The origins of atheism

[ScottA]

There is no such thing as "higher knowledge."

Not in some circles.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Either way, you do not know the truth, because the truth is not in you. If the truth were in you, you would not speculate, nor would you deny the truth when it is presented to you.

This is exactly what every single religion says. Christianity - whichever version of it you believe in - is no different. It's an unimpressive stance.

 

[ScottA]

This is exactly what every single religion says. Christianity - whichever version of it you believe in - is no different. It's an unimpressive stance.

Not that any of us actually care to impress you...but what would impress you?

 

[Wryetui]

Atheism exists because human beings hate "submitting" to anything or anyone more powerful than themselves. We all want to be our own little gods. Theologians say that this is a result of "original sin"-- or an inherited tendency that goes back to the original humans who rebelled against God.

The real question is why billions actually DO believe. This is a much more complex and controversial issue. Was it God who caused the belief or was it totally a human choice or was it learned from others? Or some combination of these?

It is curious what you are saying. I think it all relies on childhood, religious faith cannot be foisted upon a person; it is not something which is alien to man, but, on the contrary, it is an essential need of human nature, it constitutes the primary content of man’s inner life.
When we take care to have a child grow up truthful, good, when we develop in him a correct understanding of and a taste for beauty, we do not foist upon him something alien or extraneous to his nature; we only help him to extract this from within himself, we help him recognize within himself those traits and movements which are common to all human souls.

The same should be said concerning knowledge of God.

According to the principle of not foisting anything upon a child’s soul, we would generally have to renounce all assistance to the child in developing and strengthening the talents and capabilities of his soul. We would have to leave him to his own devices until he grew up and decided which principles to adopt and which to reject.
But in this case we would not have guarded the child from external influences, but would have only made these influences chaotic and arbitrary.

Let us return to the question of why some people retain in their hearts a constant and unshakable faith until the end of their days, while others lose it, sometimes completely and sometimes returning to it with great difficulty and suffering?

What is the reason for such a phenomenon ? It seems to me that it depends on the direction which a person’s inner life takes in his early childhood. If a person, consciously or instinctively, is able to preserve a correct relationship between himself and God, he will not lose faith, but if his ego occupies an unseemly preeminent and dominant place in his soul, then his faith will be superceded. In early childhood a person’s nature does not yet occupy first place, does not yet become an object of worship. For this reason it is said: if you do not become like children, you will not enter the Heavenly Kingdom. As the years advance, our innate egoism grows more and more within us, becomes the center of our attention and the object of our gratification.

And this self-centered egoistic life usually runs along two channels - the channel of sensuality, gratification of the body, and the channel of pride, of strict trust in and worship of reason in general and one’s own in particular.

These two channels do not usually coexist within one and the same person. Some are dominated by the temptations of sensuality, while others by the temptations of reason. With age sensuality sometimes changes into unhealthy sexuality, from which those who are dominated by reason and pride are often free.
Sensuality and pride - two ways of serving one’s nature - are precisely those traits which, as we know, were manifested in the original sin of Adam and Eve, and created a barrier between them and God.

That which happened to our forebears, now happens to us.

The unhealthy direction of our inner life from childhood, which leads to the development within us of either sensuality or pride, pollutes the purity of our internal spiritual sight, deprives us of seeing God. We stray away from God, we remain alone in our egoistic life, with all the consequences of such a condition.
Such is the process of our abandonment of God.

In those, however, who succeed in keeping a correct relationship with God, the development of egoistic, sensual and proud attitudes is impeded by the memory of God; such people preserve their purity of heart and humbleness of mind; both their bodies and their minds are placed within a framework of religious consciousness and duty. They look upon all that springs up within their soul from the height of their religious consciousness, evaluate their feelings and passions properly, and do not allow them to take control. Despite all the temptations that come across their path, they do not lose the basic direction of their lives.

 

[quatona]

Not that any of us actually care to impress you...but what would impress you?

