Atheists: Why aren't you theists?

[Suat]

Hi mrteachersir,

I hate jumping into a conversation I did not initiate, but maybe, just maybe, a new perspective could help (I don’t flatter myself to be more adept at apologetics than Kiekiolu, by any means, I have just thought on these matters considerably).

The more the merrier .

1. Belief in God is refreshing, but not in a way you would think. I have found doubt/unbelief to be a cancer. It makes people unhappy and negative. I see this daily in the students I teach (I happen to have a large group of avowed atheist students who discuss The God Dillusion often). Their negativity brings people aroung them down, yet not the believers.

This might be due more to their age, or the length of time that they have been atheists. The atheists that I know who come from religious families or cultures tend to go through a period of anger as part of the process, there are many reasons for this. One is possibly a feeling of emptiness, if you have believed in God your entire life and suddenly do not, who do you pray to or turn to in a bad situation? It takes some time to learn to rely on yourself or your loved ones.

What do you do when people being to turn on you simply because you lack belief and act as though you are a short fuse waiting to blow? What do you say to your parents and family members who now believe that you will go to hell or are insulted because you do not believe the same things that they do? The reactions of religious people to the revelation that someone has lost their belief in God is not always the most positive. In my case it did breed a lot of negativity because I was being attacked simply for believing something different or for asking honest questions. Now that I am older and the people I am close too are accustomed to my lack of belief, or are unaware of it. The rest I look at and am amused by. My life is no more negative than that of any other person.

Though I do have some fun stories of how I was treated when people found out (or suspected) that I was an atheist when I was about 18. Small towns, what can you do ?

We all suffer heart-break and disappointment, but the believer is armed with the grace to pick himself up and begin anew. It is my perception (based on the atheists and agnostics I know) that a lack of belief is debilitating and hinders our ability to resurrect ourselves in daily life.

I do not have this problem. I know that my time on earth is limited and do not want to waste it on self-pity.

If this is all there is, why bother?

I bother because that is all there is. I enjoy life and what I want the most is to continue living and the experience everything that I can in my short life. That is why I get out of bed in the morning.

1. “God is love.” All of us are born with a capacity to love.

I do not doubt that love exists.

1. Thus, your analysis of God’s subtle reminders and evidences will, mostly likely, lead to some kind of naturalist/materialist explanation.

How am I to know it is God and not nature if there are natural explanations?

We are free to choose. It is not easy to choose, though. Free choice was never meant to be easy.

Are we really that free to chose? Most people are brought up to believe in one religion and not to believe in any of the others. How many people abandon the religious faith of their childhood for a new one? Not too many, and often they simply go from one version to another version within the same religion. Like it or not, but what religion you believe in is based more on the part of the world or the family that you grew up in than in your freedom to choose from the variety of religions out there.

 

[Suat]

The problem is that you are dealing with a relationship, not the conclusion of a syllogism. Let me give an example: My wife and I have been married 20 years next week. But let’s suppose that when I asked her out on a date for the first time, she responded, “You give me the evidence that we could possibly end up married for 20 years, and THEN I’ll consider your request.”

Congratulations on the upcoming anniversary .

From my prospective, this analogy is not quite the same as the situation I am in. Suppose that instead of asking your wife on a date, you had some of your friends write a series of letters and send them off to her friends. The letters will contain a list of attributes that you are looking for in a future wife, as well as a list of things that you attribute to yourself and a place to be at 17:00 on Wednesday if she wants to meet her spouse for the next 20+ years. Each list will be slightly different, there may be some overlap, but there will also be some differences. Specifically, they will all list a different place to be at for the date. To make matters worse, each friend is convinced that the letter they are holding is the one that will lead her to you.

Does she chose a letter or ask for something a bit more specific? Take into account that her friends are unable to give her any evidence that you actually approved of the letters or were interested in her. Now we are closer to my situation, but instead of a spouse for the next 20+ years, I am being asked to chose what will lead to my salvation for eternity and instead of letters from your friends, I am left only with copies of 1000+ year old writings. See how it might be a bit difficult?

 

[cpayne]

Good response. Your analogy made me laugh.

From the Christian view, however, it misses the boat a bit. Let me add just a bit: Let’s say you are a peasant in an inland village in some far-flung country. After writing the letters, your prospective spouse wants to reach out to you so much he / she moves to the country you are in and becomes a peasant in your village—just to show you what he / she is like in person. (Or in Person.)

Of course, this effort can still be rejected. But here’s where my own analogy breaks down, because no marriage could be considered the Greatest Good possible for a human being. If God is real, however, and if Christ is truly God in the flesh for our salvation, a loving relationship with God truly is the greatest good possible for a human being.

