Search for Truth: Atheism

[waitasec]

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.

and religious charities usually have an ulterior motive...

 

[Caladan]

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.

Atheism is the release from lofty claims of truth. atheism is and always should be the result of peeling off the layers of misconception, or misunderstanding as it were.
Through science. one needs to examine a subject of study. and peel it. layer by layer. sometimes through years. what you are left with. is by no means a truth. it is by any standards a physical quality.
a geological substance. an organic substance. a gas molecule. or gravitational effects and electrical charges.

Religion. on the other hand. is bringing the moral fibber of men closer, one step at a time. to the understandings of modern science.

The two religions. which I would keep my attention on at all times are Islam and Judaism, I would observe their current events, and of those of the people who practice them. these are the two religions, which are always at the centre of events around the world, and current affairs.

 

[Wombat]

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

Ever considered the possibility that "there are more religious people" because it's rare to find a secular/atheist/non Govt equivalent of something like the Salvation Army?

Maybe if non believers/atheists had a narrative to build on and around they could/would instigate the kind of community that undertakes the (narrative fulfilment) role of something like the Salvation Army.

But "Let's all gather round and disbelieve in God together" has not demonstrated itself to be a sucessful community or charity building Mission Statement.

As an underlining curiosity...Secular Communes of various Political, Philosophical and Environmental foundation have been around since the French Revolution.

Can you find example of >any single one< that survived (say 20-30years?) beyond the death of the inevitably charismatic founder? There have been thousands of such attempts, well resoursed and with the best of intentions...but I know of none that survived.

The worlds Major Living Faith traditions however have produced innumerable communes and communities that have endured for hundreds of years.

Why is that?

 

[waitasec]

Ever considered the possibility that "there are more religious people" because it's rare to find a secular/atheist/non Govt equivalent of something like the Salvation Army?

but you over simplify
don't you think atheists contribute to those organization too

Maybe if non believers/atheists had a narrative to build on and around they could/would instigate the kind of community that undertakes the (narrative fulfilment) role of something like the Salvation Army.

well something much larger got started with such a narrative
the age of enlightenment...

Can you find example of >any single one< that survived (say 20-30years?) beyond the death of the inevitably charismatic founder? There have been thousands of such attempts, well resoursed and with the best of intentions...but I know of none that survived.

american red cross
international relief teams
ameri-cares
doctors without borders
partners in health
direct relief international
save the children...

The worlds Major Living Faith traditions however have produced innumerable communes and communities that have endured for hundreds of years.

Why is that?

the intent is to gain converts...

 

[Dan4reason]

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).

Of course many ignorant people choose to disbelieve the science that challenges their beliefs but many religious do care about these things and that is who atheists reach out to. I myself was a theist who cared about science and reason and I became convinced.

Science and reason are important to atheism because many atheists really care about if something is true. They are not satisfied with feeling comfortable and being part of a community as a reason for saying that something is true. Statistics show that a smarter a person is, the more likely he is to be an atheist. This is one reason atheism is becoming popular. It is rational and intellectual and far superior to the mythology, superstition, and dogmas of religion.

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.

I agree that atheists lose that community that religion provides and may give less in charity than theists even though that is yet to be proven. That is a good observation but does not count as an argument against atheism. Atheists find that as silly as saying that UFO believers believe what they believe because of a greater sense of community and it ecourages them to help other people. To atheists the real question is whether beliefs are actually true or not.

Atheists will also note that faith, and a believe that you are going to heaven when you die has motivated many people to irrationally and fanatically sacrifice their lived doing evil to others. Otherwise good decent people will actively defend slavery and genocide in the name of their religion not because they feel it is right but because they have blind faith in their dogma. Terrorists would probably not have been able to do what they did at 9/11 if they didn't have absolute faith in radical islam and didn't believe they would be rewarded in the afterlife after they died.

Religious people have also tended to be very intolerant of people who believe differently through history. For the longest time, being known as an atheists was dangerous.

 

[Dan4reason]

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

You believe in evolution don't you? Can you prove that (I am not saying that evolution is atheistic)?

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.

Some atheists say that there is no God, others say that they simply don't believe in God. I find the latter to be more reasonable. Do you?

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 true. However even among civil atheists there seems to be this spirit of disproof rather than making positive claims. This does not make atheism wrong, I just wish atheists would try to do more to replace supernatural explanations with science. It isn't that atheists don't do this at all, they just need to do this more.

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

Of course. But if scientific claims conflict with religious claims, then religious claims come under threat.

 

[EmpiricalAgnosticAtheist]

Lately i've been very interested in M- Theory. For those who aren't up on their Alternate Dimension theory, basically, M- Theory is a branch of theoretical physics which, in a nutshell, propose that the universe we currently exist is just one of many, and that it is made up of some 11+ dimensions.

IMO, String Theory is the best explanation i've seen for existence, as we have come to know it.

