Atheism is only “cool” because dependence is experienced by the ego as humiliation, while independence is experienced as sovereignty. Consider: To need anything is to encounter the limits of your power. The ego interprets that limitation as weakness. But what to the atheist is the ultimate humiliation, to the theist, is just called being a creature. Completely different operating system.
>>18753450Religion appeals to the ego by giving innate meaning to your existence and suffering
>>18753450I dunno man sounds like you're describing those sovreign citizen nutjobs to me, and they tend to be religious. Nearly everyone alive today is deeply reliant upon the rest of industrialized society to survive. I don't think atheist have a particular problem with dependence in that sense.
>>18753453Individuals depending on other individuals, institutions, infrastructure, society etc. is all well and good. I’m describing who occupies the metaphorical throne while you’re describing the economics of survival. Theology is vertical: does the individual possess causal sovereignty, or is his entire existence and agency received? That sovereignty is what the atheist can’t easily surrender. Someone can acknowledge unlimited horizontal dependence while still imagining an independent “I” sitting at the centre of the authorship. Then prestige attaches to occupying that imaginary throne.
>>18753450Ok, and? Why is having an ego and identifying with it, as opposed to a vague abstract concept, not desirable?
If it wins, it wins by being true, and that question is settled by evidence
>>18753681It’s a type of causal theft that disrupts the balance of the earth.
>>18753822That doesn't mean anything.
>>18753828
Bro, atheists live in a universe to which they are completely incidental, that is totally indifferent to them, where there is no assurance of anything and in which they haven't even got the right of appeal.Atheists are, by and large, pretty self-aware of the limits of their power in the world, and they sure don't think they willed themselves into being -- or for that matter that they can will anything into being. Religious people, however, often do, because they believe they have an in with the universe.The difference in OS here is that theists cannot comprehend anything except as an expression of someone's will, and mistakenly project this mindset onto others who don't believe the same.
>>18753854Bro. Your answer concerns the power axis, not the sourcehood axis. “I cannot will anything into existence” is not equivalent to “My willing itself has no independent sourcehood.” An atheist can acknowledge complete cosmic insignificance while clinging to the sense of authorship. The person still gets to be the final author of choices, values, virtue, justice, identity, etc., even with a sense of “powerlessness” before nature. The two are orthogonal. With no God recognized, authorship is always assigned to the individual by default. That’s just the human condition. Indeed, humans are the only species that can construct an identity around “I am the ultimate author of myself.”
>>18753918Atheist physicalism, which I believe is still currently the most popular variety, says that you're dependent on mindless nature and that your choices are fully or close to fully predetermined by things like genetics, environment, etc. Hardly "I am the ultimate author of myself," and much less satisfying to the ego than believing that you're the creation of a god. If beliefs win points for being widely believed despite having little obvious emotional appeal, I'd say atheist physicalism has to get quite a few of those points.
>>18753973An actual interesting post. I agree that atheism can *facilitate* some degree of the negation of the ego. But I would still disagree on the deeper point. Theistic bowing is not merely admitting that you're causally determined. It's recognizing that the throne belongs to God. In other words: one view says “I am generated by impersonal nature,” another says “I am generated by God,” and only one of these demands the handing over of ultimate sovereignty.
>>18753681Because the ego has feelings and can make choices. A vague abstract concept doesnot have that.
>>18753681>having an ego and identifying with itThat's what Jesus is.When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them: Take courage! It is I
>>18753681Being ruled by your ego and calling it "identifying" with your ego is dishonest at best and pathetic at worst.
>>18753450religion tends to put humanity on a pedestal and puts humanity at the center of the universe. Atheism tends to do the exact opposite of this. If humility were truly a virtue in religion, they'd all just become atheist, because that's the logical conclusion anyways
>>18754009It's not just your ego. The golden rule is two commands. The ego (jesus) is put on a cross.The new advocate is a shared objective truth called (You), by both parties. Very truly I tell You, it is for the good of You that I Am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to You.Love your neighbor as yourself.
