Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[Windwalker]

How is it faith? Is it faith to acquit a person accused of a crime when there is no evidence for it?

Let's be clear of the context. He had stated, "It's religion that is culturally and emotionally based, as opposed to atheism's reason, and logical analysis of demonstrable facts." This is not saying "no evidence". This is saying demonstrable facts. So atheism is based upon the logical analysis of demonstrable facts.

I wholly reject this BS argument that atheism is the "default position". If anything agnosticism comes closer. Right here, in his own words, he claims it is a logical conclusion that is reason-based, as opposed to emotion-based, and that is it a reasoned conclusion based on demonstrable facts.

Atheism is the logical default to religious claims.

No. It. Is. Not.

Openness is. A lack of conclusion. Not "no-God", but "unknown". If anything agnosticism is the default, but I still find and issue with that view as well. Simple, plain, unawareness of the question is the default. It is neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism. It's just ignorance, or nativity, or innocence, if you will. But I've argued this to no avail countless times before, even despite demonstrating that the atheism of posters here on this site alone, is in fact quite an active, positive belief, the result of a "logical analysis of demonstrable facts", as the poster himself just clearly admitted.

Non-belief is where a rational mind should always begin when introduced to claims of truth.

Wrong. Openness is where the rational mind should always begin, not disbelief, not a rejection of an idea. That is what faith is. That is why I say atheism is in fact an active disbelief, not passive ignorance.

We rational beings should approach ideas with skepticism and seek evidence for them before we judge them true, or likely true.

We should approach knowledge with openness, not disbelief.

Faith is trusting what others say is true without our own effort.

No is isn't. Certainly not faith in the religious sense. Capital F faith. What you are describing is blind belief. That's not what a true spiritual faith really is about.

This is how religion is installed in the minds of the young, along with other ideas, both true and false.

No, that's just indoctrination of ideas, or "education" if you will. But like anything, young minds just accept what is taught them then in elementary schools. 3rd graders generally don't do the work of researchers.

Ideally adolescents should be taght critical thinking skills so they can assess and judge ideas independently and be accurate in their beliefs.

I agree. At a certain stage of development, even in religion, the student should learn to understand the principles through a deeper maturity, of which critical thinking skill are a part of, but certainly not the pinnacle of it all, and some seem to what to elevate reason to.

As we see there are many folks who lack these skills, or have them but can't assess cultural ideas because it would cause an inner conflict, cognitive dissonance.

This is very true, however, it's more than just critical thinking that allows someone to recognize these things. I see the so-called "skeptics" in their critical thinking, absolutely blind to their own biases. In fact, a great majority of my discussions on RF are about trying to point this out, with about as much success as they have in pointing out the blind spots in the mythic-literal creationism believers. They are not immune to their own cognitive dissonances either. It takes much more that reasoning to see the eyes you look through. It takes awareness.

 

[Valjean]

Let's be clear of the context. He had stated, "It's religion that is culturally and emotionally based, as opposed to atheism's reason, and logical analysis of demonstrable facts." This is not saying "no evidence". This is saying demonstrable facts. So atheism is based upon the logical analysis of demonstrable facts.

The facts are: no empirical evidence, and, empirical evidence of alternative explanations of the 'evidence' given in apologetics. s
Atheism claims only that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably support a belief in a God.

I wholly reject this BS argument that atheism is the "default position". If anything agnosticism comes closer. Right here, in his own words, he claims it is a logical conclusion that is reason-based, as opposed to emotion-based, and that is it a reasoned conclusion based on demonstrable facts.

I'm assuming you're using agnosticism to mean "I don't know, one way or the other." In this sense, atheism is agnosticism.
I claim it's a reasonable conclusion based on a lack of demonstrable facts.

No. It. Is. Not.

Openness is. A lack of conclusion. Not "no-God", but "unknown". If anything agnosticism is the default, but I still find and issue with that view as well.

Technically, agnosticism is the positive claim that knowledge of the existence of God is impossible.
But, in the sense you're using the term, the two are synonymous, so I agree.

Simple, plain, unawareness of the question is the default. It is neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism. It's just ignorance, or nativity, or innocence, if you will. But I've argued this to no avail countless times before, even despite demonstrating that the atheism of posters here on this site alone, is in fact quite an active, positive belief, the result of a "logical analysis of demonstrable facts", as the poster himself just clearly admitted.

