God - do you believe?

[Ser Greguh]

I don't really see atheists as advocates of science. Reeeeeeeally don't. Nor do I see religious people as the enemies of science. It's not even applicable as a general statement ('most atheists are.....most religious people aren't.....'). Tons of religious people are involved in science.

Edit: and they are not a 'group'. certainly not a group of the intelligentsia. just individuals.

Not quite sure what your point is. That atheists are likely to accept a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is true almost by definition.

No, atheists are not a cabal of hive-mind thinkers (in fact many of us argue that its our propensity for free-thinking and open-mindedness that allows us to reject religion in the first place), and certainly there are religious scientists doing good work (although >90% of the US's National Academy of Sciences self-identifies as atheist, as opposed to ~10% of the general population, so let's not pretend that there isn't a strong demographic leaning here). It's true that atheists are individuals but there are certainly patterns at work in most atheists' thought processes that are 1) different from those of religious people, and 2) fairly uniform. Evidence-based thinking is one of those patterns.

[Eponine]

Fragile Bird, on 08 November 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

But, to get back to my question above (which you seem to have misinterpreted as some kind of aspersion against my gratitude for sleeping beneath your protective blanket, the proverbial blanket of moral superiority, I assume?) what do you call the hunger within, if no soul resides within?

If I'm not hungry within and don't really know what you mean, does that mean I have no soul, or that I have enough to not want seconds?

Like x1000

This was one of the first two things that started me moving away from Christianity - being told that I had a hunger and everyone had a longing in their soul and blah blah and it could only be filled by god even if we were desperately trying to fill it with other things. I looked within my nine year old lack-of-soul and didn't feel the things I was told that I felt. The popular substitute fillers were sex, drugs and alcohol, or so I was told, but having no experience with any of those things, I put it on the back burner. By the time I was in college and able to make a better assessment, nope, wasn't desperately filling my life with anything to try to satisfy an inner longing. But given my circumstances at home, I fucking tried. I beat myself up over trying to make myself feel a need for god. I tried to interpret my need for a need for god as a need for god (I guess it was a need to be accepted by my family, community and myself for who I was, but since they couldn't accept me for who I was then I would become someone they could accept - i.e. someone with a belief in god). If this sounds convoluted, it was. But 21 years later, I can say that just because some people think they have a soul because they have a "spiritual hunger" of some sort doesn't mean it's a universal experience or one that can be forced upon anyone else.

[LuisDantas]

The thing is, if you make simpler choices, then you get into being ‘very much an Atheist’. In my ‘crackpot’ definition here, I am just ‘an Atheist’.

The point being...?

[straits]

there are certainly patterns at work in most atheists' thought processes that are 1) different from those of religious people, and 2) fairly uniform. Evidence-based thinking is one of those patterns.

Evidence based thinking? Because a religious person would see a body, a smoking gun in a bystander's hand, and think 'God did this'? That's evidence based thinking in simple form.

Are you saying that a religious person has a fundamentally different brain structure from an atheist? That they short-circuit the logical thought process with the word 'god'?

(although >90% of the US's National Academy of Sciences self-identifies as atheist, as opposed to ~10% of the general population, so let's not pretend that there isn't a strong demographic leaning here)

Because the general population is reputedly a bunch of idiots? I am not from the US; I was raised in a strongly Orthodox Christian community and later spent most of my puberty in a largely Islamic area. And most of the people whom I have spoken to, who do believe in a god, tend to disconnect the consideration of a deity when they look for clues to a problem presented. The belief in a god is not synonymous to taking out evidence based thinking, nor is it the norm. Your demographic is circumstantial. Most of Iranian military engineers and scientists follow a religion. Does that give me the back-up evidence needed to say that most straight thinking people believe in a higher power? It is always, always down to the individual I'm afraid. Newton was Christian, is that supposed to give me sway to claim that evidence-based thinkers believe in god? Euler? Avicenna a muslim?

It would also be good to distinguish between a religious person and a theist.

[LuisDantas]

I would posit that a 7 on that scale requires intellectual dishonesty.

I can see that some people sincerely feel that way, but I will point out that due to the very nature of the concept of God I am well entitled to know for a fact that he does not exist. It comes from the impossibility of proving that he does exist.

You will notice that the definiton of a level 7 atheist implies "being as certain (that God does not exist)" as Jung is that he does.

Modesty be damned, if it is at all humanly possible to know for a fact that God does not exist, then I have attained that level.

And it comes easily.

[straits]

To add one more thing - an atheist who has not bothered to acquaint themselves with the explanation of existence they prefer, is very similar in attitude to a deeply religious zealot. Both accept someone else's answer without bothersome evidence :D

[straits]

I can see that some people sincerely feel that way, but I will point out that due to the very nature of the concept of God I am well entitled to know for a fact that he does not exist. It comes from the impossibility of proving that he does exist.

You will notice that the definiton of a level 7 atheist implies "being as certain (that God does not exist)" as Jung is that he does.

