Faith in Atheism

[Newme]

Just watched the clip below that echoed some thoughts I've had regarding Atheism.
Faith is generally personally acknowledged by most religious but not by Atheists, at least in my experience.

And yet, who is so all-knowing to know every possible detail of God (both inside all and intelligent design) as to doubt it all with sweeping labeling?
"A-theism" literally means "without theology" so why are there thousands of books on Atheism and even "Atheist churches"?
And if the placebo effect really happens (& it's repeatedly proven it does), why ignore the fact that "all have faith but not all are conscious of having faith"? Belief is powerful - for good or bad, so it seems to be a huge leap of faith in the wrong direction to ass-u-me not only hopeless but also illogical and irresponsible ideologies associated with Atheism like determinism.

Yes, I discovered the church has major moral flaws & I generally question group thought associated with re-legion... yet Atheism is also group thought. And thinking it has to be either religious or not religious at all is illogical polarized thinking.

https://youtu.be/jo40t9xwM48

[dogbite]

To say atheism is still faith or religious is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The atheist has no faith in a divine, believes no doctrine, and has decided on the available evidence unlike the agnostic.

There are books on most every topic, why wouldn't an atheist write one about their journey,or thoughts as well. How does a book existing on a topic equate it to religion? One atheists book doesn't bind all atheists to that same thought or experience merely by existing. Not do all books atheists have written even agree on everything.

Atheists can enjoy community of like minded thinkers. But again, to lump all atheists in that group is not true of all atheists, nor is there worship as in a religion in such groups. This logic is to say that any gathering around an interest is therefore inherently religious. Every business meeting is therefore religious. No.

The logical failure is yours in using a few examples to generalize to the whole group.

Your claim of the hopelessness of atheism is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. You're welcome to require hope in your worldview but you're not allowed to say someone else's view is hopeless only that you didn't find hope in it. Nor is it required that all valid world views must have hope as you define and value it. You havent established any such necessity. And personally I don't find atheism hopeless but I suspect we have differing views of what hope might be. Or even the specific function hope should serve in the world view.

Similarly with determinism. There atheists who don't accept determinism and atheist who do as well as atheists who aren't even aware of the idea.

As with all other World Views, atheists share a surprisingly small overlap of views while having a great many divergent other opinions. The narrow categorization as expressed in the video and in your post are essentially a strawman for defeating what you think atheism is instead of what atheism actually is.

[Newme]

I agree that people can write books on various topics without it being a religion... unless it specifies habitual, "standard" works - some agreed on beliefsnin relation to God/Spirituality. Re-legion - many people thinking similarly in some way. If Atheism were not unified belief - herd mentality - there would be no term for it.

Atheism is based on faith that one knows enough to deny all possibilities of God.

And ironically Atheists accuse others of faith and no doubt, yet I've yet to known of an atheist who expresses any doubt in Atheism.

[LaMachina]

Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager, eh? I don't disagree with all their thoughts but I find those two hard to stomach...still, I like to give them chances to dissuade me of my opinions and I'll watch this chat eventually.

In the meantime, is there any mode of thinking or theory that you don't classify as "group thought"? It just seems to be your go-to criticism for any idea you disagree with or find distasteful. Which is fine, I just don't find that to be a particularly strong argument against anything.

But maybe this can help clarify atheism a little:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectru ... robability

I probably fall between 5 & 6. Personally I think agnostic atheism is the only logical position to take but again I'll see if Prager & Shapiro can change my mind. They're bright blokes.

[Give It Time]

I'm not the biggest fan of PragerU and the clip didn't have closed captioning, so I didn't watch it. But they did do an excellent little clip on forgiveness awhile back.

I do agree that giving up entirely on things spiritual is still polarized thinking. I have had spiritual experiences that none of the logical explanations have fit. Those experiences have been a source of comfort and strength to me and Heaven knows I--and anybody--needs all the sources of comfort and strength they can get.

