Topic: Atheism

[Corkboy]

good post mate...nice to have a balanced and honest pov in a thread full of point-scoring intransigence ...

Is that what they're calling disagreement now, snowflake?

[electricghost]

As I said it's a comfort. You were of course right with your earlier point that it is partly a result of upbringing. I am not an unthinking believer though. I re-evaluated what I've always believed a few years ago. I re-read the Bible and made my way through the Qu'ran as well out of curiosity. Despite the aforementioned difficult things to understand and rationalise in the text, I concluded that my personal faith benefited me more in its presence than its absence. That said, I'm in no position to say whether theists or atheists are on the correct side of the argument. For me there is no correct side, in the realms of spirituality everybody is entitled to believe what they want.

Well done for giving an honest answer, it's quite refreshing to get to that stage right away without going through a long drawn out tap dance.

I suggest that your re-evaluation procedure was doomed from the start though if your conclusion is that belief makes you feel better. It is hard to imagine what you would have discovered in that process that would have convinced you to give it up if that is your reason for believing.

[Yanwoo]

Interesting thread, although as I've seen in many discussions like this, a good chunk of the critique of religions is at, what I would term, a child level understanding of religion aka pretty superficial (that sounds worse that I meant it!). Religions both as social phenomenons, and as spiritual pathways, are enormous, multi-faceted and complex beasts that can't really be reduced to a handful of generic criticisms and soundbites.

I guess it's just a likely attribute of many atheists that are on the outside looking in - there isn't the depth of understanding and they've come at religion looking through a certain lens, and pre-existing prejudices.

I tend to be most interested in the perspectives of people who have spent significant time genuinely on both sides e.g. atheists who have found religion, and religious folk who have left the flock.

[Yanwoo]

That puzzles me. I can't figure how one would choose to believe in something. I get why but not how.

What do you think belief is?

[TepidT2O]

What do you think belief is?

Understanding something is true without the need for evidence.

[Corkboy]

Interesting thread, although as I've seen in many discussions like this, a good chunk of the critique of religions is at, what I would term, a child level understanding of religion aka pretty superficial

Please give an example.

What do you think belief is?

I don't know. I don't understand belief without evidence, and once you have evidence then you're nearer to fact. I don't understand why anyone would accept the existence of something without evidence, if that's what belief is.

I don't understand spirituality either. There's no such thing as a spirit, or a spiritual dimension. There is zero evidence for it.

[electricghost]

Understanding something is true without the need for evidence.

I would call that faith, we form beliefs all the time based on evidence, that is the best way to do it. 

[Corkboy]

belief
bɪˈliːf
noun
1.
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
"a belief in democratic politics"

[Corkboy]

For example, I don't believe aliens exist. I don't rule out the possibility that they might, in fact it might even be a probability, but as long as I don't know, I don't believe it. Equally, I don't believe they don't exist. In that respect, the term "belief" is largely unhelpful.

[Yanwoo]

Please give an example.

Well, without being too specific and targeting individual posts, examples includes some of the stuff around the ten commandments, and some of the oft highlighted contradictions in religions texts. This is surface level stuff. And, yes, there are many (/some) within religions who also operate at those levels...

Some argue that's mixing up the finger pointing at the moon, with the moon itself.

[electricghost]

For example, I don't believe aliens exist. I don't rule out the possibility that they might, in fact it might even be a probability, but as long as I don't know, I don't believe it. Equally, I don't believe they don't exist. In that respect, the term "belief" is largely unhelpful.

You have belief and knowledge the wrong way around. Knowledge is a subset of belief, belief comes first, knowledge comes afterwards.

There is nothing you can know without first believing it, but there are things you can believe without knowing it to be true.

It is why the belief is formed that is the important thing.


Another example would be do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow ?

We can't know that it will, but it is perfectly reasonable to believe that it will based entirely on evidence.

You couldn't say you know it will, but not believe that it will also.
 

