Religion and Atheism

[wandering peacefully]

Yes, which makes atheism look like not so much a reaction to a God belief, but to religious values. I am not quite sure what makes atheists this way though. One can reject those values and believe in a God, or not reject those values and not believe in a God, or.....

It is almost if not completely impossible for a person who believes in a God or gods to understand how atheists can't believe in the same. I posit the inability has a neurological reason. Not in an insulting way but just a biological wiring difference. This is evident in how many theists start threads on what atheists believe and what they are even after atheists explain it hundreds of thousands of times at least.

It is literally no different than you, or anyone else not believing an invisible pink elephant resides in your closet. That is exactly how atheists find god stories. But when one is in the wiring state of belief, God/'s are so real to them, they cannot process the atheist view.

That went way off topic of your question. I think the rejection of biblical laws and related religious practices which are archaic or repulsive goes hand in hand with not believing in the claims of those book's stories about God/s. I would think religious people accept both the Gods and the values of their various sects.

Atheism is not a rejection of moral values. It is a rejection of God stories told by theists. Granted there are some horrific morals espoused in holy books but that is not the reason for lack of belief in gods. Morals are not a problem for atheists. Positive morals are a human trait which some people have and some people don't no matter what they believe or don't believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe that we will have to create a seventh thread on the subject in order for creating threads on the subject to qualify as a religion in its own right.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is almost if not completely impossible for a person who believes in a God or gods to understand how atheists can't believe in the same.

I can, because there was a time I did not believe in God.
it was never any big deal to me to believe in God and in some ways I wish I never had.

Also, I understand why atheists do not believe in God or gods because I read what atheists write and I post to a lot of atheists and read what they write to other people....
In short, atheists do not see any evidence for a God or gods because they do not consider religion to be evidence.

That would be pretty narcissistic if believers could not understand that everyone does not think like they do, donthca think?

Do you think it is almost if not completely impossible for an atheist who does not believe in a God or gods to understand how believers can believe in a God or gods?

 

[wandering peacefully]

Do you think it is almost if not completely impossible for an atheist who does not believe in a God or gods to understand how believers can believe in a God or gods?

Absolutely not impossible if the atheist once believed in God/s as a vast majority of atheists once did. So in that regard we have more wiring in the god department than theists who have never been to that space. Some have spent many years as a believer and understand how theists think and believe what they do because they were once in that camp.

To say or imply things such as atheists just haven't tried or sesrched hard enough to believe in God or that the reason they don't is because God doesn't want them to believe in him because they are not guided is not only an immature view but is also arrogant. Not all believers feel that way but many do because they can't see from an atheist's view.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To deny the 'religious' nature of atheism would remove it from protected status, under the first amendment. Businesses, govts, or other human institutions could deny access, if one insists on a positive religious belief in a deity.

No it wouldn't. That flies in the face of preceding decisions. Atheism isn't protected due to being 'a religion'. It's protected as the Amendment was held to protect religion and irreligion alike.

 

[syo]

The Tao? A god?

Just to be sure I understand you, are natural forces, such as gravity, also gods?

The cause of natural forces are Gods.

 

[lukethethird]

The cause of natural forces are Gods.

What book have you been reading?

 

[Trailblazer]

Absolutely not impossible if the atheist once believed in God/s as a vast majority of atheists once did. So in that regard we have more wiring in the god department than theists who have never been to that space. Some have spent many years as a believer and understand how theists think and believe what they do because they were once in that camp.

That is true, I tend to forget that most atheists were formerly believers, mostly Christians. But why would they have "more wiring" in the god dept than a theist?

The question is, what causes a believer to become a nonbeliever? Is it just a realization that the Bible is not true after all? Still, I cannot understand how someone who really believed in God could come to disbelieve in God... I can understand how they might lose faith that God is good, but belief that God does not exist is another matter. I tried to disbelieve in God but I never could.

To say or imply things such as atheists just haven't tried or searched hard enough to believe in God or that the reason they don't is because God doesn't want them to believe in him because they are not guided is not only an immature view but is also arrogant. Not all believers feel that way but many do because they can't see from an atheist's view.

