Why aren't you an Atheist?

by Bloody Hotdogs! 697 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Etude

  Bloody Hotdogs! My answer to your question is: Because there's an undeniable tendency in humans which is stronger in some more than others for what some people term "religiosity". Other's call it "spirituality", which encompases the feeling that there's more to the universe, including a meaningful and ultimate purpose and a higher intelligence. That is the force that has caused every culture since the dawn of time to have a concept of "god", something that is very difficult to explain in Evolutionary terms. I came late to this discussion, so forgive me is someone has already addressed this topic with my same comments.

  Perhaps it's the misguided need that spirituality can create that makes people congregate into religious groups. After believing for decades and then losing all my preconceived notions about God, I have come to respect and appreciate the need some individuals have to be spiritual. I recognize it in myself, although I have reasoned that I don't need the trappings of rite and fanciful imigery to accomplish the same thing.

  At the same time, while believing in the material world above all, I realize that Atheism cannot answer all the questions about what is or isn't. That does not force me to make an alternate conclusion. That leaves me in a difficult place, but one I've learned to be comfortable with, a place from where I can sincerely say: "I don't know". The great thing about my "not knowing" is that it continues to push me to ask more and more profound questions rather than sit complacently on the sidelines. I walk a tight rope every day.
• 

  Christ Alone

  NC, I've been on point this entire time. I mainly was talking about KS's constant insulting. Unfortunately I get drawn into that sometimes and try and give it back. But the stance is always "They are all delusional". It's the militant atheism that I have problems with. KS has shown to be one of those. Those sorts of atheists demand that anyone that does not agree with them are less intelligent. Yes, many believers do the same and I have issue with that too. It just seems to be an overall theme to atheism that it demands that you condemn all others as delusional, thanks to good ol' Dick Dawkins.
• 

  OUTLAW

  That's not exactly right, Outlaw. To be an atheist, we only have to believe there is no evidence that a god exists, and that we will go with the evidence. It's not faith, but a measure of probability....NC

  If this god is out there, it is not worried about revealing itself. So while the possiblity exists, we have nothing to go on, and it doesn't even matter. If it did matter, it would introduce itself....NC

  Good morning NC..

  If your willing to argue a side..You need to have Proof..

  If you have no proof..

  All you have is Faith that your right..

  In your post you leave the door open to a possibility of God..

  So I don`t think your an Athiest..

  I think it`s good to leave the door open to any possibilitys..

  Like this..

  What would be the nature of such a god? Who knows? My tongue-in-cheek theory

  is that some teenager somewhere did a science experiment that was thrown into the garbage

  that became our universe.

  Funny stuff..Loved it..

  ......................... ...OUTLAW
• 

  NewChapter

  Do they simply believe in agency, C.A? From a child's perspective, things are provided and made. With this child like quality, they view the world, because they are not delving into science and how things actually happened. I didn't do this, but maybe I didn't think about how the sun came to be. Had someone asked me, I'm pretty sure my childlike mind would try to fill in the gaps with the only information at my disposal---someone made it. Who? Well I'd have to theorize on who that might be.

  Once our minds expand beyond our childlike assumptions, we can look at the question from different angles. When we can understand broader concepts, our opinion changes. Ancient humans didn't have much more information on science than children did, so that expansion did not happen for them. They have few angles with which they could look at the question. They weren't dumber than us, but they had not yet discovered as much. So the idea of an outside agent becomes firm. Children may believe that storks deliver babies. Give a bit more information, and the belief changes and the child grows up.

  I used to make up stories all the time to explain things I didn't understand. As I grew up, my increased understanding caused me to reevaluate some of my conclusions.
• 

  Christ Alone

  With this child like quality, they view the world, because they are not delving into science and how things actually happened.

  Exactly my point. We were talking about children that have not been taught yet. They are not naturally atheist. They are naturally believers in the supernatural. They haven't learned about Santa Clause or any other fiction. But they believe, even sub consciously, in a designer. Once they are exposed to beliefs of their parents (whether religious or atheist) then they develop along those lines. When they are taught what science claims to know, they develop that way as well.

  At all points in scientific history, scientists have claimed to know FOR SURE how things work. And then another discovery will come along and change the entire scientific community. Then they will again claim, "Now we know for sure that this happened." And then again the same thing will happen. I posted it yesterday and I'll say it again. He who thinks he knows something, does not yet know anything. And that applies to believers and non believers alike.
• 

  OUTLAW

  With the greatest of respect to two lovely people - and I mean that most sincerely folks -

  you are DEAD WRONG! Belief requires faith, an absence of belief requires no faith.

  Atheism makes no claims, remember?.....Nic

  Nic..

  If your willing to argue about something you have no proof of..

  You need faith/trust that your right..

  Athiests claim there is no God..

  Without that claim..

  Believers and Athiests wouldn`t argue about God..

