Do atheists even exist? As in would they exist if God existed?
basically there is a (legitimate) reason why most so-called atheists don't believe in the existence of God, and it comes down to the fact that the existence of God has NEVER been proven by science.
I personally do see this as a somewhat pertinent reason to have suspicions about someone or something that is said to exist, but the typical atheist is nonetheless presented as if they simply don't believe in the existence of God just for the sake of it, and not as if they have a feasible reason for their disbelief. I myself for instance take an agnostic approach to the situation, but have been criticized for this by people in other groups and forums who apparently thought there was no legitimate reason for my tentative belief set, when in reality it is based primarily on what I just described. Likewise, it isn't as if I am even asserting that God does not exist, but rather that it is simply a possibility within reason.
Just as those who have a firm belief in God's existence can likely still acknowledge (and hopefully accept) the reasons why He may in fact not exist, it is decidedly no different if someone takes the opposite approach, in particular when they have a substantial reason for it. Therefore I really don't know why atheists are so often criticized and thought to have a baseless set of beliefs, when their reasoning may indeed be more credible than that of someone who basically has no more than faith in the existence of God.
I personally do see this as a somewhat pertinent reason to have suspicions about someone or something that is said to exist, but the typical atheist is nonetheless presented as if they simply don't believe in the existence of God just for the sake of it, and not as if they have a feasible reason for their disbelief. I myself for instance take an agnostic approach to the situation, but have been criticized for this by people in other groups and forums who apparently thought there was no legitimate reason for my tentative belief set, when in reality it is based primarily on what I just described. Likewise, it isn't as if I am even asserting that God does not exist, but rather that it is simply a possibility within reason.
Just as those who have a firm belief in God's existence can likely still acknowledge (and hopefully accept) the reasons why He may in fact not exist, it is decidedly no different if someone takes the opposite approach, in particular when they have a substantial reason for it. Therefore I really don't know why atheists are so often criticized and thought to have a baseless set of beliefs, when their reasoning may indeed be more credible than that of someone who basically has no more than faith in the existence of God.
Comments (77)
Its just a cute little game theists like to play, where they reverse things back onto the atheist. Projecting is the psych term I believe. So problems with theism like faith and special pleading are claimed to be atheist things. It makes them feel good but has no substance.
I actually don't even care if theists are set firmly on their own set of beliefs, but why should it be wrong for others to have an adverse opinion, especially when their opinion has very strong merit when compared to what may as well be no more than a simple faith in the existence of a spiritual being?
I feel like theists feel threatened on some level perhaps because they know deep down that God is only a matter of faith, so they get defensive when someone presents any argument to the contrary.
That sounds about right. Use of “faith” in religious context is special pleading because that same standard is not applied to most other things in their life.
We are speaking of educated guesses here. If someone is a nominalist and views scientific laws as descriptions of the universe rather than things in the universe itself, then God is just another way of describing the universe. This "God" however, isn't particularly useful, as he doesn't generate any testable hypotheses.
I think what is needed here is to define God. Because usually atheists are atheists vs a specific definition of God so...
Quoting BBQueue
Too much stereotyping here.
You call out a generic universal God here? we, atheists, usually claim we do not belief the existence of certain definitions of God depending on the religion to talk about (Dawkins usually refers to christianity).
If we start like playing with the word God, and say... God is the laws of physics or God is what has
created the quarks... then the basis of the argument change...
So, net, BBQueue, I think your argument is a fallacy stated the way you have stated it.
Nope. We do not claim that we do not believe in a specific god, we do not believe in any god when the word god is used correctly. Gods are creators of mankind and the rest of the universe, in some religions they have gods for almost everything.
My personal reason for not believing in them is that I find it hard to imagine that some being would go to all of the trouble to build the universe and them let a plague like mankind lose to destroy it. That is sort of like me spending years building a monster model railway in my basement and then let the little bastard next door go in there and play football with his mates. makes no sense at all.
Most atheists never even claim to be atheists. They just get labeled that when they say that they do not believe there is a god.
And I know the real truth behind the universe, Murphy.
