question on belief

Whispered

Hi, as a complete believer in the spiritual aspect of life I would like to ask a question. I personally know two athiests, one of whom cannot talk to me about his (non)beliefs? without getting angry, another of whom I no longer speak to as she insulted (name calling, shouting etc) me because I have strong beliefs. Now recently I and other believers got called an idiot by someone on boards because I/we believe something they dont. So here's my question, as athiests do you respect the fact that some people have beliefs different to yours? Any I've come into contact with (ok so it's only 3 but thats all I can base my thoughts on) have been agressive and in some cases fairly bigoted. I get the impression they look at you as being of lesser intelligence because you believe in things. I would like to think I have been unlucky enough to contact with the ignorant minority and most athiests are accepting people?

Beruthiel

The best way I can put it is, I respect your right to believe anything your heart desires, I do not however, respect those beliefs. I find it inconceivable that one can believe in fairytales after a certain age.
In real life, I would not question another persons beliefs unless they brought it up first and offered it for discussion.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

RealJohn

I would say that the belief that there definitely is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God.

I think agnostics are the only ones who are in any position to belittle the beliefs of the faithful (be they faithful to God, a god, lots of gods or the idea that there is no god).

That said, anyone who belittles someone because of their beliefs is a jerk. You have a right to believe whatever you like as long as it doesn't damage anyone else.

I have a friend who claims to be an atheist too and we get on fine, except that from time to time, he decides he's going to take issue with the fact that I believe in God, as if it's any of his business. I don't understand why anyone would do that.

5uspect

There is an element on dogmatic atheism out there that is quite aggressive and rather silly.
However you can see where they come from to an extent as most them would be disgruntled ex-catholics with an axe to grind. (I suppose I went through a bit of it myself)

As Beruthiel quite rightly says I respect your right to believe but don't ask me to respect those beliefs.

Dades

helena.ryan wrote: »

Any I've come into contact with (ok so it's only 3 but thats all I can base my thoughts on) have been agressive and in some cases fairly bigoted.

I might suggest you've come into contact with a lot more, but it was never an issue and so never needed to be mentioned.

Many of us here wouldn't talk much about religion, or lack of, outside of Boards. The people you mention sound like they need to tone down their arguments somewhat. That said, we don't know what prompted their outbursts - for example, in another thread here we're being told we're all going to Hell!

There is no shared trait with atheists except a lack of belief in gods - everyone is individual. How some people wish to declare that lack of belief is a personal matter.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

So here's my question, as athiests do you respect the fact that some people have beliefs different to yours?

As a human being I respect the fact that others have different beliefs other than mine. I might not respect the belief itself, but everyone has a right to believe what they like, and no one should be force to pretend they believe something they don't.

You will meet atheist and theists alike who won't respect someone for holding different belief to them. That's just the way it goes

helena.ryan wrote: »

I would like to think I have been unlucky enough to contact with the ignorant minority and most athiests are accepting people?

Well atheism isn't a system of beliefs, so there is nothing to say that because a person is an atheist they should be a certain way.

Most people, in general, seem to be accepting people. I imagine that applies to atheists as much as anyone else.

Zombrex

RealJohn wrote: »

I would say that the belief that there definitely is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God.

You do realise you can replace God with anything and that sentence still holds

belief that there is definitely no X is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is an X

Replace X with anything, "london", "Michael Jackson", "unicorns", "sausages"

In a scientific, logical, sense it is impossible to be certain about any assertion ("there are such a thing as sausages and I ate one for breakfast"), particularly one when brings in the supernatural.

You might have eaten sausages for breakfast. Or an evil wizard might have created you from a pumpkin and given you the memory of someone eating sausages.

At the end of the day we deal with what is likely and plausible based on our understand of the natural world. It is more likely (in my view) that I ate sausages than an evil wizard created me with the memory of eating sausages. I can't be certain, but that doesn't stop me believing the former over the latter.

So when this is applied to God the question is not if one can prove there is or isn't a god (as impossible as proving I ate sausages). It is how likely and plausable is the existence of God.

Scofflaw

Mind you, it's true that atheists are argumentative...

