Reason To be athiest?

[Balerion]

I don't know about other's motives, thoughts or reasons but I am am Atheist because it is impossible(given my current knowledge)to accept the concept of a supernatural being. It just isn't credible to me, never has been. Supernatural concepts are, in my opinion, an artifact of our ignorant past, most of which are in their death throws in the educated portions of the world. Religions are being boiled down to only the most "conservative" and fundamentalist elements flailing around in an increasingly secular world, losing adherents and not gaining new ones. And that is a good thing.

Grumpy

Well, religions continue to grow, but that's largely because populations grow, and children of religious parents are considered to be of that religion. I think what's most interesting is that religion is becoming synonymous with the conservative fringe, while mainstream faith is becoming less and less specific, especially among the educated.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

You go with the evidence arguments; which suggests that you have accepted the premises that the atheists work with.

That seems to be the direction around here.

And if you believe in God "because you have evidence that leads you to believe in God," then this is an example of the gambling mindset, as explained earlier.

There's no need to gamble. What is there to lose?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

You know, at this point, an instruction like the one you give above, is likely to trigger just the opposite reaction (and the fight will continue).

Hope not.

(And btw, someone who would really do as you instruct and who would then understand God and religion - I doubt they'd still want to come talk to you. )

Actually the instruction was to TRY and understand God.
It's little discrepancies like that, that lead to a whole lot of misunderstanding.
With the person in question, his/her level of misunderstanding, mixed with his/her negative attidude are
so prominent, there seems no point in carrying on.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

wynn,



Actually the instruction was to TRY and understand God.
It's little discrepancies like that, that lead to a whole lot of misunderstanding.
With the person in question, his/her level of misunderstanding, mixed with his/her negative attidude are
so prominent, there seems no point in carrying on.

jan.

What it's more likely to be is that you've been called out on the carpet and have no good answer for your prattling nonsense, so you've resorted to vague injunctions such as "go study stuff" and "go figure out the real God" you can employ as distractions from the actual point. It's an intellectually bankrupt approach to discussion, and one of your favorite tactics.

 

[wynn]

That seems to be the direction around here.

If you go with it, it suggests you are agreeing with it. Ie., you might be (unknowingly) expressing agreement where you actually don't agree. So that's something for you to look into.

There's no need to gamble. What is there to lose?

You seem to be forgetting that the Western discourse on theism is firmly lodged within mainstream Christianity, with its threat of eternal damnation if one doesn't "get it right" in this one lifetime. And it is this Western discourse that you are participating in, so you should be aware of it.

From a Hindu perspective, there may indeed be nothing to lose; from the usual Christian Western one (and the majority of posters here are coming from this perspective, be they theists or atheists), there is everything to lose.

You know, at this point, an instruction like the one you give above, is likely to trigger just the opposite reaction (and the fight will continue).

Hope not.

Well, regardless of what you hope for, that opposite reaction has been triggered.

Actually the instruction was to TRY and understand God.

It's not clear how this changes anything in this case.

It's little discrepancies like that, that lead to a whole lot of misunderstanding.
With the person in question, his/her level of misunderstanding, mixed with his/her negative attidude are
so prominent, there seems no point in carrying on.

And again, you simply blame others and consider yourself a judge over their spiritual understanding and lack thereof.

Communicating for Change

These are a few points about giving classes and presentations that I have picked up. By learning about these you can gain a framework of reference that you can use to evaluate and categorize your experience of your own classes and the classes of others, and hopefully can use to improve your game. There is nothing worse than not having the conceptual vocabulary to describe or evaluate your performance. This leads to a feeling of hopelessness, fear of giving class, and difficulty in improving.

If people can't relate to what you're talking about – you don't have communication. Communication starts with what you have in common. You need to reach out and start from common ground to take people to unfamiliar ground. Throw most people in the deep end and they'll sink pretty fast. So you need to be sensitive to your audience.