But anyways, I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any specific God(s). I don't discount the possibility of deities either. I'm interested in science in a casual capacity, but don't aim to try and prove or disprove the existence of deities. There are a great many men much smarter than myself who have failed in this regard, and I think at least at this point it's just something beyond our intellect.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any specific God(s). I don't discount the possibility of deities either

That would make you agnostic

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

But also more than their fair share of bad. They're one of the leading forces behind the push to make homosexuality illegal in countries where the matter is still up for debate.

I would sooner donate to my local Catholic-affiliated homeless shelter than I would to the Salvation Army... and given my feelings about the Catholic Church, that's saying something.

Ever considered the possibility that "there are more religious people" because it's rare to find a secular/atheist/non Govt equivalent of something like the Salvation Army?

Most large charities and NGOs are secular.

Maybe if non believers/atheists had a narrative to build on and around they could/would instigate the kind of community that undertakes the (narrative fulfilment) role of something like the Salvation Army.

But "Let's all gather round and disbelieve in God together" has not demonstrated itself to be a sucessful community or charity building Mission Statement.

No... usually "let's all gather round and help people" with no mention of God at all works a lot better. It seems it's only the religious who need religious motivation to help people. Many secularists and atheists have no problem with helping people out of a basic desire to help.

The worlds Major Living Faith traditions however have produced innumerable communes and communities that have endured for hundreds of years.

Why is that?

Are you familiar with the concept of memes?

Just because an idea is persistent doesn't mean it's good for the people holding it.

That would make you agnostic

... as well as atheist. They're not mutually exclusive terms.

 

[No Good Boyo]

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.

difficult to answer because, as an atheist, I don't really hold any beliefs. Just a collection of disbeliefs. If you are really asking what I “believe in”, as an engineer I would have to say it would be things I can prove or that have been proven. I don’t believe this answer will give you any insights or help you in any way to achieve your goal.

I don’t think that most atheists “attack” religion. Most of us “question” religion, which may seem offensive to some believers. The reason (I assume) that the theist feels offended or oppressed by questions on faith is due to their faith demand belief without question (after all, that’s why it’s called “faith”). But from the atheist perspective the only way to truly understand something is to question it, and keep questioning it until you find an answer that makes some sense to you.

The reason that I am here is because it fascinates me that so many people in the world can believe in things that there is clearly no proof of. I’m hoping to understand why people believe the things they do.

 

[Oneatatime]

and religious charities usually have an ulterior motive...

Some of them see it as an opportunity to proselytize. I don't doubt that they have good intentions but from my perspective its pretty discipacable to take advantage of peoples missfortune in such a manner.

 

[EmpiricalAgnosticAtheist]

That would make you agnostic

Yes, I am agnostic... but as someone else covered, theism/ atheism are different concepts from gnosticism/ agnosticism.

"Theism" is the belief in the existence of god(s); "Atheism" is the lack of belief.

"Gnosticism" is the belief that the existence of god(s) is a knowable thing; "Agnosticism" the lack of belief.

Does that make sense?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Yes, I am agnostic... but as someone else covered, theism/ atheism are different concepts from gnosticism/ agnosticism.

"Theism" is the belief in the existence of god(s); "Atheism" is the lack of belief.

"Gnosticism" is the belief that the existence of god(s) is a knowable thing; "Agnosticism" the lack of belief.

Does that make sense?

The way I perceive the differences is Atheism is lack of belief with no consideration of the possibility that one exists, pretty much complete indifference, whereas Agnosticism is the lack of belief but will not dismiss the possibility. Some people consider the two terms to be synonymous. I do not. Of course thats just my outlook, I've been known to be wrong from time to time

 

[No Good Boyo]

The way I perceive the differences is Atheism is lack of belief with no consideration of the possibility that one exists, pretty much complete indifference, whereas Agnosticism is the lack of belief but will not dismiss the possibility. Some people consider the two terms to be synonymous. I do not. Of course thats just my outlook, I've been known to be wrong from time to time

I would argue that atheism is lack of belief "after" consideration of the possibility of the existance of god (not "with no" consideration).

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I would argue that atheism is lack of belief "after" consideration of the possibility of the existance of god (not "with no" consideration).

Perhaps. It's one of those things that are pretty much left to how the individual perceives them. Of Course neither of them can outright claim the non-existence, as this is impossible to prove. I just took it as agnostic was more open to the possibility than Atheist. Like I said, Iv'e been know to be wrong.

 

[No Good Boyo]

Of Course neither of them can outright claim the non-existence, as this is impossible to prove.

I agree

 

[Tom Terrific]

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

I'm new here. When I first saw your nick, saw your subject of choice and read some of what you had written, I thought you might be another "Dan," Dan Barker. If you know who he is, you will probably take that as a compliment.

