How I Feel About Atheists

[PureX]

I guess I can only speak for myself, but it is not possible for me to choose to believe something I am not convinced of.

What is the distinction, exactly? Isn't "choosing to believe" the same as "being convinced"? I mean, aren't you choosing when you have reached the point of being convinced? And aren't you choosing the criteria for when that point has been reached, and by what "evidence"? I mean, unless your mind is being controlled by some outside force, then it is YOU that is acquiring the information, YOU who is determining it's relevance, and YOU who us deciding whether you have been convinced by it or not.

So how are you imagining that YOU are not in control of this process? Or of the results of the process?

 

[leibowde84]

What is the distinction, exactly? Isn't "choosing to believe" the same as "being convinced"? I mean, aren't you choosing when you have reached the point of being convinced? And aren't you choosing the criteria for when that point has been reached, and by what "evidence"? I mean, unless your mind is being controlled by some outside force, then it is YOU that is acquiring the information, YOU who is determining it's relevance, and YOU who us deciding whether you have been convinced by it or not.

So how are you imagining that YOU are not in control of this process? Or of the results of the process?

We do not choose to be convinced. The evidence convinces us. Certainly people have different levels of required evidence before they are convinced of something. But, we are not able to abandon those standards and choose to believe something the evidence has not yet convinced us of.

You are right though. It is us who acquire the information, and it is us who determines it's relevance, dependability, verifiability, etc. But, that evidence is what convinces us. We do not choose to be convinced by something. We ARE convinced by it. The evidence does the convincing.

 

[Polymath257]

How? Because we 'feel them', and 'think they are real'? What about the feeling and subsequent opinion that God exists? Why doesn't that count if what we think and feel are the criteria for determining existence?

The obvious difference is that feelings are internal states. God is not.

I'm sorry, but from this conversation, so far, it does not appear that you've thought about it much, at all. At least not to the point that you've asked yourself any pertinent questions.

I've asked myself a great many questions. Which do you think are pertinent?

Why are you asking me what you have never bothered to ask yourself? Why do you think I can answer these questions for you? Or that I should? How will my answers help you if you aren't going to bother exploring them for yourself? Or if you're only asking so you can invent a rebuttal?

I have asked questions to myself about such things and I have found the concept of 'metaphysical' to be incoherent. if you think it is coherent, I would appreciate why you think so. I don't know why you think I have never asked myself questions about a metaphysical. That my answers differ from yours is clear. I am quite willing to take reasonable suggestions concerning the meaning of these concepts.

I feel the questions I asked are relevant before any further discussion can happen. If you have no answers for them, then no further discussion is possible.

If you're so convinced that I'm wrong, why are we still discussing this?

Because I know I can be wrong and learning the thought processes of another can sometimes reveal such errors.

 

[Polymath257]

What is the distinction, exactly? Isn't "choosing to believe" the same as "being convinced"? I mean, aren't you choosing when you have reached the point of being convinced? And aren't you choosing the criteria for when that point has been reached, and by what "evidence"? I mean, unless your mind is being controlled by some outside force, then it is YOU that is acquiring the information, YOU who is determining it's relevance, and YOU who us deciding whether you have been convinced by it or not.

No, it is closer to looking inside and finding that I am convinced. Sort of like looking inside and finding I like something or that I am in love. It isn't a choice, it is a state of being.

So how are you imagining that YOU are not in control of this process? Or of the results of the process?

I am in control of whether I pursue the question further, but not whether I am convinced by the evidence. I either am, or I am not.

 

[Polymath257]

It's also dishonest. Because by choosing to believe "not X", he has rejected the possibility of "X".

Once again, *it isn't a choice*. I don't reject the possibility, I am just convinced it isn't the case.

 

[columbus]

It's also dishonest. Because by choosing to believe "not X", he has rejected the possibility of "X". And the fact that he may be still slightly ambivalent about this choice is irrelevant to his having made the choice.

Not all of us suffer from your tunnel vision. Your black and white world view. Some of us are capable of nuanced thinking and contingent beliefs.

