• 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!

Empathy for Atheists.

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If I want to share my faith beliefs with someone (should they ask), it’s important to approach others in love and kindness and not arrogance - like I know more than you etc...

I don’t think I’ve ever bothered to listen to anyone about anything that way.

Fair point.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You can’t learn your way into faith if knowledge is all you have..

This is true Iblis had knowledge but was not sincere enough to keep it and a curse descended on his knowledge because it was full of arrogance.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
Fair point.
You also need to be happy in your own skin, in your beliefs ...it doesn’t matter if others don’t believe. It’s not their journey. You can’t walk another's journey, and they can’t walk yours.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You also need to be happy in your own skin, in your beliefs ...it doesn’t matter if others don’t believe. It’s not their journey. You can’t walk another's journey, and they can’t walk yours.
Hmmm... This is true, but the thing is Quran forces people to judge or withhold judgment depending on how they interpret disbeliever/coverer of truth. If I assume people are to blame, I will look at them harshly. But if my interpretation of Quran is that truth is not apparent without miracles, it's easier to live with humans in this time and in all honesty - they aren't the same those who witness miracles and go all to fight the performer of the miracles and put out the light. And I don't think we can put the requirement of faith with miracles the same as if rejecting a true religion is same as rejecting it if presented with miracles.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
Hmmm... This is true, but the thing is Quran forces people to judge or withhold judgment depending on how they interpret disbeliever/coverer of truth. If I assume people are to blame, I will look at them harshly. But if my interpretation of Quran is that truth is not apparent without miracles, it's easier to live with humans in this time and in all honesty - they aren't the same those who witness miracles and go all to fight the performer of the miracles and put out the light. And I don't think we can put the requirement of faith with miracles the same as if rejecting a true religion is same as rejecting it if presented with miracles.
There is no “requirement” of faith, really. It’s about you and God. While Jesus performed miracles, I can’t say that’s why I believe. That’s amazing but believing comes down to (imo) how faith changes your life. It’s all about rules and requirements, is that faith? I’m not arguing, just saying.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is no “requirement” of faith, really. It’s about you and God. While Jesus performed miracles, I can’t say that’s why I believe. That’s amazing but believing comes down to (imo) how faith changes your life. It’s all about rules and requirements, is that faith? I’m not arguing, just saying.

This is why I believe "faith in the unseen" right now is harder but more praiseworthy then when a Messenger in public. And it's less evil not to know the truth when a Messenger is not in public to the extent we can assume they will be forgiven as long as they weren't evil and oppressive towards others.

Truth is apparent only with miracles. Other then that, you have to search and rely on the holy spirit to see the unseen signs through the heart.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The way Quran talks about miracles is that they were meant to stay and if they ever not in public, previous generations denied them (and there are factors related to that that make not in public anymore).
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
1. That fact people who claim that faith leads to knowledge of the unseen and spiritual enlightenment can't agree what it is and every religion has divisions, is a major turn off.

2. The fact miracles were once part of the historical past according to most religions but are completely absent in today's time requires an explanation.

3. That interpretations of holy books are so vast that it seems a kid can write more clearly and decisively then God by the results.

4. The problem of suffering of humans, put's a moral nature to atheism. They don't like suffering, can we hate them for that?

5. The brutal conditions many animals go through - God could have created Pokemon but instead we get.... poor Bamby eaten.

6. Moral argument and value argument maybe strong if we all united on the light of morality and value, but since we have not, and fight one another, are they too be blamed for believing it's all subjective?

7. They got theories like evolution, big bang, etc, so God has become less of a scientific conclusion.

8. Some of are pretty cool can we blame them for us judging them harshly and telling them lack spiritual sense/faith and look down upon them, when a lot of them are just too cool to hate?

9. What's the point of seeking the truth when all seekers of it apparently disagree on it?

10. Atheists are humans, they just have drawn different conclusions about this whole spaghetti code of religion we got going. Blame ourselves before blaming them IMHO.
I am coming to think that it is impossible for anyone to decide what to believe – but that it is still possible to modify the mental framework that belief requires.

