There seems to be some interest in my Helium article on the causes of atheism. The link to this article is here.
Note: this article is not speaking in reference to individual reasons to align with atheism, but with great brevity addresses the cultural and historical context of atheism and new atheism. This is by no means a comprehensive article.
I chose to address it in the historical movement context rather than citing various reasons individual people are atheists for those answers are diverse and I would do them an injustice to lump them into a handful of reasons.
Just the same, all feedback is appreciated.
13 comments:
karla said: The cause of atheism is a reaction to empty religion.
WRONG. Not bad for a 1st sentence!
karla said: the movement is inextricably tied to the modern era and a response to the modern religion of rules and regulations devoid of love and power.
What 'movement'?
Also none of the atheists I know became atheists because of christianities 'rules and regulations'. You make it sound like people become atheists so that they can become guilt free hedonists!
karla said: It has no battle with a religion of love.
Wrong again. Atheism is counter to religion. Whether that religion puts forward ideas of love or hate is irrelevant.
karla said: It has no battle with real miracles and love pouring forth from Christians.
Yes it does - because atheists do not believe that miracles do occur or *can* occur.
karla said: It has no battle and no defense against such things. It desires authenticity of truth and will not be swayed by false religion.
Actually *any* religion. By definition atheists would see *all* religions as false.
karla said: Atheism would not need to exist if the Church was fully who she is designed to be.
Yes, it would [shakes head]. Atheism is not about a reaction to bad religious practices. It's about not believing nonsensical propositions.
karla said: Atheism will fade into obscurity as the truth shines brighter, so bright that it shows the atheists the reality of what they think is wishful thinking.
No, it won't because what you regard as truth *is* (certainly from my point of view as an atheist) practically the *definition* of wishful thinking! I can only hope that at some point in the future religion will only exist in obscure history books.
Cyber, no I wasn't speaking in terms of morality, but of rigidity. Much of church culture in some circles can be lacking in freedom.
"Wrong again. Atheism is counter to religion. Whether that religion puts forward ideas of love or hate is irrelevant."
Actually I shouldn't have used the word religion in that sentence.
Re; miracles. I know atheists don't believe in them, but I am pretty sure if you saw one or received one you would not have any battle with the reality of it.
If the church really lived out what we profess there wouldn't be atheists, there may be those who don't want life with God, but they would know He was real.
'Did my best to refrain from commenting, but simply could not let this go....
"If the church really lived out what we profess there wouldn't be atheists, there may be those who don't want life with God, but they would know He was real." ~ Karla[bold, mine]
Utterly, positively, false. If all Muslims "lived out what [they] profess", I wouldn't necessarily adopt a belief in "Allah". If all bigfoot tracker's descriptions of bigfoot matched, I wouldn't necessarily adopt a belief in large-footed community gorillas.
IOW, that there is unity/consistancy among believers of a given proposition doesn't automatically constitute evidence of its truth. When/if I, an atheist, point out that those who claim to be guided by a "Holy Spirit" aren't behaving as if they are being guided by the same entity, I am merely saying it is much more likely that none of them are being guided by such an entity, as opposed to some are, and some aren't.
There's more to refute, but ehh....
What I said doesn't pertain to other belief systems. I meant if people really saw Christians raising people from the dead, healing the sick, and having unnatural knowledge from God (knowing things they couldn't know otherwise), there would be a greater validation present for our claim to be in relationship with God.
Yes, well, let's face it, to "live out what [you] profess" is vague and open to interpretation. It could mean anything from simply behaving morally, or it could mean raising people out their graves. Out of the two, yes, the latter would be more convincing.
karla said: Actually I shouldn't have used the word religion in that sentence.
What word would you have used?
karla said: I know atheists don't believe in them, but I am pretty sure if you saw one or received one you would not have any battle with the reality of it.
Erm, yes I would..... because I'm a skeptic. First I would look for a natural explanation. If one was not forthcoming I'd label it 'unexplained' rather than 'the hand of God'. It was was a blatant miracle and I was the only witness I would, obviously, doubt my sanity and seek medical attention.
karla said: If the church really lived out what we profess there wouldn't be atheists, there may be those who don't want life with God, but they would know He was real.
...and that is proof positive that either you haven't been listening to what we've been saying or do not understand it. I have no issue with any church over and above the fact that I believe that their beliefs are wrong (putting Catholic child molestation to one side for the moment). The fact that all human institutions are falible is not the reason I'm an atheist. Fortunately I have had very minimal dealings with those organisations.
The reason I'm an atheist is that there is no *credible* evidence to support the existence of God nor are there any *reasonable* arguments that support it - as far as I am aware. If *any* church was as perfect as humans could make it - that still wouldn't make me want to join them and definitely wouldn't make me start beliving in God.
Boom "Yes, well, let's face it, to "live out what [you] profess" is vague and open to interpretation. It could mean anything from simply behaving morally, or it could mean raising people out their graves. Out of the two, yes, the latter would be more convincing."
I agree.
Cyber "The reason I'm an atheist is that there is no *credible* evidence to support the existence of God nor are there any *reasonable* arguments that support it - as far as I am aware. If *any* church was as perfect as humans could make it - that still wouldn't make me want to join them and definitely wouldn't make me start beliving in God."
I understand that. And I agree that one should only believe something because it has supporting evidence warranting such belief. And a morally good church would not be such evidence.
A perfect church wasn't what I was referring to. I was talking about being vessels that deliver such evidence in a tangible way -- hence living in such a way that miracles of all sorts happen through us. If you saw that happening again and again I don't think you would question your sanity, but the look for the power source of these miracle bearers.
karla said: And I agree that one should only believe something because it has supporting evidence warranting such belief. And a morally good church would not be such evidence.
[sigh] No... It wouldn't.
Being a good person is not evidence for God. Being part of a good organisation is not evidence for God.
karla said: I was talking about being vessels that deliver such evidence in a tangible way -- hence living in such a way that miracles of all sorts happen through us.
I'm sorry, but I think that's completely nonsensical.
karla said: I don't think you would question your sanity, but the look for the power source of these miracle bearers.
Again, I wouldn't plan on holding your breath on that one.
"I was talking about being vessels that deliver such evidence in a tangible way -- hence living in such a way that miracles of all sorts happen through us." ~ Karla
Cyberkitten responds...I'm sorry, but I think that's completely nonsensical.
@ Cyber',
But are you shocked? What I see is the ususal vague, equivocal godspeak that we've grown accustomed to. Christians can either perform the same sorts of "miracles" that their bible says they'll be able to perform, for instance, raising the dead, or they can't. They can't. Thus, talking about in what "way" believers are "living" is irrelevant, and amounts to equivocation. To you and me, it's, yes, nonsensical jibberish. To her, the already-convinced, it makes perfect sense.
Cyber "Being a good person is not evidence for God. Being part of a good organisation is not evidence for God."
I wasn't saying that it was. I was talking about something else entirely.
karla said: And a morally good church would not be such evidence.
karla said: I wasn't saying that it was. I was talking about something else entirely.
Sorry, I mis-read your comment and missed out the *not* hence I misunderstood what you said.
boomSLANG said: But are you shocked?
Shocked? No, but I'm always surprised (and a little saddened) that people in the modern age still think magically. I find it quite inexplicable.
I guess that you really have to be "inside the bubble" for it to make much sense.
Post a Comment