How I Feel About Atheists

[leibowde84]

I already did in quite some length. If you can't comprehend it, I don't know what to tell you. I can't comprehend it for you. And I didn't say a Creator is necessary , I said the belief in the possibility of one is completely reasonable. I can grasp the reasoning of choosing to not believe in a a creator and I can grasp the idea of choosing to believe in a creator. You obviously are biased in one direction. That is your choice, your belief system,your framework, your conclusions. Mine are different. That's all there is.

But, belief is not a choice. Either I am convinced something is true by the available evidence, or I am not. I do agree that God is a possibility, as nearly anything is possible. But, what convinces you that, more than being merely possible, God is a reality?

 

[columbus]

But I don't find a reason or need to tell others that believe one way or the other that their views and beliefs are unreasonable in regards to what we don't know. What is the motivation behind doing that to someone ?

That's the defining feature of religion. Telling people what to believe about the unknown. Telling them to let go of evidence and reason and just have Faith in the humans claiming to speak for God.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Thanks , Tom. I don't agree.

The difference between our opinions being that I have evidence and you don't.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

I don't know either, and I'm fine with not knowing too. But I don't find a reason or need to tell others that believe one way or the other that their views and beliefs are unreasonable in regards to what we don't know. What is the motivation behind doing that to someone ? People come to their own conclusions, it's their life to do so. It doesn't affect or concern my beliefs.

I can only answer for myself, but I find the reasoning behind beliefs very interesting. I don't care so much what people believe, but what actually convinces them. Believing that God is real is not wrong or incorrect. I am just not convinced by the evidence, so I want to find out why others are convinced.

Also, possibly more importantly, I see that people get benefits from belief in God. I feel like it might add something to my life if I could choose to believe, but that isn't up to me. I would have to be convinced.

 

[Polymath257]

Anything is possible. But to adopt such a belief is irrational because it's as unenforceable as it is dysfunctional. We don't have "tangible evidence" for a great many things that we need to believe, to survive in this world.

Like what?

Since none of these examples are 'metaphysical entities', I don't see why you keep using them as an analogy, except that you are unwilling to acknowledge the difference. Because if you acknowledge the difference you will have to recognize why the expectation of physical evidence, and the lack of it's forthcoming, is illogical, and is biased to provide you with false validation.

What does it even mean to be a 'metaphysical entity'? Why should we believe in such things at all?

 

[leibowde84]

Thanks , Tom. I don't agree.

What don't you agree with? That the universe is inscrutable and hostile to life?

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks , Tom. I don't agree.

Well, then, *that* settles it. NROW doesn't agree! That *must* mean we are wrong!

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

But, belief is not a choice. Either I am convinced something is true by the available evidence, or I am not. I do agree that God is a possibility, as nearly anything is possible. But, what convinces you that, more than being merely possible, God is a reality?

I think it is a personal to choice to believe or not believe in something, regardless of evidence or lack of evidence. People choose to believe aliens exist. That is their belief, and they made that choice to believe that. And I am not convinced God is a reality, only a reasonable possibility.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Well, then, *that* settles it. NROW doesn't agree! That *must* mean we are wrong!

I didn't say you were wrong, I said I don't agree. I'm not saying you are right either. I can respect your opinion and not agree. Thus my name : NoRightOrWrong.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

I didn't say you were wrong, I said I don't agree. I'm not saying you are right either. I can respect your opinion and not agree. Thus my name : NoRightOrWrong.

You are the one continuously telling people they are " wrong."
And there's nothing to settle. Everyone has their own beliefs and opinions. What do you think you are going to settle ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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? How is this any different if you replace Bigfoot by God in the question?

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.

Except that his point isn't about probability. He's merely making the point that it is reasonable and consistent to say that something is possible while also saying that one doesn't believe the claim. It's irrelevant which of those two ideas one considers less likely to be true.

In an analogy between, it's easy to find differences the two things being compared. Any analogy. To claim that the analogy is inapt because of those differences, one must also show that those they matter to the argument. Can you rule out the existence of Bigfoot? I'd say that you can't. Nor vampires, nor leprechauns. If not, the analogy is apt.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Except that his point isn't about probability. He's merely making the point that it is reasonable and consistent to say that something is possible while also saying that one doesn't believe the claim. It's irrelevant which of those two ideas one considers less likely to be true.

In an analogy between, it's easy to find differences the two things being compared. Any analogy. To claim that the analogy is inapt because of those differences, one must also show that those they matter to the argument. Can you rule out the existence of Bigfoot? I'd say that you can't. Nor vampires, nor leprechauns. If not, the analogy is apt.

"Except that his point isn't about probability. He's merely making the point that it is reasonable and consistent to say that something is possible while also saying that one doesn't believe the claim. It's irrelevant which of those two ideas one considers less likely to be true."

I agree with that. It was one of the points I've been attempting to convey.

 

[columbus]

You are the one continuously telling people they are " wrong."

No, that's mostly the Original Poster. He has been insisting that we nontheists are confused and dishonest.

And there's nothing to settle. Everyone has their own beliefs and opinions. What do you think you are going to settle ?

The reason that the scientific method is so rigorous is the human tendency to confidently believe things that are flat out wrong. The fact that religious people do that all the time is why I don't find any of them credible. They regularly find beliefs unsupported by anything but delusions and ancient hearsay more credible than a mountain of empirical data.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

I think it is a personal to choice to believe or not believe in something, regardless of evidence or lack of evidence. People choose to believe aliens exist. That is their belief, and they made that choice to believe that. And I am not convinced God is a reality, only a reasonable possibility.

Again, people don't choose to believe in aliens, they are convinced that there is reliable evidence and a conspiracy to cover it up. I can't agree with them that aliens have visited earth, but it seems absurd to think that our planet is the only one with life in the cosmos. But, nevertheless, they are convinced.

Can you explain why you think belief is a choice? How can one choose to believe something they are not convinced of? Not examples of believers who you think chose to believe, but the process of choosing to believe something. It seems impossible to me, but I am very interested in seeing whether I am wrong.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, that's mostly the Original Poster. He has been insisting that we nontheists are confused and dishonest.


The reason that the scientific method is so rigorous is the human tendency to confidently believe things that are flat out wrong. The fact that religious people do that all the time is why I don't find any of them credible. They regularly find beliefs unsupported by anything but delusions and ancient hearsay more credible than a mountain of empirical data.
Tom

I completely believe in the scientific method and study science , physics, math, astronomy, etc...all the time. I just don't think empirical evidence of material matters is all that defines every aspect of life. I don't take to organized religions nor people of faith who deny science or who would preach that an atheist is wrong in what they believe.However, I do understand why people take to faith in a deity and if they find meaning and happiness in doing so without hurting or denying someone else of their beliefs then I don't find that to be unreasonable. I know religious people can behave irrationally and be hypocritical, but I am not speaking of those people. I also know religious people , such as my late grandparents, who lived their entire lives by faith in God and were the most caring ,honest, non-judgmental , peaceful , happy people I seriously have ever known. I am in awe of the way they lived their life. They kept their faith to themselves and were so charitable and helped so many people. In cases like this, and there are many, I don't care about if God is real or not. It was real to them and it enhanced their lives and others around them. I think this is more important than anything and empirical evidence and science didn't play or need to be any part of that. So I don't dismiss or negate people's personal faith in God in this respect. I believe living a happy meaningful life in an existence that can be very trying and perplexing is what really matters. So if one chooses to believe in God and it is positive for them and not a negative intrusion on someone else's life or beliefs then there is nothing delusional or unreasonable about that. I believe science can and does play an important and positive role in life but faith in a deity can and also does. And faith can be a dangerous thing when used the wrong way as can science. I put more relevance in how people treat, respect, and tolerate each other in this life,

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't say you were wrong, I said I don't agree. I'm not saying you are right either. I can respect your opinion and not agree. Thus my name : NoRightOrWrong.

Yes, but *why* do you disagree? What is a *reason* for disagreement? What is the logic that leads you to this belief?

And, if it isn't logic or reason that leads you to this belief, why do you adopt it?

 

[columbus]

I do understand why people take to faith in a deity and if they find meaning and happiness in doing so without hurting or denying someone else of their beliefs then I don't find that to be unreasonable. I know religious people can behave irrationally and be hypocritical, but I am not speaking of those people.

People whose Faith doesn't involve hurting or denying other people aren't an issue for me either. The moral problem is the other sort you speak of. There's lots of them and they cause a ton of problems.

And one of the fundamental problems is the teaching that evidence and reason matter less than gut feelings and human authority.
Tom

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Except that his point isn't about probability. He's merely making the point that it is reasonable and consistent to say that something is possible while also saying that one doesn't believe the claim. It's irrelevant which of those two ideas one considers less likely to be true."