Suppose I tell you that I will pay you $100,000 right now if you sincerely believe that a pink unicorn is flying outside your window right now. (We have to pretend that I can read your mind, and that I know whether you sincerely believe or are just saying you do.)

You can’t do it. You can say you believe it, you can even want to believe it because you'd like the extra cash, but you cannot in fact will yourself to believe it. Why not? Because there is no evidence for the claim, and a mountain of evidence against it.

I think this is true of all kinds of belief, including religious. Your parents, your culture, the society you live in – they all pressure you in various ways to what your beliefs should be, but I don’t think that beliefs acquired that way are really authentic. Truly authentic belief comes from a whole lot of stuff – your environment, as above, but most importantly your view of the available evidence for or against. So I think that you have some indirect control over your beliefs.

So while you can’t directly control whether or not you believe in God, you can control it indirectly by taking stock of the best arguments and evidence on either side of the question. Thus, by making a “good faith” effort to understand and evaluate the best available evidence (and here’s where it can badly wrong), you can indirectly choose what to believe. Then, as a rational being, you just follow the evidence – seeking truth wherever that leads you.

But there’s where we find the problem. What’s the “best available evidence?” Well, for the pink unicorn, what if I produce a lot of old texts that assert vehemently that it exists? Wouldn’t you still want to see the unicorn – or is the evidence of the texts I’ve produced (whose provenance you cannot actually ascertain) enough for you?

So for me, the only real question is that – what evidence are you willing to accept? And are you really doing it in good faith?

So the atheist doesn’t need empathy from anyone. The atheist lacks belief because the atheist lacks evidence for the existence of God and notes the evidence against such a hypothesis. The theist doesn’t need empathy, either, because the theist has accepted such evidence as they’ve decided answers their epistemic need, and to ignore the evidence that contradicts their belief.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am coming to think that it is impossible for anyone to decide what to believe – but that it is still possible to modify the mental framework that belief requires.

Suppose I tell you that I will pay you $100,000 right now if you sincerely believe that a pink unicorn is flying outside your window right now. (We have to pretend that I can read your mind, and that I know whether you sincerely believe or are just saying you do.)

You can’t do it. You can say you believe it, you can even want to believe it because you'd like the extra cash, but you cannot in fact will yourself to believe it. Why not? Because there is no evidence for the claim, and a mountain of evidence against it.

I think this is true of all kinds of belief, including religious. Your parents, your culture, the society you live in – they all pressure you in various ways to what your beliefs should be, but I don’t think that beliefs acquired that way are really authentic. Truly authentic belief comes from a whole lot of stuff – your environment, as above, but most importantly your view of the available evidence for or against. So I think that you have some indirect control over your beliefs.

So while you can’t directly control whether or not you believe in God, you can control it indirectly by taking stock of the best arguments and evidence on either side of the question. Thus, by making a “good faith” effort to understand and evaluate the best available evidence (and here’s where it can badly wrong), you can indirectly choose what to believe. Then, as a rational being, you just follow the evidence – seeking truth wherever that leads you.

But there’s where we find the problem. What’s the “best available evidence?” Well, for the pink unicorn, what if I produce a lot of old texts that assert vehemently that it exists? Wouldn’t you still want to see the unicorn – or is the evidence of the texts I’ve produced (whose provenance you cannot actually ascertain) enough for you?

So for me, the only real question is that – what evidence are you willing to accept? And are you really doing it in good faith?

So the atheist doesn’t need empathy from anyone. The atheist lacks belief because the atheist lacks evidence for the existence of God and notes the evidence against such a hypothesis. The theist doesn’t need empathy, either, because the theist has accepted such evidence as they’ve decided answers their epistemic need, and to ignore the evidence that contradicts their belief.

I understand your viewpoint, but will not be arguing for why I believe in God in this thread.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is no “requirement” of faith, really. It’s about you and God. While Jesus performed miracles, I can’t say that’s why I believe. That’s amazing but believing comes down to (imo) how faith changes your life. It’s all about rules and requirements, is that faith? I’m not arguing, just saying.

