Atheists Do It Better

[A Vestigial Mote]

While I certainly believe some of these things to likely be true for atheists, I have to wonder why only a few of the points in the article came with links to relevant research results. These types of things shouldn't simply be said if they are true. We purposeful atheists are the ones who often claim that belief should to be proportioned to evidence. And so anything and everything we state in confidence should come with the relevant points of evidence that make the case.

 

[Quintessence]

Hmm. You know what the opening post reminds me of?

It reminds me of how disingenuous clairvoyants and diviners offer vague but complementary portraits of their clients to garner favor and credibility. They know that humans are inclined to believe flattering descriptions of themselves and react well to such ego-placating verbiage. And when you are down in the dumps, you want to hear good things about you or your kind even more so. Marginalized groups especially want to hear complementary depictions of themselves because they have to deal with so much crap.

But, like the disingenuous clairvoyants and diviners, it doesn't really tell us anything beyond what we want to see in the mirror. That has its uses, when taken in proper context. Good clairvoyants will take that step, while the bad ones will not. Look into the mirror, see your reflection, and then really think about what that means. All of these things spoken of that are supposedly characteristic of you? What is their source? Is it because you are of this particular kind, or is it something else?

I tend to be pretty disinterested in simplistic "atheist vs theist" comparisons for a number of reasons, but their failure to get at the sources of various orientations and sentiments is the major bane. Being atheist or theist in of itself means next to nothing. It doesn't even mean one is religious or irreligious, yet I see this conflation being made constantly.

@Nakosis - if you're genuinely interested in understanding the benefits of religion, start by not conflating that with theism and then ask more questions. Not just more questions, good questions.

 

[dianaiad]

There could be a very good reason for that.

Yes. there could be. it's because I understand exactly how smart and well educated I am, what happened to my IQ and why, and that there are a great many people smarter and better educated than me. I'm only in the top 20%, IQ wise, and do not qualify for Mensa. I'm in the top 14%, education-wise, and that's not an innate character trait. That's just me liking school a lot. I'm nearly seventy, and I have made a hobby of taking classes all my life. Every once in awhile the school I'm going to takes me aside and tells me that 'this is enough; here's a piece of paper, take it and go away." So I go somewhere else. I think the term is "perpetual student." Sort of. I wasn't trying to get out of going to work or having a life outside college (all I wanted were the classes, thankyouverymuch), I just like taking classes. They are much harder now, but I still attend.

I am quite aware that there are quite a few people in RF who are both smarter and better educated than me. So I'm not going to claim a superior status I know I don't hold.

I dont know one atheist who makes such claims except in humour as has happened on this thread. On the contrary, the claim seems to derive from non atheists with an inferiority complex.

Just sayin'

....and my reply to that joke was also made as a humorous comment. It was the replies to THAT (like yours, above, which took me a day or two to process and form a reply that didn't involve equal snark) which rang my 'wow...they are SERIOUS...really? " bell.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes. there could be. it's because I understand exactly how smart and well educated I am, what happened to my IQ and why, and that there are a great many people smarter and better educated than me. I'm only in the top 20%, IQ wise, and do not qualify for Mensa. I'm in the top 14%, education-wise, and that's not an innate character trait. That's just me liking school a lot. I'm nearly seventy, and I have made a hobby of taking classes all my life. Every once in awhile the school I'm going to takes me aside and tells me that 'this is enough; here's a piece of paper, take it and go away." So I go somewhere else. I think the term is "perpetual student." Sort of. I wasn't trying to get out of going to work or having a life outside college (all I wanted were the classes, thankyouverymuch), I just like taking classes. They are much harder now, but I still attend.

It would be nice if you could offer atheists the same mental privilege you give yourself, they are after all, human beings.

and my reply to that joke was also made as a humorous comment. It was the replies to THAT (like yours, above, which took me a day or two to process and form a reply that didn't involve equal snark) which rang my 'wow...they are SERIOUS...really? " bell.

Really? That long? And it was not a joke.

