If atheists deny the existence of God

[FiveLinden]

Because if religious were a mass delusion, then they would have an ethical duty to spread that truth

I believe, in a technical sense, that religious belief is simply imaginings, but I do not see myself as having ‘an ethical duty to spread that belief’. Religious belief in my view is wrong in terms of describing the world (including human society) but I do not see it as essentially harmful. In fact I think humans probably evolved early to have a tendency to religious belief as a way of promoting group unity, optimism, and dealing with the knowledge of our own mortality.

We have very little to indicate whether people are happier, more peaceful or generous, or anything without religion. We do know that particular religious beliefs are harmful and that society needs to protect itself from the imposition of religious beliefs.

But generally, since the enlightenment religion has done a lot of good as well as a lot of harm. Imagined pasts without religion as thought experiments illustrate this. Would Hitler have persecuted Jews if neither they nor him were religious? My guess: yes. Would slavery have existed in the US without religion - well, yes, certainly - look at Thomas Jefferson. Would women have been oppressed without religion - my guess is yes. Religion can be used to reinforce social trends but in general, I think, is not responsible for them.

 

[JohnStrachan]

Also in most of the English-speaking world most people now have no religion

I think if you are going to make a statement like this you should have the facts on hand to back this up: Religious commitment by country and age | Pew Research Center

 

[Cantankersaurus]

There are honest and self-consistent ways for atheists to want other people to be atheists.

As long as we’re talking about reasons to be atheist or to want non-religious culture and laws, just take atheists at face value. They’ve had more time to think about why they’re atheist than anyone else.

I feel snubbed when some atheists say people are only religious because their parents were religious, or because it’s a kind of identity or source of comfort. Also, it doesn’t make sense for them to try to infer ulterior motives about why I’m religious or why I want other people to be religious when I’m happy to tell them straight-up.

 

[lelinator]

Also, it doesn’t make sense for them to try to infer ulterior motives about why I’m religious or why I want other people to be religious when I’m happy to tell them straight-up.

Recently it seems as though every post that I write has the potential to get me suspended, and this one probably isn’t going to be any different. If anyone finds this post to be offensive or derogatory, you can blame it on my having the EQ of Sheldon Cooper.

That having been said, even if you tell me straight up why you believe in God, I’m probably not going to believe you, because I don’t think that you know why you believe in God. But to be fair, I don’t think that an atheist knows why they don’t believe in God.

I think that spirituality/religiousity boils down to three basic components:

1. Genetic predisposition.
2. Emotional/Experiential/Psychological causes.
3. Cultural/Social influences

**Notice, reasoning isn’t included anywhere on this list. I don’t believe that it’s possible for reason alone to lead to a belief in God.

Now I would agree that it’s possible that someone could have an extremely traumatic experience, like an NDE, that could directly lead to a belief in God, but for the most part, a belief in God occurs without any singular cause, or even a distinguishable series of causes. Someone might claim, after the fact, that indeed such a series of causes actually exists, but such a claim is almost certainly a case of justification, not causation.

I think that the belief in God is a psychological condition precipitated by a genetic predisposition and caused by experiential and social influences. As such, I don’t think that you can actually tell me why you believe in God, or don’t believe in God, whichever the case may be.

But shouldn’t this also be true for me? Indeed it is to an extent. I am definitely genetically predisposed to being both hyper-analytical and hyper-skeptical. As such, you and I are not the same.

If you check my profile, you’ll find that under religion it says “Christian, Stoic, Solipsist”. Now although most people fixate on the last one, all three of them are there for a very specific reason. Those three words embody everything that you need to know about what kind of a person I am.

 

[bpd_stl]

There are two kind of atheists in my experience: the preachy kind, always trying to persuade people to become atheists, even going to the extreme measure of posting on CAF and the indifferent kind. I actually have a lot of respect for the indifferent kind, they say why bother? the end for all is nothing after death so let them believe whatever they want and focus on enjoying life… to me, that position is the most consistent with atheism.

My experience has taught me this as well. I would also add that there are two types of personalities (be they theist or atheist): people who like to debate…and people who love to argue. There is a difference, although they appear to be the same at first glance. I’ve grown past the age where I care what other people think. Not in a curmudgeonly or self-consciously defensive way, but rather in that I’ve spent years in reading & introspection and have arrived at my beliefs thoughtfully & deliberately.

 

[Freddy]

I feel snubbed when some atheists say people are only religious because their parents were religious, or because it’s a kind of identity or source of comfort.

I think that it’s often pointed out that people generally follow the religion into which they were born. A pretty straight forward fact if there ever was one. And belonging to a religion does give you an identification with that religion. That’s hardly ground breaking news either. And I’d certainly hope that it gives one a sense of comfort.

