What do you get from being atheist?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I saw this question (or one very like it) over the last few days. I can't remember in which thread, or who asked the question, and it doesn't matter. But it does bring up something that I think is really important to the endless arguments between theists and atheists. (I'm not picking any particular theism, no individual religion.)

The reason the question is interesting is because it seems to make a deep assumption, but one that doesn't really seem appropriate -- and that deep assumption is that there is "something useful, something good, something valuable or precious" in holding a belief (or beliefs) about deities, and that the same must hold true about NOT holding such beliefs.

Let me try an example or two: if I don't have any theistic belief, I have my Sundays (or Fridays, or Saturdays or longer periods of religious observance) free. If I don't have any theistic belief, I am free to do anything I like (including murder and rape!).

This is analogically false!

I understand that having a belief in a loving deity, or a saviour, or an afterlife in a heaven or Valhalla can feel comforting and precious. I can see how having a set of rules (positive and negative) can feel as if difficult questions have been pre-decided or answered for you. I can even see how those rules might help you feel more comfortable rejecting -- or even mistreating -- those who aren't like you in those rules.

But here it is: there is nothing to be gained, nothing of value, nothing to provide comfort or guidance, in not believing in deities. We don't get anything from it. It doesn't comfort us, or frighten us. It demands nothing of us. It does not inform our morals any more than it informs our food preferences.

Which brings us the question that theists will immediately ask: "so why disbelieve, why not believe in a deity and gain all the benefits I feel I get?"

And the answer is perfectly simple: because we cannot change our belief on the basis of hoped-for benefits -- any more than theists can change their beliefs on the basis of a desire to be free of all those commandments and rules. To pretend to accept the idea of a deity gives us nothing, because it is pretense. The only thing that can change a deeply-held belief is convincing evidence to refute that which informs those beliefs. And therein lies a deep, deep blockage -- "convincing" is totally subjective: what convinces me isn't necessarily what convinces you.

 

[Nimos]

Which brings us the question that theists will immediately ask: "so why disbelieve, why not believe in a deity and gain all the benefits I feel I get?"

I have been an atheist all my life and a huge part of it, I didn't even know what an atheist was had I been asked, it played absolutely no role in my life.

Also to bring in your title: "What do you get from being an atheist?"

So at least from that perspective, I can say that I didn't get anything, I wasn't after anything or even considered that it could give me anything. After I got interested in religion and also the first time I would refer to myself as an atheist, I wasn't after anything. Should I look back now and answer your title question, I wouldn't even phrase it like that in my case at least, because it was my curiosity about beliefs in general that led me to getting interested in religious beliefs which then led to me getting interested in the bigger questions. Which then made me interested in everything from politics, world issues, science and religions, you name it.

All this led me to a "personal agreement" or what to call it, that I would follow the truth to the best of my abilities wherever the evidence lead, to get rid of biases, false beliefs etc. But to achieve this I knew I needed tools which led me to the most precious thing there is in my opinion, which is critical thinking and skepticism.

Which to me is the most important thing ever. If beliefs can't withstand these they are not worth holding, no matter what they are.

So I wouldn't say that atheism gave me this, but given I don't believe in gods, these "tools" could be said to be a result of it to get rid of wrong/unjustified beliefs.

 

[Orbit]

I saw this question (or one very like it) over the last few days. I can't remember in which thread, or who asked the question, and it doesn't matter. But it does bring up something that I think is really important to the endless arguments between theists and atheists. (I'm not picking any particular theism, no individual religion.)

The reason the question is interesting is because it seems to make a deep assumption, but one that doesn't really seem appropriate -- and that deep assumption is that there is "something useful, something good, something valuable or precious" in holding a belief (or beliefs) about deities, and that the same must hold true about NOT holding such beliefs.

Let me try an example or two: if I don't have any theistic belief, I have my Sundays (or Fridays, or Saturdays or longer periods of religious observance) free. If I don't have any theistic belief, I am free to do anything I like (including murder and rape!).

This is analogically false!

