Justify atheism. Please

[Buster Highmen]

Don't confuse believing with thinking, they are 2 very different modes of conceptual honking.

I've said this before: I hoped that the enlightenment was the beginning of people beginning to value the process of scientific thinking, the nature of scientific theory over the modes of belief. All the cool shit that science has brought about is based on looking at wads of data, where we have to have a very flexible grip on what that data "means", and coming up with models that allow us to manipulate the phenomenon that data supposedly represents. I still think quantum mechanics and one of it's crown jewels, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a summit of human thought.

Theories are supposed to be challenged. Belief is not, even though lots of believers claim that beliefs should be challenged, but there's no basis for challenging a belief.

Faith, hope and dreams all have their place in the stadiums of mental activity and for a lot of people, they serve a function.

So, I think Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is a theory.

As usual, I like what the Rev had to p00t. I guess the thing I find most attractive about theories and Agnosticism is the sense of wonder.

I do think we've rescinded into modes of belief more now that the informational age and fake news has hit.

[El Chupacabra]

I saw the sign and it opened up my eyes, I saw the sign. Life is demanding without understanding. I saw the sign and it opened up my eyes, I saw the sign. No one's gonna drag you up to get into the light where you belong. But where do you belong?

From that same book of proverbs, I quote:

At night, when you turn off all the lights - There's no place that you can hide. Oh no. The rhythm is gonna get you.


Think about it.

[jono]

...the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a summit of human thought.

Theories are supposed to be challenged. Belief is not, even though lots of believers claim that beliefs should be challenged, but there's no basis for challenging a belief.

Agreed. It bears noting that your definition of belief differs from how the term is usually used by a believer who wishes to have her beliefs challenged: if I read you right, your definition is fundamental--that which is accepted by faith without logical extrapolation--and theirs is often broader, including their extrapolations.

People who see the world through a combination of faith and observation often seek to be challenged as to any one of the three: belief, observation, or logical extrapolation. While many are protective of belief, this is not universal, and a great many others are interested in challenging the logic of their extrapolations. Ironically, these folks are less likely to be married to their extrapolations so deeply as to make them resemble belief (in comparison to more close-minded believers) but the term is still used.

Obviously "believer" in this context can apply equally to atheists, Christians, or Scientologists. I find the set of people interested in being challenged is strongly correlated with interesting thinkers.

[char_]

I don’t get the rampant militant atheism these days.

Agnosticism is the privilege and indulgence of youth, skepticism and rational thought. In my youth, it was the acceptance of not knowing.

In the last 10 or 20 years it seems all the people that would have been agnostic are now militant atheist.

Why?

As a self reflexive bag of water, a meat coated skeleton, an illogical higher order homeostatic freak of nature and violator of the laws of entropy, how can you be sure of anything?

More specifically, how can you be so cock sure there is nothing greater than you and your limited sense of energy density reality?

I’m not saying you should believe in anything, but why deny the existence of anything beyond your limited bizzare self?

Athiests and agnostics make up something like 3-5 percent of the US population. Evangelicals make up 26 percent of the us population.

Are you complaining because you had some interaction with an athiest that made you uncomfortable?

I get bombarded with religious certainty everyday. From the preacher in the street to the coworker saying "I'll pray for you" to the nonsense being inserted into our schools and politics. So, sorry, for your interaction with the odd athiest who has a strong opinion.

[char_]

Agreed. It bears noting that your definition of belief differs from how the term is usually used by a believer who wishes to have her beliefs challenged: if I read you right, your definition is fundamental--that which is accepted by faith without logical extrapolation--and theirs is often broader, including their extrapolations.

People who see the world through a combination of faith and observation often seek to be challenged as to any one of the three: belief, observation, or logical extrapolation. While many are protective of belief, this is not universal, and a great many others are interested in challenging the logic of their extrapolations. Ironically, these folks are less likely to be married to their extrapolations so deeply as to make them resemble belief (in comparison to more close-minded believers) but the term is still used.

Obviously "believer" in this context can apply equally to atheists, Christians, or Scientologists. I find the set of people interested in being challenged is strongly correlated with interesting thinkers.

This is probably up for debate, but the textbook definition of an athiest is the absence of belief in a diety.

[Bunion 2020]

Justify your Faith.

IMHO there is plenty that we do not understand.

Also IMHO, Faith in a Divine Being stems from that lack of understanding and is one way to find some comfort and surety in a life that is random and often makes little sense.

