When you break it down: is atheism unappealing?

[Jimmy Higgins]

From what I see, you still live in a conservative Catholic world, but have persuaded yourself otherwise.

From what I can see,

When it comes to smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists.
Tom

Smugness is reserved to no belief. Also, that doesn’t change the fact you want to just proclaim stuff instead of discuss it:

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From what I see, you still live in a conservative Catholic world, but have persuaded yourself otherwise.

From what I can see,

When it comes to smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists.
Tom

Smugness is reserved to no belief. Also, that doesn’t change the fact you want to just proclaim stuff instead of discuss it:

You are assuming that constructive, productive discussion is possible with everyone when that is just not the case. That assumes that everyone has some basic skill set that allows them to enter into such exchanges rationally and dispassionately. Is that what your observations reveal or is that just an assumption you make?

Humans aren't naturally rational. Humans are naturally emotional and impulse driven. There are lots of reasons for this besides simply different neural arrangements. Children are a good example. The focused, productive youngster is the exception and some of us never leave that otherwise state. Rational discussion is enabled and learned, it's not the default setting. The default setting is emotional decision making despite the fact that in movies and stories children are wise and informed.

It makes no rational sense to me that in today's world someone could chose to be deistic or agnostic or believe in something for which there is no evidence. To me that's just an emotional position. It fulfills some need in a person's emotional well being, which is obviously very important, maybe it simply gives security and purpose. Life is tenuous and we all need our security blankets, besides the fact that emotions and feelings are pretty impossible to describe for us. The behaviors those feeling elicit can be easily documented but we're still at a loss trying to describe exactly what is going on inside us. Words just fail.

I hope I got the gist of your post as intended.

 

[southernhybrid]

Trying to go back to the OP.....

I didn't choose atheism. I just wanted to know the truth. After leaving the conservative Christian religion of my childhood, I searched for truth in other religions for several years during my 20s, and eventually came to realize that no gods exist. The truth set me free. It doesn't bother me in the least knowing that "you only live once and when you're dead you're done". I honestly don't understand the appeal of an afterlife. I guess it gives some people comfort in believing they will be reunited with their loved ones and pets, but the truth is that "we are stardust". That's awesome enough for me.

If others need to cling to beliefs in the supernatural, as long as it helps one navigate life and be a more caring person, I don't see that as a problem. It's very obvious that humanity has always been attracted to mythology.

Unfortunately, humans tend to be tribal and group think can lead to harm, but that can happen among both religious and secular groups. The only appeal I see in organized religion, is the ability to find a community of those who share your beliefs. It's hard for atheists to maintain close communities. I know this from personal experience. Of all the atheist groups that I've joined over the last 20 years, several no longer exist. The one in my local area died out during the pandemic, so currently, most of my friends are Christians. We share many values, so we do our best not to allow our different belief to come between us.

 

[Elixir]

It makes no rational sense to me that in today's world someone could chose to be deistic or agnostic or believe in something for which there is no evidence.

..."no rational sense", except, as you already pointed out, that IS the default setting.
Can you say "stolen election"? What an easy sell, right?

 

[TomC]

smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists

Yet you choose to cling to remnants of their BS.
Doesn't say much for your independence of thought...

TomC smiles and nods and puts Elixir's opinions into a certain file.
Tom

 

[skepticalbip]

smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists

Yet you choose to cling to remnants of their BS.
Doesn't say much for your independence of thought...

TomC smiles and nods and puts Elixir's opinions into a certain file.
Tom

Third person?? Interesting.

 

[TomC]

smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists

Yet you choose to cling to remnants of their BS.
Doesn't say much for your independence of thought...

TomC smiles and nods and puts Elixir's opinions into a certain file.
Tom

Third person?? Interesting.

Your wisdom and insight are an inspiration to us all.
Tom

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I'm going to preface this thread with the fact that these comments aren't an attack on atheism. Whenever something looking like a critique of atheism is presented at this forum, we seem to get a few defensive responses. So to be clear this thread isn't intended to promote religiosity by any means. It's just a quick thought experiment for your consideration.

