Atheistic Scientists Pushing Their Religion

[bhsmte]

Or maybe it's because you can experience God personally but you can't experience the non-existence of God.

I'm not sure about that. If you are not aware of experiencing something, that can have as much personal meaning to someone who does claim to experience something.

Anyway, IMO, when someone is invested in a faith belief, it is quite common for them to do everything they can to convince themselves their belief is true, like telling others they are 100% certain they are correct.

 

[Michael]

I'm not sure about that. If you are not aware of experiencing something, that can have as much personal meaning to someone who does claim to experience something.

I tend to agree. In fact it's that very "lack of" experience that many atheists cite as a primary "reason" that they gave up on their previous religion. That lack of experience also tends to be what they hold up as the "standard" by which they compare everyone else to. Generally the attitude is that if *they* didn't have the experiences personally, such experiences are 'abnormal' or not real.

Anyway, IMO, when someone is invested in a faith belief, it is quite common for them to do everything they can to convince themselves their belief is true, like telling others they are 100% certain they are correct.

Whereas atheists tend to try to convince themselves by going to Christian websites to evangelize atheism.

 

[bhsmte]

I tend to agree. In fact it's that very "lack of" experience that many atheists cite as a primary "reason" that they gave up on their previous religion. That lack of experience also tends to be what they hold up as the "standard" by which they compare everyone else to. Generally the attitude is that if *they* didn't have the experiences personally, such experiences are 'abnormal' or not real.

Whereas atheists tend to try to convince themselves by going to Christian websites to evangelize atheism.

In regards to your last sentence, some may.

In my own personal experience, the more I learned about the historicity of Christianity on my own and the more I observe certain types of Christians and how they think, it only reinforces my decision to move away from Christianity.

 

[Strathos]

I'm not sure about that. If you are not aware of experiencing something, that can have as much personal meaning to someone who does claim to experience something.

Anyway, IMO, when someone is invested in a faith belief, it is quite common for them to do everything they can to convince themselves their belief is true, like telling others they are 100% certain they are correct.

If you've never seen an elephant it doesn't mean they don't exist. But if you do see an elephant, that is a pretty convincing sign that they exist.

The problem is in convincing someone else who has never seen one, if you have no way to record it or show it to them.

 

[Michael]

In regards to your last sentence, some may.

In my own personal experience, the more I learned about the historicity of Christianity on my own and the more I observe certain types of Christians and how they think, it only reinforces my decision to move away from Christianity.

Interesting. I'd say the study of Christianity history had the opposite effect on me personally. I could then understand where the changes took place and gain better insights into the politics of it all.

I'd say your percentage argument really relates to the advantages of each argument. A "believer" has a need to quantify their belief, whereas someone that hold no belief has no such need.

Furthermore, an atheist is typically casting themselves into the role of holding no belief, so the closer they get to holding 'zero' belief in God, the more comfortable they feel. They can't logically justify holding belief in *no* God, so it's easier to simply play the role of "pseudo-sceptic", not unlike a YEC trying to handwave at any and all data that doesn't fit their belief system. I don't really observe any functional differences however in the amount of "doubt" they carry into the conversation.

 

[Michael]

If you've never seen an elephant it doesn't mean they don't exist. But if you do see an elephant, that is a pretty convincing sign that they exist.

The problem is in convincing someone else who has never seen one, if you have no way to record it or show it to them.

I agree. I tend to use a kangaroo as an example, but it's the same principle.

 

[bhsmte]

If you've never seen an elephant it doesn't mean they don't exist. But if you do see an elephant, that is a pretty convincing sign that they exist.

The problem is in convincing someone else who has never seen one, if you have no way to record it or show it to them.

Yes, I agree.

