Why can't theists accept that atheist exist?

[skepticalbip]

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.

"None of them" is too great a generalization.



Apparently that little old Episcopalian rattle snake didn't understand that it wasn't supposed to bite those Pentecostals.

 

[Underseer]

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.

No, they are not lying, they are wrong.

Yes, their actions show that deep down, on some level, they understand this. When evaluating non-religious truth claims, they will tend to use more reasonable epistemology, but sadly, some of them will use the faith metric for evaluating non-religious truth claims with disastrous results. Recall that conservative anti-vaccine people are overwhelmingly Christian.

 

[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'.

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.

The majority of the world's population are living way, way back in the past. I go by the UK, which is where I live. I think we are normal for our time, rather than average in a brainwashed world.

 

[Atheos]

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.

I'd say it's more like trying to tell someone you're going naked without referencing clothes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'd say it's more like trying to tell someone you're going naked without referencing clothes.

"Atheism! I've NEVER FELT SO FREE!"

"Atheism, let the puppies breathe!"

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I spoke with some Muslim folks about this, and they gave me an answer that is both honest and sensible.

If you start with a belief in a perfect all powerful God, then we must all know what this God wants us to know. The Quran/Bible is just a supplement to this base knowledge that we all have, and anybody who says they do not believe must be either lying or supresing the truth. To say otherwise would be to say that God isn't all powerful or doesn't have a message he wants us to know, which is fundamentally against the core of how they see reality. So it comes down to either the atheists are lying or the very core of how the believer sees reality is empty.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

No, they are not lying, they are wrong.

Yes, their actions show that deep down, on some level, they understand this.

Which means they are lying when they claim otherwise. If they are using evidence over faith countless times every single day (and they all are), then this knowledge of the superiority of evidence is not all that "deep". It is right below the surface, and they must and do expend great energy in maintaining the lie to themselves and others that faith is valid.

When evaluating non-religious truth claims, they will tend to use more reasonable epistemology, but sadly, some of them will use the faith metric for evaluating non-religious truth claims with disastrous results. Recall that conservative anti-vaccine people are overwhelmingly Christian.

The anti-vaccine crowd proves my point. Not getting vaccines has no direct and immediate harm to the person. That it is the only reason that 99% of anti-vaccinaters are willing to deny the science, because doing so only increases a distant probability of harm. Whenever the harm of being wrong is more immediate and direct, 99% of the anti -vaccine crowd will follow the science. There is zero religious basis to use faith on one issue and not the other. The sole reason for when they use faith or not is whether being wrong could cause real immediate harm. Only if they knew that faith leads to wrong conclusion and is inferior to evidence would this make any difference to them.

Granted, how good they are at lying to themselves will determine how much of what they say to others is a "lie". But either way, they are engaging in active and constant dishonesty in some combination of suppressing what their own constant actions inherently reveal or in uttering words about the validity of faith that they don't really believe despite their best efforts to convince themselves.

It is a small % of those who justify their theism on faith who sincerely believe that faith is a valid path to knowledge. The reason that religions harp on the virtue of faith so much is precisely because almost no one accepts its legitimacy, so fear and emotional manipulation must be used to get people to act and speak as though faith is a good idea.

 

[ronburgundy]

I spoke with some Muslim folks about this, and they gave me an answer that is both honest and sensible.

If you start with a belief in a perfect all powerful God, then we must all know what this God wants us to know. The Quran/Bible is just a supplement to this base knowledge that we all have, and anybody who says they do not believe must be either lying or supresing the truth. To say otherwise would be to say that God isn't all powerful or doesn't have a message he wants us to know, which is fundamentally against the core of how they see reality. So it comes down to either the atheists are lying or the very core of how the believer sees reality is empty.

Why would God use his power to ensure all people know he is real, but not use that power to ensure all people obey him? Does the fact that anyone disobeys God refute the notion of an all powerful God? IF not, then neither does the fact that some people do not know or believe he exists.
Free will arguments do not solve this issue, because belief is part of the will. Theism can just as easily presume that God gave people the will to control what they
know and believe, as he did to control what they do and what they say.

As is true of most theological arguments from believers, the arguments you were given are post-hoc excuses to cover for ulterior motives. I think that ulterior motive is closer to what we've been discussing in terms of trying to deny actual non-belief because its very existence is a threat to the weak and indefensible epistemological foundation of faith, combined with an excuse to demonize non-believers as definitionally evil and anti-God rather than merely irrelevant to that religion.

 

[jonJ]

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

But we can confidently assume that someone who claims the topic is unknowable is not going to contribute anything of value or interest to a discussion of it.

 

[Underseer]

I spoke with some Muslim folks about this, and they gave me an answer that is both honest and sensible.

If you start with a belief in a perfect all powerful God, then we must all know what this God wants us to know. The Quran/Bible is just a supplement to this base knowledge that we all have, and anybody who says they do not believe must be either lying or supresing the truth. To say otherwise would be to say that God isn't all powerful or doesn't have a message he wants us to know, which is fundamentally against the core of how they see reality. So it comes down to either the atheists are lying or the very core of how the believer sees reality is empty.