So begin with audience in mind. Remember that they are the reason you are speaking. You are speaking for their benefit. Of course, from the absolute perspective you are speaking for your own benefit also, but speaking for their benefit is for your benefit. So think long and hard about them. Pray for them. Pray to be able to speak to their needs.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

If you go with it, it suggests you are agreeing with it. Ie., you might be (unknowingly) expressing agreement where you actually don't agree. So that's something for you to look into.

It may suggest that, and I dare say it could suggest other things depending on how you choose to interpret it.
The thing is to try not to interpret it, but take it at it's word, and if you still don't get it, ask for clarification.

You seem to be forgetting that the Western discourse on theism is firmly lodged within mainstream Christianity, with its threat of eternal damnation if one doesn't "get it right" in this one lifetime. And it is this Western discourse that you are participating in, so you should be aware of it.

The western discourse on theism has it's roots in the life of Jesus Christ, or at least the part which is in the Bible.
I simply choose to use that part of western theism in my discussion rather than start with the current notion. This is my whole point, ''real religion'' is from the source, and they all say the same thing according to time, place.....

From a Hindu perspective, there may indeed be nothing to lose; from the usual Christian Western one (and the majority of posters here are coming from this perspective, be they theists or atheists), there is everything to lose.

I'm not a Hindu, so I can't look at it from that perspective, so again I go the source, or at least as much of source as I can comprehend. Again it says the same thing.

Well, regardless of what you hope for, that opposite reaction has been triggered.

Then I shall talk to you, and refrain from talking to the person in question. If that's alright with you.

It's not clear how this changes anything in this case.

If it was your intention to imply that I understood God by saying ''after following my instruction they understand God'', then it would have been accurate say ''try to understand God'' as that is my actual position. IOW, you made me seem arrogant by implying I understand God, when in actuality I said, nor implied no such thing.

And again, you simply blame others and consider yourself a judge over their spiritual understanding and lack thereof.

I doubt there's any point in defending myself against these charges as it would fall on deaf ears, just like all the other times.

If people can't relate to what you're talking about – you don't have communication.

I don't believe the people in question can't relate, I've seen other conversations they have.

You need to reach out and start from common ground to take people to unfamiliar ground. Throw most people in the deep end and they'll sink pretty fast. So you need to be sensitive to your audience.

I don't think I've said anything that is hard to understand.
Can you give me an example?

jan.

 

[wynn]

The thing is to try not to interpret it, but take it at it's word, and if you still don't get it, ask for clarification.

And you tend to refuse such requests for clarification, saying they are distractions, don't matter etc. ...


Bottomline: The way (someone who identifies themselves as) a theist approaches communication with other people is part of his theistic arguments.
If said theist does not care about the needs, interests and concerns of the people he is talking to, then this way, he is indirectly saying that God also doesn't care about the needs, interests and concerns of people (and that when approaching God, one would do best to just give up all one's needs, interests and concerns).

You seem to be forgetting that the Western discourse on theism is firmly lodged within mainstream Christianity, with its threat of eternal damnation if one doesn't "get it right" in this one lifetime. And it is this Western discourse that you are participating in, so you should be aware of it.

The western discourse on theism has it's roots in the life of Jesus Christ, or at least the part which is in the Bible.
I simply choose to use that part of western theism in my discussion rather than start with the current notion. This is my whole point, ''real religion'' is from the source, and they all say the same thing according to time, place.....

Again, you are not considering where the people you are talking to most likely come from - and here at this forum, they mostly come from the Western discourse on theism that is firmly lodged within mainstream Christianity, with its threat of eternal damnation if one doesn't "get it right" in this one lifetime.

From a Hindu perspective, there may indeed be nothing to lose; from the usual Christian Western one (and the majority of posters here are coming from this perspective, be they theists or atheists), there is everything to lose.
I'm not a Hindu, so I can't look at it from that perspective, so again I go the source, or at least as much of source as I can comprehend. Again it says the same thing.

I don't think they all say the same things, I see no reason to believe they do.