The people who do the Blue Zones project have listed weekly worship as an important part of longevity. The denomination doesn't matter. Just gathering with people you care about singing, thinking about things other than your everyday problems and service opportunities therein really does add something meaningful to our lives. I am a spiritual person. I'm not happy when I'm not. I operate best and most happily when I have a philosophical framework for my life.

Taoism recognizes that all religions have a place in the Tao. Atheism does, as well. In the old Kung Fu series, Kwai Chang Caine was a Taoist who had zero problem attending other religions. I really love the way David Carradine portrayed those moments. He would attend those meetings with a sense of wonder and curiosity. It would be revealed later that he didn't agree with most of what he heard, but what he heard did add to his understanding of the people around him and he considered that important.

I attend church for the combination of reasons and in the manner I've illustrated, here. Spirituality is important to me. I want to nurture that side. Attending church adds to the quality (actually the Blue Zones is about longevity, but they posit people are so long lived because they are happy) of a person's life. I attend church from a Taoist perspective--which is very different from Mormonism--but at least I can attend without wanting to scream at everyone how harmful doctrinal Big Macs are. When it is a week where what is being taught will absolutely not be edifying for me, I go out in nature, but I do attend when I can tolerate the subject and I attend to get what uplift I can and consider the rest important to having understanding and compassion for my neighbors. Finally, I have a goal to be able to do location independent work. When I'm in a new locale, I intend to attend and participate in the local dominant religion. I theorize it will broaden my horizons and give me an understanding of the way that area operates--that area's Tao.

[dogbite]

Well I deny the placebo equivalent Faith to God so there's one I'll deny right off the bat in your first example.

The set of all possibilities to God I'll deny almost every one of them absolutely. I deny know amoeba as god, the Higgs boson as God, and so on. Indeed I think you'll join me in these denials. Clearly the set of all possibilities is nonsense.

What set of possibilities could be god. In the human experience we have a fair amount of writings of what people thought for God. I do reject the god described in those writings. And this is getting into a key point of atheism I think. Let's say the god of the Bible as defined by any particular Christian faith you choose is the actual god. Let's further say that this God is visible and demonstrable as God. I would still reject that being as worthy of worship or divine. I would not believe in him as God therefore making me an atheist. In splitting the hairs of what atheism actually means, the semantics of meaning of atheism, it is about rejecting belief in God not about whether God exists. Certainly many atheists will take that step to deny the existence of any possible God but that is a step beyond atheism itself. It is usually classified as hard atheism.

Of the set of all the definitions of God of which I am aware, I do not find any of them sufficient of worship or belief. There are many possible definitions which I find nonsensical and unworthy of consideration of belief.

This reduces to the god of the gaps argument. If we start with the enlightenment then God and His potential realm of influence has been on an ever reducing scale of possibilities. As we learn more and more the possible God becomes less and less.

I'm happy to consider new evidence as it arises. However you again make an argument from incredulity that it's possible something undefined exists that might still be divine within that ever shrinking gap. I'll grant that it's a non-zero possibility but the number is of such vanishing smallness that it is not worth reserving and praising on the possibility that it is God. It offers no explanatory power, exhibits no influence and is untestable. So how do you claim it's god?

To me this seems to me to say that God is going to reward or punish us based on which set of unsupportable worldviews we propound. That's evil. There must be a basis for such decision other than blind faith if we're to be judged.

I'll wait for evidence, thank you very much.

[Newme]

LaMachina,
Wow - different levels of belief in Atheism. Interesting.

I realize that there are more aspects than not which we agree on as a society.
What I consider group thought is insanity people believe because everyone they want to be liked by believe it.

Here's another clip - more humor - but similar point...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d1Qao3A4yU4

[Newme]

GiveIt Time,
Interesting thoughts. I think similarly in some ways.
Spirituality, to me is essentially psych-ology (study of the soul) - a major part of each of us.
I think it's a good thing to be able to see validity in different perspectives.

