Some Atheists lack inner motivation for make believe?

[ndf8th]

Some Atheists lack inner motivation for make believe?

Suppose religion is the art of make believe. Clifford Geertz explain in
Anthropology of religion the make believe acts of faith like this:
Anthropology of religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

(1) a system of symbols which acts to
(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by
(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966).

I find what he says there to support that faith in God is an act of make believe.

Some Atheists lack the inner motivation for to make such belief.

I have the inner motivation for to make believe but I lack the needed know how.

Edit

Did you notice that I do Anthropology of religion
and that I don't do "Does God exist of philosophic Ontology
and I don't do Does the atheists lack belief in gods.

I start with the soft science Anthropology of religion
and take their most famous or agreed upon definition of religion
and then look at if atheists have that inner motivation and conclude
that they lack such inner motivation. It is a huge difference as I get it.

the soft science do say that religions are made by us humans.
that means that the gods are made by these humans. Make believe gods.

So to ask if these gods exist is to not understand
that believers have inner motivation to make believe that God exist.

Edit 2
if you are good at logic and English then please translate this to less abstract words

(1) a system of symbols which acts to
(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by
(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966)

[ndf8th]

Divine Insight you took up something interesting.

Daniel Dennett a philosopher wrote in his book about religion and atheism
that he saw that some believers have faith in faith rather than faith in God?

Is that just his interpretation or do we have research that makes that plausible
or even have evidence for that to be true?

Divine Insight that reminds me of what your wrote above.

if a person is willing to believe in someone else's fantasy.
In fact, this is what most religious people actually do.
They seek out fantasy that are already well-defined
and have already been created.

Yes I vaguely remember they actually answer something like this too.
They talked to their Grandma and she had faith and later in life they
trusted their Grandma and accepted the faith she had.
these believers have faith in the faith of others they trust.

My own personal experience is rather similar.

I where ten years old and I did listen to Dad and Mom argue
about us going to Church. Dad did not want to go and Mom wanted it.

I sided with Dad trusting him to know such things better
because he had logical reasoning that was more logical
than her emotionally based reasoning.

Little did I know that my body adopted Mom's emotional faith
while my conscious awareness adopted Dad's atheist reasoning.

So her faith got mimicked by my body. mental mirroring of body language.

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight you took up something interesting.

Daniel Dennett a philosopher wrote in his book about religion and atheism
that he saw that some believers have faith in faith rather than faith in God?

Is that just his interpretation or do we have research that makes that plausible
or even have evidence for that to be true?

You actually bring up a rather interesting perspective, and one that is often difficult to address without confusion.

One thing that is important to realize is that the religious paradigms are not God. I didn't "find God" in Wicca. I brought God into Wicca. Or to put that in a far better way, "I simply realized that Wicca can be a beautiful, rewarding, and useful psychic paradigm to effectively commune with God.

So I don't really have any "faith" in Wicca at all. It's just a psychic paradigm. That's all it is. Think of it as a tool. A lot of people don't understand this. In fact, not everyone who practices Wicca views it in the same way that I do.

But the point is that I'm not placing my faith in a fantasy. I'm not depending upon Wicca to be true or false about anything. Wicca could not even exist and my relationship with God would be the same. In fact, my relationship with God is the same as it was before I even got into Wicca. In fact, my relationship with God was the same before I even grew into Christianity. I had an innate relationship with God before I was even old enough to know what religion was.

This may be one reason why I was able to toss out Christianity so easily. I simply recognized that it has nothing to do with God.

But for some people, they actually place their faith in the fantasy or stories. Therefore if they discover that the stories are false they are devastated. Their God has died] because the fantasy is false.

Clearly those people had never placed their faith in God or ever had faith in God. What they had placed their faith in was ancient Hebrew fables.

I think this can happen with people who place their faith in Jesus as God as well. I mean, if a person is convinced that Jesus is God and then begins to realize that this isn't true, they lose their God. Because they never really had any faith in any real God. What they had placed their faith in was the idea that the stories of Jesus were true. Period. They placed their faith in a myth.

