I see no value in atheism

[George-ananda]

OP Topic: I see no value in atheism

I can see value in atheism for those that see no guiding intelligences in the universe or any form of afterlife. Being objective and facing up to the truth is the only honorable way for a rational being. The best path is to accept facts and then decide maturely how to make the best of things.

(too avoid confusion I must state I am not an atheist as I do see guiding intelligences and evidence of afterlife)

 

[Looncall]

Religion helps a lot of people too. Seems like the big question is does it hurt more than it helps? Corollary questions are: What level of harm would exist without religion and What level of help would exist without religion?

How about a more basic question: is it true?

 

[dust1n]

Actually, that is not quite correct. Babies are born tabula rasa. They have no beliefs and atheism does imply choice. One must be able to understand the abstract concepts implied in theism to reject them. It is not until the age of abstract thought, roughly around 10 that they can make a reasoned choice.

A 10-year-old can make a reasoned choice about religion? Lol... A 10-year-old is barely trustworthy enough to allow them to make a sandwich on their own.

 

[dust1n]

I personally find atheist depressing.

Me too. But then again, I find most things depressing, and religions might be up there on the most depressing things I can think of.

I feel it's important to have faith in something and how many believe that once you die, that's it, which I know is not true.

The reason being?

 

[Curious George]

People help people. Religion is governed by people, and if people do good things, the religion shouldn't take the credit. However, when people injure or kill others because they are 'defending their beliefs,' that is why religion can be dangerous. Do you like my double standard?
^_^

The problem with religion is that it often seeks to take over other people's thoughts, lives, governments. I don't only look at the extreme cases as we see in the middle east in the past and today, but I look at the insidious ways it tries to infiltrate itself into the US government for example. Homosexual marital unions were once banned in America, why is that? Because of religion. So, I find that it has harmed more people than it's helped, and if good people do good things, let's just leave it at that. If you need to believe or fear a deity in order to do good, that's NOT good.

Well glossing over the people do good things but religion harms....

I think it is a perfectly arguable position to find that religion does more harm than good. However, I also think that the reverse is a perfectly arguable position. Certainly both could be the thesises of enormous volumes. I would argue that people will find a way to do harm or good without the help of religion. Imho, religion is invoked to give authority to any position: If the king dictates law then the law can change once the king changes. If some higher authority, coincidentally an immortal one, dictates law then that law is more permanent. This was true in the time of Hammurabi and is still true today.

The key here is that we need buy-in. Religion offers an easy road. Is this the best road? Or even the right road? I don't know. However it is clear that there are side effects to this road. Some good and some bad.

In order to simply replace religion however there is a lot of other arguments that must be won. Otherwise, we are left with huge groups of society that do not buy-in.

 

[Curious George]

How about a more basic question: is it true?

Ahh the noble search for truth. Did those dirty Greeks convince you that there is only one? Or are you willing to agree that truth is multi faceted? In either situation I suppose I need to ask you "what is truth?"

However, since I know it is impolite to answer a question with a question, I will say that it should be apparent that religious beliefs are not true in the strictest sense. Although, I would point out that it is through religion that truth has traditionally been sought.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Maybe what the OP is getting at is that people are happiest without giving rise to a concept of deity such that they then feel the need to either affirm or deny it.

It's functionally atheism, but the nuance is not insignificant.

 

[Curious George]

Maybe what the OP is getting at is that people are happiest without giving rise to a concept of deity such that they then feel the need to either affirm or deny it.

It's functionally atheism, but the nuance is not insignificant.

Maybe, I read the op and the op's further messages as saying focus and perspective control value. Therefore lack of awareness of an afterlife, deity, or our own mortality offer the best value for this life. Once one gains awareness focus changes and creates stress. Therefore if you are an atheist you are better living not questioning these things. Hence there is no value in proclaiming disbelief, because this only brings strife. So if you are an atheist better to be an "implicit atheist."

Then it seems there is an assertion when perspective and focus is changed for some atheists who are not implicit atheists, take away value by detracting from another's pursuit of the meaningful I'm their lives.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not an atheist but I just wanted to ask something.

What difference does it make if it has value or not? Someone isn't going to believe in something they don't rationally think fits reality just because it's got a price.

If God is separate from the universe, and a perfect creator of it, doesn't this spoil the value of the universe? If God is above this nature's beauty, it belittles it. More emphasis should be on the painting rather than the painter. That's one reason why I think God is the universe, the glory of the universe is divine, not below divine

 

[Curious George]

Maybe what the OP is getting at is that people are happiest without giving rise to a concept of deity such that they then feel the need to either affirm or deny it.

It's functionally atheism, but the nuance is not insignificant.

More importantly I call poe

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe what the OP is getting at is that people are happiest without giving rise to a concept of deity such that they then feel the need to either affirm or deny it.

It's functionally atheism, but the nuance is not insignificant.

I wish it were allowed. As things are, we are often indeed pressured into either affirmation or denial of deities.