I understand that having a belief in a loving deity, or a saviour, or an afterlife in a heaven or Valhalla can feel comforting and precious. I can see how having a set of rules (positive and negative) can feel as if difficult questions have been pre-decided or answered for you. I can even see how those rules might help you feel more comfortable rejecting -- or even mistreating -- those who aren't like you in those rules.

But here it is: there is nothing to be gained, nothing of value, nothing to provide comfort or guidance, in not believing in deities. We don't get anything from it. It doesn't comfort us, or frighten us. It demands nothing of us. It does not inform our morals any more than it informs our food preferences.

Which brings us the question that theists will immediately ask: "so why disbelieve, why not believe in a deity and gain all the benefits I feel I get?"

And the answer is perfectly simple: because we cannot change our belief on the basis of hoped-for benefits -- any more than theists can change their beliefs on the basis of a desire to be free of all those commandments and rules. To pretend to accept the idea of a deity gives us nothing, because it is pretense. The only thing that can change a deeply-held belief is convincing evidence to refute that which informs those beliefs. And therein lies a deep, deep blockage -- "convincing" is totally subjective: what convinces me isn't necessarily what convinces you.

What I get out of it is an escape from the culture of theism: a ticket out of the Christian-speak, awful music, bigotry, the insincere "God-bless-yous", the thoughts & prayers, and bizarre, required dogma. It's not what I get from atheism; it's what I get out of escaping Christianity.

 

[Willamena]

I saw this

hahaha, I deleted lines of text and was randomly left with this.

 

[Willamena]

I saw this question (or one very like it) over the last few days. I can't remember in which thread, or who asked the question, and it doesn't matter. But it does bring up something that I think is really important to the endless arguments between theists and atheists. (I'm not picking any particular theism, no individual religion.)

The reason the question is interesting is because it seems to make a deep assumption, but one that doesn't really seem appropriate -- and that deep assumption is that there is "something useful, something good, something valuable or precious" in holding a belief (or beliefs) about deities, and that the same must hold true about NOT holding such beliefs.

Let me try an example or two: if I don't have any theistic belief, I have my Sundays (or Fridays, or Saturdays or longer periods of religious observance) free. If I don't have any theistic belief, I am free to do anything I like (including murder and rape!).

This is analogically false!

I understand that having a belief in a loving deity, or a saviour, or an afterlife in a heaven or Valhalla can feel comforting and precious. I can see how having a set of rules (positive and negative) can feel as if difficult questions have been pre-decided or answered for you. I can even see how those rules might help you feel more comfortable rejecting -- or even mistreating -- those who aren't like you in those rules.

But here it is: there is nothing to be gained, nothing of value, nothing to provide comfort or guidance, in not believing in deities. We don't get anything from it. It doesn't comfort us, or frighten us. It demands nothing of us. It does not inform our morals any more than it informs our food preferences.

Which brings us the question that theists will immediately ask: "so why disbelieve, why not believe in a deity and gain all the benefits I feel I get?"

And the answer is perfectly simple: because we cannot change our belief on the basis of hoped-for benefits -- any more than theists can change their beliefs on the basis of a desire to be free of all those commandments and rules. To pretend to accept the idea of a deity gives us nothing, because it is pretense. The only thing that can change a deeply-held belief is convincing evidence to refute that which informs those beliefs. And therein lies a deep, deep blockage -- "convincing" is totally subjective: what convinces me isn't necessarily what convinces you.

What I get from being an atheist is freedom: the freedom not to imagine "god" as a thing, the freedom not to be subject to someone's interpretation of "god's will.," and the freedom to be me.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not an atheist by choice. It just happens to be the category I fall into because I apply reason to religious claims and concepts. I fall into the category of shoe size 45, too. It's no more a choice than being an atheist, it's just how it happens to be.

It's like what do I get out of being a non-smoker. I don't know, I never ponder the benefits even though there surely are. I just happen to not be addicted to cigarettes and enjoy that freedom. The same with not being religious, I enjoy the freedom.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is a type of satisfaction and relief in having no gods because it's like taking in a breath of fresh air in a reality not tainted by embellishments and fantasy associated with invented gods and the like that can bring unessessary stress and unsatisfication brought about by such flights of fantasy.

