The advantages and disadvantages of atheism

[Bradski]

**Advantages: **

• No one telling you not to do something–if you want to do something, you just do it. Even if society frowns on a particular behavior, you are free to ignore their disapproval because it is ultimately just a matter of taste.
• (Potentially) no feelings of guilt for doing it (I say potentially because there is some disagreement whether guilt is innate or socially motivated–or some combination of these). This could potentially be very liberating–particularly for those who tend toward scrupulosity.
• No bounds to what you believe is true (to a degree) - if you think something is justified, you just believe it–there is no moral arbiter setting the boundaries.

**Disadvantages: **

• No real standard of objective morality–one can merely make descriptive, not prescriptive statements (i.e.: the fact that this behavior is not conducive to group survival doesn’t prove that group survival is a good–just that certain behaviors such as murder or robbery don’t tend to foster it)
• No ultimate basis for humanity–we are merely accidental combinations of atoms who think of ourselves as “individuals” and “humanity” because it is evolutionarily advantageous to do so.
• No ultimate purpose. You and I are cosmic accidents who will one day go away. Art, science, civilization have no ultimate reality and thus will go away like the rainbow colors on the surface of the soap bubble that is this universe when things change.
• No real future. Since “you” and “I” are pretty much just convenient holographic projections of genes who create these abstractions because those which do have an evolutionary advantage, when the machine which creates the illusion is broken, the illusion (the person) is no longer present–and thus anything striven for is ultimately futile.

Ye gods…do you know any atheists? The only one you have come close to getting right is the one about ultimate purpose. The rest…? Well, it doesn’t sound like you’re looking for any sort of discussion, so thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[inocente]

We ALL feel ashamed when we sin (Atheistic religions do too. They just don’t admit it).

Sin is a religious concept (“an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law”) and atheism isn’t what is meant by religion (“the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”),

Though there are several atheist religions such as Secular Buddhism, Jainism and humanist Judaism.

Please post your proof that none of the above feel shame when they sin. While you’re at it, please post proof that every Catholic who uses a condom feels shame.

Just pointing out that claiming all atheists are bad people and all theists are good people isn’t convincing, not even a little bit.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Again, you’re describing ‘license’ and mislabeling it ‘freedom’.

Not true. Freedom means that one is allowed to perform some specific acts (or NOT perform some acts) without fear of repercussions. Freedom is always understood in relation to something. Someone in power, or something (a government) gives permission to do certain acts without repercussions.

Ahh, the beauty of relativism. All evils can be shrugged of with a blithe “it depends.”

Twisting it again? You asked vague, unspecified questions, so all I could say: “it depends” on the circumstances. Of course your usage of the word “evil” is meaningless in a secular environment.

No ‘goal-post change’. Masturbation – especially in the context of porn – leads to addiction to the chemicals released during orgasm. Psychologists have asserted that it also leads to a lack of ability to form deep interpersonal relationships.

Porn is not a necessary factor to self-stimulation. And there is nothing wrong with the release of certain chemicals. It does not necessarily lead to “addiction”. Our body does it all the time when we have sex. It MAY be that some people overindulge, and thus they have problems with forming relationships. But that is exception, not the rule. There are two kinds of people: “1) those who masturbate and admit it, and 2) those who do it and deny it”. There might be a handful of those who never did it, but there are exceptions to any rule.

No “short attention span.” Catholics believe that all sin hurts everyone. There’s no sin that doesn’t hurt others. When one advocates for hedonism, one is advocating for “me first”, regardless of the consequences to others. The “short attention span” you refer to is more accurately described as a certain myopia – it’s not that it doesn’t hurt others, it’s that the short-sightedness that’s part of that perspective causes one to not see how it hurts others.

Now that is something I reject most vehemently. There are many Catholics who do not believe that “all sins hurt everyone”. And the reason is that they are not THAT irrational. Can you describe how could a simple act of masturbation or an act of non-procreative sex “hurt” you? Something that you don’t even know about? Get real…

 

[Cathoholic]

inocente:

Sin is a religious concept (“an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law”) and atheism isn’t what is meant by religion (“the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”) . . .

But I’m not defining their religion based upon “sin”.

I’m defining atheism on their belief of what or who is “Eternal”.

