Is Atheism Positive?

[Charlemagne_III]

In various threads we have heard the point made that atheism is negative or atheism is positive. The negative aspects of atheism are obvious. I think the positive aspects are less obvious, and some would say non-existent.

Any atheists care to weigh in

 

[laircy]

Depends what you mean by positive and negative?

As a worldview, it seems it would simply be negative in the sense it holds a view that negates the existence of any god.
Which may end up becoming positive because it will have to assert an alternate view of how or why the universe exists. But that is not what is strictly meant by “atheism.”

 

[tamedlion]

One can draw positivism out of Satan. He never made any one believe that hell is a good destination, that doesn’t make hell a good place or Satan a good creature.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

This depends largely upon the context. For the atheist might derive numerous personal positives that may serve to further entice him along his chosen path…yet might same be considered a net positive for society at large…?

One positive aspect as an atheist is the claiming of personal responsibility. For the atheist is unable to ascribe events to any supernatural influence…thus a direct requirement is that he/she face his/her faults plainly…and make what changes need be made to his/her bearing without an appeal to prayer and the hope that God might make any required transition easier than it must needs be. In such a way the atheist accepts and owns his/her personal direction.

Otherwise an argument for the net positive of a completely atheistic society? Beyond the potential for scientific progress to proceed along unfettered lines of exploration I fail to see much in the way of societal improvement. For an atheistic and culturally diverse society might be hard pressed to achieve as much overall cohesian as such a group unified under a common spectrum of spiritual beliefs.

Essentially I am hard-pressed to imagine a series of absolute net positives for society that might strictly arise from atheism.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t think I could add much to what Jelrak said. Pretty much nailed it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One positive aspect as an atheist is the claiming of personal responsibility… In such a way the atheist accepts and owns his/her personal direction.

Otherwise an argument for the net positive of a completely atheistic society? Beyond the potential for scientific progress to proceed along unfettered lines of exploration I fail to see much in the way of societal improvement.

The Christian also is required to claim personal responsibility for his deeds. He also owns his own personal direction, and the Catholic in particular is urged to go to confession to confront in depth his own failings and seek to correct them.

I don’t see that the progress of science has been fettered for several centuries now. On the other hand, the progress of science without consideration of religious values such as “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you” has witnessed an arsenal of nuclear weapons sufficient to annihilate the human race, not to mention other forms of earth spoliation attendant upon well known scientific/technological advances.

 

[Bradski]

Yeah, and that to. Well said…

 

[tonyrey]

Depends what you mean by positive and negative?

As a worldview, it seems it would simply be negative in the sense it holds a view that negates the existence of any god.
Which may end up becoming positive because it will have to assert an alternate view of how or why the universe exists. But that is not what is strictly meant by “atheism.”

How does purpose originate in a godless universe? Nothing matters if only matter exists .

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t see any negative aspects to being an Atheist.
What are they?

In a Godless universe it is impossible to explain the origin of intangibles such as persons, rights, values, truth, freedom, justice and love exist. Atheists often become
more cynical, sceptical and sometimes nihilists especially as they get older and don’t have so long to live. They are more tempted to believe like Macbeth that “life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing” - which is hardly an incentive to do anything.

There are many possible “positives”. Just a few off the top of my head:

–An Atheist faces the reality of certain situations in a way a Theist, who might ascribe or blame or credit events and situations to a God, does not.

Most theists do not attribute the vast majority of events and situations to God because miracles are regarded as relatively rare. Atheists are more tempted to look on the black side of life because they believe we exist by chance and are often fatalistic.

–They concentrate on making the world in front of them a better place and embrace every moment of life today instead of focusing on an supposed afterlife.

Theists also concentrate on making the world in front of them a better place and embrace every moment of life today because they believe we are alive in order to shape our own destiny by choosing what to believe, how to live and who to love. Atheists are often tempted to believe we are victims of fate and “what will be will be” because free will is an illusion in a mindless universe. When the going gets tough they often commit suicide because they have nothing to look forward to - as I know from personal experience of a friend who lost her faith and killed herself even though she had a young son.

-People would not fight and kill others because of different religious beliefs.

Millions of people have been tortured and killed by atheists like Mao, Stalin and other Marxist dictators.

–We could love others more freely–for example: A person wouldn’t be discouraged to marry someone just because they are of another religion.

Hardened atheists won’t marry a believer because they despise religion and try to discourage others from doing so.​

-As a society, we would try to make our laws based on reason, evidence, and understanding instead of based on some lines of scripture–which may or may not be interpreted properly–from thousands of years ago.

The only rational basis of the the principles of liberty, equality and **fraternity **is the teaching of Christ that we are all brothers and sisters who have the same Father.

–Instead of praying for something to happen, people may be more apt to take action to make something happen.

Atheists are more apt to give up more easily because they don’t believe in the power of prayer - although when they are desperate they pray just in case their prayer may be heard (and sometimes it is!).

…and more.

?

 

[tonyrey]

This depends largely upon the context. For the atheist might derive numerous personal positives that may serve to further entice him along his chosen path…yet might same be considered a net positive for society at large…?

Atheists are tempted to believe it’s every man (and woman of course) for himself (herself) because in their scheme of things there is no reason why they exist.
In a hostile universe they have no reason to believe we are all brothers and sisters

One positive aspect as an atheist is the claiming of personal responsibility.

That claim (if they make it and quite a few atheists don’t) presupposes belief in free will which is very difficult to justify if we are just naked apes

For the atheist is unable to ascribe events to any supernatural influence…thus a direct requirement is that he/she face his/her faults plainly…

When I drifted away from the Church as a teenager I didn’t think of my faults - which I’m sure is true of many non-believers like girls and young women who have an abortion without even considering whether it’s right or wrong. How many atheists are asked to examine their conscience regularly? In my youth it was every night before we went to sleep!

