Is atheism/theism a choice?

[msrisotto]

Someone I follow on twitter posted this picture along with the line "atheism is not a choice"

I guess the point of it is that once upon a time (and to this day), unexplainable things were 'explained' as being acts of god. Now we know a lot more, science has investigated many of these things and increasingly, 'god' is out of the picture.

But i'm not sure this is the reason I don't believe in 'god'. I was indoctrinated brought up to be christian and can't remember actually believing any of it. I outed myself as atheist around the age of 12. Was that because I knew scientific theories? Or was it just because I didn't have that faith feeling? It wasn't a choice for me anyway. I just didn't believe. I have often thought how it must be reassuring to have faith of an afterlife, particularly when people close to me have died....but I don't. I can't make myself.

Is it a coincidence that scientists are generally atheist? Do they lack faith and go looking for answers in science? Or did an interest in science give them explanations that eliminated rational evidence of a god?

Is faith or lack of, a choice for you?

I'm an athiest, who had a catholic education and has a deep fascination with theology, religious history and the intersection of different faiths.

I even like the experience of church and the lessons/thought provoking I've had in church.

I just don't believe God.

How am I meant to respond to that? probably with the same courtesy that is offered to you, even when people don't agree with what you write?

It is hopelessly inaccurate from start to finish.

you're saying that radiocarbon levels are constant and changes are not ignored by Dr Libby then are you?

We might be interested in arguing your own opinions (particularly if researched)

Isn't research all about reading around the subject to find pros and cons? Bigdorrit, just because you don't like an argument doesn't mean you can claim it isn't researched by me.

I rather think that the sentence at the end of the radiocarbon dating piece 'And the lay-person doesn't have the knowledge to figure it out for themselves and are spoon-fed a message that they blindly accept.' is often true - but particularly true of lay-people who want to believe something incompatible with the scientific consensus, be it young-earth creationists or climate change deniers.

And the idea that scientists wilfully ignore limitations of carbon dating because it might conflict with evolution seems odd.... c14 dating is applicable in some cases but is simply irrelevant to establishing the age of the earth or artefacts over a certain age. Combust was I think mistaken to say 'radiocarbon' in relation to fossils - 'radiometric' would be the appropriate term. And here again, the limitations are recognised - but they still always yield a very old earth.

Bigdorrit, your reply illustrates perfectly just how you have no understanding of how God is experienced in the lives of many believers! You just can't stop looking through you rationalist, empirical, testable worldview for long enough to realise belief in god is something very different from this. It is experiential, a relationship, a presence. Btw, I am a huge fan of rationalism and empiricism and science. But faith doesn't die or live by this. It is something else and you need to look at it through a different looking glass to understand it. And yes, you can understand without believing. I am just saying, it you look at it differently, through its own terms, rather than the terms of your own world view that you wish to impose on it, you may not find it so hard to understand why people still believe ( I am using you as a generic ' you' there btw).

You just can't stop looking through you rationalist, empirical, testable worldview for long enough to realise belief in god is something very different from this. It is experiential, a relationship, a presence.

but that can be used to justify belief in absolute anything. I could claim to believe that my next door neighbour is my grandmother reincarnate. I experience it, it's a relationship, I feel it etc etc etc. you can't expect others to be convinced by that. And if I want that claim to be accepted by others, I am simply going to have to offer more evidence.

Laphem - yes, I think that is true for many atheists who've never had a faith. As an ex-christian I know what you mean about faith being experiential and a relationship. At some point I couldn't square the circle - my own (reluctant) conclusion that my experience was a delusion, the 'relationship' was a product of my own brain. How this state comes about - well, I'm inclined to think along the same lines as Dorrit.

No, I'm saying do some research. They don't rely on that only

With all due respect BigDorrit, you should read the thread more closely before jumping in. If you had done your research (as you keep telling me to do, despite my claim to have done just that), you'd see that Combust brought up the topic of 14C and I was simply responding to that. Nothing else.

I didn't say evolutionary orientated scientists only rely on that, because I know due to the research, that according to your judgement I don't do! that there are a variety of methods used. Doesn't everyone know that?

But it still doesn't change the fact that scientists approach their theories with a mindset towards either evolution being proven right, or that God and the bible are truth, and depending on their worldview at the outset, opinions such as radioactive constancy or change will alter the entire interpretation of the end results. Fact.

SBGA - this isn't really relevant to this thread, but i'll answer your last post about C14. Scientists who use C14, mostly archaeologists, are very well aware of the limitations of C14 as a dating technique. Re the limitations in the article you linked to:

Contamination - this can happen though huge care is taken to avoid it. When contamination does occur it is usually due to modern carbon that gives an earlier result, not an older one. An older result can occur with very old organic materials near the boundary of C14 reliability - this is when other methods can be used.

Carbon levels - i explained in my first response that this has long been known, and dates are calibrated to allow for fluctuations in atmospheric levels. Google calibration curves and wiggle matching if you're interested.

Age limits - as i previously said, C14 is only effective up to 50000 years, possibly more. After this other isotopes are used for dating that have a longer half life - potassium, uranium etc. They also have their own particular limitations, but they are all part of a toolkit that give a fuller picture.

