Atheism

[Igakusei]

I found an article yesterday that I thought expressed my thoughts on religion--and Christianity in particular--quite well. If you're interested in understanding those of us who no longer believe in God, I would recommend reading through it. I obviously don't expect you all to agree with the views expressed, but I think it's important to try to put yourself in our shoes for a few minutes to understand why we feel the way we do. Hopefully a greater understanding of each others' perspectives can lead to more civil and productive discourse.

Please read the whole thing before commenting, if you're going to comment.

http://thehiberniatimes.com/2011/06/03/atheism-is-the-true-embrace-of-reality/

Until 2003 I was a devout Christian. And I mean devout. I believed absolutely, and my faith was central to my life at that time. Various clergy thought I had a calling to “the ministry”; one even suggested I might have a vocation to be a nun. Now I am an atheist: the kind of atheist who is predictably referred to by religious apologists as “outspoken” or “militant.” So what happened?

What happened was four little words: “How do I know?”

One of the things that had struck me during my Christian years was just how many different Christianities there are. Not just the vast number of different sects and denominations (over 38,000 by one reckoning), but the huge amount of difference between individual Christians of the same sect or denomination, too. The beliefs and attitudes of an evangelical, biblical, literalist Christian compared with a liberal Christian are so wildly different that we might almost be dealing with two completely different religions – as I discovered from personal experience when moving from a liberal church in the south of England to the Presbyterian depths of the Scottish Highlands back in 2000.

Like every other Christian I have ever known, I had clear ideas about the kind of God I believed in and, on the basis of those ideas, I accepted certain bits of Christian dogma while utterly rejecting others. Again, let me stress: this is par for the course. In practice faith is always a pick-and-mix affair: believers emphasise those bits that sit comfortably with them, whilst mostly ignoring those bits that do not, or concocting elaborate interpretations to allow them to pretend they do not mean what they actually say. So this was the question I faced up to in 2003: What was there to suggest that the version of Christianity I believed in was actually real? Was there any better evidence for the version I accepted than there was for the versions I did not?

The Bible could not help me. Both kinds of Christian – the ultra-conservative and the ultra-liberal – find abundant support for their views in the Bible provided they cherry-pick enough (and, of course, they do just that, filing the bits that don’t suit their case under the convenient headings of “Metaphor” or “Mystery”). Tradition was not reliable, either: a false belief does not become true simply through having been held through many generations.

So what else was there? A Roman Catholic I was debating with once argued: “To those who say there is no proof, there is the question of the numinous. I know there is a God, I have a relationship with him and spend time in meditative prayer on a daily basis.” Perhaps that’s where the answer lay?

Well, of course, I thought I had a personal relationship with God, too. I, too, spent time with him in meditative prayer every day. And as a result, I not only “knew” there was a god; I “knew” what that god was like. I didn’t believe – I really thought I knew.

Just about all the Christians I came into contact with “knew” there was a god, too. They, too, spent time in meditative prayer with him on a daily basis. And as a result, they, too, “knew” what God was like. So what did that knowledge tell us about him? How reliable were these personal relationships when it came to establishing the truth about God?

Some of us, on the basis of our relationship with God, knew him to be loving, compassionate, generous, always reaching out to us, pitying our mistakes rather than condemning them. Others, on the basis of their relationship with God, knew him to be angry, jealous, punitive.

Some of us knew that God had more important things to worry about than our sex lives; others knew that human sexual impurity was deeply offensive to him.

Some of us knew that God wanted us to respond to other people’s shortcomings with tolerance and forbearance and humility; others knew that he wanted sin to be made an example of, to be held up and publicly rebuked.

Some of us knew that God was offended by conspicuous consumption when so many people had nothing; others knew that God showered wealth along with other good things on those of whom he approved.

Some of us knew that God saw all religions as different expressions of people’s yearning for him; others knew that traditional, orthodox Christianity was the only route to him.

Some of us knew that the devil was just a myth to explain the existence of evil; others knew that the devil was very real and a genuine threat to our souls.

