Why atheism is inspiring and positive

[Alaric]

Let's say that the world operates to some as-yet-undiscovered laws or random events; there is no creator, no purpose; consciousness is just a cool consequence of human evolution, thoughts and the feeling of free will are just a result of the brain's way of using the ability of abstract thought to identify certain remembered actions with one 'self' and imagine the possibility and consequences of future actions, and meaning that we can recognise the individuality of other humans and animals and empathize with them; that morality simply reflects the need of humans as social beings to organize themselves according to certain rules for a society to function by using this ability to empathize; and that religion is simply a creation by people to forge unity within a community, and an anthropomorphization of certain forces or social virtues.

Is that so bad?

For me, it's beautiful, as well as commonsensical. No God looking over our shoulder telling us what to do; no purpose, allowing us complete freedom to explore our fullest potential, both individually and as a species; no complete knowledge, meaning that there is still tons and tons about the universe that we still have to learn, meaning that for all we know, we could develop into gods ourselves; no god-given morality, meaning we have the responsibility to figure it out for ourselves but also meaning that we are capable of creating good societies all by our lonesome; no guiding creator, meaning that all our progress, all the arts, music, scientific discoveries are all purely thanks to us, and showing that simple laws of cause and effect are able to create things as wonderful as life, hopefully all over the universe.

Isn't that cool? Atheism is not about resignation or moral relativism or nihilism. At worst, it's about accepting reality for what it is; at it's best, it's a a great Nietzschean YES to life!

 

[Engyo]

Alaric -

I think you will find that atheism is many things to many people. Definitions again, of course. If you are a positive person, and you are an atheist, then atheism is positive. If you are a negative or gloomy person,and an atheist, then atheism is negative/gloomy. I know positive Buddhists, and gloomy Buddhists. I know bright happy Christians and "the world is doomed" gloomy Christians. Their faiths always mirror their general personality, even if they practice alongside each other.

Thinking about it, I am not sure one can actually assign "moods" to any belief system (or lack-of-belief system, if you will). I think the "mood" has far more to do with the individual than it does with the 'system.

Just my opinion, of course. YMMV.

 

[Master Vigil]

First off Neitzsche was a moron. He said that "god" once existed but we killed him. He said that "god" choked on pity for us. This is a plain old cop out for a philosopher. He only did that to get out of the argument for the existence of god. idiot!! first off, the general idea of "god" in phiolosophy is a perfect entity. no god that isnt perfect can be god, and if god wasn't perfect than it wouldn't be god. therefore, if you use logic and reason, or a rationalist view, you see that if a god can die than it wouldn't be god. then some people say that god choked himself on perfect pity. but two perfections cannot negate each other. That is against logic.

also, what you may see as beautiful, others may see as completely horrendous. Don't argue with your emotions, argue with logic and reason. And again, in the end, all things are right, and all are wrong. why trivialize it. why ask these questions.

also, using logic, something cannot come from nothing, and everything comes from energy. we cannot have infinite regress, so something must of started it all. whatever you believe that to be, it takes on the same purpose as god. everything you talked about in your first paragraph could be concluded to some as god and the effects of god.

 

[(Q)]

also, using logic, something cannot come from nothing

What about virtual particles?

 

[Alaric]

This post could just as well be aimed at gloomy atheists as anyone else. Many people think that atheism is some dead-end no-hope God-denying morally-relativistic hedonistic self-surrender, and it isn't at all. Sometimes (perhaps a little arrogantly) I think that if my arguments are strong enough and accepted by the religious unwillingly, then I'll send someone off into a deep depression since some religious seem to get a great deal of pleasure and meaning from their beliefs. I'm no atheist missionary, but I like to think of atheism as an opening of the eyes and a setting free of the mind, rather than a brutal destruction of the beliefs that gets someone through the day. Naturally I assume people on these forums are more thick-skinned than that and just want to challenge their beliefs, but the religious do seem to invest a bigger part of themselves in their beliefs than atheists. You don't hear people say "Hey, I believe in God for these and these reasons and it's freaking me out, what with this hell and all. I really hope someone can show me that I'm wrong..."

 

[Master Vigil]

those virtual particles would come from something. Be it energy or god, they are the same thing. But they would have to be from something that has been here for all eternity and was not created in itself.

I understand your point of view alaric. All i was putting forth was a logical argument for the existence of a perfect essence.

also, what is wrong with a religious investing a big part of themselves in their beliefs. It is the same as an athlete investing a big part of themselves in their sports. If they didn't, they wouldn't be as good of an athlete. Same with a religious.

Most people are not freaked out by the reasons in which they believe in god. And since when does anyone want to be shown that they are wrong?