If it was your intention to imply that I understood God by saying ''after following my instruction they understand God'', then it would have been accurate say ''try to understand God'' as that is my actual position. IOW, you made me seem arrogant by implying I understand God, when in actuality I said, nor implied no such thing.

I am quite sure that you believe you understand God. I am not the only one who thinks that of you.

In fact, I have never met a theist who wouldn't consider himself to understand God and who wouldn't consider himself to be able and called to pass judgment on other people.

The way you speak here at the forums, the judgments you pass on others - all this suggests that you believe you understand God, and that you believe that we do not.

And again, you simply blame others and consider yourself a judge over their spiritual understanding and lack thereof.

I doubt there's any point in defending myself against these charges as it would fall on deaf ears, just like all the other times.

How about considering those charges first?

If people can't relate to what you're talking about – you don't have communication.

I don't believe the people in question can't relate, I've seen other conversations they have.

Perhaps you were simply wrong: while to you, it seemed they related, they themselves didn't feel like they can.

I've had this happen to me several times: I didn't feel like I was able to relate to what they were saying, but the the theists took for granted that I did. If I pointed out that I didn't, I got accused of denial ...

You need to reach out and start from common ground to take people to unfamiliar ground. Throw most people in the deep end and they'll sink pretty fast. So you need to be sensitive to your audience.

I don't think I've said anything that is hard to understand.
Can you give me an example?

There are several assumptions that you may be making, but the other party does not, and vice versa, and these assumptions are crucial for communication, although they are sometimes difficult to put into words.

One such assumption is that God loves us and wishes us well (and that there is no eternal damnation). That assumption is not universally held.

Many people who grew up in the West make just the opposite assumption: that God doesn't love us and is perfectly willing and able to torment the majority of His children in hell for all eternity. This assumption can manifest in several ways; a common one is in the form of a basic lack of trust in God and theists, which is why discussions seem to get nowhere.
But to make matters worse, many theists don't seem to care about that, and instead pressure the other party and accuse them of lowly intentions and mental and moral deficiency. This pressure and accusations further lead the other party to believe that God really does not love them, which in turn makes them distrust theists even more.

If you want to get through to people, you need to understand what fears, what concerns they have, and address those first.

 

[pluto2]

My main reason for being an Atheist is that I see the unfairness and injustice in the world all around me every day.

Also there are many people living in terrible misery, extreme poverty and are in extreme pain which wouldn't be the case if there really was a loving God.

 

[James R]

wynn:

I doubt anyone believes in God on the grounds of evidence.
I also doubt anyone lacks belief in God on the grounds of evidence.

Funnily enough, when believers are polled on why they believe in God, their number 1 justification they usually give is some version of the argument from design.

I think that talking about evidence (whether it be talking about evidence for or against belief in God) is primarily a matter of self-image, a matter of how one presents oneself to other people and a matter of whom one wishes to convince of one's rightness or worthiness.

Are you arguing that all truth is subjective, then?

 

[wynn]

Funnily enough, when believers are polled on why they believe in God, their number 1 justification they usually give is some version of the argument from design.

What point would you like to make with saying the above?

Are you arguing that all truth is subjective, then?

No. I do think that matters of "belief in God" are a lot more complex than many theists as well as many atheists are willing (or able) to acknowledge.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

And you tend to refuse such requests for clarification, saying they are distractions, don't matter etc. ...

No I don't.

Bottomline: The way (someone who identifies themselves as) a theist approaches communication with other people is part of his theistic arguments.

???

If said theist does not care about the needs, interests and concerns of the people he is talking to, then this way, he is indirectly saying that God also doesn't care about the needs, interests and concerns of people (and that when approaching God, one would do best to just give up all one's needs, interests and concerns).

Really?

Again, you are not considering where the people you are talking to most likely come from - and here at this forum, they mostly come from the Western discourse on theism that is firmly lodged within mainstream Christianity, with its threat of eternal damnation if one doesn't "get it right" in this one lifetime.

I've just told you where i'm coming from regarding western understanding.

I don't think they all say the same things, I see no reason to believe they do.

And because you see no reason, it cannot be so?