There are lots of things I believe are probably true. Some I find extremely probable, like God is a human construct like wizards and dragons and fairies. But if somebody came up with a reason to believe differently I would.
In the meantime, I don't believe that anybody knows about God. People make claims all the time, but they apparently cannot back those claims up with any evidence I can distinguish from hallucinations or delusions or ancient hearsay from primitive people. And I know a lot about modern apologetics, it's mostly irrational attempts to make primitive old ideas fit modern ideas. I believe that is because modern ideas are so much more sophisticated than the primitive ideas, but the primitive ideas are more comforting to most people and support the power and elitism of the rest.
So the little people buy notions like "God makes Himself ignorant to protect the free will of humans", despite the irrational nature of the assertion, so that the elite can continue to claim that God is omnimax but not responsible for Creation.
Tom

 

[Polymath257]

What is the distinction, exactly? Isn't "choosing to believe" the same as "being convinced"? I mean, aren't you choosing when you have reached the point of being convinced? And aren't you choosing the criteria for when that point has been reached, and by what "evidence"? I mean, unless your mind is being controlled by some outside force, then it is YOU that is acquiring the information, YOU who is determining it's relevance, and YOU who us deciding whether you have been convinced by it or not.

So how are you imagining that YOU are not in control of this process? Or of the results of the process?

I'll give another example which I think is relevant.

If there is a blue object in front of me and I open my eyes, I do not *choose* to see blue. I can choose to open my eyes. But I do not choose what I see if my eyes are open (except by looking away). I either see blue, or I do not.

If it is cold in my location, I do not *choose* to be cold. I may choose to ignore the cold, or I may choose to go elsewhere. But I do not choose whether I feel cold. I either feel cold, or I do not.

In the same way, for me, I do not choose whether I am convinced of an idea. I can choose to investigate it. I can choose to ask people about it. But I cannot choose whether I am convinced by what I have found. I am either convinced, or I am not.

None of these are *choices*. They are closer to states of being.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's also dishonest. Because by choosing to believe "not X", he has rejected the possibility of "X". And the fact that he may be still slightly ambivalent about this choice is irrelevant to his having made the choice. And his actions are now being determined by the choice he made. So again, his ambivalence is not in evidence. So he can't hide behind it when called upon to defend his choice by others, especially if he is calling upon them to do the same, and then dismissing them as fools because they have not done so to his satisfaction. Not honestly, anyway.
It's very relevant when one's actions toward others are being determined by it. And one has become duplicitous by hiding behind one possibility while actively embodying and promoting the other.

What is so difficult about understanding the difference between not believing and believing not? I wrote, "He's merely making the point that it is reasonable and consistent to say that something is possible while also saying that one doesn't believe the claim," and that self-evidently true statement eluded you. There is no choice to believe "not X" there.

See if you can craft a response that actually addresses that, and without a character attack. You only demean yourself when you go that route. Nobody is being dishonest just because they disagree with you.

Isn't "choosing to believe" the same as "being convinced"?

Seriously? Even this distinction eludes you? What business do you have calling others dishonest when you don't bring even the ability to understand what they are saying to the discussion?

 

[Little Lunch]

Pure X, it'd be nice if you stopped alluding to all atheists being fools or dishonest.
Personally, I don't like when atheists do it to theists or vice versa.

As for all these big questions you say we've never asked of ourselves, many of us have and we don't need to believe in a god to do so.

 

[Willamena]

None of these are *choices*. They are closer to states of being.

States of affairs, yes.

 

[gnomon]

You will get nowhere discussing your beliefs with most atheists as they are very ignorant to ideas and values of faith. They require empirical evidence to validate any belief system and find it unreasonable that anyone lives their lives in accordance with faith because they are ignorant of it. Since they don't share the same experience or understand why one has faith they attempt to negate it with material arguments, not realizing that material evidence isn't required in matters of faith or " God." The ironic thing is it takes faith to be a pure atheist. It takes faith in scientific reasoning to nullify any existence of God since it can't be proven either way. You will get no where with those that have this mindset. It's like the same ends of a magnet, they just repel each other. They dismiss anything that doesn't fit their personal belief framework. Only people who accept that there is no right or wrong conclusions to this matter since it is not provable are reasonable. One has to understand that each is a personal belief and one can't make it true or untrue for the other. It's for the individual to decide and live their life however they choose to believe.

