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]

I don't think you have the expertise to be able to assess my relationships with Jesus or anybody else. You have not provided a refutation of what I said, only your personal opinion, built on a lack of knowledge and experience.

The fact that you claiim a relationship with Jesus is YOUR personal opinion - totally unsubstantiated. Why should you be believed?

I could list some of the horrible things that atheists have done in the world. Would you, as an atheist, want to be tarred and feathered along with them if you yourself are innocent of the crimes? If I point to a man who says he is an atheist who molests children, would you like me to then make the statement that all atheists are pedophiles? That's what you are doing when you point to people who call themselves Christians who do vile things in the name of God but who, in truth, are NOT true Christians following God and living out the love of Christ in their lives. That's an invalid argument as well.

The difference being many, if not all, of the atrocities listed were sanctioned by the church, were justified by biblical interpretation, were 'company policy', not the actions of a few individuals.

It is obviously not an invalid argument.

Whether you people like it or not, there is a difference between true Christians and false ones.

Will the "No true Scotsman" fallacy never die?

[Dilettante]

harvey1 wrote:

Christians only wish to give a meaningful life to others. There's a big difference there. So, yes, I am usually rude to atheists for that reason.

Sounds like you are assuming that there is only one way to live a meaningful life, which is, to say the least, a highly controversial, debatable assertion. Can you support that assertion with objective evidence? I know atheists whose lives are perfectly meaningful.
Overcomer wrote:

Here's another comment from above:

Dilettante:
Hmm...Overcomer, that is not really fair. You are using a question-begging definition. It's as if someone says "true love never ends in divorce" and when you point out a case where two people who started out loving each other but then got divorced, he says that theirs was not true love... using as "evidence" the fact that they got divorced. Your argument looks like this:
"Christians are defined as a kind of people who never abandon the Christian religion. Therefore, a Christian will never abandon the Christian religion."
Clearly this is not an argument but a (questionable) definition.


Actually, you're the one not being fair. You have set forth an analogy re: true love that has nothing to do with what I said as if you think it in some way might refute what I wrote However, it doesn't.

I'm sorry if I'm not being fair, but the analogy seems perfectly good--to me at least. Can you explain why it is not a good analogy? Where is the disanalogy?
The following exchange merits a comment:
trencacloscas wrote:

Sure. 1700 years of assassination, corruption, Inquisitions, Crusades, collaboration with fascist authorities, oppression, slavery, superstition, burning witches, indigen genocides, holy wars and every possible crime committed under the pious name of God and The Bible... That's what I call "meaningful".

Overcomer wrote:

I could list some of the horrible things that atheists have done in the world. Would you, as an atheist, want to be tarred and feathered along with them if you yourself are innocent of the crimes?

This kind of "tu quoque" (you do it too) argument proves nothing. Of course humans have done and continue to do evil in the name of a number of ideologies. But the main point in this debate thread is not so much the consequences of espousing certain beliefs or lack of beliefs, but rather the causes of those beliefs or lack thereof.

[harvey1]

so I don't take compassion on those who allowed their faith to be rolled under by people who's intentions are only to take away a meaningful life from people.

Harv I fully undestand how clinging to the translative mythology of christianity can provide meaning and legitamacy to your existence...meaning because it links you to something you believe to be larger than yourself, and legitimacy because your life is sanctioned by that you take to be sacred. But these are your beliefs - it is personal. What applies to you does not apply to the world at large.

I'm not clinging to a faith, and Christianity is not translative mythology. (I stopped myself from slinging an insult back to you, aren't you proud of me?)

Why do you judge them when they are obviously gaining what you believe you have.

Because if they were real Christians then they made a commitment. I call it to their attention if they did not fulfill that commitment.

You find it easy to be rude then.

Yeah, especially when I hear b.s. arguments that are spoken as infallible truth, or a tone of intellectual superiority coming from someone. I mean the whole IPU thing makes it so easy to be rude back. But, I don't try to be rude, it just sorta happens.

A fine example of the inherent narcissicism of translative religious belief.

C'mon, Bernee. I posed you with a paradox against your beliefs and you know what you said to me. You said paradoxes against your beliefs don't bother you. Do you know how inherently narcissicistic that is of a translative religious belief on your part?

In all honesty, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you waive off contradiction of your beliefs like that?

[DanMRaymond]

harvey you have still yet to answer bernee's original question: what is the system of atheism? I doubt you will answer the question because you have no answer and there is no answer.

Lets just take 2 athiests for example. What do they have in common? Neither believes in God. Aside from that one simple similarity, they may be completely different people with completely different lifestyles. One could be a serial killer while the other goes out to help impoverished people daily.

The difference between this kidn of person and Christians is that they do what they do because they feel like thats the right thing to do. They are not influenced by a book. I, myself, tend to be a more generous person than most other people because I feel like it. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I am an atheist, or the fact that I am not a Christian.

[harvey1]

harvey you have still yet to answer bernee's original question: what is the system of atheism? I doubt you will answer the question because you have no answer and there is no answer. Lets just take 2 athiests for example. What do they have in common? Neither believes in God. Aside from that one simple similarity, they may be completely different people with completely different lifestyles. One could be a serial killer while the other goes out to help impoverished people daily.