 

[BL2KTN]

Furthermore, an atheist is typically casting themselves into the role of holding no belief, so the closer they get to holding 'zero' belief in God, the more comfortable they feel. They can't logically justify holding belief in *no* God, so it's easier to simply play the role of "pseudo-sceptic", not unlike a YEC trying to handwave at any and all data that doesn't fit their belief system. I don't really observe any functional differences however in the amount of "doubt" they carry into the conversation.

It is difficult to explain the universe without a creator, but atheists certainly can logically justify a lack of belief in the type of God you believe in. They can do so in the same way that you justify a lack of belief in unicorns, fairies, and hobgoblins.

 

[Michael]

It is difficult to explain the universe without a creator, but atheists certainly can logically justify a lack of belief in the type of God you believe in.

Atheists in general basically wouldn't have a clue what type of God I believe in. They typically don't understand enough physics to even make it an interesting conversation.

They can do so in the same way that you justify a lack of belief in unicorns, fairies, and hobgoblins.

Meanwhile they hold faith in "space expansion", exotic matter, and anything else any "scientist" might say, none of which show up in a lab. Go figure.

 

[lesliedellow]

Atheists in general basically wouldn't have a clue what type of God I believe in. They typically don't understand enough physics to even make it an interesting conversation.

So you think physics, rather than theology, is the appropriate discipline for discussion about God.

That explains an awful lot, doesn't it?

 

[Michael]

So you think physics, rather than theology, is the appropriate discipline for discussion about God.

That explains an awful lot, doesn't it?

When I'm evangelizing to atheists, you bet! It depends on the individual of course.

 

[BL2KTN]

Atheists in general basically wouldn't have a clue what type of God I believe in. They typically don't understand enough physics to even make it an interesting conversation.

Here is an equation in which I have changed just a few of the numerals and letters so that you can't Google it. What is it related to? It is immediately obvious to anyone familiar with physics.

m3=n2/R3+w2 R2/b'2+2/b' (M+M~-2) N~-
M=nw

 

[DogmaHunter]

Interesting. I'd say the study of Christianity history had the opposite effect on me personally. I could then understand where the changes took place and gain better insights into the politics of it all.

I've been raised without religion. I never was a theist.
To me, christianity is just like all the rest. Human constructs for organizing society, impose rules, explain origins,... I see it as an attempt at explaining the world for human piece of mind with a giant dose of superstition injected - mostly in places where ignorance reigned at the time of its inception.

argument. A "believer" has a need to quantify their belief, whereas someone that hold no belief has no such need.

I agree. The question is, with what will the "believer" quantify his beliefs? With faith? Or with actual evidence?

Furthermore, an atheist is typically casting themselves into the role of holding no belief

...in gods and mostly the supernatural in general.

All people have plenty of beliefs. But you have "beliefs" and you have "beliefs".

You can hold beliefs dogmatically and you can hold them tentatively.
You can hold them based on faith and you can hold them based on rational evidence.

, so the closer they get to holding 'zero' belief in God, the more comfortable they feel.

I don't hold beliefs because they make me feel "comfortable". I don't have a desire to hold certain beliefs. The only desire I have concerning beliefs is holding as much correct beliefs as possible.

I hear such emotional arguments frequently from theists and I just don't get it. I don't choose my beliefs. I believe what convinces me. Theism, in general, doesn't convince me.

They can't logically justify holding belief in *no* God

It's a good thing that we don't, then.
Some might off course. I don't personally know anybody.

 

[morningstar2651]

.
KTS, what about the Supernatural Events I have seen? One has been mentioned, the young child's deformed arm. Your statement above is meaningless, right?

.

Faith healing is a combination of stage magic, street magic, and confidence tricks used to swindle the faithful out of money. The leg lengthening and arm lengthening tricks are obvious marks of a charlatan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpz_9_KalFY

 

[Michael]

I've been raised without religion. I never was a theist.
To me, christianity is just like all the rest. Human constructs for organizing society, impose rules, explain origins,... I see it as an attempt at explaining the world for human piece of mind with a giant dose of superstition injected - mostly in places where ignorance reigned at the time of its inception.

