Two reasons for atheism:

So the way I see it, people either arrive at atheism because

a) they are raised religious, reject their religion (Freudian?), and become ardently anti-religious generally, labelling themselves atheist;
b) they consider the evidence for any kind of god, find it inconclusive, and weighing the odds, conclude that they should not believe in a god, regardless of personal experience.

Does this fit most people's experience? It just seems to me that there are two paths here - one focused believing that there is no god, and one focused on the lack of belief in any god. I'd say they're two routes to the same end result, but lately I've been wondering if the end result is really so "the same".

 

Well yes, people are either raised in a strongly religious environment or they aren't, but in either case atheism comes about through a consideration of the evidence, and the rational conclusion there there is zero evidence for the existence of gods.

If someone's 'atheism' were tied up with a rejection of cultural or parental authority, that does not necessarily involve a careful consideration of the evidence and the philosophical debate. I wouldn't really call that atheism, but perhaps reactive anti-theism. Atheism is a necessary conclusion you reach after careful and sober reflection...

It also can't really be a "default state" because of the overwhelming prevalence of theistic thought in human experience. It has to involve a rejection of something fundamentally human - our intuitive supernatural or spiritual assumptions - and the realisation that these are cognitive errors.

 

I haven't ever has a personal experience with any god, so number two doesn't apply.
and with number one, I just simply cannot believe in a god. I don't see how you can. it's just kinda always been there. I am anti-religious though, too. Don't like religion. but my family isn't religious, they just drag me to church for easter and christmas

 

That's a nicer word for it than "trying to piss off daddy" atheism, certainly

Are they intuitive, or just "mass-learned", so entrenched in our culture that they seem like intuition? Either way I semi-agree, I think you just change from one "side" to another. I'm just curious as to why some are able to remain ardently anti-religious (let alone anti- one specific religion) well into middle age and beyond, while others grasp (my bias, sorry) early on that it's a lot more involved than those who want to sell them books would have them believe.

 

My family's history with religion is a bit complicated, but I think the upshot of this is that I've ended up unable to believe or to outright despise any religion. I kinda feel like anything that popular must have something in it, even if on the face of it it appears to have no redeeming qualities. I mean, I was wrong about Panic At The Disco, so why not religion?

 

Well yeah, that's pretty much what I've done. I've really never been religious, I did go to a christian pre-school and I'd go to church there every sunday. That's the most religious I've been. I've probably only actually prayed about.. three times. I just have never really put my faith into a god, or follow its rules. I think for most of my life I didn't really exactly believe/care about there being a god. then I was older, and understood the concept, and I offically thought of myself an atheist. Religion is just not my thing. maybe for others, not me. now I've just grown to not like religion at all, now.

hahaha

 

Who to?

I'm pretty sure I've petitioned the empty sky a few times in my life, but I don't remember ever actually believing in God. Sometimes it just helps to be able to hear your own thoughts; putting your worries into words helps you to stop worrying so much about them.

Cool. Give it a few years and chances are you'll (maybe) realise religion isn't anywhere near as big a problem as the people who practise it.

 

The Judeo-Christian god. But honestlty I've never felt
his love, or whatever you want to say.

yeah, I get you. I didn't think the praying would do much though. I didn't depend on it. I just asked for help.

well, I don't think you can have religion without having people follow it. religion is the people.

 

Many key aspects of religious/spiritual/supernatural thought occur across all human cultures. (There's been some good anthropological work on this, such as Brown's list of human universals.) Religious experiences all share some fundamental characteristics, and different religions bear remarkable similarities to one another. The differences between religious traditions can be explained by cultural variation, and it's fair to assume that their fundamentally similar characteristics come from innate aspects of human psychology.

What's the link between ancestor worship and judeo-christianity - two radically different spiritual traditions? Well, for one the belief in invisible agents, who think like humans, who are interested in human affairs, who listen to your thoughts and watch your behaviour and act and judge you accordingly. The assumption of invisible agency (in a variety of forms, be it universal consciousness, animism, ancestors, ghosts or gods) seems pretty much a "human universal". This explains why the belief is so widespread and so tenacious: it's a cognitive error our brains are hardwired to make, and it takes effort to overcome this mistake in our thinking.

 

For me, it was a bit of both. I had to go to church every Sunday even though my parents were not very religious themselves. During this time I contemplated whether a god existed or if a god could exist. I came to the conclusion that it was highly improbable that a god could exist and if there turned out to be a god, it probably would have better things to do than judge people. It would be like humans judging fish and condeming the sinners to the stomach and the not sinning fish would be spared.
As soon as my parents gave me the choice to choose if I wanted to go to church, I chose not to go. Ironically I was given this choice in the matter the day following my confirmation.

 

What I mean is, people are dangerous. Religion is nothing without people, but people can be every bit as nasty with religion or without it.

 

Like we do with dolphins, whales, endangered species?

I can imagine that a god would want to keep the world(s) that it had created ticking over. But species have gone extinct for millenia. Of course, if we believe that God moves in mysterious ways, that it's wrong for us to second-guess his motives, then it makes no odds.

 

But does the Dolphin unlike the human read to himself: I am WHO I am; OR I am WHAT I am? The human reads either of these two sentences for reasons of the language he is in denial for the concept it phrases instead of being in his own meaningful advantage.