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mind you, it's true that atheists are argumentative...

cordially,
Scofflaw

We're not.

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote: »

We're not.

Yes you are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes you are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No he ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. This is just Contradiction it's just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says

....ahhhh brings me back

In relation to the op yes atheists can be loving caring etc we are also frequently nice people who'd buy you a pint and all the rest of it..I mean what is the deal here, what can be achieved from asking such a pointless question
are all atheists bad people? that essentially was the question...no! is the answer [thread closed...please...we already have the 'what's the point of this froum' thread getting far too much air time as it...

Whispered

Actually stevejaxx can you please re-read my op? I don't make assumptions on what a person is like based on what he does and doesn't believe, my question was if there is a tendancy among athiests to be agressive in their argumements and if they tend to be dismissive of others ideas of life, death etc. My question was purely spiritualy/religiously based. Not whether you would buy someone a pint??? I pointed out repeatedly in my OP that what I am saying is based only on the athiests I have spoken to. Is this not a valid question? Or am I not allowed question? I have in no way been agressive, dismissive or anything but respectful of what is being said here. In fact I am interested in what is being said (as on openminded individual) whats wrong with that?

A lot of people are saying they respect peoples rights to have beliefs, just dont expect them to respect the belief. I think thats a great way of looking at it. There are plenty of beliefs I dont hold (such as hell Dades ) but I respect the fact that people do and would never dismiss it as a fairytale or nonsense etc as that is disrespectful. I like the way athiests can back up what they are saying. It bugs me when anybody makes a statement and back it up with a "because it just is" type response. Wicknight had a great response to the "replace x" thing. Really does make you think.

My main thing though is for years people believed the world was flat because it made sense, the sun went around the earth (ok so that was a religious thing) but it made sense. I am not saying athiests are wrong BUT what I am saying is it is a huge assumption to make that the earth is only as we see it now. Ok so we are more developed than we were when the earth was flat but we will be more developed again in another couple hundred years and there is a chance we could look back and laugh at how niave humanity was. Granted, in a couple hundred years a world of athiests may look back at people like me and laugh. but at least I accept the possibility of that.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Whispered

Feel like I'm walking into a trap here Daveirl if I say no, just religious beliefs you will say whats the difference, If I say all beliefs you'll come up with something believed by someone that is so ridic it'l make me look a fool!!

I think people have a right to believe what they want, this should be respected, definately. So long as that belief allows others beliefs to be respected (one of the reasons I'm not too big on christianity and a lot of large religions) and so long as it does not cause harm to others. I know here comes the the onslaught of clippings of people dying during "exorcisms" or a woman getting whipped after being raped, for being alone in a car with a man. I dont agree with this. Nor am I a religious person.

I think the only difference between those two discussions is that fact that most people hold their beliefs dearer to themselves than their views on socialism v's capitalism.

Oh and also (I'm suprised this hasn't been thrown in yet TBH) I am aware of the fact that most wars that ever were, are mostly centered around religion (or at least this is the excuse) my own personal belief is that if there was no religion the world would be a better place. If everyone just did their own thing, with conscience, then the world could be fantastic. It might be like me saying "if everyone was x the world would be better" I just cant see it because it's what I believe.

I am being honest here and questioning myself as I type so I would appreciate serious replies as opposed to dismissive ones please?

Overheal

personally i believe the concept of God is as fundamental to the basis of faith as matter and energy are to the basis of science: for me though i believe the chain that links matter to concepts like fission, weather, the curvature of the earth, etc. is more logical than the existence of god. 'the world is flat because god made it so' 'lightning is the wrath of god' 'rain is what happens when god is crying'. science has since explained all of these.

I can respect why people believe in the existence of God: there are many things we still cannot explain - most of which is superclassed as the Paranormal. In my opinion its very convenient to use God as a foundation to these riddles. However, I still hold firmly to the belief that science will eventually explain such phenomena. And if I do have to believe in 'God' - its not so much God for me, but aliens Crop Circles ftw.

OP I suppose it depends on your approach to the discussion: are you asking why they don't believe or are you telling them they need to believe before they go to hell, for example? Tone of conversation and subject matter is important. Keep in mind youre questioning someone's system of beliefs - just because its atheist doesn't make it any less so.