To me atheism is more about criticising blind faith and bad religion. That is why Richard Dawkins is a hero to me. Because it takes some guts to challenge beliefs which people are willing to murder you for.
Nice. Most nuanced atheists would argue that there are no reasonable grounds for accepting the proposition that a God exists. They would not say there is no God. An important distinction. In essence a more nuanced atheist would probably take the view that they are open to the idea of a deity existing if and when there is reasonable evidence.
Atheism isn't a belief system as such. Atheism has one idea. That no good reasons have been provided to believe in God. Atheism is not a school of thought or a system as such.
There are however belief systems that also include atheism - secular humanism - the most common. Then you may have a set of beliefs to quibble with.
There are no moral differences between atheists and theists - both camps seem to be doing fine in the ethics department as far as I can tell.
Ergo, the relevant dissimilarity seems to be only one viz. the belief in the existence of a god. I'm not completely sure about this but I haven't come across a religious doctrine that states that the belief that god exists matters in any way to religion; after all, the bottom line, the key message of theistic religions, is that we'll be judged, and that's what matters, on the basis of the moral nature of our thoughts and actions, and not by whether we believed that a god exists or not.
Do we get bonus points for believing in god? Is there a difference between X who believes in god and is good and Y who is equally good but doesn't believe in god? Perhaps, if you'll allow me to say so, there's a correlation between a tendency toward theism and good moral character but that's psychology and has little or nothing to do with the the ontological aspects of god.
Atheists do not believe only in God but in other type of subterfuge to understand something that complex like death or “life after death”. They are just living without the starting point of a superior abstract figure like God, i.e “I passed this difficult exam because I studied hard the last week but I do not pray to God because I do not believe in his circumstances. It is just myself and move along”
I guess another point of atheism here is the concept of “heaven”. It is basically for religious citizens the paradise afterward your life ends. But here, atheists do not even believe in the fact that when you die you will be in a dilema if you go to “hell” or “heaven” due to God’s decision. They think there is nothing afterwards that’s all.
So I guess not believing in any kind of God goes further than “not having any proof of his existence”
Untrue - Islamic State, just one example, demonstrate that religions - which all have their fundamentalist expressions - cab be ethically repulsive. And there are any number of vile acts committed by religions of all sorts from sexual abuse to bigotry.
No. All an atheist is is a person who doesn't believe there are sufficient reason to believe in any form of God. There are atheists who believe in astrology and reincarnation and souls and all kinds of supernatural stuff. Some Buddhists are atheists.
The situation maybe slightly more complex than either of us assume. I was simply pointing out the absence of any clear-cut statement in scripture that claims that one is at an advantage, morally speaking, by believing that god exists. I haven't ever encountered a man of the cloth taking the position that mere belief amounts to a moral act, an act of goodness, an act that would be equivalent to established good actions such as charity or saving someone for example.
This is just one of the multiple reasons in atheism thought. Yes they believe there are not sufficient reason for having a credit in "God" and all representatives. Nevertheless, there are also another kind of atheists who think there is nothing afterwards.
It is valid your point when you say it can exist atheist which believes in astrology, but this is just another path to avoid the belief in God as much as the ones who don't believe in anything at all.
Not many believers have read much scripture and often traditions don't come form this source. Actually it is pretty common for a Christian, Jew or Muslim (especially the latter) to see the atheist as making an immoral choice right out of the gate. In fact in Islam (in 13 countries), atheism is punishable by death.
Of course there are. But atheism specifically means just one thing, hence the name a theism - Greek: "without God". Any other beliefs are a separate matter. But sure, some atheists share a range of secular humanist beliefs.
Well, this in no way proves that believing in God is, in and of itself, a moral act in the same category as saving someone's life or helping the poor, right? The matter of apostasy and heresy, to me, seems to be an entirely different issue with a different explanation altogether e.g. they may be part of the psychological response elicited by a subconscious fear of, for want of a better word, evil as assumed to follow from rejecting God. This makes some kind of sense if it's God, the belief in God, that maintains societal integrity. Is it God, the belief in God, that's the bond between people, keeping them peaceful, and good?
Don't see how they are not the same. Remember moral behaviour for God is simply that which pleases him. The fist step is belief. Tick. Not believing has been traditionally seen as an immoral position by many believers. Hence, believing is a moral position.
