Atheists don't need faith

[EdithSimcox]

Atheists don't need faith

Lots of interesting things here including:

• nearly half of us are non-religious but less than a fifth are atheist...
• atheists need "simply more than can be proved by logic and science"

Any thoughts? A view I've often seen expressed on MN is that logic and science are the end of the subject.

Which statement ? I don't want atheists to be a group with something in common or not by the way. They just are, regardless of my desires.

Yep, I understand that, regarding no subjudication, They. It does not inform on the rationality of atheism though.

Atheists can believe in all sorts of things. The thing that makes them atheists is that they do not believe in the existence of God. They have no other defining characteristics.

Bertrand so it would seem. So motivations for being atheist, whether rational or sensible or not, default positions, passivity in the being atheist can not really be commented on with any degree of authority. Equally drawing comparisons between theists is similarly futile.

"It does not inform on the rationality of atheism though."

It was a bit of a tangent I admit but I was getting bored because people have explained to you a gazillion times the rationality of atheism and you've ignored them.

You can be an athiest but still believe in ghosts, witchcraft and aliens - just as theists can believe in the abrahamic God but not believe in the existence of Shiva, Vishnu, Aphrodite, Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Discordia, Artemis, Horus, or any other God, goddess or pantheon of gods that you can think of.

Is it logically consistent? No, but people are like that.

Their arguments have not convinced me, though, They. Hence the discussion.

I don't understand your last post. I don't know what sort of answer you want.

"Their arguments have not convinced me, though"

Convinced you of what?

Bertrand so it would seem. So motivations for being atheist, whether rational or sensible or not, default positions, passivity in the being atheist can not really be commented on with any degree of authority. Equally drawing comparisons between theists is similarly futile

Well quite, that's what we've been saying all the while.

I think theists do have one commonality which is that they believe in a supernatural being and have a need or a willingness to have faith in something for which there is no evidence, and that is by definition unknowable.

Well Spinnaker of course you're not convinced. Because if you were you would have reshape your entire belief system and possibly life to date.

And you're certainly not going to let yourself be convinced now because people very rarely change their minds in the middle of a debate.

But you might go away and think about it and have a Eureka moment. Or just a gradual shift of opinion.

Remember: the invisible and non-existent often look very much alike

You can be an athiest but still believe in ghosts, witchcraft and aliens - just as theists can believe in the abrahamic God but not believe in the existence of Shiva, Vishnu, Aphrodite, Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Discordia, Artemis, Horus, or any other God, goddess or pantheon of gods that you can think of.

This. People are not always consistent, as you've helpfully demonstrated here. I bet there are atheists who are totally into homeopathy, for which the evidence base is just as strong. But while they clearly don't have a god-shaped hole in their lives, they have a desire or need to believe in the magic healing power of sugar pills.

Indeed. Consistent people are not. Well there you go - no new discovery very there.

I do think that - generally speaking - people who use the term "atheist" about themselves only rarely buy into homeopathy, astrology or any of that stuff.

Most people I know are atheists but only a very small proportion are willing to explicitly use that term - and those that do are very definite all round skeptics. The others are more, "Well...who knows? The universe is mysterious and science doesn't know everything. And I'm not as certain as Richard Dawkins". Fine. But they are still atheists.

"I bet there are atheists who are totally into homeopathy, for which the evidence base is just as strong"

Exactly. Being an atheist doesn't automatically mean you are rational because you may be an atheist who still believes in irrational things.

It does mean however mean that, at a population level, you are more likely to be rational because reason (aka science) is one of the big disprovers of religion and all people who believe in God are required to suspend reason.

Unless of course you've actually physically seen, heard, touched or bumped into God..

..whilst not under the influence of alcohol or other substances.

Glad that's clear.

And I disagree...I think people are generally quite consistent.

An atheist who explains their lack of belief using logic, reason and absence of evidence is really not very likely to turn round and say they believe in ghosts! If they tried they'd look very silly very quickly. All anyone would need to do is quote their atheist arguments back at them....they are the same arguments, minus the Bible stuff.

I'm not saying never, but that would not just be inconsistent but a 180 degree about face. Most people don't do that.

My point was that although people generally dismiss the existence of ghosts and gods for the same reasons, Athiesm only refers to a lack of belief in God/Gods. No further rules or tenets apply.

