How I Feel About Atheists

[Polymath257]

I can't believe that you actually wrote that.

Did you choose not to believe it?

 

[leibowde84]

I can't believe that you actually wrote that.

See, you "can't" believe it. You don't choose not to believe it.

 

[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?

Another way of explaining my point is that there are many things, including God, that I would benefit from believing in and, thus, very much want to believe in them. But, because I have not been convinced by the evidence available, I cannot honestly say I believe in these things.

 

[jonathan180iq]

A couple of really important things are emerging here, and I fear they are being overlooked.

First, PureX has already established that his arguments against Atheists are based on a logical fallacy known as No True Scotsman, whereas anyone who doesn't meet his specific definition for Atheism isn't really an atheist - and if they say they are, they are either delusional, confused, or lying.

How I Feel About Atheists
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

Since none of these examples are 'metaphysical entities', I don't see why you keep using them as an analogy, except that you are unwilling to acknowledge the difference. Because if you acknowledge the difference you will have to recognize why the expectation of physical evidence, and the lack of it's forthcoming, is illogical, and is biased to provide you with false validation.

Second, this was written in response to @leibowde84 's comparison of God to Bigfoot, Aliens, the Loch Ness monster, etc. (All are things that people believe in without substantial evidence.)

Notice that PureX is making God purely a metaphysical concept, exempt from physical evidence because it is not a physical entity...

If we want to reduce this God conversation to purely a metaphysical one (and God itself to a metaphysical concept) then the previous 36 pages of discussion have been going in the wrong direction, as most arguments in support of atheism have been approaching the theistic claim that God is a real thing that actually exists and not simply a constructed mental muse.

(I think this metaphysical argument is a late defense mechanism - but I'll reserve final judgement on that until it's shown to be true)

Metaphysics - Wikipedia

He's either arguing that God is nothing more than a valuable concept, which would correspond to his exemption of evidence and his dismissal of an evidentiary approach to finding It - or he misunderstands metaphysics as a whole.

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.

Like I said, it's hard to read this quote and think that he's referring to god as anything more than a useful mental construct, which is a safe argument to make, but doesn't quite mesh with his earlier claims about Atheism or even with his previous statements about God

If your problem, PureX, with Atheism is that atheists don't accept god as a metaphysical concept, then you're just wildly mistaken. Of course we recognize the concept of god in people's lives. We have to, or we couldn't reject Theism, could we? I'll even admit that said concept can cause some real positive impacts for certain people. But recognizing a useful concept is not the same thing as needing it, believing in it for personal use, or requiring it to exist in our worldview...

We don't reject the idea that you trust in certain metaphysical possibilities. We simply don't believe that those possibilities actually, physically, exist. (Which you apparently agree with, since you recognize god as only a metaphysical concept.) This makes "god" simply a variable in a metaphysical argument - a variable that can be replaced with absolutely anything that an individual finds to be of value.

If this is really your argument, then we are literally having two completely separate conversations.

 

[PureX]

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?

Of course we can. And some of us do. And the fact that some of us do belies the contention that our minds and our choices are ruled by logic, reason, evidence, or facts. If you ask the people who choose this text as their 'truth' they will say they are ruled by logic, reason, evidence and facts, too, just as you think you are. And yet, clearly, their logic is not your logic. Their reasoning is not your reasoning. Their evidence is not your evidence, and their facts are not the same as yours. And neither one of you is being "ruled" by these. Instead, you are both determining these relatively, and subjectively, and you are thereby also determining the resultant conclusions you draw from them. And the fact that you are oblivious to your own mental mechanics doesn't change that.

 

[PureX]

Another way of explaining my point is that there are many things, including God, that I would benefit from believing in and, thus, very much want to believe in them. But, because I have not been convinced by the evidence available, I cannot honestly say I believe in these things.

If that were true, the next obvious step would be to examine, and re-examine, the process by which you "can't believe" what you claim you want to believe. Instead of just assuming that it's a power greater than yourself, and blindly bowing to it's dictates.

 

[leibowde84]

If that were true, the next obvious step would be to examine, and re-examine, the process by which you "can't believe" what you claim you want to believe. Instead of just assuming that it's a power greater than yourself, and blindly bowing to it's dictates.

As I have clearly stated, I have no control over what convinces me. Either the available evidence is enough to convince me or it isn't. When it comes to the existence of God, I have not heard any convincing evidence that would convince me that God actually exists. Thus, I cannot honestly say I believe.

To claim that I believe in something I have not been convinced of due to the available evidence would be nothing more than a lie.

 

[ArtieE]

Of course we can. And some of us do.

