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.

Don't feel too sorry for Thomas, Jesus treated him with kind understanding, responding by giving him what he asked for.

God is as true to his word now as he was when Jesus said "seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened unto you"

Yes, but he definitely told him he wasn't as good as the others who had just believed, sight unseen.

John 20:29.

I'm one of the devils who can quote scripture to mine own end..........

But, back in track for a moment, this is not about theists and their faith but whether atheists need faith.

So what could faith look like, in an atheist context? Is faith possible in an atheist context? What is life like with no faith? Are there really no assumptions? No prejudgment so?

Some of what I felt I picked up upon earlier, re 'bitterness', yes, was totally subjective but perceived, none the less. Was I wrong?

Comments regarding rationality and being sensible, being more atheist qualities, about how Christians should abide by secularist standards for a change, seemed defensive and critical, to me. Prejudicial, albeit mildly, in terms of what can be experienced, but a definite 'undercurrent', not forgetting the relatively polite conversational constraints of educated people engaging in philosophical discussions...

No. Atheists don't need faith.

Not sure where you got bitterness from. Bitter about what?

Bitterness, picked up from comments regarding Biblical definition of G(g)od(s) unacceptable, from theists. Seeing atheist 'stance' as a loaded comment, which assumes theism as default (false within christian theology, according to my understanding, anyway). Stating atheists reasons for being atheist are similar, in that they are more 'rational', than theist's reasons for being theist, although they are a non-homogenous group, this is irrelevant (although how what is reasonable can be examined without examining thought processes, I do not know).

Being unacceptable coming from theists. Typo.

Can you elaborate on the 'no', Bertrand?

If atheism is indeed 'passive', how can it be more rational than theism? Passivity does not require much rational thought.

BertrandRussell Fri 27-May-16 13:23:26

Yes, but he definitely told him he wasn't as good as the others who had just believed, sight unseen.

No he definitely didn't! You're reading words that don't exist. The fact is, Jesus acknowledged that Thomas believed he was risen because he got to touch the wounds and see with his own eyes, but then said those who believe without having the privilege that Thomas had, would be blessed.

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Nowhere does Jesus say he is bad, undeserving, worse than the others. He just says that future people who can't see him in the flesh and still believe will be blessed.

I don't think I understand your questions, spinnaker.

A theist reaches the point of no more evidence, says "Nevertheless I believe" and makes the leap of faith.

An atheist reaches the same point and says "There is not evidence for the existence of God, therefore there is no God"

A theist comes to the point of no further evidence and says "there is more evidence than not, and therefore I will put my faith in Him"

But it's more than evidence alone. Your spirit is moved when God touches it, which, when you add to the evidence, strengthens the faith.

Definition of faith:
-strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
-a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
-trust in God and in his actions and promises
-a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

None of this applies to atheism which ultimately the rejection of faith.

I often hear theists put forth the argument that atheism is like a faith. What is the motivation behind that?

Well, there isn't actually more evidence than not. But that's fine. That's what faith is about.

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?

"Rationality, surely requires a rational, reasoned, thought process, does it not?"

Yes of course. 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.

Bertrand but passivity is not necessarily logical or reasonable. Action is often, most surely, required, in the absence of conclusive evidence, where inaction is most obviously the wrong choice. So what governs which action to take? Faith in a particular outcome?

Sorry- I don't understand that question.

I don't need to take any action to be an atheist. I just look at the evidence.

In other circumstances, of course action is required. Just not in this one.

Action, as in making a decision. Declaring atheism, if you like. Instead of remaining agnostic.

Well, yes, if asked, I say I am an atheist.

Technically, I suppose, agnosticism is the word to use. But only in the same way that agnosticism about gravity or the sun rising is technically correct. So I use atheist. In the same way that I know the sun will rise tomorrow, or that if I drop a hammer it will hit the floor, I know there is no God. There is a immeasurably small, not worth mentioning chance that the sun won't rise or the hammer will float. And there is the same level of chance that there is a god. So not worth taking into consideration.

I mean I can imagine a reasoned thought process in Agnosticism, it is decided there is inconclusive evidence for God. But atheism? Being without belief in God? Tricky...does an absence of anything, belief included, require rational thought?

Did you see my comparison to gravity and sunrises?