Personally, I would be impressed if someone could at least propose a method (or at least a starting point for developing such a method) how to determine the validity of exceptional/unfalsibiiable/"supernatural" claims.
And by that I don´t mean a post-hoc method fine-tuned to the claim of the respective believer.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Seek, and ye shall find.

What a hopelessly vague response.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Not that any of us actually care to impress you...but what would impress you?

Actual evidence that any god claim is true. Something that was indisputable.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Mark,
People “choose” things all the time without full awareness that that they are choosing. Unconscious choices are very common. So just because you were not aware of choosing not to believe in God does not mean that this was so. Something this important to a person’s sense of identity does not just “happen”, nor does a previous belief just disappear. That may be your experience of it, but there are always many influences which affect our feelings and decisions and behaviors of which we are minimally aware.

I am a psychologist (35 years in the mental health field), so I can speak with some authority about such things.

I cannot say why you chose to disbelieve because I do not know you. Even your therapist would have to know you in some depth to have a reasonable hypothesis. Much has to do with why you believed in the first place. Was your belief because of wanting to please other people? Was it entirely intellectual or emotional? Was it purely nominal (in name only)? Many people who grew up in “Christian” homes and/or had many “Christian” friends have gone along with the Christian program just because of family or peer influence, not because they ever truly examined the claims of the faith. The hypocrisy of many of these “Christians” can eventually turn one away from the faith.

Many people say they believe but it is only a social convention and not because they ever fully believed. Perhaps you never really believed and finally could accept this reality. Just stuff to think about. You have come on this Christian website (with a thread dealing with the atheist question) for some reason, perhaps because you are not done thinking about it.

You're not the only psychologist here.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You probably don’t understand the difference between temptation and sin. Everyone is tempted in various ways (even Jesus was tempted) and such temptations are not by our choice. For example, the temptation to doubt God. But in order to sin, you have to act on this temptation. In your case, your likely doubts (which you did not choose) eventually led to your choosing to turn away from God. Only God knows exactly the point at which you chose to turn away. But choose you did. I believe that it is impossible to NOT CHOOSE when it comes to a belief this important. Otherwise you would be just like a soulless robot left to the whims of fate. Nope. You are accountable for everything you think, say, and do… because you are a creature with the capacity to choose. Denial is most basic psychological defense, but the truth is, you are responsible for your disbelief. You can't get out of it this easily.

I notice that on your profile you say that you are interested in the "integration of biblical theology and psychology." I wonder what that means in practice? Does it mean accusing your clients of wilful disbelief in the doctrines of your religion?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Atheism exists because human beings hate "submitting" to anything or anyone more powerful than themselves. We all want to be our own little gods. Theologians say that this is a result of "original sin"-- or an inherited tendency that goes back to the original humans who rebelled against God.

If we all considered ourselves gods, then there would be no atheists - we would all be theists.

The real question is why billions actually DO believe. This is a much more complex and controversial issue. Was it God who caused the belief or was it totally a human choice or was it learned from others? Or some combination of these?

That is indeed an interesting and complex question.

The Cognitive Science of Religion

Tl;dr? Here is a summary:

Rather than being an adaptation; most cognitive scientists prefer to describe religion as a byproduct of the evolution of several cognitive mechanisms. These include a HADD, an intrigue for MCI objects, a theory of mind, a distaste for uncertainty and anxiety, a fear of death, a propensity for ritual behavior, a use for moral and pro-social behavior, and a need to form cooperative groups. None of these cognitive biases and motivations require religious ideas, but each has found a place for them.

The mechanisms listed above have proper functions, such as detecting danger or understanding the intentions of other minds, but they've been co-opted or `hijacked' by the super-stimuli that copiously appear in religious narratives (gods and spirits). Whether this hijacking was driven by selection pressures, human motivation, or a cultural happenstance is unclear. At the very least, the evidence suggests that religion has come to fulfill a social and palliative role. For this reason, we could describe religion as an exaptation, because the cognitive mechanisms that define it appear to have acquired an additional, adaptive role to that which they were originally selected for.

