On Atheism

[cybercoma]

thelonious/August:

I should have been clearer, I suppose. I see the cop-out as when one draws an equvilance between the atheist position and the deist or religious position, which strikes me as an attempt to invalidate both and to justify a position in the middle purely on the merit of not being on either edge. Simply saying "I don't know" is different, as it is simply an admission that, well, you don't know.

I was an agnostic long before I became an atheist, mostly in deference to my upbringing. For me, it was a safe, middle ground, but in the end, saying "I don't know" was simply a way for me to duck a conclusion I had really already arrived at.

That's exactly how atheism happened for me, as well.

[August1991]

And it has been supposed that it's not just religious people who suffer less from depression, but anyone who goes out to a social group once a week. Is the lower depression a result of religion itself or a by-product of the social aspect of congregating?

Maybe. Or then again, maybe religious people benefit from the fiction that their internal conversation is with another being. Atheists know that they are only talking to themselves.

----

Incidentally Cybercoma, your Carl Sagan quote seems appropriate:"We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering."

I posted this elsewhere:

I have found that most discussions of these issues ignore two basic concepts that truly said are impossible to comprehend.

First, the universe is now estimated to be about 15 billion years old, or so. (Our own earth is about 5 billion years old.)

Second, there are about 125 billion galaxies in the universe and each galaxy has about 100 billion stars. (On a very clear night, far from a city, you can see about 8000 stars.)

These numbers defy any possible attempt at comprehension.

To compare, the number of stars in the known universe is about 1000 times greater than the number of grains of sand on all the world's beaches.

In terms of time, human existence on earth has been compared to a slip of cigarette paper (more likely a piece of cardboard) added to the top of the Eiffel tower.

[Riverwind]

I was an agnostic long before I became an atheist, mostly in deference to my upbringing. For me, it was a safe, middle ground, but in the end, saying "I don't know" was simply a way for me to duck a conclusion I had really already arrived at.

I have been there and done that, however, I have come to the conclusion the desire to believe in God must have some evolutionary significance even if that belief is erroneous. Having faith in the unknowable, if nothing else, is a coping mechanism that can help many people deal with the trials and tribulations of life. I think it is no coincidence that atheism is most common in well off societies where the trials and tribulations are mostly existential angst.

Furthermore, the placebo effect is a well documented scientific phenomena that demonstrates that belief alone can affect the physical body even though science cannot explain why this occurs. I would argue that belief in a benevolent higher power is simply a mechanism that makes use of the placebo effect and provides some people with tangible mental health benefits.

Please, keep in mind that my argument is not an endorsement of every possible incarnation of human religion, however, I do believe that there is something to this faith and prayer business and it is a mistake to dismiss it all as meaningless mumbo jumbo.

[ClearWest]

You could also say that if a teacher was any good, all his/her students would have A's. But it doesn't work that way. The student has free agency to do well or to do poorly. The bad in our world is a result of our negative choices.

Then ... if all that happens in this world is the result of our choices ... why do we need the concept of God? What does it add to this world?

If one can make bad choices bypassing God's will, one should be able to make good ones too - all without any divine interference. What is it that existence of God would have added to this picture?

God created us for one - that's probably the biggest addition to the picture - he made the picture! But besides that, he provides guidance in teaching us what is right and wrong. I don't doubt that many people can live moral lives without religion - but there is another power trying to influence the human soul. And it is much easier to withstand the influence of the devil when you have a strong foundation in the gospel. Christ taught an interesting parable about this concept in Matthew 7:24-28.

[theloniusfleabag]

I wasn't sure I should quote myself, (didn't want to be seen as 'cross-posting'), but something I posted elsewhere also fits here.

from...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=166491

(don't know how to do the 'whizzy link thing' to hide this line of code behind words like some of the comupter litter-it here)

The finite amount of all that does be,

surrounded by the infinite amount of that which does not be,

and me.

God is in two of these three places. I contain the notion of god, (the chemical formula for which I have named, H2SOteric) and 'he' physically is in one of the other two. So do I simply choose the lesser of two evils and run with it? It matters not to me, and I would prefer not to have one or the other 'faiths' affect my decisions. I am comfortable with my agnosticism, for I cannot embrace atheism when I have not been to the place where the answer is, and returned with the correct empirical knowledge.

