Atheists:

[ZPowers]

I've seen many say god has made it eternally good, and thus can no longer change it, or even that god could never change it in the first place (meaning it is indeed more powerful than god). I've seen people say it is arbitrary from god's perspective, but not for humans because god has made it objectively good (so rejecting your premise that nothing changes about the situation other than god's whim). You can also say god is beyond logic so can do whatever it wants, meaning the very tool we are using in this debate has been rendered useless, which most don't lean on because it also means god can force everyone into paradise without violating free-will and similar problems for non-Abrahamic theistic gods. It's essentially impossible to think about a being of that power.

If God cannot change it, then it is no God, because it is not all powerful. It's just a powerful, but not Godly, being. If there is a precedent above God, then, again, God is not the all powerful being. Either there is another being above God (which makes the same questions as before come into play) or God is not a God (which would have all power and set all principles and rules), but just a more influential thing that tries to teach us, like we might teach a dog.

Now, one can say "it doesn't make sense but I believe it", which is fine, but you also have to say the argument is invalid from a strictly logical perspective (which maybe God can transcend, but we cannot use that evidence in a human argument so it doesn't matter in the terms we must engage in as human beings). And the argument I mean is "atheists cannot appreciate beauty or morality like theists."

 

[Ivy]

Reminder: Heated debate is fine here, insults and namecalling are most definitely not. Consider this a warning.

 

[erm]

Not going to debate about Buddhism. The concept remains the same. If depictions of some dude being tortured are beautiful due to the symbolic nature of their martyrdom then it would be logical and rational to believe the same of another martyr who's set himself on fire for his cause and beliefs.

Yeah I'm just nitpicking for my first point in the thread. Buddhism is the largest atheistic religion around, and it's big. Though the atheistic branches of Hinduism might come close.

Anyway, here's hoping the sparks of hostility don't start a fire (not aimed at you).

If God cannot change it, then it is no God, because it is not all powerful. It's just a powerful, but not Godly, being. If there is a precedent above God, then, again, God is not the all powerful being. Either there is another being above God (which makes the same questions as before come into play) or God is not a God (which would have all power and set all principles and rules), but just a more influential thing that tries to teach us, like we might teach a dog.

That's a semantic point. It's quite possible to be the most powerful being possible without being able to change everything. Omnipotence (all-powerful) is a very vague word. Most reject that it means beyond logic, so why not reject further aspects of it? "Most powerful being possible" is the archetypal meaning behind it, and is not rejected in this case, as these people say it is not possible to be any more powerful.

More importantly, believing in a slightly less powerful being doesn't change much about the nature of the whole thing. What does it matter if it's not omnipotent as you define it?

I'm just saying this is all internally consistent. I don't think it is externally consistent.

 

[ZPowers]

True, but there is always the question of what defines God vs what defines merely a higher being.

It is, of course, not my intention to prove or disprove God. I can't. But I do find the argument non-believers cannot see beauty or morality, that they live a sad, shell life, that they can never be actually good people, to be abhorrent and arrogant and rude. Like I (technically an atheistic agnostic) am some sub-being that does not see the world right theoretically because I am less capable of it than someone who is a believer.

 

[Arclight]

True, but there is always the question of what defines God vs what defines merely a higher being.

It is, of course, not my intention to prove or disprove God. I can't. But I do find the argument non-believers cannot see beauty or morality, that they live a sad, shell life, that they can never be actually good people, to be abhorrent and arrogant and rude. Like I (technically an atheistic agnostic) am some sub-being that does not see the world right.

There is a fallacy in religion to assume they have the monopoly on morality.
Morality is born of spirituality, and emotional intelligence. Not organization and doctrine.

 

[rav3n]

Yeah I'm just nitpicking for my first point in the thread. Buddhism is the largest atheistic religion around, and it's big. Though the atheistic branches of Hinduism might come close.

I find atheism within the Hindu religion fascinating. I lack words to describe the paradoxical nature of it.

Anyway, here's hoping the sparks of hostility don't start a fire (not aimed at you).

For sure not me. Not emotionally vested in this thread. More debating what I perceive to be irrational and hypocritical, which if you grind down into it, has nothing to do with religion and all to do with tunnel vision.

 

[Kasper]

A world full of agnostics would be more interesting to see, the quest for our origins without a bias that it needs to support and therefore poor widdle hurt feelings and pride if a discovery falls short.

It's not that atheists can't love truth and beauty. It's that they have no reason to love truth and beauty.

Life, in and of itself, is reason enough to love truth and beauty. People do not need a deity to tell them to do so.

Those works of art are sometimes symbolic of a particular belief or cause. What I object to is when they produce works that are openly hostile to Christianity. Why attack an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe, for example? It's an image revered by so many people, and prayer to the Virgin has resulted in healings and great comfort to many Catholics. Why attack that?

