Don't atheists and religious people really believe in the same thing?

[NTL714]

Aren't they both based on faith? Atheists take science to farthest place it can take them and then they take a leap of faith, just like those who believe in God or some other form of religion go as far as their religious scriptures will take them, and they too take a leap of faith. And if that is true, then isn't religion not really based on whether or not God is actually real but whether u believe and have faith that he is?

I am not religious personally, and I have never had a religious experience. I went to Rome and visited the Vatican City and went inside the Sistine Chapel and the Basilica and it was beautiful, but I watched my friends break down in tears at the statue of Mary holding Jesus, and all I could think was how beautiful the artwork was. I felt no deeper connection like them. I guess to me, I see religion as something people hold on to during tough times, and so if that is in fact true, does it really matter if God exists? Or if Evolution occurred? If a person has faith and believes that one of those things did in fact happen and that is the reason we are here, why should it matter?

I'm honestly curious because I, again, have never felt a connection with God. I just think that the one thing that all religion shares is not hard evidence that something did or did not occur, but a group of people who believe whole heartedly that it did.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I don't think that's true at all.

A reigious person relies his or her faith to believe in God. An atheist knows that sciences can prove certain things, and cannot prove others ... yet. In regards to what science cannot prove, the atheist discounts theories that rely on little or no empirical evidence (e.g. God created the universe)

[Boomer]

2. What does science have to do with it?

"Atheists take science to farthest place it can take them..."

Science is compatible with religious faith because it answers a different set of questions about the human experience. Religion addresses the "why?" of our existence, while science answers the "how?" of our existence. There isn't (or doesn't NEED to be) any conflict between these two arenas.

As it happens, I'm an atheist. But I don't see my interest in science as the reason for my lack of belief in god. I don't have faith in god for a whole host of reasons, mostly historical and practical, but the fact that science can't prove His existence is irrelevant to my disbelief.

Or maybe that's just me.

[The Magistrate]

5. An Interesting Point, Ma'am

Denial of the existance of a diety, and dismissal of the question of whether or not a diety existed as unimportant, can certainly be encountered in human thought long before the modern scientific era. Modern science simply provides one new line of questioning in the matter.

[Proud_Democratt]

24. As an Atheist, I agree with your second paragraph.

Science has nothing to do with my disbelief. I just don't feel that I'm led by a higher power.

[Random_Australian]

100. Eventually science will take us everywhere, but even then given that it

must allow for the diversity of human experience it would be compatible with religion.... or pretty much ignored by the general population.

We shall see :) Who knows what tomorrow brings?

[The Magistrate]

3. There Is No Leap Of Faith, Ma'am

In the proposition that the existence of a diety is not proved to be true. There is a leap of faith in the proposition that a diety exists absent proof of the claim.

Perhaps the deepest difference in the mentalities of the two camps relates to the question of whether or not a person is or is not at ease with the proposition that some things are at present unexplained, and may well remain unexplained in the future.

[Caution]

4. Athiesm is like a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Sorry they are not even remotely related. I simply do not believe that there are gods of any kind.

[girl gone mad]

6. Science doesn't require a leap of faith.

The idea that it would is against the very definition of science.

My lack of religious belief comes from a laco of any substantial evidence that religious tenets are real and accurate. Religion has everything to do with faith. Atheism has nothing to do with faith.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. I have a question on science

I recently saw a PBS program on Sir Isaac Newton. It said that his ideas on math and science were far far ahead of the thinking of his time. And I believe he had his own detractors. Would you say that those who were his supporters believed, at one point, that he was right, and therefore did experiments to prove his theories?

The other thing that I am asking about is atoms-who and when were they first postulated to exist? Were they predicted before microscopes made it possible to see them? What proofs were given for their existance? Were there some in the scientific community who refused to believe in atomic theory until they had the hardware to actually see atoms? I've often been curious about this, but history books don't go into this sort of thing.

[sinkingfeeling]

17. You'd be surprised how long atoms have been talked about..try 400 BC!

Here's a summary of the history of 'atomic' theory and history: http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=49


As for Newton, he provided most of his own confirmations before others carried on.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. But according to the program,

Newton had his detractors.

Very interesting about atoms....my question is that couldn't you say that these early people had to take the existance of atoms on faith?

[The Magistrate]

28. If You Speak Of Democritus Circa 400 B.C.E., Ma'am

Than of course a degree of faith comes into play. His conclusions were based on philosophic speculation, and not on any real examination or experiment. There were a number of other competing speculations on the nature of matter, and his was not the most popular in and after his life. If you examine his beliefs closely, it is evident they bear little relation at all to modern atomic theory. He cannot really be spoken of as a precursor of the moderns, and it is more for linguistic reasons that his term became the modern usage.

[Jim__]

23. Great questions!

Newton was way ahead of his time. He used numbers called infinitesimals. Someone, I think it was Berkeley, argued that Newton's math was wrong because infinitesimals introduced inconsistency into mathematics. I think it was only in the 1960's that Robinson justified the use of infinitesimals through the use of non-standard analysis.

As to the existence of atoms - they have never been seen and can't be seen. Neils Bohr, the man who did most of the work in devloping quantum theory, argued that we could never be sure of the existence of atoms because we could never directly observe them - it's not that we don't yet have the technology - the technology can't exist. Bohr also predicted that people would claim to have devices that "see" atoms, but his argument was that they couldn't really. You can only see the result of an interaction between an atom and something else. Some people do claim to "see" atoms today, but when I read what their device is doing, it's actually doing what Bohr said it would be. I'm not sure if physicists still accept this claim of Bohr.

But, whether or not people can "see" atoms, or have all the justification for using a mathematical construct, it's still not faith. The scientific community's acceptance of these things are based on overwhelming, although not absolutely conclusive, evidence. I think that "faith" is acceptance without such convincing evidence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. But the technology gives an accurate picture of the position of atoms

Yes, it's not 'seeing' as in 'using electromagnetic waves in the visible spectrum that have interacted with the atoms', but it uses the interaction of electrons with individual atoms to produce an accurate image of them. The concept is no different from using an X ray machine.

[Evoman]

27. Let me answer your question

" Would you say that those who were his supporters believed, at one point, that he was right, and therefore did experiments to prove his theories?"

I would say its not as much "belief" per say, but more like a realization that the new way made sense. The interesting thing about science, however, is that you don't need to believe or believe in order to do experiments. If his detractors had performed experiments, they would have gotten the same answers as the supporters. I'm not going to lie...science is a human activity. But it is far superior to any other method of human thinking, because, at the very least, its self correcting. At anyone time, there will be detractors and supporters...but eventually, through experimentation, one side will win..in most cases, the detractors will either agree with the objective data, or become obsolete. Eventually, the truth comes out.

Now Newton is an interesting case because his theory, while mostly true and useful at a certain scale, has now been replaced with Relativity and Quantum physics.

Most people have a wrong idea about science. They think that people will hold on to old ideas that have been proven false. While this does happen, most scientists can be convinced of opposing theories provided they have good evidence. Science is not indoctrination....just because you are taught a certain theory is true, does not mean you have to believe it unequivocably or refuse to come up with new theories. Scientists actually challenge each other, and adapt, very frequently. Unlike religion, a scientific theory is provisional. For example, in my work, there has been a lot of detailed work about insect groups that have been accepted as more or less true. That did not stop me from using molecular techniques to challenge the current paradigm...and other scientists, including those who did the original work, are very interested in my work and are exciting that I have shaken up their theories.

Yes, scientists are conservative, and skeptical, but they are usually willing to look at new theories or phenomena. Hell, a scientist who objectively, in a double blind study, proved the existence of pychic phenomena would be famous, and probably win a nobel prize...we are not trying to "hide the truth" as many people say we are.

The difference between science and religion, is that people who subscribe to a certain religion look only for data that supports their beliefs. And when data disagrees with what they believe, they either makes excuses or ignore it.

"Belief" or "faith" is the wrong word to use for a scientist. A scientist will "accept" things provisionally...they do not hold on to an idea and believe it with all their hearts despite evidence. If they do, they are bad scientists and no one would take them seriously. An attack on a scientists ideas would not be answered with, "How dare you! Prove me wrong then!!!", but with, "Here is the evidence that I have collected that shows my theory to be valid. Do you have evidence (not proof!!) to discount it or evidence that shows another theory to be more valid?".

Sorry if my explanation sucks..I'm writing this at work (and very quickly because I got some things to do).

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

35. No, what you said made sense to me

I have a question though-I have a friend who works in quantum physics. It's been several years back, but he said that there were lab experiments where molecules (or other small bits of matter) appeared to behave in the way the scientists wanted them to behave. In other words, the thoughts of the scientists influenced the outcome (and I'm talking about strict protocols being followed so it wasn't a matter of a scientist fudging results). Have you heard of this? Is the power of thought being examined scientifically?

