Why are there atheiests?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Twiffy,

To cut an otherwise very long story short… teach your cat that the Internet really exists. If you had a gorilla who could speak, the analogy would be much better, because the gorilla is more likely to argue with the certainty of his presumptions.

Fallacy ad popularum - believing in something because so many others accept it.
Fallacy by interpretation - If I misinterpret it, it isn’t true, therefore it isn’t true.
Fallacy by presumption (the single greatest error in all of life) - I must presume a conclusion, so my conclusion must be right.

If you do not use those fallacies then you are an Agnostic at worst.

But let’s say that you went through your prior post and eliminated every one of those fallacies and posted it again. I would most probably spot one or more that you hadn’t seen, but that would merely be the beginning of a very, very long road to education on the subject. But to what end?

If you went to the grand degree of trouble to discern what was really true and not and eventually discovered that sure enough those founders were actually very right, if not totally right, where would that lead you? Would you suddenly rush off to church and join in choir? Not likely, because you would in fact, know far more than they.

What good would come from you knowing for certain that those founders really were right? Who would be your friends?

Isn’t it more sensible to merely join the current church of the age, the Human Secular (meaning “the Age of Humans”) where you had plenty of friends to help you to the degree they felt necessary (something to seriously look into)?

Why not be Human Secularist/Atheist, even if you found it to be false?

Isn’t staying an Atheist far more convenient?

Maybe that answers the question of the OP?

22

Twiffy, the provocation of motive of the pursuit is the commonality. Not the practice.
Look at religion, for example, as if you were looking at the vast array of martial arts over time and of the whole world.
All have a commonality in the pursuit. Each claims strengths and knowledge, and many fault the other practices.
We can argue the tennants of the shortsword’s lunge or the one-inch punch, but to do so misses the point.

In similar fashion, look at religion as that which enables a type of human motion, and what usefulness it provides in that pursuit of moition in life. Then take from each what benefits you and disregard, without interest freely, that which does not suit your spiritual emotional movement.
If none, then you simply need not regard concern.
But this is the commonality; not the form, but the facilitation of function.

23

Good point ^^

24

James:

As you say, let’s keep things shorter. Since we’re in a philosophy forum, presumably we’re here to try to educate ourselves and each other via communication. I appreciate your beliefs, but if you wish to convince me of anything – as you surely do or else you would not have participated in this discussion from the beginning – you must state what it is that you believe precisely, and you must justify your beliefs. Otherwise there is no basis for discussion. It may be the case that there is a correct collection of assertions that form the cornerstone of all religions – but people who believe such things will vary substantially in their claim of what these beliefs are, so you must be clear about your view if you wish to convince anyone of anything, or to convey wisdom. Once you are clear about what you believe, you ought to then clearly say why, again assuming that you wish to convince or convey.

Stump:

I believe some pragmatic relativism is in order here. Often debating the worthiness of such moves is useful or even essential, depending on the context. To debate them misses some points, and squarely hits others. To debate them misses YOUR point. That is fine; but if you have a particular point that these debates miss, it would behoove both you and the conversation to be clear about what that point is.

That is a commonality. What’s more, it’s a very vague, nebulous commonality, with multiple possible different precise interpretations. In fact, because of this, it runs the risk of no longer being a commonality once it is stated precisely and clearly. Again, much more clarity is required, so that we can know what we’re trying to mutually discuss.

25

I’d have to concur with David Silverman, President of American Atheists, when he reacted to The Great Rupture of May 21 by noting:

As an extension of the principle that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty, I hold that it is perfectly acceptable to any deity worthy of my belief that I not believe in such, and live my life as if it were a spark between two eternities, as Emerson put it (plunk), and attend to the notion of having faith simply that solipsism does not in fact hold, …and see where it goes from there.

Perhaps a deity would deign to create another mind(-set), in order to vicariously experience finitude. The only alternative being creating a reflection of itself, and thence-on dispute who created who. We cannot let that deity down by believing in it. First, we must have faith in ourselves. And those whom we are amongst, and by extension, might affect. Before all else. That, in fact, is quite enough to handle, even as it compromises the deity’s experience of finitude with only a parafinite parameter. True Believers critically underestimate that expectation. I, myself, try to argue against it.

EDIT: additional scholarly reference (Wikipedia, Meister Eckhart, In Popular Culture):

26

Well thank you for the opportunity.
This is the statement of my beliefs of which I would enjoy your complete understanding;
Here.

