-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dear Atheists, tell me what you DO believe
- Thread starter ChristineM
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The word real is without evidence and only works if you believe in it. Real is in your brain and nowhere else.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Isn't any naturally occurring structure, like a self-realising universe, a product of it's own design? The design being encoded in those laws which govern the evolution of the structure - and the precise laws governing it's interaction with all the forces bearing on it, from within and without.
I know what will happen to me after death, the same as happens to everyone, they decompose to atoms and molecules which go on to help create something new. The first law of thermodynamics tells me this.
In this way we are all made of star stuff and dead people.
As to spiritual guesswork, when there is falsifiable evidence i will consider it. Until then it's a nothing
Well, the obvious is that we have alternative naturalistic mechanisms, accepted by virtually all scientists, including Christian scientists, that suggest exactly the opposite.
ciao
- viole
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
What you describe are assumptions based on past experience, or expectations/desires for future events, not "beliefs".
Atheists can believe in anything at all (as long as it is not the existence of gods), because atheism is a single issue position.
However, many atheists (like myself) do not "believe" anything. We accept things on the basis of evidence and rational argument. It is a subtle but important distinction.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I believe the universe does fine without the ideology of a God.
firedragon
Veteran Member
What evidence?
Well, instead of wasting time trying to heal everybody, why not simply eliminate the disease? A little suggestion to the Almighty being, for the sake of efficiency.
ciao
- viole
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Mere question begging.
It has not been established that the universe, the earth, living things, etc were designed. If they were not designed (which is what seems likely) there is no requirement for a designer.
If you mean "Have you ever seen complex structures that were produced by unconscious, natural processes?", then yes. Often.
We don't directly connect to the here and now. We connect indirectly, our conscious awareness does through the mechanisms of the brain but I believe this is reliable enough. Just not perfect.
What I like to do is walking meditation. That where you go on a walk while letting go of the conscious self.
So you take all of the sights/sounds/feeling (like the breeze) without conscious thought or judgement.
I find myself normally thinking about stuff like my past/future/relationships etc... So I try to let go of all that thinking and just absorb the sights and sound that I experience on my walk. Occasionally, my brain still tries to introduce some thought or the other into the experience. As I notice this, I gently let go of this thought and go back to non-thought and simply absorbing reality as it presents itself.
I find the experience pleasant. To let go of that constant conversation that's going on inside my head. Just the peaceful experience of reality.
When you say 'I know' you are really stating a belief there and not knowledge. And contrarily I believe we are non-physical beings temporarily incarnating a physical body, but that is another different direction that this thread was not intended to go.
Really, if physical science hasn't proven it then the spiritual does not exist? For me, I have concluded dramatic things lie beyond our physical senses and instruments.
@ChristineM I like this comment, although I would combine agnosticism and atheism under conclusion and leave out the atheism is my opinion part: "Skepticism is my nature. Freethought is my methodology. Agnosticism is my conclusion. Atheism is my opinion. Humanitarianism is my motivation." - Jerry DeWitt
Yes, if by designer you mean a conscious designer. So have you.
Once again, if all you mean is that there are patterns in the body, such as bilateral symmetry and cephalization, then yes, the body obviously has patterns. But when a theist uses the word design or designer, it generally is an argument for an intelligent designer. There is no evidence that one is needed. Besides patterns in nature being evidence of a God to you, you cited love as evidence for God. Not to me. It's evidence that human beings can love, not why. You seem to have eliminated naturalistic explanations for the existence of love without justification. I haven't.
Probably the commonest argument for an intelligent designer being needed is so-called fine tuning of the constants of physics that lead to a universe that is stable enough to support the development of life and mind. But this isn't an argument for a supernatural intelligent designer who created our universe and its laws. That designer is subject to those laws if there are only narrow ranges permissible for those parameters, and that the deity is constrained to respect them. It would still be intelligent design if it were the work of a conscious agent, but not of the supernatural variety.
Agreed. Believing in generally refers to unjustified belief, although the phrase is sometimes used to mean justified belief, such as believing in an employee who has already demonstrated that they have what it takes. Believing, or justified belief, is what the skeptical empiricist does.
I use the word to refer to the collection of memories and other ideas that I consider correct. I judge correctness by utility. If I can use the idea to anticipate outcomes, it's a keeper. Other ideas that don't work are rejected.
What generally interests us is the arguments that theists advance. I'm very interested in the psychology of faith, and not just religious faith. I have the same discussions with the vaccine deniers and climate deniers. They state their faith-based belief, then frequently attempt to give it the legitimacy of being the result of reason applied to evidence (science), neither of which was used to come to that position. It's been very helpful to me in honing reasoning skills.
Also, I'm interested in the effect religion has on people. After a number of years, we see the assortment of types of people both within and without religion and their relative frequency. I compare them to the secular humanists, whom I have also come to understand in these same terms - what is the distribution of intelligent and foolish people, what is the distribution of morally exemplary types and those with what I consider failed moral opinions. That's the control group - the secular humanists, against which the various spectra of theists is judged to discern how their religion affects them. What is the typical Jehovah's Witness or Baha'i like (they're very different, aren't they), and how does that compare to the humanist spectrum?