I have always been a logical, practical guy. Even if God had not revealed Himself to me beyond any doubt (which He did), I would tend toward belief in the triune God of the Bible and therefore follow Jesus. Why? Two reasons: 1) Because of the obvious superior morality of Jesus’ teachings, and 2), because of the logic inherent in Pascal’s hypothetical “wager.” Here is the way I put Pascal’s classic argument:

(1) is disputable. (2) would apply to any religion with a concept of the afterlife similar to that of Christianity.

Given that death is coming to us all, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of believing in God ... if it turned out that there actually was no God? The consequences for believers and nonbelievers would be equal. No advantage either way. Everyone would be equally dead. No winners.

But what would be the advantages (or disadvantages) of believing (or disbelieving) in God if it turned out that there actually WAS a God, and there actually was a heaven and hell as the Bible teaches? In that case, there would be a huge difference in consequences for believers vs. unbelievers. Heaven vs. hell! Eternally! One cannot imagine a more weighty outcome. In this situation, you can’t really lose by believing. But you might lose BIG if you refuse to believe.

That's assuming God punishes nonbelievers with Hell. Perhaps the opposite is true and God rewards the sceptics but punishes the believers? So you can "lose" by believing.

As a practical, logical, self-protective guy, I think I would at least try to believe, even without clear proof either way.

Wouldn't your pretence be transparent to a God? Wouldn't he know that you are only feigning belief as a means of self-preservation?

P.S. - Even while living in this world, believers have some advantages over nonbelievers. The scientific research consistently shows that (on average) people of Christian faith are less fearful, more satisfied with life, and more humanitarian than nonbelievers. The results of my own doctoral dissertation research (published in the International Journal of the Psychology of Religion) revealed much less anxiety and depression in spiritually-oriented Christians than in others. (Of course there are exceptions. I have known some miserable Christians and some relatively happy atheists.)

What bearing does this have on the truth of religious claims?

 

[juvenissun]

Your logic fails because your original assumptions are in error.

I think scientifically, we do can proof that animals are atheistic.
I wonder if any scientist have ever tried to work on that.

 

[juvenissun]

"Free will" is an illusion.

Do YOU really think so?

 

[David Colin Gould]

Do YOU really think so?

I cannot speak for HitchSlap, but I* really think so.

*Note that the I is an illusion also, but it has a useful communicative purpose nonetheless.

 

[Colter]

"Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof of religion, logic the proof of philosophy, but revelation is validated only by human experience. Science yields knowledge; religion yields happiness; philosophy yields unity; revelation confirms the experiential harmony of this triune approach to universal reality." UB 1955​

 

[asherahSamaria]

I cannot speak for HitchSlap, but I* really think so.

*Note that the I is an illusion also, but it has a useful communicative purpose nonetheless.

I have also come to think this is, at least in some ways, true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, my schedule is full.

Make sure those babies weren't baptized as infants first, or you're in for indigestion like you've never had before.

(Why do you think Satanists have breeders around?)

 

[juvenissun]

I cannot speak for HitchSlap, but I* really think so.

*Note that the I is an illusion also, but it has a useful communicative purpose nonetheless.

Do you know what you said is an important doctrine of Buddhism?
May be you are not so atheistic after all.

 

[juvenissun]

I have also come to think this is, at least in some ways, true.

So you don't really have free will?
I wonder why.

 

[Chriliman]

I have also come to think this is, at least in some ways, true.

If free will is an illusion and I is an illusion then what we perceive as true is also an illusion.

If you think all these things are illusions then you can't even trust truth because it would be an illusion to think its true that free will and I are illusions.

I prefer to figure out what the actual truth is, not an illusion of truth that suggests my own beliefs about what is true is actually an illusion in of itself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is more than one so that would be points.

Lol thanks Air.