Isn't it better to be atheists?

[Estro Felino]

To answer the question in the title, it is better for me to be an atheist, but not necessarily for others to be atheists.

It's a question I am asking to myself too. I want to analyze the concept of religion with you guys, also analyzing the significance I give. It's for both atheists, and theists.

What makes you imagine “being atheist” and “exploring religions randomly” are any kind of opposites or alternatives? Atheist isn’t the opposite of religious, it’s the opposite of theist. There are non-religious theists, religious atheist and I believe plenty of religious and non-religious agnostics (even if they don’t realise or admit it themselves).

What a person believes is just that. What they do about it is entirely open to them and is the much more significant element, both for themselves and others around them.

I think I have been misunderstood. I'm asking myself and the others: does a religion answer all our questions? I think it never can. Our questions can be infinite...so, only by a personal interpretation and understanding of reality we can try to (or actually) get all the answers.
Also...it's ecumenism which multiplies the chances to have our questions answered. That is...if we exchange religious principles to enrich our knowledge mutually.

I think @bobhikes and @joe1776 did get more or less what I meant. That religions might (not always) preclude us to analyze things objectively. You can be disappointed by relying on religions only.

Just in case: I am sorry if the term "cultural product" bothered some theists/religious people...I am a theist myself. Besides, by atheist I meant the broader notion of people who don't identify with any religion.

 

[Augustus]

Aren't 12% of statistics pulled out of people's...

Think it's 92% actually..

 

[Srivijaya]

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

Some are drawn to seek; I always was and I don't know why. Most people I know throughout my life have no interest in any religion whatsoever. I don't know why I have always felt a quest for the 'truth' to be crucial to my existence. I can't explain that.

 

[Curious George]

Think it's 92% actually..

What can I say, I am gullible.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hinduism and Buddhism has given me many answers I sought in it.

You will always find what you want to find.

"If you meet the Buddha on the path kill him!"

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

"When a man gets down on his knees to pray,
You know he'll find what he is able.
But chances are he'll find it either way...."

 

[bobhikes]

Aren't 12% of statistics pulled out of people's...

My point was that categorization is useful, necessary and natural. There really isn't much reason to attack it. Or if there is, then there is just as much, if not more, reason to attack the abandoning of it.

To categorize something you are putting a label on it to associate it with things with similar features for reference of knowledge. This is not the same as labeling yourself as in I am a part of the living things group. By labeling yourself you are associating yourself with others and excluding others. Even though we categorize dogs by breeds Dogs themselves do not label themselves by breeds.

Yes categorization is useful to a point but when we use it as identity it is just as bad as labeling yourself (for example categorizing humans by race).

 

[Curious George]

To categorize something you are putting a label on it to associate it with things with similar features for reference of knowledge. This is not the same as labeling yourself as in I am a part of the living things group. By labeling yourself you are associating yourself with others and excluding others. Even though we categorize dogs by breeds Dogs themselves do not label themselves by breeds.

Yes categorization is useful to a point but when we use it as identity it is just as bad as labeling yourself (for example categorizing humans by race).

Sounds like you are conflating good categorization with poor categorization.

 

[Kapalika]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

I used to be an atheist and I gotta say based on that experience that atheism in the sense you mean it, no. It's one thing to personally not believe in a god or gods. It's another to be arrogant about it and close minded, which I notice always comes with the idea that religion is useless.

People seem to forget this but someone can be an atheist but religious, in fact a number of religions are atheistic but still otherwise are like other religions. Atheism doesn't mean anti-religion and yet people use it to mean that as well as not believing in any kind of god.

I think part of the problem is the imprecise nature of the word god, but that's a whole other topic.

 

[Mindmaster]

Aside from what people think, there are simply no gods otherwise. None.

Atheism is a perfectly natural disposition and definitely better in terms of keeping grounded in reality.

I'd agree, if you are presenting "God" as a person. However, seeing "God" as the conscious energy that created the entire framework of living and the universe is pretty self-evident. For example, there would be no reason for various clumps of matter to mold themselves into the various forms that we call things or become higher lifeforms. That's probably why I like Advaita in that you are God as much as the rest of the creation and find it a more novel idea than some over-arching father figure whom would be angry with us, and places the responsibility on ourselves to act in a divine manner for good reason - because we are. Essentially, universal consciousness and God are the same things to me, and we're a part of that whether we are aware of it or not.

Certainly, that doesn't require worship just experience and introspection to figure out. Of course, it's also important to understand that the cultivation of detachment isn't a rejection of reality from an Advaita perspective - it's simply a methodology to reduce ones ego to the point where they can be receptive to the truth of the thing. From that perspective, there is only Brahman (the universal consciousness), Atman (The immortal real you, synonymous with Brahman but a part you can realize directly), and outwardly or empirically evident Ishvara.(also, part of both)) Mostly, which of these terms is used it to the understanding of the person it is being explained to - that there is no duality, in actually... No one is asking you to believe anything, however!

I find it amusing when people toss the word reality somewhat in that science is already to the point where various fundamental particles are invisible to them - they are smaller than the photons which could illuminate them. In essence, they don't exist in the typical way and behave more like wavelengths of energy. It's not much of a stretch to think that this 'energy' is actually synonymous with what god actually is.

 

[Sunstone]

So I think it's better to be atheists...

To me, there's not much difference between a staunch atheist and a staunch theist. Both are far more certain of their opinions than I myself think is warranted.

 

[Mindmaster]

I think part of the problem is the imprecise nature of the word god, but that's a whole other topic.

The problem is western atheists presume the God is some pissed off sky father rather than some inconceivable nebulous no-thing. (That's to say, whatever it is, it is beyond this reality in scale and our fragile minds to comprehend directly.)

They're mad at the sky daddy, not the real one so I'll forgive them.

 

[bobhikes]

Sounds like you are conflating good categorization with poor categorization.

Well your conflating self labeling with categorization so we're even

 

[Mindmaster]

To me, there's not much difference between a staunch atheist and a staunch theist. Both are far more certain of their opinions than I myself think is warranted.

You're basically ready to be wrong when you stop being open to possibilities. It's better to speak in terms of what you understand, rather than immutable certainties.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think I have been misunderstood. I'm asking myself and the others: does a religion answer all our questions? I think it never can. Our questions can be infinite...so, only by a personal interpretation and understanding of reality we can try to (or actually) get all the answers.

Of course. No one thing can answer all our questions and nothing (yet) can answer many of them. The only real difference with religion is that many of them purport to have answers to everything (even if some answers are “That’s not for you to know”, “You’ll find out later” or “You just need to believe a little harder”).

It’s only natural really. A consequence of our highly developed intelligence and imagination is an exaggerated fear of the unknown. We come up with a number of workarounds to that problem, including convincing ourselves we understand more than we do or imagining some powerful benevolent being above and beyond all the scary darkness.

Besides, by atheist I meant the broader notion of people who don't identify with any religion.

That was the main problem. I do wish people would stop misusing that word. It’s the cause of so much unnecessary confusion and argument.

 

[Srivijaya]

"If you meet the Buddha on the path kill him!"

True. The path is strewn with those I've killed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You can’t throw a hymn book squirting out "distrustful of the church". Jesus is personally taking an axe to them. Lord Jesus hews it to the ground, directed towards your life purpose. Churches proceed with nothing more. The Holy Ghost is TIME. A Church brings only doctrine, second Temple, external magic, astonishing powers, the evil it settles... settles evil in the environment, vassals of its doctrine. On that axis alone the fate of religions is decided.

@William Milverton - just for the fun of it, I carved out all of the phrases you set in bold from your post into the quote above - with a few choice punctuation marks thrown in to attempt to add a little coherence. I didn't want to quote it to you directly, since it is all, admittedly, taken out of context.

I briefly contemplated that your post was terribly off topic after about the third or fourth paragraph. But then I stopped and thought of how much more glad I am to be an atheist because it would be a terrible set of circumstances (for me) indeed, if I were to unabashedly write/speak as if I knew so much more than I could possibly know... in the way that you do. So then I was made keenly aware that, in a very clever way, your post ends up being entirely about why it is better to be an atheist. You, my good sir, are a crafty one.

 

[Ponder This]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

Hmm, I think you've failed to sell it to me:

Better to be atheist because it's 'on the rise'?
Better to be atheist than explore what religions have to offer?
Changing religion vilifies people's spirituality?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

Ah, but most atheists I know changed from religion--and some change back again.

 

[Phantasman]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding th e world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

I have a hard time understanding the drive associated with atheist thought. Whether someone believes in God or not is a choice. But what drives things like character?

We teach children about Santa Claus, and to be good so they can get presents at Christmas. Even though the fat man is a lie, it works as a tool for driving character until they are able to make more decisions based on a reality they can clearly see. It works as long as you believe it.

Many see religion as the same thing. Thinking it is a tool to drive character in individuals. Maybe, maybe not. But the "hope" of what is offered in Christianity doesn't dissipate over time, but for many it grows. Unlike the Santa lie. It creates a character of how one interacts with others. Don't lie, cheat, steal, etc. but the defining factor is to love others as you love yourself. In religion, it's not that you can hide from others (law, friends) to harm others, as it is something you carry with you. God see's everywhere, so to speak.

So, if a person doesn't believe in God, what drives them, say, to feel guilt? Do they not have guilt if they steal? Do they just fear the laws of men? Could they steal something, and think that there are no repercussions unless they are caught? What method do they follow to build their character? Is it just the golden rule?

I understand that religion has gotten a bad name, which is why I follow no religion. I built my character on much study of many many religions as well as the physical realities the world has to offer. In this respect, I have grown through the knowledge obtained.

I can see how mens religions has made the world a place of chaos. But I can honestly say that the spiritual studies I have accomplished has made my life many times better than before I set out on that journey.

So my question is, what drives the atheist? Do they just believe that they are conscious for some 85 years and then everythings over? Is there the possibility of nothing more? No hope? Just live and die? Take everything this world has to offer for self? If everyone becomes an atheist, what does one think the world would look like? Not answering to anyone but themselves, their own wants and needs.

Sounds creepy to me.