What triggers atheism?

[harvey1]

I've been thinking about this subject lately because some atheists on this board said at one time they were a Christian. Then I got to wondering, what would bring a Christian to the point to where they no longer believed in God?

In Christianity, the scriptures are very clear on what brings such a person to that point:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen

This verse in Romans 1 clearly sums up what many Christians believe about so-called Christians who turn away from believing in God. The particular verse that is emphasized is that atheism is in response to:

• not glorifying God
• not giving God thanks
• thinking became futile
• their foolish hearts were darkened
• exchanged the truth of God for a lie
• began worshipping the universe rather than God

When you look at that list, the one that sticks out the most is that their "thinking became futile." That is, "thinking" in Greek is better translated as "disputing within themselves," or "questioning what is true." And, "futile" is translated as vain, empty, or foolish. Hence, they began a line of inquiry within themselves that they started doubting their beliefs in a vain and empty kind of reasoning. That is, I translate it as, "their thinking began to consider meaninglessness as meaningful."

I think that is right on the money. In all my experience with people who became atheists (which seems like the majority of atheists, although I'm not sure), what seems to be the case universally is that meaninglessness became somehow a meaningful way to think for them. So, instead of seeing purpose in creation, they began to see it as meaningless. Somehow, this soon developed into a line of thought where they "began to worship the universe rather than God."

So, what evil lurks at that point when you see meaninglessness as meaningful? In my mind, it's as Paul stated: "they claimed to be wise, they became fools." In other words, they were lured away from God by the appeal of wisdom. The same reason why Eve took the forbidden fruit from the serpent. The desire for wisdom, if not tempered with the desire to give God glory, is a subtle means by which a Christian can become at odds with God.

Therefore, here's my question. Is atheism caused by a rejection of meaning in life in order to be vainly knowledgeable, is that what is really happening? I'd like to understand what causes someone from a natural tendency to be open-minded about the causes of the universe, to be very narrow-minded about what can't be the cause.

[bernee51]

That would be correct - ignorance as to the existence or otherwise of god(s)

Bernee, agnostics don't believe because they don't think there's sufficient evidence for that belief, not because they are ignorant people. C'mon.

T'was you who used the word 'ignorant' Harv - not I. Are You are being deliberately disingenuous or just playing games?

Christians like to define god - why don't you leave it up to atheists to define atheism. Here is a good place to start

Atheism can define itself however it pleases unless it protrudes into other beliefs (e.g., agnosticism or pantheism). Those bounderies are already determined, so atheists will have to accept the historic designation. Agnosticism was an invented term by Huxley to find a middle ground between theism and atheism.

This is where I, and many atheists, have a difference of opinion...agnosticism is not 'middle ground between theism and atheism', it is not even on the same continuum. One has to do with knowledge, the other belief.

[bernee51]

This post, however, plumbs the depths of consdescention

Too bad you think that.

If you say so. I don't think it is 'bad' or 'good' - just a statement of fact.

The New Testament is quite clear that a Christian is someone who has devoted their life to that calling and are willing to undergo ultimate sacrifices to remain a Christian.

As we have seen from the myriad discussions here and elsewhere the NT is much open to interpretation. What we are getting from you is YOUR interpretation. How are we to know if it is correct for anyone other than Harvey?

And it is the very same thing, along with the large shadow of your ego that is shielding you from the truth.

Okay, is that supposed to be a Buddhist joke? Why do you bring up Eastern religious beliefs as part of your atheist beliefs?

No joke.

And christainity has similar beliefs.

A fundamental in the christian faith is the resurrection, is it not. If that is seen in a symbolic sense it fits exactly with my own beliefs. The torture of Jesus (all life is suffering), the death of Jesus (death of ego and removal of the cause of suffering), the ascent (the acceptance of Emptiness, the Nothing), the resurrection (the emergence of the Self)

A mythological god is not necessary - in fact is a hindrance.

Atheism is not a belief system - where is the system? Describe it to me. Most atheist I know could care less about what christians want to believe - it is not beholden on someone who lacks belief in god to convince the world of their beliefs.

Yeah... Sure.

I obviously clouded my question...

I repeat...you and others claim atheism is a belief system - where is the system?

[harvey1]

That would be correct - ignorance as to the existence or otherwise of god(s)

Bernee, agnostics don't believe because they don't think there's sufficient evidence for that belief, not because they are ignorant people. C'mon.

