How I Feel About Atheists

[Polymath257]

But you're reaching a conclusion based on inconclusive evidence. That's either an act of faith, or of blind bias. And since it denies the possibility, rather than exploring it, I'd say it's bias.

On the contrary, it is reasonable evaluation of the probabilities. That requires neither faith nor bias.

I know, that's where faith comes in. Faith moves us forward when our knowledge runs out.

No, that is where we rely on probabilities to move us forward. Faith, especially in the religious sense, isn't required nor is it desirable.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Who decides what is good or not for someone else ? That isn't for you to decide. You can only decide what is good for you. And how would you decide if one is being honest with one-self ? You are not that person. You don't possess their mind and feelings. It still seems that you expect or want everyone to think and believe in everything just as you do or else they are delusional or not living the right way. I find this completely egotistical and solipsistic. You used the word ' solipsistic ' on someone else on this forum I believe. Ironically , that is exactly how you come across to me. If math and science is all that makes sense to you or makes you happy , that's fine. But why do you expect everyone to think as you ? Maybe you're not being honest with yourself. That can be said about you , too. Would you appreciate someone saying you are self-delusional and not honest with yourself ? Because it can be just as easily applied to you and you couldn't refute it. It would be that person's view of you and you couldn't change it. Just like you believe others are self-delusional if they are not in compliance with your personal views. THE WORD ACCORDING TO POLYMATH.

 

[columbus]

How have you allowed for the possibility of a deity existing if you believe that possibility to be unfulfilled?

By assessing the likelihood of a divine being with agency(deity) existing as approaching, but not quite, zero. And assessing the likelihood of it being a human invention (fiction) as approaching 100%. In other words, I don't believe God exists because the evidence is strongly against it, but I recognize that I am a fallible human and could be mistaken.
I don't understand why that's difficult to grasp.
Tom

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

On the contrary, it is reasonable evaluation of the probabilities. That requires neither faith nor bias.



No, that is where we rely on probabilities to move us forward. Faith, especially in the religious sense, isn't required nor is it desirable.

Again , you are telling people "No" and "On the contrary". You use these negative terms quite often, pretty much in every single response to people....That his his belief and his experience. These are not objective matters you are dealing with. You can't deny someone of their faith, so why are you even attempting to do so ? You would do a lot better on a math forum discussing mathematical formulas and pure science. But on these matters of faith and philosophical matters and other's personal opinions you come off as a self-righteous , egotistical, narcissist. I'm sorry but you do.

 

[gnomon]

But you're reaching a conclusion based on inconclusive evidence. That's either an act of faith, or of blind bias. And since it denies the possibility, rather than exploring it, I'd say it's bias.
I know, that's where faith comes in. Faith moves us forward when our knowledge runs out.

What a stupid post.

When knowledge runs out......

Faith moves forward.......

As long as you have been on this forum your very statement absolutely tells me that you have paid zero attention to the various cultural definitions of religion and faith.

I mean.......you do realize that religion has very little to do with any God?

If you don't understand that.........well continue barfing up garbage in this thread.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

What a stupid post.

When knowledge runs out......

Faith moves forward.......

As long as you have been on this forum your very statement absolutely tells me that you have paid zero attention to the various cultural definitions of religion and faith.

I mean.......you do realize that religion has very little to do with any God?

If you don't understand that.........well continue barfing up garbage in this thread.

You will get nowhere discussing your beliefs with most atheists as they are very ignorant to ideas and values of faith. They require empirical evidence to validate any belief system and find it unreasonable that anyone lives their lives in accordance with faith because they are ignorant of it. Since they don't share the same experience or understand why one has faith they attempt to negate it with material arguments, not realizing that material evidence isn't required in matters of faith or " God." The ironic thing is it takes faith to be a pure atheist. It takes faith in scientific reasoning to nullify any existence of God since it can't be proven either way. You will get no where with those that have this mindset. It's like the same ends of a magnet, they just repel each other. They dismiss anything that doesn't fit their personal belief framework. Only people who accept that there is no right or wrong conclusions to this matter since it is not provable are reasonable. One has to understand that each is a personal belief and one can't make it true or untrue for the other. It's for the individual to decide and live their life however they choose to believe.

 

[Little Lunch]

Keep in mind, a good number of atheists were theists beforehand.
We understand exactly what you're thinking and feeling.
Often our dismissal of your views have been the culmination of a very long and arduous journey.

