This is an official-style thread to discuss atheism, its ideas and adherents, cultural influences, reasons for being, pros and cons of such a worldview, etc. etc.
What follows is my own personal reasons for being an atheist, as well as observations and tendencies I notice in both theists and atheists in regards to their disagreements. It is not intended to represent all or even some atheists, just me. It is, however, intended to provide many potential jumping off points for discussion. Feel free to take any of the points and run with it, or contribute your own.
As always, maintain respect and courtesy whenever possible. The very concept of atheism can be polarizing, so there is a greater need for conversational tact.
...
Why I am an Atheist
1. Precursors in Mythology - As I came from a Christian background, my initial doubts of theism were directed at Christianity. And littered throughout both Old and New Testaments are stories that have not just peers within mythology but precursors. Noah's Ark, the Book of Job, to name a couple popular ones among dozens of others, have stories that mirror them almost exactly in detail, but that came before the Biblical books. Most Christians see these as metaphor, not literal truth, but it begets the question of their inclusion in the Bible at all when such obvious parallels can be found in "pagan" societies. The same can be said of the God of the OT, whose decrees are sometimes flatly evil, who changes his mind, isn't omniscient at all times, and generally acts like a petulant child. One wonders how many would still have a total devotion to the Bible if they knew exactly what they were worshiping.
2. The Jesus Myth - I don't doubt Jesus' existence, but parallels and similarities can be drawn between his story and literally hundreds of others. Any mythological scholarship will point toward the idea of shared stories, motifs, and themes within savior myths and hero tales. Jesus is no different. As metaphor, I feel as though Jesus' story stands very well as a motivation and guide. As literal truth, I feel it is absurd, based on nothing but an archaic book written by superstitious and scientifically uninformed mystics and priests. Most Christians have no problem accepting Old Testament stories as metaphor, not literal truth. This is simply the next step.
3. Paranormal Void - There is a telling web comic that shows a bar graph. One bar shows the number of paranormal claims. It is huge. The other bar shows the number of paranormal claims that have been confirmed via experimentation. It is at zero. A host of physical, cognitive, statistical, and psychological reasons help explain why we often believe claims of the paranormal. These can range from the religious (exorcisms, miracles) to simply the "other" (ghosts, spoon bending, reincarnation, remote viewing, near-death experiences, among many others). But the actual evidence for them is so small as to be negligible, and the vast majority of cases can be explained by common investigative techniques or cognitive errors made by those who believe them.
4. Science as Explanation - At one point, simply pointing to the complexity and beauty of the universe was sufficient to justify God's existence. Before that, natural phenomenon were enough for people to believe in higher beings. But then we discovered fossils, medicine, evolution, plate tectonics, weather patterns, planet and galaxy formation, physics, gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. etc. etc. At best, those opposed to a scientific worldview can only poke holes in scientific theories, not propose their own viable theories. At worst, they either misinterpret or deliberately subvert facts for their own purposes.
5. The Gaps - One cannot disprove a God, which is what some people seems to believe atheism represents. I cannot claim to know one way or another, only believe. In that sense, there is an article of faith involved with either side, a word that atheists are usually loathe to invoke. However, there are varying degrees of faith. I have faith that the Earth is round, for example, though I've never seen it in its entirety. But there are valid logical and empirical reasons for me to believe such an idea. The need for any God has been reduced greatly due to the vast amount of information about the universe that we can confirm via empirical study, to the point where we even have mathematically feasible explanations of how the universe came to be. It is at a point, in my opinion, where the belief in God requires absolutely blind faith. It is this unthinking emotional justification for belief that I cannot adhere to.
....
Observations (again, opinions):
1. Religious Extremes - It is easy to attack the extremes: militant atheists and evangelical literalist Christians. Their beliefs and ideas either fall apart under the merest of scrutiny, or they needlessly polarize people for the sake of some agenda. It is harder to realize that these don't represent a majority, just a vocal minority.
