use my definition as non-contingent or necessary being above

Hmmm, I wouldnt call that theism. You are basically proffering first cause/unmoved mover?
The nature of such a thing need not be a god, it could just as easily be an alien, or a cosmic byproduct of something unknown.
Does it ruin the spirit of your challenge to be more specific?

I, like Aquinas will call this "God". However, yet again, I have no issue at all that it is a reasonable position if you want to believe in a cosmic byproduct. My challenge was to show theism is not reasonable.

...but my opinion is that because we do not have a replacement for that (religious) comfort in atheism, we do not yet have a way to open the door to atheism in a comforting way. — Christoffer

I like where you're going here. A few thoughts...

1) The target shouldn't be opening the door to atheism, but opening the door to reason. Atheism is not reason, but just another ideology built upon faith. If one is going to adopt an ideology built upon faith, one might as well just stick with the ideology one already has.

2) While religion is not necessarily realistic in it's cosmic claims it is realistic about the human condition which is why it continues to exist in every time and place. The human condition is primarily emotional, and atheist ideologues tend to be nerds like us, typically superficially clever at working with abstract concepts, but emotionally unsophisticated. Thus, atheist ideologues do a poor job of opening the door to atheism because they're working the wrong door, as your quoted words above suggest.

Here's an example. For the moment, let's forget all about anything to do with theism. Put all that off the table for now. Pretend it never existed.

What is our relationship with falling in love with reality? Is one of our goals that we fall to our knees weeping tears of joy at the glorious beauty of a sunrise? These kind of ideas are foreign to atheist ideology culture, generally speaking. Look through the threads on theism/atheism on the forum. How many of them explore such topics in earnest?

Want to convert theists? Teach them how to fall in love with reality, with a handful of dirt, without the supernatural middleman. And in order to do that, you'll first have to learn how to do it yourself.

And members have no interest in this, right? Ok, no problem. But that's why you're stuck here talking to yourselves, having no effect on theism at all, enjoying the fantasy that your fantastic logic dancing calculations have meaning or value to anyone but yourselves.

I’ve stated my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them throughout these forums, in various threads. — Michael Ossipoff

Sorry, I'm not searching the forums for your incoherent nonsense. If you can't post your position here then I guess it really isn't that important after all.

If you have the time to type these long posts that don't have any substance, then I don't see why you wouldnt post your position as it would probably just be more of the same.

Sorry, I'm not searching the forums... — Harry Hindu

We've been over that before. No one asked you to search for anything.

...for your incoherent nonsense.

Aggressive Atheists rely heavily on namecalling. In fact, as we all know, such behavior is the motive for, not the result of, aggressive Atheism.

How often does a Theist start a thread to criticize Atheism? We have no inclination, and wouldn't bother. It wouldn't occur to me to take the time to do that.

If you can't post your position here then I guess it really isn't that important after all.

Suit yourself. As I said, I'm not going to argue the matter with you.
----------------------------
By the way, I've been trying to answer at least most of the aggressive-Atheist posts, claims and comments, over the past few days. But I don't have time to continue these replies.

Anyway, it would be pointless, because you all seem to be singing from the same hymn-book.

So:

After this reply, there will be no more answers from me to aggressive-Atheists, on anything relating to their Theism vs Atheism issue.

As I said, I don't have time for this.

Michael Ossipoff

I am not without strife, and aggression. Aggression is a combination of desire and blame, in that it is a reaction to an obstacle, delay, or obstruction that is something else' fault. So that it is this combination of "I don't want that", and "this is your doing!". It's rather bratty. This is one of the miracles of accepting responsibility, of refraining from excuses, and blame as the ego reaches for them splashing in the depths of failure, denied upon every request until finally it drowns in the guilt and responsibility in which it rightfully owns, and cannot displace. Sometimes anger and aggression is justified and necessary, but most of the time it is just of this bratty "I'm not getting what I want because of you" kind of thing.

It is easy to respond to someone with hints of aggression because they aren't doing what you want them to, or in response to aggression, though I do believe that it isn't fruitful, and is childish, so I attempt my best to not just show no aggression, but to take all of the responsibility for failure to get my point across, or lack of persuasion, or failure to understand. To not just show no aggression, but to feel no aggression, just shame and disappointment.

