Religious Belief vs Atheist Views

My name is URL

I was just thinking about something.. why is it that atheists predominantly dismiss all religions on the basis that it 'doesn't exist' while in fact it exists in the only way a non-theist believes what existing is to be?

ie. through the action of nature, a nature that has ultimately led to people believing in all of it

Sam Vimes

I'm confused. I think you might be mixing something up here. What exactly are you saying exists? It looks to me like you're saying that the religion exists which is not in dispute but that doesn't mean that the claims made by the religion are true.

My name is URL

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm confused. I think you might be mixing something up here. What exactly are you saying exists? It looks to me like you're saying that the religion exists which is not in dispute but that doesn't mean that the claims made by the religion are true.

Well both exist. One might be made up but it exists in the sense that the people not believing in it actually believe that there is something not to believe in

maybe it's more of a philosophical question.. but has nature not ultimately led to us believing that nothing exists other than our own beliefs?

Sam Vimes

My name is URL wrote: »

Well both exist. One might be made up but it exists in the sense that the people not believing in it actually believe that there is something not to believe in

maybe it's more of a philosophical question.. but has nature not ultimately led to us believing that nothing exists other than our own beliefs?

Ah right it's one of those questions

At a purely philosophical level it's impossible to say that we are not minds in jars or plugged into the matrix, we have to make certain assumptions to function in the world.

But that doesn't mean that all claims are equally valid, that my belief that I am currently typing on a computer is no more likely to be right than some guy's belief that the world was created by the easter bunny.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Galvasean

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well yeah, they died out 12,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floriensis

Zillah

My name is URL wrote: »

One might be made up but it exists in the sense that the people not believing in it actually believe that there is something not to believe in

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Do you smell what I smell? It smells a bit like philosophy. Alas, it is only half baked.

Zillah

I honestly just don't understand the sentences in the first post. Is he claiming that he's met atheists who believe religion does not exist? Surely not, but if not, what?

Berthram

My name is URL wrote: »

Well both exist. One might be made up but it exists in the sense that the people not believing in it actually believe that there is something not to believe in

maybe it's more of a philosophical question.. but has nature not ultimately led to us believing that nothing exists other than our own beliefs?

I sort of see some point in what you say. Its like this idea of the 'unity of opposites'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites

Atheists, because they are the opposites to 'theists' would not exist without 'theists' and therefore rely on 'god' for their existence.

I remember reading a book about Karl Marx a number of years ago and in a similar way, although he did not believe in god, he resented been called a 'simple atheist' because this would be describing himself in terms of something that he did not believe in (god), which is a negative description.

liamw

My name is URL wrote: »

One might be made up but it exists in the sense that the people not believing in it actually believe that there is something not to believe in

If you're somehow suggesting that arguing against belief in God, means atheists secretly believe in God....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnbXlkNavwo

doctoremma

My name is URL wrote: »

I was just thinking about something.. why is it that atheists predominantly dismiss all religions on the basis that it 'doesn't exist' while in fact it exists in the only way a non-theist believes what existing is to be?

ie. through the action of nature, a nature that has ultimately led to people believing in all of it

Standard muddling of terms and conditions... Religion (i.e. belief in god) exists, both theists and atheist agree on that. It is not a matter for belief, it is an observable phenomenon. Whether god exists is a matter for belief (there being no observable evidence) and this is where theists and atheists disagree.

Zombrex

Most atheists I know don't believe that religion "doesn't exist", they believe the religious claims are not true.

Bit of a difference.

Ickle Magoo

My name is URL wrote: »

I was just thinking about something.. why is it that atheists predominantly dismiss all religions on the basis that it 'doesn't exist' while in fact it exists in the only way a non-theist believes what existing is to be?

ie. through the action of nature, a nature that has ultimately led to people believing in all of it

I don't dismiss all religions on the basis that they don't exist, I dismiss them because they are based on the idea that a god exists and I don't think one does, I've certainly never heard god, seen god or witnessed a world where omnipotent intervention is in evidence. If you push back god's role as being some kind creator only, there is nothing in nature that must be explained by the insertion of a deity into the proceedings, whether that point is as written in a holy book or several billion years ago - & that is the primary point on which atheists and theists differ.

As we learn more and more about the universe we live in, religious people keep changing what their godly assumptions are. One minute god created the world and everything on it, suddenly evolution is embraced and god is the big bang - it keeps being pushed back to the fringes of our knowledge so that the possibility of a god may remain - which makes it seem even less l likely to me. I don't think nature and a supernatural being are the same thing.

My name is URL wrote: »

Well both exist. One might be made up but it exists in the sense that the people not believing in it actually believe that there is something not to believe in

maybe it's more of a philosophical question.. but has nature not ultimately led to us believing that nothing exists other than our own beliefs?

Do you believe in faeries? Leprechauns? Unicorns? Do they actually exist by virtue of the fact you don't believe they do?

Nature has led me to believe that the intervention of an omnipotent being is a completely unnecessary man-made supposition based on how little man knew about nature at that stage in man's history.

CiDeRmAn

Of course "Religion" exists, "Religion" is the dogma, the philosphical and canon structure about which a church or organised faith is constructed.
Not to suggest they are deliberately constructed in some cynical attempt to create a powerbase, although that has certainly got some historical basis.

Religious Belief then must be the opinions and heart felt hopes based on a world view containing a god/gods and the various structures therein, so we are talking about the lessons and stories, the gospels and parables of a particular faith, the way that a religious faith asks its members to behave in order to stay within the faith.

