What do you get from being atheist?

[George Washington]

You will not find any posts of mine telling anyone that they should be a theist. I am somply pointing out that there are benefits to be had, and no logical reason not to enjoy them.

What makes an outspoken atheist tick anyways? Pride in knowing they have the facts and the statistics correct? To me, that's part of the competitive life.

That's the life I shunned and threw away a long time ago. Now, I go for what's rare and special.

 

[PureX]

And yet, if you suggest that this "higher power" can be called upon to change circumstances we don't like, you are giving it a form of volution -- for which, once again, there is no evidence.

And once again, the demand for evidence is irrelevant. What I suggest is that by putting our faith in a "higher power" (a power greater than ourselves) and then acting on that faith, we can gain results that we could not have gained sitting on our behinds and awaiting "evidence". The "evidence" for the faithful are the results. But you can't get them without having enough faith to act on the hope of them.

 

[PureX]

So when a theist uses the phrase "higher power" they are meaning natural phenomenon, like tornados, hurricans, tidal waves, and not some abstract supernatural that is a softer version than saying "God"?

Mostly, they are referring to the mysterious source from which all that natural phenomena comes.

Another deceptive comment. The sort of "faith" that is defined as an every day expectation of normality is NOT the definition of religious faith, which is the context of my comment. If you need to deflect then you must have awareness that your beliefs and positions are weak and not defendable.

Religious faith is a voluntary unjustified belief in some non-factual idea. The motivation to make such judgments is the emotioanl satisfaction it brings. It's learned behavior.

"I define all religion as bad."
"I define all faith as religious, therefor faith is bad."
"I define theism as religion, therefor theism is bad."
"You define religion as something else, therefor your definition is wrong."
"You define faith as something else, therefor your definition is wrong."
"You define theism as something else, therefor your definition is wrong."

Your whole argument is based on a singular biased definition of religion and the absolute refusal to acknowledge any other definition.

Do we? Notice you haven't explained any difference.

I have stated it many. many, many times. Theism is the philosophical proposition that God/gods exist in such a way that they effect/control our experience of existence.

Religions are collections of cognitive tools intended for their adherents to use to help them live their lives in accord with their chosen theological worldview. But once again, you will simply ignore these definitions because they don't further your bias. Just as you will continue to ignore the difference between faith and belief.

We are well aware of your special definitions that are outside of normal discourse.

Well, certainly, "normalization" justifies willful ignorance and blatant bias, right?

As if you have the right to criticize, but not atheists who you deplore. I suspect this illustrates your frustration at not being able to retort atheists' criticisms with factual defences.

I can't fix the willful stupidity of others. It's true. Though I keep hoping that someday they will choose to rise above it for themselves.

If feeding people is your aim then prayer ain't going to get it done.

It can motivate people to do it, though. Which is part of "getting it done".

Yours is an odd and shielded form of belief.

No, it's just faith. And because it's faith, and not belief, you can't find any way to discredit and dismiss it. All you can do is try to define it out of existence.

You show is the shadows of what you believe, but not directly what you believe.

I don't believe much of anything, to be honest. You should understand this since as an atheist you are constantly proclaiming your own "unbelief".

It seems your abstraction of God is a sort of antithesis of what other theists imagine.

Anyone can imagine God to be anything they want. Including you and I. Since none of us has the capacity to know.

Whereas most theists have a clear idea of what they see as god, you see uncertainity and confusion, your cherished mystery.

A lot of people, when they can't see behind the curtain just pretend that they can, or they pretend there is no curtain to see behind. A few just accept that they cannot see behind the curtain and then learn how to live with that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've trained myself, over time, to be helpful and respectful to others - something I learned through other rare, and interesting individuals who work behind the scenes and often go unnoticed by the competative types. I see these individuals as something special, and so, over time, I have tried to learn and adopt these traits, or perceived traits.

Atheism does not work well as an ideology for me while possessing these traits. What works better, is if there is some all-knowing God that sees all my good deeds, and knows my intentions and goals.

If I were to shift over to Atheism, my personality would seem senseless. Instead, I would have to shift back over to the boring 'competitor' type, for gains. Because without the supernatural, for me, there is only gains or losses. There is no artisticness. No good vibes. No feelings. No love. No joy. And most importantly, nothing that seperates me from the boringness of everyday life as another basic human being.