It's the comfortable that aren't religious. People want to be happy, but being wrong, particularly with respect to sin, and your own doing feels terrible. People that feel bad, feel wrong. People that feel happy feel right. We want to feel right, and comfortable, complacent, and we don't want to feel bad, and wrong.

We don't want to be told what to do, and how to live our lives, and don't like the idea that some authority knows, and we have no choice. That isn't very comforting at all. That's obliging, terrifying, and guilt and shame generating. It's the complete inverse, the rebelling, the decadent, the addict, the seeker of happiness... they're looking for comfort. The seeker of truth is looking for agony, terror.

So you want me to study and go through all possible Theisms for you, to show you that there's one that you can't refute. — Michael Ossipoff

No, I told you what I want, and that isn't it, nor does it follow from what I said. It's quite simple. Either you're aware of an exception, in which case I request that you present it, or you're not, in which case I request an acknowledgement of the situation as it is, meaning an acknowledgment that neither of us are aware of any exception, meaning that there's no warrant for either of us to believe in any theism.

What I want is for you to address this one simple thing instead of something else that you've imagined. Is that so difficult?

There is an alternative, which is to refuse my requests, but that means A) you don't have a position or B) you do have a position, but are not willing and able to back it up. If it's A) you shouldn't act like you have a position and you should be more careful with what you say. If it's B) what you claim can be dismissed.

I predict that you'll go with A). But it seems that you can't help but get more involved than your "no position" allows.

Anyway, I'm not trying to force you to get involved or anything. This began with my questioning the accuracy of your representation of Harry's position, and contrasting it with my own position. I think that my position is much stronger than your representation of questionable accuracy which you decided to target. But you seem to have misunderstood what I was doing and why I was doing it.

2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. The common reference to deistic belief is based on choice, not logic. And if logic were to be the basis, there is still the problem of ignorance or lack of facts. However, there is no sanction against the use of reason to justify, to a relative capacity, the basis of such belief/disbelief. — BrianW

I think it's not unreasonable to believe in 'a deity' in itself, because that is indeed a question of choice in a matter that can't really be verified one way or the other.

I do think that it's somewhat unreasonable to believe in one or more of the specific gods put forward by the major existing religions... and especially in the whole moral system that is typically based that deity. In light of current scientific insight on the vastness of the universe, it would seem kind of strange that a deity who is the creator of all that is, would occupy itself with regulating the minutia of the behaviour of a species on one the many many planets.

Furthermore, now that we understand human beings a little better, there are perfectly reasonable human all to human explanations for why we would want to believe in God and have moral systems based on that. Ockam's razor would suggest, if we have a choice in explanations, we should choose the more simple explanation. And the more simple explanation to me seems the one that doesn't require supernatural entities.

Finally there also is something fundamentally un-reasonable about the methodology of religion and the morals it proscribes. In essence it's based on revelation and faith with the 'word of God' being the final word, and not on experience and reason.

4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.

This is a difficult one, and depends on what you mean by 'accept'. And it also depends on what you mean by 'harm'.

It seems obvious to me that people can believe what they want, I don't think anyone has a business with what other people believe, because mere belief itself doesn't effect other people. And it impossible anyway to check the beliefs of other people to some standard of belief, even if we would want to. So in that sense I agree that we should accept all beliefs... but this is maybe a bit of a trivial point.

Problems only arise when people act on their beliefs. And here I think most Western societies are somewhat inconsistent, in that they usually subscribe to an array of different fundamental principles that are not allways compatible with eachother. For instance we have a secular state with a system of law of it's own, the principles of equality and non-discrimination... but also freedom of religion. Here, it don't think we should accept people acting on their religious beliefs if they are incompatible with the principles of a secular state.

