Right and Wrong Reasons for being (A)theist

[Nous]

This is an interesting thread.

Not to be cantankerous, but I think that there are no good reasons to identify oneself as the personification of a metaphysical thesis. Likewise, I think there are no good reason to identify oneself as the personification of a partisan doctrine.

I think there are lots of good reasons to conclude that such theses or doctrines are true or false, or probably or possibly true or false--that way, one is free to conclude to that there are aspects of a thesis or doctrine that are true or false or right or wrong, or are both true and false or both right and wrong at the same time, about lots of metaphysical theses and other sorts of doctrines or views. But to identify one's very self as the personification of such theses, doctrines, views, positions, etc., seems to me to trap oneself in a little bubble; it limits one's avenues to explore and be creative about these ideas. Refuse to assert that “I am a(n) [X],” and new dimensions open up before your eyes.

 

[HonestJoe]

Please feel free to dive into this! I don't find the simplistic binary particularly useful either, so what are some of your thoughts moving beyond that? How would good reasons for accepting, say, polytheism look different from good reasons for accepting autotheism? Or would they be different?

I think you miss my point. Nobody becomes a theist and then picks a god to believe in. We each reach our own conclusions about the world and universe around us by various means, conclusions which may or may not include the possible existence of deities. That there happens to be all sorts of shorthand terms relating to that aspect isn't really that significant to the bigger picture (and half the time just adds more confusion).

 

[Quetzal]

Fair enough so long as your "personal belief system" does not lead you to unjustly harming others, or is represented by you as good reason for others to believe as you do. But once you cross either of those lines, then you'd best have reasons for your beliefs that others might find compelling -- and others do have a right to challenge your beliefs if and when you cross those lines. As my first wife used to all too often say to me, "There's a huge difference between, 'I believe I'm a good lover', and 'You should believe I am a good lover, too'."

Yep! Thank you for the clarification, I agree.

 

[Quintessence]

Not to be cantankerous, but I think that there are no good reasons to identify oneself as the personification of a metaphysical thesis. Likewise, I think there are no good reason to identify oneself as the personification of a partisan doctrine.

Haha... it is a little bit weird when you think about it, but it's also fairly routine. Someone who identifies with the philosophy of Stoicism identifies as a "Stoic" for example, and folks who accept biological evolution sometimes get labeled as "evolutionists." I think this way of identifying ourselves with ideas and philosophies is just built into our language.

 

[Devaki]

Well I was an atheist for a while in my teens for "the wrong reasons".
I had been bullied rather severely for my religion, among other things and thus decided that if I only stopped believing in it and practising it, I would be popular/accepted.
So I figured the two mainstream options where I live were Christianity or atheism.
So I tried the former and it just didn't work at all, so I went with the latter.
I read up on atheism and science and philosophy A LOT and I could win pretty much any argument with a theist.
I was ... what one might call an "angry atheist".
But the thing was that I was never actually an atheist, I was just a self-denying insecure kid.

So that is probably at least one wrong reason to be an atheist...or anything for that matter.
In order to try and fit in with whatever the majority in one's peer-group is doing.
The only "right" reason imho is...because you actually believe in it
And/or it provides you with a sense of peace, happiness, well-being or whatever else.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you believe there are right and wrong reasons for being an atheist or a theist? If so, what are those reasons? Do those reasons apply just to you, or do you believe they apply to all humans?

There are right and wrong reasons to take almost any position (even a position like pure agnosticism) but mostly it shouldnt be reactionary. Disliking Catholic sex abuse cover ups (to take an example) has nothing to do with atheism or non-belief.

I'd go a lot further than that for me personally (hence I'm here, and read a lot on religions), but for humanity as a whole that would be my main thought.

It strikes me that @Devaki has already summarised that much more eloquently in the post immediately preceding this one.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes, but it largely gets into my belief that atheism is the belief that no god exists.