It's the basis of my belief that the religion doesn't make people better or smarter, but it can make them the opposite, depending on the religion and to what degree one lets it affect his thinking. The Christian Bible is replete with bigoted comments about both gays and atheists, but not all Christians accept or embody that teaching. Many religions teach that evolution is a lie, and many do not. The distribution of types in each category is different.
Incidentally, I don't see any group outperforming the humanists for decency, which is why I have concluded that none of these religions make people better people that they could be without it.
I hope that answers your question. This is why I do it.
Yes, if by designer you mean a conscious designer. So have you.
Once again, if all you mean is that there are patterns in the body, such as bilateral symmetry and cephalization, then yes, the body obviously has patterns. But when a theist uses the word design or designer, it generally is an argument for an intelligent designer. There is no evidence that one is needed. Besides patterns in nature being evidence of a God to you, you cited love as evidence for God. Not to me. It's evidence that human beings can love, not why. You seem to have eliminated naturalistic explanations for the existence of love without justification. I haven't.
Probably the commonest argument for an intelligent designer being needed is so-called fine tuning of the constants of physics that lead to a universe that is stable enough to support the development of life and mind. But this isn't an argument for a supernatural intelligent designer who created our universe and its laws. That designer is subject to those laws if there are only narrow ranges permissible for those parameters, and that the deity is constrained to respect them. It would still be intelligent design if it were the work of a conscious agent, but not of the supernatural variety.
Agreed. Believing in generally refers to unjustified belief, although the phrase is sometimes used to mean justified belief, such as believing in an employee who has already demonstrated that they have what it takes. Believing, or justified belief, is what the skeptical empiricist does.
I use the word to refer to the collection of memories and other ideas that I consider correct. I judge correctness by utility. If I can use the idea to anticipate outcomes, it's a keeper. Other ideas that don't work are rejected.
What generally interests us is the arguments that theists advance. I'm very interested in the psychology of faith, and not just religious faith. I have the same discussions with the vaccine deniers and climate deniers. They state their faith-based belief, then frequently attempt to give it the legitimacy of being the result of reason applied to evidence (science), neither of which was used to come to that position. It's been very helpful to me in honing reasoning skills.
Also, I'm interested in the effect religion has on people. After a number of years, we see the assortment of types of people both within and without religion and their relative frequency. I compare them to the secular humanists, whom I have also come to understand in these same terms - what is the distribution of intelligent and foolish people, what is the distribution of morally exemplary types and those with what I consider failed moral opinions. That's the control group - the secular humanists, against which the various spectra of theists is judged to discern how their religion affects them. What is the typical Jehovah's Witness or Baha'i like (they're very different, aren't they), and how does that compare to the humanist spectrum?
It's the basis of my belief that the religion doesn't make people better or smarter, but it can make them the opposite, depending on the religion and to what degree one lets it affect his thinking. The Christian Bible is replete with bigoted comments about both gays and atheists, but not all Christians accept or embody that teaching. Many religions teach that evolution is a lie, and many do not. The distribution of types in each category is different.
Incidentally, I don't see any group outperforming the humanists for decency, which is why I have concluded that none of these religions make people better people that they could be without it.
I hope that answers your question. This is why I do it.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
OK. What makes it "obvious" that the human body was designed by a conscious entity?
Then explain why they made such a godawful mess of it.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Not all utility is about what is based on external experience and that which is concrete as hands-on. You are running into these limitations:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Are you employing the "Jimmy Savile Defence", or are you claiming that god is only responsible for the nice stuff while all the bad stuff just happens all by itself?
Precisely, they are my beliefs
Yours are different, for example, do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow. The evidence is sound, the argument is sound but some intervention may prevent it, yes i know, highly unlikely but...
I am stating fact from the 1st law of thermodynamics
I certainly don't believe that, i prefer hard evidence over the intangible every time
That 1st law I also believe works fine for describing physical plane phenomena. It can’t tell us though if the spiritual planes exist or not.
But that debate is outside the intent of this thread.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
What are you going on about? I point to the best we're going to get - which is what we can agree on is part of the reality we experience. I may hand someone a glass of drink, for example, and while I think it is "cold", they think otherwise. That's one we can take to an external instrument to find out the actual temperature that we can BOTH be forced to agree on - regardless whether one calls it "hot", "lukewarm" or "cold." I posit that the person calling it "lukewarm" is just putting forth that "fluff" I was talking about. So am I when I call it "cold." The thing we can both experience however, is the temperature reading. And when there isn't a method of getting to that mutual agreement? Well then whoever can use their data to actually predict how the universe is going to react is the winner. And if there isn't even that to turn to? Then it is all just opinion and likely doesn't matter in the least anyway. Like anyone's ideas of "religion" that include beings within other realms, or supernatural goings-on. One can only have opinions about these things until it is demonstrated to be MORE than opinion.
I'm not speaking for all of us, I am speaking to what we can experience in some mutual way versus what we categorically cannot. There is an ocean of difference there. YOU can't see it... and I heartily believe that to be because your particular brand of "skepticism" has you with your head planted squarely in a dark, no-sunshiney place.