Is there a benefit to atheism?

[QuestioningMind]

It's called faith. And atheists engage in it just as everyone else does. Faith is not an assumed knowledge or proof based on evidence, it's a decision to accept something as true when we do not have sufficient knowledge or proof that it is true. And then, by acting on that assumption of truth, in life, gaining experiential and conceptual value from it.

Why deny yourself the possibilities that faith offers, for no reason?

" it's a decision to accept something as true when we do not have sufficient knowledge or proof that it is true..."

I suppose that you are correct that atheists do at times accept things as true without sufficient knowledge or proof. For instance, if you claim you have a dog at home, as long as you don't have a history of being a compulsive liar, I'd probably be more than willing to take it on faith that you actually do. I'd be willing to accept this on faith because I know OTHER people who own dogs and have actually owned dogs myself in the past. Furthermore, if it turns out that you ARE lying abut having a dog at home, my taking it on faith that you do doesn't really affect me in any way shape or form.

However, if you claim that you have an invisible talking dog at home, I would NOT take it on faith that you're telling the truth. I've never heard of an invisible talking dog before nor have I ever met anyone who claims to own one. In order for me to accept your fantastical claim I would require some sort of evidence or proof that this invisible talking dog actually exists.

Now, if you're going to claim that there is an invisible all powerful creator being called God who has all sorts of rules I'm supposed to follow, I'm ALSO going to require some sort of evidence or proof for such a fantastical claim. Why would I possibly just accept it on 'faith' that I'm supposed to act and believe in a certain way, just because you or someone else tells me that I should?

How does accepting fantastical claims without evidence offer any 'possibilities', other than perhaps convincing people that God wants them to fly airplanes into buildings filled with people?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What benefit does atheism, itself, produce? I can't think of one.

It offers a shot at an authentic existence. You've been posting a lot about skepticism interfering with testing theistic options like Christianity. I would suggest that belief comes at great cost.

Try standing up like the bipedal ape you were born to be, shed the comforting but disabling swaddling of religious beliefs, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all. And then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, and that things don't get better if we don't make them better.

Accept that you may be vulnerable and not watched over.

Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finititude.

Accept the reality of your insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by some of those around you - people, and maybe a few animals.

Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

It's unpleasant at first, but be brave! Religion - by which I mostly mean Christianity, the form with which I'm most familiar by far and the one I have personal experience in - is comforting, but at a great cost. It's infantilizing, and as I noted, costs you your only shot at an authentic existence.

A theist can never know the ineffable joy of doing good for goodness sake, with no expectation that anyone will ever know what good you did or reward you for it.

When I pull over on a rural road to save a turtle crossing it, I know that nobody will ever know or care except me. Because there was nobody there in that corner of the universe to take responsibility for it, so I did.

That's as close to a godlike experience as you can get. It's not the same if a cosmic eye in the sky is always watching, judging, and tallying reward and punishment. You can't grow up if the baby sitter never leaves, or if the cop is always in the rear view mirror.

So, it's worth making the effort to learn to face reality without religion. Once you have faced the frightening, lonely, and bleak aspects of existence and learned to cope with them maturely, it doesn't feel nearly as frightening, lonely, or bleak any more.

Only then can you proceed to self-actualization, which is prevented by infantilizing dogma that teaches you to submit to a father figure for the rest of your life, continues magical thinking into adulthood, and keeps you feeling like you are still a child being watched who will be punished if you take the cookie (or apple).

 

[Sha'irullah]

I didn't think so for years, but I've more or less gradually come around to the view that atheism -- or at least non-theism -- is conducive to a better understanding and appreciation for nature, and perhaps even life itself.

I do not think this has anything to do with atheism but naturalism instead. Even if you were a theistic naturalist you could easily develop the same appreciation by not believing in a loving god.

 

[PureX]

This thread is now ten pages long, and so far not a single poster but Sunstone has offered a single advantage to be gained from believing that gods don't exist, and even his was pretty "ify", if you ask me. Negating the negative effects of bad religion is not an advantage gained by believing that no gods exist, because theism is not defined by bad religion, and atheism is therefor not the only alternative to bad religion. The theist could simply have switched to a better religion, and thereby hold or gain the obvious advantages that can come with theism.

