Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

While many may embrace such a standard, it is not a pre-condition for disbelief, and thus it is an error to say atheism rests upon it.

You have made the classic mistake of assuming that a feature incidental to some atheists is an essential property of all atheists.

You're right, many embrace such a standard, but it is not a pre-condition for disbelief. That's why I said "most atheists on the Internet." But it would have been more accurate for me to say "most atheists I have encountered on the Internet." 

I am sure there are atheists who lack belief for other reasons. For example, the nuns were mean to them when they were children. Or they just don't care enough to think about the issue at all. My guess is that these people are less likely to be posting on Internet atheist sites. 

Assuming it's true that there is no objective evidence for a god, is this something that makes you think a lack of belief is reasonable? Or does the fact that there is no evidence for a god not factor into your decision? 

As you point out, atheists may have different kinds of reasons, and I was clear that, in my opinion, the lack of objective evidence is a good reason. If someone had a bad reason, or no reason at all, that's something they could talk about.

A rather prominent group of unbelievers you didn't mention, those who find the evidence that gods are a human creation more compelling than the evidence for their existence.

I don't know what my reasons for disbelief are, or were. I lost my faith as a child and have no recollection of the specific cause. For a long time I fit the category of the apathetic atheist, who, simply lacked any real reason to adopt a belief in a god. Now, as an atheistic Hindu, my reasons are more nuanced. Like Buddha's stance on gods, I don't find belief that the godhead is an actual being adds anything to my reasons for Hindu belief.

I like religion and theology and pondering gods in the abstract, but I guess I'm still primarily an apathetic atheist. Gods just seem a silly and unnecessary thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Same. What's funny is that irl, most people who meet me think I should have been or actually am a priest. An accidental preacher. A costumed invoker. I get this from evangelical christians and hippy pagans (and some of you atheists here too, lol).....so whatever it is, they're probably picking up something I'm doing. The organizing and moralizing aspects of their respective worldviews never seemed, to me, to hinge on their superstitious claims. Christ never had to die on a cross for charity to be a good way to think about how to interact with other people. There never needed to be a fairy at the bottom of every well for it to be prudent to keep the water clean.

From where I sit, these are juicers. Intuition pumps. We have other reasons to do charity and to stay tidy...but if those things don't move you, imagining a personal entity like us that you're harming by not following these principles is going to push non abstract (or just less informed) thinkers over the line into your camp. The explanations are malleable, the intended outcomes are concrete.

[Angrboda]

Same.  What's funny is that irl, most people who meet me think I should have been or actually am a priest.  An accidental preacher.  A costumed invoker.  I get this from evangelical christians and hippy pagans (and some of you atheists here too, lol).....so whatever it is, they're probably picking up something I'm doing.  

I've often thought that I would be happy as a monk.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^




Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Same.  What's funny is that irl, most people who meet me think I should have been or actually am a priest.  An accidental preacher.  A costumed invoker.  I get this from evangelical christians and hippy pagans (and some of you atheists here too, lol).....so whatever it is, they're probably picking up something I'm doing.  

I've often thought that I would be happy as a monk.

I could deal with the celibacy thing (I’ve had some dry spells), but the vow of silence would be a deal breaker.

Boru

[Belacqua]

A rather prominent group of unbelievers you didn't mention, those who find the evidence that gods are a human creation more compelling than the evidence for their existence.

Yes, that's a reason. I'd say that can co-exist with other reasons, like the lack-of-objective-evidence one.

I don't know what my reasons for disbelief are, or were.  I lost my faith as a child and have no recollection of the specific cause.  

Sometimes you hear people say that they became an atheist as a child when they figured out that all religion is silly. If their understanding hasn't progressed since that time, they tend to continue to have a child's understanding of religion.

It sounds as if you have given it more thought than that.

For a long time I fit the category of the apathetic atheist, who, simply lacked any real reason to adopt a belief in a god.  Now, as an atheistic Hindu, my reasons are more nuanced.  Like Buddha's stance on gods, I don't find belief that the godhead is an actual being adds anything to my reasons for Hindu belief.

As I said before, apathy is a possible reason for lack of belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, there he goes again. Right on cue.

Here's a fun one. Name a single fact about any religion that, once learned, would or should or necesarrily informs you of anything new about gods.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Belacqua

Sometimes you hear people say that they became an atheist as a child when they figured out that all religion is silly. If their understanding hasn't progressed since that time, they tend to continue to have a child's understanding of religion.

One’s level of understanding of religion is immaterial to one’s belief or disbelief in gods. For example, Issac Asimov had a broad and deep understanding of religion (primarily Christianity and Judaism), yet made no bones about his atheism.

Boru

[Angrboda]

@Belacqua

Sometimes you hear people say that they became an atheist as a child when they figured out that all religion is silly. If their understanding hasn't progressed since that time, they tend to continue to have a child's understanding of religion.

One’s level of understanding of religion is immaterial to one’s belief or disbelief in gods. For example, Issac Asimov had a broad and deep understanding of religion (primarily Christianity and Judaism), yet made no bones about his atheism.

Boru

This begs the question of whether there is such a thing as a child's understanding of religion as distinct from any other.

[Belacqua]

This begs the question of whether there is such a thing as a child's understanding of religion as distinct from any other.

Would you say there is anything in the Chandogya Upanishad which would be difficult for a child to understand, because it requires study and the understanding of various concepts which are not self-evident?

Could someone who has studied it seriously for a long time understand it better than an 8-year-old who had heard about it from someone else?