Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Thanks George - I can't help thinking that if one comes to the conclusion that they don't know how the universe came into being, then might not that person also have to say that there is at least a possibility that God might have had something to do with it all?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Very alive Sir P. Very alive. Good to see y'all.

---

Ditto Mad Geo.

--------------------
Well...

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:
I apologize HughWillRideMe, you're not reading Aquinas correctly but it's my fault for not telling you how to. It's a very different style of argumentation than what we're used to. Here's a good instruction manual.

The point I was making about the bone box (a central part of 1st Century Jewish burial, btw) is that the resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Disprove, and it collapses. In which case I'd become an ethical deist, perhaps with Jewish tendencies.

---

quote:

---

A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The impression I have about some New Atheists, say the 4 Horsemen, is that they would see any doubt as a weakness.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Doubt in the non-existence of God.

I suppose you could argue rather cynically, that admitting to doubt might be embarrassing, but saying you have no doubt, might also be embarrassing, as it sounds, well, fideist.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Doubt in the non-existence of God.

I suppose you could argue rather cynically, that admitting to doubt might be embarrassing, but saying you have no doubt, might also be embarrassing, as it sounds, well, fideist.

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian
Oh, evil exists. It would take a near-perfect love to get through to someone like Adolf Hitler. Interesting tha tno one is capable of that in your theology...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Doubt in the non-existence of God.

I suppose you could argue rather cynically, that admitting to doubt might be embarrassing, but saying you have no doubt, might also be embarrassing, as it sounds, well, fideist.

---

---

This for me is the thing that makes the question hard to answer. I can comprehend doubting a specific thing. When I'm asked if I doubt that I doubt it starts to sound like some sort of recursive puzzle. Is the next question going to be do you doubt that you doubt that you doubt?

Do you doubt that x exists sounds like a reasonable question.

Do you doubt that x doesn't exist.......I'm poorly educated and I've not studied logic but something about the way the second question is structured doesn't seem correct.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Do I think that I might be wrong in my own conclusions and that the right answer is the One God of the Bible, the God whose only Son incarnated and then was sacrificed on the cross?Hell no. And thank goodness.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I would say that atheists (mostly) do believe in something - it is the philosophy of scientism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beenster:
But : the q in the title. What makes me doubt my atheism? Without wishing to sound super creepy, the most unsettling thing for my status quo is other people. Wild acts of kindness or thoughtful wisdom from Christians make me think that perhaps I am missing something. There is something compelling in what they have, the philosphy, the mindset. And I want that. And, then I remember how it didn't work for me in my Christian times and in my currentness, I think - no. I can't go back. And whilst never say never, I would wager that I will never go back to any form of theism, I'm toooooo bruised.

But those moments exist.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perfect love - i.e. the love of God - would get through to someone like Adolf Hitler, but only with his cooperation. That is why it is perfect love.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps such a rapist concept of love does exist in your "we know what's best for you" philosophy?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:
You, as an atheist, have to believe that 98%+ people who ever lived are all superstitious deluded morons ...

---

Atheists don't actually have a Pope-equivalent telling them what they may and may not believe, whatever satirical snortings may be currently flying around about Richard Dawkins. Atheists choose to not imagine that existence is the creation and/or domain of a supernatural deity. No opinions on what others imagine, nor the effect of that on their intellect, is stipulated in the definition of atheist.

---

You're absolutely right, Kanchuko. I should have said anti-theist, or Internet Atheist (not the same thing as an atheist on the internet, e.g. HughWillRideMe doesn't seem to be an Internet Atheist). The kind that holds active, seething contempt for religions rather than just not believing in them, or asking honest questions about them.

---

Subsections noted and (I think) understood.

Whatever, the 'pure' definition of an atheist though, it is difficult for atheists in the kind of society that most of us here inhabit to completely dodge allegations of anti-theism — that we are (even if only subconsciously) reacting against a cultural norm, against a belief system with such a welterweight of history and erudite commentary that it is commonly held to be self-evident (italics: qv in this thread). I think it is this, as a remnant in the subconscious, that could most cause an atheist to waver.

My own approach to the OP may not be of much relevance to a collective atheist opinion, if there is such thing. As a Buddhist, I think of myself as an 'atheist-plus', and of the original historical Buddha as the Grandaddy of atheist philosophers. That is, he expounded a cogent set of suppositions about the nature of existence, which were not reliant on god belief. The Chinese philosopher Tien T'ai encapsulated these suppositions in his concept of ichinen sanzen* ('3,000 aspects to one moment of life') — a formula of life in a self-originating, self-contained and self perpetuating context. What stops me doubting my atheist position essentially comes down to my appreciation of ichinen sanzen. To my mind, it effectively plugs the gaps left by what might be called 'orthodox' materialism. The 'plugs' are foundations for investigation, rather than glib, dogmatic answers.

