What should be understood from claims that atheism is somehow not natural?

[LuisDantas]

I have seen a couple of claims recently that there must somehow be a "reason" for atheists to exist.

I don't think that is all the case, unless the existence of a god-concept qualifies as such a reason.

Anyway, what I want to know is how people might come to the conclusion that atheism is not a natural, spontaneous state for many people. Because it is very clear to me that it is indeed natural and spontaneous.

Any ideas?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure there's a reason we exist.
We disbelieve in gods.
It's perfectly natural.
I was born that way & stayed that way.
Others came to it after a period of belief.

 

[Curious George]

I have seen a couple of claims recently that there must somehow be a "reason" for atheists to exist.

I don't think that is all the case, unless the existence of a god-concept qualifies as such a reason.

Anyway, what I want to know is how people might come to the conclusion that atheism is not a natural, spontaneous state for many people. Because it is very clear to me that it is indeed natural and spontaneous.

Any ideas?

Because while it may be a natural, spontaneous state it can also be a reasoned state.

An analogy may be not flinching at a spider. While it is arguably a natural, spontaneous state to flinch or not to flinch at a spider, we can also condition either of these responses in a person and thus have a reason for the responses.

 

[icehorse]

I have seen a couple of claims recently that there must somehow be a "reason" for atheists to exist.

Humans are pattern-matching mammals (we're not the only ones). That said, we cannot explain everything we see. Fairly recently humans developed critical thinking skills. If you're fortunate enough to be brought up learning critical thinking skills (even rudimentary ones), then you'll quickly come to want to see evidence when claims are made. I'd say that atheists are just one subset of a broader class of people for whom good evidence is important. In this case, atheists don't believe the common claims of the religious because the religious lack good evidence.

But we have a word for this only because religious claims are so ubiquitous. As has been often said, most of us are also a-unicornists, a-tooth-fairyists and so on. We don't have real words for things like that because it doesn't come up much.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have seen a couple of claims recently that there must somehow be a "reason" for atheists to exist.

That is honestly intriguing. I've been on RF for years and do not recall ever seeing such an argument. Could you supply a link or two?

Anyway, what I want to know is how people might come to the conclusion that atheism is not a natural, spontaneous state for many people. Because it is very clear to me that it is indeed natural and spontaneous.

People differ, and it's easy for each of us to see ourselves as the exemplar. I suspect that there exists a spectrum of natural, spontaneous states.

 

[YmirGF]

I have seen a couple of claims recently that there must somehow be a "reason" for atheists to exist.

I don't think that is all the case, unless the existence of a god-concept qualifies as such a reason.

Anyway, what I want to know is how people might come to the conclusion that atheism is not a natural, spontaneous state for many people. Because it is very clear to me that it is indeed natural and spontaneous.

Any ideas?

I see it more as a psychological slight of hand trick created by theists because they literally cannot imagine a world without their image of god and therefore assume that there must be something wrong with people who do not acknowledge that god exists or believe in god(s) exactly as they do. It tells us more about the person making the observation than it does about those who share a different vision of reality than they do.

The idea literally shows us that theists who muse along these lines have an extremely sharp and narrow focus, past which, they simply cannot see. Thus, it would be quite reasonable for them to seek out a probable answer why within their limited framework of understanding.

Humans are pattern-matching mammals (we're not the only ones). That said, we cannot explain everything we see. Fairly recently humans developed critical thinking skills. If you're fortunate enough to be brought up learning critical thinking skills (even rudimentary ones), then you'll quickly come to want to see evidence when claims are made. I'd say that atheists are just one subset of a broader class of people for whom good evidence is important. In this case, atheists don't believe the common claims of the religious because the religious lack good evidence.

But we have a word for this only because religious claims are so ubiquitous. As has been often said, most of us are also a-unicornists, a-tooth-fairyists and so on. We don't have real words for things like that because it doesn't come up much.

Hehe. While I was forming my reply in my head, I was thinking that we are pattern matching creatures that can see connections in anything we focus on. It's just the way our minds seem to work. Then I decided to drop that for my reply above. Talk about spooky actions at a distance, eh?

@LuisDantas In line with what Jay said above, do you have any linky-poo's of what you are describing? That would be super helpful.

(I've got the flu.... so I'm heading back to bed now. Well, after I go see the accountant in 45 min...)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have seen a couple of claims recently that there must somehow be a "reason" for atheists to exist.

I don't think that is all the case, unless the existence of a god-concept qualifies as such a reason.

Anyway, what I want to know is how people might come to the conclusion that atheism is not a natural, spontaneous state for many people. Because it is very clear to me that it is indeed natural and spontaneous.

Any ideas?

We're (atheists) out numbered. So, theists think belief in god is the norm regardless the religion. There is a underlining belief god exist without some of us knowing. Reminds me of a hearing woman grown up in the midwest US outside the city. Her whole family was Deaf. She didnt know people talked and used their voice (she signed) until she was an adult and traveled out. Some religious see god in all religions. To put it bluntly, a lot are blinded to true diversity. Thats why none belief is not natural. Confirmation bias due to population growth in one area not exposed to beliefs outside their own. No objectivity.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think atheism is a lot more natural outside of the USA and has been for a long while. It might come naturally to many to believe that the world and humans just couldn't exist without some divine creator but unfortunately a different conclusion comes to many when they see exactly the same things. Hence why many probably just don't see atheism as being as natural as any religious belief - and even being perverse.

