Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[Colter]

But this would show that there was something wrong with humans needing to turn to something and not the something that is the problem. So maybe there is a design fault that makes us keep doing this. Religion may come to an end and then humans move onto something else. It seems atheism is another movement. We have had communism and socialism are still alive and well. Russia's trying to re establish itself. There maybe some new age thinking that comes in. Could be communes or back to hippy pot heads who knows. Yeah bring back Woodstock.

In evolution, might didn't make right, it made what is. But another influence began to assert itself within the sociological evolution of will conscious man, Love and its derivatives. This development was universal, across all cultures. In religion we believe this was the emergence of minds ability to respond to spiritual gravity, the capacity for receptivity of spiritual truth.

Atheists seem to be arguing that mankind has contracted a virus in its interpretive response to this spiritual gravity that we call God.

 

[Davian]

Disagree. There are statements that are revisable, and there are falsifiable statements. They might overlap, but in your case they don't, because you made an unfalsifiable statement. Which is totally fine to make in any context, and is even epistemologically necessary when you get down to the nitty gritty with basic axioms underpinning our view of the world. But it needs criticism when it negates itself.

Which the revised statement did not.

Ignore them because they're not of enough substance to be worth responding to.

Should not someone tell Colter of the damage he is doing, reinforcing the negative stereotypes of religion?

Unlike your responses in general, when you're not making loaded questions and other things that are offensive

...says the fan of Nietzsche.

that you drop incredulity toward when people don't respond to them, of course.

How am I to know why there was no response? I do not presume to know how others think.

I respond to people who make points that are worth responding to. There is no team Christianity vs. team atheism going on here, because I don't see teams at all; only people who make points and the points themselves.

It always surprises me when I see two Christians agree on something theistic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Godless ideology is cosmic dystopia. In my religious philosophy Lucifer tried it, we are still suffering the consequences. The irony of the godless ideology on a nationalist scale is that the Godless leader becomes the very fallible God of his people. The nation is at the mercy of the terribly limited finite values of Atheism.

Some of the least religious countries are also some of the most prosperous, least dangerous, and happiest. Go live in Sweden or Norway, then go live in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. See which you like, a more secular or a more theocratic country.

 

[Barzel]

I became an agnostic when I realized that I had bought into a mob mentality during all of my spiritual experiences. Additionally, I do not have the capacity for the faith required to believe in a god. Of course, I'm not omniscient, so I can't say that a god does or does not exist (I don't believe anyone can say such things with 100% certainty, despite claims to the contrary).

Theism still exists because people choose to believe in a god. Belief is a choice.

 

[Received]

Which the revised statement did not.

So you changed your mind?

Should not someone tell Colter of the damage he is doing, reinforcing the negative stereotypes of religion?

Yeah, while we're at it, maybe someone should tell ISIS they're doing really bad things.

(No, I'm not saying Colter is a terrorist.)

...says the fan of Nietzsche.

Being a fan is quite un-Nietzschean.

How am I to know why there was no response? I do not presume to know how others think.

So you're saying you're a robot, i.e., incapable of abductive thinking?

It always surprises me when I see two Christians agree on something theistic.

Yeah, same surprise I have when atheists agree on what science philosophically is.

 

[Received]

This quote made the rounds on a bunch of different religious forums a few years ago. I got tired of seeing it used as an apologetic point, so I took the liberty of e-mailing Nagel about it...

---------------------------------------------

Dylan ***** <***********@gmail.com>
6/16/10
to <thomas.nagel@nyu.edu>

Professor Nagel,

I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. I am an atheist. I've been in discussion with some Christian apologists online and it seems they are fond of quoting a line from one of your essays, "I don&#8217;t want there to be a god; I don&#8217;t want the universe to be like that." It's used as support for the claim that atheists simply don't want "god" to exist, which is why they don't believe.

Just how true is this claim, though? Reading the quote in context, it seems you're merely relating a personal preference, not giving an actual reason for why you don't believe.

Could you clear this up for me? I appreciate your time.

Sincerely,

Dylan *****

Nagel, Thomas <thomas.nagel@nyu.edu>
6/17/10

to me
I'm just speaking for myself, but I suspect I'm not alone. And it wasn't offered as a reason.

Dylan ***** <***********@gmail.com>
to <thomas.nagel@nyu.edu>
6/17/10

Thank you, professor.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There you have it. Find some other way to make your point. Nagel is not on your side.

You're going to have to break down how your email vindicated the ostensible message of the original quote. Remember what I said: "there's nothing wrong with his opinion." I never stated that my use of his quote was about rationality. I'm speaking psychologically.

And I don't care if Nagel is on my side, and such a petty interpretation of my use of that quote and the other thoughts above indicate you're not getting me at all.

 

[Davian]

I became an agnostic when I realized that I had bought into a mob mentality during all of my spiritual experiences. Additionally, I do not have the capacity for the faith required to believe in a god. Of course, I'm not omniscient, so I can't say that a god does or does not exist (I don't believe anyone can say such things with 100% certainty, despite claims to the contrary).

So you are then an agnostic atheist.

Theism still exists because people choose to believe in a god. Belief is a choice.

Interesting. Can you choose to believe in Santa?

