Why reject atheism?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I was born and raised atheist, was a staunch believer in atheism for several decades.

'failure to believe'

^ there's your trouble; a belief that frames itself as a mere disbelief of the alternative... can never question itself. Once I did recognize my belief for what it was, it did not stand up to much scrutiny

I just can never get this idea of "believing in atheism" (or the thread's topic, rejecting atheism). Atheism is not a thing. Theism is a thing - a belief in the existence of god(s) and what that believed existence requires of the believer. Atheism is not having any such a belief, and therefore having nothing required as a result.

No doubt everybody's heard this before, but not collecting stamps is not a hobby, collecting them is. Atheism is not a belief, theism is.

On the topic of the thread, "why reject atheism," what if it were a question of not collecting stamps. Should ordinary folks be wary of the heinous fellow who has no interest in wasting time, energy and money hunting down a rare, unfranked One-Penny Black?

 

[Paradox22]

I just can never get this idea of "believing in atheism" (or the thread's topic, rejecting atheism). Atheism is not a thing. Theism is a thing - a belief in the existence of god(s) and what that believed existence requires of the believer. Atheism is not having any such a belief, and therefore having nothing required as a result.

I completely disagree. Atheism IS a belief. Some would say it involves a sort of "faith", but I won't argue that here. Atheism is a philosophical position on a fundamental question. It is not just the lack of belief.

The original question is not a stupid question. People do decide to reject their atheistic philosophies. Why would they do it? One could look at some of the arguments in favor of the existence of some sort of deity and decide that they make sense. For example, there are former scientists that have decided that based on what they have learned, a god makes more sense. Another reason could be based on a practical Pascal-Wager type argument.

Personally, I know that it is not a stupid question because I am going through just a transition myself. This time last year I was an adamant atheist. I am currently in a point where I want to believe in Christianity, but my atheistic instincts are making it very difficult to feel like a God really exists.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I hope you would not seriously claim that Bahaullah was the first person in human history to forbid slavery. The Buddha didn't allow slavery.

Zoroaster, as I understand it- did not allow slavery either. In fact, Zoroastrianism contains the strongest religious condemnation of slavery I've ever read.

In the Avesta (Zoroastrian scriptures) it says if you're walking along and see someone ordering a slave- you are to kill that person and let the slave go free, because Ahura Mazda really finds slavery that detestable.

No not at all. I’m aware all the Great Teachers were against it but I think that slavery was first formally abolished in writing by Baha’u’llah in His Most Holy Book in His own handwriting.

But I would like very much if you could pass some other quotes from Buddha and Zoroaster to me and their sources as they would be valuable to me. I accept both Buddha and Zoroaster so I want to know where they said this. Thank you.

I think it’s the first formal prohibition of slavery in religious history in writing.

It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God’s servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bondslaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things. – Baha’u’llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas, Par. 72.

 

[Paradox22]

Why would anyone reject atheism? If someone does reject atheism, what do they see as being wrong with atheism that they should reject it? How can someone reject the failure to believe in a or any proposed deity?

Atheism is not just a "failure to believe." It is the affirmative belief that no conception of a god exists, or ever existed. To reject Atheism can be interpreted as simply changing philosophies. I used to be a Utilitarian. Now I believe that it is not as simple as that. Similarly, someone could be convinced there was never an intelligent creator, and then change their mind based on any number of reasons. Maybe Kant's argument from morality can convince someone that there must be an objective morality, which might reasonably suggest and objective moral "law-giver."
Maybe someone decides that it isn't rational to assume that a jealous god does Not exist. (S)he could see it as a cost-benefit question, and decide Pascal has a good point. An atheist could be persuaded by science-based arguments made by some Creationists. Yes. There are rational arguments in favor of some sort of creator. There are scientists, such as the head of the Genome project, that changed their view based on scientific discoveries. One example is the author of "the Language of God" (DNA).
If you really care to know, find a Christian apologist book. There are some that argue for the existence of a deity based on scientific discoveries and philosophy arguments.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I completely disagree. Atheism IS a belief. Some would say it involves a sort of "faith", but I won't argue that here. Atheism is a philosophical position on a fundamental question. It is not just the lack of belief.

