Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[Curious George]

We usually don't do actual number-crunching, but we do make assessments that inform our opinions (e.g. "this guy seems shifty. I don't think I can trust him." "what this guy says seems unlikely to be true. I'm not going to believe him until I get some corroboration."). This is normal critical judgement. I'm sure you'll realize that you do this if you think about it.

Take right now: I'm making a claim to you (i.e. that most people don't automatically accept claims uncritically"), but you aren't accepting it uncritically. The fact that you apparently disagree with me supports my point.


Hmm. So this whole tangent was a snipe hunt?

You mean to say that we gather evidence? Why yes. We do. And if we cannot find evidence to support rejecting it and the testimony supports the claim, then we treat it as true.

Snipe hunt? No. Hunt with me and you will have food for the winter.

My point is in there. We have evidence that God does not exist. Evidence that, in my opinion, outweighs the evidence that God does exist.

The problem is that fence sitters love to say that there is no evidence either way. What they mean is that there is no evidence that proves with certainty that God exists or does not exist. But the evidence concerning existence is there weighting the scales. My personal opinion is that people lack the fortitude to accept there is no god.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Okay, so I done me some thinking, @Curious George
I think we evalutate all claims against existing evidence. As a young 'un (or a new parent) we have limited existing evidence. We are much more likely to simply accept.

But in any area we learn and become more sophisticated. I posted in another thread that I suspected many atheists went through a 'non-belief' - 'belief' - 'non-belief' cycle in their lives, where initial non-belief is due to lack of exposure as a baby, followed by belief (in whatever religion they are raised for a variable period) followed eventually by non-belief.

Course, that's a vast generalisation, but it kinda fits with what you're saying. So I'd offer the following to the OP ( @leibowdep84 );

Majority of atheists have at some stage in their life been theistic. Or perhaps more just unsure, but in a theistic environment. Sure, some atheists were raised atheist and have always been atheist, but I think that is the minority.
So the suggestion that atheists withhold belief until someone can give sufficient reason to believe actually does (on reflection) appear to be uncommon. I don't remember even really believing, but I went to church, said prayers, and...I dunno...maybe I was agnostic? Uncertain? Lots of people were telling me this was a good thing to believe in, so...

*shrugs*

At some point I decided I definitely didn't believe, and in my case I think the initial reasons were around inconsistencies. Anytime there are multiple religious 'choices' then there is also the choice to reject all choices. Besides, I was madly interested in classical mythology, and it seemed pretty clear to me that no-one (in my microcosmic world) saw those religions as real.

I wasn't at the point of having sophisticated religious understandings, nor of having broad religious understandings. Classical mythology (albeit in a fairly typical cut and dried fashion) as well as Church of England and Catholocism. That was pretty much the sum total of my religious study at this point.

From there, I've been an atheist, and subsequently claims put to me have been tested against that atheism, some more rigorously than others. Some have caused me to shift my worldview and understanding quite substantially, but the atheism has remained, so in THAT sense, I can see what the OP means.

 

[Curious George]

Okay, so I done me some thinking, @Curious George
I think we evalutate all claims against existing evidence. As a young 'un (or a new parent) we have limited existing evidence. We are much more likely to simply accept.

But in any area we learn and become more sophisticated. I posted in another thread that I suspected many atheists went through a 'non-belief' - 'belief' - 'non-belief' cycle in their lives, where initial non-belief is due to lack of exposure as a baby, followed by belief (in whatever religion they are raised for a variable period) followed eventually by non-belief.

Course, that's a vast generalisation, but it kinda fits with what you're saying. So I'd offer the following to the OP ( @leibowdep84 );

Majority of atheists have at some stage in their life been theistic. Or perhaps more just unsure, but in a theistic environment. Sure, some atheists were raised atheist and have always been atheist, but I think that is the minority.
So the suggestion that atheists withhold belief until someone can give sufficient reason to believe actually does (on reflection) appear to be uncommon. I don't remember even really believing, but I went to church, said prayers, and...I dunno...maybe I was agnostic? Uncertain? Lots of people were telling me this was a good thing to believe in, so...

*shrugs*

At some point I decided I definitely didn't believe, and in my case I think the initial reasons were around inconsistencies. Anytime there are multiple religious 'choices' then there is also the choice to reject all choices. Besides, I was madly interested in classical mythology, and it seemed pretty clear to me that no-one (in my microcosmic world) saw those religions as real.

