Why can't theists accept that atheist exist?

[Keith&Co.]

Enacting legislation to prevent Homosexual couples from marrying is a classic example of legislating morality.

Not to me, it's not.

Morality is internal. It's doing the right thing for the right reasons.

To me, not killing other people because all humans have a right to live is moral.
Not killing other people because I'm too lazy to clean the guns is not a moral stance.
Believing that I'm a brain in a jar, and all you fuckers are delusions, but I choose not to kill you because I figure my subconscious guilt will drive me to invent a prison sentence experience and that's not how I want to spend my time in the jar, that's not terribly moral.

Legislation only covers behavior. As far as legislation goes, not killing is okay, no matter what my motivation is.

If a god-fearing person thinks we shouldn't have gay marriage or gaysex or gaydoption, that's their lookout. Making it illegal does nothing to affect my morality, because I don't believe in any gods who have any opinion on gaysex.

I know many are convinced they're saving me from my lack of morality by legislating my behavior IAW their moral code, but it's only surface changes, surface limitations. Nothing Congress can do is going to change my morals.

 

[Atheos]

I get your point, which I might add is entirely semantic. When I use the phrase "legislating morality" I tend to think in terms of laws that are enacted only to curtail behavior that offends the moral views of certain people. I agree it is impossible to enact legislation that forces someone to accept one or more moral values. That's more in the area of brainwashing than legislation.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh good. You'll then stop telling the church or its members what to do or how to behave.

Clearly psychological abuse is something they must keep doing, and we must blindly respect their beliefs when they call us worthless.

 

[Lion IRC]

I can't be unfaithful or infidel towards something that doesn't exist...

Maybe they misunderstand your assertion that God "doesn't exist."
Perhaps they see this as a fact claim or a firmly held belief.

If you think God doesn't exist, you can hardly plead agnosticism.

 

[Lion IRC]

“We don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”
G.K. Chesterton

 

[iolo]

I think the problem is that top call yourself an atheist is still to define yourself in terms of a 'theos', or god. It seems to me that this particular discussion should be left in the Nineteenth Century where it belongs, and that we should just define ourselves as 'normal'.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think the problem is that top call yourself an atheist is still to define yourself in terms of a 'theos', or god.

That seems fine to me.
So MANY elements of our culture are wrapped up in how we approach the various superstitions involving the gods and their followers, the rules and the hierarchies, saying 'I'm not one of those' is faster than using a term which will require discussion and explanation.
Of course, Atheist also needs explanations, but it's a shortcut.

 

[Juma]

“We don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”
G.K. Chesterton

You dont know that a lot know a lot more than you.
Me.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think the problem is that top call yourself an atheist is still to define yourself in terms of a 'theos', or god. It seems to me that this particular discussion should be left in the Nineteenth Century where it belongs, and that we should just define ourselves as 'normal'.

As the majority of the world's population holds some theistic belief, it is the theists that are 'normal'. You may try using 'rational' if you don't like the description of atheist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the problem is that top call yourself an atheist is still to define yourself in terms of a 'theos', or god. It seems to me that this particular discussion should be left in the Nineteenth Century where it belongs, and that we should just define ourselves as 'normal'.

As the majority of the world's population holds some theistic belief, it is the theists that are 'normal'. You may try using 'rational' if you don't like the description of atheist.

But just because they're an atheist doesn't mean that they're rational. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any communists or libertarians around.

It's correct to have atheists define themselves in terms of a god, since that's the only context in which the word has any meaning. On the question of whether or not there's a god, we're saying no - that's the full definition. Trying to avoid the usage of the word in that context is like trying to tell somebody that you're wearing a green shirt without referencing colour.

 

[ronburgundy]

They do. Still not enough to make the uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance go away, hence all the other bizarre arguments about desires being related to the validity of truth claims.

- - - Updated - - -

Faith is inherently a state of uncertainty (unless the believer is delusional).

Not having a sound foundation, the things that are believed need constant reinforcement through fellowship and general agreement to bolster that which is held on faith, to show that what one believes to be true, is indeed true.

Atheists are of course the spanner in the works...so how to deal with them? The strategy mentioned in the OP is but one way of dealing with the threat to faith.

I don't think you understand something basic about most theists. To them, faith is a valid path to the truth. It is not an admission of uncertainty, it is an admission that they accept conclusions without good reason to do so.

Many go even further and insist that evidence and reason are inferior paths to the truth.