I would never tell an atheist he/she did not search hard enough; how could I know that and who am I to say that?

I cannot say I know what God wants or who God guides or exactly why. I believe God guides certain people only because Baha'u'llah wrote that, and I can only conjecture as to why by using logic. I am a firm believer in free will. It could be that God guides those people who want to believe in Him because God knows they will freely choose to believe if they are guided. I think that there are some atheists who would want to believe in God if they could because they have told me that, whereas there are other atheists who have no interest in believing in God; so why would God guide those atheists? it would be like forcing them to believe what they have no interest in. God does not do that. Free will is sacrosanct.

So it could be that certain atheists do not want to believe in God, not that God does not want those atheists to believe in Him.

 

[PureX]

But this admittance of yours drains the concept of "god" of all practical utility while also making his/her/its existence or non-existence completely unimportant.

That's exactly what it does not do. "God" (theism) is an ideology through which we can choose to understand our experience of being. Just as mathematics is an ideology through which we can choose to understand our experience of being. In fact, everything we understand about our experience of being is being understood through various ideological constructs. And we choose which, according to their utility in the given circumstance. Math is a very useful ideological construct for building a house or buying and selling sheep, but it's useless for enjoying a sunset or morning the loss of a loved one. So we choose the ideological constructs that better serve our experience of the moment. And for a great many humans, one of those important and useful ideological constructs is "God" (theism). Just because you have chosen to reject it, and therefor find no utility in it, does not mean that it has no utility for those who choose to adopt and use it.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, immateriality alone is not the reason we cannot prove that God exists. The reason is because God does not want us to be able to prove He exists, and since God is Omnipotent, God calls the shots.

God could interact with this world without affecting the laws of physics. For example, God could communicate to our minds and cause us to take a course of action. Of course there is no way to prove that. Nothing God does can ever be proven, but that does not mean God does not do anything; we just cannot state it as a fact, and that is why it is a belief.

I find it rather silly when Christians go on about what God is "doing" in their lives, as if they could ever know that God was involved in whatever happened... I coined the phrase "naive believer syndrome" several years ago on a Baha'i forum and they got up in arms. Believers like to think they know what God is doing but that is so naive. We can believe that God did something in our life but we can never know it.

I do not believe God exists because a Messenger of God exists; rather I believe that the Messenger of God is the evidence that God exists. God simply exists and would exist even if there were no Messengers. Of course there would be no way to know that God exists if God never sent Messengers, which is one reason God sends them.

I agree. You should never believe that something exists just because other people believe it exists. That is the worst possible reason to believe in God. Baha'u'llah said that.

In principle, it means that it has to come from within you, something you discovered yourself, not someone else's truth. If it does not ring true for you you should not accept it as true.

I am not God, so I do not know why it is so much more difficult for some people than for others to believe in God, and there might be reasons why it is not God's intention that everyone believes in Him.

Baha'u'llah wrote that those who make efforts will surely be guided. Motivation is very important in anything we do, it is what drives us, so if someone is not motivated they are not going to make that effort. For many decades I had no motivation so I was not guided. I still believed God existed but it meant nothing to me.

If being immaterial was not the only reason we can't prove God(s) exists, then you should not have claimed that it is. What are the other reasons we can't prove that God(s), exists? Also, unless you are a God yourself, you have no idea what is in the mind of a God. You have no idea what He thinks, wants, is, or needs. And, you certainly can't know WHY He does anything. You should really apply your "naïve believer syndrome" to yourself as well.
​

I do not believe God exists because a Messenger of God exists; rather I believe that the Messenger of God is the evidence that God exists. God simply exists and would exist even if there were no Messengers. Of course there would be no way to know that God exists if God never sent Messengers, which is one reason God sends them.

If you are using a Messenger of God to evidence the existence of God, then you are being implicit that a Messenger of God does actually exist. There is no difference between your two statements, since there is no evidence to support the existence of either. I believe that the Universe that exists today, is clear evidence that a God(s) does not, and cannot exist. The existence of Messengers of God(s), angels, devils, demigods, the spiritual and paranormal, miracles, souls, or a heaven, are all violations of our physical laws of reality. This would create a new causality paradigm, which would render our fundamental forces functionless and redundant. Therefore, these religious/spiritual claims need to be seriously addressed and demonstrated. Not with more empty rhetoric, self-serving excuses, fallacy-riddled logic, subjective anecdotes, and with absolutely zero evidence.