 

[Suat]

From the Christian view, however, it misses the boat a bit. Let me add just a bit: Let’s say you are a peasant in an inland village in some far-flung country. After writing the letters, your prospective spouse wants to reach out to you so much he / she moves to the country you are in and becomes a peasant in your village—just to show you what he / she is like in person. (Or in Person.)

You can easily state in one of the letters that you became human just for her. That does not change the analogy or make that letter more valid than the rest.

 

[nucatholic]

I was once but after contemplating the issues, arguments and ethics behind the God Hypothesis, I discovered that I didn’t believe in a deity anymore and hadn’t truly believed it for a while. As a student of Philosophy, I was able to speak with the most genuine and intellectually rigorous theists and atheists in my university. At the time I had no plans to leave the Church and was studying philosophy in preparation for the priesthood (JPII introduced the pre-theology philosophy requirement). I really enjoyed the history, culture and sense of identity the Church gave me. The idea of God gave me a great sense of security.The people…not so much …but that didn’t have any bearing on the strength of the argument for the God Hypothesis that I was studying so rigorously. Ultimately the arguments in favor of any form of deity were significantly weaker than atheistic arguments and after I realized that I no longer believed in God I set to work on finding ethical truths and a positive belief system.

One thing many theists fail to understand, is that atheism is not a system of belief. An atheist is simply a person with no belief in God. Atheists are extremely varied in their ethical, social, and political beliefs. All these positive beliefs can be acquired from a genuine search for truth using reason/ rationality and some can be formed by irrational selfish desires or base malicious emotions.

Please don’t make ad hominem attacks or sweeping generalizations of atheists. Atheists tend to evoke strong reactions in theists and obviously some do it just out of spite. Please remember that there are still many atheists who genuinely care about the truth and desire most of the same things in life as theists. Its always unfair and logically fallacious to argue from emotion or attack the character of a few proponents of an argument. (Not intended to be a rant but kind turned out like one…)

 

[whatever]

Atheists tend to evoke strong reactions in theists

I wonder why…

 

[Aleii]

1)… It is my perception that a lack of belief is debilitating and hinders our ability to resurrect ourselves in daily life. If this is all there is, why bother? … My belief in God, and His Son saves me from such a perspective.

As Suat replied, and I’v experienced, anger/despair seem to be a normal part of transition towards atheism. Have you not heard of any stories where children are accidentally told that there is no santa, and they become very upset? If a perceived good thing in my life is taken away, I will not be happy. However, I would rather know the truth than to live in a lie. Would you rather know or not know if your spouse has cheated on you? As difficult a situation as it is, I would rather know than live a lie, even if that meant my life would be different and perhaps more cold. I do not want to live based on what feels good, but rather, based on what feels right.

1. "God is love.When a man puts his own life on the line to save another person, that is love for another person…something Marx and Darwin cannot explain. No amount of intellectual wrangling can escape the fact that true love, selfless, giving love does exist…and it is not for material gain (as Marx would have it, nor for the survival of the species, as Darwin would have it).

Animals can and have put themselves in danger, or, laid down their lives for others, including humans.

1. God has provided you with evidence of His existence, and not just you, but to everyone who lives today and haas lived in the past). Evidence can be discredited by the skeptic, however. As an atheist, you will be quick to assert that any phenomenon can be explained in a purely natural manner. Thus, your analysis of God’s subtle reminders and evidences will, mostly likely, lead to some kind of naturalist/materialist explanation.

I disagree. If you are trying to decide whether to be a banker or a construction worker, why does God chose to i.e. send a long lost banker friend back into your life as a sign? Why not appear before the person in prayer and say “Hi, a banker would be a fulfilling long term job for you, but of course the final decision is yours”? Why does God maybe chose to send cryptic, easily mistaken, easily missed signs? Why not just be up front about it? Do you appreciate when a friend won’t give you a straight answer to a question, but instead gives an answer that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways? Why would a perfect God chose this very unreliable and often confused method, when he knows that more than half of creation will not interpret those signs correctly?

