Why reject atheism?

[Buddha Dharma]

Hi mate, selfishly I'd be interested in your take on my points above (ie. The post preceding this one).

In which post #? I shall try...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In which post #? I shall try...

#159.

I'd commented earlier, in a very general sense, that rejection of atheism didn't make much sense to me, then tried to explain why.

Fine if you agree or disagree, just think it might be an interesting response.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't see what's so ridiculous or impossible about the revival of ancient polytheistic religions. What's amazing is that people act like the Neo Pagan movement doesn't exist. How do you go decades of living in a liberal city in North America and never hear about it?

Polytheistic reconstructionism - Wikipedia

I've lived decades in a liberal North American city and have heard of lots of things that I find no reason to pay much attention to -- including the urge to bring back polytheistic religions.

To date, by the way, I have never found a single person who could point to something in this world, that gave even the slightest evidence that it was the result of something occasioned in Valhalla, or any other spirit world. Anyone who wishes to believe that Gilgamesh killed the "Great Bull of Heaven," thus angering the goddess Ishtar, but I'd really like to see something that suggests that any of it is more than just imaginative fiction.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I am sorry to say that I have nothing to offer on anything else you said- because I might argue it's a matter of semantics to say rejecting gods is no big thing. I am sorry, but I do have a thought to offer on this one statement of yours:

Mind you, rejection of certain philosophies and beliefs commonly associated with atheism (say, materialism) seems entirely possible and meaningful.

What would an atheist ground anything in if they reject materialism? I'm not saying you have to give me an answer, or couldn't claim agnosticism- which I'd accept. I simply wouldn't mind hearing what you think.

In the past, atheists like the Cyrenians and Carvakans tried to ground atheism in mind perception as objective, but through psychology and modern medicine we know this is a bad approach.

That only leaves a certain other number of possibilities for atheists to ground their conclusions in- the most obvious being scientific materialism.

As stated: I'd accept agnosticism if you haven't concluded any specific basis.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I've lived decades in a liberal North American city and have heard of lots of things that I find no reason to pay much attention to -- including the urge to bring back polytheistic religions.

To date, by the way, I have never found a single person who could point to something in this world, that gave even the slightest evidence that it was the result of something occasioned in Valhalla, or any other spirit world. Anyone who wishes to believe that Gilgamesh killed the "Great Bull of Heaven," thus angering the goddess Ishtar, but I'd really like to see something that suggests that any of it is more than just imaginative fiction.

Pagans aren't generally trying to convert people so they wouldn't give a damn if you believe them or not. If you want evidence of the Gods and such, you would have to do the work of reaching out to them yourself. Or not. I couldn't care less what you believe so I have no motivation to try and prove anything to you, as if I need to in the first place. I do find the haughty attitudes of a certain kind of atheist to be annoying, though, much like many Christians and Muslims in their arrogance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am sorry to say that I have nothing to offer on anything else you said- because I might argue it's a matter of semantics to say rejecting gods is no big thing. I am sorry, but I do have a thought to offer on this one statement of yours:



What would an atheist ground anything in if they reject materialism? I'm not saying you have to give me an answer, or couldn't claim agnosticism- which I'd accept. I simply wouldn't mind hearing what you think.

In the past, atheists like the Cyrenians and Carvakans tried to ground atheism in mind perception as objective, but through psychology and modern medicine we know this is incorrect.

That only leaves a certain other number of possibilities for atheists to ground their conclusions in- the most obvious being scientific materialism.

As stated: I'd accept agnosticism if you haven't concluded any specific basis.

I put it in the bucket of 'stuff we don't know'.
Whilst I call myself an atheist, the 'agnostic' part of my self description is important to.

In terms of my views on materialism, I'd count myself as a methodological naturalist. Perhaps there are things beyond our ability to perceive and measure. I think believing there is has utility, regardless of the 'facts'. But we shouldn't confuse that and science.

