Gain from atheism?

[Ericho]

What exactly does a person have to gain from atheism? I keep hearing about bad things people will lose if they don't follow religion (extremism in the world), but there is anything good that an atheist could do that a religious person could do? I mean, by gaining religion you get hope and joy and by losing it, you can lose that (along with extremism, yes I know), but with atheism you have nothing really positive to gain.

[evil-clown-12]

Since people with faith believe they have eternity to do all the things they want to do, they are less likely to make the most of the 70 or so years they actually have. Whereas atheists believe that when we die we're gone for good, so have to enjoy life while we can.

Also no prayer, waking up on a Sunday, etc.

[Tancrisism]

I'd rather be an atheist than a religious person because I would hate to feel like I was lying to myself. Avoiding self-deception is a huge plus.

[KidneyThief]

Athiests will never fall back on religion for answers. If somthing cannot be explained some people may claim it was a divine act, or divine intervention. An athiest will continue to look for a logical explaination.

[kraor024]

An atheist will never be forced to do an immoral deed in the name of god.

[GrammerNaziElite]

Teaches you skepticism of authority.

[MrFlopz]

athiests can do natural things like having sex or masturdating without feeling guilty.

[morefngdbs]

At 6/7/09 10:50 AM, Ericho wrote: What exactly does a person have to gain from atheism?I mean, by gaining religion you get hope and joy

;;;;
One doesn't have to be an atheist to have no faith (pardon the pun) in the Organized Religious beliefs presently available .
By not bothering with my families religion (what i was raised on) I no longer have to feel like I'm a hypocrit. I no longer have to pretend that all the B.S. preached at me is relevant . I can look at myself in a mirror & I know that the lies & embellishments I've had taught to me all my life without once being able to get a straight answer back from any of my questions is a thing of the past.

If I really want to delude myself with an available religious belief I would probably believe in reincarnation... that's IMO a better choice than the alternative Heaven/hell scenarios !
Doesn't mean there's no Universal Omniputent powers. But I personally need to hear from them...not some guy who's preaching ideas from a bunch of dead prophets who we have little or no proof of their claims in the first place !

[Proteas]

I've got a better question for you; what does society stand to gain from Atheism?

The reason I ask this is because Atheism is a personal philosophy, having made it's name through advocating individual thought over group-think. So if you go from a minority of the population having this ideal to having 100% of the population having it, what's going to happen? 6.2 Billion people can't have 6.2 billion individually different philosophies about a Godless existence, and due to the social nature of humans, people are going to come together in groups to discuss their ideas... they'll form common schools of thought, and make changes to society based on what the majority of those practitioners deem to be correct, while the minority gripes about majority's decisions.

So in the end, you wind up with replacing the Dogma of Religion with the Dogma of Atheism, and you wind up making yourself a hypocrite for being part of something you yourself despise ever so much NOW. And what ultimately changes?

Not a damn thing.

Just a random musing.

[GrammerNaziElite]

Yes, Proteas, but once Godlessness is the norm nobody will discuss it anymore. I don't know a singe atheist who has discussed atheism with another atheist unless there's a religious person involved.

Once everybody's Atheist, the concept of a God will become so laughable that nobody will discuss it.

For example, when have you even seen a group of people come together to discuss how they all agree that unicorns don't exist?

[Bacchanalian]

At 6/7/09 10:50 AM, Ericho wrote: is anything good that an atheist could do that a religious person could do?

I'm going to assume the question is actually, "is there anything good that an atheist could do that a religious person couldn't do?"

The simple answer is no.

I mean, by gaining religion you get hope and joy

The idea that religion automatically makes people hopeful and joyful is honestly just as ridiculous as the idea that atheism automatically makes people hateful and depressed.

Whether you feel happy, sad, angry, or any other emotion with regard to your philosophy is a matter of how you exploit your philosophy.

and by losing it, you can lose that

You can. It doesn't mean you will, and it doesn't mean you won't find another means to happiness.

with atheism you have nothing really positive to gain.

