Is there a benefit to atheism?

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

And lack of proof will always be lack of proof to those that didn't/can't experience what you may have decided was proof for yourself.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

What is considered rational can vary wildly from group to group. However, regardless of what beliefs people hold we are all human and share common values and needs. At the core of any groups belief system is self preservation. Science so far has proven to be far more useful and powerful than anything theology can offer. Science depends on evidence and logic to work. Theology seems to work according to whatever fantastical thing people WANT to believe. Science changes according to what is discovered and evolves, opening new possibilities. Theology is stagnant and encourages complacency (Why strive to learn/explore when you already think you have all the answers?). From a big picture perspective, is it rational to be wasting our time and energy on invisible supernatural entities that don't exist?

 

[Ponder This]

The cup that is filled cannot receive the new wine.

 

[JustWondering]

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"

Do you believe in leprechauns?

 

[Curious George]

It is interesting that some are arguing here that "atheism" has benefits. If Atheism doesn't entail anything beyond itself, then atheism cannot have benefits. That is, if Atheism is not a worldview, it cannot have benefits.

 

[JustWondering]

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?

Gee, if I had a nickel for every time Odin kicked me out of parking spot to make room for someone who prayed for one to open up, I'd be a millionaire!

 

[Altfish]

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

Of course they can be, but people who believe in imaginary beings are accusing others of being irrational!

 

[Altfish]

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.

Ha, ha. Maybe there was another reason the parking space came available. That isn't evidence.
I caught a train I was after despite arriving 5-minutes late (the train was 12-minutes late) I didn't pray, I didn't wish, I was resigned to not catching it. I put it down to luck.
Prayer has been proven not to work on many occasions in proper trials.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is interesting that some are arguing here that "atheism" has benefits. If Atheism doesn't entail anything beyond itself, then atheism cannot have benefits. That is, if Atheism is not a worldview, it cannot have benefits.

More like it opens the way for some, actually. And is all-out incompatible with some drawbacks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is interesting that some are arguing here that "atheism" has benefits. If Atheism doesn't entail anything beyond itself, then atheism cannot have benefits. That is, if Atheism is not a worldview, it cannot have benefits.

As I touched on earlier, the "benefits" of theism are really just a matter of avoiding the costs of theism.

 

[Sunstone]

I didn't think so for years, but I've more or less gradually come around to the view that atheism -- or at least non-theism -- is conducive to a better understanding and appreciation for nature, and perhaps even life itself.

To elaborate just a little bit on what I was trying to get at, Alan Watts somewhere says, “Zen... does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." I think Watts is getting at what the Buddhists call "mindfulness" there and I believe that atheism may be somewhat more conducive to it than theism.

 

[Curious George]

More like it opens the way for some, actually. And is all-out incompatible with some drawbacks.

That is semantics. If it "opens the way for some" then it entails opening the way for some which is beyond atheism itself.

 

[Curious George]

As I touched on earlier, the "benefits" of theism are really just a matter of avoiding the costs of theism.

And if Atheism avoids costs of theism then atheism entails avoiding the costs of theism. This avoidance is beyond Atheism itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is semantics. If it "opens the way for some" then it entails opening the way for some which is beyond atheism itself.

Quite true. So?

 

[Faithofchristian]

In all the discussions being talk,Not one mentioned, What happens after a person die's?
Atheists look around in this world and say there's no God.
But if you ask Atheists, What happens after you die, they will give the answer, nothing your just dead and that's it.

But Atheist exactly how do you know this for sure?
Let's say when a person die's, and let's call it entering the unknown.
Not even scientist has no way of knowing what lays over in the unknown.

Let's for say that your laying there in your bed dieing and the unknown is staring you in the face, What's next. What lays ahead for you in the unknown?

Let's just for say, that when we die and we cross over into the unknown and we find that there is no God?

Now what have I to lose, not a thing.

But now let's say when we die and cross over into the unknown and find there is God standing there, what have I to lose, not one thing.

But you Atheists you lose, I win, all because during your life time, you denyed God, and you given God every right to deny you also..So let's be fair, you denyed God, now you given God the right to deny you. And it's bye,bye to you.

Look its like a gambler when a true gambler places a bet, they do what is called hedge betting. This means a gambler will cover all their base's. They leave nothing to chance.
This I do about God, I would rather believe there is God. That when I get over in the unknown find there is God.

Then leave some base's open to doubt, Then get over into the unknown and find there is God.

Atheists when your laying there in your bed dieing and the unknown staring at you in the face, What's Next?.

You can say all you want, But the fact still remains, The unknown is there, and that can not be disputed in anyway.

That with all the technology that scientist has, they themselves can not prove whether there is or there isn't, of the Unknown? So what do you have that the scientific world with all their technology Can not prove, of the Unknown?

 

[PureX]

Of course they can be, but people who believe in imaginary beings are accusing others of being irrational!

It's not irrational to believe in the existence of an imaginary being if there is no proof that the imagined being does not exist, and if believing it does exist increases the quality and understanding of the believer's life experience.

I think it would be irrational to deny oneself the possibility of such an increase in quality and understanding of life based on nothing but a blind bias against the practice of faith when knowledge is otherwise unavailable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And if Atheism avoids costs of theism then atheism entails avoiding the costs of theism. This avoidance is beyond Atheism itself.

All you need to do to not incur costs associated with being a theist is not being a theist.

... but your weird, non-standard capitalization suggests to me that you're trying to make a point that isn't getting across.

 

[PureX]

And lack of proof will always be lack of proof to those that didn't/can't experience what you may have decided was proof for yourself.

It is a profound truth that we cannot reasonably expect people to understand something that they have never experienced.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

Atheists don't reject the 'possibility' of God(s). They simply state that thus far they have not been presented with sufficient evidence to believe in any God(s). What atheists don't understand is how people can accept something as real without any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Curious George]

Quite true. So?

So that would mean atheism entails more than just a belief no god exists, or a lack of belief god exists.