The default is the factory setting; what we're born with, ie: lack of belief.
The demonstrable facts are: No evidence, flawed apologetics, and alternative, evidenced explanations. These are not theological assertions.

Wrong. Openness is where the rational mind should always begin, not disbelief, not a rejection of an idea. That is what faith is. That is why I say atheism is in fact an active disbelief, not passive ignorance.

"Openness," to unevidenced beliefs, is radical credibility -- to anything and everything. You'd need a brain the size of a planet just to hold it all.
A reasonable person believes what is evidenced and withholds belief in what is not.

We should approach knowledge with openness, not disbelief.

We do. We're open to evidence, even new evidence contradicting current assumptions.
Unlike religious institutions, we don't generally try to suppress new information, research, or dissenting opinions.

Starting with belief and demanding disproof before dropping it, is not reasonable.

No is isn't. Certainly not faith in the religious sense. Capital F faith. What you are describing is blind belief. That's not what a true spiritual faith really is about.

That is how "faith" is generally used.
How are you defining "true spiritual faith," and would that definition make sense if substituted for faith in most discussions or debates?

No, that's just indoctrination of ideas, or "education" if you will. But like anything, young minds just accept what is taught them then in elementary schools. 3rd graders generally don't do the work of researchers.

Yes. Childen don't know how to analyze or think critically. They accept God, the Easter bunny, and Santa clause uncritically, on faith, despite lack of evidence.
Usually they disabuse themselves of the latter two at some point, but many just "don't do the work" to actually think about the first.

I agree. At a certain stage of development, even in religion, the student should learn to understand the principles through a deeper maturity, of which critical thinking skill are a part of, but certainly not the pinnacle of it all, and some seem to what to elevate reason to.

So you're anti-reason?

This is very true, however, it's more than just critical thinking that allows someone to recognize these things. I see the so-called "skeptics" in their critical thinking, absolutely blind to their own biases. In fact, a great majority of my discussions on RF are about trying to point this out, with about as much success as they have in pointing out the blind spots in the mythic-literal creationism believers. They are not immune to their own cognitive dissonances either. It takes much more that reasoning to see the eyes you look through. It takes awareness.

So is there actual evidence of this God, or not? If not, why believe?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

a joke it is '...the fool says in his heart...'

No, it's not a joke just a source of Christian haughtiness.

 

[Windwalker]

Atheism has faith? Faith in what?

Yes it does. Faith that the God that other people believe in doesn't exist. They believe it is not real. They have faith they are right about that.

Atheism has no beliefs or doctrine to have faith in. It makes no positive claims.

Bull. Atheism believes that the God that others believe in doesn't exist. It's a positive, declarative statement. You yourself claimed that in this statement, "Atheism is a rational conclusion, is it not? It's religion that is culturally and emotionally based, as opposed to atheism's reason, and logical analysis of demonstrable facts."

What you said above is a positive belief. It is a "rational conclusion". That's a belief. You can't paint that any other way. It is a belief founded on logic and rationality and an analysis of demonstrable facts, in your very words. It is rational to believe that no God exists.

BTW, I very much disagree with you that Atheism is the rational conclusion. I believe openness is the rational conclusion.

Again, faith is unwarranted belief.

And the rest of your argument is that Atheism is a warranted belief. You said it yourself above in very clear language. "Atheism is a rational conclusion."

A conclusion is a belief. You believe there is no God. Period. End of argument using your very words.

Withholding belief in something with no concrete or empirical evidence of existence is not an unwarranted belief, it is reasonable; in fact, it's the only rational conclusion.

Withholding belief is not atheism. It's not any ism whatsoever. It's called being open, or if you're undecided, they call that agnosticism.

I reject this BS of trying to claim atheism as the "default position". That's utter hogwash. A game of semantics like theists claiming theism is the default position, except in reverse. Both notions are absurd.

If faith in God is rational or sensible, than so is belief in unicorns, Isis, and leprechauns, no?

The fact you equate belief in God with unicorns and leprechauns, shows just how cynical and irrational, or unreasonable you are. If you're an atheist because that's how you view belief in God to be like, then I'd hardly consider you neutral on the subject at all. This is no mere "lack of belief", this is outright scorn at the idea. A very firm, positive rejection of a belief, or disbelief.

BTW, if that defines what an atheist is, then I am one as well. That God you don't believe in, which looks like a leprechaun, I reject, or disbelieve in as well with you, brother atheist.