So can you please choose to believe in The Urantia Book and when you honestly and truly believe what it says can you tell us exactly how you did it?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course we can. And some of us do. And the fact that some of us do belies the contention that our minds and our choices are ruled by logic, reason, evidence, or facts. If you ask the people who choose this text as their 'truth' they will say they are ruled by logic, reason, evidence and facts, too, just as you think you are. And yet, clearly, their logic is not your logic. Their reasoning is not your reasoning. Their evidence is not your evidence, and their facts are not the same as yours. And neither one of you is being "ruled" by these. Instead, you are both determining these relatively, and subjectively, and you are thereby also determining the resultant conclusions you draw from them. And the fact that you are oblivious to your own mental mechanics doesn't change that.

He asked you if you could choose to believe a particular book's claims, and if so how. You didn't address that.

Nor does your answer address the claim of many of us that we do not and cannot choose what to believe. That's simply a fact.

I'm pretty sure that as a child, I could choose what to believe and believe it, although I don't remember doing so distinctly.

But now, having been trained in critical thinking, my mind has apparently been rewired. It just simply computes out of my field of vision and reports to me what I believe. If it ever reports to me that there is a god, it will not be a choice I made, and I will not be free to choose to disbelieve it.

That's how some minds work, a fact you seem to be resisting when told so.

 

[gnomon]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

Well you obviously never really cared based upon this thread.

"Anti-human"......what a waste.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Do you own a dictionary? So much fail here...

When dealing with words like love, truth and God, sorry, a dictionary won't be of much help.

 

[HeatherAnn]

I think what is most sad is that they dismiss the possibility of god, all together, as they dismiss someone else's conception of god. And thus, they never actually explore what "god" could mean, to them. And they never discover what faith in their own conception of god might do for them, in their lives. My one real disagreement with atheism as a philosophical position is that it's an unnecessary, unfounded, rejection of a potentially positive possibility.

Good point! In that sense God is their own personal higher GOoD - which they reject.

 

[HeatherAnn]

What an incredibly arrogant view to take: that you know better then someone else what they actually believe. The religious person wants to believe that all people have faith like theirs, but are not conscious of it. That is all that is going on.

I never claimed you to have faith like mine. Your faith is unique, but undeniable - otherwise you'd be able to 100% predict the future.

Again, the term God is then an allegory for what we think is important: it is a fictional device, not an actually existent being. I find no need for such allegories.

Ah, but you do - by evidence of your obsession on this forum. You worship - you have "ultimate concerns" - you just call them other things other than God..

 

[HeatherAnn]

Well, let's start with saying I don't believe in a supernatural, so I have no belief in a deity that is supernatural. Ultimately, I think the term 'supernatural' is self-contradictory.

Makes sense - maybe that which is sometimes labeled "supernatural" is natural just not understood yet.

If you want to identify God with the universe (a version of pantheism) or the laws of nature, well, I do believe in the universe and natural laws, but I think the term 'God' is misused for such things.

What better words would you suggest?

The whole 'I am that I am' just identifies God with existence. But I don't think existence itself has a personality or an intelligence, so using the word 'God' is begging several crucial questions.

The term, "I" suggests one'self personally -"am" suggests existence, but based on my personal perspective of existence.
I AM THAT I AM - implies the essence of who I am is that consciousness that perceives my consciousness.
It's like Buddha's and Jesus's ideas that your experience of God is within you - so stop looking outside of you.

If you want to say 'God is love', I believe that love exists. It is a human emotion. It isn't a cosmic force, but an aspect of our emotional lives. So, again, the identification with a deity seems very strange to me. Similar identifications as 'truth' or 'beauty' have the same issue.

True, and yet, the bible and many other religious doctrines define God in such terms as truth and love.

Ultimately, the idea of 'God' is so value-laden and overused as to be meaningless without clarification. At best it is an allegory for what we value. At worst, it is a claim some being exists for which we have no evidence.

Polymath, you have a good perspective of it - in some ways, you are more spiritually advanced than theists - because you're probably about stage 4. Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

 

[HeatherAnn]

Not believing in a god is atheism.

Which characteristics of which God or Goddess?

Scripture is not authoritative to me. I feel the same way about both the Christian Bible and the Qur'an as you (presumably) do about the Qur'an

Great, but what I quoted was not scripture - just a quote that made sense to me. You have faith - because you cannot predict the future - you live by faith.
I like certain parts of the Qur'an - particularly about helping those in need.

Shall I quote the Qur'an to you as if you should defer to its pronouncements? If so, here's one of my favorite passages from that source.