5uspect

Yes you are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Okay well maybe...

Helena, your honesty is appreciated. It's nice to get people here that aren't hit and run posters. I think you represent a growing group in society. You've completely cut ties with organised religion yet pick and choose the bits of religion that suit you. You don't accept hell but probably accept heaven (or at least a spirit world?).

My main thing though is for years people believed the world was flat because it made sense, the sun went around the earth (ok so that was a religious thing) but it made sense. I am not saying athiests are wrong BUT what I am saying is it is a huge assumption to make that the earth is only as we see it now. Ok so we are more developed than we were when the earth was flat but we will be more developed again in another couple hundred years and there is a chance we could look back and laugh at how niave humanity was. Granted, in a couple hundred years a world of athiests may look back at people like me and laugh. but at least I accept the possibility of that.

Now this bit is interesting. You compare scientific knowledge of astronomy with your hypothesised view that someday your beliefs may (or may not) be proven correct. And this may be the case. However the skeptical position is that we cannot possibly know. There are a million things that we cannot possibly know at this moment. The scientific method is a tool to learn more about our world and until there is evidence you cannot believe one idea over any other. Remember atheists don't claim to know god doesn't exist, they just have no belief in any gods. The same way you may have no belief in whatsoever in Thor.

Also the ideas presented by a god cannot be tested either rendering them impossible to "prove" in the sense you imply (heliocentricity for example). Scientific theories must be falsifiable. There must exist a way to prove them wrong through experiment. In essence every experiment is an attempt to disprove the theory. If you cannot come up with an unfalsifiable theory how do we test it?

Scofflaw

helena.ryan wrote: »

Feel like I'm walking into a trap here Daveirl if I say no, just religious beliefs you will say whats the difference, If I say all beliefs you'll come up with something believed by someone that is so ridic it'l make me look a fool!!

I think people have a right to believe what they want, this should be respected, definately. So long as that belief allows others beliefs to be respected (one of the reasons I'm not too big on christianity and a lot of large religions) and so long as it does not cause harm to others. I know here comes the the onslaught of clippings of people dying during "exorcisms" or a woman getting whipped after being raped, for being alone in a car with a man. I dont agree with this. Nor am I a religious person.

I think the only difference between those two discussions is that fact that most people hold their beliefs dearer to themselves than their views on socialism v's capitalism.

Oh and also (I'm suprised this hasn't been thrown in yet TBH) I am aware of the fact that most wars that ever were, are mostly centered around religion (or at least this is the excuse) my own personal belief is that if there was no religion the world would be a better place. If everyone just did their own thing, with conscience, then the world could be fantastic. It might be like me saying "if everyone was x the world would be better" I just cant see it because it's what I believe.

I am being honest here and questioning myself as I type so I would appreciate serious replies as opposed to dismissive ones please?

I think what you're describing there is a secularist viewpoint - which is of course open to anyone, whether they have faith or not. It just means that religion and faith have no place in public life - something frequently misunderstood, since 'public' there is in the sense of res publica.

By the way, I don't agree that religion is the cause of wars.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

I am not saying athiests are wrong BUT what I am saying is it is a huge assumption to make that the earth is only as we see it now.

Atheists aren't making that assumption.

Atheists are rejecting the idea that theists have some how made the discovery that there is in fact "more" and that this more is an all powerful deity figure who, coincidently thinks and acts and behaves amazingly similar to how a powerful human would, while also solving all of the big worries humans have, such as providing a solution to death and explaining what bad things happen.

Imagine you have a room, that no one knows what is in the room, and no one can possibly see into the room. Sometimes you might think you see something move, or you think you might hear something from the room, but it is not clear.

The theist says "I know what is in the room, what is in the room is a powerful intelligence called Frank, and Frank wants to communicate with me and give me things, things that amazingly match what I already wanted"

The atheist says "Er no, that is nonsense. You don't even know if there is actually anything in the room, let alone if that something is an intelligence that wants to communicate with you and give you thinks. That is just something you made up, nonsense to fit your own personal desires and needs"

At while point the theist says "Stop disrespecting my beliefs!" and storms out

See the atheist isn't saying there is nothing in the room. There might be something in the room, the atheist doesn't know either way. The atheist is simply rejecting the theist idea that the theist has figured out what is in the room and as classified it as some kind of intelligence with a interest in giving him things.