Virtually all theists ultimately know that faith is an invalid epistemology and that empirical evidence is required for true knowledge. They demonstrate this every single day by the fact that whenever accurate knowledge is vital to their physical survival, they choose empirical evidence and reason over faith. They only choose faith as an epistemology when being objectively wrong doesn't threaten their own well being. Faith is nothing more than an act of self delusion. Only the truly mentally ill can pull it off without being plaugued by fears of uncertainty. And when the lie is as absurd as that of monotheism, it requires constant and vigilant avoidance of reality. That is a major function of ritual, to help maintain the lie. Acting as though something is true helps trick our minds into believing it. Religious ritual is about acting as though its absurd notions are true. The fear that underlies faith is also the root of its aggression toward the unfaithful (or any other faith). The mere exposure to any alternative is a threat, because their is no reason to believe any theistic claim outside of not considering any alternative. This leaves those trying to protect their faith with only 2 options: fight or flight. They either must aggressively attack doubters so as to paint doubt itself as immoral, or actively flee and avoid thinking about their own beliefs and compartmentalize them. Both approaches undermine reasoned thought, its just that the latter (the approach of religious "moderates") does so in a passive aggressive rather than aggressive aggressive way.

 

[James Brown]

I was thinking about this on Sunday morning. My wife and I went out to breakfast, and at Peak Church Time, the restaurant was filling up nicely. I'm looking at the people in line to order food and I asked myself, "All of these people--here in the restaurant, on the roads, at the grocery store--why aren't they in church?"

How many of these people (I have no way to answer this, of course) never go to church; never read scriptures; never pray on a regular, non-social occasion, never ask themselves "What would God want me to do?" when about to make a decision? And yet how many of them would never, ever say that they weren't a Christian, or weren't religious? How many of them would never dream of saying they were atheists, or simply non-religious?

In other words, what's the difference between a person who never acts religious in any way at any time, and a non-religious person?

 

[ronburgundy]

In other words, what's the difference between a person who never acts religious in any way at any time, and a non-religious person?

honesty

 

[James Brown]

In other words, what's the difference between a person who never acts religious in any way at any time, and a non-religious person?

honesty

I think you're right.

That might make for a good meme. If someone sputters, "I ain't no atheist!" simply reply, "That's funny, because you sure act like one."

 

[Underseer]

They do. Still not enough to make the uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance go away, hence all the other bizarre arguments about desires being related to the validity of truth claims.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't think you understand something basic about most theists. To them, faith is a valid path to the truth. It is not an admission of uncertainty, it is an admission that they accept conclusions without good reason to do so.

Many go even further and insist that evidence and reason are inferior paths to the truth.

Virtually all theists ultimately know that faith in an invalid epistemology and that empirical evidence is required for true knowledge. They demonstrate this every single day by the fact that whenever accurate knowledge is vital to their physical survival, they choose empirical evidence and reason over faith. They only choose faith as an epistemology when being objectively wrong doesn't threaten their own well being. Faith is nothing more than an act of self delusion. Only the truly mentally ill can pull it off without being plaugued by fears of uncertainty. And when the lie is as absurd as that of monotheism, it requires constant and vigilant avoidance of reality. That is a major funtion of ritual, to help maintain the lie. Acting as though something is true helps trick our minds into believing it. Religious ritual is about acting as though its absurd notions are true. The fear that underlies faith is also the root of its aggression toward the unfaithful (or any other faith). The mere exposure to any alternative is a threat, because their is no reason to believe any theistic claim outside of not considering any alternative. This leaves those trying to protect their faith with only 2 options: fight or flight. They either must aggressively attack doubters so as to paint doubt itself as immoral, or actively flee and avoid thinking about their own beliefs and compartmentalize them. Both approaches undermine reasoned thought, its just that the latter (the approach of religious "moderates") does so in a passive aggressive rather than aggressive aggressive way.

False. This is simply false.

It is certainly true of moderate theists, but for those of a more fundamentalist bent this is absolutely not the case.

Not only do they see faith as a valid epistemology, they consider it the best--possibly only--epistemology and genuinely look down on those who insist on using evidence to evaluate truth claims. The more extreme ones insist that faith itself counts as a form of evidence.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

^ It is pretty rare that people will turn to faith healing instead of legit medical science, but yes, it does happen. Those are the true believers.... the ones who have lost all sense of rationality.... but at least they mean what they say and are intellectually honest.