And by the concept that we are both capable of the same things, the only "positive" thing to gain from religion is... a story that may or may not be true... and isn't even intrinsically positive.

[Togukawa]

What you stand to gain isn't the issue. It's silly to believe something is a fact, only because it would be awesome if it were true. It would be great if there were some kind of superpowerful being that is infinitely good and watches over us, but it's just as likely that there's a superpowerful being that wants to see everyone suffer, or there could be nothing at all. Believing in one thing over the other for the sole reason that you like the option better, doesn't make sense.

Believing that there is no god just because you'd like a world without god better than a world with one, would be just as stupid as believing in a personal god just because you'd like there to be one.

[Proteas]

At 6/7/09 03:54 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Once everybody's Atheist, the concept of a God will become so laughable that nobody will discuss it.

And that's going to make things better.... how?

We're still going to have conservatives and liberals arguing about political ideals, wars will still be fought over resources, racism will still occur, crime will still occur, the abortion issue won't end, pedophillia won't end, public officials will still lie their ass off in order to gain and hold office... and the only thing you'll have to justify your Godless society by is the fact that things that happened generations ago won't happen again.

At 6/7/09 04:04 PM, Togukawa wrote: What you stand to gain isn't the issue.

.... really?

Then why is it part of the topic title?

[Togukawa]

At 6/7/09 04:07 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/7/09 04:04 PM, Togukawa wrote: What you stand to gain isn't the issue.

.... really?

Then why is it part of the topic title?

My point is that the matter of gain should not have any relevance to the belief one holds.

You can argue that one stands to gain more if one is religious, or that a religious society would be better, but it's all a moot point. If society migrates towards atheism, it isn't because that society is perceived to be "better". As you've pointed out, it wouldn't be.

[Proteas]

At 6/7/09 04:20 PM, Togukawa wrote: If society migrates towards atheism, it isn't because that society is perceived to be "better". As you've pointed out, it wouldn't be.

Then why would a society gravitate to a given ideal at all if there are no perceived benefits from the change?

[Bacchanalian]

At 6/7/09 03:45 PM, Proteas wrote: The reason I ask this is because Atheism is a personal philosophy, having made it's name through advocating individual thought over group-think [. . .] 6.2 Billion people can't have 6.2 billion individually different philosophies about a Godless existence

+ Individual thought and consensus are not contradictory.

+ While group-think is an antithesis to atheism, consensus is not.

+ Agreement between any number of atheists on any number of factors is not inherently hypocritical.

You are right that it's not going to really change anything thought.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 6/7/09 03:45 PM, Proteas wrote:

The reason I ask this is because Atheism is a personal philosophy, having made it's name through advocating individual thought over group-think.

While this is a random musing, I would also say that it is a unfair mis-characterization of atheism. Even if atheists are proud of their so called individuality, it is not the underpinning of the belief structure. The only qualification to be an atheist is to believe that there is no god. That is it. It does not preclude anyone from freely choosing to adopt the philosophy of a group if they agree with that groups philosophy. In fact, whether or not atheists will ever admit to it, most do this all the time. Most American atheists would likely believe in the over all values of free speech and democracy. Most would believe that human beings should have certain rights. I don't think it is honestly possible for an individual to construct their own completely original belief structure without the influence of pre-existing ones.

So in the end, you wind up with replacing the Dogma of Religion with the Dogma of Atheism, and you wind up making yourself a hypocrite for being part of something you yourself despise ever so much NOW. And what ultimately changes?

The main criticism of atheism is not the people subscribe to a belief system held by a group. The problem atheists have with religion (whether their judgments are fair or not) is that religions can preclude honest inquiry. If an individual believes that they will be sent to hell for daring to question the dictates of scripture or the pulpit, they will not question them. So long as your atheist society remained one that still tolerated dissenting opinions and beliefs, there would not be such a force to prevent such inquiry. The atheist would still be free to question the ideas held by the group philosophy he/she has adopted, whereas the religious person (according to the general atheist critique) would not.

