Is there a benefit to atheism?

[PureX]

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?

So long as you continue to seek physical evidence for a metaphysical God, you will never find it. And I think you know that you will never find it.

"God" is an ideal that can only be validated through faith. And faith is not just the suspension of your disbelief, it's also life-action based on that entrusted ideal. Then, the positive results of those actions can begin to stand as evidence of the ideal's truthfulness. Faith is trust in advance of evidence, put into action. And then the evidence comes with the results.

 

[PureX]

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?

The reason you are an atheist is because you don't understand what faith is, or how it works. And the reason you don't understand what faith is, and how it works, is because as an atheist, you have cut yourself off from the experiential possibilities that faith offers. So you, like all atheists, have trapped yourself in your own denial.

"God" is not a matter of evidence. It's a matter of faith. And faith is choosing to trust in an ideal, in advance of the evidence, and then to act on that trusted ideal and see if it works for you in your life. The result of this faith process then becomes your "evidence", Looking for the evidence in advance of faith only ensures that you will never get it. It's an intellectual 'trap'. Atheism is a trap.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"God" is not a matter of evidence. It's a matter of faith.

So the many theists who tell me that the existence of their god(s) is supported by evidence are necessarily wrong?

 

[PureX]

So the many theists who tell me that the existence of their god(s) is supported by evidence are necessarily wrong?

What they call "evidence" is really their own subjective experiences, based on the practice of their faith, which other people don't generally take to be evidence.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

And faith is choosing to trust in an ideal, in advance of the evidence, and then to act on that trusted ideal and see if it works for you in your life.

Yes, I've been down that road, and it destroyed my life. Putting faith before reason can, and will, destroy you.

The result of this faith process then becomes your "evidence",

That's not called "evidence". Its called "confirmation bias". "Insufficient Justification". A whole lotta other stuff.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I've been down that road, and it destroyed my life. Putting faith before reason can, and will, destroy you.

Yes it can, if it's not done carefully and appropriately. I came near to the 'nut farm' via that road myself, once. But such disaster in not inevitable, at all. Most people can do it without a problem, and if done well, and appropriately, faith can yield great benefits.

That's not called "evidence". Its called "confirmation bias". "Insufficient Justification". A whole lotta other stuff.

Calling it "confirmation bias" is itself a form of confirmation bias. And that other stuff.

The truth is 'what is'. But we humans don't get to experience or understand 'what is' as a whole, and we can't determine what it is, for sure, from what little of it that we have knowledge of. So we humans have to go with 'what works for us' instead of 'what is'. Our truth is what works as true for us until some more functional idea of truth comes along to replace it. "Confirmation bias" is part and parcel of the human condition. It's really the delusional assumption that we can "know the truth", that is the lie.

 

[Sha'irullah]

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

I am sure you are. I cannot testify to others but all I can do is acknowledge myself and how some other atheists feel. But at the same time there can be a void religion creates that I feel many won't acknowledge, I think this is why atheists have the push toward sciences although I do not find that a good replacement as the sciences are not exactly fulfilling in themselves.

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.

Not necessarily true, when you have people like me who lived in Christians homes and mocked the religion from their youth till onward there is quite a truth to the attitude toward it. I did not become remotely religious until I was about 14 and that was something entirely different.

I never equated religion with morals, truths or faith. I always treated it as a social group that promotes exploration of human emotions. I looked at religion as a mere psychological tool and never heard or witnessed the arguments of apologist.
When I was a Muslim the men who made me lose faith entirely in Islam were Hamza Tzortzis and Is'mail ibn-Musa Menk. When I realized how real Muslims treated Islam and not in the casual sense I was repulsed entirely.

So this concept of religion being used for a moral compass is simply absurd and something atheists tell to reassure themselves at night of their hatred toward the religions they often despise.

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?

I am aware of that but you act as if I am a Christian who wants theocracy, I only dislike secularism because people treat it as a legitimate way of life. Also I find your comments about fascism highly doubtful since people keep throwing words out in such a manner as if it is a slur.

• "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

The sure sign of an atheists at his lowest is when he uses theists at their lowest. I am no Christian and I have a length rant I can go on all day about Christianity.

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.

Again, stop with the lying. You are not representing my position in the slightest bit, you are doing the opposite.

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.

You are not responsible for the actions of other atheists nor would I hold you accountable, so it seems surprising that you would complain about it. Also humanist is just a word for an atheist without a spine now. Humanism is the most incoherent philosophy I have ever witnessed as it only does what every other group in human history does.

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.

