Why Atheists Don’t Really Exist

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well no one likes to admit, or even consider the possibility, that their most cherished beliefs might be wrong. But I have a suspicion that the more tightly a person clings to their particular dogma, the less confident they are likely to be deep down, about the integrity of it’s foundations.

For me personally, there are beliefs, opinions, philosophies, convictions etc, and then there is God. I have personally found the most reliable of these things to be God, though perhaps paradoxically, I really don’t understand what God is. That’s just what works for me. Other people rely on other means of navigating the world, and that’s okay. But there are those atheists who appear genuinely offended that anyone should rely on a God of their understanding to get them through the day; why that is, I do not know.

I get it. Now again we use different conceptual systems, but we end the same place though we are not in the same place. Go figure.

 

[Valjean]

Presumably you have noticed that there is a subset of atheists on this forum, outside in the real world, and in public life, whose interest in matters of religion borders on obsession?

I haven't noticed any such thing. Religious people here on Religious Forums make statements and raise questions.
Those with questions, objections or alternative viewpoints respond. That's what forums are about.

Where are you seeing obsession? Claims, theology, apologetics, and evidence come up over and over again, and we give the same responses, over and over. Is this obsession, or persistence?

There is a saying in some religious circles that God loves atheists because they talk about Him far more often than believers do. I do not consider you to fall in this category btw., but maybe you will recognise the type I am referring to. Do you have some observation to make about what drives a person who does not believe in God, to invest considerable time and energy in repeatedly expressing belligerent public denial?

Normally we only talk about Him when someone else brings up the subject. RF is pretty much the only place I ever discuss atheism. That is, after all, what RF is for.
I don't think anyone outside of RF knows my theological or philosophical views. It's not something I normally talk about. It never comes up.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I haven't noticed any such thing. Religious people here on Religious Forums make statements and raise questions.
Those with questions, objections or alternative viewpoints respond. That's what forums are about.

Where are you seeing obsession? Claims, theology, apologetics, and evidence come up over and over again, and we give the same responses, over and over. Is this obsession, or persistence?

Normally we only talk about Him when someone else brings up the subject. RF is pretty much the only place I ever discuss atheism. That is, after all, what RF is for.
I don't think anyone outside of RF knows my theological or philosophical views. It's not something I normally talk about. It never comes up.

Can you do all of your life with objective reason and logic?

 

[Valjean]

Well no one likes to admit, or even consider the possibility, that their most cherished beliefs might be wrong. But I have a suspicion that the more tightly a person clings to their particular dogma, the less confident they are likely to be deep down, about the integrity of it’s foundations.

No one?
Nothing excites a scientist quite as much as something that doesn't seem to make sense, or that appears to violate his understanding of how things work.

For me personally, there are beliefs, opinions, philosophies, convictions etc, and then there is God. I have personally found the most reliable of these things to be God, though perhaps paradoxically, I really don’t understand what God is.

Reliable in what way?

That’s just what works for me. Other people rely on other means of navigating the world, and that’s okay. But there are those atheists who appear genuinely offended that anyone should rely on a God of their understanding to get them through the day; why that is, I do not know.

"Works?" "Navigating the world?" We seem to have a different opinion of what theology is, or what its function is.

Do you want to be comfortable, well adjusted, happy, and have strong social support and friends -- or do you want to be ontologically right?
Is religion a psychotherapeutic modality, or an understanding of physical reality?

I'm not so much offended as perplexed, though sometimes it is annoying when theists make the same invalid claims or factual errors over and over again, and seem to ignore our pointing this out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Do you want to be comfortable, well adjusted, happy, and have strong social support and friends -- or do you want to be ontologically right?
Is religion a psychotherapeutic modality, or an understanding of physical reality?

I'm not so much offended as perplexed, though sometimes it is annoying when theists make the same invalid claims or factual errors over and over again, and seem to ignore our pointing this out.

That is an emotion. And I do that differently in effect for how to do that. You are such a normie.
And all religion is not theism. So you are wrong, now learn from that.

 

[Valjean]

Can you do all of your life with objective reason and logic?

I could, I suppose, but I don't.
Reason and logic are tools. I use them when such tools are needed and apply.

 

[Valjean]

That is an emotion. And I do that differently in effect for how to do that. You are such a normie.

??? -- not following. Did you think I was Mr. Spock?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I could, I suppose, but I don't.
Reason and logic are tools. I use them when such tools are needed and apply.

Needed is an emotion in you and sometimes some people confuse need with want.
The question is if reason and logic are universal tools or limited.
I can ask questions too and challenge your understanding.

So you could, then do it or find out if you can or can't

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

??? -- not following. Did you think I was Mr. Spock?

No, you are a normie. You take your individual understanding of how to cope as a human as the standard for all humans.
We are playing psychology now and not hard science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I haven't noticed any such thing. Religious people here on Religious Forums make statements and raise questions.
Those with questions, objections or alternative viewpoints respond. That's what forums are about.

Where are you seeing obsession? Claims, theology, apologetics, and evidence come up over and over again, and we give the same responses, over and over. Is this obsession, or persistence?