[Give It Time]

To say atheism is still faith or religious is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The atheist has no faith in a divine, believes no doctrine, and has decided on the available evidence unlike the agnostic.

There are books on most every topic, why wouldn't an atheist write one about their journey,or thoughts as well. How does a book existing on a topic equate it to religion? One atheists book doesn't bind all atheists to that same thought or experience merely by existing. Not do all books atheists have written even agree on everything.

Atheists can enjoy community of like minded thinkers. But again, to lump all atheists in that group is not true of all atheists, nor is there worship as in a religion in such groups. This logic is to say that any gathering around an interest is therefore inherently religious. Every business meeting is therefore religious. No.

The logical failure is yours in using a few examples to generalize to the whole group.

Your claim of the hopelessness of atheism is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. You're welcome to require hope in your worldview but you're not allowed to say someone else's view is hopeless only that you didn't find hope in it. Nor is it required that all valid world views must have hope as you define and value it. You havent established any such necessity. And personally I don't find atheism hopeless but I suspect we have differing views of what hope might be. Or even the specific function hope should serve in the world view.

Similarly with determinism. There atheists who don't accept determinism and atheist who do as well as atheists who aren't even aware of the idea.

As with all other World Views, atheists share a surprisingly small overlap of views while having a great many divergent other opinions. The narrow categorization as expressed in the video and in your post are essentially a strawman for defeating what you think atheism is instead of what atheism actually is.

I actually had a few thoughts I left out and dogbite kinda triggered them. I don't see as atheism hopeless. It is hopeless for me, but I don't consider it hopeless for anyone who decides to embrace it in whatever form. The philosophy of Taoism--the type of Taoism that is adding meaning to my life--actually has no deity and doesn't believe in relying on deity. But it is that lack of deity that makes it so I can sit through church meetings for my religion and others. None of the religions have got it right, to my perception and I am not really certain we should try to nail down a correct version, because our human perceptions will get in the way and we have exactly the problem we have in this religion. We believe in continuing revelation, but if future revelation disagrees with past revelation, we have a problem.

Atheists put religionists away morally in a very important area. Religionists have a tendency to see suffering or social injustice and have faith that things will work out or have faith that the people suffering will have it better in the world to come. Atheists see this same suffering and injustice and figure there is only one time to change it, now. I'm generalizing, of course, but that's what I've seen. I've championed social change that was within doctrine, that followed the example of the Savior to Mormons and they still cry. Do you know why they cry? Because I'm not having faith. Do you know what my radical change was? Being kinder.

I recently finished a Chinese philosophy class. The professor, I'm pretty sure was raised Mormon (he grew up in Eastern Utah). He is a retired professor and looking at the biographical information he provided, he appears to be Taoist. He believes the best and most cohesive force, going forward is through science. He said that science agrees remarkably well on a worldwide scale. He says the scientists he's met and heard speak are remarkably moral people and that our best and most responsible option going into a more global future is to look to science to determine our morality. I think he has a point.

So, I am grateful for what religion, science and atheism bring to the table. I think all are necessary in our discussions moving forward as a society.

[LaMachina]

What I consider group thought is insanity people believe because everyone they want to be liked by believe it.

Kinda like how everyone thought this looked cool in Jr high school?

roll-jeans.jpg (68.5 KiB) Viewed 7926 times

I get it, some people don't put a ton of thought into their worldview. I think they are probably the minority though.

As dogbite has demonstrated there is much more thought put into this than what your average 7th grader uses to decide what to wear. Claiming otherwise could come off a little condescending.

[Hagoth]

And ironically Atheists accuse others of faith and no doubt, yet I've yet to known of an atheist who expresses any doubt in Atheism.

We generally refer to such people as agnostics.

As for hope and hopelessness, you might consider the Santa Claus analogy. It may be disappointing to lose your faith in Saint Nick but that doesn't stop you from finding joy and value in the holidays, you just move on to other things that make you happy, and you can stop agonizing about whether or not you're going to get a stocking full of coal.