[Evoman]

37. I don't know

Its outside my field and, although I try to read reviews every now and then (physics journals tend to be so mathematical, so I usually read review articles to understand), I have never heard anything about this. There was a movie that came out a while ago that alleged that we have control over quantum physics, but that movie has been debunked. I had lunch with a physics grad student once, working on a project with silver atoms and light (I think!! I can't remember) and she told me that people make false claims whenever quantum mechanics is discussed because they do not understand it. There is nothing about quantum mechanics that makes it anymore amenable to claims of psychic control than newtonian physics...the only difference is that people who make the mystical claims about quantum mechanic don't know that. Ignorance about quantum mechanics drives these people...basically, newtonian physics make intuitive sense, whereas are brains weren't designed to understand quantum mechanics. Hence the misunderstanding about quantum mechanics.

My guess? Scientists saw molecules behave in the way they wanted to because the molecules normally behave in that way. I have never seen any published scientific studies about this. The only place I have seen the connection between quantum mechanics and though influences has been in the "studies" by non-scientists (lol..probably with no acess to sub-atomic molecule detectors).

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

41. No, the study was done in a regular science lab

but thanks for your input.

But to reiterate my last question-are any scientists doing any studies on the power of thought?

I'm thinking of the supposed ability of some people to control their blood pressure through breathing practices, etc.

[Evoman]

44. Yes, but

was the "are thoughts affecting the particles" the purpose of the study, or was it an observation in the course of studying, say, the make up of subatomic particle. I.e. was it a scientific study set up to test the effects on molecules by doing a double blind study.

From what I'm aware, there are some kinesiology-related study of blood pressure and meditation. I couldn't direct you to an exact study, but I have read studies seeing the effects of excercise, psychological stress, and meditition on blood pressure. There was a group in France (I think..again, this was some time back) who was studying the effects of meditation on blood pressure and temperature sensitivity in Tibetan monks. I can't remember much about the study, though. If I can find some time (which is doubtful), I'll see if I can dig something up. My suggestion to you is to do a google search or look on medline.

[Random_Australian]

102. Science studies everything, so yes, power of thought has

'come under the microscope' here are a the first two off the top of my head:

- Hemisphere dominance changes in monks, persons with bipolar disorder, and the genera population;

- Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (I could go on about that one for a long time but it seems to be helpful in the reduction of overgeneralised autobiographical memory & relapse in patients with at least three episodes of depression. It also works a lot better on those with a greater predisposition/less environmental factors)

[Random_Australian]

101. Here comes the Random Australian! The effect is most likely the

collapse of wavefunction that until that time had represented the probability of finding (object) in a particular spot. Here is how it goes: (The following is a layman's guide, fellow persons of science)

1) The particle could be anywhere in a box; in fact it has assumed the form of a wave (of probablity), so where the 'wave function' (the mathematical representation of the wave) was largest, you where most likely to find it if you were to measure where it was at that time.

2) You measure it, and instantly it is a particle - with a 100% chance that it is in one particular spot, in other words the wave function has collapsed.

Effect 2 happens when you look at the particle. This means that how & when you look at the particle affects it's behaviour.

That is one explanation, the other is that in Quantum Theory, something is both a particle and a wave, but you can't measure something as both a particle and wave at the same time. What happens is that if you want to measure a wave, you will measure a wave. If you want to measure a particle, you will measure a particle. In other words it looks a lot like it acts as you want it to.

Bizzare stuff, Quantum Theory.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

68. I have read, however,

that certain scientific theories like antiseptic techniques were really resisted by scientists for a long time. I guess there are hold outs in every field.

[Random_Australian]

94. Random_Australian checks in!

If his supporters thought in the proper scientific sense, then they would carry out experiments without beleiving that it was correct, but as the evidence mounted, gradually accept that it was the most likely explanation.

His supporters did not necessarily follow proper scientific thinking however.

Ancient Greeks postulated atoms, along with a LOT of other models for how the world worked.
They were used as a good model for a long time (only once re-introduced by Dalton), however, many doubted their existence, but less as time went on. Brownian motion was considered very strong evidence, and scientific thinking (ok so I have simplified somewhat for the purposes of communication) slowly switched from "this is a good model" to "the evidence we have supports atoms actually existing"^1.

Seeing is perhaps a misleading word - we do not 'see' sound (I know, that isn't really true but you kow what I mean) but we know it exists, thus perhaps 'detecting' or 'empiracally measuring' would be better. In that sense now we can 'see' atoms. (Cause things to interfere with them to give us information about the position and velocity). It is one of the most impressive sights I have ever seen, in fact.

But there are people who believe all kinds of things. Some of those people are bound to have some scientific training.

^1 - technically, this was "the evidence we have does not support alternate theories (to the atom hypothesis)"

[TallahasseeGrannie]

67. Science sometimes

benefits from leaps but I wouldn't say they were of faith. Hunches, maybe. Intuition. Creativity.

[kenny blankenship]

7. No, no they don't. Not even close. And no, both are not based on faith

Hope this helped to clarify it for you.

[pnwmom]

8. Welcome to DU, NTL714!

[Goblinmonger]

9. Same as several others

but why is it a "leap of faith" to say that there is no evidence for the existance of god so I will not believe in god?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

96. How about this?

Does it require a leap to assume nothing will ever happen to convince you to believe in God?

How does that work into it? I have heard many atheists say they have not seen any evidence of God, but have an open mind. Is that your feeling?

Reading this back, it sounds snarky but you know it isn't, right?

[Random_Australian]

98. If you were to say that you were confident that nothing would ever happen,

to convince you of the existence of God, then not really, as an analagy it is not a leap of faith to say that (without human intervention) you believe that time won't randomly start running backwards in floating spheres around the earth; because nothing has ever happened in recorded history of the sort, so it seems highly unlikely.

If you were to claim with absolute certainty that nothing could ever happen that would convince you of the existence of God, then perhaps that would.... as the other thread pointed out we are never entirely certain that we are not inside The Matrix - while it takes no leap to be convinced that nothing will ever demonstrate that in reality we are inside The Matrix, it is not a categorical imperative. 100.00000% certainty doesn't really come into it; this is also the foundation of why many an atheist would begin believing that there is a God upon proof of such.
Edit for clarity.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

99. Wow. I have GOT to get

a cup of coffee and read that one more time.

What time is it where you are, RA? 9:15 here. Just got up.

[Random_Australian]

103. Quarter to twelve and way past my bedtime, I just have a little energy to

burn off. I thought that I would go and investigate the various arguments for the existence of God, and I have to say that there have been many impressive theist scholars over the years, and the internet is not the place to find them. I am going to try the library next time. Anyway, hearing 'everything must have a cause' 1000 times is enough to want anyone to bring science and logic to everywhere they can find.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. The power of mind

is really great. Have you ever read of studies of new drugs, where a certain number of people are given placebos? In some cases, the number of people who get better using the placebos is almost as great as the number getting better using the actual drugs. I have heard doctors who are specialists meeting patients who have been told they have only X amount of time to live by their GP. Despite the fact that the specialists found the cancer wasn't nearly as bad as the GP diagnosed, with a 70% pronosis of remission, the patient died to the day of when their GP told them they would. On the other hand, my grandfather suffered a massive heart attack in 1950 and was given 6 months to live. He was determined to survive as he was the only living son of his mother; he lived until 1959-when they did the autopsy, the doctors were amazed he'd stayed alive.

I bring up these instances because I believe they reinforce your statements about religious people-since they strongly believe in something, their very mindset can help shape their perceptions and alter their reality.

BTW, many atheists here are offended if you say they "believe" in anything-perhaps a more diplomatic way to approach this would be to discuss their world views or perceptions.

Thanks for a very fascinating post.

[rock]

11. Maybe this will help

Evidence supports a view or is against that view. It is asymmetric. Faith on the other hand is symmetric: you can accept either side of an argument on exactly the same faith. For example if three people believe in 0, 1 and many gods based on faith, they all have an equally valid position.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Nicely put.

[bowens43]

13. No.

Athiesm is not based on faith.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. People are the same, period.

Religion is window dressing. Faith is about world view.

We are all humans. We love, cry, laugh, hurt, dream, think, hope, wonder. And we all die.

So yes, atheists and believers are the same in all the ways that count.

[Random_Australian]

104. This is what I think of you:

       :loveya::loveya:       :loveya::loveya:
:loveya:              :loveya:              :loveya:
  :loveya:                              :loveya:
       :loveya:                     :loveya:
             :loveya:          :loveya:
                  :loveya::loveya:
                     :loveya:

Wondeful post TG!