[myata]

Well, you see, you need that concept of "another power" to justify the need for God to guide you in struggle against it. It sounds a bit convoluted. If we assumed that there isn"t any such power, but only people with their weaknesses and problems, it would eliminate the need for the first, and consequently, for the second. In sciense there"s a notion of "Occam"s razor" - meaning that where there"s a simpler explanation, it should be taken as the correct one. However logic has little value in the domain of faith.

Regarding placebo, I thought that it"s widely used in medical tests as a factor of "zero efficiency" to compare the effect of various drugs. I.e. a drug is considered to have effect only if it"s statistically proven to have better (significantly and consistently) results than placebo. Which kind of puts in doubt that mysterious effect.

[Riverwind]

a drug is considered to have effect only if it"s statistically proven to have better (significantly and consistently) results than placebo. Which kind of puts in doubt that mysterious effect.

Actually, that is the entire point. It is not enough to give someone a medicine and seee if they get better because often the belief that they are taking a helpful medicine is enough to stimulate the healing process. As a result, drugs must do better than than the placebo before they can be considered to be useful drugs. IOW - the placebo effect is real evidence that belief has an effect on the physical body.

[Charles Anthony]

(don't know how to do the 'whizzy link thing' to hide this line of code behind words like some of the comupter litter-it here)

Are you going to give up so fast?

Well, you see, you need that concept of "another power" to justify the need for God to guide you in struggle against it. It sounds a bit convoluted. If we assumed that there isn"t any such power, but only people with their weaknesses and problems, it would eliminate the need for the first, and consequently, for the second.

You can fulfill your needs with a different kind of faith. Try this for size:

The Statist's Prayer

by Bryan Morton

Our Government,

Which art in Washington,

Inculpable be Thy actions.

Thy empire come.

Thy will be done,

Around the globe

As it is in the US.

Give us this day

Our daily bread,

Free retirement, healthcare,

Environmental protection,

Transportation, education,

Protectionist tariffs,

Security, regulation,

Fiat currency, and anything else

the majority of registered voters wants.

And go more into debt,

As we become more debtors.

And lead us into blind obedience,

As we give up our freedom.

For Thine is the Empire,

and our incomes and the military,

and police powers, and the glory,

forever.

Or until the loose fiscal policy, borrowing money,

and creating the fiat currency necessary to,

sustain the socialistic paternal State combines

with the insurmountable cost of defense against

the global unrest caused by poor foreign policy

and brings the whole Ponzi scheme crashing to its knees.

Amen

There is a religion for everybody!

[Remiel]

I believe in (a) God, but not the Devil, or (fiery) Hell.

Dualism affects my reasoning for why the universe (or at least Earth) appears to be so messed up, but it does not affect my reasoning for the existence of (a) God.

Hell is just a place they invented to scare the unbelievers and pagans into buying into their extortion scheme.

[stignasty]

You can fulfill your needs with a different kind of faith.

Or, like many people, you can realize that faith is not required to fulfill your needs.

There is a religion for everybody!

Or not.

[myata]

a drug is considered to have effect only if it"s statistically proven to have better (significantly and consistently) results than placebo. Which kind of puts in doubt that mysterious effect.

Actually, that is the entire point. It is not enough to give someone a medicine and seee if they get better because often the belief that they are taking a helpful medicine is enough to stimulate the healing process. As a result, drugs must do better than than the placebo before they can be considered to be useful drugs. IOW - the placebo effect is real evidence that belief has an effect on the physical body.

You agree then that rationalism (medicine) does better then faith (placebo). The only question is whether faith does in fact have any measurable effect. This can be easily resolved by a statistical study. Personally I haven't heard of such studies and think that if they were existed, it would have made quite a big splash. If you know of any, please post a link.

