Positive Aspects of Atheism?

[HabemusFrancis]

Those atheists sure think a lot thats for sure.

It is good they tend to think about and even criticize religions, pointing out the flaws, hypocrocies and inconsistencies of many of religions folllowers.

They tend to think things over. While it leads them to the wrong conclusions, they at least think about stuff.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Those atheists sure think a lot thats for sure.

It is good they tend to think about and even criticize religions, pointing out the flaws, hypocrocies and inconsistencies of many of religions folllowers.

Unfortunately, the thing they like least to think about or admit is all the good done by followers of religion through the centuries.

 

[Russell_SA]

Unfortunately, the thing they like least to think about or admit is all the good done by followers of religion through the centuries.

People outside of religion appear to be fine with the “good” works of people’s traditions. You don’t hear atheists complaining about all the stars that have arabic names and the mathematics discovered by them. They do roll their eyes when people claim that their deity revealed the knowledge to them, which is rude to do. However, there is an undeniable tendency for the people of a religion to socially fight against criticisms of their religion from people inside and outside their faith. The idea that the tenants are infallible and eternal and are not subject to change is where people bristle. This is soo obvious that it would be insulting to the intelligence of the readers to not be able to acknowledge this.

 

[Russell_SA]

Actually, you can. While not all atheists are in lockstep on their philosophy of life (just as all Catholics or all Muslims are not in lockstep with each other) you can detect common predictable positions among Catholics, Muslims, and Atheists.

The common feature of atheistic philosophy is not just that there is no God, but also that materialism, determinism, moral relativism, and the finality of death (etc.) may be logically inferred. Atheism is the mental gravitation that pulls all this universe of isms together.

Atheism is the result of an applied thought process that they are using to analyze the world. One person’s philosophy of thought through budhism could lead to an atheistic conclusion that they do not believe in the supernatural. The philosophy of methodological naturalism could lead to the conclusion that they are not convinced that the supernatural exists. So atheism is the result of a philosophy or application of thought process that the individual is using. Atheism is the result, not the cause of the disbelief. So you are mistaken in concluding that atheism is a philosophy or world view like catholicism, islam, etc. Just as I saw bob yesterday and you don’t believe that I saw bob yesterday. Now I’ll call you an A-bobist and I’ll conclude that your A-bobism is a philosophy. Your disbelieve that I saw bob yesterday was the result of your personal thought process. A-bobism just described that you did not believe that I saw bob. It does not describe your thought process of how you concluded that. That is where the philosophy comes in. May be you do not believe me because of philosophy X, Y, Z. Multiple philosophies of thought can still get you to being an A-bobist. But being an A-bobist does not tell anyone about which philosophy you used.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

However, there is an undeniable tendency for the people of a religion to socially fight against criticisms of their religion from people inside and outside their faith.

As there is a tendency for atheists to dwell on the shortcomings of Christians, as if they had no shortcomings of their own.

 

[Russell_SA]

As there is a tendency for atheists to dwell on the shortcomings of Christians, as if they had no shortcomings of their own.

You seem to be grouping atheist into something that has a social movement and influence as the same as the religious movement. Again, atheism is the conclusion one reaches after applying their particular world view. What ever that world view is would be their philosophy. So where ever these philosophies overlap for pushing back against someone else’s religious world view is where there will be conflict. Like how humanitarian movements are pushing back against the anticondom movement of the catholic church. There are numerous world views that find that position to be a detriment to the betterment of humanity. Some of those world views due have people conclude that they do not believe supernatural claims, but you’ll have to find out what their world view is that brought them to that conclusion about that particular question because on other issues, they may vary. So it’s incorrect to say that atheists have shortcomings, but it would be correct that X,Y,Z world view philosophies that also tend to result in atheistic conclusions have shortcomings.