Well, I'm approaching the issue from a Doestoevskyian point of view, the view that "if god didn't exist, anything would be permissible" which, in essence, means that god's primary role seems to be as the wellspring of morality i.e. god's existence means nothing if morality weren't part of god's being. If so, doesn't that imply we can, like we've all done in our lives, learn the lesson and forget the teacher? I don't see how believing in the existence of Socrates has anything to do with the merits/demerits of his philosophy?
A Buddhist canonical reference for this, please.
How about asking those critics why they criticize atheists?
Dostoevsky always had this the wrong way around. It should be: "With God anything is permissible." If you want to build systemic human rights violations look to religious behaviour across time and even today. The most dangerous (and ethically empty) people on earth are those who think they know what God wants us to do. And of course, religious morality is subjective and based on personal preferences of believers who think they have the right interpretation of scripture. God remains silent on morality.
Well, Socrates isn't God, so the analogy is not apropos. We are not talking about a man's ideas. We are talking about the intrinsic moral position inherent in God belief which I have already addressed. Perfectly fine if you disagree, but I see no way out of it.
I'm trying to reconstruct the Buddha's logic. Sorry, nothing explicit to go on except his conspicuous coyness on the matter of God and other metaphysical issues.
Well, as far as I know, what is said must stand on its own, who said it is irrelevant. Ref: Epicurean dilemma.
It all depends on the level of enlightenment of a person. I can respect a person of any faith or anti-faith or whatever you want to call it.
If you're like me, you went through different stages, and by the way, I don't equate these stages as being set in stone and somehow indicative of any ranking of belief systems in either chronological or reverse chronological order. It's just how it was for me.
I was raised in theism, spent some time with atheism but rejected it at an early age, but was always allured by Hinduism and Buddhism and they seemed to offer not only theism but enlightenment and philosophy, but never invested any genuine curiosity into them, being whizzed along by other distractions at the time. I have always and still do have reverence for paganism.
I think I went through a void for a while then, not really caring or giving much thought, got into Buddhism, found it very enlightening for health and philosophy but it didn't truly resolve my belief issues. Well Zen Buddhism I will always be open to, but Pure land, not so much.
Being someone who has always loved Science, I sought to understand what great Scientists believed, but they are not Gods (pun not intended) and have the same predicament ultimately. I was happy to see so many great Physicists were not Atheists, or were Agnostic.
My problem with Atheism when I was young was I felt it cut me off somewhat. Like I was accepting a brutal material world, with nothing beyond it, just cold hard laws of the jungle, a feelingless void that just is. It never sat right with me.
My problem with Atheism when I matured was still similar to that for sure, but also, the universe in my opinion doesn't really appear to offer any cold hard truth of determinism that ultimately many Atheists crave (in my view).
It's not that we have proof of indeterminism either. We don't. Ultimately, that's a big part of the justification for Atheism or Theism, which I don't think we can ever really prove on either side. I think our belief systems are ultimately dear to us as humans, and we defend them against even alleged proof of their non existence, or proof of their existence.
I have no true justification to equate determinism with Atheism and theism with indeterminism, but there are parallels.
Theists are open to the possibility that something divine or supernatural can interfere with an experience and effect the outcome - that's very like an indeterministic outlook of the universe.
Atheists are not accepting of a divine or supernatural influence on experience that can effect an outcome - that's very like a deterministic outlook of the universe.
Theism just resonates more with me and feels more like how it really is, at least for me. It's at the edge of perception, or what an Atheist would call delusion, it's subjective and fuzzy so it's not like I can really support my view.
It just feels as it should (for me). It feels as though my will for something to happen, or my wish for something awful to not happen has a tendency to manifest. Not in any profound eureka way necessarily but it seems to satisfy a need but not a want, and brings solace in a time of pain. It fulfils me.
I don't know how else to describe it. It's a bit ineffable.
I'm sorry I am not able to make this clear enough. My fault. What I'm trying to say is that God is an occult notion and Socrates (even if he never lived) is merely a dramatized method of philosophy.
