Religion/Spirituality What Are the Benefits of Atheism?

[rapdonttweet]

No trolling here. Serious question.

And I'll put it in the OP so I don't have to say it again later. I am not a religious person so miss me with that typical bickering. If you have something to contribute your input is welcome and appreciated.


I think the question is pretty straight forward but I know how some of yall do so I'll try to break it down.

Why should one become an atheist? How would their life be better?

And also, what contributions have atheists made to humanity?

I'm an agnostic who isn't sure about God but I just don't see the point of being an atheist. It's one thing to just shrug your shoulders and not worry one way or the other, which is what I've been doing but questions burn inside of me so I decided to ask the HL community.

Explain it to me, brehs, and please keep the hostility to a minimum.

Being atheist, agnostic, or religious shouldn't have anything to do with benefits or what it can do for you. Its a belief. It should be about rationalizing the ideas and deciding which one you believe in. An atheist doesn't choose to be an atheist. They are one because religion and the idea of a god doesn't make any sense to them. If an atheist went around calling themselves a Christian and going to church, it wouldn't change a thing. In their hearts they still wouldn't believe it.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

yeah they do teach to kill people . thats why the old testament is riddled with war and murder. thats why the crusades happened. thats why jihadists do the shyt they do. it might not be as many people that FOLLOW these kinda rules anymore but its still in the "holy" bible, quran, etc is it not? you know, "the word of god"? so there's another advantage. since i get my morals from elsewhere, i'm not subject to the constant revisions/cop-outs that religious people have to. "oh that was in bible times though. no no, it says not to drink in excess" and all that kinda bullshyt.

Wait, what? "Another" benefit? What was the first and what was the one you just mentioned?

nonbelievers DO NOT divide as much as religious people, the fukk is you talmbout the fight for jerusalem has been the source for the loss of literally countless lives and there isn't a single shred of evidence to verify what makes it so holy. point me in the direction where nonbelievers are divided "just as much"

Division is division, breh. Aren't atheists and theists divided? Ok, then. I've never been to Jerusalem but I do post in the coli () and here in the coli atheists don't always do a very good job of representing themselves. And since the coli is more relevant to me than Jerusalem....

Atheists prove to be intolerant and rude as fukk on this site. "You're insane if you believe in that fairy tale bullshyt!" What a nice thing to say.

religion has charity. word, so that means there's no secular charities too? thats shyt done by religious people anyways, i thought you were askin about the benefits religion itself does. like how malcolm x was a criminal before and the noi turned his life around. and again thats great for him but i still gotta ask: what does it do for disabled, poor, and needy? its cool that a healthy, able-bodied man can change due to religion but why can't it do anything for the people who AREN'T evil or criminals? those that were just born in fukked up predicaments and probably lose faith in god/religion when they see how someone who doesn't live right continues to be blessed and even credit it to god?

I never said there were no secular charities.

YOU asked what benefits did religion offer and I answered charity. What does the fact that secular charities also exist have to do with anything?

And to answer your other question... religion also gives people hope. You could also say religion offers love. Hope and love may be the strongest human emotions there are, along with fear, which religion can also offer, although I don't know that that's necessarily a benefit. But it could be because as I was discussing with @NoMayo15 fear may lead to morality.

 

[Brown_Pride]

so back to the op question...
OUtside of not spending a few hours on sunday specifically doing something you believe and find value in what are the benefits of atheism?

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

Being atheist, agnostic, or religious shouldn't have anything to do with benefits or what it can do for you. Its a belief. It should be about rationalizing the ideas and deciding which one you believe in. An atheist doesn't choose to be an atheist. They are one because religion and the idea of a god doesn't make any sense to them. If an atheist went around calling themselves a Christian and going to church, it wouldn't change a thing. In their hearts they still wouldn't believe it.

I never said your belief should be based on the benefits it offers you.

Now that that's clear... are there any benefits to atheism?

I don't see what my question has to do with what you're saying.

 

[rapdonttweet]

I never said your belief should be based on the benefits it offers you.

Now that that's clear... are there any benefits to atheism?

I don't see what my question has to do with what you're saying.

You're asking why someone should become an atheist and what it will do for them. But its not something you choose, its something you are. You either believe in god or you don't.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

You're asking why someone should become an atheist and what it will do for them. But its not something you choose, its something you are. You either believe in god or you don't.

1st of all, that's not what I'm asking at all. I simply asked if there were any benefits to atheism. You adding all kinda shyt that I never typed.

2ndly, you don't choose what you believe?

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

Wait, what? "Another" benefit? What was the first and what was the one you just mentioned?

read again. you kept bringing up teaching morals as a benefit for religion. the first benefit was learning morals elsewhere that doesn't also teach murder, etc.

