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.

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

Jassy the security of my own faith is not dependent on other people having anything in particular in their lives. However I do have a world view, which, whilst it remains evolving and dynamic, does have something to say on how I have processed what I have observed of life and people.

Grand, it was a leap on my part to try to figure out why you seem so keen that everyone has a belief system equivalent in nature to your own.

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.

Jassy, god, as usually written with a lower case 'g' is not what Christians actually believe in. Christians believe in one true God. Thus there is no equivalence considered - hence often lower case 'g' gods are referred to as 'false'.

Why would atheism need to be questioned or challenged? Why should it be?

The only 'need' is to understand the people we share our lives with. There is no requirement. My observation was to do with the situations, where a person's world view is challenged, not necessarily literally but experientially too, and they defend their currently held perspective - at least internally. It is the way we often learn and evolve our thinking, by testing our currently held views.

I'm aware of that, but you were talking about gods in the sense of the Christian god - you brought in your Christian credentials to do so, and then used that definition to try to expand 'belief in god/s' to anything that is important to people.

In your description of the Christian god, actually, you left out the divine/holy/worshipful bit. And given we are talking about theism and theistic belief systems, the worship of an external being or idea is a pretty critical element of both Christianity and of theistic belief more broadly.

Do you need to understand atheism? Why not leave it as something you just don't get?

Jassy an awareness of false gods (no divinity) and 'lower case' gods is Biblical. My definition fits with this, as I understand it.

Do I need to understand atheism? No, but what I don't fully understand is always rather fascinating to me, maybe that is my bad, I do try not to be too intrusive. However this is a thread to discuss such matters.

Jassy an awareness of false gods (no divinity) and 'lower case' gods is Biblical. My definition fits with this, as I understand it.

Ah. And I'm taking a more broadly accepted approach that encompasses the concept of theistic belief in general - rather than the discussion taking place within an exclusively Christian paradigm. It's a little more rspectful. I don't refer to imaginary friends, you don't put the sincerely held beliefs of other theists on a par with the love of money. There's the difference. But still you left divinity and worshipfulness out of your conception of the Christian god, which I find weird.

Do I need to understand atheism? No, but what I don't fully understand is always rather fascinating to me, maybe that is my bad, I do try not to be too intrusive. However this is a thread to discuss such matters.

Why fascinating? I find the whole field interesting as you'll have guessed. Is it because you see religion/Christianity as the human default and you can't understand a life without a guiding deity? I can get that.

Jassy more respectful? All my original post, about gods, was saying was that I understood why SBGA said what she did about this. I did say that I appreciate many atheists will be uncomfortable with using this particular definition but that it fits with a Biblical one. However, I also commented that maybe Christians should be allowed to define the terms they use themselves. Maybe atheists could accept the translation without taking offence?

I suspected you might be interested in 'human default', with your passivity comments but did not want to presume this. I was thinking on this then. The Bible talks about Christian believers being reborn / born of the spirit, when they become Christian. So this suggests we are not Christian by default but this is something that happens some (any) point in life.

I've not taken offence, but I can see how other theists might.

But why insist on using Biblical terms and definitions with people who don't think it's anything special?

For most atheists I know their atheism is a completely passive thing. They just don't believe in any gods

This, said by Jassy earlier in the thread is certainly my experience.

Wasn't brought up with religion, haven't brought my children up with religion, am pretty indifferent to religion other than when religion is used to hurt or oppress others.

I simply don't believe in a god or any gods, not an active attitude or thought process at all, just a completely passive disinterest.

But why insist on using Biblical terms and definitions with people who don't think it's anything special?

Jassy, I don't insist but in the context of discussion which includes Christians, their definitions, of G(g)od(s), something pretty central in the Bible, many will automatically refer to their Biblical understanding. If their definition, or a translation of what is actually meant, is not accepted by non believers, then there is the danger people would just, continually, be talking as cross purposes.

Actually thinking about it, I think I'm probably a pretty passive atheist these days too. I have no desire to dissuade anyone from beliefs that aren't harming them, and I certainly feel no urge to explore any religious beliefs.

