Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)

I saw this post from Buzsaw in another thread, and it inspired me to make a new topic about it.Basically, I would like this to be a thread where people can voice whatever it is they think is the weirdest or hardest part to being an atheist. I would like to answer those questions and explain why (for me, at least) being an atheist makes the most logical sense.Disclaimer: The following thoughts should not be taken as a rule-book for "all atheists". Atheists are all very different people who's only common trait is to not have religious convictions. The following are my personal thoughts as an atheist.I will start with a response to Buzsaw's remarks from here:
Message 5I do not understand why such an explanation is logically required. There are certainly many people that show me everday that this gap isn't all that wide anyway. This doesn't bother me in any way. The fact that the Bible is correct about a great many things leads me to believe that it was written by some very intelligent people. I do not see a requirement to add divinity. I continue to seriously pursue the reasons behind religious motivations and thoughts every day. In fact, that's one of the reasons I've started this topic. I do not find the desire to have an easy-to-comprehend explanation for mysteries "puzzling", it seems to be our curious nature. I also find the phenomenon of good and evil to be described in a more pure sense when God and religion are left out. Appeals to authority do not strike me as very moral.The legitimacy of religion relative to life and death questions seems to be the same as everyone's: no one really knows, and some people are very afraid of such unknowns. Belief in an answer can help calm those fears for many people, regardless of the actual ability to validate that belief. Myself, I do not find any comfort in unvalidated "answers". A very good point. And these concerns certainly did motivate me to search out the claims of major religions. I simply found those claims... wanting. When I am faced with important decisions, I like to validate my information before jumping to a conclusion. Religious information seems to be very shy of being validated, to put it lightly. I do question a naturalistic PoV. I am still waiting for anything to contradict that question, though.I do not worry about the consequences of insulting a supreme creator. First there is the question of whether or not a creator even exists, supreme or otherwise. But even assuming existance, a supreme creator will be capable of understanding that I am simply being as honest and curious and true-to-reality as I can be, or that creator isn't really all that "supreme" anyway, and therefore doesn't deserve such praise and devotion.

Is it "strong atheism" to believe and assert that God does not exist until there's at least some bit of evidence to the contrary?I don't think so. Not unless society is going to start calling everyone "strong doubters" of all other imaginary creations.To me, the only irrational position that can be called "strong atheism" would be someone refusing to believe God could exist after evidence of God's existance has been presented and validated.Until there is some sort of validated evidence, a strong disbelief in God is extremely rational and (as far as I'm concerned) should be the baseline.Now, I wouldn't state that a strong disbelief should be the baseline for anything without validated evidence. Unsubstantiated information about a phenomenon is an indication to start looking into the existance of something. However, once you've gone looking for an extended period of time and find nothing (like in the case of God), one should start shifting towards strong disbelief until validated evidence appears. Sort of in a "no need to waste time" on a boy-who-cried-wolf stunt... nothing to worry about until the wolf is actually a part of reality.

Agreed.I can't understand people who make important decisions on unvalidated information when they have the time available to do some checking. Or, even worse, when people don't understand the difference between "something interesting that requires further checking" and "something that has been validated".Such thought processes are certainly not restricted to religious ideas. Nor does anyone (myself included) seem to be immune to falling into this trap.Understanding an answer to "how am I sure about this?" that falls on the following scale is helpful in grasping the concept of "evidence":Very Confident-Many, many people have verified the same result many, many times
Confident-Multiple people have verified the same result multiple times
Kinda Confident-Someone else has verified the same result
Almost Confident-I have verfied the same result multiple times
Shaky-Others cannot duplicate the result
Very Shaky-I cannot duplicate the resultAlong with a healthy ability to accept that we can be mistaken, evidence helps keep us from being fooled.
(When someone feels like they can't be wrong, they tend to skip over the part about checking their answers)It took me a long time to understand my rational reasoning behind a lot of ideas (morality, feelings, desires...). But I find that having a well understood answer to such things is very comforting. Even if that answer's foundation comes down to something that is subjective, I find that knowledge comforting. To understand why no one seems to have a perfectly firm grasp of some very important ideas gives me the confidence I require to accept my own conclusions about such ideas.