[Hagoth]

Also...

We have all heard people deride atheism by saying "even atheists have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow," as if this proves that atheists are somehow disingenouous. Really, it just clarifies the basic difference between theist and atheists. We have all seen the sun rise every day of our lives, but none of us have ever seen Jesus rise from the tomb. Atheists just narrow their faith to things that seem highly likely.

I have known atheists who love the Jesus story and would love to believe it's true. They just can't and they don't see any point in pretending to believe it. Why should anyone be derided for not believing something that they simply cannot because they have the kind of brain/personality that is dependent on evidence? Why should someone be praised for believing something without evidence? People are just different, that's all. There's no insideous underlying plot, just variety within human nature.

[dogbite]

I don't think the sun rising is a matter of faith even for non atheists, at least in the developed world.

That population has an understanding of gravity, orbits and earth rotation to explain it factually. I don't have faith that Australia exists even though I haven't been there. I know people who have and there's lots of other evidence. My confidence interval will be very very slightly diminished compared to having actually physically been there but not to any significant digit.

[didyoumythme]

Regarding Belief -
Atheist - Does not believe God(s)
Theist - Believes in God(s)
Regarding Knowledge -
Agnostic - Does not know or does not believe the existence of God(s) can be known
Gnostic - Claims knowledge regarding the existence of God(s)

Agnosticism is not a "middle way" between belief and atheism. The terms are not comparable, but instead one relates to belief and the other relates to knowledge. This is why many people identify as "agnostic atheists". Any combination of these 4 terms can describe a person.

https://www.thoughtco.com/atheist-vs-ag ... nce-248040

[didyoumythme]

Another thought I had is that atheism is not the opposite of Christianity or of any specific belief system. The term 'atheism' is only the opposite of 'theism'. To say someone is a christian says a lot about them. You can assume they believe in Jesus, in praying, in forgiving, in building community, in serving etc. However, to say someone is an atheist only indicates that they don't believe in God. It says nothing about the value system they do subscribe to. Christianity is more comparable to something like secular humanism.

Atheists, by definition, do not have faith (believe) in God, so I do not understand what you mean when you say "faith in atheism". Many atheists do not take the position that they are certain that God does not exist, but rather that they do not believe it. They are open to the possibility if presented with convincing evidence.

Personally, I relate most with the term "Ignostic". Ignostic is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed.

[Dravin]

Agnosticism is not a "middle way" between belief and atheism. The terms are not comparable, but instead one relates to belief and the other relates to knowledge. This is why many people identify as "agnostic atheists". Any combination of these 4 terms can describe a person.

Yep, I identify as an agnostic atheist. My position is best summed up as, "I find insufficient evidence to justify belief in a god." That this is not "I know there is no god." is quite purposeful and not some linguistic oversight on my part.

[Mad Jax]

I agree that people can write books on various topics without it being a religion... unless it specifies habitual, "standard" works - some agreed on beliefsnin relation to God/Spirituality. Re-legion - many people thinking similarly in some way. If Atheism were not unified belief - herd mentality - there would be no term for it.

Atheism is based on faith that one knows enough to deny all possibilities of God.

And ironically Atheists accuse others of faith and no doubt, yet I've yet to known of an atheist who expresses any doubt in Atheism.

Let me ask you something then (and I'm going to continue no matter what, but it's only fair to ask).

How familiar are you with the concept of the Null Hypothesis?

For those not familiar, the null hypothesis is a tool in science that basically states that a particular phenomenon is unrelated to another particular phenomenon. Usually this serves statistics and significance testing, but it has other uses. So assume that the hypothesis of a creator is proposed. This hypothesis ties the existence of the universe to the existence of, and dependence upon its own existence to, a creative force. The null hypothesis to this states that the universe's existence has no dependence on a creative force.