So it appears to me that my immediate assessment was correct. That nothing of value is gained by rejecting the possibility of a divine entity. Sunstone's offering bears contemplation, but I just don't see how theism can be assumed to be the impediment that it's being claimed. I think it CAN BE such an an impediment, but not necessarily any more than atheism, itself, could be. I have bumped into no small number of "materialist" atheists that are blind as bats to the wonder of nature because they have rejected all appreciation for our metaphysical reality, and reduced experiences like love and beauty and justice to accidental, meaningless, bio-functions. Not exactly stellar examples of an appreciation of the awsomeness of nature.

 

[PureX]

" it's a decision to accept something as true when we do not have sufficient knowledge or proof that it is true..."

How does accepting fantastical claims without evidence offer any 'possibilities', other than perhaps convincing people that God wants them to fly airplanes into buildings filled with people?

Well, first, I would stop listening to other people's proposals of truth regarding the existence of God, simply because I don't see how they would know any more about the nature or existence of God than I do. And once I've done this, I will no longer need to consider the toxic desires and threats of other people's gods, and move on.

Next, I would want to take some time and expend some honest energy contemplating what I THINK such a god phenomena might involve, if such a god phenomena existed. What kind of god would I want to believe in? And could that conception of "God" be assimilated into my current understanding and experience of existence? And finally, would I benefit from accepting the possible existence of this personal god-concept? Would others benefit, through me? In what ways?

I think atheists waste way too much time and energy contending with other people's gods. Gods that they don't even believe exist. That's just crazy! And in so doing they never really consider what their own god would look like, conceptually speaking. Or how their own god-ideal might benefit them in their own lives, if they'd developed one, and adopted it as a part of their own truth. So I would suggest to the atheist, to stop contending with people that you already think are nuts, and gods that you already don't believe exist, and start doing your own exploration. But you'll have to drop the atheism, to do that, and open your mind to the possibilities of god, again.

Most atheists can't do that. Their egos won't allow it. Their identity now depends in part on the "righteousness" of their atheism. And they just can't let that go. This is how atheism becomes the negation of possibility, and why I think it's a philosophical "dead end".

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It should be noted that there are no examples of primitive societies or civilizations that were established on "atheism."

It is an interesting note; but that does not negate benefits of atheism.

While religion has often been dismissed as just a mechanism for explaining the unknown, it also addresses the eternal questions as to why are we here and what purpose do we serve!

Atheism permits each individual to seek that out themselves and reach whatever conclusion they reach without these questions answered for them.

Yes, but dropping the toxic religion is what achieves this, and that still allows for the benefits of faith in a different god-concept. So it's not atheism that's producing this benefit, its dropping the toxic religion..

This is denial on your part; as atheism shares this benefit wiith other, less dogmatic faiths. Just because B shares a like benefit with A, does not mean that B is somehow negated. This is not rational. Both a coat and a blanket will keep you warm.

What benefit does atheism, itself, produce? I can't think of one.

Many have been shared; you simply dismiss them based on B being somehow negated by the shared benefit with A.

an atheist is someone who recognizes reality for what it is, nothing more.

I would consider that a "realist". An atheist may believe in a lot of other bad ideas (with or without sufficient justification); but if that person fails to believe in the divine, the person remains an atheist.

Science is horrible on matters of human experience, just dreadful.

That is because this is not the purpose of science. This is like saying "A sledgehammer is dreadful at cutting wood; just dreadful". Its not what its supposed to do.

I suppose that you are correct that atheists do at times accept things as true without sufficient knowledge or proof. For instance, if you claim you have a dog at home, as long as you don't have a history of being a compulsive liar, I'd probably be more than willing to take it on faith that you actually do. I'd be willing to accept this on faith because I know OTHER people who own dogs and have actually owned dogs myself in the past. Furthermore, if it turns out that you ARE lying abut having a dog at home, my taking it on faith that you do doesn't really affect me in any way shape or form.

This does not necessarily mean "without sufficient knowledge or proof". What you are describing is "inductive reasoning". It is not "faith"; at least, not "faith" as it is used in religious communities.

This thread is now ten pages long, and so far not a single poster but Sunstone has offered a single advantage to be gained from believing that gods don't exist, and even his was pretty "ify", if you ask me.

Your rejection of the advantages are opinion and not fact; and are largely based on B being negated because it shares a benefit with A.

Negating the negative effects of bad religion is not an advantage gained by believing that no gods exist, because theism is not defined by bad religion, and atheism is therefor not the only alternative to bad religion.

No. But it is ONE alternative to bad religion.