2. Tolerance - I don't dislike or begrudge religion or the religious. I do shy away from a touchy-feely acceptance and tolerance of all religious beliefs, because there are many that I believe are harmful either on a societal/global level or individually to those who believe them. There is, however, an immense amount of good done in the name of religion, and countless people who derive meaning and strength through religion. This is needed, because not everyone can live with a materialistic worldview amenably.
3. Need for Belief - Both psychological and evolutionary studies have been released that show a profound need for belief in human beings, and how our very nature led to the organization of religions and belief in higher beings. This is not likely to change at any point in the foreseeable future. As such, I don't see a conceptual conflict between the religious and non-religious sects of the world. A move toward a better scientific understanding of the world will always draw some away from religion, but won't override our basic tendencies toward resolving metaphysical questions with a creator being. It is only when one side tries to impose their beliefs on others, either through physical violence, peer pressure, political maneuverings, etc. that I become upset.
4. Challenges to my Beliefs - Most serious (real life) challenges I have had to my non-religiousness have been emotional appeals. I don't face a defense of theism or an attack against atheism, but rather questions like "Do you feel a void in your life? How do you find meaning?" Those sorts of things. I think it reinforces my ideas of how many people relate to religion. It's a connection people feel, not something they believe on the basis of strictly logical reasoning. Which isn't a bad thing, but isn't something I can do.
5. Morality - My ethical credo is this: "Promote the happiness and freedom of all sentient beings, in so far as it does not impede upon the happiness and freedoms of others." It needs no God nor philosophical doctrine. And while in practice there can be tricky situations for any moral code, it provides a basis from which to work and a goal to which I can aspire. I believe simpler moral codes to be better, only because there is needless pain and suffering caused by absolute codes of morality that leave no leeway for an act or situation that has no ill intent or affect, but which makes people feel guilty or punishes them for their actions. Other different moral systems can be found outside of religion, as it's not hard to see an intrinsic need for morality, God or not.
6. Organized Atheism - ...is ridiculous, and probably hurts the cause more than helps. Organizations that promote the use and understanding of science and reason, however, are among my favorite organizations of any cultural genre. I have subscriptions to both Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic Magazine, which work toward such goals, using science and reason to debunk psuedoscience, resolve conflicts within the scientific community, promote critical thinking and reasoning skills, and helping to uncover and expose those who knowingly and misleadingly profit off of the ignorance of others. They are not strictly atheist organizations, and have no stated religious belief, but I find their approach refreshing and in line with what I have discussed.
...
That's all I can think to say that has immediate relevance. Feel free to comment and/or add your own thoughts.
Not a bad summation there, Dij (for an atheist ). I wonder: how representative do you think your reasons for adopting atheism is? It's generally been my impression that most people become atheists largely due to Failed Expectation Syndrome, the second reason being no direct empirical evidence.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
I do not trust anyone who says they have the absolute truth - be it theists or atheists. I also do not like the approach where everything MUST fit into pre-existing boxes; we have progressed by thinking outside of scientific spectrum of the time.
Obviously I am not saying believe everything, but accept possibility and investigate.
We do not know everything already - it is most likely that the central portion of atom (the nucleus) compose neutrons and protons, however we have never seen that area - or better yet, we are yet to see it.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
That's not really a great example. No matter what happens to be in the nucleus of an atom, various experiments have shown that it acts just like a clump or protons and neutrons would. So there isn't any compelling reason to think the nucleus is something else.
It's like if someone gives you an invisible object. If you can feel that it has eight evenly spaced corners and six identical sides then concluding that it is a cube is reasonable. Someone who says it is a firetruck will have to provide some extraordinary proof. Obviously the experiments needed for atoms are more complex but they're still valid.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I tend to see this argument as really just presenting a set of forever moving goal posts. By defining something as undefinable or unknowable, anything that does become known actually makes it harder to know this ambigious entity, until we come to a point where its existance would be nearly superfuluous to reality. Unless absolutly all things known to science are completely wrong, what purpose does "god" serve in the universe? So sure, you can ask specific questions currently beyond the scope of science, but even then, the idea that it is those questions, and those questions alone, that one must appeal to a supernatural explanation for is much less logical than an appeal to natural mechanisms; else, a god that doesn't interact with reality might as well not exist.
