Is there a benefit to atheism?

[Polymath257]

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

Good point. many *claim* that it makes their lives better and easier to deal with, but I am far from being convinced of this.

 

[PureX]

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.

Your own bias has blinded you. What you choose to accept and reject as evidence is your bias at work, and you have bought into that bias so fully that you can't recognize ANY evidence at all on the one hand, while you see "concrete evidence" on the other. And yet in either case, you still don't know that gods don't exist or that you'll make it to the store, safely. Which was the point of my analogy. You don't know. But you believe, anyway. And what you believe is determined by what you've accepted as "evidence"

 

[Polymath257]

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

All people *can* be irrational. The reason it was 'priceless' is the contrast with superstitious belief in a supernatural, which is clearly NOT rational.

 

[Quintessence]

No, it really isn't.

Not what I've noticed based on experience. It is extremely common for people to throw about the word "rational" as basically a holier-than-thou catchphrase, especially on the internet. What people call '"irrational" usually seems to be indicative of what they either don't understand or don't agree with... or that which they hate. Especially in a culture where non-rational activities seem sadly undervalued if not looked down upon.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Garbage. That isn't evidence. Parking places open up all the time. To be evidence of a divine influence would require *at least* showing that those who pray are more likely to see parking places open up.

So, suppose I merely *hope* a parking place opens up. I don't pray because I don't believe in it. If one opens up, what is that evidence of?

Suppose someone prays and no parking place opens up? is that evidence that no God was there to answer the prayer? (Yes, I know your response: the answer was 'no'. Do you see how hypocritical that is?).

The fact that the 'evidence' is only apparent if you already believe is very good 'evidence' that this belief is self-delusion.

 

[Polymath257]

Your own bias has blinded you. What you choose to accept and reject as evidence is your bias at work, and you have bought into that bias so fully that you can't recognize ANY evidence at all on the one hand, while you see "concrete evidence" on the other. And yet in either case, you still don't know that gods don't exist or that you'll make it to the store, safely. Which was the point of my analogy. You don't know. But you believe, anyway. And what you believe is determined by what you've accepted as "evidence"

OK. So, what evidence would it take to show that you are wrong in claiming that God answered your prayer for a parking place? That it was simply the result of chance?

 

[PureX]

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.

First of all, you're never going to get "the truth". We humans aren't capable of that. All we can do is develop theories of truth that either work when we apply them to our experience of reality, or don't. So that what we call "the truth" is really only what is working for us at the moment. And on that basis the "placebo" of theism is as valid as any other human truth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.
I do if they get some benefit from it.
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?

My point was, regardless whether I am "capable" of accepting something not true as "true" - even if I am capable of believing in something with no proof, if I see through what I feel is a placebo effect then there is ultimately nothing there for me. I move on, and those that dance around like the placebo is greatness can only look like people dancing without music to me from then on.

Also, your "rejection" of atheism is moot, and a contradiction in your own terms. Your rejection makes you a hypocrite based on your very statements above. Consider: what if atheism is a placebo? What if God exists and yet some people simply can't grasp that idea, and in the face of ZERO evidence and ZERO forthcoming verifiable activity from God their mind simply won't budge on the idea that "He does not exist", so they come to a conclusion and: "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?"

Do I think my atheism is a "placebo?" Hell no. Not any more than you feel whatever "belief" you hold is one. And I do argue that my existence is better as an atheist than it would be as a believer. With my disposition, I would never be satisfied with zero personal experience and zero evidence for God. I also can't help but roll my eyes at most people's examples of their personal experiences that have them believing there is a God. Not a single one has ever made me stop and think even... "Hmmm... maybe." None of them have been compelling, none of the people telling the anecdotes being close enough to me (or having any desire to become close enough to me) for me to not simply dismiss them as being an attempt at proselytizing. Who is to say my atheism isn't the fit for me? You? Why in the world would I ever listen to you?

 

[PureX]

OK. So, what evidence would it take to show that you are wrong in claiming that God answered your prayer for a parking place? That it was simply the result of chance?

There is none. There is no way to prove that God did or did not provide the parking space. And yet the atheist is "convinced" that it happened by chance. So convinced that he couldn't possibly "believe" anything else. While the theist is equally "convinced" that it happened by divine intervention. And each is "convinced" based on what, exactly? Not on knowledge, because they have none in this case. Not on evidence, because that's being determined. So on what, then?

Intuition? Ego? Bias?