Normally we only talk about Him when someone else brings up the subject. RF is pretty much the only place I ever discuss atheism. That is, after all, what RF is for.
I don't think anyone outside of RF knows my theological or philosophical views. It's not something I normally talk about. It never comes up.

Okay, so you don't see what I see. Which is fair enough I suppose.

Although having the same circuitous conversations time and time again does smack of obsession, yes. Especially when, as far as I can see, both sides become increasingly entrenched in their positions the longer the conversations go on for. What can anyone possibly get out of that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, so you don't see what I see. Which is fair enough I suppose.

Although having the same circuitous conversations time and time again does smack of obsession, yes. Especially when, as far as I can see, both sides become increasingly entrenched in their positions the longer the conversations go on for. What can anyone possibly get out of that?

Well, I am right and you are so wrong that you don't even can have a happy life. Both sides use that one and then there are us as the 3rd kind who get maybe it is bit more complex.
Try to watch for that one. It always comes up in the end. We are not really fighting over what the world is, but what the meaning of it all is.

 

[Valjean]

Okay, so you don't see what I see. Which is fair enough I suppose.

Although having the same circuitous conversations time and time again does smack of obsession, yes. Especially when, as far as I can see, both sides become increasingly entrenched in their positions the longer the conversations go on for. What can anyone possibly get out of that?

I see lots of things that I can't rationally defend. I may believe them, but I don't promote them as true or valid, and I criticise anyone who might agree with me.

When someone claims the flood or the exodus were facts, or makes invalid arguments like irreducible complexity/watchmakers arguments, or factual misrepresentations of scientific claims, we respond. Same claim, non sequitur, or invalid argument, same reply. Come up with some new arguments or claims and we'll answer with new responses.
Evidently some posters aren't reading or understanding our explanations.

 

[Valjean]

Well, I am right and you are so wrong that you don't even can have a happy life. Both sides use that one and then there are us as the 3rd kind who get maybe it is bit more complex.
Try to watch for that one. It always comes up in the end. We are not really fighting over what the world is, but what the meaning of it all is.

Truth/reality is not a tool. It's not supposed to do anything or benefit us. It just is.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No one?
Nothing excites a scientist quite as much as something that doesn't seem to make sense, or that appears to violate his understanding of how things work.

Reliable in what way?

"Works?" "Navigating the world?" We seem to have a different opinion of what theology is, or what its function is.

Do you want to be comfortable, well adjusted, happy, and have strong social support and friends -- or do you want to be ontologically right?
Is religion a psychotherapeutic modality, or an understanding of physical reality?

I'm not so much offended as perplexed, though sometimes it is annoying when theists make the same invalid claims or factual errors over and over again, and seem to ignore our pointing this out.

Scientific methodology notwithstanding, scientists themselves are human, and in practice often just as likely to cling tenaciously to their pet theories as any other class of humanity.

Reliable in the sense of being something one can rely on for tangible, effective support in times of need.

What do you think the function of theology is? I don't look to religion to provide an explanation of the workings of the natural world; we have the natural sciences for that, and I am certainly not anti-science. Perhaps because you're American, you assume that most religious people are Bible literalists; this is a cultural anomaly peculiar to your continent, which is most assuredly not the centre of the world.

 

[Audie]

Perhaps RF is not a representative cross-section of atheists.

I hope the Christians are not representative

 

[Audie]

Okay, so you don't see what I see. Which is fair enough I suppose.

Although having the same circuitous conversations time and time again does smack of obsession, yes. Especially when, as far as I can see, both sides become increasingly entrenched in their positions the longer the conversations go on for. What can anyone possibly get out of that?

So you don't really know what the word
" obsession" means

 

[Revoltingest]

How many hours, collectively, do you think all these atheists have invested in a religious forum? I do wonder myself, what proportion of atheists spend that amount of time obsessing about a God they claim not to believe in.

We don't obsess over your god.
We're here for you.
(You're more interesting.)

 

[viole]

Scientific methodology notwithstanding, scientists themselves are human, and in practice often just as likely to cling tenaciously to their pet theories as any other class of humanity.

Until someone finds counter evidence. Then those tenacious ideas die. If it happened with the most revered theory in history, Newton gravitation, or classical mechanics, then it can happen to any of them. All they need to die is counter-evidence. No matter how beautiful, respected, tenacious it is, one center-example and it is dead.

And the fact that scientists are human is actually an advantage. Scientists die. Especially the old ones sticking to the old theory for some personal/irrational reason.

What do you think the function of theology is?

Theology is to God, what leprechaunology would be to leprechauns. Probably, it has been invented in order to create an aura of importance and intellectual philosophy so that people do not laugh straight away to its claims.

Ciao

- viole

 

[RestlessSoul]

^^^ mention belligerent atheists, and three turn up at once

Which is a joke btw. I know how sensitive some of you are

 

[Revoltingest]

^^^ mention belligerent atheists, and three turn up at once

Admit it...you'd be disappointed if I stayed away.
Without a foil, believers wouldn't find RF interesting.