How I Feel About Atheists

[NoRightOrWrong]

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.

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.

I understand your point, I think it is a matter of semantics and wording. People have no evidence of whether God exists but still make a choice to believe in one. People don't know if aliens exist but some make a choice to believe they do.They could have made a choice that they don't exist. Whether you find this to be reasonable or not is another issue.

Here is another explanation :

Since a young age, we are presented with a wide array of opinions and ideas. To determine which of these is right or wrong, we must choose ourselves. This in turn becomes our moral values and beliefs. We believe in what we want to and what we choose to believe in. When we are first born, we do not have systematic beliefs already within our minds. It is external influences that model our way of thinking. This is also the reason why everyone's beliefs are different. Because everyone has been exposed to different circumstances, they have made different choices and thus have different beliefs.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

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.



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.


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.


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.


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.



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.

 

[McBell]

Was that their duty?

It is if they want me to believe in their god.

 

[leibowde84]

I understand your point, I think it is a matter of semantics and wording. People have no evidence of whether God exists but still make a choice to believe in one. People don't know if aliens exist but some make a choice to believe they do.They could have made a choice that they don't exist. Whether you find this to be reasonable or not is another issue.

Here is another explanation :

Since a young age, we are presented with a wide array of opinions and ideas. To determine which of these is right or wrong, we must choose ourselves. This in turn becomes our moral values and beliefs. We believe in what we want to and what we choose to believe in. When we are first born, we do not have systematic beliefs already within our minds. It is external influences that model our way of thinking. This is also the reason why everyone's beliefs are different. Because everyone has been exposed to different circumstances, they have made different choices and thus have different beliefs.

You are saying different things here. Do people choose what to believe, or are they convinced by outside forces? I would argue the latter.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

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.



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.


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.


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.


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.



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.

" Real to them makes perfect sense."

It is if they want me to believe in their god.

You are saying different things here. Do people choose what to believe, or are they convinced by outside forces? I would argue the latter.

You are saying different things here. Do people choose what to believe, or are they convinced by outside forces? I would argue the latter.

People can get too philosophical in this topic of discussion and have different definitions of belief, truth and choice and there are varying degrees of these terms that apply to different circumstances. You say you would argue the latter, I see no need for argument either way. It is a matter of perspective. To put it simply : I choose to believe in the possibility of an intelligent designer. I'm not convinced that there really is one. I don't have evidence that there is yet I can still choose to believe that there is. I could choose to believe that there is not, also. Or I choose to believe that aliens exist. I don't have evidence that there is but I can choose to believe that there is. Or I can choose to believe that there isn't. If you wan to know what process leads one to their choice in a particular belief, that is more complicated and any answer I give can be dissected philosophically and can be viewed differently according to the outsider's perspective and one's definition of all the terms in question. There is no singular correct way to look at this. You may have your opinion on it, but others have will have the opposing opinion or a different opinion. People discuss this all the time and the responses are widespread because so many people have different views and opinions on this. I think it becomes a complicated philosophical discussion with no definitive answer in the end. So I don't see any need to argue the point. Again I resort back to my name on this forum, which applies to many topics on this forum : there is NoRightOrWrong.

 

[Polymath257]

" Real to them makes perfect sense."



People can get too philosophical in this topic of discussion and have different definitions of belief, truth and choice and there are varying degrees of these terms that apply to different circumstances. You say you would argue the latter, I see no need for argument either way. It is a matter of perspective. To put it simply : I choose to believe in the possibility of an intelligent designer. I'm not convinced that there really is one. I don't have evidence that there is yet I can still choose to believe that there is. I could choose to believe that there is not, also. Or I choose to believe that aliens exist. I don't have evidence that there is but I can choose to believe that there is. Or I can choose to believe that there isn't. If you wan to know what process leads one to their choice in a particular belief, that is more complicated and any answer I give can be dissected philosophically and can be viewed differently according to the outsider's perspective and one's definition of all the terms in question. There is no singular correct way to look at this. You may have your opinion on it, but others have will have the opposing opinion or a different opinion. People discuss this all the time and the responses are widespread because so many people have different views and opinions on this. I think it becomes a complicated philosophical discussion with no definitive answer in the end. So I don't see any need to argue the point. Again I resort back to my name on this forum, which applies to many topics on this forum : there is NoRightOrWrong.

This seems exceedingly strange to me. I don't see belief as a choice: I am either convinced or I am not. I don't choose to believe or not believe in aliens, or dark matter, of deities. Either the evidence convinces me or it doesn't. For that matter, either the evidence suggests it is an idea worth pursuing or it doesn't. I can choose whether to devote more time to study an idea. I can choose to see out guidance concerning an idea. But I don't choose whether I believe or not.

