Atheists Chose to be atheists?

[Mock Turtle]

I think there are are a number of reasons why someone becomes an atheist.

The academic who relies on their own intellect so can not believe that there maybe a being who knows and understands more than them, they are always swayed by science.

I'm sure intelligence plays a big role, if we are to believe the evidence that the most intelligent are less likely to be religious, but I suspect that it isn't about a being (of a divine nature) having greater ability than themselves but the fact that those humans espousing and promoting such don't seem to be exhibiting this - so such knowledge not passed on from such a being. That is, they might have considerable knowledge concerning the texts and doctrines of any particular faith but they might not have as much knowledge of other matters, and these often being of more value to those with more intelligence.

To add to this - for example, discrimination in any form, especially towards gender or sexuality is not an intelligent thing to do but seems to be enshrined in so many religious doctrines, and hence seems to be coming more from human thinking at the time than any divine inspiration.

 

[Martin]

The theist/atheist dichotomy looks very crude to me, and I reckon there are many people in the middle somewhere - agnostic, or don't know, or don't care. It's not a binary choice.
And of course peoples' views change over time.

 

[PureX]

If you don't mind @Invisibilis I think this might deserve a thread.

Did atheists choose to be atheists?
I chose to be an atheist because... Do you believe atheist had a choice or something happened which caused them to become an atheist. Whatever the cause, they could not have chosen otherwise. Meaning it would have been impossible for an atheist to have made the choice to be a believer.

Or could an atheist sit aside all of their skepticism and choose to believe in God.

My first question would be which God. Atheism is really one "choice" among many possible choices. Lots of Gods one could choose to believe in. So with of all of the Gods available to believe in, could you choose a different God?

Once a person buys their own paradigm is 'the truth of reality' it becomes very difficult to let that belief go. This is the case for theists, atheists, or abject indifference. To let go of such a belief causes a lot of cognitive dissonance that most people will rather avoid even if that means holding onto ideas that no longer work for them.

 

[12_13]

If you don't mind @Invisibilis I think this might deserve a thread.

Did atheists choose to be atheists?
I chose to be an atheist because... Do you believe atheist had a choice or something happened which caused them to become an atheist. Whatever the cause, they could not have chosen otherwise. Meaning it would have been impossible for an atheist to have made the choice to be a believer.

Or could an atheist sit aside all of their skepticism and choose to believe in God.

My first question would be which God. Atheism is really one "choice" among many possible choices. Lots of Gods one could choose to believe in. So with of all of the Gods available to believe in, could you choose a different God?

My theory is that most atheists grew out of it or started believing in science and facts more than religion. Or they had a negative experience with the church. Either way, atheism seems to grow and religion is dying, which is good

 

[PureX]

My theory is that most atheists grew out of it or started believing in science and facts more than religion. Or they had a negative experience with the church. Either way, atheism seems to grow and religion is dying, which is good

Which is certainly not good. Because science is absolutely amoral. Yet it continues to increase human effectiveness. And that cannot possibly end well for humanity.

 

[Thief]

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of anatomy there.

think metaphor

 

[12_13]

Which is certainly not good. Because science is absolutely amoral. Yet it continues to increase human effectiveness. And that cannot possibly end well for humanity.

Religion is not good for humanity, ti detaches the species from naturalism and retains control over them while racking up 1.2 trillion dollars tax free

 

[Martin]

Once a person buys their own paradigm is 'the truth of reality' it becomes very difficult to let that belief go. This is the case for theists, atheists, or abject indifference. To let go of such a belief causes a lot of cognitive dissonance that most people will rather avoid even if that means holding onto ideas that no longer work for them.

It can be difficult, though I think generally people replace one paradigm with another.

 

[PureX]

Religion is not good for humanity, ti detaches the species from naturalism and retains control over them while racking up 1.2 trillion dollars tax free

That is patently absurd. You are using a few noted instances to paint all religion throughout all time. That's just ignorant (not to mention deliberately bigoted). Religions are the one human endeavor that focuses on ethical and moral idealism. Without it we would be completely amoral, and with the addition of science, we would not only be completely amoral, but increasingly powerful and globally effecting in that amorality. Which is exactly what we are seeing happen.

I am not religious. I am not a fan of religiosity. But I recognize that a great many humans NEED religion and religiosity to help them determined and maintain a positive ethical and moral compass. And that without it, humanity would surely destroy itself. (Though, it appears likely to do so, anyway.) The single greatest danger to the human species, currently, is the amoral injection of scientific functionality. It's like throwing a box of loaded pistols into a cage full of hyperactive monkeys. And it's not going to end well for the monkeys.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That is patently absurd. You are using a few noted instances to paint all religion throughout all time. That's just ignorant (not to mention deliberately bigoted). Religions are the one human endeavor that focuses on ethical and moral idealism. Without it we would be completely amoral, and with the addition of science, we would not only be completely amoral, but increasingly powerful and globally effecting in that amorality. Which is exactly what we are seeing happen.