 

[Nakosis]

@Nakosis - if you're genuinely interested in understanding the benefits of religion, start by not conflating that with theism and then ask more questions. Not just more questions, good questions.

The OP was just a conversation starter. Doesn't reflect my personal views other than the comment I made.

My point is that, you get something out of your religion/belief, that's fine. No issue. My question is really what is an atheist missing out on? What benefit is gain by a belief in a God or gods that can't be gotten by other means.

 

[Quintessence]

The OP was just a conversation starter. Doesn't reflect my personal views other than the comment I made.

My point is that, you get something out of your religion/belief, that's fine. No issue. My question is really what is an atheist missing out on? What benefit is gain by a belief in a God or gods that can't be gotten by other means.

Fair enough.

I find it an odd question. We might as well ask someone "well, why do you eat Chinese food when you can get the nutrition you need by other means?" Well, if you don't eat Chinese food you are obviously missing out on Chinese food. And it is equally obvious that you don't need a diet of Chinese food to survive. I'll grant there may be some persnickety folks who believe that if you don't eat Chinese food you are some sort of freak, but most of us really don't care what you eat so long as you eat something.

 

[Nakosis]

Fair enough.

I find it an odd question. We might as well ask someone "well, why do you eat Chinese food when you can get the nutrition you need by other means?" Well, if you don't eat Chinese food you are obviously missing out on Chinese food. And it is equally obvious that you don't need a diet of Chinese food to survive. I'll grant there may be some persnickety folks who believe that if you don't eat Chinese food you are some sort of freak, but most of us really don't care what you eat so long as you eat something.

There are some negatives to conventional religion which may not apply to Druidry. Being there is no Hierarchy of authority telling you what you ought to do doing with regard to your beliefs. Allows you to tailor your belief to your own moral compass. Unless you disagree with that point.

I suppose I've always been pretty much anti-authoritarian. Don't like folks telling me what my morals ought to be or what I ought to be believing. Conventional religion and their followers tend to do so which is a negative for me. By avoiding religion entirely, I can avoid the negatives.

Just wondering it there are positive benefits with religion that would make it worthwhile to deal with the usual negatives that come with it.

 

[Quintessence]

There are some negatives to conventional religion which may not apply to Druidry. Being there is no Hierarchy of authority telling you what you ought to do doing with regard to your beliefs. Allows you to tailor your belief to your own moral compass. Unless you disagree with that point.

I suppose I've always been pretty much anti-authoritarian. Don't like folks telling me what my morals ought to be or what I ought to be believing. Conventional religion and their followers tend to do so which is a negative for me. By avoiding religion entirely, I can avoid the negatives.

Just wondering it there are positive benefits with religion that would make it worthwhile to deal with the usual negatives that come with it.

Well, it really is kinda like food preferences to my mind. It depends on what you like and what you value. There are people who eat triple-bypass inducing fatty fried foods that leave me with bouts of indigestion. We know comes with negatives health-wise if eaten regularly, but people eat these things anyway because they're available and they like eating it for some reason. Maybe it's what they grew up with and it's comfort food. Maybe they think it's normal to have to take a tablet of antacid after every meal. Whatever, floats their boat, yeah? Their life, their choice.

In any case, I find it ironic you call authoritarian religion "conventional" when such models are fairly novel as far as the grand scheme of human history and cultures go. I suppose that's one of the things that more dogmatic and structured institutions do - they make you believe they are the convention when the default modus operandi for humans is nothing of the sort. For the most part, the rise of such structures is a direct result of a need for them when there are more humans on this planet concentrated in smaller areas. There have to be rules governing things to help folks get along, or they don't. In small groups, things are easier to manage with conflicts and such, but big civilizations and urban areas? You need institutions to regulate that, whether formally or informally. Or so it seems to me, at any rate. If you like civilization, it's probably a good idea to appreciate the institutions that are needed to keep it running... whether they get called "religion" or "cultural norms" or something else.

 

[Nakosis]

Are you claiming that you have never done anything wrong? That is, that you have never done anything that violates your personal ethical code?

You are unique, if so. Congratulations, if so.