 

[PureX]

OK, let me put it this way. Suppose someone told you that they accept that it is *possible* Bigfoot exists, but they don't actually believe it to be true.

Would you call them confused?

Yes. And as an analogy, in this context, I might call them dishonest.

The problem with this analogy is that probability can be established regarding bigfoot because it's a physical phenomena proposed to be taking place in a limited physical environment. So that the lack of physical evidence becomes evidence of the lack of that phenomena. But in the case of the existence of god, it is not a physical phenomena taking place and in no specified physical environment, so the lack of evidence is both expected, and inevitable, rather than it being evidence of any lack. This, however, will not stop a great many atheists from proclaiming that the lack of physical evidence for a metaphysical god's existence is evidence that no gods exist. Because they are either stupidly confused, or dishonest, or both.

 

[PureX]

On the contrary, it is reasonable evaluation of the probabilities. That requires neither faith nor bias.

No, that is where we rely on probabilities to move us forward. Faith, especially in the religious sense, isn't required nor is it desirable.

There are many instances where probability cannot be established, or established to the degree needed, to act. The question of the existence of "god" is one of these instances.

 

[PureX]

Keep in mind, a good number of atheists were theists beforehand.
We understand exactly what you're thinking and feeling.
Often our dismissal of your views have been the culmination of a very long and arduous journey.

It has been my observation that all these "atheists" really rejected was their religion, and not theism as a whole. Because, in fact, they had and still have no idea of how these are not the same ideal.

 

[Polymath257]

There are many instances where probability cannot be established, or established to the degree needed, to act. The question of the existence of "god" is one of these instances.

I disagree. The complete lack of evidence pointing specifically to a deity (as opposed to simply a universe with natural laws) provides one aspect of the probabilities. The known tendency of humans to attribute intention even to inanimate objects is another aspect. The wide differences between the views of believers is yet another. Reports of the chucacabra are ore consistent and reliable and I don't believe them either.

It has been my observation that all these "atheists" really rejected was their religion, and not theism as a whole. Because, in fact, they had and still have no idea of how these are not the same ideal.

I ultimately reject the concept of supernatural as being inconsistent. I reject metaphysics as a valid subject of study. At least, until there is some way to test either of those concepts.

 

[Polymath257]

Again , you are telling people "No" and "On the contrary". You use these negative terms quite often, pretty much in every single response to people....That his his belief and his experience. These are not objective matters you are dealing with. You can't deny someone of their faith, so why are you even attempting to do so ? You would do a lot better on a math forum discussing mathematical formulas and pure science. But on these matters of faith and philosophical matters and other's personal opinions you come off as a self-righteous , egotistical, narcissist. I'm sorry but you do.

Let me be quite clear. People have the right to be self-deluded. They have the right to be ignorant. They have the right to do silly things just because they want to.

I agree that if religion gives you the warm fuzzies, then go ahead and believe. If it makes you closer to your friends and family, go for it. If you really, really believe you cannot be a moral human being without it, please believe.

Just don't expect me to call it a reasoned decision.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. And as an analogy, in this context, I might call them dishonest.

Wow. They would, to me, to be the most honest in their approach.

The problem with this analogy is that probability can be established regarding bigfoot because it's a physical phenomena proposed to be taking place in a limited physical environment. So that the lack of physical evidence becomes evidence of the lack of that phenomena. But in the case of the existence of god, it is not a physical phenomena taking place and in no specified physical environment, so the lack of evidence is both expected, and inevitable, rather than it being evidence of any lack. This, however, will not stop a great many atheists from proclaiming that the lack of physical evidence for a metaphysical god's existence is evidence that no gods exist. Because they are either stupidly confused, or dishonest, or both.