The theist could simply have switched to a better religion, and thereby hold or gain the obvious advantages that can come with theism.

I'm repeating myself: B sharing the benefit with A does not negate B.

So it appears to me that my immediate assessment was correct. That nothing of value is gained by rejecting the possibility of a divine entity.

It helps us seek answers to questions rather than simply accepting "answers" to be true, even if they are not. Thunder, for example, is NOT angels tipping over the potato cart. It helps us be more resistant to bad religions and bad ideas.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well, first, I would stop listening to other people's proposals of truth regarding the existence of God, simply because I don't see how they would know any more about the nature or existence of God than I do. And once I've done this, I will no longer need to consider the toxic desires and threats of other people's gods, and move on.

Next, I would want to take some time and expend some honest energy contemplating what I THINK such a god phenomena might involve, if such a god phenomena existed. What kind of god would I want to believe in? And could that conception of "God" be assimilated into my current understanding and experience of existence? And finally, would I benefit from accepting the possible existence of this personal god-concept? Would others benefit, through me? In what ways?

I think atheists waste way too much time and energy contending with other people's gods. Gods that they don't even believe exist. That's just crazy! And in so doing they never really consider what their own god would look like, conceptually speaking. Or how their own god-ideal might benefit them in their own lives, if they'd developed one, and adopted it as a part of their own truth. So I would suggest to the atheist, to stop contending with people that you already think are nuts, and gods that you already don't believe exist, and start doing your own exploration. But you'll have to drop the atheism, to do that, and open your mind to the possibilities of god, again.


Most atheists can't do that. Their egos won't allow it. Their identity now depends in part on the "righteousness" of their atheism. And they just can't let that go. This is how atheism becomes the negation of possibility, and why I think it's a philosophical "dead end".

I think that you don't have a real grasp of what most atheists go through to reach their position of non-belief. Not only have I studied the beliefs of numerous world religions, I have also imagined what my ideal God would be like and developed complex supernatural philosophies about how reality might 'really' work. That doesn't change the fact that I can find no more compelling evidence for the actual existence of the God I can conjure up in my mind as I can for any of the other concepts of God religions or individuals have presented me with. I can see no benefit in convincing myself that my ideal concept of God is actually true when there is no evidence that it actually is. As for that being a matter of 'ego' on my part, I don't see it. In fact, I'm not egotistical enough to think that just because I can imagine an ideal God that it somehow makes it so.

As I stated before, my mind is always open to the possibilities of a God(s). But opening my mind to possibilities doesn't mean abandoning my critical thinking skills and reliance on verifiable evidence for judging reality. And how exactly does one 'drop' their lack of belief in something? Are you capable of simply 'dropping' your lack of belief in magical unicorns without any evidence that you should? I suppose you could pretend to actually belief in magical unicorns, but that's hardly the same thing, right?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I do not think so at all. Atheism is a necessary reaction to religious idiocy at times but as a whole it seems to be very vain and to a larger degree destructive of a society. It just removed institutions that otherwise would be filled by all sort of idealistic nonsense. Theists always like using communism when addressing this yet I could go so far as France during the revolution and claim the push toward the removal of monarchy in replace of what can only be described as the first inklings of socialist theory and utopianism.

It essentially destroyed France to this very day and removed from it what would only be deemed its vital essence and spirit to thrive and continue. Atheism is just removal of something from human nature but if nothing fills the void it serves no purpose on its own.

 

[corynski]

It is because of the completely unwarranted denial of divine possibility, that I reject atheism. I see no benefit in rejecting possibilities without any evidence or effect, whatever.

Perhaps, if one becomes atheist in reaction to a damaging religious experience, I can appreciate it in context, but it's still not the better option when one could have simply dropped the harmful god/religious concept and chosen a new, more positively effective one.

PureX...... Yes, but it is not 'completely unwarranted denial' is it? To an atheist the acceptance of a 'god' without any real evidence is completely unwarranted........ And using the correct definition of atheism, i.e. 'I' have no experience and no evidence of any god or goddess, makes atheism a personal affair, not a community thing. I have no idea what you actually perceive or experience, only what I experience. But I think it all depends upon whether you accept, without question, what is told to you by your parents and your culture when you are very young. What if your parents and your pastor are wrong? Maybe the Jains are right, or one of the other thousands of religions men have created. Didn't Jesus say he was coming right back? Why won't a 'god' simply show up? It's all about what you consider real, isn't it?

