Motives for Theism and Atheism

[Santiago II]

4 hours ago, Knight771 said:

Yeah, 95% of the world's population are all superstitious dumb rubes who need a crutch.  It is the 5% who are "enlightened, free thinkers."  Or something.

Here's the "Catch 22" of some of the arguments presented by enlightened SOL members. Most of us have some idea why we believe what we do. They speculate why some of us believe what we do. Their speculations are often so grievously at odds with what we know to be true, that they call in to question their ability to discern reality. So why would any one trust their opinion about larger issues, like the force behind the creation of the universe?

[Santiago II]

1 hour ago, nateD said:

What does it say? What did I assume?

 

IMO what someone believes, including myself, comes much more from instincts and emotions than it does from science and reason.

 

This is the first one listed:

 

Unsuccessful search.  Some atheists honestly claim that they have examined many of the arguments for the existence of God that have been offered and have found them unconvincing.

 

How would you interpret that as a negative assessment of someone's motives? 

 

Why would you think that was an unreasonable opinion?

[Santiago II]

2 hours ago, Bass2Snook said:

I suppose if you look at it as a sort of analgesic which soothes some form of pain then I guess I could see that. Still, not for me but obviously works for others.

You and Epicurus would have a lot to talk about, although he seems to think that it's a motive for atheists, not theists.

 

 

Peace of Mind.  The most famous atheist of the ancient world was Epicurus; his strongest argument for atheism was that it brings peace of mind.  The atheist is superstition-free. Confident that there are no powers beyond the world of nature, he doesn’t have to fear that he will be punished by dark and invisible powers for his sins (or virtues) either in this life or the next. Nowadays, of course, when much popular religion holds that God is a nice guy who wouldn’t hurt a fly, most people probably feel little need for the comfort that Epicurean atheism would give. But if your upbringing involved a more or less Calvinistic God, even today you might find it comforting to believe that God doesn’t exist and that you don’t have to face the possibility of spending eternity in Hell.

[nateD]

14 mins ago, Santiago II said:

This is the first one listed:

 

Unsuccessful search.  Some atheists honestly claim that they have examined many of the arguments for the existence of God that have been offered and have found them unconvincing.

 

How would you interpret that as a negative assessment of someone's motives? 

 

Why would you think that was an unreasonable opinion?

I wouldn't, that sounds reasonable to me

 

Unsuccessful search.  Some atheists honestly claim that they have examined many of the arguments for the existence of God that have been offered and have found them unconvincing.

Intellectual laziness.  Others dishonestly mimic the foregoing.  They claim to have examined the arguments for God’s existence and found them wanting. But they are lying.  These people are intellectually lazy.  They have done little or no examination of the many arguments.  But they are embarrassed to admit that.  So they tell themselves and others that their atheism has been honestly arrived at.

 

But then the next one mocks people for possibly not doing enough research, calling them lazy and dishonest. This author seems to be assuming a lot about these lazy people he refers to. For some people the existence of god simply doesn't need to be examined, apathetic maybe, but these people are intellectually lazy because they can't write a paper on whether God exists or not.

 

[Knight771]

16 mins ago, nateD said:

I wouldn't, that sounds reasonable to me

 

Unsuccessful search.  Some atheists honestly claim that they have examined many of the arguments for the existence of God that have been offered and have found them unconvincing.

Intellectual laziness.  Others dishonestly mimic the foregoing.  They claim to have examined the arguments for God’s existence and found them wanting. But they are lying.  These people are intellectually lazy.  They have done little or no examination of the many arguments.  But they are embarrassed to admit that.  So they tell themselves and others that their atheism has been honestly arrived at.

 

But then the next one mocks people for possibly not doing enough research, calling them lazy and dishonest. This author seems to be assuming a lot about these lazy people he refers to. For some people the existence of god simply doesn't need to be examined, apathetic maybe, but these people are intellectually lazy because they can't write a paper on whether God exists or not.