As impossible as it is to explain all natural science, suffice it to say that galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, planetary/geological features, living creatures, protein, DNA, organic molecules, etc have all been observed in formation or have other theories substantiated that explain these phenomena without the need for a creative force. Thus for all these phenomena, and many more, there is no need to link it to the phenomenon of creation. Thus failing to reject the null hypothesis. This is the basis for how all science works. When you can reject the null hypothesis, you have graduated your own hypothesis to a theory. It's beyond the scope of a simple post in a thread to cover exactly why these things can be proven to form without the need for a creator, and would take pages, but I encourage you to look into natural synthesis of all these molecules and into accretion theories for stellar formation.

I think this is an essentially justified position for atheism. No faith required. If a creation hypothesis becomes a theory through rigorous scientific demonstration and passes peer review, many atheists who don't believe in a creator for this reason (myself included) will begin to accept the existence of a deity. But that hasn't happened.

[moksha]

In the old Kung Fu series, Kwai Chang Caine was a Taoist who had zero problem attending other religions.

Wasn't that a great series? It was originally created to star Bruce Lee, but the network executives thought he looked too Asian. I wonder how America of that era would have handled a leading character from China being Asian? Bruce Lee had already built up a fan base from playing Cato in the Green Hornet and doing a style of fighting never before seen on American television.

BTW, I thought he was a Buddhist Priest from the Shaolin Monastery.

[Give It Time]

In the old Kung Fu series, Kwai Chang Caine was a Taoist who had zero problem attending other religions.

Wasn't that a great series? It was originally created to star Bruce Lee, but the network executives thought he looked too Asian. I wonder how America of that era would have handled a leading character from China being Asian? Bruce Lee had already built up a fan base from playing Cato in the Green Hornet and doing a style of fighting never before seen on American television.

BTW, I thought he was a Buddhist Priest from the Shaolin Monastery.

It was excellent! Yes, I watched Dragon, I was amazed they double crossed him. David Carradine's yellow face is incredibly offensive. I agree that America, at that time, was not ready for an Asian lead. I think the intent was for him to be Buddhist. I don't remember him saying what denomination he was. I know the Shaolin monks that are famous are Buddhist*, but the Tao Te Ching is quoted regularly by the priests who teach Caine, and a lot of why he does what he does tracks more Taoist than Buddhist (as far as I know), Kwai Chang Caine quotes the Tao Te Ching, quite a bit and his eulogy for Anna is lifted straight out of the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching. So, if Caine was Buddhist, he was a very Taoist one.

*The Wudang mountains to Taoism are like Salt Lake City is to Mormonism. The original and best known Shaolin monastery is the Shaolin monastery in the Wudang mountains and it was originally a Taoist monastery. In the fourth or fifth century, Bodhidharma went from his native India to China to spread the good news of Buddhism. When he arrived at Shaolin, he discovered the monks were so flabby and out of shape that the fell asleep during meditation. Bodhidharma decided the monks needed to get some exercise. Bodhidharma had been a yoga practitioner in India, but the climate in the Wudang mountains was too cold for yoga, because the poses are stagnant. So, he came up with yoga-inspired exercises called the 18 Luohan Hands. These exercises eventually evolved into Kung Fu and became the first martial art.

It is at this monastery that the Taoists did incorporate Buddhism into their beliefs, but with a heavy Taoist spin. They deemphasized Samsara and Nirvana and put their focus on the here and now. They made other changes to the philosophy, as well, but I'm to young in my studies to know the difference and I'm not sure I want to skew toward Buddhism. Anyway, they changed Buddhism so dramatically as to form their own sect that became Chan Buddhism. Chan Buddhism spread across China and into Japan and there it is known as Zen Buddhism. Zen and Chan are one and the same.

