Thread: Why are you an atheist?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Elephants mourn

thanks xaqaria! cool article! gotta research this more... it is really cool to watch the videos when you google it also.

perhaps in another million years or so, some ancestor of our current day elephants may start worshipping gods and searching for these same answers, eh? or maybe after we are way extinct they will find relics of the Hindu god Ganesh and be inspired!

anyone want to try this an an LD task?

Originally Posted by analyst

good point!

unfortunately, in our language we use a single word "fear" for two different things. one, the immediate reaction to the environment (rabbit which enters a cave and sees a mountain lion, and flees!) which we share with other mammals. two, the explicitly human trait of conscious forethought or foresight (a human saying to itself, what "if" there is a lion in this cave?, before he/she goes in) .

no other creature on this planet except humans can comprehend the concept of its own existence, and consequently, no other creature can conceive of its own non-existence, that is, of its own mortality or death. This coincides with the fact that no other creature can comprehend the concept of its own future.

if your question is: "why did humans evolve to have this trait?" i'd have to say the question is nearly impossible to answer (for humans of this time)... but the asking of it is quite cool!

it is what Kierkegaard called "the sickness unto death". with the advent of self-conscious awareness, early humans were painfully aware since the Paleolithic age that there was no escape from the object of their fear and that there was no known time when it would arrive to claim them.

in Krishnamurti's terms:
Chapter 4 (Pleasure) of Freedom from the Known:
http://tchl.freeweb.hu/freedom_from_...chapter_4.html
Chapter 5 (Fear) of Freedom from the Known:
http://tchl.freeweb.hu/freedom_from_...chapter_5.html

I think I understand what you are trying to say. So, there is a knowing, and an unknowing which characterize human thought in terms of extended past and future, and which give us the ability of conceiving death, obsessed over until it became religion.

But isn't this relying too much on the notion of a concept of the future or death? Many other species of animal do feel a sense of loss, but what makes ours different? Various animals like seagulls can have complex systems of calls for food. So how many leaps could there possibly be from being able to communicate "There-is-food-here" to "there-was-food-here"? That animals can mourn losses seems to illuminate a common thread in human-animal connectivity that cant be summed up to a mere ability to anticipate or conceive the future, or even death and loss.

However, maybe its not that humans alone can "conceive" or anticipate the possibility of non-existence, (all life could be shaped by this) but that the amount of time, like you said, has extended irretrievably far into the past, as far our ability to discover knowledge about ancient migrations of "human consciousness." And this allows the constructs of false religions to mold a society ignorant of its roots.

If we are cut off from the source of our understanding of our own rituals and allegedly false ways of dealing with our emotional fields of awareness, then it might a little premature to say that the range of truths about that migration of consciousness cant include something that was referred to as god, or the sacred, or divinity, etc. I guess that is why theism seems open a stance than atheism -though not because these "gods" had to exist in the forms prescribed by any particular religion, but because the concepts used by these religions referred to, or were directed towards something.


And anyways, shouldn't religions be thought of as complexes of human creative expression about the whole of the universe? Have atheists properly justified their position towards the universe other than by refuting orthodox Christian caricatures?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

And anyways, shouldn't religions be thought of as complexes of human creative expression about the whole of the universe? Have atheists properly justified their position towards the universe other than by refuting orthodox Christian caricatures?

Atheists don't have to justify anything. Relying on proof and not making up the part you don't know doesn't require any justification, obviously. The problem with religions is that the faithful don't admit that it is a "complex of creative expression".

i agree wholeheartedly with Mb.

while the justification doesn't need to come from atheists (and "god knows" that i haven't tried to convert anyone to atheism), i have seemingly found throngs of religious who feel compelled to inflict their world-views on others, like they are doing us a favor!?

truly a belief system can be a beautiful thing, and lovely words you used... "a complex of creative expression". this is still why i love reading / researching / respecting (but not enforcing) others beliefs. it is a pity the believers cannot say the same to atheists.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Now you're just looking for something to be blamed. It's not gods will to make us suffer, we suffer because it's what we do. Not gods fault for those diseases, or hurricanes, or natural disasters. They happen. Actually if you go to the bathroom and don't wash your hands you can catch something, is that gods fault because he made you and making you let it happen? it's our own fault. People love to have a scrape goat aka god.

Let me ask you this. If god did not exist, and this happens who's fault is it then? shit happens.

Actually if I may be so bold as to interject my professional opinion, I think what he was saying is, Nature was created by God. Humans didn't create Nature. So naturally, the one who created the problem is responsible, IE, God.

If God is all knowing, and all powerful, then he in full knowledge, created powerful forms of destruction that he KNEW would be the cause of death to millions upon millions of people. It would be simple for God, if he existed, to simply snap his fingers and stop everything.

Natural disasters "happen" because God created them. A perfect being cannot create something imperfect on accident. A perfect being is defined as perfection, flawless. There for, if God exists, it was no accident he created these mass killing machines we call nature, and there for, he is an ass hole.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Atheists don't have to justify anything. Relying on proof and not making up the part you don't know doesn't require any justification, obviously. The problem with religions is that the faithful don't admit that it is a "complex of creative expression".

Well I was thinking of traditional atheism, which aimed to try and disprove the many arguments that try to prove the existence of the god of christian theism. So to be a true atheist one would have to adequately deal with these arguments, (which the majority of self-described atheists have not done).

And the opinion of the humble atheists in this forum so far has generally not been the type of atheism of Dawkins and others, who claim to be able to prove that not only does god not exist, but that belief in any such god needs to be eradicated for the good of society.

Either way, both of these types, weak and strong atheism, need some sort of reasons for why they hold their beliefs, other than describing them as the absence of belief in religions.