 

[corynski]

I do not think so at all. Atheism is a necessary reaction to religious idiocy at times but as a whole it seems to be very vain and to a larger degree destructive of a society. It just removed institutions that otherwise would be filled by all sort of idealistic nonsense. Theists always like using communism when addressing this yet I could go so far as France during the revolution and claim the push toward the removal of monarchy in replace of what can only be described as the first inklings of socialist theory and utopianism.

It essentially destroyed France to this very day and removed from it what would only be deemed its vital essence and spirit to thrive and continue. Atheism is just removal of something from human nature but if nothing fills the void it serves no purpose on its own.

Sha'irullah....... Your statement 'Atheism....seems to be very vain and to a larger degree destructive of society' is incorrect. Atheism simply attempts to see the real world in rational terms, not mythological ones. Men have created thousands of gods, and people say 'yes, my god is the only true god', but then, why have men created so many, if only one is the 'true' god? And if a god would simply show up, the argument would be over, and maybe humans wouldn't have to kill others because they believe in the 'wrong' god. And how is atheism destructive of society? Is truth or reality destructive of society? 'Destroyed' France? Belief in catholicism is a distortion of reality to my mind.......

 

[Augustus]

It offers a shot at an authentic existence.

What is an 'authentic existence'?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sha'irullah....... Your statement 'Atheism....seems to be very vain and to a larger degree destructive of society' is incorrect. Atheism simply attempts to see the real world in rational terms, not mythological ones.

Atheism seeks nothing. Atheism is not an ideology of any sort and is merely a nonsense word that is used in modern society to separate the cows from the goats. Atheism has no ideology, creed, or faith of any kind.

Men have created thousands of gods, and people say 'yes, my god is the only true god', but then, why have men created so many, if only one is the 'true' god? And if a god would simply show up, the argument would be over, and maybe humans wouldn't have to kill others because they believe in the 'wrong' god. And how is atheism destructive of society? Is truth or reality destructive of society? 'Destroyed' France? Belief in catholicism is a distortion of reality to my mind.......

Any understanding of religion and you will know the concept of a true god is purely Abrahamic. The Romans spent a great degree adopting every deity possible into their state and local cults.

I am also not addressing truths or naturalism of any sort. I am addressing the human void left in the absence of religion. Atheism does not offer truth of any sort and never will considering that it is a lack of belief in one single thing.

Atheism if it becomes dominant has a historical tendency to create unstable societies as secularism is doing now in America. I can essentially with great sincerity say that I have become unflattered and disgusted by atheists as a whole in Western society. This is a massive reason why I no longer identify as an antitheist anymore. I cannot oppose what I find cherishable as of now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no conclusive proof that can either confirm or refute the existence of God!

The notion of gods in the generic sense cannot be ruled in or out, but some specific gods can be ruled out by virtue of being ascribed mutually exclusive qualities and are therefore both logically impossible and by default, a flawed human creation rendered by a series of myth-makers and story tellers over time who were unaware of the many ways its evolving story contradicted itself.

It should be noted that there are no examples of primitive societies or civilizations that were established on "atheism."

Is that an endorsement of theism? Those people had no idea where the rain came from.

While religion has often been dismissed as just a mechanism for explaining the unknown, it also addresses the eternal questions as to why are we here and what purpose do we serve!

It is also a mechanism for controlling and exploiting people.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose that you are correct that atheists do at times accept things as true without sufficient knowledge or proof. For instance, if you claim you have a dog at home, as long as you don't have a history of being a compulsive liar, I'd probably be more than willing to take it on faith that you actually do. I'd be willing to accept this on faith because I know OTHER people who own dogs and have actually owned dogs myself in the past.

I wouldn't call what you just described faith in the religious sense, as in unjustified belief. You are justified in believing that such a person probably has a dog at home unless you have given him or her a reason to lie about it, because experience tells us that people who inform us that they have a dog usually do. In my case, it has been every single time. I've never once discovered that somebody claiming to have a dog didn't, and have a few dozen examples of people making that claim that has later been confirmed, just last month in fact, when I first met Boomer, a newfie that friends of ours drove 1000 miles each way to pick up and bring home. We went to their home a few weeks ago, and voilà, there was Boomer, exactly as expected.

What would be the odds that they or any other person claiming to have a dog at home were lying? One in a hundred? Less?

So, belief is justified as long as it is commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence and amenable to revision pending new evidence.