I think what staying atheist brings is a type of liberation of living in a pristine real actual world that carries no extra baggage with it.

Unllike theism which most often brings to the table it's made up and unfounded beliefs, doctrine, and unessessary religious regulations and laws that oftentimes have proven to be difficult and impossible to follow , which in turn can be quite unhealthy for people both physically and mentally in order to keep them.

 

[Heyo]

I saw this question (or one very like it) over the last few days. I can't remember in which thread, or who asked the question, and it doesn't matter. But it does bring up something that I think is really important to the endless arguments between theists and atheists. (I'm not picking any particular theism, no individual religion.)

The reason the question is interesting is because it seems to make a deep assumption, but one that doesn't really seem appropriate -- and that deep assumption is that there is "something useful, something good, something valuable or precious" in holding a belief (or beliefs) about deities, and that the same must hold true about NOT holding such beliefs.

Let me try an example or two: if I don't have any theistic belief, I have my Sundays (or Fridays, or Saturdays or longer periods of religious observance) free. If I don't have any theistic belief, I am free to do anything I like (including murder and rape!).

This is analogically false!

I understand that having a belief in a loving deity, or a saviour, or an afterlife in a heaven or Valhalla can feel comforting and precious. I can see how having a set of rules (positive and negative) can feel as if difficult questions have been pre-decided or answered for you. I can even see how those rules might help you feel more comfortable rejecting -- or even mistreating -- those who aren't like you in those rules.

But here it is: there is nothing to be gained, nothing of value, nothing to provide comfort or guidance, in not believing in deities. We don't get anything from it. It doesn't comfort us, or frighten us. It demands nothing of us. It does not inform our morals any more than it informs our food preferences.

Which brings us the question that theists will immediately ask: "so why disbelieve, why not believe in a deity and gain all the benefits I feel I get?"

And the answer is perfectly simple: because we cannot change our belief on the basis of hoped-for benefits -- any more than theists can change their beliefs on the basis of a desire to be free of all those commandments and rules. To pretend to accept the idea of a deity gives us nothing, because it is pretense. The only thing that can change a deeply-held belief is convincing evidence to refute that which informs those beliefs. And therein lies a deep, deep blockage -- "convincing" is totally subjective: what convinces me isn't necessarily what convinces you.

Knowledge of true and false things gives me the power to make good decisions.

 

[osgart]

As an atheist I get the absence of man made overlords, control freaks, and outright nasty characters in my life. However good and evil still exist, and they shouldn't mix in the grey areas, and they don't.

I get to use my own mind.

I get to see more of reality in all its beauty and ugliness, sense and senselessness.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Knowledge of true and false things gives me the power to make good decisions.

You would think that would be everybody's desire to actually live in something that's actually true and real rather than giving in to fairy tales, ludicrous notions, and mythology , of which a good amount of it is absolutely just bats*** nuts in a real tactile environment.

Insofar that normal rational people would ever believe in crazy stuff like that, aside from what happens within their minds and imagination where one would expect such a realm to be.

 

[ChristineM]

What do i get from being an atheist.

Freedom from the dogma of religion.

Having to decide myself what is good/bad, moral/immoral.

Not having a god on my shoulder telling me what is right and wrong.

Freedom of mind, not limited by god thoughts.

Not to.be forced into believing totally crazy ideas that promote ignorance.

Sunday mornings free

Yes some of these overlap, life is like that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I understand that having a belief in a loving deity, or a saviour, or an afterlife in a heaven or Valhalla can feel comforting and precious. I can see how having a set of rules (positive and negative) can feel as if difficult questions have been pre-decided or answered for you. I can even see how those rules might help you feel more comfortable rejecting -- or even mistreating -- those who aren't like you in those rules.

Something many atheists don't understand is that this is not the purpose of belief in deity in dharmic religions. There are no rules. There are tools.

I've made several threads about it on this forum, but many atheists' lack of belief in gods is more accurately a lack of belief in the God of Abraham.

Regarding the question in the title of the OP, if I may, from a transtheist's perspective, a benefit I have from having no personal gods is having a better understanding of other religions'/paradigms' deities and why people believe in them and revere them, as well has having a better understanding of non-theistic positions and why people lack belief.

