Pros of an Atheist?

Azzie said:
"There was a time though, that Christians made no bones about being better than everyone else" -By DV

Oh absolutely. That's why i really hate calling myself one when asked. Although I'd say a lot of that was because of how integrated religion was with politics back in day. Rulers used the phrase "chosen by the gods" to secure their rule in society. In the same way, the Christian world used the phrase "it is the will of God" to do all sorts of nasty things. Like the analogy I used about Hitler, i'd say a lot these things are people grabbing Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) as a weapon and hitting people with it.

Anyway, I think another part of the core difference is the idea that Christians think everyone else is IN NEED. That makes Christians not only seem insulting but also intrusive. Well, but in the Christian perspective, they're just trying to help....although from other perspectives, it's often something else.

In fact, I'm gonna do something "drastic". From now on, I'm no longer going to post on this forum as a Christian. Not to say my beliefs are different or that I'm no longer a Christian now, but I'm switching sides in the debates.

"I'm going to have to stick by my guns on this one. Circular reason is used time and time again by Christians as "proof" for one thing or another."
- Again, that's absolutely true. My rationale for still being a Christian is that I have faith that even though Christianity is logically contradictory, God knows that and made us that way for a reason (i dunno what it is; but hey, logic cant solve everything.) Basically, in life and society i function like an atheist and think like one, following the golden rule and acting in accordance to general well-being (kind of like Confucianism), while in regards to afterlife and spiritual matters, I have faith in Christianity.

My definition of Intellectual Integrity: Doing our best with the ability of our minds. I feel it's a sin to do otherwise.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the first step down the path to the Dark Side. Welcome aboard!
 
My thanks. Although I dont consider atheism the Dark Side...perhaps the "side of no sides"?

Reminds me of a sig u used to have...what was it, "If Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color" ?
 
Pros: Its ability to focus on the practical social ethics of the world as opposed to having an ideal beyond what is seen. Striving for the supernatural in religions tend to cause, uh....bad things. But striving for realistic, feasible, logical, and practical improvements in life and society tends to show much more effective results than trying to better society by enforcing a religion. It's practical; it's useful, it's less restricted, it's helpful, it's feasible (to some degree, at least, since as you said, humans still aren't perfect.)

Cons: It's ONLY involving earth and the physical life. Don't get me wrong; some people are completely fine with that and I support their decisions of having their focus on the golden rule. But some people feel that they're missing something in life; no matter how successful they are or how happy they are, they are haunted by the idea that one day it will all end. I don't think atheism really addresses the issue of death too much.

Without thinking, I would say that in dealing with people and life, I am atheist, and in dealing with my ultimate concern, I am Christian. But, I know there are many catches to that statement so, everyone (not just DV) please don't attack that too much. :)

Anyway, I feel that how much the pros outweigh the cons (or vice versa) is extremely dependent on the individual's take on death...and whatever's after, for that matter.
For me individually, I can't really be content with only being atheist since I want something more after death, and when it comes to that, I choose Christianity. Why that is, would (should?) be another thread.
 
Last edited:
WANTING is something totally besides the point. It leads you to question your intellectual integrity. Why believe in something that may not be true? Because it makes you feel better?

That leads me to the largest of the atheist cons, not having a crutch. And I don't mean crutch in a bad way. I have just returned from my second funeral in four months (the earlier being a double funeral). I cringed at the talk about meeting the deceased again in heaven, blah blah blah. Then I realized it for what it was, a crutch. Something to lean on in hard times. It comforted the believers and makes the hard times easier. I won't lie, I miss that. But then, I realize I felt just like I did when I moved out on my own. My parents weren't there to help me, I had to do it on my own. That's when I realized I had grown up.
 
Well, basically, I just don't think everything can be solved with my poor college-freshman brain that's deprived of sleep and should be studying for my Greek quiz. :(
I do agree on your description of the con, though; that's essentially what I meant in my post above. Although I don't really call Christianity a "crutch". maybe "potential bridge"...

But if you're asking me personally, I still think it should be another thread. :)
 
Dark Virtue said:
WANTING is something totally besides the point. It leads you to question your intellectual integrity. Why believe in something that may not be true? Because it makes you feel better?

That leads me to the largest of the atheist cons, not having a crutch. And I don't mean crutch in a bad way. I have just returned from my second funeral in four months (the earlier being a double funeral). I cringed at the talk about meeting the deceased again in heaven, blah blah blah. Then I realized it for what it was, a crutch. Something to lean on in hard times. It comforted the believers and makes the hard times easier. I won't lie, I miss that. But then, I realize I felt just like I did when I moved out on my own. My parents weren't there to help me, I had to do it on my own. That's when I realized I had grown up.
Click to expand...

First of all, my condolences on your losses.

The section I bolded is exactly what my point was in that earlier thread... you know, the one about the "holier than thou" Christians? The implication that somehow you have "grown up" intellectually, thereby implying that Christian beliefs are infantile, is the exact intellectual superiority complex that you claimed only strong atheists had.

I was of the understanding that the whole purpose of free thought was to allow people to fully examine the evidence presented and to draw their own conclusions. To assume that someone else's beliefs are somehow inferior because they examined the same evidence and came to a different conclusion than you is rather arrogant, don't you think?
 
Azzie said:
Well, basically, I just don't think everything can be solved with my poor college-freshman brain that's deprived of sleep and should be studying for my Greek quiz. :(
I do agree on your description of the con, though; that's essentially what I meant in my post above. Although I don't really call Christianity a "crutch". maybe "potential bridge"...