To give us free will, yet not give us the appropriate information to exercise such freee will is not free will, is it? We are slaves to a forgone conclusion. Why do you think so many in Yugoslavia/Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic were hankering for war with Bosnians, or supported actions in Kosovo? They were being fed one line, Milosevic’s line. Not too free, is it? We are being fed many lines: the Buddhist line, the Hindu line, the Muslim line, the atheist line, the secular-humanist line, and the naturalist line, aside from the Judeo-Christian line. We are free to choose. It is not easy to choose, though. Free choice was never meant to be easy.

erm, so you are saying that because those in Serbia/Yug may not have researched other opinions and facts, that they were considered not to have free will? How does that follow? Why wouldn’t you then say that because I grew up in a Catholic household that was feeding me one line, the Catholic line, that I wasn’t free? If I freely come to a source (God) and ask that source for information, why would that source not give direct information which was freely requested? To have all the facts, I need my sources to be blunt with me. Not cute, not sensitive, not hesitant, not cryptic, just blunt. Why is that unacceptable for me to ask for? Why does God put himself to the same plane as all other religions by being so ambiguous? How does having blunt, straightforward, factual information degrade our free will?

 

[cpayne]

I was once but after contemplating the issues, arguments and ethics behind the God Hypothesis, I discovered that I didn’t believe in a deity anymore and hadn’t truly believed it for a while. As a student of Philosophy, I was able to speak with the most genuine and intellectually rigorous theists and atheists in my university. At the time I had no plans to leave the Church and was studying philosophy in preparation for the priesthood (JPII introduced the pre-theology philosophy requirement). I really enjoyed the history, culture and sense of identity the Church gave me. The idea of God gave me a great sense of security.The people…not so much …but that didn’t have any bearing on the strength of the argument for the God Hypothesis that I was studying so rigorously. Ultimately the arguments in favor of any form of deity were significantly weaker than atheistic arguments and after I realized that I no longer believed in God I set to work on finding ethical truths and a positive belief system.

One thing many theists fail to understand, is that atheism is not a system of belief. An atheist is simply a person with no belief in God. Atheists are extremely varied in their ethical, social, and political beliefs. All these positive beliefs can be acquired from a genuine search for truth using reason/ rationality and some can be formed by irrational selfish desires or base malicious emotions.

Please don’t make ad hominem attacks or sweeping generalizations of atheists. Atheists tend to evoke strong reactions in theists and obviously some do it just out of spite. Please remember that there are still many atheists who genuinely care about the truth and desire most of the same things in life as theists. Its always unfair and logically fallacious to argue from emotion or attack the character of a few proponents of an argument. (Not intended to be a rant but kind turned out like one…)

I have a question, if you want to reply: What were the atheistic arguments you thought were stronger than theistic arguments?

By the way, one reason atheists provoke such strong reactions is because most are not like you. You are a highly unusual exception. Most people “pick up” their atheism, along with the typical sarcasm that goes along with it, from reading maybe a book or two, listening to a lecture, making fun of a few televangelists, and along the way presto! there is what passes for a contemporary “atheist.” Most atheistic arguments I have encountered are as shallow as the puddles in my driveway. That’s why I asked the question above.

I guess MY response sort of turned into a rant, as well.

 

[cpayne]

If I freely come to a source (God) and ask that source for information, why would that source not give direct information which was freely requested? To have all the facts, I need my sources to be blunt with me. Not cute, not sensitive, not hesitant, not cryptic, just blunt. Why is that unacceptable for me to ask for? Why does God put himself to the same plane as all other religions by being so ambiguous? How does having blunt, straightforward, factual information degrade our free will?

The Incarnation of God, the life of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection are not straightforward enough?

Neither is the creation which “declares the glory of God”?

Neither is the natural law within you which declares the moral law of God?

Neither are any members of the Church, who are witnesses before you?

Neither is the Holy Spirit which deals with you?

Let’s put it this way: If a person came up to you and said, “I’ve been getting interested in you and I’d like to go out, okay?” would you say, “Put it in sky-writing first, on a very clear day, and let me study the photos of it, and then I’ll think about it”?

I guess what I’m driving at is that God is not nearly as hidden or cryptic about His intentions as you are making Him out to be.

 

[whatever]

1. … I have found doubt/unbelief to be a cancer. It makes people unhappy and negative. I see this daily in the students I teach … Their negativity brings people aroung them down, yet not the believers. It is quite obvious who is a believer and who is not amopng them.

My own anecdotal evidence does not confirm yours. I do wonder what conclusions an unbiased observer would draw if he or she were to observe your classes.

The Christian is called to “Live, to die, and to rise” on a daily basis. We all suffer heart-break and disappointment, but the believer is armed with the grace to pick himself up and begin anew. It is my perception (based on the atheists and agnostics I know) that a lack of belief is debilitating and hinders our ability to resurrect ourselves in daily life. If this is all there is, why bother? I have read Sartre and Camus. Their thoroughly atheistic perspective is dismal.

