Atheism and Faith

[C1ay]

I usually see some disrespect on both sides of the fence. I personally try to live and let live until some holy rolling bible thumper comes along trying to tell me how wrong I am for not believing. It begs the question of how they can accept as some unquestionable fact that some deity exists with absolutely zero conclusive evidence that is the truth, and why they expect me to believe the same. Heck, IMO there's a lot more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for any God and I don't accept that theory as fact either. Is faith a reasonable expectation of anyone?

[Tormod]

That is very true C1ay, but those that do claim, "there is no god" do so based on faith even though they still are, by their own definition 'atheists'..................Infy

 

Like Bio read from my first post, I was making a point out of claiming "there are no gods" to stir up the discussion, and man did it take off.

 

I've been busy for the past two days and this thread blew up in the meantime. Clay and ughaibu have said basically what I would say.

 

But to the point:

 

I say "there are no gods" with more confidence that anyone can say "there is a god".

 

It has nothing to do with science at all. Let's not fall into the endless trap of the unprovability of negatives.

 

I'll say this once again: to believe in a god is to have faith. To *not* believe in a god is *not* to believe in something else.

 

Okay, so some people have problems accepting that atheists like myself have no faith, and that we don't believe in anything that is faith-based.

 

But that's not a problem for me. Bio did not understand my third point a couple of pages back where I made the case that "I don't care" (instead he ridiculed me, which is mildly humourus).

 

The point was that religion is not something personal for me. I do not have religion. I do not have religious faith. The issue of the existence of gods is as meaningful to me as the number of stars in the universe.

 

Believers would probably be happier if I wrote: "There are no gods in my life". But why bother? There are no flying pigs in my life, either.

 

No, I cannot prove it scientifically. And there is no need to try. Religion is faith-based. The moment God can be proven scientifically, there is no more religion (by necessity).

 

There is no end to this thread. As a non-believer I can keep claiming that I don't believe, and the believers can keep claiming that I do. But it does not solve any issues at all. It does not magically make a god appear, nor does it magically turn an atheist into a believer.

 

I have beliefs that are based on my understanding of the world around me. Those beliefs are not based on religious texts, nor on the principle that parts of me will pay for my sins. They are about other things, such as "there is life elsewhere in the universe", "Einstein was right about lots of things", "there was something we call the big bang". All of these are statements that might eventually be proven scientifically.

 

But I will not join any club that *requires* me to believe any of these things.

 

What is your reason for being an atheist

 

I have no reasons for being an atheist. Or rather, it's like asking what is my reason for being a human being. I did not choose it. I have never had an alternative.

 

Yes, I had atheist parents, and even atheist grandparents (and an atheist wife, although she would probably be better classified as a true agnostic).

 

But when I grew up, almost all of my friends where "religious". It has sometimes made me feel outside of things, but I have never felt a need to "join their club". I always felt that they were plain stupid for believing something that obviously was non-existant.

 

It was not until I attended college that I realized that faith is a very important part of many people's lives. I also realized that it was possible for me to accept that people have faith.

 

It is surprising to me that these same people, who *demand* that I respect their faith and understand their belief, do not understand that I have no religious belief and no faith in religion. I see religion as a political system instigated to rule people and control their lives. I see personal faith as something completely natural and unproblematic, as long as it does not mean that said faith has to be stuffed down my throat.

[infamous]

I usually see some disrespect on both sides of the fence.

I fully agree with that statement C1ay, I just hope that I have not shown any disrespect to anyone based on their belief system. As I stated in my last post, I have no problem with the Atheists world view so long as they don't accuse me of being ignorant for being a believer.

 

I personally try to live and let live until some holy rolling bible thumper comes along trying to tell me how wrong I am for not believing.

Again, I sincerely hope that statements I've made have not left you feeling that way C1ay. Live and let live should be everone's moto.

 

It begs the question of how they can accept as some unquestionable fact that some deity exists with absolutely zero conclusive evidence that is the truth,

For a believer, the evidence is within their spirit. When you declare "with absolutely zero conclusive evidence", for me at least there is sufficient evidence. I realize that proves nothing for you and I am not even going to try and prove it. I don't expect an atheist to accept my belief, I just ask them to allow me to believe.

 

and why they expect me to believe the same.

As I stated in the last paragraph, I do not.................I give you the same freedom to believe however you choose.