Since you seem totally perplexed why some people find it so difficult to believe in the existence of God, let me help you. EVIDENCE. It is evidence that is the source of true enlightenment. It is evidence that is the difference between what is perceived as true, and what is conceived as true. It is evidence that is the difference between what is perceived as real, and what is conceived as real. It is evidence that is the difference between what becomes practical knowledge, and what becomes abstract knowledge.

Any human being can easily be assisted in convincing himself to believe in anything. Given enough time, motivation, rewards, and positive feedback, anyone can be convinced that an afterlife, God(s), devils and angels exist. Or, can be convinced that miracles and other superstitions are real, without any need to deposit one example, one relevant demonstration, one relevant comparison, one objective/verifiable piece of evidence, or without one fallacy-free consistent argument. Unfortunately, the mind's ability to compartmentalize sensory input, has proven to be a blessing as well as a curse.

If you believe that your beliefs are perceptual in origin, then you are just deceiving yourself. Unless, belief itself is now an innate/congenital part of the human condition. I along with many Atheist have no objection to adults, believing in adult fairy tales. It is only when those fairy tales encroach into my ontologically-based reality, that my attention becomes warranted. The encroachment of Deuteronic Ethos, elitism, and intolerance, is clearly visible within society. Religious tenets exist in our public education system, our government and legal systems, our sense of morality, women's reproductive rights, our scientific principles and research practices, and in the stifling of critical/independent thinking and individualism.

If you have some innate need to depend on an imaginary interdimensional multi-omni sky daddy, to give you a sense of security, community, and inner strength, then why not just keep it to yourself? If not, lets see the evidence. Surely, the 80+% of the world's population can produce one verifiable objective evidence, to suggest the existence of anything that is supernatural or spiritual. Maybe a prayer that works? Maybe any example of the paranormal? Even a violation of the physical laws will do. So far nothing but excuses, or the old standard, "you won't understand, until you have convinced yourself that you do understand. Then you will understand".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That's exactly what it does not do. "God" (theism) is an ideology through which we can choose to understand our experience of being. Just as mathematics is an ideology through which we can choose to understand our experience of being. In fact, everything we understand about our experience of being is being understood through various ideological constructs. And we choose which, according to their utility in the given circumstance. Math is a very useful ideological construct for building a house or buying and selling sheep, but it's useless for enjoying a sunset or morning the loss of a loved one. So we choose the ideological constructs that better serve our experience of the moment. And for a great many humans, one of those important and useful ideological constructs is "God" (theism). Just because you have chosen to reject it, and therefor find no utility in it, does not mean that it has no utility for those who choose to adopt and use it.

I can accept this. Though there is, I feel, a stark difference between having hope in a particular situation or hope for some good/better outcome, and having a need to tell yourself stories until you believe them in order to get you through. If you are willing to accept fiction as reality in one area of your life, what is to stop you from doing so in another? And possibly to the detriment of some aspect of your life, or to your relationships.

A good example would be parents who reject their children, or treat them poorly for being homosexual. Some of those parents are doing so for religious reasons explicitly, and others, I would argue, are still in the mindset they are in because of the stigma religion has built up in peoples minds, or the reactions they know they are going to get from religious people - even if they aren't fervent participants in their default/chosen/indoctrinated religion. So here are people, believing in a fiction as reality, and very much affecting others and others' relationships in very negative ways.

And don't even get me started on the potential for religious adherents hounding and haranguing the world on topics within which they are simply wrong, because the information they have is falsehood that they have decided to parade around as "reality." Obvious examples are "flat earth", demanding that the useless idea of creationism be literally "taught" in schools, or how about the lie that glory awaits those that kill themselves (and others) with bombs or crashing planes for their God? There is danger in accepting fiction as reality - it allows one to completely discount the consequences within reality in favor of rewards or consequences they hope are awaiting them when they are "reunited" with God.