Wild. I can't relate to your point of view at all.

I can't see how to reconcile helpfulness with belief in an interventionist God.

I mean, if you think that God is already aware of whatever problems you might come across, what do you think you can do that God can't? Why wouldn't just standing back to let God's plan unfold be the best option? Do you think you know better than God?

 

[PureX]

I've trained myself, over time, to be helpful and respectful to others - something I learned through other rare, and interesting individuals who work behind the scenes and often go unnoticed by the competative types. I see these individuals as something special, and so, over time, I have tried to learn and adopt these traits, or perceived traits.

Atheism does not work well as an ideology for me while possessing these traits. What works better, is if there is some all-knowing God that sees all my good deeds, and knows my intentions and goals.

If I were to shift over to Atheism, my personality would seem senseless. Instead, I would have to shift back over to the boring 'competitor' type, for gains. Because without the supernatural, for me, there is only gains or losses. There is no artisticness. No good vibes. No feelings. No love. No joy. And most importantly, nothing that seperates me from the boringness of everyday life as another basic human being.

I really appreciate the way your mind works, and the decisions you've made as a result.

Competition is a remnant of the "animal man" that, hopefully, we humans will eventually fully transcend. That doesn't mean we have to annihilate that character trait in ourselves, but that we will eventually need to gain full control over it, within. As this inclination to compete combined with the ever-increasing effectiveness of our ability to physically manipulate our environment and each other is clearly going to destroy us all. The time has come for us to put away that aspects of our 'dumb animal' selves, and move on. But will we?

Right now it's not looking too good.

 

[George Washington]

Wild. I can't relate to your point of view at all.

I can't see how to reconcile helpfulness with belief in an interventionist God.

I mean, if you think that God is already aware of whatever problems you might come across, what do you think you can do that God can't? Why wouldn't just standing back to let God's plan unfold be the best option? Do you think you know better than God?

Interventionist God..?

But I can do anything I want, literally. We all can.

It's just that, what I don't find interesting at all, is being another run of the mill, average competitor type. Instead, I found a niche I can work out of, that gives my life actual meaning. I found something special.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interventionist God..?

A god that intervenes in its creation.

I didn't peg you for a deist, but if you are, sorry for the bad assumption.

But I can do anything I want, literally. We all can.

Sure. This is true whether you're a theist or not.

Still, only some of our actions result in the outcomes we want. If God would see to it that people who need help get it without your actions, then your actions are irrelevant and therefore purposeless: the outcome is the same whether you do them or not.

It's just that, what I don't find interesting at all, is being another run of the mill, average competitor type. Instead, I found a niche I can work out of, that gives my life actual meaning. I found something special.

Why would being an atheist mean being a "competitor type"?

Do you believe in a divine plan?

 

[George Washington]

A god that intervenes in its creation.

I didn't peg you for a deist, but if you are, sorry for the bad assumption.



Sure. This is true whether you're a theist or not.

Still, only some of our actions result in the outcomes we want. If God would see to it that people who need help get it without your actions, then your actions are irrelevant and therefore purposeless: the outcome is the same whether you do them or not.

In Christianity, which I am a part of, we don't see much intervention by God.

Matthew 5:45
for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

Why would being an atheist mean being a "competitor type"?

Do you believe in a divine plan?

I don't think all atheists are competitor types, though many of the most outspoken, anti-religious ones do seem to be competing over ideology - a basic, run of the mill, human tendency. Many religious types do the same thing too. People will be people.

But not me. I'm an alien in this world.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have no idea if you would benefit or not. I just know tat a lot of people do. And I admonish AGAINST belief because I feel it is irrational and dishonest. Faith, i the other hand, can be very positive ad useful to any of us. Without the dishonest pretense of belief.

I truly have no idea what it means to say that one has faith but lacks belief. In fact, I don't know what it means to say “have faith” without a predicate like “have faith in... ” or “have faith that...”

Oxford professor of philosophy Mark Wrathall has said that there is a difference between faith and belief, but I honestly don't understand what he means by that.

