Atheist

[Subduction Zone]

Ooh I love finding the answers to something that can’t be explained. Gives life zest.

That does not sound like "finding the answers". Most atheists will probably follow the scientific consensus when it comes to physical matters. Even scientists in the field do not "make up stuff". The sciences are too complex for the single researcher these days. It takes numerous people to discover new ideas.

 

[Jimmy]

Star

And I'm genuinely curious -- do you believe in things that can't be explained? If so, why? You'll never find an explanation for how a grasshopper could transform into a skyscraper -- but if somebody told you it happened, would you believe it?

Start a thread

 

[Jimmy]

That does not sound like "finding the answers". Most atheists will probably follow the scientific consensus when it comes to physical matters. Even scientists in the field do not "make up stuff". The sciences are too complex for the single researcher these days. It takes numerous people to discover new ideas.

Does it sound like thunder? Or perhaps a chicken on a farm?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Start a thread

Why? Couldn't answer it here?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does it sound like thunder? Or perhaps a chicken on a farm?

Does wallowing in ignorance of pretty much everything sound like a good idea?

 

[Jimmy]

Does wallowing in ignorance of pretty much everything sound like a good idea?

Start a thread

 

[Koldo]

Do atheist’s form some of their own ideas on how we got here and where we’re going or do they just believe what science tells them? Do they believe in anything that can’t be explained? Genuinely curious here.

I am genuinely curious how someone that has been talking to atheists for years could be genuinely curious about this sort of thing, rather than already know the answer by now.

 

[Copernicus]

Do atheist’s form some of their own ideas on how we got here and where we’re going or do they just believe what science tells them?

This is a false dichotomy. Atheists form a very diverse group of people held together only by their mutual rejection of belief in gods. You see theism as giving us an answer to "how we got here", but some atheists are content to just say "not that way". The burden of proof then falls on theists to explain why their explanation of origins is plausible, and that's where the tough sell comes in. Atheists can take the position that science provides the best answers on origins based on the kinds of corroborating evidence that science provides, but there are limits on the kinds of questions that science can give us answers to.

Generally speaking, though, one thing that probably separates atheists most from theists is the tendency of atheists to reject dualism--the belief that reality consists of two different realms, the spiritual and the physical. (Note that I am calling this a "tendency", since it doesn't describe what all atheists believe.) If subjective experiences are just products of physical neural activity, then the mind (or "spirit") ends when neural activity stops. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that that is the case. Hence, there is no "afterlife" and no possibility of personal immortality, one of the most powerful incentives to believe in gods. That is why atheism--rejection of belief in gods--is as old as belief in gods. There were atheists long before there was anything like modern science. People have known about the dependency of mental activity on healthy brains ever since they became witness to brain injuries.

Do they believe in anything that can’t be explained? Genuinely curious here.

I would say that atheists are just as prone to conjecture as theists, but that's true of scientists, as well.

 

[Jimmy]

I am genuinely curious how someone that has been talking to atheists for years could be genuinely curious about this sort of thing, rather than already know the answer by now.

Start a thread

 

[Jimmy]

This is a false dichotomy. Atheists form a very diverse group of people held together only by their mutual rejection of belief in gods. You see theism as giving us an answer to "how we got here", but some atheists are content to just say "not that way". The burden of proof then falls on theists to explain why their explanation of origins is plausible, and that's where the tough sell comes in. Atheists can take the position that science provides the best answers on origins based on the kinds of corroborating evidence that science provides, but there are limits on the kinds of questions that science can give us answers to.

Generally speaking, though, one thing that probably separates atheists most from theists is the tendency of atheists to reject dualism--the belief that reality consists of two different realms, the spiritual and the physical. (Note that I am calling this a "tendency", since it doesn't describe what all atheists believe.) If subjective experiences are just products of physical neural activity, then the mind (or "spirit") ends when neural activity stops. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that that is the case. Hence, there is no "afterlife" and no possibility of personal immortality, one of the most powerful incentives to believe in gods. That is why atheism--rejection of belief in gods--is as old as belief in gods. There were atheists long before there was anything like modern science. People have known about the dependency of mental activity on healthy brains ever since they became witness to brain injuries.




I would say that atheists are just as prone to conjecture as theists, but that's true of scientists, as well.

So basically science is the atheists view. Ok

 

[Copernicus]

So basically science is the atheists view. Ok

That wasn't what I said. First and foremost, I said that atheists were too diverse to pigeonhole as all basing their beliefs just on science. Secondly, I would say that theists have a very strong tendency to be influenced by science as well. A lot of scientists are theists. I think you are painting atheists (and theists) with too broad a brush.

 

[Jimmy]

That wasn't what I said. First and foremost, I said that atheists were too diverse to pigeonhole as all basing their beliefs just on science. Secondly, I would say that theists have a very strong tendency to be influenced by science as well. A lot of scientists are theists. I think you are painting atheists (and theists) with too broad a brush.

2 billion Christian’s believe Jesus physically rose and that heaven is real. Not science. All atheists or most reject stuff like that and accept only real things such as the things science can demonstrate. So yeah atheists are science based. But what I want to know is if they secretly behind closed doors have some magical thinking. I know not all think magically, but some?

 

[Copernicus]

2 billion Christian’s believe Jesus physically rose and that heaven is real. Not science. All atheists or most reject stuff like that and accept only real things such as the things science can demonstrate. So yeah atheists are science based. But what I want to know is if they secretly behind closed doors have some magical thinking. I know not all think magically, but some?