Well, that's a nice belief system you have going, but it doesn't really deal with the experiences of God that humans have been writing about since the dawn of time, and experiencing even without the benefit of language.

Phillips Brooks and Helen Keller

I agree. The question is, with what will the "believer" quantify his beliefs? With faith? Or with actual evidence?

Even with 'evidence', it's still hard to quantify ones beliefs. How strongly do you believe in your opening statement of faith about the whole reason for religion for instance?

...in gods and mostly the supernatural in general.

And yet not all theories of God are "supernatural" in origin. What then?

All people have plenty of beliefs. But you have "beliefs" and you have "beliefs".

I agree. In my experience atheists hold beliefs too, like you hold various beliefs about religion.

You can hold beliefs dogmatically and you can hold them tentatively.
You can hold them based on faith and you can hold them based on rational evidence.

I'd say I hold the scientific side of my beliefs relatively 'tentatively', whereas my belief in God in general is probably higher.

I don't hold beliefs because they make me feel "comfortable". I don't have a desire to hold certain beliefs. The only desire I have concerning beliefs is holding as much correct beliefs as possible.

I'd have to say I basically agree with that philosophy as well.

I hear such emotional arguments frequently from theists and I just don't get it. I don't choose my beliefs. I believe what convinces me. Theism, in general, doesn't convince me.

I think what most atheists don't "get" are the depth of the experiences themselves, and the effect they have in terms of "convincing" someone of God's existence. It's like *seeing* the kangaroo and therefore having more confidence in their existence, rather than just "hearing about them" from someone else and remaining skeptical.

It's a good thing that we don't, then.
Some might off course. I don't personally know anybody.

In my experience, it's a matter of degrees just like everyone else. Some are more *open* than others, some more closed than others, etc. Few make any real effort to falsify their position via prayer or meditation for instance.

 

[dcarrera]

Well, that's a nice belief system you have going,

An opinion is not a belief system. As a former christian, now atheist, I really see nothing special about Christianity. Plenty of grandiose claims and conviction, but other religions have that too. I feel like I live in a world where everyone is praying to the god ChuChu up the mountain and some people spend their entire lives as the tribe shaman, thinking that they are tapping into ChuChu's great thunder magic.

 

[Michael]

An opinion is not a belief system.

It's both.

As a former christian, now atheist, I really see nothing special about Christianity. Plenty of grandiose claims and conviction, but other religions have that too. I feel like I live in a world where everyone is praying to the god ChuChu up the mountain and some people spend their entire lives as the tribe shaman, thinking that they are tapping into ChuChu's great thunder magic.

The primary difference between us is that I can actually *see* the God that I put my faith in, whereas your faith in the unseen is both unshakeable and unfalsifiable.

 

[BL2KTN]

It's both.



The primary difference between us is that I can actually *see* the God that I put my faith in, whereas your faith in the unseen is both unshakeable and unfalsifiable.

Are you on hallucinogens?

 

[dcarrera]

It's both.

Uhmm... no. An opinion is not a belief system. You can confirm this with the help of a dictionary.

The primary difference between us is that I can actually *see* the God that I put my faith in,

How tall is he? (you said you could see him/her/it).

whereas your faith in the unseen is both unshakeable and unfalsifiable.

Talk about projection. For every opinion I hold, I will happily suggest a test that could falsify it.

 

[Michael]

Uhmm... no. An opinion is not a belief system. You can confirm this with the help of a dictionary.

Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts.

Belief system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological, or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise.[1]

How are they so different in your opinion?

How tall is he? (you said you could see him/her/it).

That's (exactly) like asking how large is the universe. He could be infinitely "tall" AFAIK.

Talk about projection. For every opinion I hold, I will happily suggest a test that could falsify it.

Start with a test that will falsify your imaginary (unseen in the lab) claim that space expansion is a *cause* of photon redshift.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample