Is Atheism the Easier Position?

[PureX]

I'm not an atheist. I think atheism rather than easier or harder is simply a different position. It could be easy or difficult given the situation. Some atheists have struggled to justify their position, and some have not.

I find many atheists to be the opposite equivalent to the dogmatic, absolutist religious fanatics that they tend so often to assume and declare all theists to be. And some theists clearly are. Both groups are very ill-informed about both their own declared positions and that of the 'other side'. And both are quite unwilling to accept or consider any offer of enlightenment. So they tend to just talk and shout past each other, hearing nothing, and learning nothing new.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I find many atheists to be the opposite equivalent to the dogmatic, absolutist religious fanatics that they tend so often to assume and declare all theists to be. And some theists clearly are. Both groups are very ill-informed about both their own declared positions and that of the 'other side'. And both are quite unwilling to accept or consider any offer of enlightenment. So they tend to just talk and shout past each other, hearing nothing, and learning nothing new.

I can see ill informed of the other sides position. Theist get atheist wrong all the time from being deniers, rejecters, or plain ignorant, but how are we-theist and atheist-ill informed of our own positions?....unless I read that wrong?

 

[Nakosis]

Well, I don't think so. The atheist has a very heavy duty -- if he is rational -- to make his worldview coherent and defend it from intellectual attacks. There are many arguments out there against the atheistic worldview and mountains of books by naturalists (e.g., Graham Oppy, Howard Sobel, John Mackie) dealing with these arguments. And the atheist must be aware of these debates in order to have a robust worldview.

So, even though the atheist doesn't postulate any additional being, he must defend its denial of such beings. And this requires hard work.

For me, being an atheist is a position of ignorance and lack of trust.
Acceptance of one's own ignorance about any God and a lack of trust about those that claim they do.

Acceptance of one's own ignorance is a position of defense against one's own subconscious mind which is capable of creating spiritual/religious experiences to satisfy one's desire for the existence of a God and or a special relationship to the universe.
My lack of trust comes from the knowledge that the subconscious mind of others is capable of doing the same.

 

[Nakosis]

That's a really loaded question. Why do you imply that someone's atheism is due to a desire to attack other's beliefs?

I became an atheist around age ten when, following a couple of sessions in Sunday school, I realized that the concept of a god was just as real as Superman and The Shadow.

I never challenged the religious beliefs of anyone for many years.

I implied it because I think some theists may feel this way and to give a chance for atheists to explain their position if they want to.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

I'm an atheist because I've yet to be presented with sufficient verifiable evidence to warrant belief in any god. The fact that I have no beliefs concerning a god being that I have to defend is simply a happy consequence of that reality. I suspect that it is easier in some ways, since I don't have to twist myself into knots defending beliefs for which I have no verifiable evidence.

 

[PureX]

I can see ill informed of the other sides position. Theist get atheist wrong all the time from being deniers, rejecters, or plain ignorant, but how are we-theist and atheist-ill informed of our own positions?....unless I read that wrong?

Very few atheists even understand what atheism, is. And sad to say, many theists are equally ignorant of what theism is. They both get all caught up in religious artifice, and dogma, and social issues, long before they have gained any actual understanding of the terms and ideals they are proclaiming and/or denigrating.

Neither seem to get that it is not about what they or anyone else "believes". But both are so intent on fighting for their own presumption of self-righteousness that their "beliefs" ("unbeliefs") become and remain tantamount, to them. And there's no dissuading them from it. In the atheists case, I think it has a lot to do with that afore-mentioned desire to attack without having to defend. In the theist's case I think it has a lot to do with confusing faith with blind pretense. (A deceit that religions promote way too often.)

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not quite sure if your focus with this thread is on the easiness of debates or the easiness of life in general. If it's the latter then being an atheist could make life much harder, depending on where you live.

If one wears their atheism on their sleeve it might.

