Why is it so important for atheists that God does not exist?

[JCS60]

I think you are wrong. Humans if left alone will develop animist faiths. I think we have an instinct to endow inanimate objects with a sense of agency. I think it's just a natural side effect of... well... it's safer than wrongly assuming that a deadly animal doesn't have agency. So nature steers us into supernaturalism.

I think it has to actively be unlearned. But I think both monotheism and atheism is as unnatural for people to believe. Both have to be learned.

What do you mean by left alone?
Atheism is not unnatural it's what you are when you're born, no beliefs required. My kids weren't exposed and guess what? Now their children are growing up and only 1 of the 4 has been exposed and that 1 likes the idea of eternal life, not having to say goodbye has an appeal to her but the bunk it's built on makes it seem "stupid". The other grandma put this in her head against the wishes of the parents.
So I don't agree with you. Maybe years ago you know before toilet paper humans might have assigned agency to objects but I don't see it now unless their infected.

Thinking about this a little more and I still can't buy it. Say we had 30 newborns and we raised them never using terms like religion or atheism gave them a education based on current knowledge. When we reach the part where we say it's a singularly and they ask what's that and we say we don't know or understand it those kids will assign a supernatural agency to it. Sorry I can't buy that.

 

[Elixir]

What do you mean by left alone?
Atheism is not unnatural it's what you are when you're born, no beliefs required. My kids weren't exposed and guess what? Now their children are growing up and only 1 of the 4 has been exposed and that 1 likes the idea of eternal life, not having to say goodbye has an appeal to her but the bunk it's built on makes it seem "stupid". The other grandma put this in her head against the wishes of the parents.
So I don't agree with you. Maybe years ago you know before toilet paper humans might have assigned agency to objects but I don't see it now unless their infected.

Thinking about this a little more and I still can't buy it. Say we had 30 newborns and we raised them never using terms like religion or atheism gave them a education based on current knowledge. When we reach the part where we say it's a singularly and they ask what's that and we say we don't know or understand it those kids will assign a supernatural agency to it. Sorry I can't buy that.

While I am certain that's correct, I don't believe it would be necessary to insulate them against terms that refer to religions or lack thereof. Simply giving them "all available information to make an informed decision" as Dr Z prescribes, would be sufficient.

 

[JCS60]

Thinking about this a little more and I still can't buy it. Say we had 30 newborns and we raised them never using terms like religion or atheism gave them a education based on current knowledge. When we reach the part where we say it's a singularly and they ask what's that and we say we don't know or understand it those kids will assign a supernatural agency to it. Sorry I can't buy that.

While I am certain that's correct, I don't believe it would be necessary to insulate them against terms that refer to religions or lack thereof. Simply giving them "all available information to make an informed decision" as Dr Z prescribes, would be sufficient.

It's just a thought experiment based on the idea if you left humans alone they would assign supernatural agency to anything outside their understanding. That is why the process involved leaving out mentioning religious terminology. He seemed to believe even if we never exposed them to this concept they would go their on their own anyway. I still believe born no belief you remain as such unless infected.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think it would take a long time, to go from being sure that the ballpeen hammer has it in for me to get to the idea that there's a skybeast who judges me for hammering on the day his only begotten daughter got married to the volcano.

And I'm certain we would not reinvent any specific religion again unless some links were provided.

I think that if we had the technical knowledge base of today, with explanations for where lightning comes from, why thunder lags it, what those lights in the sky are, and started all over again as far as social groupings are concerned, we'd probably reinvent superstitions of some sort (or as we called it in the Navy, 'paying attention'), but probably not go beyond that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think you are wrong. Humans if left alone will develop animist faiths.

Of course they will. They do. They always have. Until recently that is, when most of the stuff attributed to deities (or whatever concept serves as such) has rendered those deities obsolete by scientific explanation. If they are given ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION, not only that information that regards human superstitions, children will remain as atheistic as they were born.