Have you considered that propositional truth is simply a matter of utility? Propositions are not useful because they are true, but true because they are useful; and perceived usefulness is relative to perceived needs and desires. To speak of truth in an absolute sense is to speak in terms of actual needs and desires, about which we can only speculate -- rationally, anyway.

Personally, I think all propositional frameworks for reality are simply models; and over the course of our lives we adopt, refine and discard them as our perceptions of their usefulness changes. The wise man knows that his ideas about life must remain operational; he must always remain open to new information or he is not being honest with himself. I think this point in particular is difficult for Christians and adherents of other exclusivist ways of thinking, because such people often feel that to allow for the possibility that they are wrong is to betray the truth -- rather than simply recognizing that they are fallible, that they could be wrong, but that they choose to believe such-and-such to be true. Of course, atheists not infrequently make the same mistake.

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

Very well spoken.

 

[Wombat]

but you over simplify
don't you think atheists contribute to those organization too...

Certainly “atheists contribute” to organizations “like the Salvation Army” but they do not generally form such (grass roots) organizations nor do they form them to the same size and diversity (there are reasons for this). Again, “secular/atheist/non Govt” organizations tend to have an ‘International’ focus...as your (misplaced) list below demonstrates.
Quote:
Maybe if non believers/atheists had a narrative to build on and around they could/would instigate the kind of community that undertakes the (narrative fulfilment) role of something like the Salvation Army.

well something much larger got started with such a narrative the age of enlightenment......

Ah huh...and setting aside the fact that the ‘enlightenment’ represents neither a ‘community’ nor a ‘charity’.......the Enlightenment cannot be separated from the impetus of the Renaissance nor the Renaissance from the influence of religion. Things are connected...and one thing leads to another.
Quote:
Can you find example of >any single one< that survived (say 20-30years?) beyond the death of the inevitably charismatic founder? There have been thousands of such attempts, well resoursed and with the best of intentions...but I know of none that survived.

american red cross

international relief teams
ameri-cares
doctors without borders
partners in health
direct relief international
save the children...
...

Um....The question related to “communes” not ‘charities or Aid Organizations’.
Out of curiosity I repeat the question-
Can you/anyone find example of-a secular commune- >any single one< that survived (say 20-30years?) beyond the death of the inevitably charismatic founder? There have been thousands of such attempts, well resourced and with the best of intentions...but I know of none that survived.

Quote:
The worlds Major Living Faith traditions however have produced innumerable communes and communities that have endured for hundreds of years.

Why is that?

the intent is to gain converts......

Well that was the intent of many/most of the political and philosophical secular communes established since the French Revolution and Enlightenment. The stated intent of many was to give the world a working model of how to live properly in equality and harmony without God/religion. Having established the working model people would see reason and convert to the better model.

But none of the secular communes have lasted 150 years...let alone the hundreds of years of thriving/surviving communities of faith.

How come?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Certainly “atheists contribute” to organizations “like the Salvation Army” but they do not generally form such (grass roots) organizations nor do they form them to the same size and diversity (there are reasons for this). Again, “secular/atheist/non Govt” organizations tend to have an ‘International’ focus...as your (misplaced) list below demonstrates.
Quote:
Maybe if non believers/atheists had a narrative to build on and around they could/would instigate the kind of community that undertakes the (narrative fulfilment) role of something like the Salvation Army.

I'm not sure what you mean. There's a "narrative" to every organization.

I think there's a big reason why you see very few specifically "atheist" (as opposed to secular) charities compared to the number of religious charities: IMO, in general, very few atheists feel that they're motivated to charity as an expression of their atheism the way that many religious people consider their charity an expression of their faith. Instead, it seems to me that atheists generally base their motivation to charity on simple concern for other people.

I mean, I will often hear of religious people who say they're "doing God's work" or something like that... it wouldn't make much sense for an atheist to do good works "in the name of no god".

I don't think this comes down to atheists or theists being more or less charitable that each other. IMO, people generally cover the same range of good and bad whether they're religious or not; it's just a matter of what they use to justify their actions.

Well that was the intent of many/most of the political and philosophical secular communes established since the French Revolution and Enlightenment. The stated intent of many was to give the world a working model of how to live properly in equality and harmony without God/religion. Having established the working model people would see reason and convert to the better model.

But none of the secular communes have lasted 150 years...let alone the hundreds of years of thriving/surviving communities of faith.

How come?

Probably because it's relatively rare for some secular belief system to need the sheltering environment of a commune. IMO, it's usually the more fringe-y religious beliefs that need separation from society with all its competing ideas in order to survive.

 

[waitasec]

Out of curiosity I repeat the question Can you/anyone find example of-a secular commune- >any single one< that survived (say 20-30years?) beyond the death of the inevitably charismatic founder? There have been thousands of such attempts, well resourced and with the best of intentions...but I know of none that survived

sure..the entire human population



edit: or rather...the human species