There is no preexisting requirement that you believe Socrates existed. All you need to do is read the material and it speaks for itself. You cannot say the same thing about God in the Abrahamic tradition. Belief is the first step towards taking a moral position - without this you won't accept any of the 613 commandments, let alone the famous 10. As the believer will often argue, an atheist can follow the ten commandments but is still a sinner unless he believes in and loves God.
I think that is a decent insight. Your belief is not supported by a strong epistemology and amounts, if you don't mind me saying to: "I believe because it's more subjectively comforting to me."
One problem with this approach is that this is the same justification people often use for racism or any number of bigotries. 'It just feels to me that X race of people are inferior to the rest of us - this just resonates more with me.' It can be a trap to hold a belief merely because it is comforting or because you were socialized to think it.
What's the logic that underpins the position that believing in god is good? I don't see a clear-cut answer to this question.
I've explained it several times. Let's move on. :smile:
*hrmph*
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN49.html is not coy. I can think of several others that are not coy.
To call the Buddha flamboyant in these matters is not an understatement.
Life on Earth exists because of the light of our star, the Sun. That light falls into a spectrum, from ultraviolet to infrared. That spectrum in turn falls into the electromagnetic spectrum, from gamma rays to radio waves.
If we put ourselves in a god spectrum, we're probably somewhere in between evil and divine.
What do you think?
You're cherry picking. That's not at all in the spirit of what I was getting at. What I was getting at, in your parlance, was that either position can be construed as a comfort pill, because there is no more or less evidence for the fallacy of theism than there is for atheism.
You are also loading in hypotheticals that conflate the argument. I could just as easily flip the coin and say that atheism disrupts a persons modal logic as their basic ability to trust or believe in anything is reduced to permanent skepticism.
As humans, we are modal. We believe things to be true in every moment of life despite the problem that we cannot be sure. If you use the words 'maybe', 'it's possible', it's unlikely', you are showing a bias without definitive proof. If you are honest with yourself, you comfort yourself with these things all the time, irrespective of your beliefs.
Either can be and is a trap from that standpoint.
What I was really getting at:
We have no idea which is the case. From a tautological high ground, agnosticism trumps both.
It is relevant who said what and being able to source it properly, already so that we can avoid fighting strawmen and people's drunk musings.
I we put ourselves between the spectral lines of indeterminism - that there is some kind of interventionism, and determinism - that there isn't, then agnosticism would be in the middle, and actually the more logically sound given that we don't have, and likely will never have a solid case to support either position.
At the fundamental level, I associate evil with destruction, and good with construction. Humans can destroy and construct. I think our default is to construct our families, society and civilisations. Destruction seems to emanate from a defensive posture, as we respond to anything that would compromise what we are trying to construct, generally speaking.
I do have a different opinion on destruction though. Destruction is necessary. We need to destroy our waste or it will accumulate and poison our planet. I honestly believe that pollution is our biggest challenge for the 21st century.
Construction however seems to be a positive thing in most cases.
My own spiritual journey seems to be getting more rational every day. Why does mysticism have to be so irrational? I don't want to let go of logic and reason!
The case for mysticism I think would be that we cannot trust ourselves to reason about the things we don't have true insight into, and to open ourselves to channel it from some external source.
Even if you call this universe a simulation, it's a pretty impressive one. I don't expect to achieve true insight into this, just maybe get a little closer.
This kind of idea comes up all the time, doesn't it? Lots of things exist as linguistic concept already but that doesn't make them 'real', it makes them a concept.
Inaccurate use of the term cherry picking. I was simply restating the point you made and providing an assessment of it.
The fact that you also have other ideas is not lost on me. In relation to one of these:
Quoting Paul S
That's limited. Some atheists only hold that there are no grounds for accepting the proposition that a God exists. They do not say they know everything or that everything is knowable. Some theists are very closed to new ideas. Unless it is as per theri version fo scripture is is untrue.
A fairy.
Really? We were talking about epistemology and now you are talking about parenting. Where is the connection? Would you tell a child that their dream about a monster taking them away in the night was true?
Just because someone has an experience of something doesn't mean it is real. And a world that encourages everyone to 'experience' their delusion as 'real' is not helpful.
