How I Feel About Atheists

[leibowde84]

None of this is about "evidence". There is no "evidence" that we humans could recognize as such for or against the existence of a metaphysical, supra-natural, creator-entity. There is only the the possibility, and the choice to use it, or not to.

I should have been more clear. I wasn't asking for evidence for God. I was asking about the part in bold below.

What I said was that they are negating a possibility that could afford them some positive benefits, for no reason but to serve an unfounded bias.

What evidence are you basing this opinion on? Where are you getting the idea that they are basing their non-belief in God on nothing more than an unfounded bias.

I would say that I know for a fact you are wrong because my lack of belief in God is based on a lack of evidence. In other words, I have not been convinced as of yet. There isn't any bias involved.

 

[Koldo]

Here is where yourself and a lot of other folks are going off the rails. You are assuming that theism and religion are synonymous, when they are not. Theism proposes the possibility that a "god" entity exists, and seeks to explore this ideal. Religions define that ideal, and define the proposed entity each according to their own spiritual/political/social agendas. Rejecting the gods of various religions is not the same as the rejection of theism, unless one does not differentiate between them. As many atheists do not.

I have no issue with anyone rejecting the gods of religion. I do so, myself. It's rejecting the possibilities offered to us by the theistic proposition, itself, that I see as foolish, and unfounded.

If you strip down any god concept from the religious ideas that surround it then nothing is left.

 

[Polymath257]

None of this is about "evidence". There is no "evidence" that we humans could recognize as such for or against the existence of a metaphysical, supra-natural, creator-entity. There is only the the possibility, and the choice to use it, or not to.

And that alone is sufficient reason to not believe. The lack of evidence is good enough to convince me.

 

[Polymath257]

I am sorry, but your ignorance is not my problem to resolve. Theism offers you the ideological possibility that a "god-entity" exists. It does not define that entity for you. Some religions will define that entity for you, but wouldn't you rather explore the ideal for yourself than just be told what others want you to believe about it?

How is that any different than kids playing make-believe? You don't get to just dream up reality. The fact that it *doesn't* define any entity means there is nothing to consider at all. So lack of belief is quite reasonable and appropriate.

No one knows what such an entity would 'be like'. So all we can do is imagine it. And we can imagine it any way we want to, because there is no one and nothing to tell us our god-concept is wrong. And anyway, our conception of reality is not reality, itself. It never has been.

All the more reason to avoid flights of fancy unsupported by evidence. Playing make-believe isn't the same as trying to find truth.

But the Higgs Boson IS a conceptualized ideal (an idea that generates and defines a whole subset of other ideas).

No, it is a real particle with properties that can be tested and verified.

 

[Milton Platt]

(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.

Atheism is the default position. You should not believe in something unless there is sufficient evidence to believe it is true. Atheism does not need to be supported. It is simply a lack of belief. What needs to be supported is the assertion that there is a god. So far, it has not been satisfactorily done.

If you have valid scientific evidence that there something else besides the universe as we know it (mass-energy) then by all means produce it and end the argument.

Name one thing of a secular nature that religions do that cannot be done without the religion.

Perception, cognition, conceptualization, etc. seem to all cease when the material brain ceases to function. You can damage the brain and lose any or all of these functions. You are welcome to provide evidence to the contrary.

I do not lump art and philosophy in with religion. I know of no atheists that do. But perhaps you do. That does not make it a hallmark of atheism. Philosophy uses reason and logic. Religion uses blind faith. Art is the expression of human emotions and thought, and has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Polymath257]

I am sorry, but your ignorance is not my problem to resolve. Theism offers you the ideological possibility that a "god-entity" exists. It does not define that entity for you. Some religions will define that entity for you, but wouldn't you rather explore the ideal for yourself than just be told what others want you to believe about it?

To show you how ridiculous this seems to me, suppose a biologist claimed the existence of a species at a scientific meeting and said "I offer you the possibility that this species exists. Your ignorance is not my problem to resolve. I am not going to define this species for you. Wouldn't you like to explore the possibility yourself rather than be told what others believe about it?"

Or how about a materials scientist that says "I offer you the possibility of this amazing material. Your ignorance of it is not my problem to resolve. I am not going to define this material for you. Wouldn't you like to explore it yourself rather than be told what others believe about it?"

Let me just say that *any* person doing this would be laughed off the stage. Deservedly so. They are shirking the real work of learning about reality and conveying that knowledge to others.

No one knows what such an entity would 'be like'. So all we can do is imagine it. And we can imagine it any way we want to, because there is no one and nothing to tell us our god-concept is wrong. And anyway, our conception of reality is not reality, itself. It never has been.

I find no need to 'imagine' anything here. Since nobody knows what this entity would be like, why are so many people talking about it? if all we can do is imagine it, how is it any different than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

It seems to me that 'God' is simply an allegory for 'whatever I'd like to be true'. Sorry, I just don't need such metaphors.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theism proposes the possibility that a "god" entity exists, and seeks to explore this ideal.

No; theism is the assertion or conclusion that a god or gods exist.

 

[PureX]

Easy there junior, I've forgotten more about this subject than you will likely ever know. It is precisely BECAUSE I have studied a wide variety of religions in depth that I have concluded there is nothing there. Believers tend to be the ones that aren't interested in study, just easy answers.

There are no easy answers.

If you had done all this studying, how is it that you didn't come to understand that there is a difference between the various religious depictions of gods, and theism? Or that there is a difference between the religious pretense of god-knowledge, and faith? Or that faith, when properly applied, can be a very powerful and positive tool for a lot of people (religious and otherwise), for dealing with difficulties that no other other means or institutions seem to be willing or able to help them with?

A lot of atheists are just anti-religious, but don't and won't differentiate between religion and theism.

