Search for Truth: Atheism

[Dan4reason]

In a string of threads I want to analyse different religions, and non-religions to see which ones hold some grain of truth. There is often a variety of beliefs in each belief group so believers can even debate among each other.

The topic here is atheism and whether it holds some truth. I will be doing some research to see the diversity of beliefs among atheists and the arguments for and against it.

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own. Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time.

Of course that is not to say that many major atheists talk about and defend science and it is important to address religious claims. I just think atheists need more balance between positive belief and negative disbelief.

 

[Riverwolf]

I definitely think that it may be better for atheists to search for the truth on their own, and not attack religion directly. At the same time, you guys should have every right to defend your positions from preachers.

Though I'm a theist, I do admit that there is no evidence for God, and therefore do think that atheism is a logical view to hold.

After all, in an unbiased search for truth, before you test something, you start with the default position that it's false. That will remove any bias from favoritism.

But, frankly, I just like being a theist. ^_^

 

[jelly]

atheism could be: if everything is on the up and up, hands down god does not exist...
atheism could be: a lack of belief.

 

[proffesb]

I agree that many atheists come off as attacking religion, I would say it's a lower percentage than of the religious attacking atheism. Perhaps the reason the percentage seems so high is most atheist don't care enough to discuss it or feel that their views are socially unacceptable. The ones that are vocal about their beliefs and attack religion feel that religion is infringing on their rights or the rights of others.



Riverwolf thanks for being accepting towards a belief that is different than yours. I personnaly think all the different religions/philosophies of the world are looking at the same thing in a different way.

for me atheism is a lack of belief

 

[LuisDantas]

I beg to differ from the OP as well. Ultimately, the attacks of some misguided religious people on Atheism is a far greater problem than the reverse.

 

[Oneatatime]

Any questioning of religion is typically perceived by the religious as being an attack against religion presumably because religion has no empirical basis on which to defend itself and so their views are particually vulnerable to critical analysis. Ultimately if the religious wish to discuss their views in a public forum or influence society with their views then they have to be willing to have them subject to criticism and accept such criticism in a mature manner.

I accept that there are atheist out there who are in dire need of a lesson in manners because I don't accept that its neccessary to be abusive when discussing someone elses views even if you consider them to be silly.

No doubt everyone has their own definition of atheism but I don't see it as a search for truth. Its just a plain and simple lack of belief in God and all that follows from such belief.

 

[Wombat]

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own. Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time. .

I agree and would suggest a couple of other vital/central “problems” that will not be resolved by “attacking” or “explaining things with science and reason”.

There is a widespread tendency for atheists to believe and present “science and reason” as the foil to the superstition of religion. Problem is that millions if not billions care not a jot for the “science and reason” that contradicts their beliefs (wether those beliefs be reasoned, wobbly or barking mad). Vast numbers of theists are in their faith because it provides >community< and a sense of purpose, meaning and belonging. We >are< herd animals and no matter how persuasive your “science and reason” if you cannot provide community and surrogate family for the millions who find it in faith communities...the odds of drawing people out and away, >without an alternative<, are not good.

Atheists don’t tend to cluster together in community celebrating their non belief in God....Nor do they tend (motivated by ‘creed’ or ‘proselytising’) to establish Non Government Agencies, Social Services and/or Charitable Institutions that serve the broader community and further strengthen bonds of purpose in local faith communities.

I’m not saying atheists don’t do charity/good works... I’m saying I doubt you will find a secular/atheist/non Govt equivalent of something like the Salvation Army (in >size<, >reach<, >diversity< of programs and >grass roots< community links).

Yes there are some big, important and worthy secular NGO’s...but when it comes to the provision and facilitation of grass roots community the faiths have it all over the atheists and I can’t see “explaining things with science and reason” changing that.

 

[proffesb]

isn't the red cross secular?

 

[bobhikes]

The topic here is atheism and whether it holds some truth. I will be doing some research to see the diversity of beliefs among atheists and the arguments for and against it.

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own. Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time.

Of course that is not to say that many major atheists talk about and defend science and it is important to address religious claims. I just think atheists need more balance between positive belief and negative disbelief.

First you are correct there is a great diversity of atheists, but then you generalize. I actually spend more time challenging atheists then religion and sometimes I am found defending religion.

I also see no need to explain science and reason as I do not see a major need for it in the life of most people.

I challenge people to insure they are thinking for themselves as long as they think for themselves they can make a valid opinion.

Finally, truths for me can only have value to the individual.

That being said athiesm holds many valuable truths for me and gives my life meaning and purpose that I never got from religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Since I'm the only registered atheistologian, I'll answer your questions.

In a string of threads I want to analyse different religions, and non-religions to see which ones hold some grain of truth. There is often a variety of beliefs in each belief group so believers can even debate among each other.
The topic here is atheism and whether it holds some truth.

No....atheism has no absolute truth.
Individual atheists might believe some things, but we can't prove nuthin true.

I will be doing some research to see the diversity of beliefs among atheists and the arguments for and against it.

There's no convincing argument for atheism.
But there's even less argument or evidence for gods.
So we make a judgment call...a speculation....there are no gods.

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own. Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time.

You're criticizing people's actions....not atheism itself. Do we have some bullies & louts among us?
Sure. But so does every religion. Tis the human condition.

Of course that is not to say that many major atheists talk about and defend science and it is important to address religious claims. I just think atheists need more balance between positive belief and negative disbelief.

Science is neat stuff & it debunks religion. But it isn't necessary for atheism.

 

[Wombat]

isn't the red cross secular?

From #7

"I’m not saying atheists don’t do charity/good works... I’m saying I doubt you will find a secular/atheist/non Govt equivalent of something like the Salvation Army (in >size<, >reach<, >diversity< of programs and >grass roots< community links).

