Atheism is unnatural

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_Defender
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dan_Defender

Guest
Years ago I read somewhere a quote that stuck with me. Now I want to share it here and see what you think:
Given that at any point in human history, over 95% of people worldwide were/are theistic, it then follows that atheism is unnatural to the human experience.
 
It seems to me it would take a great deal of effort to be a true atheist. I can see agnosticism, but how does one conclude for sure that no deity whatsoever exists, anywhere?
 
Last edited:
Well, reason was given to us, in our human nature, and the realization that there must be a Creator is then “natural” and the negation of that, “not natural.” Or at least “irrational.”

But - these days, rationality is devolving as men seek more and more to “rise above” (actually - “fall beneath”) submission to any Truth that might challenge their personal whims, lusts and desires. And so irrationality is growing, unnatural behavior is becoming more common, inhumanity itself seems “cool” - avant-garde - the new black.
 
I’ve always found it weird why atheists would frequent religious forums. It makes no sense. Why would someone want to continuously talk about something that they dont believe in or care about ?
 
I’ll explain Littlebird and respond to the OP at the same time. In doing so I am not trying to bring anyone to the conclusions I have reached. Just answering the questions.

I’ll also explain to Bear how I can be an ‘atheist’ while agreeing it is not possible to ‘disprove’ the idea of god(s) in a philosophical sense.

Yes, most everyone in history has believed in ‘gods’ of spiritual beings able to influence material reality. Yes, this requires explanation because i is an observable behavioural trait in a species (us). The most likely explanation to me is not that ‘there are such gods and spiritual beings’ or ‘there is particular god(s)’.

The most likely explanation to me is that the belief itself provided an evolutionary advantage or was associated with something that did. Once consciousness evoked to the point at which we were aware of our own mortality and the terrible risks we faced those who believed in ‘higher powers’ that could be influenced to help us would have been happier, more optimistic and less prone to despair at their awareness of the world and its dangers. They would have therefore been more successful and had more offspring.

It is also likely that people with a tendency to accept authority and follow strong leaders would have been more successful. These are attributes of most religions. Same thing: have these genes and you have more offspring.

In this idea the tendency to religious belief is hard-wired in our brains because it has an evolutionary advantage. This also explains, better than ‘there are god(s) and spiritual beings’ the observation that no two isolated people have ever come to believe in the same god(s) and/or spiritual beings. Were belief to be the result of the ‘real’ gods of spiritual beings exerting influence there would be far more similarities between religions.

These hypothesis do not preclude the possibility that a particular god or gods are in fact real and that this evolutionary process took place. So the hypothesis do not ‘disprove’ any particular theistic belief. But neither do they provide theism with any support, while providing a coherent alternative explanation.

Coming to the point: that’s why I frequent religious forums. I am fascinated by belief(s) and the reasons for them. My frequentation, or frequenting if you prefer a gerund, of religious forums is not, though, continuous. I do lots of other things.

And to Tis_Bearself - ‘atheists’, I agree in theory, must be open to the possibility of god(s). We must also be open the possibility of (and I say this with no disrespect, just to make the point) fairies, elves, unicorns, bigfoot, yetis, astral travel, healing touch, crystal therapy, reincarnation, karma and all the other things people believe in that cannot be ‘disproved’ in a philosophical sense.

So when we say we are ‘atheists’ we mean ‘we see no evidence of the existence of god(s) and nothing to suggest their existence is in any way more likely than the existence of any other being in which humans have believed without it being observable’.
 
Dan_Defender said:
Years ago I read somewhere a quote that stuck with me. Now I want to share it here and see what you think:
Given that at any point in human history, over 95% of people worldwide were/are theistic, it then follows that atheism is unnatural to the human experience.
Click to expand...
I do think atheism is unnatural in a sense, but I don’t think your statement is sufficient to make that point.
 
I’d agree that it’s unnatural, insofar as every human person is created to know God, but the premise (95% of people are/were theistic) is irrelevant, and the naturalness or unnaturalness of atheism doesn’t necessarily follow from it.
 
FiveLinden said:
And to Tis_Bearself - ‘atheists’, I agree in theory, must be open to the possibility of god(s). We must also be open the possibility of (and I say this with no disrespect, just to make the point) fairies, elves, unicorns, bigfoot, yetis, astral travel, healing touch, crystal therapy, reincarnation, karma and all the other things people believe in that cannot be ‘disproved’ in a philosophical sense.