Not a damn thing.

Perhaps. I suppose it depends upon what the atheist groups would hold as the basis of morality. If the atheists still hold that there is an objective source or underpinning for morality, then I suppose it would be no different than when religion is brought into political debate today. On the other hand, if the atheist groups all subscribe to some form of moral relativism, then things would be different.

Just a random musing.

[GrammerNaziElite]

At 6/7/09 04:07 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/7/09 03:54 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Once everybody's Atheist, the concept of a God will become so laughable that nobody will discuss it.

And that's going to make things better.... how?

Your argument was that the dogma of religion would be replaced with the dogma of atheism. I explain that won't happen. You reply, 'How will that make things better'?

What the fuck?

Of course there will still be war and disease and poverty and death. There just won't be dogma, which is ALL I said. Which, is, you know, an improvement.

[Togukawa]

At 6/7/09 04:21 PM, Proteas wrote:
Then why would a society gravitate to a given ideal at all if there are no perceived benefits from the change?

Because perceived benefits aren't the factor responsible for the change. Why did society's view change from a flat earth in prehistoric age towards a view of a round earth now? It certainly wasn't because people said "hey, it would be better if the earth was round, let's all believe that".

[RubberTrucky]

I think, if decisions are to be made, an atheist society would take them upon logical reasoning. They won't look it up in the Bible and then make their decisions from that.

If a woman needs her baby to be aborted, atheist would judge it using reason. They won't say "All life is sacred to God so no abortion."

[Bacchanalian]

At 6/7/09 04:28 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: an atheist society would take them upon logical reasoning.

I think that's a fantasy.

Anything popularized becomes dogmatic simultaneously.

[Proteas]

At 6/7/09 04:26 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: There just won't be dogma, which is ALL I said. Which, is, you know, an improvement.

dog·ma n.

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).

That's what I'm arguing; replacing religious dogma with atheist dogma won't change anything in this world, and people will not gravitate towards that change unless there is a specific benefit from doing so OR....

At 6/7/09 04:26 PM, Togukawa wrote: It certainly wasn't because people said "hey, it would be better if the earth was round, let's all believe that".

Science was able to disprove the theory of flat earth, however, science cannot conclusively disprove the existence of a higher power anymore than it can be used to prove it, leaving you the atheist spitting in the wind on this issue.

So...

[GrammerNaziElite]

At 6/7/09 04:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/7/09 04:26 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: There just won't be dogma, which is ALL I said. Which, is, you know, an improvement.

dog·ma n.

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).

That's what I'm arguing; replacing religious dogma with atheist dogma won't change anything in this world, and people will not gravitate towards that change unless there is a specific benefit from doing so OR....

I thought you meant dogma in the 'unquestionable belief' manner.

Obviously there is going to be some degree of dogma in a belief system that denies the existence of a being of which there is no proof of existing. But the level of dogma wouldn't be nearly as high, because the comparison is similar to the dogma of a group of people who don't believe in unicorns, and a group of people who DO believe in them and raise their children to believe the same.

[Patton3]

For me at least...it's kind of liberating. No more lying to myself, no more trying to "see God in the world"...and frankly I don't see what any logical person would lose. To many people think you need religion to be happy. Well, I needed depression medication off and on while I still considered myself Catholic. I've been calling myself atheist for 8-10 months or so, and I've not needed any of the fore-mentioned medication. Coincidence? I think not. I'm not saying it's the cure to anyone's depression, but still kind of odd.

[RubberTrucky]

At 6/7/09 04:49 PM, Proteas wrote:
That's what I'm arguing; replacing religious dogma with atheist dogma won't change anything in this world, and people will not gravitate towards that change unless there is a specific benefit from doing so OR....

I'd let XKCDdo the talking for me.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 6/7/09 04:28 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I think, if decisions are to be made, an atheist society would take them upon logical reasoning. They won't look it up in the Bible and then make their decisions from that.