 

SOME of us come to God because of reason.  Others of us are intellectually lazy and just do what they were taught.  Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.

[Bass2Snook]

2 hours ago, Knight771 said:

Yes, I know.  People of faith need analgesics or crutches but you are beyond that.  Other than atheists being unable to face the truth, their other big fault is their self anointed arrogance.

I can’t force myself to believe something that I just don’t believe in.

Do you TRULY believe, or do you just TRY to believe (in the hopes that the longer you try the more automatic it will become)?

[Bass2Snook]

2 hours ago, RiverRaider said:

I have no idea why you guys would engage some of these guys in a discussion about religion 

 

 

Talk about playing both sides of the fence 

[Knight771]

58 mins ago, Bass2Snook said:

I can’t force myself to believe something that I just don’t believe in.

Do you TRULY believe, or do you just TRY to believe (in the hopes that the longer you try the more automatic it will become)?

No, not at all.  As I've said repeatedly, I was an atheist and slowly came back to belief because of science.  Were you raised in a church or synagog tradition??

[fish'nmagician]

1 hour ago, Knight771 said:

 I was an atheist and slowly came back to belief because of science.

what element of science brought you back to Christianity?

[Joe]

1 hour ago, Knight771 said:

No, not at all.  As I've said repeatedly, I was an atheist and slowly came back to belief because of science.  Were you raised in a church or synagog tradition??

Confirmed under penalty of "death". But that wasn't what started me down the path of Atheism. It was the nuns. According to them, every word in the Bible was TRUTH; no exceptions, no questions. I don't have the inclination to reconsider. "God" MEH. Do as you will as long as you aren't ramming it down my throat. I especially object to using any religion as justification for governing.

[Knight771]

15 hours ago, Joe said:

Confirmed under penalty of "death". But that wasn't what started me down the path of Atheism. It was the nuns. According to them, every word in the Bible was TRUTH; no exceptions, no questions. I don't have the inclination to reconsider. "God" MEH. Do as you will as long as you aren't ramming it down my throat. I especially object to using any religion as justification for governing.

Sorry Joe but that is a false flag.  In a minor way, I became an atheist for kind of the reason you purport to.  However, Nuns teaching children teach in absolutes and as we mature we should have the intelligence to discern and understand what they were doing as opposed to trying to hold on to a childhood resentment or simplify the process.  I bet they also taught you it was wrong to lie, steal, cheat, harm others etc. in absolute terms too.  Were they wrong??  

 

I was also taught by nuns in grade school and priests/brothers in H.S.  50s and early 60s (I'm old as you know).  That was the teeth of the baby boom.  I remember that there were 75 boys in my grade school classes.  75 working class, smelly, rambunctuous(?) little Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. kids from big families who would fight at the drop of a hat.  One nun had to control us little animals and teach us the three Rs plus history, geography, government, religion, art, etc.  For me, they did a good job.  And I got wacked on a number of occasions.and probably deserved it.  In H.S., I was taught more about church history, the good and bad, a smattering of theology, the Catholic Calendar, deeper meaning, etc.  Hope you understand.

 

But we're not talking Catholicism per se, we're talking about belief in a God or lack of belief in God, not a Jewish God or a Christian God or a Muslim God or a Hindu God.  Read back a bit and see what we are talking about.

Edited January 11 by Knight771

[Joe]

31 mins ago, Knight771 said:

Sorry Joe but that is a false flag.  In a minor way, I became an atheist for kind of the reason you purport to.  However, Nuns teaching children teach in absolutes and as we mature we should have the intelligence to discern and understand what they were doing as opposed to trying to hold on to a childhood resentment or simplify the process.  I bet they also taught you it was wrong to lie, steal, cheat, harm others etc. in absolute terms too.  Were they wrong??  