The lack of the possibility of physical evidence is quite sufficient for me to not believe. The lack of evidence being expected just seems like a convenient cop-out. In fact, if evidence really is literally impossible, then what is the distinction between that and non-existence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one can prove any Deity exists. That is a matter of faith. But faith in the existence of a Deity can be real in the minds and influence in people's lives. And if it enhances their life and is a positive experience for them, then that's all that matters. It's no one else's life to try and dissuade them that their faith is not real because of lack of evidence. I'm not saying you are telling someone what that they shouldn't believe in a Deity, I'm just speaking in general about this whole topic of atheists and theists. I wouldn't expect a theist to tell an atheist that what they choose to believe is not provable or unreasonable or anything. And vice versa. Life is for each individual to experience in their own way and believe in what they want to make sense of a life that can be very perplexing to comprehend. So if people believe in elves and unicorns and it makes them happy without harming anyone else then why would anyone else even care ? You don't have to believe in it or you can view faith as an illogical device to understand something, but there are people who have better lives for themselves by their faith in a Deity. That's what matters because science and proof can only explain so much and account for so much in life. There are other aspects to life and existence that have just as much importance. Again, I'm just speaking to those who think that people who believe in a Deity or who live by faith are foolish or whatever. Some require materialistic means to validate their existence and only find meaning in scientific facts and tangible evidence of things while others find meaning and truth by faith and ideas and thoughts that don't require materialistic proof. Why does one view have to try and nullify the other ? It shouldn't be that way. There needs to be more acceptance and empathy in this world. These forums are always more about arguments and self righteousness than people trying to understand the other person and maybe accept that people see things in different lights and experience life in different ways. I'm not excluded from this behavior either. This is why I am posting this right now. Because I fell into this trap again and realized that everyone is just promoting their views and opinions and beliefs. Facts belong to the discussions on facts . Faith belongs to the discussions on faith. And there is a place where facts and science don't explain everything and a place where faith or the idea of a Deity doesn't explain everything. Ideas of faith won't make sense to a person who needs facts and facts won't always make sense to a person who lives by faith . And that is life. So make of it what you choose and believe in whatever you choose. NO ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

You seem to be contradicting yourself: if no deity can be proven, then every person who claims to have definitive proof or evidence for God must be wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

It has been my observation that all these "atheists" really rejected was their religion, and not theism as a whole. Because, in fact, they had and still have no idea of how these are not the same ideal.

Well, part of that is your idiosyncratic definitions. Theism *usually* means belief in a deity or deities. Atheists don't believe in a deity or deities. They are usually NOT simply rejecting the rituals surrounding a specific religion, but rather saying they do not believe in an intelligent creator for the universe, a supernatural first cause, or a supreme giver of morality. Most would be quite willing to change their views if they were provided specific evidence to show where they are wrong. But many theists deny even the possibility of such evidence, so the reasonable approach is to not believe.

 

[Polymath257]

You will get nowhere discussing your beliefs with most atheists as they are very ignorant to ideas and values of faith. They require empirical evidence to validate any belief system and find it unreasonable that anyone lives their lives in accordance with faith because they are ignorant of it.

Why do you think they are ignorant of such belief systems? Most of us have grown up surrounded by faith-based belief. I was raised in a thoroughly faith-based household, but it *never* made sense to me.

My point is that it isn't *ignorance* of the ideas or values of faith. It is that we reject such ideas and values. In fact, I find the 'values' of faith to be very negative values.

Since they don't share the same experience or understand why one has faith they attempt to negate it with material arguments, not realizing that material evidence isn't required in matters of faith or " God."

No, we realize that. Which is specifically why we reject it. There *is* no requirement for faith-based belief: anything goes. And *that* is the problem!

The ironic thing is it takes faith to be a pure atheist. It takes faith in scientific reasoning to nullify any existence of God since it can't be proven either way.

Once again, there is a HUGE difference between religious faith and evidence-based confidence. The first is belief *in spite* of evidence and the latter is confidence *because* of the evidence. So, yes, I will gladly choose the latter over the former any time.

You will get no where with those that have this mindset. It's like the same ends of a magnet, they just repel each other. They dismiss anything that doesn't fit their personal belief framework. Only people who accept that there is no right or wrong conclusions to this matter since it is not provable are reasonable. One has to understand that each is a personal belief and one can't make it true or untrue for the other. It's for the individual to decide and live their life however they choose to believe.

And I find it quite difficult to reason with those with a faith-based mindset. Because they accept things on faith, they reject the whole idea of requiring evidence to believe. And that is a 'value' I heartedly reject.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And then there is the matter of actual relevance.

Theism does not and should not have actual effect on scientific knowledge, even if it somehow turns out to be justified. Reality is what it is.

Yes, agreed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Exactly. So maybe it should come down to personal opinion rather than evidence since there might not be a possibility of there being evidence.
You believe what you want and the next person will believe differently. It all becomes personal opinion.
So unless there's material evidence of something no one should have an opinion ?

Anyone can believe whatever they want. I don't object to that. We have to remember though, that opinions aren't facts.

