Where do atheists come from?

[Liffrea]

This is a complex argument that often suffers from generality.

Some point to consider:

There is unlikely ever to be any definitive answer to the question of the existence of a god or gods, the metaphysical arguments are largely a shrug of the shoulders when you get right down to it and the “proofs” offered are anything but. French philosopher (and atheist) Andre Comte-Sponville groups the metaphysical arguments as Ontological Proof, Cosmological Proof and Physico-Theological Proof and provides reasonable arguments for the inadequacy of all three.

Science doesn’t have the capacity to answer the question because it’s nature is one of study of the material, it cannot offer reliable theories on what it cannot measure or reasonably deduce from available facts (think dark matter, string theory, worm holes). One could argue that lack of proof is non-existence but this, to me, is poor reasoning, it’s good science, but it’s not good logic. Of course science has rejected many claims made by certain doctrines (creationism as an example) but that’s not the same as proving the non-existence of god(s).

The question, then, of why is there something and not nothing is probably unanswerable and the existence or non-existence of god(s) as a possible answer to the question will remain personal bias.

However I believe there are other points.

Does spirituality necessitate god(s)? There is evidence that man is inherently spiritual and that belief in some higher “being” is a predisposition. Of course this doesn’t prove the existence of god(s), it may well be an adaptive phenomenon of human evolutionary psychology, although why would be a fascinating question in itself. Yet the point still remains can one be an atheist, or agnostic, and yet still have a sense of the “sacred”?

[Cato]

I should hope so! It is the rational, neutral point of view. The starting point -- i.e. believe what you see, what you can touch and what is actually real. Belief in mystical entities are ancient adaptations of the human mind and psyche in order to make sense of their world. But there are more logical ways to do that.

The existence of atheists, or deists and theists, is just one of the dynamics of being human. Existential questions are, for atheists, not contained within the realm of the spirit, which also might be true of deists to a degree, save that they posit an extra-natural cause for the existence of the natural world and its wonders.

Theists look from the perspective of the spirit whereas atheists look from the perspective of the mind. One is intuitive, one is rational. Neither is correct, yet neither is incorrect (my opinion). As I see it, man is the maker of his own myths and meanings far more than any distant God or Gods. God's existence isn't provable via science, something that I don't really look for- science explains natural events and such, not extra-natural beings like a deity (pantheists have some work to do here).

As an example, modern medical science fixed my hernia yesterday with a goretex plug and patch, not faith healing or the laying on of hands. I thank the doctor, a nice fellow from Greece, rather than God- even though I do believe in the existence of the creator(s), the afterlife, etc. I think it's a bit better to maintain a neutral attitude towards the existence of the divine (religions don't count imo, so I don't feel beholden to the Christian religion anymore than I do to the Muslim religion and so on) and to pay respect when it's called for- which isn't very often.

[Anthropos]

Probly ahteists,catholic agnostics,heathens self-made ratio-mysticists originally were generated by internet infestation known as apricity,stirpes althing,skadi where concentration of enemies of teh Europe is higher tahn anwhere else tehy planted by U.S. govt,target minds of ignorant youth,indulge in teh virtual fantasies about new world order you know teh story

[Poltergeist]

Probly ahteists,catholic agnostics,heathens self-made ratio-mysticists originally were generated by internet infestation known as apricity,stirpes althing,skadi where concentration of enemies of teh Europe is higher tahn anwhere else tehy planted by U.S. govt,target minds of ignorant youth,indulge in teh virtual fantasies about new world order you know teh story

You forgot to mention the role played by teh snubbish intellectuals.

[The Khagan]

I should hope so! It is the rational, neutral point of view. The starting point -- i.e. believe what you see, what you can touch and what is actually real. Belief in mystical entities are ancient adaptations of the human mind and psyche in order to make sense of their world. But there are more logical ways to do that.

Erm, I'd say agnosticism is the most rational, neutral point of view. Atheism requires an absolute denial of the existence of a higher above. Unless of course, you're a negative atheist.

[Anthropos]

Erm, I'd say agnosticism is the most rational, neutral point of view. Atheism requires an absolute denial of the existence of a higher above. Unless of course, you're a negative atheist.