I wasn't at the point of having sophisticated religious understandings, nor of having broad religious understandings. Classical mythology (albeit in a fairly typical cut and dried fashion) as well as Church of England and Catholocism. That was pretty much the sum total of my religious study at this point.

From there, I've been an atheist, and subsequently claims put to me have been tested against that atheism, some more rigorously than others. Some have caused me to shift my worldview and understanding quite substantially, but the atheism has remained, so in THAT sense, I can see what the OP means.

Hmm, not so sure we ever go through that initial non belief. To a baby mom is God.

I absolutely agree that we gather evidence throughout our life. But my point is that it is this evidence that people use to reject the claim.

 

[Desert Snake]

You need evidence NOT to believe in something?

This is where the OP needs to define the word, 'atheism'. This is precisely the problem with that word having more than one meaning.
anyways, are you saying, a statement that one disbelieves, or, an ambiguous uncertainty.

 

[Desert Snake]

ambivalence or undecided, =/=statement of dis-belief

 

[Dhyana]

Agreed.

But the difference is atheist and scientist admit we don't know the definition of a singularity.

Theist do not admit they don't know, and they place god's in the gaps of their knowledge, which are all defined purely with faith.

Good points. Any theist that tries to fill in the gaps to describe an unknowable God is off on the wrong track. Everyone should admit they don't know and I would add: can't know. Before time and space is not accessible to brains operating within time and space

 

[jonathan180iq]

Good points. Any theist that tries to fill in the gaps to describe an unknowable God is off on the wrong track. Everyone should admit they don't know and I would add: can't know. Before time and space is not accessible to brains operating within time and space

Time and space also didn't exist before time and space...

 

[jontheseminarian]

The whole point of faith is to believe in God without having to see or touch Him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The whole point of faith is to believe in God without having to see or touch Him.

Which is almost exactly why it's a terrible idea to use faith as justification for anything.

 

[LuisDantas]

The word must fall on good soil.

What if the soil is the use of the concept of deity, and the proverbial word is the religious teaching itself?

It seems to me that this is by far the most accurate interpretation of what you say.

 

[LuisDantas]

In another thread, I suggested that atheists seem to take delight in insulting people of faith by calling them ignorant. I was pounced on for suggesting that atheists take such boorish attitudes towards anyone. Yet here you are calling me ignorant.

Pointing out an argument from ignorance is indicating a fallacy. It is very different from calling one ignorant.

 

[LuisDantas]

The whole point of faith is to believe in God without having to see or touch Him.

Are we to assume then that belief in God is a goal in itself?

If so, it must then follow that it is not at all an issue if many people are simply not interested in that specific variety of faith.

 

[leibowde84]

As hard as if may be for you to accept (as if it made any real difference to you), yes, I give precedence to scripture. How could I not? By my not doing so, would be a tacit admission that I really didn't believe it. You just might consider that the reverse is true. You have a confirmation bias such that it limits your ability to believe in God. I may (but it would be a waste of time) suggest to you that disbelief in God carries with it much more risk than a disbelief in scientific discoveries. From my perspective, your sole purpose for your preference to science is to find excuse not to believe in God without considering that very few if any scientific discoveries carry an immediate benefit to your life. I emphasize 'immediate' because... well... just how much impact does a belief in a big bang have on your life apart from giving you an excuse not to believe that if it were true, it would require and outside force (like God) to initiate it? Exactly what mechanism do you KNOW was the cause of it? For you to be consistent disallows speculation on your part.

1. I do believe in God. My reluctance to believe the imperfect men who authored scripture, claiming to speak for God, has nothing to do with it.
2. I don't have a confirmation bias, I just want to be prudent. My lack of belief is not toward God, but, instead, toward the imperfect ancient men (unknown to the best of our knowledge) who claim to speak for God in writing the scriptures. I don't allow my faith in God to make me more gullible when considering ancient writings. In my opinion, there is too much contradiction between the spirit of Jesus' teachings and what Paul claimed, for example. I tend to give validity to the parables and stories of Jesus' teachings, but, for some reason, I can't get myself to buy into Paul's story of a "vision" that basically gave him authority to speak for God. If someone claimed that today, they would be put in an insane asylum.