Why not discuss it and explore the idea instead of killing it dead. That's the problem around here.

I am quite sure that you believe you understand God. I am not the only one who thinks that of you.

I've explained to you my position on that, and the damage such irresponsible inferrences can make.
What's the point in having a dicussion with someone who doesn't listen?

In fact, I have never met a theist who wouldn't consider himself to understand God and who wouldn't consider himself to be able and called to pass judgment on other people.

Why doesn't that surprise me about you?

The way you speak here at the forums, the judgments you pass on others - all this suggests that you believe you understand God, and that you believe that we do not.

I have managed to push you into giving me examples of this in the past, and they're based on the very attitude
you display now. IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD. You don't listen.

How about considering those charges first?

I considered them upon reading them.

Perhaps you were simply wrong:

Perhaps i'm not.

There are several assumptions that you may be making, but the other party does not, and vice versa, and these assumptions are crucial for communication, although they are sometimes difficult to put into words.

Such as?
Can you give examples from this thread?

One such assumption is that God loves us and wishes us well (and that there is no eternal damnation). That assumption is not universally held.

Then accept, deny, or wait till the answer becomes clear.

Many people who grew up in the West make just the opposite assumption: that God doesn't love us and is perfectly willing and able to torment the majority of His children in hell for all eternity. This assumption can manifest in several ways; a common one is in the form of a basic lack of trust in God and theists, which is why discussions seem to get nowhere.

My concern doesn't revolve around people in the west.
I've told you at least 2-3 billion times. There's nothing that says discussion about religion
has to be centered around peeps in the west.

But to make matters worse, many theists don't seem to care about that, and instead pressure the other party and accuse them of lowly intentions and mental and moral deficiency.

Nonsense.
You don't listen, and you infer, and go off on tangents. I've called you on it, but you ignore it and
carry on regardless.

If you want to get through to people, you need to understand what fears, what concerns they have, and address those first.

What do you mean ''get through to people?

And how do know they have fears and/or concerns?


jan

 

[Balerion]

What point would you like to make with saying the above?

That you are wrong about theists not believing in God on the grounds of evidence. Quite obviously, many people do.

No. I do think that matters of "belief in God" are a lot more complex than many theists as well as many atheists are willing (or able) to acknowledge.

What makes you say this? What evidence do you base this on?

 

[kx000]

That you are wrong about theists not believing in God on the grounds of evidence. Quite obviously, many people do.



What makes you say this? What evidence do you base this on?

WHAT EVIDENCE?

How do you supply evidence that the ultimate being is not out there?

 

[SciWriter]

How do you supply evidence that the ultimate being is not out there?

Via self-contradiction, which is the only way.

 

[spidergoat]

There is evidence God doesn't exist. Not all possible gods but the common conceptions of him. Of course we cannot refute every conception, but most of those are meaningless enough to dismiss using the Razor of Occam.

 

[gmilam]

No evidence for god. No evidence against the generic concept of "god"... No evidence - period. Introducing the concept of a god does not answer any questions... in fact, it introduces an extra layer of complexity.

While I cannot definitively say there is NO "god"*, I see no reason to include the idea. It seems like superfluous baggage.

(* God - generic term, used under the creative commons license.)

 

[kx000]

Via self-contradiction, which is the only way.

Explain, please.

There is evidence God doesn't exist. Not all possible gods but the common conceptions of him. Of course we cannot refute every conception, but most of those are meaningless enough to dismiss using the Razor of Occam.

Refute mine. He is out there, all around us, in, and out, black, white, yellow, blue, and lion. Disprove me.

 

[spidergoat]

Then He is indistinguishable from His absence and the notion can be dismissed as irrelevant.

 

[kx000]

Then He is indistinguishable from His absence and the notion can be dismissed as irrelevant.

It is merely complex. You can not deny me.

God is in, out, and all around every single one of us.

 

[spidergoat]

Then He is meaningless. For example, I just willed with my mind to move the entire universe one foot to my left. Would you notice the difference? No.