Why don't atheists change faiths very often?

[Guy Threepwood]

I can't help but wonder what is it that you call atheism. I'm fairly certain that I have not met that.

I defined it like most other atheists when I was one- a lack of belief in deities etc.


And If I wanted to, I could define my belief now in the negative also: I have no belief, I make no assertions, I simply lack belief in naturalistic/ materialistic explanations for the universe. (Therefore the obvious alternative is the default truth, and the burden of proof lies entirely on the other side..)

Only I have no reason to do that now, I am comfortable defending my own beliefs on their own merits

 

[LuisDantas]

I defined it like most other atheists when I was one- a lack of belief in deities etc.

Nah, that I know well. What you describe is something else entirely, if it exists at all.

And If I wanted to, I could define my belief now in the negative also: I have no belief, I make no assertions, I simply lack belief in naturalistic/ materialistic explanations for the universe. (Therefore the obvious alternative is the default truth, and the burden of proof lies entirely on the other side..)

Only I have no reason to do that now, I am comfortable defending my own beliefs on their own merits

Best of luck.

 

[Nakosis]

/from another thread

Assuming atheists don't change to another faith very often, why is this?

I'd imagine atheist change their beliefs quite often. Something I chose to believe is true, I like to have as much evidence for as possible. Sometimes the evidence shows that my belief is wrong, so it becomes necessary, because of evidence to change that belief.

In fact I'd assume atheists change their beliefs more often since they rely on evidence and not faith. I mean we are kind of force to whereas religious folks can ignore evidence.

 

[columbus]

You can try it for yourself on any babies in your family.

I am utterly confident that the Qur'an is a poetry collection from 7th century Arabic culture. I doubt that it was all written by Muhammad, much less God. I think it is the parts that served the ambitions of Muhammad's followers. And it's in an ancient language that I don't know a word of. It's ethics and world view is primitive, to be charitable about it.

However, I have heard it recited by talented and trained vocalists at a mosque. It is extremely beautiful. Lyrical and melodic, you don't have to believe, or even understand, the words to find it so. I do think it a top notch work of musical art.
But so is Handel's Messiah and a host of other pieces inspired by various religious fervors. Of all the art forms, music seems to be the best suited for the purpose of expressing our highest aspirations.

But that doesn't mean it's from God or has some magical knowledge about it.
Just sayin'.
Tom

 

[Jumi]

There is your answer.

A wrong or short-sighted answer, since atheists can have a religion or faith like Buddhism.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You can try it for yourself on any babies in your family.

You might be right on babies liking voices, but it would very much also depend on the words being used:

No-- it very much DOES NOT matter in the slightest--- you do not even need words at all-- nonsensical babbling works equally well!

What does matter to 100%? Is the tone of voice. Babies are born with instinctive understanding of voice tone.

All of this is really, really old stuff-- Behavioral Psychologists have been observing babies since the modern era, and none of your claims of "knew god before" hold up under rigorous scrutiny.


Edit: "with" not "in".... ugg... I need to proof-read before posting...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Then where is the test? We might as well all be born straight in Heaven.

Indeed-- just as all aborted fetuses are said to do*.

And? If this is at all accurate? We'd all be much better off simply going straight to heaven, right?

No chance for sin-- no chance to mess up-- no chance for infinite torture at the hands of a terror-god.

Bottom line: Why on EARTH would an ALL-KNOWNG GOD, need..... testing?





* if that is accurate, babes are far better off being aborted-- they go straight to heaven, no chance of screwups. Funny, everytime I point this out? Theists who are against abortion get all angry for some strange reason. I'm simply pointing out a logical conclusion of their own beliefs. I don't see why that bothers them so much..

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'd imagine atheist change their beliefs quite often. Something I chose to believe is true, I like to have as much evidence for as possible. Sometimes the evidence shows that my belief is wrong, so it becomes necessary, because of evidence to change that belief.

In fact I'd assume atheists change their beliefs more often since they rely on evidence and not faith. I mean we are kind of force to whereas religious folks can ignore evidence.