Yep, pretty much the same thing I've observed in Christian fundamentalists, and it's shocking that they can't seem to grasp the real significance of that thought.

 

[fast]

I'd say it's more like trying to tell someone you're going naked without referencing clothes.

"Atheism! I've NEVER FELT SO FREE!"

"Atheism, let the puppies breathe!"

Cat hater

 

[James Brown]

"But in my religion it's true."

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Do most Christians deny that atheists don't believe in a god? I don't think so. Some do, for sure, as the OP detailed. But largely, they just think we're sadly and tragically mistaken.

For those that do actually deny atheism exist, fuck 'em. It's already a tough enough job to point out just how absurd their beliefs are without trying to convince them of yet one more thing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do most Christians deny that atheists don't believe in a god? I don't think so. Some do, for sure, as the OP detailed. But largely, they just think we're sadly and tragically mistaken.

I would like to see the actual numbers.
Because it's been my impression that it's the 'most' who think we're either lying to ourselves or lying to survey takers.

And even if they won't throw the word 'lie' into the conversation, there are plenty that are absolutely certain that when push comes to shove, our atheism will turn out to be pretty shallow. "You think you're an atheist, but if you're ever in a foxhole, well, there's no atheists in foxholes."
Or if someone's shooting at you, or if your ship is sinking, etc.

I think it comes from the same place as those people who find out I maintained The Button for nuclear missiles insist to me that even if so directed by competent authority, "You'd never really have pushed the button." Their world picture colors their interpretation of other people's facts.

 

[Lion IRC]

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

But we can confidently assume that someone who claims the topic is unknowable is not going to contribute anything of value or interest to a discussion of it.

Yep. Pretty much.
Maybe that was Chestertons point as well. He was saying that contra agnosticism
and contra methodological skepticism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Thing is, if i don't find any description or defense of a skybeast to be believable, then talking down skepticism or agnosticism doesn't do much to make the skybeast more believable. At best i might become self-conscious enough to try to find another word for my condition, but it still won't make me any less skeptical of things that just don't make a lot of senes.

 

[Underseer]

Do most Christians deny that atheists don't believe in a god? I don't think so. Some do, for sure, as the OP detailed. But largely, they just think we're sadly and tragically mistaken.

For those that do actually deny atheism exist, fuck 'em. It's already a tough enough job to point out just how absurd their beliefs are without trying to convince them of yet one more thing.

While it is entirely possible that I am the victim of an anecdotal fallacy due to Christians/Muslims like that seeking out atheists out, I run into that sentiment a great, great deal.

 

[funinspace]

Do most Christians deny that atheists don't believe in a god? I don't think so. Some do, for sure, as the OP detailed. But largely, they just think we're sadly and tragically mistaken.

For those that do actually deny atheism exist, fuck 'em. It's already a tough enough job to point out just how absurd their beliefs are without trying to convince them of yet one more thing.

While it is entirely possible that I am the victim of an anecdotal fallacy due to Christians/Muslims like that seeking out atheists out, I run into that sentiment a great, great deal.

The whole "well you just hate god, want to live a life of sin" crap is mostly a divide between mainstream Protestants and fundagelicals. Probably most fundagelicals think something along this line. Mainstream Protestants will be all over the map with some smaller percentage thinking this "hate god" thing, with many others thinking we are sadly mistaken, and many others that may think we are going to heaven regardless so its no big deal.

 

[iolo]

While it is entirely possible that I am the victim of an anecdotal fallacy due to Christians/Muslims like that seeking out atheists out, I run into that sentiment a great, great deal.

The whole "well you just hate god, want to live a life of sin" crap is mostly a divide between mainstream Protestants and fundagelicals. Probably most fundagelicals think something along this line. Mainstream Protestants will be all over the map with some smaller percentage thinking this "hate god" thing, with many others thinking we are sadly mistaken, and many others that may think we are going to heaven regardless so its no big deal.

And some (rather a lot, I'd guess) don't actually believe in 'God' or 'Heaven' except - at best - in a highly metaphorical way. Talking to some British Quakers is particularly instructive, because some of them don't mind saying so.

 

[Atheos]

I can't remember how long ago it was, maybe a couple of years, maybe 5. Anyway I was riding in a car with a friend who likes to listen to talk radio all the time (I used to be that way myself). He had Sean Hannity on at this particular moment and I heard Hannity make the statement that "Atheists just don't want to believe that there is someone smarter than them." My friend pretty much Amen'ed the sentiment and I held my peace. He doesn't know I'm a skeptic, and telling him that would only result in unnecessary (to me) strife in our relationship.

I only relate this anecdote to point out that a lot of this is contingent upon the areas and cultures in which we live. Public figures often make such sweeping generalizations and people believe them uncritically. This type of generalization is as wrong as it's possible to be, but that doesn't stop them from being made. And from being believed.