I think a person needs to get rid of all religions and still believe in God before they can even begin to move forward. Only then do they truly have faith in God. And then of course if they want to worship or commune with God through a religious paradigm they are in a far better situation to choose a paradigm they like without any need to worry about whether or not it's "true" or "false". Because religion doesn't matter.

I'm sure that most Christians and Muslim don't understand this at all. They worship holy books very specific fables. They don't worship God. They worship the authors of fantasies. That's all they can worship in that way.

Take away the dogma and they have nothing left.

In fact, you can see that they worship dogma because when you discuss the concept of God with them all they do is throw dogma in your face like as if it means something. Verse after verse after verse. Take the dogma away from them and they truly are lost sheep.

[ndf8th]

Thanks cool reading indeed.

I do have the delusion that I could understand what
you wrote there but that seems a bit too optimistic
so if you don't mind. what you really refer to is God
and religions are temporal tools or paradigms that talk
about God as if they know something. them being too sure?

But what can you say about your relation to God then.
Is not your God a kind of individual interpretation unique to you?

Tell me more.

[Baz]

[Replying to ndf8th]

Given that you have now in some way been drawn to an interest in religion, perhaps it wasn't necessarily the best decision not to follow your mothers emotionally based reasoning.
Not that I don’t like logic it’s just not a good tool to use when looking at religion.
It’s defiantly not logical for people spend time talking to something they cannot see of giving hard earned money to already wealthy churches, but there are lots of people that do. (Oops … including me)

I think that there is probably more faith in faith around than faith in god, I also think along the same lines as a lot of atheists that man has made god in his image and not the other way around.
Devine Insight has described this well (opening fan club next week)
Going back to imagination, make believe and emotionality, they are defiantly the tools for finding your god.
I would sagest that finding spiritual peace is a bit like finding beauty, it is in everything so long as you look the right way.

And as far as the argument goes the god only exists in my imagination; well that would be OK by me but I think it still isn’t probably the case.




.

[ndf8th]

Going back to imagination, make believe and emotionality, they are defiantly the tools for finding your god.

Thanks Baz, if there do exist a god I trust that not a single believer
knows about it.

Suggest a mechanism for the believers to have that knowledge?

I trust that all gods are man made but if there exist a real god then
none of us has any clue on what that means.

I had to look up the word

defiantly maybe you mean this word? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/definitely

1. Having distinct limits: definite restrictions on the sale of alcohol.
2. Indisputable; certain: a definite victory.
3. Clearly defined; explicitly precise

Suggested by google. So my hunch was right.

Re Divine Insight yes I must admire his verbal skills
and he is much better at thinking than what I am.

But I have to agree to disagree on joining the Fan Club.
But I can send him a friendly hug if he needs one

Usually him and me disagree so badly that I would prefer
that he kind of created his own threads but I admit
that he is one of the few that care to comment on my thoughts. .

[Divine Insight]

But what can you say about your relation to God then.
Is not your God a kind of individual interpretation unique to you?

Tell me more.

My relationship with God is definitely unique to me. After all, it's my relationship with God.

As far as attempting to define, God, I basically don't even go there, other than to assume the following: (And yes, it is indeed an assumption)

God is the infinite, the eternal, the mystery. Thus by this definition God is unknowable in any finite way.

I also accept (as an assumption, premise, or pure faith), that "With God all things are possible". And since I accept this as a "God Premise", I am free to imagine God however I would like for God to be, and then imagine that God is even better than that. In other words, God would be even better than my best possible imagination of God. Therefore any imagination I have of God necessarily falls short of what God actually is.

Another concept that I also accept as a self-evident truth (at least self-evident to me), is that I cannot be separate from God IF there is only ONE God. That is to say that if monotheism is true then pantheism must also be true.

Now, having said this, it is possible that I could be separate from God. However, in order for this to be true I would need to be a God in my own right. Otherwise what sense would it make to say that I am a separate entity from God? If this is the truth of reality, then monotheism is out, and not only is polytheism true, but there must also exist infinitely many Gods. And this certainly makes some sense. After all, if there can be one God, then why not infinitely many?

