The Atheist path; a path of liberation or of necessity?

[Adrianne Swann]

As someone who respects atheists and enjoys befriending them, I was just curious to hear some peoples personal views on how they feel about their atheism.

...Do you feel liberated, free and happy in it?

...Or do you basically feel like it's just where life landed you?

Thanks for sharing your story,
Landon

To throw my 2¢ into the matter:

Do I feel liberated, free, and happy in my atheism? Not particularly. That's not to say I feel the opposite; I just don't feel much of anything "in my atheism," if that makes sense. It just kind of is what it is, I guess.

Do I basically feel like it's where life landed me? That sounds about right. I grew up in a fairly religious environment and as a Christian, but eventually, after really evaluating what I believed, I realized there were a lot of things I simply couldn't reconcile. At first, I converted to deism, but after a little while it became atheism. Not out of necessity or anything, though.

As far as whether I want to be a believer, as came up in some other places on this thread, I simply want to believe whatever reflects reality best. If that's God, so be it. But near as I can tell, at least right now, that's not what I'm lead to believe. In actuality, it's not that big of a part of my life anyway. If it comes up, it comes up.

 

[jayem]

I am an atheist, but that's not my primary worldview. Atheism too often connotes having no beliefs. But I do have a belief. As my avatar states, I'm a naturalist. I believe that the universe is solely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Particles in motion is everything. Thus, I reject the idea of any supernatural realm that transcends, or exists beyond the natural world. Which by logical extension, makes me an atheist as regards any supernatural gods. I know I can't prove this with absolute metaphysical certainty, but it just seems to fit what know and observe. And as for our lives, I believe that what you see is what you get. This is the only life we have and ever will have. When our brain and body are dead, we cease to exist as a person. At which time the chemical components of our bodies return, in one way or another, to the environment. The process of dying may not always be pleasant, but death is nothing to fear. It's a natural part of life. There's no pain or suffering. It's simply oblivion. Same as before we were born.

i understand this belief may seem disheartening and unsatisfying to many. But to me, it appears to be nature's rules, and I'm perfectly comfortable with it.

 

[cvanwey]

As someone who respects atheists and enjoys befriending them, I was just curious to hear some peoples personal views on how they feel about their atheism.

...Do you feel liberated, free and happy in it?

...Or do you basically feel like it's just where life landed you?

Thanks for sharing your story,
Landon

Without god, life has no real meaning. Without an eternal creator of all things, to provide ultimate justice, human life has no relevancy. I cannot think of a world without god in it. What does one have to loose, by accepting Jesus' free gift? If you don't think god exists, just look around you. We are not just here by accident. All these statements have been heard many times over. Quite honestly, I get it. Quite alternatively, if once you die, that is it, or that is all she wrote, then what does it even matter what one does in this life? 300 years from now, no one is probably going to ever be aware of your prior existence, and who really cares! If death is the end and this is true, then what does it matter what one does throughout your earthly life? All such questions raise pause for concern. But does this then mean that the conclusion is a god must exist? Does this also mean that not only does a god exist, but the specific god in which you already believe exists? It appears to become a tug of war between one's intellect verses emotion. Reality leads to some type of emotions, but using the emotion a priori does not usually serve to validate actual reality; unless by random chance.

However, the non-believer in your specific faith is laying down the gauntlet. Rather than interpreting this as a threat, receive it as a challenge. The person opposed to Christianity is doing so, due to lack in evidence for this specific set of beliefs. Many non-believers in the Western hemisphere are actually asking for conversion to Christianity, because they were either raised in it at one point, or are surrounded with it, but honestly cannot currently accept the faith due to lack in demonstration. Presumably, most non-believers do not want to think that when they die, that's the end of it all.


However, in order to continue retaining belief in Christianity specifically, myself included, requires to adhere to at least some of the following attributes outlined directly below. These underlined terms will be directly defined for complete clarity: psychology of belief in god, faith, indoctrination, belief preservation, appeals to emotion, conformation bias, and a need for cognitive closure.