But are those the only reasons why someone believes what they do? I wouldn’t imagine so. I’d like to think that most people give it something more than a cursory thought. I know for a fact that some don’t, but they wouldn’t represent the majority.

 

[Magnanimity]

Hands up all those who would like Christianity taught in Public Schools. OK, hands down. Carried.

Jersey Mike said “force” the teaching… Sadly, philosophy and logic are no longer normatively taught in public schools, neither is religion. However, social studies is, and it’s heavily historical. As an historical note, who was among the first (if not the first) organized body in American to publicly denounce slavery? They were called the Quakers. Heard of em? Christians? Yes. Christian beliefs have anything to do with their abolitionism? Yes. One can’t have historical conversations about anything serious without at least skirting religion. There is nothing to fear here.

was told that I was an idiot for doing so. And I have lost count of the times in umpteen posts where people have claimed that atheists have no possible grounds for acting morally.

That’s terrible. It’s really inexcusable that you would be spoken to that way here at CAF. I should say though that I’m guessing that your interlocutors are trying to press the issue that you have no metaphysical grounding of your extant moral beliefs, which is a far cry from the claim that being an atheists entails that one “lacks morals” (again, whatever that phrase might mean). I don’t mind anyone pressing you on the “grounding” problem for atheism. But, to suggest that an atheistic commitment entails anything whatsoever regarding whether or not a person can lead a good and moral life is preposterous. Those who believe that we need religion in order to “be moral” have evidently not read Aristotle, Kant or Mills!

A gallup poll indicated that 4 in 10 Americans would not vote for an atheist purely on the grounds that they were atheist.

Meh, Sam Harris, as you probably know, doesn’t like the term “atheist” for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that it comes across to Americans as militant and antagonistic. It really isn’t surprising that a generally spiritual/religious culture like America would be opposed to a label perceived as “hostile.”

Like standing outside servicemen’s funerals and shouting that God hates fags? Like wanting to teach creationism in science classes?

What does this have to do with “being directed” to do illogical things (Mike’s claim)? Are such behaviors/beliefs by religious folks erroneous? Yes. Directed by the deity toward illogical behavior?! Give me a break…

 

[PickyPicky]

I’m guessing that your interlocutors are trying to press the issue that you have no metaphysical grounding of your extant moral beliefs, which is a far cry from the claim that being an atheists entails that one “lacks morals” (again, whatever that phrase might mean). I don’t mind anyone pressing you on the “grounding” problem for atheism. But, to suggest that an atheistic commitment entails anything whatsoever regarding whether or not a person can lead a good and moral life is preposterous.

I would have said so, and many have taken the view that atheists’ morals have no “grounding” as you put it, but many posters have said atheists hold their opinions because of pride or because they do not want to change their licentious lifestyles.

 

[Magnanimity]

I would have said so, and many have taken the view that atheists’ morals have no “grounding” as you put it,

I would probably phrase it like: an atheist has no final/ultimate grounding for moral norms. However, the atheist has access to the social conscience of the society in which she lives, just as the rest of us do. (Also, though she won’t admit it, God communes with all individuals within the depths of their selves—the individual’s conscience.) So, whether conceived socially or individually, an atheist has access to roughly the same moral norms that we all do. She just doesn’t have a satisfying way of accounting for the universality of this “access.”

but many posters have said atheists hold their opinions because of pride or because they do not want to change their licentious lifestyles.

Pride truly is the universal sin—we all hold many opinions bc of our pride, the theist and atheist alike. Idk what this final thought refers to though—licentious lifestyle? Suffice it to say that unbelief has been growing year over year lately. And there is no obvious connection that I can see between unbelief and living a life that most would agree is ethically poor. As in, atheists can be/are “good ppl.”

 

[PickyPicky]

. She just doesn’t have a satisfying way of accounting for the universality of this “access.”

Well, of course I would deny that.

Idk what this final thought refers to though—licentious lifestyle?

It seems to be, in these posters’ minds, usually lustfulness. Supposedly we atheists live lives of unbridled sexual sin, and we ain’t gonna give it up. Other sins seem less often to come to their minds.

 

[Magnanimity]

It seems to be, in these posters’ minds, usually lustfulness. Supposedly we atheists live lives of unbridled sexual sin, and we ain’t gonna give it up. Other sins seem less often to come to their minds.

I feel grateful to Dante that he imagined lust to be the least ‘deadly’ of the seven great sins. If only we could get this current generation on board with this wisdom from the past!

Well, of course I would deny that.