 

 

Is faith a reasonable expectation of anyone?

It is for me C1ay, all I ask is you also allow me the freedom to make that choice.....................Infy

[infamous]

 

But to the point:

 

I say "there are no gods" with more confidence that anyone can say "there is a god".

 

I think I now see where the difficulty is arising over this issue. Websters defines faith as: Trust, unquestioning belief, specif. in God. Websters also defines it as: complete trust or confidence, loyality.

 

I can see where an atheist would have trouble accepting, that any opinion they may have formed would constitute faith. This particular stance must obviously come from there aversion to the connection of faith and a relationship with the religious point of view.

 

I think it is understood by many people that the word faith, standing alone, would not necessarily have anything to do with religion. When I use the word, I simply mean that trust or confidence is expressed.

 

I hope this helps you Tormod to understand that when I, or for that matter, many others use the word faith, they may not necessarily be giving it a religious connotation. When I say that you have faith that there is no God, I'm merely stating that you have confidence in this opinion................Infy

[C1ay]

It is for me C1ay, all I ask is you also allow me the freedom to make that choice.....................Infy

Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning of my question (which was not directed at anyone specifically). To clarify, is it reasonable for anyone with religious faith to expect others to have religious faith?

[Saitia]

What is it about atheism that makes you cringe?

The answer-Arrogance.Arrogance? Is this it? Do the believers on this forum think arrogance is the root of the problem with atheism? . . .I would like to hear from some of the theists on this forum their thoughts on the matter. I would especially like to hear from biochemist(I just think he has a way with words.) Infy? Questor? Saitia?(anyone who uses the phrase "fetish of factualized truth") is someone I can learn from.

 

 

 

Hello Edella, et al,

 

Kind thanks for asking for my thoughts; my comments are brief because I'm already getting over-extended with too many threads.

 

I've cringed more than once or twice in response to an atheist's genuinely nasty strain of arrogance, coupled with an abject refusal to even have a respectful dialogue with civility. I know some of that is the result of dealing with obtuse religionists who condemn and threaten them with eternal damnation or other equally arrogant absurdities. But some such blustering defensiveness is also attributable to unreasoned fear; yet what lingers is the feeling there's actually something missing in their "wiring"; the wires that connect them to the indwelling spirit and their soul no longer operate. That concerns me far more than any insults or arrogance.

 

While it's hard to determine just where any particular person is in terms of their choice of a philosophy of living, a few of the atheists I've attempted to talk with seemed to have already sealed off access to their spiritual core, by long denial of the very idea in the first place. How can you possibly discover the reality of spirit when no time or thought are devoted to doing so? Long-standing prejudices, settled ideas, preconceived opinions-- all such things easily push aside the delicate "voice" of spirit. Like many religionists, they have fossilized their "truth" by distilling it into some partial collection of static concepts-- unchanging "facts." Nothing kills truth faster.

 

Another striking thing about the atheists I've encountered is their attitude about love; it's just another somewhat useless emotion to propagate the species. Not surprising when you reflect on the phrase "God is love," but it's a huge and vital chunk of reality that is lost to them. If you know love, you also eventually learn to love truth; you come to recognize it is alive; it can be lived. Knowledge deals with facts; our observations of the material world. But truth transcends the material world when it is lived through love.

 

It seems to me there are some things about consciousness that are inherent. The desire for knowledge, the logic of science; a sense of moral duty; the quest for spiritual values, which includes the ability to recognize the Source of our unique personalities as a Personality as well. These things must be cultivated somewhat equally to create a balanced and mature character; when they aren't, philosophical extremes result, be they insufferable religious fanatics, or atheistic boors.

 

Those who have tasted the spirit reality inside them recognize that the great goal of human existence is to tune into that reality in every way possible; to come to understand why it's in your mind in the first place.

 

Whatever the reasons some humans fail to discover their spirit presence, encountering that often feels like an unecessary tragedy to those who have; it arouses a sense of brotherly compassion in a God-knowing soul that is hard to reconcile without trying to reach them. Depending on our skill in doing so, it's easy to be percieved as an arrogant and self-righteous *sshole.

Gotta go on that note :confused: . . . but thank you Edella and all others for adding to this interesting thread; I hope to revisit it and address some comments by Tormod, and infamous.

 

Cheers to all,

--Saitia

[Tormod]

Depending on our skill in doing so, it's easy to be percieved as an arrogant and self-righteous *sshole.