T'was you who used the word 'ignorant' Harv - not I. Are You are being deliberately disingenuous or just playing games?

No. I do not think that agnostics are saying they are ignorant about a God. They are saying that they don't have enough evidence to believe that there is a God. There's a big difference in terms. If they were ignorant, it could mean the evidence is out there, but they are just too lazy or too intellectually-challenged in arriving at the right answer. If they don't think the evidence exists to make a reasonable conclusion, then they aren't pleading ignorance, they are citing that any belief other than being non-committal is fool-hardy. According to agnostics, both theists and atheists are fool-hardy. That's hardly the attitude of someone who can be an atheist or be a theist as you suggest.

Atheism can define itself however it pleases unless it protrudes into other beliefs (e.g., agnosticism or pantheism). Those bounderies are already determined, so atheists will have to accept the historic designation. Agnosticism was an invented term by Huxley to find a middle ground between theism and atheism.

This is where I, and many atheists, have a difference of opinion...agnosticism is not 'middle ground between theism and atheism', it is not even on the same continuum. One has to do with knowledge, the other belief.

That's just not so Bernee. Philosophy already has terms for knowledge, and agnosticism is not the term philosophers use to indicate that someone doesn't feel they can absolutely know something. In fact, I hardly doubt there's a philosopher out there who feels that knowledge is infallible. Do you know any?

You see, this is the kind of ridiculousness that happens when people want to make atheism and agnosticism compatible. What are the motives? That's what people should be asking. It demonstrates that atheism is not about truth, it's about a propaganda program. Nothing new here to many theists, I'm afraid.

[harvey1]

This post, however, plumbs the depths of consdescention

Too bad you think that.

If you say so. I don't think it is 'bad' or 'good' - just a statement of fact.

Like I said, too bad you think that way. Atheism is obviously false, and I could only hope that someday you see through all of the baloney they've been dishing out.

The New Testament is quite clear that a Christian is someone who has devoted their life to that calling and are willing to undergo ultimate sacrifices to remain a Christian.

As we have seen from the myriad discussions here and elsewhere the NT is much open to interpretation. What we are getting from you is YOUR interpretation. How are we to know if it is correct for anyone other than Harvey?

Interpretation is certainly an issue, but this is not an issue that is subject to too much interpretation. I can quote two or three dozen scriptures with ease that support this view. I would be surprised if a knowledgeable person on the Christian scriptures disagreed with me.

And it is the very same thing, along with the large shadow of your ego that is shielding you from the truth.

Okay, is that supposed to be a Buddhist joke? Why do you bring up Eastern religious beliefs as part of your atheist beliefs?

No joke. And christainity has similar beliefs. A fundamental in the christian faith is the resurrection, is it not. If that is seen in a symbolic sense it fits exactly with my own beliefs. The torture of Jesus (all life is suffering), the death of Jesus (death of ego and removal of the cause of suffering), the ascent (the acceptance of Emptiness, the Nothing), the resurrection (the emergence of the Self) A mythological god is not necessary - in fact is a hindrance.

Well, a Buddhist might see it that way, but you are an atheist, not a Buddhist, correct? You believe that all that ego stuff is just religious balloohe, right? Who cares what you have for ego. Once you're gone, it won't matter if you were the 19 hijackers or St. Teresa in life.

Atheism is not a belief system - where is the system? Describe it to me. Most atheist I know could care less about what christians want to believe - it is not beholden on someone who lacks belief in god to convince the world of their beliefs... I repeat...you and others claim atheism is a belief system - where is the system?

Atheists have as much a common system of beliefs as theists, perhaps more so since many of you visit the same websites and read the same 10 books. Just name the topic. God, existence of evil, revealed knowledge, etc., etc..

[bernee51]

That's just not so Bernee. Philosophy already has terms for knowledge, and agnosticism is not the term philosophers use to indicate that someone doesn't feel they can absolutely know something.

Harvey - you are slipping, fallacies are creeping in all over the place. No need to put a name to this one. You know full well agnosticism as we are discussing it is not about "someone doesn't feel they can absolutely know something." - we are speaking specifically about knowledge or otherwise of the existence of as deity.

You see, this is the kind of ridiculousness that happens when people want to make atheism and agnosticism compatible.