The 'psychology of belief in god' is directly associated with five causes, according to my estimation...


1) The believer possesses a need for control. The uncertainty or presented possible finality for the concept of death demonstrates lack in control. Since the government, police, or any other associated authority, has no control in preventing death, the believer feels a need for control and applies faith to their chosen god.


2) The person feels a need to cope with death. Repeated reminders of one's mortality increase people's belief in the supernatural and also prayer. Continued and repeated readings from the Bible or community gatherings in churches both assert the possibility to life after death, which appears to reduce psychological distress for many. Repetition is key. Re-reading the Bible, while also receiving affirmation from selected authority, via church leaders, offer added comfort and assurance, especially when in doubt or during trying times.


3) Unexplained suffering increases the belief in their proposed god. Ironically enough, suffering often actually increases the tendency for belief in god. The more unexplained the tragedy, the higher the probability the believer will associate the act as god's will. Meaning, a tornado killing an innocent child may be viewed as god's will. Alternatively, someone loosing their job may be from their own accord and is fully explainable; not being necessarily linked to a divine plan.


4) The believer feels the need for justice. Many feel a higher sense for morality if they believe a cosmic deity is watching over all. They also have less tendencies or less of a need to require earthly punishment. Believers feel a higher authority will settle the score in god's chosen time.


5) The battle between experimental thinking versus logical thinking drives many to belief in god. Experimental thinking is associated with the individual in which relies upon their 'gut' feeling in rendering decisions, and is classified as a more emotional decision. The logical thinker more-so makes decisions in a 'matter of fact' manor, void of any personal bias or emotional feelings of any kind. The logical thinker assesses the evidence presented, to determine if the evidence leads to a demonstrated and directly fitting conclusion. As a result, predominant experimental styles in thinking lend higher tendencies for believe in a higher power, verses majoritively logical thinkers.

(To be continued, as there exists a text limit per response)...

 

[cvanwey]

As someone who respects atheists and enjoys befriending them, I was just curious to hear some peoples personal views on how they feel about their atheism.

...Do you feel liberated, free and happy in it?

...Or do you basically feel like it's just where life landed you?

Thanks for sharing your story,
Landon

As someone who respects atheists and enjoys befriending them, I was just curious to hear some peoples personal views on how they feel about their atheism.

...Do you feel liberated, free and happy in it?

...Or do you basically feel like it's just where life landed you?

Thanks for sharing your story,
Landon

(Part 2)

The Oxford dictionary defines faith as 'strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof'. As this definition demonstrates, fully admits faith is dependent upon belief instead of evidence. Faith can be applied to any claim or assertion. In and of itself, faith serves absolutely no validating purpose. Which leads to the next following tenet for belief in god.


Indoctrination, again defined by the Oxford dictionary, as 'the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.' Most would agree they tend to retain the belief system, or religious ideology, in which they were raised or are more predominantly surrounded upon. Most would not deny a specific set of beliefs are ingrained as a young child, or may be reinforced by one's surrounding environment through repetition, which are then much harder to let go later in life. Or if the belief actually came much later in life, are heavily influenced by the popular consensus or the predominate populous around them. Most would also agree, that a specific set of beliefs is predicated upon the region in which the individual was raised. This may also be demonstrated by doing a simple 'google' search for 'world religion map'. The search result demonstrates beliefs tend to be more-so associated and predicated upon where the believer lives. Specific religious dogmas appear largely segregated by region. If truth is objective, then large volumes of people would not hold to a specific believe structure based upon demographics or geographic location. One might instead see a much more uniform and even global distribution of belief in any given set of principles. Which leads one to the next almost necessary criteria for belief in god.


Belief preservation, according to 'google', 'is the tendency to cling to one's initial belief even after receiving new information that contradicts or disconfirms the basis of that belief.' One must admit it can often remain challenging to retain a specific set of beliefs, especially in light of any conflicting demonstration of observations in events which seem to oppose the initial set of beliefs. Further more, these above attributes present the next requirement to retain an indoctrinated set of beliefs.