A few months ago I was reading a title called The Sociobiological Imagination which discussed, in part, why the field of Sociology was hesitant to integrate hard evolutionary theory into it's own theories. I found the answer interesting, and I think it is very relevant to why religiosity survives in our world:

The argument went something like this:

Acceptance of evolutionary theory

• The world and your life is intrinsically meaningless other than what you assign to it
• Anything negative that happens to you is primarily random and indifferent
• Your well-being is entirely up to you, and if you fail it's because you failed / aren't skilled enough
• When you die you will cease to exist. When your friends die they will cease to exist

Belief in God

• Everything you see and feel was designed / has purpose
• Anything negative that happens to you happened for a reason and can be justified
• Your well-being is in someone else's hands, and failure is ok
• You'll never lose your life or friends and family

Although a little more nuanced, that was it in a nutshell. Between the two worldviews it's obvious which one would appeal to more people. So as Atheists, we're all obviously invested in the lack of God because it appeals to us, but when you break the problem down to it's basic elements we're trying to sell the religious a bit of a shithole. Their religion shields them from what is a cruel and indifferent world, they do not want to accept materialism because it isn't much of a cakewalk.

As a Gallup survey demonstrated, 47% of people report having religious experiences. Spontaneous altered states of consciousness. Here is an often overlooked reason religion lingers on. Whether it is some religious manifestation like "The Toronto Blessing" or an episode of Maslow's "Peak Experience", one must understand the great power of religious brain facts. NDEs, OOBEs, and other things of this type can be powerful experiences to hang religion on. Some known powerful religious experiences. known to history were experiences of Pascal and Thomas Aquinas. L. Ron Hubbard created an entire religion based on his ability to induce brain facts in his cult members. This aspect of the phenomena of religion does not get the attention it deserves.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

My stock response is atheism is not monolithic in what atheists do believe.

Religion is not the only path to finding meaning.

Organized atheism provides community and meaning just like organized religion.

I think when it comes to evolution, sociology, and culture it can open a can of worms of political correctness.

No disagreement there. The argument wasn't so much that Atheism is never appealing, or valueless in of itself. It was that it's internal logic isn't appealing to many people, which is why we see so many people gravitate to religious answers.

If someone does find atheism appealing, that's fine.

Depends on who you are and where you are. In America, Generation Z members have rates of Atheism and agnosticism combined of 18%. In England we have higher rates of atheism than in Hogsnout, Alabama. I would think some American members of Generation Z have been influenced by seeing religious members of their families have their brains turned to shit by far right religion and politics. people

 

[Elixir]

smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists

Yet you choose to cling to remnants of their BS.
Doesn't say much for your independence of thought...

TomC smiles and nods and puts Elixir's opinions into a certain file.
Tom

Third person?? Interesting.

Your wisdom and insight are an inspiration to us all.
Tom

You give too much credit for noticing the obvious.

 

[TomC]

It makes no rational sense to me that in today's world someone could chose to be deistic or agnostic or believe in something for which there is no evidence.

This is why I find atheism unappealing. It's a belief for which there is no evidence. Agnosticism is the only rational belief. Atheism is as unevidenced as theism.

Less evidenced, really. There is absolutely no evidence for atheism. While the evidence for any particular version of theism is extremely weak, at least there is some. Like me, you may find people's visions or whatever incredibly weak evidence. But there is some. Atheism has nothing whatever in the way of evidence.

To me that's just an emotional position. It fulfills some need in a person's emotional well being, which is obviously very important, maybe it simply gives security and purpose.

Then we get to this part of the human experience. You might prefer to believe that hard atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, isn't an emotion based world view but it is. It fulfills a person's need to believe that they understand reality, despite the utter lack of evidence supporting their world view.

Agnosticism is the recognition that we humans aren't all that smart. Our mental processes are weak. Our perceptions are weak. There's a lot more to reality than we can grasp.

Atheism reminds me of the flat earth creationism of the olden days.
Based on the limited understanding available to primitive people, it was obvious that creation consisted of a huge, solid, lumpy plane. It had a blue dome over the top and the sun was a relatively small object that zipped across the sky every day.
The idea that we humans would develop better tools and methods and concepts didn't occur to most people. We did, but it took a long time.