 

[Runt]

we cannot have infinite regress

Personally I like infinite regress. I think the denial of infinite regress is simply an attempt to put reality into nice, neat human terms. And it is fun to think about... implies that "God" and "God's creation" have BOTH always been around....

I think that if my arguments are strong enough and accepted by the religious unwillingly, then I'll send someone off into a deep depression since some religious seem to get a great deal of pleasure and meaning from their beliefs.

Ah, but I don't think I'd be depressed if I suddenly became atheist... then again, I'm hanging onto spirituality by the teeth... I think there is a God but there is no reason to worry about it or concentrate on it because it is far more complex and far LESS human than many religious people believe it to be (it doesn't have emotion or gender but in an odd way encompasses both because it is EVERYTHING... it knows all and therefore does not "think", it is aware in a way we don't understand, it encompasses everything including the natural laws, but beyond those natural laws it does not control us, it does not determine morals because it encompasses what we call "good" and "evil", etc etc etc)... all the atheist stuff you covered minus the "no God" part Basically there is a god, but whether we think about it or not, nothing will change... it will not strike us down because we did something wrong, it doesn't really give a damn about us.... so why think about it (except for fun)?

 

[Alaric]

Runt, the reason why I enjoy these religious discussions so much is that religion and other forms of spiritual beliefs and worldviews is that they offer many very useful and insightful theories and consequences of the human condition, even though the facts on which they are based are flawed.

But if God exists in any way even close to the way the major religions describe it, the consequences are huge. It would affect everything single action I ever made from the point of believing it to my death. My views on my fellows humans would change, my views on animals, plants, other religions and cultures, morality, family life - everything.

 

[Alaric]

I understand your point of view alaric. All i was putting forth was a logical argument for the existence of a perfect essence.

The Ontological Argument in the versions put forth by Anselm and Descartes only say that if God is perfect, then He must exist - basically that in order to exist He must exist. Duh! And the claim that we have the idea of a perfect God in our heads that must have come from somewhere is bogus because we don't have that idea in our heads at all. If you can describe everything about how God exists, you would be the first person ever.

also, what is wrong with a religious investing a big part of themselves in their beliefs. It is the same as an athlete investing a big part of themselves in their sports. If they didn't, they wouldn't be as good of an athlete. Same with a religious.

Nothing necessarily, but it's risky. I think that you should invest your energy in understanding, not hanging your entire way of life on the premises of religion. People have a tendency to go for broke and wager their entire happiness on something that they can only cross their fingers and hope is true.

 

[Bendad]

What is atheism?

Not believing in a conventional concept of God isn't so bad. We all need to seek out the truth about what life, the universe and everything means to each one on us personally so we can follow it with some real conviction. Finding and trying to live according to a universal truth that we find at the end of that personal search, such as loving all living things, is in itself a belief in something higher which some may call 'God'. So when we identify with atheism we don't necessary mean we believe in nothing, but perhaps are just refusing to identify with certain unsatisfying stereotyped concepts about God.

We are all made as individuals and need to come to terms with what life means to us on that level. It is dangerous to follow anything based on blind faith alone and to do so puts us at risk of being manipulated by others to possibly do destructive things that they might then say were done in the name of 'God'. We need to think for ourselves and come to an understanding of what that concept of 'God' might mean to us, if we want to embrace it at all.

Rebelling against the notion of 'God' because we don't like the idea of being accountable to an ultimate force of truth seems to me to be just as bad a blindly following a religion simply because we were born into it. But the one reality I am sure I cannot escape is my own knowledge of how I have lived my life - whether I have wasted it with a self-indulgent, ungrateful or hateful attitude towards others, or whether I tried to do something to make the lives of others and therefore the world a better place. Honesty starts with myself as that is the one person I cannot deceive when I must eventually face the truth about myself.

 

[Master Vigil]

"The Ontological Argument in the versions put forth by Anselm and Descartes only say that if God is perfect, then He must exist - basically that in order to exist He must exist. Duh!"

Thats backwards. In order for the idea of perfection to exist, god must exist. and descartes found his cogito before he decided if god existed. so basically, after he found indubitably that he existed, he then discovered that god had to exist. And there was no IF about gods perfection. It was BECAUSE we have an idea of perfection, than it had to come from a perfect being. That perfect being, is god.

And the claim that we have the idea of a perfect God in our heads that must have come from somewhere is bogus because we don't have that idea in our heads at all."

Not that we have an idea of a perfect god, just the idea of perfection. And show me somewhere in the natural world something that is perfect. If that idea didn't come from the physical world, than it had to come from somewhere else. For an imperfect being would have no idea of perfection.

 

[Master Vigil]

And Anselm didn't define god as perfect. he defined god as "something that which nothing greater can be concieved." Then says that god is "something greater than can be concieved." the problem with anselms argument is that you have to buy his definition.