Yeah, atheism does lack a certain over-the-top drama, it's not very flashy. That's probably why "non-belief in Gods" is the only thing atheists tend to have in common, they're all out searching for more interesting things to contemplate Those who take the time to scrutinize how morality works also tend to be the ones who worry about its consequences.

Useless? No, I wouldn't say that. In fact, I'd say that no test is ever useless. Each and every test is going to result in one of three things:1 - Add confidence in the positive direction
2 - Add confidence in the negative direction
3 - Show us something that we did not think of before, and show us that more testing (likely modified) is requiredI don't find any of those 3 things useless. I'd say you're totally on track here. But these studies have been done as well. The mass-numbers-testing done on smoking always results in 30% or so (I'm just using your number, I don't really know) of smokers having an increased risk of cancer. Multiple supernatural studies on mass-numbers never seem to agree to any significant degree. I don't think so. At least, not so specifically. I'd say that Atheism starts with a point of view under the assumption that nothing exists unless we have at least some sort of evidence that points us in that direction. Then as questions come up tests begin. Then as results of those tests come in, atheists lean in the direction of those results. This is quite possible, and an extremely good point.Perhaps we do not have the required knowledge/technology to test for God's existance.
Perhaps we're just going about it in all the wrong way.This is exactly why further testing is always encouraged for those so inclined to do so.But it's hard to ignore that most of the world has been "testing" for God in any way they can think of for pretty much the history of humanity. With zero resulting evidence for God existing.This would be exactly what we would expect if God did not exist.This is exactly why I do not think God exists until someone can show otherwise.Some people are fine with having double standards, that since no one has any evidence of imaginary creatures like pixies, then it's okay to not believe in them.
However, there is also no evidence of God, yet there is a large popular opinion that He exists. This seems to be the only difference. For some people that's enough. For me, what other people think isn't enough to lend support for a double standard. I've known too many people (including myself) to be wrong about too many things they "know for sure" to be so naive as to think that a large popular opinion (even throughout history) actually has any sway to make reality a certain way.

I agree... mostly.I have to ask, what is it you think is so special about the Church that cannot be easily duplicated by non-Church entities?I think spiritualism and "other factors associated with religion" (say... helping the poor, providing a place for community bonding...) have a huge place in society. I just think they are more easily obtainable without a whole bunch of extraneous, unverifiable stories added.What's wrong with a community centre that does not carry the unproductive additives of religion? Without spending time keeping up the religous stories and traditions, more time and resources can be spent developing community spirit or helping the poor. Most people have the same issue, and the common polite response is the exact one you've provided. As you say, it's called tact. There is a time and a place to argue/discuss such ideas that some people hold extremely close to their hearts. This is one of those places. The family Christmas dinner table generally is not. Basically.. if something is making other's happy, what right do we have to take that away? Regardless of whether or not it's actually a part of reality. For me, that's not enough, I need to know that it's actually a part of reality. But not everyone is like me, many people do not have this restriction. It is not my place to "convert" anyone, as long as people are happy and not hurting others, they should be allowed to believe or think whatever they'ed like. If they ask me directly, I'll generally start quietly defending my position. But for the most part I only talk about these sorts of things here or in private discussions with those people I respect and admire (like my wife or close friends). I have no desire to make anyone else feel awkward. I do not understand.Again, what virtues do you think the Catholic Church possesses that cannot be easily duplicated by non-religious activities? What cultural beauty does the Catholic Church have that is not surpassed by the cultural beauty of a local natural landmark? What community spirit does a Catholic Church have that is not surpassed by the community spirit of the local highschool football game, or subdivision BBQ?These are not rhetorical questions, I'd really like to know. I've been told over and over again that I'm "missing" something from religion. But no one has ever been able to tell me something that I do not already have. In fact, I tend to have "better" things then what I'm told I'm "missing" from religion. But I am always interested in hearing about something I could be missing. If I actually am missing out on something good and important, I'd like to be a part of it.