The empirical evidence is equal for each.

Really?

 

[Alien826]

I wonder if the theists that demand "an open mind" of atheists consider that maybe the atheist did start with an open mind? I'm in my eighties, and have investigated several religions, even coming close to belief a few times. My current atheism (which is a statement of probability not certainty) was hard won.

Yet (some) theists trot out their well worn arguments and Bible verses and expect us to be "open minded". Think about it. Maybe, just maybe, we have heard it all before, thought about it and found it wanting. Do you seriously expect that we will to re-examine our conclusions just because you may be convinced by something that we have heard 100 times before? Been there, done that.

I'll say this though. If you can come up with something genuinely new, I'll consider it. With an open mind, no less.

 

[Ella S.]

I'm not sure what you think God's position is on any particular issue, but if your God is against the 7 deadly sins and supports the 4 cardinal virtues, we're probably in agreement on a lot more than you think.

If your God prefers a life of private contemplation to hedonism, then, likewise, we're also probably going to agree on a lot.

If your God cares about truth and honesty, then I can't imagine we would differ too much.

However, if your God is a jealous, wrathful despot who prides himself on being the king of all kings, or if your God supports retributive justice, blood sacrifice, or the oppression of minorities, then there probably will be very little that we agree on. That God is completely incompatible with the above characteristics, though, in my opinion.

I say this as an atheist.

 

[Father Heathen]

@DNB

If there is a god, they would be a being of pure love and pure logic, thus anything devoid of reason or compassion cannot be of god. Justice is when the punishment is proportionate to the crime, and no human is capable of anything proportionate to eternal damnation. Why would god gift us with intelligence only to expect us to forgo its use in order to blindly accept claims that are wholly irrational, unsubstantiated, implausible, arbitrary, etc.? You depict god as being petty, vindictive, and emotionally weak with a fragile ego. That doesn't inspire reverence but rather contempt.

There are thousands of religions, each with thousands of variations there of, and the only reason so certain of yours is because you were born into it. You certainly didn't arrive to an objective conclusion via critical thinking. Therefore, your cartoonish perception and portrayal of god (made in man's image rather than the other way around) get's tossed into the .

 

[DNB]

More than likely yes.

For example?

 

[DNB]

'...the fool says in his (or her) heart...'

I would agree, ...are you not familiar with the rest of the passage - it's referring to you, is it not?

 

[DNB]

I do every day. "Thy will be done". Why do you assume I do not?

I'm not making any excuses at all. I simply see that things are not as black and white as you imagine. Jesus made that clear when he rebuked the Pharisees for their black and white thinking, with such as examples as the Good Samaritan, whom the good vs. evil black and white religious thinkers of his day considered evil.

Jesus showed how even those we think are evil in our worldly ways of black and white thinking, are not evil seen through the eyes of Grace. So, I actually see my way of perceiving reality to be much more aligned with that Way of seeing. I repented of my black and white thinking to allow for Grace. It helps me be more compassionate, like Jesus was.

You're speaking at a very elementary level.
Yes, some do the right thing for the wrong reason, and visa versa. Others are very sly and shrewd in their deceit, and there are many unsung heroes out there who do not flaunt their good deeds.
At a mature age, these principles are black & white, they are always taken into consideration.

But you, all you can talk about is trees and rocks being spiritual, what the heck convoluted nonsense is that?

 

[Willamena]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

I wasn't aware that God took sides on any issues.

Omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

 

[DNB]

You're working from a mythological narrative. If you accept a myth as reality, derived conclusions may be congruent with the myth, but completely fallacious. Fact-based narratives, on the other hand, are in agreement, and reach the same conclusions.

Begin with empirical evidence; objective facts, and proceed from there. There are hundreds of mythical narratives, from different cultures or religions. They all paint different pictures. What makes yours correct and all the others wrong?
Base your beliefs on facts, not

The narrative you're raised with, like all the various narratives, may be be internally consistent and familiar, but, without universlly accepted, objective facts, it's built on sand, and no more believable than the Mayan or Zulu narrative.

Fact: God exists
Fact: man is wicked
Fact: man needs salvation before God
Fact: God is merciful
Fact: God has offered man redemption by the sacrifice of his righteous son
Fact: Christ rules

 

[DNB]

The reality is simple. No evidence = unreliable narrative.
First, establish the reality of this God. Second, establish what He is, His nature, power and and desires. Then you can begin making recommendations.

