A Chance for Atheists to Recover

[Rolling_Stone]

In the thread What’s Wrong With Atheism, I compiled a list of 12 things that atheists don’t seem to “get.” Rather than tackle anything I listed, participating atheists preferred to proving my short list right. Some, it seems, were trying to make me a prophet. I thought I’d give other atheists an opportunity to respond. After all, if the acts of some religionists are an embarrassment to other religionists, it seems reasonable atheists can be embarrassed by other atheists Here the list:

1. Some choices are forced--not choosing sometimes has the same consequences as choosing, that is, not choosing is sometimes effectively making a choice.
2. Forced decisions invalidate the demands of evidentialism.
3. Your choice does not--cannot--invalidate mine nor mine yours.
4. It's not about what we believe, or who we are or what we are--its about the foundation upon which we build our lives, relationship and the quality of life not just for the self, but the whole of reality.
5. That just as Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct, truth is the living of life and not in the acquirement of right ideas.
6. The problem with atheism isn’t lack of belief, but wrong belief. In other words, it is always possible to formulate a conception of God that stands up to critical examination
7. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it make it unreasonable.
8. Given a God that stands to reason and the potential benefit of believing in such a God, it is more reasonable to believe than not to believe.
9. Number 6 depends on you, and you alone.
10. There is a qualitative difference between “I am son of the loving and living God in whom all things converge and are one” and “in God I live, move and have my being; in me, God escapes the finality of infinity” on the one hand, and on the other saying, "Life has no ultimate meaning."
11. That not having the tools adequate to the task of seeing the difference is not a deficiency on the part of the theist, but on the part of the atheist.
12. You must choose to develop tools adequate to the task. Not choosing is to choose not to develop those tools.

 

[Magic Man]

The problem with atheism isn’t lack of belief, but wrong belief. In other words, it is always possible to formulate a conception of God that stands up to critical examination

Sure, it's possible, but why? We don't need God, and so we have no need to formulate a conception of God that stands up to critical examination. If we felt the need for that, we'd probably call ourselves panentheists or deists.

 

[Willamena]

Here the list:

1. Some choices are forced--not choosing sometimes has the same consequences as choosing, that is, not choosing is sometimes effectively making a choice.
2. Forced decisions invalidate the demands of evidentialism.
3. Your choice does not--cannot--invalidate mine nor mine yours.
4. It's not about what we believe, or who we are or what we are--its about the foundation upon which we build our lives, relationship and the quality of life not just for the self, but the whole of reality.
5. That just as Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct, truth is the living of life and not in the acquirement of right ideas.
6. The problem with atheism isn’t lack of belief, but wrong belief. In other words, it is always possible to formulate a conception of God that stands up to critical examination
7. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it make it unreasonable.
8. Given a God that stands to reason and the potential benefit of believing in such a God, it is more reasonable to believe than not to believe.
9. Number 6 depends on you, and you alone.
10. There is a qualitative difference between “I am son of the loving and living God in whom all things converge and are one” and “in God I live, move and have my being; in me, God escapes the finality of infinity” on the one hand, and on the other saying, "Life has no ultimate meaning."
11. That not having the tools adequate to the task of seeing the difference is not a deficiency on the part of the theist, but on the part of the atheist.
12. You must choose to develop tools adequate to the task. Not choosing is to choose not to develop those tools.

The response to each of these is "Per #3, if that is what you've decided is right, then it's valid for you."

 

[Smoke]

The response to each of these is "Per #3, if that is what you've decided is right, then it's valid for you."

And -- also per #3 -- if someone has decided something else, then that decision is valid for them.

Not that I accept RS's premises, but maybe he does.

 

[Fluffy]

• Some choices are forced--not choosing sometimes has the same consequences as choosing, that is, not choosing is sometimes effectively making a choice.
  

I agree that not choosing is just as much of a choice as choosing. This is not sometimes the case, it is always the case. Additionally, the consequences are not the only important factor when determining the value of a choice.

• Forced decisions invalidate the demands of evidentialism.

I don't really understand your reasoning. Which specific demands are invalidated and how does this happen?

• Your choice does not--cannot--invalidate mine nor mine yours.

Again I don't really understand what you mean by "invalidate".

• It's not about what we believe, or who we are or what we are--its about the foundation upon which we build our lives, relationship and the quality of life not just for the self, but the whole of reality.

What is "it"? Life? Maybe you are right. I really have no idea.

• That just as Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct, truth is the living of life and not in the acquirement of right ideas.

As far as I understand it, truth is a measure of the extent to which a proposition coheres with reality. If you wish to use the term "truth" to mean something different then that is fine but there is no disagreement going on. Disagreement happens when different conclusions are drawn from the same concepts.

• The problem with atheism isn’t lack of belief, but wrong belief. In other words, it is always possible to formulate a conception of God that stands up to critical examination

I don't really understand what you mean by wrong given your definition of truth. Do you mean that the problem with atheism is that the atheist does not live life properly?

• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it make it unreasonable.

Agreed.

• Given a God that stands to reason and the potential benefit of believing in such a God, it is more reasonable to believe than not to believe.

I agree just as long as we agree that belief in that God is not epistemologically justified. Equally, if atheism stands to reason and if there are potential benefits to not believing in any God, it is more reasonable to not believe than believe (but it would still not be epistemologically justified).

• Number 6 depends on you, and you alone.

In what sense does it depend on me? It is up to me to formulate a conception of God that stands up to critical examination? What if there is no such God?

• There is a qualitative difference between “I am son of the loving and living God in whom all things converge and are one” and “in God I live, move and have my being; in me, God escapes the finality of infinity” on the one hand, and on the other saying, "Life has no ultimate meaning."