Yes, what you say is true, for a certain value of "belief".

Which, I have to point out, is rather different from what a theist typically means by "belief".

For example: do I 'believe' in chairs?

Well, yes-- I do have 'faith' that if I sit on a chair do I check if the chair will hold me up, or if it's an illusion? Not typically-- most of the time, I simply sit-- trusting in my 'chair faith' that I won't take a prat-fall.

But that 'faith' could change, if I was exposed to a series of rickity or pranked chairs-- ones that did dump me onto the floor.

I would change my 'chair-faith' to match the new experience/evidence.

That is the principle difference: 'Faith' that is based on Evidence? Is subject to change, if the evidence changes.

It's more akin to Trust -- and as the saying goes, Trust must be Earned.

Which is why I often say, "I do not have any faith". Sometimes, I say the whole thing:

"I do not have any faith, not how you [theists] mean it."

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, what you say is true, for a certain value of "belief".

Which, I have to point out, is rather different from what a theist typically means by "belief".

I understand. I was just answering for myself, kind of disregarding the mistaken context of the OP.

 

[1robin]

/from another thread

Assuming atheists don't change to another faith very often, why is this?

That is like asking why don't vegetarians change which red meat they that often? Or why a teetotaler doesn't switch wine that often?

 

[Desert Snake]

That is like asking why don't vegetarians change which red meat they that often? Or why a teetotaler doesn't switch wine that often?

No, it isn't.

Which "god"are you worshipping?

 

[1robin]

I understand. I was just answering for myself, kind of disregarding the mistaken context of the OP.

Alcohol sure has had a great effect on the earth so far.

 

[Nakosis]

Faith. ....

I can think of a dozen better ways to test that "suit" other than wearing it and personally jumping off the Eiffel Tower.

That kind of faith was literally self-destructive.

 

[Nakosis]

Alcohol sure has had a great effect on the earth so far.

Well, to be fair, I suppose no worse than religion.

 

[Kapalika]

These joke threads are getting out of hand... oh wait, this is in the debates section...

Every religious person started out as an atheist.

Isn't that about as useful as saying my cat is an atheist? Same as no one is born Christian or communist or whatever no one is born an atheist. You can't become an atheist in any meaningful sense until you are first aware of and understand the concept of a god.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Isn't that about as useful as saying my cat is an atheist?

And you would be accurate: All cats are atheists, by definition.

And again, by definition, a toaster oven is an atheist. So are rocks (in spite of the very silly bible's claims that if nothing else would worship god, that he would command rocks to worship him instead. Some believers see this as a credit to god's power. I see it as an indication of how narcisstic the bible's god is.)

The basic definition of 'atheist' is 'without faith in gods'.

Thus, pretty much every animate and in-animate object in the universe qualifies.

As do (at last count) approximately 20% of the world's humans.

And all of the world's animals... do you see any animal-constructed churches/cathedrals/synogogs/mosques? No?

There you go: they are all atheists. Smarter in many ways than we are.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

. You can't become an atheist in any meaningful sense until you are first aware of and understand the concept of a god.

100% false. Do I need to "understand" unicorns, to NOT believe they are real? No. I don't even need to know about unicorns...

Awareness of the very false claims of "god" that all religious suffer from, is not a requirement to NOT believe in any of them.

Do YOU believe in Jibbers Crabst? No? So you are an atheist with respect to the crustation god Jibbers Crabst.

Oh, and I did not just make that up.... Jibbers Crabst is very real, according to some:

https://www.facebook.com/JibbersCrabst/

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't that about as useful as saying my cat is an atheist?

If you don't find it useful, it isn't true?

Same as no one is born Christian or communist or whatever no one is born an atheist.

Anyone who doesn't believe in any gods is an atheist. Any other definition ends up descending into ridiculousness quickly and doesn't reflect how the term is actually used.

You can't become an atheist in any meaningful sense until you are first aware of and understand the concept of a god.