Yes there are some big, important and worthy secular NGO’s......"

 

[proffesb]

isn't the red cross secular?

Actually the red cross is a hard one to classify, there is not one red cross but they are secular. Was formed by Henry Dunant who was a clavanist who turned nonreligious later in life.The individual red crosses must be recognized by the home countries government as a relief society quick synopsis from wikipedia

 

[lunakilo]

There is a widespread tendency for atheists to believe and present &#8220;science and reason&#8221; as the foil to the superstition of religion. Problem is that millions if not billions care not a jot for the &#8220;science and reason&#8221; that contradicts their beliefs (wether those beliefs be reasoned, wobbly or barking mad). Vast numbers of theists are in their faith because it provides >community< and a sense of purpose, meaning and belonging. We >are< herd animals and no matter how persuasive your &#8220;science and reason&#8221; if you cannot provide community and surrogate family for the millions who find it in faith communities...the odds of drawing people out and away, >without an alternative<, are not good.

Probably true, but then again converting people or 'drawing people out' as you say probably doesn't matter to most atheists.

In my opinion people can believe what they want as long as they dont hurt other people or expect me to agree with them.

Also if people, atheists or not, say something that I disagree with I am not going to pretend that I agree.
If people post their opinion on a forum like this and I disagree with it I wil most likely tell them so. That may come across as hostile to some people, but really it is my way of trying to learn about them and their way of thinking.

And I really have learned a lot about religion and how other people see the world by asking critical questions here

 

[proffesb]

From #7

"I’m not saying atheists don’t do charity/good works... I’m saying I doubt you will find a secular/atheist/non Govt equivalent of something like the Salvation Army (in >size<, >reach<, >diversity< of programs and >grass roots< community links).

Yes there are some big, important and worthy secular NGO’s......"

Yeah the Salvation army is crazy big, they do a lot of good as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes there are some big, important and worthy secular NGO’s...but when it comes to the provision and facilitation of grass roots community the faiths have it all over the atheists and I can’t see “explaining things with science and reason” changing that.

Well, I can, and I will say that it is both necessary and already happening. Historically, it is largely because of the influence of science and reason that the current form of religious assistance organizations are so much less questionable than their predecessors.

And it is not like there is any clear advantage of religious organizations either. Religious organizations are liable to restrictions and political agendas that they may not even want. Mother Teresa's is a particularly sobering study case.

Missionaries of Charity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The fact is that assistance organizations do vary a lot in sincerity, efficiency and effectiveness and should be chosen with a lot of attention. I'm not aware of any particular advantage of religious organizations, although they are probably more prevalent in number and perhaps more motivated in general. That may not be a good thing at the bottom line, however.

 

[Oneatatime]

LuisDantas is correct when he says that aid from religious charities often comes with conditions or discriminates against specific groups. I remember during the floods in Pakistan it was reported that Muslim charities refusing to give aid and shelter to non-Muslims and instead told them to wait for other help to arrive.

 

[Wombat]

I'm not aware of any particular advantage of religious organizations....

#7 Was attempting to point out the "advantage of religious organizations"- community, surrogate family, belonging.

If you work or are involved in the Welfare Sector (or have a freind/family member in need) and your looking for grass roots support, not just social services, but ongoing connection, engagement and sense of community/belonging...it's the communities of faith that are more often providing it. For recovering
alcoholics and drug addicts, psych disabled, intellectually disabled, aged, street kids,poor, homeless....

Get out and about among the dispossessed and street dwellers in any major Western city and there you will find the faith communities offering not just soup and blankets...but community, belonging and (like it or not/believe it or not) a >potent story< of hope.

It is, in and of itself, a kind of Narrative Therapy...and the narrative does not need to be true (based on science and reason) to be effective or facilitate change.

The communities of faith have the advantage of being communities.
The communities of faith have the advantage of a potent positive narrative (wether that narrative is true or false).

 

[HonestJoe]

The topic here is atheism and whether it holds some truth.

I'm not sure it can hold some truth. Atheism is a simple binary statement that essentially can only be entirely true or entirely false (not withstanding issues defining things like "gods" and "existence")

I will be doing some research to see the diversity of beliefs among atheists and the arguments for and against it.

I think you (like pretty much everyone else) are approaching it in the wrong way then. I don't believe that there is any "among" with atheists. It doesn't describe a real group of people in any way what so ever. Atheism describes a particular statement which can be arrived at in countless different ways by countless different people. They don't necessarily have anything else at all in common.

The key thing is to recognise that atheism isn't the opposite of religion, it's the opposite of theism. You can make no more generic statements about all (or even most) atheists than you can about all (or most) theists.

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own. Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time.

What are you basing this accusation on (there is more to the world than the internet and a handful of publicity whores you know )? I think you'll find lots of atheists explain things with science and reason - you just don't identify them with atheism when they do that.

I just think atheists need more balance between positive belief and negative disbelief.

Why, at least why specifically atheists more than people in general?

 

[outhouse]

I beg to differ from the OP as well. Ultimately, the attacks of some misguided religious people on Atheism is a far greater problem than the reverse.

exactly

religious belief is buried in society like a tick on a hound dog.

we are stuck with positive and the negitive associated with it whether one has a lack of belief or not

 

[waitasec]

From #7

"I’m not saying atheists don’t do charity/good works... I’m saying I doubt you will find a secular/atheist/non Govt equivalent of something like the Salvation Army (in >size<, >reach<, >diversity< of programs and >grass roots< community links).

Yes there are some big, important and worthy secular NGO’s......"

well isn't that because there are more religious people than not?