But if you're asking me personally, I still think it should be another thread. :)
Click to expand...

I think crutch is a great term, although I admit it could be used in a sarcastic manner.

Why do you use a crutch? To support yourself. That's one of the purposes of religion.
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff said:
First of all, my condolences on your losses.

The section I bolded is exactly what my point was in that earlier thread... you know, the one about the "holier than thou" Christians? The implication that somehow you have "grown up" intellectually, thereby implying that Christian beliefs are infantile, is the exact intellectual superiority complex that you claimed only strong atheists had.

I was of the understanding that the whole purpose of free thought was to allow people to fully examine the evidence presented and to draw their own conclusions. To assume that someone else's beliefs are somehow inferior because they examined the same evidence and came to a different conclusion than you is rather arrogant, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Thanks by the way.

Am I arrogant sometimes? Absolutely. Am I being so in this case, no. Hopefully my explaination below will prove that. If not, my apologies.

What have I said though, that the Bible hasn't already said?

Aren't Christians supposed to be child like in their faith? Note the difference between child LIKE and childISH.

Doesn't the Bible say that it isn't the intelligent that are called?

1 Cor 1
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
Click to expand...

Your definition of freethought is a bit off. A Freethinker is defined as someone whose opinions are formed on the basis of an understanding and rejection of tradition, authority or established belief. This definition is especially applicable to thought based on rejection of religious dogma. Therefore theists cannot be Freethinkers because of their religious foundation that pervades every aspect of their lives.

Hope that helps.
 
Thanks for that passage! God managed to use you again to help me through a rough patch in my spiritual journey. :D

I see your point, although I'm certain that if a Christian made a statement on an Atheist message board about how they "grew up" spiritually, there would be a flame war the size of Hiroshima.

And about Free Thought-- by that definition, the possibility of the existence of God is ruled out, correct? Doesn't that make Free Thought similar to Pascal's Wager?

Think it through-- Pascal rules out the possibility that there is no God and assumes a positive probability for God's existence. Free Thought assumes no probability for God's existence, and therefore rules out that possibility. Aren't they both rather close minded?
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff said:
Thanks for that passage! God managed to use you again to help me through a rough patch in my spiritual journey. :D
Click to expand...

Glad I could help :)

I see your point, although I'm certain that if a Christian made a statement on an Atheist message board about how they "grew up" spiritually, there would be a flame war the size of Hiroshima.
Click to expand...

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php See for yourself :)

And about Free Thought-- by that definition, the possibility of the existence of God is ruled out, correct? Doesn't that make Free Thought similar to Pascal's Wager?
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm not sure how/why you are coming to that conclusion. Pascal's Wager is a decision theory while FreeThought is a practice. You can't subject Pascal's Wager to Freethinking, but you can use Freethought to evaluate Pascal's Wager. Does that make sense? A theist can not, however, use Freethought to evaluate Pascal's Wager unless they are intellectually honest enough to put their religious background aside. Not many are willing to do that. Nor is that the point of the Wager, since I beleive it was intended as a tool for the believer, rather than a tool for the nontheist.

Think it through-- Pascal rules out the possibility that there is no God and assumes a positive probability for God's existence. Free Thought assumes no probability for God's existence, and therefore rules out that possibility. Aren't they both rather close minded?
Click to expand...

You are wrong on both counts. Pascal does not rule out the possibility that there is no God. What he did was to weigh God's existence and nonexistence as equal probabilities, which is illogical as I have shown in the quotes above. Secondly, Freethought does not assume that there isn't a probability of God's nonexistence. Freethought is a TOOL, a way at looking at a given situation sans religious dogma. Therefore, using Freethinking you can look at the possibilities of the existence or nonexistence of gods...as long as you do so independant "of or unlimited by tradition, authority, established belief, preconception, prejudice or any agenda that might compromise the free exercise of thought."
 
Allow me to rephrase-- Pascal's Wager rules out the possibility that one can reasonably believe there is NO probability of the existence of God, just as Free Thought rules out the possibility that one can be 100% certain about the existence of God, and that's how they are similar. I worded that very poorly.

So, if Free Thought isn't a decision process, but a practice, doesn't that put it on the same level as a religion? I guess I'm just not sure if Free Thought belongs in the realm of philosophy, religion, metaphysics, or some combination of the three. How would you classify it?
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff said:
Allow me to rephrase-- Pascal's Wager rules out the possibility that one can reasonably believe there is NO probability of the existence of God, just as Free Thought rules out the possibility that one can be 100% certain about the existence of God, and that's how they are similar. I worded that very poorly.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I still don't think you're wording that correctly. Your first part is correct, the Wager does rule out that there is NO probability of the existence of God. It does, as I said, create equal possibilities, which as I also stated, I believe to be a logical error. I believe the second part is where you are in error. Freethought does NOT rule out certainty of God. So they are NOT similar. More on this below.

So, if Free Thought isn't a decision process, but a practice, doesn't that put it on the same level as a religion? I guess I'm just not sure if Free Thought belongs in the realm of philosophy, religion, metaphysics, or some combination of the three. How would you classify it?
Click to expand...

I would classify it as a tool, an analytical process. It doesn't put it on the same level as religion, because they are not similar; think apples and oranges. Freethought is a way of viewing other thinks, much like the scientific method. You can use Freethought to analyze religion, philosophy and metaphysics. It isn't a philosophy or a way of life (although on a different level you could view it as such). Instead it is an analytical tool.

Does that help, or have I simply muddied the waters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top