(* I don't know the provenance of this link so I don't necessarily agree with other content on the site: but the essay seems to be a good objective assessment of the major points of what I understand by ichinen sanzen.)

[ 17. July 2012, 12:54: Message edited by: kankucho ]

--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I would say that atheists (mostly) do believe in something - it is the philosophy of scientism.

---

For me it would be believing in things when I can see evidence for them. Is that the same as scientism?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
what gives atheists the most cause for reflection about the strength of their convictions?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Pretty much, yes. I think it's also called posivitism.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I ..... choose to believe there’s no god, but I often see the good things done because of religious belief, and this, more than anything else, challenges my position and causes me to doubt the validity of my atheistic position (after all, if believing in a nonexistent god causes overall good then it is surely better to believe, since it matters not in any other sense).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beenster:
Wild acts of kindness or thoughtful wisdom from Christians make me think that perhaps I am missing something. There is something compelling in what they have, the philosphy, the mindset. And I want that...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I personally deliberately avoid such black and white alternatives. It may be assumed by atheists that this is what we are asking, but I'm only asking whether they might ever think outside the box of their mindset and consider something bigger than what science (or scientism) has to offer.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Can I just ask on what basis you presume to know what is an atheists' mindset, especially as you seem to be lumping us all together? What you seem to be saying is that ought to adopt your superior mindset instead.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Can I just ask on what basis you presume to know what is an atheists' mindset, especially as you seem to be lumping us all together? What you seem to be saying is that ought to adopt your superior mindset instead.

---

Maybe it would have been better to say "atheist worldview" as opposed to "theist world view". No-one said anything about superiority, although we can all be guilty of such a charge.

Anyway, granted, not all atheists think the same, but I would have thought the atheist and the theist worldviews could quite easily be distinguished and separated.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
There's only one thing that we can say atheists have in common.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Firstly - believing in a god or gods because one cannot think of an alternative is known as “belief in the god(s) of the gaps”. Human beings thought of thunder and lightning as a “gap” until we understood +ve and -ve electrical charge, we used the power of the sun as a “gap” until we understood radiation etc. etc.. Filling the gaps in knowledge with a god, any god, is a decision which involves choice. If you choose the christian god over (say) the hindu gods it matters not – you have your “gap” filled (but human knowledge - the basis for medicine etc. - has advanced not one jot).
I don’t think my atheism counts as a conviction, it’s just the inevitable result of the way I look at life, the universe and everything. I look at the world from a sceptical viewpoint. I neither need nor expect to have an answer for everything.

---

quote:

---

I grew up in Christianity, smothered in Christianity and totally oblivious to the possibility of doubt.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
There's only one thing that we can say atheists have in common.

---

What's that? If it's the unbelief of any higher power than the human intellect, then that prettywell defines the atheist worldview... doesn't it?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
It would be nice to see people like HughWillRidmee, The Great Gumby, Justinian, Mad Geo and Crœsos answered the bloody question ..

---

And me!!As Justinian said, the only thing which would make me doubt atheism is an actual miracle......but even then, I'd be doubting the miracle and want to find out its natural cause and in the end would opt for the 'we don't know yet' conclusion!

But it's always so interesting to read these discussions, or perhaps exchanges of views would be more appropriate. I venture to suggest that one of the reasons Christians may doubt their beliefs is because they can never produce that one vital piece of evidence that will settle the matter.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Rosina:

There is no "evidence" for gods. There is belief, yes. Evidence, no. It says so right in the Book:

"Blessed are those that have not seen, and still believe", right? That was the Big Guys words, right?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
2: There is absolutely nothing inherent in atheism that caps the power level at humanity. There can to an atheist be theoretically higher powers than humanity (and I know some who'd place the heart above reason). It's simply that there isn't a monotheistic God.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I would say that atheists (mostly) do believe in something - it is the philosophy of scientism.

---

For me it would be believing in things when I can see evidence for them. Is that the same as scientism?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
I'll have to check the definition. It's certainly not science. Peter Higgs postulated the existence of now famous partcile in 1964. There was no empirical evidence for it until now. But I'm not going to get hung up on a definition. Scientology ain't got much to do with science...