[patrice]

16. The size of the "leap"(s) you refer to are qualitatively different.

After valid reliable deductions, scientists may ingage in induction. Religion is not based on rational deduction. It begins with the leap. Scientists "end" with the leap.

[kwassa]

19. It all has to do with how you define the word "faith"

The argument usually breaks down over definitions.

Many in the atheist or scientific camp use this definition:

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Those that argue from another viewpoint might use this version of the word "faith"

"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing"
or
"A set of principles or beliefs."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

[Goblinmonger]

22. Not sure I want to fire this one up again,

but you can't just take definitions like that. Just because a definition is "first" in a dictionary, doesn't mean that it is the best. They are also listed by which may be used the most often, but the list will contain different usages for the words. In your example, the definition you attribute to atheists seems to be the definition that would be applicable to spiritual matters. The definition you attribute to theists is much weaker and is usually used in the terms of "I have faith in democracy to bring out the best in people." "I have faith that my sister will be here on time because she is always so punctual." "I have faith that this ladder will hold me." You certainly aren't arguing that the three usages I gave you are the same as "I have faith in God."

[kwassa]

30. Sorry, but this is your value judgement

I don't want to get into all this either, but I don't agree with anything you just said.

"In your example, the definition you attribute to atheists seems to be the definition that would be applicable to spiritual matters."

Not at all. I couldn't agree less, nor to any of your weaker-vs.-stronger definition assertions.

[trotsky]

33. Yes, of course.

And we all know that your value judgment will always come down firmly on the side of defining atheists the way YOU want, no matter what they tell you.

Now in many discussions over a particular example, I tell people that they & Jerry Falwell have arrived at their conclusions the exact same way. Reading the bible, deciding which parts are valid, and running with it.

But what if I said that you and Jerry Falwell were the same kind of Christian? Do you see the difference? Would you find that insulting? Would you indicate disagreement with that statement?

Because if you did, you had better justify your blatant double standard.

[Zhade]

39. They ARE the same kind of Christian.

They both profess to believe in Jesus as their personal savior, believe he rose from the dead etc - and they both use their own terms to dehumanize atheists to win their arguments.

I fail to see the difference, theologically, between the two. Goals? Different, surely. But mindset? Very much alike, it seems.

(Is this sarcasm? Even *I'm* not sure.)

[kwassa]

43. I have faith in you, trotsky

Faith that you will go off on an irrelevant tangent to the point being made.

What does any of what you just said have to do with the definition of the word "faith"?

[trotsky]

50. It has to do with definitions, period.

And why you get the luxury of defining yourself, yet you won't afford that same luxury to atheists.

So no, it's not about the definition of the word "faith," it's more about hypocrisy.

[kwassa]

61. I knew you couldn't stay on topic.

[trotsky]

64. The topic of definitions, and how they are chosen.

Seems to me that's exactly the direction you veered off into. I can't help it if it makes you uncomfortable to point out hypocrisy.

[kwassa]

66. Not the topic, just gratuitous thread-jacking.

You don't make me uncomfortable at all. You don't have that power.

[trotsky]

72. I do have the power to make you keep responding...

to a "gratuitous thread-jacking" though. Hehehe. Maybe someday you will confront the hypocrisy and allow others the same rights you give yourself.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Stop knee-jerking to me

and really think about it.

Do you think THIS definition:
"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing"
is what the dictionary is meaning to be what theists talk about when they talk about having faith in god? Really? Your faith in god is the same thing as my faith in democracy, someone's faith in their sibling to help them out, and someone elses faith in a ladder to hold them up when they climb on it? That is what your faith in god is?

Or do you think it is more like the first one? The confidant belief in something without logical or empirical proof. Doesn't THAT more fit the bill? Unlike someone's sibling or a ladder, you can't see god, you can't prove god, you can't touch god, but you still have faith that god exists, is real, and is worthy of your adoration. Don't run from that. That's what your faith in god is.

You don't think one definition indicates a stronger belief? One is a belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea , or thing. Two of the three things in that list you can physically see, touch, etc. That is weaker than belief in something that cannot be logically or empirically proven. That is a MUCH stronger belief/faith. I would think you would want to attach yourself to THAT belief/faith because it IS much stronger. But apparently you want to run away from that.

Again, don't knee-jerk to the fact that it is me making this point, but really think about it. Think about what the words mean. I think you will see I am right on this interpretation. I'm SERIOUSLY not trying to be an asshole here.

[Zhade]

20. Unlike gods, evolution has been observed. In the lab.

And of course the yearly flu season is further evidence of ongoing evolution.

You say "...and then they take a leap of faith..." but you don't really say to where. If you mean atheists believe there are no gods, that's only partly true, and only for "strong' atheists who assert, without the ability to back up the argument with evidence (like theists, actually) their certainty that there are no gods.

Atheists like myself, on the other hand, just don't believe in gods because of the lack of objective independent evidence for them (since I can't get into a believer's head, personal feelings/emotions/whatever doesn't count, since it can't be shared). But if evidence came up, I'd examine it fairly.

So yeah, there's a world of difference, but neither theist nor atheist is automatically a better person. Their actions determine that.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. I would think

(and have no way of knowing...just my perception) that atheists have to take a different kind of a leap. Or at least the ones who grew up in believing. The leap, it would seem to me, would be one of independence, and out into a world view that might be alien to some of them.

What I am trying to say is that I think admitting atheism is a rather "scary" (for want of a better word) thing to do in a world where faith for many is a given.

I really admire that ability. I would imagine it gets lonely at time.

[sinkingfeeling]

29. A couple of years ago, I participated in a psychological study here at the

university. I was asked a to repeat certain phrases (about 100) from a person outside of the room. I was recorded while doing it. After being asked to repeat the phrases, I answered a questionnaire about my 'beliefs'.

It went something like this:
"I pray to Santa Claus that my son will not get cancer."
"I ask the Lord, Jesus, to keep my son from getting cancer."
"I pray to you, God, to not let my mother die in a fire."
"I pray to you, Easter Bunny, to not let my mother die in a fire."

The researcher said that many people of high-levels of belief could not or would not repeat some of the phrases. They became very upset just saying words that countered their faith.

To me, it was simply an exercise in repeated phrases. None had anymore value than any other.

[Boomer]

36. That's a good summary of my perspective

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Christian God, Zeus, Athena, and countless other personas and deities make for great literature and cultural symbolism, but they all hold much the same currency in my mind.

I see Santa Claus as a metaphor for generosity and good will, an embodiment of certain human attributes that make our lives better. In that sense I "believe" in Santa Claus by believing in the cultural values he symbolizes, but I don't believe that a man named Santa Claus is currently going around giving people presents.

Historical religious figures are a slightly different story, of course. I do believe there was a man called Jesus of Nazareth who espoused a wonderful philosophy of non-violence and kindess. But I don't believe he was the son of a god. So although I believe in his existence, and in his teachings, I just don't believe in his divinity.

What I don't understand is why so many people feel that the divinity of Christ legitimizes his words. They stand up quite well on their own and shouldn't require the Voice of God to be recognized as worth following. Anymore than the authority of God should legitimize acts of violence and hatred. Who would choose follow a deity that is so hateful?

[unpossibles]

174. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Christian God, Zeus, Athena, and...

.... moral Republicans.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

69. I could do it

but I would probably have some sort of physical discomfort.

[Finder]

32. No leaps to atheism...it is a slow learning process. n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

40. See, that's how little I understand

I was thinking, Boom!

[Arazi]

51. For me personally, it was a slow process

I grew up in the Episcopalian church. It was pleasant and certainly easy to be a part of that religion. My parents and siblings are firm believers as I was but I never felt any kind of intimate connection with the church or God. I never felt any kind of divine experience or influence even though I certainly tried during my entire association with the church.

After several decades of striving for connection, I guess I just sort of wandered off. A friend of mine actually pointed out my non-belief for me as we were arguing theology during a late-night drunk.

In the light of day, after examining the conversation I realized that it was true. I had evolved into an atheist sort of by accident. I just simply did not, could not believe in God or a supernatural being anymore.

Since then, all sorts of wonderful, interesting things have re-affirmed for me that I am (finally) on the right track in understanding our existence on this planet, and they all revolve around giving up any sort of belief in divinity. It's exciting, to me, to finally discover truths that bring me internal peace instead of internal conflict!

Giving up religion/spirituality/belief has been the best thing I have ever done for myself. I finally feel whole and free.

[NMMNG]

55. Welcome to DU Arazi

I'm a former believer myself. I have the same feeling you do--that I simply couldn't (barring actual evidence of God), become a believer again.