Wrathall explained that the key issue is a disparity between faith and belief that most religious people take for granted. Our beliefs are things we take to be true based on our logic and experiences. If we learn new information, our beliefs can change. For example, if we believe that it will rain on a given day, but the day comes and the skies are clear, then we will probably change our belief that it will rain.​

​

Faith is a different thing entirely. “It’s commonplace to treat belief and faith as synonyms . . . but there are important differences,” Wrathall said. Faith involves reliance and trust, and it endures in the face of doubts, whereas belief is simply something we take to be true. “I can have faith in things or people without a corresponding belief, and I can believe things that I don’t have faith in,” he said. “That’s why I can say that I believe the war in Ukraine is inhumane, but I wouldn’t say that I have faith that the war in Ukraine is inhumane.”​

​

This doesn’t mean that faith and belief are mutually exclusive or irreconcilable; faith is often accompanied by belief. “For instance, one who has faith in God may also hold the belief that God exists. But one can have faith without the corresponding belief,” he said.​

 

[ADigitalArtist]

When I left theism it was also leaving a lot of baggage of social expectations for me to believe and behave a certain way that didn't feel like me. So I got the satisfaction of being honest with myself in not believing in gods.

Today the social expectations mean a lot less to me, which I think is just part and parcel of getting older. But I still get to just be myself, without pretending to be something I'm not. And that's not nothing.

 

[PureX]

I truly have no idea what it means to say that one has faith but lacks belief.

Thank you for saying so.

What faith means is that we choose to trust that an idea of reality is true even though we do not know this to be so, and we are fully aware that it may, in fact, not be true. Having faith is choosing to trust in that hope, anyway, in the absence of knowledge. Whereas belief is choosing to blindly presume some idea about reality is true by simply ignoring any doubts about it, ours or others.

In fact, I don't know what it means to say “have faith” with a predicate like “have faith in... ” or “have faith that...”

It refers to a choice one has made, and then held onto. "I have chosen to place my faith in ...": that is to trust in and to act on, accordingly.

Oxford professor of philosophy Mark Wrathall has said that there is a difference between faith and belief, but I honestly don't understand what he means by that.

Wrathall explained that the key issue is a disparity between faith and belief that most religious people take for granted. Our beliefs are things we take to be true based on our logic and experiences. If we learn new information, our beliefs can change. For example, if we believe that it will rain on a given day, but the day comes and the skies are clear, then we will probably change our belief that it will rain.​

​

Faith is a different thing entirely. “It’s commonplace to treat belief and faith as synonyms . . . but there are important differences,” Wrathall said. Faith involves reliance and trust, and it endures in the face of doubts, whereas belief is simply something we take to be true. “I can have faith in things or people without a corresponding belief, and I can believe things that I don’t have faith in,” he said. “That’s why I can say that I believe the war in Ukraine is inhumane, but I wouldn’t say that I have faith that the war in Ukraine is inhumane.”​

​

This doesn’t mean that faith and belief are mutually exclusive or irreconcilable; faith is often accompanied by belief. “For instance, one who has faith in God may also hold the belief that God exists. But one can have faith without the corresponding belief,” he said.​

"Faith involves reliance and trust, and it endures in the face of doubts, (meaning with the full awareness of the possible error) whereas belief is simply something we take to be true (by the denial of any possible error).​

The emboldened is the key difference. Faith accepts and includes the awareness of doubt, while belief denies and rejects an awareness of doubt. A lot of people do not understand or recognize this difference, and so misuse these terms as being interchangeable. And this is especially so regarding religions, as they often seek to minimize or even eliminate doubt by claiming that "faith in God" is the same as an unquestioned belief in their religious depictions of God.

Religion, itself, is mostly responsible for so many people not recognizing or understanding the difference between faith and belief.

 

[PureX]

When I left theism it was also leaving a lot of baggage of social expectations for me to believe and behave a certain way that didn't feel like me. So I got the satisfaction of being honest with myself in not believing in gods.

Today the social expectations mean a lot less to me, which I think is just part and parcel of getting older. But I still get to just be myself, without pretending to be something I'm not. And that's not nothing.

Freedom from religious oppression is not nothing. And if this is what being an atheist gives you, then I can clearly see the value in it.

But you didn't need to reject theism to reject religion. Or reject all gods to reject the specific religious god that was being used to deny and oppress you.