Nice to have you back on the thread by the way.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
I'll have to check the definition. It's certainly not science. Peter Higgs postulated the existence of now famous partcile in 1964. There was no empirical evidence for it until now. But I'm not going to get hung up on a definition. Scientology ain't got much to do with science...

Nice to have you back on the thread by the way.

---

Yep - you need to. Science, scientism and scientology are three very different things. btw, no-one's proved to me that the Higgs Boson "god partical" exists, but I guess they had to say something to justify the £2 000 000 000 Large Hadron Collider in a continent otherwise crippled by austerity measures.

---

I understand it was called the 'God particle' because it underpinned everything in the universe and was elusive
. It simply confirms the standard model of particle physics which has been held on theoretical grounds for decades. But back to the o/p.....

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
I'll have to check the definition. It's certainly not science. Peter Higgs postulated the existence of now famous partcile in 1964. There was no empirical evidence for it until now. But I'm not going to get hung up on a definition. Scientology ain't got much to do with science...

Nice to have you back on the thread by the way.

---

Yep - you need to. Science, scientism and scientology are three very different things. btw, no-one's proved to me that the Higgs Boson "god partical" exists, but I guess they had to say something to justify the £2 000 000 000 Large Hadron Collider in a continent otherwise crippled by austerity measures.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
One of the issues for me was the way science couldn't really explain one's most important experiences in a personally meaningful way. Love and grief being the most obvious examples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
It was the improbability of existance that got me in the end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
Lastly there was just something there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just had a series of experiences of something which could not not exist...and then looked around for a spiritual practice, which could 'hold' them, and Christianity seemed to work pretty well.

---

These statements are moving! Thank you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosina:


Faith is a result of the evidence.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

There's stories. There's anecdotes. There's wishing. There's mythology.

---

Yup. Not evidence, but it's enough to let it work for me. I can believe six impossible things before breakfast with enough energy left for a few more later in the day.

Hi, Mad Geo! Glad to see you around.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosina:


Faith is a result of the evidence.

---

Trust me Rosina. There's no evidence. If there was I'd likely still be a Christian.

There's stories. There's anecdotes. There's wishing. There's mythology. There's a vague sense of unease like indegestion. But that's not evidence.

The "evidence" that one might invoke is that same "evidence" that one would invoke for Baal, Shiva, and Ghosts. I don't think you want to use that evidence. I know I wouldn't if I were you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosina:


Faith is a result of the evidence.

---

Trust me Rosina. There's no evidence. If there was I'd likely still be a Christian.

There's stories. There's anecdotes. There's wishing. There's mythology. There's a vague sense of unease like indegestion. But that's not evidence.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by Yorick
after all, if believing in a nonexistent god causes overall good then it is surely better to believe, since it matters not in any other sense
I disagree – are you suggesting that doctors should recommend ineffective treatments because they may trigger a placebo effect? As I understand it medical consensus is that lying to patients is a) wrong and b) once discovered, is likely to damage patients’ trust and therefore risk avoidable harm should subsequent life-threatening events occur.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Mark Betts
Actually, No - you may not have seen any evidence, but you put your complete faith in a scientist who says he has proved it.

No, it’s seems as though you are assuming science is just religion without a divinity.

I trust the scientific method - hypotheses, gathering of evidence, analysis of the evidence, drawing a conclusion, publishing in a peer reviewed journal, replication by others. Of course it is not impossible to get things wrong via the scientific method, but it’s a lot more trustworthy than someone who says something you like the sound of, even though their claims (if any) of supporting evidence amount to hearsay, imagination, arguments from authority, tradition etc.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Mark Betts
It may be assumed by atheists that this is what we are asking, but I'm only asking whether they might ever think outside the box of their mindset and consider something bigger than what science (or scientism) has to offer.

Bigger is a bit of a vague word isn’t it? Do you mean larger, better, more complex, truer, less factual, more erudite, more theoretically developed..? Presumably, as far as you’re concerned, the something that is bigger (whatever/however) than science is related to your belief in a god or gods. I guess that you are passionate about your belief but phrasing your comments so that they prejudge an outcome is not conducive to sensible debate. You might feel aggrieved if an atheist were to ask if theists are so incapable of rising above the mediocrity of servility to a rather ridiculous concept of divinity as to be unable to consider that the world is a better place because the benefits of science have largely replaced the religion driven-failures that preceded them. (For example; antibiotics tend to be more effective against certain diseases than painting a cross on the front door of a house).