This is rubbish and I'm sure you know it. Morality didn't begin with religions and doesn't depend upon them. If we have to come to some consensus about morality so be it. We tend to negotiate over most things.

I am not religious. I am not a fan of religiosity. But I recognize that a great many humans NEED religion and religiosity to help them determined and maintain a positive ethical and moral compass. And that without it, humanity would surely destroy itself. (Though, it appears likely to do so, anyway.) The single greatest danger to the human species, currently, is the amoral injection of scientific functionality. It's like throwing a box of loaded pistols into a cage full of hyperactive monkeys. And it's not going to end well for the monkeys.

But they come with baggage. Not see all the hypocritical discrimination that religions often practice, and usually tied to some text written so long ago as not to be that applicable now. They are often a drag on progress as much as supposedly keeping us on the straight and narrow. And plenty of us can exist quite comfortably without such and be as moral as the next.

 

[Notanumber]

If someone was isolated at birth from all forms of society. Similar to a cross between Tarzan and Robinson Crusoe but with no other human contact.

How long would it take that person to start believing in a god, if ever?

 

[PureX]

This is rubbish and I'm sure you know it. Morality didn't begin with religions and doesn't depend upon them.

That's not what I posted. What I posted is that religions are the one category of human endeavor that focuses on ethics and moral behavior. What part of this statement do you think is untrue? What OTHER category of human endeavor do you see being more focused on ethics and moral behavior?

If we have to come to some consensus about morality so be it. We tend to negotiate over most things.

What does consensus have to do with anything? Religions aren't about gaining moral consensus. They are about humans establishing ethical priorities, and then living by them.

But they come with baggage. Not see all the hypocritical discrimination that religions often practice, and usually tied to some text written so long ago as not to be that applicable now. They are often a drag on progress as much as supposedly keeping us on the straight and narrow. And plenty of us can exist quite comfortably without such and be as moral as the next.

No human endeavor is perfect, or perfectly positive in it's result. And I didn't say that religions are, or even should be. What I said, and what I stand by, is that religions are the way we humans establish our ethical priorities, and then learn to live according to them. And that without the influence of religion in this area of thought we humans would be lost in an endless amoral struggle for individual and collective dominance. Is that a world you want to live in? Especially when science is constantly increasing our ability to subjugate and destroy each other more quickly and efficiently?

 

[PureX]

If someone was isolated at birth from all forms of society. Similar to a cross between Tarzan and Robinson Crusoe but with no other human contact.

How long would it take that person to start believing in a god, if ever?

Clearly, the idea of "God" arose in all human cultures, all over the world, regardless of their size or associations with others. So the answer is that the idea of "God" is universal to human cognitive development. There is no human culture, anywhere, ever discovered, that did not conceive of deity in some form or other.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's not what I posted. What I posted is that religions are the one category of human endeavor that focuses on ethics and moral behavior. What part of this statement do you think is untrue? What OTHER category of human endeavor do you see being more focused on ethics and moral behavior?

Philosophy, and our evolutionary nature perhaps. It was as if you stated that they are/were the only means to attain moral values. I also think the powerful and wealthy (including the church) had as much impact on morality as any religious doctrines - punishments being what they were then and justice just a concept until a few centuries ago.

What does consensus have to do with anything? Religions aren't about gaining moral consensus. They are about humans establishing ethical priorities, and then living by them.

Religions - which are all in accord of course, and has never caused any friction and conflict when their moral values clash. But they did and still do.

No human endeavor is perfect, or perfectly positive in it's result. And I didn't say that religions are, or even should be. What I said, and what I stand by, is that religions are the way we humans establish our ethical priorities, and then learn to live according to them. And that without the influence of religion in this area of thought we humans would be lost in an endless amoral struggle for individual and collective dominance. Is that a world you want to live in? Especially when science is constantly increasing our ability to subjugate and destroy each other more quickly and efficiently?

I'd rather a world where we weren't tied to the past and where morality came from reason than outdated doctrines. Not find anything in current religious doctrines that tend to harm many and cause frictions between different religions? You talk as if they all speak with one voice when this is just not so.

 

[PureX]

Philosophy, and our evolutionary nature perhaps. It was as if you stated that they are/were the only means to attain moral values. I also think the powerful and wealthy (including the church) had as much impact on morality as any religious doctrines - punishments being what they were then and justice just a concept until a few centuries ago.

