Why Are You Not an Atheist?

[jonathan180iq]

I could, but I have no interest in arguing. I'll simply say that my adoption of theism was anchored in reason, education, and learning far more than mystical/divine experiences. Come to think of it, I didn't conceptualize my experiences as mystical/divine at all at the time I was wrestling with this. I couldn't have thought about things that way because I was much too ignorant about the variety of theism and theistic experiences to view it as divine.

With people who think a bit more soundly about such things, such as yourself, I don't tend to pick fights because I can respect the position more.

But...

I have some qualms with what I see as elevating a sense of awe and wonder with a part of the natural world that's greater than our individual selves with some type of mystical, divine, or supernatural phenomenon. It's a large leap. And I've never had anyone even attempt to explain why that leap should occur.

 

[Quintessence]

I have some qualms with what I see as elevating a sense of awe and wonder with a part of the natural world that's greater than our individual selves with some type of mystical, divine, or supernatural phenomenon. It's a large leap. And I've never had anyone even attempt to explain why that leap should occur.

I think part of the problem is you are seeing a large leap where others do not. I don't see it as a large leap. There was a time I would have agreed with you... back before I made any study of the diversity of theisms and polytheism in particular. A truckload of gods in polytheistic religions of the past are basically mythic personifications of local streams, mountains, and other places. But we live in a culture where polytheism was systematically eradicated and the notion of deities being "above nature" (aka, supernatural) was slammed into our heads. We tend to think it's a big leap because of that cultural conditioning. Like I said, I used to think inside that box too (and didn't realize the box was there, if I'm honest with myself about it).

While I don't think it's a large leap to go from "this is awesome and so much greater than me" to "this is a god to me," there is a place where I see an important distinction. I don't believe awe in of itself has enough substance to be meaningful theism. I see a pretty significant difference between the person who goes "that storm is awesome" and myself, who will light incense and offer song and prayers in honor of Storm. Practice and ritual is where the substance is, and that is something of a leap. It's one thing to marvel at a sunrise, and entirely something else to demonstrate tangible religious devotion in response to that sunrise. That's where real, devotional polytheism happens. Or monotheism, I suppose, if that is more your thing. Again, we can thank cultural conditioning for some of the notions we have about this. Protestant Christianity drilled "belief is what matters" into our collective heads. I don't agree with that.

 

[sojourner]

Tell me, what you would know about God or his Christ, without the Bible? It should be the only authority needed for a Christian to support their beliefs....shouldn't it?

No, because you’re completely ignoring the history of the church and the Bible. How did “the multitudes” find out about Jesus, such that they showed up 5000 people strong? The Bible didn’t tell them about Jesus; it was word of mouth.

How did Paul convert the Gentiles? He had no Bible that spoke of Jesus. Most people couldn’t read, anyway.

There was no Bible for the first 450 years of the church’s existence. How did those people find out about Jesus?

Illiteracy was rampant until well into the 1500s. How did those people learn about Jesus?

People have always learned about Jesus through word of mouth, through the broader church Tradition, which was largely oral. My parents told me about Jesus — I didn’t read about him until probably 2nd or 3rd grade. People learn about Jesus through the acts of the community of faith. A Bible is relatively unnecessary. A Bible is only really necessary to learn about how the cultures thought, that told the stories and wrote them down.

 

[sojourner]

With people who think a bit more soundly about such things, such as yourself, I don't tend to pick fights because I can respect the position more.

But...

I have some qualms with what I see as elevating a sense of awe and wonder with a part of the natural world that's greater than our individual selves with some type of mystical, divine, or supernatural phenomenon. It's a large leap. And I've never had anyone even attempt to explain why that leap should occur.

For me, it’s a way of using myth and metaphor to make meaning of the world and my place in it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why would anyone need any reason to be a theist?

It seems to me that it is an arbitrary, personal call. And it should be.

 

[Audie]

With people who think a bit more soundly about such things, such as yourself, I don't tend to pick fights because I can respect the position more.

But...

I have some qualms with what I see as elevating a sense of awe and wonder with a part of the natural world that's greater than our individual selves with some type of mystical, divine, or supernatural phenomenon. It's a large leap. And I've never had anyone even attempt to explain why that leap should occur.

To me it seems like contaminating the
wonder one might rightly feel, to imagine that
there is something supernatural going on.

Like seeing astrology in the stars. Imagining
that people are so important that their little
behaviours would provoke the almighty to send
a tidal wave. Or how the earth, the whole
universe was made, for them.

That not looking out, it's just looking back at
a fantasy self.

Putting a "god" in there is terrif., if a person
is so narcisstic as that, and is only interested
in "nature" for what it says about him.

Well I suppose the theists will be too busy before
now, figuring up how I am so terribly wrong to allow
for even a moment's consideration of whether
my pov could make any sense.

 

[Anthem]

Justify????



Like asking a new born how he / she justifies having been born.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are a lot of shades of grey between night and day,
yes. Every degree of prevarication is out there to indulge in.

It may well be your impression that you are correct
that I said I would put you on ignore. I did not; you will
find that only in your imagination.