What's "the concept of a god"? Does such a thing even exist?

 

[LuisDantas]

These joke threads are getting out of hand... oh wait, this is in the debates section...



Isn't that about as useful as saying my cat is an atheist? Same as no one is born Christian or communist or whatever no one is born an atheist. You can't become an atheist in any meaningful sense until you are first aware of and understand the concept of a god.

Word has it that some people actually believe that all people are somehow born theistic.

 

[Kapalika]

100% false. Do I need to "understand" unicorns, to NOT believe they are real? No. I don't even need to know about unicorns...

Awareness of the very false claims of "god" that all religious suffer from, is not a requirement to NOT believe in any of them.

Do YOU believe in Jibbers Crabst? No? So you are an atheist with respect to the crustation god Jibbers Crabst.

Oh, and I did not just make that up.... Jibbers Crabst is very real, according to some:

Jibbers Crabst

You can't use unicorns as an example because you are aware of the concept.

To "not believe" in an active sense, YES you do need to know what a unicorn is. My point was that the argument is purely semantical.

I wasn't an atheist in respect to Jibbers Crabst until you told me about him 5 minutes ago. So I am now, but I couldn't of disbelieved in his existence until someone proposed he existed.

If you wanted to argue that I was before I ever heard of Jibbers Crabst, then you would have to also logically argue that I'm an atheist in respect to literally an infinite number of other possible things that no one has thought of yet.

If you don't find it useful, it isn't true?

Anyone who doesn't believe in any gods is an atheist. Any other definition ends up descending into ridiculousness quickly and doesn't reflect how the term is actually used.

Useful and true are two different things. What use is it to say that a cat is an atheist? An adult cat has a brain capacity above that of a newborn... so why say someone is born an atheist anymore than a cat is an atheist?

Also you talk about how the term is used but argue that my cat is indeed an atheist. No one calls their cat an atheist, and that's pretty ridiculous to me to for anyone to claim my cat even has a concept of atheism or theism.

I think it's ridiculous to say anyone is born as anything indicating belief or disbelief. I actually am more or less saying what Richard Dawkins said on the subject but extended it a hair further:

“A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This latter nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent piece of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A child who is told she is a 'child of Muslim parents' will immediately realize that religion is something for her to choose -or reject- when she becomes old enough to do so.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

source: A quote from The God Delusion

I agree with Dawkins, but I also realized I can't be logically consistent about it and label such a person as an atheist either until they can understand what "atheist" means. Until that time I'd consider them just them, not burdened by labels. He is very right however that no one is born a theist, and can only become a theist later in life. But I'd argue the same for atheism.

Why would you want to label so many things an atheist anyways? Sure, semantically it's correct, but that isn't really an argument for or against atheism.

If no one ever believed in God or gods or whatever, like no one ever thought of the concept, atheism wouldn't exist, because there wouldn't be anything to define the label. We would just be people. That's what it's like for a being that doesn't know what atheism or theism is, just themselves.

What's "the concept of a god"? Does such a thing even exist?

What the heck are you trying to imply or say? I can't tell if you are being serious or just trying to find more to disagree with? Of course there are concepts of god(s). Perhaps I should of said "a concept of a god" but I was trying to avoid implying either monotheism, polytheism or any other theism, so I thought my original wording was the most neutral.

----------

I'm not much for arguing semantics so I won't have anything to debate further but feel free to let me know if I misunderstood your positions. It seems to me you guys are seeing these categorical labels as hard literal definitions, almost as if they exist on their own. I see labels as contextual tools meant to convey someone's thought on a subject. So to me, if you are not capable of having a thought about it, you can't be either this or that. I see the value in labeling something not capable of a thought as useful to others if it really is useful. For example "this thing is rough, slippery ect" but I can't think of any meaningful way to say that my cat is an atheist even if it's true according to so some literal semantic definitions.

Though, it seems some definitions do require it to be a person:

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

So according to your guy's line of thinking, many definitions wouldn't make my cat an atheist. My cat isn't a person.