Some of us knew that there was no way God could ever allow such a thing as hell; others knew that hell was very much a part of God’s ordained order.

We all knew we were right, and we all based that knowledge on the personal relationship we had with him. How could any of us possibly be wrong?

What was striking about these observations was that those of us whose personalities led us to embrace the world and other people in a spirit of openness, generosity, warmth and tolerance “knew” that God did the same. And those who lacked the confidence for that, and consequently saw the world as threatening and evil and bad, “knew” that God saw it that way, too.

This is why subjective experience cannot tell us anything about God. Knowing what kind of god someone believes in tells us a great deal about that person – but nothing whatsoever about the truth or otherwise of the existence of any god at all.

And this brings us to something very important about atheism. Atheism is not in itself a belief. Few atheists would be so bold as to declare the existence of any god at all utterly impossible. Atheism is, quite simply, the position that it is absurd to believe in, much less worship, a deity for which no valid evidence has been presented. Atheism is not a faith: on the contrary, it is the refusal to accept claims on faith.

Atheists recognise that we need evidence in order to come to reliable conclusions about reality and that, so far, those who claim there is a god have signally failed to provide it. And atheists care about reality: not what it might be comforting to believe, or what has traditionally been believed, or what we have been instructed to believe. And this focus on reality, far from diminishing our experience of life, as so many religious people imagine, actually makes our lives all the richer: once you have faced up to the reality that there is no evidence to suggest there is another life after this one, it becomes all the more important to live this finite life to the full, learning and growing, and caring for others, because this is their only life, too, and there is no reason to believe there will be heavenly compensation for their earthly sufferings.

An atheist life, well lived, leads to the only kind of afterlife there is any evidence for whatsoever: the immortality of living on in the fond memories of those who loved us.

[CoAspen]

Thanks for posting. When one needs 'a proof' for what they believe to be the best truth, then one could not argue with that view point.

A person that believes in Christ/God, my self, does not require the 'proof' you would or can they provide any that would meet your requirements. What is wrong my believing in something that I can't prove and may very well exist? You and I can/could live the same type of life without knowing who is correct. When we die, the question may still remain, but if I wake up and my belief is true, Wow! An atheist would fault someone for hope of that moment? Why would you remove all hope of life after death from a persons life? It would be presumptive to say, that we both can not lead the same fulfilling life. Whose life is richer, only the one based on "...once you have faced up to the reality that there is no evidence to suggest there is another life after this one,...."? To me, that sound dismal! You can't prove that the belief in life after death is false. You can only say, "up to now I see no proof"! What about the future?

This is basically the difference between your reality and mine. For you, no future exists, for me it is a very real possibility. I won't attempt to deny yours, why bother with trying to deny mine!

[Gail]

I coulldn't help but feel a bit sad while reading that article, too.

[phkrause]

Thanks for posting. When one needs 'a proof' for what they believe to be the best truth, then one could not argue with that view point.

A person that believes in Christ/God, my self, does not require the 'proof' you would or can they provide any that would meet your requirements. What is wrong my believing in something that I can't prove and may very well exist? You and I can/could live the same type of life without knowing who is correct. When we die, the question may still remain, but if I wake up and my belief is true, Wow! An atheist would fault someone for hope of that moment? Why would you remove all hope of life after death from a persons life? It would be presumptive to say, that we both can not lead the same fulfilling life. Whose life is richer, only the one based on "...once you have faced up to the reality that there is no evidence to suggest there is another life after this one,...."? To me, that sound dismal! You can't prove that the belief in life after death is false. You can only say, "up to now I see no proof"! What about the future?

This is basically the difference between your reality and mine. For you, no future exists, for me it is a very real possibility. I won't attempt to deny yours, why bother with trying to deny mine!

[Igakusei]

Thanks for posting. When one needs 'a proof' for what they believe to be the best truth, then one could not argue with that view point.

