The Atheist Druid

[Huathe]

Mark, I'll find you...

[wolf560]

Just look for the old dude in the corner with a white beard and a drum
...probably me

[Heddwen]

However if an individual does not believe in (any) religion why the need for the stance at all? ...just being curious

I, personally, believe very strongly in religion...it is impossible to ignore or avoid the evidence of its existence. Especially this time of year. Just this morning, I did an awful two guitar version of "Silent Night", practising for the office Christmas party.

I just don't believe in the stated underlying premise of religion...the "Divine Being"...which would be a non-issue if His followers didn't take such an active interest in the way I live my life, and if their track record in civic affairs was less... horrific.....so I don't feel it serves Justice or Truth to remain indifferent.

In the narrow, immediate sense, we are posting in a thread called "The Atheist Druid", and examining the worldview of the atheist druid, so projecting a "stance" seems appropriate to the discussion..

Fair enough, I can understand the issue with mainstream religions propaganda and intrusion, although this is something that I have not experienced I certainly wouldn't be happy about it myself. I respect your plain speech and resistance to the barrage of media/socio/political thinly masked mainstream religious views that impose. In what ways does this affect you? It must take up a fair amount of time and energy vocalising all of this.

[DJ Droood]

In what ways does this affect you?

Religion? Not as much as it used to....I remember things like school prayers and in my lifetime, homosexuality was illegal..it is just recently that gay marriage has become legal. Secular society has been very successful in beating that stuff down...I try to remain vigilant though! I look at our very influential neighbours to the south who have school districts were "Creationism" and "Evolution" are given equal time, so i know there is a mind-set that would welcome that here..or be too "polite" to object. But as long as we keep teaching children to read, religious influence should continue to erode, generation by generation.

It must take up a fair amount of time and energy vocalising all of this.

no...just the 10 seconds or so it took me to make this post! Theists have learned to keep it to themselves, IRL. There are so many sects with bizarre variations on the theme, that even if you are talking to fellow religionists, you don't want to bring up the sticky topics of doctrine and ruin a perfectly good day at work.

[Heddwen]

DJ,I appreciate your responses to my (many) questions and just wanted to stress that I'm coming from a place of understanding. In the spirit of the diversity I'm sure you're work colleagues will enjoy your rendition of 'Silent Night'

[DJ Droood]

DJ,I appreciate your responses to my (many) questions and just wanted to stress that I'm coming from a place of understanding. In the spirit of the diversity I'm sure you're work colleagues will enjoy your rendition of 'Silent Night'

Especially (perhaps only) if Bacchus chooses to attend!

[Jake]

I look at our very influential neighbours to the south who have school districts were "Creationism" and "Evolution" are given equal time,

There are many that keep trying to do that (and worse) but I'm not aware of any that have succeeded. It's very much against federal law, as the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987.

[wolf560]

Being a parent it just meant that I had to be a part of my children's education process.

I sat down with them at regular points and met with the teaching unit regularly (weekly at times) to keep abreast of what was being taught. The temptation to "let the teachers do what they will" was strong but I decided to maintain a vested interest in what my children learned and to supplement where possible.

Our school system in North Carolina was not a top ten institution when compared to other states but was among the upper 30% as compared to the rest of the schools in the state. The teachers did the best they could and tried to be as objective as possible with regards to secular and non-secular education. The eventual decision was made that "Churches and their leadership could teach what they felt was appropriate on Sundays, the schools would teach the rest from Monday to Friday".

As with anything else....
the more you invest of yourself into a project
the more you get in the end from the process.

[cursuswalker]

yep, but I'm just wondering more about atheism. The atheists I've met completely dismiss all religions and all belief in God/s.

Being a former Atheist I can only give you my take on things...

I absolutely felt that the world had nothing in it beyond the science of reality and laws of physics. I proudly felt that if something happened it was my responsibility and all my fault, I felt that religion was the panacea of the masses and something that I did not feel was necessary for me to get by from day to day. Spirits, Deities, Magic, Ritual.... all of it was simply hogwash and unnecessary in my day=to=day life. Everything could be determined by a good sliderule and a set of equations.... how long a candle would burn to how may rotations a space capsule would make before it came back to earth based upon how much fuel the engines were fueled with.

I could not see it, touch it, quantify it... therefore it could not exist...
God disappeared in a puff of logic.....

Then I ran into a problem which I could not solve...

Someone asked me "What was there BEFORE the Big Bang?...and WHY?"
Science and Physics could answer everything up to the moment of detonation..... but one second earlier? What put everything in place? Chicken or Egg..... and beyond that, what put all of that into existence to begin with?