[Corkboy]

Well, without being too specific and targeting individual posts, examples includes some of the stuff around the ten commandments, and some of the oft highlighted contradictions in religions texts. This is surface level stuff.

Could you give some examples of below surface stuff? You seem to be saying that there are levels to religion which those of us criticising it are missing. What might they be?

[Purple Red]

Please give an example.

I don't know. I don't understand belief without evidence, and once you have evidence then you're nearer to fact. I don't understand why anyone would accept the existence of something without evidence, if that's what belief is.

I don't understand spirituality either. There's no such thing as a spirit, or a spiritual dimension. There is zero evidence for it.

Life would be a little cold and clinical if all our beliefs were determined by traditional scientific evidence, don't you think? It's a fundamental part of bring a football fan for example. We all believe certain things about our team that make it a little more special than the actual hard evidence may suggest. That's not to take away from the importance of evidence in many walks of life.

[Corkboy]

You have belief and knowledge the wrong way around. Knowledge is a subset of belief, belief comes first, knowledge comes afterwards.

I either accept something is true, based on evidence, or I don't. For me, knowledge comes first. Belief is not really relevant or helpful.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

For example, I don't believe aliens exist. I don't rule out the possibility that they might, in fact it might even be a probability, but as long as I don't know, I don't believe it. Equally, I don't believe they don't exist. In that respect, the term "belief" is largely unhelpful.

You believe plenty of things that you don't know.

You might say that you are up with work other people have done and to an extent, that might be true. But I find it hard to believe that you've examined and understood the minutia of every single aspect of science, nature, reality, physics, chemistry and the like.

You might be dimly aware that someone may or may not have proven something, but for most things, you probably assume that's the case without ever proving it.

[Corkboy]

Life would be a little cold and clinical if all our beliefs were determined by traditional scientific evidence, don't you think?

No. In fact, I can't think why anyone would substitute any other form of examination.

It's a fundamental part of bring a football fan for example. We all believe certain things about our team that make it a little more special than the actual hard evidence may suggest.

Right, but we don't really believe those things if we're honest. It's just a tribal thing. If we're playing the Mancs and there's a penalty shout against us, I will swear up and down to any Manc that it was never a pen, but privately, with a fellow LFC fan, I will tell the truth.

[Yanwoo]

I don't know. I don't understand belief without evidence, and once you have evidence then you're nearer to fact. I don't understand why anyone would accept the existence of something without evidence, if that's what belief is.

I can respect that worldview. But I would suggest this is also a type of belief. You have a belief in your cognitive and sensory capabilities to be able to accurately detect, process and evaluate all available evidence, and then synthesis that evidence and draw conclusions that pass some threshold  - which you've determined based on those same cognitive capabilities - for them being 'true' or 'facts'.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

No. In fact, I can't think why anyone would substitute any other form of examination.

Right, but we don't really believe those things if we're honest. It's just a tribal thing. If we're playing the Mancs and there's a penalty shout against us, I will swear up and down to any Manc that it was never a pen, but privately, with a fellow LFC fan, I will tell the truth.

Do you believe in quantum entanglement? Do you believe that reality exists whether there has ever been an observer or not?

If there was never an observer for an object then it what way could it be proven to exist?

If you supersized quantum mechanics (For instance the famous cat) then do you believe it's alive or dead or both? Based on what?

[electricghost]

I either accept something is true, based on evidence, or I don't. For me, knowledge comes first. Belief is not really relevant or helpful.

belief
bɪˈliːf
noun
1.
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
"a belief in democratic politics"

You have belief based upon the definition that you posted.

[classycarra]

I tend to be most interested in the perspectives of people who have spent significant time genuinely on both sides e.g. atheists who have found religion, and religious folk who have left the flock.

Odd to omit rational, well-read lifelong atheists from this list. Is that a failure to empathise and comprehend that their perspective of religion still has just as much value as those who've got out/got in with religion?

[Corkboy]

You have belief based upon the definition that you posted.