Atheism is not reason, but just another ideology built upon faith. If one is going to adopt an ideology built upon faith, one might as well just stick with the ideology one already has. — Jake

I think this is a misinterpretation of what atheism is, since it's not about faith, but about rejecting faith as a means to explain the world. In a sense, everything you do in science is in a form, atheistic or agnostic, but agnostics use the unknown factor as a way to accept the existence of a god by that fact, which means it's closer to cognitive bias. Atheistic viewpoints just deny anything that isn't proven, it's not about faith, it's about the process of proving. An atheist will never believe in a god, but they will accept that there is a god if the existence of one is proven to them. Therefor it's not based on faith. I don't think reason and religion can co-exist. Of course they overlap in the sense that a religious person can be reasonable, but a truly reasonable person cannot give up reason whenever the subject at hand crosses their faith or belief. When that happens, that person is no longer working with reason. An atheist would never reject reason, even if it's about proving the existence of a god, but no one has proven the existence of a god and all arguments for a god or pantheons fail to connect the argument to that kind of a deity or deities. If atheists change their perspective on the world, universe and life based on what is proved and what is not, then that's not faith, it's external objective knowledge that guides what is accepted as truth. Atheism is never about faith, it's about facts.

2) While religion is not necessarily realistic in it's cosmic claims it is realistic about the human condition which is why it continues to exist in every time and place. The human condition is primarily emotional, and atheist ideologues tend to be nerds like us, typically superficially clever at working with abstract concepts, but emotionally unsophisticated. Thus, atheist ideologues do a poor job of opening the door to atheism because they're working the wrong door, as your quoted words above suggest. — Jake

Agreed, that's what I basically meant with atheism being a bit cold in it's approach to life. Because, as I stated above, atheism being focused on facts, there is no emotion connected to the knowledge it's about. So it's like staring into the unknown when you open the door to atheism and that is scary, which is why most people react emotionally when their faith is challenged. However, that doesn't mean atheists are cold or that life as an atheist isn't emotionally rich, on the opposite, atheists fill their life with other things that gives them that emotionally rich life; art, causes, knowledge etc. The search for knowledge and knowing more than you did yesterday is as emotionally charged as subjective religious quests. Emotion doesn't cease to exist because one is an atheist.

But atheists aren't ideologues either, it's not an ideology. Rejecting faith as a means to explain the world, universe and life; working with facts and living with knowledge, isn't an ideology and atheists aren't gathered within one. That's also a misinterpretation of what atheism is.

What is our relationship with falling in love with reality? Is one of our goals that we fall to our knees weeping tears of joy at the glorious beauty of a sunrise? These kind of ideas are foreign to atheist ideology culture, generally speaking. Look through the threads on theism/atheism on the forum. How many of them explore such topics in earnest? — Jake

Is this foreign because you haven't seen it or foreign because you have knowledge that this is the truth about atheists? Do you mean to say that atheists cannot feel a rush of emotions when confronted with something truly beautiful? That they cannot fall to their knees because of that rush of emotions? Weeping tears of joy by that sunrise? The problem here is that you have a prejudice about atheists inner life. Just because you don't see atheists in a forum about knowledge and philosophy, showing any signs of tears of joy and emotion does not correlate to them not having a rich emotional inner life. The only difference between an atheist and a religious person looking into the sunrise with tears of joy is that the religious person claims it's the beauty of god and externalise themselves into an almost cosmic horror point of view in fornt of that fact. An atheist falls in love with the fact that all the entropy and chaos the universe went through led to such beautiful outcomes, despite it's simplicity. An atheist wouldn't abandon reason about why this sunrise looks the way it does just because it's beautiful and it gives them this emotional rush, they can actually get emotional by the fact that it's a simple scientific explanation behind it and it still looks that beautiful, a celebration of nature as it is.

What you are suggesting here, really says that atheists cannot enjoy art, cannot find it emotionally satisfying, when the opposite is more true and there are plenty of artists who are atheists. I think that this idea that atheists don't see or care for the beautify of the world is rather bonkers and based on another misinterpretation of atheism, based on external observation and prejudice. Just because atheists tend to talk in terms of hard facts on a philosophy forum doesn't mean they don't shut off their computer and have tears of joy in front of a sunrise, I see no correlation in your argument here other than wild guesses about atheists.