Shortly thereafter I had two visitations........ the first was my first Totem 'Shark' appearing (in this case a 22 foot Tiger Shark that should have by all accounts eaten me off the coast of the Philippine Islands). The second was a poltergiest that would not leave us alone for over six months in an old house we moved into.

That was 30 years ago and the world has never been the same since.

But without those three incidents?
I might still be the happy-go-lucky atheist everyone knew and loved back in the late 80's.

How did I miss this one?

The Big Bang is the earliest moment in time we can detect in this Universe. However that does not preclude this finite Universe existing in a larger Cosmos in which Universes, of all kinds, come and go, much as stars do in this one. Is there any evidence for this? No. However it is a far simpler explanation thatn a pre-existing consciousness floating around in the emptiness of pre universe space just waiting for the right moment to snap a universe into existence.

In any case, deity just postpones the problem, rather than providing a solution to it. If the what and why of our universe before the Big Bang was confusing to you.....then what about applying the same question to any deity that created it? Why would the same questions not apply?

[cursuswalker]

Cursuswalker has a idea that I'm anti athiest and/or anti atheist druidry. I think i have never said that I am. If I did that is not the case anymore. I was once a non-theist druid when i was first a druid about 12 years ago. Then was a polytheist druid followed by giving up the title of druid and became a Brython.

I really don't think it's my place to say if you are a atheist druid or whatever.

I hope that clears it up.

I seem to have missed this at the time, so I think it is right for me to acknowledge the above.

[cursuswalker]

Incidentally, if a pagan wishes to experience what being an atheist is like, just think of a deity you do not think exists....Satan for example (or at least the version that DOES have the power to punish you for an eternity for being a pagan).

Why do you not live in perpetual fear of him? If there were even a 1% chance that he existed that would be sufficient to be TERRIFIED of him.

It is because you are an atheist with regard to Satan.....and his partner in crime.

[wolf560]

Being a former Atheist I can only give you my take on things...

I absolutely felt that the world had nothing in it beyond the science of reality and laws of physics.
I could not see it, touch it, quantify it... therefore it could not exist...
God disappeared in a puff of logic.....

Then someone asked me "What was there BEFORE the Big Bang?...and WHY?"
Science and Physics could answer everything up to the moment of detonation..... but one second earlier?

The Big Bang is the earliest moment in time we can detect in this Universe. However that does not preclude this finite Universe existing in a larger Cosmos in which Universes, of all kinds, come and go, much as stars do in this one...In any case, deity just postpones the problem, rather than providing a solution to it.
If the what and why of our universe before the Big Bang was confusing to you.....then what about applying the same question to any deity that created it?
Why would the same questions not apply?

Hello,
I guess I did not complete my thoughts previously...
I do still believe in the 'Big Bang' and Physics and everything proved by 'empirical evidence and research'.
I do not however dismiss the rest anymore and feel that there is still room for 'belief' and even 'magic'.

The fact is, by empirical evidence and research, we still do not have a clue as to what existed before or how it got there.
Stephen Hawkings is trying to come up with an equation that explains "Life, the Universe, and Everything" but has not done so yet.
He has proved that 'unified string theory' and Einstein's theory of relativity can actually co-exist, something that until just recently was thought to be two separate ideologies.

The same questions DO apply, and since there is no empirical evidence that God exists... *POOF*
But I also allow for peoples beliefs and the possibility of things existing without empirical proof to the contrary.

Do I personally believe that the Deities I revere created the Universe?
No, I do not... I believe they too exist in our Universe and are simply 'something greater than we are'.
Do I personally believe they are here to help me and me alone?
No, I do not... I believe that some portion of them feel I am 'something special' but that they believe others are as well and that it is my responsibility to get along with those others.
Do I personally believe that 'Magic' works?
Yes, I do... but with restrictions such as Newtons Laws ... you can't get something for nothing but I feel you can influence things around you.
Do I personally believe that my Deities are here right now?
Yes, I do... but also with restrictions such as the fact that I am not the only one they tend to and they have a life of their own.

[cursuswalker]

The fact is, by empirical evidence and research, we still do not have a clue as to what existed before or how it got there.
Stephen Hawkings is trying to come up with an equation that explains "Life, the Universe, and Everything" but has not done so yet.
He has proved that 'unified string theory' and Einstein's theory of relativity can actually co-exist, something that until just recently was thought to be two separate ideologies.

Sorry, I had to come back on this. 'unified string theory' and Einstein's theory of relativity are NOT "ideologies". They are theories. The difference is crucially important in this discussion.

[treegod]

Sorry, I had to come back on this. 'unified string theory' and Einstein's theory of relativity are NOT "ideologies". They are theories. The difference is crucially important in this discussion.

Yes, quite.

But if we're not careful they can easily become doctrines.