People do find it a bit outrageous that the groups that claim that their world views are, at a minimum, the requirement for grounding ethics when there are many other world views that are not failing in those areas. Religion could have a leg to stand on if their failures were universal to all other philosophies of the time and took immediate actions to change their application of their philosophies once everyone pointed out their failings, but that quick of an adjustment would be an admission of falability to a philosophy that continues to claim it has divine access to the infallible doctrine of what would be best for humanity. Even if the organization’s members are not applying their tenants in an ethical way, they could at least write down the eternal truths from their supernatural leader. But their tenants that they have written down are still not up to snuff yet.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So it’s incorrect to say that atheists have shortcomings, but it would be correct that X,Y,Z world view philosophies that also tend to result in atheistic conclusions have shortcomings.

Perhaps you could study more history? Stalin and Mao were the greatest mass murderers in human history, and they were both atheists.

Then there’s the insight of Voltaire that refers to ancient atheism.

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).

 

[Russell_SA]

Perhaps you could study more history? Stalin and Mao were the greatest mass murderers in human history, and they were both atheists.

Then there’s the insight of Voltaire that refers to ancient atheism.

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).

Ok I’ll appeal to the fair mindedness of the readers, can you get to what stalin and mao did based on my explanation of atheism? No, no you can not because atheism isnt a philosophy that directs people’s actions and choices. It’s a conclusion, result, based on their philosophy. What ever philosophy they were using lead them to conclude that they do not believe in a deity. If you can’t understand that, there is no point to continue this line of discussion with you, it’s a non-starter.

Also, you can have a world view that can lead you to atheism, if the process that took you to that conclusion was only 5 or 6 steps for you to solve that problem. If you are given a different problem to solve, like creating a civil society, that process may have thousands of steps to take to address that process and maybe this person is completely uneducated in social sciences of economics, psychology, sociology, etc. to be able to have the information to make an informed decision. So they could have a good-enough philosophy to work on those issues and still fail based on their education on the topic or they could have a bad philosophy and fail because of that philosophy.

Claiming that atheism causes people’s actions is like saying that people with mustaches cause those actions. That’s how absurd your point is. The mustache is the result of a philosophy that lead this person to grow a mustache. What ever that philosophy was is the problem, or the lack of information to use that philosophy correctly is the problem.

 

[Aloysium]

Ok I’ll appeal to the fair mindedness of the readers, can you get to what stalin and mao did based on my explanation of atheism? No, no you can not because atheism isnt a philosophy that directs people’s actions and choices. It’s a conclusion, result, based on their philosophy. . . Claiming that atheism causes people’s actions is like saying that people with mustaches cause those actions. That’s how absurd your point is. The mustache is the result of a philosophy that lead this person to grow a mustache. What ever that philosophy was is the problem, or the lack of information to use that philosophy correctly is the problem.

According to this view, a person’s beliefs, atheism included, would be as irrelevant to their actions, ultimately themselves and their society as are one’s choices in grooming. With regards to the OP, atheism would have no more positive or negative an aspect than facial hair. I don’t believe this for a second.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Claiming that atheism causes people’s actions is like saying that people with mustaches cause those actions. That’s how absurd your point is. The mustache is the result of a philosophy that lead this person to grow a mustache. What ever that philosophy was is the problem, or the lack of information to use that philosophy correctly is the problem.

Atheism is a condition of mind that explains why some people’s actions can be downright horrible. If you don’t believe in God, it is so easy to leap from that conviction to the conviction that there is no afterlife, and therefore it is possible to get away with the most evil acts because there is no accountability either in this life or in the next. This explains why Stalin and Mao were able to accomplish such enormous evils, and, they no doubt supposed, with such grand impunity.

Whatever that philosophy was is the problem, as you say, and Voltaire rightly identifies the problem philosophy and its consequences.

Stalin

“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

Mao
“Religion is poison.”

And then, of course, there’s Hitler.

Hitler

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

 

[Russell_SA]

According to this view, a person’s beliefs, atheism included, would be as irrelevant to their actions, ultimately themselves and their society as are one’s choices in grooming. With regards to the OP, atheism would have no more positive or negative an aspect than facial hair. I don’t believe this for a second.