 

[Alaric]

Not that we have an idea of a perfect god, just the idea of perfection. And show me somewhere in the natural world something that is perfect. If that idea didn't come from the physical world, than it had to come from somewhere else. For an imperfect being would have no idea of perfection.

The idea of perfection is just a word we use to describe something without flaws - we can imagine the flaws, but not the lack of them. So we cannot imagine a perfect God.

 

[Master Vigil]

But we are able to imagine the lack of them, this is our idea of perfection. Sure we understand the flaws, but how can we understand that they are flaws without the opposite being present? And how can a flawed being describe something that is inflawed, or even produce an idea of it?

Here is Descartes 13 step argument for the existence of god...

I have an idea of god.

1. Therefore the idea of god is either produced by me, or something outside of me.

2. It is not produced by me, for the finite cannot produce the infinite.

3. Therefore the idea is produced outside of me.

4. The cause of the idea must have atleast as much reality as the effect. (since the idea itself exists, the cause of it must exist)

5. Therefore the cause of the idea of god has as much reality as the idea.

6. Therefore something outside of me has as much reality as the idea of god.

7. Anything outside of me has formal reality and the idea of god has objective reality. (formal reality is what exists outside the self, and objective is anything that exists inside the self.)

8. Therefore something outside of me has atleast as much formal reality as the idea of god has objective reality.

9. The idea of god has infinite objective reality.

10. Therefore something outside of me has infinite formal reality.

11. Therefore anything that has infinite formal reality is god.

12. Therefore god has formal reality.

13. Therefore god exists.

 

[BioMors]

I must say, Engyo's reply was well put. Atheism isn’t necessarily happy or sad, though it’s nice that you are able to find such a positive outlook on it Alaric, and I can see your point.

Certainly not everybody feels that way, as an atheist I’m a little more morbid myself, but I get by day to day.
Religion does comfort fears in many people, and for those with weaker convictions a god or general spirituality can help them through life.

Oddly enough, I must say true atheism is extremely rare, and in the cases it really does exist you get either one of two extremes and not much in-between as comes in your variety of faiths. There are many “atheists” who believe in souls or free will, who hold up a model of moral absolutes beyond logic, or even seem to believe there is something special about our neural weights that just maybe makes us any more significant than an amoeba- these I would not call true atheists for even though their logical analysis of religion has removed them from it, beyond their notice, and perhaps even buried so far within their subconscious many can’t even realize it, they have formulated their own religion; their own faith. Anything perceived as exceptionally “special” about the human mind as opposed to a rock could be indicative of this, perhaps even succumbing to the illusion of one’s own existence can in itself be a slight system of faith- in fact that is the very means by which many religions evolved. While this may appear nihilism, any faith in a singularity such as those I’ve mentioned can be comparable to a theistic faith in many ways.
These systems of faith, whether they are self created in denial, or adopted from a set religious standard, tend to elevate the individual morale by reducing fears of this very cold and desolate reality in which we live. Without the sugar coating of faith (regardless of how thick), it comes down to one thing; can you take reality? Some people can and thus may be happy and optimistic as atheists, though most cannot. Those who cannot usually either end up being “saved”, or if their intellect is too stubborn and their will to live too weak, at the end of a rope.
That said, I can’t say I’ve met very many pure atheists if ever any at all. I’m not criticizing atheism of course, I believe this world could possibly be a far more peaceful place without religion, but then again it has never been proven so total chaos could break out. The reactions of any with faith of any kind are nearly unpredictable when that faith is removed; what kind of person are they under that veil of theistic perception?

I’ve had one too many close calls shattering someone’s faith and just barely catching them and softening my arguments before… perhaps something regrettable occurred. I try to make it my policy to not go so far as to cause somebody to loose their faith when I don’t know they can handle it. However, when they’re being stubborn, hateful, and rude like some people I have known, it is *very* tempting.


Descartes’ argument becomes fallacious at the second step. The argument assumes that he could actually conceive of infinity, which I highly doubt, because he seems to believe he can conceive of an infinite god. A large bulk of Christian apologetics is based upon the premise that man cannot fully conceive of god; Descartes’ arguments fly in the face of that. Arguing that the 'idea' of god is not full conception on his part also breaks down the argument because then his idea would be limited and thus so would be his god. A limited god is then both a. not a god, and b. quite possibly just a figment of his limited imagination.