If we're talking about debate, being an atheist doesn't preclude you from having opinions, ideologies or beliefs relating to gods and religion. Some examples:

What qualities do you think something needs to have in order to be classed as a deity?
What makes a given argument unconvincing to you?
Do you think theism and/or religion has been more of a positive or negative influence on the world?
Do you believe theism is stupid?
Do you belong to a religion yourself? If so, why that religion rather than another?
If you believe in an afterlife, why do you believe in it?
What do you believe would constitute acceptable evidence for the existence of a deity?

All of these are things that an atheist could try to defend during a debate. I'd say that some of these are more challenging to defend than certain forms of theism.

You could perhaps take the easy route and just respond to every argument with, "Nope, I don't believe it" and provide no further commentary. At that point though, you're not really having a debate in the first place.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that somebody might be an atheist for that reason but I've never encountered it myself.

All good points IMO.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@Nakosis

Is atheism the easier position? I don't think so. Not at first, anyway. At this stage in life, it's probably easier. But getting there isn't easy. It's easier to believe in a god than not. Being an atheist means that there is no devil to blame, no expectation of reuniting with deceased loved ones, no personal protection from the cosmos, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's choices, nobody watching over you or answering your prayers, marginalization in a theistic society, and no easy explanations for our existence.

What's easy is to just passively imbibe a comforting worldview and go with the flow. To the theist I say, try standing up like the bipedal ape you were born to be, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all. And then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, that you may be vulnerable and not watched over. Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finitude, of consciousness ending with death, of maybe not seeing the departed again. Accept the reality of your likely insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by those who know you - people, and maybe a few animals. That's not easy at first, and takes years to accomplish, but once one is comfortable with these ideas and living with answers like "I don't know" rather that, "God did it," it's got to be easier.

As far as attacking the beliefs of theists, how often do you see that? Theists like to see disagreement as an attack, often take it personally, often feel persecuted, respond in emotional language, and consider the atheist a bad person for it simply because they disagree. Notice that the relationship isn't symmetric. How often do you see atheists starting threads on RF to disagree with theists? How often do you see the atheist becoming emotional with the theist, or claiming to be attacked or persecuted?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Very few atheists even understand what atheism, is. And sad to say, many theists are equally ignorant of what theism is. They both get all caught up in religious artifice, and dogma, and social issues, long before they have gained any actual understanding of the terms and ideals they are proclaiming and/or denigrating.

Neither seem to get that it is not about what they or anyone else "believes". But both are so intent on fighting for their own presumption of self-righteousness that their "beliefs" ("unbeliefs") become and remain tantamount, to them. And there's no dissuading them from it. In the atheists case, I think it has a lot to do with that afore-mentioned desire to attack without having to defend. In the theist's case I think it has a lot to do with confusing faith with blind pretense. (A deceit that religions promote way too often.)

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god or gods. What about that don't you think I understand?

 

[PureX]

I'm an atheist because I've yet to be presented with sufficient verifiable evidence to warrant belief in any god.

You and a great many other self-proclaimed atheists.

But to this I always have to ask; by what logic are you assuming that if God exists, YOU would be able to ascertain and recognize the evidence of that existence? What form would that evidence take, that you should be able to understand it as such? Because without your making this assumption, it does not logically follow that your lack of evidence equates to the non-existence of God. It only equates to your inability to determine whether God exists or not. Such that you would properly (logically) only be agnostic. Not atheist. So if you are, indeed, an atheist, by what OTHER reasoning have you arrived at that position? OR, are you willing to admit that you have no other logical reasoning for it, and perhaps have arrived at that position through some other means.

I think these are the kinds of questions that atheists don't want to have to deal with, and so try to hide behind the weird facade of their "unbelief" and the assertion that they have no position so cannot be expected to defend it.

The fact that I have no beliefs concerning a god being that I have to defend is simply a happy consequence of that reality.

Yup! There it is! Right on cue.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

I am not so emotionally attached to any part of it to be unwilling to admit that I do thoroughly enjoy the aspect of not having to make things up, and that I don't have to try to keep straight stories that are not mine. That part is freaking fantastic - no doubt about it. Every time I see someone tripping over themselves to try and fit something new or contradictory into their chosen narrative I definitely take a split second to appreciate how nice it is not to have to engage in such excruciating mental exercise.