It's exciting, to me, to finally discover truths that bring me internal peace instead of internal conflict!...I finally feel whole and free.

I also found that I had less internal conflict after "losing my religion". It's rather funny, as so many portray atheists as being grumpy and sad. :P


I look forward to more discussion with you. :hi:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

58. I can completely sympathize

I also grew up Episcopalian and for me, there was resonance and I was gifted with an intimate connection and a number of divine experiences, and still am.

But my sister, on the other hand, went through your experience. She fell away and became an atheist, I would guess. She also became an alcoholic (not related) and now attends church simply as a social outlet, because in her alcohoism she burned so many bridges with friends the easiest way to get a new social group was through a church. I doubt that she believes, however.

You say you now feel whole and free. That is understandable, after a life of trying to find and not finding. Letting go is freeing.

[Finder]

59. Falling away is not the same as becoming an atheist...

Many people "fall away" or "backslide"(to use the religious terms)because they find it difficult to follow the doctrines of their chosen religion. Instead of questioning said doctrine they blame themselves and allow it to damage their self-esteem, sometimes leading to alcohol/drug abuse and other negative behaviors. These are perfect candidates for 12 step programs and such since rather than search for answers, they teach acceptance.

The path to atheism is totally different...by questioning doctrine and one's beliefs, answers can be found. Of course there is a period in this journey which is hard(breaking habits always are) and there is definitely an emptiness in the beginning that only knowledge can fill but the world finally makes sense. To coin another phrase, "The truth will set you free."

[TallahasseeGrannie]

60. Here's my question...

Was it difficult? Was it painful? Or was it natural?

[Finder]

62. Well I was a believer...

and it is hard or at least disconcerting to find out everything you ever believed was based on a myth. In my case, I wanted to be a nun and my role model was Mother Teresa. At one time I truly felt I had a calling. I now know that wanting to help the poor, work for peace, and understand what our purpose is on earth are callings of humanity not necessarily from God.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

63. I wanted to be a nun for a while, myself

Then I got breasts and hormones.

[Finder]

65. LOL...

I still can't believe I married a mere human male and had children. I have no regrets however.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

95. My sister stopped going to church

because she just couldn't believe. She even went to the priest once for a talk, in hope that he could "make" her believe. Didn't happen. I think it was hard for her because my dad was such a believer. But my mom wasn't. Mom went to church for purely social reasons and it worked for her. My sister also had to deal with the fact that she was incapacitated as an alcoholic on most Sundays.

However, probably because of her alcoholism she was not a heavy thinker. She kind of waited for the magic and it never happened. She is also a nurse and has seen many distressing things, lost many patients, and was pessimistic by nature. (possibly also due to the drinking) She does NOT, however, "admit" to being an agnostic or atheist. Sadly, she is rather ashamed of that. She will tell me when we are discussing our parents' death, or our own. And she is going to church again, and I believe she is looking for the magic to happen once again, especially now that she isn't drinking at the moment. (3 months sober)

[varkam]

25. In a sense...

I think you're on the right track. I don't think that anyone can know whether or not God exists, so in that sense, an atheist "has faith" that there is no God. That's a pretty ham-fisted way of describing it though. I don't believe a God exists, but that belief is based upon observable reasons and evidence. So I "have faith" that there is no God like the police detective "has faith" that a certain individual committed a crime. Many times, the police detective will not know which individual committed the crime. She just has to examine the evidence and figure out which story is most probable. According to things that I have seen, things that I have read, and things that I have thought, the story that there is no God is most probable.

Of course, I am willing to revise my beliefs. Should the rapture occur or should God come down to earth and be interviewed on Larry King Live, for example...then I would believe that I was mistaken and that God exists. The problem has always been for me that, at best, there is no evidence to support the existence of God. At worst, there is far more evidence that would suggest that there is no God.

[Proud_Democratt]

26. Faith is a very general term sometimes.

As a non-believer.........
Faith in any god or higher power is what I DO NOT feel or share with others.
Faith in myself, my close friends is what I DO feel.
Faith that my car will start, is faith in science.

[Finder]

31. Not the same at all.

I think the blur between belief in a deity or deities and belief in a particular religion tends to muddle most discussions.

I can state with certainty that the deities(Zeus, Minerva, Jehovah, etc) described in religions and their texts do not exist based on history, education, reason.

I cannot answer the question on what caused the big bang at this time so do not debate that question with any certainty.(although I do not automatically assume there is a creator involved.)

[NTL714]

38. you're all sort of missing my point

forget the science of it all. Forget the word was even involved. My idea or my question is does it really matter if something exists or not? If a person believes in it strongly enough and needs it there to help them, would they care if the theory was to be disproved. Say they found real evidence that everything that was said in the bible was in fact false. Do you think all of the people who have believed in God and used him all the years of their life to help them through adversity, would denounce their religion? Or is it enough for them to believe he is real even when evidence to the contrary is staring them in the face? Maybe my origional post was just a bit 2 out there, but this was the idea I was generally getting at. Not that atheism and science are the same.

[Boomer]

45. The point was a bit obscure

Nonetheless, if the focus of your interest is how people maintain faith, even in the face of evidence that refutes the basis of their faith, then atheists aren't relevant to the issue. We don't have faith, so we can't answer your question; only someone who DOES believe can answer your question.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

70. I don't believe

anyone could ever take my faith away, no matter how many cogent arguments they presented, because the arguments are on the outside and my faith is inner.

[Evoman]

42. This is what worries me

This equating of atheism with science. From my conversations with other atheists, I get a sense that a lot of them are very interested in science and treat most subjects with the scientific method. But there is absolutely no reason that theists should NOT be as interested in science as atheists.

There are more than a few of the theists here on DU that consistently argue not against atheists, but against science itself. The opposite of theism is atheism. The opposite of science is not theism or religion...its IGNORANCE or Magical thinking. And frankly, I find it worrying that people in the 20th century, in some of the most advanced countries in the world, could still be resisting scientific thinking. Now, science has really in no way, shape or form, proven that god does not exist. In fact, science cannot even ask that question. But if you have to choose between a scientific theory that has mountains of evidence supporting it, or one line in an ancient book, I can't understand how any modern, thinking person could support the line. WE KNOW that diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria, not demons. We KNOW that human beings are made of nucleic acids, fats, water and protein, not clay. We KNOW that human beings, and other animals, are the product of Evolution, not a product of a rib or the Direct hand of god.

Although I disagree that atheism takes faith or a leap of faith, this has nothing to do with science. A-theism takes no more of a leap of faith than a-unicornism. Without evidence for god, the logical position to take (i.e requiring no active action) is non-belief in god.

But this, "You atheists and your SCIENCE!" attitude is ignorant and, frankly, disconcerting.

[Silent3]

46. If there's anything more annoying than the old atheism-is-faith routine...

...it's the constant parade of those who announce said concept as thought it were some stunning new insight they'd just come up with, with which everyone else should be greatly impressed.

:eyes:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

71. Oh, be patient

some folks have never thought about it and when they do, they get excited.

I will admit I used to have thoughts along those lines. I got straightened out real quickly. It is an attempt to find commonality, which is admirable I think. Just misguided. You have to go back a few steps to other commonalities, starting with vertebrate and move up!

[Boomer]

47. Tangential interests rather than causality

"From my conversations with other atheists, I get a sense that a lot of them are very interested in science and treat most subjects with the scientific method. But there is absolutely no reason that theists should NOT be as interested in science as atheists."

Interesting observation that made me ponder the relationship between science and a/theism in a slightly different light.

I would say that because I see the world from a practical, literal, and objective perspective to begin with, science appeals to my basic personality. And that basic personality also resists belief in anything that isn't demonstrably "real" to my senses. So I don't believe in god or tarot cards or ghosts or magic or angels or elves or aliens or even Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. When I see proof, or some very credible witness testimony, my disbelief may give way to belief, but not before.

Perhaps theists are less drawn by the structured aspects of science and more attracted to observing the beauty of the mechanisms of reality, which to some speaks of the underlying spiritual qualities of nature, the Hand of God, if you will.

[NTL714]

53. once again

my idea is not that atheism and science are one and the same. I don't know what atheists think or believe and I don't know what people who believe in religion think or believe because I am neither. I don't know my feeling on religion because I wasn't raised in a religious household so I'm not trying to step on toes or frustrate anyone. I just always thought that if u believed in something it didn't matter whether there was evidence to prove or disprove it and I wanted to see if anyone who is more enlightened on the subject had a similiar idea. I don't mean to be a cliche, this is a topic I have never discussed with other people so I didn't realize that atheists get that a lot.

