How do you choose to believe?

[Albion]

It bothers me because it boils down to an accusation of hypocrisy.

I see. But you're mistaken about that. There was no such accusation or implication intended.

 

[ecco]

OK. It seemed to me that there was a small difference.

Care to explain?

 

[ecco]

I first heard about God when I was very young. When I was around 11 I read the prophecies and concluded that there must be a higher power who predicted such things with 100% accuracy. It was just a matter of time, then, when I realized that this higher power was the God of the Bible.

So biblical prophecies just appeared in front of you?
Who gave you the prophecies to read?
Which prophecies were predicted with 100% accuracy?

 

[ecco]

Don't be so outraged. If there is no belief in a god, all the rest that constitutes a religion can still remain, and in the case of most people (and as another atheist poster pointed out) it does. Something else that's of ultimate value to the person is substituted, that's all.

Which "another atheist poster"?

 

[ecco]

...and that applies to atheists no less than it does to theists. The atheist's religion just is called by some other name.

There has been some discussion regarding atheists' "religion".

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"

Theists' concepts are based on "beliefs".
Athheists' concepts are based on scientific observations of nature.
Theists, deep down, realize that just "beliefs" do not provide the basis for sound arguments.
By constantly telling themselves and their fellow theists that atheists are also religious, they try, in their own minds, to bring atheists down to their level of comprehension.

The same internal arguments are also what drive theists to refer to atheists as believers in Satan, even though they realize that atheists believe in no supernatural entities.

 

[Albion]

Theists' concepts are based on "beliefs".

So are the most cherished concepts of atheists.

Athheists' concepts are based on scientific observations of nature.

That's what they say, but what science thinks one day has often been changed the next. To put blind faith in it is not much different from putting blind faith in God. And that's only about those atheists who make science their be-all and end-all. I never said that it was so for every last atheist. There are other "ultimate realities," too, depending on the person.

Theists, deep down, realize that just "beliefs" do not provide the basis for sound arguments.
By constantly telling themselves and their fellow theists that atheists are also religious, they try, in their own minds, to bring atheists down to their level of comprehension.

If that makes you feel better, and you need to feel better about it, go ahead and say it. I know that it's just talk. You can't speak categorically like that about theists and why they believe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My question is: "Why does this bother you or make you feel threatened?"

It doesn't.

Just trying to clear things up for a couple of friendly christians.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So are the most cherished concepts of atheists.


That's what they say, but what science thinks one day has often been changed the next. To put blind faith in it is not much different from putting blind faith in God. And that's only about those atheists who make science their be-all and end-all. I never said that it was so for every last atheist. There are other "ultimate realities," too, depending on the person.


If that makes you feel better, and you need to feel better about it, go ahead and say it. I know that it's just talk. You can't speak categorically like that about theists and why they believe.

Realistically, ecco can't speak categorically for all atheists either. Perhaps ecco's beliefs are a result of "scientific observations of nature"...but that isn't true of all atheists, nor does it have anything to do with atheism itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is true, but it doesn't change anything. Let's call it something else if you prefer not to use "value system."

I prefer not to conflate the basic human tendency to form values with "religion," a term weighed down by supernatural baggage.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Religion is also a human activity.

Yes, it is. But it isn't merely the formation of values.

Restricting religion to the point where no matter how religiously one follows a belief system it is not religious unless one includes a deity that is a sentient being seems a way of avoiding dealing with the religiosity of people that act, speak and believe in something with consummate faith but just don't believe in a sentient being or beings called god(s) that one can interact with as if interacting with another human.

I never suggested that we do that.

Unless one is randomly assigning the trait good or evil to things or just doesn't think in moral terms at all one is almost invariably comparing action, people things etc. to some standard they have faith is correct.

You are again conflating the mere act of forming values, something that everyone does, with "religion," a term laden with supernatural baggage.

The basis for that standard could not be labeled anything other than supernatural as it does not occur in nature and is completely subjective yet treated by the one ascribing to it as if it were an objective measure. To make a value judgement, to say more than this or that is enjoyable or pleasurable or expedient or convenient etc. for me personally but that this or that is good or evil or lacking in either characteristic one must have in mind some standard for which one can measure those qualities and that does not occur in nature. It is a standard based upon the supernatural as the one that ascribes to the standard will do so strictly on faith in whatever they hold more important than individual whim or instinctual behavior . As no objective measure of benevolence and malevolence exists in nature, morality must be based upon something that is beyond nature or above nature. That something then must be supernatural.

This is does not follow. That something is based on one's preferences does not imply that it is therefore supernatural.

 

[durangodawood]

I see. But you're mistaken about that. There was no such accusation or implication intended.

Nice!
But youre the exception. Typically the "atheist religion" accusation is an ad-hom charge of hypocrisy.

 

[Chris B]

...The phrase "God has mercy on whom he has mercy" is the human point of view.
God has mercy on everyone and all are welcome and saved by God's Son....
.