They are a different species altogether. One is about knowledge, the other about belief. Even you cannot deny this. Of course they can co-exist.

All I see is the ridiculousness of people who are so wedded to an idea that they(or their ego) will not allow them to search for knowledge. Huxley may have given agnosticism its name but the idea has been around for millennia.

Perhaps those who are interested can have a look at the site (a discussion of the philospohic origins of agnosticism) from which the following was taken...

"No one before Huxley would have described themselves as agnostics, but we can identify philosophers and scholars who insisted that either they didn’t have knowledge of Ultimate Reality and gods, or that it wasn’t possible for anyone to have such knowledge — both positions associated with agnosticism.

Perhaps the simplest and earliest statement of a basic agnostic position was made by Protagoras, who according to Diogenes Laertius said:
As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life."

What are the motives? That's what people should be asking. It demonstrates that atheism is not about truth, it's about a propaganda program. Nothing new here to many theists, I'm afraid.

Au contraire dear Harv....atheism (AFAIAC) IS about a search for the truth and bringing about growth from pre-rational mythlogical belief that does very littel more than promote narcissicism and ethnocentricity.

You (or your beliefs) have good reason to be afraid because evolution is inexorable.

[bernee51]

Like I said, too bad you think that way. Atheism is obviously false, and I could only hope that someday you see through all of the baloney they've been dishing out.

Your god does not exist and I can only hope that one day the fact that you are 'enlightened' will be revealed to you.

Well, a Buddhist might see it that way, but you are an atheist, not a Buddhist, correct? You believe that all that ego stuff is just religious balloohe, right? Who cares what you have for ego. .

The point I was trying to make is that all systems of belief have something to offer. As does the non belief in a deity. Dealing with the ego is about dealing with life.

BTW there is no conflict with being both an atheist and a buddhist.

]
Once you're gone, it won't matter if you were the 19 hijackers or St. Teresa in life

I don't agree. It matters to me. As it should matter to any human being.

Atheists have as much a common system of beliefs as theists, perhaps more so since many of you visit the same websites and read the same 10 books. Just name the topic. God, existence of evil, revealed knowledge, etc., etc..

All that atheists (in general) have in common is a lack of belief in god(s). If there are other topics in which they wish to dip their oar it may relate directly to their professed atheism or may not. There is no pre-requisite system of belief that an atheist must adhere to.

To paraphrase an oldie but a goldie...calling atheism a belief system is the same as calling baldness a hair colour

[harvey1]

Your god does not exist and I can only hope that one day the fact that you are 'enlightened' will be revealed to you... BTW there is no conflict with being both an atheist and a buddhist.

Oh boy. Buddhism doesn't have an anthropomorphic belief in God, but they have a pantheist belief in God. If you are a pantheist Bernee, then please come out of the closet.

I don't agree. It matters to me. As it should matter to any human being.

Oh I agree it matters now; it just won't matter to you once they're all off driving away to eat lunch, a meal unfortunately none of us get to enjoy. So, all that ego stuff is just another type of Dr. Phil stuff to make us buy more soap or whatever other commercials they run when his show is on, right?

All that [theists] (in general) have in common is a... belief in [G]od(s). If there are other topics in which they wish to dip their oar it may relate directly to their professed [theism] or may not. There is no pre-requisite system of belief that [a theist] must adhere to.

Yes, I quite agree with that special re-wording of your paragraph (hope you don't mind I took that liberty).

To paraphrase an oldie but a goldie...calling atheism a belief system is the same as calling baldness a hair colour

Ah, baldness is more of an agnostic belief system. An atheist is more like a toupee. Not only have they removed the hair, they added their own artificial hair to boot.

[bernee51]

Oh boy. Buddhism doesn't have an anthropomorphic belief in God, but they have a pantheist belief in God. If you are a pantheist Bernee, then please come out of the closet.

Some buddhists may but not all. I am not a pantheist, as yet, because no one has successfully defined the 'theist' part in a manner to which I would agree. At this stage I remain, yours truly, an atheist.

Oh I agree it matters now; it just won't matter to you once they're all off driving away to eat lunch, a meal unfortunately none of us get to enjoy.

sorry you lost me with that one.

So, all that ego stuff is just another type of Dr. Phil stuff to make us buy more soap or whatever other commercials they run when his show is on, right?

Who's Dr Phil? And why does he want to sell soap?