Humans are created in His image - this is self-evident as every man has a spiritual dimension as part of his ontology - that's why religions exist in the human sphere of life. Unlike all other creatures

 

[DNB]

People have had faith for thousands of years, and this "wisdom" has generated thousands of conflicting narratives, and very little understanding of the world

Science has been the go-to modality for only one or two hundred years, and we've achieved more, intellectually and technologically, in this short period than in the entire period of faith-based 'wisdom'.

Not all religious people have faith or wisdom - you should know the difference by now.

 

[DNB]

What a strange analysis!

In what way does your conclusion follow from the arguments that precede it? I can see no connection whatever.

The remarks preceding the conclusion are merely stating that absolutes exist, and that it's foolish to say otherwise.
Although the specific examples were not related to my personal conclusion, I based my convictions on what is factual, and many assertions can be made about life and the world that we live in. I used simple examples before getting into the profound....

...I offered a conclusion so that, whoever I was talking to, would challenge me to explain what specific absolutes i was referring to in that more esoteric case.

 

[The Hammer]

For example?

Look around? Do we not all have different origins?

I'm also a fan of the multiregional development hypothesis.

Out-of-Africa versus the multiregional hypothesis

Broadly speaking, there are two competing hypotheses on the origin of modern humans: the Out-of-Africa hypothesis and the multiregional hypothesis. Both agree that Homo erectus originated in Africa and expanded to Eurasia about one million years ago, but they differ in explaining the origin of...

www.nature.com

 

[DNB]

@DNB

If there is a god, they would be a being of pure love and pure logic, thus anything devoid of reason or compassion cannot be of god. Justice is when the punishment is proportionate to the crime, and no human is capable of anything proportionate to eternal damnation. Why would god gift us with intelligence only to expect us to forgo its use in order to blindly accept claims that are wholly irrational, unsubstantiated, implausible, arbitrary, etc.? You depict god as being petty, vindictive, and emotionally weak with a fragile ego. That doesn't inspire reverence but rather contempt.

There are thousands of religions, each with thousands of variations there of, and the only reason so certain of yours is because you were born into it. You certainly didn't arrive to an objective conclusion via critical thinking. Therefore, your cartoonish perception and portrayal of god (made in man's image rather than the other way around) get's tossed into the .

You couldn't spell toilet, you had to use an icon????

You cite clichés in order to denounce 'cartoonish' fantasies? Was anything that you wrote extrapolated from your perception of me, or just rehearsed Hitchenesque rhetoric? If you had an original thought one my be compelled to respond to your contentions, but they're worth nothing more than an frustrated diatribe.

The universe did not come from nothing, nor is matter eternal.
There is not a human being on the planet that cannot comprehend the concept of God and good & evil. Man is spiritual
Every society over the globe had a religion and worship practices - such sentiments and convictions are not derived from stardust & protoplasm.
Man's battles are not in regard to survival, but spiritual warfare that exist in his heart - greed, avarice, licentiousness, hedonism, hate and arrogance are the catalysts behind all man's destructive objectives ever since time began. His wickedness defies his intellect - that's why the world is in the state that it is, where the most noblest professions have become synonymous with corruption, injustice, extortion, and exploitation.

There are forces in the spiritual realms that have influenced man to such a degree, that the creature with the highest intellectual capacity has proven to be more inept, impractical and self destructive than the most simple of living beings on the earth.

 

[DNB]

Look around? Do we not all have different origins?

I'm also a fan of the multiregional development hypothesis.

Out-of-Africa versus the multiregional hypothesis

Broadly speaking, there are two competing hypotheses on the origin of modern humans: the Out-of-Africa hypothesis and the multiregional hypothesis. Both agree that Homo erectus originated in Africa and expanded to Eurasia about one million years ago, but they differ in explaining the origin of...

www.nature.com

We all came from God, both you and I were created in His image, which is why we're on this forum discussing spiritual matters.

 

[The Hammer]

We all came from God, both you and I were created in His image, which is why we're on this forum discussing spiritual matters.

Well we came from A God. Just not yours. We come from a plethora of Gods and Goddesses.

 

[Valjean]

Fact: God exists
Fact: man is wicked
Fact: man needs salvation before God
Fact: God is merciful
Fact: God has offered man redemption by the sacrifice of his righteous son
Fact: Christ rules

Q.E.D.