Originally Posted by analyst

i agree wholeheartedly with Mb.

while the justification doesn't need to come from atheists (and "god knows" that i haven't tried to convert anyone to atheism), i have seemingly found throngs of religious who feel compelled to inflict their world-views on others, like they are doing us a favor!?

truly a belief system can be a beautiful thing, and lovely words you used... "a complex of creative expression". this is still why i love reading / researching / respecting (but not enforcing) others beliefs. it is a pity the believers cannot say the same to atheists.

Trust me, I know how religious people can be. But if, like you mentioned in a previous post, the asking of the question of where our religious tendencies and ideas came from in the first place cannot be answered, then arent religion and atheism both are on equal footing in reserving a place for the meaningful content of them?

The problem with both it seems is their inadequacy of argument, dogmatism, and general claim of centrality for one's life philosophy. Openness to change, novelty, and the unknown other seems to escape them. Atheists filling once previously spiritual content with a vacuum, and overly zealous religious people turning it into stone....Are the notions of spirituality, and a higher responsibility to something other than the located self, disposable?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Well I was thinking of traditional atheism, which aimed to try and disprove the many arguments that try to prove the existence of the god of christian theism. So to be a true atheist one would have to adequately deal with these arguments, (which the majority of self-described atheists have not done).

Give me a break, you can't be serious.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

And the opinion of the humble atheists in this forum so far has generally not been the type of atheism of Dawkins and others, who claim to be able to prove that not only does god not exist, but that belief in any such god needs to be eradicated for the good of society.

You haven't been paying attention.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Either way, both of these types, weak and strong atheism, need some sort of reasons for why they hold their beliefs, other than describing them as the absence of belief in religions.

No, see above.

thank you for your thoughts memeticverb... some i completely see where you are coming from... others, well, it is hard sometimes... and i don't disagree with all of them. but i wanted to respond to a few things.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Well I was thinking of traditional atheism, which aimed to try and disprove the many arguments that try to prove the existence of the god of christian theism. So to be a true atheist one would have to adequately deal with these arguments, (which the majority of self-described atheists have not done). And the opinion of the humble atheists in this forum so far has generally not been the type of atheism of Dawkins and others, who claim to be able to prove that not only does god not exist, but that belief in any such god needs to be eradicated for the good of society.

i feel there is no such thing as "traditional atheism" per say, although i understand what you are trying to say from what seems like a semi-theist upbringing... ummm... "evangelical atheists", right? but the only reason a theist (or christian specifically) would ever interpret an antheist's lack of belief in god as a cleansing of the world of theism is specifically from what theists are conditioned to believe by their own religions ("he-who-is-not-with-me-is-against-me"-type-logic). remember, the conditioning i speak of is the presence of belief as told to us all by past generations, family, etc, not the absence of it. and let us think on what conditioning means, and on how we all are conditioned.... it is a very deep thought and your mind has to be completely aware of who you are for this to be an honest process, because it is not simple to do... to remove conditioning...

and as Mb so eloquently stated above, we as atheists DON'T have to "deal with these arguments" as you wrote... really! not believing (trying to be as aware and free of past thought as a baby leaving their mother's womb), requires absolutely no proof. most of this asking for proof is really based in a semi-ethnocentric and religio-centric upbringing or existence (similarly how nationalism blinds humanity to the humanity of all people). if a christian is starting on the journey of questioning their upbringing and their beliefs, i would only ask them to live in a non-christian country for one year, and with an open mind, it will become clear to them that what people believe (hopefully including themselves here!) is only based on their conditioning, not some pre-determined truth, god from above, etc, and all cultures and religious beliefs have positive and negative attributes associated with them.

as only a simple allegory (and not a very complete or thoroughly thought out one, i know!)... when a snake lives his whole life in the rainforest, to him there is no desert, and if he was told of one, he could never imagine the concept of its existence or of a snake living in this type of place. the snake who lives his whole life in the desert would attest similarly against the concept of a rainforest, and snakes who can live in these places. both lives have their positives and negatives, but both have been conditioned not to see the other's. we are now (as humanity is able to communicate with people of nearly all cultures in a heartbeat) in the position of a desert snake realizing that snakes really do live in the rainforest, but many of us are still saying "how is it possible, it must not be a good life!" or "i wouldn't ever want to... it is wrong!"

oki oki... i will stop!!!

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Either way, both of these types, weak and strong atheism, need some sort of reasons for why they hold their beliefs, other than describing them as the absence of belief in religions.

ummmm no. there is no reasoning necessary. this question has meaning only from a standpoint of a person who holds beliefs. i do not see atheism as a belief in no god, but rather as no belief in any god.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Trust me, I know how religious people can be. But if, like you mentioned in a previous post, the asking of the question of where our religious tendencies and ideas came from in the first place cannot be answered, then arent religion and atheism both are on equal footing in reserving a place for the meaningful content of them? The problem with both it seems is their inadequacy of argument, dogmatism, and general claim of centrality for one's life philosophy. Openness to change, novelty, and the unknown other seems to escape them. Atheists filling once previously spiritual content with a vacuum, and overly zealous religious people turning it into stone....Are the notions of spirituality, and a higher responsibility to something other than the located self, disposable?

These are really beautiful thoughts you wrote here. Thank you for sharing them! They come from a place that i feel all humans ought to be able to stand and just be, because no matter how strongly we each feel for or against belief systems, we as individuals are the truth holders only for ourselves and should never allow others to dictate what we ourselves hold as true.

Just remember, it takes incredible courage to remove the security blanket of conditioning that we were all given during our childhood.

Thanks again!

analyst

Originally Posted by analyst

oki oki... i will stop!!!

No, don't be a quitter.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

No, don't be a quitter.

don't you worry... it was only a momentary rest.
i needed to dream last night too!

Actually I'm thinking of quitting myself. Again.