If one substitutes "the room" for "the origin of the universe" I hope you can see what I mean.

Someone (ie some intelligence) may have created the universe. That is possible. Its equally possible that it was a completely natural event with no purpose. Or in fact it could be something so weird that we as humans living in this universe can't even imagine how "outside" the universe works.

Atheists are simply rejecting the idea put forward by the theists that they have already figured it out and that "it" is a sky god that grants human wishes (I would like to not die, I wonder if by some stroke of luck the super powerful vast intelligence that created the entire universe also was working on that problem. Oh look, he was. What are the odds)

redfacedbear

The only time I have been beligerent in my Atheism is when Theists have been forceful in trying to make me see the error of my ways.

(In my youth I wasted many an hour trying to convert doorstepping Jehovas and Mormons to Atheism).

Other than that I would subscribe to the already stated 'I respect your right to believe but not your actual beliefs.'

Whispered

Up until now I thought athiests were people who simply rejected things for which they have no proof, a sort of "taking everything at face value" type of mindset which I think is never a good thing to do (take things at face value that is) however from the responses I've gotten I see that there is a lot more thought than that.

Wicknight, thank you for clearing this up

"See the atheist isn't saying there is nothing in the room. There might be something in the room, the atheist doesn't know either way. The atheist is simply rejecting the theist idea that the theist has figured out what is in the room and as classified it as some kind of intelligence with a interest in giving him things. "

I am totally clear on what you mean. You havent converted me , but I'm a lot clearer on what athiesm is (I think)

Scofflaw, I also dont believe it was the cause of wars but I think, religion (and a sense of nationality) is what many people believe they are fighting for when killing other pople. (for god and country.......etc) I think the powers that be, and by that I mean government, monarchy etc have their own reasons but use peoples beliefs to have them fight. Look at the crusades, war on terror to name two, both about religion but really about land/oil. I suppose I could be described as having a secular viewpoint, although I never thought of it that way before.

5uspect, I dont think I really pick and choose, it just so happens that certain beliefs I have coincide with different religions. My beliefs on heaven and hell are prob best not discussed on an athiest forum (if interested ask and I'll tell you what they are but I dont think they will be of interest) suffice to say I dont accept heaven or hell in a christian/fire and brimstone/clouds and harps type of way. Rather I see them as mindsets.

My comparision to the world being flat was to point that in the past we were scientificly "sure" of something which turned out to be wrong. We are constantly learing more and more and it is entirely possible, I would almost say probable, that there is a lot more to life that we dont understand, which at the moment is considered supernatural, and as such, rejected without question by some people as lies or delusion.

Talking to you though I see that athiesm is not a complete rejection of peoples beliefs, rather a rejection of faith in anything you cannot prove. Thank you for having the patience to explain that to me.

Can I ask a few more questions?

Most of the references made were to God, I personally dont believe in a giant bearded man in the sky. When you say God are you replacing the word spirituality/religion/belief system with His name? Or is spirituality a different thing to a belief in God?

Also, emotions are felt, rather than proven (I know they can be proven but even if they couldn't you know you felt them) from an athiests point of view, what is love, anger, happiness etc?

I just realised, when typing about God I capital'd His name automatically. Wonder what that says about me, haha. Suppose it's a throwback to school.

Goodnight

God Bless

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

Most of the references made were to God, I personally dont believe in a giant bearded man in the sky. When you say God are you replacing the word spirituality/religion/belief system with His name? Or is spirituality a different thing to a belief in God?

This is where things get a bit tricky, because as human civilisation has advanced people have altered what they mean by "God" to keep pace with all the things we have discovered natural causes for, so what modern people mean by God is very hazy.

For example, God used to be, as you say, the bearded guy in the sky. He lived in the "heavens", when man kind still believed that the heavens were an actual place above the earth.