I find *both* perspectives in the bible, with not a hint that the first is "the human point of view"
I'm sorry, but I take that to be an attempted "patch" driven by necessity than by any supporting evidence
Paul in Romans has plenty of opportunity to say differently, but the utter emphasis is clear. To attempt to escape from it and fit it to other passages elsewhere... Well yes, it can be done, but whether that is legitimate is a separate issue.
.

For us, it seems, that
God throws his mercy this way and that. That's a human perspective on God.

Yes, it does seem that way, doesn't it? I no longer think "mysterious" or "ineffable" or even "higher" ways is an adequate explanation. Especially when run in parallel, for comparison, with an alternate world-view or two.

 

[Chris B]

Well, that might be true IF the atheist had no other values. That's what the analogy suggests--that disbelieving in a god is the equivalent of not engaging in a hobby, pastime, etc.

The idea that was discussed here was not that, however, but the fact that atheists do indeed have some other value system that amounts to a religion but sans a deity. What's more, when the value system is focused on ethics or morals, there ARE such organizations that have membership meetings to engage in doing what most of what any church does, even though the existence of God is not part of it. And they are normally included in reference works along with (other) church bodies.

I take your points on community and charity, but have no idea why you consider that creates "a religion"
We have no particular doctrines, politically and otherwise we are spread right across these spectrums, we have no rites, rituals* and ceremonies. I don't think we're even coherent enough to have had a decent schism from hidebound, stagnant or corrupt orthodoxy, yet.

Chris


*OK, the monthly burying of fake fossils, but we're not supposed to mention that to outsiders.
And I'm exempt, living on granite.

 

[Chris B]

...For the theist, God is the ultimate good and central figure in their universe, for the atheist it is not usually atheism( though there are the rare cases ) but some other greater good that they assign preeminence to.

Something, but there's no massive consensus as to what it is, nor is there usually the promotion or execution of any such at a level that I would consider "religious dedication".

Even with (almost all) those said to worship their car, or their football team, it would be hard to make a serious case, as opposed to a mocking one.

Chris

 

[Chris B]

agreeing to lack belief in God is more significant ...

Well to theists, probably. But apart from a few who are active anti-theists, it's not really significant at all, excepting when it is the active topic of conversation. It doesn't make for a religion. I could make more of a case for my interest in model railways, but it wouldn't be a strong one (yes, I have met such, and some of those consider me a heretic.)

 

[Chris B]

So are the most cherished concepts of atheists.


That's what they say, but what science thinks one day has often been changed the next.

That's one reason I like it, and at the same time do not blindly trust it. It has this ability (imperfectly applied since done by human beings) to be self-critical and to self-correct.
It's a characteristic I find lacking in the major religions... "hang on, we've been getting this badly wrong for at least the last few hundred years. We need a total rethink..."

It's almost paradoxical but possibly my most cherished belief is in the scrapping of beliefs which fail to measure up to reality
Thomas Henry Huxley: "The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact." Perhaps tragic,, perhaps annoying or inconvenient, but I do cherish the idea that the fact, ugly or otherwise, does eventually have its way.

Chris

 

[Chriliman]

That's one reason I like it, and at the same time do not blindly trust it. It has this ability (imperfectly applied since done by human beings) to be self-critical and to self-correct.
It's a characteristic I find lacking in the major religions... "hang on, we've been getting this badly wrong for at least the last few hundred years. We need a total rethink..."

It's almost paradoxical but possibly my most cherished belief is in the scrapping of beliefs which fail to measure up to reality
Thomas Henry Huxley: "The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact." Perhaps tragic,, perhaps annoying or inconvenient, but I do cherish the idea that the fact, ugly or otherwise, does eventually have its way.

Chris

Is science really self-correcting? Or is it what is true that is correcting it?

So it could be said that truth is correcting science because science is not trying to figure out the absolute truth, yet is continuously being corrected by what is true.

Seems like a flawed system that I don't want to trust. I'd rather trust truth.

 

[durangodawood]

Is science really self-correcting? Or is it what is true that is correcting it?

So it could be said that truth is correcting science because science is not trying to figure out the absolute truth, yet is continuously being corrected by what is true.

Seems like a flawed system that I don't want to trust. I'd rather trust truth.

Science is typically corrected by better observations - observations carried out as scientific investigation. So I'd call it self correcting.
For facts about the material world, its certainly more reliable than ancient myths.

 

[Chriliman]

Science is typically corrected by better observations - observations carried out as scientific investigation. So I'd call it self correcting.
For facts about the material world, its certainly more reliable than ancient myths.

It still depends on fallible human minds. Ancient myths depended on fallible human minds as well.

What doesn't depend on fallible human minds is truth.

Why do you think that is?

 

[durangodawood]

It still depends on fallible human minds. Ancient myths depended on fallible human minds as well.

What doesn't depend on fallible human minds is truth.

Why do you think that is?

Left on their own, different minds find different truth.
With science as a tool, different minds tend to converge.

What is an example of truth?
.