Similarly, many theists are happy to turn athiest when it comes to different gods. Although if there are any Christians, Jews or Muslims that believe that Thor does or might exist I would love to hear all about it.

It makes me wince a little when atheists describe themselves as skeptics, because very few of them are. A skeptic is someone who suspends judgement on everything: on the claims of science just as much as the claims of religion or mysticism.

The idea that we should only believe in that for which there is scientific evidence is not skepticism at all, it's a form of dogmatism. A true skeptic would see it as every bit as irrational and ill-founded as religious belief.

Oh, I agree, Kara. You're right.

It's just that I think there's an unofficial but definitely there distinction between people who expressly define themselves as "Atheists" and people who just don't believe in god.

Of course, definition wise, it's exactly the same thing - but I don't think that someone who says, "Nah, don't believe in Jesus, really...but we don't know everything, do we?" is not really being inconsistent when they drink a bottle of magic water because "science doesn't know everything".

Conversely, as I said, I would be staggered if many declared atheists, giving skeptical reasoning for their rejection of faith failed to use the same reasoning for all the other bullshit floating around.

The issue IMO is whether people are skeptics or not. That's where my atheism begins.

Well, if we're going by dictionary definitions, Jelly then all atheists are skeptics because one definition of the word is "to doubt religious doctrines".

And regarding "suspending judgement" then yes. What's the problem with that, exactly? Most atheists I know are waiting for evidence and all scientists have to suspend their judgement because science never assumes it has the final answer.

"We should only believe in that for which there is scientific evidence" .... said nobody.

But believing in something which IS supported by scientific evidence is rational....whether the scientific position changes in the future or not.

Believing in something without evidence (scientific or otherwise) is irrational.

The question of whether god exists is a scientific question, ultimately, and use of the scientific method will be the way it is answered, if it ever is. Nobody's dreams, feelings or "experiences" can do the job, so what else is there.

Nothing remotely "dogmatic" about relying on evidence. Science is just a method of deterning what's likely to be true regardless of personal human biases.

Well, this is just the thing, Apricot. Anyone who truly deserves the title of 'skeptic' must surely be willing to apply the same level of critical thought to science as to other forms of belief. And when you do that it becomes surprisingly difficult to show that there is any such thing as evidence, or that science is in any way rational.

Many atheists state as an unquestioned assumption that there is a scientific method which if followed correctly produces true theories about the world supported by evidence. But unless we can find rational and non question-begging grounds for believing this statement, it is indeed just a dogma.

(Thanks to David Hume it is widely considered question-begging to point to the success of science as evidence for this claim.)

Being an atheist doesn't require faith, in the same way that not believing in leprechauns doesn't require faith. Obviously some Christians imagine that 'refusing' to believe in their god can only be a wilful and misguided act of 'faith', because they are so utterly convinced in the existence of their god. Do those Christians also think that members of societies throughout world history who have seen the waning of their religion's grip on their society and have ceased to believe in it were acting out of an anti-religious 'faith', or is it only Christianity that makes this claim?

As for those claiming that atheists follow other gods in the form of money, fame etc, what utter bollocks. Money and fame are not only coveted by atheists. And there is no reason at all why an atheist would be more inclined towards these things than a Christian. Well, there might be reasons according to the bible, but I've never noticed any particular difference in attitude to money or material possessions between the atheists, agnostics and Christians I've met.

"Anyone who truly deserves the title of 'skeptic' must surely be willing to apply the same level of critical thought to science as to other forms of belief. "

And they do! Critical thought is key to science. Scientists don't cling to ideas once disproven.

"The idea that we should only believe in that for which there is scientific evidence is not skepticism at all, it's a form of dogmatism. "
I think you need to expand a bit on that one.

It makes me wince a little when atheists describe themselves as skeptics, because very few of them are. A skeptic is someone who suspends judgement on everything: on the claims of science just as much as the claims of religion or mysticism.

one of the many contortions people do to put religion on the same footing as science. They aren't remotely the same.

Science is about being skeptical. Things aren't accepted as truth until repeated experiments are performed, all confirming the same hypothesis. Many scientific claims have been accepted and later shown false not by the religion, but by other scientists.