Yes, sort of how some theists get called atheists for simply not believing in a 100% literal bible. This is the same over-the-top drama that get some regular atheists marked as strong atheists as if it's some from of insult.

My apologies. I understand that religion is different in certain ways. I'm more asking what sort of good or beneficial differences it has that would be a good thing to adopt? You are correct. Of course, this is nothing I'd care to take away from religion. It's certainly not something I consider myself "missing". It's more like something I'm glad I've gotten away from. Yes, we respond to all sorts of stimuli.Of course, if ruling through fear and manipulation is your idea of good and beneficial... I pity your children. Again, you are correct. I didn't mean to underestimate group participation in any way. Of course, you do understand that group participation only requires a group, right? It does not require religion. Simply bring your group to the nature scene.Again, I'm not seeing anything here that can only be found in religion. Groups of people share experiences all over without religion. If by "more intense" you mean "more deluded and further away from reality", then yes, I agree.
If by "more intense" you somehow mean a larger sense of community spirit, then no, you are wrong. You're just going to boring BBQ's.I'm sorry for being misleading before, I'm not simply wondering about the sorts of things religion offers that are different. I'm wondering if there are any good, beneficial things that are only available from religion.What virtues do you think religion possesses that cannot be easily duplicated by non-religious activities?By "virtues" I mean anything that would be desireable or beneficial to be a part of. I'm looking for things to add to my life. I do not care to add anything negative.

I cannot argue with that. Religion certainly does a very good job of creating that social atmosphere where feelings of a sharing, caring community can be felt almost instantly. In certain churches, anyway.My point is to simply show that this same feeling can be matched or even exceeded by any other sharing, caring group of people. Religion is not a required ingredient... although it certainly has "perfected the art" in a way, I suppose. That is, the situation can be recreated with any group of people, but (practically speaking) it is easiest to find a group of people willing to participate in this sort of community spirit at the local church (currently, anyway). Especially if one finds themselves in an area away from close friends and family. Like most things, practice makes perfect
Some people find the easiest route through meditation and reflection in a serene environment.
Others find it easiest being around a group of people focused on creating an "intense" atmosphere.Personally, I find it easiest when I "lose myself" having fun with friends. That moment where "time flys" as you're having fun. But everyone's different. I find I can even recreate this just focusing on letting my mind release all it's thoughts (and therefore worries and troubles) for a moment.It certainly is easiest for some people to attain this sensational feeling when at a church focused on producing such feelings. But it's by far not the only way to attain the feeling, and if you're not careful it can be used as a tool for manipulation (cults and such). Of course, there certainly are a lot of "good" churches out and about too. Heh Don't worry about me, I've been to plenty of different churches. Even focused on a few for long periods of time. Sometimes I do not edit my wording enough here and I'm sure it comes off as a bit more harsh than I'm actually intending. What you want to do with your family is absolutely your personal decision. I went through the whole Catholic school thing growing up as well too, and it was also completely positive for me. My only gripe is with people who espouse that religion provides something amazing that you can only get from that religion. I have yet to uncover such an idea.