You left out the "based on evidence".

[electricghost]

You left out the "based on evidence".

It makes no difference, the definition doesn't say how you came to the belief, it is simple the acceptance that something is true. The rest of the definition is an additional common usage that doesn't negate the first part.

[TepidT2O]

Life would be a little cold and clinical if all our beliefs were determined by traditional scientific evidence, don't you think? It's a fundamental part of bring a football fan for example. We all believe certain things about our team that make it a little more special than the actual hard evidence may suggest. That's not to take away from the importance of evidence in many walks of life.

For me, the evidence we have uncovered about how 'stuff' works makes life deeper, more wonderful, even more astonishingly beautiful.

On the flip side, belief in the face of evidence is a real issue. 

When asked why they had started smoking again, the response 'I believe the doctors are wrong' doth butter no parsnips ..

[vagabond]

I either accept something is true, based on evidence, or I don't. For me, knowledge comes first. Belief is not really relevant or helpful.

I assume, given your other posts around this site, that you hold aesthetic and political beliefs. I don't think there is a science of art or science of politics. These are domains in which beliefs aren't really anchored to objective facts but rather to subjective preferences of what counts as rational. For instance, "beauty is more important than realism in art" is a subjective belief, I'm not sure what facts about the world could settle a dispute like this. Do you think there are facts about the world that could settle a dispute like this?

[TepidT2O]

I assume, given your other posts around this site, that you hold aesthetic and political beliefs. I don't think there is a science of art or science of politics. These are domains in which beliefs aren't really anchored to objective facts but rather to subjective preferences of what counts as rational. For instance, "beauty is more important than realism in art" is a subjective belief, I'm not sure what facts about the world could settle a dispute like this. Do you think there are facts about the world that could settle a dispute like this?

Is the Mona Lisa a good piece of art?: Subjective.

Does my dog exist?: Factual

[vagabond]

Is the Mona Lisa a good piece of art:? Subjective.

Does my dog exist?: Factual

Indeed, the point is that we hold many beliefs that are not dependent on evidence but on our conceptual preferences.

[TepidT2O]

Indeed, the point is that we hold many beliefs that are not dependent on evidence but on our conceptual preferences.

Personally I think you've just described what I'd call 'an opinion'.

[Corkboy]

I assume, given your other posts around this site, that you hold aesthetic and political beliefs.

I don't. I have views, opinions, outlooks but I am fully aware that they are subjective and I don't think mine are right just because I hold them.

For example, I think Cormac McCarthy is a brilliant novelist. You may disagree but we both acknowledge that he writes books.

[Yanwoo]

Could you give some examples of below surface stuff? You seem to be saying that there are levels to religion which those of us criticising it are missing. What might they be?

The nature of reality, for example, which differs (at a high level) between non-dualistic and dualistic traditions. Part of the deeper immersion in the practices of some religions, for example, is understanding/interpreting that directly through experience, not through explicit knowledge (which is limited by language and is inherently an abstraction).

...and, of course, various schools of philosophy have interesting things to say the nature of reality as well.

[TepidT2O]

The nature of reality, for example, which differs (at a high level) between non-dualistic and dualistic traditions. Part of the deeper immersion in the practices of some religions, for example, is understanding/interpreting that directly through experience, not through explicit knowledge (which is limited by language and is inherently an abstraction).

...and, of course, various schools of philosophy have interesting things to say the nature of reality as well.

No offence, but does this actually mean anything?

[Corkboy]

I can respect that worldview. But I would suggest this is also a type of belief. You have a belief in your cognitive and sensory capabilities to be able to accurately detect, process and evaluate all available evidence, and then synthesis that evidence and draw conclusions that pass some threshold  - which you've determined based on those same cognitive capabilities - for them being 'true' or 'facts'.

It's not the type of belief we're discussing on this thread. To be clear, this thread is about belief in gods or the absence of same. There is close to zero evidence for the existence of a god, yet a majority of people on the planet believe in one. That's the starting point.