A person that believes in Christ/God, my self, does not require the 'proof' you would or can they provide any that would meet your requirements. What is wrong my believing in something that I can't prove and may very well exist? You and I can/could live the same type of life without knowing who is correct. When we die, the question may still remain, but if I wake up and my belief is true, Wow! An atheist would fault someone for hope of that moment? Why would you remove all hope of life after death from a persons life? It would be presumptive to say, that we both can not lead the same fulfilling life. Whose life is richer, only the one based on "...once you have faced up to the reality that there is no evidence to suggest there is another life after this one,...."? To me, that sound dismal! You can't prove that the belief in life after death is false. You can only say, "up to now I see no proof"! What about the future?

This is basically the difference between your reality and mine. For you, no future exists, for me it is a very real possibility. I won't attempt to deny yours, why bother with trying to deny mine!

To clarify a few points,

I'm not looking for absolute proof of anything. As I've stated elsewhere, 'proof' is virtually impossible to attain in any field of study, and I would never use it as a reasonable standard for belief.

I'm not saying that belief in God can't lead to a fulfilling life, but I can attest from personal experience that life on Earth has far more meaning to me now that I do not believe. Perhaps we all get different mileage.

There is no difference between my reality and yours. We have a different perception of reality, but there is only one actual reality. I believe that the best way to discover that reality is to exercise critical thinking to the best of my ability and follow the evidence wherever it leads. In my opinion religious traditions simply assert what reality is and expect people to take those assertions on faith. I can't do that, and point to the tens of thousands of groups with different beliefs (while all claiming to get their beliefs from the same source) as justification.

[CoAspen]

Traditions does not enter into my system of belief, I find little use in arguing/talking about them. Very few people, or it seems to me, really talk about what they believe, just voice cliches! Why, it's safer, we all want to be part of a group. Tis useless to argue about 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the different beliefs. For me it is all about results. I am comfortable with my belief system which does not exclude 'critical thinking'.

You are correct, 'we all get different mileage' and I can live with that! I do appreciate your honesty and dialogue!

[BobRyan]

In Romans 1 we are told that even the non-Bible aware pagans are "Without excuse" for the "invisible attributes of God are clearly seen... in the things that have been made" (hint: that would be I.D.).

In the opening post we have this conflicted statement

Quote:

Like every other Christian I have ever known, I had clear ideas about the kind of God I believed in and, on the basis of those ideas, I accepted certain bits of Christian dogma while utterly rejecting others. Again, let me stress: this is par for the course.

The author selected a smorgasborg "pick what you like" religion and called it "Christianity" instead of "What does the Bible say" in a true "sola scriptura" test of his/her beliefs.

And the result? "Every wind of doctrine" - as Jude predicts.

Without an anchor there was a pretty good bet that he/she was would soon be beached or stranded.

in Christ,

Bob

[Igakusei]

In Romans 1 we are told that even the non-Bible aware pagans are "Without excuse" for the "invisible attributes of God are clearly seen... in the things that have been made" (hint: that would be I.D.).

In the opening post we have this conflicted statement

...

The author selected a smorgasborg "pick what you like" religion and called it "Christianity" instead of "What does the Bible say" in a true "sola scriptura" test of his/her beliefs.

And the result? "Every wind of doctrine" - as Jude predicts.

Without an anchor there was a pretty good bet that he/she was would soon be beached or stranded.

in Christ,

Bob

The problem, Bob, is that Christians while earnestly following the "sola scriptura" approach to scripture and seeking guidance from the holy spirit end up creating precicely that smorgasborg collection of beliefs. Not only that, but they end up with different beliefs from other groups of Christians (and indeed from other Christians within their own group).

You know that you are following what the Bible really says, but that's exactly the problem: so does everyone else.

My personal opinion is that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being really did give us his word in written form, we wouldn't have this problem.

[ClubV12]

Seventh-day Adventists have a secret weapon when it comes to correct interpretation of the word. A prophet, who had visions, and for those without a vision, the people perish. Thank God I'm done wandering from church to church trying to make sense of all the different versions of religion! It's a wonder I didn't just throw in the towel with all the confusion out there. It's been a long search for the truth. Whew, it's nice to be "home"....