27

It is indeed nebulous, because it is a provocation of emotion within the human framework.
That means, just as surely as humanity is splintered on the cognitive emotional polarity spectrum and their applicable function in pursuit of a healthy life; so too will humans be splintered on theological stances which derive from implicit emotional compulsions.

The point is why should their be such a provocation to have spirituality at all in the human biological markup and not why there is “religion”.
From there, then, we can properly ask why some have less spiritual markup than other humans, as well as why others have more spiritual markup.

So; it starts with a simple question: why should there biologically be spiritual provocation in the individual human being?
What evolutionary advantage is this markup related to?

28

Wow. That was circular! Nothing against circles, mind you! Or did I miss something? :-k

29

Haha… I don’t know that “circular” is exactly the right word, but;

He implied that there must be something that I wanted him to believe, else I wouldn’t have been posting. The real truth is that what I had already posted was it and pretty much sums up the issue - IF completely understood.

If he (or you) wanted more, then more specifics need to be asked.

30

What do “very right” or “totally right” mean?

EDIT: in lieu of lack of context, here then scroll to bottom.

31

Well in the context given;

I would think it obvious that they mean “whatever you assess right and totally right to be”.

For me, that would be “exactly logically correct (perfectly sound)”, or close enough to not worry of any minor discrepancies.

But the point was that he had hypothetically found them to be true enough for his own assessment of truth.

32

Sigh

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175379

33

Twiffy, not to detour too much; this is an open non-prerequisite public internet forum.
Take it or leave it as you will.

34

Haha…

Although I strongly sympathize with your concern, “We do because of the tiny, minuscule hint of hope”.

But don’t take it all too much to heart. Sometimes you don’t get the answer to your questions merely because you haven’t asked the right questions. It was truthfully stated, “When the student is ready, the teacher appears.”

A part of being ready, is realizing, through inquiry, to whom you are asking (speak their language, not merely yours).

35

Sorry if my brows missed it in previous discussion, but right about what? That there are atheists? (hope net-cess doesn’t mistone that :slight_smile: )

36

We were speaking of the founders of the religions speaking of logic, not myth and thus “right” to that degree anyway.

37

Oh. Well, that’s a can of worms, init!!

38

Ain’t it though… :sunglasses:

And hence my response. :confused:

39

Because our brains and minds evolved in such a way as to suspect that what we see is not necessarily what is. A vision of god or lack thereof stems from our personal psychologies as a result of the full context of our life experiences. God is built into them and becomes re-created or destroyed through them with a little help from our brain chemistry.

I grew up in a catholic orphanage and was a true, true believer (well always bordering on doubt) am now an ignostic…if that were true, I will be feeling that burn harder than you will. :imp: :laughing:
Is it god who claims to be all-knowing or we who attribute that to god? We like to believe that we are made in god’s image and likeness; therefore, if we truly are, that also makes us all-knowing. Ah, if it could only be true. And no, it would not be very fair. It would be the god who was not being fair or perfect lol as it would mean that the blueprint that was created for humans was faulty. It would just mean that all things were not taken into full consideration when designing a balance between consciousness, human experience and free will. Or were they? A whistle in the darkness as we groped for indirection.

Probably because we are too focused in proving that our own religions are the greatest and thereby making religions greater than humans - instead of realizing that their purpose (religion) is to bring all humanity together and into god – if in fact there is a god. If not, it is the same purpose – to draw all humanity together as One. Harmony.

Would they suffer less if the existence of a god could be proven?
Perhaps this is the reason that there is no real proof for the existence of god – perhaps it was planned that way. If we come to know for sure that there is a god, responsibility for the world would be left in that god’s hands, instead of our own for one another.

he - his (lol) And just what would it take for that to happen?
And if it could happen, in what way might that change things…I mean, really?

Aside from what I said above…on the teeter totter of life’s most important question…”Is There a God” sit the atheists on one side, theists/deists on the other and up and down and up and down they go.
The ignostics sit in the middle balancing all while taking the time to see…and enjoying the ride…mostly.

40

My two cents–
I decided early on that if one other human was condemned to eternal suffering in some hellish afterlife, I should be there also. This is the empathy and compassion Jesus teaches as opposed to the vindictive or vengeful interpretations rendered by some theologians. As Stumps notes, you seem at odds with interpretations and their social effects without attempting to dig deeper to discover what works for you, which is the only sane route to any sense of well-being.
Atheism is a perspective. It is not, by simple denial, proof of the nonexistence of a God. If that perspective gives one a sense of belonging and well-being, if it can include empathy and compassion, I find no fault with it.