I would say that the universality of the conscience is an under-explored area even for Christians but especially for atheists. (Besides JH Newman and CS Lewis I don’t know a lot of Christians that have pushed the universality and primacy of the conscience with much depth.) As best I can tell, any sense of “ought” not derived from what is (sometimes contrary to what is) remains a bizarre mystery for anyone with naturalistic inclinations. Just one of about a hundred conundra for naturalism…

 

[PickyPicky]

As best I can tell, any sense of “ought” not derived from what is (sometimes contrary to what is ) remains a bizarre mystery for anyone with naturalistic inclinations.

The mystery so far, I think, is the evolution of consciousness. To me, empathy seems a natural development from that

 

[Magnanimity]

The mystery so far, I think, is the evolution of consciousness.

Consciousness is indeed a very deep mystery for all of humanity, no matter what one’s prior philosophical commitments are. I think the mysterious nature of the evolution of consciousness is exacerbated if one takes as a given the modernist mechanistic picture of the world. Within that mechanical framework, the arising of consciousness seems to make very little sense at all. And yet consciousness is a given of human experience - the conscience and consciousness are data for all of us.

I don’t think it is very mysterious when a person derives an ought from what is. In a basic way, that is what Aristotle and Mill were both doing in their ethical writings. The mysterious Aspect of the conscience is when one has an internal sense of what ought to be and that it is counter to what is. Well, I guess I should say that this is not a particularly troublesome issue for a theist but it certainly seems so for an atheist.

 

[Freddy]

I don’t think it is very mysterious when a person derives an ought from what is. In a basic way, that is what Aristotle and Mill were both doing in their ethical writings. The mysterious Aspect of the conscience is when one has an internal sense of what ought to be and that it is counter to what is. Well, I guess I should say that this is not a particularly troublesome issue for a theist but it certainly seems so for an atheist.

I look upon this sensation that we have that there are ways that we should and shouldn’t act no more differently than the sensations that we have that eating some things are bad for us. Nobody needs to teach a child that bitter foods are to be avoided. It’s inbuilt. Likewise it’s universal that incest is wrong. You don’t have to teach anyone. It’s inbuilt.

Did God ensure that we feel these things? Did they evolve and was He responsible for their evolution?

He must have had some (name removed by moderator)ut as far as you are concerned. It’s entirely natural as far as I am concerned. But we are both on the same page.

 

[BornInMarch]

then why do they talk about him so much?

You’re thinking specifically of New Atheists, the people who write entire books on nothing but why they blame religion for everything. People like that usually have no personality beyond their one bugbear.

I’ve met plenty of atheists and irreligious people who aren’t like that and who instead adopt a “live and let live” attitude, and who won’t even talk about their unbelief unless someone asks them about it.

 

[bpd_stl]

You’re thinking specifically of New Atheists, the people who write entire books on nothing but why they blame religion for everything. People like that usually have no personality beyond their one bugbear.

I’ve met plenty of atheists and irreligious people who aren’t like that and who instead adopt a “live and let live” attitude, and who won’t even talk about their unbelief unless someone asks them about it.

My sentiments exactly. Thank you for providing a concise, cogent statement in this thread that I wasn’t able to articulate in my previous post. My experience in interacting with thoughtful agnostics & atheists over the past 30 years jives with this.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

@Freddy gave several great examples, but I’ll add a few more.

That’s sweet. You seem to think that teaching occurs in schools today.

I noticed you didn’t dispute that they are people who are trying to force religion in public schools. Here’s an example. And here’s an interview with the kids that were affected by that example.

If you’d like I can also reference several instances where religion was forced on people in the U.S. military (often the Air Force).

I’m genuinely curious about this one. Which prominent theist has claimed that unbelief in God entails that that person “lacks morals” (whatever might be meant by that phrase)?

Off the top of my head, apologists Ravi Zacharias and Eric Hovind have said as such. The latte even said that without God there would be nothing to stop him from committing all sorts of heinous crimes.

My parish definitely should have availed itself of these mysterious taxpayer monies in its most recent capital campaign—would have been kind to my wallet.

Here’s an example: Ark Encounter. Not only did they get massive tax breaks, but a portion of all the local taxes go back into the theme park. All for a building that’s shaped partially like a boat.

It might make you “strange and unusual” like Winona Ryder’s character in Beetlejuice. But unfit? There are many members of the US House that claim no religious affiliation (unstated). There are many Jewish members, a few Muslims, a few Hindus, one Buddhist and several Mormons and Unitarians. I imagine there’s room for “nones” too. And I doubt I’m alone in this opinion.

Franklin Graham doesn’t share that view.
Neither did Elizbeth Dole.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Illogical? Like…?

