> There is only one piece of advice I dare give atheists: intentionally have faith in something.

I mean that makes sense that you would do that. If you can get an atheist to accept the premise that faith is somehow necessary, then you have validated your own worldview.

To me, faith is not some noble stance in the face of uncertainty. It is a metaphorical shrug in the face of cognitive dissonance. The correct spiritual answer to cognitive dissonance is to bravely resolve it, not prop it up with the crutch that is faith. Of course philosophies that require its adherents to accept manifest absurdity are going to have a safety valve like faith or enlightenment. That's the only way people could ask a question like "How could God, who is Perfect and Good, allow such Evil to exist?" and go on and on and on without coming to the obvious conclusion embedded in the question itself.

Or Why the hell are we taking seriously the fevered imaginings of desert goat herders dead these 2000 years? well, because faith

So, yes, I get why you're asking atheists to have faith. Ask yourself why you need that validation.

Don't get me wrong, I do not give advice unsolicited. Faithful or not it is just a bad idea. I dare give advice when asked. The end of my last comment could have been better built.

I never stated that faith was necessary, only useful and empowering. It is not a purely religious concept. It is one of those things that cannot be conveyed through words, the same way I cannot convey the color red or wetness without the receiver experiencing it. I imagine color blind people will never get red the way most do.

I would never expect a self-professed atheist to recognize the nobility of religious faith but to at least acknowledge its difficulty, yes. It is difficult. To act with conviction in the face of uncertainty, that is difficult and I claim noble. To start a startup requires faith in yourself, your product, team because no can one guarantee success yet you need certainty to act. Faith is not a purely religious concept.

Faith is recognized by its repercussions. An example of that is that we do take seriously desert shepherds dead 2000 years ago. But, it is not faith alone. It is also about the foundation for that faith. If all are able of faith, I guess the Norse had it. Why is that religion dead though, why did people stop believing?

It is because after 2000 years people worthy of my trust in their intellect think of Jesus that I considered this man named Jesus worthy at least to think about.

Fair enough. To the annoyance and solid resistance of most atheists, I assert that Science occupies the same archetype as Religion in our society and psychology, even for devout atheists. They often respond that Science is True and Religion is not. Which makes me giggle: most Believers believe their religion is True, so that's an argument the devout of all stripes would make. The truth (or not) of which though is irrelevant to my argument: like Religion, Science contains the highest Mysteries that we know, with endlessly arcane, esoteric rituals that require lots of education to understand. Its priests, in the form of scientists, deliver encyclics on various matters which we follow because they are True. Exactly the role of Religion in the past. I suspect that Jung is right: human beings need this on some deep level. We will always have this.

We all ostensibly can verify the pronouncements of scientists ourselves, and this is a difference between religion and science, but how many actually do that? We trust that all of the books and scientists are correct about, oh, the age of the Universe and the speed of light, but very few of us have verified these ourselves. We are content to accept them on faith

> Why is that religion dead though, why did people stop believing?

For the same reason that religion is being supplanted by science today. Its story and adoption offers an immediate improvement to individuals' lives. Christianity offered an improvement to the lives of Vikings, for various reasons. No more intramural slaughter allowed, for one. It also offered a literal break from the relentless pressure of dead ancestors, for another (I didn't discuss that part of Norse mythology, but if you behaved like a coward, all of your ancestors would be thrown out of Valhalla for the shame of bearing you). The Norse religion was adopted before that because it offered improvement in the lives of its adherents over whatever had existed earlier. Most likely by honing them into truly fierce, zero-fucks-given badasses.

Scientific claims are indeed accepted by faith in the scientists and the scientific method.

Yet it cannot fully replace religion because it does not offer a way of living, a common set of values, a story to tell. What it offers is a method to gain the truth. Truth is not intrinsically good.

We need a method to gain the "good"/an ideal. I claim by personal experience and observation of history that Christianity leads to the perpetuation of the group and the individual. Arguably survival is good but insufficient which brings back to existential depression. Not only does a complete religion (i.e. unlike the incomplete religion of science) lead to survival but also to striving for what will make you thrive, beat existential depression. i.e. A "complete religion" gives a compass and a North star, a goal worth pursuing, a definition of good, a desirable ending to the story of one's life. A complete religion teaches you to reach the "good" and what "good" is.

Of course, one can take the path of "there is no God", whatever that means, and believe that everything always was, that there is no cause. That is human. I have been reading the Odyssey lately and gods are everywhere yet humans care only when it is to their benefit. The whole book would not exist if Agamemnon would have freed the daughter of a priest of Apollo when the priest asked for her with a ransom.

My definition of god is: higher power. What does higher power even mean? I would suggest the 4 fundamental forces are just some angels doing what God says. I cannot prove it and no one can disprove it. I lose nothing and gain a definition of good. All that is required is faith in some story.

In a not quite related note: The bit about the pressure from dead ancestors is very interesting. I like perpetuating some stories while not having faith them in order to promote imagination, art and action. This is one of them.