This post is a reply to this Message 36. I think the topic fits here better, and I don't want to ruin the nice topic of that thread. I agree with most of your re-written position (yes, I did miss it while it was in a long post that wasn't directed to me... but I found it now).I actually think you're spot-on correct from A.1 all the way to your conclusion of A.3.But your last paragraph does not logically follow. Your conclusion states "Do what you want. (Good and evil are irrelevant.)" And I agree that Good and evil are irrelevant at the most basic, absolute level. Until we subjectively decide to make one of them relevant.Then you say "A.3 should inevitably lead to evil".But, this doesn't logically follow at all. How can something inevitably lead to evil when you just said that good and evil are both irrelevant? That's not logical or rational.What rationally follows is what I said... that we all must make a subjective decision whether or not we want to be good (and care about other people) or evil (and not care about other people).Therefore, as long as we decide to be good and care about other people, then we won't be lead to evil at all. Therefore, I again state that I am an atheist and I lay claim to goodness and rationality. (It is rational to acknowledge a subjective decision when no objective decision is possible).Basically, you can't say that good and evil are irrelevant and then say that evil is inevitable. It doesn't make any sense. It's certainly not logical.Even if you want to argue that evil is "easier" or "simpler"... it doesn't matter (although I think this would be incredibly difficult to show in all cases). I am still intelligent enough to make my own decision to subjectively choose to be good. And since we both agree that there is no objective facts in order to base a fundamental answer on (I agree with your A.2 that "there is no binding reason to care about other humans in the slightest" at the most basic and absolute level). Then it is rational to acknowledge that a subjective decision must be made until such a time that objective information can be identified (which likely will never happen, but we'll see).If evil actually is "easier" or "simpler"... this only makes it more honourable to subjectively decide to be good.As long as the subjective decision exists (which you acknowledge by stating that good and evil are essentially irrelevant), no matter how lopsidedly "easy" one choice may be over the other, it is ridiculous to assert that evil should logically follow in any way.The mere presence of the subjective decision totally destroys any arguement of evil (or good) inevitably following through way of logic. It's a subjective decision, there is no objective information on which to base any logic. Objective logic cannot exist until after the subjective decision is made, it's the only rational course of action possible.So, no, there is nothing at all to suggest that atheists should somehow logically be evil. It doesn't make any sense.

Don't worry about it, the core of the arguement was copied in my quote. The rest of that discussion was... let's say "not an example of good communication." I agree with these points.However, when I talk about morality, I actually strive to stay away from these points. I strive to stick to the more intellectual and personal decision points. I like to think that the natural and evolutionary explanations are no longer required (and therefore not necessarily relevant) to modern reasons for morality. I certainly agree that they are (were?) the basis for everything, but I like to focus more on points like your next one: I agree completely.When I'm talking about the subjective decision that must be made, I'm talking about the infinite regression of why, why, why questions:Why should we be helpful? -because it promotes peace
Why should we promote peace? -because it's nice and good
Why do we want to be nice and good? -because a nice and good society kills each other less
Why should we care if we live or die?
...At some point (what I've been referring to as the most basic, absolute level), we just have to acknoweldge that it's a subjective decision.Some of us find living to be important. Some of us do not (strange, but they exist...).
Some of us find being good and nice to be important. Some of us do not.
Some of us want to promote peace. Some of us do not.
Some of us want to be helpful. Some of us do not.At some point, it's a subjective decision underlying all that.Personally, I think it's better that being good and moral is a subjective decision. Where's the honour in being a good person if it's objectively possible to show that we should be that way? There is no honour there, only rational obedience to being logical.The subjective decision allows for honour and heros to exist.

quote:

---

Why should we be helpful? -because it promotes peace
Why should we promote peace? -because it's nice and good
Why do we want to be nice and good? -because a nice and good society kills each other less
Why should we care if we live or die?
...

---

If we do any of that because we want something (peace, nice, good, less death, promote the species.... anything at all) it removes the honour of doing it because we think it's right.That's where the honour lies... in doing something because we think it's right. Not as a means to an end, but just because we think it's right.And, in the same vein, it must be because we think it's right rather than knowing it's right. If we know it's right, then it's a simplistic, easy, objective answer. Honour only exists if we are left in the objective "absolute dark" where we can only think it's right.Honour exists in following the hope that Good triumphs over Evil. If this somehow becomes an objective fact, then we remove the hope and therefore we remove the honour.

Believe it or not, I'm not sure I agree with all of it either That's what I like about this forum, it's a great place to test ideas/theories/thoughts. I toss out something that "sounds good" to me, like I just did. And I'm sure that if there's any illogical nonsense in it we'll get to the bottom of it. Illogical nonsense doesn't stand up for very long around here.I'm not here to promote my position, get others to agree with me, or "win" debates.I'm here to learn, and the best way I've found so far is to throw out a stance and let the discussion widdle it down to the actual parts that are logical/rational. Excellent.A reasoned, well thought-out reply is always much more appreciated than a quick off-the-cuff reaction.