Almost considered the Jehovah Witness at one time, they DO have a surprising amount of "truth", mixed with some serious error. I couldn't get around their concept of Jesus, it just didn't "feel right". Mormons? Actually, I owe them a lot and will always think of them kindly. But there not all that "bible based", they depart significantly on many points. Baptist's are fine folk, some real inspiring people to be found in that camp.

There is no question God has a lot of folks who are "not of this fold." "Membership", is not a ticket to heaven, don't care what pew your sitting in.

[fccool]

I think the main point of the article is that if we absolutely honest with ourselves, then we can say that we don't really "know" whether God exists or not.

For example, Bob brought about a typical correlation fallacy in his statement:

Quote:

In Romans 1 we are told that even the non-Bible aware pagans are "Without excuse" for the "invisible attributes of God are clearly seen... in the things that have been made"

Yet, if there's a book about a fairy that helps watermelons grow, does the mere fact that watermelons exist somehow validates the existence of the fairy? It's an inverse logic that assumes correlation.

The fact is that none of us really know, unless we really did have some sort of supernatural experience where God (not in a dream) revealed itself clearly.

Christians are in the same place as atheists in that regard. The only difference is that they make up excuses as to why their position is more viable:

1) Changing faith is the evidence

2) Creation is the evidence

3) God does not want to take away free will

4) God revealed himself to Israel and they did not believe. Bible should be enough for you.

None of the above are valid proofs of existence of God. There's really nothing sad about it.

Consider the following scenario:

Christian prays for monetary shortcomings. I steal some money he needs, stuff it in the envelope and write on it "from God", and put it in mailbox. The Christian would be rejoicing and sharing in the church about the great act of god that helped him out of his financial trouble. Yet he does not know the entire story. The information eludes him, and the mere fact that the money is there after he asked constitutes the act of God. Yet, the reality is far different if we fill in the rest of the story.

Likewise in case for Atheists, perhaps there is a reality that they don't see... but that's exactly the point. They derive certain worldview from evidence. Believing is very hard for people like that.

I find it hard to believe that loving God would reveal himself only to small group of people, and then say... write about my miraculous deeds of the past, and then try to convince the rest of the people that these are true, while I withdraw any miraculous happenings and evidence of my existence. What you write should be enough for people living 2000 years from now.

If our knowledge is limited by our birth, why wouldn't God have a truly personal revelation?

For any Atheist the following conversation would make sense:

God: Why didn't you believe?

Atheist: Because you were not there.

To a certain extend it's true. God is not here. God is out there somewhere in a way that He is painted. In Adventist case... somewhere in Orion Galaxy, sitting on a literal throne. He simply is not here in terms of demonstrable presence, outside of some "feeling" the preachers are talking about during the church services.

But perhaps he is there in spirit, and we simply can't see. Perhaps he does direct human affairs, and stuffs money in the envelopes secretly for those who need it. The question is why hide? If I've had a father who was there for me "in spirit", does it really make sense in terms of "personal relationship". If such father would write a book that I read every day... do I really have "personal relationship" with the father? I think it would make more sense if he was there, in the very least when he is needed the most.

That simply does not happen.

[miz3]

Igakusei,

Hello my friend. Thank you for posting this most excellent article by Paula Kirby. I found the article most thoughtful and articulate. She laid it out very well.

However, (you knew that "however" was coming from me), this part of the article jumped out at me.

This is why subjective experience cannot tell us anything about God. Knowing what kind of god someone believes in tells us a great deal about that person – but nothing whatsoever about the truth or otherwise of the existence of any god at all.

And this brings us to something very important about atheism. Atheism is not in itself a belief. Few atheists would be so bold as to declare the existence of any god at all utterly impossible. Atheism is, quite simply, the position that it is absurd to believe in, much less worship, a deity for which no valid evidence has been presented. Atheism is not a faith: on the contrary, it is the refusal to accept claims on faith.

In my opinion all life is "subjective" including her atheist point of view. As she herself points out she came to the realization that Christianity was illogical and didn't really do anything for her. She now finds "atheism" to be the answer and brings stability to her life. To me that is "subjective". It is subjective because like every other human on the planet it is about what we think meets our needs and fits "reality" best for us.