Division is division, breh. Aren't atheists and theists divided? Ok, then. I've never been to Jerusalem but I do post in the coli () and here in the coli atheists don't always do a very good job of representing themselves. And since the coli is more relevant to me than Jerusalem....

division is not division. atheists and theists and divided but so are laker and celtic fans thats just us bein human breh. the severity of the division in religion though is another animal. look at a map and you can see for yourself how divisive it is, among entire cultures and peoples over issues that can never be proven or disproven. science on the other hand is the great unitor, bringing people of ALL walks of life to an agreement under objective reasoning and at its core its NOT religious. so there's another benefit

Atheists prove to be intolerant and rude as fukk on this site. "You're insane if you believe in that fairy tale bullshyt!" What a nice thing to say.

i'm not even an atheist breh but whatever i never knew hearin shyt like that was worse than telling people shyt like they're going to hell

I never said there were no secular charities.
YOU asked what benefits did religion offer and I answered charity. What does the fact that secular charities also exist have to do with anything?

it has to do with the fact that religions having charities aint really a "benefit" this is at least the 2nd time you named somethin that can easily be found in the secular world.

And to answer your other question... religion also gives people hope. You could also say religion offers love. Hope and love may be the strongest human emotions there are, along with fear, which religion can also offer, although I don't know that that's necessarily a benefit. But it could be because as I was discussing with @NoMayo15 fear may lead to morality.

those can all be found once again secularly, but you didn't call them benefits so religion tends to teach loving like minded people, but it doesn't offer much room for accepting those that are different. hope more often that not means faith/prayer which leads to inaction. so lets pray for all the people starvin and sick out there cuz while it may not give them food or their health back it can definitely give them hope :romo:

 

[NoMayo15]

I'm no expert in Christianity by any means but I'm pretty sure Jesus had followers while he was alive and I don't think they were calling themselves Jews. I think Jesus was a Hebrew, not necessarily a Jew.

They certainly weren't calling themselves Christians.

I also wouldn't say Christianity "borrowed" from Judaism. As I tried to inform your fellow atheist in a previous post, Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God. I would call what the Romans did "borrowing" from the Greeks but Jesus never established some "new God", he was talmbout the same God the Jews were already worshiping.

Okay, fine. The point is Christians adopted some of the scriptures and practices of Hebrews as a part of their belief system. The old testament is a part of the Christian bible.

The statement "believe in my God or die" doesn't even make sense. If you're "believing" under duress then you're not really believing and thus must die anyway.

Sure. But are you aware of the Spanish inquisition?

Yeah I stepped out after I posted that and thought about it. You're right. If there was no BELIEF in God there would be no atheism would have been much more accurate. Atheism completes the dichotomy
But damn, homie, you say "they at least researched the basic stuff" like I'm fukkin clueless out here. I'll be the first to tell you I'm far from an expert but I know a lil something. I'm just out here trying to make sense of it all.

I apologize, friend. I try my best to be as least inflammatory as possible, but I've heard these arguments so often that I often forget not everyone has been exposed to them like I have. Plus, this is a very important topic to me, and I get aggravated very easy.

But what are the negative consequences of killing my neighbor? He's dead so I don't have to worry about him killing me back. And even if I did, or worried about anyone else, then my morality would also be based on fear. As you said self preservation. But how does that stop someone from just killing more? If I have the biggest gun and the fastest draw, that should take care of my self preservation, sans the "morality" part.

Isn't the theist morality based on fear? Some people say it's love, but I call bullshyt. But in this example, it's likely that you'd get caught and spend the rest of your life in jail. Maybe your neighbor's family would attempt to harm you, or at least attempt to ensure some justice is served. What it comes down to is basic -- you wouldn't want to be killed or jailed, so you don't kill. If someone didn't care whether or not they lived or died or went to jail, then they might kill. I'm not speaking on if the act is moral or not, rather, why someone might behave morally without a god belief.

When I said "common sense" you challenged me on it. So why are some things common sense and others not? Especially when we were talking about the same thing- murder. From a non-Biblical/religious point point of view, murder being immoral is "common sense" but if one reads the Bible and deems it common sense that it isn't instructing him to kill, that's not? I don't understand that.

Because there is no "common sense" when talking about religious dogma. One's persons beliefs that are based on scripture is just as valid as another's beliefs based on scripture. Note that neither opinion are necessarily morally right.

But I want to bring up another quick point. How do you define murder?

And in all honesty, morality has nothing to do with this thread. I asked about the benefits of atheism and morality was deemed not to be. So that should be that.

Okay, well, YOU keep bringing it atheistic morality, not me.

See again, you're talking about fear. So does all morality come from fear? And what is this "inherent empathy"? I'm not even saying I disagree but in a subject where people love to ask for proof, that statement is typed on shaky ground. I can't see inherent empathy and I've never seen it proved scientifically. Are we the only creatures with this inherent empathy? That would be weird seeing as how we're the only creatures who kill in cold blood.

