4 Questions For Atheists
by NJ_GOP
I have had the privilege of knowing a few Atheists over the years, and a several things have perplexed me that I have never been able to settle in my mind. This topic is NOT intended to belittle or embarrass Atheists, as I am confident that they have answers for these (or at least that Dawkins guy probably does). And for the record, I can’t think of an Atheist I’ve ever known whom I didn’t genuinely like or enjoyed working with. In fact, my grandmother was an Atheist and I loved and respected her immensely.
So here are my questions:
- Am I correct in my assumption that Atheists believe that there is nothing other than the physical measurable realm? If that assumption is correct, how does an Atheist prove thinking? I mean, you can’t see it or touch it or measure it, so how do you know it exists?
- If an Atheist truly believes that all of life, mankind, animals, trees, the coral reef etc. are purely accidents with no purpose to their existence, why should anyone bother to do what is right? Why not just do whatever you please on your allotted time on earth before you die? Why bother to improve the world for the next generation? If the entire universe is all a meaningless accident, then who cares if it all ends the day after we die? I guess if an Atheist is a parent, he or she cares if his or her child has a comfortable existence after the parent dies – but is that caring based on love (which also doesn’t exist if there is nothing but the physical realm)?.
- Why do Atheists often seem angry over God, if God doesn’t exist? I have heard many Atheists say that God is a fairytale and any mention of God or the supernatural should be illegal because religion fosters violence blah blah blah – but almost always those statements or posts have a level of anger in them that quite honestly, I don’t understand. For example, I am against gambling. I know lots of people who gamble, etc. There are many instances where gambling bankrupts whole families, and in the cases of addiction it is very difficult to break away from. Big Casinos get rich off of the weaknesses of individuals and overall gambling is a fairly destructive practice. But I don’t get angry when I talk about gambling. I just state how I feel and if the person gets in the car and heads to Atlantic City 5 minutes later…so what? It doesn’t impact my emotions that the person likes to gamble….and gambling is a real thing that I can point to and observe. Unlike God which the Atheist says does not exist and, according to the Atheist, you can’t point to or observe Him, yet they often (in my experience) become angry when someone professes a faith in God.
These are only 3 questions…and I know that I’m going to get slammed big time by somebody who says that of course Atheists believe in thinking and love….but then that brings me to question #4 which is, how can anyone believe in the existence of thinking, or love, and completely dismiss God?
So question #4 is: On what basis do you accept thinking and love, and simultaneously adhere to the impossibility of the existence of God?
I realize that this blog post is HORRIBLY non-intellectual. Atheists almost always leave me with this feeling that they sort of pity my “ignorance” and that if I were only more educated and enlightened I wouldn’t be believing in a god at all. So my only request is that the Atheists responding to me treat my questions with some level of respect. I truly want to know the answers and I would like to hear them from a person who genuinely clings to the Atheist view.
Of course everyone is always encouraged to post – this is not in any way limited to Atheists!!
Logging you in...
Posts
Amy · 848 weeks ago
The first thing to understand is that atheists aren't united in dogma or belief the same way that religious groups often are. The common element is non-belief. Here's a way of explaining it- given you talk about Atlantic City in a later question, I can probably assume you're American, and therefore are probably not a fan of the Sydney Swans (a team in the Australian Football League). I am also not a fan (AFL bores me). Does our common 'not a fan of Sydney Swans' status define all our other areas of thinking? To all but the most obsessed Sydney Swans fan, the answer is obviously "no". I'm an atheist, so you'll have an atheist's opinion, but I can no more answer for all atheists as I can for all people who aren't fans of the Sydney Swans.
Amy · 848 weeks ago
I'm not sure whether something exists outside of the physical realm, but feel that it is safe to work on the assumption that there is not, because the non-physical realm has not had a role in my life thus far.
I'm no scientist (my training is in history), but it's my understanding that thinking can be measured to some extent, that it's the result of chemical reactions in the brain. Therefore it's part of the physical realm, and can be proven. The physical realm is more than what's immediately in front of me (it's what can be tested and observed by some empirical, repeatable means- in this case, neuroscience).
Amy · 848 weeks ago
Who says atheists do believe that? "Accident" and "chance" are usually words that religious people try to put into the mouths of atheists. Do I believe that some mystical, all-powerful being made life and all that it entails? No. But I also believe (based on my limited scientific education) that the process of evolution is not an "accident". Even if it were, we do not need to postulate a god to give life purpose. I have a life, by whatever means, I enjoy it, and I want others to enjoy it (I can't necessarily explain why I want that, but I do).
Amy · 848 weeks ago
My life, however it arose, is finite. I only have so much of it, and I quite like it- so I care how my life will play out. Humans are also social creatures, and it's in our interests to take care of each other (because, as a society, we are incredibly interdependent, particularly for maintaining the incredible quality of life we have in the 21st century). Altruism is also fairly widely spread, and I've heard it argued that it's a trait that's evolved into our psyches (which would explain why people would care about other people and about legacies after they die). I suppose it's based on these feelings that I want to improve the world, do something to make things better while I'm here and for after I'm gone. My feelings on wanting to leave a legacy and be a good person aren't something I can explain in detail, but I think the instincts I've just talked about might give some indication.
