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.

Is evidence rational? Or irrational for that matter? Surely it consists simply of observable data.

Data does not have to be repeatable in terms of it supporting a conclusion that something exists which is living, therefore responsive and dynamic.

Proof requires conclusive evidence, which I said very rarely exists.

"My view that evidence is rarely conclusive probably helps"

Spinnaker, you've just admitted that you need to do some mental gymnastics, to suspend reason in order to believe.

Science is conclusive in many areas. And where it isn't 100% conclusive it is often in reality as conclusive as it needs to be. Take gravity. It's still referred to as a theory (in the scientific sense) but would you want to throw yourself off a tall building?

But you are right in that not all science is conclusive. The difference is that scientists are always looking for the answers.

Also are you sure that you're not confusing "conclusive" with "objective"? Because some branches of science aren't always objective. But they are always up for peer review and criticism. That is one of the joys of being a feminist atheist science-liking person. You have to sift out the subjective (written by the dominant class) shit from the truly objective.

Must go now. Let me know how the talking to God goes (that's a lot less sarcastic than it sounds)

"Data does not have to be repeatable in terms of it supporting a conclusion that something exists which is living, therefore responsive and dynamic"

Yes it does!

Then you're right you did sound sarcastic regarding talking to God. The thing is I believe God is already with me, He is already in my heart. But His aim, I believe, is not to make me psychic or a mind reader, although perceptive I may be at times. I've already been communicating my thoughts, I don't know what more you wanted.

I am already engaging aw. But my engagement re answering every and any question is not the subject of this thread, nor would I want it to be. If I did want that to be the subject, I'd start a thread entitled an audience with Spinnaker, which I'm not about to do.

This thread, is actually about whether atheists need faith. I'd suggest this is what is primarily discussed.

"This thread, is actually about whether atheists need faith. I'd suggest this is what is primarily discussed."

A question which has been answered several times by several different people.................

Well I am not staying to receive a grilling regarding justifying my faith. You might find some others to do that but I have other things to do today.

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?

I've answered that already on this thread.

Well I am not staying to receive a grilling regarding justifying my faith. You might find some others to do that but I have other things to do today

But you were fine to do similar to others about atheism?

That is one of the joys of being a feminist atheist science-liking person.

I am changing my Twitter bio to this immediately.

I love it.

JassyRadlett But again you are falling into the trap of trying to place atheism in a line with religions as an equivalent end point to arrive at, rather than the natural starting point.

Was this point addressed to me? You post comes after mine, but doesn't appear to address what I actually wrote, so not clear if you're addressing an earlier post or mine.

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

I'm not sure what point you imagine I'm making.

Was this point addressed to me? You post comes after mine, but doesn't appear to address what I actually wrote, so not clear if you're addressing an earlier post or mine

Yes addressing yours and directly addressing what you wrote - and the problem with the framework you set out.

"Data does not have to be repeatable in terms of it supporting a conclusion that something exists which is living, therefore responsive and dynamic"

Yes it does!

This with bells on.

"Well I am not staying to receive a grilling regarding justifying my faith. You might find some others to do that but I have other things to do today."

And there it is! ! The last gasps of a theist realising that their position is logically indefensible (loving that phrase whoever said it on this thread).

We've accepted your grilling Spinnaker and think we've done pretty well but it's a tad hypocritical if you can't accept a little bit of heat in return.

Thanks Jassy

Okay, in which case I'll respond to your points:

"Atheism requires no departure from logic or evidence, and therefore is logically supportable regardless of the thought processes of any individual or mental illness they may have (charming, by the way)."

Unrelated to my post, as I wasn't making a point about whether atheism was generally supported by logic and evidence.

"But again you are falling into the trap of trying to place atheism in a line with religions as an equivalent end point to arrive at, rather than the natural starting point."

No I'm not. I'm not trying to place atheism anywhere, just noting something that seems contradictory about some of the arguments made in this thread.

"No one knows anything about any religion or deity until they are told about it by another person, or they invent a belief system of their own."

While I generally agree with this point, I don't like the general tendency on this thread to assert that people are born believing or not believing X or Y. This is surely something to be determined empirically by developmental psychology, isn't it?

"No one has ever asked me to provide the rational justification for my lack of belief in ghosts or unicorns."

But presumably you can give one.

"Mostly they treat it as a natural state of being - given lack of evidence of their existence, I do not need to have made a rational decision not to believe in ghosts or unicorns."

But how did you come to the knowledge there is no evidence for ghosts or unicorns? Was that something you were born instinctively knowing? Or you were brought up to believe? Or is it something you've arrived at through your own reason?

Your assertion that there is no evidence implies that you have actually engaged in a rational assessment of the evidence, doesn't it?

"You missed quite a lot of nuance from your summation there. Intentional or just sloppy?"

I wasn't engaging in a summation. Why not try assuming I'm making a point in good faith instead of imagining I'm trying to engage in some kind of "gotcha" against atheism.

But how did you come to the knowledge there is no evidence for ghosts or unicorns?

nobody asserts there is no evidence anywhere for ghosts. It's just that I (we) haven't seen it. I don't believe in ghosts because I have never seen, heard, or tasted them, or come across other evidence for ghosts. Also, I don't claim other people's testimony that they have seen ghosts credible.