Atheists and Theists: how do you pick and choose what to believe?

[1137]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

 

[osgart]

humans are cherry pickers, and very demanding of conformity.

I am against any kind of conformity.

it's a king of the hill mentality in both atheism, and theism. the battle to be righteous and to never be questioned.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

This is what I have noticed too. Right now I'm kind of an agnostic non-theist who uses polytheism in my practice. I used to be 100% atheist. There are some interesting thoughts and comparisons both proving and disproving some deity.

My take on it is that cherry-picking is easier than growing your own beliefs, and naturally humans desire a belief in something. Those who don't conform to the status quo are weird. To both sides.

 

[Kapalika]

I honestly don't think people choose what to believe, if they really believe what they say they do. Sometimes people can just pretend until it sticks enough but if they are honest they can't choose; it becomes a consequence of starting assumptions and evidence.

 

[Nakosis]

How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

What can be proven, verified I usually accept. What can't, I feel it's purely arbitrary.

What can't be proven or disproven folks are kind of free to believe what they want. A person can accept or create whatever belief makes sense to them. I just don't expect it to hold any authority over anyone else's belief.

I can create a God, tell you all about the God I created. Most folks though seem to view other people as having some authority over what is correct to believe. So they try to conform their beliefs with whomever they feel has authority over such things,

Someone who speaks with passion and conviction is often accepted as having authority. I suspect it's embedded in our DNA to look towards someone who possesses certain characteristics of authority.

You first authority is your parents, then teachers, religious leaders. Probably these have a lot of influence on the authority folks accept later in life.

 

[Mindmaster]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

Heh, you are fighting the paradigm of left-handed theism verse mainstream in your post... I still find it interesting to see your thought process on the matter. In the case of mainstream religions, it is a matter of whether you accept the irrational dogma or not. I say irrational specifically because you are not allowed to argue the point, or disregard the parameters and still be considered to be practicing the religion. Furthermore, the adherents who do follow the mandates feel justified in pushing "the wayward" of their flock into the desired fenced off path, and if they won't capitulate the nearest cliff will do.

On materialism, the entire experience of life is subjective and that's the error of these types of views. To have a basis, the materialist needs facts, facts which are limited by other facts and our ability to perceive them. This is why atheism as in, "I do not know of any gods", is valid... But, it is an error to presume that others do not, nor does the fact that you are unable to be aware of them mean that such findings apply to others. Also, it's off the block that because they are unable to perceive (or sometimes they actively deny, even though they DO experience things) that maybe they are the ones that are broken. Hence, all the intellectual superiority and skeptical ranting. Certainly, I find no mistake in feeling no obligation to a spiritual life if you are oblivious to it, but sometimes I see outright cruelty from this camp and it's completely unjustified. You aren't more right than the spiritual person, and they aren't more right than you - you both are living within the confines of your perceived subjective realities.

Theists from mainstream religions fall into this trap as well, in that they will not accept the atheist position as valid. The error for them is in the need to be right as well not realizing that the other persons subjective universe is shaped by other criteria. They try to apply their dogma as if it is a one size fits most solution, and that is completely flawed. If you cannot address intellectual probing into your religion you cannot appeal to intellectuals, it's that simple.

There also is what I call "personal gravity" and this is on both sides of the fence because people are unlikely to change their minds on anything. It's far easier to be lazy than to challenge your base beliefs, a power only given to those whom truly are interested in improving themselves on all planes. Unfortunately, this ability is rarer than spiritual perception or intellectual prowess.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This is what I have noticed too. Right now I'm kind of an agnostic non-theist who uses polytheism in my practice. I used to be 100% atheist. There are some interesting thoughts and comparisons both proving and disproving some deity.

My take on it is that cherry-picking is easier than growing your own beliefs, and naturally humans desire a belief in something. Those who don't conform to the status quo are weird. To both sides.

hmmm...I think the term cherry picking implies that people NEVER think up anything on their own, and always pick from the smorgasbord of ideas of other belief systems...

Let's just say I don't buy that, and I don't think that's what's happened to me...my practice is based on what I've experienced, what has worked for ME. I understand and can hold in my mind without believing or discarding many different belief...and I've tried many of them...and most of them don't work for me...but I've come up with a few things on my own that work...and the spirits have introduced others for me...

 

[SabahTheLoner]

hmmm...I think the term cherry picking implies that people NEVER think up anything on their own, and always pick from the smorgasbord of ideas of other belief systems...

Let's just say I don't buy that, and I don't think that's what's happened to me...my practice is based on what I've experienced, what has worked for ME. I understand and can hold in my mind without believing or discarding many different belief...and I've tried many of them...and most of them don't work for me...but I've come up with a few things on my own that work...and the spirits have introduced others for me...