So that raises another question. We've talked about "right", now what about "wrong"? Where does it come from? If morality comes from "inherent empathy" and common sense then how on Earth does one develop immorality?

Of course you have. You see it every day when the vast majority of people aren't out killing & raping each other. Other animals experience empathy, and it has been scientifically shown. I suppose this is where I provide links. I may or may not do so later.

 

[daze23]

so back to the op question...
OUtside of not spending a few hours on sunday specifically doing something you believe and find value in what are the benefits of atheism?

are you just gonna ignore everything that's been said in this thread?

it's 10+ pages, and it never really got too far away from the OP's question. on this page people are pointing out issues with looking for "benefits"

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

read again. you kept bringing up teaching morals as a benefit for religion. the first benefit was learning morals elsewhere that doesn't also teach murder, etc.

But if that "elsewhere" isn't atheism then your point is irrelevant.

division is not division. atheists and theists and divided but so are laker and celtic fans thats just us bein human breh. the severity of the division in religion though is another animal. look at a map and you can see for yourself how divisive it is, among entire cultures and peoples over issues that can never be proven or disproven. science on the other hand is the great unitor, bringing people of ALL walks of life to an agreement under objective reasoning and at its core its NOT religious. so there's another benefit

Did you just type "division is not division"?

i'm not even an atheist breh but whatever i never knew hearin shyt like that was worse than telling people shyt like they're going to hell

When did I call you an atheist? I don't like people telling other people they're going to hell either but that isn't necessarily blatant disrespect.

it has to do with the fact that religions having charities aint really a "benefit" this is at least the 2nd time you named somethin that can easily be found in the secular world.

So first division isn't division and now charity has no benefit. Am I reading this stuff correctly?

those can all be found once again secularly, but you didn't call them benefits so religion tends to teach loving like minded people, but it doesn't offer much room for accepting those that are different. hope more often that not means faith/prayer which leads to inaction. so lets pray for all the people starvin and sick out there cuz while it may not give them food or their health back it can definitely give them hope :romo:

Sorry, breh, but you're not making any sense. Something being a benefit of more than one thing means it ceases to be a benefit?

No offense, but I really don't have time to respond to you if you're not gonna keep saying this off the wall stuff.

 

[NoMayo15]

so back to the op question...
OUtside of not spending a few hours on sunday specifically doing something you believe and find value in what are the benefits of atheism?

No fear of hell fire? Then again, I don't know if I've ever met a believer that truly thought they, or some loved one would go to hell.

And Brown_Pride, you keep appealing to this "believe to hedge your bets / what do you got to lose" argument. Do you think someone who is skeptical towards religious claims could just simply accept Christianity as true just because it's a safer choice? How do you propose a non-believer to do that? Try to put yourself in their shoes. Or say you were the type of Christian that didn't believe in a literal hell of torture, and a Muslim (or any other religion) told you about an even worse hell. Could you seriously give up your belief in Jesus' divinity and worship that god just because the consequences were worse? I mean, essentially that's what you're suggest people do, no? Suspend their skepticism, and believe (or at least pretend/say they believe) in outrageous claims about a person who performed miracles several millennia ago. Furthermore, don't you think God would see right through such an attempt of deceit? Do you think God would welcome someone into his kingdom who came to him not out of love, or from being convinced that he was indeed the one true god, but that they just said they believed to hedge their bets -- just in case it was true? Serious questions. I'd really like to know what you think.

 

[NoMayo15]

I never said your belief should be based on the benefits it offers you.

Now that that's clear... are there any benefits to atheism?

I don't see what my question has to do with what you're saying.

The benefit of atheism is being right.

/EndTypicalColiResponse

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

They certainly weren't calling themselves Christians.

Retroactively calling them Christians is more accurate than calling them Jews. They followed Jesus, Jews didn't/don't.

Okay, fine. The point is Christians adopted some of the scriptures and practices of Hebrews as a part of their belief system. The old testament is a part of the Christian bible.

I would look at it like going from an iPhone 4 to an iPhone 5, not going from an iPhone to an Android.

Sure. But are you aware of the Spanish inquisition?

Was that done by Christianity or by Christians? One is an ideology, one is a group of people. Have you ever heard of Hitler? I don't think Christianity taught him to do what he did.

I apologize, friend. I try my best to be as least inflammatory as possible, but I've heard these arguments so often that I often forget not everyone has been exposed to them like I have. Plus, this is a very important topic to me, and I get aggravated very easy.

Meh, 'sall good.