Now, you're cherry picking what I said you were cherry picking, you didn't really address the issue I raised.
Bringing up bigotry as somehow intrinsic to any of this is confabulation. Who is really comforting themselves here? No offence.
You really don't understand my point. I like your use of the word confabulation.
Paul, you made a rather dubious observation that you believe because it resonates. I simply stated that things resonating are not a good pathway to truth. And yes this is the same approach that is used by some racists to justify their position.
If you think this is saying that I am associating racism with your point then I can't help that. How about this: people believe that Mohammad was the profit of Allah because it resonates with them. They are certain that Jesus was merely a man, falsely described as God by some. They hold this position because it resonates better with them. It just feels right.
The connection lies in the fact that there is an inherent link to someone experiencing things as real and things being real. And the difference between a monster and a fairy is that one is malevolent and one is benevolent. Why I bring up parenting is because psychology emerged from a dissatisfaction with philosophy in its practical applications.
In my opinion discussions are not about being right. It is about a satisfactory experience for both interlocutors. I hope we can keep it that way
Of course. I am regularly wrong about most things.
Resonance describes the phenomenon of increased amplitude that occurs when the frequency of a periodically applied force (or a Fourier component of it) is equal or close to a natural frequency of the system on which it acts.
It's not necessarily the same as equating it. It's not even so much that theism resonates with me. It's that atheism doesn't, and I see agnosticism as a port I would much sooner visit before atheism, which does not resonate with my experience or perception of how things are, regardless of any comfort factors. There is nothing necessarily comforting in resonance. It remains the case that there is no stronger a case for atheism than there is for theism.
That isn't the point we are addressing. The point is; what basis do you have for accepting a proposition? If a person said atheism resonates with me better than theism, that's why I believe it, that would be inadequate.
All you seem to be saying is that theism allows for more mystery than atheism.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm sorry if you see it that way, not the intention.
Ok. What are you saying then. It isn't clear to me.
We all have bias whether we admit it or not. There is no evidence for or against atheism any more than there is for or against theism. Whether you like that or not, that's the case. If you think of the probability that the universe is one or another, it's as good as evens so you have no choice but to be either agnostic or to pick a bias (which is what I meant by resonates), unless you have some dramatic evidence to share.
There is comfort in picking the option that one resonates with. It's comforting to have a bias for the side of the argument that requires no belief and so no explanation of that belief. Because there is just nothing to explain. And yet, it's not more likely than the truth being that supported by Theists.
There's all kinds of evidence for both atheism and theism. My problem is having a word for people who do not believe in something...seems kind of lame.
God is one of those things that should rarely escape from the personal realm. Who gives a rat's ass what anybody else thinks when it comes to your religious/spiritual beliefs?
I just think of it as a-theist, anti-theist.
Quoting synthesis
Thanks synthesis. There was probably a time when atheists would be whispered about behind their backs. Now I think we live in an era where it is the reverse.
Yes, that is entirely true. I am dismayed by fundamentalism and blind faith and most of it is not religious. Richard Dawkins makes his points pretty well but many people dislike his slightly imperious style.
I agree with you. One of the great problems in culture is the lack of critical thinking and also the venturing of dogmatic opinion where the person simply does not have enough knowledge. I have certainly done this myself.
I'm not sure whether this is such a bad thing. True, many people voice their opinions a bit too strongly on social media. Yet it does encourage the reader to think for themselves.
My point is that they yell about the minuscule amount they know and don't listen and learn. Hence the trouble we have all around the world of hostile tribes only interacting with their own small bubble, getting angrier all the time.
Although I do not consider myself a religious person, I have great respect for those who have committed themselves to such practices, and as a matter of fact, the nicest and most sincere people I have known throughout my life have been devoutly religious.
The problem is in some countries a particularly primitive expression of religion is a massive influence on generating retrograde social policies and laws and negatively impacting upon the life of others.
It could be argued that is a problem of institutionalism rather than any religious indoctrination in particular.
Not sure what that sentence means. But in essence if a movement, in this case, religion, keeps generating institutions all over the world (and in every religious format) that are retrograde, then the issue is religion's effect on people, surely?