[Yanwoo]

Odd to omit rational, well-read lifelong atheists from this list. Is that a failure to empathise and comprehend that their perspective of religion still has just as much value as those who've got out/got in with religion?

Fair point! My comment was within a context which I probably should have made more explicit.

I'm definitely a fan of these learned folks, and appreciated their depth, and that carries for atheists and religious folk.

[Corkboy]

The nature of reality, for example, which differs (at a high level) between non-dualistic and dualistic traditions. Part of the deeper immersion in the practices of some religions, for example, is understanding/interpreting that directly through experience, not through explicit knowledge (which is limited by language and is inherently an abstraction).

...and, of course, various schools of philosophy have interesting things to say the nature of reality as well.

No offence, but does this actually mean anything?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It's not the type of belief we're discussing on this thread. To be clear, this thread is about belief in gods or the absence of same. There is close to zero evidence for the existence of a god, yet a majority of people on the planet believe in one. That's the starting point.

There is zero evidence that you actually exist. If you don't exist and have never existed then how would you prove it?

You might think you exist, but that's hardly proof. Reality itself might not exist. There are quite a few pointers that the chances of this universe being here now and us on it are so ridiculously remote that it's probably some kind of simulation.

If that were the case then all the things in it might 'think' they are 'alive' but there would be an overarching thing that actually controlled all the variables. We've seen from our crude technology that we can build worlds with things seemingly in it that exist and 'think' but they don't and even the controlling program doesn't 'think' in the usual sense of the word.

[Yorkykopite]

Life would be a little cold and clinical if all our beliefs were determined by traditional scientific evidence, don't you think?

Oddly enough the opposite appears to be true. The greater the scientific progress the more amazing and numinous the world seems. There's nothing in the Bible or the Koran that can match the sheer wonder of asteroid showers or DNA. They lack the imagination that comes with genuine openness to the mystery of the universe.

It's a fundamental part of bring a football fan for example. We all believe certain things about our team that make it a little more special than the actual hard evidence may suggest. That's not to take away from the importance of evidence in many walks of life.

Or indeed in football. From hard evidence that Chelsea won the league last year to softer evidence that Messi is better than Coutinho. We continue to hope and expect and believe in the future of Liverpool FC, and why not? Science makes no claims about the future. Only religion does that and it's called prophecy.

As for LFC being "more special". Sure they are to me. That's a form of love. It's entirely subjective. But I don't think we claim that Everton fans find Liverpool "more special". Or Stranraer fans for that matter. I can prove with hard evidence that we've won more trophies than these two clubs, but I can't prove that they evoke feelings in me that are superior to those evoked in their fans. Whereas religious texts based on revelation do claim to be special, whether people agree or not. Believers don't try to claim that the Bible has more 'trophies' than Darwin, as it were. They don't say - apart from complete nutters I suppose - that Genesis has a better explanation for the origin of species than Charlie did. They simply take something subjective and objectify it. In a sense they say "I feel that Liverpool evoke more special feelings in me, and everyone else too."

You believe plenty of things that you don't know.

You might say that you are up with work other people have done and to an extent, that might be true. But I find it hard to believe that you've examined and understood the minutia of every single aspect of science, nature, reality, physics, chemistry and the like.

You might be dimly aware that someone may or may not have proven something, but for most things, you probably assume that's the case without ever proving it.

I do "believe in plenty of things I don't know." And, no I don't claim to be "up with the work that other people have done" in most areas of science. I'm actually a science illiterate, and always have been. Nor do I feel the need to "prove" scientific conclusions myself.

But of course none of  these things are necessary for a person to have "faith" in scientific endeavour and achievement. I do know something about how scientists practice and I know their work is reviewed and that there is a constant and relentless process of challenge which often amounts to scientific "conclusions" being unproved or finessed or overturned or advanced upon. That's how the body of scientific thought advances. I have faith in that process because it works. That's a good enough for me, as it for billions. It should be.