While it is difficult not to make generalizations in a topic such as this, I believe that this is completely unfounded. I know many religious people who do not unquestionably swallow everything from the pulpit. I have friends who are Catholic who are pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro sex ed, and pro contraception.

If a woman needs her baby to be aborted, atheist would judge it using reason. They won't say "All life is sacred to God so no abortion."

This statement in inherently biased. It presumes that the religious person is lacking in both the capacities to make their own decisions, or that the atheist can not be swayed by their own biases or emotion. In fact, your argument asserts that religious people are lacking in fundamental intellectual capacities, even though this likely was not intention,

Logic, properly speaking, is a merely a means of analysis. It is a process and by itself is not a source of knowledge or wisdom. It is a means of taking certain input statements, and using them to either justify or arrive at a certain set of conclusions.

Just to illustrate, let's examine a hypothetical religious person (taken as an individual, not necessarily a representative of all or even most religious people) who is determining their stance on gay marriage. This person has gay friends, and wishes for them to have a fulfilling life. He doesn't have any fear that his gay or fear of gays. In fact, he feels bad for his friends Now, in his thought process, he comes in with the following premises: 1) The Bible is the word of God and represents morality. 2) The Bible states that homosexuality is a sin. 3) A Christian should avoid promoting sin. From these premises, he concludes that he cannot support gay marriage.

Now, you and I may disagree with the validity of his premises, but we cannot prove them to be wrong, so his holding those beliefs is not an irrational act in and of itself. More importantly, though, the Christian in question is, properly speaking, acting from a purely logical standpoint. Emotionally, he is predisposed to favor gay marriage, but has forgone his emotional response to favor a conclusion that he arrived at by logic. Thus, he is being logical.

[Proteas]

At 6/7/09 04:56 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: But the level of dogma wouldn't be nearly as high

There is no "degree" in this; dogma is simply a synonym for a given set of beliefs.

At 6/7/09 05:12 PM, Victory wrote: Can you please provide me with an example of what sort of issue they would divide over?

Well, let's start with one that's already been mentioned in this topic; abortion.

The argument put forth states that an atheist judge naturally would not be able to argue against it because of a lack of religious belief, but that implies that the only arguments against it are religious in nature. You can argue against it from the standpoint of it being murder depending on when the abortion is done (i.e.; before the third trimester) or by how it's done (partial birth abortion versus uterine scraping), you can argue against it from the standpoint of medical necessity, and you can also argue against it from the standpoint of tough love, namely; should you be allowed to have an abortion if the government has spent millions of dollars on sex education and handing out free birth control, and yet, you got knocked up anyway?

I've always been in favor of the "tough love" argument, especially where it's concerned with teenage mothers. No amount of education will help the fact that there are idiots in every societ, and will only learn the hardway.

[DrunkDemon]

Well, religion can actually be harmful, because in the wrong hands people will go to war and kill each other over things like that. And since there are always going to be people like that, you might as well just take away the source. If people stop fighting over beliefs, then society will be able to progress faster.

[Zoraxe7]

At 6/7/09 05:29 PM, Proteas wrote: I've always been in favor of the "tough love" argument, especially where it's concerned with teenage mothers. No amount of education will help the fact that there are idiots in every societ, and will only learn the hardway.

I think a lot of people think that way but wont admit it.

[Proteas]

At 6/7/09 05:47 PM, DrunkDemon wrote: Well, religion can actually be harmful, because in the wrong hands people will go to war and kill each other over things like that. And since there are always going to be people like that, you might as well just take away the source. If people stop fighting over beliefs, then society will be able to progress faster.

Again, this goes on the idea that Religion is the only thing people fight wars over. It neglects the fact that people still fight over political differences (the Rwandan Genocide), resources (the second gulf war if you're so politically inclined), retaliation (Afghanistan), and just for the blue flying FUCK of it. Quit acting like religion is the only thing people wage war over.