The same could be true of a theist... Think of it this way. On one side of a fence, you have people who believe that there's a mind to the world, and that mind is behind the reason why many things are the way they are. On the other side of the fence, you have those who fathered Luke, I mean those who believe that things started off or were always a result of some fluke. Perhaps it was a brane that smashed into another brane, or perhaps it was some chaotically inflating multiverse, or what have you. But, those people reject the idea that there's any mind behind the events we see in the world, and no mind can offer any possible explanation. These are two systems of thought. And, the theories that each come up with and the way they think about the world is often times dramatically different. This is what I mean by a system of thought. It is a way of thinking that is dramatically different than the people on the other side of the fence.

The difference between this kidn of person and Christians is that they do what they do because they feel like thats the right thing to do. They are not influenced by a book. I, myself, tend to be a more generous person than most other people because I feel like it. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I am an atheist, or the fact that I am not a Christian.

They might feel its the right thing to do for somebody else, or, as soon as their grandchildren wise up, they'll realize they can do anything they want. They really can. There's no judgement of God to be concerned about. The only thing they have to be really concerned about is getting caught. That's a bummer.

[spetey]

They might feel its the right thing to do for somebody else, or, as soon as their grandchildren wise up, they'll realize they can do anything they want. They really can. There's no judgement of God to be concerned about. The only thing they have to be really concerned about is getting caught. That's a bummer.

Of course, you can do anything you want with a God, too. It's just that the religious say there will be potential divine consequences (the nature of which is in dispute among theists) in addition to the legal, societal, and psychological ones. It's a funny coincidence that societies in need of social regulation frequently posit an unverifiable super-cop in heaven with a perfect case record and perfect justice for every crime.

In general it is a mistake to think that ethics relies essentially on a god. Many consider Plato's ancient argument against an analogous position decisive for the contrary view; see the discussion here.

Anyway, Harvey, I hope you're getting a taste of what commonly "triggers" atheism: thinking and trying to give reasons for views. If you think those reasons are bad, then say why in the other threads! Meanwhile these rhetorical threads of yours--the ones along the line of "atheists are so crazy! What makes them so crazy?!"--are empty of argument, not to say insulting. They just waste posting time in requests for common courtesy and the extension of the principle of charity.


spetey

[bernee51]

I'm not clinging to a faith, and Christianity is not translative mythology. (I stopped myself from slinging an insult back to you, aren't you proud of me?)

You found this insulting? How so.

The use of the word "mythology".

A myth is "a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society"

Sounds like a description of christianity to me.

Perhaps translative.

You admit yourself that your beliefs give you meaning in life. They translate the slings and arrows into something that you can understand and which gives succour.

Perhpas 'clinging".

To cling..

1. To hold fast or adhere to something, as by grasping, sticking, embracing, or entwining: clung to the rope to keep from falling; fabrics that cling to the body.

2. To remain close; resist separation

3. To remain emotionally attached; hold on

Nup sounds like at least one of those could describe your relationship with your religion.

Why do you find the truth insulting?

Why do you judge them when they are obviously gaining what you believe you have.

Because if they were real Christians then they made a commitment. I call it to their attention if they did not fulfill that commitment.

People grow Harvey (or at least some do). The committemtn they made was no longer giving them the meaning and legitimacy they need to deal with the world. You seek that for yourself...why do you belittle others who are doing the same?

You find it easy to be rude then.

Yeah, especially when I hear b.s. arguments that are spoken as infallible truth, or a tone of intellectual superiority coming from someone.

Look in a mirror Harvey.

C'mon, Bernee. I posed you with a paradox against your beliefs and you know what you said to me. You said paradoxes against your beliefs don't bother you.

Refresh my memory - to what do you refer?

[The Happy Humanist]

Perhaps a more informative sub-thread here would be to deal with what does NOT trigger atheism.

The truism I hear most often from theists is that atheists simply don't want to live by the rules, or don't want to have to answer to someone higher than themselves, or some variation thereof. What's maddening is that this is said with such matter-of-fact certainty, and applied universally (especially, it seems, when a theist is cornered in a debate). I think its more of a dodge than anything, a way to not have to think about the fact that yes, by golly, some people do find the idea of God genuinely intellectually bankrupt.

Again, speaking only for myself (but I'd be willing to bet I'm not alone), that is not what triggered atheism in me. It does not apply to me, at least the part about not wanting to live by rules. I must admit, I don't relish the idea of a spirit being who sees all that I do, but I assure you I'm not biting my fingernails in apprehension. I do feel accountable for my actions in life...but accountable to humanity, not to any alleged deity.

[DanMRaymond]

The same could be true of a theist...

Yes, except I was comparing atheism to christianity, not just theism. You can be a theist and not conform to any one specific religion.

[trencacloscas]

trencacloscas wrote:
Quote:
Sure. 1700 years of assassination, corruption, Inquisitions, Crusades, collaboration with fascist authorities, oppression, slavery, superstition, burning witches, indigen genocides, holy wars and every possible crime committed under the pious name of God and The Bible... That's what I call "meaningful".

This kind of "tu quoque" (you do it too) argument proves nothing. Of course humans have done and continue to do evil in the name of a number of ideologies.

Sorry to differ, Dilettante. For many people this was a crucial argument to leave Christianity behind. Being a religion that claims for peace, love and other spiritual goodies, the mere exposition of horrors that it created is one of the most valid arguments against its truthfulness. If Jesus knew he was bringing this horror to earth, he was evil; if he didn't know, he was no God at all.