I know that what you said is a commonplace view, but I disagree.

A lot of atheists, and especially those to whom the label most undoubtedly applies, are often just people who say "I don't believe in it" when faced with a question involving God. They don't need to have any philosophical system to back it up; they are still atheists.

Agnostics, on the other hand, do have a philosophical system on which to base their viewpoint. Agnosticism is not just the position of not knowing, it is the position that we cannot know. They posit an epistemological theory for the sake of backing up their position. That theory is also quite dogmatic, so that agnosticism actually is more than a belief: it is a closed system of thought. The idea that we cannot know whether God exists or not is dogma to agnostics. They exclude even the possibility of any knowledge about God:

The word "Agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) from two original Greek words: agnôstos, which means ignorant and gnosis which means knowledge. An Agnostic is not simply without knowledge or stupid. Agnostics take the stance that no knowledge of God is now possible.

Agnostics and Agnosticism - Quotations. Etymology. History. Beliefs of Agnostics.

[Äike]

Where do atheists come from?

03 March 2010 by Lois Lee and Stephen Bullivant


Ironically, sociologists, psychologists, economists and, particularly, cognitive anthropologists have become so skilled at explaining why humans seem to have such a widespread bias towards theistic beliefs that a new question readily presents itself: if religion comes so naturally to us, why are so many people, especially in western Europe, apparently resistant to it? In the UK, for example, a sizeable 43 per cent said they had "no religion" in the 2008 BSA survey.

I'll just point out that the 3 least religious countries in the world are the Nordic countries of Estonia(86% non-religious), Sweden(83% non-religious) and Denmark(82% non-religious).


In my opinion the most logical way to look at religion is through agnosticism. There's no way to disprove(Atheists) nor prove(Religious people) the existence of God.

[Anthropos]

I'll just point out that the 3 least religious countries in the world are the Nordic countries of Estonia(86% non-religious), Sweden(83% non-religious) and Denmark(82% non-religious).

Other surveys do not place Sweden that high. You have rankings and percentages but no source.

What do you think is the significance of high levels of secularism and irreligion in a country? What do you think it means?

I have answers for you as far as Sweden and Finland are concerned, but I guess you have some idea, so please tell us.

In my opinion the most logical way to look at religion is through agnosticism. There's no way to disprove(Atheists) nor prove(Religious people) the existence of God.

That doesn't mean that it is only a logical outlook. It means that it is an empiricistic outlook, rather. It is based on an empiricistic philosophy that focuses on the world of the senses and excludes other ways of obtaining knowledge. Empiricism was originally not meant to exclude other ways of obtaining knowledge. There have been plenty of empiricists who knew full well that empiricism is only one out of several ways of obtaining knowledge.

[The Khagan]

I know that what you said is a commonplace view, but I disagree.

A lot of atheists, and especially those to whom the label most undoubtedly applies, are often just people who say "I don't believe in it" when faced with a question involving God. They don't need to have any philosophical system to back it up; they are still atheists.

Agnostics, on the other hand, do have a philosophical system on which to base their viewpoint. Agnosticism is not just the position of not knowing, it is the position that we cannot know. They posit an epistemological theory for the sake of backing up their position. That theory is also quite dogmatic, so that agnosticism actually is more than a belief: it is a closed system of thought. The idea that we cannot know whether God exists or not is dogma to agnostics. They exclude even the possibility of any knowledge about God:



Agnostics and Agnosticism - Quotations. Etymology. History. Beliefs of Agnostics.

To tell the truth, I was unaware that agnosticism's main tenet is the absolute idea that we can never know whether or not God exists.

I'm not an agnostic, never claimed to be, I'd be best described as a negative atheist.

[Psychonaut]

No it is not.

I'd say that Atheism most certainly can be religious, epistemologically, but whether or not it is functioning as such for a particular individual depends entirely upon the doxic modality with which Atheism is held. The two statements ahead can be indicative of the underlying doxa of the speaker:

a). I do not believe in God.
b). I believe there is no God.

The withholding of belief in any given subject is quite different from an active belief in its negative. The first is a philosophical attitude; the second is religious.