I'm just saying.

Atheists are always telling theists that they don't need religion to gain most of the gifts that people are getting from their religion. But that shoe also fits on the other foot. You don't need to reject theism or God to reject the harmful constraints of a religion, or even of religiosity in general.

 

[Quintessence]

Freedom from religious oppression is not nothing. And if this is what being an atheist gives you, then I can clearly see the value in it.

But you didn't need to reject theism to reject religion. Or reject all gods to reject the specific religious god that was being used to deny and oppress you.

I'm just saying.

Atheists are always telling theists that they don't need religion to gain most of the gifts that people are getting from their religion. But that shoe also fits on the other foot. You don't need to reject theism or God to reject the harmful constraints of a religion, or even of religiosity in general.

Some do. In the hypothetical you're right, but in the realities of the challenges of the human psyche? Some folks really do need to burn the bridges, to to speak, to build new ones and move on. It's part of the process for many. It is what it is an each has their own journey to walk.

 

[danieldemol]

Where are you getting your information, from what you see a few Baha'is posting on this forum?

In Baha'i communities there is little emphasis on bringing in new members,

What Baha'i community are you active in? None? I was an active member for a decade and they spoke day and night about "mass entry by troops" and what we as Baha'i needed to do to get society to that point in my view.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Freedom from religious oppression is not nothing. And if this is what being an atheist gives you, then I can clearly see the value in it.

But you didn't need to reject theism to reject religion. Or reject all gods to reject the specific religious god that was being used to deny and oppress you.

I'm just saying.

Atheists are always telling theists that they don't need religion to gain most of the gifts that people are getting from their religion. But that shoe also fits on the other foot. You don't need to reject theism or God to reject the harmful constraints of a religion, or even of religiosity in general.

Yep, some atheists do circle back around to theism or non-theistic religions after they work through their religious trauma, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I consider Taoism to be a religion for myself. But I still don't believe in gods, personally. And not just the Christian idea of a God, specifically.

 

[Trailblazer]

What Baha'i community are you active in? None? I was an active member for a decade and they spoke day and night about "mass entry by troops" and what we as Baha'i needed to do to get society to that point in my view.

I am not very active in my Baha'i community but I do attend all Feasts, usually on Zoom, so I know what the Baha'is are doing.
You were a Baha'i some time back. Baha'is hardly ever talk about teaching anymore.
The days are over when Baha'is talk about mass entry by troops, at least where I live, in Western WA state..

 

[ppp]

Atheists are always telling theists that they don't need religion to gain most of the gifts that people are getting from their religion. But that shoe also fits on the other foot. You don't need to reject theism or God to reject the harmful constraints of a religion, or even of religiosity in general.

That's "the other foot"? Shouldn't the other foot be Theist always telling atheists that the that they do not need to be non-religious in order to get the gifts of atheism? What exactly are the gifts of atheism? And when do mine arrive?

 

[danieldemol]

I am not very active in my Baha'i community but I do attend all Feasts, usually on Zoom, so I know what the Baha'is are doing.
You were a Baha'i some time back. Baha'is hardly ever talk about teaching anymore.
The days are over when Baha'is talk about mass entry by troops, at least where I live, in Western WA state..

Your LSA must be atypical then in my view, because this is the 28th November 2023 message from the Baha'i Universal House of Justice;

At 2:30 it is already talking about engaging family and friends in spiritually themed conversations which is Baha'i speak for teaching in my view.

 

[F1fan]

Mostly, they are referring to the mysterious source from which all that natural phenomena comes.

And what is the factual basis for that? I dont care about religion, or tradition, or learned belief, what are the facts behind this "mysterious" you go on about?

"I define all religion as bad."
"I define all faith as religious, therefor faith is bad."
"I define theism as religion, therefor theism is bad."
"You define religion as something else, therefor your definition is wrong."
"You define faith as something else, therefor your definition is wrong."
"You define theism as something else, therefor your definition is wrong."

Your whole argument is based on a singular biased definition of religion and the absolute refusal to acknowledge any other definition.

This is in response to my pointing out your deceptive comments. None of the "quotes" above is anything I've written. All this does is show your bias and dishonest approach to discourse with atheists.

