Is Atheism the Easier Position?

[firedragon]

Are people religious so they can attack those
not in their cult,

Maybe atheists are in their cult to attack those who are not. Thats why you had maybe you responded with a Tu Quoque.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Its how we all started. Every one was atheist at the offset.

Besides, all this started with theists in the first place.

I think blame ought to be put on the instigator, not the respondent.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 stick with the original etymology. Simply stated, "One without God's".

Short, simple, and to the point.

 

[Audie]

Maybe atheists are in their cult to attack those who are not. Thats why you had maybe you responded with a Tu Quoque.

Maybe you know what a tu quoque is and
are just misusing the term to see if I'd catch you
at it, but then, probably not.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe you know what a tu quoque

Most do.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

The ability to recognise and admit to one’s own ignorance is a rare and commendable quality.

Pointing out the supposed ignorance of others, especially without genuinely attempting to understand their position, is a less admirable, yet much more widely evident trait.

 

[Heyo]

How do you prove that?

Just ask, duh.

 

[firedragon]

Just ask, duh.

When they are born?

 

[firedragon]

Just ask, duh.

Okay. So how many have you asked and what were the results? I am asking since the post I responded to made a positive claim.

 

[Heyo]

Okay. So how many have you asked and what were the results? I am asking since the post I responded to made a positive claim.

I never had any doubt that we are born without belief so it never occurred to me to conduct an experiment. And since "no entity" or "no effect" is the null hypothesis, there is no need to.
Atheism is again the easier position to hold.

 

[Trailblazer]

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 cannot speak for other believers, being an atheist would be a helluva lot easier than being a Baha'i....
if only I had not slipped up and found out about the Baha'i Faith I could be having a good time right now, but instead I am here with you...

 

[firedragon]

I never had any doubt that we are born without belief so it never occurred to me to conduct an experiment. And since "no entity" or "no effect" is the null hypothesis, there is no need to.
Atheism is again the easier position to hold.

Thats absolutely false. How could you come up with a false outcome like that? Who in the world makes a "no need" conclusion without a generalisation attempt? On what basis did you come up with the null hypothesis? Is that even a null hypothesis? What are the samples you had identified for this so called null hypothesis?

Lol. Sorry mate. This was a ridiculous statement you made. Unbelievable.

 

[firedragon]

I cannot speak for other believers, being an atheist would be a helluva lot easier than being a Baha'i....
if only I had not slipped up and found out about the Baha'i Faith I could be having a good time right now, but instead I am here with you...

Judging by some of the comments it is much much more difficult to be an atheist to some of the atheists. One reason in my opinion seems to be, they have this idea that they are superior in knowledge about every single thing in the whole universe, thus they have to keep up appearances even if they are clueless about something. That is very very difficult. Sometimes you make such blunders you look silly and even childish. But still one must pretend or colour themselves.

 

[blü 2]

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?

No.

I'm an igtheist in that I find the concept of a real God ─ one who's not imaginary but has objective existence ─ to be incoherent.

Not even believers behave as though they think God is real ─ instead they behave as if God exists just in a special category of the imaginary.

Thus there's no definition of God such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God or not.

There's isn't even a definition of "godness", the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c would lack.

 

[Heyo]

Thats absolutely false.

"How do you prove that?" - firedragon, Is Atheism the Easier Position?

 

[blü 2]

How do you prove that?

That someone is born believing in a particular god or gods?

The place to start the enquiry is to wonder why children born in, say, Muslim or Buddhist countries don't grow with Christian or Hindu beliefs.

Since supernatural beliefs are found in just about every culture we know of, it seems we humans have evolved with a propensity for such things ─ perhaps because our survival instincts include immediately supposing an explanation for unexplained happenings, and our curiosity is always hungry for an explanation of the inexplicable, such as the weather, luck, disease, drought and famine, and so on, and mysteries such as birth and death and dreams.

And perhaps because having beliefs in common is good for tribal solidarity, along with a shared language, culture, customs, stories and heroes. Tribal solidarity is the basis of cooperation, something which humans are very good at and reliant on.

But as we all know, if we look at those cultures, their gazers into the supernatural don't see the same things or meet the same deities, If the supernatural were a real realm, we'd expect consistency in reports about it; instead the reports are so various that we're light years beyond the blind men and the elephant.

 

[Mock Turtle]

As others have pointed out, it is a lot easier to just accept what one's culture often provides, or from one's parents, as to any religious beliefs, than challenging this and becoming independent. The whole history of any particular religious belief system, together with the physical evidence so often surrounding one (churches and such, and how much has passed down through history) has to be contended with. I think it takes a deal more courage to make one's own path than blithely accept so often what one is given, particularly if one did have some sort of indoctrination as a child - which so often religious education amounts to. Fortunately not in my case but I still had to contend with the power that religions wield and all the associated evidence, arguments and such, that has had millennia to be honed into supposed impregnable positions.

So overall, religious belief seems an easier option - to me at least - but not as to choosing the right one perhaps.

And although the topic is about atheism, one can hardly not mention why so many are theists or atheists - the acceptance of some particular religious belief or not.

 

[firedragon]

"How do you prove that?" - firedragon, Is Atheism the Easier Position?

tell me. How did you come up with a null hypothesis for this study? What are the samples?

If you dont have anything to say, you quoting one statement of mine and asking "how do you prove that" is simply "absolutely false".

If you dont know some subject dont make claims you cannot substantiate or do not understand. You will not lose anything by being honest.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

The place to start the enquiry is to wonder why children born in, say, Muslim or Buddhist countries don't grow with Christian or Hindu beliefs.

Thats not only corresponding, not causal, it is also an investigators bias along with it also being an absolutely fallacious method to prove something completely irrelevant. To prove that a child is born with "no belief" you have to prove that the child is born with "no belief", not "muslim parents make their kids muslim".

Also how do you correlate that to "birth"? you are making an absurd statement.

 

[firedragon]

That someone is born believing in a particular god or gods?

The place to start the enquiry is to wonder why children born in, say, Muslim or Buddhist countries don't grow with Christian or Hindu beliefs.

Since supernatural beliefs are found in just about every culture we know of, it seems we humans have evolved with a propensity for such things ─ perhaps because our survival instincts include immediately supposing an explanation for unexplained happenings, and our curiosity is always hungry for an explanation of the inexplicable, such as the weather, luck, disease, drought and famine, and so on, and mysteries such as birth and death and dreams.

And perhaps because having beliefs in common is good for tribal solidarity, along with a shared language, culture, customs, stories and heroes. Tribal solidarity is the basis of cooperation, something which humans are very good at and reliant on.

But as we all know, if we look at those cultures, their gazers into the supernatural don't see the same things or meet the same deities, If the supernatural were a real realm, we'd expect consistency in reports about it; instead the reports are so various that we're light years beyond the blind men and the elephant.

Can you tell me, what evidence the person I asked that question from has provided so far to prove the claim he made? Just curious. You are making a lot of suggestions to help someone for a future project in proving a claim he has already made which should be a claim that should be made after the testing.

Can you provide the evidence or data provided already?