[Random_Australian]

49. "Atheists take science to farthest place it can take them and then they

take a leap of faith" nope, what leap of faith?

Clarify please.

[NTL714]

54. faith not the best word

everyone believes in something. Religious persons believe in some form of God. Atheists believe that there is no God. The "leap of faith" is the idea that u are believing in not believing. You are taking a jump into believing that there is no God. So you're right, Atheism is not based on faith, but belief. Is that wrong? You have to understand, I'm really just looking for what other people think. I could be completely off base and that's fine. I'd just like to hear what others think.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Just passing through

but welcome to DU, NTL714.

If you want to know what atheists think, you might want to start with the basics.

For instance, most of us do not take a "leap of faith" because we don't believe that there is no god.

There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing in gods.

However, this is a touchy subject for the atheists in this forum because most of us have grown weary of being told WHAT we believe and/or don't, by certain DU theists, so don't be surprised if you sense some hostility.



A good place to begin is the page on atheism from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism and check out the excellent list of links at the bottom for more sources.

[Random_Australian]

57. Ah yes, you have missed something, no, atheism does not require a jump.

"You are taking a jump into believing that there is no God" only in the way that I am taking a jump into believes that there is no (other things that no-one has ever provided any evidence for, like red mercury)

For futher example, it would be a jump (ok not a huge one) to say "all Tasmanian Tigers are dead, the species is extinct" - so no-one has seen any for many years, and they appear to be hunted to extinction, but there is some small chance that they have survived, somewhere. (Important: they were found to be alive at one time and are no longer found)

I do not consider it a jump to not believe that homeopathy is a load of bunk, for example (more specifically that 'theory of dilution'is a load of bunk), because every measurement ever made has not found anything of the sort.

No-one has ever found any evidence of God, so I assume (personally) that She does not exist until someone finds evidence otherwise.

[trotsky]

73. Are people who don't believe in leprechauns taking a "leap of faith"?

What about those who don't believe in bigfoot?

Think about those examples to understand why many atheists feel there is no such "leap of faith" to NOT believe in gods.

[NMMNG]

52. Atheism is not based on faith

It is based on the lack of faith.

Atheists take science to farthest place it can take them and then they take a leap of faith,

No, atheistic scientists (as well as theistic scientists) take science as far as it will go and then they ask more questions and do more research. That's the beauty of science--it's always evolving.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

74. My dad was a chemical engineer

with many patents for DuPont. (mammogram high speed film)

He was a scientist but also a believer. However, he worked with a number of atheists and respected them greatly. I think that might be why I am not threatened by atheists. He was a good example.

[Proud_Democratt]

77. My great grand father was one also!!!!!

A Kentucky moonshiner!!;-)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

78. Household chemistry!

[Proud_Democratt]

79. Papa's secret recipe?

[NMMNG]

88. It is refreshing

to have a believer with an open mind. It becomes frustrating when all to many religious individuals feel threatened by atheists, or consider them backward/immoral/hateful/intolerant/etc. Granted some atheists posess those qualities, but then so do some believers.

As always, T-Grannie, I am impressed by your insight. :hi:

[SPKrazy]

75. Atheists Have Faith In Coincidence

while believers have faith in God

[beam me up scottie]

76. Again with the hypocrisy?

Good thing you don't let the sentiment in your sig line stop you from misrepresenting atheism and deliberately insulting atheists.:eyes:


An excellent retort would be that you have faith in fairy tales.


But that would be offensive.

[SPKrazy]

81. Now Wait A Minute

Don't atheists believe that life is just a random chance, that evolution happened and we just happen to be the products of that?

I think of that as coincidence.

I don't believe in too many coincidences.

But I thought that most atheists did in fact believe in coincidence.

Am I wrong?

Not trying to flame.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Claiming that atheists have "faith" in coincidence is like saying we have

"faith" in science.

I don't have religious faith in anything, I am not a "science-worshiper" and I do not appreciate it when believers assume they have the right to define my atheism.


If your intent was not to insult, I apologize.

But the believers who usually make that claim know exactly how it will be perceived by DU atheists.

[SPKrazy]

84. It Was Not to Insult

faith is belief

my understanding of atheism is lack of belief in a deity

therefore the default position is that random events (without direction) created the universe and ultimately humankind

to believe this is to have "faith" in coincidence isn't it?

[beam me up scottie]

85. No, it's not.

If you are trying to say that atheists have the same sort of faith as believers do, except in coincidence instead of gods, that's incorrect.

From the dictionary at Answers.com:

faith (fāth)
n.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

A set of principles or beliefs.

You are right about atheism being a lack of belief in a deity, though.

[SPKrazy]

86. The Set Of Principles Or Beliefs (at the end)

pretty well ties in with what I said

but I won't argue the point with you because it was just a thought relating to the OP, not an insult to you Scottie, or any other atheist!

[beam me up scottie]

87. You'd say atheists have a set of principles or beliefs about coincidence?

And I'd say I want some of whatever it is you're smoking.


:evilgrin:

[SPKrazy]

89. Set Of Beliefs Or Principles

last part of your definition you posted Scottie

Of course you have beliefs, you believe that there is no God, that is a belief.
What else would it be?

Lack of belief in a deity, is belief in there being no deity.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Are you being obtuse?

Because I find it hard to believe that anyone who has spent any time at all in this forum could be that ignorant about the difference between strong and weak or agnostic atheism.

[SPKrazy]

109. I'm Not Ignorant

well maybe I am, strong, weak, atheism?

I understand agnosticism

[beam me up scottie]

111. Then read the other posts in this thread, check out the link in post#56

or take a look at this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=57535&mesg_id=58309 to find out why I am sick of theists trying to tell me what I do and/or don't believe.


I'll ask you again to please stop defining my atheism.

Why would you even attempt to do so if you know nothing about the subject?

[SPKrazy]

114. I Don't Think I "Know Nothing About The Subject"

I mean, how hard is it to understand, you are an atheist.

Your belief is the absence of a belief in a deity.

My belief is the belief in a deity.

It ain't that hard.

[beam me up scottie]

116. How hard is it to understand?

It must be rocket science to some people.

For others, it's willful ignorance.

[SPKrazy]

130. Is It Rocket Science For You?

because I understand it perfectly

[beam me up scottie]

136. Well, thanks, Mr. Dobson.

I'm glad to know you understand atheism so well that you can tell atheists they're wrong about what they believe.

[SPKrazy]

140. I Haven't Said Anything About What Atheists Believe Have I

I thought atheism was the absence of beliefs

(which is a belief, so maybe I did explain it as I understand it)

[Random_Australian]

172. God doesn't exist! We have proof! There is no evidence of God!

I think you can see the logical fallacy in the subject.

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence after all.

And abscence of belief is not belief of abscence.


Has this made the point clear?

(No, I am really asking, if not I can explain it again, in different words)

[trotsky]

173. Is bald a hair color?

When you choose to skip a meal, are you still eating a kind of food?

When you are healthy, are you still suffering from a form of illness?

Absense of beliefs is not a belief.

[NMMNG]

92. Huh?

Lack of belief in a deity, is belief in there being no deity.

So then lack of water in a glass is the existence of water in a glass?

Lack of hair on a head constitutes a full head of hair?

Lack of a single dollar makes one a billionaire?


Please explain your logic to me because I sure don't get it. :shrug:

[cosmik debris]

105. It is simple.

It is simple. Just substitute “gravity” for “deity”.

Before Isaac Newton no one believed in Gravity, so nobody fell down. After Isaac Newton people believed in Gravity and began to fall down frequently.

How could you NOT see something so obvious?
:crazy:

[SPKrazy]

107. Thanks for the silly analogy that is not even analogous here n/t

[SPKrazy]

108. Simply Put, We All Have Beliefs

some believe in a deity, some believe there is no deity, some aren't sure what to believe.

how hard can that be to understand?

[cosmik debris]

113. To me the silly part

Is that your semantic circular argument has been hashed out here a thousand times. And you feel compelled to do it again. OK

What is the opposite of "I don't believe you."

It is "I do believe you."

It is not "I believe something different."

To infer that I believe something because I do not believe something else has no logical validity. And there is no reason to repeat that argument of the 1001st time.

[SPKrazy]

119. Thoughts=Beliefs

therefore whatever you do or don't believe, or do or don't think, or think you have the absence of, it is still a belief.

And you obviously haven't answered your own question if you think that you don't have beliefs.

[cosmik debris]

133. Like I said

You make a semantic argument that defines me out of existence. You have, by definition, taken away my right to disbelieve everything. Because I disbelieve everything, I do not exist!

