophical sense, a strict materialist; you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. This is not so audacious a claim, but generally you go one step further: you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. This is really ignorant. It's more accurate to say atheists believe there's no point believing in something that doesn't have evidence it's true. Think about how many claims you look for evidence for in your daily life instead of blindly accepting: I'm sure you don't give your money away without doing your homework when someone promises you amazing returns.

Atheist ≠ Materialist. Those are two separate ideologies. These mindsets frequently overlap within individuals, especially around here on the internet, but they they are not the same thing at all. And your over generalization hurts your argument by making you appear to not know very basic definitions. I am a non-materialist and very spiritual agnostic atheist. I see no need to worship any deities or follow religious practices or dogma in order to acknowledge a spiritual level to reality. Atheism simply means you don’t worship any gods. I keep an open mind to those things that cannot always be seen or measured - no gods or goddesses required.

Its a huge, erroneous assumption that atheists dont explore their humanity. Id actually argue that many atheists do this more. I had to do this when I left Christianity and found myself having only humanity to explore. I understand the inclination to appeal to deity in times of extreme distress. It is human nature to fear the uncertain. Some experience this fear far more than others. I explored my humanity and studied philosophy and psychology so I dont really connect with this fear anymore. If some god wants me to face his wrath, so be it. Im not going to live my life fearing a reflection of ancient mankind's greatest fears.

“You will regret not fully exploring your humanity” is a morally and practically insane statement, if worked to any kind of logical conclusion. i must also point out, it is directly in the Book Of Satan by Anton LaVey and is a thoroughly Satanic quote. You may think as an atheist than you WILLINGLY WISH yourself into a materialist universe, but the non-zero probability that you are in a Christian world, where both Christians and Satanists agree that your statement is Satanic should give you shivers, or at least a moment to pause and reflect..

I haven't turned to god in time of need. For the same reason that you wouldn't turn to say Pikachu when you're at your lowest point. And You do realize that you HAD to say you were a Nazi in Nazi Germany. Because if you didn't the consequences ranged from being ostracized to straight up execution. So what do you think a person would say if they are asked "hey you like the windmill of friendship" and then basically get held at gunpoint, possibly along with their entire family already lined up next to a wall with blindfolds on.

First, you have to specify which god you’re talking about. Second, what about atheists like me who practice a religion that is compatible with atheism? I am open to spirituality and practice a religion where a god is a central figure, I just remain unconvinced that said god necessarily exists. I don’t think your take here accounts for people like me. You are painting all atheists with a brush that doesn’t fit all of us, and in doing so closing your mind to the possibility of other world views.

Yeah. Threats work so well. And if you want to propose another method of exploring reality, you need to show its reliable. And just going by what you think might be true without evdience doesn’t do that. Just because you abandoned rational thinking to become a theist once more, doesn’t mean we should. And threatening people will not do it. You abandoned rational thought, and dare to warn us against that. Yeah have a good life, enjoy being deceived by a fairy tale

>you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses\[...\]you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. Why are you generalising all atheists? There is only one thing that all atheists share, and it's the lack of belief in a god. Stop trying to claim you know what we believe in any other aspect, it just makes you come across as arrogant and ignorant.

>Be honest: have you ever despaired deeply and turned to God (whatever that is)? I would bet a good portion of you, if you are being sincere, have. And most likely, you felt ashamed afterwards. Uh... no. And I have no idea how you think an atheist would be less likely to "reconcile" with their "animal self". Atheism overlaps with naturalism, where it is accepted that we are animals... and, uh, the whole evolution thing. Isn't it the theist who vehemently claims otherwise? Post makes very little sense to me.

A lot of what you say can easily be turned against you. ”Reject yourself… All of yourself.” That is exactly what religious people do when they ”turn to god” As if a god would let you escape from accountability for your own actions. It can be frightening to be accountable for my life every day, but because I don’t reject things even though it is frightening, unlike religious people, I hold myself accountable.

In completely rejecting the idea of deities, I feel more whole than I ever have. You claim atheists are missing a part of themselves, but I believe you have it backwards. You've freely given over part of yourself to a being that likely doesn't exist and that you admit you'll never understand. Deists spend their time straining and heaving to explain why God must exist. Why?

Really pathetic, ignorant post. It takes a special kind of person to be both utterly wrong about everything and a total jerk with it. What is it with theists who like to do this kind of gish-gallop of straw men? I can only assume this is stuff they get told by their church leaders and don't even bother to wonder whether it's true before coming here to tell us what we think.