Spoiler: digression

"Wherein they will hear no unsuitable speech. Within it is a flowing spring. Within it are couches raised high" - Qu'ran Al-Ghashiyah 88:11

There you have it: Couches will be raised high! So let it be written. So let it be done. And yea verily, it's not just the couches that are slated for elevation. Love seats, too. Love seats will be raised on high by the angels as they weep, "Holy! O so holy!"

But there is more. Chaises will be lifted, davenports will ascend, and settees will be seen to float.

And behold, for it is written: divans will sprout wings to take to the air even as chesterfields follow them and head for the heavens.

Pretty pointless, no?

Symbolism and parables look pointless to people who take them literally.

That might work for Tillich, but it's meaningless to me. I define a god in the monotheistic sense as a sentient, volitional agent capable of creating our universe. Polytheistic gods would be defined differently.

So you have your own particular set of beliefs about God.
Tillich's point was that what you SAY means nothing - what you do every day - what you prioritize - means everything.

Among other things, that I don't need a reason to believe things, or that I should believe anything not derived from the proper application of reason to all of the relevant evidence considered critically and open-mindedly, that is, with the ability to recognize and a compelling argument and a willingness to be convinced by it. I do not believe that faith can possibly be a path to truth given how easily any idea or its polar opposite can be believed by faith.

Very much stage 4 thinking. Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com
I'm somewhat in that stage too - but I'm working on stage 5 - in realizing that yes, logic is important, but it is a tool that cannot be used for everything.
Emotion, intuition and spirit have purposes too - like motivation, encouragement and vision to accomplish goals.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Paul Tillich can bite my shiny metal butt.

He may not have been able to comprehend how people see the world without "God goggles," but we don't all fit into his chauvinistic, theistic box.

Let me get this straight.... you think that suggesting people have priorities is "chauvinistic and theistic"?
Maybe you should talk to the guy who loves dictionaries.

 

[icehorse]

Of course we can. And some of us do. And the fact that some of us do belies the contention that our minds and our choices are ruled by logic, reason, evidence, or facts. If you ask the people who choose this text as their 'truth' they will say they are ruled by logic, reason, evidence and facts, too, just as you think you are. And yet, clearly, their logic is not your logic. Their reasoning is not your reasoning. Their evidence is not your evidence, and their facts are not the same as yours. And neither one of you is being "ruled" by these. Instead, you are both determining these relatively, and subjectively, and you are thereby also determining the resultant conclusions you draw from them. And the fact that you are oblivious to your own mental mechanics doesn't change that.

I'm skeptical. In order for this to be true, I think you'd need to be able to demonstrate how "their" versions of critical thinking reliably lead to good predictive powers or have lead to them creating reliable machines that work in ways that run counter to the science the rest of us rely on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me get this straight.... you think that suggesting people have priorities is "chauvinistic and theistic"?
Maybe you should talk to the guy who loves dictionaries.

No, I'm not suggesting that.

Edit: there's a scene in Full Metal Jacket where one of the characters says "we are here to help the Vietnamese people because inside every (racial epithet) is an American trying to get out." The same sort of sentiment is in what Tillich is saying.

Just because Tillich considers God his highest priority, this doesn't mean that everyone else's highest priority is a god.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

When dealing with words like love, truth and God, sorry, a dictionary won't be of much help.

True, because those are all weasel words.

 

[Polymath257]

Makes sense - maybe that which is sometimes labeled "supernatural" is natural just not understood yet.

That certainly happens. There is also a lot of confirmation bias: we see what we want to see.

What better words would you suggest?

Well, I'd prefer to just use 'laws of nature' and 'the universe'.

The term, "I" suggests one'self personally -"am" suggests existence, but based on my personal perspective of existence.
I AM THAT I AM - implies the essence of who I am is that consciousness that perceives my consciousness.
It's like Buddha's and Jesus's ideas that your experience of God is within you - so stop looking outside of you.

So it is more psychology and opinion rather than reality and truth. I can handle that.

True, and yet, the bible and many other religious doctrines define God in such terms as truth and love.

Which is why I think them to be confused on this point.

Polymath, you have a good perspective of it - in some ways, you are more spiritually advanced than theists - because you're probably about stage 4. Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

Well, the stage depends on who is counting, doesn't it? One aspect of the 5th stage is the realization that logic cannot solve every problem. As a mathematician, I have had that forced into my consciousness from very early on. The basic assumptions of any area of inquiry have to be founded on something other than logic (otherwise they wouldn't be basic assumptions). This is even, maybe especially true of math. So we play with formal systems and see which work for us.