Again, stop lying. My comments are fairly clear about where I stand on matters of the church and they have not changed when I was an atheist nor have they changed now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The reason you are an atheist is because you don't understand what faith is, or how it works. And the reason you don't understand what faith is, and how it works, is because as an atheist, you have cut yourself off from the experiential possibilities that faith offers. So you, like all atheists, have trapped yourself in your own denial.

"God" is not a matter of evidence. It's a matter of faith.

Then it is equally valid to say "No god" or anything else as a matter of faith. Faith offers no yardstick.

We could say that the earth is inhabited by a covert race of reptilians. It's not a matter of evidence either, but you can still believe it as a matter of faith. Why deny yourself the possibility? What have you got to lose if faith is your friend?

And faith is choosing to trust in an ideal, in advance of the evidence, and then to act on that trusted ideal and see if it works for you in your life. The result of this faith process then becomes your "evidence" Looking for the evidence in advance of faith only ensures that you will never get it. It's an intellectual 'trap'.

Choosing to believe something and then looking for evidence is dangerous. You will see what you want to see. It's called a faith based confirmation bias, and it's why so many Christians think that the god of the Bible is good, that Genesis correlates beautifully with the Big Bang theory, and that the Bible contains no contradictions or other errors, all things easily seen by unbelievers.

Incidentally, I've already tried your test. There was no god. I was fortunate that I already had 20 years of experience as an atheist and rational empiricist when I went I started. I still had the tools to see what was what and to burrow back out when the religion failed to deliver on its promises.

Many born into to it never develop those skills, and have no hope of seeing that they have made a mistake let alone rectifying it.

One needs to be careful with one's mind.

 

[Curious George]

It doesn't have to.

I agree. That I was pointing out why that is so. If I there are magical boots that allow me to fly, I can say that flight is a benefit. If there is also a magical cape that allows me to fly I can still say flight is a benefit of the boots. My first statement was in agreement with your point.

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


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.

The bolded part speaks to the first part. That was a misunderstanding on your part. I was in agreement, hence I answered your question the same as you. However the second part is where our disagreement lies. You would suggest that a benefit not necesarily follow to be a benefit.

This would then be the case that we say that B is a benefit to X, if in some cases of X B follows.

This can't work because then we make contradictory statements about what is and what is not a benefit.

You would want to further narrow it to say that B is a benefit of X, if in cases of X, then B typically follows.

But what does that really say? In the not typical cases B will not be a benefit of X, and in most cases B will be a benefit of X.

Restated, all you have claimed is that B is typically a benefit of X. This is different than B is a benefit of X. Now you may be trying to equivocate your way here, but you need to demonstrate how these two statements are equal.

It is not my logic that is wrong, it is you who is mistaken. If your common sense is faulty logic, then that is why I will not listen to it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Does atheism offer any benefits that believers are not privy to? If you think so or don't think so, please explain.

So long as you continue to seek physical evidence for a metaphysical God, you will never find it. And I think you know that you will never find it.

"God" is an ideal that can only be validated through faith. And faith is not just the suspension of your disbelief, it's also life-action based on that entrusted ideal. Then, the positive results of those actions can begin to stand as evidence of the ideal's truthfulness. Faith is trust in advance of evidence, put into action. And then the evidence comes with the results.[/QUOTE]

Okay, so if I can't use physical evidence then apparently I need to use metaphysical evidence. Can you provide me with an example of 'metaphysical evidence'?

Magical unicorns can only be validated through faith. Can YOU force yourself to suspend your disbelief in magical unicorns? Apparently you are capable of pretending like you actually believe in them, but I can't. Even if I someone promised me that if I DID force myself to believe in magical unicorns then the unicorns would grant my every wish. My rational mind would STILL know that I was faking it. How are you capable of shutting down your rational mind in order to accept something as real without evidence? And isn't that kind of a scary thought? If you can ignore your rational brain when it comes to unicorns doesn't than mean you can shut down your rational brain and convince yourself of virtually anything, regardless of how far fetched or wrong it might be?

It seems to me that people who shut down the rational parts of their brain in such fashion are likely to convince themselves that God wants them to fly airplanes into buildings filled with people.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you act as if I am a Christian who wants theocracy

I don't know if you are a Christian, but if you oppose secularism, you are an asset to would be theocrats.

I only dislike secularism because people treat it as a legitimate way of life.

It is a legitimate way of life. It characterizes the American way of life and that of much of the rest of the world.

Your comment suggests that you dislike whatever people treat as a legitimate way of life. Is that what you meant? Wouldn't that be incoherent?

Also I find your comments about fascism highly doubtful since people keep throwing words out in such a manner as if it is a slur.

Did you think that I intended to slur you or anybody else with a reference to creeping fascism in America? It was a reminder that you need to be vigilant. You need to be informed about what the signs of fascism are and what is happening around you. It's your duty as a citizen. Do you see any signs of intense nationalism, authoritarianism, elitism, militarism, corporatocracy, police brutality, or racism anywhere around you?

