How I Feel About Atheists

[Polymath257]

We all make decisions based on faith all the time. It's unavoidable as we are limited human beings that have to make decisions, to live.

There is a HUGE difference between 'religious faith' and 'faith' brought about because of evidence. The former has no value to me. The latter is crucial for survival. The two are quite different and to suggest they are even similar seems to be quite dishonest.

Sounds like all you tested was someone else's idea of God. And I question how thoroughly you could have actually done that when you don't seem to grasp the human necessity of faith.

I deny the necessity of *religious* faith. That is, faith in things that have no evidence. Faith in evidence, on the other hand, is important and reasonable.

We have to have faith that what we have determined to be accurate knowledge, is accurate. We have to have faith in our own ability to apply that knowledge effectively. And we have to have faith that if we err, we will not err so badly that we cannot recover. We engage in such faith every day of our lives, because we cannot know these things to be true, ever. Thinking they're true, believing they're true, and boasting about how true they are does not them true. In the end it always comes down to faith.

Speak for yourself. I always question my beliefs, my ability to use the evidence properly, and whether I have understood well or not. That is why *testing* and *observation* are so important. EVERY idea needs to be tested and testable. But this is NOT the same as religious faith. Religious faith is inherently untestable. It is believed for the sake of belief, not because there is evidence of reason. And yes, that is a mindset I strongly reject.

 

[PureX]

There is a HUGE difference between 'religious faith' and 'faith' brought about because of evidence. The former has no value to me. The latter is crucial for survival. The two are quite different and to suggest they are even similar seems to be quite dishonest.

Faith is faith, whether it being applied to a religious belief or something else. Some religions, however, falsely teach their adherents that 'faith' is the blind pretense of knowledge that they do not and cannot actually possess. They falsely proclaim God-knowledge, and answers to the mystery of existence, and so on. And some people lap these false claims of knowledge up because they are that frightened and ashamed by their own ignorance (I guess).

But not all religions promote this pretense of divine authority, as faith. And their lies don't negate the very real faith in God that other people and other religions engage in. And keep in mind as well that there are a lot of people who practice faith in God that have nothing to do with religion. Until you can separate religion from blind authoritarianism, and blind authoritarianism from faith, you can't really understand religious faith.

I deny the necessity of *religious* faith. That is, faith in things that have no evidence. Faith in evidence, on the other hand, is important and reasonable.

Everyone has their own version of "god" that they trust in. A lot of atheists think their own reason and knowledge can fulfill that role in their lives. Until they're faced with the true depth of their own unknowing. And they experience their "dark night of the soul", when the 'self' isn't enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

Faith is faith, whether it being applied to a religious belief or something else.

Actually, "faith" has multiple definitions.

You're conflating #1 (which is essentially inductive reasoning) & #2 in Dictionary.com's definition.
the definition of faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement,etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
Idioms
9. in faith, in truth; indeed:
In faith, he is a fine lad.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Who's Christianity didn't? And why Christianity at all? The Christian religion is not God, and God is not a religion. So testing religion is fine, but wen it doesn't work it only means that religion didn't work. It doesn't tell you a think about how a God of your own understanding might have worked out for you..

I think that my experience in Christianity taught me what I need to know about faith, theism, and dogma. I think that I know what theism of any flavor has to offer me - monotheism, polytheism, deism, pantheism.

You keep implying that there is something there for me, but the few things you have mentioned are not needs that I have. I have all of the hope, meaning, centering, etc. that I need. I have love, a rich social sphere, peace of mind, contentment, and self-respect. Why would I want to change a worldview that allows all of that? Why would I turn to supernaturalism again now? What could that possibly add to my life?

There's a reason why it is easier to recruit new converts on Skid Row and Death Row than Restaurant Row. When adults turn to religion, it's for comfort.

So, thanks for your interest, but I'm not in the market for a god.

We all make decisions based on faith all the time. It's unavoidable as we are limited human beings that have to make decisions, to live.

I do not need to have unjustified belief ever.

Sounds like all you tested was someone else's idea of God. And I question how thoroughly you could have actually done that when you don't seem to grasp the human necessity of faith.

Once again, I have no such need.

We have to have faith that what we have determined to be accurate knowledge, is accurate. We have to have faith in our own ability to apply that knowledge effectively. And we have to have faith that if we err, we will not err so badly that we cannot recover. We engage in such faith every day of our lives, because we cannot know these things to be true, ever. Thinking they're true, believing they're true, and boasting about how true they are does not them true. In the end it always comes down to faith.