If having that Faith brings you comfort and most importantly allows you to live a good life and treat fellow humans better, good stuff!

Too bad that such a fine concept keeps getting abused in the name of control, power and money.

[splat]

And people who say they know are generally suspect.

Because they use their supposed 'Knowledge" as a control mechanism. See TV evangelists.

As for OP's amazement that former agnostics are now militant atheists.....See political evangelists.

[Buster Highmen]

This is probably up for debate, but the textbook definition of an athiest is the absence of belief in a diety.

Queue the OED definition (the above) and a path we've been down. So let me put it this way: Atheism is belief relative. Agnostic is 'not knowing'.

btw, I didn't really define "belief", I just contrasted it with scientific thought. I had hoped that "knowing" was more a function of scientific thinking than belief, but your muleage may vary.

[Vt-Freeheel]

How many of the estimated 320 million God’s do you believe in?

Just one

[jono]

I had hoped that "knowing" was more a function of scientific thinking than belief, but your muleage may vary.

More relevant to concept than as a glossary:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

[Buster Highmen]

What I mean to get at when I reference the enlightenment is that I hoped that "knowing" was, as a result of the enlightenment, more subject to the scientific process than belief.

[char_]

Queue the OED definition (the above) and a path we've been down. So let me put it this way: Atheism is belief relative. Agnostic is 'not knowing'.

btw, I didn't really define "belief", I just contrasted it with scientific thought. I had hoped that "knowing" was more a function of scientific thinking than belief, but your muleage may vary.

Yeah, we've done this before. Was considering tracking down the old thread.

More interested in OPs experience with "militant athiests", whatever that means.

[jono]

A more vocal strain of atheists takes the definition a step further by believing in the absence of a deity. These are probably a small minority of those meeting the dictionary definition, but would more accurately meet OP's description. It is fairly common to use 'agnostic' to differentiate as had been done here.

[riser4]

This a good 'un. I am still fucking pissed about having had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in grade school.

[GeezerSteve]

"Atheist" and "agnostic" have been assigned various definitions, some inconsistent with one another, and both are laden with undeserved connotations.

The more workable term is "non-believer." "Skeptic" is another useful term.

AFAICT, these alleged "militant atheists" would be better called "nihilists." I've never actually met one. IMO, Christopher Hitchens didn't go that far, although some Christians have claimed otherwise. If "militant atheists" do exist, they are rare, and some of them may be false flag shills for the Christians-as-victims movement.

[Buster Highmen]

This a good 'un. I am still fucking pissed about having had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in grade school.

the "under God" was inserted during the McCarthy scare era of the 50s:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Ple...tes-of-America .

Evidence of scientific recidivism.

[char_]

I am getting bogged down by the word militant. Is there some strain of Militant Athiesm ala Militant Christianity or Militant Islam perpetrating violence that I am unaware of? Or did OP mean activist Athiests?

[GeezerSteve]

Well, OP said "militant." But I hear ya. It's nonsensical to deem someone "militant" merely because they lack belief in a deity.

[AK47bp]

I have total faith in "nothingism", its hard to describe and justify to the non-believers of nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[hutash]

Queue the OED definition (the above) and a path we've been down. So let me put it this way: Atheism is belief relative. Agnostic is 'not knowing'.

btw, I didn't really define "belief", I just contrasted it with scientific thought. I had hoped that "knowing" was more a function of scientific thinking than belief, but your muleage may vary.

No it's not. Atheism is without god(s), agnostic is without knowledge. Even hardcore believers are atheists about all gods but one. I just take it that last step. The best evidence points to no god, so that's where I go. If better evidence is presented I will change...nothing radical about that, or gravity for that matter.

[Game Over]

Anyone ever had an atheist knock on thier door in an attempt to convert them?

[riser4]

Anyone ever had an atheist knock on thier door in an attempt to convert them?

Door to door nothing salesmen?

[riser4]

i got this one

It would be perfect for me. Nothing to sell means that there is no need to even knock on your door.

[Mofro261]

It would be perfect for me. Nothing to sell means that there is no need to even knock on your door.

Yeah unfortunately the position is commission only.

[TBS]

I’ve only ever had Momos and JWs come to the door proselytizing.

I tell them I follow the eight-fold path
Invariably they say “what’s that?”
I say “Buddhism”
They say “I don’t know much about that”

I say “how can you sell your faith when you haven’t done any competitive analysis? You need to explain why your faith is better than all the others before we go any further”

They mumble something and leave.