As you undoubtedly know, it is a false equivalence argument to equate unjustified belief with justified belief, usually done by calling them both faith and committing the equivocation fallacy, the one where a word changes meaning mid-argument:

"You have faith in science, we have faith in God, so we're the same."

Nope. Believing that the scientific method is valid is justified by science's robust record and brilliant success, whereas believing in a god is unjustified.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This thread is now ten pages long, and so far not a single poster but Sunstone has offered a single advantage to be gained from believing that gods don't exist

That's not the argument. The argument is that there is an advantage in not believing that gods do exist. If you still think that that is the same thing at this point, there is little hope of you seeing that later.

What reason can you give me to introduce gods and faith into my life? I am happy as I am, and have found secular humanism imminently compatible with my values and ways of thinking, as well as a good guide to viewing the world and making life choices.

I came out of a decade long trial of Christianity throughout my twenties preceded and followed by atheism. It met none of my needs not met elsewhere, never made sense, and eventually, I had no reason to believe that the religion was correct or its god real. In an earlier post, I listed the ways that my life improved thereafter, which would not have been possible had I remained in Christianity.

Your argument seems to be that I should have tried another religion, but that wasn't appealing or necessary.

So I ask you: What reason would I have to return to faith given my feeling that truth is a very high ideal for me and that I understand that faith cannot be a path to truth if every notion or its polar opposite can believed on faith, meaning that at least one of those ideas is wrong. With faith, there is no method of determining if you are wrong. You must return to reason applied to evidence to do that. So why abandon it in the first place? For a sense of security that I don't need? For a sense of purpose and meaning that I already have? For a sense of spirituality that I have found without god beliefs (see below)? For a sense of community which I get outside of religion? For ad hoc answers to life's mysteries?

I don't need any of that any more. All of those needs have been met outside of religion and with no god belief.

So it appears to me that my immediate assessment was correct. That nothing of value is gained by rejecting the possibility of a divine entity.

One or two posters might have expressed having rejected that possibility, but most of us are still open-minded to that possibility, which is why we ask what evidence you have.

I have bumped into no small number of "materialist" atheists that are blind as bats to the wonder of nature

I find it to be the other way around. The theists I am accustomed to are frequently disconnected from nature, and many, especially the creationists, have very little understanding of how it works. They have been told that the universe is base matter slated for destruction by a good god who lives in a better place that the believer then spends the rest of his life preferring, living life as if at some cosmic bus stop waiting for a ride out of reality that he is told to remain separated from.

Where's the wonder of nature there?

My spiritual experiences come most often from contemplating nature from a perspective of understanding. Looking up at the night sky is so much more thrilling when one understands what one is seeing - the vast scales and the immense distances that a drop of starlight has traversed to reach across the sky and touch us, to enter our eyes and heads. It is a richer experience understanding that we are made of the ashes of such stars now long gone. From the pen of the poet: "We are stardust ... billion year old carbon."

Such understanding connects one to himself and to his universe, leaves him in awe and with a sense of mystery, as well as with a sense of gratitude to be able to participate in existence - to have been born at all - against the greatest of odds. No gods needed for such a rich experience.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Negating the negative effects of bad religion is not an advantage gained by believing that no gods exist, because theism is not defined by bad religion, and atheism is therefor not the only alternative to bad religion. The theist could simply have switched to a better religion, and thereby hold or gain the obvious advantages that can come with theism.

Using the same logic:

Weight loss isn't an advantage gained by cutting out fast food, because you could have achieved the same weight loss by exercise or switching to healthier fast food options.

Does your argument make sense in a different context? If not, why would it make sense in this one?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So I would suggest to the atheist, to stop contending with people that you already think are nuts, and gods that you already don't believe exist, and start doing your own exploration. But you'll have to drop the atheism, to do that, and open your mind to the possibilities of god, again.

It's not an either/or matter. I am both an atheist and someone open to the possibility of a god. I understand that there is no way to rule such a possibility out by measurement, observation, argument, or algorithm, meaning that I must remain agnostic to the possibility, which is where I am and have been for decades

I can find no reason to go beyond that and accept the proposition, which is why I remain an atheist as well as an agnostic.

As I indicated, I did that exploring when I was younger, settled on secular humanism, and am happy now without gods, and have no incentive to change what works. Can you offer any reasons why I should return to theism?