I agree with that. It was one of the points I've been attempting to convey.

Thanks.

And I agree with some of the things that you and PureX are posting. It is reasonable to believe in the possibility of a god even if it isn't reasonable to claim that one exists. Although one cannot come to a god belief using reason, if that gives you comfort and grounding that you cannot find any other way, and you are able to believe by faith, then you have a reason to believe, albeit no reason to believe that you have guessed correctly.

It is impossible to attach a probability figure to the possibility of a deist god, for example, who might well leave no evidence for itself. I disagree that the absence of evidence is expected, but agree that it is possible. If that is the case, I can't put a number on the probability of such a god existing. I have no more reason to say that it is 5% than 50%.

I agree with the others on just about everything else. There is no reason to believe without evidence, and nothing should be believed for no reason. The experienced reason and evidence based thinker cannot choose what to believe. Atheism is the lack of a god belief and need be no more than that for it to be called atheism. I would rather be correct than comforted. Faith is not and cannot be a path to truth. The argument for existence being uncaused is solid. An intelligent designer is less likely than any hypothesis that can account for the existence of our universe without it.

 

[leibowde84]

However, I do understand why people take to faith in a deity and if they find meaning and happiness in doing so without hurting or denying someone else of their beliefs then I don't find that to be unreasonable.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I just wish I knew how to believe in something without being convinced first.

 

[Polymath257]

I completely believe in the scientific method and study science , physics, math, astronomy, etc...all the time. I just don't think empirical evidence of material matters is all that defines every aspect of life.

Just to be clear: I don't believe it defines every aspect of life either. For example, aesthetics are not part of science and aesthetic judgments are not, ultimately, based on reason. That doens't mean they have no value; just that they are not reasoned.

In a similar way, personal preferences are not a matter of empirical evidence (at least not always). I don't like the taste of tomatoes, and others do. The question of whether tomatoes taste good is NOT a scientific question. it is also not a matter of *fact*: it is an opinion.

Art is yet another vital aspect of life that is not based on science. Whether you find a piece of poetry moving is not either, nor whether you enjoy a novel.

But the common thread of these subjects is that they are NOT a matter of truth or fact: they are a matter of opinion.

BUT, question of existence *are* matters of truth or fact. They are NOT simply matters of opinion. So personal preference is simply not a relevant consideration.

I don't take to organized religions nor people of faith who deny science or who would preach that an atheist is wrong in what they believe.However, I do understand why people take to faith in a deity and if they find meaning and happiness in doing so without hurting or denying someone else of their beliefs then I don't find that to be unreasonable. I know religious people can behave irrationally and be hypocritical, but I am not speaking of those people. I also know religious people , such as my late grandparents, who lived their entire lives by faith in God and were the most caring ,honest, non-judgmental , peaceful , happy people I seriously have ever known. I am in awe of the way they lived their life. They kept their faith to themselves and were so charitable and helped so many people. In cases like this, and there are many, I don't care about if God is real or not.

Exactly. The *truth* doesn't matter. You (and they) have a preference and that matters more to you than the truth of the matter. And that is your prerogative. You do not *have* to value truth or reason. You can even value it in some situations and not in others. But at the very least, *recognize* that is what you are doing: de-valuing truth for your personal preferences.

It was real to them and it enhanced their lives and others around them.

The phrase 'real to them' doesn't make sense: something is either real or it is not. Their belief, I am sure, was very important to them and motivated them in many ways. But to say something is real when it is not is delusion.

I think this is more important than anything and empirical evidence and science didn't play or need to be any part of that. So I don't dismiss or negate people's personal faith in God in this respect. I believe living a happy meaningful life in an existence that can be very trying and perplexing is what really matters.

And that is a valid value. I disagree with that, but it is a valid value. But recognize that this is what it is: a value that you hold as more valuable than truth and reason.

So if one chooses to believe in God and it is positive for them and not a negative intrusion on someone else's life or beliefs then there is nothing delusional or unreasonable about that.

Once again, to believe something is real when it is not is delusion. And that is true no matter how many warm fuzzies that belief gives you or even how important that belief is.

I believe science can and does play an important and positive role in life but faith in a deity can and also does. And faith can be a dangerous thing when used the wrong way as can science. I put more relevance in how people treat, respect, and tolerate each other in this life,

Yes, knowledge is not the only important thing, by far. But it *is* an important thing. Compassion is another. And I will not devalue truth simply because it makes me more comfortable.