Atheist views on the other hand are far more internalised, given that an atheist has no god in his/her world view, no need for a creator, no need for a supernatural father figure to provide guidance.
Actually that could be wrong, I mean, who would want a benevolent all powerful figure offering love, kindness and guidance through the hardest parts of life, but to an atheist that option, literally, doesn't exist.

Also, a religious belief is taught to you, you are expected to follow a line, believe in a set of fairly fixed things to be considered a Catholic, a Christian, Protestant of whatever hue, Hindu, and so on.
Even if your personal beliefs diverge from the dogma of your particular faith, you will often find people gravitating to a faith that is more compatible (or do what some ministers do and start your own!).

A atheists views are uniquely his or hers, they have no dogma, no school telling them what to follow in order to be still "Atheist", the atheist has no beliefs to speak of.
Now this is not to suggest that they don't have a moral code or a line of things that they consider unacceptable behaviour, those things are innate requirements of any creature living in a social setting, the need for a framework is paramount in this.
But these rules are not handed down by a god, by a priest, vicar or preacher.
They are formed from an internal, hard wired desire to live and co-operate with each other, so we prosper without the creation of sin, the need to persecute another purely based on a theological difference.
We should however be mindful of the capablilities within us all to do unspeakable acts to protect what's ours, and the ease that this is twisted either by others (Nazi's, Stalinists, Popes, Maoists) or by ourselves through pure ignorance, racism, bigotry, misogyny and so on.

Goduznt Xzst

Ok... a certain amount of mathematical logic is going to be needed to understand what I'm going to type next.

OP, what you are discussing here is not the existence of belief, but rather the existence of belief in belief. A believer cannot acknowledge that they believe in belief, because the act of believing alone, or to merely believe a proposition to be true is what is sacred and noble. For example, a person is not capable of equally accepting that a belief they hold is true whilst also acknowledging that they likewise believe this belief (not without also denigrating any possible virtue that belief has) Ergo, people do not know they believe in belief in belief, they simply believe in belief only.

This is also where the distinction arises between Scientific belief and Religious belief. A scientist, in his hypothesis, is capable of acknowledging that their belief, and in fact them self, hold no virtue, they are capable of seeing that what they believe, is likewise a product of their belief in this belief.

i.e. A scientist believes their model explains the universe, they also accept that they believe this belief explains the universe. In doing so they are primed to more easily reject their belief in belief should their model not prove accurate.

CiDeRmAn

I don't think that scientists necessarily have belief in science, science attempts, surely, to model, or to produce a model that can accurately predict observable data, and in doing so be constantly refined to produce more and more accurate predictions.
This started, in a modern sense, with Galileo, Copernicus and especially with Newton and the laws of motion, that over time brought forth the mathematical modelling of reality via modern physics.
I don't reckon scientists ever planned to be answering or inquiring into traditionally metaphysical realms, but as science began to take in relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, M-theory and all the rest, the two just overlapped.
Science is now answering question only asked to priests at one time, and none of these answers has any need for belief, nor faith, that make simple statements, in concrete language and back them up with observable facts and experimental evidence, together with rigorous theories, or models, based on a framework of maths, itself grounded in logic.
So , no faith, no belief, no gods, no monsters

komodosp

If I understand correctly, th op is proposing that because atheists believe there is no god, that they should accept that there may be a god, otherwise what is it that they don't believe in.

In this modern age of globalisation, and a shrinking world and all that, we are encouraged to accept the beliefs of other cultures. In other words even though a Christian might believe that when they die, they'll spend eternity sitting blissfully amongst the clouds philosophising with God, he will accept that a Hindu believes that he will be born again with a social status based on his actions in the prior incarnation.

Modern so-called open minded man won't even go so far as to say, patronisingly, "ok he might think that, and we'll let him think that because his identity and cultural self-confidence and neighbourly relations are more important than his immortal soul, but really that's all rubbish, it's our heaven when you die"

instead he will accept that both beliefs are valid! even though they can't both be true. Really what he is doing is accepting that his belief may be wrong, because it's a "belief" and strictly beliefs might not be true. His faith has been eroded by the dictionary. In the days where we didn't know about all the different religions, our one was fact and all the others were crazy and wrong. Now we give each one equal credit yet still claim to "believe" our one.

Then the Christian will expect the atheist to have the same attitude, that atheism (being an -ism) is simply another belief and there is no way of knowing what is true.

But what people don't realise is that science is the search for truth. Either there is a God or there isn't. There is a truth, whether scientists ever find it or not it's there. But the fact that we don't know it or we can put philosophical semantical twists on things doesn't make it any vaguer. Or doesn't make it possible for both Hindus and christians or both Christians and atheists to be right.

hiorta

Perhaps it's the Christian notion of their god that's a block for many?
If I have it correctly, there is one god - theirs of course.
This god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-recording all that you say and may be used in evidence, Their god is Roman Catholic - or favours them, etc.

They're careful to avoid the idea that how you live and treat others is likely to be more spiritually important than which set of unproven, ever-changing doctrines that you are told to blindly swallow, aren't they.
Of course the latter way of life would not fatten their collecting plates, the takings for which are never put before their members like all clubs should do annually - nor ever produce any financial information at all.

A strange god that one.

The Mad Hatter

"The only place gods inarguably exist is inside the human mind." -Alan Moore

(This, incidentally, is the statement he made that led him to his current surreal, postmodern religion, which seems to essentially come down to holding the imagination sacred. He specifically worships an ancient Roman chaos snake god called Glycon, who he freely admits was a fifth(?) century forgery and glove puppet.)

CiDeRmAn

Alan Moore, nuttiest man in the nut house...

The Mad Hatter

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Alan Moore, nuttiest man in the nut house...

True, but he's still a genius.