Note : some might see that as me talking about God, but for me more relevant examples are concepts like free will, or even love

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Alright @lewisnotmiller, so I'll assume you acknowledge the right of others to not find an atheist position convincing- when we do think we have knowledge? I'm not blaming you for your skepticism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am sorry to say that I have nothing to offer on anything else you said- because I might argue it's a matter of semantics to say rejecting Gods is no big thing.

Hmm...I wonder though. But sure, I can agree it's somewhat tied to semantics.
From my point of view, I have just as many beliefs as anyone else, and each of those could be examined and rejected by others. But a lack of belief? Doesn't make sense to me as something to reject.

I think you're seeing atheism as the rejection of theism, but I don't. For me, to see it that way would suggest atheists should have examined all beliefs in turn before declaring themselves atheist.

Just explaining my thinking here, though, not trying to convince anyone, or even suggest there is a 'right' answer.
Hey, I appreciate your response, too.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Alright @lewisnotmiller, so I'll assume you acknowledge the right of others to not find an atheist position convincing- when we do think we have knowledge? I'm not blaming you for your skepticism.

Totally acknowledge that right. In general terms, I have no issues with theism anyway, but even if I did, people can believe as they wish (within boundaries in terms of how they impact on others).
Atheists included.

Actually, on reflection I might go further. Atheism didn't convince me of anything, but that was what was left at the end. It's one reason I have more reticence in declaring things like panentheism or even Deism as 'wrong'. I personally find them unlikely, but they fit with the evidence around me, just as atheism does.

And one thing atheists too often discard (again, in my opinion) are arguments of utility. Then again, it's a subset of atheists who do that, albeit perhaps well represented on the internet.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think you're seeing atheism as the rejection of theism, but I don't.

Theists would be likely to see it that way, no?

For me, to see it that way would suggest atheists should have examined all beliefs in turn before declaring themselves atheist.

On another token- do you think an atheist has thought out their position well when they reject Christianity as their worldview of their parents, and jump to non-belief without any other considerations?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Theists would be likely to see it that way, no?

Yep. I think that would be a common way of viewing it.

On another token- do you think an atheist has thought out their position well when they reject Christianity as their worldview of their parents, and jump to non-belief without any other considerations?

That varies massively, particularly in RL, as opposed to the world of the internet atheists.

I would guess that most have not, but also suggest that many of those same parents are cultural Christians.
People, generally, often don't seem to invest in consistency of belief, or consideration of wide-ranging views, etc.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@lewisnotmiller I was raised an agnostic, did you know that?

I never considered a lot of the philosophical arguments concerning belief and disbelief, or had the occasion to hear them.

Whenever I did- I realized how much I'd taken for granted as a skeptic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Pagans aren't generally trying to convert people so they wouldn't give a damn if you believe them or not. If you want evidence of the Gods and such, you would have to do the work of reaching out to them yourself. Or not. I couldn't care less what you believe so I have no motivation to try and prove anything to you, as if I need to in the first place. I do find the haughty attitudes of a certain kind of atheist to be annoying, though, much like many Christians and Muslims in their arrogance.

Or pagans.

You're not "trying to convert," so (luckily) you don't have to provide any evidence. You suggest (by your wording) that you have "reached out to them" (the gods) and that in doing so you have received something back that confirms for you their existence. You do not, however, make any mention at all of what that might be. You don't, in fact, even mention which (or one, or all) gods you've reached out to that have responded so as to give you comfort in their existence.

I'm sorry that you think that skepticism in the face of no evidence is somehow equated to "arrogance." That's almost the same as saying that whatever anybody on earth told you, on any subject, you would think yourself arrogant not to believe them. Trust me, I can think of quite a few things they might try to convince you of that you would not believe without at least a little evidence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Or pagans.

You're not "trying to convert," so (luckily) you don't have to provide any evidence. You suggest (by your wording) that you have "reached out to them" (the gods) and that in doing so you have received something back that confirms for you their existence. You do not, however, make any mention at all of what that might be. You don't, in fact, even mention which (or one, or all) gods you've reached out to that have responded so as to give you comfort in their existence.