By the way I won't mention details but I still remember your story. Not everyone gets as lucky as you and I hope you never swerve from faith in God and Jesus (a).
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
By the way I won't mention details but I still remember your story. Not everyone gets as lucky as you and I hope you never swerve from faith in God and Jesus (a).
You make me want to cry. In a good way. You are a good soul, and I replied to your profile comment. I'm so happy we are friends. :glomp:
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
No, no. You said you don't believe because there is no evidence. How come theists believe? According to you they believe without evidence, hence, your claim is false - your disbelief has nothing to do with evidence.
Actually theists believe due to how the human brain evolved. Humans evolved in a very dangerous world, and their chance to survive was built on tribes of people coming together and cooperating. they also competed with other tribes. Humans had to align to the tribe and conform to the group norms, this was to build trust and offer belonging. As civilizations developed and became more complex religions and rituals formed in place of primitive beliefs. The monotheistic Hebrews formed from a polytheistic tradition. Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and other fringe religions and sects grew from this.

Today children learn that religion is part of their family and local traditions. Kids tend to adopt the religion of their parents and family. People learn about these ideas and they become part of their identity. So believers know WHAT they believe, but don't know WHY they believe it. These beliefs have been accepted subconsciously. No one comes to a rational conclusion that a God exists via facts, data, and a coherent explanation. People only believe because it feels satisfying somehow.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I am coming to think that it is impossible for anyone to decide what to believe – but that it is still possible to modify the mental framework that belief requires.

Suppose I tell you that I will pay you $100,000 right now if you sincerely believe that a pink unicorn is flying outside your window right now. (We have to pretend that I can read your mind, and that I know whether you sincerely believe or are just saying you do.)

You can’t do it. You can say you believe it, you can even want to believe it because you'd like the extra cash, but you cannot in fact will yourself to believe it. Why not? Because there is no evidence for the claim, and a mountain of evidence against it.
That kind of challenge won't lead a person in pink unicorns. But there has been studies that demonstrate people will change conform to a group belief that the individual clearly knows is wrong. One test was a group of people being asked to look at one picture of a line, and then compare the length to one of three other cards that have varying lengths of lines. It is obvious which line of the three cards matches the first sample card. All people in the group are told to pick the wrong length consistently. there is one subject in the group who at first picks the correct length in the first few sets, but then eventually starts following the group's decision.

The point was that a person can doubt their own senses and understanding and conform to what a group believes even when WRONG. Fascinating series of studies. Also the Milgram studies point to how people will suspend their own moral beliefs to follow the orders of a scientist doing a study. It was a set of studies to see how people could work for the Nazis. It was shown that people will follow orders from an authority figure even if it conflicts with their own morals.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
That kind of challenge won't lead a person in pink unicorns. But there has been studies that demonstrate people will change conform to a group belief that the individual clearly knows is wrong. One test was a group of people being asked to look at one picture of a line, and then compare the length to one of three other cards that have varying lengths of lines. It is obvious which line of the three cards matches the first sample card. All people in the group are told to pick the wrong length consistently. there is one subject in the group who at first picks the correct length in the first few sets, but then eventually starts following the group's decision.