Want to convert theists? Teach them how to fall in love with reality, with a handful of dirt, without the supernatural middleman. And in order to do that, you'll first have to learn how to do it yourself. — Jake

I already have, it's based on being in harmony with the chaos of the world and universe. Accepting the cold simple truth that science have shown us and accepting that we are part of the deterministic universe we live in. That we can care for what is here, what we know, instead of caring for a made up entity. By addressing god or gods and spend time seeking them, people waste time that can be given to something closer to reality. Something for other people, something for themselves, without filters. Giving themselves over to the idea of a higher power is the comforting feeling of having a parent, an authority figure that governs them, but takes up time that could be given to the short life we have.

People don't need to fall in love with reality, they need to become the masters of their own life, they need to grow beyond being a child to a parent. It's a true sadness that many religious people live to their death without ever being more than a child looking up to a parent figure. It's the nature of being a flock animal, most of us feel panic when we do not have an authority watching over us, but with the expanse of civilisation, we needed gods and pantheons to replace that group leader, otherwise we were in control of our own life. Only through the renaissance to the enlightenment period did we begin to understand that the faith we had was a lie to tell ourselves in front of a chaotic world. This is what Nietzsche was talking about when he said "God is dead". It was about how we had begun to enlighten ourselves to know that there is no god to govern us and that we need to govern life ourselves, which haven't been done on a massive scale before. He was fearing the chaos that will emerge when the "parent" of our lives disappear. He was speaking mostly out of the ethics, but the concept is supporting the idea of gods and pantheons being parent figures and that our need for authority tend to blind us from simple truths and facts about the world in favour of emotional satisfaction.

But that's why you're stuck here talking to yourselves, having no effect on theism at all, enjoying the fantasy that your fantastic logic dancing calculations have meaning or value to anyone but yourselves. — Jake

I sense a desperation in this tone of words. You're doing a straw man out of atheists by ridiculing that they only exist through logic and calculation, which is a massive simplification. You ridicule atheists of not having a rich emotional inner life and misinterpret atheism into being an ideology based on faith, which it isn't. This is prejudice, nothing more.

The reason why I think it's important to open a door to atheism is that it's about giving the option to love life for what it is, without supernatural distractions that distract up until the time of death. It's an open door to the pursuit of knowledge instead of comforting ignorance, an open door to the harmony of being free of external controlling mechanisms, free to feel and be what you are, not what a religion tells you to. Free to think what you want instead of punishing yourself with the hand of god. Free to enjoy life as it is and valuing people's lives when they live, not that they are something when they died. There are so many shackles to religious people's lives that they don't see; the blindfold that is comforting, the illusion, "ignorance is bliss" so to speak. It's like an addiction, faith is like an addiction, a substance that comforts them from the real world. They use this substance of faith in order to hide themselves from the complexities, from the chaos they feel the world has, but only when this addiction is broken, when they start to see beyond it do they realize that there actually is harmony there. Most people who went from being religious to being atheists does not show any sign of downfall, most of them feel free, that they can breathe, that a heavy burdon is gone from their chest. It should be the opposite, that they would feel the pressure of the complexity of the world as it is, but it's not, because it's not superficial anymore, it is what it is, it is real.

The most common prejudice from religious people against atheists is that atheists doesn't have appreciation for beauty, nature and emotions. I would say that the opposite is more true, that religion filters all emotions and holds them back as an authority over believers lives. They do not appreciate the sunrise because of it's actual beauty, but because of what religion has teached them. Atheists do not accept anything more than what something actually is and a sunrise's beauty is through that much more rich since it's basic simplicity makes the impact of it's beauty so much more. It shouldn't be more, but it is for us humans and that is appreciated.

I recommend not to have these prejudices about atheists, since that blinds you from understanding what atheism is really about. You're doing a straw man out of atheism in order to more easily attack it's foundation, but a misinterpretation, a straw man, simplifying about what atheism is does nothing to prove a point, only that you want to fend yourself from the truth of what atheism is. See past your own frustration, since I think it's in the way of making you able to actually balance the different ways on how we look at life, the universe and the world.

What you choose is your own choice, but ignoring the truth about atheism in order to distance yourself from it is not the way to a reasonable viewpoint. Atheists do not ignore the viewpoints of religion, atheists need knowledge and information in order to know what path to take, atheists do not choose paths because authorities chose a path for them. If you want a reasonable dialectic about atheism and theism, do not have prejudice about what atheism is.