I'm sorry that you think that skepticism in the face of no evidence is somehow equated to "arrogance." That's almost the same as saying that whatever anybody on earth told you, on any subject, you would think yourself arrogant not to believe them. Trust me, I can think of quite a few things they might try to convince you of that you would not believe without at least a little evidence.

I don't have to share or describe my personal spiritual experiences with you. They're none of your business and you're not even a friend of mine who I would divulge such things to. As if I have to justify myself to you.

The attitude I was refering to is one where the person uses a certain idea of reason, skepticism and empiricism as a marker of inferiority or superiority. Many atheists and anti-theists see themselves as superior beings to people who believe in the spiritual. They accuse religious people of mental illness, low intelligence, hindering the progress of the species and so on simply for believing in deities, spirits, souls, an afterlife, etc. It's very nasty.

I am a skeptical person, myself. If someone claims that lizard people rule the world, obviously I'm gonna want proof. A lot of the reason why I rejected Christianity is that it posits ridiculous occurances without proof such as corpses coming back to life. Atheists do not own skepticism.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Or pagans.

You're not "trying to convert," so (luckily) you don't have to provide any evidence. You suggest (by your wording) that you have "reached out to them" (the gods) and that in doing so you have received something back that confirms for you their existence. You do not, however, make any mention at all of what that might be. You don't, in fact, even mention which (or one, or all) gods you've reached out to that have responded so as to give you comfort in their existence.

I'm sorry that you think that skepticism in the face of no evidence is somehow equated to "arrogance." That's almost the same as saying that whatever anybody on earth told you, on any subject, you would think yourself arrogant not to believe them. Trust me, I can think of quite a few things they might try to convince you of that you would not believe without at least a little evidence.

REMINDER: This is a discussion-only thread.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

REMINDER: This is a discussion-only thread.

Sorry. I just wanted to point out that many still worship the old Gods.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nobody rejects atheism

I know a lot of people who do.

Because atheism rejects the essence of goodness and morality.

And this is based on?

The same with the Ten Commandments. If you reject God then you must also reject His Commandments. Thou shalt not kill or steal.

Why? We're social animals, and social animals tend to not kill those most familiar to them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Inspired by another thread:

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?

Please discuss! And remember, this is NOT a venue for debate! Discussion ONLY!

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

 

[Faithofchristian]

If you were to ask any Atheist, what happens to them, when they die, Atheist will tell you, nothing I'm just dead.

The question is, How exactly do you know this for sure. When in fact the scientific world of scientist can not prove what happens after a person die's.

So what does the Atheist have that the scientific world does not have ?

I could only guess, that the scientific world would definitely would like to know, That with all their scientific technology and they can't prove what happens to a person after they die.
But yet for some unknown reason, Atheist knows more than all the technology that the scientific world has available.

I have this to say, before you make a comment to me, bring your evidence to show that you know more about what happens to person after they die, that you have the evidence.
That with all the technology that the scientific world has. You know more about what happens to a person after they die.
Than all the scientific world has with all their Technology has.

So how do you know for sure that nothing happens ?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you were to ask any Atheist, what happens to them, when they die, Atheist will tell you, nothing I'm just dead.

The question is, How exactly do you know this for sure. When in fact the scientific world of scientist can not prove what happens after a person die's.

So what does the Atheist have that the scientific world does not have ?

I could only guess, that the scientific world would definitely would like to know, That with all their scientific technology and they can't prove what happens to a person after they die.
But yet for some unknown reason, Atheist knows more than all the technology that the scientific world has available.

I have this to say, before you make a comment to me, bring your evidence to show that you know more about what happens to person after they die, that you have the evidence.
That with all the technology that the scientific world has. You know more about what happens to a person after they die.
Than all the scientific world has with all their Technology has.

atheism and science don't agree on much!