A lot of theists are just authoritarian religious cultists that have no idea what faith is or how to engage in it, because they have been taught that faith is unquestioned obedience to their religious cult's authority.

So there are a lot of people engaged in this debate on both sides that have no real idea what the debate is actually about, or what's at stake.

 

[McBell]

So there are a lot of people engaged in this debate on both sides that have no real idea what the debate is actually about, or what's at stake.

Do you consider yourself one of the above?

 

[PureX]

I should have been more clear. I wasn't asking for evidence for God. I was asking about the part in bold below.

What I said was that they are negating a possibility that could afford them some positive benefits, for no reason but to serve an unfounded bias.

What evidence are you basing this opinion on?

I am basing it on the fact that there is no reason to deny a possibility without any evidence, or benefit.

Where are you getting the idea that they are basing their non-belief in God on nothing more than an unfounded bias.

Well, they proclaim, themselves, that their "evidence" against the existence of god is that there is no evidence for the existence of god. So their evidence is that there is no evidence. And their claim is exactly as unfounded as the claim that god exists. Yet they reject the claim that god exists, and they accept the claim that god does not exist. Why?

I think the answer is a bias in favor of skepticism, and against faith. Yet skepticism proffers no appreciable benefit, whereas faith can provide a powerful tool for positive change when engaged in, appropriately. So that it's illogical to deny the possibility of applied faith in favor of mute skepticism.

I would say that I know for a fact you are wrong because my lack of belief in God is based on a lack of evidence. In other words, I have not been convinced as of yet. There isn't any bias involved.

**chuckling to myself**

 

[HonestJoe]

A lot of atheists are just anti-religious, but don't and won't differentiate between religion and theism.

There are certainly some people like that but you’d have been on much firmer ground making this point if you hadn’t opened the thread taking a whole load of different beliefs, opinions and actions and associating them all with atheism. You can’t really complain about other people failing to differentiate between theism and what some theists do when you failed to differentiate between atheism and what some atheists do.

 

[PureX]

If you strip down any god concept from the religious ideas that surround it then nothing is left.

What will be left, is your own concept of what this "god entity" might be. That's the possibility that theism is offering you. A possibility that you apparently have never really considered.

 

[McBell]

I am basing it on the fact that there is no reason to deny a possibility without any evidence, or benefit.

Says you.
But then, you have not shown that your opinion merits anything other than a passing glance.

 

[McBell]

What will be left, is your own concept of what this "god entity" might be. That's the possibility that theism is offering you. A possibility that you apparently have never really considered.

Perhaps you missed the part "nothing is left"?

 

[YmirGF]

What will be left, is your own concept of what this "god entity" might be. That's the possibility that theism is offering you. A possibility that you apparently have never really considered.

What about those of who have exhaustively explored this and decided to toss the idea(s) completely? It's an informed or educated decision, really. Once I realized it was the limited god concepts that were holding me back, I got rid of them, and have never looked back. Now, I can hardly wait for the time when others begin to outgrow their need for deities and god.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If you had done all this studying, how is it that you didn't come to understand that there is a difference between the various religious depictions of gods, and theism? Or that there is a difference between the religious pretense of god-knowledge, and faith? Or that faith, when properly applied, can be a very powerful and positive tool for a lot of people (religious and otherwise), for dealing with difficulties that no other other means or institutions seem to be willing or able to help them with?

A lot of atheists are just anti-religious, but don't and won't differentiate between religion and theism.

A lot of theists are just authoritarian religious cultists that have no idea what faith is or how to engage in it, because they have been taught that faith is unquestioned obedience to their religious cult's authority.

So there are a lot of people engaged in this debate on both sides that have no real idea what the debate is actually about, or what's at stake.

You sure do like to make assumptions.

None of those questions or the follow up diatribe reflect anything I have said.

 

[PureX]

Atheism is the default position.

No, the default position is "truth, unknown". Atheism as a "default position" is just bias, pure and simple. It is the presumption that if something cannot be proven to exist by your own criteria of existential proof, then it should be presumed not to exist. And that's just a bias based on your own personal criteria for proof of existence. And yet even you would likely admit that many things exist completely apart from your cognitive judgment. So that, obviously, your cognitive judgment (based on your grasp of evidence and proof) is NOT the criteria for whether or not something exists.

 

[Mister Silver]

No, the default position is "truth, unknown". Atheism as a "default position" is just bias, pure and simple. It is the presumption that if something cannot be proven to exist by your own criteria of existential proof, then it should be presumed not to exist. And that's just a bias based on your own personal criteria for proof of existence. And yet even you would likely admit that many things exist completely apart from your cognitive judgment. So that, obviously, your cognitive judgment (based on your grasp of evidence and proof) is NOT the criteria for whether or not something exists.

Go ahead, be my guest, and believe in the existence of absolutely everything for which there is no evidence to support its existence. Believe in dragons and mermaids, believe in Bigfoot and extra terrestrials, believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, believe in the thousands of gods, believe in invisible pink unicorns and the monsters beneath your bed; just do not expect me to take you seriously in anything you have to say from this point on.

 

[PureX]

No; theism is the assertion or conclusion that a god or gods exist.

It is the presumption necessary for further exploration of the ideal.

The "force of gravity" is also an assertion that must be proposed as an ideological focal point for further exploration.

 

[YmirGF]

It is the presumption necessary for further exploration of the ideal.

The "force of gravity" is also an assertion that must be proposed as an ideological focal point for further exploration.

Holy lousy analogy, Batman.

We have evidence that gravity exists. That is what warrants investigation into the phenomena.
That does not correlate with appealing to atheists to investigate god(s) as there is no evidence of said being beyond the anecdotes of believers. Fortunately, ANYONE can readily see the effects of gravity.