Also humanist is just a word for an atheist without a spine now.

You don't really want to be taken seriously, do you?

Humanism is the most incoherent philosophy I have ever witnessed as it only does what every other group in human history does.

You just said that a system that does what every other group in human history has done is the most incoherent philosophy you have ever witnessed. Do you consider that a coherent thought?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I don't know if you are a Christian, but if you oppose secularism, you are an asset to would be theocrats.

I never said I oppose secularism and it is obvious I am not a Christian but every man of religion is a Christian in your view I am sure.

It is a legitimate way of life. It characterizes the American way of life and that of much of the rest of the world.

Secularism is not a way of life, it is a way of governance and socialization. It has no ideology or tenets that bring it into practice, it is like saying atheism is a way of life. American or Western secularization has distinct characteristics and flavors the same way Chinese secularization is distinct.

You seem to be purposefully ignoring anything I say because it angers your secular bones. This is exactly what I mean when I say that Western secularization is distinct.

Your comment suggests that you dislike whatever people treat as a legitimate way of life. Is that what you meant? Wouldn't that be incoherent?


You don't really want to be taken seriously, do you?

. . . I am done.

I have a firm policy against hypocrites and liars and you keep crossing it.

 

[corynski]

Reading the comments, I can see that some of us confuse theism with religion, and so also confuse atheism with non/anti-religion.

There is much to find fault with in many religions. This, however, is irrelevant to the value of atheism, itself, when one recognizes that atheism is not necessarily non/anti-religious. Just as theism is not necessarily religious.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. It is a belief not based on evidence, but on something else. (Just as the belief that gods exist is likewise not based on evidence, but on something else.) Only the individual knows what that something else, is. And so I suppose that ultimately, only they can judge the value gained from their chosen belief. But I can see the positive value of theism in myself and in many others, when I cannot see it in atheists. (Not that atheists have no value, but that their value is not being derived from their atheism.)

PureX...... Sorry, unfortunately you've misunderstood atheism. Atheism means only that I (we) have no belief in any god, because I (we) have seen no evidence of any god. Thus I am without a belief in theism. I have no idea if any god exists for you or anyone else, but I seriously doubt it. And although there are positive values in theism, there remains the fact that to atheists, your gods are illusions. And if there are no gods, then this is our reality, and I feel better living in reality than in a myth.

 

[corynski]

Does atheism offer any benefits that believers are not privy to? If you think so or don't think so, please explain.

Atheism is honest and forthright in it's attempt to discover reality, so it would depend upon the value you place on living in reality, and not living in the fictions of religious belief. Atheists claim that theists have no evidence of anything supernatural, and your gods WON'T SHOW UP! Jesus said he was coming right back, and he refers to that a couple of dozen times in the book. So why won't the gods show up? Because you've created them yourselves, just like all the thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history and mythology. We were all told that the gods exist, by our parents and preachers and teachers, all of them reinforce the notions of theology, that somewhere, somehow, gods and goddesses exist. Of course the atheist would ask, "And where did the gods come from?" But religious believers don't ask that question, because to ask it is wrong, it shows that maybe you have questions and doubts...... maybe you don't really believe. It is the methodology of science that is progressive and looks forward, while religion is static, and looks backwards for its knowledge.

 

[corynski]

So long as you continue to seek physical evidence for a metaphysical God, you will never find it. And I think you know that you will never find it.

"God" is an ideal that can only be validated through faith. And faith is not just the suspension of your disbelief, it's also life-action based on that entrusted ideal. Then, the positive results of those actions can begin to stand as evidence of the ideal's truthfulness. Faith is trust in advance of evidence, put into action. And then the evidence comes with the results.

PureX..... But faith is still a guess. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" is the way my Bible puts it. No matter what or how much you believe, it can't change reality. No god or goddess will show up, nor will Jesus, even after saying he would. You may call lack of evidence anything you want, but it's still a lack of evidence. Faith stifles inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge. Why ask why, when the answer is 'god did it'? Logically of course, one would have expected an omnipotent, omniscient god to have anticipated all the absurdities of life, and simply show up and take charge. Thousands of gods throughout history and prehistory, but none show up. Now, logically doesn't that tell you something?

 

[corynski]

The reason you are an atheist is because you don't understand what faith is, or how it works. And the reason you don't understand what faith is, and how it works, is because as an atheist, you have cut yourself off from the experiential possibilities that faith offers. So you, like all atheists, have trapped yourself in your own denial.