Contrast that with religious belief. Scripture is never changed, never amended, never moderated, never scrutinised for error, never de-bunked (except scientists and historians and archaeologists of course). It is permanent and changeless. It has to be.  And that's why religious faith has nothing in common with the faith in science.

 

[Yanwoo]

No offence, but does this actually mean anything?

Ha! To me, it does. But I can see it's quite abstract and convoluted. And this is a problem when we try and drop deeper: language can be a clunky animal. Which is, arguably, why most debates of this kind focus on the more surface stuff because it's more concrete and language does a better job as a vehicle for discussion.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Oddly enough the opposite appears to be true. The greater the scientific progress the more amazing and numinous the world seems. There's nothing in the Bible or the Koran that can match the sheer wonder of asteroid showers or DNA. They lack the imagination that comes with genuine openness to the mystery of the universe.

Or indeed in football. From hard evidence that Chelsea won the league last year to softer evidence that Messi is better than Coutinho. We continue to hope and expect and believe in the future of Liverpool FC, and why not? Science makes no claims about the future. Only religion does that and it's called prophecy.

As for LFC being "more special". Sure they are to me. That's a form of love. It's entirely subjective. But I don't think we claim that Everton fans find Liverpool "more special". Or Stranraer fans for that matter. I can prove with hard evidence that we've won more trophies than these two clubs, but I can't prove that they evoke feelings in me that are superior to those evoked in their fans. Whereas religious texts based on revelation do claim to be special, whether people agree or not. Believers don't try to claim that the Bible has more 'trophies' than Darwin, as it were. They don't say - apart from complete nutters I suppose - that Genesis has a better explanation for the origin of species than Charlie did. They simply take something subjective and objectify it. In a sense they say "I feel that Liverpool evoke more special feelings in me, and everyone else too."

I do "believe in plenty of things I don't know." And, no I don't claim to be "up with the work that other people have done" in most areas of science. I'm actually a science illiterate, and always have been. Nor do I feel the need to "prove" scientific conclusions myself.

But of course none of  these things are necessary for a person to have "faith" in scientific endeavour and achievement. I do know something about how scientists practice and I know their work is reviewed and that there is a constant and relentless process of challenge which often amounts to scientific "conclusions" being unproved or finessed or overturned or advanced upon. That's how the body of scientific thought advances. I have faith in that process because it works. That's a good enough for me, as it for billions. It should be.

Contrast that with religious belief. Scripture is never changed, never amended, never moderated, never scrutinised for error, never de-bunked (except scientists and historians and archaeologists of course). It is permanent and changeless. It has to be.  And that's why religious faith has nothing in common with the faith in science.

 

I'd disagree that it's fixed. History shows you that it's been modified many times.

[TepidT2O]

There is zero evidence that you actually exist. If you don't exist and have never existed then how would you prove it?

You might think you exist, but that's hardly proof. Reality itself might not exist. There are quite a few pointers that the chances of this universe being here now and us on it are so ridiculously remote that it's probably some kind of simulation.

If that were the case then all the things in it might 'think' they are 'alive' but there would be an overarching thing that actually controlled all the variables. We've seen from our crude technology that we can build worlds with things seemingly in it that exist and 'think' but they don't and even the controlling program doesn't 'think' in the usual sense of the word.

If we make the assumption that reality exists, then here is clearly evidence he exists.

If reality doesn't exist then it doesn't matter anyway.

[Yanwoo]

It's not the type of belief we're discussing on this thread. To be clear, this thread is about belief in gods or the absence of same. There is close to zero evidence for the existence of a god, yet a majority of people on the planet believe in one. That's the starting point.

Understood. But we were on a slight detour focusing on the nature of belief, and you commented how you didn't understand how anyone could believe in something without evidence (I paraphrase, correct me if wrong). And I was pointing out, your approach also involves belief.

[Corkboy]

There is zero evidence that you actually exist.

In which case you're talking to yourself.