Modesty be damned, if it is at all humanly possible to know for a fact that God does not exist, then I have attained that level.

And it comes easily.

:bowdown:

Verily did he come unto our world and spread the light of knowledge :P

[SerMixalot]

Spend time in a pediatric cancer unit and come back and tell me about god.

[Call me Odie]

No, I'm a scientist.

[straits]

Spend time in a pediatric cancer unit and come back and tell me about god.

Your Lord Father our God works in mysterious ways. Also, the like function is back.

[SerMixalot]

Your Lord Father our God works in mysterious ways. Also, the like function is back.

Look in the eyes of a 8 year old with luekemia, without hair, in constant pain and tell me that a god that would allow that is worth worshipping.

[Ser Greguh]

That they short-circuit the logical thought process with the word 'god'?

The rest of your post is meandering that doesn't need a response, but when it comes to whatever they apply the word "god" to, yes. This is precisely what they do. This is not to imply that a theist does so all the time, or that there aren't subjects where a theist may use evidence-based thinking as well, but insofar as god exists as an entity in their heads, it is used to short-circuit evidence-based reasoning. That's why it's called "faith". Faith is the opposite of reason. It explicitly calls upon the believer to abandon evidence-based thinking and accept a specific story for which there is no evidence, and for which there may often be a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

I was not saying that atheists differ from theists because they possess the capability for rational thought while theists do not; that would be ridiculous, of course. I'm saying that theists (sometimes temporarily) abandon that rational thought for items that they take on faith (because that's exactly what faith is), and that atheists are uniform in their rejection of that process.

[Reposado]

I was not saying that atheists differ from theists because they possess the capability for rational thought while theists do not; that would be ridiculous, of course. I'm saying that theists (sometimes temporarily) abandon that rational thought for items that they take on faith (because that's exactly what faith is), and that atheists are uniform in their rejection of that process.

so atheists never abandon rational thought and take items on faith?

perhaps they do it less, but they certainly do it

[Ser Greguh]

To add one more thing - an atheist who has not bothered to acquaint themselves with the explanation of existence they prefer, is very similar in attitude to a deeply religious zealot. Both accept someone else's answer without bothersome evidence :D

Untrue. Many atheists don't bother to acquaint themselves with an explanation of existence they prefer because they are willing to admit they are not capable of gauging the subtleties of all the possible scientific explanations and determining which one has the greatest scientific merit, or because they simply do not care. However that does not preclude them from the rejection of stories that are obviously false because those stories explicitly call for a reliance on faith, rather than reason.

There are multiple competing scientific ideas as to the process of abiogenesis, for example. I don't have a favored one as I am not nearly qualified enough in biology to determine which of them presents the strongest argument. This, however, does not preclude me from rejection of the obviously ridiculous creation myth contained in Genesis, because that myth contradicts a great deal of information that I am much more familiar with.

[Ser Greguh]

so atheists never abandon rational thought and take items on faith?

perhaps they do it less, but they certainly do it

No, we really don't.

You may be confusing "faith" with "trust". The two are separate things.

[ManyFacedMember]

The point being...?

I don't know. I just can't fully relate number 7 with being 'very much atheist'

It sounds like 5.8-6

[Reposado]

No, we really don't.

You may be confusing "faith" with "trust". The two are separate things.

explain the difference. i've seen many atheists and non-religious folk take many things on faith and irrationally believe in various artifacts.

for the record, i'm a 5 maybe 5.5 ish

[naz]

I wish you people on both sides would stop attempting to speak for "most" or "many" religious people/theists/atheists. Speak for yourself; otherwise, shut the fuck up.

[Sci-2]

I wish you people on both sides would stop attempting to speak for "most" or "many" religious people/theists/atheists. Speak for yourself; otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Perfec[t] timing for the return of the like button.

[Ser Greguh]

explain the difference. i've seen many atheists and non-religious folk take many things on faith and irrationally believe in various artifacts.

for the record, i'm a 5 maybe 5.5 ish

Trust is taking someone's word for something without a need to examine the evidence they used to form their conclusion. Faith is the explicit appeal to reject the entire notion of evidence with regard to some conclusion.

When your girlfriend comes home from work and says she had a bad day, you are likely to trust her, not to reject her hypothesis unless she provides evidence to support that conclusion. That is an appeal to trust. When someone tells me that an all-knowing, all-powerful god exists but explicitly requires his followers to believe without evidence, that is an appeal to faith.

Atheism is not necessarily synonymous with rationality, though I would argue that atheists in general trend more toward rationality in the general sense. Atheists may still process data badly of put their trust in untrustworthy sources.

And it is possible for someone to be atheistic with regard to a specific deity but not a philosophical atheist in the general sense. Most Christians are atheists when it comes to Zeus, and don't believe in Unicorns, but still apply faith when it comes to their religious beliefs. Someone with an incorrect definition of atheism may self-identify as an atheist when in truth they may be atheistic only to a very narrow field of inquiries, the Christian god included.