A very real and very large issue.The first thing to point out is that this issue is subjective. Therefore, it actually isn't an issue for everyone. But I do conceed that this is an issue for the majority of people, by far. (My wife, actually, gets extremely overwhelmed when she dwells on such thoughts). I must also conceed that it's entirely possible that certain people exist who may never be able to "be okay" with this issue.In hopes that those certain people are not reading this post, I will present some possible avenues of solace that I can think of:1. As you stated, we can find comfort in life itself. Death can be scary, but if it is, than not even existing in the first place is even scarier. So, we should be thankful for the lifespan we happen to have. I know I didn't bargain my way into being here 2. I find comfort in "the unknown" by understanding that it is unknown for everyone. That is, no one knows what, exactly, will happen or what, exactly, the process will feel like. It makes me feel better to understand that I'm not "missing knowledge" that is available to me and that I find important. I know I am missing the knowledge, but the fact that this knowledge is unavailable to everyone makes me feel better. (But I'm kinda weird )3. This ties into what you say about there being "overwhelming evidence" that death is the end. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I agree that there is no indication while we are alive that there is any sort of existance after death. And, for all logical decisions that need to be made (anything we find important), I agree that the evidence is overwhelmingly such that we should accept that death is the end. But fear of death is not a logical/rational problem. Therefore we are not restricted to finding a logical/rational solution.The fear of death being the end is a subjective problem. Therefore, it is rational to accept subjective (or irrational) answers. As long as we don't forget to acknowledge that we're doing so. We don't want to make any mistakes and start thinking that our irrational comforts are actually objective in some way In this sense, I think we should understand that "after death" (if it exists at all...) is totally unknown. There is no objective evidence from anyone coming back from death and telling us what it is like. Even those who do "come back" obviously were not "totally dead" or else it would have been impossible to revive them. This leaves the door open for all sorts of irrational possibilities that we may draw irrational strength from to help with our irrational fear.For example: It can be good and healthy to have a subjective belief in God if it's helping to make you feel better as a person. As long as you understand that belief is subjective, it can be very useful and healthy to use in order to find relief to other irrational fears.Other examples:
Maybe the Christians are right about a heaven and hell (let's assume an actually fair one, though).
Maybe we return to some sort of collective-consciousness.
Maybe this universe is a "test-bed" for learning under certain conditions.
Maybe reincarnation is real with a short rest-period where you rejoin your own personal meta-consciousness where you can enjoy all your experiences and then decide to rejoin this world as something else for additional experiences.
Maybe there is nothing but happiness and joy... constant high.
Maybe there is nothing at all (it's quite possible that certain people will find solace in this itself).4. The last point (which I also draw strength from) is one of my favourite quotes:"To die would be a great adventure"
-Peter PanCuriosity and the unknown can be scary. It can, however, also be an excellent source of excitement.

No help for you!Mostly because I don't know how to help... or else my attempts would not have failed miserably

Agreed. This is what I attempted to touch on when I posted about "Plane 1" being our thoughts and "Plane 2" being our actions.I see why sometimes the two should be seperated (tentativity, for example, where we think we could be wrong, but we don't act as if we're wrong until shown otherwise). But I like to align my thoughts with how I need to act... for efficiency purposes if nothing else And making a division like this doesn't really help matters too much. Where does Plane 1 stop and Plane 2 begin?Is thinking about a deity crossing into Plane 2?
Is talking about a deity crossing into Plane 2?
Obviously worshipping a deity crosses into Plane 2...
Is hoping for a deity crossing into Plane 2?
What about only hoping when we're scared?The lines are so fuzzy and difficult to micro-manage that it's no wonder "different strokes for different folks" gets such validity.Or, perhaps, maybe it just seems like we act the same because we haven't yet identified the situation in which we would act differently... Agreed.And I'm puzzled by those who don't find such things interesting. But, again, different strokes...