God (or gods) used to rule the weather and elements, if it rained from above (down poor from heaven) it was as a direct result of God's actions.

In modern times, as we discovered what is really happening, theists who continue to hold to the idea of a super intelligence that acts for their benefit, have shifted "God" away from areas that can be tested (probably for good reason).

A modern Christian for example will explain to you that "God" lives outside of space and time. He is everywhere yet no where. How they know this is beyond me, the Bible was written in a time when people still believed that God lived in the heavens (heaven is described as a physical place in the Bible).

It gets even more confusing when people start using the term "God" to describe things that are quite removed from what classically would be considered God. You get into this idea that "God" is the energy of the universe, or that God is mother Earth, or mother nature, or just some vague primordial essence.

TBH this to me reflects more the psychological need people have to feel that something, how ever undefined, is looking after them, giving them some kind of purpose. It is more about making people feel better than any serious exploration of the physical universe around us. These people are not interested in what "God" actually is, be it a classic deity or simply some vague idea of energy with purpose, they are far more interested in the psychological feeling generated by such an idea. Its like "Santa". No one cares how he is supposed to get all the toys to all the people in one night. That isn't the point, the point is the idea of a man who comes and gives children presents.

I personally think it does a bit of a deservice to the English language to use the term "God" to describe any form of vague supernatural explanation for how the universe got here, or what purpose humans are supposed to have. But if it makes people happier to use the term "God", well that is I guess the point. Its like the people who buy knock off goods that are made to look exactly like the real thing. You know it isn't real, most people can tell it isn't real. But it still feels nicer than something that obviously isn't the real thing.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Also, emotions are felt, rather than proven (I know they can be proven but even if they couldn't you know you felt them) from an athiests point of view, what is love, anger, happiness etc?

Not quite sure why people always have such a problem with this?

Firstly, theism doesn't explain emotions any more than a naturalist/humanist view of the world. Religion simply says "God gave them to us" and then shuts up about it, which hardly answers your question.

Secondly, athiests don't believe in God. They can believe in a whole host of other things. There is no atheist doctrine on what emotions are. From a rationalist scientific point of view emotions are evolutionary systems used to regulate human behaviour in ways that provide advantageous benefit.

You fall in romantic love to create strong bonds between parents for the purpose of child bearing

You feel emotions such as guilt, empathy and loneliness, because evolution of humans favoured social systems that require people not to be too selfish or self serving or isolate themselves too much from the rest of the group.

You feel emotions such as fear and terror as part of the evolutionary "fight or flight" mechanism, where the body will attempt to regulate the human intelligence getting too cocky and doing something that puts it in danger.

Etc etc.

Now before you say it, no none of that makes human emotions any less wonderful.

Using a food analogy, just because you know how a chocolate cake is made, and you know from a biological point of view how the sugars in the cake are stimulating your taste buds, doesn't mean the cake tastes any less delicious.

In fact I find the whole evolutionary development of these systems far more fascinating than any non-explanation such as "God did it"

When ever I hear "God did it" that doesn't actually answer the question. I always want to know a lot more, such as "why and how". Which at that point I'm told to be quiet. The purpose of religious answers such as "God did it like that because he knows best" seems less to actually explain what is going on and more to simply provide an answer, any answer, so people can go "ah, thats that sorted, now I can stop wondering"

Religious answers in my view sap all the wonder out of things, rather than inspires it. The answer are not provided for understanding, but simply peace of mind so people stop worry that they don't know

pH

helena.ryan wrote: »

My comparision to the world being flat was to point that in the past we were scientificly "sure" of something which turned out to be wrong. We are constantly learing more and more and it is entirely possible, I would almost say probable, that there is a lot more to life that we dont understand, which at the moment is considered supernatural, and as such, rejected without question by some people as lies or delusion.

This is incorrect, you can't take all the folk wisdom and anything humans believed in the last few thousand years and call that science.

It is debatable, but I would argue that science as we understand it today dates from the 19th century, there never was a body of scientific evidence that said the world was flat.

Our scientific knowledge of the world is good enough to reject everything currently touted as supernatural, yes undoubtedly there are many wonderful things that are yet to be discovered about this universe but we can say with certainty things like for example telekinesis, ghosts, ESP and psychics will not be among them.