I have no clue which scenario might be true. Or maybe there are even other scenarios that I am not even capable of imagining, just as I have great difficulty in trying to imagine living in a world with more than 3 dimensions of space.

So, for me, religion and spirituality is not about trying to define God. It can only be about my relationship with God. And yes, my relationship with God is absolutely unique to me. No one in this entire universe, now or ever, will ever have the exact same relationship with God that I currently have. My relationship with God is totally unique and intimate between God and me.

This doesn't mean that I can't share some of my relationship with God with other people. We can all share our relationship with God with other people. But I could never share with other people my most intimate relationship with God even if I wanted to. It simply wouldn't even be possible to share that kind of intimacy. That kind of intimacy can only be shared with God.

[ndf8th]

Thanks

Yes maybe a god logically has to be that way.
Personally I find it very unlikely such a god would exist

so I am unwillingly believer and unwillingly formal atheist.

unwillingly

1. Not willing; hesitant (with open public resistance)
2. Done, given, or said reluctantly: unwilling consent.

[Divine Insight]

Thanks

Yes maybe a god logically has to be that way.
Personally I find it very unlikely such a god would exist

so I am unwillingly believer and unwillingly formal atheist.

unwillingly

1. Not willing; hesitant (with open public resistance)
2. Done, given, or said reluctantly: unwilling consent.

Well, it very well may not exist. I'm certainly not attempting to convince anyone that it does. Nor do I feel that it's important that anyone believes or disbelieves. The importance of that is entirely up to them. I can't imagine why such a God would even care what people believe. In fact, if we are this eternal consciousness playing hide and seek with itself then not knowing our true nature is clearly the whole point of the game.

The only thing I would say in response to what you just said is the following:

You said, "Personally I find it very unlikely such a god would exist"

I agree wholeheartedly.

But at the very same moment I can't help but think that I also feel very much like the following:

Personally I find it very unlikely that a purely secular weird stuff just happens to exist and evolve into sentient life forms purely accidentally.

My point is simple.

Yes, the idea of an eternal consciousness is absurd.

But then so is the idea of secular stuff existing.

These are equally absurd IMHO.

We know that stuff exists. We are here.

We know that consciousness exists. We experience it.

So the fact that stuff and consciousness exists is pretty evident.

The only question that remains at this point, is where does stuff come from, and why does it automatically evolve into consciousness?

My question to you would be, why is this happening purely by accident any more believable than for it to be the result of a dream of some sort of eternal conscious mind?

Where would stuff come from in the first place? Isn't that just as big of a mystery as an eternal mind?

Either way, something came to be from,.... ????? Where?

How can either scenario be any less absurd than the other?

So, yes, the idea of an eternal consciousness is absurd.

But so is the idea of secular stuff that just happens to accidentally evolve into sentient beings.

How is either one of these absurdities any more rational than the other?

It's a toss-up.

So if I'm going to guess, why not guess for an eternal consciousness?

Surely you'll agree that this is the more exciting guess?

I mean, who would truly rather just be weird stuff that accidentally evolved into sentient beings for a little bit and then dies out?

So if we have to guess, why not guess BIG?

Doesn't it truly come down to whether a person would prefer to be optimistic or pessimistic in this guessing game?

[Philbert]

So if we have to guess, why not guess BIG?

But we don't have to guess.

Just as you have done in your post above, we can follow the evidence and reason our way to the fact of our ignorance.

Now we have some reality we can work with.

[ndf8th]

[Replying to Philbert]

Haha I am not bright enough to get what any of your two say.
Take it like a man as the atheists told me when I did not want to be atheist.

Divine Insight, I both agree and disagree.

I agree it is a deep mystery that something exist at all.

How it evolved or expanded is for science to tell.

That something exist at all is a deep mystery to me.

but to do the wild guess that you do would feel very non-ethical to me.
And I find it problematic you use words that I find too assertive.

Philbert could you tell me more what you refer to. I am dense sorry!