I'm leaving a lot out about things like Qigong (exercise form that it is my understanding is part of Traditional Chinese Medicine and I know is related to Tai Chi. Tai Chi is also considered integral to Taoism and is also a martial art and I don't know how it all goes in there. It would be interesting for someone who actually knew the vsrious martial arts tell us if Caine uses Tai Chi, Kung Fu or Wing Chun (another Shaolin martial art that was created by a nun and was Bruce Lee's foundational martial art).

I will frequently refer to Buddhist practices thoughts when I try to find some sort of spiritual practice for a situation that Taoism doesn't seem to cover or I can't find within Taoism, I choose one from Zen Buddhism. I do that, because I know that will be closest to Taoism. I have considered exploring Zen Buddhism, but the Zen center closest to me is an hour away and I'm satisfied enough with Taoism at this time to keep things simple. I may explore Zen down the road.

I do think the intent was to make Caine Buddhist, because the monks from Shaolin are, but either the writers knew less about Chan Buddhism than I do or they know more. I know that for a Buddhist priest, he never talked about or referred to the four noble truths or the eightfold path or any of the most basic Buddhist beliefs that are also in Zen Buddhism. The writers may have intended to write a Chan Buddhist character, but he's an awfully Taoist Chan Buddhist. That's why I say Caine is Taoist, I just saw no Buddhism in his words and very little Buddhism in his ways.

If someone knows more about this than I do, please weigh in.

[Newme]

Well I deny the placebo equivalent Faith to God so there's one I'll deny right off the bat in your first example.

I didn't state that the placebo is equivalent to Faith in God. You did.
I brought up the placebo as proof that "all have faith but not all are conscience of having faith" and that faith does have influence.
Belief is powerful - even to affect your body - so why would anybody want to believe things that make them sick - rather than make them their optimum best? A study sought to discover which of 3 groups would heal best. The 2 groups who did poorest were those excessively religiously involved and those not religious at all. The group that did best were (kind of like us NOMies) those who were moderately religiously involved. Religion has many cognitive distortions - and yet if you can take the best and leave the rest, faith can really do a lot of good - to you directly physically.

The set of all possibilities to God I'll deny almost every one of them absolutely. I deny know amoeba as god, the Higgs boson as God, and so on. Indeed I think you'll join me in these denials. Clearly the set of all possibilities is nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense! How can I or you or any person - even a genius - possibly know enough about every description of God to deny them ALL - as Athesim does? It makes no sense!

What set of possibilities could be god...

Of the set of all the definitions of God of which I am aware, I do not find any of them sufficient of worship or belief.

It seems you haven't made yourself aware of many that are right under your nose.
"God is love." - That's in the scriptures which several major religions believe.
How would you deny love? Can you?
"The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you." Of course it is - where else would it be?
How can you deny that the experience of God is within someone? And how can you deny what's going on inside others?

I'm happy to consider new evidence as it arises.

If you define God as intelligent design and still see no evidence, you haven't opened your eyes.

However you again make an argument from incredulity that it's possible something undefined exists that might still be divine within that ever shrinking gap.

Good point - let's define God (I did briefly but let's flesh it out more). Note that Atheism points at something they fail to define and then says, "That doesn't exist!" How logical or scientific is that?

It offers no explanatory power, exhibits no influence and is untestable. So how do you claim it's god?

The reason why many people resort to horrible drugs with all of their side effects, when placebos do the job without the side effects, is because the placebo is based on the unpredictability of belief. You can't really have a clear indication of scientific method results because it's not really testable - yet nobody will deny that the placebo does have real influence.

To me this seems to me to say that God is going to reward or punish us based on which set of unsupportable worldviews we propound. That's evil. There must be a basis for such decision other than blind faith if we're to be judged.

Is this largely why you lean toward Atheism? Because you previously believed in the most dysfunctional insane definition of God as tyrannical grandpa in the sky who's waiting to punish you - and since that's the ONLY way you've considered God, you say, "Hell no! I'm not going to believe in that!" What about the other ways to consider God? Just toss them out the window? What about the scientific method - which tests every known possibility before concluding?