Okay, here's your chance. What is that "fundamental question?" Surely it cannot be "God." God is an answer, not a question. So the "fundamental question" has to precede the answer. That question might be "why is there anything?" But that doesn't quite work, does it? "Why" comes in two varieties: "for what reason" or "by what means?"

So in my view, and in the view of most of the atheists that I know, our view is not a "philosophical position" on that question: it is a rejection of a simplistic and baseless proposed answer. There is no reason at all to propose the notion of a creative, purposeful entity before there's anything at all, and therefore we find it to be a non-answer. Finding something to be a non-answer is not what I would call a "philosophical position on a fundamental question." The direction that Quantum Theory is going, in my view, comes closer to searching for a real answer.

The original question is not a stupid question. People do decide to reject their atheistic philosophies. Why would they do it? One could look at some of the arguments in favor of the existence of some sort of deity and decide that they make sense. For example, there are former scientists that have decided that based on what they have learned, a god makes more sense. Another reason could be based on a practical Pascal-Wager type argument.

"Former scientists." Very, very few, however, would you not agree? For the vast majority, the notion that "some sort of deity" makes sense can only come from abandoning the search for a real answer. A deity -- something you can know nothing about, but surmise anything at all you'd like about -- is just land-fill.

Personally, I know that it is not a stupid question because I am going through just a transition myself. This time last year I was an adamant atheist. I am currently in a point where I want to believe in Christianity, but my atheistic instincts are making it very difficult to feel like a God really exists.

Do you think that the culprit is your "atheistic instincts," or is it rather more likely to be your inability to believe what presents no reason to believe?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I completely disagree. Atheism IS a belief. Some would say it involves a sort of "faith", but I won't argue that here. Atheism is a philosophical position on a fundamental question. It is not just the lack of belief.

The original question is not a stupid question. People do decide to reject their atheistic philosophies. Why would they do it? One could look at some of the arguments in favor of the existence of some sort of deity and decide that they make sense. For example, there are former scientists that have decided that based on what they have learned, a god makes more sense. Another reason could be based on a practical Pascal-Wager type argument.

Personally, I know that it is not a stupid question because I am going through just a transition myself. This time last year I was an adamant atheist. I am currently in a point where I want to believe in Christianity, but my atheistic instincts are making it very difficult to feel like a God really exists.

The problem with the God question is God is unknowable so we cannot ever know God exists through direct knowledge. It’s like trying to look at the sun directly, we are blinded.

But what we do have to indicate His existence are His Representatives He sends from age to age to guide and assist us.

If you look at the lives of these Messiahs or Great Educators you will see complete perfect examples of sacrifice for the good of others. Despite cruel opposition and persecution eventually they won over humanity to their Cause. There is no greater proof there is a God than the lives of these Great Educators which despite overwhelming odds have prevailed over the most opporessive regimes not having any wealth or power. And eventually they inspired civilisations, the arts, sciences and influenced the entire course of history and even today thousands of years after they’re death people model their lives in their teachings.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I just can never get this idea of "believing in atheism" (or the thread's topic, rejecting atheism). Atheism is not a thing. Theism is a thing - a belief in the existence of god(s) and what that believed existence requires of the believer. Atheism is not having any such a belief, and therefore having nothing required as a result.

No doubt everybody's heard this before, but not collecting stamps is not a hobby, collecting them is. Atheism is not a belief, theism is.

which is exactly my point, atheism explicitly refuses to acknowledge itself as a belief- it's right there in the name

I can do exactly the same thing still, as an a-naturalist- I make no positive assertions that need backed up by tricky things like evidence- I simply refuse to believe in naturalism until proven otherwise (*and meanwhile default to the obvious alternative). I have no need to do this now though, I am willing and able to defend my beliefs on their own merits

On the topic of the thread, "why reject atheism," what if it were a question of not collecting stamps. Should ordinary folks be wary of the heinous fellow who has no interest in wasting time, energy and money hunting down a rare, unfranked One-Penny Black?