This is why there are so many forms of Christianity. So many forms of religions. Even so many different forms of Atheism. Not all atheists see the "reality" in the same way. Oh, yes, they have common ground that in regard to the nonexistence of a Deity but after that it is just as much a smorgasbord as any other "religion".

In my book any "belief system" or "worldview" is a "religion". You do not have to have a Deity for your "belief system" or "worldview". The reason I say Atheism is a religion is because you have priorities within your "worldview" and those priorities trump each other until one gets to the priority that wins. Even in the person who depending on the "circumstance" has a different trump for each circumstance it is still a "belief system" and "worldview" and therefore a RELIGION.

If you are human and I believe we all are, then we have a "RELIGION"! Whether we call it that is not important. It is still a "RELIGION" because you "believe"!

Also proof is not the vital component although it can and is an issue.

Ms. Kirby's criticism of organized religion in many ways is dead on the mark. In doing this she brings up many valid points and true critiques of organized religion. Organized religion has many dirty skirts. If you follow my posts on this Theology Townhall you will find that I too expose many of religion's faults including singling out SDA in particular because I grew up in SDA Church. I may not have seen all the warts but I have seen enough warts to be able to speak a lot about them.

It is difficult, and in some cases impossible, for organized religion (also the same can be said of each human and their "belief system") to be self critical and to constantly push the envelop concerning what they believe. This is why organized religion actually sets itself in permanent cement.

God had this as a constant problem with the Children of Israel in the Bible. As He termed it, "they are a stiff necked people". I believe God hit the nail on the head!

I must say this was a real good post Igakusei and again I thank you for posting it.

[fccool]

Miz3, can you look up the etymology of the word religion? What does the word literally mean? Can Atheist have re-ligion?

The way you define it, the mere fact that people believe anything makes them religious. It becomes the idea of religious non-practice.

Does not believing in Islam make you Muslim?

[miz3]

You may be correct as to the Dictionary but I was making a broader philosophical point.

[CoAspen]

I think 'spirituality' is the broadly used word today for what you are describing.

[Igakusei]

In my book any "belief system" or "worldview" is a "religion". You do not have to have a Deity for your "belief system" or "worldview". The reason I say Atheism is a religion is because you have priorities within your "worldview" and those priorities trump each other until one gets to the priority that wins. Even in the person who depending on the "circumstance" has a different trump for each circumstance it is still a "belief system" and "worldview" and therefore a RELIGION.

If you are human and I believe we all are, then we have a "RELIGION"! Whether we call it that is not important. It is still a "RELIGION" because you "believe"!

I think this is the part of your post I disagree with most. I apologize for not having time to address this in detail myself, but I'll recommend a short video that addresses belief vs. non-belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

I "believe" that all claims should be supported by an appropriate level of evidence before they are accepted, but that simple starting point hardly constitutes a religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Another excellent article to help understand the skeptical mindset is here:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Read for you by C0nc0rdance here.

[cardw]

In my opinion all life is "subjective" including her atheist point of view. As she herself points out she came to the realization that Christianity was illogical and didn't really do anything for her. She now finds "atheism" to be the answer and brings stability to her life. To me that is "subjective". It is subjective because like every other human on the planet it is about what we think meets our needs and fits "reality" best for us.

This is why there are so many forms of Christianity. So many forms of religions. Even so many different forms of Atheism. Not all atheists see the "reality" in the same way. Oh, yes, they have common ground that in regard to the nonexistence of a Deity but after that it is just as much a smorgasbord as any other "religion".

In my book any "belief system" or "worldview" is a "religion". You do not have to have a Deity for your "belief system" or "worldview".

Atheists don't have a world view as atheists. There are humanists to even Christian atheists. There are any number of philosophies one can follow as an atheist.

To call atheism a religion is to call bald a hair color or call couch potato a sport or call a person who doesn't collect stamps a collector.

To call the lack of belief a belief is to call doubt a belief. That's an oxymoron.

So many Christians need to put this dialog onto a system faith because they don't know how to see the world any other way.