Is there a benefit to atheism?

[Jumi]

Certainly there are benefits to atheisms. No worries looking around for something that might or might not exist, or following something that your conscience doesn't want to because you are attempting to please that something. That's not to say if an atheist couldn't spend the same effort worrying about something else, like nuclear proliferation or the fact that we are killing most of the planet with humankinds massively grown overpopulation and taste for lifestyles that doesn't support natural balance.

Similar benefits can be said of most theisms. Finding something that you believe gives purpose to you and trying to figure what it wants from you is like a puzzle that can keep you active and can find you friends in your interpretation as well as enemies. You could also find morals, if you are somehow lacking in them on your own. Basically we are all more alike than different.

 

[JustWondering]

Sounds like an uncertain belief, to me. So why the verbal obfuscation?

When you get in your car to drive to the store you believe that you will get there without having an auto-accident. But of course you can't be certain about this. Yet, you're certain enough to do it. Isn't this the same as with your belief that no gods exist? So why obfuscate?

This isn't a good analogy. I know cars exist. I know I've driven for decades without having a serious accident. I have concrete evidence, data, and personal experience to base my beliefs about car travel on. However, I see absolutely no evidence for any gods existence, just as I see no evidence for leprechauns, big foot, and ghosts. Until someone can actually produce credible evidence and rational arguments to support their favorite god concept, I'm not going to entertain them. Until then any speculation about the existence and nature of gods is just that, speculation. It's really that simple.

 

[WalterTrull]

It is because of the completely unwarranted denial of divine possibility, that I reject atheism. I see no benefit in rejecting possibilities without any evidence or effect, whatever.

Perhaps, if one becomes atheist in reaction to a damaging religious experience, I can appreciate it in context, but it's still not the better option when one could have simply dropped the harmful god/religious concept and chosen a new, more positively effective one.

Agree. Kinda gettin' into blaspheming the Holy Ghost territory. Like cut off your nose to spite your face. Stop eating and you'll likely starve.

 

[Quintessence]

This isn't a good analogy. I know cars exist. I know I've driven for decades without having a serious accident. I have concrete evidence, data, and personal experience to base my beliefs about car travel on.

The analogy is fine, given many theists have the same for their gods. The issue is you don't see these things as of the gods, or as gods. Nothing wrong with that... it's just a difference of worldviews. If you see the sun and think it is "just" the sun, that's totally fine. Some of us see the sun and it is not "just" the sun, it's a deity, a sacred entity worthy of praise and worship. I know I've seen the sun every day since I was born, so... yeah.

 

[England my lionheart]

Does atheism offer any benefits that believers are not privy to? If you think so or don't think so, please explain.

I think so,instead of putting responsibility for yours and others lives on a god/deities you get to take full responsibility yourself and deal with life in a realistic way.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Yes, Sundays are free.to mow the lawn watch football, lie in, visit grandchildren, walk the dog.......

Fortunately, my God doesn't prohibit my doing those things or anything else on Sunday.

 

[LuisDantas]

The analogy is fine, given many theists have the same for their gods. The issue is you don't see these things as of the gods, or as gods. Nothing wrong with that... it's just a difference of worldviews. If you see the sun and think it is "just" the sun, that's totally fine. Some of us see the sun and it is not "just" the sun, it's a deity, a sacred entity worthy of praise and worship. I know I've seen the sun every day since I was born, so... yeah.

To be fair, there is no shortage of other theists who take a very different stance and end up valuing belief a lot, in no small measure because it is so necessary for their creeds.

 

[JustWondering]

The analogy is fine, given many theists have the same for their gods. The issue is you don't see these things as of the gods, or as gods. Nothing wrong with that... it's just a difference of worldviews. If you see the sun and think it is "just" the sun, that's totally fine. Some of us see the sun and it is not "just" the sun, it's a deity, a sacred entity worthy of praise and worship. I know I've seen the sun every day since I was born, so... yeah.

PureX's analogy implies that it is rational to entertain claims lacking any evidence. Is it rational to believe in leprechauns? People can also deify objects and worship them, doesn't make it rational behavior.