 

To be frank, your post reeks of self-rightousness.

 

You speak of absolute truths and present a perspective of knowledge as something that can be defined by certain boundaries (and which you claim to know the boundaries of).

 

That is why there is a chasm between religious Truth and scientific fact - and it has very little to do with atheism and faith.

 

Your knowledge would be better defined as the sum of your experience, rote learning, animal instincts, and interpretation. To assign it to some spiritual insight is fallible (how would you know that atheists do not have spiritual experiences?).

 

You display a warped understanding of what science is, and your argument is sadly full of fallacies.

 

a few of the atheists I've attempted to talk with seemed to have already sealed off access to their spiritual core

 

And you present this as what? Evidence? Or a lack of understanding?

[infamous]

Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning of my question (which was not directed at anyone specifically). To clarify, is it reasonable for anyone with religious faith to expect others to have religious faith?

Honestly, no; It is a personal belief and I do not have the right to expect others to believe just because I do. I would ask for the same consideration from the nonbeliever..................Infy

[C1ay]

It is a personal belief and I do not have the right to expect others to believe just because I do.

That's basically the same "live and let live" that I live by. Now if everyone else would adopt that we'd all be a bit better off.

[Eclogite]

Three points, related only by their connection with this thread.

 

Point 1: Saitia offered a post critical of atheists' attitudes. Tormod responded thus:

To be frank, your post reeks of self-rightousness.

That was a much clearer and concise response than the one I was formulating as I read Saitia's attack.

 

Point 2:In relation to the matter of belief and respect, Infamous remarked:

I have no problem with anyone's belief system, atheist or otherwise. What sets me off is anyone suggesting that anyone that believes in God is somehow less intelligent or less analytical with their thought processes

I half agree. I take the elitist, patronising view that believing in God, or not believing in God, are both equally dumb, based as they are on a poor appreciation of the evidence (or lack of it), whilst employing sub-standard reasoning systems (the human brain).:shrug:

 

Point 3:This remark always surprises me. I shall paraphrase it, as I cannot recall who actually posted it this time around: "Well, once we die we shall find out of there is God or not, and if there isn't we just won't know."

 

This equates the existence of God with the reality of life after death. This seems to me a bizarre take on the matter. There is surely a matrix of possibilities:

God..... Life After Death

No God.... Life After Death

God......No Life After Death

No God.......No Life After Death

[HydrogenBond]

There are many things in physics that are believed by scientific aethiests with faith. Show me another dimension in space/time and I will believe. Until then this belief is based on faith just like God. In that respect, I am an aethiest with respect to some of scientific aethiest's faithful beliefs.

 

One may point to the predictions of the math or a tiny data tidbit that appears to suggest other dimesnions but the religion can provide as much nontangible evidence. Ironically, the religious faithful have postulated other dimensions or parallel universes, such as heaven. Yet only this original model is considered absurd by the scientific aeithiest. Maybe the distinction for the aeithist might be that only matter/energy can exist in other dimensions or within all parallel universes but not higher life.

[ughaibu]

So far the atheist position has been explored by several posters, but nobody has explained why they believe in god. This is odd, as the lack of belief in an imaginary concept wouldn't seem to need any explanation, whereas holding a belief about an imaginary concept involves a constructive process amenable to explanation.

Questor's view seems along the lines of 'if I cant explain it otherwise, why not impute it to god?' My reply would be 'why god? If you are employing your imagination, you can explain things however you choose'.

Infamous doubts that atheists would understand his "proofs", well, I'd like the chance to see if I can understand before someone else draws conclusions about the limits of my capability.

Saitia has some story about balancing human spiritual nature that, basically, doesn't appear to mean much.

None of this is an exploration of the 'why' of belief, and, for me particularly, I'd like to know why a specific set of beliefs? I can understand that religions developed as part of their culture, relevant to the society, it's economics and lifestyle, but most believers seem to subscribe to religions of no immediate cultural relevance. If the belief stems from ancient writings, how does the believer decide that one set of writings is believable but all the others are not? If religious people believe all religions are equally true, I can understand it, otherwise. . . ?

A couple of stories: one time I heard a guy explain his adopting of religion because as a teenager he "was physically sick at the thought of death", he took up religion as something like psychotherapy.