An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is generally categorized as an error in reasoning. Appeals to emotion involve the manipulation of one's emotions in order to 'win' an argument, especially in absence of evidence or factual accounts. The most common observed example is where the reader sights specific passages from the Bible, while welling up with potential tears to generate sympathetic emotions. The passage does not possess evidence based reasoning, but is concluded true because the audience sympathizes with the reader's plight. Remember, emotion does not lead to truth, unless by random chance, but truth often leads to emotion. Allowing emotion to be the indicator of truth is placing the cart before the horse.


Conformation bias, as 'google' illustrates to be, 'the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.' The individual must honestly assess if one selectively chooses what information to use to enforce their current belief structure, verses omitting the possible conflicting evidence which appears to oppose the initial person's believed proposition. What sources does the person choose to use as evidence, and why? Is the presented evidence bias to the person's existing belief structure? If the answer is honestly yes, is this being intellectually honest? Or does this quality demonstrate the final primary reason to believe in god?


A need for cognitive closure is the 'individual's desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity.' as expressed by 'google.com'. Fear of uncertainty often times drives belief. Many require absolute answers to many unanswered questions. Rather than admitting that one does not know, in the case for the afterlife, many require an absolute. This is fine of course. But one must be honest and assess how they arrived to their 'certain' conclusion. Remember, billions of people disagree with your certainty in Christianity. Why is that the case? Most likely, partially or completely due to some or all of the exact same sighted and underlined reasons above.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The most common observed example is where the reader sights specific passages from the Bible, while welling up with potential tears to generate sympathetic emotions. The passage does not possess evidence based reasoning, but is concluded true because the audience sympathizes with the reader's plight. Remember, emotion does not lead to truth, unless by random chance, but truth often leads to emotion. Allowing emotion to be the indicator of truth is placing the cart before the horse.

All good points. I liked this little snippet especially.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I am an atheist, but that's not my primary worldview. Atheism too often connotes having no beliefs. But I do have a belief. As my avatar states, I'm a naturalist. I believe that the universe is solely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Particles in motion is everything. Thus, I reject the idea of any supernatural realm that transcends, or exists beyond the natural world. Which by logical extension, makes me an atheist as regards any supernatural gods. I know I can't prove this with absolute metaphysical certainty, but it just seems to fit what know and observe. And as for our lives, I believe that what you see is what you get. This is the only life we have and ever will have. When our brain and body are dead, we cease to exist as a person. At which time the chemical components of our bodies return, in one way or another, to the environment. The process of dying may not always be pleasant, but death is nothing to fear. It's a natural part of life. There's no pain or suffering. It's simply oblivion. Same as before we were born.

i understand this belief may seem disheartening and unsatisfying to many. But to me, it appears to be nature's rules, and I'm perfectly comfortable with it.

I actually like your view, jayem. Sometimes I think even human politics, left and right, reflect evolution in where DNA either mutates (progressivism) or stays the same (conservativism). I see forces pushing against each other everywhere.

 

[Sanoy]

Without god, life has no real meaning. Without an eternal creator of all things, to provide ultimate justice, human life has no relevancy. I cannot think of a world without god in it. What does one have to loose, by accepting Jesus' free gift? If you don't think god exists, just look around you. We are not just here by accident. All these statements have been heard many times over. Quite honestly, I get it. Quite alternatively, if once you die, that is it, or that is all she wrote, then what does it even matter what one does in this life? 300 years from now, no one is probably going to ever be aware of your prior existence, and who really cares! If death is the end and this is true, then what does it matter what one does throughout your earthly life? All such questions raise pause for concern. But does this then mean that the conclusion is a god must exist? Does this also mean that not only does a god exist, but the specific god in which you already believe exists? It appears to become a tug of war between one's intellect verses emotion. Reality leads to some type of emotions, but using the emotion a priori does not usually serve to validate actual reality; unless by random chance.

