Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

I'm not an atheist precisely, but how exactly is one supposed to reject something they don't believe in?

Might just be in the wording, but you make it sound personal. Atheists reject god precisely like they reject the tooth fairy, leprechauns, wishing wells, etc. To them it's just folklore. A story. It doesn't go any deeper than that.

Put in that context your secondary question becomes kind of moot doesn't it? From an atheistic point of view there is simply no possible way to "experience and study God."

If there was a way to study god, there would not be any atheists. All that they can study are ancient writings about god, or what other people tell them about it. That could be a literature study, but not a god study.

Personally I take the viewpoint that I don't know what god is, and neither does anyone else. I also don't know if there is anything close to what man's concept of a god is. All the same, I find the numinous in every day life, and I'm quite happy with that.

Simply to underline what's been well said above; there's no rejecting something you don't think is there and have no scientific way of finding out whether there is; it's simply having no (scientific) reason to believe. And likewise, something has to be investigable to actually study it; thus it'd be literature and folklore study.

Might just be in the wording, but you make it sound personal. Atheists reject god precisely like they reject the tooth fairy, leprechauns, wishing wells, etc. To them it's just folklore. A story. It doesn't go any deeper than that.

Exactly true, it's not that Atheists do not feel that God's been portrayed "correctly" in modern religions, it's that they don't believe God exists at all and is a fable.

Ya'll are right, I think my intentions in the question got misconstrued in how I wrote it. Let me try again. I believe that the belief or disbelief in God comes from how one is influenced through family history, teaching, experiences, culture, friends, popularity...

If you really examined your life and could somehow strip all the outside influences out, would you think differently? If you were like Will Smith's character in "I Am Legend" and seemingly alone in the world for an extended period, would you continue to think as you do, or would your mind tend to dwell to spiritual matters?

I guess the same could be asked of those who would believe in God.

The point of the question was this, there are people who at time "struggle" and move away from their faith and belief in God. Likewise there are people like C.S. Lewis who move from atheism to being one of the greatest Christian Apologists ever.

My question was prompted by this C.S. Lewis quote --

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Contrast that with this about Mother Theresa and her doubts --

I can relate with Christians who sometimes have a "crisis of faith". I'm curious to know if you, as an atheist ever have a crisis of your belief.

The Lewis quote is interesting to me, as Justice is one of my core values. The difference seems to be, I'm not angry at the universe for being unjust... I've never felt it's unjust... unfair maybe, but then we get into semantics. I don't believe all people are created equally, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Of course I can become upset when the universe doesn't work the way I want it to, but instead of ranting against nature, god, man, etc, I try to learn from it and see the beauty beneath.

As far as Mother Theresa goes... Faith creates crisis by it's very nature. I've got nothing against those that choose a path of faith, but you will always run into questions and perhaps crisis by it's very nature.

Good addition and clarification, fuscom.

I believe that the belief or disbelief in God comes from how one is influenced through family history, teaching, experiences, culture, friends, popularity...

Well, I'll speak for myself here but add that I think my case is the same for a lot of people. My mother is a fundamental christian and raised me as one. But the reason for my disbelief in a god is lack of scientific evidence. I live my life and assess the world according to what I can know through science; the investigation, evaluation and experimentation of physical matter. So far, the notion of a god is far beyond the realm of science and can therefore not be investigated, proven or refuted. Nor argued on a rational basis.

Now, you could say that I was influenced by history, teaching, etc. to use the scientific method and believe only in things that can scientifically be shown true (or similarly refuted), as opposed to believing in things without evidence. Perhaps. But ultimately, my lack of belief in a deity derives from lack of evidence and means to investigate its existence scientifically.

So to answer your question:

If you were like Will Smith's character in "I Am Legend" and seemingly alone in the world for an extended period, would you continue to think as you do, or would your mind tend to dwell to spiritual matters?

Provided that I would not lose my mind in that horrific situation, I would continue to think the above, that evidence and science are the best means to know my world.

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

With all due respect to the great C.S. Lewis; it's not the Universe that has no meaning, it's this quote. The universe may have no ultimate answer, aside from 42 of course, but that doesn't change that it has physical consequences. On our pale blue dot where we evolved, physical consequences of eating food were prolonged life. Thus, food has meaning to us. The lack of an 'ultimate meaning of the universe' does not mean that there's no meaning to be found or created at all.

I think you are not giving enough credit to most atheists. I am not an atheist ,though I'm agnostic, but I believe most people come to their own conclusion after thinking about it, researching it and using all means available to them. I don't think turning off all outside influence would change anything, and think only one who does believe and wants to know why others do not would even think to ask the question.

NT Wright tells a story about when he was a college chaplain at Oxford, that boils down to this:

When a student would tell him they don't believe in God, he would ask them which god they don't believe in.

When, after a moment of paradigm-rearrangement, they described the god they disavowed, Dr Wright would say, "Well, we have something in common. I don't believe in that god either."