If these posters don't start singing tearful tunes to Baby Jesus pretty soon we're just going to have burn them at the stake — Jake

Oh, it's a joy, in this day and age, to meet a man who truly respects the old traditions. :up: :smile:

In fairness to the critics, religion often does claim to be dealing in facts, so the confusion can be understandable and reasonable. — Jake

Do they? [Genuine question.] I was raised by cultists Roman Catholics. At 10 I could recite the mass, in Latin. The impression I drew from the education they gave me is that spiritual matters over-rode merely factual matters; God's stuff was more important than man's stuff. But they never represented the dogma and religious 'truths' as facts, as I understood it.

Surely some religions appear to assert facts, and some may even intend this to be so, but I have an issue with this. I'm a believer, and I try to respect all beliefs, but those who make factual claims when their claims aren't verifiably factual aren't helping, IMO. They shouldn't do it. :fear:

1.) Does any deity/deities exist? - I don't know. I haven't any proof. However, I have my choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in their existence. — BrianW

I don't agree that it's a choice. I can't choose to believe anything that I'm not convinced of. I can't choose to believe anything at all, it seems. That seems like a category error. Beliefs aren't the kind of things that can be chosen. I mean, I could pretend, but obviously that's not the same.

2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. — BrianW

Whether or not either of those beliefs is reasonable or unreasonable surely depends on the reasoning or lack thereof.

4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs. — BrianW

Accept in what way??

In a sense, everything you do in science is in a form, atheistic or agnostic, but agnostics use the unknown factor as a way to accept the existence of a god by that fact, which means it's closer to cognitive bias. Atheistic viewpoints just deny anything that isn't proven, it's not about faith, it's about the process of proving. — Christoffer

Why put science into this? Anybody thinking that science can prove or disprove this question is in my view either naive or simply doesn't understand science. It would be like assuming science can prove what is moral or ethical. What with the scientific method you can do is only to find an answer that x amount people believe that something is morally or ethically good or bad. Science can make accurate models of how we think, but not answer the questions themselves as there isn't an objective answer.

It's as delirious to get science into this as it is for some religious person even to think that he might prove the existence of God. Not only would this be basically idolatry in the Abrahamic religions: as if there would be a true proof of God, why need the Bible, Koran or whatever anymore? This also goes against the fundamental character of religions: that they are based on faith, not reason. If Jesus tells us to find God in our heart, that truly isn't an order to have open heart surgery. And this is true also for attempts to disprove God by science.

Now I do agree that atheism, not having faith is simply what is said, not a faith. Yet this doesn't mean that one that has no religion would be then making the moral and ethical decisions (that basically religion has given us) on reason or based on science. This is a fallacy: moral ethics are subjective even if you don't use any religious viewpoints or answers.

Science simply isn't normative.

Maybe what you really mean is something along the lines that the person who asserts the nonexistence of God, as per any conception whatsoever, goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaches a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. — S

Yes, I thought that's what I said. :smile: :up:

Would you not take a position of strong atheism, instead of agnosticism, if you found that the conception of the God under consideration entails a contradiction? — S

I would rather consider the specific circumstance, but yes, I would have difficulty with a definition of God that seemed to entail a contradiction. :up:

Why put science into this? Anybody thinking that science can prove or disprove this question is in my view either naive or simply doesn't understand science. It would be like assuming science can prove what is moral or ethical. What with the scientific method you can only answer is that x amount people believe that something is morally or ethically good or bad. Science can make accurate models of how we think, but not answer the questions themselves as there isn't an objective answer. — ssu

I am comparing the scientific method to that of how atheists view the world, i.e through facts and what is proven, not belief. This is a premiss countering the idea that atheism is based on faith or ideology, when it isn't.

It's as delirious to get science into this as it is for some religious person even to think that he might prove the existence of God. Not only would this be basically idolatry in the Abrahamic religions as if there would be a true proof of God, why need the Bible, Koran or whatever anymore? And this is true also for attempts to disprove God by science. — ssu

As said, if you read the argument, it's not about science disproving god or proving god, but the process being the same as the foundation of what atheism is. If you can't prove god exists, there's no reason thinking there is a god. That is not faith, that is reason and reason is closer to atheism than it is to religion, reason is also closer to science than religion. Point being, scientific methods and atheistic thinking has much in common, and none in common with faith.