 

[deahca2]

I want to make a point about atheism and I hope you excuse my poor attempt to make a point. A good Rabbi once wrote a bit about "cost-benefit".
Let's start with a religious person. The person does a deed, with the outlook that it a) makes goody points with G-d. b) will give some sort of benefit in the long run, either earthly or in heaven.
The deed is not done in this example because it was the RIGHT thing to do, with no other thought that this was something that needed doing and it was right for the person to do it.
Does that explain cost-benefit? I hope so.
Now we go to the atheist. The atheist does the SAME deed with no other reason than it was the right thing to do. There was no "fear of G-d", there was no promise of whatever now or in the future. There was no G-d to make love him/her. The threat of torture for eternity did not exist for the atheist nor did G-d.
Now, I do believe in G-d and I wonder what G-d would think. would G-d be more pleased by the atheist ( with no ulterior motive) or by the person that was supposed to be religious? To my poor human judgement, the atheist wins hands down.
My next idea is that G-d does not mind atheists in the least. Surely if G-d IS as I think,THE superior being with all that implies, He would know that atheists would exist and be perfectly comfortable with that. I just can't envision G-d as being petty about an atheist. My belief in G-d is much more than a petty being.
Hope this made sense.
deah

 

[painted wolf]

I'm glad that you find Atheism inspireing and positive... if it works for you go for it.

but just because it makes you happy doen't make it true... this argument goes for both Atheism and theism...

One must always keep an open mind so you stay out of the dogma trap... and yes, Athiesm like any belief can become dogmatic as far as I'm concerned....

personally I agree with deahca2, I'm certen creator doesn't really care if people believe or not... just so long as they aren't dropping nukes everywhere and being a real prick... that might cheeze creator off a bit :lol:

wa:-do

 

[Alaric]

Vigil,
I would agree with BioMors, although I would even disagree with his first premise - I bet that he can NOT conceive of God.
Regarding perfection, all you have to do to come up with the idea of 'flawless' is to stick a 'less' after 'flaw'. You can't imagine 'flawless'.

BioMors,
"I’ve had one too many close calls shattering someone’s faith and just barely catching them and softening my arguments before… perhaps something regrettable occurred."
Wow, really? This is what my post was intended to fight - I can't see why an atheistic worldview is depressing at all, unless it's just about embarrassment that you ever believed anything else.
I don't agree with your rather extreme views on what a true atheist is, though - we are special if we think we are special. I certainly place more importance on humans than amoebas, but then I don't say that in an objective sense, just that I have my own priorities. And the fact that there is no God is what stops it being 'cold and desolate' - if it were just about God, what would the whole point be? Then nothing would ever matter, not even to the individual.

Deah,
This is partly what I was dealing with on the 'supremacy of the ethical' thread - empathy comes first. If God asks you to do something you feel to be immoral, you must decline. And God should not want people to worship Him.

Wolf,
Atheism usually isn't dogmatic because it's based on reason and evidence, whereas religion is based on faith, which is where dogma comes from. Atheists can be pretty blind to other points of view sometimes, but at least you aren't supposed to be blind, like in Christianity ("You believe because you have seen; blessed are those that have not seen and yet believe" - John something, I think).

 

[BioMors]

“I can't see why an atheistic worldview is depressing at all, unless it's just about embarrassment that you ever believed anything else.”

Haha, funny… but really, it’s all about your perceptions and individual personality. Some people see nothing depressing about it and are thus completely content, while others find a limited existence doomed to eternal nothingness quite frightening. That is, I believe, where the more extreme variations in personality types comes from- either you’ve come to terms with ultimately not existing, or not.

“I certainly place more importance on humans than amoebas, but then I don't say that in an objective sense, just that I have my own priorities.”

Certainly, as do I: that’s just a matter of my own opinion though, not a derivation of my atheism. I’m going by instinct following my own opinions simply due to the fact that they are *my* opinions, and for the time being this brain controls this body.

“And the fact that there is no God is what stops it being 'cold and desolate' - if it were just about God, what would the whole point be? Then nothing would ever matter, not even to the individual.”

If somebody truly thinks through theism to it’s ultimate end, an omniscient god (as I’ve mentioned just not in the other thread) is incompatible with the concept of free will or independent thought. However, most people believe in denial of this so it’s really a non-point. I see no difference between a universe with a god or one without if logic is truly followed to its end. Whether or not there is a supreme being it’s still just as pointless.

 

[Alaric]

Certainly, as do I: that’s just a matter of my own opinion though, not a derivation of my atheism. I’m going by instinct following my own opinions simply due to the fact that they are *my* opinions, and for the time being this brain controls this body.

Atheism is about putting people first. Put anything else first, and you are worshipping them, and that's not really allowed.

Whether or not there is a supreme being it’s still just as pointless.

The human condition is ignorance - if it takes a supreme being to truly realise ourselves, or if it's just something that we can do ourselves to the extent possible, does make a difference - except with morality, which (as I argue in the other thread) must necessarily be the same no matter what.