I have stated it many. many, many times. Theism is the philosophical proposition that God/gods exist in such a way that they effect/control our experience of existence.

Yet no facts or observations. Theism, and philosophy, has the advantage of making up anything a person damn well pleases. No standards for truth. No need to follow evidence. Emotional decisions are allowed. And the believers cry foul when reason and rules are applied.

Religions are collections of cognitive tools intended for their adherents to use to help them live their lives in accord with their chosen theological worldview.

Not really cognitive tools. Religions are sets of rules that are followed due to tradition and social pressure. Conservative Christians who end up believing in creationism are bowing down to the pressure to conform to anti-intellectual ideas, and through learned prejudice against science and reason. And not many theists chose their religion. Most are a product of their environment and learned behavior.

But once again, you will simply ignore these definitions because they don't further your bias. Just as you will continue to ignore the difference between faith and belief.

Absurd coming from a guy who makes his own definitions and rules that contradict norms. Others have been critical of your tactics of being vague, and then applying weird definitions.

Well, certainly, "normalization" justifies willful ignorance and blatant bias, right?

Only in your twisted distortion of language and meanings. You love your confusion.

I can't fix the willful stupidity of others. It's true. Though I keep hoping that someday they will choose to rise above it for themselves.

As if it isn't you who suffers from willful ignorance, as you think it's atheists, but can't explain how. Irony. Atheists are very good at explaining how it is irrational to believe in religious concepts, and also how much of it is learned behavior that the believer doesn't understand, nor can control.

It can motivate people to do it, though. Which is part of "getting it done".

I guess cheer leaders are a thing for a reason. Still, they don't contribute to when a team wins, nor blamed when they lose. You can be happy with your largely irrelevant purpose for feeding the hungry.

No, it's just faith. And because it's faith, and not belief, you can't find any way to discredit and dismiss it. All you can do is try to define it out of existence.

Odd that you admit to using faith when it is so notoriously unreliable and an excuse to believe in ideas that evidence can't support. Rational minds avoid faith for that reason, you champion it.

I don't believe much of anything, to be honest. You should understand this since as an atheist you are constantly proclaiming your own "unbelief".

You have a very odd set of beliefs, and seem to use a sort of counter-intellectual approach, meaning you have assumed ideas like God existing, but ignore or reject the specifics that are comonly adopted. Whereas most theists believe in a concept with certain details, you create the converse, where uncertainty and mystery is the core attributes. It seems more of an exercise than useful.

Anyone can imagine God to be anything they want. Including you and I. Since none of us has the capacity to know.

You certainly have your own imagined God, even if it is a deconstructed void. For me, I have no conceptions of God. If I am responding to ssomeone who believes in some idea with details I use their claim for critique of their thinking and belief.

A lot of people, when they can't see behind the curtain just pretend that they can,

That sums up theistss, and yourself included. You can assume a mystery is behind all things, but you have no reason to assume it is supernatural. In reality there is a mystery of certain natural phenomenon, and nothing suggests a supernatural at work. The more science looks into things, the more nature is just a mechanism that works and does what it does.

or they pretend there is no curtain to see behind. A few just accept that they cannot see behind the curtain and then learn how to live with that.

The difference is those who understand there are unanswered questions but don't assume a God, and those who undestand there are unaanswered questions and assume a God for no factual reason. I prefer the former.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

I strongly disagree on grounds that not believing in a God deprives a person and society of the life giving waters of the teachings of God for any particular age. Take this age for instance. We live at a time of deep division and disunity between the races, religions and nations even to the point of wars. Yet the latest Messenger of God came with a whole new paradigm of how to live in unity and harmony.

Those who have believed in this Messenger - Baha’u’llah and have put into practice His teachings have founded a world community comprised of those conflicting races, religions and nations yet living in perfect peace and harmony without wars or conflict. Yet the stubbornness of a society thinking it needs not God’s counsels and advice, finds itself on the brink of a third word disaster.

By following the counsels of Baha’u’llah we are united but those who have ignored them find themselves embroiled in wars and conflicts they cannot extricate themselves from. So those who think that there is ‘nothing gained’ by following Baha’u’llah, I reply by pointing out you need to do an honest comparison between your world and the Baha’i world in order to clearly see what you are missing out on and it’s a hell of a lot.