Answers to Questions About Atheism
The original remarks I’m responding to in this post come from a discussion on Metafilter.
Science can never offer any meaning or purpose to our lives.
So make your own meaning. If you need invisible sky wizards to make your life worth something, the fault lies with you, not science.
the only people who think science is the opposite of religion are religious fundamentalists.
If you believe in something in your religion that is contradicted by facts and evidence, basically provable science, then yes, indeed, science is the opposite of religion.
You never see atheists spending time trying to debunk the Hindu religion or find contradictions in the ancient Greek myths.
Because most of those atheists are in the Western world, and what’s the predominant religion?
Besides, atheists don’t need to debunk Greek myths… we already refer to them as myths, for crying out loud. You want atheists to debunk Santa or Chewbacca?
We have religious shaped holes in our heads.
I don’t think we have religion-shaped holes in our heads anymore than we have ice-cream-shaped holes or rock-and-roll-shaped holes. It’s literally a matter of preference. You believe because you choose to.
Sometimes atheism means believing that the “why do we exist?” question has a personal answer, not a universal one.
Yeah, that’s how I feel it is. “What is the meaning of life?” is best answered “There is no inherent meaning of life. You have to make your own.” Which is nice, because you’re not here because of someone’s ridiculous whims (well, kinda), but you’re here to do what you choose to. True free will, with no guilt from an all-powerful Magical Ghosty Man.
atheism is a frustrated conclusion inspired by EVERYTHING being way too complicated to explain.
No, not really. Atheism is a conclusion based on the idea that “God” is not an explanation for anything in the universe, complex or otherwise.
Are all arguments for the existence of a Prime Mover inherently irrational?
Certainly seems that way. I’m not being smug; I’m simply saying that’s what I’m seeing. There appears to be no more argument for God beyond “I want there to be one” (for whatever reason: wishful thinking, satisfactory explanations, don’t want to face stark indifference of the universe) when you break it all down. And that’s merely a matter of preference, which rarely is based on anything rational.
Is all of that collective mental effort wasted?
Sure. Why not? You think because millions have contemplated something that it *must* be worth something?
I find it difficult to dismiss thousands of years of philosophy and religious argument. I find it equally difficult to offhandedly dismiss a belief held by millions of people.
I know you find it difficult. That doesn’t make it an invalid position to take.
Is there no objective value in a personal belief in God?
Personal satisfaction.
How does such a belief do more harm than good?
When you use it as a motivation to hurt others, or justification for imposing your beliefs on others.
If I were to strictly follow the Christian ethic, would my behavior be harmful to those around me and society in general?
Oh, yes, definitely. The Christian ethic requires proselytizing. YES, if one were to strictly follow the Christian ethic, they would be proselytizing, as it is required by strict Christian ethics. It is arequirement of the Christian ethic to convert others, or you’re failing as a Christian. Millions of Christians do no such thing, but that’s because they are not strictly following that ethic.