This is not, at all, WHY I am an atheist. Not even close. But it is a nice perk, no doubt.

 

[Willamena]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

Non-belief is a simple position, but so is belief. It's "yes," or "no," to whether the proposition "God exists/gods exist" is true.

Non-belief does have an ideology to defend, namely a world-view that falls short of including gods.

 

[PureX]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god or gods. What about that don't you think I understand?

I think you don't understand that this is an empty (meaningless) "definition". It's basically an absurdity to proclaim what you aren't, as what you are, and what you don't believe, as what you do believe. It's also quite dishonest in most cases, because the atheist making such proclamations clearly believes that no gods exist, even as he's so blatantly proclaiming that his "unbelief" renders him neutral.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

Atheism isn't a position.

I have plenty of beliefs and ideology; I have no issue with defending them as needed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you don't understand that this is an empty (meaningless) "definition". It's basically an absurdity to proclaim what you aren't as what you are, and what you don't believe as what you do believe.

Tell that to non-smokers.

And vegetarians.

And civilians.

And teetotalers.

Language doesn't work the way you seem to be assuming it does.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think you don't understand that this is an empty (meaningless) "definition". It's basically an absurdity to proclaim what you aren't, as what you are, and what you don't believe, as what you do believe. It's also quite dishonest in most cases, because the atheist making such proclamations clearly believes that no gods exist, even as he's so blatantly proclaiming that his "unbelief" renders him neutral.

I don't believe that God(s) exist in the exact same way that I wouldn't believe a man who walks up to me off the street and tells me that he owns the bridge I am looking to buy. I am not going to just give him the money. Do you understand? He may very well own that bridge! I doubt him, or perhaps even believe that he doesn't own the bridge. Fine! Either way... he's going to have to produce something to prove he owns the bridge, otherwise he isn't getting the money. Duh. You wouldn't behave any differently in that situation, and if you would then you are a fool.

But when it comes to God(s)? Well then guess what? You probably already bought the bridge. You likely handed over the money without even checking the credentials. And in fact, with the knowledge and experience I have with the "credentials" that usually impress theists, and with the understanding that people DO NOT encounter things of any Godly nature in the shared portions of the reality we experience, and given that even the people who do claim such encounters can't reproduce or evidence them to save their lives - well, with all that under my belt, I am certainly going to assume, in all circumstances, that any "credentials" that have been presented to that person were forgeries, or completely unrelated to the actual claim being made, until it is DEMONSTRATED to be otherwise (that is, when I can get my hands on these supposed credentials and have a good look over them myself in order to verify). Short of that, there is absolutely no reason to believe the crap being peddled. There is no reason to "buy the bridge."

 

[Epic Beard Man]

No ideology to defend. (FALSE)
No God to logically justify. (FALSE)
Nothing to prove. (FALSE)

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

Whether you believe or disbelieve in God(s), psychologically, you've postulated the claim that a deity (or deities) exist (or doesn't exist). The question is whether you want to justify it philosophically in a debating arena. A sector of Satanists for example, exclaims disbelief in deities (this includes Satan) therefore, are atheists. Satan, from my understanding, is often depicted as rebellious against the system but free to commit autonomy without restraint or limitation to some sort of metaphysical tradition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, but why hang out on the religious forum?

Because religion has a tremendous impact on the world. It's also an important social phenomenon that deserves investigation.

It's kinda like how environmentalists will hang out on forums about climate change even if they don't support climate change themselves.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You and a great many other self-proclaimed atheists.

But to this I always have to ask; by what logic are you assuming that if God exists, YOU would be able to ascertain and recognize the evidence of that existence? What form would that evidence take, that you should be able to understand it as such? Because without your making this assumption, it does not logically follow that your lack of evidence equates to the non-existence of God. It only equates to your inability to determine whether God exists or not. Such that you would properly (logically) only be agnostic. Not atheist. So if you are, indeed, an atheist, by what OTHER reasoning have you arrived at that position? OR, are you willing to admit that you have no other logical reasoning for it, and perhaps have arrived at that position through some other means.

