The mind of an Atheist

[essentialsaltes]

Smart or not, Euler's statement of a 'default position' is an unsupported statement.

When we are born, we have no knowledge of platypuses. By default, infants have no opinion on the existence of platypuses; they would never even frame the question, because they don't have a concept of a platypus. They do not believe in platypuses. This is the default position.

Then at some point, someone says to a child, "Did you know there's an animal called a platypus? It's a mammal that lays eggs and has poison spines and a bill like a duck?"

Now the child may suddenly come to believe in platypuses, especially if she trusts the person who tells her this. Or she may be more skeptical, suspecting that someone is pulling her leg. At this point, the child has a concept of the platypus, and can at least frame the question "Do I believe in platypuses?" and answers either yes or no. [Some may even go further (based on the ridiculous description of the platypus) and declare, "I don't just not-believe in platypuses. I believe platypuses do not exist."]

A skeptic or a disbeliever might become convinced by evidence of platypuses. Pictures, video, a stuffed one in a museum, a live one in a zoo. There is pretty good evidence for platypuses, so there are probably very few aplatyputters.

For me, gods are not very much like platypuses, and a lot more like yeti or fairies. There is not very good evidence for these things. Or if there is, it has not been presented to me (and I have looked). I do not believe in gods. Therefore I am an atheist.

I can't prove gods don't exist, just as I can't prove fairies don't exist. But that doesn't alter the fact that I feel I have no good reason and no good evidence to believe in them, so I don't.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

When we are born, we have no knowledge of platypuses. By default, infants have no opinion on the existence of platypuses; they would never even frame the question, because they don't have a concept of a platypus. They do not believe in platypuses. This is the default position.

Then at some point, someone says to a child, "Did you know there's an animal called a platypus? It's a mammal that lays eggs and has poison spines and a bill like a duck?"

Now the child may suddenly come to believe in platypuses, especially if she trusts the person who tells her this. Or she may be more skeptical, suspecting that someone is pulling her leg. At this point, the child has a concept of the platypus, and can at least frame the question "Do I believe in platypuses?" and answers either yes or no. [Some may even go further (based on the ridiculous description of the platypus) and declare, "I don't just not-believe in platypuses. I believe platypuses do not exist."]

A skeptic or a disbeliever might become convinced by evidence of platypuses. Pictures, video, a stuffed one in a museum, a live one in a zoo. There is pretty good evidence for platypuses, so there are probably very few aplatyputters.

For me, gods are not very much like platypuses, and a lot more like yeti or fairies. There is not very good evidence for these things. Or if there is, it has not been presented to me (and I have looked). I do not believe in gods. Therefore I am an atheist.

I can't prove gods don't exist, just as I can't prove fairies don't exist. But that doesn't alter the fact that I feel I have no good reason and no good evidence to believe in them, so I don't.

Yes, that is pretty much the way I understand it. Obviously, I am still no closer to knowing what Euler's particular take on 'default position' is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, that is pretty much the way I understand it. Obviously, I am still no closer to knowing what Euler's particular take on 'default position' is.

We are born in dis/unbelief. God must call us to belief. Therefore dis/unbelief is the default position of mankind. Atheists cannot believe unless called, and will not believe the word of believers.

 

[Davian]

As a youngster, I had the pleasure of staying at the YMCA. It was there where I encountered an Atheist!
He was wild eyed and chatty, rambling on about Satre, Camus and Nietzsche.
When I told him I was reading some letters by St. Paul, his pupils enlarge and he began almost chant like repeating, "Science is everything, science is everything...."

I know a lot of Atheists are like that cause growing up in homes where religion was shunned, but we are all so different. So why are you (my science friends, or other) an Atheist?

For the same reason I do not collect stamps. I was not exposed to it, and never had an interest in it. No one in my circle of friends and family did it.

When I did look into it, when I go older (~40), it didn't seem like a good use of my time.

Did this person you mention, at the YMCA, collect stamps?

 

[Davian]

I smell religion.



More religion.



And more religion.



That is not the subject of this thread.

It never ceases to amaze me to see religionists using their own terms in the pejorative.

 

[Davian]

We are born in dis/unbelief. God must call us to belief. Therefore dis/unbelief is the default position of mankind. Atheists cannot believe unless called, and will not believe the word of believers.

That is clearly not the understanding of all the other religionists that I have seen posting in these forums.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has nothing to do with atheism.

I beg to differ.

Science has built an infrastructure that effectively rules God out of the picture and supplants Him with its own version of how the universe is configured.

Science has completely rewritten Genesis 1, and to even mention "God did it" as an explanation as to how something came about (like the moon), will precipitate serious challenges for evidence.

Today's science, in my opinion, has a major goal: to eventually render every jot & tittle of the Bible sterile.

One perfect example is calling a "babe/child in the womb" a "fetus."

Other examples of science watering down the Bible is:

1. Calling miracles "magic".
2. Saying "poofed," instead of "created".
3. Claiming the Bible teaches geocentrism.
4. Claiming the Bible teaches genocide.
5. Claiming the Bible teaches a local Flood.

They may not do this openly in their textbooks and documentation; but as I said earlier, today's science provides a venue for atheists to flee to when approached by Bible believers: the scientific method, a tool of the devil.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I beg to differ.