How do you go from not believing that someone met bob yesterday to an ethical or unethical action? Maybe if someone said, “There’s a ghost outside that has a gun and is killing everyone, and I didn’t believe you and went outside and got shot.” But that resulted in my death by not believing an anecdotal story that is far from the norm of our reality. I still don’t see how that is a moral scenario other than you not attempting to physically stop me from walking outside. However, every single time in history, E-V-E-R-Y time we’ve investigated claims of the supernatural, it’s never, 0, nada, came back as evidence of the supernatural. How do you tell the difference between event A with supernatural involvement and event B without supernatural involvement? If we can not tell a difference, the default position is that there is no supernatural involvement and is indistinguishable from nonexistence. It is irresponsible and unethical to teach people otherwise. We have to be able to tell a difference to claim that there is anything else there.

Again you seem to be using “belief” as in “belief system” instead of “belief = conclusion”. I believe X because of (name removed by moderator)ut Y based on philosophy Z that I use to arrive at a belief/conclusion about those facts/data. Atheism is a conclusion on a single topic of a specific question, not a philosophical system.

You are describing an extreme version of the philosophy of Nihilism it seems to me.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheism is a conclusion on a single topic of a specific question, not a philosophical system.

You are describing an extreme version of the philosophy of Nihilism it seems to me.

I have never heard of a nihilist who was not an atheist.

Read all the atheist philosophers and you will find they pretty much agree on all matters pertaining to morals, the existence of the human soul, immortality, etc. Atheism engenders philosophical systems of the most negative and dangerous types, as the history of the world has shown, especially in the 20th century.

 

[Aloysium]

How do you go from not believing that someone met bob yesterday to an ethical or unethical action? Maybe if someone said, “There’s a ghost outside that has a gun and is killing everyone, and I didn’t believe you and went outside and got shot.” But that resulted in my death by not believing an anecdotal story that is far from the norm of our reality. I still don’t see how that is a moral scenario other than you not attempting to physically stop me from walking outside. However, every single time in history, E-V-E-R-Y time we’ve investigated claims of the supernatural, it’s never, 0, nada, came back as evidence of the supernatural. How do you tell the difference between event A with supernatural involvement and event B without supernatural involvement? If we can not tell a difference, the default position is that there is no supernatural involvement and is indistinguishable from nonexistence. It is irresponsible and unethical to teach people otherwise. We have to be able to tell a difference to claim that there is anything else there.

Again you seem to be using “belief” as in “belief system” instead of “belief = conclusion”. I believe X because of (name removed by moderator)ut Y based on philosophy Z that I use to arrive at a belief/conclusion about those facts/data. Atheism is a conclusion on a single topic of a specific question, not a philosophical system.

You are describing an extreme version of the philosophy of Nihilism it seems to me.

I’m really not sure what you mean. In order to arrive at a conclusion, one must have a philosophical system that describes what is reality and what constitutes a fact. You gaze upwards into the sky and “see” a dome or an infinite expanse of space, galaxies and black holes because of the conceptual framework that organizes the world of experience. The philosophical system in which one is immersed, has implications that go beyond what is truth, and include morality and meaning because they are primary in what it means to be human.

For a lot of people to say they are atheists boils down to a skepticism about, as you say, the supernatural and also life after death. I would say that although the idea of an uncaused Cause is rationally sound, it is difficult for some to accept the appearance that “it” would cause suffering; better no God than one who is not good. That “it” would be interested and condemn those pleasures that make life tolerable, seems to be superficially ridiculous; better to take a risk at hell than to even try to forgo masturbation. Embracing atheism is a spiritual activity involving a choice and includes factors of a moral, aesthetic, emotional, and most definitely philosophical nature.

That choice involves the closing of the heart and mind to certain possibilities as one digs deeper into a philosophical system that is exclusionary and cannot but fail as a way to delve into the Ground of our being. The tool that is skepticism is useful only if applied to everything. When the mind recognizes it knows nothing, and that accelerates the more one does know, one begins to see the mystery of what is. In shedding preconceptions, atheism is a step for many on the way to the Truth. There are quite a number of lapsed atheists on this forum. Very risky business to be sure, but we do have a Guide, if we remain committed.

 

[rinnie]

Can you think of any positive aspects of atheism?

Let’s make a list.

I cannot see anything positive in rejecting God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I cannot see anything positive in rejecting God.

Nor can I, and apparently the atheists themselves are not contributing to a list of positives.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I cannot see anything positive in rejecting God.