If I believe that idea I have is accurate, it is for a reason, not by faith.

My confidence that I can use that knowledge effectively is based on experience, not faith.

You must be talking about something other than what I am when you use the word faith. I assure you that it is possible to live life without choosing to hold unjustified beliefs. If I have any unjustified beliefs, I am unaware of them. They would have to be ideas I acquired before learning to think critically, most of which have been examined later, and either found to be justified, modified to make believing them justifiable, or tossed out.

I don't know why you consider thinking in that manner impossible. It's not only possible, it's preferable.

Incidentally, post 139 contains several statements attributed to me that I did not make, although they are very much like comments I would make. Still, Polymath gets the credit. Would you please edit the post and make the necessary corrections?

 

[PureX]

Actually, "faith" has multiple definitions.

So does the word "gay". It's unwise to consult the dictionary when looking for the truth of things.

 

[Revoltingest]

So does the word "gay". It's unwise to consult the dictionary when looking for the truth of things.

To misuse a word gets only to confusion.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Once the ideological possibility of the existence of a "god" was presented to you, you had three choices. You could accept the possibility and explore it, you could reject the possibility and ignore it, or you could withhold determination based on insufficient evidence and explore, or ignore it. "Unbelief" is not an honest option because it's not a reasoned response to the ideological possibility being proposed. If by "unbelief" one means that they withhold determination based on lack of information, and then choose to ignore the subject further, that's fine, but they are not atheists. They are simply disinterested agnostics.

Exactly!
There are countless ways to define God - many of which are not really refutable... like "God is love."-Bible or "the kingdom (realm) of God is within you."

What Atheists illogically do is take the most ridiculous definition of God (as being tyranical spaghetii monster in the sky) - and say, "See? No way there could be a god." Yet, they fail to consider that in just one religion, God is defined in so many different ways.

Essentially, Atheism is based on straw-man logical fallacy - trying to distort the argument - to make it easier to refute.

 

[Revoltingest]

....Atheism is based on straw-man logical fallacy - trying to distort the argument - to make it easier to refute.

Actually, I & a great many others don't really make any
argument for the non-existence of gods.
There's simply no good reason to believe in them.
A good default....if there's no evidence for something,
then I won't believe that something exists.

 

[HeatherAnn]

**As an atheist, I agree with you. **

This will probably be lost in the sea of responses you're getting though.

I still believe atheism is necessary in the pursuit of truth and knowledge but I do think that we could do a lot better in how we treat theists objections and criticisms. If our intention is to actually convince people of the value of atheism, we cannot take it as self-evident. An exchange has to take place which is mutually beneficial and takes into account that religion is the entirety of a persons being and so is not readily given up simply by appealing to evidence or logic. The apparent irrationality of faith is inescapably part of being human because humanity is fundamentally irrational. Our reasons for being is that we are and it needs no justification. My Atheism is very much a faith and is irrational and I am quite happy for it to be that way.

I am consistently in a minority amongst Atheists when discussing Atheism however. I still feel it is important to try and represent this view in this thread because I want theists to know that there are atheists who do understand faith is more than scripture. It is about the living, breathing essence of human beings walking the path of the unknown. Our human limitations means there are limitation to knowledge. Some degree of faith is essential to be human, because we cannot ever possess a truth that is absolute. If Atheism rejects god, it must also reject the absolute of omniscience, hence it is going to be a "faith" of sorts.

Wow, impressive - your integrity to realize Atheism is based on faith & that faith is essential to being human.

My guess is if pressed - I mean one-on-one - and not as part of a internet herd, most self-proclaimed "Atheists" would really be Agnostic. Strictly logically speaking, Agnosticism is the only appropriate response to the idea of God. However, nobody is 100% strictly logical. We have emotion - we're depressed by some ideas and motivated by others. Motivation is desired above depression - and the solution many choose is often medication - with all of the negative side-effects on one's body & mind. There is some truth that religion is the opium of the people - but the side effects aren't nearly as bad.

There are different perspectives you can view anything from.
IE: I read in a Mormon book that up to 80% of mental illness is because of "misunderstandings of religious doctrine." I believe it.
IE: A study sought to discover what, if any affect religious involvement had on physical healing. Of 3 groups - those who were excessively religiously involved & those who were not involved at all did poorest. Those who were moderately involved did best.
Take the best, leave the rest - from religion, philosophy etc.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Actually, I & a great many others don't really make any
argument for the non-existence of gods.
There's simply no good reason to believe in them.
A good default....if there's no evidence for something,
then I won't believe that something exists.

