No, one believes blindly based on evidence taught them through some form of scripture, and one believes with eyes wide open based on daily experiences.
The atheist believes in certain fundamental underlying principles such as that of causality (i.e., that the perceived world is not just a series of random events and that everything that occurs is caused by something else) because these principles are able to explain the oserved world without contradiction and also make accurate predictions as to future events.
The theist, on the other hand, believes in God despite any evidence to the contrary or internal inconsistencies, or else is forced to redefine the entire notion of God in such a way that his existence cannot be proven (and, in the process, rejecting thousands of years of historical descriptions of God).
So yes, atheists have a form of faith, but it is not a blind faith.
Argh! Again I need to say, athiest does not equal anti-religion, or even antitheism (if I can coin a word).
Being athiest does not mean that I hate religion.
Being athiest does not mean that I find ‘religious types’ delusional.
Being athiest does not mean that I think religion and religious establishment are harmful by nature.
These are things that more conservative-minded religious folks tend to throw on athiests to prove how ‘evil’ we are, but it just ain’t necessarially so, people!
Well, to be fair, some atheists hate religion, find religious types delusional, and think that religion and religious establishments are harmful by nature. Just read the rest of this thread to see posts by self-professed atheists who say just that.
Simply put, being an atheist means that you do not believe in God, nothing more and nothing less. How somebody chooses to act on such a belief (or lack thereof) is up to that individual and not representative of atheists as a whole.
Oh – and it’s “atheist,” not “athiest” (sorry, just a pet peeve of mine).
Good point, godzillatemple. I guess I’m just tired of people assuming that I have all sorts of hostility towards religion just because I’m an atheist. I feel like often atheism is equated with anger at the religious establishment, and it’s just not always the case. I can rightfully assume that Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the manifestation of God on Earth, but I can’t assume anything about an atheist asside from the fact that he or she does not believe in god.
And, sorry about the misspelling of theist nine out of ten times in that last post. It’s still early for me and I didn’t sleep much last night.
You’d be surprised at what you can and cannot assume. I know self-described Christians who follow the teachings of Christ but who don’t believe his divinity. Who am I to tell them they’re not “really” Christians?
Quite true, and labels are mutable for sure. I could claim to be Jewish and follow the teachings of Mohammed the Prophet, and who would you be to tell me otherwise.
I think, though, that at some point, at least for the sake of discussing generally, that it’s impractical to say that any label can be attached to any set of beliefs, as long as the person using that label feels that it applies to those beliefs. But, this is sounding more like GD than the pit, damn it!
I was thinking last night that the pedophilia crisis in the Catholic church has done more to damage its credibility and reduce its coffers than a hundred debates on whether God exists. Not that that’s anything approaching compensation for victims of those horrific crimes, but it suggests to me that arguing against illegal and immoral practices on the part of religious people may be more productive than debating God. Whether or not God exists, intolerance, bigotry, hypocrisy and hate crimes sure as hell do and clearly many theists join atheists in despising them.
I’m not sure about some of your (speaking to the general atheist crowd) desire to eliminate religion to improve humanity. Haven’t there been religious beliefs and practices for about as long as there’ve been people? Doesn’t every culture have mythology and metaphor used to teach and share a sense of identity?
I go back and forth on this. I agree that the Christian god is flawed and its use has probably done at least as much harm as good. But OTOH, people want that father figure, that “benevolent dictator” to give them a sense of security and belonging. If they can’t find it they’ll create it. So if you get rid of it, what’s to take its place - reason? If human beings in general were strong enough to take the truth of our meaningless existence, they’d stop leaning on a literal God even if one’s available. But if they’re not ready, they’ll just lean on someone or something else. Look at how much meaning we attribute to stupid constructs in our culture - fashion, celebrity, status. WTF?
Frankly I’ve wondered at times if drug use among adolescents didn’t have something to do with that quest for meaning and belonging - not that fear of “sinning” would stop them “if only they were good Christians”, but that those kids are filling a legitimate void using the best tools available, even if they’re awful tools. Some people are better off with that benevolent dictator figure - they just need a better one (one that actually practices unconditional love and tolerance would be nice). Otherwise they’d just be too afraid. There are theists who’re working on that, the Unity church comes to mind. Personally I think we’d be wise to repair and revise religion rather than replacing it. As TheGreatUnwashed points out, there’s something compelling about that final authority, sort of the ultimate “ask Dad”.
Not that I’m going to join any of their churches even if they do - my God is everywhere already anyway. I do believe there’s a spiritual reality, an energy underlying life; I think that’s part of where religion gets its power. But none of us have got a handle on it. I don’t buy any of the literal God models, even though I recognize that other people need them.
I think (although I can’t prove) that if you were to ask most self-described atheists how they feel about religion, they would state that they have no problem with people finding comfort in religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not lead people to do bad things and as long as people don’t try to convert them to those beliefs.
Here on the SMDB, however, you have a slightly different situation. The whole purpose of the SMDB is to “fight ignorance,” and I think many atheists tend to get a wee bit more evangelical about their non-beliefs for the same reason we all try hard to debunk things like astrology, UFOs, TV psychics, etc. To an atheist, religion is just another form of ignorance and, while we may not go about trying to stamp it out in the real world, we do feel a bit of an obligation to fight against it here on the SMDB.