^ as above, why be wary of the heinous fellow that has no interest in formulating naturalistic explanations for the universe?

 

[Milton Platt]

You know, you just proved my point, Why you let things bother you, if you do not believe in it.
You just proved my point, to let something bother you, is not only ridiculous but also unlogical, and a weak.

Either you believe there is God and you have guilt or your attacking a God that you do not believe in, which is Ridiculous to say the least.
I can see it now, for someone to come up and ask, What are you doing, Oh i'm attacking this because I do not believe in it. But why if you don't believe in it, Oh because I'm ridiculous And don't know any better, that's why.

Your reading comprehension really sucks, dude. I said that I bother with theisms because of it's affects on society, which in turn affects others who do not believe in your particular version of an invisible friend.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it is rather safe to say that everyone you know is an atheist with respect to at least one god fable, in fact, in most cases, they are an atheist with respect to all but one god fable.

They may not believe in Thor, but they still adhere to a theistic worldview.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Your reading comprehension really sucks, dude. I said that I bother with theisms because of it's affects on society, which in turn affects others who do not believe in your particular version of an invisible friend.

Well seeing it bothers you, do you really think I care. Remember you text me and not me to you. If you do not like what I have to say then don't text me, that's simple enough, dude.

 

[Milton Platt]

They may not believe in Thor, but they still adhere to a theistic worldview.

Or pantheist, or polytheist, or deist.......so many choices.....

 

[siti]

You said a number of things that weren’t compatible with a reasonable definition of atheism....etc...

9-10ths, your definitions of both theism and atheism seem to be incorrect. Atheism (as you have already agreed) is athe-ism (literally 'without-god(s)-ism' - or 'without belief in any god(s)')...it is not a-theism (literally 'without-theism') - this is where you are going wrong. Theism does not - in modern usage or in etymological origin - mean belief in any god(s) - it means the more specific belief in a personal creator kind of god with whom it is possible for humans to have some kind of personal relationship. Deism - which is belief in an impersonal creator who doesn't directly interact with humans is definitely not theism - indeed the English word 'theist' was coined specifically to distinguish those with more traditional theistic beliefs from the deists who held God to be an impersonal and disinterested creator who had no direct relationship (through revelation or miraculous intervention) with his creation. Deists were often labelled 'atheists' by their 'theist' opponents as were 'pantheists' (such as John Toland who coined the word 'pantheist' in 1705). If you are opposing 'atheism' to 'theism' then deists, pantheists, polytheists and agnostics are all atheists. But atheism is actually (etymologically) opposed not only to theism, but also to deism, pantheism, polytheism...etc. so if I reject atheism, I could be any of those and still not be a theist. You could quite legitimately be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic atheist, an agnostic deist, an agnostic pantheist...etc. I suppose - but still, rejecting atheism is not the same as accepting theism. Never in a month of Sundays.

 

[Milton Platt]

I completely disagree. Atheism IS a belief. Some would say it involves a sort of "faith", but I won't argue that here. Atheism is a philosophical position on a fundamental question. It is not just the lack of belief.

The original question is not a stupid question. People do decide to reject their atheistic philosophies. Why would they do it? One could look at some of the arguments in favor of the existence of some sort of deity and decide that they make sense. For example, there are former scientists that have decided that based on what they have learned, a god makes more sense. Another reason could be based on a practical Pascal-Wager type argument.

Personally, I know that it is not a stupid question because I am going through just a transition myself. This time last year I was an adamant atheist. I am currently in a point where I want to believe in Christianity, but my atheistic instincts are making it very difficult to feel like a God really exists.

Atheism is fundamentally the lack of belief in a god. It is not necessarily the belief that there is not god. Not believing in a singular question is hardly a philosophy.

 

[atanu]

I refer to your post #197 in this thread, where you apparently give yourself the authority to know better what atheism is than the atheist himself does.

I checked back. In post 197 I said “We must agree to differ on the point of the bold part.” To which @lewisnotmiller in post 205 replied “Fair enough.”.

My view ‘a rejection of x entails acceptance of the counter positive’, is general and not related to atheism specifically. And, there is no claim of authority.