And the “eternal” to an atheist is always “creation” . . . and usually reduced down to “materialist” creation.

Atheism is just another brand of paganism.

 

[Cathoholic]

inocente (with bold mine) . . .

Please post your proof that none of the above feel shame when they sin.

Did you even read my post you are criticizing?

We ALL feel ashamed when we sin (Atheistic religions do too. They just don’t admit it).

 

[Cathoholic]

inocente:

Just pointing out that claiming all atheists are bad people and all theists are good people isn’t convincing, not even a little bit.

This is non-sense inocente.

I invite thread readers to go back and re-read my post (here).

I never said any such thing.

Atheists CAN and DO have NATURAL virtue.

That being said, go back and look at 1st Corinthians 13 in context.

The same 1st Corinthians that is on your current signature.

Faith, hope, love - Are the sum of perfection on earth; love alone is the sum of perfection in heaven. Wesley’s Notes on 1 Cor 13:13

Natural virtue such as the guy who gives his body to be burned is NOT enough if he has not SUPERNATURAL virtue, the supernatural virtue of charity (“love”).

You cannot have supernatural charity apart from the LIFE of Christ IN you.

Without faith it’s impossible to please God. And charity is “greater” than faith.

 

[inocente]

But I’m not defining their religion based upon “sin”.

You said “when we sin”, and sin is the transgression of divine law, and not even all theists necessarily believe in divine law.

I’m defining atheism on their belief of what or who is “Eternal”.

And the “eternal” to an atheist is always “creation” . . . and usually reduced down to “materialist” creation.

Atheism is just another brand of paganism.

You’re defining atheism? And above you talk of “their religion”? Which is “just another brand of paganism”?

Alternatively you could consider letting other people tell you what they do and don’t believe, as in freedom of belief, human dignity, Dignitatis Humanae .

Did you even read my post you are criticizing?

Fine, then please post your proof for your claim that no atheist admits ever feeling shame.

This is non-sense inocente.

As quoted, I was commenting on your “We ALL feel ashamed when we sin (Atheistic religions do too. They just don’t admit it)”.

Noting again your private definition of atheism as a religion is confusing, since Secular Buddhism, Jainism and humanist Judaim are all real atheistic religions.

PS You can just click a post’s quote http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/quote.gif button to reply to a post, which makes it easier for readers.

 

[Cathoholic]

inocente:

Alternatively you could consider letting other people tell you what they do and don’t believe . . .

But that’s part of the point. They DO tell me creation is eternal! Oh there are exceptions who believe in an alternative universe, but even THAT is not “The uncaused cause” (God).

inocente:

. . . . as in freedom of belief

inocente. You’re just making this up. You are just inventing that i am attempting to "take away this person’s “freedom of religion”.

Nobody is saying: “You are NOT free to believe this or that” (and notice your whole point is predicated on freedom of “belief”. Its a “belief” system. Atheism is a “belief system” of materialism.

You can deny it, that’s fine with me, but that’s what it is.

 

[michaelArc]

As a long time agnostic with a brief stint as an atheist, the one disadvantage I find with atheism is that it’s depressing.

Under atheism, life has no purpose and love is an illusion. What is there beyond the pursuit of sex, pleasure, money, power and honor? Will this bring joy? History has repeatedly told us that anyone who has done it all, seen it all and experienced it all will not contribute to a fulfilling life.

We all have it ingrained in us that there is something more that transcends this finite existence. But atheism is like a drug, opium for the masses that dulls the deepest desires, denies God, and reduces humanity to that of an advanced mammal because of a psychological and conditioned need.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

As a long time agnostic with a brief stint as an atheist, the one disadvantage I find with atheism is that it’s depressing.

Under atheism, life has no purpose and love is an illusion. What is there beyond the pursuit of sex, pleasure, money, power and honor? Will this bring joy? History has repeatedly told us that anyone who has done it all, seen it all and experienced it all will not contribute to a fulfilling life.

We all have it ingrained in us that there is something more that transcends this finite existence. But atheism is like a drug, opium for the masses that dulls the deepest desires, denies God, and reduces humanity to that of an advanced mammal because of a psychological and conditioned need.

Why do you think that you are the representative of ALL atheists?