"Interact" was the word. Takes a lot of transposing
to turn that into "put on ignore".

So while you may not think you made that up, you did.
I am pretending nothing, and it is more than a little rude
to falsely so claim.

I did say something about you trying to have the last word
with a female woman. I take it back; you have the last
word, and welcome to it.

No, I'll let you have the last word.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

I'm not trying to imply that there are no reason for being a theist.
And I think we've discussed often enough atheist's reason for being an atheist. However I'd be happy to explain for myself why.

I'm just curious what folks feel justifies their theism. What knowledge a person personally has to justify a belief in God.

Because I believe the jury is still out on the subject.

 

[KingSolomon]

I'm not trying to imply that there are no reason for being a theist.
And I think we've discussed often enough atheist's reason for being an atheist. However I'd be happy to explain for myself why.

I'm just curious what folks feel justifies their theism. What knowledge a person personally has to justify a belief in God.

The words "justify" and "knowledge" are out of place here. No one has knowledge of a deity that makes him/her a believer.
For most, people believe either because they were brought up by the adults around them to believe or as a result of some kind of crisis or out of a feeling of lack of meaning. There are some people who believe they have witnessed some kind of divine manifestation of the divine such as a "miracle" These people already have started out with belief in a supernatural occurrence leading to belief in the supernatural. I have rarely felt that people who believe in a deity feel the need to JUSTIFY their belief. The just believe. If I were a believer [which I once was], I'd find it superfluous to give some justification for that belief. Some people believe in God for no other reason than that it makes them feel good.
When I am asked if I believe in God, I give an answer which may or may not be a justification according to the asker's definition.
Firstly I ask what the questioner means by the word "god" and what he/she means by the word "believe". I might assume he/she means do I accept the reality of a deity. So I'll ask and if the response is yes, then I have to ask which to which god is he referring. Does he mean the God as pictured in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles? Does he just mean some kind of Super Being? If he says just some kind of deity, then I tell him that I don't believe in the supernatural since I am not convinced of its existence. And if it's just some deity, what would I know about it to make me do anything about it. If it's any old god, what am I supposed to do about it? Having no communication from that god, I don't know what it expects of me so believing in it leads me nowhere. If at some point I find evidence of that god, then I'd still have to know what to do about it. So I'd believe in it but it would have no real effect on my life. If he/she means the Biblical God, then believing in Him means I'd have to believe everything that's written in that Book about Him and some of it does not make sense in light of our 21st-century knowledge.
There are aspects of that God that are in contradiction to 21st-century ideas of ethics and morality. And there are images of that God that seem to be at odds with other images there. For example, many passages in the Bible tell us that He will protect the righteous. Yet if we look at Psalm 44, we see that He is not doing so. If we read the book of Job, we see that even Job complains that God is not being fair with him. AND towards the end of the book, God Himself admits that Job has done nothing wrong to be the recipient of God's bad treatment.
The Bible can be an inspiring book when it lifts our spirits. It can teach us lessons about human behavior that are universal. It can present us with interesting philosophical ideas as in the story of the Garden of Eden. But in the final analysis, in this awful century, it does not necessarily make us believe in the literal existence of a deity. Since we live in a Jewish and Christian culture, we can appreciate the grandeur of the Bible and its concept of God and we can take lessons from it. But the way God is presented in the Bible does not necessarily lead us to accept His literal existence. He is pictured too much in our human image to elicit worship as an actual Super Being.
Having said all this, I respect people who do believe in a god so long as they don't use that belief to harm other people, and I never ask them to justify their belief. That would be an insult. Although I don't much mind if anyone asks me to justify my own unbelief.

 

[Nakosis]

Because I believe the jury is still out on the subject.

Fair enough but as I see being an atheist means I lack a theistic belief. So an agnostic sees God as unknowable. Really nothing to base a belief on. If the jury is still out isn't that the same as saying there is no proof/verified evidence to build a belief on?

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Fair enough but as I see being an atheist means I lack a theistic belief. So an agnostic sees God as unknowable. Really nothing to base a belief on. If the jury is still out isn't that the same as saying there is no proof/verified evidence to build a belief on?

No not a all. When a jury is out they are presented with evidence from both sides and are weighing said evidence. Far from saying that there is no proof or evidence.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, because you’re completely ignoring the history of the church and the Bible. How did “the multitudes” find out about Jesus, such that they showed up 5000 people strong? The Bible didn’t tell them about Jesus; it was word of mouth.

While Faith is mostly spread by word of mouth it is important to have what was originally taught recorded. It can be seen if we study the history of Faith, how important it is to have the word spoken by a prophet recorded as accuratly as possible. Otherwise Faith becomes what man makes of it and what they add to it.

Most people who are Athiest in my view are those that detest the hypocrisy of Faiths divided, unscientific in outlook and not practicing what they preach.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm just curious what folks feel justifies their theism. What knowledge a person personally has to justify a belief in God

It is who we are. We are Spirit given the chance of growth in the matrix of the material world.