You may be admin but I will prefer not to respond to you.

Namaste.

 

[siti]

Not replying to anyone in particular but I thought I might waffle on a bit about the analogy between not collecting stamps and atheism. I fully understand that not collecting stamps is not a hobby but I have, in fact, spent almost all of my more than 50 years of life not collecting stamps and I have to say I have found it incredibly liberating. I've had time to do all kinds of other things - watching tv, playing soccer (a long time ago), a bit of (rather amateur it has to be said) carpentry and gardening and so on. On the negative side, I have absolutely no idea how much a penny black is worth or which brand of stamp hinges are currently thought to be the long-term stickiest. But on the whole I think I'm reasonably happy to forego these elements of human wisdom in favour of the great vistas that not collecting stamps has given me the freedom to explore. Does that make "not collecting stamps" a "thing"? Or not? Conversely, if I reject "not collecting stamps" as an irrelevance, a "non-thing" - does that mean I am automatically a stamp collector? I think not. You? (Anybody?)

 

[Paradox22]

Okay, here's your chance. What is that "fundamental question?" Surely it cannot be "God." God is an answer, not a question. So the "fundamental question" has to precede the answer. That question might be "why is there anything?" But that doesn't quite work, does it? "Why" comes in two varieties: "for what reason" or "by what means?"

So in my view, and in the view of most of the atheists that I know, our view is not a "philosophical position" on that question: it is a rejection of a simplistic and baseless proposed answer. There is no reason at all to propose the notion of a creative, purposeful entity before there's anything at all, and therefore we find it to be a non-answer. Finding something to be a non-answer is not what I would call a "philosophical position on a fundamental question." The direction that Quantum Theory is going, in my view, comes closer to searching for a real answer.

Please notice that I did not suggest God is "the question" or "the answer." I was just referring to the topic of religion,atheism, agnosticism... as "a fundamental question." There are many fundamental questions and many trivial questions. I just figure the question of whether some sort of deity ever existed is a pretty important one. Worth discussing here, anyway.
That aside, I don't see how you can say an atheist does not have a philosophical position. This question of religion is a topic of philosophy. One position is that there are many gods. one position is that there never were any gods. Each religion represents another position. And then there are agnostics. (lets not get started on that. ). I'm not suggesting there is compelling reason for any of these points of view. Maybe quantum theory will lead to the best answers to questions. I'm certainly not anti-science!

"Former scientists." Very, very few, however, would you not agree? For the vast majority, the notion that "some sort of deity" makes sense can only come from abandoning the search for a real answer. A deity -- something you can know nothing about, but surmise anything at all you'd like about -- is just land-fill.

Very few, indeed. I'm not playing a "here are my experts, here are yours" game. I'm not even arguing a position.

Do you think that the culprit is your "atheistic instincts," or is it rather more likely to be your inability to believe what presents no reason to believe?

Tough question. Certainly my atheistic beliefs are long-held habits. I'm trying to be open to listening to another other point of view. Specifically, I am re-examining my former Christian faith to try to give it a "fair hearing," so to speak. But it's been a long time. I'm not sure if I ever really believed in God. Looking back, I think I became disillusioned when I started to believe in a "hard" version of determinism. It didn't make sense to me that someone could be damned if their thoughts and deeds were even loosely predetermined. I'm still struggling with a way make sense of ethics and morality when I cannot come up with a satisfactory explanation of "free will."

 

[Dantedeven]

TL; DR
I was Atheist, that i can never deny,
But i was commanded towards faith.

I never denied atheism, because i was an atheist.
And for a long time too, active as well.
But yeah, i think that if you saw what i saw.

Witnessed what i witnessed.
Felt what i felt.
You would betray yourself by remaining atheist.

I was not driven towards faith by my heart or desire.
I was not taught to believe in God at home or in school.
I was not curious as to what is faith or religion, it was not relevant.

I did not want to know any secret of anything.
No thirst for hidden knowledge, i longed not for happiness either.
I was an atheist, there was no God for me, no soul, no spirit.