There’s a red flag. Believers imagine a reward in a future life and cause themselves much anxiety about infractions that result in an imagined eternal punishment. What’s the point of the earthly life for a believer? To play out a divine charade?

For an atheist, this life is all we’ve got. I view it not as a detriment, but as a wonderful opportunity to give our lives whatever meaning we can in the face of a cruelly indifferent universe. Understandably, it’s a terrifying thought for some theists…

1. “God is love.” All of us are born with a capacity to love. Love is beyond the mere sexual gratification and physical needs that Marx and Darwin promoted. When a man puts his own life on the line to save another person, that is love for another person…something Marx and Darwin cannot explain. No amount of intellectual wrangling can escape the fact that true love, selfless, giving love does exist…and it is not for material gain (as Marx would have it, nor for the survival of the species, as Darwin would have it).

More red flags.

“God is love” is often quoted by believers, but to me it is semantically equivalent to “fish is transcendence”…

Mentioning Darwin and Marx in the same sentence and topping it off with “survival of the species” documents a possibly willful misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. The evolutionary origins of altruism aren’t all that hard to explain, either.

1. God has provided you with evidence of His existence, and not just you, but to everyone who lives today and haas lived in the past). Evidence can be discredited by the skeptic, however. As an atheist, you will be quick to assert that any phenomenon can be explained in a purely natural manner. Thus, your analysis of God’s subtle reminders and evidences will, mostly likely, lead to some kind of naturalist/materialist explanation.

Another red flag. It is up the theists to show that their evidence cannot have a naturalistic explanation… I believe I mentioned confirmation bias in this or another thread…

The Church teaches that one of God’s gifts to us is free will. We are free to, when all information has been weighed, choose our paths.

I am not convinced that there is such a thing as free will. For pragmatic purposes, it suffices if our decision making is too complex to be fully explained after the fact, if it is sensitive enough to the environment of the moment to be not readily repeatable, and of course, complex enough to be not predictable in the specific instance.

Why do you think so many in Yugoslavia/Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic were hankering for war with Bosnians, or supported actions in Kosovo?

Tribal nature, plain and simple. I doubt that we’ll ever evolve past it.

God has not hardened your heart; you have hardened your heart. The “educated elite” have been feeding us a naturalist/materialist line for decades. An “intellectual” is one who rationally understands that there is no God. Despite the numerous ontological, metaphysical and philosophical proofs for God, all based on sound logic and reason, these “intellectuals” have decided that religion is bogus, it is irrational, and its adherents are little more than backwards ignoramuses stuck in a Matrix-style existence. Typical of such an approach, the “free-thinkers” I have encountered are not really free: they have followed the “party-line” and automatically eliminated God’s existence and, before even considering the evidence for Him, decry it as irrational.

More red flags. You’re either trying to have it both ways by saying that intellectualism is only good if it leads somebody to buy what you’re selling, or you’re saying that there are theist intellectuals and atheist “intellectuals”.

 

[MerryAtheist]

I see this daily in the students I teach (I happen to have a large group of avowed atheist students who discuss The God Dillusion often).

mrteachersir;
Please, do you teach at a religious affiliated institution or a public school? And what age are your students?

As several have mentioned, age and maturity level would seem to have much more of an effect on attitude than religious philosophy. Not saying I disagree with you, but I sense there could be other factors involved…

 

[nucatholic]

I have a question, if you want to reply: What were the atheistic arguments you thought were stronger than theistic arguments?

By the way, one reason atheists provoke such strong reactions is because most are not like you. You are a highly unusual exception. Most people “pick up” their atheism, along with the typical sarcasm that goes along with it, from reading maybe a book or two, listening to a lecture, making fun of a few televangelists, and along the way presto! there is what passes for a contemporary “atheist.” Most atheistic arguments I have encountered are as shallow as the puddles in my driveway. That’s why I asked the question above.

I guess MY response sort of turned into a rant, as well.

Popper’s Unfalsifiability, Bertrand Russell’s Teapot, Multiple Faiths with incompatible claims, Philosophical problems of gratuitous evil, problems with the supposed characteristics of God (omniscience, omnipotence etc.) Lack of scientific evidence, logical contradictions in scripture, the immorality of God as revealed in the scriptures among many others.

Your observation of some atheists has a little merit. I feel no companionship with shallow atheists or intellectually and ethically lazy atheists. I think there are just as many decent atheists as the type you speak of but they are not very vocal because claiming one’s atheism in this country isn’t exactly safe or socially prudent.

 

[cpayne]

Do you desire responses to any or all of the above, or would you prefer not to get into them?

 

[whatever]

Most people “pick up” their atheism, along with the typical sarcasm that goes along with it, from reading maybe a book or two, listening to a lecture, making fun of a few televangelists, and along the way presto!

