Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.
Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.
Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.
Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.
~ /c/nostupidquestions
If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!
This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.
Start here...
...proceed here.
As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.
I’m definitely one of those who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural, but I’ve certainly met atheists who do.
Oh that's nothing, there was a regular on DalNET IRC's #Atheism who believed in heaven. She was adamant both that there was no god and that there was a heaven. Strange lady.
So this was…what, a deist Heaven? How did “the universe” determine who got in and who didn’t? What was her position on souls? Hell?
Methinks there were too many holes in that one’s colander, if you take my meaning.
Don't ask me to defend her, I can't do that. Yes, she was not all there.
Neo-Platonism could give you a heaven without a deity in the traditional sense. Ironically, Plotinus’ work has been almost entirely co-oped as a Greek replacement for the Judaic foundation of Christianity by most modern Christians.
Honestly, it's my first time hearing about Neo-Platonism, but from a brief Wikipedia-fueled pseudo-education about the subject, my first impression is that "the One" seems like an archaic product from a time when our species' best philosophy was still somewhat indistinguishable from religion. I would agree it seems to essentially be the deist notion of "God." And "returning to the One" does sound like Heaven and reincarnation like Purgatory. I can see why the Christians leapt on it.
Still, how many people subscribe to that particular religious/philosophical belief structure today? I honestly think it's more likely the woman in question subscribed to some New Age bullshit.
Almost certainly the case for the woman in question, I just think Neo-Platonism is fascinating.
While Neo-Platonism is not directly represented in most Christian teaching, it is very much the lens through which most Christians have read and thought about the Bible for well over a thousand years.
Ever hear someone explain evil as simply the absence of good? Plotinus.
The existence of an immortal soul as a spiritual essence distinct from the body? Plotinus
The idea the spiritual things are good and physical are bad? Plotinus.
Most Christians accept these ideas all at face value even though they don’t come from the Bible.
On his podcast, The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, professor Peter Adamson notes that Plotinus is probably one of the top 5 most influential minds in Western thought and yet he’s largely unknown.
Personally, I believe it’s because of how Christian’s glommed onto Greco-Roman thought and incorporated it into their own beliefs.
Got the podcast's title saved in a notepad file now, and I'll definitely check it out later. Thanks for the reference.
DalNET
Now that's a name I haven't heard in many years.
I used to be on IRC constantly.
Before I even open the article: bad title. Without no context or restriction, "Atheists" conveys "Atheists in general; for all intents and purposes, all Atheists". This sounds like bullshit from a distance (and it is). A better way to convey the findings would be to put "some", "many", "a few" etc. before "Atheists", but plenty media sources give no fucks about being accurate or correct.
And did the writer really share a fucking print screen as source???
A quarter of Brazilian atheists believe in reincarnation
Plenty people in Brazil label themselves "Atheists" while being more accurately described as either Monotheists or Pan[en]theists. For example, people who say "I don't believe in gods, I believe in one God", or who'd rather not be associated with institutionalised religions; the later is specially relevant, I think, because they tend to gravitate towards new age and syncretic religions. So depending on the methodology, and how this data is being contrasted with people who pay taxes to other governments, data regarding Brazil may or may not be useful.
The study also found that non-believers are not all nihilistic, moral relativists, or unable to appreciate the inherent value of the world around them.
That's roughly on the same level as saying "the study found that not all Jehovah's Witnesses hate your Sunday morning sleep". This sort of generalisation is expected to be false, at least for some members within the group; as such, the "not all" is not a piece of news, it's rubbish.
So everybody chill out — across the spectrum, we all tend to believe in the uncanny.
And here the author bites his own generalisation fallacy.
That happens when you try to create a group from people who's only common characteristic is that they do not do something. Shocking, I know, but some non-smokers are heavy drinkers!
As you can see in the above graph, up to a third of self-declared atheists in China believe in astrology. A quarter of Brazilian atheists believe in reincarnation, and a similar number of their Danish counterparts think some people have magical powers.
So, significant, no doubt, but still a minority.
The general population, however, continues to believe in these phenomena at a much higher rate than non-believers.
Seems, the superstitious atheists just haven't fully arrived yet.
I think I fall into this category, but it's complicated. How much I believe in the supernatural depends on how much the belief will benefit me in the moment. Most of the time, it only goes as far as making jokes, coping with grief, and explaining weird but mundane occurances. There are a few beliefs where I'm more into them, such as the idea of reincarnation, but I'm still aware that there's no scientific evidence to support them and that "brains are weird" is the best explanation for them. In the end, it's about what helps me feel better, and only me. When I mysteriously lose an object, sometimes it's fun to say a ghost moved it. When I'm sad about the passing of a pet, imagining their spirit frolicking in pet heaven is comforting. I don't really believe in these things with my whole heart. Sometimes it's just nice to pretend.
With respect, I'm not sure I agree that you fall into the category of atheists who have supernatural beliefs. You seem to be saying that you entertain supernatural ideas conceptually for their utility to you in the moment, but that you don't actually Believe (capital 'b') they're true, even in that moment. I've had moments of what I call "uncanny coincidence," in which two events seem connected in a way that goes against everything I know about how reality works (e.g. a friend calling precisely in the moment I'm thinking about how I haven't heard from them in years). When something like that happens, I do have thoughts like, "wow, that's weird, it's almost like they read my mind or God's real and is connecting me with my long-lost buddy," but I don't really believe them. Likewise, every time I contemplate my own death and try to imagine what my thoughts will be when it's moments away and I'm staring oblivion in the face, I can't escape the notion that—despite my firm belief that my brain will just stop working and my stream of consciousness will stutter and then stop completely—I will be terrified at my own ignorance of what is about to happen, what I'm about to experience. As much as my higher brain is thoroughly convinced that my experience will end and there is no "darkness" that follows it, a baser, more intuitive part of my brain still acts as though my consciousness will persist somehow and thus I feel afraid. Does that fact that I feel fear betray my professed belief and mean I lack conviction in them? No, it just means my brain is a complex system and not all of it is capable of accepting an unintuitive idea like the absence of my own mind.
I don't mean to miscategorize you though, so if you feel I've misunderstood you, please correct me.
lolnope
I said I didn't believe in God, not ghosts!
Then what the fuck is a ghost?
Believing that there are things that our current knowledge and science can't observe and measure is not the same as believing in what the article is calling "the supernatural".
Up until quite recently we couldn't detect or measure gravity waves, that did not make them "supernatural" and NOW we can detect and measure them, and even tell what direction they came from.
There are certainly STILL things that we cannot detect and measure, but, as always, we will learn and explain the "mystery".
As a naturalist, I'm incidentally atheist. I don't believe in the supernatural.
But this is to say I don't think all UAP (UFOs) are weather balloons, but that they're natural phenomena. We just can't explain them yet. Much the way that we can't (yet) fully explain ball lightning, but we know it happens and is (probably) natural phenomena.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy but so far all the things we've explored occur due to natural events and can be predicted according to mathematical models, which is why it is wise to ground your steeple with a lightning rod.