Another Post on Atheism (by a non-atheist)
Read Time:1 Minute, 35 Second
I’m not an atheist, but I think I understand why some people are.
Some atheist are no nonsense, old fashion materialist. To them it is a philosophical matter. For the philosophically inclined a basic premise must be decided upon and ran with. It boils down to the plausible versus possible argument, and plausibility wins out.
For other atheist, I believe there is something more psycho-social to do with the equation and output. The declaration of one’s atheism is a rejection of pre-modernity wherein organized religion has its origin.
I consider myself fortunate to have been brought up in a church that was not obsessed with foisting unworkable, ridiculous and rigid mandates on its parishioners and teaching us that earthly desires would send us straight to hell. In fact, I don’t recall “hell” ever being mentioned once from the pulpit all those years ago.
How many people have been forced, however, against their own intuition and natural inclination, to be inculcated into what amounts to a very backward way of looking at life? How many people have been subjected to physical abuse in the name of God and for the purpose of beating the Devil out of them? How many more have been shunned, shamed, ridiculed and otherwise ostracized because they didn’t fit the narrow mold of a particular religion?
How many individuals, evolved to a wider, more modern view of reality, have been held back by the injunctions of a pre-modern fundamentalist worldview?
To give complexity its due, most atheist probably arrive at atheism by means of a mix of philosophical deliberation and emotional revulsion of pre-modern ways of thinking and being.
After all, I credit philosophical deliberation and emotional impetus for bringing me to the conclusion that I am not an atheist. The same combination brought me to the conclusion that I don’t care if someone is an atheist.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
This article makes a mistake that I’ve seen becoming more and more common recently. It assumes that atheism is something special, odd, or unique. It is voiced in a manner that indicates that atheists are the abnormal ones, rather than religious folk. Demographically, we’re a minority, but religion isn’t something a person is born with, everyone is birthed as an atheist. Why does there have to be something wrong with us?
You admit that ‘some’ atheists have their beliefs because of philosophical thought, but that others do so because they don’t really feel like being associated with pre-modernity, or because they were beaten as kids. There is no empirical evidence for god’s existence, why does there need to be a catalyst for our lack of belief?
I could understand attributing an irrational belief, such as that of a god, to a terrible childhood, but why atheism?
I’m an atheist because I believe in the ultimate reality of the natural world. There’s nothing complicated about it.
“After all, I credit philosophical deliberation and emotional impetus for bringing me to the conclusion that I am not an atheist.”
Philosophical deliberation? Is that where one performs mental gymnastics in order to rationalize a belief in the supernatural without proof or empirical evidence?
Well said. Such ignorance is displayed in this article.
Speculation based on inference and indirect evidence and personal experience to arrive to the conclusion that we are incapable of coming to any pat conclusions regarding the ultimate question. I stated I was a non-atheist, and you assume that means I BELIEVE in the supernatural. I’m agnostic. It always seems to be an either/or proposition to atheist. Empirical evidence isn’t the only kind of evidence. It’s good for science, but a boring and stifling standard to place on all fields of inquiry.
It is hard to be agnostic about an omnipotent god. Any such god as well as many of those that are less than omnipotent would be able to prove its own existence.
Being rational and empirical may be boring and stifling to you but the only things it actually stifles are baseless claims. If the claim cannot ever be verified with empirical evidence then why are you wasting your time wondering whether the claim is true? Being agnostic about all gods would have some intellectual honesty to it, but being agnostic to only some gods (or only one) would be intellectually dishonest.
If you are not agnostic about Thor and Astarte then you are in a hypocritical position. Very few agnostics are honest enough to admit that they are not as accepting of the possibility of Thor as they are of the Christian god or some external creator yet they must be exactly as open to the possibility in order to not be hypocrits.
Interesting view. Rather like some children become criminals because they had bad childhoods.