-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does atheism need a reason?
- Thread starter Erebus
- Start date
No, there is no need for a reason. I fully believe it is alright to switch from atheism to theism just on a whim or even by a coin toss.
What would make an atheistic position strong? I have no idea.
What would make an atheistic position strong? I have no idea.
allfoak
Alchemist
Erebus
Well-Known Member
Definitely a strong opener! I've seen this one argued both ways numerous times, so hopefully there'll still be some opinions to be shared.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
I don't want to add too many of my own thoughts to the thread just yet, but this is something that probably wants clarification.
I've seen people argue that while a person can "simply be" an atheist, it's a position that lacks merit. These people argue that a stronger or more valid expression of atheism is derived from study, introspection and skepticism.
Augustus
…
People have many funny ideas.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
Damn! I said I didn't want to add my own thoughts just yet
Ahh well, I imagine some people could have guessed my stance anyway.
Theism needs a reason, not atheism. We're not born Bahai's or Baptists, these belief systems are learned, the reason they exist is because we're taught them.
If a person's never indoctrinated into a religion, does this theological blank slate have a reason? Isn't such a state a de facto atheism?
If a person's never indoctrinated into a religion, does this theological blank slate have a reason? Isn't such a state a de facto atheism?
Augustus
…
Why?
You only need a reason if you want to go around telling people they are wrong and you are right.
(by reason I mean something beyond 'it just feels right/I like it/etc.)
Some of it depends on how we are defining the term, but gods know I'm not interested in beating that dead horse into more of a bloody pulp than it already is.
I find both the terms "theist" and "atheist" meaningless except when a specific god-concept is being referenced. In that proper context, all people have reasons for accepting or rejecting that particular god-concept, which can include reasons like "I haven't thought about this before" or "I haven't been exposed to this before" as well as things like "I don't think that should be deified" and "that isn't a god to me."
outhouse
Atheistically
Atheism is dynamic in it definition,
Implicit atheism does require a conscious rejection of theism.
Explicit does. One can also just have a lack of belief, and one can believe their are no gods to qualify.
The ONLY thing that matter is that one is NOT a theist. If one is not a theist, one factually is an atheist and or agnostic
I'm using reason in the sense of "cause."
outhouse
Atheistically
I would claim knowledge.
There is worth in study, introspectionand skepticism, and even in supporting the validity of atheism through them. But none of that translates into the atheism itself - nor does it need to in the slightest.
Augustus
…
Agreed.
Damn! I said I didn't want to add my own thoughts just yet
Ahh well, I imagine some people could have guessed my stance anyway.
Seems to be the kind of view that is promoted by anti-theist/new atheist types who consider theistic religion to a harmful mental defect that is the preeminent cause of society's problems.
Such people seem to assume that pursuing 'science and reason' is intrinsically good (rather than morally neutral), therefore those who have not arrived at their atheistic position through this means have not yet reached 'enlightenment'.
Ultimately good comes from a subjective moral framework that just 'seems right' no matter how much 'rational' justification it is wrapped up in. Some people just don't like to admit this as their ego is overly committed to their own rationality.
I was an atheist before I even knew what an atheist was and I certainly didn't reason myself into that position so I'm not going to claim a gold star for my introspective scepticism.
Many 'reasons' we have for beliefs are simply things constructed after the fact to justify a position that we have already intuitively arrived at.
I'm not sure whether it takes having a reason to become an atheist, but I'm almost absolutely sure it takes balls. I'm almost absolutely sure of that because, despite being 59 years old, I have yet to this day heard of even one atheist who never ever played with balls in their lives -- ergo, it must surely take balls.
I would say no evidence for anything that can be described as a deity or God is sufficient reason to declare yourself an atheist but I guess that is a reason. If they haven't considered the evidence then in my book they are really not theist or atheists but it is almost impossible living in society to not have considered the question so my last point is probably moot.
Pursuing science and reason is indeed instrinsically good. It enables people to make informed, fair judgements, which are the very basis of morality.
That is a non-sequitur. Science and reason do not imply atheism.
That is debatable at best. I don't think it is at all true, personally.