Thoughts do NOT equal beliefs. Belief requires an affirmative statement of a condition. The refusal to make such a statement is not an affirmative statement of the opposite condition. And even if it was, the opposite of "I don't believe." is not "I believe something else."

Your argument has no merit.

[beam me up scottie]

138. No merit.

Goes well with the hypocrisy.

His sig line should read

I Don't Want Atheists To Make Fun Of My Beliefs, But I Can Redefine Theirs!

[NMMNG]

165. Bingo

I can't figure out if he is deliberately being obtuse, really doesn't get it, or simply gets his rocks off antagonizing atheists. But for someone who posted a thread complaining about people who trash his beliefs, he makes it apparent he has no qualms about telling people what they believe/don't believe--which is the same thing.

:banghead:

[beam me up scottie]

166. I think we've called a truce.

My last word on the subject was in post #161.

Since Southpawkicker usually comes down squarely on the left of most other issues, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

It's like I said about the whole fairy tale thing, it's not as important to know WHY something offends people as it is to know that it does offend.

[NMMNG]

167. I see

Good to see a truce has been met. :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

168. I think so too.

I think Mr. Southpawkicker likes to mix it up as much as we do.

Remember when T.Grannie's first impression of us wasn't so nice either?

Once we got past the communication problems, she became be a dear friend.

[SPKrazy]

145. Okay, Let Me Think This Through

and I'm not saying you are wrong, maybe I will learn something today, if I don't then I have failed in my endeavor to learn something every day.

So now, a definition of belief: The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another; Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something;
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
When I speak of belief, I am operating from the perspective of being a therapist who uses a foundation of Rational Emotive Therapy. This is where A=situation; B=beliefs; and C=Action/reaction to A. B is an intervening variable.

For instance if someone calls another person an "idiot". That would be A. B would be their beliefs about the meaning of idiot, the cultural use of the word, etc. And C would be their reaction to A.

If I thought (believed) that an idiot was a good thing based on my experiences, and some bizarre cultural view, then calling me an idiot would not bother me.

Because I come from a culture where calling one an idiot is usually an insult (unless it is the idiot's guide to........) I will probably react with offense.

Now to rationally change that, I can look at what is an idiot, in what ways am I really like an idiot, and does this person's opinion make me an idiot.

So beliefs to me are ideas, or thoughts. And I really don't think about them being used in other contexts anymore.

My intention is not to take away your right to disbelieve anything, and certainly not to take away your identity. I am looking at this from my frame of reference where non-belief is an idea and therefore a B=belief

So using A,B,C. (Albert Ellis developed RET and he is an atheist I "believe" or think)
A= My saying belief=thought; B= your belief that belief is something else; C=your reaction that I am saying something that I am in fact not really trying to say.

Okay?

Peace

[cosmik debris]

152. By your own definition

There has been no "mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust".
There has been no "Mental acceptance of and conviction".

Therefore there is no belief.

You lost your own semantic argument. How strange?

[SPKrazy]

158. Glad You Know How To Cherry Pick

and ignore he whole body of my post and the other definitions

peace

[cosmik debris]

159. So I did

And upon review I discovered this contradiction: You define belief and then you say: "So beliefs to me are ideas, or thoughts. And I really don't think about them being used in other contexts anymore."

You have contradicted your own definition.

You have to agree with yourself or no one can agree with you.

[SPKrazy]

160. Those Definitions Are From A Dictionary

take issue with the dictionary

I stand by my post

[cosmik debris]

162. Two definitions

That seem to be mutually exclusive? And you stand by both of them?

"So beliefs to me are ideas, or thoughts."

This statement does not agree with the definition of belief that you gave earlier.

Which should I believe or dis-believe?

[SPKrazy]

163. It Fits For Me

and I'm not uncomfortable with my beliefs


and after re-reading the thread of our discussion, I've decided that you are arguing your own argument.

[SPKrazy]

164. It Does Fit n/t

[Random_Australian]

170. No they don't. Might I point out that, for instance, calculating 2 +2 is

not a belief. It does not even require 2 to exist. Internally defined is all it needs.

[SPKrazy]

106. Allright!

Lack of water in a glass means you believe there is no water in the glass
lack of hair on a head, means you believe there is no hair on the head
lack of a single dollar means you believe you have no dollar

just as lack of belief in a deity, is belief in there being no deity.

doesn't seem that hard to understand to me.

[Random_Australian]

169. Sorry, but given that inside the analagy there was no subjectivity,

you can't make any statements about belief.

"Lack of water in a glass means you believe there is no water in the glass"

Think about it:
1) There is a glass
2) It has no water in it
3) Therefore you believe that there is no water in the glass - which is cognition which is subjective;

Indeed inside this analagy it was drawn that the absence of one thing does not imply the presence of that thing (or indeed anything else), NOT that she can see the glass and she can see no water and therefore concludes that there is no water in the glass, another way of saying that would be to say "you believe there is no water in the glass" - which is already ruled out in "else), NOT that" that is contradiction, therefore you cannot draw that analagy.

(Yes, if you want to be technical you contradicted an identity axiom, but hey, it's an axiom, it isn't like it us for debate)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

97. Coincidence

happens. And it will continue to happen. So I guess I have "faith" in coincidence, as well. It's mathematical.

[SPKrazy]

110. I Guess You Do Grannie!

I'm not a coincidence theorist myself

[TallahasseeGrannie]

151. I believe that is one of our greatest challenges

as people of faith: figuring out when "coincidence" is unlikely.

But I believe there are a whole LOT of coincidences. And some of them are really strange, with no "miracle" aspect to them. Almost as if something the events in your life vibrate at the same rate or something.

Ohhh... that gave me a nap headache. I took too long of a nap today.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Right.

And I have faith that some theists will continue to argue from ignorance about atheism.

But that doesn't make it a religious belief.

[Random_Australian]

91. How does "believe that life is just a random chance" relate to

co-incidence? You have managed to provoke my curiosity! (Not exactly difficult)

If you would start with your own definition of co-incidence (no need for a proper one, just your own) that means evolution is co-incidence, that should help resolve communications error..... Co-incident with what mey I ask?

If you would tack on an example of "this happened, this also happened, is it co-incidence?" I would be grateful also.

Thankyou,
R_A.

[SPKrazy]

115. Coincidence

you want my definition in this context.

Evolution is coincidence. The fact that some trait is more survivable than another is coincidental (unless you believe it is planned or "designed" by some higher intelligence)

So it is faith in coincidence that drives the non-deity believing person to see the origin of humankind and of all creatures.

In the beginning there was primordial ooze, and there were bacteria and viruses and they intermingled and by chance they encountered organisms that through the interaction of them survived and mutated into something else.

And on and on.

No design, no direction, just survival of the fittest.

Chance encounters that allowed for change to happen.

Much like we wait for a pandemic virus to emerge today through the process of evolving.

Coincidence is the happenstance random chance that two unrelated things appear related, ie. it is just a coincidence that humans evolved from apes because under different circumstances they might not have existed at all.

Life in other solar systems may not resemble our own for this very reason.

Humankind is just a response to a series of random events over millions and millions of years.

(a whole lot of coincidences going on)

[beam me up scottie]

117. Again, being an atheist is not "faith or "belief in coincidence".

Instead of assuming you know what you're talking about, why not use this opportunity to learn something?

Evoman's post #93, just beneath this one, explains why your definition of atheism is wrong.

Or is it too much trouble to learn about the people you think are too stupid to know how to define themselves?

[SPKrazy]

120. Okay

I was responding to another poster but I forgot how you like to respond to me

and we have our weekly debate or whatever it is

I've read #93 and asked for clarification

I don't think you are too stupid to know how to define yourself, unless you are too stupid to think about the fact that all of your thoughts, and definitions, are in fact your BELIEFS

[beam me up scottie]

121. So my nonexistent belief in Zeus is a belief?

And my nonexistent belief in fairies is a belief?

How about my nonexistent belief in pink unicorns?

Invisible dragons?

Leprechauns?



Good thing you explained that to me, I would never have known what my belief system was without your obviously superior insight and wisdom.

[SPKrazy]

122. Yes

you don't believe in them and neither do I

that is a belief

is that hard to understand?

[SPKrazy]

124. You're Welcome Scottie

anytime, really

edited for your to you're

[beam me up scottie]

127. Anytime I want to be subjected to religious intolerance I can count on you

Really?

Thanks anyway, but I already see plenty of it everyday.


I'll keep you on the list though.

Don't Make Fun Of My Beliefs, And I Won't Make Fun Of Yours!

Right.

[SPKrazy]

128. Right!

don't make fun of my beliefs and i won't make fun of yours

have i made fun of yours?

I don't think I have

if I have, show me, and I'll eat my words

[beam me up scottie]

134. Actually, you've done much worse than mock.

You are arrogant enough to think you can tell someone else what they believe.