 

[Polymath257]

First of all, you're never going to get "the truth". We humans aren't capable of that. All we can do is develop theories of truth that either work when we apply them to our experience of reality, or don't. So that what we call "the truth" is really only what is working for us at the moment. And on that basis the "placebo" of theism is as valid as any other human truth.

Which is why testing and a variety of viewpoints to be tested is so important to find truth. This leads, if not to truth itself, at least to better and better approximations to such.

And no, a placebo *isn't* as valid as any other 'human truth'.

 

[Polymath257]

There is none. There is no way to prove that God did or did not provide the parking space. And yet the atheist is "convinced" that it happened by chance. So convinced that he couldn't possibly "believe" anything else. While the theist is equally "convinced" that it happened by divine intervention. And each is "convinced" based on what, exactly? Not on knowledge, because they have none in this case. Not on evidence, because that's being determined. So on what, then?

Intuition? Ego? Bias?

Well, yes, there *is* a way to show that nothing more than chance is involved. Do a study with a large number of people and see if the results of prayer lead to a different result than the results of those who merely hope.

This is a testable hypothesis.

Furthermore, such testing *has* been done for claims that prayer helps heal people. The results were not to the liking of the religious.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your own bias has blinded you. What you choose to accept and reject as evidence is your bias at work, and you have bought into that bias so fully that you can't recognize ANY evidence at all on the one hand, while you see "concrete evidence" on the other. And yet in either case, you still don't know that gods don't exist or that you'll make it to the store, safely. Which was the point of my analogy. You don't know. But you believe, anyway. And what you believe is determined by what you've accepted as "evidence"

There's a very small but definitely non-zero chance that, while you're swimming in the ocean, random fluctuations in the dissolved salt concentration will cause such an oversaturation of salt in the water around you that an iceberg (saltberg?) of salt will crystallize beneath you and carry you out to sea.

If you don't carry your cell phone and some snacks (to sustain you until you're either rescued or the saltberg drifts back to shore) in a ziploc baggie while you're swimming, have you been "blinded by your own bias"?

 

[PureX]

All people *can* be irrational. The reason it was 'priceless' is the contrast with superstitious belief in a supernatural, which is clearly NOT rational.

I am a theist, and I am not "superstitious". And I am also highly "rational". I have encountered many atheists,however, who are absurdly superstitious and irrational. I really don't think your point has any point but to project your own bias.

 

[Polymath257]

I am a theist, and I am not "superstitious". And I am also highly "rational". I have encountered many atheists,however, who are absurdly superstitious and irrational. I really don't think your point has any point but to project your own bias.

How is theism consistent with rationality? What *rational* basis is there to believe in a deity?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There is none. There is no way to prove that God did or did not provide the parking space. And yet the atheist is "convinced" that it happened by chance. So convinced that he couldn't possibly "believe" anything else. While the theist is equally "convinced" that it happened by divine intervention. And each is "convinced" based on what, exactly? Not on knowledge, because they have none in this case. Not on evidence, because that's being determined. So on what, then?

Intuition? Ego? Bias?

I vote "bias," with maybe a little bit of ego thrown in.

Here's a better example to illustrate. A woman is finishing up her shopping at a grocery store and looks outside to see it pouring rain. She dreads walking out into it, but just before she reaches the doors, the rain stops. She praises Jesus and goes on to tell many people this story and about how wonderful "God" is. And all the while she gives not one thought to all of the believers who shopped before her who walked straight out into that rain and got soaked.

True story, by the way.

 

[PureX]

My point was, regardless whether I am "capable" of accepting something not true as "true" - even if I am capable of believing in something with no proof, if I see through what I feel is a placebo effect then there is ultimately nothing there for me. I move on, and those that dance around like the placebo is greatness can only look like people dancing without music to me from then on.

So it's you who loses, by your own doubt. Which is what I was saying about atheism. It denies the atheist the positive possibilities available to theists even if "God" IS just a "placebo". And for what? So they can pretend they've found some big "truth" that the theists haven't?

Do I think my atheism is a "placebo?" Hell no. Not any more than you feel whatever "belief" you hold is one.

I am agnostic, so for me, belief in "God" is a "placebo". But it's a placebo that works because it can. And it can because as an agnostic, "God" is still a possibility.

But for the atheist, that possibility is gone. They've denied it to themselves. So the ideal of "God" cannot act as a placebo for them because they've rejected it as ineffective. And for nothing.

I do argue that my existence is better as an atheist than it would be as a believer. With my disposition, I would never be satisfied with zero personal experience and zero evidence for God.

No one would. But theists do have that evidence and personal experience, because even if their God doesn't exist, the placebo effect still works for them. You don't because you've denied it to yourself.