I read this elsewhere in these Posts. Oh yes, under Christianity. :cheers2:

 

I don't believe humans consider whales and dolphins sinners or non sinners. I think the reason for not eating them has more to do with the fact that they will be gone forever once they are extict. The reason whales are at such low levels is they were overhunted by humans for their monetary gain for humans. Think oil, pre-fossil fuel era.

If you believe that god exists as an omniscientific being than the odds are in effect that there is a zero chance of you or any other non god figure being right. We have one chance in infinity of being right and god would have an infinite chance in infinity of being right. Why would someone who is always right judge anything that is always going to be wrong? Unless that god was a egotistical maniac, in which case he would not be a god but the first and only being to guess right. If a god exists you or me or any other non gods will never meet them. If god is only the only person to guess right we will all meet him. If god is a non human species that guessed right we may or may not meet them, according to whether they believe they are a god or merely the one that guessed right.

If god is perfect and it created us as imperfect beings it has no right to judge anyone but itself for how we turned out. If it created us as imperfect in order for us to have free will, then it is imperfect to try and judge us. You can't make the rules and enforce them by yourself or you will end up like a dog chasing it's own tail.

 

oh yeah, of course they can.

 

So would any other species.

Oh fo sho. But we don't farm them either (I know with whales that would be kind of hard), so I don't think it's just extinction. They've been presented to us as special, and that's why we'll buy dolphin-friendly tuna but won't bat an eyelid about the 10+ spiderlegs in every candy bar we eat. At best we'll be grossed out at the thought of eating spider, but we won't try and prevent spiders from dying.

And I know spiders aren't going extinct (or at least, have never heard that they are), but if they were extinct, as you say, they'd be gone forever.

OK, other examples: we don't eat dog, cat or horse in this country. Why? No real reason, we just like them. Maybe God just likes humans?

Only if we guess at what God is. But unless God changes his nature every time someone guesses at it just to fuck with us, each time we change our guess, we shorten these odds.

And that's if we guess at random, rather than based on observation. Surely there are some things that we know can't be God, or are less likely to be God than other things?

How'd you figure that? Even the Bible ascribes sins - jealousy and wrath, for example - to God.

Well, arguably it gave us free will and THEN gave us a manual. So we shouldn't be judged any harsher than someone who attempts to assemble an Ikea wallunit without properly reading the instructions. But at the same time, no matter how sympathetic we might be, the guy's still invalidated his warranty.

 

You only think you have a manual. The bible is not writen by god but by men. Usually many years after the fact and after many editor's have gone though it and pulled out what they think is wrong with it or what goes against their values. The reason people believe in the bible is because of nearly 1500 years of their ancestors being forced to believe it under punishment of death.

That book is so full of contradictions it's hillarious. Do as I say and worship me or I will punish you forever. But remember I love man, well not the ones that don't believe in me. These are the rules and the punishments. Live your life as I said or burn in hell, unless you believe me than all your sins will be forgiven.

It sounds like it was writen my many men, or else god has a split personality problem and requires the services of a shrink and medication. If that's the kind of god you want, fine. Myself I will take my chances with anyone other than that. If that is who god really is I will open my heart to the devil and help him over through that bastard you consider god. For if he gives you free will, but expects you to live only as he said the point of free will is null and void and I would be better off with pre determinism.

Yeah, pre determinism thats another contradicion in the good book. You have free will but you also have revelations where the future is spelled out. Why would you give free will to man, than tell him how it will end? If that book is truely written by god then the devil is right on his heals and god is getting scared. Or it is written by men to scare the masses into submission.

 

What about an explanation for religious belief in people. Reasons for religion?

After all I think that it could be safe to assume that all people are born atheists.

Your point A would certainly follow in this case. You can add to the influence of the family, other institutions of aggressive socialization such as schools, church,s etc.

On the other hand the point B's would certainly play a very limited role in becoming religious. They are the after the fact justifications.

Non of this denies that religion beliefs, practices, institutions are significant from a sociological or existential point of view, and will continue to do so on a large scale.

 

I think since we can reject any religion by the fact that they all claim they are right and they all worship and claim to be guided by god/s, but they all have the same credibility. So unless you are going to roll a dice on which prophet or shaman or preist that you think is having the ACTUAL connection with god/s, you cant chose any religion.
and i dont thinkn you should. If god is true then it doesnt matter what we do. We need to do the right things for HUMANITY not for GOD. We should be living without excessive greed and anger, and then worhsiping ourselves on the weekend. And simply aknowlege god for what it is to you.
What god is to you should depend first on your direct experiences of it.

Group praise of God should be a collection of individual religions coming together, descovering what God is not only through their own experience of God but through the experiences of their peers in discussion.

Anyone who decides to study the bible should be just as open to studying all versions of the bible, as well as all versions of the torah, and the quran, book of mormon, and even read into bhuddism, hindu, ancient greek& roman, Ancient egyptian, other pagan, research Shinto, sikhism, Baha'i (this one is pretty cool), Jainism, without preventing yourself from considering and investigating native indigenous teachings of Africa, North & South America, Australian, Pacific Islands cultures, check out some Scientology, and also read the words of Rael, experiment with Wikkan, north european folklore, etc etc etc

 

I would postulate quite the reverse, religious thought is to a large degree hardwired into our nature, this is evident from anthropological studies which demonstrate that supernatural religious beliefs are human universals, not cultural artefacts.