Isn't the theist morality based on fear? Some people say it's love, but I call bullshyt. But in this example, it's likely that you'd get caught and spend the rest of your life in jail. Maybe your neighbor's family would attempt to harm you, or at least attempt to ensure some justice is served. What it comes down to is basic -- you wouldn't want to be killed or jailed, so you don't kill. If someone didn't care whether or not they lived or died or went to jail, then they might kill. I'm not speaking on if the act is moral or not, rather, why someone might behave morally without a god belief.

Yeah like I was telling other dude, religion taps into the 3 strongest human emotions, love, hope and fear. It's easy to see the benefit of love and hope but your point about morality coming from fear enables me to see a potential benefit in that as well. That's a conclusion I just drew from today's discussion.

Because there is no "common sense" when talking about religious dogma. One's persons beliefs that are based on scripture is just as valid as another's beliefs based on scripture. Note that neither opinion are necessarily morally right.

It is common sense when you understand what religion is. The purpose of religion is to teach morals and virtue over vice. When that is considered, it is definitely common sense that murder is wrong.

But I want to bring up another quick point. How do you define murder?

No trickery here. Murder is murder. Killing in self defense is not murder. Plotting to kill someone and then carrying out the act.

Okay, well, YOU keep bringing it atheistic morality, not me.

But only in response to you.
Where atheists get morals is a whole 'nother thread.

Of course you have. You see it every day when the vast majority of people aren't out killing & raping each other. Other animals experience empathy, and it has been scientifically shown. I suppose this is where I provide links. I may or may not do so later.

I don't necessarily see "inherent empathy". I may see the result of "inherent empathy" but that's only if it truly exists, which can't be proved. What I see is people acting morally but where do these morals come from? "Inherent empathy"? Maybe. Maybe they come from religion. Maybe they originated from religion but have become social norms.

And word, drop them links if you got em.

 

[Brown_Pride]

No fear of hell fire? Then again, I don't know if I've ever met a believer that truly thought they, or some loved one would go to hell.

And Brown_Pride, you keep appealing to this "believe to hedge your bets / what do you got to lose" argument. Do you think someone who is skeptical towards religious claims could just simply accept Christianity as true just because it's a safer choice? How do you propose a non-believer to do that? Try to put yourself in their shoes. Or say you were the type of Christian that didn't believe in a literal hell of torture, and a Muslim (or any other religion) told you about an even worse hell. Could you seriously give up your belief in Jesus' divinity and worship that god just because the consequences were worse? I mean, essentially that's what you're suggest people do, no? Suspend their skepticism, and believe (or at least pretend/say they believe) in outrageous claims about a person who performed miracles several millennia ago. Furthermore, don't you think God would see right through such an attempt of deceit? Do you think God would welcome someone into his kingdom who came to him not out of love, or from being convinced that he was indeed the one true god, but that they just said they believed to hedge their bets -- just in case it was true? Serious questions. I'd really like to know what you think.

The "hedge your bet" approach to belief is no belief at all. The "lotto" example i gave was a poor analogy particularly because even I knew it was, ergo the use of the word "crude" prior to even using it.

So let me clarify the "hedge your bet" approach to belief.

There are typically 2 types of non believers. Those that have tried going to church with an open mind and those who wont go because they don't believe.

There are also many different types of believers, for the purposes of this argument i'll boil them down to 2. One is what someone would consider "luke warm" (What Does the Bible Say About Lukewarm Christians?). The other would be the opposite. In essence you cannot fake the funk and expect to be saved.

HOWEVER.

The gap between the non believer and the believer has to be gapped somehow.
Sometimes this comes in the form of a loved one, sometimes it comes out of fear, sometimes it comes out of "hedging".

It's my belief that getting "in the door" is a step. Not all people make it through the door and stay. not all that stay are saved.

So those who came to christ to Hedge their bets and didn't ultimately realize that that was the wrong thing, well...

However, those that do, well that's just great.

God welcomes everyone to get to know him, even those seeking to hedge their odds at eternal salvation. it's in the cultivation of a relationship with god that you either take that LEAP of faith, or choose not to.

To be fair I understand taking that leap is a son of a biotch, particularly for people who pride themselves on their wisdom. Faith has no proof, it has experience and unless you experience your own relationship with God then it's a damn near impossible pill to swallow.

Were I presented with a different type of "belief" i'd pray to God for guidance and then go from their. If God spoke to me and changed what i believed then well, "his will be done."

The danger of this of course, and the logical question is, how do you know it's God's will. Ultimately you don't. You place faith in your belief and relationship with God.

 

[the cac mamba]

On the flip side, the Bible says don't commit murder. Atheism doesn't teach this

had to interject at this bullshyt ass statement

what are you talking about? an atheist would say dont kill someone because you are depriving them of life, their families of being with them, etc. all more valid reasons than fearing punishment from "god"