The point was that a person can doubt their own senses and understanding and conform to what a group believes even when WRONG. Fascinating series of studies. Also the Milgram studies point to how people will suspend their own moral beliefs to follow the orders of a scientist doing a study. It was a set of studies to see how people could work for the Nazis. It was shown that people will follow orders from an authority figure even if it conflicts with their own morals.
I'm well acquainted with all of that, but "conforming" is still not the same thing as "believing." Conforming against your own perceptions merely leads to cognitive dissonance. And when later presented with a group making the correct choice, the conformer will revert -- only this time without the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I'm well acquainted with all of that, but "conforming" is still not the same thing as "believing." Conforming against your own perceptions merely leads to cognitive dissonance. And when later presented with a group making the correct choice, the conformer will revert -- only this time without the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
I suspect the few theists who engage with atheists have learned how to use the cognitive dissonance to actually sink deeper into their faith. I've noticed a few examples of believers over the years as the prod atheists into discussions and then retreat into their faith with even more fervor, as if they sacrifice their reason to God. Let's note that there is some baseline part of human behavior that does like pain. Think for example eating spicy foods. The brain releases a little of hormones into the blood when this happens, so there is a reward felt. I suspect this sort of aggressive theism serves a similar purpose, where the cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable but it results in a release of hormones, and the euphoria can be mistaken as an experience with God.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I made a thread about religious pluralism in Quranic section. There is two main verses for this concept that not all non-Muslims are disbelievers (and can be argued with truth not being apparent in this age, majority of humans don't fall in category of disbelievers). But there is a lot more then that actually, in which disbelief is defined with respect to truth becoming clear through miracles. There was miracles even in the battlefield where Imam Ali (a) would fight in a supernaturally way by God's power, and there was nothing normal of Muslims winning those battles, and they aside from Imam Ali (a) were aided by Angels (a) to fight in ways that were not normal. The believers not only were given miracles from the Prophet (s) like splitting the moon, bringing dead back to life, etc, but themselves witnessed God's power through them in the battlefield.

The Quran talked about miracles and faith in them as if they were meant to stay. And in fact, in the 17th chapter, says nothing prevents God from ever sending such signs except the first generations denied them. Meaning, if our previous generations that had them, accept them from Ahlullbayt (a), Imam Mahdi (a) would not be in Ghayba right now, but rather miracles would be in the open.

Miracles are talked about in form of signs and proofs all over Quran. So much of Quran is about them. They were meant to stay because the day where sun of truth is bright is the true living humans meant to have. In the night where miracles are not in open, truth is not apparent. In fact, the argument Quran makes for miracles is that they are huge trial but really when faith is tested. At the moment, you submit to truth and love God or you hate it and accuse the performers of sorcery.

But when miracles are not in the open. I think the true disbelief comes from those with knowledge of the book but distort it for their desires. Of course a lot of people have no clue about the Tahreef in understanding and to be forgiven as well.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Musa (a) didn't argue about monotheism vs polytheistic incarnation thing of Pharaoh all day, he mentioned a bit, but then moved on to miracles. Most of the dialogue was revolving around miracles, and a lot of Quran is about how miracles are proof, and God being the ruler and source of power of performer of miracles, is all in context, of that miracles were performed by Mohammad (S).

It's not the same, that a human simply doesn't arrive at truth, and a person witnessing miracles and rejecting and accusing the miracles like bringing dead back to life as being sorcery and not power acquired from God and trusted to his chosen.

It's that moment when a person is seen to love Dunya or next world, otherwise, most humans have not chosen between the two (dunya or next world). The ones who choose between two in Quran are those who when provided proofs, rest are those who await God's authority and judgment is to be withheld about them. If they are decent people, inshallah, they will be forgiven.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1. That fact people who claim that faith leads to knowledge of the unseen and spiritual enlightenment can't agree what it is and every religion has divisions, is a major turn off.

2. The fact miracles were once part of the historical past according to most religions but are completely absent in today's time requires an explanation.

3. That interpretations of holy books are so vast that it seems a kid can write more clearly and decisively then God by the results.

4. The problem of suffering of humans, put's a moral nature to atheism. They don't like suffering, can we hate them for that?

5. The brutal conditions many animals go through - God could have created Pokemon but instead we get.... poor Bamby eaten.

6. Moral argument and value argument maybe strong if we all united on the light of morality and value, but since we have not, and fight one another, are they too be blamed for believing it's all subjective?

7. They got theories like evolution, big bang, etc, so God has become less of a scientific conclusion.

8. Some of are pretty cool can we blame them for us judging them harshly and telling them lack spiritual sense/faith and look down upon them, when a lot of them are just too cool to hate?

9. What's the point of seeking the truth when all seekers of it apparently disagree on it?

10. Atheists are humans, they just have drawn different conclusions about this whole spaghetti code of religion we got going. Blame ourselves before blaming them IMHO.

Kind of you to try to understand atheists. Too often, we see things like, "They reject God out of arrogance" and we're going to hell for it.