However, the non-believer in your specific faith is laying down the gauntlet. Rather than interpreting this as a threat, receive it as a challenge. The person opposed to Christianity is doing so, due to lack in evidence for this specific set of beliefs. Many non-believers in the Western hemisphere are actually asking for conversion to Christianity, because they were either raised in it at one point, or are surrounded with it, but honestly cannot currently accept the faith due to lack in demonstration. Presumably, most non-believers do not want to think that when they die, that's the end of it all.


However, in order to continue retaining belief in Christianity specifically, myself included, requires to adhere to at least some of the following attributes outlined directly below. These underlined terms will be directly defined for complete clarity: psychology of belief in god, faith, indoctrination, belief preservation, appeals to emotion, conformation bias, and a need for cognitive closure.


The 'psychology of belief in god' is directly associated with five causes, according to my estimation...


1) The believer possesses a need for control. The uncertainty or presented possible finality for the concept of death demonstrates lack in control. Since the government, police, or any other associated authority, has no control in preventing death, the believer feels a need for control and applies faith to their chosen god.


2) The person feels a need to cope with death. Repeated reminders of one's mortality increase people's belief in the supernatural and also prayer. Continued and repeated readings from the Bible or community gatherings in churches both assert the possibility to life after death, which appears to reduce psychological distress for many. Repetition is key. Re-reading the Bible, while also receiving affirmation from selected authority, via church leaders, offer added comfort and assurance, especially when in doubt or during trying times.


3) Unexplained suffering increases the belief in their proposed god. Ironically enough, suffering often actually increases the tendency for belief in god. The more unexplained the tragedy, the higher the probability the believer will associate the act as god's will. Meaning, a tornado killing an innocent child may be viewed as god's will. Alternatively, someone loosing their job may be from their own accord and is fully explainable; not being necessarily linked to a divine plan.


4) The believer feels the need for justice. Many feel a higher sense for morality if they believe a cosmic deity is watching over all. They also have less tendencies or less of a need to require earthly punishment. Believers feel a higher authority will settle the score in god's chosen time.


5) The battle between experimental thinking versus logical thinking drives many to belief in god. Experimental thinking is associated with the individual in which relies upon their 'gut' feeling in rendering decisions, and is classified as a more emotional decision. The logical thinker more-so makes decisions in a 'matter of fact' manor, void of any personal bias or emotional feelings of any kind. The logical thinker assesses the evidence presented, to determine if the evidence leads to a demonstrated and directly fitting conclusion. As a result, predominant experimental styles in thinking lend higher tendencies for believe in a higher power, verses majoritively logical thinkers.

(To be continued, as there exists a text limit per response)...

I don't know anyone who is a Christian for these reasons. And if it's a fear of death that is the cause of Christianity then Christianity should have ended as soon as it began. Instead it grew under certain peril to take over the greatest empire without a sword.

Biblical faith is trust in Jesus.

Whatever innate cognitive biases one has they are universal. If we say one is a Theist because cognitive biases exist and must be why Theists exist then we beg the question of Atheism. We must have a reason, other than our preconceived beliefs, that cognitive bias is the source of Christianity.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't know anyone who is a Christian for these reasons.

Well I do, so there... J/K.... This becomes the kind of responses which may trigger a 'recoil'.

And if it's a fear of death that is the cause of Christianity then it should have ended as soon as it began.

It's the pot calling the kettle black. You are now doing exactly what you've accused me of doing. (i.e.) being a "Texas sharp shooter". Did you read the entire thread in context? It is cumulative....

Biblical faith is trust in Jesus.

And faith in the Qur'an is trust in Muhammad. Your point?

Whatever innate cognitive biases one has they are universal. If we say one is a theist because cognitive biases exist and must be why theists exist then we beg the question of atheism. We must have a reason, other than our preconceived beliefs, that cognitive bias is the source of Christianity.

I don't believe in the supernatural, because no demonstration of evidence has proved forthcoming. What cognitive bias am I demonstrating in such a statement?