 

[Valjean]

Actually, that is not quite correct. Babies are born tabula rasa. They have no beliefs and atheism does imply choice. One must be able to understand the abstract concepts implied in theism to reject them. It is not until the age of abstract thought, roughly around 10 that they can make a reasoned choice.

Atheism does not imply choice and is not a rejection of theism. It is a simple lack of belief.
You're confusing Strong Atheism with Weak Atheism. Weak atheism is the definitive, essential atheism. You're tacking on extraneous baggage.
See post #20.

 

[Looncall]

Ahh the noble search for truth. Did those dirty Greeks convince you that there is only one? Or are you willing to agree that truth is multi faceted? In either situation I suppose I need to ask you "what is truth?"

However, since I know it is impolite to answer a question with a question, I will say that it should be apparent that religious beliefs are not true in the strictest sense. Although, I would point out that it is through religion that truth has traditionally been sought.

I agree with you last paragraph. However, I would add that religion has traditionally been used to seek truth because, until quite recently, no other method was available. We live in more fortunate times and I would like to see humanity discard ancient errors. After all, thunder is not the sound of gods playing at bowls.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know that atheism is supposed to have any value.

 

[outhouse]

Why would atheism even need to have "value"?

Explicit atheism would hold value since it could be a conscious decision, one would not pick unless it held value to said person.

Implicit atheism would not since no belief was rejected or accepted or required. It was not a decision.

 

[Curious George]

I agree with you last paragraph. However, I would add that religion has traditionally been used to seek truth because, until quite recently, no other method was available. We live in more fortunate times and I would like to see humanity discard ancient errors. After all, thunder is not the sound of gods playing at bowls.

And what of the introspective internal truths which religion has traditionally brought forth. I do not see the scientific method producing results to tell anyone how I feel about life or how to answer moral dilemmas. I personally do not use religion to find these answers, nor do you I imagine, but everyone is not you. The fact that you or I do not need religion, in no way means that another individual may not.

True for me may not be true for you may not be true for him, etc etc ad infinitum. I am not talking about objective truths such as whether evolution occurs, or whether the earth is round. But when we look at subjective truths such as how you feel, or what is right, or to whom are you connected. Scientific method cannot answer this.

But more importantly, who are you to want to rid the world of something? Who are you to make such a choice? If you answer my first questions-whether and how religion does more harm than good? Whether and how the harm and help religion works will be affected by religions removal? You write these answers down in a book, I will read it. Then your opinion might count. Until then you are no better than a religious person proselytizing. You may think or feel like religion is the boogeyman, but until you can substantiate such claims, your opinion has no weight at all.

 

[psychoslice]

Why does having hope in something more imply fear? I live my,life to the fullest and try to follow Buddhist principles of living. How does that involve fear of any kind?

Your lucky because you follow the Buddha, I am pointing more to Christianity, plus there is no belief of god in Buddhism.

 

[Looncall]

And what of the introspective internal truths which religion has traditionally brought forth. I do not see the scientific method producing results to tell anyone how I feel about life or how to answer moral dilemmas. I personally do not use religion to find these answers, nor do you I imagine, but everyone is not you. The fact that you or I do not need religion, in no way means that another individual may not.

True for me may not be true for you may not be true for him, etc etc ad infinitum. I am not talking about objective truths such as whether evolution occurs, or whether the earth is round. But when we look at subjective truths such as how you feel, or what is right, or to whom are you connected. Scientific method cannot answer this.

But more importantly, who are you to want to rid the world of something? Who are you to make such a choice? If you answer my first questions-whether and how religion does more harm than good? Whether and how the harm and help religion works will be affected by religions removal? You write these answers down in a book, I will read it. Then your opinion might count. Until then you are no better than a religious person proselytizing. You may think or feel like religion is the boogeyman, but until you can substantiate such claims, your opinion has no weight at all.

Thanks for your interesting reply.

I find it interesting that you find that some of the things you mention do not have interpersonal answers. I am astonished that you think right and wrong are merely personal.

Some of your examples puzzle me. Surely, for example, how you feel has a definite existance that could in principle be discovered by observation. One could simply ask you, for instance.

As for a book, in the first place, I am quite busy enough with my job helping to protect people from harmful radiation, in the second, several effective, and tolerably famous, books have already appeared in the last few years that do just what you request.

Please allow me to recount a story. This may not be relevant: I just like it and our conversation somehow brought it to mind.

A physics student was asked how to measure the height of a building using a barometer. He answered that he could drop it from the roof and time its fall, or set it in the sun and compare its shadow with that of the building, or say to the custodian "I will give you this fine barometer if you tell me the height of the building".

 

[Bunyip]

If you use that defintion, then yes, that would be correct. However, it is my position that atheism requires the abstract ability to reject the notion of God or gods. And in that case, I beleive I would be correct.

Well why take that position? Why make atheism a positive claim when it is not?

 

[McBell]

Well why take that position? Why make atheism a positive claim when it is not?

um...
It better fits the agenda?