I'm an atheist.

Who are you responding to?

 

[PureX]

We do not choose to be convinced.

I can't believe that you actually wrote that.

The evidence convinces us.

Who chooses what you will accept as evidence? Who chooses how moch equates to being convinced?

Certainly people have different levels of required evidence before they are convinced of something. But, we are not able to abandon those standards and choose to believe something the evidence has not yet convinced us of.

Why not? What's stopping you? Where do you think those standards came from, that they are now 'sacrosanct'?

You are right though. It is us who acquire the information, and it is us who determines it's relevance, dependability, verifiability, etc. But, that evidence is what convinces us. We do not choose to be convinced by something. We ARE convinced by it. The evidence does the convincing.

So, this mean you aren't responsible for it, then?

How is blaming your beliefs on blind obedience to the "evidence" you've chosen any different than blaming your beliefs on blind obedience to the religious text you've chosen?

 

[PureX]

The obvious difference is that feelings are internal states. God is not.

It is for a lot of theists. Nearly all, really.

I have asked questions to myself about such things and I have found the concept of 'metaphysical' to be incoherent.

Or perhaps you simply couldn't understand it. And didn't try. What is the source of energy in the universe? What is governing it's behavior? Is there a purpose to it? Are these questions "incoherent" to you? Because these are 'metaphysical' questions. And the possibilities they engender are 'metaphysical' possibilities.

 

[Polymath257]

It is for a lot of theists. Nearly all, really.

OK, so God is an internal state, not an external being.

Or perhaps you simply couldn't understand it. And didn't try. What is the source of energy in the universe? What is governing it's behavior? Is there a purpose to it? Are these questions "incoherent" to you? Because these are 'metaphysical' questions. And the possibilities they engender are 'metaphysical' possibilities.

Yes, they are incoherent. You are *assuming* there is a source for the energy of the universe, when such source must exist and hence be part of the universe. You are *assuming* that there is a governor of the universe when causality is part of the universe, so any governor must be part of the universe. So those two assume aspects of the universe that are self-contradictory. They are non-sense questions.

When you ask for a purpose to the universe, you again *assume* there is a creator, which again is not in evidence. What I have found is that *people* give purpose to things in the universe, but the universe as a whole has no purpose. It simply is.

 

[PureX]

Not all of us suffer from your tunnel vision. Your black and white world view. Some of us are capable of nuanced thinking and contingent beliefs.

In a philosophical discussion or debate, one makes a choice as to what the truth is, and then defends it's establishment. We all are ambivalent about a great many things. Which is WHY philosophy forces us to take a stand on the truth, and defend it. Atheism is one of those philosophical truth positions that one chooses to promote and defend, or not to. If you choose to promote and defend it, then you are an atheist. And your nuanced ambivalence is irrelevant to this simple fact. It can't be used to excuse you from defending the truth claim that you otherwise adopt and promote.

This isn't my being "black and white", it's my being logical, and reasonable, and my expecting others to be logical and reasonable, as well. And honest. I expect others to be honest about what truths they hold over others, and promote. Meaning I expect them to claim them, and defend them, like forthright human beings.

There are lots of things I believe are probably true. Some I find extremely probable, like God is a human construct like wizards and dragons and fairies. But if somebody came up with a reason to believe differently I would.

It is not the responsibility of other people to enlighten you. It is your responsibility to enlighten yourself. What should I think of a man that sits in his biased righteousness and waits for someone else to come along and break him free of it, even as he fights to maintain it? What would YOU think of such a person?

It is exactly when we are the most convinced of our being right that we should be the most wary of it. Philosophy doesn't force us to defend our positions so as to maintain our righteousness, it does so precisely because we are (or should be) wary of it.

In the meantime, I don't believe that anybody knows about God. People make claims all the time, but they apparently cannot back those claims up with any evidence I can distinguish from hallucinations or delusions or ancient hearsay from primitive people.

But being a theist isn't about what anyone knows. It's about trusting in various metaphysical possibilities, and how acting on that trust effects our lives. It's about faith, not knowledge. Why do atheists persistently refuse to understand this? The answer is that they are invested in sitting in their bias, and so ignore any information that might cause them to have to reconsider it.