Giving them the available information is the opposite of leaving them alone

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think it would take a long time, to go from being sure that the ballpeen hammer has it in for me to get to the idea that there's a skybeast who judges me for hammering on the day his only begotten daughter got married to the volcano.

And I'm certain we would not reinvent any specific religion again unless some links were provided.

I think that if we had the technical knowledge base of today, with explanations for where lightning comes from, why thunder lags it, what those lights in the sky are, and started all over again as far as social groupings are concerned, we'd probably reinvent superstitions of some sort (or as we called it in the Navy, 'paying attention'), but probably not go beyond that.

Not everyone is bright and scientifically curious like you. Most aren't. Explanations for religious belief run deeper and obviously the behavior conferred a survival advantage. It's beginnings? Who knows for sure. My pet theory is that there was a time in our ancestral past when bipolar type behavior was much more common, even the norm. It's still around in the religious experience in varying degrees, still expressing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the answer is much simpler that that - we just want to understand the world around us. Until recently, however, the tools available to us to do so have pretty much been absolute shite. When you combine that with our brains' propensity to generate false positives with pattern recognition, you get religion.

 

[JCS60]

Thinking about this a little more and I still can't buy it. Say we had 30 newborns and we raised them never using terms like religion or atheism gave them a education based on current knowledge. When we reach the part where we say it's a singularly and they ask what's that and we say we don't know or understand it those kids will assign a supernatural agency to it. Sorry I can't buy that.

While I am certain that's correct, I don't believe it would be necessary to insulate them against terms that refer to religions or lack thereof. Simply giving them "all available information to make an informed decision" as Dr Z prescribes, would be sufficient.

It's just a thought experiment based on the idea if you left humans alone they would assign supernatural agency to anything outside their understanding. That is why the process involved leaving out mentioning religious terminology. He seemed to believe even if we never exposed them to this concept they would go their on their own anyway. I still believe born no belief you remain as such unless infected.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What do you mean by left alone?
Atheism is not unnatural it's what you are when you're born, no beliefs required. My kids weren't exposed and guess what? Now their children are growing up and only 1 of the 4 has been exposed and that 1 likes the idea of eternal life, not having to say goodbye has an appeal to her but the bunk it's built on makes it seem "stupid". The other grandma put this in her head against the wishes of the parents.
So I don't agree with you. Maybe years ago you know before toilet paper humans might have assigned agency to objects but I don't see it now unless their infected.

Thinking about this a little more and I still can't buy it. Say we had 30 newborns and we raised them never using terms like religion or atheism gave them a education based on current knowledge. When we reach the part where we say it's a singularly and they ask what's that and we say we don't know or understand it those kids will assign a supernatural agency to it. Sorry I can't buy that.

So, would you presume that scientists can't be atheists because they know there are limitations in their physical theories and must fill their gap in understanding with the supernatural? Or, is it that as children they will want to fill in with the supernatural but as they get older they'll realize they were mistaken?

 

[JCS60]

Thinking about this a little more and I still can't buy it. Say we had 30 newborns and we raised them never using terms like religion or atheism gave them a education based on current knowledge. When we reach the part where we say it's a singularly and they ask what's that and we say we don't know or understand it those kids will assign a supernatural agency to it. Sorry I can't buy that.

So, would you presume that scientists can't be atheists because they know there are limitations in their physical theories and must fill their gap in understanding with the supernatural? Or, is it that as children they will want to fill in with the supernatural but as they get older they'll realize they were mistaken?

Ah no....that isn't at all what I said you flipped the script. I'm saying you are born without religious beliefs and unless infected with it you most likely would remain as such. That was the basis of the thought experiment. Raise the kids without exposure teach them what we have learned to this point in history. Im saying anything we don't know or understand at this juncture (singularity) they would not automatically assign supernatural agency to it unless supernatural beliefs are something they were raised to accept as valid.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, would you presume that scientists can't be atheists because they know there are limitations in their physical theories and must fill their gap in understanding with the supernatural? Or, is it that as children they will want to fill in with the supernatural but as they get older they'll realize they were mistaken?

