Atheists - is there anything about faith that appeals to you, would you like to believe?

[Italiangreyhound]

Hi, I've been reading a few threads and I've heard atheists say stuff in the past about belief in God. Stuff like they don't believe in God but they would like to or they can see why it would maybe give peace or would be nice etc. I am just curious how atheists feel a bout this and if they want to talk about it?

I am a Christian, I hope I am an open and tolerant person and I would not want to cause offence. I am just curious, as we come into Easter if anyone wants to chat about this.

If not, may I wish you a peaceful and happy Easter, even if all it means to you is some chocolate eggs.

Greencolorpack-you said there ere certain things you didn't like about secularism. You were asked what those things are- a simple enough question, but you won't answer. That is very, very odd.

Hi Ellie thank you for your thoughts. You said that all and any suffering has a "reason" and will come good in the end. That's not how I see faith. I hate suffering and think we are called on (if I can put it that way) to make people's lives better and not to perpetrate suffering, if that makes sense. There is a sense that (for me) part of faith is that in the end things will come good, but that in no way excuses suffering or allows us to cause it. I know many Christians who work in places to provide medical care etc or teach in schools etc in places overseas where they are needed because they want to make people's lives better. There are a lot of Bible verses about justice but I won't get onto quotting them because there are also a lot of things in the Bible I don't understand and I guess I would say that for me it is what people do which really explains their faith.

You also said It's asking people to stop reasoning and just believe... And also, personally, I don't think my faith requires me to stop reasoning.

I am just not sure how to explain this to you in a way that makes sense (assuming you would be interested in my doing that, of course you may not, so feel free to ignore of course!). You are assuming because the actual belief in God requires faith and not logic that there is no logic involved. Is that right? For me the faith part came by critically evaluating what I was told, and emotionally connecting to it. The best example I would give is a man saying he loves me and me believing him. I would have no evidence for this, but there might be hints in how he treated me/behaved around me etc. If he ran into a burning building/over a cliff for me etc, to save me and being injured or even losing his life for me, would that prove it for me? Maybe yes, it would, but still not sure that is evidence that would satify a scientist. So once I am convinced he loves me, (assuming here he did not lose his life) the rest of our life together is us working out what that love means, and that does require thinking. I know it won't make much sense and you don't need to believe me, but it does need thinking. I don;t just accept what I am told by the person in the pulpitt, the person in the dog collar etc etc.

Wickipeida doesn't seem to define Critical thinking as something that can be exclused from religious debate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Yes, there was a good looking curate in my past too Ellie! It is lovely to hear of the bits you like. (I mean this genuinely, I always try and say what I mean.)

I think if green does not want to talk about what she thinks about secularism she should be at liberty not to do so.

Why not ask me what I think about secularism?

She is of course free not to talk about anything she doesn't want to. But bearing in mind she raised the subject , in the circumstances conclusions will be drawn.

good post Italiangreyhound.

OK, Italiangreyhound- what possible reason can there be for not liking secularism?

I don't like the analogy of love that always gets used. It's not the same at all. When someone tells you they love you, that in itself doesn't mean a lot, in fact, it's pretty difficult to know for sure if anyone ever loves you, even if you could actually define what love is. There are demonstrable actions one could take to prove that they would anything (or at least almost anything) for you. If that satisfies your definition of love then that would be evidence. One could have their brain monitored to demonstrate specific neural responses to you which are known to relate to attachment, this could satisfy a different or extended definition of love. But the term 'love' itself is a human invention with as much ambiguity as the term 'god' so before you answer questions on it, you must be able to define what you mean by it.

Chances are that what we perceive as love is actually more to do with a mutually beneficial partnership with another human. Our brains are geared towards making emotional attachments with people who can extend our existence and encourage dopamine release.

Pedro you sound like an incurable romantic! Lol

Yes, I agree Pedro: not least because 'love' (that is, romantic love in particular) is not a magic that works outside of people's volition. Person A can love person B very much, but person B might not reciprocate, might even want to take out restraining orders against person A. Person A's feelings of love may be powerful and sincere, but that still doesn't put person B under any obligation.

However, person B exists. (On the whole... let's not go down the side alley of nutters who marry cuddly toys etc). A person's relationship with a god is all in the person's head.

Don't get me wrong green just because I look at things objectively doesn't mean I'm incapable of romantic gestures!

I don't always analyse everything like that, only when I need to actually understand what's going on!

Also why would a belief system flourish that is based on lies, when telling the truth is the basis for Christianity? Why would a religion based on truth be spread by people who were knowingly lying about the person at its centre? It wouldn't make sense.

Sorry, got to butt in here.

Of course it makes sense. have you not heard of the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades? Rome forced most of Europe into Christianity. The Slaves and Native americans were forced into Christianity in the States (if I am not mistaken). Believe of Die.... Well lots of people would suddenly believe.

Just as lots of North Koreans support the Supreme Leader... They have to or they die.