And I know a lot about modern apologetics, it's mostly irrational attempts to make primitive old ideas fit modern ideas. I believe that is because modern ideas are so much more sophisticated than the primitive ideas, but the primitive ideas are more comforting to most people and support the power and elitism of the rest.

That's just biased gibberish. Science and money have provided people far more "comfort and power" than religion ever has, and I don't see you rejecting them as irrelevant nonsense. And religion is not theism. Nor are religions, god. So your rejection of religion is doubly irrelevant to the debate between theism and atheism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheism is one of those philosophical truth positions that one chooses to promote and defend, or not to. If you choose to promote and defend it, then you are an atheist. And your nuanced ambivalence is irrelevant to this simple fact. It can't be used to excuse you from defending the truth claim that you otherwise adopt and promote.

There you are with your straw man again - telling atheists what atheism is (it's not a "philosophical truth position"), what they must believe to qualify as atheists, that the claim that you made for them incurs is a statement of fact and therefore incurs a burden of proof. Earlier, you claimed that we reject all of that because we are dishonestly trying to escape from that burden of proof.

Sorry, but you are spitting into the wind. Theism is the "yes" answer to the question of whether one believes in a god or gods. Atheism is any other answer. That's how most atheists define themselves, and you haven't offered a reason to accept your definition.

But being a theist isn't about what anyone knows. It's about trusting in various metaphysical possibilities, and how acting on that trust effects our lives. It's about faith, not knowledge. Why do atheists persistently refuse to understand this? The answer is that they are invested in sitting in their bias, and so ignore any information that might cause them to have to reconsider it.

And here you are speaking for us again. There is nothing that you have posted that isn't easy to understand, and no evidence that wasn't considered (I can't think of any evidence at all that you have offered).

The answer is that once one understands that faith is not a virtue, but a logical error, one loses interest in faith based ideas or any ideas derived from faith based premises.

And yes, that is a bias - a very rational and self-evidently correct bias. Faith can't possibly be a path to truth given that either of two contradictory and mutually exclusive ideas can be held by faith, guaranteeing that at least one of them is wrong.

And metaphysical speculations are uniformly sterile. How many ranks of angels are there? How many can dance on the head of a pin? What has all of the world's speculations about gods taught us about them? What has the search for this intelligent designer revealed? What useful knowledge comes from any of this?

None.

 

[McBell]

The vast majority of theists are not evangelical.

And?

If theists want me to believe their god exists, they will have to convince me their god exists.
It really is that simple.

 

[leibowde84]

I can't believe that you actually wrote that.

Why not? We can't choose to be convinced by anything. The evidence convinces us.

Who chooses what you will accept as evidence?

No one. Either the evidence seems compelling to us, or it doesn't. The evidence convinces us, we don't choose to be convinced.

Who chooses how moch equates to being convinced?

That is more complicated, but we don't choose. It has to do with how we were raised, our education, who we trust, what we trust, etc. And, that isn't based on choice, it is based on evidence. For example, for some the complexity of life might be enough to convince them that an intelligent creator is necessary. For others it isn't. It certainly isn't a choice though. I am not able to instantaneously abandon the kind and level of evidence required to convince me of something.

Why not? What's stopping you? Where do you think those standards came from, that they are now 'sacrosanct'?

I have been convinced that these standards are necessary to be convincing. Further evidence and experience might change that perception, but I cannot change it by will alone.

So, this mean you aren't responsible for it, then?

How is blaming your beliefs on blind obedience to the "evidence" you've chosen any different than blaming your beliefs on blind obedience to the religious text you've chosen?

Because religious texts aren't evidence. Rather, they are a collection of claims. Those claims may or may not be supported by outside evidence. In other words, evidence is data that can be used to substantiate claims. Claims in religious texts should not be used to substantiate other claims. That's just common sense.

 

[ArtieE]

How is blaming your beliefs on blind obedience to the "evidence" you've chosen any different than blaming your beliefs on blind obedience to the religious text you've chosen?

Here's a "religious text".
The Urantia Book | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation
Can you choose to believe it and then tell us how you do it?

 

[Willamena]

I can't believe that you actually wrote that.

We may well guess why you don't believe it, but why do you choose to not believe it?