[DarkAngel_]

quick get-fact here... anyone ever felt goose bumps or chills when expiriancing something about god? thats a kind of stimulation, and can be addictive, i broke my habit.

i was told by a counsler to get rid of my illusions i might be painting for myself, she was shocked when i paused and said, "...god"

i was lying to myself to lie to others, now i try to be honest to myself, you see the biggest price i hade to pay, is to make my whole world go away. what is their now? what i see, and what i knew, i use what i know to learn more, genrally it helps keep me in check, so my reason for turning to atheism? mental health, i didn't want myself to be clouded, i needed to look at the facts, so did, as well i realized my mom tought me my faith, and i wanted to find truth, and proof for that truth. not just try to be faithful for my mom.

also right when they let me out, i chowed down like 20 cheese burgers, so i make the joke that i chouse a burger over the bible, also i like the unsure smilie.

homework video games

cool or what....

now as for other reasons for being atheist, its the blank, the other side of faithfulness, with it i can look out of the box and look at all possibilities complitly detatched from beliefs, and make theories of my own, it helps me see clearly, and clearly i think i'm wrong 99% of the time, its the deepest way to see the joy-baskers and their silly words bounce about and cause chaos among them, if you look at a prodistin and a luthren fight on a debate about god... its kinda funny, they never use deductions and always revert to history for fact, they point out current people that made some brake through and expect to convince eachother with that, they act very animalistic, and it gennrally escilates to a point, that they stop and walk away, pathetic in a way, the only teaching they both agreed on was "turn the other cheek" , if you ask me, they need to get a chill pill and stick it up their gruff, pedantic butts.

so i just sit here, and try to look at it like a real life situation.

but be human, i need to act like one, so my atheism is often hidden, alittle more pathetic in my opinion.

[betsy]

There is a religion for everybody!

Amen.

[Charles Anthony]

get rid of my illusions i might be painting for myself,

If I did that I would probably lapse into a coma!

if you look at a prodistin and a luthren fight on a debate about god...

I would just throw the book at them.

[DarkAngel_]

I would just throw the book at them.

LOL

i threw sevral!

my point is that they are so silly, if you were there they'd try to pull you into the conversation, they did it to me.

my response: "i'm atheist............BOO!"

[Figleaf]

The Psychology of Atheism

Dr. Paul Vitz

September 24, 1997

....

He makes two assumptions about atheism:

1. major barriers to belief are non-rational, that is, psychological

2. all of us have a free choice to reject or accept God

The point is to identify factors that predispose one to atheism.

I have rarely heard anything quite as stupid as that.

First, the 'major barrier' to 'belief' is rationality itself.

Second, all of us have a free choice to reject or accept Pazoopla, Dringofash, Buddha, Casper the friendly Ghost, or any other nonsense as well.

"Superficial reasons for atheism:...

More nonsense. There is only one reason for atheism -- being convinced that a God doesn't exist.

[Electric Monk]

Interestingly, there are at least two kinds of atheism. Weak Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, Strong Atheism is the belief that there is/are no god/gods.

IMHO the Weak Atheist has the stronger philosophical position.

[DarkAngel_]

i agree with you, electric monk, the weak atheist is more open minded but also more detached.

as i explained as "the out looking in"

thats why most atheists like a religiously clear gov. to try to lower distractibility.

just as well, most atheists i've met that are, flexible, tend to have a higher tolerance to other beliefs, but agree that people trying to get their religious beliefs more recognized, by advertising them, are very much more, morally weak then other, less attention grabbing groups in society.

like the United Lutheran Church, who in Montana are spreading outrage at a new school regulation on teaching evolution in private religious schools.

"they've been teaching it tainted" was what a representative of the public school district said in an interview to the news paper, "they are hiding agenda in school, that by law has been banned by the gov.".

a radio station reacted by saying, "well they are obviously not teaching the truth of the bible in school either"

this is not looking good...

and printing of the dilemma has been delayed tell after Christmas, due to a request no specified.

the only people covering this is the radio station, whom might i add, support the United Lutheran Church.

its turning into a 1 sided fight, and back to point: only "weak" atheists are taking no side to it... so which atheist is mentally insane?

(if you ask me, there's no such thing as sane.)

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I, for one, think that atheists are the most illogical of all, followed closely by believers. Atheists are just on the pessimistic side laying claim that nothing exists as opposed to something surely exists. Better to have an optimistic outlook than a pessimistic one, in my opinion.