I also object to the atheist art faculty, gallery owners, and artists who are openly hostile to expressions of faith by artists and art students. What kind of artistic freedom is that? They have taken control of the contemporary art scene and do not want to allow artists with any kind of religious beliefs a place there. They are just as prejudiced and narrow-minded as they accuse theists of being.

Those two statements, particularly back to back as you wrote them are highly hypocritical. Artistic freedom, if that is what you seek, should not only apply to those who would not offend your sensibilities, else it's not really any kind of freedom now is it? Either you object to art that offends you, or you seek freedom for artistic expression, which is it?

 

[iwakar]

Do you think it would be better if everyone were an atheist?

(please explain)

Gromit, I'm agnostic and didn't know whether to vote in your poll or not. Are you addressing all of those not committed to belief in a deity, or strictly atheists?

The world would be a terrible place if everyone was an atheist. The contemporary art world (both art departments at universities and art galleries) have been taken over by atheists resulting in work being produced that celebrates ugliness, hopelessness, denies our humanity, and denies the mystery that is present in the universe.

Wow, really? I've seen some incredibly beautiful art lately, just last week in fact. Maybe the MFAH was merely a diamond in the rough? Let us hope these 'bleak promoters of ugly art' you speak of will not have them in their clutches soon.

Their hostility to formal religion is actually painful to me,

Can we safely wager that their hostility to your beliefs is as unpleasant to them as your hostility towards theirs?

...because I believe that talented artists should use their gifts to bring beauty and truth into the world, to teach us, inspire us, uplift us, and to express our humanity. I can only assume that a world devoid of adherents of the major religions would be like the current art world except it would be present in every aspect of modern life. It would be a bleak, hopeless world full of despair and longing for that "something" that people would know is missing in their lives. They would try to find the answer to this longing without success.

Also, were/are you a thespian?

I think there are some Atheists who would be heart broken if everyone became Atheist. They would have no one to look down on and feel superior too! It would be tragic.

Heartbroken... "tragic" (" " = melodramatic sarcasm noted)... really? You think people that insecure and narrow can't find other avenues to inflate their senses of superiority? Surely you give their delicate, yet resourceful egos too little credit.

The sweeping judgments and dismissals are fast and furious in this thread.

^My initial response still stands, but I thought I'd clarify on account of -->

There probably are some atheists who enjoy looking down on theists and feel superior to them, much like vice versa. It would be a sweeping judgement to say that isn't so.

Undoubtedly there are and it would; the good news for both of us is I didn't claim otherwise.

A world full of agnostics would be more interesting to see, the quest for our origins without a bias...

Fascinating idea! That's a beautiful thought to mull and it hadn't occurred to me before.

Life, in and of itself, is reason enough to love truth and beauty along with good works and generosity towards your fellow man. People do not need a deity to tell them to do so.

It's stunning to me that this even needs to be said, and yet apparently it does.

Artistic freedom, if that is what you seek, should not only apply to those who would not offend your sensibilities, else it's not really any kind of freedom now is it? Either you object to art that offends you, or you seek freedom for artistic expression, which is it?

Well, I know what I would pick.

 

[erm]

^My initial response still stands, but I thought I'd clarify on account of -->

Undoubtedly there are and it would; the good news for both of us is I didn't claim otherwise.

Neither did GZA. S/he only said some, so it's not a generalisation. I was merely rephrasing what was said.

 

[Queen Kat]

As an atheist I'd be hypocrite if I sayd no, so yes, I think the world would be better off if everyone would be an atheist like me.

 

[Randomnity]

Posts about art and atheism moved here: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-spirituality/45962-theism-art.html. Threw in the posts about beauty since they seemed more related to that thread, although it could go either way.

I left the first few posts here since they seemed more related to the topic of this thread. Some posts that were off-topic for either thread went to off-topic land.

 

[Thisica]

For me, it's hard to tell, either way. People will always be people, I suppose, and religious sentiments are easy to come by, given the general ignorance and propensity to not think amongst the masses. Atheism, for its worth, is for a minority.

 

[ahr2nd]

I think the world would be a better place if everyone adopted Secular Humanism. That probably would be facilitated if everyone were atheistic, so I vote Yes.

 

[Xyk]

I think many political issues would be decided if everyone were atheist. Gays would almost certainly be allowed to get married, stem cell research could go unhindered...I thought there would be more. Those two issues are important enough to garner a "yes, it would be better" from me.

Additionally, such atrocities as the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, all the fighting in the middle east, and most of the holocaust would either have not happened or would have been reduced significantly in severity.

 

[lowtech redneck]

As an atheist I'd be hypocrite if I sayd no, so yes, I think the world would be better off if everyone would be an atheist like me.

But no one else, atheist or otherwise, is like you; what provides utility for one person is seldom universal. You would not be a hypocrite to say no, you would simply be acknowledging and respecting human diversity. The same applies for people who think the world would be better without 'atheism' (which I usually interperate as a lack of supernatural beliefs, referring to common usage rather than sctrict meaning).