Most atheists can't do that. Their egos won't allow it. Their identity now depends in part on the "righteousness" of their atheism. And they just can't let that go. This is how atheism becomes the negation of possibility, and why I think it's a philosophical "dead end".

You don't seem to understand the atheist's position at all.

You consider living without a god an ego problem. Maybe you should consider needing one an ego problem in the opposite direction.

My identity is no more defined by my atheism than it is by my avampirism and aleprechaunism.

And atheism isn't a philosophy, nor a negation of possibility. It is merely the "No" answer to the question of whether one believes in a god or gods. No beliefs at all are generated by that "No," and only two are required to hold it: The belief that nothing should be accepted as fact with insufficient support, and that there is insufficient support for all god claims. Atheism is the only rational position for a person with such beliefs.

How can I take seriously the admonition of somebody telling me that I need to vacate my atheistic position when he doesn't understand it? You're a smart guy. Why don't you start learning about what we believe from us? Ask us what we believe rather than tell us, and when you get an answer, incorporate it into your spiel. It undermines your purpose to keep making the same mistakes about atheists when appealing to atheists.

 

[Curious George]

Using the same logic:

Weight loss isn't an advantage gained by cutting out fast food, because you could have achieved the same weight loss by exercise or switching to healthier fast food options.

Does your argument make sense in a different context? If not, why would it make sense in this one?

No because it does not have an if and only iff relationship.

However, weight loss is not an advantage gained by cutting out fast food because it does not necessarily follow cutting out fast food.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am addressing the human void left in the absence of religion.

I can't relate to that at all. I am fulfilled without religion as are hundreds of millions if not billions of others.

The void occurs when one is raised in religion and fails to learn to live without dogma and magical thinking, and fails to develop an internal moral compass, or sense of meaning and purpose absent gods, then loses that scaffolding and tries to walk without it. He feels naked, afraid, and without direction.

Atheism if it becomes dominant has a historical tendency to create unstable societies as secularism is doing now in America.

Yeah, atheism is ravaging Western Europe. The Swedes and Danes have been hardest hit.

Secularism is why you have religious freedom. What is destabilizing America is creeping theocracy and fascism. I just finished watching The Handmaid's Tale, and have recently seen The Crucible. That is what secularists are saving you from. Or did you think that if the church ever regained control of the state that it would permit you freedoms?

• "Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christian." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had

• "I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be." - Jerry Falwell

• "The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church's public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." - Gary North

• "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." - Pat Robertson

Who are your friends, people like that or people like us? Secular humanists will defend your right to believe and worship as you like. People like those theists above will not.

I can essentially with great sincerity say that I have become unflattered and disgusted by atheists as a whole in Western society. This is a massive reason why I no longer identify as an antitheist anymore. I cannot oppose what I find cherishable as of now.

Secular humanists will continue to protect what you cherish, but it would be nice if you would help rather that tell us and others how much we atheists disgust you and are destabilizing society.

The church is not your friend, and the antitheism directed against it is to protect your rights from its incessant efforts to pierce the church-state wall and, as the quotes above suggest, impose an authoritarian way of life on us all if permitted to do so. We all have a duty to oppose that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No because it does not have an if and only iff relationship.

It doesn't have to.

However, weight loss is not an advantage gained by cutting out fast food because it does not necessarily follow cutting out fast food.

"Necessarily" isn't the test. "Generally" or "typically" is.

Although eliminating fast food and sweets from your diet may seem like a major challenge, it will help you cut calories so you can lose weight and be healthier. Fast foods and sweets provide a lot of calories in a small volume of food. Thus, it's easy to quickly consume more calories than you need to when you eat these foods.

Losing Weight by Cutting Out Fast Food & Sweets


I'm not sure if the problem here is an unwillingness to listen to what people are saying or just a failure of common sense.

Speaking for myself, when I say that a benefit of atheism is that it avoids the cost of theism, I don't mean that every atheist is better off than every theist. I just mean that it's often the case that if someone went from being a theist to not being an atheist, there will be costs associated with theism that they no longer incur. This does NOT mean that those costs couldn't be eliminated by "brand switching" to another religion or that all of theism has the same costs.

If a Christian becomes an atheist, this would TYPICALLY free up his Sunday mornings for something else. For him, this is a benefit of atheism. This is still the case even if we recognize that he could free up his Sunday mornings by converting to Islam.

The fact that there may be more than one way to get a benefit does not mean that the benefit does not exist.