  ........................... ... OUTLAW
• 

  King Solomon

  From a review on his book, Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Beliefs

  http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/03/08/review-justin-l-barrett-born-believers-the-science-of-childrens-religious-beliefs/

  Belief in God is childish. So reports Justin L. Barrett, an Oxford University professor who studies the cognitive science of religion, in his new book Born Believers. To be more specific, Barrett argues that belief in gods appears to be a naturally occurring human phenomenon (21). He points to new research about systems of the human mind which develop very early, and which make belief in some sort of god almost inevitable for children: “They have strong propensities to believe in gods because gods occupy a sweet-spot in their natural way of thinking: gods are readily and easily accommodated by children’s minds and fill some naturally-occurring conceptual gaps rather nicely” (25-6).

  LOL! So Justin L Barrett figured out that children are prone to believe in fantasies, and hence might enjoy fairy tales, cartoon figures, playing dress-up or war, cops and robbers, and possess active imaginations, etc? WOW: cutting edge research, there!

  The title is even a lie: in the book, he alleges that they DEVELOP such beliefs very early, but that a far cry from being BORN BELIEVERS. The only thing a newborn "believes" in is finding his mothers breast on which to suckle. If the infant imagines that instinctive drive as his "God" is even questionable: how does ANYONE KNOW what an infant "thinks" or "believes"? Unless he's clairvoyant, or able to do vulcan mind welds, it's a FAIL. He failed with his hyperbolic, designed-to-sell-more-books title.

  Barrett is selling a book to those believers who WANT to point to pseudo-science that "spins" it their way: that's not credible science (which would be if his "studies" were published in refereed professional journal, which are peer-reviewed). That's "science" for lay-people, designed to sell books to the faithful flock who are primed to be fleeced.

  We saw the same thing recently with a neurosurgeon selling his book on NDE: same target market, different theme. Selling pseudo-science, telling the naive believers what they want to hear: it is a big business, making lots of $$$ for some....

  Next?
• 

  NewChapter

  In your post you leave the door open to a possibility of God..

  So I don`t think your an Athiest..

  It's a scale, Outlaw. For me to feel like an honest atheist (and this applies only to me---others have different views) I leave open a crack, not a door, of possiblity. Even Dawkins says he is technically an agnostic. So my definition of myself is more practical than technical, because I live in a society that pressures everyone to define themselves as to their relationship to a god.

  To be honestly open-minded, we often leave an iddy biddy space for probability, otherwise we would be unable to investigate new evidence in an unbiased manner. I haven't seen any new evidence offered----ever---so I stick to my conclusion that there is not god.

  Think about fairies. All evidence that they exist has been debunked. Yet, one day, new evidence may present itself. Will I be able to logically consider that evidence if I have closed off all possiblity? But would that make me a Afairygnostic? I don't think so. Not unless you want to put it under a microscope and find one tiny crack and then claim it is not pure.

  I allow the same crack for gods that I allow for fairies. If you think that doesn't make me an atheist, then so-be-it. Define me anyway you like, because it is a forced definition, and people play with definitions all the time to prove their points or to weaken another point. It doesn't matter. Practically I don't believe in gods. If you ask me, I don't believe in gods. If I allow the tiniest crack to exist to enable me to investigate new evidence, and you consider that not truly atheist, that's fine. If you feel the strong need to define me, then fine. But as I define myself, I am an atheist that tries to be honest and leave a small opening, no matter how small, to consider something new. I don't expect that to happen.
• 

  nicolaou

  If your willing to argue about something you have no proof of..

  I am not arguing for or against anything. I am not putting up evidence nor relying on faith to support a position I hold. Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god, it is just the absence of a belief that god is real,

  Atheism is not a claim that there is no god - it really isn't. Please try to get your head around that.

  Nic'
• 

  NewChapter

  scientists have claimed to know FOR SURE how things work

  No, that would not be accurate. They come up with Theories. Theories are always open to falsification, and a scientist loves to falsify a theory. Doing so puts them into the books and history. Because they leave their theories open to falsification, this is proof that they allow they don't know for sure. Evolution happens, but the details and understanding have changed over the years. Yet is still has not been falisfied. So much came before our understanding of genetics, but it still has not been falsified.

  Perhaps you are objecting to the manner with which they express themselves? In strong terms. It may make you more comfortable if they prefaced every statement with the assurance that this is our understanding TODAY? Of course you would. Believers don't do that, but it would be nice if scientists always expressed themselves with uncertainty. Except, it is already presupposed that all theories are open to falsification, so it doesn't need to be repeated endlessly---we all understand that! When a scientist speaks, he is sure of what has not been falsified at the time he speaks. He is certainly going to examine any honest and sound effort to disprove a theory. That's just understood.

  But if they don't have some level of confidence that they are on the right path, then nothing would get done, and maybe that's what believers want. I don't know.

  Science is not religion. We understand we are always learning, and some things will change. And when they do, we will also change our direction. We don't get that with believers. Their belief is set in stone. But it's also hard, when they operate with such certainty, for most of them to understand that science requires a completely different mindset and there are no absolutes. It's just hard for most of them to wrap their brains around it, because they are operating on a different path.

  It is not devastating when a theory is disproven, but exciting! It puts us closer and closer to the full answer. It doesn't generally invalidate the disproven theory, but it puts us closer to where we want to be. Our world does not fall apart, our confidence in science is not shaken, in fact, it is bolstered. Because the scientific method did exactly what it is in place to do----it weeded through the information, old and new, and brought us every closer to the full picture.

  It's almost an opposite way of looking at the world.