Atheism: The Faith of The Fatherless

[ResidingOnEarth]

I gotta say: you have a very charismatic writing style Mantis!   I'm enjoying it and in some forums I think your personality and flair would be a great aid in propagating your theory.  I really don't think it's working for you in here.  I think if you want to convince people here of the correctness of your conclusions, you've got to make a good argument for them.  You've got to bring reason and evidence to the table.

[MrNlul77]

@Mrnull - hello my brother. I'm typing up the responses I'll have them up by the end of the day. Don't make me blow up on you nully boy, I do have other shit to do than post on this forum my brother. You are touting logic and reason and making ad-hom attacks. You sound very very angry, and really emotional. Are you upset?

I'll be back here and respond to everyone before the day is out. And I'm coming for you specifically my nully boy.

Everyone, please give me a moment, I will respond. MrNull77 needs a stiff drink, dont be bothered by his emotional outburst.

You dragged me back in,

 

Firstly, Ill disregard the derision evident in your response.

 

Secondly, Again you offer nothing but nonsense statements.

 

"Dont make me blow up on you" = your emotional response

"Touting" = putting forward

"Making ad-hom attacks" = addressing your position

"You sound very very angry and really emotional" = your response to not being agreed with.

"Are you upset?" = psychological projection

"Needs a stiff drink" = I don't drink

"Im coming for you specifically" = Your making a logical/rational conclusion personal.

"Dont be bothered by his emotional outbursts" = an attempt at discrediting me and diverting attention form your false position.

 

The study/theory you originally cited is a blatent example of confirmation bias. While there maybe some correlation between those who experience ACE and the atheist position, that in no way proves causation.

 

Finally, I put forward the theory that, those who pursue self knowledge and base there conclusions on evidence/logic/reasoning/reality and value truth, whether having experienced ACE or not, will arrive at the atheist position.

[Mantis]

@ResidingOnEarth - thank you for the compliment. You are right.

 

I don't care if anyone believes the connection between ACE/Atheism. You can take it leave it. Atheism is a religion.

 

Goodbye folks, FDR is really boring. Thanks for ResidingOnEarth for talking sense into me.

 

End of thread. Take it or leave it

[Sima]

i felt he was passive aggressive on his first post.  As if he wants also people in the forum to make angry or defensive.  I think he has a lot of contempt towards other people because they have a happy life while he does not. 

[Kerry1]

Atheism = faith?

Atheism "arises"?

 

That would mean that religiosity is the base state and atheism the diversion of that.

 

It's the other way around; the base state is nature, it's humans who invented religion.

I think historically, humanity has shown a predeliction for believing in a deity or deities. That is the historical norm. Atheism is not historically the default position in terms of the the history of thought.

[Kerry1]

Even though the term "faith of atheism" is unusual (I haven't heard someone use the word faith in that way before), I agree that atheism is a faith.  The definition of faith is: a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.  It is true that you cannot logically prove that a god does not exist and there is also no way of providing material evidence for a god's non-existence.

 

However: I think your use of your term "faith of Atheism" is a type of sophistry designed to mislead people who lack critical thinking skills.  I think you are using the word "faith" to paint a picture where atheism and theism seem equally plausible and that it's just a matter of picking which one feels right.  In other words: It's just a matter of where you place your faith.  You actually suggested that your childhood experience may affect your feeling about which is right.

 

So: it all rests on just faith... right?

 

Wrong. 

 

The fact is: theists are making the claim that there is a god or gods (they don't all agree on what god is or how many there are), and they are making that claim without rational or material evidence.  Atheists take the more reasonable position of assuming there is no god, on account of there being no evidence for one (or more).

 

As an atheist myself who has not seen any evidence of unicorns or clangers on the moon, I not only do not believe in god, but I also don't believe in the existence of unicorns or clangers.

You said: "they are making that claim without rational or material evidence" Firstly is it reasonable (or even rational) to ask for material evidence of an entity that is (purportedly) immaterial by nature? Wouldn't that be like asking for evidence of a  liquid that you don't believe exists, with the caveat that only evidence in the form of solids will be recognized/admitted as evidence? So really, by precluding the possibility of accepting anything except on your terms of reference, ie.  evidence that falls within a materialist framework- doesn't that strike you as lacking integrity? Stacking the deck? Secondly, and here I speak on behalf of Christianity- the truth claims that are made are that indeed God did take on (for a time) a material existence and that in doing so created a case for faith on an historical basis. Obviously that creates difficulties for those that think nothing can be reasonably relied upon from studying history. But the reality is that many people do believe things on the basis of history, and that careful analysis and use of the historic method gives reliable results. After all isn't archeology and paleontology (historically based) science?  

[shirgall]

I think historically, humanity has shown a predeliction for believing in a deity or deities. That is the historical norm. Atheism is not historically the default position in terms of the the history of thought.

 

Historically people are born without religion or superstition.

[dsayers]

I think historically, humanity has shown a predeliction for believing in a deity or deities.

The ability to accurately identify one's surroundings is paramount to survival. Belief in the non-existent serves no evolutionary purpose.

[shirgall]

The ability to accurately identify one's surroundings is paramount to survival. Belief in the non-existent serves no evolutionary purpose.

 

Actually, religion and superstition have their spark in the ability to recognize patterns which is absolutely critical to avoiding risk but also from the inability to reject coincidences. It's a fine line to walk. Misreading a coincidence doesn't usually kill you or your offspring.

[A4E]

Actually, religion and superstition have their spark in the ability to recognize patterns which is absolutely critical to avoiding risk but also from the inability to reject coincidences. It's a fine line to walk. Misreading a coincidence doesn't usually kill you or your offspring.

"The tsunami was because of the sins of the people of Aceh."