Atheists do not “reject” God. They reject what you (in general) assert ABOUT God. In order to reject someone, it is necessary to believe that this someone exists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheists do not “reject” God. They reject what you (in general) assert ABOUT God. In order to reject someone, it is necessary to believe that this someone exists.

Since God MAY exist, it is not necessary that you believe God exists in order to reject God.

Let’s not derail the thread over a question of semantics.

 

[tonyrey]

I cannot see anything positive in rejecting God.

It helps to purify the concept of God which is sometimes too naive and anthropomorphic. St Thomas believe the* via negativa *is an essential element in our understanding of the Supreme Being.

 

[Russell_SA]

Embracing atheism is a spiritual activity involving a choice and includes factors of a moral, aesthetic, emotional, and most definitely philosophical nature.

That choice involves the closing of the heart and mind to certain possibilities as one digs deeper into a philosophical system that is exclusionary and cannot but fail as a way to delve into the Ground of our being. The tool that is skepticism is useful only if applied to everything. When the mind recognizes it knows nothing, and that accelerates the more one does know, one begins to see the mystery of what is. In shedding preconceptions, atheism is a step for many on the way to the Truth. There are quite a number of lapsed atheists on this forum. Very risky business to be sure, but we do have a Guide, if we remain committed.

Belief, as I understand it, is the same thing as Conclusion. Your conclusion about (name removed by moderator)ut to a scenario, then applying your world view philosophy, will cause you to make a conclusion. That conclusion is not a choice you make. It’s the inevitable result based on your education of how reality works as you understand it. Choose to believe that A + B does not equal C. You can’t, it’s not possible. For instance: sit in a chair and then choose to believe you will fall through it when you go to sit in it. See, belief=conclusion, is not a choice you can make. You can change your conclusion if you are given new information, like a new understanding about reality on how to view the chair, etc. But you could not change your initial belief based on where your understanding of reality was, only after. If you do conclude that the chair will hold you up, but you make a choice to act as if the chair will not, then that is an action you can choose to do.

Disbelief of a deity is no more a moral action than a jury who wasn’t convinced that the defendant on trial committed the crime. It is a moral issue if the jury does believe that the defendant is guilty and does not follow through with actions after this, but in the atheist’s case, they find that god is not guilty of existence. You can be open minded to all the possible ideas that anyone comes up with, but we all have a vetting process that we apply to see if their idea passes a preliminary test of “should I even waste my time with this?” Such as: if your neighbor wants you to come walk his dog tomorrow, even though you have never seen the dog, it is perfectly reasonable to assume he has a dog. But if he asked you to come feed his pet dragon while he is away. The default position is to “not waste your time with this request.” The level of evidence must match the level of absurdity the person is presenting. See you can be open minded, but not to the point where your brain falls out.

If the mind knows nothing, then why not go to work this morning by going out your 5th floor window and jumping down to the street and start walking to work? - Sarcasm here if you can’t tell because you may be open minded enough and not have a mind that knows this is a lethal action. Gravity, physics, etc are a post-conception that we apply to the rest of reality. Induction and Inference are a great tool that kept our ancestors alive in the fields. But sometimes that rustle in the grass was just the wind, but its always safer to assume it’s a predator.

 

[Russell_SA]

I have never heard of a nihilist who was not an atheist.

Read all the atheist philosophers and you will find they pretty much agree on all matters pertaining to morals, the existence of the human soul, immortality, etc. Atheism engenders philosophical systems of the most negative and dangerous types, as the history of the world has shown, especially in the 20th century.

They were also all non-black people as well. So we should treate all non-blacks as we would atheists. It’s their non-blackness that could have been the cause. They all had a head of hair too… ooo this is getting scary now. They all had positions of political power. Wore shoes, had families. Where do the similarities end? Wait there was an atheist manefesto, its secretly passed down through the ages from one dictator to another, a how to book on what to do as an atheist. Telling them who to hate for no other reason than those people were born, that their enemies would spend eternity in nonexistance, that they would build the promise land, that they were the savior for their oppressed people…no wait that book doesn’t exist. Does for other world views though.