[cursuswalker]

Sorry, I had to come back on this. 'unified string theory' and Einstein's theory of relativity are NOT "ideologies". They are theories. The difference is crucially important in this discussion.

Yes, quite.

But if we're not careful they can easily become doctrines.

How can something that relies on good quality evidence in order to be accepted become a doctrine? Moreover, something that can be ripped to shreds at any moment, even once accepted, if better evidence comes along that contradicts it?

My computer works according to the predictions of quantum theory. But once that theory no longer allows for further improvements to the technology why would we not abandon it for a better more refined theory? What precisely is this "doctrine" it could become and how would it operate at a cultural level?

[DJ Droood]

Perhaps when people "believe" in something that has been studied and tested...that has all the benchmarks of being "real"...it takes on the outward appearance (especially if you are steeped in "faith") of religious doctrine...if you like to dress up in pirate clothes, then you actually meet a pirate, you might mistakenly think the person is dressed up like a pirate, too.

[cursuswalker]

Perhaps when people "believe" in something that has been studied and tested...that has all the benchmarks of being "real"...it takes on the outward appearance (especially if you are steeped in "faith") of religious doctrine...if you like to dress up in pirate clothes, then you actually meet a pirate, you might mistakenly think the person is dressed up like a pirate, too.

It is certainly true that Bad Science can become doctrinal. For example Homeopathy, Chiropractic or the Nutritionism of frauds such as Gillian McKeith.

The reason for this is that they have actually presented no decent evidence in the first place and yet regard their case as proven. Hence there is no possibility of falsification.

One hallmark of such doctrines is that they tend to respond to challenges to their theories by reaching for the courts rather than the test-tube.

[treegod]

How can something that relies on good quality evidence in order to be accepted become a doctrine? Moreover, something that can be ripped to shreds at any moment, even once accepted, if better evidence comes along that contradicts it?

My computer works according to the predictions of quantum theory. But once that theory no longer allows for further improvements to the technology why would we not abandon it for a better more refined theory? What precisely is this "doctrine" it could become and how would it operate at a cultural level?

What DJDroood said, lol.

I was mainly thinking of the string theory mentioned above. Last I knew it was just a theory, not yet proved/able and yet open to being proved. It can also be believed or disbelieved. I know I've believed it, but having learnt that it isn't yet proved, I have let much more doubt into my thinking on it. After all, before science talks about facts it talks about probabilities. And from those probabilities the facts are tested and sorted.

Also old paradigms can conflict with new. Often when one set of theories have become widely accepted they become very entrenched into people's (scientists') thinking. When new theories arise, even with good evidence, they can meet with some resisdence by the "old guard". It can take a new generation, educated with the new ideas to replace or update the old theories. Not in all cases, I'd hate to generalise this, but it can and does happen. But that reflects an aspect of human psychology more than the scientific method or even the scientific community as a whole.

[treegod]

Another example:

There are many theories concerning the existence of water on earth (saw on a docu). I can't remember them all but they offered several variations of where it came from. Did it all come crashing down in loads of meteorites? Was it part of the earth already? If so how did it form? etc etc etc Different people (scientists) were saying different things. Some were championing one or two (especially if they had come up with that theory), whereas some had a good overview (my favourite view was "I think that it could be a combination of all these theories" but that itself is just a theory).

Some scientists have their "pet theory", they are championing a certain theory that they came up with:the origin of water on earth. Normally scientists unleash their theories to the scientific world to be scrutinised, tested, critiqued, corrected, proved/disproved, etc. It has to be if it is to scientifically legitimate. But if the scientist, their career, funds, livelihood, reputation and/or identity depend too much on their theory they may take it too seriously and then "belief" can come into it. Or if they're so over-enthused about what they have "discovered" then this can blind them to what they are saying about "their" theory, and then you wonder why they get disappointed that "their" theory has been rejected (hey, if I've been working on a project, focussed a lot of my energy on it and it turns out to be nothing, wouldn't I be upset?).

[cursuswalker]

Also old paradigms can conflict with new. Often when one set of theories have become widely accepted they become very entrenched into people's (scientists') thinking. When new theories arise, even with good evidence, they can meet with some resisdence by the "old guard". It can take a new generation, educated with the new ideas to replace or update the old theories. Not in all cases, I'd hate to generalise this, but it can and does happen. But that reflects an aspect of human psychology more than the scientific method or even the scientific community as a whole.

And one of the eternal balances in Science is to insist that new theories ARE forced to prove themselves thoroughly, without stifling new theories from being put forward in the first place.

The ultimate test is whther or not such theories make useful predictions that the old ones could not. It is essential that such theories are exposed to the potential savaging that a bad theory deserves to suffer.