That's intolerant.

Not to mention extremely hypocritical coming from someone who spent the better part of a week whining about how intolerant atheists are.

[SPKrazy]

139. I'd Like For You To Show Me Where I Have Told Anyone What They

believe!

I have given you my understanding and explanation of coincidence, belief, atheism


(and you told me atheism isn't a belief, so how could I tell you how to believe?)

Oh Scottie

isn't it fun?

[beam me up scottie]

143. Your words:

Atheists Have Faith In Coincidence

Set Of Beliefs Or Principles

last part of your definition you posted Scottie

Of course you have beliefs, you believe that there is no God, that is a belief.
What else would it be?

Lack of belief in a deity, is belief in there being no deity.

Thoughts=Beliefs

therefore whatever you do or don't believe, or do or don't think, or think you have the absence of, it is still a belief.

And you obviously haven't answered your own question if you think that you don't have beliefs.

[SPKrazy]

147. Okay, See #145

I've nothing left to say at this point.

[beam me up scottie]

156. sigh...

You probably don't understand where I'm coming from because you've never been an atheist.

Just like I can't really understand where you're coming from because I've never been a believer.


But, at least we're trying to understand each other now.


I am sorry for thinking that you were baiting me.

[Evoman]

123. I do no think that word means what you think it means

"Evolution is coincidence. The fact that some trait is more survivable than another is coincidental (unless you believe it is planned or "designed" by some higher intelligence)"

Your definition of coincidental is so different from the real definition of coicendental, that it is useless. Evolution is in no way, shape or form coincedental. Conditional, maybe...but not coincidental. Again, evolution is not random.

"So it is faith in coincidence that drives the non-deity believing person to see the origin of humankind and of all creatures."

Its not faith, if you have evidence. You don't have "faith" in gravity, or cell theory, or Germ Theory of disease. We know its true because of the overwelming evidence.

"In the beginning there was primordial ooze, and there were bacteria and viruses and they intermingled and by chance they encountered organisms that through the interaction of them survived and mutated into something else."

You do know evolution has nothing to do with life origins, right? Anyways, do you have faith that when you put salt in pure water, the salt will dissolve into sodium and chloride? No, you know it will happen. Its not a coincidence that salt dissolves under certain conditions (in pure water) and not in others (when put into extremely saline water thats already saturated, the salt will not dissolve). Neither is it coincedental that life originated under certain conditions. Its more complex, and the conditions a whole lot more narrow, but it is not coincidental.

"No design, no direction, just survival of the fittest."

Now your talking about natural selection, not to be confused with Evolution. Evolution is fact. Natural selection may only be one of the driving theories of evolution.

"Chance encounters that allowed for change to happen."

Chance, or random mutation, again....what does it have to do with coincedence. More to the fact, what does it have to do with faith?

"Much like we wait for a pandemic virus to emerge today through the process of evolving."

"Coincidence is the happenstance random chance that two unrelated things appear related, ie. it is just a coincidence that humans evolved from apes because under different circumstances they might not have existed at all."

This is true...there is an element to chance. Under other circumstance, human beings may have never originated. Again, what does this have to do with faith? Again, your confusing coincedence with randomness. Scientists don't have "faith" in evolution. Also, not all atheists have to believe in evolution, some likely do not.

"Life in other solar systems may not resemble our own for this very reason."

Right.

"Humankind is just a response to a series of random events over millions and millions of years."

So?

"(a whole lot of coincidences going on)"

How so?

[SPKrazy]

125. Coincidence Defined

A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.

[beam me up scottie]

126. I think he knows exactly what it means.

He's just another baiter.

SO much for his sig line.

[SPKrazy]

129. Scottie

You are really overly sensitive, and you call me "easily offended"

[Evoman]

132. *shakes his head*

Oh man, now you've done it. Run while you still can.

[SPKrazy]

137. Why? I Like Scottie

despite what Scottie may think of me

I appreciate Her/His views, as I'm not really used to speaking with atheists

(except that my mother became an atheist before she died) I have known very few in my lifetime.

Peace

[beam me up scottie]

141. Yeah, it shows.

I just love it when christians tell me I don't know what I believe.

Really.

Ask anyone.

[SPKrazy]

142. Now Scottie

have I really told you what you "don't believe"?

I have simply argued that not believing is in fact a belief.

but I'm still trying to understand atheism.

See my mother was an atheist (or she said she was) the last years of her life.

When I was a child she taught Sunday school and we went to Church.

So maybe I'm a little confused as I try to understand.

I also, am not a "traditional Christian" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I would probably be told I was not a Christian by the fundies. And I might be looked at with distrust by moderate Christians.

I am a far leftist on the Christianity side (although a bit to the right of Bishop Spong, but not much) and maybe even a religious flake for all I know.

[beam me up scottie]

144. Wow, you actually KNEW an atheist?

Well, that settles it.

You're certainly more than qualified to tell all of us what we believe then.

I apologize for trying to confuse you by explaining my atheism.

[SPKrazy]

146. Wow, Scottie, I Shared Something

rather personal, and got my ass handed back to me.

;(

[beam me up scottie]

148. How am I supposed to know when to take you seriously?

Instead of accepting my definition of my atheism, you spent all of this time trying to prove me wrong.

That's not the behaviour of a person who wants to learn something about people who are different than him.


I apologize for misreading your intent.

Passive/aggressive behaviour by posters who bait us constantly in this forum have no doubt damaged my radar.

[SPKrazy]

150. Well That's Sort Of An Apology

so I'll accept it.

If anything, I am probably just confused about all of this.


So Peace

[beam me up scottie]

153. No, that was an apology.

A sincere one.

But you can't fault me for being skeptical about your intentions.


Especially in this forum.

The link I gave you in post #111 will explain why so many of us seem uber-sensitive about the subject.

I try not to let the chronic baiters get to me, but I do get upset when the people I consider to be liberal christians seem to be jumping on their bandwagon.

[SPKrazy]

157. I'm Not Kwassa

but I see why you are quick to jump on anyone that would post something similar

but I'm not Kwassa

[beam me up scottie]

161. No.

I know you're not.

But I get upset when I see someone I respect using the same argument.

The difference is that you genuinely don't understand what I'm saying, you're not claiming the right to redefine me.

[Random_Australian]

154. "no direction, just survival of the fittest." Aren't those two terms

mutually exclusive? Survival of the fittest acts as an algorithm after all; thus the complexity we see today.

As for evolution, I just don't see how 'variant that can run faster survives 0.05% more than the normal under these conditions' is co-incidence - basically, life tries everything, so it seems a bit to me like 'was it co-incidence that something had survivable traits?' would be somewhat superflous (sorry if I am sounding snarky) as you would also have to say 'was it co-incidence that thousands of other variants were used'

1/100000 does not seem like co-incidence to me. In fact, it was bound to happen eventually.

[Evoman]

93. Evolution is not random

Just clarifying, as it seems to be a common mistake. Although mutations may be random, Evolution is not random in the least. And its important to remember that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life...thats also a common mistake.

Moreover, there is also even a thought that life itself is not random...it may be a result of chemical reactions that WILL take place under certain conditions. For example, if you mix sodium and chlorine, the reaction is spontaneous and under most circumstance will become salt. Life may then be no more random than salt, its just the conditions for life are narrower. If conditions are similar to Earth's early conditions, then life may automatically happen..its not random at all.

So being atheist is not "believing in coincidence".

The common misunderstandings between theists and atheists are due to the fact that theists cannot for a second imagine that there is no god. For them, god is a given. Therefore, when someone says they have no beliefs in god, they immediatly equate it with either "denying the existence of god" or "having faith there is no god". Its all rather silly...sometimes I get frustrated that I even call myself an atheist. I don't go around saying I'm a-unicornism or A-Santaclausism after all.

*disclaimer: I am not trying to offend you Southpawkicker by making these comparisons. I'm just trying to make a point*

[SPKrazy]

118. Okay, So You've Explained What You Don't Believe In

what do you believe in

even not believing in anything is a belief

[Evoman]

131. Huh?

How is not believing something a belief? I don't understand. Is not eating, eating? Is not farting, a form of farting?

An absense of belief is not a belief. Its an absence of belief.

What do I believe? Do you mean, what do I accept as truth, or are you talking about belief as conjecture? If your talking about belief as an idea, i.e "I believe that the sun will rise tommorow" then I have literally millions of "beliefs". If your talking about belief as faith or belief in the irrational, "I have faith that god loves me" or "I have faith that we will all one day be rewarded for our good deeds" then I have no "beliefs".