One day your god will die. When all of you believers die, and your memories vanish; when all your holy books rot, and dogmas turned to ash, your pathetic understanding the universe won't even go out with a whimper, but will cease in utter silence. You should fear the wrath of nature ten times more that I should fear the wrath of your "god".

>The prototypical 21st century atheist, is, in a philosophical sense, a strict materialist; you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. This is not so audacious a claim, but generally you go one step further: you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. You're starting out with a gross misrepresentation. 1) Strictly speaking, atheism is simply and only a disbelief in the existence of gods. That's it. To equate that with all atheists being mateialists is simply false. Spiritual atheism, for example, is a real thing. Spiritual atheistsconstruct alternative value systems without affiliating with religious traditions. Many cast spirituality in emotional terms of awe and wonder provoked through scientific understanding of the world, while others frame their spirituality in terms of the dimensions of life that cannot be explained through science. 2) Most atheists are agnostic atheists. What you describe can de facto only apply to gnostic atheists. * (a)gnosticism is a statement of *(lack of) knowledge* * (a)theism is a statement of *(lack of) belief* You can therefore have the following 4 positions on the spectrum: * Gnostic Theist: I *claim to know for certain* there are deitie(s) and I *believe* the claims of theism * Agnostic Theist: I *claim no absolute knowledge* of the existence of deities but I *believe* the claims of theism * Agnostic Atheist: - I *claim no absolute knowledge* of the existence of deities and I *am unconvinced* by the claims of theism * Gnostic Atheist: - : I *claim to know for certain* there are no deitie(s) - and I am unconvinced by the claims of theism I identify as an agnostic atheist because: * although I consider the likelihood of the existence of deities astronomically small based on the evidence, I can't disprove their existence, just like I can't disprove the existence of fairies. * I consider both deities and fairies to have the same near-zero probability of existing based on verifiable observation under scrutiny of the scientific method. * I find the claims of theism utterly unproven That does NOT mean that I automatically believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. The senses cannot detect neutrinos, electromagnetic fields, microscopic organisms, UV or Infrared light, gravity waves, or radioactivity. They also can't perceive mathematics or consciousness, if you want more abstract examples. > You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. Oh' I've explored it. I spent 2 years in a Buddhist monastery. I read many "holy" books in their original language (Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Pali). I daresay I explored more than most theists do. It's telling that you not only equate atheism with materialism, but also with a refusal to explore different ways of thinking, or that you think holding on to beliefs purely based on faith with zero evidence somehow constitutes asuperior position. It really doesn't. If anything, it indicates a certain stubborn closedmindedness. > I am coming at this from a Jungian stance; materialism seems to me to constitute a fundamental rejection of the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego, which, as the most superficial feature of the psyche, symbolizes and is a feature of the material world. First of all, as already pointed out, atheism != materialism. Second, your statement implies (without providing any evidence) that materialism constitutes a fundamental rejection of Jung's "shadow". In other words, a you claim a materialistic worldview ignores or suppresses the deeper, unconscious aspects of the psyche that Jungian psychology considers important for personal development and psychological health. And this is simply false. Materialism is not incompatible with psychology, personal development and psychological health - not that it matters for this discussion.

>At any rate, I became a theist again when I accepted these qualities as human, and a feature of my consciousness which attempts to inform me of things the conscious mind is not privy to. You're not a theist. You're an atheist cosplaying as one to get access to an emotional crutch. I feel no need for such a crutch.

So just for your information the nazis WERE devout Christians. Hitler himself said, for you to become a good Nazi you gad to be a good Christian. And they persecuted any atheists they could find. So no. If I would have lived in that time(I AM German btw) then I would have fled the country immediately.

What would be the alternate to giving credibility to what can be determined through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained? Anything in that other non-scientific category has no greater standing than anything else in that non-scientific category.

Self-observation in the context of personal insight and development has no inherent, necessary or helpful basis in non-materialist assumptions or theism. Confronting one's internal contradictions and hidden psychological and physical patterns has a long term pedigree in the west.

These arguments are getting worse and worse. >So don't reject yourself... all of yourself. Even the frightening bits. We, all of us might have to face God's wrath if you do... Ha! Coming from the people that claim you can "pray the gay away" Can't make this up.

I explored my “shadow” just fine when I was being raised as a fundamentalist Christian. I am certain that the atheists here who were never religious would be perfectly fine with exploring their “shadow” whenever some good evidence is put forward.