 

[bubbleguppy]

I have seen a couple of claims recently that there must somehow be a "reason" for atheists to exist.

I don't think that is all the case, unless the existence of a god-concept qualifies as such a reason.

Anyway, what I want to know is how people might come to the conclusion that atheism is not a natural, spontaneous state for many people. Because it is very clear to me that it is indeed natural and spontaneous.

Any ideas?

It may come from the fact that there has been research that shows religion and spirituality can be beneficial to one's mental health, as well as a lack of knowledge on most people's parts about civilization, ancient or modern, which originated with agnostic or atheistic beliefs. I'm not convinced that either of those actually mean atheism is unnatural. It's a cultural phenomenon for people to believe atheism cannot be a natural form/absence of spiritual belief system.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It may come from the fact that there has been research that shows religion and spirituality can be beneficial to one's mental health, as well as a lack of knowledge on most people's parts about civilization, ancient or modern, which originated with agnostic or atheistic beliefs. I'm not convinced that either of those actually mean atheism is unnatural. It's a cultural phenomenon for people to believe atheism cannot be a natural form/absence of spiritual belief system.

I think the mental health aspect probably comes from a sense of community and also the fact that answers might be forthcoming from a religion (right or wrong), when those without a faith often have to work things through by themselves.

 

[LuisDantas]

Humans are pattern-matching mammals (we're not the only ones). That said, we cannot explain everything we see.

Fair enough. And that might well explain why some people feel tempted to put a name to that what they can not explain and would like to. Some would likely believe in its actual existence as an unified entity as well.

But that can hardly explain why they would expect others - or, apparently, most other people - to associate that name to an actual "living" and "existent" entity.

 

[icehorse]

Fair enough. And that might well explain why some people feel tempted to put a name to that what they can not explain and would like to. Some would likely believe in its actual existence as an unified entity as well.

But that can hardly explain why they would expect others - or, apparently, most other people - to associate that name to an actual "living" and "existent" entity.

cultural inertia?

 

[LuisDantas]

@Jayhawker Soule , @YmirGF

I will seek other examples, but this one is the first to spring to mind.

Atheism as a philosophy, is beneficial to the theist!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Jayhawker Soule , @YmirGF

I will seek other examples, but this one is the first to spring to mind.

Atheism as a philosophy, is beneficial to the theist!

I'm sorry. but honestly don't see it. Which post seems to be claiming that atheism is not natural?

 

[LuisDantas]

It may come from the fact that there has been research that shows religion and spirituality can be beneficial to one's mental health, as well as a lack of knowledge on most people's parts about civilization, ancient or modern, which originated with agnostic or atheistic beliefs.

Those are claims that I view with extreme suspicion. I flat out doubt their accuracy, particularly because they do not address atheism as such, instead confusing (again) theism with religiosity. That is a very serious confusion and compromises any conclusions that it might find.

I'm not convinced that either of those actually mean atheism is unnatural. It's a cultural phenomenon for people to believe atheism cannot be a natural form/absence of spiritual belief system.

Indeed.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sorry. but honestly don't see it. Which post seems to be claiming that atheism is not natural?

#33

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

#33

Thanks, but I do just see how stating that "atheism derives from something" is equivalent to saying that "atheism is not a natural state." Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "natural state." Come to think of it, I'm not at all sure what's intended by defining atheism as a "state."

 

[bobhikes]

I have seen a couple of claims recently that there must somehow be a "reason" for atheists to exist.

I don't think that is all the case, unless the existence of a god-concept qualifies as such a reason.

Anyway, what I want to know is how people might come to the conclusion that atheism is not a natural, spontaneous state for many people. Because it is very clear to me that it is indeed natural and spontaneous.

Any ideas?

Because it is not a natural spontaneous state for all people. I do believe some people are born skeptic but I think it idiotic to not believe some people are born into god. God exists in all nations, all ethnicity and for as long as we have recorded knowledge to believe it is not natural is not scientific.

 

[viole]

I have seen a couple of claims recently that there must somehow be a "reason" for atheists to exist.

I don't think that is all the case, unless the existence of a god-concept qualifies as such a reason.

Anyway, what I want to know is how people might come to the conclusion that atheism is not a natural, spontaneous state for many people. Because it is very clear to me that it is indeed natural and spontaneous.

Any ideas?

I am not sure I understand. Are you implying that the (alleged) fact that atheism is not natural is actually a critique coming from the theist ranks?

The very theists that believe that humans are not apes because they do not follow "brute" nature, but can actually think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

Because it is not a natural spontaneous state for all people. I do believe some people are born skeptic but I think it idiotic to not believe some people are born into god. God exists in all nations, all ethnicity and for as long as we have recorded knowledge to believe it is not natural is not scientific.

The tendency to give a name to what we do not know may be an universal trend, but I think that it is a bold move to go from there to "God exists in all nations".