Science has completely rewritten Genesis 1, and to even mention "God did it" as an explanation as to how something came about (like the moon), will precipitate serious challenges for evidence.

Today's science, in my opinion, has a major goal: to eventually render every jot & tittle of the Bible sterile.

One perfect example is calling a "babe/child in the womb" a "fetus."

Other examples of science watering down the Bible is:

1. Calling miracles "magic".
2. Saying "poofed," instead of "created".
3. Claiming the Bible teaches geocentrism.
4. Claiming the Bible teaches genocide.
5. Claiming the Bible teaches a local Flood.

They may not do this openly in their textbooks and documentation; but as I said earlier, today's science provides a venue for atheists to flee to when approached by Bible believers: the scientific method, a tool of the devil.

You seem to have mistaken the bible for a god.

Yes, science has shown that a literal reading of Genesis is false. That has nothing to do with whether there are any gods, or whether we should believe in them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You seem to have mistaken the bible for a god.

That is his trademark. After all, God cannot be manipulated; the Bible can.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know a lot of Atheists are like that cause growing up in homes where religion was shunned, but we are all so different. So why are you (my science friends, or other) an Atheist?

Religion was never shunned in my home; nor was reading.

I've always had an interest in mythology growing up -- and I've read the stories by various peoples and cultures which gave hope and order to the great unknowns that were their worlds. While I enjoy and respect them all, I believe that we miss the point of the stories by literalizing them

Consequently, I no more believe that Jesus walked on water than I believe Hercules slew the Nemean lion, that Jormundgand the Midgard serpent encircles the world, or that the world is supported on a turtle's back.

Why should I?

 

[Sofaman]

I beg to differ.

Science has built an infrastructure that effectively rules God out of the picture and supplants Him with its own version of how the universe is configured.

Science has completely rewritten Genesis 1, and to even mention "God did it" as an explanation as to how something came about (like the moon), will precipitate serious challenges for evidence.

Today's science, in my opinion, has a major goal: to eventually render every jot & tittle of the Bible sterile.

One perfect example is calling a "babe/child in the womb" a "fetus."

Other examples of science watering down the Bible is:

1. Calling miracles "magic".
2. Saying "poofed," instead of "created".
3. Claiming the Bible teaches geocentrism.
4. Claiming the Bible teaches genocide.
5. Claiming the Bible teaches a local Flood.

They may not do this openly in their textbooks and documentation; but as I said earlier, today's science provides a venue for atheists to flee to when approached by Bible believers: the scientific method, a tool of the devil.

I am not a scientist. The last time I studied science was when I was 16 years old in secondary school (UK). I'm now 36 and have yet to be convinced that a God exists.
Where do I fit into this?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not a scientist. The last time I studied science was when I was 16 years old in secondary school (UK). I'm now 36 and have yet to be convinced that a God exists.
Where do I fit into this?

If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.

Tell AV if the shoe doesn't fit, stop trying to sell it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How can science rule out or supplant something that is not there? would you also say science rules out Unicorns? Fairies?

You presuppose that God doesn't exist, you assume that unicorns and fairies are in the same category as God. That is a category error.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

We are born in dis/unbelief. God must call us to belief. Therefore dis/unbelief is the default position of mankind. Atheists cannot believe unless called, and will not believe the word of believers.

Have you any thoughts about sensus divinitatis (John Calvin) and Martin Luther's view of the image of God: with respect to atheists?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

So why are you (my science friends, or other) an Atheist?

Easy!
I've never heard a claim to the divine that I've found convincing. When pressed for evidence of their fantastic beings and stories, theists tell me I just have to have faith.

I absolutely reject claims from any organized religion which just leaves the deistic concept of gods, but I feel that would be a pretty useless belief to have as such a god would have little to no effect on my life. I also have never been presented a concept of gods that doesn't stem from a man-made religion, which I already said I reject outright.

Long story short: People claim God or gods exist, I say "show me" they fall to do so, and I continue to be atheist.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

You seem to have mistaken the bible for a god.

Why are we not surprised?

Yes, science has shown that a literal reading of Genesis is false. That has nothing to do with whether there are any gods, or whether we should believe in them.

Not only scientists, but theists and early Christians shared such a view.

Yes, it is not an apologetics work.

 

[bhsmte]

I smell religion.

I smell, not being able to reconcile a faith belief without adequate evidence.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Religion was never shunned in my home; nor was reading.

I've always had an interest in mythology growing up -- and I've read the stories by various peoples and cultures which gave hope and order to the great unknowns that were their worlds. While I enjoy and respect them all, I believe that we miss the point of the stories by literalizing them

Consequently, I no more believe that Jesus walked on water than I believe Hercules slew the Nemean lion, that Jormundgand the Midgard serpent encircles the world, or that the world is supported on a turtle's back.

Why should I?

Thank you for sharing your story.

To answer your question, would place me outside the scope of this thread, but I can say that Jesus held such miracles as secondary to the one which St.Paul defends in 1 Cor. 15. I cannot engage you, so I shall pin it as a sidebar.

 

[Sofaman]

If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.

Wasn't that the point I was making?