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.

"Many scientific claims have been accepted and later shown false not by the religion, but by other scientists."

Exactly. Science is about starting with a hypothesis based on observations, making predictions and verifying/disproving them. If those predictions are incorrect it's back to the drawing board.

Science questions everything. Not so with religion where questioning God is massive no no. It's kind of like "thou shalt not look too closely at the smallprint because if you do you'll find out it''s a con/full of crappy ingredients"

When science comes across something that doesn't fit it says "my hypothesis was wrong."

When religion finds something that doesn't fit it says "you must have faith".

Science is objective. The only exception to this is evolutionary psychology which isn't really a science but just a bunch of white men trying to use the past to support their superiority complex about being hunters who shag a lot.

Bertrand Earlier on in this thread, on the first page, it was suggested people's reasons for being atheist were more 'rational' than people's reasons for being theist. Later, Jassy, remarked upon atheism being 'passive'. I just find the two, rational and passive, difficult to reconcile together. Rationality, surely requires a rational, reasoned, thought process, does it not?

Not all atheists come from the same background or along the same path.

To a certain extent everyone is atheist unless they believe in every god/deity.

Assuming you are a Christian your atheism towards some gods is passive, you have not actually thought about whether Neptune exists, or Ganesh. It just doesn't enter our head to ponder whether they exist. That is passive atheism.

Alongside that there are people who have a background in a faith or faiths and have come to the conclusion it is illogical / false / whatever. That atheism is more active, it is a looking at scripture and the workings of their faith and then coming to the conclusion they are wrong.

Religion and magic are not the same. One subjugates the self to a higher being. The other believes that humans had the power to channel the supernatural

This is following the god of self; spiritually it is a pride that tries to puff itself up to the same level as God (or above).

It's not a question of whether you put your trust in God, but which god. Self? Money? Science?
All of these are fallible, God is not.

Assuming you are a Christian your atheism towards some gods is passive, you have not actually thought about whether Neptune exists, or Ganesh. It just doesn't enter our head to ponder whether they exist. That is passive atheism

sashh I do not have either a passive or active atheism towards other gods. I have thought about it. I do believe they exist in terms of a belief in their followers minds. I do believe in this way they can manifest physically, in terms of a pattern of altered thought patterns changing the ever developing 'plastic' brain, physiologically. I don't follow them because, as a Christian, I have chosen to follow Jesus.

sashh I don't know how your comment informs on how rationality can be reconciled together with passivity, in atheism. I don't know whether your comment was meant to inform on this. But since atheism can be passive, which involves no active thought process, how can the reasons for this type of atheism be 'more rational' than the reasons for theism?

Spinnaker- are you actually reading the answers people are giving?

Obviously there is a communication breakdown somewhere- could you explain what sort of answer you're looking for?

Because it is an evidence-based view.

"All of these are fallible, God is not."

Well he did kill a bunch of people so quite fallible IMO.

Bertrand yes, I'm reading. What is missing, for me, is the explanation of how the reasons for passive atheism can be more rational than the reasons for theism, since passivity does not involve a rational thought process. Passivity suggests to me more of an automatic, instinctive, reaction, which as it does not involve a thought process cannot be rational.

Dozer how can a passive type of atheism be evidence based?

I have thought about it. I do believe they exist in terms of a belief in their followers minds

And that's how atheists (NAAALT) feel about God, your god, any God. Why is that so hard for you to understand? The fact that they exist in your mind doesn't mean they exist in real life btw.

But since atheism can be passive, which involves no active thought process, how can the reasons for this type of atheism be 'more rational' than the reasons for theism?

For the love of God woman!! Will you give up your obsession with the word "passive"?! Someone used it ages ago to mean the opposite of evangelical not reason. To mean that she doesnt go around accosting people on street corners telling them to believe in God. But you've jumped on it like a dog on a bone because it might give you a teeny tiny chance of making religion sound as rational as science.

It's not! For example look at this bit you said "I don't follow them because, as a Christian, I have chosen to follow Jesus."

Why? Tell us why have you chosen to follow Jesus? What was your active rational thought process that led you to decide to follow Jesus rather than Mohammed, any of the Hindu gods or Buddha? What was active and rational about it? Please tell us.

"since atheism can be passive, which involves no active thought process"

That Is Not What "Passive" Means Here.

Can whoever used the word "passive" on this thread take it back so Spin can stop with this misunderstanding?

Did you miss my reply yesterday?
"I can't answer for other posters, but if I had said that I would have meant that atheism is passive in that it is the only logical, rational position to hold. It requires no leaps of faith or juggling with the evidence. It's a steady progression. Get to the end of the evidence and stop.Theism requires, as I have said, the additional uncharted leap"

So it was your fault, Bertrand. You should know better than confuse people in these thread with unfamiliar terminology.

Noooooo- it wasn't me! i just officiously butted in trying to interpret someone else's post so the conversation could move on. Worked well, didn't it?

Did you miss my post here Bertrand?

"The conclusion I am getting from this discussion, is the only definitive aspect of life atheists, require evidence for in their decision making, is the question of whether to believe in G(g)od(s) or not."

Said because, as the atheists in this thread concurred, atheist can also be witches, believe in ghosts or homeopathy or any other aspect of the supernatural. No passive getting to the end of the evidence there and stopping, as you put it. So, you can not fail to understand, how atheism appears extremely inconsistent to me.

"The conclusion I am getting from this discussion, is the only definitive aspect of life atheists, require evidence for in their decision making, is the question of whether to believe in G(g)od(s) or not."

But that 's right. That is "all" an atheist is. Someone who does not believe in God. Nothing more or less.

Spin - I do require evidence for everything, and don't believe in witchcraft, ghosts, or whatever else you can come up with that gullible people believe in without evidence. Do you believe my position is inconsistent?

Bertrand So any definitive conclusions regarding atheism and rationality, atheistm and faith, atheism and passivity, atheism being default are not warranted, since atheists are a non homogenous group.

"So, you can not fail to understand, how atheism appears extremely inconsistent to me."

I do fail to understand, yes. Just because you are rational about one thing doesn't mean you are rational about everything.

Spinnaker. What, exactly, do you want to know?

Because I have really tried hard to engage with you but I just can't- nothing I say is quite right. Tell me what you would like me to say, and I'll tell you whether I agree with you.

Cote if what you say is true, then yes, you are consistent.

Personally, I think there is a place for more instinctive behaviour and responses, since a lot of our abilities are and learning is internalised, within the way decisions are made but then I do not claim any different. I don't claim my position is entirely rational or more or less rational, than someone of no religious belief, as something internalised and instinctive by definition is not rationally thought through.

And you agree that there are Christians who steal, kill people, and have sex with other people's wives/husbands?

Should I say that makes Christianity "inconsistent"?

Yes, Cote. Christians are indeed inconsistent.