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.

Anything apart from or beyond that is pretty irrelevant to the atheism thing.

Without the contextual information, regarding the reasons for people being atheist being more 'rational' (as per the comment the quote of mine referred to), how can it be said the reasons for atheism are more rational than the reasons for theism, Jassy? Surely a discussion of people's thought processes, regarding taking an atheist stance, is relevant if we are considering rationality.

You're making assumptions based on the way you draw conclusions (which I assume lead you to belief); you assume others do the same.

Jassy No assumptions. I drew a connection. Just like the connection drawn in the decision to name the Gaia principle after the Greek goddess of the same name. No conclusion has been drawn. This is a conversation, if my comments are irrelevant, people can respond.

Can I ask what you mean by 'taking an atheist stance'?

Being an atheist. I say stance because many atheists would object to me saying belief.

Being an atheist. I say stance because many atheists would object to me saying belief

Why not just say 'who are atheists' or 'being atheists'. Taking a stance implies something quite active - picture an army of mini-Dawkinses taking up cudgels, who feel the need to argue that their way is right. There are atheists like that but most aren't. For most atheists I know their atheism is a completely passive thing. They just don't believe in any gods. For some they have never believed in any gods, and they've never seen a reason to do so, for others they rejected religion somewhere along the way and go through life quite happy in its absence.

I used to be one of them until I moved to this country and found just how entwined religion is in the state and people's lives, which is when I became more active in certain areas, but from a secularist rather than atheist viewpoint.

But not that much help to figure out how we should live.

Really?

Science shows us that some animals behave altruistically, it doesn't tell us to keep slaves or kill entire tribes.

"Atheism is however a matter of faith, because it holds that there is no god of gods."

Not true. Atheist is the person who listens to your God story and says "That sounds rubbish. I don't buy it for a second."

Atheist doesn't need to prove that there is no God to reject the God hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you, the one claiming that there is a God.

"Taking a stance implies something quite active - picture an army of mini-Dawkinses taking up cudgels"

I do sometimes feel quite passionate in my atheism but I don't have a cudgel!

The reason that I feel passionate is that I grew up in a religious environment and the feeling of liberation that comes from not having to believe in a God who is sexist, kills a lot of people or from having to twist your mind to understand the bizarre logic of the crucifixion, well it's wonderful and I wish everyone could feel that way. Although I understand they don't and that one has to be tolerant.

Since losing my faith, I haven't lost any of my empathy, life purpose or sense of love for my fellow man, which is proof in itself that those things exist apart from God.

Atheism is not a matter of having no god. It is more a question of which God do you serve?

Christians follow the God spoken of in the bible. Someone who doesn't follow the God of the bible follows either a different god (referred to, by the bible, as false gods), chase after money as a god (can't get enough of it and feel nothing is as important!), or they follow themselves, making self a god.

But everyone has a belief. You believe God exists or you believe he's made up. Both are a set of beliefs that you hold to.

Er, no.

How can not thinking something is true translate to a 'set of beliefs' that is any way comparable to having religious conviction? I don't worship money or myself. I just don't worship at all. I have no faith, or any wish for a faith.

I can see that that might be difficult for someone whose faith is incredibly important to them to understand, but nonetheless it is true.

Atheism is not a matter of having no god. It is more a question of which God do you serve?

Nope. Not at all. Not even close.

Christians follow the God spoken of in the bible. Someone who doesn't follow the God of the bible follows either a different god (referred to, by the bible, as false gods), chase after money as a god (can't get enough of it and feel nothing is as important!), or they follow themselves, making self a god.

Why do you feel such a strong need to follow that you believe that all humans must be following something? It's a very odd philosophy.

But everyone has a belief. You believe God exists or you believe he's made up. Both are a set of beliefs that you hold to.

Nope. There's that arrogance again - that religion (and your religion!) is the default.

I believe in things that are there, or that there is decent evidence for. For other stuff, the answer 'I don't know, maybe we'll find out some day' is enough for me. I don't have that driving need for answers to existence that some religious people have and I'm ok being a tiny unimportant speck in the history of the universe.

Things I don't believe in include homeopathy, gods and the idea that Forever Living will make me millions.

Why not just say 'who are atheists' or 'being atheists'. Taking a stance implies something quite active - picture an army of mini-Dawkinses taking up cudgels, who feel the need to argue that their way is right. There are atheists like that but most aren't. For most atheists I know their atheism is a completely passive thing. They just don't believe in any gods. For some they have never believed in any gods, and they've never seen a reason to do so, for others they rejected religion somewhere along the way and go through life quite happy in its absence.

Jassy, whilst I can see why you would want to disassociate yourself with Dawkins, I don't really understand your sensitivity on this issue. Why you seem to want to stress the passivity of atheism. All passivity (regarding a position taken on religious belief) suggests to me is that a way of thinking has been internalised and it is only when this is challenged that arguments, justifications and explanations are constructed and expressed.

I understand why SPGA suggests atheists have other 'gods'.

It really depends on how a god and worship is defined. From a Christian standpoint, (given Christians believe in God and observe the influence of other god(s) can we accept Christians are qualified to define what they are talking about?) a G(g)od(s) is what is held most high, of utmost importance and central to life.

So you do not need to be religious, in the usual sense, to have something or several things that are the central motivation for life. In this way (even) an atheist could be seen as having 'god(s)'. I do get this is unpalatable to many atheists but the phenomenon fits with the definition of a god.

I beg you, don't go so far as to worship your offspring or ability to reproduce, Voyage!

The definition of (a) god(s), I was discussing, Voyage, does not need to include a 'grand figure head', although it can. Because gods can be believed in, in a plural sense, there could be multiple things that are held to be of utmost importance and central to life, multiple 'gods'. Similar to Pagan archetypal gods.

^in this way certain central 'values' could be held as 'gods' and a belief system, with all the associated dogma, be formed around them.

Jassy, whilst I can see why you would want to disassociate yourself with Dawkins, I don't really understand your sensitivity on this issue.

One sentence, two incorrect assumptions. You can have a sticker!

I get bored with thestereotypes of atheists peddled on these sorts of threads (including the original statement I responded to). Just silly, wrongheaded stuff that I try to debunk when I see.

Why you seem to want to stress the passivity of atheism.

I didn't say that either - I said it is for some peopke, while you seem determined to present it as an active choice. Why is that?

All passivity (regarding a position taken on religious belief) suggests to me is that a way of thinking has been internalised and it is only when this is challenged that arguments, justifications and explanations are constructed and expressed.

Why does atheism require a justification or explanation to you?

It really depends on how a god and worship is defined. From a Christian standpoint, (given Christians believe in God and observe the influence of other god(s) can we accept Christians are qualified to define what they are talking about?) a G(g)od(s) is what is held most high, of utmost importance and central to life.

I spent many years as a Christian so I feel qualified to weigh in on this one as well. You have missed out a key aspect of what makes a theistic deity - and that is the holy/divine/sacred/worshipful aspect of something external to oneself.

So you do not need to be religious, in the usual sense, to have something or several things that are the central motivation for life. In this way (even) an atheist could be seen as having 'god(s)'. I do get this is unpalatable to many atheists but the phenomenon fits with the definition of a god.

You know, if it makes you feel comfortable or more secure in your own faith to think that everyone must have an equivalent in their lives then I don't want to take that away from you.

But I think you need to see the distinction between theistic gods and 'anything that motivates humans'. If anything that matters to people is a god, then sure, I have gods. But that's not theism. I know a great many Christians who would take exception with your definition of a god to include 'whatever gets anyone out of bed in the morning' as being equivalent to the deity they believe in, particularly as it completely removes the divine and sacred element of theistic belief in an attempt to shoehorn atheists into a theistic worldview.

It's interesting that you mention the pagan archetypes - are you taking a Jungian view, that the gods are the 'ruling powers' and thus to be venerated? Or a more pantheistic/earth worship approach? The key for me is that both demand/require worship.

Paganism is an interesting one in how it fits into theistic discourse, which I find pretty fascinating.

Jassy

One sentence, two incorrect assumptions. You can have a sticker

No assumptions, just mooted possibility. Good job I'm not bothered about stickers.

Why does atheism require a justification or explanation to you?

No requirement, just an observation of what usually, in my experience, occurs.

No requirement, just an observation of what usually, in my experience, occurs

But that's not a neutral experience, right?

Sorry - hit send too soon. Why would atheism need to be questioned or challenged? Why should it be?