In Indonesia the law says (said?) every Indonesian, with the exception of Balinese and Torajans, must believe in one god chosen from any one of five religions presented by the government.

What struck me about these stories was that the belief seems to be less one of conviction, than a voluntary act, a decision to believe. As such, I can understand that the contents of the belief wouldn't be very important, they'd be secondary to the act of belief itself. If it is the belief in itself that is important, this would clear up my confusion as to why people have specific beliefs, it would also answer Biochemist's question as to why proof is unnecessary. However, it would leave me puzzled as to why believers tend to insist on the reality of the things that they believe.

[Saitia]

Hello Bio,

 

I give up. Can somebody else help me here?

Probably not.

That never stops a fool from rushing in, however.:)

First, forgo using the word "God" when talking with an atheist.

However they choose to understand the word, it is fraught with so much baggage--deserved or not-- you'll rarely get beyond it before wanting to give up.

Ideally you can use the approach of science-- examine reality; observe everything you can about it; share those observations. It won't do much with those who are too young in science or too ignorant in religion, but to those who relish mystery and pursue truth with insatiable appetite, ( a certain raccoon comes to mind) you will find the way. Many scientists who used that method still found the Divine realm of reality in the material world: "The worldview now emerging from modern science is an ecological view, and ecological awareness at its deepest level is spiritual or religious awareness." --Fritjof Capra, Physicist. Einstein knew it too: "I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research."

 

Originally Posted by ughaibu:

"I said that god has never been researched, that is a god has never been examined, so the nature or symptoms of god are unknown. How has a god been researched/examined? What are the symptoms by which you would be able to recognise a god?"

 

Ughaibu wants to know how to recognize the "symptoms" of the divine? Look within yourself.

You live inside the most important biological specimen you can know; if you're willing you can learn more things about yourself that reveal the symptoms you seek than any amount of observation of other specimens.

 

 

--Saitia

[HydrogenBond]

That is a good point. Most science data is collective from the outside looking in. This is fine for rocks and stars but the psyche is different. Most of the good stuff goes on inside and is often consciously or unconsciously hidden from the world and each other. This is an unexplored frontier where first hand data can be collected.

 

Let me give an example, one walks into a friend's house and their new dog is pacing the floor looking agitated. One may interpret that as a sign of aggression. But if one went into the dog's head, he may just need to use the bathroom but doesn't want to miss the new company. Judging the behavior only on the outside would be off the base.

 

If we put humans in a cage surrounded by huge sharp people from another planet, they would conclude that humans like to weep and wail and gather in tight groups in the cornter. If they went into our head they would realize we were afraid of being eaten or used for med experiments.

 

I will give one more example, you meet someone on the street with a dog. The dog becomes agressive. One may conclude it is an agressive dog. If we go inside everyone's head, the owner may feel anxiety. The dog senses the anxiety and is being aggressive only for protection, not because it is a mean dog. The superfiscial data can be way off the mark.

 

Getting back to the topic of faith, the charisma of faith often begins with some type of inner feeling or experience. If one does not get into the head this whole side of the data would be lost. Maybe the spiritual stuff occurs within the head and this where the proof or lack of proof lie.

[Saitia]

To be frank, your post reeks of self-rightousness.

 

Hello Tormod,

You may call it being "frank," but frankly,;) you're passing a judgment on my words that's every bit as "self-righteous" as you claim my post was. Your use of the word "reek" for instance-- "a foul unpleasant stink"-- is precisely indicative of the self-righteous arrogance I'm talking about in my previous experience with atheists; it's simply rude, offensive, and derogatory, but then you, as an administrator and senior editor of this forum are aware that it is, aren't you? Or are you only able to imagine it in those with whom you differ?:)

 

You speak of absolute truths and present a perspective of knowledge as something that can be defined by certain boundaries (and which you claim to know the boundaries of).

 

You make personal assumptions of what I said as being "absolute"-- but fail to quote it or even allude to anything specific, so it can't be fairly examined by anyone. I have made no "absolute" statements about anything, including the boundaries of knowledge. If you think I have, quote them.

 

That is why there is a chasm between religious Truth and scientific fact - and it has very little to do with atheism and faith.

 

There is a chasm between the facts of science and religious truth for many reasons, arguably the most important reason being they are different realms of universe reality, and the perceptions of the senses of the "atheist" and the personal religious experience of the religionist are consummately indicative of that difference.