Actually currently no code. I don't see a code as being able to cover all circumstances one comes across. So what's right depends more on the situation I'm facing at the moment than checking my choices against a ethical code.

I see. "the devil made me do it" defense. (grin...sorry about that. Couldn't resist...should have, intended to, but, er, just couldn't.)

In some cases, my subconscious mind made me do it, however for the most part I try to make my choices with conscious rationale.

Because whatever it was you did was against your personal ethical code? Just asking, not accusing.

Because it seemed warranted by the circumstances. Like when I was a kid, I stole food to survive. It was wrong according to who I was taking food from, it was right if I wanted to eat that day.

I don't have a problem trusting an atheist. Whether one's personal ethical code is based upon a theistic belief system, or a personal conviction...perhaps 'humanism,' or just 'enlightened self interest,' one can generally trust the honor of those who hold to that personal code. I mean, really; if I thought that one could only trust those who claimed one's OWN specific code of ethics/morals, one couldn't trust anybody at all. Honor is honor.

(added thought) Y'know, an 'honorable atheist' is probably more to be trusted than a theist who claims to be faithful, but only has honor because s/he's afraid of the eternal consequences of not being honorable. Any honorable person bases his or her honor upon a personal conviction of right and wrong as compared to a belief system, quite apart from possible consequences; doing the 'right' thing regardless of possible consequences, and willing to accept the consequences of being 'honorable,' even if they seem to be negative.

OK, that was fuzzy, but I hope the reader can figure out what I just wrote.

It was a bit tongue in cheek on my part. When asked in a poll who you'd be least likely to volt for, Atheist comes at the top of the list. So in general, a majority of folks wouldn't trust an atheist to run the country.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, it really is kinda like food preferences to my mind. It depends on what you like and what you value. There are people who eat triple-bypass inducing fatty fried foods that leave me with bouts of indigestion. We know comes with negatives health-wise if eaten regularly, but people eat these things anyway because they're available and they like eating it for some reason. Maybe it's what they grew up with and it's comfort food. Maybe they think it's normal to have to take a tablet of antacid after every meal. Whatever, floats their boat, yeah? Their life, their choice.

In any case, I find it ironic you call authoritarian religion "conventional" when such models are fairly novel as far as the grand scheme of human history and cultures go. I suppose that's one of the things that more dogmatic and structured institutions do - they make you believe they are the convention when the default modus operandi for humans is nothing of the sort. For the most part, the rise of such structures is a direct result of a need for them when there are more humans on this planet concentrated in smaller areas. There have to be rules governing things to help folks get along, or they don't. In small groups, things are easier to manage with conflicts and such, but big civilizations and urban areas? You need institutions to regulate that, whether formally or informally. Or so it seems to me, at any rate. If you like civilization, it's probably a good idea to appreciate the institutions that are needed to keep it running... whether they get called "religion" or "cultural norms" or something else.

Currently in the US we don't have religion in charge of our laws. IMO we are doing fine without religious ideology in control.

The past, it's hard to say were we'd be without the use of religion to control the masses. Certainly leaders in the past found it useful. A tool of control/unity. Can't say we might of come up with other means, sans religion, of achieving similar or better results. Our past is what is was. Anything otherwise is speculation.

 

[Nakosis]

If atheism is NOT a religion as every atheist claims, "what the heck are they doing at Religious Forums" other than to attack, assault and deny? It can't be to "learn" as that would involve being silent, and learning!

To spread the Good News. Life without religion...

I don't know, Atheists come here for their own reason. I see atheism more as a philosophy than religion. I like to discuss moral concepts and argue against certain views including religious views.

 

[Nakosis]

Countries...mine included...have democratically elected atheist leaders.
I think your comment here only applies to some parts of the world.

Yes the US is backwards in many respects, IMO, to other countries. We just have the military might to force our views on others. Other countries have their time. I suspect US influence will eventually wane.

 

[Nakosis]

The biggest lack of benefit to being an atheist is in not having to justify this abhorrent, rediculious post by the relic of my rational!