[HT: Nick]

I believe most people come to their own conclusion after thinking about it, researching it and using all means available to them.

Exactly.

I don't think turning off all outside influence would change anything, and think only one who does believe and wants to know why others do not would even think to ask the question.

If people never asked questions, how well could you ever really know them?

@ Bartoneus
I don't regard questions as unnecessary, but that particular question is not necessary to anyone wanting to know me or for me to know them,.

I've never been asked that type of question by any one who was not a Christian wanting a hook or opening from which to try to change my mind because they just could not understand why I did not believe as they do.

As far as religion I believe you have to give people credit for being able to make their own decisions.

I believe that the belief or disbelief in God comes from how one is influenced through family history, teaching, experiences, culture, friends, popularity...

If you really examined your life and could somehow strip all the outside influences out, would you think differently?

Funny but, I think you've got it essentially backwards. Very few atheists were raised atheists. I know I wasn't, and it was only after I really examined all the assumptions I'd inherited from my upbringing that I became an atheist, or as I like to think of it--a hardcore materialist. The mistake you're making is assuming that no one who believes as you do could ever become an atheist. But the truth is, most atheists used to be just like you.

So, you're saying your becoming an atheist was just a teenage rebellion sort of thing?

I was born and raised as atheist. Actually I was born and raised as a "couldnt care less about that sort of thing" type, but I find it's all pretty much the same.

I've never been asked that type of question by any one who was not a Christian wanting a hook or opening from which to try to change my mind because they just could not understand why I did not believe as they do.

I'm sorry that's been your experience Cooper. Rest assured though that here, in this forum, in this post by me, it was just a question; and with all due respect I don't recall asking the question of you specifically, and you chose to answer on your own.

It was asked more out of a curiosity of how much of what we believe we staunchly believe, when the outside influences which make it easy for us to believe are taken away. There a countless examples of Christians turning away from their "strong" faith, when it became difficult, or the stakes too high, for them to continue in their beliefs. The example I posted in my clarification of the question is one example, Peter's denial of Christ in the Bible is another.

I want to know if it works the same way for Atheists. For instance, right now, our understanding of science makes it easy to not believe in God. But what if that weren't the case tomorrow? What if evidence started coming out that there was an outside influence of some sort involved in the creation of everything we know? Would your beliefs falter if the ease to believe as you do was taken away?

How much of what you believe is you, and how much is a product of your environment? For myself, as a Christian, I'd have to honestly admit I wonder about my strength.

...and think only one who does believe and wants to know why others do not would even think to ask the question.

Where's the damage? I'm happy to clean up whatever mess I made.

Bottom line: Do we as believers and non-believers see things as they are, or as they appear to be, as presented by the environment we occupy?

For instance, although my reasoning for this post might appear to be more than it is to you, it's not. It was a question. No hooks, attempts to mind change, bible thumping, invitations to church, or tracts left on the sidewalk.

@Vidar: Lucky you. It certainly wasn't a teen rebellion thing. Much later in life, but I've always been a slow learner.

I want to know if it works the same way for Atheists. For instance, right now, our understanding of science makes it easy to not believe in God. But what if that weren't the case tomorrow? What if evidence started coming out that there was an outside influence of some sort involved in the creation of everything we know? Would your beliefs falter if the ease to believe as you do was taken away?

But what you're talking about there is not a distinction between atheism and Christianity; you're talking about the distinction between atheism and theism.

I'd also disagree with your assertion that "our understanding of science makes it easy to not believe in God". Our understanding of science makes it easy not to believe in Christian theology -- the virgin birth, the Assumption, the Resurrection, the anthropomorphised and interventionist nature of God, the power of prayer... pick a dogma, any dogma -- but again that's different to not believing in 'God' for a given value of god.

For instance, if there was evidence that an 'outside influence' created the universe -- and that evidence could produce a theory that stood up to scientific rigor -- then I'd imagine atheists would accept this theory in the same way they accept any scientific theory. But this is a very different idea to the theistic notion of 'believing in God'.

For example, I'm a kind of pantheist. I'm happy to ascribe the label of 'God' to the sense of awe and wonder I feel at the universe, but I don't think it's rational or particularly helpful to personify this feeling as being in some way "like me" or even interested (or capable of interest in) my dealings. I think there's probably 'more' out there than pure materialism can explain, but that doesn't mean I'm going to spend the life I know I have worrying about some hazy afterlife I might get. I believe in the scientific method and the slow progress of discovered knowledge. I mistrust 'revealed truths'. And because of all that, I usually sit myself in the atheist camp rather than the theist camp.

That being said -- and I think this is really what you're asking -- if suddenly irrefutable proof of the Christian god's existence floated down tomorrow, I still would neither worship it nor consider myself a Christian. Even if I could empirically prove that every word in the Bible -- every single scrap of dogma -- was true then I'd still believe more-or-less what I believe now. I'd make no deathbed conversions, the main reason being I think revealed religions are dangerous and unhelpful social controls that stifle thought and knowledge. If the Christian god were real, I'd be signing up to the resistance movement to overthrow such a cruel and powerful supervillain.