Yet this doesn't mean that one that has no religion would be then making the moral and ethical decisions (that basically religion has given us) on reason or based on science. This is a fallacy: moral ethics are subjective even if you don't use any religious viewpoints or answers. — ssu

Moral and ethics was not given to us through religion, religion gathered the basic morals and ethics that was invented by the necessity of survival by the group that evolved from apes. Society and religion tried to gather those morals and ethics into a usable form during the time when society started to become much bigger and much more complex than simple packs of hunter/gatherer people.

Religion has moral and ethics based on these and therefor a lot of obvious morals and ethics stems from it into a society even if it's in the end an atheistic one; but the key difference is that many religious societies tend to keep moral and ethics that has been proven irrational, like the irrationality behind making homosexuality illegal. That kind of moral is based on emotions about disgust and the science behind disgust tells us it's about keeping the group intact from functions that seemingly would destroy it from the inside, i.e the morals from our hunter/gatherer times when the group was small. But it's irrational in the context of society today and it's irrational since it's based on the well-being of only the subject making that law, not the well-being of homosexuals. Meaning, if atheists are more commonly using deductive reasoning in everyday life and in establishing moral ethics, they are more likely to not use old teachings of religion to govern their ethics and morals, they would look at the world as it is and form the best possible morals and ethics based on it. Religion has basic morals that are obvious to us, but we shouldn't give religion credit for those morals, since they stem from older concepts than our current religions. Our current religions also has ideas about slavery (christianity) that aren't morals that we should keep using. What opposed those morals of the times? Rational and reasonable deductive thinking, the type of reasoning that are more common with atheists questioning religion. Is there then unreasonable to see a pattern in which atheistic thinking has more things in common with scientific reasoning and rational thinking than any religious way of thinking which adhears to it's authorities viewpoints, rather then reasoning by the facts at hand?

History does not give religion validity in morals and ethics, it only speaks on how we ended up with the moral system and ethics of today. How we evolve morals and ethics from here is based not on religion but on how we reason and use arguments about these morals and ethics. Atheists seem far more likely to actually be doing dialectics based on facts rather than any kind of preprogrammed beliefs and authorities who set the rules before the arguments.

Other than that I think you missed the point I was giving; that atheism and the scientific process has more in common with each other and that faith cannot be a part of an atheistic way of life.

A counter argument is a timeless god. Such a god might still die due to the 2nd law but would die outside of time, thus such a God is both dead and alive at the same time from the perspective of humans — Devans99

:smile: I call Her Schrodinger's God ... and I worship Her too. :up: :wink:

If Jesus tells us to find God in our heart, that truly isn't an order to have open heart surgery. — ssu

:smile: Oh, thank you for that! :smile: :up:

Atheistic viewpoints just deny anything that isn't proven, it's not about faith, it's about the process of proving. — Christoffer

Your post looks quite articulate so I will be returning to it, and keeping an eye out for your other posts. Thanks for that. As a quick place to start....

Please prove that human reason, the poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies in who knows how many universes, is binding upon all of reality (a realm which can't be defined in even the most basic manner such as size and shape) and thus upon any gods contained within.

You feel that the authorities theism is typically built upon (holy books and clergy etc) have not proven themselves qualified to credibly speak to the largest of questions, and so you reasonably decline theism.

All that's left to do is to apply that very same procedure to atheism. There's nothing new to learn, just do the very same thing you already do with theism. If the qualifications of the chosen authority can not be proven, decline the assertions arising from that authority.

Agreed, that's what I basically meant with atheism being a bit cold in it's approach to life. — Christoffer

That's often true, agreed. But it doesn't have to be true. There's nothing stopping atheists from falling in love with reality with the same enthusiasm that theists fall in love with their saints and gods etc.

I am comparing the scientific method to that of how atheists view the world, i.e through facts and what is proven, not belief. This is a premiss countering the idea that atheism is based on faith or ideology, when it isn't. — Christoffer

Please, before you go any farther, will you clarify:

Do the atheists you describe actively assert the non-existence of God?