Ah no....that isn't at all what I said you flipped the script. I'm saying you are born without religious beliefs and unless infected with it you most likely would remain as such. That was the basis of the thought experiment. Raise the kids without exposure teach them what we have learned to this point in history. Im saying anything we don't know or understand at this juncture (singularity) they would not automatically assign supernatural agency to it unless supernatural beliefs are something they were raised to accept as valid.

Sorry, I think I just misread your statement. You said "Sorry I can't buy that" and I missed that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think that the answer is much simpler that that - we just want to understand the world around us. Until recently, however, the tools available to us to do so have pretty much been absolute shite. When you combine that with our brains' propensity to generate false positives with pattern recognition, you get religion.

You've apparently never interacted on a personal level with a bipolar individual on a manic high spouting about angels and gods and all manner of other irrational things.

 

[Tigers!]

But has there been any occurrences of legal action taken against a parent for merely teaching her children her religious beliefs?

Do you mean just in the 'West' or anywhere?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But has there been any occurrences of legal action taken against a parent for merely teaching her children her religious beliefs?

Do you mean just in the 'West' or anywhere?

Well it was your claim "They demand that that I should live to their beliefs (or lack thereof)."
Where do you mean? West or anywhest?

 

[Malintent]

I too value truth. Yes, truth does not care whether we like it ru not. It just is. Thats why truth is important.

The repercussions. Depending on who you talk to, knowing whether there's a god or not entails a lot of possible repercussions that could very much affect me. Like, what I should value. How I should live, and what may or may not happen to me when I die. These are not small details.

Correct they are not small details. Truth has consequences, whether we accept them or not.

They cannot "leave it at that". For various reasons, many Christians seem to think that it's not good enough for them to live according to their religious beleifs, but demand that others - who do not share those belefs - should as well. This has caused qute a lot of harm in the past and present. Also, different religions have mutually excusive rules that they say must be followed. These religious groups are fond of legislating their beliefs, and I find this unacceptable.

I find that atheists cannot stop telling me how I should live my life. They demand that that I should live to their beliefs (or lack thereof).

Really? Could you give an example of this?

Yep. I'll bite. Let's go.

The OP never responded to this (that I can find).

Asked and Answered... Atheists care about their freedom from religious dictatorship. It is wrong to tell someone else how to live righteously. It is wrong to legislate based on faith.

Atheists do not do this to Theists. Theists are guilty of this against atheists AND other theists... and this is why atheists are forced to address infantile beliefs as they do. It is in defense of their liberty.

no one cares if you believe in fairies and ghosts. Everyone cares if you want to pass a law prohibiting the use of condoms because you think ghosts will be mad.

 

[Underseer]

It's pretty clear that atheism helps its adherents in various ways. If they feel it does then it does. There's no point arguing against that.

What I don't understand is why the atheists can't leave it at that?

Why is it so important for them that God does not exist? Why can't God exist?

Why can't the creation of the universe be just whatever God created? Why not God?

Why do so many Christian arguments boil down to "You should not disagree with me in public?" In this, you have much in common with Muslims in Muslim-majority countries.

The mere fact that you Christians constantly make arguments like this helps to underscore the problem. You use lies to get what you want, and the moment anyone tries to call you out on it, you demand their silence.

I suppose we should be thankful you no longer set people on fire for this. You have my deepest gratitude for that. Developing that kind of self control must have been very difficult for all of you.

 

[Atheos]

I too value truth. Yes, truth does not care whether we like it ru not. It just is. Thats why truth is important.

The repercussions. Depending on who you talk to, knowing whether there's a god or not entails a lot of possible repercussions that could very much affect me. Like, what I should value. How I should live, and what may or may not happen to me when I die. These are not small details.

Correct they are not small details. Truth has consequences, whether we accept them or not.