 

[Sanoy]

Well I do, so there... J/K.... This becomes the kind of responses which may trigger a 'recoil'.



It's the pot calling the kettle black. You are now doing exactly what you've accused me of doing. (i.e.) being a "Texas sharp shooter". Did you read the entire thread in context? It is cumulative....



And faith in the Qur'an is trust in Muhammad. Your point?



I don't believe in the supernatural, because no demonstration of evidence has proved forthcoming. What cognitive bias am I demonstrating in such a statement?

You know Christians whose testimony is that they found Jesus through their cognitive biases?

I don't really see how analysing the truth value of a foundational claim regarding the cause of Christianity is "calling the kettle black". It is still a fact that Chrstianity grows the most rapidly where doing so puts one in peril.

You would have to ask a muslim to define faith, in Christianity Paul defines it as trust, not blind acceptance.

I can understand not believing the supernatural due to a possible lack of reason to, but that lack is not a reason to believe in the non existence of the supernatural and confirm everyones experience is due to cognitive biases and flaws.

 

[cvanwey]

You know Christians whose testimony is that they found Jesus through their cognitive biases?

This answer is dishonest... You completely changed my response, when you stated 'And if it's a fear of death that is the cause of Christianity then it should have ended as soon as it began.'

When I then responded:

'It's the pot calling the kettle black. You are now doing exactly what you've accused me of doing. (i.e.) being a "Texas sharp shooter". Did you read the entire thread in context? It is cumulative....'

I don't really see how analysing the truth value of a foundational claim regarding the cause of Christianity is "calling the kettle black". It is still a fact that Chrstianity grows the most rapidly where doing so puts one in peril.

Yes, fear of the unknown drives belief. Most will cling to whatever they were/are indoctrinated upon. How does this make it true?

You would have to ask a muslim to define faith, in Christianity Paul defines it as trust, not blind acceptance.

Why is "Paul's definition any better than mine, yours, or a Muslims? For me, it would require blind acceptance, since I have never received evidence. So should I instead pretend, to fulfill Pascal's Wager?

I can understand not believing the supernatural due to a possible lack of reason to, but that lack is not a reason to believe in the non existence of the supernatural and confirm everyones experience is due to cognitive biases and flaws.

If Christianity is true, then everyone must come to their own conclusion. If I cannot believe, because of no evidence, then I'm screwed, if Christianity is true.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I find the opposite personally. Having buried both family and friends in the past few years I found the religious rites hollow, more like denial then closure or acceptance of what happened, and religious thought about death contradictory.

As for tragedy, injustice, an indifferent universe makes that easier to accept as there is no intelligence causeing the rocks to fall just indifferent physics.

You may have something here. If we had more atheists making decisions we could probably solve all of our problems.....expeditiously.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Consciousness is a product of the brain.

If thought causes detectable brain activity, then stimulating brain activity can cause the same thought (if indeed thought is a function of the brain). Where are we on that?

 

[Desk trauma]

You may have something here. If we had more atheists making decisions we could probably solve all of our problems.....expeditiously.

Bit of an odd takeaway from that post.

 

[Belk]

If thought causes detectable brain activity, then stimulating brain activity can cause the same thought (if indeed thought is a function of the brain). Where are we on that?

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - Creating Mystical States in the Temporal Lobe

 

[Sanoy]

This answer is dishonest... You completely changed my response, when you stated 'And if it's a fear of death that is the cause of Christianity then it should have ended as soon as it began.'

When I then responded:

'It's the pot calling the kettle black. You are now doing exactly what you've accused me of doing. (i.e.) being a "Texas sharp shooter". Did you read the entire thread in context? It is cumulative....'



Yes, fear of the unknown drives belief. Most will cling to whatever they were/are indoctrinated upon. How does this make it true?



Why is "Paul's definition any better than mine, yours, or a Muslims? For me, it would require blind acceptance, since I have never received evidence. So should I instead pretend, to fulfill Pascal's Wager?