There is a difference but not in the claimed meaning of life.

• That not having the tools adequate to the task of seeing the difference is not a deficiency on the part of the theist, but on the part of the atheist.

Equally, not having the tools adequate to the task of seeing the similarity is not a deficiency on the part of the atheist, but on the part of the theist.

• You must choose to develop tools adequate to the task. Not choosing is to choose not to develop those tools.

I agree with the second sentence but not the first. Where does the compulsion come from?

Edit: I also do not see the connection between your list and the post you linked to. I have responded to your post in that thread as well.

 

[camanintx]

Except for #8, all of these could apply just as easily to theists, and since you fail to explain what potential benefit there is to believing in God, I don't see how any of this is a problem for atheism.

 

[Khale]

3. Your choice does not--cannot--invalidate mine nor mine yours.

True, your choice can't, but evidence can.

4. It's not about what we believe, or who we are or what we are--its about the foundation upon which we build our lives, relationship and the quality of life not just for the self, but the whole of reality.

What you believe, who you are, and what you are constitute a large part of the foundation upon which you build your lives.

5. That just as Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct, truth is the living of life and not in the acquirement of right ideas.

I'll admit, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this one. Why is Law life and how does it relate to truth and the living of life?

6. The problem with atheism isn’t lack of belief, but wrong belief. In other words, it is always possible to formulate a conception of God that stands up to critical examination

7. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it make it unreasonable.

You can not say that atheism is wrong belief. If evidence is not required to prove something then how can you say that atheism is wrong?

8. Given a God that stands to reason and the potential benefit of believing in such a God, it is more reasonable to believe than not to believe.

It is not more reasonable to believe if your belief in a non-existent deity is preventing the advancement of quality of life. Even if it were more reasonable to believe, what makes your deity correct? You are essentially in the same pool as the atheist now, risking eternal damnation on a hunch.

10. There is a qualitative difference between “I am son of the loving and living God in whom all things converge and are one” and “in God I live, move and have my being; in me, God escapes the finality of infinity” on the one hand, and on the other saying, "Life has no ultimate meaning."

Again, a bit confused by your rhetoric here, but from what I gather (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying that with atheism life has no meaning. Actually as an atheist, life would carry the same meaning as a theist: to love, respect, and better humanity. How does Theism possibly change that? In the end you are just doing things on earth for those on earth. If you only needed to do things for your god, then why would you even be on earth in the first place?

11. That not having the tools adequate to the task of seeing the difference is not a deficiency on the part of the theist, but on the part of the atheist.

Another question: Why is this only a deficiency for one? One cannot claim better vision if both are blind.

12. You must choose to develop tools adequate to the task. Not choosing is to choose not to develop those tools.

Precisely what atheists choose to do.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Wrong belief?

I've searched and searched, and I just can't find anything illogical about that at all.

Are you acquainted with the phrase "begging the question"?


I also have to say that I'm a little disillusioned by the title of the thread. I don't feel like I need to recover from anything.

 

[Engyo]

RS -

I'm a Buddhist - most of us don't really fit on the line between Abrahamic theists and atheists.

Most of your list is a complete non-sequiter for most Buddhists; Items 3, 4 and 5 I have no issues with, but I'll bet my interpretation of them is quite different than yours.

An off-topic point - many people who identify as atheists could be called Abrahamic atheists, in that they are denying the concept of the Abrahamic god. Gods in Buddhism and some other religions bear little or no resemblance to god in the Abrahamic faiths........

 

[3.14]

honestly you do have a couple good points but most is from a bias point of view that reflects badly on the points you are correct about

 

[Yerda]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't feel like I adopt beliefs as an act of volition.

 

[Somkid]

I'm quite happy with my beliefs, what purpose would it serve to change them?

 

[robtex]

R.S., maybe you can pick one at a time and ELABORATE on why you are making that assessment and wait for responses. The way you constructed this thread it is going to be all over the place with no very little information exchanged.

 

[Yerda]

I'm quite happy with my beliefs, what purpose would it serve to change them?

Dodgy beliefs can cause a lot of harm. If yours are faulty it might serve you to see this. Then again it might make no difference.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Why are we being so mean and over-generalizing so much lately??

 

[Riverwolf]

Why are we being so mean and over-generalizing so much lately??

Because it's easy to do.

I want to go on record again and say that there's nothing wrong with atheism or theism, but I do have a problem with preaching either side. If a person wants to believe a certain way, let them. Did Jesus not say to let the unbelievers continue to not believe or something like that?

 

[whereismynotecard]

Because it's easy to do.

I want to go on record again and say that there's nothing wrong with atheism or theism, but I do have a problem with preaching either side. If a person wants to believe a certain way, let them. Did Jesus not say to let the unbelievers continue to not believe or something like that?

I really don't know about what Jesus said...

I didn't really read the whole list on the original post, but I think it's kind of mean to say that ALL atheists are a certain way, or that all of any group of people are a certain way for that matter.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Hmmm... After reading more of the list I see that it's not really saying that atheists don't get something... It's just saying that atheists are all wrong and they need to step up, be reasonable, and start believing in god... Did I interpret it right??

 

[Riverwolf]

Hmmm... After reading more of the list I see that it's not really saying that atheists don't get something... It's just saying that atheists are all wrong and they need to step up, be reasonable, and start believing in god... Did I interpret it right??

That's what I got, as well.

 

[whereismynotecard]

That's what I got, as well.

Well, I'm not going to argue about it. It'll only make me frustrated.

*Leaves thread... forever.*