 

[ronburgundy]

Virtually all theists ultimately know that faith in an invalid epistemology and that empirical evidence is required for true knowledge. They demonstrate this every single day by the fact that whenever accurate knowledge is vital to their physical survival, they choose empirical evidence and reason over faith. They only choose faith as an epistemology when being objectively wrong doesn't threaten their own well being. Faith is nothing more than an act of self delusion. Only the truly mentally ill can pull it off without being plaugued by fears of uncertainty. And when the lie is as absurd as that of monotheism, it requires constant and vigilant avoidance of reality. That is a major funtion of ritual, to help maintain the lie. Acting as though something is true helps trick our minds into believing it. Religious ritual is about acting as though its absurd notions are true. The fear that underlies faith is also the root of its aggression toward the unfaithful (or any other faith). The mere exposure to any alternative is a threat, because their is no reason to believe any theistic claim outside of not considering any alternative. This leaves those trying to protect their faith with only 2 options: fight or flight. They either must aggressively attack doubters so as to paint doubt itself as immoral, or actively flee and avoid thinking about their own beliefs and compartmentalize them. Both approaches undermine reasoned thought, its just that the latter (the approach of religious "moderates") does so in a passive aggressive rather than aggressive aggressive way.

False. This is simply false.

It is certainly true of moderate theists, but for those of a more fundamentalist bent this is absolutely not the case.

Not only do they see faith as a valid epistemology, they consider it the best--possibly only--epistemology and genuinely look down on those who insist on using evidence to evaluate truth claims. The more extreme ones insist that faith itself counts as a form of evidence.

Their defense of faith is just another act of dishonesty. I agree that they claim faith is valid, but they are lying. The proof is in their everday actions, which even the most devout rely upon evidence and not faith for almost every decision where being wrong matters in a direct and harmful way. Do they let their kids drink bleach? No, because empirical information says not to. Do they run in front of cars? No, because empirical evidence and reason say not to. Do they go on red and stop on green? No, because empirical evidence and reason say not to. Do they eat raw chicken? No, because empirical evidence and reason say not to.

Every single day, every single theist makes hundreds of choices that matter for their immediate survival and those they care for, and they use evidence and reason over faith almost every single time in these situations.

 

[fast]

This is a trend I have noticed in a ton of theists. They say that atheists reject God, rebel against God, are unfaithful to God. It is right there in the words "Infidel" and "Kaffir" (one who rejects). What is the reason behind this?

I tell them that I can't be rejecting or rebelling against God, because I see no God to reject or rebel against. I can't be unfaithful or infidel towards something that doesn't exist... but they simply won't accept that.

Is admitting that people exist who don't believe in God a threat to their own belief?
Is it merely because the holy books and preachers say it, so they believe it?
Is it just such an alien concept to them that they are actually incapable of contemplating it?
It it to justify their hatred or prejudice towards us? They have to project that we are against them?
Is it a combination of the above?
Is it something else?

It may be as simple as is the confusion between "believing not" and "not believing."

 

[zorq]

Agreed. In the christian bible (Matthew 17:20), Jesus directly tells his followers that all they need to do to move a mountain is have is faith "as small as a mustard seed." Surely there is no need to find a crosswalk or wait for a pedestrian light when a Christian wants to cross the street. Any Christians with a modicum of faith could direct that faith to protect them. But they don't (None of them). Why? because they don't really believe the bible or Jesus over empirical observation.

I don't know if there is an equivalent promise in Islam, but I'm sure Islamic faith documents must offer some terrestrial benefits to believers. If there are, I bet those promises aren't relied upon by Muslims either.

EDIT: I found it. “Verily Allah will defend (from ill) those who believe, verily, Allah loves not any that is a traitor to faith or shows ingratitude.”
[Al Qur’an 22:38]

The faithful in Islam are guaranteed protection from harm in this life. But they still don't go around ignoring prudent safety equipment and procedures. They don't really believe it.

 

[bilby]

Agreed. In the christian bible (Matthew 17:20), Jesus directly tells his followers that all they need to do to move a mountain is have is faith "as small as a mustard seed." Surely there is no need to find a crosswalk or wait for a pedestrian light when a Christian wants to cross the street. Any Christians with a modicum of faith could direct that faith to protect them. But they don't (None of them). Why? because they don't really believe the bible or Jesus over empirical observation.

I don't know if there is an equivalent promise in Islam, but I'm sure Islamic faith documents must offer some terrestrial benefits to believers. If there are, I bet those promises aren't relied upon by Muslims either.

EDIT: I found it. “Verily Allah will defend (from ill) those who believe, verily, Allah loves not any that is a traitor to faith or shows ingratitude.”
[Al Qur’an 22:38]

The faithful in Islam are guaranteed protection from harm in this life. But they still don't go around ignoring prudent safety equipment and procedures. They don't really believe it.

I dunno about that; If you saw the way people drive on the Arabian peninsula, I think you might revise your opinion. Nobody would ever drive like that unless they think they are totally invulnerable.