Atheists, What's the point?

[motherprayer]

Atheism is the neutral position. It does not make a positive claim, and does not require justification.

As in, I do not have to justify why I do not believe the Earth is flat. I simply do not accept the claims of those that do.

WHO believes the earth is FLAT?! Wha?

 

[Davian]

WHO believes the earth is FLAT?! Wha?

Flat Earth "Researcher on Astronomy" and a Physicist on Iraqi Television - YouTube

 

[motherprayer]

Flat Earth "Researcher on Astronomy" and a Physicist on Iraqi Television - YouTube

Oh Lord. Wackos I tell ya, plain ole wackos...

 

[32k]

Are you implying that belief is a choice?

Belief is a tool.

 

[Davian]

Belief is a tool.

So, in your opinion, what way would one's lack of belief require justification?

 

[32k]

So, in your opinion, what way would one's lack of belief require justification?

When the Atheist (neutral individual) is exposed to an idea that position of neutrality ceases because judgment is invariably made.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your opening sentence was funny. I know God is real because I find the scientific & theological evidence for Him quite overwhelming. Including knowledge of certain supernatural events I have read & seen for myself that cannot be explained on the basis of naturalism. The common objection is that the person's brain was playing tricks on them, not so when there are several eyewitnesses.

What makes you think that the number of eye-witnesses mitigates that objection? Studies in the last decade that have examined memories for 9/11 (an event with large numbers of eye-witnesses) have found that the memory for the event is not entirely reliable. I don't recall the precise details of the findings, but I could look them up for you?

I have a problem with blind faith in God. Personally, I think you should have evidential faith. Whether through experience or research. You should know God personally. Not just tread water.

What happens when someone searching for 'evidential faith' reaches a different theistic conclusion from you by coming to believe in a different God? Are you going to resolve your faith differences by appealing to evidence? And if so, what evidence is admissible in such a discussion?

I think converting people to atheism is converting people to a false, hopeless religion of secularism & purposelessness. They either have really bad God hate, hate God's morals & don't want people to observe them, want everyone to be liberals who do what they feel, don't want to be alone in their views or have some kind of personal unknown agenda.

I am tired of people assuming that the reason I don't believe in their deity is because I want to unburden myself of morality.

See OP, dislodging misconceptions such as these could easily be misconstrued as "spreading atheism".

Without religion, I think suicide rates would be a lot higher

Why?

I think the theist has an advantage in proving the existence of God. Because I could find many ways to convince someone, granted they're not ridiculously closed-minded. An atheist cannot convince me of His non-existence.

That is perhaps the difference between you and many atheists. I am open to changing my mind about the question of God. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that nothing could ever convince you that your God is not real. I am have misinterpreted you in this regard. If I have, feel free to correct me on this.

I've never seen atheism solidly backed up.

Back up by what exactly? The burden of proof rests with the theist.

In a world where everyone is an atheist, & evolved people are worth no more than evolved flies, I can smell a Hitler or Stalin government again

Once again, OP, I draw your attention to comments such as these. It's not so much about "spreading atheism" as it is about addressing depictions of atheists as moral degenerates.

 

[Davian]

When the Atheist (neutral individual) is exposed to an idea that position of neutrality ceases because judgment is invariably made.

Not without a counter or opposing claim. Try again.

 

[32k]

Indeed? But before I 'Try again',

Clarify please: counter or opposing claim by who? The Atheist?

Neutrality, in this event, is defined as no action concerning the idea presented, no? If yes, then you undoubtedly make a judgment on the presented idea and thus step outta the 'safe-haven' of Atheistic neutrality and into the realm of position-taking. You're now aware of the concept presented and thus have thoughts about it. Whether it's absurd, true, false or even 'I don't know'.
You are no longer able to step into the state of being 'unaware'.

 

[Davian]

Is your

button broken?

Indeed? But before I 'Try again',

Clarify please: counter or opposing claim by who? The Atheist?

Yes.

Neutrality, in this event, is defined as no action concerning the idea presented, no? If yes, then you undoubtedly make a judgment on the presented idea and thus step outta the 'safe-haven' of Atheistic neutrality and into the realm of position-taking. You're now aware of the concept presented and thus have thoughts about it. Whether it's absurd, true, false or even 'I don't know'.
You are no longer able to step into the state of being 'unaware'.

The atheist may be aware of many god concepts. Those concepts may all appear to be meaningless, or incoherent. That may lead to a theological position of ignosticism. For others, their mileage may vary.

Their atheism is still a neutral position.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think converting people to atheism is converting people to a false, hopeless religion of secularism & purposelessness.

That's funny, since I have purpose in life. It's just not divine purpose.

They either have really bad God hate, hate God's morals & don't want people to observe them, want everyone to be liberals who do what they feel, don't want to be alone in their views or have some kind of personal unknown agenda.

