Do athiests have an edge?

I'm typing this quickly, so if I don't say things just right, please forgive me.

Personally, it's hard for me to conceive how atheism can develop w/o being--to some degree--a response to theism. Most of us have likely grown up in a societal context where a religious element did exist; and there may even be some innate tendency to develop religious belief systems, as evidenced by prehistoric rituals which strongly suggest an awareness of possible life-after-death.

That aside, it seems to me that atheism comes about for 1 of 2 main reasons:
1. No proof, specifically no empirical proof of "God." IMO, insistence on empirical proof for a nonempirical entity raises its own set of problems; nonetheless, a critical thinker can arrive at an atheistic conclusion relatively independently of the dogma he/she was raised in.
2. The statement may take various forms, but the essence of it is this: "If there is a loving God, why is there so much suffering in the world?" Here is where, I think, we find the more "radical/vehement" atheists who, instead of reaching their conclusion mainly through Reason #1, are reacting more from anger, resentment or disappointment.

I think those points are valid. Religious contexts are everywhere, 5/6ths of the world is religious.

Scientifically (in reference to athiesm), if you reach the same answer, by different people, independantly adn by using different methods...that answer is the closest thing to truth you can possible describe.

For me it was a personal choice based on what I have observed about human nature and the powers that be and how religion was used to control the masses. I find it funny sometimes that I have studied many different religions and found that I know more about different faiths then some of the people that practice them.

For me personally I think that I have an “edge” but then someone that believes in a certain religion believes they have the “edge” so it’s kinda a mute point.

Originally posted by ThePittman
I find it funny sometimes that I have studied many different religions and found that I know more about different faiths then some of the people that practice them.

I have the same problems.

But atheism is not a faith...its a point of view.

Originally posted by Alliance
I have the same problems.

But atheism is not a faith...its a point of view.

Perhaps it would be easier to answer the question if we defined what we meant by "having an edge?" Are we talking, for example, some practical benefit, or just who is "closer to the truth"? What does it mean to "have an edge" in this context?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Atheists have a disadvantage, because they do not have a support group.

However they do support each other on the subject of Atheism....right?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
However they do support each other on the subject of Atheism....right?

Yes, and if they drink too much, they could join AA. 😱 😆

My post before, was meant in irony. 😉 I was calling religions, support groups.

Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps it would be easier to answer the question if we defined what we meant by "having an edge?" Are we talking, for example, some practical benefit, or just who is "closer to the truth"? What does it mean to "have an edge" in this context?

Haveing an edge was in reference to having a superior vantage point to analyze religion.

And anyone who drinks too much can join AA...they don't descriminate.

Originally posted by Alliance
Having an edge was in reference to having a superior vantage point to analyze religion.

Understood.

In that case, my first impulse is to say the Person may be more of a determining factor than the POV.

It's like: when I was heavy into martial arts, the Big Question was, Which is the best style? Answer: it really depended on the person more than the style in determining who had the edge.

Valid point...I was speaking more generally though.

Originally posted by Alliance
One of the main issues I find in analyzing religion is that everyone views religion from their personal history. This is obvious and unavoidable. Because athiests practice no faith, are they superior in the fact that they can present an unbiased opinon of religion? Or does athiesm as a relgious philosophy make athiests equally as biased?

Opinions.

good thing I'm wearing armor

A great thread Alliance!

Actually, athiests do practice a faith. That faith believes that everything we see just happened by time and chance. There is no designer in all this design and thier is no creator who put all this together. It takes more faith in my opinion to believe this than it does to believe that thier is a designer and for every plan thier is a planner.

Question: If I took a 747 Jumbo Jet and disassembled it and threw all the pieces on the ground... how many billions of years would it take to put everything back together again in working order?

Atheism is not a faith becuase there is no centralized religous structure...something present even in pagansim...there is a thread on it somewhere, but I guess the discussion question is relevant.

Atheism imo is better describes as a religous philosophy.

I'm glad you like the thread...it seems like you're heading back into intelligent design. But the answer to you question is about 4.6 billion years. 😆

i'd be happy to debate evolution, its one of my faovrite topics....we could set up a point counterpoint debate thread.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
...Question: If I took a 747 Jumbo Jet and disassembled it and threw all the pieces on the ground... how many billions of years would it take to put everything back together again in working order?

Answer: it would never come together, no matter how much time. However, give evolution enough time and a small age like creature will evolve enough to build a 747. I know this is true, because it happened.

Originally posted by Alliance
Haveing an edge was in reference to having a superior vantage point to analyze religion.

And anyone who drinks too much can join AA...they don't descriminate.

I had thought my comment and your response had already answered that. 😂

oh 😕 OK 😄

Originally posted by Alliance
Atheism is not a faith becuase there is no centralized religous structure...something present even in pagansim...there is a thread on it somewhere, but I guess the discussion question is relevant.

Atheism imo is better describes as a religous philosophy.

I'm glad you like the thread...it seems like you're heading back into intelligent design. But the answer to you question is about 4.6 billion years. 😆

i'd be happy to debate evolution, its one of my faovrite topics....we could set up a point counterpoint debate thread.

4.6 billion years for the Jet to re-assemble? 😆 Just havin fun...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Answer: it would never come together, no matter how much time. However, give evolution enough time and a small age like creature will evolve enough to build a 747. I know this is true, because it happened.

Amazing! That's like an explosion creating life. Wow! Thats a possibity too... 🙄

Originally posted by Alliance
Atheism is not a faith becuase there is no centralized religous structure

Originally posted by Regret
I agree with everything you posted (never stated the solely portion myself. 😉 ) I think the issue is what Alliance meant by analyzing religion. I am assuming he is referring to testing levels of various forms of validity based on religious frames of reference. Could you, Omega, step into the hypothetical realm and analyze the world's religions unbiased by your disbelief in the supernatural?

Depends on what should be analyzed and in what context. Questions of faith, no. Historical, theological and sociological/political moves conducted by various churches and temples and religions I could discuss.
Unbiased? Hmmm, probably not come to think of it. I view religions as culturally accepted delusions along with conspiracy theories, and am probably inclined to find some of them reactionary, conservative and male-chauvinistic obstacles to the progress of society.