Is there a benefit to atheism?

[Curious George]

All of the "benefits" of atheism only come from the fact that we live in a largely theistic environment, and are only a matter of not being exposed to the costs that come with being a theist.

When we talk about benefits, it's always relative to something else. In this case, it's relative to theism. It seems like you're assuming that we're measuring the benefits of atheism are relative to some other baseline, but that's not what I'm doing.

When I say that atheism has benefits, it's in the same sense that, say, not being on fire has benefits: I'm not saying anything about what the person is doing other than that they're not on fire.

Split the hairs however you want I am just noting that being an athiest entails more than just the definition of being an atheist accordimg to anyone that claims atheism entails a benefit.

 

[Altfish]

No, you weren't. What you were doing is trying to belittle me by asking

You believe you know what I was thinking??
I had not intention of belittling you; please accept my apology
I was trying to make an equivalence. To try and make it easier for you to understand my thoughts on your god. I was anticipating that you didn't believe in Zeus...therefore for the same reasons (or similar reasons) I cannot believe in your god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The study of religions is part of the arts and humanities at any American institution you could look at, and theology is a facet of studying world religions. It may overlap somewhat with the social sciences as well (esp. anthropology). How are you classifying it? I mean, the only thing left is to call it a natural science, and I doubt you'd agree with that.

You said "you are hardly alone in undervaluing the arts and humanities." You seem to be making some baseless assumptions about how @JustWondering values the arts and humanities in general, since there's much more to them than just religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Split the hairs however you want I am just noting that being an athiest entails more than just the definition of being an atheist accordimg to anyone that claims atheism entails a benefit.

And I'm noting that this opinion of yours seems to be immune to facts or reason.

 

[Curious George]

And I'm noting that this opinion of yours seems to be immune to facts or reason.

Atheism is x
X entails benefits
Therefore atheism entails benefits

Atheism is defined as Y
The benefits that atheism entails from argument 1 are not Y
Therefore Atheism is more than just Y.


This is not hard to grasp. For some reason you don't want to accept a very logical conclusion. Then you say that I am being resistant to logic and reasoning. Why is that? Where is the mistake in my logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, and that difference is called "personal bias". Because it's you who is deciding what's "reasonable" and what isn't. And it's you who is deciding what's "evidence" and what isn't. And it's you who is deciding when either of these reaches the level of "belief", for you.

...except when we can infer a person's standard of evidence from other claims they accept or reject.

When someone rejects, say, Thor and Vishnu but not Yahweh, then we can look at things not in terms of judging whether his standards are too low or too high, but whether the case for Yahweh is established to a higher degree than the case for Thor or Vishnu is.

If the answer is "no" - i.e. if by the person's own standards, Yahweh is only established to the same degree as - or to a lesser degree than - Thor or Vishnu, then the person's approach is internally inconsistent and therefore irrational.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism is x
X entails benefits
Therefore atheism entails benefits

Atheism is defined as Y
The benefits that atheism entails from argument 1 are not Y
Therefore Atheism is more than just Y.


This is not hard to grasp. For some reason you don't want to accept a very logical conclusion. Then you say that I am being resistant to logic and reasoning. Why is that? Where is the mistake in my logic.

You haven't paid attention to a word I wrote.

 

[Curious George]

You haven't paid attention to a word I wrote.

I can reread what you wrote, but if you are saying that something I am saying is not ligical please explain. This is the argument. What exactly is not ligical about it?

 

[ChristineM]

...Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. It is a belief not based on evidence, but on something else....

Correct, the belief no gods exist but on the contrary, it is based on thousands of years evidence, the evidence that billions of people over those thousands of years have failed to show there is any god, it is called evidence by exhaustion

And of course there is the evidence that no gods have come forward and gone "woo"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can reread what you wrote, but if you are saying that something I am saying is not ligical please explain. This is the argument. What exactly is not ligical about it?

I've explained it to you several times, but I'll try again with an example:

Say someone is a theist... a Christian, specifically, say. Because of his theism, he tithes 10% of his income and spends 2 hours a week in church.

One day, for whatever reason, this person stops believing in gods. Because of this, he no longer has the justification to tithe or spend time in church and therefore doesn't. He now has 10% of his income and 2 hours a week that used to be spoken for but isn't any more.

That 10% of his income and 2 hours a week can be seen as a benefit of his atheism. He no longer has to incur this cost that he was incurring because of his theism.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

One benefit of atheism is this:

It places the responsibility of making the world a better place squarely on our shoulders. If there are no deities or minions to do it for us or to answer prayers, then we must act.

 

[Curious George]

I've explained it to you several times, but I'll try again with an example:

Say someone is a theist... a Christian, specifically, say. Because of his theism, he tithes 10% of his income and spends 2 hours a week in church.

One day, for whatever reason, this person stops believing in gods. Because of this, he no longer has the justification to tithe or spend time in church and therefore doesn't. He now has 10% of his income and 2 hours a week that used to be spoken for but isn't any more.

That 10% of his income and 2 hours a week can be seen as a benefit of his atheism. He no longer has to incur this cost that he was incurring because of his theism.

But his theism wasn't necessarily a cause of his tithing. And I understand that this is me splitting hairs now. But you cant possibly believe that a cost of theism is 10% of one's income.

 

[PureX]

...except when we can infer a person's standard of evidence from other claims they accept or reject.

When someone rejects, say, Thor and Vishnu but not Yahweh, then we can look at things not in terms of judging whether his standards are too low or too high, but whether the case for Yahweh is established to a higher degree than the case for Thor or Vishnu is.

If the answer is "no" - i.e. if by the person's own standards, Yahweh is only established to the same degree as - or to a lesser degree than - Thor or Vishnu, then the person's approach is internally inconsistent and therefore irrational.

You're judging their personal choices based on your personal choices. I just don't see any "there", there. All you're going to get in the end is your own bias confirmed by the illusion that you're right because it's your choice of standards being use to define righteousness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But his theism wasn't necessarily a cause of his tithing. And I understand that this is me splitting hairs now. But you cant possibly believe that a cost of theism is 10% of one's income.

It's a cost of theism for many people. Definitely not all - or maybe even most - but many. As I pointed out in my first post of the thread:

What those costs are depends on what sort of theism we're talking about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All you're going to get in the end is your own bias confirmed by the illusion that you're right because it's your choice of standards being use to define righteousness.

Ah - projection.

 

[Curious George]

It's a cost of theism for many people. Definitely not all - or maybe even most - but many. As I pointed out in my first post of the thread:

Ok how does that relate, to what I have said? How does that imply that my reasoning is not logical, for if I am resistant to logic such is the implication that I read in your post.

 

[garden47]

There is no conclusive proof that can either confirm or refute the existence of God!

It should be noted that there are no examples of primitive societies or civilizations that were established on "atheism."

While religion has often been dismissed as just a mechanism for explaining the unknown, it also addresses the eternal questions as to why are we here and what purpose do we serve!

 

[Willamena]

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

There can be any number of benefits, depending on context.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

There can be any number of benefits, depending on context.

The context was already defined as atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no conclusive proof that can either confirm or refute the existence of God!

This leaves room for two possibilities:

- no God
- a God so irrelevant to what we experience and observe that, as far as we can tell, it's indistinguishable from a God that doesn't exist.

Does either of these possibilities describe your beliefs?