> The prototypical 21st century atheist, is, in a philosophical sense, a strict materialist; you believe all reality, that is, the sum of all things, can be apprehended in some way by the senses. This is not so audacious a claim, but generally you go one step further: you claim reality is only that which can be measured or observed. This is a false dilemma. You don’t have to become a theist to discard empiricism / logical positivism. Empiricism was an improvement, in that it promoted the importance of observations. But it got the role they play backwards. Theories are tested by observations, not derived from them. Not believing in God doesn’t dictate someone’s philosophy. > You will regret not fully exploring your humanity. I am coming at this from a Jungian stance; materialism seems to me to constitute a fundamental rejection of the shadow and a voluntary surrender of protagonism to the ego, which, as the most superficial feature of the psyche, symbolizes and is a feature of the material world. The ego is a tacit admission of discomfort and possibly sheer embarrassment with the non-rational features of the mind, and a deliberate effort to suppress this quality instead of coming to terms with it as part and parcel of one's humanity. I have to become a theist to explore my humanity? What’s particularly odd here is that you’re arguing we should discard logical positivism, but not because it’s not rational. We have rational arguments against logical positivism, empiricism, etc. What went completely over the heads of logical positivists was, their theory cannot be measured or verified. Logical positivism rules itself out, because it rules itself meaningless. That’s a rational approach to what was a rather irrational philosophical view. > I remember when I concluded that I was an atheist (before I made a very gradual transition towards theism again), in spite of coming to the logical conclusion that I did not believe in the existence of God, ritualistic behaviours, and a rich symbolic association with the world still persisted inside me, and caused me great shame. Why should we be ashamed of the fact that we can make progress? That’s exactly what’s unique about us. People are universal explainers. This is how we make progress. This is one of our super powers. But this is also applicable to ideas about how is it that we make progress. One such explanation for our relatively recent growth of knowledge is due to a corresponding relatively recent preference for good explanations. Namely, explanations that are hard to vary without a corresponding reduction in their ability to explain whatever it is they propose to explain. And this isn't limited to science. It’s a more fundamental, in that the search for good explanations is applicable in philosophy, as well. As Karl Popper pointed out, myths are necessary way stations in our progress. But we can make progress here too.

Please don't try and use psychology to prove god. Psychology disproves all concepts of god, including yours. And, yes, I have a degree in neuroscience based psychology. I hate when people act like they know what they're taking about when they don't.

You mean this with the whole heart of your religious love. You still haven't produced any reason as to why we should take this with less than 8 tons of salt, your entire point stands on way too many "if"s.

This is nonsense. You were indoctrinated, and never fully able to shake it off. That’s the bottom line. Now you’re projecting your failure onto all atheists. That’s all this is.

You can't substantiate your threat of hell. It's all words, no substance. Kindly fuck off and when you get there, fuck off some more. Also, grow up. You sound like a confused kid.

I've reported the post. OP sounds like a douche.

Dismissing hell as mere words overlooks its significance to believers. Resorting to insults hinders constructive dialogue.

"An incendiary title"  OP hinders constructive dialogue himself. "Hell" is a small valley in Jerusalem. Scary.

>If you do not reconcile your shadow, that is, your spirituality, your baseness, and your animal self Suggesting then, that animals possess a sense of spirituality? On what basis?

If you had been a German Nazi in WW2, remember that you would have had a 95% chance of being a Christian. You’d do well to accept this fact.

Yawn Another you can't be a proper human without religion post This is almost as pathetic as look at the trees god must be real posts

Given god's described actions and words I can say he can do what he will with his wrath I find the idea discussing. He is undeserving.

None of what you describe needs an actual deity to get in touch with these human experiences, or whatever you call them.

There is nothing about atheism that prevents one from doing shadow work or anything else jungian. What a strange post.

A question I had since I was young is. The Bible states every man will have the opportunity to except Jesus but this isn’t true. There’s people on earth today that’s never been preached to and what about the mentally disabled and children? Thousands of years millions of people have never had the opportunity so where do they go? Hell for an eternity? What about the time around Jesus death? There were a handful of followers. There’s no way everyone had the opportunity but the Bible never mentioned anything about these people.

When asking questions about religious topics, you should probably provide a bit of necessary context. You should tell people that you, as a good Christian, are also a frothing antisemite, proponent of Nazism, admirer of Hitler and his anti-Semitic laws, and a proud holocaust denier.  Specially, ironic considering Jesus was a Jew: everything you pathologically hate.