What Atheists Believe

#82
#82
PKT_VOL said:
How is belief or faith not a personal choice?
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. I don't choose not to believe in God as others do, I simply don't believe in it. I didn't wake up one day and say, I don't believe in God because I don't want to.
 
#90
#90
VOLatile said:
What exactly are you looking for?

I believe there's no proof of a god. Burden of proof also lies on the believers.

I believe that there should be separation of church and state, whether that's what Jefferson intended or not.

I believe that religion should be kept in the churches and homes.
Click to expand...

I think that makes you agnostic, not atheist. To be atheist you must agree with the phrase: "there is no God".
 
#91
#91
volinbham said:
The last first:

Why should a Creator had to have been perfect? I just don't get that. The alternative to a creator is basically random chance. Seems to me the toughest question is what created the Creator but we basically ignore that for random chance so I see that basically as a draw.

On the first, I would have to wonder if he didn't implicitly start with a distaste for a highly involved God when deciding there isn't one. If he doesn't believe in one at all why bother to get bent out of shape about how bad it would be if there was one - it is an impossibility.
Click to expand...

As to the bold, why does it matter? He doesn't think there is a creator, and when asked to imagine if there was one he gives his opinion.

It is interesting that you ask the question why should a creator be perfect, yet find your spirituality from Christianity. One thing I have noticed, is the farther you bring believers down the rabbit hole of debate, the more watered down there beliefs become. I dare say, some on here that would consider themselves ardent believers would be burned at the stake for believing what they profess on here if they lived 500 years ago. A creator doesn't have to be perfect, and if one did exist, it is very evident he isn't.

Random chance is far more believable than a first mover or intelligent designer. Of course, if we want to play the game of "what could be" over "what is evident" then I'm hedging my bet on the flying spaghetti monster, because it is just as believable by those standards.
 
#95
#95
emainvol said:
I don't choose not to believe in the flying spaghetti monster because I could not choose to believe in it. I simply don't believe in it.
Click to expand...

Ok. We’ll utilize your example. You believe that faith and or belief in an idea or doctrine is inherent. However, as a rational, thinking being, you are constantly interpreting incoming information through your five senses (assuming one of your senses is not impaired). Therefore, the rational frontal lobe of your brain is constantly rationalizing any and all inputs. This can be conscious thought (reading Volnation) or subconscious thought. Conscious rational thought is the basis for all of your beliefs, views, opinions, etc. Our rational thought processes are outlined by the experiences we have had and more importantly our interpretation of those experiences. Since we all have different a priori experiences, we will inevitably have our own unique interpretations of similar experiences. How we choose to interpret our experience is our choice. If you believe that faith/belief is inherent, then I am assuming you consider humans to possess innate knowledge. Innate knowledge is the corner stone of Descartes infamous ontological arguement for the existence of God. To apply this to your example, you cannot honestly argue that your disbelief in the spaghetti monster is innate. Rather, your comprehensive life experiences have outweighed the very slim possibility (since you cannot logically prove the actual nonexistence a mythical creature) of that there is indeed a spaghetti monster. That is a rational choice you have made whether you realize it or not. Innate knowledge would not play a role in your decision making.

I agree with you that we choose our actions. However, rational beings choose/influence/make their own interpretations of their experiences.
 
Last edited:
#98
#98
rjd970 said:
This is where it gets confusing for me. By citing evidence (history of mankind) then you are playing by the rationalization rules. If the whole claim is outside of evidence, why does any evidence matter?

God/Creator myths were formulated by man as an attempt to explain and bring meaning to the world and their surroundings. I don't find anything significant about that. The fact that man has a need to find order and patterns in his surroundings is not evidence of a creator in the least, it is evidence of how the homosapien brain works, and why we have garnered such a great evolutionary advantage.
Click to expand...

On the first point - there's a difference between saying evidence-based proof is not essential for the existence of supranatural universal phenomena and actually suggesting some evidence does exist to point towards the possibility of said phenomena. I'm simply providing the latter.

On the second, I talking about more than explaining what we see; putting order or meaning to events. I think some of that is there to be sure but the explanations are remarkably consistent at their core. Likewise, there are plenty of situations through out history were spiritual energy for lack of a better term appears to be at work.

In short, I think it is fine to search for alternative explanations for the role of spirituality in the history of mankind but it is taking it a step too far to presume it can not also be viewed as evidence of something supranatural.
 
Last edited:
#99
#99
rjd970 said:
As to the bold, why does it matter? He doesn't think there is a creator, and when asked to imagine if there was one he gives his opinion.

It is interesting that you ask the question why should a creator be perfect, yet find your spirituality from Christianity. One thing I have noticed, is the farther you bring believers down the rabbit hole of debate, the more watered down there beliefs become. I dare say, some on here that would consider themselves ardent believers would be burned at the stake for believing what they profess on here if they lived 500 years ago. A creator doesn't have to be perfect, and if one did exist, it is very evident he isn't.

I don't see the link between perfection and my experience with Christianity. I simply use Christianity as a conduit to understand because I went to church. I certainly don't buy most of the core tenets of Christianity as my belief in God. It is simply a prism through which I try to understand. If I were raised Buddhist I imagine my views would be the same today but just learned through being raised Buddhist. To use your term, let's say I learned about spirituality via Christianity but my beliefs are not bound by Christianity.


As to the perfection in general I really don't see why that is any kind of prerequisite to belief in a creator. If we want to talk about understanding via reason then I would think reason points to imperfection as being much more likely.

Random chance is far more believable than a first mover or intelligent designer. Of course, if we want to play the game of "what could be" over "what is evident" then I'm hedging my bet on the flying spaghetti monster, because it is just as believable by those standards.
Click to expand...

I don't see any justification for arguing that random chance is far more believable than a first mover/intelligent designer. That sounds like an a priori conclusion you've reached and it colors the way you look at the debate.
 
#100
#100
emainvol said:
It's simple. Choice is an action. Belief is not. It is inherent.
Click to expand...

I believe that hippies are smelly.
I don't hang out with any hippies.
Absent any evidence in support or opposition to this belief - and in my decision not to seek any means of testing my theory - isn't my belief in smelly hippies a choice?

I choose to believe that Tennessee's football team will be better next year - I can make an equally strong and valid case that it will not - don't I choose to believe the former instead of the latter (note, I am not speaking to the correctness of the belief itself, only its choice)?

I choose to believe that both atheists, theists and everyone in-between have an important perspective to offer in this dialogue - nothing suggests that this should be true, and yet, I am free to believe it or not - my choice.

I choose to believe that people can love and be loved.

If belief is not a choice, their is nothing to debate, really. Some are born believers, and others are not - and its beyond all control as to which we are, without exception.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top