I accept Evolution, because of the overwhelming evidence. I accept germ theory of disease, because of the overwhelming evidence. I accept that the world is round, that human beings are animals, and that the universe is essentially neutral. I would drop all of these "beliefs" in a second if overwhelming evidence contradicted what we've gathered so far. But right now, this is how things stand. There are no unicorns, there are no fairies, and there is no god.

[SPKrazy]

135. No But Belief Is Different

our belief systems define how we see the world

much like computer programming defines how the software works in the hardware

our beliefs are the programming in the software

If I believe in unicorns then I act under the assumption that they exist

If I believe that unicorns don't exist (aka not believing in unicorns) then I act with the assumption that they don't exist

I also accept evolution. But I believe in a creator and that creation in the creator's time is not understandable by me limited by the concept of time.

I don't really think that it is unclear that I'm saying that belief=ideas or thoughts

And I don't see how it is anymore irrational to say "I believe God loves me" than to say "I don't believe in God"

It is not irrational to believe in God.

Do you believe in protons? Have you ever seen one? How about an electron? Yet science tells us they are there. We have faith in science that they are correct.

Yet over time science has certainly changed it's ideas about such concepts as gravity, time, subatomic particles (that don't behave according to Newtonian beliefs)

Am I being obtuse? Am I being a "baiter"?

I don't think I am. I am just explaining a point of view that I have. And those who disagree with me have that right.

Thanks

Not meant to insult, despite what Scottie thinks

Steve

[Evoman]

149. Maybe you will get it.

"I also accept evolution. But I believe in a creator and that creation in the creator's time is not understandable by me limited by the concept of time."

But why do you believe in a creator? Thats the point. Evolution has so much evidence right now, that having another theory replace it is almost impossible. Your creator has no evidence. Your belief is irrational.

"I don't really think that it is unclear that I'm saying that belief=ideas or thoughts "

Of course its unclear. When I finally say I have a belief, the theist almost invariably says, "SEE SEE...YOU ALSO HAVE BELIEFS LIKE ME. YOU HAVE FAITH IN THINGS". And thats just not true. I hate when people change a defintion..then when you say, "yes...that definition includes me", then they change it back to the common usage. It always happens...is there some sort of name for this fallacy? I'm not up on my logic.

"And I don't see how it is anymore irrational to say "I believe God loves me" than to say "I don't believe in God""

Tell me...is it any more irrational to say, "I believe in Unicorns" then it is to say, "I don't believe in Unicorns". If you can answer that question truthfully without becoming insulted, then you'll see how the two statements are different. Because, to some degree it can be argued that saying, "I don't believe in god" presupposes that god exists, I prefer saying, "I have no belief in god".

"It is not irrational to believe in God."

Yes. You are basing your beliefs on a 2000 year old book written by primitives. Of course its irrational to believe in god. There is no rational way to believe in god (if there is, please enlighten me). Thats not saying that being irrational is wrong or unusual...I, for example, have an irrational fear of vomiting. There is no rational reason that I am an emetophobe. I admit I am irrational about it. You should do the same thing.

"Do you believe in protons? Have you ever seen one? How about an electron? Yet science tells us they are there. We have faith in science that they are correct. "

No, we do not have faith in science. Again, you do not know what your talking about. I accept that protons exist because of the overwhelming evidence...everything from chemistry to magnet theory to genetics would make no sense if protons did not exist. It is not FAITH if you have evidence. We do not have FAITH in science. If there was anything that could be thought of as the complete opposite of "faith thinking" its science.

"Yet over time science has certainly changed it's ideas about such concepts as gravity, time, subatomic particles (that don't behave according to Newtonian beliefs)"

Yes, science self corrects. There is no faith. If there was "faith", then nothing would change. If we had faith in newtonian physics, we never would have began studying quantum physics or relativity.

"Am I being obtuse? Am I being a "baiter"?"

Unlike Scotty, I don't think your being a baiter. I just think you don't understand what science, or atheism for that matter,really is. I also think that, being as how you've already completely accepted your position, you have difficulty in understanding others. You attempt to define atheists and scientists in terms that make you comfortable, even though they are completely wrong. I can see why its difficult accepting that other have no faith when faith is integral to who you are.



"I don't think I am. I am just explaining a point of view that I have. And those who disagree with me have that right."

I think the opposite happens as well. We do not, for example, think there is any more reason to believe in Santa Claus then in God. I know you find that insulting, but thats the point. You were insulted in the other thread....and we said exactly what you did here. Let me quote you:

"Not meant to insult, despite what Scottie thinks"

See...thats exactly what we TOLD YOU in the other thread. You made a big stink about how we were insulting you, when we were not. Scotty told you to quit defining her, but you continued to do so. It is the same with us. I don't really get insulted, because I understand where you are coming from. I would never tell you to shut up or stop expressing what you think.

I really hope this give you something to think about.

[salvorhardin]

155. You are making a classic error

You are conflating simple beliefs -- or the lack thereof -- with belief systems.

A belief is the simple mental acceptance of the truth or existence of a single person, idea or thing. A belief is something you either have or you don't. Not having a belief is not a belief.

A belief system would be a collection or set of individual beliefs which are in some way held to be related or interconnected. A person may hold more than one belief system and they do not necessarily have to be consistent. You might try to argue that there is an atheist belief system but you would fail. If you would like to try, then you must show me which specific beliefs out of the universe of all beliefs that all atheists subscribe to. Whereas I can show at least a handful of beliefs that all (for instance) Catholics hold, I just don't think you can do the same for atheists.

You are also conflating knowledge with belief. Beliefs are not rationally justified whereas knowledge is a special category of belief that is justified in reason.

Finally, you are also conflating a posteriori with a priori knowledge.

Evolution is an example of a posteriori knowledge while belief in a god would be an example of a priori knowledge. There is nothing inherently more rational about a posteriori knowledge however I would argue that any knowledge gained simply through a priori reasoning is valueless, the mental equivalent of 'garbage in, garbage out'.

There are many people I can point to that have what I consider to be a rational belief in god, a belief that is informed by both a priori and a posteriori knowledge so I can respect a person whose belief in god comes to them that way. The example I always use is of computer scientists Donald Knuth. However, being an atheist, with a materialistic and naturalistic worldview I believe Knuth is wrong in this instance. I should not respect Knuth's belief in god though if it were based simply on a priori knowledge.

Oh, one more fallacy in your post. Your understanding of science is weak. It is not a collection of facts, but rather a process for gathering a posteriori knowledge. Further, science has not shown that gravity, time and subatomic particles do not behave according to Newtonian principles, but rather shown that Newtonian principles only apply to a very specific case of macroscopic bodies within a zero space-time curvature. In other words, Einstein's relativity is a more generalized case than Newton's mechanics. Einstein does not invalidate Newton, but rather builds upon his work. No one has succeeded in marrying quantum mechanics with Einstein and Newton yet, but it is thought that this is possible and when it is done we will be left with a more generalized understanding of the universe.

[Random_Australian]

171. not to insult? ok, I shall give you some very good advice;

in fact I thought you were using it to be a flamebait, but about Newton & such, it was accepted that they were good models for how the world worked. Science works on models, models that mean we can understand the world around us. Math has been made into one big model, actually.

Some people believe all sorts of things - it is much simpler. (faster for the brain)
Scientists, bieng people, believe all sorts of things, like God. (a few of us at any rate - not me).

Science itself believes sweet freak all. It thinks that the current theories are good approximations to the truth, based on evidence. It makes no assumptions about anything else - what is most likely is used for calculations, and that is it. When you use the scientific method, as good as humans can get to science, to study the world around you decide that the highest statistical co-efficient (what has the most chance of bieng correct) is that there is no God. This DOES NOT rule out God, this does not even mean you believe that He does not exist, but you will oppose any notion that is more sensible to conclude that He exists or to believe in Him. (Within the limits of accepting all the evidence)

It means solely that it is more likely that there is no God, and that is all. For the minds that wish to work like that, that is what is decided upon.

Stats, you see. Saying that we have some active belief is like saying that we do not consider the evidence, that we are not open-minded, it really is quite insulting. I thought that if you really don't want to flame, you will need this info to ask people questions about their beliefs; once you get familiar (and we with you), R/T may well proceed much smoother.

Cheers,
R_A.

(P.S. If you are wondering why it looks like belief to you, research heuristics and apply to both sides or ask me & I'll try my best)

[Proud_Democratt]

80. Faith in coincidence? Nice fable-like observation you've

made.

[SPKrazy]

82. See #81 for explanation

[StellaBlue]

175. Atheism isn't about science

:rofl:

It's just a LACK of belief. That's all. I also don't believe monsters are munching on crumbs under my bed. :shrug: