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.

Jassy if you think, as I understand it, belief in a deity only comes about through people telling the person who believed about the deity and atheism is the 'natural starting point' how do you, personally, think belief in a deity or deities originated and is present in a wide range of societies?

awhfuck you are right.
Even when theists are stumped they will roll out the argument about "gods bigger plan" and how we are too dumb to understand gods awesome intellect.
I am an atheist in a very religious family and I have long since stopped talking about religion. it's totally off topic

"what of someone who believes that there is no god because the gremlins living in her toaster told her? She qualifies as an atheist after all, but you'd be heard pressed to argue that it was a position reached through reason."

Crazy people are usually not rational in general.

If you can't make your point any other way, maybe you don't have one.

I think it's a fair point. Atheism is a rational position, but individual atheists may be able to justify their atheism with varying degrees of rationality, coherence, and rigour.

Of course, finding one or more irrational atheists doesn't have any wider implications for the rationality of atheism as a theory about the universe.

Atheism is not a gang, a club, an organisation. It has no rules, no dogma,no adherents, no members.

*If the rational thought process was internalised, so that it was performed subconsciously, would it cease to be rational?

Yes and no, depending on which definition of reason you take. Two of the dictionary terms are relevant here

Rational:

using reason: no because it's subconscious.

based on reason; fitting in with reason; yes because regardless of the lack of mental activity taken on behalf of the person it is still a point of view that is based on reason.

The crucial difference is how you get to your atheism. What was your starting point?

If, like myself, you were brought up theist then yes there is an extended rational process that leads to the rejection of God. You look at the evidence for the religion, there is none, you discard the religion. All very rational.

If, like my son, you are brought up atheist then no you don't have to go through the same rational process because atheism is the default.

However, and this is a big however, every atheist is usually aware that religions exist, that people believe in God, that we as a country believed in God once, so every atheist goes through some kind of rational thought process when they internally reject the God of others. My son, for example, goes through this process every Wednesday when he has RS and has to sit and be respectful to faith-based religions and is not allowed to call "bullshit" (not that I wish him to be disrespectful but I would like him to be able to at least express his opinion without feeling guilty)

He comes home and says Mum how do they believe in abc when there's clearly no evidence for abc. He is being rational and I'm proud of him. Even "passive" atheists need to hone their arguments and thus engage their logic because they are surrounded by theists like your good self.

Would the experience of an internalised and subconscious rational thought process [for an atheist] be similar to the experience of faith? (Since evidence is nit consciously gathered or analysed)

No because faith is the suspension of reason which is required to continue believing in God when faced with the lack of evidence.

Now Spinnaker I've spent a long time writing this for you. Please have the good grace to respond to it!

Now Spinnaker I've spent a long time writing this for you. Please have the good grace to respond to it!

You don't really need to ask (or demand). I have been contributing throughout this thread. If I have missed a question, comment of your's directed towards myself it is only because of the difficulty of answering numerous comment in relation to my own posts.

But anyway, thank you, They for answering my questions.

On reading what you and others have said, I understand atheism is perceived as intrinsically more rational by atheists so regardless of whether any rational thought has been used in order to derive at or defend atheism, they feel justified in saying the reasons for atheism are more rational than the reasons for theism. Thus it follows that the experience of faith is not similar to a internalised and subconscious rational thought process.

Although I understand what you are saying, I think it belies your bias, as it relies on a view of atheism being instinsically more rational than theism.

Regarding faith, I do not view it as a 'suspension of reason', just a belief in something for which there is no conclusive evidence for. Reason has not been suspended, reason can be used regarding a conclusion derived from what evidence there is available to the individual. For it to be faith, of course, this has to be in the context of that evidence being inconclusive. Personally, as I view evidence as rarely being conclusive, faith seems a perfectly legitimate response.

Well thank you Spinnaker for engaging and acknowledging my points.

I only have issue with this:

"Although I understand what you are saying, I think it belies your bias, as it relies on a view of atheism being instinsically more rational than theism."

Because if anything my bias is the other way: towards theism not towards atheism. I would love to believe in a God (maybe not the Christian God who isn't very liberal) but a fair God and I've always had a soft spot for that old hippie Jesus who often seems more eastern in his philosophy...

...but I had to reject Jesus, Buddha, Taoism etc because I can't lie to myself as much as I'd like to.

I think that's the thing religious people overlook when they think of atheists. A lot of us do want to believe but we can't rationalise it.

As an atheist religious people sometimes say "but have you really asked God into your heart?" to which I reply the truth "Yes but he never answered"

It's been implied, if not outright stated (I haven't checked back through the thread), that atheists are more rational and theists.

And yet it has also been stated that atheism is the default position and doesn't have to be arrived it.

NotDavidTennant – others have addressed this but I think it is an interesting point and I’d like to give you my take on this apparent conundrum.

A baby does not believe in elephants. He does not believe in grey elephants. He does not believe in pink elephants. He has never met or seen any sort of elephant and does not hold the concept of elephants in his brain. Not believing in elephants is the default position for the baby.

As the baby grows older he sees photos of grey elephants and also sees them as he is pushed round the zoo in his pram. He now believes grey elephants exist.

In the case of grey elephants he changes from his default position of not believing in grey elephants. This is a rational decision.

Later on he realizes that some people believe that pink elephants exist too even although they have not actually seen them. And he himself has never come across so much as a pink elephant tusk. So he does not change from his default position of not believing in pink elephants, even although he now understands the concept of pink elephants and their significance to others. The decision not to start believing is a reasoned response.

He has not closed his mind to pink elephants. He has not necessarily decided that pink elephants don’t exist – he is open to changing his mind if evidence of their existence turns up.

Spinnaker, everything you say relies on feeling, not evidence or reason, and although that's lovely it's not enough.

Do me a favour. Sit down now and talk to God, ask him to come into your heart and tell me what you feel..

(Maybe don't tell him he's being tested by Mumsnetters )

Further to the above, I find it interesting that Muslims believe that the default position is being a Muslim for everyone. All babies are Muslims when they are born. So you don't convert to Islam, you revert to it.

In that respect, Islam has a little more chutzpah than Christianity!

"Show me this evidence"

Awhfuck is this the atheist version of Jerry Macguire's "Show me the money!" ?

They, so you want to believe? But simply have not come across enough evidence to persuade you. Interesting. My only comment would be that a pragmatism concerning the ability for evidence of something, as complex as a deity, to be truly conclusive, can ease the burden in taking a faith position.

I don't find it much of a burden, awh. My view that evidence is rarely conclusive probably helps.