"God" is not a matter of evidence. It's a matter of faith. And faith is choosing to trust in an ideal, in advance of the evidence, and then to act on that trusted ideal and see if it works for you in your life. The result of this faith process then becomes your "evidence", Looking for the evidence in advance of faith only ensures that you will never get it. It's an intellectual 'trap'. Atheism is a trap.

Purex...... Thanks, but you're in a different world than I am. You've created your own god apparently, exactly as has been done over the millennia, as Michael Jordan has catalogued in his book "Encyclopedia of Gods". Yes, and then you claim that because I don't create other worlds in my mind, that "I'm trapped in my own denial", and that "atheism is a trap." You're wrong, as you will eventually discover.......

 

[JustWondering]

From your perspective, perhaps. You are hardly alone in undervaluing the arts and humanities. Plenty of us, in the mean time, will continue to understand otherwise.

How does denying the unverifiable fantastical supernatural claims of religion equate to undervaluing the arts and humanities exactly?

Your understanding of theology is... peculiar. It sounds like you are conflating it with dogmatism.

If your claim is that religion makes people more open minded to new ideas I completely disagree with you.

Your understanding of the gods is also peculiar. Many gods are poorly characterized by what you say here. Further, discounting the value of studying something simply because it does not have a physical presence is foolish. Then again, you do seem to not value the arts or humanities. If you can't measure it's mass or it's dimensions, it is apparently not worthy of study for you. I find that much too limiting, personally.

I am sure there is much to be learned from studying invisible unicorns.

 

[Mister Silver]

Does atheism offer any benefits that believers are not privy to? If you think so or don't think so, please explain.

I believe that being an atheist allows me the benefit of having a firmer grasp on reality, free from the illogical fantasies of mythologies which rely upon zero evidence to account for religious faith.

 

[osgart]

if all people see the world only as it is, and not how it can be if, than nothing would make life any better. for this reason I hope that religion does grow and evolve from scientific evidence.

The concept of justice is crucial to society, and religion has done nothing to contribute to justice whatsoever in my opinion. Someday I hope it will. instead of condemning non believers, religion should seek out the benefit and improvement of all life.

an atheist holds no illusions about reality, and that benefits our survival.

but the day religion wakes up, and considers the worth of all people in regards to the sanctity of life, than humanity will move past oppression and into actually changing lives for the better.

religion is the study of the subjective, and matters of reasonable faith and belief. it should found itself on evidence, and I don't see that it does.

The subjective experience to me is vastly ignored by all categories of knowledge. what should people do with not just their minds, but their hearts of cares as well?; this is a religious question.

 

[PureX]

PureX..... But faith is still a guess. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" is the way my Bible puts it. No matter what or how much you believe, it can't change reality.

Of course it can, and of course it does. Faith changes us, and we are "real". And then we effect reality beyond us through our faith.

No god or goddess will show up, nor will Jesus, even after saying he would.

That doesn't really matter, and it's not what we're talking about, anyway. We're talking about faith, and belief, and how they effect us, and effect the world through us. "Jesus" is just a character in a story, representing an ideal. To "believe in Jesus" is to believe in the ideal that Jesus represents. And to believe in that ideal, changes us. It changes the way we relate to the world and to each other. Faith is believing that something we don't know to be true, is true, and then living by it. Acting accordingly. If the results of acting on this hoped for truth are good, then we know our faith was rightly placed.

You may call lack of evidence anything you want, but it's still a lack of evidence.

Lack of evidence is nothing. It tells us nothing but that we are ignorant. And pretending that it tells us something when it doesn't is intellectual dishonesty.

Faith stifles inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge.

How? There is no scientific inquiry into the existence or nature of God. We have no scientific means by which to even attempt such an inquiry. We humans explore the idea of "God" through art, and philosophy, and through the action of faith. How is this stifling anyone's pursuit of knowledge?

Why ask why, when the answer is 'god did it'?

This precludes no one from exploring how "God did it". Which is all humanity currently has the means of exploring, through science. And if you are referring to those who confuse their religious symbols and myths with reality, that's just a naive misapplication of faith. They are a stunted minority among us that have confused faith with authoritarianism. Science has it's screw-ups and charlatans, too. But that's just the failure of human nature, not of the capabilities of faith or science.

Logically of course, one would have expected an omnipotent, omniscient god to have anticipated all the absurdities of life, and simply show up and take charge. Thousands of gods throughout history and prehistory, but none show up. Now, logically doesn't that tell you something?

There is no logical reason to expect or assume any of that.

You need to clarify, in your own understanding, the difference between religion, and faith. And learn how faith really works for humanity. Because from your comments, it is clear to me that you really have no idea. You are being blinded to a very significant aspect of the human experience by your resentment against the foolishness of a few confused authoritarian religionists. And I would think that you'd want to correct this.