Is there a benefit to atheism?

[Augustus]

First of all, and this gets to the point of the thread, belief in an imaginary being, even if it gives you warm fuzzies and has a placebo effect, is damaging to the intellect and the understanding. Like drugs, you get a false feeling of well-being but you are replacing a fantasy with reality. And *that* is a harm.

Why is it a harm though?

We all construct narratives that aren't objectively true to give meaning to the world around us, it is the defining characteristic of our species. We all replace reality with some form of narrative fantasy (for example the idea that seeking 'objective truth' is a noble endeavour).

Our brains didn't evolve to favour abstract notions of 'truth' over self interest, in fact they evolved countless mechanisms to favour the latter.

Given that we are just apes with superior intelligence and an unusual propensity for violence, why should we search for 'reality' even if it reduces our sense of well-being? That sounds pretty irrational to me. What other animal do we expect to transcend their nature?

We just have a tendency to think other people's should value the same things as we do. Some get the warm fuzzies from viewing themselves as rationalists, others from other sources.

Either way, it's all based on the subjective fictions we tell ourselves.

 

[Polymath257]

Then that is one thing you are claiming atheism entails "beyond just not believing in god" (if that is the definition you use) or beyond just believing god does not exist (if that is the definition you use).

I'd dispute that it is 'beyond'. It is a natural consequence.

 

[Polymath257]

Why is it a harm though?

We all construct narratives that aren't objectively true to give meaning to the world around us, it is the defining characteristic of our species. We all replace reality with some form of narrative fantasy (for example the idea that seeking 'objective truth' is a noble endeavour).

Our brains didn't evolve to favour abstract notions of 'truth' over self interest, in fact they evolved countless mechanisms to favour the latter.

Given that we are just apes with superior intelligence and an unusual propensity for violence, why should we search for 'reality' even if it reduces our sense of well-being? That sounds pretty irrational to me. What other animal do we expect to transcend their nature?

We just have a tendency to think other people's should value the same things as we do. Some get the warm fuzzies from viewing themselves as rationalists, others from other sources.

Either way, it's all based on the subjective fictions we tell ourselves.

And if you are not interested in the search for truth, you have a point. If you are only interested in personal well-being, then go and find your path.

But let's face it. A society that ignores the truth will eventually fail. That is the nature of truth: it stays there even if you don't believe in it. And that is a big harm in engaging is pretty fantasies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there are benefits to atheism that means something follows atheism. It is just logic. If something follows athiesm atheism can no longer be just a belief that god does not exist or a lack of belief in god. I am not the one here trying to say something follows atheism, that was others making that claim.

All of the "benefits" of atheism only come from the fact that we live in a largely theistic environment, and are only a matter of not being exposed to the costs that come with being a theist.

When we talk about benefits, it's always relative to something else. In this case, it's relative to theism. It seems like you're assuming that we're measuring the benefits of atheism are relative to some other baseline, but that's not what I'm doing.

When I say that atheism has benefits, it's in the same sense that, say, not being on fire has benefits: I'm not saying anything about what the person is doing other than that they're not on fire.

 

[Augustus]

And if you are not interested in the search for truth, you have a point. If you are only interested in personal well-being, then go and find your path.

But let's face it. A society that ignores the truth will eventually fail. That is the nature of truth: it stays there even if you don't believe in it. And that is a big harm in engaging is pretty fantasies.

Well we have survived many thousands of years without putting great emphasis on it, so I'm not seeing any evidence to support your perspective.

Truth is important when you are building an aeroplane, but when constructing a worldview what do you even mean by truth?

What worldview is objectively true? They are all just narrative fictions.

 

[PureX]

Atheists don't reject the 'possibility' of God(s). They simply state that thus far they have not been presented with sufficient evidence to believe in any God(s). What atheists don't understand is how people can accept something as real without any evidence whatsoever.

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?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

What possibilities?

 

[PureX]

Do you believe in Zeus?

You should think more carefully about the point you're responding to before you respond with such foolish questions.

 

[Polymath257]

You should think more carefully about the point you're responding to before you respond with such foolish questions.

Why is belief in Zeus any more irrational than belief in Yahweh? And why are either less irrational than believing in gnomes or leprechauns?

 

[Polymath257]

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?

There is a HUGE difference between 'reasonable faith' that is backed by evidence and 'religious faith', which is not and cannot be.

I have 'faith' that my wife loves me. That 'faith' is backed by evidence. I know she exists and her actions are supporting of her claim that she loves me.

On the other hand, religious faith is not the same thing at all. it is belief *in spite of* evidence or *independent* of evidence.

Don't confuse the two.

 

[PureX]

Yes, actually, it *is* irrational to believe in an imaginary being. Period. Believing in something that doesn't exist when there is no evidence of its existence is almost the *definition* of irrationality.

We don't know that God doesn't exist. And if God does exist, we don't know what God's nature might be. So your objection in this case is irrelevant.