 

[ecco]

I do not believe God exists because a Messenger of God exists; rather I believe that the Messenger of God is the evidence that God exists.

"A Messenger of God"? I thought there were many according to your beliefs.

Nevertheless, you have no definitive evidence that "messengers" are actually "messengers". Just because a person in the 1800's claims Muhammed was a "messenger" does not make Mohammed a "messenger" in the Bahai sense of the word. Certainly, billions of Muslims disagree with that view. Therefore, logically, you have no evidence for a god.

 

[ecco]

There is a laundry list of "moral values" some religions espouse which atheists find repulsive. Marriage, sexual preferences, and other personal aspects of human's lives which the religious like to busy themselves with is just a sampling of rejected religious "values".

Where did you get the idea that atheists find "Marriage, sexual preferences" to be repulsive?

Yes, which makes atheism look like not so much a reaction to a God belief, but to religious values. I am not quite sure what makes atheists this way though. One can reject those values and believe in a God, or not reject those values and not believe in a God, or.....

As an atheist, I do not "reject those values and not believe in a God".

Where did these "religious values" come from? It seems to me, at least in the case of Christianity, that they come from the Bible. The Bible is stories about a god, it is not describing a religion. The "religious" aspects derive from the god stories.

 

[ecco]

You should not believe in anything you do not see sufficient evidence for.

You also should not believe in anything for which there is a great deal of evidence against. Think Great Flood. There is no evidence to support it. There is massive evidence against it. The evidence against it is far more compelling than the scarcity of evidence for it.

 

[ecco]

That would be pretty narcissistic if believers could not understand that everyone does not think like they do, donthca think?

Yes, it would and yes they do.

Do you think it is almost if not completely impossible for an atheist who does not believe in a God or gods to understand how believers can believe in a God or gods?

There was a time, long ago, that I found it exceedingly difficult to believe that any truly intelligent person could believe in God. That included the Pope.

Then I became aware of the tremendous power of early childhood religious indoctrination.

 

[ecco]

I can, because there was a time I did not believe in God.

I tried to disbelieve in God but I never could.

One from Column A; One from Column B.

Both of your statements cannot be true.

 

[PureX]

I can accept this. Though there is, I feel, a stark difference between having hope in a particular situation or hope for some good/better outcome, and having a need to tell yourself stories until you believe them in order to get you through.

The stories (and all the other aspects of religious practice) are supposed to be conceptual and practical aids. They are tools to help people remember and understand the more complex aspects of their chosen theology. Something that is not always so easy to do when under stress, or duress, or pursuing change. I suppose it's up to the users to determine how best to use them and how effective they are. Since you (and I) are not practitioners of religion, it's not really our call to determine how positively effective they are for others.

They are intended to help If you are willing to accept fiction as reality in one area of your life, what is to stop you from doing so in another?

What stops any of us from doing this at any time for whatever reason? I don't see religious folk have a corner on the self-delusion market, do you?

And possibly to the detriment of some aspect of your life, or to your relationships.

A good example would be parents who reject their children, or treat them poorly for being homosexual. Some of those parents are doing so for religious reasons explicitly, and others, I would argue, are still in the mindset they are in because of the stigma religion has built up in peoples minds, or the reactions they know they are going to get from religious people - even if they aren't fervent participants in their default/chosen/indoctrinated religion. So here are people, believing in a fiction as reality, and very much affecting others and others' relationships in very negative ways.

I think greed, selfishness, and bigotry will hide within and behind all kinds of ideologies and justifications. Sadly, these things are a persistent characteristic of human nature.

And don't even get me started on the potential for religious adherents hounding and haranguing the world on topics within which they are simply wrong, because the information they have is falsehood that they have decided to parade around as "reality." Obvious examples are "flat earth", demanding that the useless idea of creationism be literally "taught" in schools, or how about the lie that glory awaits those that kill themselves (and others) with bombs or crashing planes for their God? There is danger in accepting fiction as reality - it allows one to completely discount the consequences within reality in favor of rewards or consequences they hope are awaiting them when they are "reunited" with God.