I'm a much less passive secularist.

context of discussion which includes Christians, their definitions, of G(g)od(s), something pretty central in the Bible, many will automatically refer to their Biblical understanding. If their definition, or a translation of what is actually meant, is not accepted by non believers, then there is the danger people would just, continually, be talking as cross purposes.

Interesting, as that's not my experience. I've had many discussions with Christians where they use the more broad societal definitions in discussing things with non-Christians. It makes sense to have these discussions using broadly understood and value-neutral terminology where possible.

Because we weren't just discussing Christians or Christianity, were we? And it's a wee bit arrogant to assume that a discussion about religion or lack thereof should take place using the terminology of Christian doctrine when there are perfectly good and well defined terms out there that won't lead to the confusion we've experienced.

Why must non-Christians accept your definitions? Why aren't you prepared to bend the other way?

And it's just struck me how nonsensical it is to use Christian terminology to seek to prove that atheists believe in gods, or have a religious/theistic belief system equivalent to religious belief.

Jassy don't forget my post was in reference to SBGA's. I felt I could provide some insight into what was meant by her, because of my own Biblical understanding.

I am not suggesting which terms to use in a discussion but rather I sought to elaborate on what she had said, in order to aid understanding. My point about letting people define the terms they use themselves, is said as I think this allows for better understanding.

I can off course 'bend the other way', use words differently to how I might in a discussion with other Christians, however my comment was concerning the understanding of aother's post, where I thought the terms were most likely used in a Biblical sense. Although I hope you'll appreciate I might slip occasionally as language is so fluid I cannot second guess every audience.

Jassy I don't seek to prove anything. I 'translated' in order to better establish exactly what was being observed,

Ok, I understand that - though given your posts to others about 'atheist stance' and why people are/become atheists and your other posts taken as a whole, including to non-atheists, that you preferred a Chridtian basis for discussion, or theist at the very best.

I'll still maintain that theists don't get to use the definitions of their individual religion to decide whether atheism is (a) possible or (b) a belief system.

Hang on - going back to better understand what you were getting at. Were you saying that some Christians think that non-Christian theists feel differently about their 'false' gods than Christians do about the 'real' one?

That's the only way I see any equivalence between belief in deities and the idea of a belief system in a 'false god' such as money, fame, power etc.

Jassy come on, give me a break. I have not actually said anything much regarding why atheists might be atheists, apart from my comment that I do think it is safe to assume they are the same or more rational than people's reasons for being theists.

You seem to be applying a level of analytical criticism, to the language I use, not really seen outside critical analysis of literature or in psychoanalysis.

So I'll just say this, I try to be respectful and careful regarding what I say but a climate of too much criticism would just inhibit any expression of my perspective, if I were to censor myself in terms of everything you are picking me up on.

Do not think it is safe to assume. Typo.

Apologies - I'm just trying to figure out what you meant, because it was as clear as mud to me. I'll desist.

I don't mind answering questions, Jassy, but assumptions (especially ones apparently bitter in tone) over anything that is not understood, regarding what I have said, frustrate me.

Where on earth do you get bitterness off all things from? How bizarre.

As I said, was trying to figure out your point in all good faith. I'm obviously irritating so I'll stop.

Hang on - going back to better understand what you were getting at. Were you saying that some Christians think that non-Christian theists feel differently about their 'false' gods than Christians do about the 'real' one?

I offered no theory regarding how non-Christian theists feel differently about their 'false' gods, neither do I assume they are not expressing, only differently to Christians, what they have understood regarding their own experiences of real divinity. I would let them speak for themselves, as I just don't really know or claim to.

Atheists and theists go along the same evidence based path until they get to the point where there is no more evidence. Theists then say "I have faith- I believe there is a God" and make the leap. Atheists say "I have run out of evidence- so there is no God"

No faith required. Just a marshaling of the evidence. Theists know there is no evidence for the existence of God, that's why they need faith. The Christian God certainly is pretty down on anyone who seeks evidence for his existence. I've always felt particularly sorry for poor old Thomas.