[ The answer to this question is central and fundamental to understanding whether your atheists (i.e. the ones you describe) occupy a faith position or not. ]

So it's like staring into the unknown when you open the door to atheism and that is scary, which is why most people react emotionally when their faith is challenged. — Christoffer

Having spent 20 years on philosophy and atheism forums, I can assure you that atheists also often react emotionally when their faith is challenged. As best I can recall, I've been banned from every atheist forum I ever joined, just as I've been banned from every Catholic forum I've ever joined. I see no fundamental difference between the two.

Challenging is generally ok, because the challenge gives the true believers the opportunity to rise up as a group and reinforce their dogmas in the response. That is after all why they started a forum about their beliefs to begin with, to create a mutual validation society.

Presenting an effective challenge is the crime that gets you banned, because now you are threatening the glue that holds the mutual validation society together.

The answer to this question is central and fundamental to understanding whether your atheists (i.e. the ones you describe) occupy a faith position or not. — Pattern-chaser

Respectfully disagree. If a person of any position thinks that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality, without any proof that this is so, they are a person of faith. Belief without proof = faith. This equation applies equally to everyone on all sides of the issue.

If you can't prove god exists, there's no reason thinking there is a god — Christoffer

If you can't prove that human reason is binding upon all of reality (and thus any gods within), there's no reason to think reason is so qualified. It's the simplest thing, and once seen, the whole God debate merry-go-round to nowhere comes screeching to a halt.

That's bad news for those who have a large collection of memorized arguments they wish to put on display, but good news for those who want to follow the investigation where ever it may lead.

Thanks. It's what I'm trying to express and impress to people's minds - that we can learn to be aware of our frustrations and choose to act against them.

Point is that atheism is purely the process of thinking about the world, life and universe in the way of facts, in the way of not giving up a pursuit for truth and knowledge and never give in to irrational faith whenever something is unexplained. Atheism is more of a process in life, not a statement. Religion however is closer to a statement without proper facts, a statement looking like a statue that when challenged starts to crumble and over the course of time, by people trying to keep it together, ends up a frankensteined version in which the true meaning is lost and the original statue doesn't exist anymore, only incoherent parts and irrational substitutes. Atheism on the other hand does not build a statue, since it's not a statement, it's a process of discussing the idea of a statue, it's more like a painting where you can paint over the original, over and over, the more knowledge and experience you get. You don't try to uphold something or keep the original, you learn something and rework the entire thing.

This is the fundamental misinterpretation of atheism. Theists view it as an ideology, as a statement, as something solid as a statue, when it's instead a concept of thought, a process and a method to understand the world, understand complexities around us, not based on a pre-build statement, but out of the malleable form our knowledge of the world is.

Just as our brain is malleable by the knowledge and experience we have, should our concepts of life, the world and universe be based on the knowledge and experience we share as humanity.

I do think that it's somewhat unreasonable to believe in one or more of the specific gods put forward by the major existing religions... and especially in the whole moral system that is typically based that deity. In light of current scientific insight on the vastness of the universe, it would seem kind of strange that a deity who is the creator of all that is, would occupy itself with regulating the minutia of the behaviour of a species on one the many many planets. — ChatteringMonkey

Can a law e.g., of cause and effect, apply to the whole of the universe without applying to each relative circumstance? Why not a deity/deities, if such exist?

My point is, not knowing cannot be used to validate any possibility and, no matter how scientific the approach, it still remains unknown.

if we have a choice in explanations, we should choose the more simple explanation. — ChatteringMonkey

Perspective is relative, so is our understanding of simplicity. Hence, the many varied choices we make. It all depends on our abilities/capacities.

Finally there also is something fundamentally un-reasonable about the methodology of religion and the morals it proscribes. In essence it's based on revelation and faith with the 'word of God' being the final word, and not on experience and reason. — ChatteringMonkey

Faith, Belief, Intuition, etc., are applicable to human experience because they are based on more than reason, perhaps will. We face the unknown, not because we understand it, but because we are determined to rise to the challenge. Religion is specifically directed towards instigating certain reactions in humans and among aspects like emotion, thought, intuition, will, etc., reason is not the greater cause, as proven by past human experience. Infact, the success of religion to achieve its aims may be proof of its reasonable-ness, though this is just personal opinion regardless of the probability we may assign to its practical utility.