None of these things are new or not understood by scientists. You are right that Libby originally assumed that atmospheric carbon ratios were constant based on the best information available at the time. He soon realised this may not be the case, and when levels were demonstrated through dendrochronology to fluctuate he adapted his technique to allow for it. He changed his mind in the light of new evidence. To suggest scientist have just ignored this is factually incorrect.

SBGA scientists don't use C14 to determine the age of the earth, so arguing that it doesn't work for this purpose is a bit useless. It's like arguing that ice-cream is useless for putting out fires.

a benevolent all powerful being
I have to admit that, as a Pagan, I'm baffled by this idea. Also, having read bits of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, it's not really a description I'd use for the Judeo-Christian God either.

BigDorrit - you said: And I'm an expert in how music can move the emotions and give wonderful feelings.

and I agree with you about that, which is why believing on HIM is not about feelings.

Feelings change and aren't always reliable, but facts are different.

The fact is that the bible is a valid book with proven prophesies, and God is consistent throughout all 66 books.

The fact is that we're eternal creatures and no amount of denying it will change it.

The fact is that we've all done wrong in our lives, intentionally or mistakenly, and the fact is that we can't put our wrongdoing right. God has done that for us.

Accepting the free gift of eternal life is not a feeling, but a belief based on the facts of the bible. It is accepting God is who He says He is.

An awful lot of atheistic comments are rightly rejecting man-made religion, which imprisons people and is inappropriate - not to mention wrong. That part atheists have got right. The problem is where the heart is hardened towards God and no openness towards reading His word for us, just a closed-minded rejection of all things with the name God in them - aka throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Ninja - please read the thread! SBGA scientists don't use C14 to determine the age of the earth, so arguing that it doesn't work for this purpose is a bit useless. Combust mentioned 14C as evidence for evolution and you've proven my point; it's not evidence for it.

Velvet - You are right that Libby originally assumed that atmospheric carbon ratios were constant based on the best information available at the time. He soon realised this may not be the case, and when levels were demonstrated through dendrochronology to fluctuate he adapted his technique to allow for it
I appreciate your validation but apparently it doesn't count to cut and paste so i am surprised you dared do that!

My point is that it is established fact that radiocarbon levels change, and this fact leave interpretation wide open to be influenced by someone's personal world view. After all, as I originally pointed out, no scientist was there thousands or billions of years ago, so it is all dependent on what you believe before you interpret the results. If you believe in God you interpret large changes in radioactive levels, but if you believe in evolution then of course you need it to be a much smaller change.

Anyway, as you rightly said, we digress from the OP!

I'm afraid that your 'facts' are just assertions. You believe those assertions to be true - but for an unbeliever they're pretty much baseless. It's probably not a great idea to use the word 'fact' in this way on a thread like this.

As to

SBGA - I'm sorry, but you're just wrong to think that scientists work that way. Take the question of establishing the age of the earth. The first serious attempts, by serious scientists, came up with dates that while still blowing Bishop Usher way out of the water, were not compatible with what the geologists thought or really long enouugh for evolution to have taken place. This problem persisted until the heating effect of radioactive decay was discovered. The scientists didn't try to fudge the discrepancy.

I haven't cut and pasted anything - I do know something about this or i wouldn't have bothered responding on this subject. I will cut and paste what you said however, which was:

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state)

and also

because this does not fit the evolution belief, many mainstream scientists refuse to acknowledge this discrepancy

Neither of these statements are true, which is the point i am trying to make. Libby's initial assumption that atmospheric carbon was constant was based on the best available information at the time. When new evidence was presented (originating in part from his own suspicions), the method was changed to allow for it. In no way was this influenced by any personal belief system, simply on best available evidence.

'so it is all dependent on what you believe before you interpret the results. If you believe in God you interpret large changes in radioactive levels'

Come to think, that's a real insult to those people who do combine faith with being real scientists, and do so with integrity. If you're saying that's how the 'facts' that appear on creationist websites are generated - I won't argue with you.

"Combust mentioned 14C as evidence for evolution" Rubbish!!

I would like to point out that at no time have I suggested that C14 dating is useful to study fossils or to "prove" evolution.

I was merely countering the idea that scientists cannot directly study events that happened a long time ago.

I suggested that scientists do indeed have many techniques at their disposal, examples- physicists examining light and other radioation from long dead stars, the red shift, C14 dating and fossil records. This was a list of techniques no more.

I have at no point suggested that C14 dating proves evolution any more than I have suggested that it is useful for looking at pulsars.

SBGA maybe it's you who should read the thread, Combust mentioned Radio Carbon dating as one method, among others, used to determine the age of "very old things", not as the be all and end all of proof in evolution.
Anybody using C14 knows that carbon levels have varied - honestly, it's one of the first things they teach you about it. The second is how to adjust for those variations in order to get accurate results.

There's no need for the earth to be billions of years old to prove human evolution anyway, because humans weren't around for most of that time. It can be done even with a timeline of a few thousand years.