I am a person who is concerned with finding out as many true things as possible about the world we live in. I don't want to believe false things. And I want my opinion of reality to match reality as closely as possible. For me, it comes down to verifiable evidence. If there is good reason and evidence for me to believe in the existence of a thing. Because, as I think we've both just demonstrated, opinions can vary greatly and don't necessarily reflect reality.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Why do you think they are ignorant of such belief systems? Most of us have grown up surrounded by faith-based belief. I was raised in a thoroughly faith-based household, but it *never* made sense to me.

My point is that it isn't *ignorance* of the ideas or values of faith. It is that we reject such ideas and values. In fact, I find the 'values' of faith to be very negative values.


No, we realize that. Which is specifically why we reject it. There *is* no requirement for faith-based belief: anything goes. And *that* is the problem!


Once again, there is a HUGE difference between religious faith and evidence-based confidence. The first is belief *in spite* of evidence and the latter is confidence *because* of the evidence. So, yes, I will gladly choose the latter over the former any time.



And I find it quite difficult to reason with those with a faith-based mindset. Because they accept things on faith, they reject the whole idea of requiring evidence to believe. And that is a 'value' I heartedly reject.

I understand what you believe, The point is that faith based ideas don't require material evidence. Just as evidence based ideas don't require faith. if someone doesn't believe or some scientific or mathematical equation based on faith then , of course, that is not reasonable. But that's not what faith based mind sets are involved with. Their faith pertains to a higher power or source and there is no non evidence of that either. reason and evidence don't play a part in that. Although it is reasonable to believe in the possibility since we do exist and our very existence does and always will lead humans to consider a possible God , just by the fact that we exist at all. Nobody knows why or how we came into existence. You choose evidence before considering the possibility, they choose faith in considering the possibility. And their faith is based in the evidence of our very existence, nature, human, the cosmos, etc...They believe in that evidence. And it is very a natural and human trait to consider and even have faith that a Creator exists based on this miraculous evidence of our existence and all we observe.

If you were alive in primitive times walking in the desert and came across a watch on the ground, ( you know this analogy ) , you would would look at it and naturally consider that some designer must have made this device. Well, on a much larger scale and scope, humans look at the entire universe and think the same thing. That seems very natural to think that. Except the universe and human beings are so much more complicated and awesome than a watch and just because we don't know now if there is a designer behind it all, it certainly isn't unreasonable to consider one and even have faith that there probably is one.

I love math and science and my bookshelves are filled mainly with books on both. I find it fascinating and I like to learn how things we observe work, especially math, physics and astronomy. But I can also believe that all the math and science I study and learn may be a designer's handiwork. We can understand the construction of the universe and atoms and so on, but all these things are still possibly the work of a designer. We are just looking at his work. I concede the very real possibility.

So I have a mindset that includes both views. One is of scientific evidence of material things and one is the possibility that a designer may be behind the things I observe and see evidence of. You may not have that mindset and may reject it, that is your decision and closed conclusion on the matter. I am more open to there still being the possibility of more existing than just what we observe right now. There really may be more than what meets the eye.

And if one believes that a designer may exist, they have to have faith and believe in the idea first before they can discover him, if they even care discover him. Science started out the same way since the beginning of human thought and wonder. They had ideas, faith in certain ideas that could be true, and then science proved these ideas to be true, But they had faith and belief first in many instances. They based there faith on things they observed in nature. And people of faith in a God have that faith based on what they are observing, which is nature itself and the construction of human beings equipped with minds to even contemplate all of this. I'm sorry you don't accept any of this, but that's the way it its. It's a fundamental part of human nature.

I am an avid science fiction fan of books and movies and most of these deal with this very dual nature. They often come to the same conclusions which I personally have. That science can only explain an account for so much and then the idea of a designer and faith play a separate but equally important part in our trying to understand and make sense of our existence.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. And as an analogy, in this context, I might call them dishonest.

The problem with this analogy is that probability can be established regarding bigfoot because it's a physical phenomena proposed to be taking place in a limited physical environment. So that the lack of physical evidence becomes evidence of the lack of that phenomena. But in the case of the existence of god, it is not a physical phenomena taking place and in no specified physical environment, so the lack of evidence is both expected, and inevitable, rather than it being evidence of any lack. This, however, will not stop a great many atheists from proclaiming that the lack of physical evidence for a metaphysical god's existence is evidence that no gods exist. Because they are either stupidly confused, or dishonest, or both.

Couldn't it be possible that they are not willing to buy into believing in anything that there isn't any tangible evidence of? Just as with a sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, or extra terrestrial visitors to earth, although there is not a way to disprove their existence, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that they exist until evidence is found. Until then, the default position should be to not believe that these things exist. Do you agree?