I think you are way over-exaggerating the number of people engaged in this sort of nonsense and their effect on the world. I also think you are completely overlooking the positive effect theism and religion have had in furthering the cause of humanity through the fostering or compassion, forgiveness, empathy, humility, and social responsibility.

 

[Rival]

It is almost if not completely impossible for a person who believes in a God or gods to understand how atheists can't believe in the same.

Having been both, I understand both positions.

That went way off topic of your question. I think the rejection of biblical laws and related religious practices which are archaic or repulsive goes hand in hand with not believing in the claims of those book's stories about God/s. I would think religious people accept both the Gods and the values of their various sects.

I never mentioned the Bible or Biblical Law. I mentioned traditional religious values.

Atheism is not a rejection of moral values. It is a rejection of God stories told by theists. Granted there are some horrific morals espoused in holy books but that is not the reason for lack of belief in gods. Morals are not a problem for atheists. Positive morals are a human trait which some people have and some people don't no matter what they believe or don't believe.

I never said atheism is a rejection of moral values. I said atheists tend not only to disbelieve in God or gods, but also reject conservative social morality, so much so that much of modern atheism seems to be a reaction to religious values instead of a simple lack of belief in a God or gods, and what I'm saying is that rejecting the values is no reason to reject a God concept.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

As Steven Weinberg stated, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.".

My close friend Matt Dillahunty explained it best why he became an atheist, after many years as a practicing ordained minister. He said that he could no longer make a rational, substantive, or valid argument, to support his God belief. He could no longer defend his belief against any level of rational scrutiny. He, like most skeptics and critical thinkers, knew that any belief based on faith alone, will eventually collapse under its own weak and unsound foundation. Once evidence is requested, the foundation collapses, and the argument will quickly descend into more obfuscating mind-numbing pseudo-sophistry. Hopefully, our future young inquiring minds will have a chance to choose fact over fiction, reality over fantasy, and logic over illogic. That is, if they are not religiously interfered with, before they are mentally and emotionally able to defend themselves.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The stories (and all the other aspects of religious practice) are supposed to be conceptual and practical aids. They are tools to help people remember and understand the more complex aspects of their chosen theology. Something that is not always so easy to do when under stress, or duress, or pursuing change. I suppose it's up to the users to determine how best to use them and how effective they are. Since you (and I) are not practitioners of religion, it's not really our call to determine how positively effective they are for others.

Perhaps true... I just think there are better tools, more well-grounded in reality. People don't seek them because the religious stuff is easy and more readily accessible.

What stops any of us from doing this at any time for whatever reason? I don't see religious folk have a corner on the self-delusion market, do you?

There is plenty that stop a whole lot of people... even religious people in other areas of their lives. People don't just walk around being delusional about all sorts of things (outside of religion) very often. And when they do, they are labeled with dysphemisms like "conspiracy theorist." In other words, it's never really considered a "good" thing. So why actively subscribe to an idea you know holds little to no truth? That's what I am getting at.

I think greed, selfishness, and bigotry will hide within and behind all kinds of ideologies and justifications. Sadly, these things are a persistent characteristic of human nature.

I see truth to this, though again, when the source of the ideology causing harm is known/found/shown to be of dubious to false origins, I feel it should be easier for it to be discarded than it ends up being.

I think you are way over-exaggerating the number of people engaged in this sort of nonsense and their effect on the world. I also think you are completely overlooking the positive effect theism and religion have had in furthering the cause of humanity through the fostering or compassion, forgiveness, empathy, humility, and social responsibility.

People thinking that they have the backing of God for their opinions is ultimately a bad thing in my opinion. Even people who start out with the best of intentions have their instincts to contend with - and many religions blatantly attempt to dissuade you from following your instincts and to instead deprive yourself. Something like instinct isn't simply going to go away, and so for all the "compassion, forgiveness, empathy, humility, and social responsibility" that is fostered, you have all the other, more basic natural impulses to contend with that aren't being talked about. And so you create a huge opportunity for certain things to simply be conducted in secret, or passive-aggressively. And I am not just talking sexual things... but also things like "being alpha" or vying for leadership, hoarding or shoring up personal resources and "fight or flight" mechanisms.