Similarly, modern people often believe that our current tools and methods and concepts are sufficient to explain everything important. Particles, energy, wave functions, if our current science can't even describe it(much less explain it) it doesn't exist. It isn't important.

I don't have that much Faith in human ability. I'm confident that there's as much more to learn and understand now as there was three thousand years ago. But like then, human hubris will get in the way. Because people have an emotional attachment to believing that they understand everything important.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is why I find atheism unappealing. It's a belief for which there is no evidence.

You are correct. An absence of evidence for gods is atheism. We're in agreement.

 

[Elixir]

My problem with agnosticism is what people think it is.
If they hear me say “I’m agnostic” and they believe in a god or gods, they think I’m saying “I don’t know whether or not the old white-bearded man in the sky that Christianity embraces is real”.
In fact I’m saying “Nope, that shit ain’t real. I don’t know if some creator entity beyond our understanding might exist, but that ain’t it.”

 

[TomC]

My problem with agnosticism is what people think it is.
If they hear me say “I’m agnostic” and they believe in a god or gods, they think I’m saying “I don’t know whether or not the old white-bearded man in the sky that Christianity embraces is real”.
In fact I’m saying “Nope, that shit ain’t real. I don’t know if some creator entity beyond our understanding might exist, but that ain’t it.”

So, the problem with agnosticism isn't agnosticism. It's your opinion about other people's opinions.

You're an Abrahamic religionist who doesn't believe in Abrahamic theology. I understand that. I was one too, for most of my adult life. It took decades for me to realize that Moses, Paul, and Muhammad didn't know anything more about god than I do. I could blow off their opinions and develop my own world view.

I found the "bumbling Sky King with superpowers" image of God utterly lacking in credibility. I thought that made me an atheist. But, over time, I realized that I don't have to choose between that primitive god image and atheism.
So, now I don't.
Tom

 

[TomC]

This is why I find atheism unappealing. It's a belief for which there is no evidence.

You are correct. An absence of evidence for gods is atheism. We're in agreement.

That isn't what I said. Because I don't believe it.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In fact I’m saying “Nope, that shit ain’t real. I don’t know if some creator entity beyond our understanding might exist, but that ain’t it.”

Now my question would be that even if this universe was created by a sentient being, what would make such being a god?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is why I find atheism unappealing. It's a belief for which there is no evidence.

You are correct. An absence of evidence for gods is atheism. We're in agreement.

That isn't what I said. Because I don't believe it.
Tom

Come on. You did actually say it and now you are saying that you don't believe what you say. I can believe that second part so we're still in agreement as I see it.

It might kinda get back to Sagan's "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But the way you are making statements it would be like me saying "there is no evidence for and absence of evidence so Sagan's statement is pointless and wrong." If you are saying there is no evidence for an absence of evidence for gods that strikes me as silly.

 

[TomC]

In fact I’m saying “Nope, that shit ain’t real. I don’t know if some creator entity beyond our understanding might exist, but that ain’t it.”

Now my question would be that even if this universe was created by a sentient being, what would make such being a god?

Ever consider the possibility that god isn't a sentient being? The possibility that "The Creator", "Original Source", "Ground of Being", whatever, isn't limited by sentience?
Or any other human characteristics?
Tom

 

[TomC]

Come on. You did actually say it and now you are saying that you don't believe what you say.

No, I didn't say that.
You may have interpreted something I as meaning that, but I didn't say it.

I'm pretty sure the problem is that you've got a theological world view that you filter everything through. So you change the meaning of which people say to match.

It's not a new thing, I'm used to this sort of thing from theological purists. Hard atheists to evangelical Christians, it's not very different.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In fact I’m saying “Nope, that shit ain’t real. I don’t know if some creator entity beyond our understanding might exist, but that ain’t it.”

Now my question would be that even if this universe was created by a sentient being, what would make such being a god?

Ever consider the possibility that god isn't a sentient being? The possibility that "The Creator", "Original Source", "Ground of Being", whatever, isn't limited by sentience?
Or any other human characteristics?
Tom

Some people say that mountains and forests are gods. What makes them gods and not just mountains and forests? If a god is whatever I want a god to be than the word is meaningless. I could claim to be an alien from the Oort cloud. What does that accomplish? I could say that everything is an alien from the Oort cloud. Where does that go?