All that [theists] (in general) have in common is a... belief in [G]od(s). If there are other topics in which they wish to dip their oar it may relate directly to their professed [theism] or may not. There is no pre-requisite system of belief that [a theist] must adhere to.

Yes, I quite agree with that special re-wording of your paragraph (hope you don't mind I took that liberty).

I don't mind that re-wording at all - except it is not true of you is it Harv? You have a pre-requisite system of belief do you not...you profess to be christian. Or are you one of them "Not True Christians" (TM)

To paraphrase an oldie but a goldie...calling atheism a belief system is the same as calling baldness a hair colour

Ah, baldness is more of an agnostic belief system. An atheist is more like a toupee. Not only have they removed the hair, they added their own artificial hair to boot.

Good one Harv...that's a keeper. I'll file it away.

But what is the belief system in atheism? You have yet to demonstrate an example - only ambit claims.

[JamesBrown]

No, I had no delusions about who saved others. Besides, Paul himself wrote that he made himself a slave to everyone to win as many as possible. Would you describe Paul as being intellectually vain?

No, I wouldn't. Paul remained a committed Christian. He said many times that it was Christ who worked through him.

All right, then. When I say I wanted to win others to Christ, I was being intellectually vain. When Paul said the same thing, he was being a committed Christian. In other words, That's Different. (TM)

Seriously, you know very little about me to be making sweeping generalizations like that.

Agnosticism is a lack of belief in God. Atheism is a denial that God exists. Weak atheism is a belief that God could possibly exist, but the evidence suggests that God doesn't exist. Strong atheism is a belief that God cannot possibly exist, that is, if our understanding of reason and rationality are correct.

I've only paid minor attention to the ongoing battles to define atheism and agnosticism on this board. I get the sense that people keep talking past each other.

For my view, theism and atheism is about what I believe. Gnosticism and agnosticism is about what I know. I don't know if any gods exist, so yes, I am an agnostic. But of all the gods that have been presented before me by others, I don't believe in any of them for various reasons (internal contradictions, etc.) Therefore I am an atheist.

Atheism is a belief of a darkened mind. Even though I realize that you no longer see it that way, but it is a rejection of the most fundamental understanding of the universe, and hence it is deeply flawed. In that sense it is a dirty word.

More unsupported assertions and blanket insults. Isn't this forum supposed to be about debate?

Well, you've converted over already, Anakin.

So now I'm being compared to the Hitler of a fictional galaxy.

I'll be honest. I'm fairly new to this forum, and haven't been able to plumb the atmosphere here completely. I haven't learned the posting styles of the regulars yet. In every board there are those who are worth dialoguing with, those who are best ignored, and everything in between. Bernee51 seems to speak fairly well of you. However, I can't help but wonder if you are always this insulting.

You stated in your original post that Christian deconverts are narrow-minded futile thinkers who worship the universe. Someone else followed up stating that there is no such thing as a "former Christian." I'm pleased at least to see you at least admit that it is possible for a person to be a deconvert. But in this thread you've dismissed whole groups of human beings with a haughty wave of the hand, accusing us of having darkened minds, vain selfishness, and intellectual self-deception, all without any support to back your claims. I was under the impression that such insults are against the rules of this forum. Again, being new, perhaps I'm mistaken. But I came here to engage in debate, not bandy suggestive philipics.

I think keeping your beliefs to yourself is true in countries like Sudan, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and a few other nasty places in the world.

Once again, I agree with you. Militant religious dogma is often very harmful to those with different beliefs. I'd like to quote Robert Heinlein:

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. This is equally true whether the faith is Communism or Holly-Rollerism; indeed it is the bounden duty of the faithful to do so. The custodians of the True Faith cannot logically admit tolerance of heresy to be a virtue." Revolt in 2100

[spetey]

Can't resist a quick chime-in!

BTW there is no conflict with being both an atheist and a buddhist.

Oh boy. Buddhism doesn't have an anthropomorphic belief in God, but they have a pantheist belief in God. If you are a pantheist Bernee, then please come out of the closet.

Bernee is quite right--atheism is compatible with many sects of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism, for example, is explicit about there being no gods. Zen is an excellent example of a meaningful life philosophy that does not have any gods. I suspect that you assume Buddhism must have gods, Harvey, because you mistakenly conflate life meaning with theism. But this is a mistake.


spetey