So when we say we are ‘atheists’ we mean ‘we see no evidence of the existence of god(s) and nothing to suggest their existence is in any way more likely than the existence of any other being in which humans have believed without it being observable’.
Click to expand...
Well said for most of your post, but the God a sort of general monotheism supposes, an Unmoved Mover if you will (or the Hegelian eternal idea or Spinozan pantheism or Hindu Ultimate Reaility), isn’t something comparable to unicorns or faeries. It’d be like people in a computer simulation saying that the computer that runs their simulation is just another simulated object in the program and so should be subject to the same standards of observation of other objects in the simulation. The question is whether their reality requires the computer, not whether there are any specific given objects in their reality.
 
Last edited:
The atheists reply to this is that humanity needs to grow up. How would you respond to that?
For example: since the age of four you have been addicted to candies. You love candies. You think candies are life itself. Yet candies are all artificial. If you come 'to say that candies are natural at the age of 50, and It grows on trees, because this is what you know for a very long time, I think it would be right to tell you to grow up. Don’t you think? They are not natural. Grow up!
How would you counter argue this pov?
 
littlebird said:
I’ve always found it weird why atheists would frequent religious forums. It makes no sense. Why would someone want to continuously talk about something that they dont believe in or care about ?
Click to expand...
I can tell you that I, as a religious person, don’t have any interest in hanging around atheist forums, so I have wondered also why atheists sometimes spend a lot of time on religious forums. Not all atheists, to be sure. Just some.

I guess I can sort of understand FiveLinden’s explanation about being fascinated about how others’ minds work, but I would think it would frustrate an average atheist who is pretty sure there isn’t any God to constantly watch people behaving in what he would consider an irrational manner.
 
Last edited:
" and nothing to suggest their existence is in any way more likely than the existence of any other being in which humans have believed without it being observable’."

It has been observable. Just not by you or in your lifetime as of yet, but you can discount every witness, every writing, changing of the global calendar, etc. throughout history.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
guess I can sort of understand FiveLinden’s explanation about being fascinated about how others’ minds work, but I would think it would frustrate an average atheist who is pretty sure there isn’t any God to constantly watch people behaving in what he would consider an irrational manner
Click to expand...
To explain further: I think human beings are cable of rationality but that much of our behaviour is not the result of rational thought but of evolutionary processes. We are not rational when we love a new-born baby, or the that same instinct leads us to love puppy. Such behaviour does not frustrate me unless it does harm. I also discuss things like vaccination with people who believe things about it that are not observable (such as the false belief that vaccination is linked to autism). I am not frustrated by belief in god(s) because in general it does no harm, I am frustrated at harmful beliefs that persist in the face of observable fact.
 
Last edited:
littlebird said:
It has been observable. Just not by you or in your lifetime as of yet, but you can discount every witness, every writing, changing of the global calendar, etc. throughout history
Click to expand...
So what is your explanation for the fact that all these witnesses have ‘observed’ so many different gods an beings? And what is your explanation for the fact that the ‘observations’ cannot be replicated? (In general this is what is meant in science by observation: repeated observation under controlled or similar conditions.
 
Observations will be replicated. God created science and evolution. Science doesnt really know anything for a fact other than that something may precede something that happens.
 
Do you have an example for the replicated observation of a god? (One that meets the usual criteria for other observations such as that of a rare bird).
 
The Holy Spirit is leading them here they just don’t recognise Him
 
Wesrock said:
It’d be like people in a computer simulation saying that the computer that runs their simulation is just another simulated object in the program and so should be subject to the same standards of observation of other objects in the simulation. The question is whether their reality requires the computer, not whether there are any specific given objects in their reality.
Click to expand...
Thank you. It seems to be a mimetic pattern among atheists to equivocate “god” or “god(s)” as something in the category of being and God as the ground of being. I don’t know if they don’t grasp it or if they just don’t think it’s an important distinction. Occasionally, very occasionally, you may see an atheist actually admit that they don’t know something. Richard Dawkins admitted that he doesn’t understand a lot of metaphysical concepts in a debate with Anthony Kenny and Rowan Williams (more of a discussion among scholars, which may be why he felt he could let his guard down). “I don’t know” is a fair answer, but then why continue to perpetuate the strawmen?

I used to post frequently on atheist/secular forums and sometimes still do, but it does get tiring to expose oneself to verbal abuse (the insults are a lot worse than anything you’ll see here) and face the same arguments over and over again. Some forums are more civil than others, but really, philosophy can only go so far anyway.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top