In the real world, I rarely (if ever) discuss my religious beliefs or lack thereof. Presumably, though, people come to the SMDB looking for the “straight dope” and to have ignorance dispelled, and I therefore feel fully justified in posting thread after thread in attempt to dispell what I personally feel is a deeply entrenched form of ignorance.
I see your point godzillatemple (so what is on your altar anyway?); I’ve just been thrown off by their intent b/c my personal experience of religion hasn’t included much exposure to the wackies - Unitarians and Unity and extremely liberal Christians have been more my experience. IMHO, I think it helps to fight about what you’re really fighting about, but it’s really not my business how other people conduct theirs. At any rate, I’m glad I’ve finally gotten some clarification on the issues at hand.
Another artist! How cool! You should get your stuff on the Teemings gallery (altho I think that was Eutychus’ project). Excellent work, thanks for sharing!
I’m with you fessie. I think some of the atheists on this board doth protest too much. The same existential anxiety that fuels religious belief also fuels militant scientism. For the life of me I can’t understand how people believe in a “God” but I also know that anyone who does believe in one isn’t going to be convinced otherwise. While I suppose I’m an atheist I don’t like to use the term because I associate it with father-hating angry people. I think it would be more fruitful and interesting to talk about what “what makes the amoeba first extend it’s pseudopod?” than “God.” With 9 dimensions, time stopping in black holes, and quantum nonlocality, I think the truth is a lot weirder than anything we’ll ever know but significantly more complex than “God” or “Science.”
And you’d be wrong about that. Belief in God is not a matter of genetics; it’s often nothing more than a product of how one was raised. As with any other belief, people with an open mind can come to accept that a belief in God is not supported by logic or existing evidence and give up that belief.
People convert from atheism to theism, and from one set of religious beliefs to another, all the time. Why would it be any more startling for somebody to be converted from theism to atheism? In fact, it happens to plenty of college students every year when they are finally exposed to rational thinking and contrasting viewpoints.
To say that nobody who believes in God can ever be convinced otherwise is the same as saying that nobody who believes in astrology, phrenology, dowsing, UFOs, and TV psychics will ever be concinved otherwise. If that is the case, then the SDMB’s stated mission of “fighting ignorance” is a complete sham, since nobody will ever be convinced to change their mind about anything.
You’re definately right godzillatemple. It’s just been my frustrating experience that whenever I’ve argued with religious types in the past they would just jump to a new hypothesis whenever they didn’t like a conclusion. In the end, truth is probably arational but when people are willing to argue from a given hypothesis I expect them to be able to accept a rational conclusion.
Well, there certainly are irrational religious types as well as rational ones. Heck, for that matter, there are plenty of irrational atheists who disbelieve in God but do believe in UFOs, astrology, crystal healing, etc.
In my personal experience, though, the “rational” religious types don’t tend to stay religious for long…
I just checked out your Godzilla Temple: nicely done! Now that’s one scary god/monster/spirit/whatever. (Is Godzilla a lower-case-g god?)
re rational religious types, I’ve found that many of them tend to follow the more austere, remote, abstract, and metaphorical viewpoints. They tend to stop being Southern Baptists and move toward being Congregationalists…or Unitarians… One of the most rational people I know is a Catholic…with lots of personal reservations that the Church might not approve of…
I’ve actually been doing a bit of reasearch lately on traditional Japanese religions, and I don’t think that Godzilla (or “Gojira” as he is known in Japan) could legitimately be considered a god. Traditional Japanese beliefs do include a lot of nature worship, ascribing natural events to supernatural forces, but what sets Godzilla apart is that nobody actually worships him in the movies or performs any rituals designed to appease him, call him, etc. According to the orignal movie, his name was derived from the name of a mythical sea dragon which might very well have been considered a god by some people, but the majority of the populace plagued by his presence do not consider him to be supernatural in any sense.
I’ve always been fascinated by the way people can continue to believe in God after having chucked out the window most of the source material for that belief. But I suppose that rationalization is in itself a form of rationality…
You seem to be taking my relating atheism to a “sort of” anti-religion as a personal attack.
The prefix anti- is used so often anymore that I suppose it is understandable to assume so many negative connotations, but really all it means is “opposed to.” Opposition takes on many forms, but I don’t think it fair for you to immediately jump to the conclusion that its usage suggests I think you find “religious types” to be delusional or harmful by nature.
Says who? Have the tenets of Atheism actually been written down somewhere? Are you quoting Causality 2:17-26?
An atheist, by true definition of the word, is one who denies the existence of God. Prescribing beliefs that all atheists believe in is little different than laying out the 10 Commandments and brings Atheism closer to being a true religion unto itself.
I don’t believe in God, but it’s not because I know there were dinosaurs and the Bible conveniently neglects to mention them, or that for the life of me I can’t imagine how Noah managed to figure out how he had a flea of each gender, but rather because I just know. There is no train of rational thought or specific causality traceable to anything anyone has ever taught me, it is the result of years of personal soul searching.
So, I deny the existence of God and by that fact I am labelled an Atheist, but I do not subscribe to your definition or rules of being an Atheist. Therefore I am not an Atheist, nor an Agnostic, nor a part of any religion, “conservative” or otherwise, and yet I am continually lumped in with one or another to suit people’s natural desires to compartmentalize everything, and frankly I find it extremely irritating.