Setting that aside:

I think reasons also exist for the "lack of belief" definition-- specifically, sincerity in that lack of belief. I find many people claim atheism because they are mad at the god or gods in which they did and arguably still do believe. Such is a wrong reason to classify oneself as an atheist.

If they still do believe in their deity, they are not atheists.......just sayin'

 

[Milton Platt]

I think untruthful ideas are bad reason for anything. And most atheistic reasons seem to be untruthful. It is ok to me, if people don’t believe, but if they explain it with false arguments, I think that is not good.

So list the top three "atheistic reasons". I'm an atheist and I have never heard one......

 

[Milton Platt]

Do you believe there are right and wrong reasons for being an atheist or a theist? If so, what are those reasons? Do those reasons apply just to you, or do you believe they apply to all humans?

The right reason is looking at the evidence theists put forth to support their proposition. If the evidence supports the conclusion, then you should not be an atheist. If it lacks the ability to objectively demonstrate a god exists, then atheism is the logical choice. I have not heard an argument for a god that has legs, and theists have been trying for thousands of years.

Being an atheist for any other reason is not acceptable. Blindly disbelieving is not really any better than blindly believing.

 

[sayak83]

Can you unpack why you feel emotional bias, selfishness, or personal gain are bad reasons? Is it because those conflict with your sense of ethics? Are there ways in which these things are benign or good?

I think the emotional bias one in particular confuses me. I do not know any human that lacks biases, particularly of the emotional sort. It seems it would be impossible to avoid this?



Remember, religion =/= theism and irreligion =/= atheism. I don't agree regardless, but if we could try to keep the topic to theism and atheism specifically, that would be awesome.



This was inspired by a comment made in another thread. I felt the topic was worth exploring and didn't want to derail that thread with it. It was remarked that there was a particular right reason for being an atheist. I found that idea strange, and wanted to discuss it a bit more and see if others felt there were right or wrong reasons for being an atheist or a theist. When we think about that question, it reflects something of our personal values, I think.

For example, I'm not sure I'd name any reasons as right or wrong; probably because one of my values is pluralism and I don't expect one-size-fits-all approaches or reasons for anything or anyone.

The characteristics I mention are not conducive to properly assess pro and con evidence for a worldview. Emotional attachment may also cause one to cling on to delusive views that are causing harm. If ones worldview is simply based on what gives him influence in the world, then its not based on truth and can't be called a worldview.

 

[1213]

So list the top three "atheistic reasons". I'm an atheist and I have never heard one......

Are you seriously telling you have no reason to be an atheist?

Common reasons:
1. “Bible is contradictory”, that claim is totally baseless and wrong, based on twisting the truth.
2. God doesn’t act as atheists expect.
3. Existence of evil.

 

[1213]

Please present some of these untruthful reasons.

Read what atheist write.

 

[syo]

the right reason to be a theist is to listen to the calling of god. if someone doesn't accept the calling, then they should be atheists.

 

[JustWondering]

Read what atheist write.

No, you made the claim that atheists have untruthful reasons for their beliefs, now back it up. I get tired of theists wandering into the DEBATE forum only to cite their OPINION on something and then act surprised when asked to back it up, in the DEBATE forum. This isn't the opinion forums, this is the DEBATE forums. If you are not here to have a honest DEBATE, go away.

 

[Phantasman]

Good question. It depends on who it is. I do value the opinion of loved ones and friends. They are important to me and they offer a critical look at my actions when I might miss it myself.


I see this as a very healthy relationship with the divine. I am happy to see you take this path in lieu of others.


I think this is perfectly reasonable. I have heard this thought echoed by other believers that I respect.

What I disagree with are Christians attacking atheism as well as atheists attacking Christians.

A true Christ follower shows his/her love by their actions of patience and understanding (grace). It is not their job to "make" someone believe, or to delve out punishments or teachings of punishments.

God knows the hearts of all man, IMO. We cannot judge even atheists who doesn't believe in a divine. That would be shoving them away. Many just do not see the orthodox church, as I don't either. Then we have a commonality. Sometimes it could take many years to see or never at all. That's not a Christians job.

I have many atheist friends. I respect them. Orthodoxy creates a division even between Christians. How much better would they separate non Christians?

People think I attack catholic or Jewish ideology. I merely show through 1st century scriptures why I don't follow it.

Since I don't see it or follow it doesn't mean I hate it. That alone sounds like what atheists say as well. They don't see or follow it.

But Christ is still the centerpiece of my heart.

Matthew:
A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.

29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.

30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Sometimes "afterward" may never come. I see the atheist like the first son. He was honest (where the second wasn't), yet in time he changed. The second just flat out lied. I'm not trying to define or change anyones mind. I'm just saying that I believe God operates above my understanding, and I leave it to him if he desires to show someone or not. I don't want anyone to be like me. I want them to be better than me.

I hope this makes sense, as I'm trying to be sincere in my post.

 

[Milton Platt]

Are you seriously telling you have no reason to be an atheist?

Common reasons:
1. “Bible is contradictory”, that claim is totally baseless and wrong, based on twisting the truth.
2. God doesn’t act as atheists expect.
3. Existence of evil.

No, I have reasons.
But you were asking for atheistic reasons and I was asking the difference between atheistic reasons and simply reasons. I saw no reason to characterize the word reason.
But in any case I am not an atheist for any of those reasons.

The first reason and third reason you listed are used primarily as arguments against a specific version of a specific god, usually an Abrahamic version, but not all gods. So using them does not necessarily make one an atheist, except towards the specific god in question. A god that was presented that was not based on the Jewish god would not depend upon Bible verses. It bears remembering that you are atheistic in regard to all the other gods except your particular version, unless you are perhaps polytheistic.
I think there are contradictions in the stories singled out to be included in the Bible, but that is not the reason I am an atheist and I never argue that point. If you have no reason to believe the god exists in the first place, the Bible is irrelevant to you. I have been on occasion drawn into such conversations, but it was because the theist wished to go there.

I have never heard an atheist use the second reason, but I grant I have not met every atheist on the planet, only a few thousand. And I grant there are people who make bad arguments. An atheist would not have any expectations about how something they do not believe exists should behave. That would be nonsensical. Once a person is provided sufficient evidence to warrant belief, then it is time to consider what the expectations should be. But then the person is no longer an atheist.

Most often, it is simply enough to point out that the god in question does not behave in the manner the theist himself expects, or does not behave in accordance to how the god was described by the theist, or in the manner that his holy book indicates it should. Good examples are prayer and miracles.

In the end, for myself, I need only one reason to be an atheist. A lack of sufficient evidence to support the claim.

Theists have been trying to come up with sound evidence for various gods for several thousand years and are still presenting the same old arguments that have been shown to be faulty time an again and then falling back once more on faith and/or personal experience.

 

[Quetzal]

I hope this makes sense, as I'm trying to be sincere in my post.

Your sincerity is well received here. Thank you for a very thoughtful and inspiring post.

 

[1213]

….If you have no reason to believe the god exists in the first place, the Bible is irrelevant to you. …

That is interesting argument. Does that work in all aspects of life? For example, there is no reason to believe species evolved as the theory of evolution suggests, so the books about it are irrelevant?

 

[1213]

No, you made the claim that atheists have untruthful reasons for their beliefs, ....

Untruthful is for example the claim that Bible is contradictory. And many atheists seem to base their atheism to that false argument.

 

[JustWondering]

Untruthful is for example the claim that Bible is contradictory. And many atheists seem to base their atheism to that false argument.

You obviously have access to the internet and if you are a Christian you also likely have a bible. Using both it is easy to find verses that don't match up. That should cast doubt on how reliable the bible is, if you're honest. Even if the bible authors were careful not contradict each other, there are failed prophecies and claims that don't mesh with reality in it. I lost my faith AFTER reading and researching what is in the bible.

101 Contradictions in the Bible.
Bible Inconsistencies - Bible Contradictions
An Incredible Interactive Chart of Biblical Contradictions