 

[Colter]

Oh no, religion might get a bad name among atheist agitators. like it's a popularity contest. The Master simply didn't engage certain heathen that he called "swine". As far as how well the world would receive us:

"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you".&#8230;​

 

[Davian]

So you changed your mind?

I changed my statement.

Yeah, while we're at it, maybe someone should tell ISIS they're doing really bad things.

(No, I'm not saying Colter is a terrorist.)

Damage is damage.

Being a fan is quite un-Nietzschean.

Is not fan short for fanatic?

"Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. " wiki

So you're saying you're a robot, i.e., incapable of abductive thinking?

No, I am just well aware of the limitations of the medium we care using to communicate.

Yeah, same surprise I have when atheists agree on what science philosophically is.

What do non-stamp collectors typically think?

 

[Davian]

Oh no, religion might get a bad name among atheist agitators.

I am not an 'atheist agitator', but I can see how individuals such as yourself can give religion a bad name in general.

 

[Received]

I changed my statement.

So considering your original was unfalsifiable, is your new one (to you) falsifiable or not?

Damage is damage.

True story.

Is not fan short for fanatic?

"Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. " wiki

Yeah, and being a fan is very un-Nietzschean.

No, I am just well aware of the limitations of the medium we care using to communicate.

Shut up.

What do non-stamp collectors typically think?

Considering they're all the people in the whole world who don't dig stamp collecting, that's too broad a crowd to draw real conclusions about.

Gonna get me some coffee. You like coffee, Davian?

 

[Barzel]

So you are then an agnostic atheist.

Interesting. Can you choose to believe in Santa?

How do you conclude that I am an agnostic atheist? And yes, people--even children--choose to believe in Santa. Given cultural influence and evidence, a child chooses to believe in Santa, until such time the evidence no longer convinces them of his existence. There are also children who never buy into the existence of Santa.

 

[Davian]

I know what falsifiable means. There's no way to respond to "you don't know what it means" than to say just this. I'm a research coordinator. I have to.

And there's no straw man because I'm simply applying his own principle to his own statement. He's being arbitrary (or hasn't provided any justification at all) for why religious statements get special treatment; therefore it's all about argument in general, not just religious ones: something isn't of value if it isn't unfalsifiable -- which, again, would make that very argument (and therefore criteria) false, given that it's an unfalsifiable statement. So he either explains his reasoning as to how religion gets special treatment with truth value in this sense, or changes his criteria with regard to falsifiability.

He's not the only one doing it by far. It's all over the place in secular contexts. We call it scientism.

Who is this 'we' that you speak for?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

 

[Davian]

So considering your original was unfalsifiable, is your new one (to you) falsifiable or not?

It is. If someone were to demonstrate that unevidenced and unfalsifiable religious assertions *were* solutions of value for the purposes of accurately describing reality, my statement would be shown to be false.

Go over to the Physical and Life Sciences forum. They never cease trying.

True story.


Yeah, and being a fan is very un-Nietzschean.

I will take your word for it. He never made sense to me.

Shut up.

Considering they're all the people in the whole world who don't dig stamp collecting, that's too broad a crowd to draw real conclusions about.

I would expect the same degree of difficulty in doing the same for all of the people that simply don't believe in gods.

Gonna get me some coffee. You like coffee, Davian?

No, actually. Can't stand the taste, and caffeine is simply a tool to haul through late night deadlines.

 

[variant]

How do you conclude that I am an agnostic atheist? And yes, people--even children--choose to believe in Santa. Given cultural influence and evidence, a child chooses to believe in Santa, until such time the evidence no longer convinces them of his existence. There are also children who never buy into the existence of Santa.

Very few don't buy in.

Children that young don't choose their beliefs, they have a natural, uncritical innocence about them and rely on their trust in their parents for guidance.

 

[Davian]

How do you conclude that I am an agnostic atheist?

You said, "I do not have the capacity for the faith required to believe in a god". If you do not believe in a god, you are an atheist. Own it.

The terms are not mutually exclusive.

And yes, people--even children--choose to believe in Santa. Given cultural influence and evidence, a child chooses to believe in Santa, until such time the evidence no longer convinces them of his existence. There are also children who never buy into the existence of Santa.

I asked, can *you* choose to believe in Santa? Right now, as a living, breathing person, as real as any person you meet on the street. Can you?

 

[quatona]

Yeah, same surprise I have when atheists agree on what science philosophically is.

It´s only the "same" surprise if you are determined to ignore the fundamental difference between Christians disagreeing on the Christian doctrine and atheists agreeing what science philosophically is.
Do the differences really need to be spelled out? You know, I´m called to keep my posts short.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about comparing faith to laziness. Some people sleep more and some sleep less. Likewise some people find atheism comfortable and others find theism comfortable. There is probably a religious instinct, stronger than some than in others. Saying faith is a vice is like calling people lazy - its blaming them for the conditions they fond themselves having to live with, but are treated as if it were a "free choice" of some sort. Hence, it is argued one is morally culpable for being lazy and one is culpable for being faithful. When thats only true to a degree. Except with genetic engineering, or medication?

 

[Colter]

Atheism is the quest for error.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Atheism is the quest for error.