You'd be surprised how many people are okay with the smorgasbord ideas and never question their origins or use. Especially when it comes to conservative Christianity. I am always frustrated when I get into a theological conversation with a religious person who doesn't think for themselves. Grown ups and children alike. It's one thing to have beliefs that happen to align to another worldview. It's another when you force yourself into a box.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You'd be surprised how many people are okay with the smorgasbord ideas and never question their origins or use. Especially when it comes to conservative Christianity. I am always frustrated when I get into a theological conversation with a religious person who doesn't think for themselves. Grown ups and children alike. It's one thing to have beliefs that happen to align to another worldview. It's another when you force yourself into a box.

Yep, I tried that earlier in life...I didn't fit...

 

[Jumi]

Regarding most matters, if it's proven conclusively enough by science, I evaluate it as most likely true and therefore believe it.
If something doesn't stand to logic, it's most likely wrong or presented wrong and I won't believe it.
If something matches with my gnosis I'm likely to believe it, until it becomes disproven by either of the above two.

In morals I mostly accept the cultural upbringing and legal background of my country except where it either a) conflicts with
the type of individual freedom of choice that doesn't hurt anyone or b) is detrimental to majority. Honor may also override
some of this, if touched upon, though I see it unlikely.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

I never heard of material monism and only heard of scientific focused atheists when I came to RF. I knew no atheist in person just ex-christians who decide not to be chrietians anymore.

I cant pick and choose with atheism evidence because I never believed in gods to begin with. Buddhism as deities and I dont choose not to believe their exists. I just cant believe. However, I was taught Buddhist deities and aspects of the mind in some schools. Not all schools are literal and I noticed Buddhists dont come together like members at Church. We have ceremonies but outside of that each persons practice is personal unless one is a monk then they have more social responsibility not all laity have.

I cant choose atheism on the basis on scientific evidence. There is no god to where I can start trying to use evidence to come up with that conclusion.

Also, god does not exist regardless of theist claims that he does. The relationship with gods and theists and what they say doesnt make sense if literal gods in order for me to believe them. I just respect their experience and what I experienced and let it be.

 

[Darkstorn]

I never chose anything. My parents didn't teach me about religion(they are Muslims) and i heard about the concept from others, mostly Christians, much later in life.

And by then i was already set in my ways.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism).

What arguments are worse than those for theism? They're mostly arguments from incredulity, which are fallacies. Some people just can't see how a godless universe can exist.. That's most of the case for theism.

any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted.

No science hurts atheism.

With theism, however, it's a different story, at least according to theists trying to undermine it. They seem to see science as a threat.

How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

Reason applied to evidence has always served me well. Faith failed me.

 

[George-ananda]

How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

Well, I believe what makes the most sense to believe given all the evidence and argumentation I have seen and heard. Many people identify with a certain belief system and then become defensive against anything that doesn't seem to fit it. Actually we always should stay open-minded and go with what makes the most sense considering all things.

 

[Sapiens]

...
Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism)

Atheism goes back many generations and I no of no material monists, or anything like that.

...
On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism).

Horse pucky! I ask for the same sort of evidence in all cases. Theism has no evidence, leaving atheism (as in "no theism") as the default.

...
Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you."

It is a hard road to defend the indefensible when you have no evidence to back your claims and when you attempt to present evidence and it is so easily falsified.

...
Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported,

For example?

...
but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

Just the facts, just the facts.

humans are cherry pickers, and very demanding of conformity.

I am against any kind of conformity.

it's a king of the hill mentality in both atheism, and theism. the battle to be righteous and to never be questioned.

There is no battle when viewed from the atheist perspective. There is no objective evidence to support extraordinary theistic claims. The entire suite of arguments against atheism can be broken down into a list of logical fallacies. What more need be said?

 

[Mister Silver]

I did not choose to disbelieve in god(s). Rather, when I allowed my mind to reason properly in relation to reality, the theistic veil that had been placed over my mind through religious teachings was simply swept away by logic.

 

[sun rise]

I believe I should not believe everything I think.

To expand a bit, my thoughts are not a good guide as to what to believe.

 

[Milton Platt]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

Material monism is a Presocratic belief which provides an explanation of the physical world by saying that all of the world's objects are composed of a single element. I know of no atheist that believes there is only one element. Maybe there are a few.....have you met one?

Edit: I think maybe they meant one of several elements (air, fire, earth, water). Either way, I don't think your accusation holds water.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

You don't pick actuality. Belief doesn't even apply.

 

[Jesster]

I didn't choose my beliefs. I just happen to not be convinced by any religion. "Atheism" is just a label that matches my level of uncertainty in the existence of deities. As soon as anything is able to convince me that any deity exists, I will have no choice but to believe.