They cannot "leave it at that". For various reasons, many Christians seem to think that it's not good enough for them to live according to their religious beleifs, but demand that others - who do not share those belefs - should as well. This has caused qute a lot of harm in the past and present. Also, different religions have mutually excusive rules that they say must be followed. These religious groups are fond of legislating their beliefs, and I find this unacceptable.

I find that atheists cannot stop telling me how I should live my life. They demand that that I should live to their beliefs (or lack thereof).

Really? Could you give an example of this?

Yep. I'll bite. Let's go.

The OP never responded to this (that I can find).

Asked and Answered... Atheists care about their freedom from religious dictatorship. It is wrong to tell someone else how to live righteously. It is wrong to legislate based on faith.

Atheists do not do this to Theists. Theists are guilty of this against atheists AND other theists... and this is why atheists are forced to address infantile beliefs as they do. It is in defense of their liberty.

no one cares if you believe in fairies and ghosts. Everyone cares if you want to pass a law prohibiting the use of condoms because you think ghosts will be mad.

Actually Tigers did respond:

Sorry lads/lassies been away for a few days with work. Just thought that I'd pop my head to see if anyone is awake.

1. The insinuation/allegation that teaching children about God or religious beliefs is 'child abuse' (from dear friends Dawkins, Hitchens et al ) is one that I found most disturbing. It will be claimed that is not public policy yet but it well be in the future.
2. In Australia the calls are out for parliamentarians to not be allowed to 'allow their religious beliefs to influence public policy or laws'. Would it be that atheists had the same burden.

 

[jab]

What I don't understand is why the atheists can't leave it at that?

Why is it so important for them that God does not exist?

1. It is important because truth and an as-accurate-as possible understanding of the Universe matter.
2. Why do those two things matter?-->Because, as other posters in this thread have pointed out, people who are out of touch with reality are likely to make grievous errors in their actions, and in this case (a belief in a non-existent transcendently powerful being) do actually make grievous errors.

 

[jab]

They all contradict each other, they can't all be true, but they can all be false.

one must be true

pick one that suit you

one must be true? !!!!
why? what is the logic behind that naked assertion?

 

[braces_for_impact]

I too value truth. Yes, truth does not care whether we like it ru not. It just is. Thats why truth is important.

The repercussions. Depending on who you talk to, knowing whether there's a god or not entails a lot of possible repercussions that could very much affect me. Like, what I should value. How I should live, and what may or may not happen to me when I die. These are not small details.

Correct they are not small details. Truth has consequences, whether we accept them or not.

They cannot "leave it at that". For various reasons, many Christians seem to think that it's not good enough for them to live according to their religious beleifs, but demand that others - who do not share those belefs - should as well. This has caused qute a lot of harm in the past and present. Also, different religions have mutually excusive rules that they say must be followed. These religious groups are fond of legislating their beliefs, and I find this unacceptable.

I find that atheists cannot stop telling me how I should live my life. They demand that that I should live to their beliefs (or lack thereof).

Really? Could you give an example of this?

Yep. I'll bite. Let's go.

The OP never responded to this (that I can find).

Asked and Answered... Atheists care about their freedom from religious dictatorship. It is wrong to tell someone else how to live righteously. It is wrong to legislate based on faith.

Atheists do not do this to Theists. Theists are guilty of this against atheists AND other theists... and this is why atheists are forced to address infantile beliefs as they do. It is in defense of their liberty.

no one cares if you believe in fairies and ghosts. Everyone cares if you want to pass a law prohibiting the use of condoms because you think ghosts will be mad.

Actually Tigers did respond:

Sorry lads/lassies been away for a few days with work. Just thought that I'd pop my head to see if anyone is awake.

1. The insinuation/allegation that teaching children about God or religious beliefs is 'child abuse' (from dear friends Dawkins, Hitchens et al ) is one that I found most disturbing. It will be claimed that is not public policy yet but it well be in the future.
2. In Australia the calls are out for parliamentarians to not be allowed to 'allow their religious beliefs to influence public policy or laws'. Would it be that atheists had the same burden.

As far as I can see, Tigers! actually never answered the question, despite the "answer".