 

[Heyo]

@SalixIncendium: It gives me the power to make good decisions - I didn't say that I use that power excessively.

 

[SalixIncendium]

@SalixIncendium: It gives me the power to make good decisions - I didn't say that I use that power excessively.

That's not why I rated your post optimistic. By the way, I see nothing wrong with using the power to make good decisions excessively.

I rated your post optimistic because of the image. It tells me that there are things to believe that may not already be objectively evident...things that are not perceptible through the sense-organs.

 

[Mock Turtle]

As per many, and being an agnostic but mostly atheist for much of my life, I came to such a position purely from doing what I considered sufficient thinking about the whole issue of humans and religious beliefs. Was I supposed to just leave the whole subject alone and accept the particular religion handed down to me? And I hardly expected anything from having such a position apart from perhaps having no reasons to discriminate against others based on some particular doctrine or dogma that I might have been saddled with.

Like most, I've seen enough of the divisions and conflicts emanating from religions to not be drawn to any particular one - given that they all seem inevitably to do much the same. Of course I might have lost something - not that I have noticed however - given that I am quite happy with my morals and how I see the world. And it's not that easy to choose one particular god, or religious belief, when one can see so much attached to these that simply makes no sense. Without such beliefs, one at least can claim to have some autonomy even if such is not true free will.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Was I supposed to just leave the whole subject alone and accept the particular religion handed down to me?

It might be useful to point out that many religious people didn't just leave the subject alone and accept the particular religion handed down to them.

It also might be useful to point out that there are atheists here that are still members of the religion that was handed down to them. I'm aware of at least two.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As an atheist I get the absence of man made overlords, control freaks, and outright nasty characters in my life. However good and evil still exist, and they shouldn't mix in the grey areas, and they don't.

I get to use my own mind.

I get to see more of reality in all its beauty and ugliness, sense and senselessness.

Not everywhere you don't, and not for most of history. Heck, when I was younger, and a lonely orphan on the streets of Toronto, on Saturday nights the tables at the bar had to be cleared by midnight (so there would be no drinking on Sunday), and of course, everything was closed on Sunday. I hated Sunday -- and Christmas and Easter -- with a huge passion. And it was forced on me by theists, no doubt on the lookout for my poor soul if it ever dared enter such a place as a bar on "the Lord's Day." That was not freedom, I can tell you. And it was a long, long fight before theists would loosen their grip on the "moral behaviours" of other people.

And in many places in the world, if you even mention that you are an atheist, you are subject to some pretty harsh retribution from theists. You may, as you say, get to use your own mind, but you'd better keep a lot of what it thinks to yourself.

And I don't doubt that, while the retribution may be less harsh, the social pressure to keep your atheism to yourself can be quite high in many places in the rural south of the United States, too. I wonder how many atheists actually go to church just to keep on the good side of their society.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I get out of it is an escape from the culture of theism: a ticket out of the Christian-speak, awful music, bigotry, the insincere "God-bless-yous", the thoughts & prayers, and bizarre, required dogma. It's not what I get from atheism; it's what I get out of escaping Christianity.

To paraphrase a common retort: 'some of our best and most valued friends are Christians.'

We've dined with them. We''ve vacationed with them. We've spent hours working with them at soup kitchens and nights sitting with them while helping out at homeless shelters.

I've marched with them and sat-in with them and have even been arrested with them.

I would far rather share time with them than with those who promote such a pathetic and distorted profile of faith communities.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It might be useful to point out that many religious people didn't just leave the subject alone and accept the particular religion handed down to them.

It also might be useful to point out that there are atheists here that are still members of the religion that was handed down to them. I'm aware of at least two.

Perhaps but I would still maintain that it is a majority who obtain their religion this way - until evidence is provided to prove otherwise.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Perhaps but I would still maintain that it is a majority who obtain their religion this way - until evidence is provided to prove otherwise.

Of course. I'm just pointing out that many atheists tend to paint their picture of religious people with a very broad brush. No fault of theirs based on the limitations of their perspective, but once such things are pointed out, continuing to paint with that same brush equates to willful ignorance.