I think these are the kinds of questions that atheists don't want to have to deal with, and so try to hide behind the weird facade of their "unbelief" and the assertion that they have no position so cannot be expected to defend it.
Yup! There it is! Right on cue.

But to this I always have to ask; by what logic are you assuming that if God exists, YOU would be able to ascertain and recognize the evidence of that existence? What form would that evidence take, that you should be able to understand it as such?

I never claimed that I would be able to ascertain and recognize the evidence for a god's existence nor that I know what form that evidence would take. ALL I've said is that I have yet to be presented with any evidence sufficient for me to say that I definitely believe a god exists. Until such evidence can be presented I will continue to lack such belief.

Because without your making this assumption, it does not logically follow that your lack of evidence equates to the non-existence of God. It only equates to your inability to determine whether God exists or not. Such that you would properly (logically) only be agnostic. Not atheist.

Atheism is NOT the assertion that no god or gods exist. It's simply a lack of belief that they definitely do exist. Just because I lack a belief that Big Foot is definitely real does NOT mean that I'm claiming it's impossible that we'll ever find verifiable evidence for Big Foot. Only that at this time there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that Big Foot is among things that are real. An agnostic is an atheist in they they do not believe that any gods exist, but they ALSO claim that it's impossible to know whether or not any gods exist. Since I'm open to the possibility that their MIGHT be verifiable evidence for a god being, I am NOT an agnostic.

So if you are, indeed, an atheist, by what OTHER reasoning have you arrived at that position? OR, are you willing to admit that you have no other logical reasoning for it, and perhaps have arrived at that position through some other means.

My lack of belief in any god or gods makes me an atheist, nothing more is required. You seem to think that atheism is an assertion that there is no god, which simply isn't true. There are some atheists who go beyond simply lacking a belief in god who will claim that they believe there definitely is no god, but I'm not among them. I remain open to the possibility, but simply await verifiable evidence before I can assert that I believe.

I think these are the kinds of questions that atheists don't want to have to deal with, and so try to hide behind the weird façade of their "unbelief" and the assertion that they have no position so cannot be expected to defend it.

I've been more than happy to answer all of your questions, even the ones that don't really make sense. My position is that I have yet to see sufficient verifiable evidence that any god exists. How is this 'hiding behind some weird façade of 'unbelief''? Does the fact that you lack sufficient verifiable evidence to believe that magical fairies exist mean that YOU are 'hiding behind some weird façade of 'unbelief''? Please, explain to me how this works.

Yup! There it is! Right on cue.

You're somehow surprised that someone who isn't making an assertion doesn't have an obligation to defend their position?

 

[AlexanderG]

I think you don't understand that this is an empty (meaningless) "definition". It's basically an absurdity to proclaim what you aren't, as what you are, and what you don't believe, as what you do believe. It's also quite dishonest in most cases, because the atheist making such proclamations clearly believes that no gods exist, even as he's so blatantly proclaiming that his "unbelief" renders him neutral.

You've made a lot of insinuations and accusations in your posts in this thread, insisting that atheists don't define their position correctly and that they may intentionally or subconsciously do this for sneaky reasons. I think you might just need to work out why you have such an axe to grind, and why you insist on accusing us of this stuff?

The word "atheist" is literally declaring what we aren't. Atypical means not typical. Asymptomatic means not having symptoms. Abiotic means not living. Atheist means not theist.

An atheist, by definition, can hold any worldview or set of beliefs as long as this does not include the belief that a god exists. An atheist could be a conservative, pro-life militia member, or a mystical yoga crystal magic enthusiast, or whatever. If you insist that atheists have to defend a belief that "no gods exist" instead of "we're not convinced gods exist," then you'll be very frustrated (which you indeed seem to be), because both of these positions involve not being a theist and not believing in any gods. For the same reason atheists reject the metaphysical, unverifiable claim that "gods exist," most of us also don't claim "no gods exist" because it's just as metaphysical and unverifiable. "Lacktheism" is the more rational position, and it is still atheism.