 

All perceptions-- whether born of the senses or the soul-- are simply experiences in the consciousness of individuals. Those who attack faith on the grounds it is not proof of anything are overlooking the fact that there's no proof their own personal experiences (of someone else's truth) are any more valid than anyone else's.

 

But our difficulty in arriving at a more harmonious understanding between science and religion is due to our general ignorance of this intervening "chasm" between matter and spirit. I also think it's reasonable to expect there's an angle of approach to it that effectively erases all divergence between the findings of science and the functioning of spirit. Our attempts at this angle so far have only produced a confusing metaphysics.

 

Many recognize the desirability of having some way of reconciling the tension of the widely separated domains of science and religion; and metaphysics is the result of our attempts to span this chasm. Reason is the technique of science; faith is the insight technique of religion; metaphysics becomes the attempted technique of the intervening level. Metaphysics must use knowledge for its substance, and faith-insight for its essence. Without the essence of faith insight, knowledge is little more than a peculiar form of protoplasmic memory material.

 

 

Your knowledge would be better defined as the sum of your experience, rote learning, animal instincts, and interpretation. To assign it to some spiritual insight is fallible[/Quote]

 

That may certainly be true for your approach to knowledge, Tormod; but not mine. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know; that is true knowledge. And I know, just as Einstein knew, that imagination is more powerful than knowledge; and I would add, so is truth; but it is the experience of truth which "assigns" its reality as spiritual insight; those who know it also know it would be wrong to assign it to "animal instinct" or some other lesser function of mind.

 

(how would you know that atheists do not have spiritual experiences?).

 

That's what they tell me.

 

 

 

You display a warped understanding of what science is, and your argument is sadly full of fallacies.

 

"Warped" according to your personal standard of what science is?

Or some universally agreed upon standard you know of?

 

. . .and your argument is sadly full of fallacies.

 

Edella asked for thoughts on whether "arrogance" was an issue— the root of the problem— when dealing with atheists. I agree that it is a problem, and I went on to explain what I thought was the root problem; but not every response to this forum needs to be an "argument," nor does every opinion expressed become a "fallacy" because it differs from some opinion you may hold.

 

 

--Saitia

 

 

 

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. . . He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead." —A. Einstein

[Edella]

Without the essence of faith insight, knowledge is little more than a peculiar form of protoplasmic memory material.

 

Wow! I must have read that twenty times,and I still don't know what it means.What is the"essence of faith insight?"Why can't(shouldn't) knowledge be "little more than a peculiar form of protoplasmic memory material?"If that's what it is.Where does"the essence of faith insight" come in to play with ones knowledge of say, the internal combustion engine?Perhaps I'm taking the sentence out of context,but it seems it can stand alone.

 

...one walks into a friend's house and their new dog is pacing the floor looking agitated. One may interpret that as a sign of aggression. But if one went into the dog's head, he may just need to use the bathroom but doesn't want to miss the new company. Judging the behavior only on the outside would be off the base.

 

 

This interpretation of the dog's behavior would simply be wrong.Another person,an animal behaviorist for instance,might reach the correct conclusion from the same vantage point(outside the dog's head),point being it is a matter of expertise.I'm not sure how we can get into the dog's head.

 

 

...humans in a cage surrounded by huge sharp people from another planet

 

Those huge sharp people are at it again?Damn them!:cup:

 

 

So far the atheist position has been explored by several posters, but nobody has explained why they believe in god

 

Anyone?

[Rsade]

This is flawed logic. I accept the logic of the scientific method, which means that I can assume that what best describes the world is *currently* a reasonable thing to place my bets on. I don't need to "believe" that there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I *know* there is no planet there.

 

 

I beg to differ it is your logic that seems flawed to me Tormod. The universe exists. It had a beginning (according to your science dudes, and religious dudes as well) . Nothing can begin to exist without a cause!

 

The universe began. It had a cause. That cause was something. "It" could not be "nothing" because something cannot come from nothing and without a cause. Whew. What a word mess. A hurling of words so to speak. Word vomit. I could do better but my brain is fried now, I havent even had a toddy yet....ahhhh...

 

This is a very old philosophical argument that hasn't been surmounted yet, I welcome your comments.

 

PS there is only a probability that there is no planet between earth and Mars. Nothing is 100% certain, nothing in this universe, anyway.