I’d link to an example of someone opting for prayer for a sick child instead of taking them to a doctor, but disturbingly there are far too many examples. We can talk about all the church’s this year who believed masks and social distancing were unnecessary as God would protect them. Many of them got sick, and some of them died.

We can talk about the people looking to rebuild the third temple as a way to brink about Christ’s return.

We can talk about the people who feel that we don’t need to take care of the Earth because Jesus’ return is imminent. Also a few years back the followers of Harold Camping believed his prediction of Jesus’ return was true, and some of them sold everything.

Lawd, help us…:man_facepalming:t2:

That would require a response from him.

Thankfully, no rational adult with a properly functioning conscience believes in the Easter bunny.

Maybe not the Easter Bunny, but I’m sure there are plenty of things that some people believe that both you and I likely would consider irrational (e.g. some New Age beliefs)

Jersey Mike said “force” the teaching…

Jersey Mike is someone else

 

[Magnanimity]

You don’t have to teach anyone. It’s inbuilt.

Hmm, I’m not entirely sure that incest is a good example of what I’m describing, so I’ll leave it aside. How about this scenario—you are a passerby and you see someone in need of help and the situation is somewhat perilous. Philosophers have used a great variety of examples here. But I’ll try to keep it not too dramatic.

Say, it’s an older lady trying to cross at a road intersection. She is laden with several bags and there’s a very strong wind. You are behind and near to her and unburdened with anything To her right, you perceive that there are several able-bodied young men closer to her than you are. She begins begins to cross when the sign says “walk.” She stumbles and drops a bag. The few young men in front of you look directly at her and obviously see her struggle, but they continue to cross the intersection offering no help. You think to yourself, “what a bunch of d-bags, can’t they see she needs help?! Why didn’t they offer to assist…kids today…” (or some such lamentation of today’s youth).

Because of your compassion/pity for this lady, you quickly move to her aid, say “please, let me help you.” She gladly accepts and says “thank you.” You grab the bag she dropped, look to make sure there’s still time to cross at the intersection, seeing that there is, you offer to take more of her bags and help her across. She’s almost overcome with gratitude. You both make it across, she thanks you a thousand times over, you say it was no trouble at all, smile, and you part ways.

The question of whether there was a moral obligation for you or the young men to help the old lady is an interesting question. Most folks, I think, would say yes.

But what of your internal reaction to the young men? There is an “ought” within you that isn’t based in an “is” within the scenario. This sense of ought within is what I’m driving at—seared deep within your conscience (indeed within humanity’s social conscience) is something like - if it’s in your power to help another person who needs it, without any great cost to yourself, then you ought to help that person. And anyone not obeying this moral maxim is not doing what they ought to do, right?

 

[Freddy]

But what of your internal reaction to the young men? There is an “ought” within you that isn’t based in an “is” within the scenario. This sense of ought within is what I’m driving at—seared deep within your conscience (indeed within humanity’s social conscience) is something like - if it’s in your power to help another person who needs it, without any great cost to yourself, then you ought to help that person. And anyone not obeying this moral maxim is not doing what they ought to do, right?

Well, you didn’t need a story to illustrate that. Just the last paragraph would have done for me.

Plain and simply, empathy and reciprocal altruism is the answer. Which are evolved characteristics. Which themselves have ‘evolved’ into social mores. And I’ve used quotes there because the term is not to be confused with the scientific meaning.

Reciprocal altruism came about because it was obviously beneficial to have a few people helping each other rather than those few acting individually. And empathy (definitely not to be confused with sympathy which it often is) evolved to help us think like others. To put ourselves in someone else’s position and work out what they might do. A tremendous help in a social group (is he lying, can I trust her, does he really need help, is she actually my friend etc).

And reciprocal altruism is enforced by negative reactions to those who buck the system - or who lie about their intentions to cooperate (which is where empathy helps in determining that). Hence we have concepts of revenge, honour, honesty, trust, shame etc.

Someone bucks the system and we want to punish them. Revenge. People play by the rules and we consider them honourable. We consider them honest. We feel we can trust them. If we get found out not doing what’s expected we might feel shame.

So empathy allowed me to understand the distress that the old lady was feeling (I guess we did need the story after all) and reciprocal altruism prompted me to help. The social mores involved would have been perhaps some internal satisfaction that I helped - tending towards pride. And shame if someone had seen me not do the right things. My social position was improved by helping and would have been affected negatively if I hadn’t (not that these are conscious decisions).

The young men? They weren’t too worried about their social position within their group so didn’t feel any compulsion to help. In fact, within the group one of them may have been subjected to negative feedback if they had helped. In which case he would automatically try to shame his friends for not helping.

Hey…it’s a complex dance.