We are given the choice in this life to grow in our spiritual potential, which is all the virtues.

Athiest's still require these virtues, but to be an athiest, one has to blind themselves to the source of the virtues within them, which is the Spirit of the Mesengers of God.

This blindness is lack of the virtue of sight. Without this vision we can not see our true selves

Regards Tony

 

[Nakosis]

No not a all. When a jury is out they are presented with evidence from both sides and are weighing said evidence. Far from saying that there is no proof or evidence.

Why I said verified evidence. The general argument from an atheist is the lack of evidence (that they can verify for themselves). Otherwise the only evidence is claims made by other people.

People can claim a murder has taken place, is it reasonable to accept the claim without collaborating proof? At least having an actual body to examine. If I said Ted killed Fred, are you ready to believe Ted is a murderer or that even a murder took place because of a statement made?

So if we remove all statements, claims made about God from the pool of evidence, what are we left with?

 

[sojourner]

While Faith is mostly spread by word of mouth it is important to have what was originally taught recorded. It can be seen if we study the history of Faith, how important it is to have the word spoken by a prophet recorded as accuratly as possible. Otherwise Faith becomes what man makes of it and what they add to it.

Most people who are Athiest in my view are those that detest the hypocrisy of Faiths divided, unscientific in outlook and not practicing what they preach.

Regards Tony

Problem is, we just don’t have a very consistent written record coming from cultures that were largely oral transmission cultures. The OT texts weren’t written down until at least after the Exile. The gospels weren’t written for at least probably 50 years following the stories being told orally. “Accuracy” is a more modern concept in the transmission of ideas.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Why I said verified evidence. The general argument from an atheist is the lack of evidence (that they can verify for themselves). Otherwise the only evidence is claims made by other people.

People can claim a murder has taken place, is it reasonable to accept the claim without collaborating proof? At least having an actual body to examine. If I said Ted killed Fred, are you ready to believe Ted is a murderer or that even a murder took place because of a statement made?

So if we remove all statements, claims made about God from the pool of evidence, what are we left with?

The evidence is subjective. Let's say Fred is suspiciously missing, Ted has the motive to kill Fred and has been quoted as wanting to kill Fred. That is still evidence that Ted could've killed Fred. It's subjective evidence but it is still evidence. Now it is a matter of believability. can the evidence be believed? There are cases were people have been convicted of murder with the absence of hard evidence like a body or murder weapon.

 

[Nakosis]

It is who we are. We are Spirit given the chance of growth in the matrix of the material world.

We are given the choice in this life to grow in our spiritual potential, which is all the virtues.

Athiest's still require these virtues, but to be an athiest, one has to blind themselves to the source of the virtues within them, which is the Spirit of the Mesengers of God.

This blindness is lack of the virtue of sight. Without this vision we can not see our true selves

Regards Tony

I see my source of virtues as my subconscious mind. Everything you consider as coming from God I consider as coming from the subconscious mind. While you consider me blind to God I consider you blind to 95% of what goes on in your head. Not that I am picking on you, it's something we are all blind to.

The subconscious mind can provide everything you need as a believer. Does this mean there is no God? No, but it does mean an actual God is not necessary for a spiritual experience.

 

[Audie]

No not a all. When a jury is out they are presented with evidence from both sides and are weighing said evidence. Far from saying that there is no proof or evidence.

Lets say you are on the jury, and someone is charged
with filing a false police report.

The accused-it is all recorded-called 911 to report a
vast herd of wild buffalo has stampeded through his
house!

The police rush to the scene, and find no buffalo.

The only evidence of the herd is the report of a
a man who called in the complaint. He is still
quite adamant, on the stand, describes the herd
in great detail, the mental stress it caused him.

The prosecution states that the police were
unable to find any buffalo on the scene.
Aerial surveillance fails to detect the herd.
Neighbours reported seeing nothing unusual.
There are no tracks, no "chips", no hairs,
no lingering odor. The petunias have not been
trampled, the carpet is clean.

"Absence of evidence is not..." the defense atty starts
to say. The judge rolls his eyes heavenward, in
mock resignation.

As a jury member, do you suppose you would "stay out",
or, maybe be an "abuffaloist".

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Lets say you are on the jury, and someone is charged
with filing a false police report.

The accused-it is all recorded-called 911 to report a
vast herd of wild buffalo has stampeded through his
house!

The police rush to the scene, and find no buffalo.

The only evidence of the herd is the report of a
a man who called in the complaint. He is still
quite adamant, on the stand, describes the herd
in great detail, the mental stress it caused him.

The prosecution states that the police were
unable to find any buffalo on the scene.
Aerial surveillance fails to detect the herd.
Neighbours reported seeing nothing unusual.
There are no tracks, no "chips", no hairs,
no lingering odor. The petunias have not been
trampled, the carpet is clean.

"Absence of evidence is not..." the defense atty starts
to say. The judge rolls his eyes heavenward, in
mock resignation.

As a jury member, do you suppose you would "stay out",
or, maybe be an "abuffaloist".

I am sure we are all familiar with the argumentum ad ignorantiam