But i was commanded to believe in God.
And like a true atheist, i denied this and then i was shown.
Again and again, until i could not deny, for i would be a liar (Towards myself)

And i am not talking about the subconcious mind.
Or meditation, praying or any explanation, lucid dream, vision, none of that.
I read no holy book, had not knowledge of dharma, no knowledge about religion,
but i was shown by someone.

And so i said to him: "Why the bible, why any of these books,
modern man and modern science knows a thousand times more now than what
the people of the bible back then knew about anything."
And the reply was "The elder have so more knowledge than you can ever imagine about
science, about mankind, He is our creator, you and me, He is science."

And so i said: "But what has this to do with me, why do i need this is my life, how can
the elder knowledge help me if i do not know any of it, how can i know for certain that we
are created?" And then he drew his sword and held it above my head and i got scared.

"Daniël, you have fallen astray from your path and so i keep above your head now: "The sword
of righteousness". Would you deny any of the favors that the Lord has granted you, would
you deny any of the miracles that the Lord has blessed you with, know that by denying that all and
my existence you shall be labelled as a betrayer and a liar, towards yourself."

"But why does the Lord want me to believe in Him? What difference does it make?"
"The Lord knows of many things and I was send by Him to intervene with you, do
not question why or how; for what the Lord does, the Lord does and it is not known to
anyone."

And then he went away, and i grabbed the bible and opened it, close my eyes and place my finger, write down the verse and read it later and i would do this again and again:

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4) But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined, so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (Coritheans 11:32) A wise son listens to his father's instructions, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke. (Proverbs 13:1) Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.In all your ways acknowledge him and he will make straight your paths. (Proverbs 3-5) Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. (James 4:8) A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot. (Proverbs 14:30) And He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (Collosians 1-17) No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. (Matthew 6:24) Whoever loves pleasure will become poor; whoever loves wine and olive oil will never be rich. (Proverbs 21:17) For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. (Romans 8:6) For “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass.The grass withers,and the flower falls,but the word of the Lord remains forever.” And this word is the good news that was preached to you. (Peter 1:24) Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. (Thessalonians 5:23) God is not man, that he should lie,or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (Numbers 23-19) He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8) Better is open rebuke
than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy. (Proverbs 27:5) “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20-29) “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.” (Matthew 6-34) and this is the day that the Lord has made;let us rejoice and be glad in it. (Psalm 118-24) be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. (Ephesians 6-10) for where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. (Matthew 18:20)

 

[Sapiens]

They may not believe in Thor, but they still adhere to a theistic worldview.

You're prepared to argue that there is sufficient commonality between all theistic religions to provide for a common "theistic worldview"? Now, that proposition is truly a laughing matter.

 

[siti]

No not at all. I’m aware all the Great Teachers were against it but I think that slavery was first formally abolished in writing by Baha’u’llah in His Most Holy Book in His own handwriting.

But I would like very much if you could pass some other quotes from Buddha and Zoroaster to me and their sources as they would be valuable to me. I accept both Buddha and Zoroaster so I want to know where they said this. Thank you.

I think it’s the first formal prohibition of slavery in religious history in writing.

It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God’s servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bondslaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things. – Baha’u’llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas, Par. 72.

Oh Lord! LOH - have you never heard of James Oglethorpe, William Wilberforce, the Quakers, the Clapham Saints, Abraham Lincoln...all of these objected to slavery on religious and moral grounds. It was outlawed in France in the 14th century, England in 1833 and the US in 1865 - all before Baha'u'llah caught on in the book you quoted from which he wrote in 1873. He doesn't credit for being the first to oppose slavery on religious or any other grounds.

 

[LuisDantas]

I checked back. In post 197 I said “We must agree to differ on the point of the bold part.” To which @lewisnotmiller in post 205 replied “Fair enough.”.

My view ‘a rejection of x entails acceptance of the counter positive’, is general and not related to atheism specifically. And, there is no claim of authority.

You may be admin but I will prefer not to respond to you.

Namaste.

Mod, not admin.

And while it is your privilege not to learn better when a mistake is pointed out, that is still a sad loss.