LOL And yet another straw-man logical fallacy - even better than the last!

Not believing one way or the other is Agnosticism, NOT Atheism.

But what I love about your strawman is that you don't even define what it is that you find no evidence for.
If we're speaking of nothing - than I agree - there is no evidence for nothing. LOL

 

[Revoltingest]

LOL And yet another straw-man logical fallacy - even better than the last!

Not believing one way or the other is Agnosticism, NOT Atheism.

But what I love about your strawman is that you don't even define what it is that you find no evidence for.
If we're speaking of nothing - than I agree - there is no evidence for nothing. LOL

More people should use dictionaries.
I recommend looking up....
"Atheism"
the definition of atheism

"Weak atheism"
What's the Difference Between Strong and Weak Atheism?
What I described is atheism, specifically "weak atheism".

"Straw man"
Definition of STRAW MAN
As you can readily see, there is no argument (straw or otherwise) required do disbelieve in gods.

 

[HeatherAnn]

To misuse a word gets only to confusion.

There are some words like "beauty," "love," & "God" that are so subjective in nature that to suggest you KNOW exactly what constitutes love etc... then you'd be pretending your opinion & interpretation is the only one that matters, pretending that there were not other people with different yet valid interpretations.

 

[HeatherAnn]

More people should use dictionaries.
I recommend looking up....
"Atheism"
the definition of atheism

"Weak atheism"
What's the Difference Between Strong and Weak Atheism?
What I described is atheism, specifically "weak atheism".

"Straw man"
Definition of STRAW MAN
As you can readily see, there is no argument (straw or otherwise) required do disbelieve in gods.

Oh, lol, "WEAK Atheism" - that changes everything.

Strawman is "misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack."
IE: You say, "Of all the definitions of God, I'm going to pick the craziest - tyrannical spaghetii monster in the sky. Why would you believe in such a ridiculous thing?"
Of course that's easier to attack than definitions of God like, "God is love" and "The kingdom of God is within you."

 

[Revoltingest]

There are some words like "beauty," "love," & "God" that are so subjective in nature that to suggest you KNOW exactly what constitutes love etc... then you'd be pretending your opinion & interpretation is the only one that matters, pretending that there were not other people with different yet valid interpretations.

Does that justify using incorrect definitions?

 

[HeatherAnn]

I'm not in the market for a god.

Yes, you are - it's just subconscious.
"All have faith but not all are conscious of having faith."

Paul Tillech (philosopher) defined god as "one's ultimate concern."
You do have some concerns that are more ultimate (more important) than others.
He also suggested that the key is finding what ultimate concern is best in the big picture - for you, others, now and the future.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Does that justify using incorrect definitions?

Of course not - they're definitions that millions believe - taken right from religious doctrine - the Bible - believed by many.

Another definition of God in the Old Testament is "I AM THAT I AM."
Aka - God is that consciousness aware of your consciousness.
It's kind of like "the kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you."
This is why God can be defined in as many ways as there are different people.

You cannot just say, "There is no god because a Tyrannical flying spaghetti monster is ridiculous!"
That is straw-man logical fallacy & discounting better arguments for God.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, lol, "WEAK Atheism" - that changes everything.

It shouldn't change anything.
We've been using the term since before you were a gleam in yer daddy's eye.

Strawman is "misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack."
IE: You say, "Of all the definitions of God, I'm going to pick the craziest - tyrannical spaghetii monster in the sky. Why would you believe in such a ridiculous thing?"

Now, there is a straw man.
I didn't say those things.

Of course that's easier to attack than definitions of God like, "God is love" and "The kingdom of God is within you."

Those are just examples of things I don't believe.
(Becasue there's no reason to.)

 

[Revoltingest]

You cannot just say, "There is no god because a Tyrannical flying spaghetti monster is ridiculous!"

I've never known anyone to say that.
So it wouldn't be cromulent to generalize
from such a rare occurrence.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Those are just examples of things I don't believe.
(Becasue there's no reason to.)

You're right - I was quoting many other Atheists about the spaghetii monster.

However, please don't hold me in suspense a moment longer...
Exactly what is it that you do not believe?
How do you define this "God" that you claim to lack belief of?

And while you're at it, please explain logical & intuitive reasons to think as you do.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

LOL And yet another straw-man logical fallacy - even better than the last!

Not believing one way or the other is Agnosticism, NOT Atheism.

But what I love about your strawman is that you don't even define what it is that you find no evidence for.
If we're speaking of nothing - than I agree - there is no evidence for nothing. LOL

Do you own a dictionary? So much fail here...