I also can't help but roll my eyes at most people's examples of their personal experiences that have them believing there is a God. Not a single one has ever made me stop and think even... "Hmmm... maybe." None of them have been compelling, none of the people telling the anecdotes being close enough to me (or having any desire to become close enough to me) for me to not simply dismiss them as being an attempt at proselytizing. Who is to say my atheism isn't the fit for me? You? Why in the world would I ever listen to you?

They don't place their faith in their God ideal so that you will be compelled to do the same. They do it because it works for them in their experience and understanding of life. It improves that experience and understanding. But you don't have that option, anymore. Because you rejected it for a "truth" that you don't even know to be true.

 

[PureX]

I vote "bias," with maybe a little bit of ego thrown in.

Here's a better example to illustrate. A woman is finishing up her shopping at a grocery store and looks outside to see it pouring rain. She dreads walking out into it, but just before she reaches the doors, the rain stops. She praises Jesus and goes on to tell many people this story and about how wonderful "God" is. And all the while she gives not one thought to all of the believers who shopped before her who walked straight out into that rain and got soaked.

True story, by the way.

Yup."Proof" is what we decide it is.

 

[Curious George]

It is because of the completely unwarranted denial of divine possibility.

That is not necessarily so.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

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

aTheism keeps on their toes, those who confuse faith with complacency.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So it's you who loses, by your own doubt.

I, personally, would "lose" more being a theist. I know this to be true. I would sit there, in conversations with other theists, having to accept whatever strange, conspicuous nonsense they were peddling at the time, and wonder why I continue to put myself into situations where my faith in humanity as a whole is consistently degraded.

Which is what I was saying about atheism. It denies the atheist the positive possibilities available to theists even if "God" IS just a "placebo". And for what? So they can pretend they've found some big "truth" that the theists haven't?

It may be positive for someone else, fine... but the theist tends to tell their own "big truth" as if it is just that... truth. My biggest claim is that with so many claiming "the truth" without a shred of evidence it makes it ALL suspect. How could it not? And therefore why peddle it to others as "truth?" I don't believe in God. So what? I tell people why. So what? All they ever truly have to come back with is "God is the truth, and you're missing out." Missing out on what? From my position it all looks like a giant farce.

I am agnostic, so for me, belief in "God" is a "placebo". But it's a placebo that works because it can. And it can because as an agnostic, "God" is still a possibility.

Good for you.

But for the atheist, that possibility is gone.

Good riddance. I may not be able to be sincere in "belief"... but you can bet the farm on my being sincere about that statement.

They've denied it to themselves. So the ideal of "God" cannot act as a placebo for them because they've rejected it as ineffective. And for nothing.

This makes me think you didn't even really comprehend my first reply. Typical, really.

No one would. But theists do have that evidence and personal experience, because even if their God doesn't exist, the placebo effect still works for them. You don't because you've denied it to yourself.

Listen to yourself: "You don't because you've denied it to yourself." So, as soon as a person denies themselves a relationship with God, He, in turn, ignores them, right? And this is "good" by ANYONE'S estimation? I'll answer that... no... it isn't. If my son decided he wanted to deny himself my company for any reason, do you think I wouldn't STILL let him know PERSONALLY, every chance I got that he always has a place at my table? This exact scenario has been played out a thousand times on the Earth. As has been the alternate, where the father does, indeed, deny his own son once his son has "disappointed" him in this way. Whose decision do you more readily support? The father who keeps the place reserved at his table and actively pursues the relationship, or the father that ignores the son, disowns him, and tries never to think on it again? The situation really is this easy to see right through.

They don't place their faith in their God ideal so that you will be compelled to do the same. They do it because it works for them in their experience and understanding of life. It improves that experience and understanding. But you don't have that option, anymore. Because you rejected it for a "truth" that you don't even know to be true.

How many times can I say that there is no "positive" to be found in "belief" for me? It is an impossibility. I have seen too much. Believers who are so obviously lying to themselves that it pains me, emotionally, to witness them unable to see it. My mind gone round and round the possibilities, trying to reconcile all of the accounts of those supposedly "speaking for God", and coming up short EVERY SINGLE TIME. Questioning the morality of a supposed deity/being on many, many, many accounts who I am told has every good intention toward "His creations" - I am told this by the very people who tell me they were sent to represent Him in order to "save my soul." Having to realize over and over and over again that the stories are all unsubstantiated - that the explanations are just as arbitrary as anyone else's who cares not define their words according to the thrust of reality. It is nothing but messiness and folly for me. Always will be.