Amy · 848 weeks ago
If thinking, as I touched on in the last question, is based on chemical reactions in the brain, and can be observed and tested, then the same can certainly be said for love. If you're asserting that an atheist parent cannot love her child because they may not believe in the non-physical, then you'd be mistaken. The chemicals that cause the sensations of love are well known (even I know that endorphins are involved- and as I say, I'm not a scientist)
Amy · 848 weeks ago
To say an atheist is angry with a god is like saying that an adult (with normal intelligence and normal education levels) is angry with Santa. It's nonsense- you can't be angry with something you don't think exists. I think religion is the problem which causes atheists to get angry- and certainly something that makes me angry. I also think that some theists can't tell or don't want to be able to tell the difference.
Amy · 848 weeks ago
Some atheists are disillusioned by religion (I'm in that camp), and I would suspect more see the harm that religion can do in society, and that makes them angry. It sickens me- because I believe that education is one of the most important things we can give to our young- that people are more ready to believe that the world was created by some unobservable, inexplicable magic in six literal days, than they are to explore the explanations that we have come up with that rely upon more than circular logic ("I believe that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true because I have faith"). I find it intolerable that people are willing- desperate- to sacrifice their children's education by trying to legislate our 21st century knowledge out of classrooms (I'm referring to the attempts to push creationism/ ID into schools in the United States, which thankfully haven't really been replicated here). Taking away from children's education makes me angry, and so it damn well should.
Amy · 848 weeks ago
The dogma of religion has also been personally harmful to me (the notion of original sin and that we are fallen exacerbated my depression as a teenager, the way some people interpret the Bible in terms of treating non-believers has meant I have lost friends after I de-converted, and there are plenty more examples, but I'm not going to go into it)
I also see religion affecting other people's lives. I know so many people, who are otherwise intelligent, well-educated, wonderful people to be around- except when the Bible or their minister commands them to be bigoted, except when the Bible contradicts what we have learned about the world. They deliberately narrow their focus, they are only hateful when the Bible or their minister tells them to be. It detracts from their personality and makes them harder to live with, which detracts from society.
Amy · 848 weeks ago
Your example about gambling is instructive. Imagine that 80% or more of your country's population gambled at what you viewed as a destructive level, if it changed their behaviour towards you, it made them do things which you thought were unnecessary or wrong, and you were told that there was something wrong with you because you didn't engage in what you viewed to be a harmful and illogical practice. Imagine being told you weren't really part of the community, because gambling is part of the history and culture of the country. Imagine monuments being erected to gambling all over the country, in public places, and laws being changed to suit the behaviours and desires of those gambling (lots of laws, not just a few). Wouldn't that make you a little angry, and hostile towards the practice of gambling, rather than just objecting to it as you do now?
Amy · 848 weeks ago
Well, George Bush senior claimed that atheists shouldn't be considered American citizens, and many Americans claim that America was founded as a Christian nation (I don't know a great deal about American history, but American atheists contest the latter claim). The federal government in Australia says the Lord's Prayer before they sit every day (and there was an uproar when someone recently suggested we should abolish that). Religion, something some (if not many) atheist see as harmful, is (seen to be) part of the fabric of both American and Australian societies. Atheists are often ideologically excluded from those societies as a result.
Amy · 848 weeks ago
This is a false dichotomy, because, as I've outlined above, thinking and love can be observed as the result of chemical reactions. I accept thinking and love because I feel them, I observe them, and they have been tested scientifically.
Amy · 848 weeks ago
Another reason I accept these notions- besides the obvious- is that the notions of "thinking" and "love" are useful to me on a day to day basis. The notion of god is not. Almost everyone can talk about the way thinking or love affects their lives- my thinking got me a better grade on my test, my mother's love for me was why she gave me a hug when I was upset- but the notion of a god doesn't have such an observable impact (at least not one that would be so universally accepted- you might claim your god made you a better person, someone else might claim that Allah made him brave, and someone else again might have once claimed that Eros made him attractive to some woman. I disagree with all of those purported influences, and I bet you disagree with two of them). The only influence I can see for the god concept is that it stops research when we can't answer a question- "how did life begin? God did it! Books down, kids." (Religion has an influence, but in this case the rules can be observed, while the force behind them cannot)
Amy · 848 weeks ago
And who says I do adhere to the impossibility of the existence of a god, let alone your god? Strong atheists (people who declare that gods are impossible) are only common in the minds of the religious. I believe that the existence of a god is unlikely, and that the existence of your god is more unlikely. I would reconsider on the basis of solid evidence (the Bible, personal testimonies, appeals to emotion, Pascal's Wager, and threats of hell do not count). I also happen to think that the god in your scriptures is evil, and so would not worship it, so could never be a Christian again.