 

[Bradski]

Under atheism, life has no purpose and love is an illusion. What is there beyond the pursuit of sex, pleasure, money, power and honor? Will this bring joy? History has repeatedly told us that anyone who has done it all, seen it all and experienced it all will not contribute to a fulfilling life.

So when you were an agnostic, you had no desire to pursue sex, pleasure and money. Then you became an atheist and thought: ‘Hang on, life has no purpose all of a sudden. I’d better start looking for sex and pleasure. Oh, and more money of course.’

Now you are heading to Catholicism and sex isn’t as important any more and as for pleasure…well, who needs to look for that! An might as well give all my money to charity.

You friends and family must be wondering just what the hell is going on.

I don’t for a minute actually believe that that is what happened. So why do you believe it of others?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

As a long time agnostic with a brief stint as an atheist, the one disadvantage I find with atheism is that it’s depressing.

Under atheism, life has no purpose and love is an illusion. What is there beyond the pursuit of sex, pleasure, money, power and honor? Will this bring joy? History has repeatedly told us that anyone who has done it all, seen it all and experienced it all will not contribute to a fulfilling life.

As a nonbeliever I’ve always found this line of logic bizarre. Different people have different needs. Not all everyone needs to believe in a deity for life to be enjoyable. Just as some people feel best when surrounded by others while some people need a lot more time alone to feel their best.

Though it probably doesn’t make sense in your world view, purpose, contentment, etc does not require an appeal to something eternal. I fact, I feel the finite nature of life makes it that much more meaningful.

We all have it ingrained in us that there is something more that transcends this finite existence. But atheism is like a drug, opium for the masses that dulls the deepest desires, denies God, and reduces humanity to that of an advanced mammal because of a psychological and conditioned need.

I’ll admit that a desire for the transcendent is ingrained in most people, but there is a sizeable minority who do not have that desire. Probably 10% or less.

 

[michaelArc]

So when you were an agnostic, you had no desire to pursue sex, pleasure and money. Then you became an atheist and thought: ‘Hang on, life has no purpose all of a sudden. I’d better start looking for sex and pleasure. Oh, and more money of course.’

Now you are heading to Catholicism and sex isn’t as important any more and as for pleasure…well, who needs to look for that! An might as well give all my money to charity.

You friends and family must be wondering just what the hell is going on.

I don’t for a minute actually believe that that is what happened. So why do you believe it of others?

You have misunderstood me.

When I was agnostic, I pursued sex, pleasure and money. I became an atheist to justify it. Why bother with God when I have it all and I did.

The return to the faith is whole different story.

 

[michaelArc]

As a nonbeliever I’ve always found this line of logic bizarre. Different people have different needs. Not all everyone needs to believe in a deity for life to be enjoyable. Just as some people feel best when surrounded by others while some people need a lot more time alone to feel their best.

I’ll admit that a desire for the transcendent is ingrained in most people, but there is a sizeable minority who do not have that desire. Probably 10% or less.

Yes not everyone needs to believe in a deity for life to be enjoyable. But I’m not talking about the simple satisfaction from material pleasure, rather a longing for a deeper truth. The lives of saints can shed some light on this topic.

I agree that there is a sizable minority that do not have the desire for God. Just look around you to see what has replaced it.

 

[Gorgias]

They do? I wonder if you could direct me to something that back that statement up.

Google “the effects of porn on relationships.”

 

[Gorgias]

One of the advantages of being an atheist is that, as the Pope has said, some people believe it is better to be an atheist rather than a dishonest Catholic.

Which type of person do you think he’d hold up as the better example? Someone who calls herself a Catholic and has sex outside marriage, has an abortion and supports gay marriage or someone who calls herslef an atheist and does none of those things?

Umm… what would the virtuous atheist be a “better example” of?

When I have that beer with him, I’ll ask him.

It would make for a good conversation!