 

[LuisDantas]

What gets me there are the rejection of two concepts: nothingness and oblivion. It is said that the universe is expanding. I ask, expanding into what. The answer is that it is expanding into nothing, that it is creating space/time as it goes. This makes no sense to me.

That indicates a esthetical objection to the existing knowledge or proposed models. Fair enough. I am no expert, but I assume that such an ambitious undertaking as scientific models for the behavior of the universe entire are basically permanently subject to reevaluations and revisions as better data becomes available.

Still, the knowledge and the data are what they are. We do not have the choice of deciding what they should be just because.

I cannot conceive of non-existent and empty space. Rather I believe in a steady state eternal universe wherein there are pockets of temporal spaces like bubbles expanding as it were into the permanent universe. That constitutes the physical aspect of my answer to your question. The mental, or consciousness aspect is that neither can I conceive of a time where I stop being me; oblivion makes no sense.

I don't know what exactly you mean by that. There is certainly a lot of evidence pointing out that people do, in fact, die, so why should we not accept that it is so? What reason to doubt the available facts would anyone have?

Since I exist and occupy place in the permanent universe, it seems reasonable to me that I am not alone and that I exist among other intelligences.

I have a hunch that you are not talking about observable reality, despite this description being pretty noncontroversial a fit to this reality.

Why are you using the word "permanent" as a qualifier to universe here, by the way?

Along with this belief, I recognize that there must needs be greater intelligences than I which brings me to the concept of a continuum of intelligence, at the pinnacle of which is God.

That is what Penguim asked, and what I ask now: how and why do you make the jump from having the belief that there may be a God (which is fair enough) to the claim that there must be greater intelligences (whatever exactly you mean by that) and a God?

From my perspective it just seems to come out of the blue with no justification outside the purely esthetical preference.

 

[leibowde84]

In another thread, I suggested that atheists seem to take delight in insulting people of faith by calling them ignorant. I was pounced on for suggesting that atheists take such boorish attitudes towards anyone. Yet here you are calling me ignorant. I happen to believe the reports of prophets and have considered them reasonable; I have incorporated their implications into my thinking and have come up with my point of view. I guess if it makes you feel good about yourself, to refer to someone else as ignorant... have at it... I'm done with you.

Pointing out the logical fallacy of "arguing from ignorance" (a well-known logical term) is in no way equivalent to calling someone "ignorant". It is pointing out a logical flaw in your argument, not anything about you personally.

 

[leibowde84]

The willingness comes from considering the idea that man does not and indeed cannot know all things and that on the continuum of intelligence there just might be an entity in the universe that knows more. The SETI program seeks to find intelligent life in the universe by people who at the same time reject the idea that that intelligent life out there could be God. It is that lack of willingness that stands in the way of discovering what really is important.

See, this just seems like prudence to me. Why should we jump to the conclusion of "God" prematurely. If we find out that God is the cause of something one day, that's great. But, until we have sufficient evidence to suggest this, we have a responsibility to keep searching and not give up by resting on God as a cause.

I, for one, don't want to assume an answer that might be wrong, when the correct answer might be attainable with further searching. Don't you feel the same way?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean to say that we gather evidence? Why yes. We do. And if we cannot find evidence to support rejecting it and the testimony supports the claim, then we treat it as true.

Snipe hunt? No. Hunt with me and you will have food for the winter.

My point is in there. We have evidence that God does not exist. Evidence that, in my opinion, outweighs the evidence that God does exist.

The problem is that fence sitters love to say that there is no evidence either way. What they mean is that there is no evidence that proves with certainty that God exists or does not exist. But the evidence concerning existence is there weighting the scales. My personal opinion is that people lack the fortitude to accept there is no god.

I think this depends on the god.

Yes, some god-concepts are contradicted by evidence, but there are also plenty of gods that are unfalsifiable (and in some cases, maybe designed to be so). Now... I think that this means that belief in these gods is completely unjustified because they're unfalsifiable, but I also recognize that it's impossible to have evidence that an unfalsifiable claim is false - that's what "unfalsifiable" means.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm withholding belief in your theories, until proven otherwise, that I should not.

Those are what we call "questions", not theories. I was asking for everyone's thoughts.

 

[leibowde84]

Definitions of words used, are needed.

Which words? I'm happy to provide definitions.

 

[Desert Snake]

Which words? I'm happy to provide definitions.

atheism, for starters