 

[Quintessence]

To be fair, there is no shortage of other theists who take a very different stance and end up valuing belief a lot, in no small measure because it is so necessary for their creeds.

Certainly true in my country at least, where the Protestant Christian modality seems to emphasize such. Not something I'm particularly a fan of. The entire phrase "believe in" annoys me on a fundamental level. It's a polysemic phrase, but rarely do conversations about the phrase actually reflect that.

PureX's analogy implies that it is rational to entertain claims lacking any evidence. Is it rational to believe in leprechauns? People can also deify objects and worship them, doesn't make it rational behavior.

Given that "rational" is basically a shorthand for "I happen to agree with this," or "I understand and follow this," I'm not sure the term is at all useful as a way of assessing things, to be honest. Especially when coupled with the phrase "believe in," which, as mentioned, is already problematic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Given that "rational" is basically a shorthand for "I happen to agree with this," or "I understand and follow this,"

No, it really isn't.

 

[PureX]

Is there no benefit in rejecting "possibilities" that have no evidence or effect on your life/the world/etc.?

None that I can think of. If you reject a possibility for lack of evidence, you have no way of determining it's effect or value in life.

So, do you believe people should still be wary of werewolves?

I do if they get some benefit from it.

But what if the person isn't merely seeking "the next" religious experience, but is, instead, concerned with the reality of his/her exploits? Whether or not something is real, and has any verifiable benefit/detriment/effect? I understand that old idea that people can make real what they believe is real - sort of a placebo effect - but what of someone who literally cannot accept something because they feel that they can't help but see through the intention of the placebo? For that person it becomes impossible to react "sincerely" to that placebo.

They are lying to themselves by imagining that they "can't" accept something as true when there is no evidence, either way. They are lying to themselves when they presume that no evidence in favor of a theoretical possibility equals evidence against it. When they stop lying to themselves to maintain their irrational bias, they will see how easily and logically they could choose to believe in the possibility even if it is a "placebo". Frankly, who cares if it's a placebo, if it results in a better existential experience?

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not sure rationality can succesfully connect with god-beliefs, or at least with theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Frankly, who cares if it's a placebo, if it results in a better existential experience?

Does it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Does it?

This is a very relevant question. Far more often than not it does not.

 

[PureX]

And I see no benefit of holding onto ideas that have no evidence or effect. If there is no reason to believe, there is no reason to believe.

You won't know if there are positive reasons to adopt theistic beliefs until you explore it. Which you can't do when you've rejected it in advance based on nothing (no evidence).

 

[PureX]

Ha!
I've noticed this more and more, accusing non-believers of being irrational.
Priceless

Why so "priceless"? Do you imagine that atheists can't be irrational?

 

[PureX]

No, there is evidence (i.e. probability) that you will not have an accident on the way to the shops. So you use your judgement to assess if the risk is worth it...and of course it is, you will be very unlucky to have a crash.
It is the opposite with gods, there is no evidence of a god, so I assume there isn't one based on sound judgement.

You pray for a parking space by the door, and when you get there one open up. This is "evidence" that God answered your prayer.

There's always "evidence", if we want there to be. And there's always doubt, if we're being honest about it.

 

[LuisDantas]

You won't know if there are positive reasons to adopt theistic beliefs until you explore it. Which you can't do when you've rejected it in advance based on nothing (no evidence).

That does not really make sense.

Theism has a lot of drawbacks, most of which take a toll on the people around one as well as ourselves.

It, unlike atheism, requires justification and can't in fairness be presumed harmless.

"Lack of evidence" does not even factor in.

 

[Polymath257]

You won't know if there are positive reasons to adopt theistic beliefs until you explore it. Which you can't do when you've rejected it in advance based on nothing (no evidence).

Who said I haven't explored them?

But what I am interested in is truth, not a personal feeling of warm fuzzies. Theism gives the latter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who said I haven't explored them?

But what I am interested in is truth, not a personal feeling of warm fuzzies. Theism gives the latter.

As I touched on earlier, I'm not sure it does.