If Christianity is true, then everyone must come to their own conclusion. If I cannot believe, because of no evidence, then I'm screwed, if Christianity is true.

I haven't read the thread. I merely followed the link you gave me to this particular post. I will start from the beginning and try to understand the issue.

Is death unknown to you? In any case fear of the unknown is not a evidential reason to believe, however it is a behavioral reason to attempt to. And if God doesn't exist why should we go against the behaviors that natural selection gave us. There's no high ground to accuse someone of simply acting according to their cognitive situation when you are merely a cognitive situation yourself.

Pauls definition is better because he literally defines the term in Christianity. So if we are talking about faith for Christianity then we should use the Christian term. Same for Muslims.

It's not true that you are screwed cvanwey, belief in God's explicit revelation is not required for salvation. Paul says in Romans 2 that those who fall on God's general revelation will be judged according to their response to the revelation they did receive and Grace is applied to them through Christ. So I encourage you to bare your heart to the moral convictions you do receive and never turn your face from the possibility, or approach of God.

 

[cvanwey]

I haven't read the thread. I merely followed the link you gave me to this particular post. I will start from the beginning and try to understand the issue.

Is death unknown to you? In any case fear of the unknown is not a evidential reason to believe, however it is a behavioral reason to attempt to. And if God doesn't exist why should we go against the behaviors that natural selection gave us. There's no high ground to accuse someone of simply acting according to their cognitive situation when you are merely a cognitive situation yourself.

Pauls definition is better because he literally defines the term in Christianity. So if we are talking about faith for Christianity then we should use the Christian term. Same for Muslims.

It's not true that you are screwed cvanwey, belief in God's explicit revelation is not required for salvation. Paul says in Romans 2 that those who fall on God's general revelation will be judged according to their response to the revelation they did receive and Grace is applied to them through Christ. So I encourage you to bare your heart to the moral convictions you do receive and never turn your face from the possibility of God.

I find this entire response self contradictory. On the one hand, you state that my cognitive conclusion is no better than anyone else's. Then, in the very next paragraph, you state Muslims have their own definitions. But then assert that 'God this and God that'.... Why don't you just admit then that you too know absolutely no better than I? If we are all cognitive agents, with no actual universal cognitive standard, then why do you get to assert that 'your God this and your God that'?

Why not instead just admit, like myself, that you have no clue what happens after death, but choose to adhere to Christianity for whatever subjective non-universal cognitive reasons you adopt?.?.?

 

[Sanoy]

I find this entire response self contradictory. On the one hand, you state that my cognitive conclusion is no better than anyone else's. Then, in the very next paragraph, you state Muslims have their own definitions. But then assert that 'God this and God that'.... Why don't you just admit then that you too know absolutely no better than I? If we are all cognitive agents, with no actual universal cognitive standard, then why do you get to assert that 'your God this and your God that'?

Why not instead just admit, like myself, that you have no clue what happens after death, but choose to adhere to Christianity for whatever subjective non-universal cognitive reasons you adopt?.?.?

Well after coming here through the link you gave me to discuss your former faith, and having read the thread now, I don't feel this is the right place for disagreeing, but for sharing. I hope that one day you will make a thread about how you lost your faith and we can discuss it there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - Creating Mystical States in the Temporal Lobe

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Bit of an odd takeaway from that post.

My point is that indifference to 'tragedy' and 'injustice' would facilitate expeditious problem solving. For example the atheist has no reason the cite injustice as a reason to oppose capital punishment, which would greatly expedite the removal of criminals permanently from society, as they believe that there is no objective morality, thus no objective moral imperative to be considered in such decisions.

Worse yet is that many of our most serious problems are already viewed as employment opportunities and not the human tragedies that we normally think of them as.

 

[Ken-1122]

What does one have to loose, by accepting Jesus' free gift?

Free gift? Does this mean monsters like Idi Amin, or John Wayne Gacy, can kill and slaughter as many people as they want; accept this free gift and still go to Heaven?

Ken