This sounds like the case for atheism, although you seem to present it as the case for understanding and tolerating atheists. The case for atheism is the belief that nothing should be believed without sufficient evidentiary support (skepticism), and that the available evidence doesn't point more to the existence of a god than it does to naturalistic explanations for origin, evolution, and daily operations of the universe. The critical thinker is forced to be agnostic about gods, since he can neither rule in or out either any naturalistic or supernaturalistic logical possibility. Agnosticism about gods leads to atheism for the critical thinker, since he cannot believe in gods without sufficient evidence.

But some of your points embody that lack of evidence. For [1], yes, it's a problem that people claiming to have spiritual truth believe different and often mutually exclusive things, or else can't explain what those truths are. That's not truth to me (see [9] also). The periodic table of the elements is the truth about an aspect of reality. It's derived from evidence, which tethers it to reality. That's why there is only one. [2] is another lack of evidence issue. And [5].

You include many of the atheist's arguments of the form that if there were a good, loving, omniscient, omnipotent god, there are certain things that we should expect to see that we don't. So we don't merely lack sufficient evidence, we're missing evidence that ought to be there if such a god is ruling our universe. Theists object to that kind of thinking, often considering it arrogant and impudent to have expectations of God if he exists, but there's a basic difference between the way the two camps process information.

I use that absence of expected evidence as a part of my argument that this benevolent, interventionalist god doesn't exist (conclusion follows evidence considered impartially and dispassionately, whatever that conclusion). The theist begins with the idea that a God does exist, and then evaluates evidence from that perspective, accepting whatever seems to support the faith-based belief and ignoring or dismissing that which contradicts it. Obviously, these two radically different approaches to deciding what is true about the world lead to mutually exclusive belief sets.

So, that's why I say that your OP reads like an argument for unbelief, but only if one processes information from evidence to inevitable conclusion rather than the other way around. The comments you listed are in large part what makes the critical thinker (skeptical, empirical) an atheist, but if one wants to begin with the assumption that such a god exists, none of those points will have have meaning. They'll be in the pile of things that the theist couldn't use in defense of his faith-based premise. None of that can possibly be seen as evidence against the existence of an benevolent, interventionalist deity since it couldn't possibly be if one begins with a sense of certitude that it does exist.

This is analogous to looking at the acts of a deity in a holy book, and one kind of thinker concluding that what is described cannot be a good god if it does these things, whereas the person who begins by assuming that such a deity does exist cannot see those same acts as immoral if he assumes that they cannot be.

Anyway, that's how we think and why we believe what we do. Again, thank you for being tolerant rather than accusing atheists of being arrogant and worthy of eternal punishment for thinking this way and coming to their own inevitable conclusions and trusting in reason rather than trusting in faith.

One more point about how reason affects the skeptic's behavior. I've mentioned how it affects his beliefs. Most of us are agnostic atheists, and like me, don't claim that gods can't or don't exist, just certain types of gods that have been described in logically impossible terms. So why do we live as atheists rather than theists?

The answer is that although there are three beliefs possible - God exists, no gods exist, and nobody knows - there are only two behaviors possible - live as a theist and maybe choose a god, religion, and holy book, or not. The choices seem imposed on the first two to either accept or reject a religious life, but why is the agnostic living like the guy who says gods don't exist rather than as a theist?

The answer is apparent in an analogy using trust. There are three positions possible regarding trusting another person: he's demonstrated that he's trustworthy, he's shown that he cannot be trusted, and we just met and thus can say neither, but only two behaviors possible - trust the guy with your $50,000 (or whatever the issue is), or not. Again, we know what the first two guys will do - one will trust, and one will distrust. But what about the agnostic? He has to pick one of those as well, and he's going to do what the person who knows that the guy is dishonest will do - reserve his trust until he has evidence that such trust is justified. That's why the agnostic skeptic lives like an atheist outside of supernatural belief systems.
 

Shakeel

Well-Known Member
I've noticed a few examples of believers over the years as the prod atheists into discussions and then retreat into their faith with even more fervor, as if they sacrifice their reason to God.
Are you sure it's not because of your awful arguments and because of the very values which you have that make them flee from you?
 
Top