Human beings are social animals. Social dominance and submission are written into our DNA and overwrite everything we humans do. Including religion. But religions do at least attempt to think beyond, and to counteract, that animal instinct. It often fails, but at least it tries. Philosophy arose from religion as the ideals became separated from the superstitions that generated them. And that's fine, but all philosophy does is contemplate and debate those ideals. It offers little or nothing in terms of practically implementing them. And science does even less.

I'd rather a world where we weren't tied to the past and where morality came from reason than outdated doctrines.

That world does not exist, and the humans that would populate it don't exist, either.

Not find anything in current religious doctrines that tend to harm many and cause frictions between different religions? You talk as if they all speak with one voice when this is just not so.

It's not religions that are causing all that friction and harm, it's human nature. Sometimes the religions can help us to see it and overcome it, and sometimes religions are co-opted to enable and enforce it. But without our religions, there is little to nothing to help us see it and overcome it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Human beings are social animals. Social dominance and submission are written into our DNA and overwrite everything we humans do. Including religion. But religions do at least attempt to think beyond, and to counteract, that animal instinct. It often fails, but at least it tries. Philosophy arose from religion as the ideals became separated from the superstitions that generated them. And that's fine, but all philosophy does is contemplate and debate those ideals. It offers little or nothing in terms of practically implementing them. And science does even less.
That world does not exist, and the humans that would populate it don't exist, either.
It's not religions that are causing all that friction and harm, it's human nature. Sometimes the religions can help us to see it and overcome it, and sometimes religions are co-opted to enable and enforce it. But without our religions, there is little to nothing to help us see it and overcome it.

You seem a bit more optimistic than myself as to the value of religions. And there are enough people who don't have such beliefs who behave as well and are as moral as any of the religious, and often are in far more agreement actually, so some consensus apparently. So what exactly are they missing out on and why can't we just accept that religions might die a natural death along with many other things that do eventually pass into history - perhaps having some value but not for always

 

[Notanumber]

Clearly, the idea of "God" arose in all human cultures, all over the world, regardless of their size or associations with others. So the answer is that the idea of "God" is universal to human cognitive development. There is no human culture, anywhere, ever discovered, that did not conceive of deity in some form or other.

I reckon it was conceived to control the masses.

Some people like to have control over others and what better method to use for that aim.

 

[PureX]

You seem a bit more optimistic than myself as to the value of religions.

I am not blinded by bias. When I think "religion" I don't automatically think of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquistadores, and Muslim suicide bombers. All of which were more socio-political than religious.

And there are enough people who don't have such beliefs who behave as well and are as moral as any of the religious, and often are in far more agreement actually, so some consensus apparently. So what exactly are they missing out on and why can't we just accept that religions might die a natural death along with many other things that do eventually pass into history - perhaps having some value but not for always

Those are all ideals derived from eons of religious ideological practices. And again, the ideals are not what matters primarily, it's the practical application of them that matters. And that's where religion can excel. You can't see that, though, because whenever you see or hear the word "religion", all you think of are crusaders, and inquisitors, and terrorists, and dictators; the innate human lust for power and control masquerading as religion.

 

[PureX]

I reckon it was conceived to control the masses.

Some people like to have control over others and what better method to use for that aim.

The idea of deity was first used as a tool to try and gain some sort of magical control over the environment, and of environmental circumstances. To secure a good hunt, to overcome a sickness, to control the weather, etc.,. Only later was it used to control other people through their desire to control circumstances. Humans have always survived and thrived as a species by being able to control their circumstances to their own advantage. Developing the concept of deity was a big and early part of generating that ability. And it is still a significant contributing factor.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am not blinded by bias. When I think "religion" I don't automatically think of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquistadores, and Muslim suicide bombers. All of which were more socio-political than religious.

Neither do I. Religions have undoubtedly had much value and still do, but many are still too tied to the past (via doctrines) so as to be as much a hindrance to future progress. Like any Bell curve, it's the bits at the more extreme ends that tend cause the most problems, and some seem to want to stick with what they have rather than change to accommodate a changing world.

Those are all ideals derived from eons of religious ideological practices. And again, the ideals are not what matters primarily, it's the practical application of them that matters. And that's where religion can excel. You can't see that, though, because whenever you see or hear the word "religion", all you think of are crusaders, and inquisitors, and terrorists, and dictators; the innate human lust for power and control masquerading as religion.

Not exactly. What I see is behaviour and beliefs tied to too long ago to be effective in modern societies, so either we have the chain break or we have the religions change, or we have them die a natural death. No one is suggesting that morality can suddenly disappear or will disappear if religions did become less popular. Are you going to just ignore the many who live without them - as if they don't matter or are not pointing the way?