nPeace
Veteran Member
Imo, it depends on what you mean - easier for what?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
which is easier? theism or atheism?
- Thread starter robocop (actually)
- Start date
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Depends on the person....
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Do what is/comes/feels natural to you is easiest and most rewarding I think
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Theism is less easy for atheist
Atheism is less easy for theist
Theism is easier for theist
Atheism is easier for atheist
Many scenarios to consider which is more rewarding [just mention a few]:
If you believe in God AND that God rewards you with stuff later on then Theism is more rewarding [talking about stuff later on]
If you believe in God AND that God rewards NOT with stuff later on then Theism is NOT rewarding [talking about stuff later on]
If you believe in God AND that God rewards NOT with stuff later on BUT with stuff now then Theism might be more rewarding [talking about stuff now]
If you believe NOT in God then no such stuff later on rewards problem to consider
If you believe NOT in God AND can do all other stuff believers abstain from, finding that rewarding, then that is more rewarding [talking about other stuff]
Araceli Cianna
Active Member
I would say agnosticism
In reality the overwhelming natural nature of existence is believing in something immensely greater, and yes makes everyone feel smaller.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
An odd question in need of some clarification.
It comes out kind of like-
"Is it more rewarding to be a man, or a woman?
Which would you choose?"
I didnt get to choose on the first, and on the second,
I still dont.
Withal, I'd say that I like the idea of a clear perception
of the world about me, not seen through the filter
of a belief in some "god".
example-the Christian girl I was walking with, when
she picked up a leaf and exclaimed that it had three
parts, so god had sent it to represent the Trinity.
OTOH, people enjoy the community of shared belief,
and t he security,however illusory, of a god watching
their back, and offering reward at the end of a life well lived.
I tried my best to be a theist. Intellectual honesty wouldn't let me do it... so I guess atheism is easier for me.
As for which is more rewarding... since I never managed to actually believe in any gods, it's a bit hard for me to say, but when I stopped trying to become a theist, it felt like a weight had been lifted from me.
My intellectual honesty wouldn't let me become agnostic, either. I'm not clairvoyant enough to say that the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable; I try to only make claims about stuff I do know.
I actually agree when considering the choice between atheism and agnosticism.
Just speaking personally? It depends on what time period of my life you're talking about and what type of theism you're talking about. It boils down to what comes more naturally to me and what doesn't.
When I was a kid, atheism came easier to me. I was clueless about the diversity of theism, so I believed the only option on the table was basically Abrahamic classical monotheism. My understanding of all other god-concepts was heavily biased by that perspective too. Trying to be a theist would have been a source of mental anguish, because it made no sense to me and was completely stupid and illogical to me back then.
When I first learned contemporary Paganism was a thing and started realizing classical monotheism was not theism, atheism was still easier for me. It was a tremendous struggle tearing apart that theological cage I'd been thinking in to understand "god" did not have to mean all these things I was told it had to mean. It would have been easier to not think about it, and just be an atheistic Pagan too lazy to sort it all out.
But I didn't do that. I broke out of the cage, and now understand the diverse range of things "god" means. Now that I'm out of that cage, atheism would not just be hard, is a virtual impossibility for me. Thus, theism is now easier for me. With a caveat - it depends on what atheism and what theism. Certainly, I'm functionally an atheist with respect to god-concepts incompatible with polytheism (e.g., classical monotheism). But my brain cannot comprehend rejecting all theologies and god-concepts after I learned things like "gods are various aspects of nature... you know... the stuff studied by sciences?"
At no point was atheism ever rewarding for me. How could it be? It lacks substance on its own.
Well, I suppose that's not entirely the case. Indirectly, it was rewarding in that I finally got to quit going to Sunday school and church as a kid. But it wasn't the atheism that was rewarding, it was the lack of obligations and sheer boredom.
Frankly, theism pretty much lacks substance on its own too. In both cases, it's the religion you build around it that has the substance. And some people don't bother. They might as well call themselves apatheists.
For me its easy to belive that which is real, evidenced or known to exist. Not so easy when there is no such evidence.
Others seem, for some inexplicable reason, to believe the opposite.
Leaving it up to the individual creates an ambiguous paradox. It is true that one's 'personal' sense of community and belonging most often takes priority over reason, logic and evidence to determine what one believes, As with many arguments and dialogues here on the site, self-justification of what one believes has priority over what one is not comfortable with on a person to person basis, but stepping out of the box of comfort and personal preference creates a whole new multiple paradigm set of choices when comparing alternatives. Here is where the question arises; 'Can one justify any one ancient belief over all others from outside the box, or what I compare to stepping out of Plato's Cave?'.
Wow! I woke up with 18 commented posts. And only half were negative towards me; great!
Last edited:
This needs more parameters.
It is probably more rewarding to be a theist if one is in a social environment that rewards theism and wards off questioning sufficiently. Even in such circunstances, I still can't advise activelly seeking theism. It is just too fragile a stance to serve as a foundation for anything. And far too easily corrupted.
Theism is at its absolute best as a vocation to acknowledge and take advantage of while polishing one's spiritual expression - and even then it is hardly something to rely on.
Atheism, however, is probably easier to "achieve" for most people. It is about as non-demanding as a stance can be.
I agree with Luis, the question needs clarification.
Atheism, by itself, takes no effort. It's the epistemic default position, a flatworm could manage it. As a social adjunct, though, it can be problematic.
Theism requires some mental effort and/or compartimentilization, but for most people this is automatic.
Theism is an entree to a social club, it confers membership in a large, supportive community. This is irresistible to many.
Atheism is probably 'easy' in Stockholm, in Riyadh -- not so easy.
Atheism, by itself, takes no effort. It's the epistemic default position, a flatworm could manage it. As a social adjunct, though, it can be problematic.
Theism requires some mental effort and/or compartimentilization, but for most people this is automatic.
Theism is an entree to a social club, it confers membership in a large, supportive community. This is irresistible to many.
Atheism is probably 'easy' in Stockholm, in Riyadh -- not so easy.
Thank you for finally addressing what I was hoping to address.
I wanted to know under what parameters which is which. What groups of people, parameters, etc... Thank you for addressing it before I had to. If anyone else can write comments in the same vein as LuisDantas and Valjean, please do so. Thank you.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Since I am not capable of genuinely believing in something without verifiable evidence, and since I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god(s) exist, being a theist simply isn't possible for me.
Personally I can't imagine how believing in something without verifiable evidence can be 'rewarding'.
While theism can never be a philosophical default, in practical terms, it’s pretty common situation for kids to be indoctrinated in theism from birth so that, by the time they’re old enough to start making decisions on their own and reflecting on what they ought to believe, theism is ingrained and hard to shake.
And once it’s ingrained, abandoning theism can be traumatic... and not just in Riyadh:
http://www.babcp.com/Review/RTS-Its-Time-to-Recognize-it.aspx