2Scoops

People can believe whatever they wish but some opinions are supported more by available evidence than others. Some are outright contradicted by the evidence. The fact that a theist, for example, might elicit frustration from others might not be due to the their belief in God per se, but their refusal, or inability, to base that decision on reason.

Not all beliefs are equal when there is relevant evidence to consider. Some beliefs are just unreasonable. In those situations, why should the beliefs be respected? Seriously - why?

One final point, it's easy to not respect someone's belief but still respect the believer. There's never any excuse to be a rude, braying jackass.

2Scoops

helena.ryan wrote: »

If everyone just did their own thing, with conscience, then the world could be fantastic. It might be like me saying "if everyone was x the world would be better" I just cant see it because it's what I believe.

If a plan for a better world begins with either:
1. 'if everyone would just...'
OR
2. 'if everyone would just not...'
then it ain't gonna fly.

Communists, I'm looking at you.

condra

Hi Helena.

I'm sorry that in the real world (offline) you have come across so many atheists who are arrogant and aggressive but I doubt that sort of atheist is in the majority. I certainly hope not.

I think making generalisations is a very natural, human thing, albeit somewhat illogical in many instances.
For example, if most taxi drivers one meets are racist, ignorant and rude, it is illogical to conclude that all taxi drivers are racist, ignorant and rude, but such a conclusion is relatively natural and normal, if even just on a subconcious level.

Apart from giving a pretty crap, long winded (sorry) example of how evolutionary traits can misfire, what I'm basically saying is that if you met so many arrogant, agressive atheists, I would not blame you for thinking that at least the majority of us were like that.

The fact that you decided to investigate further, rather than come to an early conclusion speaks volumes about your logic and open mindedness.

In defense of atheists who get passionate, even to the point of anger and agression, I think a lot of atheists may feel that the world we are living in today is quite grotesque, considering they believe that superstitous belief is rampant, and extremely harmfull to humankind.

Their intentions may be good, even if their methods are/seem cruel.

helena.ryan wrote: »

from an athiests point of view, what is ....

We all have different, individual views. What we have in common is the lack of belief in any god, that is all.

There is no conspiracy

(yet;))

from an athiests point of view, what is love, anger, happiness etc?

From my point of view:
Love, anger, happiness etc are emotions. Emotions are combinations of chemicals / endorphins "fizzling around" (:rolleyes:) in the human brain. It is a very cool example of evolution.
Had we not felt pain, whilst on fire for example, we would not survive to pass on our genes.
Had we not felt pleasure, or a sense of satisfaction, when eating, we would not survive to pass on our genes.
Had we not felt pleasure in sex, we would not (/exist to) pass on our genes.

It works pretty well with emotions about less quantifiable things too, such as anger if someone steals your food or insults you.
Bare in mind that for thousands of years before modern civilisation, there were factors which affected ones chances of reproducing (and providing for offspring), things like social standing, property etc.

God Bless

Dawkins be upon you. You will make a fine atheist one day.

Scofflaw

womoma wrote: »

Dawkins be upon you.

Ew.

repelled,
Scofflaw

Beruthiel

Don't think she meant it in a sexual way Scofflaw, says more about where your mind is than hers...
hehe

Doctor DooM

Just getting back to the OP again, perhaps the reason the only people you have met who identified themselves as atheist have been jerks is because nice people who are atheists have no desire to tell you what they believe or feel the need to belittle you? Potentially, everyone you know who's religion you are not aware of COULD be an atheist. And also, nice.

I used to notice something similar with pagan types in certain rock bars in Dublin, you would hear wanna-be mother goddesses spouting on about how they were raising energy ad nauseum, whereas if you wanted a question answered seriously there was generally a quiet guy in the corner keeping himself to himself who was the actual go to guy, they were just comfortable with what they were, and felt no need to shout about it.

Zombrex

Beruthiel wrote: »

Don't think she meant it in a sexual way Scofflaw, says more about where your mind is than hers...
hehe

ewww ... reminded me of that infamous South Park episode

*shudder*