I might end up in Hell but, well, at least I'd've been honest with myself.

And on that note, who can resist a quick quote by Stephen Roberts:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

But what you're talking about there is not a distinction between atheism and Christianity; you're talking about the distinction between atheism and theism.

Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.

I think revealed religions are dangerous and unhelpful social controls that stifle thought and knowledge.

Right. So are you against the idea of a deity or against man's interpretation of that deity?

If the Christian god were real, I'd be signing up to the resistance movement to overthrow such a cruel and powerful supervillain.

Ok, that's fine. Here's where my curiosity is. From my experience, most atheists believe in scientific fact and knowledge of hard data, yet they tend to describe this thing they don't believe in with such emotion.

I don't believe in unicorns or fairies. As such, I would find it very hard to ascribe any type of feelings of villainous behavior, disappointment or hatred toward them. I can't even begin to feel any kind of injustice that goes against what the unicorn has promised, or wonder why the unicorns let that little kid die of cancer. Despite the voluminous books, toys, tales and movies about them, I would have no thoughts, no concerns, no arguments and no desire to convince the unicorn believing public of the errors of their ways -- simply because I don't believe they exist in the first place.

How can I have any kind of emotion toward something I believe doesn't exist?

The emotion I find exists with atheists is always tied to what man has done in the name of his God, (Christian or otherwise), not the deity.

I find that curious, hence the question.

Thanks for the comment alisdee.

Well I'm not quite sure why you pointed out the question I answered was not for me, the question was for everyone, atheists especially, and that is what the answer addressed. I never stated anywhere you forced me to answer the question. Yes I chose to answer it, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

The questions you ask just make my mind float back the all the Dennett I read in college, all that "is meaning or not to why people search for a meaning,. and so on. Dennett can make my head explode.

I digress,

"The emotion I find exists with atheists is always tied to what man has done in the name of his God, (Christian or otherwise), not the deity.

I find that curious, hence the question."

Emotion is merely a reaction to something, linguists, neuroscientists, nor philosophers can agree on what emotion is, but overall it is simply a reaction to a stimulus

Using the quoted sentence though, what you are referring to as “emotion" some would call reason or logic. Most atheists I know have a much larger basis for their disbelief in
a higher power than the mere fact that man sucks.

As I've said and many here have said they use reason, and logic and their education and in the end they come to their belief. though some people may come to it for a random reason such as an untimely deaf of a innocent child, or the ravages of war man fights against man, and that appears to be what you have experienced that is not what I have found.

I can't even begin to feel any kind of injustice that goes against what the unicorn has promised, or wonder why the unicorns let that little kid die of cancer.

Ah, but see this is the crucial difference; there is no expectation that The Unicorn has promised anything. With the possible exception of 8 year old girls, no-one seriously believes that The Unicorn is real, is watching them, is judging their actions and answering their prayers. Non-belief in The Unicorn never got anyone burnt at the stake. The Unicorn is not opposed to scientific knowledge, and does not discriminate against anyone based on their gender, race or sexual orientation.

Or rather, more importantly, no-one uses The Unicorn as an excuse to do any of those things, which is the reason atheists get angry at god. Or rather the idea of god, because...

The emotion I find exists with atheists is always tied to what man has done in the name of his God, (Christian or otherwise), not the deity.

... that's the whole point. There is no distinction to an atheist because they don't believe in god as an independent entity in the first place. To an atheist, god is only what man has made him. It's sort of like, people don't (well, okay, they do) go around complaining that no-one really understands [Insert Favourite Literary Villain Here]. And that just because all the stories about [him/her] are bad, doesn't mean [he/she] is a bad [guy/girl]; only that authors have written [him/her] badly! And that if you only got to know [him/her] personally, then you'd see what a really great and wonderful person [he/she] really is!

I mean -- fandom wank and deliberate literary re-writes (e.g. Wicked) aside -- ultimately most people accept that if a literary character is written as 'evil' then they are, in fact, evil and that's all there is to it. There is no 'other side' of the story as such because the character is just that -- a character -- and not a real person. Such is the atheistic view of god; gods are portrayed by man in such a way to make them unappealing. Even belief in so-called 'harmless' or 'nice' gods is problematic for atheists because it's the act of belief itself which they oppose.

If that makes sense?

Actually, if you're curious about the atheistic stance on this sort of stuff I cannot recommend highly enough Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. He has some very erudite and compelling arguments about why theistic belief in itself is harmful and unnecessary, even if the negative actions of organised religions are stripped away. Worth checking out; even if it doesn't sway your own personal beliefs, it'll give you a good understanding on what makes an atheist reject notions of god and worship.