And yet, it seems that many people do. So I have a question for you: HOW do you choose to believe? Especially, how do you choose to believe when there isn't sufficient evidence to make a reasoned decision? Because that seems like a basic ability that faith-based people have that I really do not seem to have. Do you 'act like' you believe until you have programmed yourself not to see any other possibility?

 

[ArtieE]

To put it simply : I choose to believe in the possibility of an intelligent designer. I'm not convinced that there really is one. I don't have evidence that there is yet I can still choose to believe that there is. I could choose to believe that there is not, also. Or I choose to believe that aliens exist. I don't have evidence that there is but I can choose to believe that there is. Or I can choose to believe that there isn't.

For logical and rational people this approach is impossible. This is called "faith". Faith is belief in something without evidence. If there was evidence it wouldn't be faith.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

For logical and rational people this approach is impossible. This is called "faith". Faith is belief in something without evidence. If there was evidence it wouldn't be faith.

Not every aspect of life requires evidence. I guess humans are naturally irrational beings.

 

[Mister Silver]

Not every aspect of life requires evidence.

It kind of does.

I guess humans are naturally irrational beings.

Indeed, which is why many of them find it difficult to experience the reality that there is no god in existence.

 

[ArtieE]

Not every aspect of life requires evidence. I guess humans are naturally irrational beings.

Which aspects?

 

[ArtieE]

Not every aspect of life requires evidence. I guess humans are naturally irrational beings.

If I was thirsty I couldn't just have faith and grab for a glass of water on the table. First, before I started grabbing, there would have to be some evidence that there actually was a glass of water on the table to grab for.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

This seems exceedingly strange to me. I don't see belief as a choice: I am either convinced or I am not. I don't choose to believe or not believe in aliens, or dark matter, of deities. Either the evidence convinces me or it doesn't. For that matter, either the evidence suggests it is an idea worth pursuing or it doesn't. I can choose whether to devote more time to study an idea. I can choose to see out guidance concerning an idea. But I don't choose whether I believe or not.

And yet, it seems that many people do. So I have a question for you: HOW do you choose to believe? Especially, how do you choose to believe when there isn't sufficient evidence to make a reasoned decision? Because that seems like a basic ability that faith-based people have that I really do not seem to have. Do you 'act like' you believe until you have programmed yourself not to see any other possibility?

Which aspects?

Is there an argument for the existence of God?

This is mi final post here. I will not be back to read any feedback. I already know how the irrational atheists will respond. Everyone can and does choose what to believe, including every single person on this or any forum. It's not for me to convince anyone otherwise. Whatever you believe you are choosing to believe it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there an argument for the existence of God?

This is mi final post here. I will not be back to read any feedback. I already know how the irrational atheists will respond. Everyone can and does choose what to believe, including every single person on this or any forum. It's not for me to convince anyone otherwise. Whatever you believe you are choosing to believe it.

Is this one of those posts.....
"I win!"
"And I'm taking my win with me!"

I bet you'll be back.
How can you resist our charms!

 

[ArtieE]

This is mi final post here. I will not be back to read any feedback. I already know how the irrational atheists will respond. Everyone can and does choose what to believe, including every single person on this or any forum. It's not for me to convince anyone otherwise. Whatever you believe you are choosing to believe it.

I would love for you to produce a fundamental Christian and have him actually choose to believe with any sort of conviction that God doesn't exist. Even just for five minutes.

 

[PureX]

Like what?

Any perceived subjective existential qualities, like justice, beauty, purpose, honor, and truth. We have no "tangible evidence" that any of these exist, just as we have no tangible evidence that gods exist. And yet they are crucial components of the survival of humanity.

What does it even mean to be a 'metaphysical entity'?

I presume you know what those two words mean: "metaphysics" - referring to that which precedes, determines, and/or surpasses physical reality; and "entity" - a unified or singular influential expression of being.

Why should we believe in such things at all?

It's not about what you "should believe". It's about taking responsibility for your own intellect. It's about contemplating the mystery of our existence in relation to these ideological possibilities. That's the branch of philosophy called 'theology'. And the acceptance of these possibilities, however we may eventually choose to further define or characterize them for ourselves, is called 'theism'. Once we have defined and characterized a cohesive theological position, or 'belief', then how we live in accordance with that theological position/belief, is called 'religion'.

Once the possibility of a 'metaphysical entity (or realm)' has been accepted, it's up to us, as individuals, to explore that possibility further; to try and define or characterize it for themselves. And having achieved this, to then figure out how to apply this chosen ideal to the actions of living. And through this practice, in time, we will gain and recognize values that we would not likely have experienced, otherwise.

Asking me what god is, or why you should believe in it is just pointless avoidance. Because if you honestly accept the possibility of a 'metaphysical entity or realm', you have to take up and explore that possibility for yourself.