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I mean moral standards are definitely different in certain historical (and perhaps cultural) circumstances, and you’ll often find they’re tied closely to the way that society organizes itself, particularly in production. Slavery was prevalent in the Roman Empire and perhaps played a progressive role in history, and certainly the conditions did not yet exist for capitalist property relations to emerge as the dominant relations of production. It would be absurd to go back in time and tell the Romans that slavery was wrong. Similarly, you could not go back to feudal Europe and tell them that serfdom was wrong. Their society could not be structured any other way, and anyone involved in those relations of production would probably struggle to consider that they may be immoral. They also likely played a progressive role in history, and were necessary to lead us to our current capitalist mode of production. I think it’s hard to say that there is any unchanging moral standard that has existed throughout history, and it seems to change in terms of how society structures itself, and in terms of how relations of production develop. I don’t just mean that cultural conceptions alone change, but there seem to be certain points in time where currently immoral phenomenon would have to be permitted. If slavery, serfdom and colonialism were necessary for us to reach our current state of being, and things could not have been organized any other way, how can we say it’s immoral? It was historically necessary.

I’m not really an atheist, I just consider myself to be agnostic. My username is really old. I guess in terms of morality I’m just a bit confused. Obviously I believe certain things are right and certain things are wrong, but I don’t have a particular basis for this and I sort of act just based on what I’ve picked up culturally I suppose. I don’t follow the law all the time or anything either, although obviously I’m not some kind of hardened criminal. I do make sacrifices sometimes based on what I think is right, but I guess I mostly just live a life doing what I want.

 

[fhansen]

I mean moral standards are definitely different in certain historical (and perhaps cultural) circumstances, and you’ll often find they’re tied closely to the way that society organizes itself, particularly in production. Slavery was prevalent in the Roman Empire and perhaps played a progressive role in history, and certainly the conditions did not yet exist for capitalist property relations to emerge as the dominant relations of production. It would be absurd to go back in time and tell the Romans that slavery was wrong. Similarly, you could not go back to feudal Europe and tell them that serfdom was wrong. Their society could not be structured any other way, and anyone involved in those relations of production would probably struggle to consider that they may be immoral. They also likely played a progressive role in history, and were necessary to lead us to our current capitalist mode of production. I think it’s hard to say that there is any unchanging moral standard that has existed throughout history, and it seems to change in terms of how society structures itself, and in terms of how relations of production develop. I don’t just mean that cultural conceptions alone change, but there seem to be certain points in time where currently immoral phenomenon would have to be permitted. If slavery, serfdom and colonialism were necessary for us to reach our current state of being, and things could not have been organized any other way, how can we say it’s immoral? It was historically necessary.

I’m not really an atheist, I just consider myself to be agnostic. My username is really old. I guess in terms of morality I’m just a bit confused. Obviously I believe certain things are right and certain things are wrong, but I don’t have a particular basis for this and I sort of act just based on what I’ve picked up culturally I suppose. I don’t follow the law all the time or anything either, although obviously I’m not some kind of hardened criminal. I do make sacrifices sometimes based on what I think is right, but I guess I mostly just live a life doing what I want.

I’m not sure that it would be correct to say that we had to have those systems in place to get where we are today, only that societies did have them in place at the time and considered them normal overall, and that is our history one way or the other.

But in any event most societies have moved on to a place where I don’t think we could now ever return to those past notions regarding slavery. It’s interesting to me that we’ve come to be increasingly guided by an awareness of all humanity’s right to dignity and respect; we’re increasingly guided, to put it another way, by the demands of love, consciously or not.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m not really an atheist, I just consider myself to be agnostic…

I often think genuine agnostics are the most intellectually honest people in the “room”.

Best part of being an atheist is easily the moral liberty. It’s also the worst part.

Advantage - You can do anything that you subjectively rationalize as “good”!

Disadvantage - People can do anything to you that they subjectively rationalize as “good”.

 

[bentcurve]

As someone who is at least a very skeptical agnostic I can give you some clarity maybe.

You are right, there is much less guilt and worry than when I was a believer, but in reality I do not live life very differently. I try to be a good father. A good husband. I maintain a vocation of service teaching. I believe in helping the helpless. At the end of the day not a lot changed.

However, let me tell you what I lost. I lost a sense of certainty. I lost a sense of peace. I have no claim that all things work out to the good will of God. I have no peace that comes from an endgame beyond myself. In my world all things end in universal entropy, a cold death. All action is fruitless and meaningless. We exist only because we do. We do things only because we exist. It is a life without hope. It is a small life were you are surround by the endless chaos of an indifferent cosmos. It is a world run by selfish intention spinning every on to a destruction of some sort. It is all fleeting.

It is not a trade anyone would willingly make. I envy those with the assurance of faith. I envy those with a certainty in their belief.