An atheist is almost always talked about in terms of a position toward a "creator-of-the-universe-interacting-with-reality-person-in-the-sky", not an outright rejection of all possible abstract and irrefutable constructs.
I'll share my experience with this, because I think it relates to what you said about a need for belief, and something I've been thinking about when it comes to that.
So like, I can pinpoint the moment I stopped being a Christian. I was in a philosophy or world religions class in grade 10, and the teacher gave an analogy between God and a 10 legged dog, implying that if someone told me "I just saw a ten-legged dog", I'd expect them to produce evidence.
I know you totally covered this, especially in the gaps part, its just, to me it wasn't actually this rationalization process or historical understanding of the myths, but this idea that was so formative in how I would later interpret everything I experienced in the world.
So, I think I might argue that the "need for belief" might be, rather, a search for congruence with ideas that are already held, and neurologically represented by physical information processing pathways. I almost mean that, like, from that day on, my mind interpreted information in a new way, and that for people whose minds are influenced by significant experiences built upon religious understandings, it's almost not our choice that our philosophical beliefs represent the most congruent narratives that have been proposed to explain our real life experiences, almost like cart-before-horse?
I'm really just interested in your opinion, obviously there is no one reason all people believe a certain thing. Did it really take a philosophical sort of deconstruction of Christianity for you to leave it? or was there something more like it just didn't explain your life?
I'll be completely honest and say that most of the atheists I know haven't thought it through this thoroughly. Some have, granted, but in just the same way that some people wake up and can't imagine the universe without God, to them they can't imagine it with God.
I think a lot of atheists were simply never taught religion formally, live in a secular society, realize that they live entirely secular lives, and simply have the balls to admit their non-belief. Because many Christians aren't practicing or devout, and they live secular lives for all practical purposes, but remain vaguely religious either out of apathy for truly investigating their beliefs or simply to stay with the social norm.
There's a fine line. Being "open" is usually used by people who think you're close-minded for not believing something other than material reality. I will tell them I'm always "open" to the possibility of something, given evidence to support the claim. I won't believe hypotheticals, regardless of whether they are abstract philosophizing or something that "feels good" to the believer. This is usually where the discussion devolves.
Thanks.
To answer the final paragraph, it was really just a slow, laborious process by which I slowly began to doubt, investigate, and deconstruct my religious worldview. There was never a moment like there was with you. At some point it just sort of dawned on me that I hadn't really been a Christian for a while. Then after that came other paranormal and/or mystical concepts, just as methodically.
I get your other stuff though. Like how the single most determining factor in your religion is what your parents are. If you're taught to think a certain way about the world, everything else will mold itself to that approach.
...
I'd also like to say that I'm always hesitant to mention "studies" or "mythology scholarship" and such without referring specifically to the texts, but the nature of my post necessitated summary. I tried to make everything I referred to in a vague sense something that is, if not common knowledge, at least readily accessible from a variety of sources. And I'm happy to extrapolate on any of it. This paragraph isn't directed at in, just something I wanted to mention in general.
For me it just sort of happened. There was no "loss of faith" that ever happened, more of a realization that I had never really been religious. I like to understand things, when I look at the world around me the satisfying and reliable explanations for how it behaves all come from science. Over time it simply became clear that religion didn't offer what I was looking for, I hadn't even been looking there for answers.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Pretty much the attitude of most atheists I have come across.
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
Well, I commend Digi for putting it all out there. That takes moxie. I may not dur you for a while now...
There are always pros and cons, proof for both sides, argument and counter argument, etc.
Some people (more scientists every year) who see Creation as just proof to a Higher Power. That the sheer size and complexity of everything is proof of their belief(s). And other people (scientists included) who see the same creation as proof that everything just happened as it only could through mathematics and confirmed hypothesis.
Just reading and listening to the debate back and forth makes my mind numb. Me after reading and listening...