This is why I do not generally like organized religions that presume everyone should believe in and follow the same theological dogma. It promotes blind acceptance and intellectually laziness over intellectual curiosity and exploration, and it does so almost always for the purpose of exploitation (and abuse).

 

[Polymath257]

Any perceived subjective existential qualities, like justice, beauty, purpose, honor, and truth. We have no "tangible evidence" that any of these exist, just as we have no tangible evidence that gods exist. And yet they are crucial components of the survival of humanity.

All of those are human emotionsor opinions. And we know such emotions exist.

I presume you know what those two words mean: "metaphysics" - referring to that which precedes, determines, and/or surpasses physical reality; and "entity" - a unified or singular influential expression of being.
.

Well, I *have* considered these ideas and think the whole notion of a 'metaphysical' to be self-contradictory.

For example, you mention it 'precedes' physical reality. In what sense does it do so? Certainly not temporally--time is part of physical reality, after all. Not logically. Physical reality isn't a logical construct.

You speak of 'determining' physical reality. But that speaks of causes and causality is again part of physical reality. So once again, the very concept is problematic, at the very least.

Finally, you say it 'surpasses' physical reality? Again, in what sense? In terms of power? Well, again, power is a physical thing: it is part of physical reality.

So, yes, I have considered the possibility and I have found it to be lacking in any coherency.

 

[PureX]

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 also dishonest. Because by choosing to believe "not X", he has rejected the possibility of "X". And the fact that he may be still slightly ambivalent about this choice is irrelevant to his having made the choice. And his actions are now being determined by the choice he made. So again, his ambivalence is not in evidence. So he can't hide behind it when called upon to defend his choice by others, especially if he is calling upon them to do the same, and then dismissing them as fools because they have not done so to his satisfaction. Not honestly, anyway.

It's irrelevant which of those two ideas one considers less likely to be true.

It's very relevant when one's actions toward others are being determined by it. And one has become duplicitous by hiding behind one possibility while actively embodying and promoting the other.

 

[PureX]

All of those are human emotions or opinions. And we know such emotions (an opinions) exist.

How? Because we 'feel them', and 'think they are real'? What about the feeling and subsequent opinion that God exists? Why doesn't that count if what we think and feel are the criteria for determining existence?

Well, I *have* considered these ideas and think the whole notion of a 'metaphysical' to be self-contradictory.

I'm sorry, but from this conversation, so far, it does not appear that you've thought about it much, at all. At least not to the point that you've asked yourself any pertinent questions.

For example, you mention it 'precedes' physical reality. In what sense does it do so? Certainly not temporally--time is part of physical reality, after all. Not logically. Physical reality isn't a logical construct.

You speak of 'determining' physical reality. But that speaks of causes and causality is again part of physical reality. So once again, the very concept is problematic, at the very least.

Finally, you say it 'surpasses' physical reality? Again, in what sense? In terms of power? Well, again, power is a physical thing: it is part of physical reality.

So, yes, I have considered the possibility and I have found it to be lacking in any coherency.

Why are you asking me what you have never bothered to ask yourself? Why do you think I can answer these questions for you? Or that I should? How will my answers help you if you aren't going to bother exploring them for yourself? Or if you're only asking so you can invent a rebuttal?

If you're so convinced that I'm wrong, why are we still discussing this?

 

[PureX]

It is if they want me to believe in their god.

The vast majority of theists are not evangelical.

 

[leibowde84]

" Real to them makes perfect sense."



People can get too philosophical in this topic of discussion and have different definitions of belief, truth and choice and there are varying degrees of these terms that apply to different circumstances. You say you would argue the latter, I see no need for argument either way. It is a matter of perspective. To put it simply : I choose to believe in the possibility of an intelligent designer. I'm not convinced that there really is one. I don't have evidence that there is yet I can still choose to believe that there is. I could choose to believe that there is not, also. Or I choose to believe that aliens exist. I don't have evidence that there is but I can choose to believe that there is. Or I can choose to believe that there isn't. If you wan to know what process leads one to their choice in a particular belief, that is more complicated and any answer I give can be dissected philosophically and can be viewed differently according to the outsider's perspective and one's definition of all the terms in question. There is no singular correct way to look at this. You may have your opinion on it, but others have will have the opposing opinion or a different opinion. People discuss this all the time and the responses are widespread because so many people have different views and opinions on this. I think it becomes a complicated philosophical discussion with no definitive answer in the end. So I don't see any need to argue the point. Again I resort back to my name on this forum, which applies to many topics on this forum : there is NoRightOrWrong.

I guess I can only speak for myself, but it is not possible for me to choose to believe something I am not convinced of. To say that I believed something I was not yet convinced of would be dishonest. No matter how much I want to believe in something, I can't choose to actually think it's true. Outside forces dictate what I am convinced of. Remember, belief is simply accepting something as being true.