I don't have to nor plan to justify any of it. One can see the studies the article was based on and decide for themselves.

The benefits are morals, spirituality, intelligence, unlike the OP.

Don't need religion for morals, since I see moral are based on feelings. Everyone has feelings about what is right and wrong. Some atheist claim spirituality. I'm not really sure what that is, spirituality seems to mean different things to different people. Intelligence, again studies, but that's over all. Individually, IMO, atheists as as likely to run the gamut on the intelligence scale as non-atheists.

 

[Quintessence]

Currently in the US we don't have religion in charge of our laws. IMO we are doing fine without religious ideology in control.

Yeah, that's the story many tell at any rate. Religion is not so easy to define, however. When we get right down to it, everything is religion/religious from a particular point of view (as well as the converse). In that sense, religiously-held ideologies are always in control (or never, in the converse). Depends on how you want to tell the story, really.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, that's the story many tell at any rate. Religion is not so easy to define, however. When we get right down to it, everything is religion/religious from a particular point of view (as well as the converse). In that sense, religiously-held ideologies are always in control (or never, in the converse). Depends on how you want to tell the story, really.

Alright... Peace

 

[dianaiad]

The OP was just a conversation starter. Doesn't reflect my personal views other than the comment I made.

My point is that, you get something out of your religion/belief, that's fine. No issue. My question is really what is an atheist missing out on? What benefit is gain by a belief in a God or gods that can't be gotten by other means.

Well, if the theists are correct and there IS a God, I think you can figure out that you just might be missing something. It's not, after all, a matter of whether God exists only if you choose to believe in one. Either there is one or there isn't.

If there isn't one, then you are certainly not missing anything. if there is one, you are. Seems fairly simple to me; a 'true' dichotomy.

The problem is finding out if there is one, and what He She or It (or They) is/are.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually currently no code. I don't see a code as being able to cover all circumstances one comes across. So what's right depends more on the situation I'm facing at the moment than checking my choices against a ethical code.

That approach is generally frowned upon...it's pretty fuzzy. Also a great deal of work, when it comes right down to it.

In some cases, my subconscious mind made me do it, however for the most part I try to make my choices with conscious rationale.



Because it seemed warranted by the circumstances. Like when I was a kid, I stole food to survive. It was wrong according to who I was taking food from, it was right if I wanted to eat that day.



It was a bit tongue in cheek on my part. When asked in a poll who you'd be least likely to volt for, Atheist comes at the top of the list. So in general, a majority of folks wouldn't trust an atheist to run the country.

No, they don't. On the other hand, most atheists have a problem (as you have just shown) with a theist running the country. (shrug) We all want people running the country who share our values, beliefs and ideals.

But NOBODY is going to put a Latter-day saint in the White House. Just ask Romney. So....yeah...I feel your pain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well... I'll let you tell them that

But seriously, I don't think the 2 are mutually exclusive. I think a person can be an Atheist and accidentally fall into the trap of being hypocritical.

Obviously.

Statistics are just that: statistics. They aren't universal laws or whatever.
Atheism does not have a monopoly on rationality or logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

how about?.....the correct answer
when you stand before God and heaven

Or Odin and Whalhalla?

what do you believe?

my answer: concerning what, exactly?

who told you that?
why......did you believe it?

Whatever subject it is that I believe things about... if I believe them, then I believe them based on an attempt at rationally reasoning based on evidence. That doesn't guarantee my beliefs to being true. But it does provide some form of justification. The degree to which I believe things (which will as good as never reach 100%), will be directly proportional to the strength of the arguments and evidence to justify those beliefs.

And that is the best I can do.

Why don't I believe the claims of christianity? Well.... for that exact reason: no rational evidence, no rational justification.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists are 75% more likely to go to hell, so much for all those good intentions!!

If "a religion" is correct and belief is required to not end up in hell, then atheists have 100% chance of ending up in hell.

Theists have 99.99% chance of ending up in hell, because theists follow just one religion out of thousands.

There are thousands of gods that are rejected by theists.
An atheist just rejects one more god.