I myself was never a theist and as the decades go by, I’m less and less likely to change my mind. The atheists who deconverted seem to go through a painful process and would not take kindly to your mockery.

there is what passes for a contemporary “atheist.”

Is this another attempt to define atheists away? Are there now real atheists, as distinct from contemporary atheists?

What makes an atheist an atheist is the lack of god belief. Whether an individual atheist can lucidly articulate their world view and reasons on a level suitable for an academic treatise is another matter. I myself have encountered more theists than I care to remember that didn’t pass my grade (figuratively speaking).

Most atheistic arguments I have encountered are as shallow as the puddles in my driveway. That’s why I asked the question above.

All the theistic arguments I have encountered are in my opinion equally shallow and from my point of view, atheistic arguments are redundant. I don’t bear the burden of proof and have no need to put forward an argument.

 

[cpayne]

I myself was never a theist and as the decades go by, I’m less and less likely to change my mind. The atheists who deconverted seem to go through a painful process and would not take kindly to your mockery.

Is this another attempt to define atheists away? Are there now real atheists, as distinct from contemporary atheists?

What makes an atheist an atheist is the lack of god belief. Whether an individual atheist can lucidly articulate their world view and reasons on a level suitable for an academic treatise is another matter. I myself have encountered more theists than I care to remember that didn’t pass my grade (figuratively speaking).

All the theistic arguments I have encountered are in my opinion equally shallow and from my point of view, atheistic arguments are redundant. I don’t bear the burden of proof and have no need to put forward an argument.

Hello. Sorry, but I’d still stick with what I wrote. Most of the atheists I have known (personally, not through this forum) are at a level sort of like:

1. start wearing black concert shirts and dark jeans.
2. start wearing sunglasses.
3. develop a form of response that disengages from argument. (Sort of like dropping “Whatever” into a conversation.
4. along the way, become an atheist, sort of—ANYTHING rather than a Bible-thumper.
5. make sure to drop sarcastic references to televangelists whenever possible, and use them as the “model” for what a Christian is like.

Atheists who “deconvert” can be a different story. CAN be. However, a lot of “practical atheism” seems to arise out of indifference, not some knock-down inner conflict.

Now, to give credit for a valid point: I’m sure a lot of believers are not the deepest thinkers, either. But at least they / we are standing on the shoulders of the deepest thinkers.

By the way, Norman Malcom’s variation on Anselm’s ontological argument DOES shift the burden of argument onto the one professing disbelief. But that’s a different thread. In fact, I seem to be wandering into “different thread” territory already, so fare thee well.

 

[Suat]

Not one for stereotypes, are you?

 

[cpayne]

Not one for stereotypes, are you?

As I said, those I have known personally, not via the thread. How would I know? (But how close was the picture? )

 

[Suat]

As I said, those I have known personally, not via the thread. How would I know? (But how close was the picture? )

Well, in my case you got half of number one correct. Sort of. I do wear dark dress pants daily (not jeans), but I only have 1 black concert shirt… As for the rest, not really my style . The rest of the atheists I know fit your stereotype equally well.

 

[whatever]

Hello. Sorry, but I’d still stick with what I wrote.

…

so fare thee well.

Whatever.

 

[Mirdath]

1. start wearing black concert shirts and dark jeans.

I wear mostly black so I can be sure of it matching – that and I look great in it.

Johnny Cash wore black as a social statement, and he was Christian. Taste in clothes ain’t got nothing to do with it.

1. start wearing sunglasses.

Do transition lenses count?

1. develop a form of response that disengages from argument. (Sort of like dropping “Whatever” into a conversation.

I’d think you know better than that around here.

Now, to give credit for a valid point: I’m sure a lot of believers are not the deepest thinkers, either. But at least they / we are standing on the shoulders of the deepest thinkers.

Some believers stand on the shoulders of giants; others jump on their stomachs.

By the way, Norman Malcom’s variation on Anselm’s ontological argument DOES shift the burden of argument onto the one professing disbelief. But that’s a different thread. In fact, I seem to be wandering into “different thread” territory already, so fare thee well.

Malcolm is still left to prove that God is necessary. Until he does that, the burden is solidly on him; and he will have a hard time doing what he wants with that when by proving Yahweh necessary he proves Ahura Mazda, Brahma, Nana Buluku, Odin, Amun, Pacha Kamaq, Azathoth, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and thousands of others – even creator deities invented by modern fiction writers – just as necessary, and falls into his own hole since so many creation accounts are entirely mutually exclusive.