My personal thoughts is that most people have problems reconciling the scientific with the Divine, or whatever term you like. To me they've always been interchangeable in ways. Both looking for answers. Both asking the same root questions "Who are we?", Why are we here?", "What's it all mean?" New scientific discoveries have never cast doubt on what I believe. For every question answered, many more spring up.
I guess for me, the precision of everything, the diversity of everything, the monumental complexity of everything shows me that we're all part of something more. The Universe being a giant, precise mathematical equation is just too much for me to believe is just popped up from an infinitely small and dense pinpoint. That...and my 12 years of Catholic schooling.
As for the wars fought over religion and beliefs and God knows what else. I take that as the Human corruption of institutes which are meant promote peace, tolerance, understanding and all that other hippie crap.
Anyway, I have always had a quote stuck in my head since I can remember:
True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
Socrates
It's not about supernatural, it's about not knowing and most importantly it's about BEING WRONG.
People today, are so scared of being wrong, it is considered a failure in many aspects, and that's why many people, many who are not scientists, cling to science so desperately not wanting it to be ever wrong - but the truth is, in almost every case, it has been wrong. And it is that wrongness which has pushed us forward to learn more and to explore more.
As I stated previously, God, the creator, can be the Universe, can be mother nature, can be anything, can be an alien for all we know.
The problem is that people cannot part with Abrahamic view of God no matter what.
Besides, my point is not about God, it's about the rigid view of some people who in almost all cases are not scientists. While at University, I spoke to a biologist who said that they're experimenting (mind you, only on flies) the possibility of regrowing limbs and regeneration. Right now, such things are far from being succesful to say the least, and if we kept strictly to science we know, idea of regenerating body parts is ridiculous....The important thing is - who knows. Maybe one day we DO manage to figure out such things.
And yes, I'd say it is all about setting further goals- looking at universe as a whole we are simply insignificant - the idea that we may acquire all knowledge is by itself impossible. The best we can hope for is to push forward and forward.
If Universe is infinite, then possibilities are infinite and thus knowledge is infinite - we cannot know everything.
And anyone who claims we know everything, knows nothing.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
I would argue the opposite, that in many cases they occupy utterly different spheres of thought.
Science doesn't ask "Who are we?" it asks the related, but very different, question of "What are we?". Not "Why are we here?" but "How did we end up here?" (the word why seems to presuppose a purpose). The question "What does it all mean?" is wholly philosophical and outside the bounds of science.
Or we can look at the places where they might come within spitting distance of each other. We have a man, let's call him Ross Tabulet, who spends all his time thinking.
Ross wants to know "What is good?" His training as a scientist offers very little help here, more information is needed to study the idea of "goodness" scientifically. Simply: science can't properly study abstract ideas like the one he has come up with. His training as a philosopher, however, leads him to the idea that to do good is to not harm others.
Now his training as a scientist can help. The question of "Which actions do not harm others?" can be studied in a scientific way. At this point the question is clearly quite different, though it is related to his original one.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Last edited by Symmetric Chaos on Jun 15th, 2010 at 04:56 AM
Is there a law of nature that says body parts can't regenerate? Actually I'm pretty sure the reason they're doing those experiments is because we know of things that regenerate limbs.
We don't even need the universe to be infinite. Godel and Heisenberg both managed to prove that we can't ever know everything.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
There's also the Atheist-of-the-Gaps fallacy which holds that "There may not be a scientific explanation now, but I'm pretty sure one will eventually come up".
-------
I've also noticed an attitude among Atheists (not you personally) is that all religions are the same. In all seriousness, what do Christianity, Buddhism, and Aztec Teotl have in common? (Other than an Atheist thinking they're all false). Absolutely nothing.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. If you have logical and empirical reasons to believe that the Earth is round, then your belief is not faith.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
KMC Community Forums
Jun 14th, 2010 07:18 PM
). I wonder: how representative do you think your reasons for adopting atheism is? It's generally been my impression that most people become atheists largely due to Failed Expectation Syndrome, the second reason being no direct empirical evidence.
very cool, I like a lot of the reasoning