I suspect that their "agenda" is the New Atheist agenda, which is to combat the evils of religion in the world. If not, it is my agenda for my own life, which is rationality, truth, and happiness.

Jesus Christ's divinity brings hope to people.

Perhaps so, but I have found hope in my godless worldview.

Where are the atheist charities & mission organizations?

One example, though atheists generally don't create specifically "atheist charities", but simply donate money or volunteer time.
Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious

What does an atheist get out of making other atheists? Company I guess.

No, they get more people with their eyes open and in touch with reality. They may also believe that the world will become a more peaceful place. You might not agree that this would be the result, but they certainly think so.

Without religion, I think suicide rates would be a lot higher.

Do you have statistics to back that up?

I think pure science & the study of nature is a lovely way to draw oneself closer to God.

It's also a lovely way to draw oneself closer to our amazing natural universe.

I think the theist has an advantage in proving the existence of God. Because I could find many ways to convince someone, granted they're not ridiculously closed-minded. An atheist cannot convince me of His non-existence.

How does that not make you "ridiculously close-minded"?

I've never seen atheism solidly backed up.

I've never seen Christianity solidly backed up. Go figure.

Most times they make fun of the Creator ... In a world where everyone is an atheist, & evolved people are worth no more than evolved flies, I can smell a Hitler or Stalin government again.

Problem: atheists generally are not communists or fascists, and don't regard people as "worth no more than evolved flies". Many are secular humanists. What you present is a caricature of atheists as they exist today in the West, spread by Christians who want to lie about atheists, dehumanize them, and scare the flock into not becoming them.

And, seriously, you wonder why atheists would want to spread atheism when facing prejudice like that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[32k]

Is your quote button broken?

No sir.

The atheist may be aware of many god concepts. Those concepts may all appear to be meaningless, or incoherent. That may lead to a theological position of ignosticism. For others, their mileage may vary.

Their atheism is still a neutral position.

For someone to believe there is 'no God' (atheos) is not a neutral position. Just like the belief of there being a God would not be a neutral position. The neutral position is unawareness.

 

[Davian]

For someone to believe there is 'no God' (atheos) is not a neutral position.

Word origins do not always correspond to current usage. Definitions are descriptive, not proscriptive.

Just like the belief of there being a God would not be a neutral position.

So, no, not "just like".

The neutral position is unawareness.

Do you think you can define atheism away? lol.

Atheism is not a knowledge claim.

Has it not occurred to you that the burden of evidence for your knowledge claims, whatever they are, rests on you?

 

[32k]

Has it not occurred to you that the burden of evidence for your knowledge claims, whatever they are, rests on you?

Knowledge claims? I'm simply curious as to how an atheist can uphold what they uphold justifiably. It seems they cannot.

 

[Davian]

Knowledge claims? I'm simply curious as to how an atheist can uphold what they uphold justifiably. It seems they cannot.

And just what do you think an atheist upholds, in your opinion?

 

[32k]

And just what do you think an atheist upholds, in your opinion?

For starters..the idea that Atheism is the default position.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If you're an atheist, that is, of course, your right. Whether you just don't like the Abrahamic God, or you think the idea of a creator is bunk, that's all well and good. I'm convinced that God is real. Moreover, I'm convinced that Jesus was a zombie and that he was God Incarnate. I've given my beliefs a great deal of examination and went through a period where I was an atheist. Most atheists I know have no problem with that.

I do know some atheists, though, and I know a lot of atheists on this forum, who have a problem with blind faith in God. I have to ask, why? Why would you try to 'convert' someone to atheism? I'm not trying to shut you up, I'm genuinely curious. From a theistic standpoint, conversion makes sense, because there is a benefit to those who know and believe the truth, and therefore a moral imperative on the part of believers to spread it. What does an atheist get out of spreading atheism?

Religion helps many people get through their daily struggles. It helps those who would otherwise give in to existentialism or despair find purpose. It comforts the grieving in a way that pure science tends not to.

What possible purpose is there for convincing someone God isn't real?
Even if you were correct (which I don't believe, but let's pretend), at best you would be like a playground bully who tells another kid that his imaginary friend isn't real. Being correct doesn't make that a good thing to do, and it certainly doesn't make it a nice thing to do. Moreover, convincing someone God isn't real doesn't have any of the benefits of dissuading someone from believing in an imaginary friend. You can't function in society while talking about your imaginary friend; you can while talking about God. Eventually, at some early point in life, a schoolboy will learn that his friend is not real, and you could make the argument that the earlier, the better. That is not true of religion. It is not inevitable, or even particularly likely, that a given man will "grow out of" his religion.

And why should he? As I said before, it gives one solace and comfort. Why try to take that away from him?

I see Christians ask this question fairly often, and it's quite a good question actually.