[shirgall]

"The tsunami was because of the sins of the people of Aceh."

 

Yeah, it certainly can lead to evil, but my point was that misreadings of coincidence don't usually lead to effects on the viability of immediate offspring. Misreading a tiger in the grass is death. Misreading thunder as God's wrath?

[Bruce Elwood]

To confuse faith for reason is a fundamental flaw. Indeed, the notion of faith only exists to replace missing reason. And to confuse a denial of one's hypothesis with a hypothesis in itself is simply an error. If the theism of the hundreds of gods that have been posited by men were each only denied properly by a specific anti theist hypothesis (each an act of faith) then there would be an anti faith for each of the many faiths. This would mean that a Catholic would have hundreds of anti-god faiths for each god he or she though did not exist. The Catholic would be an atheist in the cases of hundreds of faiths he or she denies. This is nuts! Atheism is simply the denial of a theist proposition. It requires no faith and is in no way a 'religion'. There is no cathecism, no dogma, no holy relics, no traditions, no services, no hymns, no baptism or any contrivances what so ever. The theist has an interest in promoting such nonsense because it lowers the simple denial of his position to yet another endless act of faith. It is an absurd argument in my opinion.

[A4E]

Yeah, it certainly can lead to evil, but my point was that misreadings of coincidence don't usually lead to effects on the viability of immediate offspring. Misreading a tiger in the grass is death. Misreading thunder as God's wrath?

I agreed with your first post. Was just adding to it about the Indonesian thing I recently heard about. Sorry for not making it clear.

[Donnadogsoth]

To confuse faith for reason is a fundamental flaw. Indeed, the notion of faith only exists to replace missing reason. And to confuse a denial of one's hypothesis with a hypothesis in itself is simply an error. If the theism of the hundreds of gods that have been posited by men were each only denied properly by a specific anti theist hypothesis (each an act of faith) then there would be an anti faith for each of the many faiths. This would mean that a Catholic would have hundreds of anti-god faiths for each god he or she though did not exist. The Catholic would be an atheist in the cases of hundreds of faiths he or she denies. This is nuts! Atheism is simply the denial of a theist proposition. It requires no faith and is in no way a 'religion'. There is no cathecism, no dogma, no holy relics, no traditions, no services, no hymns, no baptism or any contrivances what so ever. The theist has an interest in promoting such nonsense because it lowers the simple denial of his position to yet another endless act of faith. It is an absurd argument in my opinion.

 

Atheism is not a religion, but it can be a devotion, meaning something that one is devoted to thinking and acting about.  Football fans aren't religious but they are devoted.

[Des]

Also, all theists are "99.99%" atheists.

Yup. If one of my customers prayed his way to my office instead of driving here, I'd know he was more than 0,01% theist.

[Canadian]

Atheists do not believe in God/gods, that void is more often than not supplanted with the "god" of science.

How the universe came to be is still a network of theories which remain scientifically unproven. It takes faith to truly believe them.

 

To be an Agnostic is to admit a state of "not knowing."

 

Nearly every civilization throughout history believed in the supernatural. If one was to apply the scientific method here, one must then note the frequency of which the "god" phenomena is recreated.

 

I'm still waiting for science to inform me about the formation of snowflakes.

[dsayers]

Atheists do not believe in God/gods, that void is more often than not supplanted with the "god" of science.

To mock science is to say there is no standard of proof. What proof do you have of this?

 

To be an Agnostic is to admit a state of "not knowing."

To be an agnostic is this avoidance of a standard for proof.

 

Nearly every civilization throughout history believed in the supernatural.

Reality isn't democratic.

 

I'm still waiting for science to inform me about the formation of snowflakes.

The implication is that if one cannot explain something, there must be a God. Too many steps missing.

[Canadian]

To mock science is to say there is no standard of proof. What proof do you have of this?

Twasn't a mockery. However if you need proof, would 33 years of observance be applicable?

 

To be an agnostic is this avoidance of a standard for proof.

Kinda saying the same thing I said.

 

Reality isn't democratic.

Is atheism a product of democracy?

The implication is that if one cannot explain something, there must be a God. Too many steps missing.

Aye, but something can be explainable and a God there still could be.

 

Is this the part where I get hazed by the dude with 3 thousand posts?

Anyway, it's nice to meet you folks.

I'm new here so this should be interesting, the forum seems reasonably civilized if not a bit touchy, haha.

[Kerry1]

Historically people are born without religion or superstition.

Can you please explain what you mean by this assertion? What leads you to this conclusion? Why do you seem to ascribe to the "tabula rasa" view?

[Kerry1]

The ability to accurately identify one's surroundings is paramount to survival. Belief in the non-existent serves no evolutionary purpose.

If you view the problem of survival through the evolutionary lens as you seem to espouse, and consequently, ,accurately identifying one's surroundings is indeed paramount to survival, as you state- given those conditions- why hasn't religion (if it's baseless) died out? 

[dsayers]

If you view the problem of survival through the evolutionary lens as you seem to espouse, and consequently, ,accurately identifying one's surroundings is indeed paramount to survival, as you state- given those conditions- why hasn't religion (if it's baseless) died out? 

For the same reason people who lack hunting skills don't die out: division of labor and technological evolution.

[shirgall]

Can you please explain what you mean by this assertion? What leads you to this conclusion? Why do you seem to ascribe to the "tabula rasa" view?

 

Plenty of evidence. Children are indoctrinated into religions the world over. The people I know that grew up without indoctrination never "got the bug". Others simply choose to join the religion that their spouse is for the sake of not confusing offspring. Others who were kidnapped from their parents and raised by others adopt the religion of their captors. Religion is not inherent in anyone, it comes from trusted others who exploit that trust to spread a knowledge virus.