.and make what changes need be made to his/her bearing without an appeal to prayer and the hope that God might make any required transition easier than it must needs be. In such a way the atheist accepts and owns his/her personal direction.

In that case the atheist is more likely to be mistaken and not heed anyone else’s advice because often moral problems are not subjects we want to discuss and expose our weaknesses. That is why anonymous confession to a priest is very helpful and reassuring because he is used to dealing with such matters.

Otherwise an argument for the net positive of a completely atheistic society? Beyond the potential for scientific progress to proceed along unfettered lines of exploration I fail to see much in the way of societal improvement.

It was the Church that paved the way for the rise of science with its doctrine that we live in an intelligible universe designed by God and we are rational beings who are capable of understanding its mysteries because we are the stewards of Creation. It is due to the secular society that the abuse of the environment has accelerated without any concern for the welfare of the human race or the biosphere.

For an atheistic and culturally diverse society might be hard pressed to achieve as much overall cohesian as such a group unified under a common spectrum of spiritual beliefs. Essentially I am hard-pressed to imagine a series of absolute net positives for society that might strictly arise from atheism.

I entirely agree with you! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…

 

[littlestsouls2]

Firstly, the atheist must account for moral goodness. It certainly cannot be reduced to complex material events and processes.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t see any negative aspects to being an Atheist.
What are they?

No God.
No soul.
No immortal soul.
No purpose for our creation.
No objective moral foundation.
No moral laws but those we like.
No moral cohesion with others (Church).
No authority for absolute truths.
No belief in absolute truths.
No hope of eternal heaven.
No fear of eternal consequences (hell).
etc.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“He who would be a creator, both in good and evil, must first of all know how to destroy and wreck values" Nietzsche, atheist

 

[tonyrey]

“He who would be a creator, both in good and evil, must first of all know how to destroy and wreck values" Nietzsche, atheist

That ties in with the fact that quite a few atheists seem to get most of their inspiration and driving force from attacking religion. Otherwise why do they spend so much of their time and energy trying to destroy people’s faith? In some cases - like Richard Dawkins - it’s because they believe religion is evil superstition but atheism can also be regarded as evil “substition” because it reduces us to “naked apes”…

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t think atheism has inherently positive or negative aspects. An individual could choose a righteous or destructive path independently of any religious identification. The best one can do is note correlations. For example, atheists tend to be more prone to suicide. On the other hand, they are less likely to be incarcerated.

But I think all of this misses the point, really. Atheism is not something one chooses based on its health or spiritual benefits. It is a logical consequence of one’s standards of evidence. I never “chose” to be an atheist. I simply cannot sustain a belief in a deity based on my standards of evidence, even if I tried.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For example, atheists tend to be more prone to suicide. On the other hand, they are less likely to be incarcerated.

What would it be about atheism that would make atheists less likely to be incarcerated?

Are you suggesting that religion promotes criminal conduct but atheism does not?

 

[Oreoracle]

What would it be about atheism that would make atheists less likely to be incarcerated?

Such correlations might be explained without any appeal to morality at all. For instance, we already know crime and education level are negatively correlated, whereas atheism and education level are positively correlated. We also know that professing a religious belief improves one’s prospects for parole and that inmates aren’t subjected to any religious tests to determine their sincerity. Infer what you will from these observations.

I wouldn’t try to infer anything from these facts alone because lurking variables are always an issue in arguments based on correlations. One might try to argue that educated persons are more likely to be atheist due to, how does the Right put it? The indoctrination of liberal professors? Okay, that’s one possibility. But we also know that education level and wealth are positively correlated, whereas wealth and crime are negatively correlated. So perhaps wealthy folk just find little use for religion. It’s hard to work out cause and effect from correlations.

Personally, I don’t believe the discrepancy has much to do with morality. I wouldn’t even say that atheists and theists differ so much on average in the morality of their daily lives.

 

[Brendan_64]

For instance, we already know crime and education level are negatively correlated, whereas atheism and education level are positively correlated.

Where have you got this positive correlation between atheism and education from?

Newton, Da Vinci, Pasteur, Lemaitre, Kepler, Kant, Spinoza, Einstein, Descarte, Rousseau, Pascal, Kelvin, Gallileo, Darwin, Hume, Swinburne… the list could go on and on and on.

Atheism may be ‘fashionable’ in certain liberal circles, but it does not necessarily follow that there is a positive link between atheism and education level.

A link between liberalism and atheism, on the other hand, might seem more plausible. Combine this with a false assumption of a positive correlation between liberalism and level of education and a correlation is fabricated.

 

[Oreoracle]

Where have you got this positive correlation between atheism and education from?

To be clear, by “education level” I mean “the highest college degree attained” and not “intelligence” (as it’s hard to measure the latter objectively). Sociologists have had a lot of fun with this topic and a quick Google search provides many studies with contradictory results. The strength of the correlation between atheism and education level, and indeed whether or not the correlation is positive, depends on the nation and types of degrees you use for your analysis.

Again, I don’t put much stock in the supposed correlations anyway, so there’s no need to get defensive. Correlations do not easily lend themselves to explanations.

 

[Bradski]

Where have you got this positive correlation between atheism and education from?

Don’t assume that simply because you are better educated that you will have a tendancy to reject faith.

I’m certain that those with faith and those without are wired differently. We think differently. And whatever differences there are could well be beneficial for higher education.

Higher education would require a degree of skepticism about what could be assumed to be common sense proposals, critical thinking, logic. In short, an ability to question the status quo.