First of all, and this gets to the point of the thread, belief in an imaginary being, even if it gives you warm fuzzies and has a placebo effect, is damaging to the intellect and the understanding. Like drugs, you get a false feeling of well-being but you are replacing a fantasy with reality. And *that* is a harm.

Again, we don't know that it is "false". Certainly the effect is not false. Nor may be the reasoning, as we have no idea if God exists or not, or what God's nature and effect on our lives might be if God does exist. So your claims of falsity are groundless. Why, then, do you insist on holding onto these groundless assumptions, and using them to deny other people the ability to feel "warm fuzzies", as you so insultingly insist on labeling the value they gain from their faith in God?

 

[Quintessence]

Science so far has proven to be far more useful and powerful than anything theology can offer.

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.

Theology seems to work according to whatever fantastical thing people WANT to believe. Science changes according to what is discovered and evolves, opening new possibilities. Theology is stagnant and encourages complacency (Why strive to learn/explore when you already think you have all the answers?).

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

From a big picture perspective, is it rational to be wasting our time and energy on invisible supernatural entities that don't exist?

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Theology <> the arts and humanities.

 

[PureX]

What possibilities?

People use their faith in God to obtain many positive and valued results. They use it to give them hope when they cannot otherwise find it. They use it to help them conceptually coalesce and articulate an ideal "good" and to give it a 'human' (anthropomorphic) image to more easily model themselves after. They use it to establish meaning and purpose in what would otherwise appear to them to be a meaningless and purposeless existence. They use it to fulfill more personal and immediate needs like friendship when feeling alone, comfort when feeling despondent, guidance when feeling confused, strength when feeling weak, and so on. They use their faith in and understanding of "God" to find and manifest the best within themselves.

 

[Quintessence]

Theology <> the arts and humanities.

The study of religions is part of the arts and humanities at any American institution you could look at, and theology is a facet of studying world religions. It may overlap somewhat with the social sciences as well (esp. anthropology). How are you classifying it? I mean, the only thing left is to call it a natural science, and I doubt you'd agree with that.

 

[PureX]

There is a HUGE difference between 'reasonable faith' that is backed by evidence and 'religious faith', which is not and cannot be.

Yes, and that difference is called "personal bias". Because it's you who is deciding what's "reasonable" and what isn't. And it's you who is deciding what's "evidence" and what isn't. And it's you who is deciding when either of these reaches the level of "belief", for you.

And because this is all about you, and your personal choices, you really don't have anything to say about what other people choose to believe, and why.

I have 'faith' that my wife loves me. That 'faith' is backed by evidence. I know she exists and her actions are supporting of her claim that she loves me.

On the other hand, religious faith is not the same thing at all. it is belief *in spite of* evidence or *independent* of evidence.

Don't confuse the two.

You don't have faith in your wife, you have faith in the evidence that you attribute to her. When you trust in and believe in her without any evidence, then you will have "faith" in her. It's you who is confused, here, about what faith is. And about how it works for us, and under what conditions.

 

[Altfish]

You should think more carefully about the point you're responding to before you respond with such foolish questions.

What is foolish about the question?

You were saying there is evidence for the god you believe in. Or, to be clear, there is no proof she doesn't exist?!?
Hence, I was wondering about your thoughts on the god Zeus; as there is no evidence that he doesn't exist.

 

[Polymath257]

We don't know that God doesn't exist. And if God does exist, we don't know what God's nature might be. So you objection in this case is irrelevant.

I didn't say we do know of the non-existence. I said we have no evidence of the existence. And that is enough to warrant a skeptical attitude. That the evidence is impossible, even in thoery, is enough to say the existence is irrational to believe.

Again, we don't know that it is "false". Certainly the effect is not false. Nor may be the reasoning, as we have no idea if God exists or not, or what God's nature and effect on our lives might be if God does exist. So your claims of falsity are groundless. So, why do you insist on holding onto these groundless assumptions, and using them to deny other people the ability to feel "warm fuzzies", as you so insultingly insist on labeling the value they gain from their faith in God?

You said that the effect is that of a placebo. Yes, a valid effect, but one of the deluded. Again, if you want to give up truth, go for placebos.

 

[PureX]

I didn't say we do know of the non-existence. I said we have no evidence of the existence. And that is enough to warrant a skeptical attitude. That the evidence is impossible, even in thoery, is enough to say the existence is irrational to believe.

You said that the effect is that of a placebo. Yes, a valid effect, but one of the deluded. Again, if you want to give up truth, go for placebos.

I understand that you believe this nonsense, and that you are blind to the bias that fuels it. But in all honesty, it's yours to deal with, not mine. If you don't want to understand my point, then don't. I'm not here to convince you of anything.

I agree that skepticism is warranted. But not to the point of dysfunction. Which is the point to which you're taking it, and then trying to defend it.

 

[Curious George]

I'd dispute that it is 'beyond'. It is a natural consequence.

Lol. That would be semantics, but I am ok with that. The idea being that Atheism entails more than just a lack of belief or just one single belief.