In short, I think that our beliefs are what inform our actions. And therefore it's beneficial to society as a whole to believe as many true things as possible, and to disbelieve as many false things as possible.

Honestly, if it wasn't for the Christians being so politically active and trying to push their religion on others, I likely wouldn't care that much. That's why I'm not on Hindu message boards criticizing their beliefs.

However, many (not all) people who hold Christian beliefs are inspired to take action based on those beliefs that harm society. May it be discrimination against gays, anti-contraception initiatives and various other actions that harm society as we know it.

If the Christians simply treated their religion as a personal matter, went to church on Sundays and didn't try to force their views on others, I wouldn't really care. I'd view them similarly to people of other minor religions, or people who buy into UFO claims or whatnot... basically a group of people who hold some weird beliefs, but are generally harmless and not hurting society.

But when they do try to impose beliefs, especially those which harm society, then you must fight back. The most effective way is to point out the absurdities in their beliefs and try to turn them away from them. That will at worst stop people who are advocating that harm, and at best, gain another ally in trying to actively stop the harm that religion causes.

I think most Christians are good people, they are just wrong about their theological beliefs. The "soft" Christians, or "Liberal" Christians are generally harmless, however their numbers do serve as backing for the more fundamentalist portions of the religion. Getting those people to consider, and hopefully reject their religious views will ultimately take a lot of the credibility away from the fundamentalists.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Knowledge claims? I'm simply curious as to how an atheist can uphold what they uphold justifiably. It seems they cannot.

Atheism is the default position.

Atheism is not the absolute belief that God does not exist, it is the position taken by someone who does not accept any theological claims regarding the existence of God.

The default position for any claim is to withhold belief until you are presented with evidence to justify belief.

That's the exact same reason why you are justified in not believing in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. You have not been provided with compelling evidence for their existence. So, you withhold belief.

You are not justified in asserting that these things definitely do not exist (although that strongly appears to be the case). However, you can not prove that position. The same goes for Atheism.

We would be unjustified in asserting that God definitely does not exist, however we are justified in not believing he does until we see evidence that shows his existence. We have not seen any so far.

 

[Jade Margery]

Knowledge claims? I'm simply curious as to how an atheist can uphold what they uphold justifiably. It seems they cannot.

For starters..the idea that Atheism is the default position.

What you do not seem to understand is how agnosticism (not knowing whether there is a god or not) can exist concurrently to atheism (not believing in gods). The majority of atheists are also agnostics, and vice versa. To illustrate the difference between the positions and why they do not contradict each other, allow me this simple metaphor.

I take you to an ordinary neighborhood and point out one of the houses on the street. I ask you, "Do you believe that there is a living adult elephant in that house?" Now, you consider that elephants are pretty rare endangered animals, and that the house seems to have no doors that could allow an elephant to enter it, and also no one in their right mind would bring an elephant into their house, so you say "No, I don't believe it."

This means you are an 'atheist' when it comes to believing that the elephant is in the house. That is, you lack belief that the elephant is there.

Now I ask you, "Do you know that there is no elephant in the house?" and now you have to consider. It seems very unlikely for an elephant to be there, yes, but it is theoretically possible that an elephant could be brought into the house when it was a baby and remain there until it had grown up, although why someone would do that to a poor elephant makes no sense to you. But there's really no way to tell for sure unless you actually go into the house and look. So you say, "No, I don't know it."

This means you are an 'agnostic' when it comes to knowing whether or not there is an elephant in the house. You admit you don't have absolute knowledge that the elephant isn't there.

Thus, it is possible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time; to not believe in something due to its high improbability, but also admit that you don't have complete knowledge and that it is possible you are wrong.

Withholding belief without proof is the default position in any exploration of a claim.



Now, there is also the occasional situation where an atheist/agnostic can definitively say 'your idea of a god does not exist'. This is because there seems to be as many versions of 'god' as there are christians, and many of them are completely illogical.

We may liken this to my saying, 'Do you believe/know that there is an elephant inside that house that is bigger than the house itself?' And you, knowing that a solid structure cannot contain something bigger than itself inside it, and also not being able to see any elephant legs poking out of windows or anything ridiculous like that, can answer atheistically (no, I don't believe it) and also gnostically (I also know that it is not true).

When some christians claim that every single word of the Bible is true, we can say that no, that is wrong. There are several places where the Bible contradicts itself, and two statements that contradict each other cannot simultaneously be true and any text containing them both cannot be entirely true. When an atheist tells a christian, 'Your god does not exist', they are usually referring only to the personal version of god as that christian describes it because that version has contradictory properties.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No sir.



For someone to believe there is 'no God' (atheos) is not a neutral position. Just like the belief of there being a God would not be a neutral position. The neutral position is unawareness.

How can ignorance (unawareness) of something ever be a "position" on it?