Forcing people to believe something and then indoctrinating their children does not prove anything.

It has nothing to do with faith.

Agree AfricanExport.

Actually even 'normal' evangelicals (without guns / torture to back them up) are pretty scary - playing on people's loneliness and insecurity in a persistent and bullying way in order to convert them.

Emphaticmaybe I don't think you got a reply yesterday, yes being agnostic can be very hard, it's really quite nice having certainty one way or the other. Hopefully you'll get your moment of clarity, whether that's being sure there is a god or there isn't, I think it's individual to all of us and not necessarily something you can reason out.

John Humpreys wrote quite a good book on it called In God We Doubt, it felt good reading it a few years back, at least to know it wasn't just me thinking that way.

AfricanExport there is a difference between the flourishing of Christianity while under persecution and the flourishing of supposed religion by force.

Christianity flourished when it was a persecuted minority religion. If the founders were knowingly lying they would have recanted long before getting put to death for their beliefs, wouldn't you? If you were claiming your saviour was alive while knowing he was rotting away somewhere you would admit it for the sake of an easy life. Who would die for a lie? It's a different thing from Spanish Inquisition etc which is an abuse of power.

Fair dos Pedro Pony I am sure you are romantic in the right context. :)

Green Honestly, I do genuinely think this is all to do with your initial misunderstanding of what "secular" means. Of course, you don't have to talk about anything you don't want to, and I'm sorry if you're feeling got at, but what you are saying is truly not making sense.

As Spoons pointed out, a "secular" newspaper article would be a neutral one....and you see this as a bad thing? The alternative would be a biased one and why do you think all newspapers should be biased towards Christianity? (You could try the Daily Mail if that's what you want!)

Hi Italian

Firstly - I also loathe the "love" analogy in these discussions. One of my favourite films is Contact (my user name is Jodie Foster's character in it). In one scene, she's talking to the priest love interest and he says "Did you love your father? Prove it" and she looks all confused and stumped. Grrrrr. Makes me shout at the screen - what kind of atheist & scientist wouldn't immediately challenge that?

Love is an emotion and we demonstrate those to each other through behaviour and behaviour = evidence. That man you meet - would you be willing to believe that he loved you if he provided absolutely no evidence of it? No, you'd dump him. And us parents - do our children have no evidence of our love? Then we are monumentally shit parents, aren't we?

Evidence is a body of facts that points to the truth of something. If I had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that I love my son, I could. There's a wealth of behavioural & circumstantial evidence I could bring to the table from my own testimony and that of others. If I really wanted to prove my case, I could have brain scans that shows certain activations in my brain that neurologists have identified as the "love" zone.

Know what we call people who believe they are loved by someone without any evidence at all? Stalkers.

So, sorry - the love and faith analogy simply doesn't work.

I know many Christians who work in places to provide medical care etc or teach in schools etc in places overseas where they are needed because they want to make people's lives better I know many atheists that do that too - and Hindus and Muslims. So what's so special when Christians do it? Would they not bother if they weren't Christian? If their Christianity is what compels them then I think the atheist going the same work is infinitely more moral because we don't need to promise of a pat on the head from God. An atheist doing good things does it simply because it's the right thing to do and not to impress a celestial dictator or because we're part of his gang.

And also, personally, I don't think my faith requires me to stop reasoning Few Christians think it does. But as I've said before - thinking long and hard about something does not equate to critical thinking.

To do the latter, you must begin at the beginning and take a neutral stance . You must look at the evidence from all sides and reach a conclusion from that. When people are willing to do that with true honesty then 9 times out of 10 they lose their faith because they suddenly see that it's not reasonable or based on any evidence of any kind.

Faith is the deepest of hopes & desires mistaken for knowledge. But it is a mistake, and not one that any person would make in any other area of their lives. Evidence matters, always.

Italian You do seem a little wary of me and keen not to offend - please don't worry. My diatribe on the other thread is because of some nasty comments I've had before that I haven't forgotten about. Nothing you could say would offend me, I promise. I admire anyone willing to speak up about the things they believe - it's the ones who get stuck and then start name calling that I lose patience with. If you don't do that (and it doesn't seem likely) then I promise I won't.

:)

Ellie I don't really want to talk about secularISM because that is a political stance.

I could have said "anti Christian" newspaper reports but that doesn't reflect the fact that newspapers are anti Muslim and anti other religions too. Secular is a jargon term used within churches to talk about what is not Christian so it may be I am using a word that instantly confuses/enrages people. Life is hard enough talking about religion without getting into politics as well which is why I am studiously not trying to post a party political broadcast on behalf of the Greencolorpack party.