There are 8 billion people in the world, most of whom are not Christians. However, most people are philosophical dualists who believe that disembodied minds or spirits can exist. Personally, I don't, and I wouldn't begin to claim that all atheists agree with me. For that matter, I don't even agree with you that all Christians believe Christ physically rose and that heaven is real. Among those who are Christian, some would disagree with your claim, but I would agree that most believe something along those lines. To me, such beliefs are just mythology that most Christians take seriously.

I believe that most Christians and atheists are "science based" in that they generally accept the results of scientific research, the findings, and the theories that scientists have arrived at largely by consensus. Christians and other people of faith may disagree with specific scientific claims and find ways to rationalize their disbelief, but I don't like to jump to conclusions about what individual Christians believe on the basis of the broad generalizations you make.

I don't really know what you mean by "magical thinking". Could you be more specific? Most people in the world believe in the existence of disembodied spirits. That's a very natural way to interpret reality for human beings, but I think that the belief is incompatible with what we observe in our everyday lives. That is, there is no actual evidence that disembodied spirits can or do exist. Everything we know about thought and minds is that they require a physical substrate to exist.

 

[Jimmy]

There are 8 billion people in the world, most of whom are not Christians. However, most people are philosophical dualists who believe that disembodied minds or spirits can exist. Personally, I don't, and I wouldn't begin to claim that all atheists agree with me. For that matter, I don't even agree with you that all Christians believe Christ physically rose and that heaven is real. Among those who are Christian, some would disagree with your claim, but I would agree that most believe something along those lines. To me, such beliefs are just mythology that most Christians take seriously.

I believe that most Christians and atheists are "science based" in that they generally accept the results of scientific research, the findings, and the theories that scientists have arrived at largely by consensus. Christians and other people of faith may disagree with specific scientific claims and find ways to rationalize their disbelief, but I don't like to jump to conclusions about what individual Christians believe on the basis of the broad generalizations you make.

I don't really know what you mean by "magical thinking". Could you be more specific? Most people in the world believe in the existence of disembodied spirits. That's a very natural way to interpret reality for human beings, but I think that the belief is incompatible with what we observe in our everyday lives. That is, there is no actual evidence that disembodied spirits can or do exist. Everything we know about thought and minds is that they require a physical substrate to exist.

I’ll take that as a no.

 

[Jimmy]

This threads dead. Guess there’s no atheists here that believe anything without evidence. Oh well.

 

[Copernicus]

I’ll take that as a no.

I asked you to clarify the question. Until you do that, you have no answer. What do you mean by "magical thinking"? Be more specific.

This threads dead. Guess there’s no atheists here that believe anything without evidence. Oh well.

Is that what you meant by "magical thinking"? It is normal for people to formulate beliefs on the basis of little actual evidence, but that is perhaps more about trusting sources of information than faith-based belief systems. Scientists don't need to exhort each other to "keep the faith", but they certainly formulate opinions on the basis of little evidence and then alter those beliefs when evidence comes in to contradict them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do atheist’s form some of their own ideas on how we got here and where we’re going or do they just believe what science tells them? Do they believe in anything that can’t be explained? Genuinely curious here. I know not all would have fantastical ideas but some? Any atheists out there who are different?

Well, an atheist is a human, that lacks positive beliefs in gods. The rest for that a human as human is not connected to being an atheist.
It is no different than a religious human. It only tells us that the person is religious, no what that human actually believes in.

You are asking about a label, whether that makes a human a human as such and no it doesn't. Neither for the non-religious nor the religious.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do atheist’s form some of their own ideas on how we got here and where we’re going or do they just believe what science tells them? Do they believe in anything that can’t be explained? Genuinely curious here. I know not all would have fantastical ideas but some? Any atheists out there who are different?

It's how everyone starts, without God's.

It's not a belief because it's the default start, and religion including the notion of God's, are introduced later on.

Science is factual so I don't require any belief on what science discovers and confirms as science not a religion, and no, I dont believe everything if it's theoretical aside from what is already established.

As to the big picture, even if I do know call all there is to know, death will reset the counter so anything explained or not goes out the window once my lifetime expires.

 

[Yerda]

Do atheist’s form some of their own ideas on how we got here and where we’re going or do they just believe what science tells them? Do they believe in anything that can’t be explained? Genuinely curious here. I know not all would have fantastical ideas but some? Any atheists out there who are different?

Some of the things I like to ponder don't have textbook answers. Like, what is a self? Why is there anything? What could a physical account of subjectivity look like? How did life happen? I'm just meandering for my own amusement here. If there was a mature science that dealt with stuff like this I'd be a fool to disregard it but there isn't. I suspect that the first two are unanswerable by any means and that science will probably have something to say about the second two questions at some point.

I do have some wacky ideas. I was quite enamoured by the idea of panpsychism for a few years and I definitely wouldn't rule out the possibility that there is a fundamental experiential component to the world. Maybe the world is really made of mental stuff.

I sometimes "feel" a connection to what "feels" like everything and it's all one thing, or something like that. I'm a little bit drawn to pantheism and the Hindu school (sect? branch? path?) of advaita as a result.

I find much more value in religious expression, even theism, than I used to. I just don't happen to believe any particular religious claims about the nature of the world, self, gods etc.

 

[viole]

Do they believe in anything that can’t be explained?

If something cannot be explained what it is, then we cannot possibly make any truth based statement about it.
Any conclusion about it would not even be wrong.

Ciao

- viole