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.

Rationality does not cover the unknown

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It's gobbledegook.

Something that is unknown is, er, unknown.

In order to make discoveries, we have to begin with viable questions. That's the first mistake theists make....to assume that their questions make sense & therefore have a potential answer.

"Who created the universe" is a good example. "What caused the universe" is another. There's no way to know yet whether these are even good questions to ask.

Theists assume they are and then make up the answer. And the answer is usually suitably wishy-washy and meaningless and, most important, impossible to falsify. Bizarrely, they'll then use this important failing in their hypothesis as some kind of evidence that it's sound.

"Ah....you can't prove God doesn't exist" is quite the stupidest thing anyone can ever say.

And your understanding of how science works, Spinnaker has not improved one iota in spute of the fact that you have had the simplest explanations explaiane to you again and again and again.

Quiet evangelist? Hardly.

That just shows the difference when talking of process as opposed to a decision reached, Voyage.

So yes, creationism is an example, going from what is said on here and elsewhere, where I expected conflicts to arise. However, in examining my understanding of Bible interpretation together with my understanding of the various more scientific arguments, I came to the conclusion that I don't know enough to really comment. The decision was easily made.

Why is it more rational, reasoned to say, in the absence of evidence for or against, to pick against

Atheists and skeptics aren't picking "against". They are picking "unproven".

And why is it "more rational"? Because waiting for evidence is the very essence of rationality....it's what informs it.

You do realise that you use evidence and rationality in every single area of your thinking without exception - except when it comes to matters of your faith?

So, sorry....I refuse point blank to believe that you are genuinely incapable of understanding the difference between picking "for" and "against" (aka unproven) when there's an absence of evidence one way or the other.

There's no evidence that the universe is governed by giant purple elephants. - and no evidence that it isn't. But you think it's equally rational to believe that it is than that the hypotheisis is unproven and thus not worthy of belief?

No, you don't.

". However, in examining my understanding of Bible interpretation together with my understanding of the various more scientific arguments, I came to the conclusion that I don't know enough to really comment. The decision was easily made."

So are you saying that you don't know whether creationism or evolution is the right answer?

Am I supposed to apologise for not being a scientist, Apricot? Does not being a scientist mean my comments are worthless? I can talk about beliefs and explore absence of belief, the subject of this thread. The only qualification for doing this, surely, is being human.

Bertrand I can't, with complete honesty, say I know what I do not fully understand.

Apricot I don't have faith in giant purple elephants ruling the universe but if it was a commonly held and reverred belief, for which there was a long history and various writings, I think it would be irrational to dismiss it out of hand. The, entirely rational, reasoning being that the belief originates from somewhere. I would be curious to find out where.

Yes, in the context of what you are saying, your comments about how science works are worthless.....because they are wrong.

Science does not work the way you think it does.

Since this misunderstanding informs some aspect of your belief system I would have thought you'd at least attempt to see where you've gone wrong.

But no. You are only ever interested in hearing things that you think support your position.

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?

Here's one. There's decent evidence to support the idea that Judaism was originally a henotheistic or polytheistic religion, with Yahweh elevated above others and ultimately as the only god because it was politically expedient at the time in response to an external threat with its own distinct god. Combined with some good anthropological work on the way people may have evolved the need to seek external answers/something quasi-religious as the result of starting to live in larger social groups and communities, it can put up a pretty good explanation for why religions exist and why humans cleave to them in the absence of answers or the presence of the unknown.

The most likely explanation, and all that.

Apricot this thread is about belief and lack of it though, not science. I have not commented very much on anything particularly scientific apart to ask why the burden of proof is on proving a positive. I don't pretend to be a scientist. However that should not matter in a discussion about belief, faith and the lack of it.

X-post, spinnaker!

Commonly held and reverred belief with a long history and various writings can be used to describe every single religion documented in recorded history....of which there are thousands.

Lots of people believing something for a long time = meaningless in evidentiary terms.

It makes the issue worth looking at, sure.....but it's evidence of nothing. You KNOW this because you reject every single faith system for this reason......except your own. Honest enquiry would have you querying this, but you don't.

And, to be clear, because I know you of old and expect the whining to start in soon.....yes, you are perfectly entitled to believe what you like, for whatever reasons you like. But when you post on a public website, making pronouncements about how you think our universe works, you have to accept that some people might take issue with you.

I have heard of that, Jassy and read some of the theories. However it does not dissuade me in my faith. I can easily appreciate people struggling to understand the multifaceted and complex aspect of what is divine and expressing this understanding in terms of polytheistic and henotheistic worship.

"Does not being a scientist mean my comments are worthless?"

Well I'm afraid it does if you're going to come up with ideas on how the world was created, how man was created, which is exactly what the bible does.

As for the "long history and various writings" it's blooming obvious how they came about.

They came about before scientific discoveries which pinpointed how the world was created and before Darwin isolated the mechanism by which animals evolve, which is one of those things that is so obvious when you realise it.

God was invented by man when man didn't have the tools to work out his origins. Now we do know. We don't need God anymore.

It's over baby!

Well I'm afraid it does if you're going to come up with ideas on how the world was created, how man was created, which is exactly what the bible does.

I'm not though, They. This thread is not even about that. It is about the need for faith or lack of it within atheism.

oK- the thread is over, then. I can answer your question.There is no need for faith within atheism.

But you've not said how or why, Bertrand.

Ridiculous sidestep....this thread is about belief, not science.

What you mean is....please don't raise the one thing that that makes my belief system look silly!

Are you banning logic too? Not a thread about that, is it?

Knowledge informs our beliefs. Or it should do. Science is knowledge.

I have heard of that, Jassy and read some of the theories. However it does not dissuade me in my faith. I can easily appreciate people struggling to understand the multifaceted and complex aspect of what is divine and expressing this understanding in terms of polytheistic and henotheistic worship.

Or simply people saying 'what is the most rational explanation for this situation - that based on some evidence and practised by humans, or that requiring inconsistent and geographically choosy supernatural intervention' and going for the former.

I've no interest in stopping people believing, but I will answer questions/challenge statements that assume some sort of biblical historical superiority.

But you've not said how or why, Bertrand

We have, you just didn't like the answer which was that there is no need for it.

"You KNOW this because you reject every single faith system for this reason"

Exactly! Why do religious people pick on atheists and not on each other in these type of arguments?

Having faith in something doesn't mean it's right. If it did ALL religions would be correct and that goes against the claim of monotheistic religions.

Honestly, I seriously think you're kidding yourself. It's nice to believe in a God for sure, because it gives you a sense of higher purpose but being an atheist is so much more liberating.

It means you get to be you because that's you not because someone is telling you to be. All that lovely stuff: empathy, community and love will remain because it's part of your natural self not because of an external source.

Plus you can appreciate all the fantastic sciency existential things, like looking at a sunset and think "fuck we're really tiny and inconsequential really out here in our little spot but having consciousness just feels so big". All that "and God created the world" is just so dull compared.

Try it. It's wonderful.

Well I've missed the explanation then Jassy. I cannot dislike what I've not observed can I ?

Honestly, I seriously think you're kidding yourself. It's nice to believe in a God for sure, because it gives you a sense of higher purpose but being an atheist is so much more liberating.

How would I know, They? Since I am not atheist. How would you know, They what is more liberating in comparison to theism, since you are not theist? You cannot, realistically, comment on how liberating my experience of theism is, or not, since you are not me and I have not told you.

For what it's worth....evidence that the Christian God does not exist:

(Bearing in mind that you need a working defintion of "god" before you hunt down evidence)

Miracles are never observed
Prayers are never unambiguously answered
99% of "facts" in the Bible (OT and NT) are untrue
Dead people don't get up and walk three days after death
Science disproves the notion that we are "special creations"
God has never shown himself to anyone who could record the event for others
We do not have "souls"
"God" is not an explanatory answer to anything, ever

Evidence that = 100% proof? Nope. But any common sense analysis shows that the Christian God hypthesis is fundamentally flawed and very probably not true.