The need of the present times may suggest administering reason in our actions and interactions. This, however, must be gradual and fundamentally dependent on individual efforts to overcome the inertia of millenia of opposition. We (human identity) haven't always been homo sapiens ('wise' or 'sensible' man), as evolution and past history reveal to us and there seems to be much progress to be made before we can claim the full capacity implied by this identity of homo sapiens.

This is a difficult one, and depends on what you mean by 'accept'. And it also depends on what you mean by 'harm'. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes. But that is how all our interactions are. Just as our laws of conduct keep adapting to accommodate human needs better, so do our principles, beliefs, ethics, morals, dogmas, etc. It is all relative, even when it is objective.

Do the atheists you describe actively assert the non-existence of God? — Pattern-chaser

No, if god is proven, god exist. Atheism is a process of understanding everything through facts, what can be proven. Atheists accept what is proven and change viewpoint if it's disproven. Claiming the non-existence of god, is not an option, not because that's a statement, but because it's not proven. The burden of proof is on proving the existence of a god, which is why atheism is closer to the process of science than any kind of faith or belief. Faith is about claiming something without proof, atheism doesn't claim anything without proof, but claiming the non-existence of something is not under burden of proof if the existence hasn't yet been proven. If the existence of something is proven, then the burden of proof is on the side claiming it doesn't exist. So far, no proof of existence has been presented for a god, therefor the burden of proof lies on the side claiming the existence. Let's say atheists are still waiting for the argument to start before claiming anything about the existence of god. As soon as an atheist claims something that makes them act under the burden of proof and they don't prove it, they cease to be atheists or live under that way of life.

I don't agree that it's a choice. I can't choose to believe anything that I'm not convinced of. I can't choose to believe anything at all, it seems. That seems like a category error. Beliefs aren't the kind of things that can be chosen. I mean, I could pretend, but obviously that's not the same. — S

Whatever significance you assign to any speculation about the unknown is based on choice not fact. To claim a scientific hypothesis has greater probability than a religious one is based on the choice you have made (perhaps sub/unconsciously due to a pre-set inclination or tendency) and not on reason based on logic. Logic dictates you cannot state the probability of an unfathomable occurrence (existence) against an unknown cause. If you have any belief against the metaphysics of religion, then it's just as metaphysical as religious belief.

Whether or not either of those beliefs is reasonable or unreasonable surely depends on the reasoning or lack thereof. — S

Reason cannot determine logic, it only applies it. Until reason provides a means to uncover the proof of the origin and intrinsic mode of operation of the whole of existence, then we cannot claim to have an absolute reference point for any perspective. However, a relative reference point is what we use to determine whether or not those who claim belief in deity/deities or belong to any religion are being reasonable/unreasonable. And, often enough, their reasonable/unreasonable-ness is an individual factor born of perspective and the interpretation of the information we/they possess. Just as there are a lot of 'crazy' religious people, there are very 'decent' ones, too. The same applies to everyone, deistic or not.

Accept in what way?? — S

Accept as in allow to be. Give your own beliefs the 'space' and 'nutrition' to grow and develop appropriately. And give that same opportunity to others. (By and by we are realising how much deliberate influence we have on our beliefs and convictions. Life is about progress, give it a chance. Mistakes teach us to do better, success motivates us to do more.)

Do the atheists you describe actively assert the non-existence of God? — Pattern-chaser

No, if god is proven, god exist. Atheism is a process of understanding everything through facts, what can be proven. Atheists accept what is proven and change viewpoint if it's disproven. Claiming the non-existence of god, is not an option, not because that's a statement, but because it's not proven. — Christoffer

Then it would be my opinion that you, and the atheists you describe, do not hold a faith position. :up: Although I am just a little confused: the way you describe "atheist" seems to be identical to the way many would describe "scientist". :chin: Was this intentional on your part? Do you equate atheism with a 'belief' in science?