I think you are being hugely idealistic when it comes to people coming to faith. Who really chooses a religion after a lifetime of comparative religion study? I bet nobody in the world gains or loses faith after such study. Atheists become atheists for all kinds of irrational reasons, just like Christians become Christians for all kinds of irrational reasons. Atheists might have met a brutal and unloving parent or authority figure who was religious. My mother in law rejected it all because of some brutal nuns at boarding school. I became a Christian through the example of my excellent and decent sister (among many many many other reasons note I am not saying that was the ONLY reason). And I remember atheist friends of my atheist mum saying in all seriousness that they thought my sisters belief showed she was mentally ill. I lived with my sister, the most sane and rational person i know and instantly moved closer ideologically to my sister and away from the atheists and their beliefs (this was when I was a teenage agnostic).

Faith in anything including atheism comes through irrational life experience and through the relationships we have with those around us.

I have been discussing this issue with Christians for a long time and the reasons and "evidence" that are given for their faith are broadly as follows:

What it says in the Bible (in various degrees of literalism)

That Jesus existed as a man and Christianity could not have grown the way it did if he didn't rise from the dead

Most people in history have believed in some god or another. Are they all wrong?

Nothing can come from nothing - something caused the universe and we call that something God

Science can't explain everything

Science and religion answer different questions

Person X was riddled with tumours that suddenly disappeared after they were prayed over. The doctors were all stumped

Faith is a gift from God. If you had it, you would understand

Human morality makes no sense without God or some greater purpose. If we're just biological creatures and there's nothing after death, what's the point of being good? What's to stop us all from running out raping and murdering each other?

Religion is good for society

Religion makes people happy and gives them hope

The Watchmaker analogy (beloved of creationists, but still often used by more sensible Christians)

Earth is perfect for us & provides all we need. That can't be coincidence.

God always answers prayers - his answer is either yes, no, maybe

Einstein/Newton believed in God

I had an experience that simply cant be explained. I don't expect anyone else to believe me - but I know it was God

You can't prove God doesn't exist

and, for good measure because I see/hear it ALL the time......

Shakespeare said: "There are more things, Horatio.........."

Now I'm not saying that all believers on this thread have used these arguments, so I'm not putting words in peoples mouths. But I would be amazed if the "evidence" people think they have for God doesn't fall somewhere into these categories.

Me, and every other atheist here, can show beyond any sensible doubt that not one of these arguments provides the slightest, tiniest shred of evidence for any God, let alone the Christian one.

When we say there's no evidence, that's what we mean. There truly isn't.

Atheists become atheists for all kinds of irrational reasons

Not the point. You are conflating atheism with theism - there's no equality there at all. Losing a belief (if you had one) is not the same as gaining one.

I am an atheist because I have no reason not to be. My lack of belief in your God is identical to your lack of belief in the 10,000 other gods human beings have worshipped. Why don't you believe in Lord Vishnu? Whatever your reasons, those are mine for not believing in your God.

Not believing in something is NOT the same as believing it. I don't need to give any reason for not believing in something other than that I see no reason to. A person who adopts an active belief in something (anything, not just God) should have good reasons. Because theists actually don't, and never have had, good reasons for their belief, faith was invented - and this is the great get out clause. "No reason to believe it's true? Never mind, just have faith. That's reason enough". It's a con trick, nothing less.

I do like your acknowledgement that your faith may not be entirely rational. You are, of course, completely entitled to feel that way and believe for whatever reasons make sense to you - but this does contradict your earlier assertion to me that you arrived at your faith through critical thinking. I don't think you did, and I think I've shown that, which is all I set out to do.

Lunch break over :)

I used critical thinking at some points of the experience. I think italian explained it better than I do so let's not go there again.

Nothing you say will stop me thinking that atheism is a belief stance and therefore is as irrational as any religion you like. Sorry but there it is. Playing "I'm more rational than thou" is just kind of amusing. We are all irrational, yes even the atheists.

Speak for yourself, I've never felt more rational.

Ellie doesn't your post above prove what I said above that nobody can be argued into the kingdom of God? You should thank the God you don't believe in that he gave you free will to reject him as much as you like. You would not be happy if God suddenly appeared in the sky ridding the world of all doubt. You wouldn't like that. You should be glad you have the choice to reject Him and he respects your free will.

I'm assuming you posted that big long list in the hopes of goading Christians to come up with "new" arguments that you won't reject. Well the goading doesn't really work if the Christians have been debating this for years. Which I have. So if you reject all the evidence, thats fine. I will pray that one day you feel the need for God and then I hope you investigate the subject thoroughly. But in the meantime... Nobody can be argued into believing.

". You would not be happy if God suddenly appeared in the sky ridding the world of all doubt. You wouldn't like that"

Actually, if that happened, I would cheerfully say "oops, I was wrong". That's the difference between rational people and theists. If I was presented with compelling evidence for the existence of a god, I would accept it. Theists are constantly being presented ith compelling evidence that there isn't, but continue to believe in the face of that evidence.

No Seeker you wouldn't! You would be very annoyed. You like not believing. You like being an atheist, a lot of your pride and identity are tied up in your convictions.