Afterall, how can you say with conviction that something simply doesn't exist anywhere in any form? I think it's being pretty egotistical about your own level of knowledge (or lack thereof) to be able to make that claim. At the end of the day, we are only one measly species on one measly planet - what the hell do we know absolutely (absence or presence) about anything?

I mostly agree with what lionusfleabag has been saying here, but I don't accept the portion of the agnostic definition that says that we cannot know. I would like to think, but have no way of knowing, that IF there is a god like entity, then it could make itself known to us lesser beings.

[Figleaf]

FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS: The Psychology of Atheism

by Paul Vitz (Spence, 2000, from AD Books)

Around ten years ago Paul Johnson wrote his thought-provoking Intellectuals in which he examined the personal lives of some famous Western thinkers, such as Rousseau and Marx. He noted that many of these great intellectuals had private lives that left a lot to be desired. He noted, in other words, a connection between belief and behaviour.

What, like Jimmy Swaggart? Like Pope Alexander VI?

In Faith of the Fatherless Paul Vitz provides a similar kind of study. He examines the lives of a number of well-known atheists, and discovers that most of them had an absent or abusive father. He argues that those who have had poor relations with their earthly father also tend to have had a poor image of their heavenly Father.

Dr Vitz first examines those atheists whose fathers died when they were relatively young - atheists such as Nietzsche, Sartre and Bertrand Russell. Then he assesses atheists who had weak or abusive fathers, e.g., Voltaire, Feuerbach and Freud. Finally, as a control group, he studies some notable theists and their fathers - men such as Edmund Burke, Pascal, Chesterton and John Henry Newman.

Calling this exercise in selective nonsense a 'study' puts way too high a value on it. What utter shite.

[Figleaf]

I was born to a belief and a religion.

No -- maybe you were raised to a belief in religion, but you weren't born to it.

I am curious as to how atheists and agnostics have come to have their belief. Were they born to it? And if not, how were they introduced to it? What had convinced them to turn to it?

I was baptised and brought to church regularly as a child. I attended church lessons once a week through my childhood as well.

I am now 'agnostic-with-a-spiritual-side' because I found:

1 - the claims religion makes about 'God' are usually irrational and often mutually exclusive;

2 - the claims religion makes about the world are often demonstrably wrong; and

3 - IF God is omnipotent, his demonstrated ethics make him unworthy of worship, whereas IF God is not omnipotent, he is not God.

[Figleaf]

If there is a god, he's doing a terrible job. Yet I'm told that this god is all powerful and all knowing. Make all the excuses you like about satan and so on, if god was all powerful and all knowing we would be living in Eden.

You could also say that if a teacher was any good, all his/her students would have A's. But it doesn't work that way. The student has free agency to do well or to do poorly. The bad in our world is a result of our negative choices.

A teacher is not credited with Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, and Omniscience. A teacher, therefore has neither the knowledge or ability to make his students perfect. God, however, is said to claim the power knowledge and the desire, but mysteriously fails to achieve its ends. Meanwhile, its Ministers criticise the 'students'. It's absurd.

[Figleaf]

null

[MightyAC]

I was born to a belief and a religion.

Do you think you'd be religious today if you weren't told what to believe as a child?

I wonder how many people would become religious if they were introduced to it for the first time as adults...my guess is very few.

[betsy]

I was born to a belief and a religion.

Do you think you'd be religious today if you weren't told what to believe as a child?

I wonder how many people would become religious if they were introduced to it for the first time as adults...my guess is very few.

If your teen son comes to you and say, he was invited to a bible reading to get introduced and learn about Christianity? What would you say to your son?

I doubt that famous atheists like Bertrand would have encouraged their sons to learn about other religions before making a decision. I doubt that they did not pass down...or at least attempt to pass down their belief to their children.

If I was born into a family who don't believe there is a God...they'll be more likely to point out faults and express their criticisms or disdain or contempt or ridicule in religions (and that is what I'll be 'doctrined" with)... of course, I'll end up with an atheist belief. That's the natural way of things. We learn from parents.

What is the difference? Either way...you'll end up being doctrined and "brainwashed".

Atheism, just like any other belief is passed down to children.