Too much testosterone and too little respect for other people is a recipe for war-war rather than jaw-jaw. Whatever I might think of your ideas I have no way of knowing how you came by them. As someone who was brought up in one of christianity’s many subsets I know that the pressure to conform, which can apply to other forms of belief (and non-belief) is immensely powerful. Some people have the ability to resist/overthrow such pressure, others can’t. I don’t think that a person who can’t is any less a human being and therefore should be treated with appropriate respect. (It’s a bit like hate-the-sin; love-the-sinner).

I reserve the right, of course, to reconsider the appropriate level of respect if some-one persists in behaving like an asshole. And I, of course, never ever behave like an asshole.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by no_prophet
It is commentary on the woeful state of education that people can graduate with high school diplomas, and university degrees, with little more than a Dawkins-like, 10 year old's understanding of religion -- well comparable to the illiteracy of fundamentalists and literalists in terms of any form of actual knowledge of what they criticise and defend.

This crops up repeatedly in many different forums and from many different sources.

I suspect that anyone who thinks about it will come to the conclusion that it’s really rather silly.

One could also regard it as a woeful commentary on religion that its proponents disagree about pretty much everything except that belief in a god or god(s) is somehow a good thing. If someone much cleverer than me spent seventy years studying religion – let’s make it easier – just versions and varieties, and sub-versions and sub-varieties (and major and minor sub/sub varieties – you get the drift) of Christianity they would never know it all – but someone who has studied and researched long and hard to become an acknowledged (by his peers) expert in his field is expected to know all about your (and everyone else’s) particular take on each and every esoteric convolution which can be forced under the umbrella of religion before his take on the basis of all those religious disputations (the existence of a god or gods) is valid.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Rosina
Faith is a result of the evidence.

No it isn’t – do you have a dictionary? if not use this link

faith
• 1 - complete trust or confidence in someone or something
• 2 - strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof: (my added emphasis )

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Squibs
Anyway, I would like you to do us the honour of justifying your statement because you are essentially saying that every single person that has believed, currently believes and will believe in God does do so on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. That is a stunning claim.

As I see it, there is evidence for God. In the context of Christianity this could bee seen as things like historical evidence, personal experience, philosophical arguments and scientific discoveries to name categories that spring to mind. There is also evidence against God. For example, the problem of evil is particularly strong evidence against an all powerful and all good God. The question is whether any of this evidence is reliable or not.

This is about what constitutes an acceptable level of evidence and, for me, your concept of the evidence for god (I don't think that there are any scientific discoveries that count as evidence for god) is like the concept of evidence that homeopaths use to justify their sales patter. “We can’t be expected to provide scientific proof because science doesn’t understand how our non/extra-scientific things work”.

We have built up a practice of law which includes safeguards when it comes to the admissibility of evidence. Applied properly it prevents the conviction of the accused when the evidence is not good enough. Hearsay is not good enough, Guessing is not good enough, Co-incidence is not good enough, Revelation is not good enough, Conviction is not good enough, Un-corroborated eye-witness statements are not good enough (and there are probably more – I’m not a lawyer).

Apply this test and religion, like homeopathy and faith-healing and dowsing etc. etc. fail. This leads to special pleading . If you allow special pleading you get the problem of having to allow it not only for Christians but also for Muslims, for $cientologists, for Wiccans, for Jedi and even for atheists (unless you can justify your personal use of special pleading by invoking further special pleading, and then invoke... you can see where this is going can’t you?)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I disagree – are you suggesting that doctors should recommend ineffective treatments because they may trigger a placebo effect? As I understand it medical consensus is that lying to patients is a) wrong and b) once discovered, is likely to damage patients’ trust and therefore risk avoidable harm should subsequent life-threatening events occur.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As an atheist I've held off replying while I figured out why the OP question annoys me. It's not hypersensitivity to my shaky worldview or as I originally thought, annoyance at a trolling expedition.

I think that it's assuming one world view. I have contemplated deism and thought about Pascal's wager before rejecting it as immoral. However, for me, doubt (and faith) are not a constant companion.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
I would think that if ever I became an atheist one thing that would trouble with respects to my world-view was the question of morality - specifically if concepts such as "good" and "bad" could exist in an absolute sense. (I have personally never heard an atheist who gave an adequate answer to this question.) Indeed, this is the very same question that was influential in my journey away from apathetic agnosticism and back towards Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
I have noticed that there is a particular type of atheist who is prone to denying that emotion had any significant impact in the journey to atheism. I suppose these people would self-identify as "rationalists" and Freethinkers and are often anti-theistic in nature.

---