 

[Snuggletron]

Gromit, I'm agnostic and didn't know whether to vote in your poll or not. Are you addressing all of those not committed to belief in a deity, or strictly atheists?

I'm always a bit agitated by the mixed perceptions on the definitions of atheism. As a teen I thought I was agnostic (as most "open-minded" teens do), but upon learning atheism is just the disbelief in deities I would now consider myself an atheist. This would mean a lot of people I've heard describe themselves as agnostic are actually de facto atheists.....but they seem to cling to the idea that atheism is merely the outspoken and ignorant sibling of agnosticism ;__;

 

[Red Herring]

athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

An agnostic who knows his Merriam Webster is convinced that neither the existence nor the nonexistence of a deity can be proven and/or abstains from settling on one side of the debate. An atheist assumes that there is no god.

Personally, I am pretty sure there is no god. So when asked, I say I'm an atheist. But since I also see a problem with disproving the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pasta be upon him), I guess technically I am a practical atheist and a theoretical agnostic. But I only ever mention this when people become nitpicky in a discussion.

Should everybody be an atheist? Religion is a great motivator for good or for bad. A secular humanism (that I perscribe to) might be able to at least theoretically take its place. But I think religion at its ugliest is only a cover for certain human instincts against which atheists aren't immune either. Most religions (with the notable exception of satanism) preach some form of altruism and are designed to keep the community together. When that collective drive get's nasty, religion might be at the surface, but I'm afraid we'd bash our brains out over such trite matters as sports matches anyway.

Religion is a great tool that can be used to get people to act on their social instincts, to appreciate the world around them and to feel like they are part of something bigger. Humanism could take care of that as well. Religion also has a long tradition of being used by those in power to cement their position, to pitch one group against another, etc. That could be done with different tools as well.

Voltaire said "“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”. I say, if religion was eradicated, it would probably be reborn under another name or something equally ambivalent would take its place. So much for those hopes for a humanist paradise.

 

[Orangey]

athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

An agnostic who knows his Merriam Webster is convinced that neither the existence nor the existence of a deity can be proven and/or abstains from settling on one side of the debate. An atheist assumes that there is no god.

Personally, I am pretty sure there is no god. So when asked, I say IÄm an atheist. But since I also see a problem with disproving the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pasta be upon him), I guess technically I am a practical atheist and a theoretical agnostic. But I only ever mention this when people become nitpicky in a discussion.

Should everybody be atheist? Religion is a great motivator for good or for bad. A secular humanism (that I perscribe to) might be able to at least theoretically take its place. But I think religion at its ugliest is only a cover for certain human instincts against which atheists aren't immune either. Most religions (with the notable exception of satanism) preach some form of altruism and are designed to keep the community together. When that collective drive get's nasty, religion might be at the surface, but I'm afraid we'd bash our brains out over such trite matters as sports matches anyway.

Religion is a great tool that can be used to get people to act on their social instincts, to appreciate the world around them and to feel like they are part of something bigger. Humanism could take care of that as well. Religion also has a long tradition of being used by those in power to cement their position, to pitch one group against another, etc. That could be done with different tools as well.

Voltaire said "“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”. I say, if religion was eradicated, it would probably be reborn under another name or something equally ambivalent would take its place. So much for those hopes for a humanist paradise.

I think this says it all. Good post.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I usually identify as an agnostic, but it really depends on how you define God. The more purposeful, willful, tangible, or local the concept of God is, the less likely I think it is to exist, and in regard to some versions, I am flatly an atheist. Others I find too transcendent of what we understand or can even apply evidence to for me to be certain of their non-existence, so in those cases I am agnostic. In no case am I a faithful believer.

Another important aspect of my agnosticism is not caring. So what if there is or isn't a God? In fact, the more believable the representation of God gets, incidentally the less important its existence becomes, too. I am one of those people that believes, as Sartre originally did, that all existential problems remain present even if God is proven to exist. The question of God's existence is to me typically a trying, boring, waste of my time.

Would the world be a better place if everyone were atheist? I really have no idea. I can imagine various ways it could be better, or worse, or negligibly different. It all depends on how the belief or disbelief in God affects the belief in other things. As I said, I don't really care about the subject of God's existence in and of itself. But if, say, we can presume that people who believe in God are far more likely to not believe in evolution than people who don't, then perhaps it would be better if everyone were an atheist. That's just one example. The problem is that I don't pretend to know all of the different aspects of our thinking that it would affect.

 

[MacGuffin]

It appears that ugliness, suffering and hopeless artforms don't solely reside with atheists. Which came first, the cart or the horse? How often do you see this symbol of suffering and martyrdom depicted in theist art or pretty much stamped indelibly...everywhere?

I find this beautiful: