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.

Regarding government structures, school admissions criteria, ordinary Christians have about as much say as people of other beliefs and no beliefs. We all come up against various manifestations of the Status Quo, at one time or another. People will fight against it according to their individual motivations and priorities.

Well, yes. No one's suggesting otherwise - just pointing out the many contexts in which people who have no religious beliefs rub up against people or systems that want to talk about religion.

I have explored other religions, to some extent, Voyage. What I have found has not swayed me to convert though. Not a rational decision, more heartfelt. I like looking for similarities and differences, though, and musing on them. I don't define myself by what I'm not but doesn't atheism, in its definition? -without god.

I like looking for similarities and differences, though, and musing on them. I don't define myself by what I'm not but doesn't atheism, in its definition? -without god.

Gods.

And I think that's a function of living in a society where religion in part of the public as well as the private sphere: there needs to be a 'none of the above' option to the oft-asked question 'what religion are you'?

But I don't define myself as an atheist. I am one- but I don't think about it from one week to the next. It's nothing like the most important thing about me- in fact, it's down there with liking swimming in the sea. I usually only think about it when I come up against theists!

You surprise me Bertrand. I have often seen your contributions on this type of thread. This doesn't happen by accident does it?

Where are you on the scale of passivity -> evangelism?

I'm probably pretty quietly but persistently evangelist regarding my (Christians) perspective.

I have to tell you, Voyage, the theistic belief position exists...

Voyage I am not disputing that I can extrapolate from my experience.

I was just trying to understand the claims, initially, that the reasons for atheism are more rational than the reasons for theism, whilst being passive yet not in the strongest no action taken ever sense, that atheism is default or at least theism is not whilst being rational, and in all this reconciling that atheism involves no faith at all..

Either the concept of what is rational, passive and default is getting more fuzzy by the minute or atheism does not equate fully with any of these descriptors.

"ou surprise me Bertrand. I have often seen your contributions on this type of thread. wink This doesn't happen by accident does it?"

That's what I mean by "coming up against theists"!

I still don't really understand "passivity" in this context.

You are not the only one Bertrand.

What, Spinnaker? But you keep using it! I said what I meant by it down thread, but you seem to be using it to mean something completely different.

Voyage interpretation of the Bible, tradition and heartfelt convictions all affect the fine detail of Christian belief. Not every Christian is a creationist, not every Christian takes all that is said in the Bible completely literally.

Personally, when science comes against what I understand from the Bible, I question the science and my interpretation of the Bible. When I get no firm conclusion doing that, as science is incomplete and the Bible is open to interpretation, I go on heartfelt conviction. My own is to understand and take from the Bible what I can. What I don't understand I put aside and hope one day I will understand.

Rationality does not cover what is unknown.

"I was just trying to understand the claims, initially, that the reasons for atheism are more rational than the reasons for theism"

Because there not being a God fits the evidence much better than there being one. You can only think there is a God if you have faith in something for which there is no evidence. That's absolutely fine if it's what you want to do, but it is absolutely no a rational position.

^the faith in all this is that I believe the truth is with God.

"Rationality does not cover what is unknown"

Well it does, in that the rational person says "This is something unknown- that's fine. We may know it one day- let's just wait and see". It is not rational to say "Unknown- therefore God"

Bertrand what sort of evidence, for there being no God, are you talking about? Why do you conclude from it, as you do? How does it inform your view?

Why is it more rational, reasoned to say, in the absence of evidence for or against, to pick against? Because only a positive requires proof? I don't really get this.

No, Voyage. No firm examples of science coming against the Bible. Science shows what is understood, concerning what has been observed. It is incomplete, open to being refined. The Bible is open to interpretation. Now where Science comes against what I understand the Bible, nothing major, since I expect my understanding to develop. I have thought about creationism but cannot really be involved as I do not know enough to seriously comment.