 

I was also taught by nuns in grade school and priests/brothers in H.S.  50s and early 60s (I'm old as you know).  That was the teeth of the baby boom.  I remember that there were 75 boys in my grade school classes.  75 working class, smelly, rambunctuous(?) little Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. kids from big families who would fight at the drop of a hat.  One nun had to control us little animals and teach us the three Rs plus history, geography, government, religion, art, etc.  For me, they did a good job.  And I got wacked on a number of occasions.and probably deserved it.  In H.S., I was taught more about church history, the good and bad, a smattering of theology, the Catholic Calendar, deeper meaning, etc.  Hope you understand.

 

But we're not talking Catholicism per se, we're talking about belief in a God or lack of belief in God, not a Jewish God or a Christian God or a Muslim God or a Hindu God.  Read back a bit and see what we are talking about.

bull****. You're better than this. You CANNOT tell me what MY experiences are or are not & how I should interpret them. I have no interest in "going back" to try to discern what that crap was "really" supposed to mean. There are still plenty of folks that will tell you that every word of the Bible is 100% fact. I believe that you've been around long enough to remember Coolerpup.

 

The only interest I have in religion is from a historical perspective. Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc are all the same to me. They're no different than the mythology that was passed down through the ages. They all will be relegated to the dustbin of history; just as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian et al gods were. There's ALWAYS a "new" god. He's better than your god & I will kill you to prove it. THAT'S the history of religion.

Organized religion was likely the only thing Marx was right about. It's ALWAYS been about control.

 

Sure, there are folks that believe in an "organic" or "universal" god; but that is by far the minority. Most believers are "affiliated". Most also "inherit" their god from their family.

 

I have no interest in Atheist groups like Freedom from Religion or American Atheists either. That's just a different fanaticism.

What I live by: You keep whatever god you believe in out of my life, laws & gov't & we're good to go. In return, I will not tell you that you can't or shouldn't believe in your god nor will I mock you for said beliefs.

[Knight771]

10 mins ago, Joe said:

bull****. You're better than this. You CANNOT tell me what MY experiences are or are not & how I should interpret them. I have no interest in "going back" to try to discern what that crap was "really" supposed to mean. There are still plenty of folks that will tell you that every word of the Bible is 100% fact. I believe that you've been around long enough to remember Coolerpup.

 

The only interest I have in religion is from a historical perspective. Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc are all the same to me. They're no different than the mythology that was passed down through the ages. They all will be relegated to the dustbin of history; just as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian et al gods were. There's ALWAYS a "new" god. He's better than your god & I will kill you to prove it. THAT'S the history of religion.

Organized religion was likely the only thing Marx was right about. It's ALWAYS been about control.

 

Sure, there are folks that believe in an "organic" or "universal" god; but that is by far the minority. Most believers are "affiliated". Most also "inherit" their god from their family.

 

I have no interest in Atheist groups like Freedom from Religion or American Atheists either. That's just a different fanaticism.

What I live by: You keep whatever god you believe in out of my life, laws & gov't & we're good to go. In return, I will not tell you that you can't or shouldn't believe in your god nor will I mock you for said beliefs.

Then why are you even here??  I like you and we get along otherwise, but take your bitterness and bigotry to another forum.

[Knight771]

22 hours ago, nateD said:

No reason to be sorry, these are all opinions. I'd be interested to know what science led you back to religion though.

One of the problems with these threads is that you have to repeat yourself to new people who come on.  That's not a critique of you, it happens to all of us. 

 

I was an atheist in my 20s and around 1975, I read a long article in Time Magazine about the Big Bang.  Never heard of the BB before.  The implications of the article brought some doubts about my atheism so I did a lot of reading, etc. over the next 20 years, I considered myself agnostic over that time, and then due to my reading and some personal circumstances, I came back to belief in God.  But it may not be the God you assume I believe in.

 

Anyway, check the last 10 pages or so of "Does God Exist".  I posted an article about the fine tuning of the Universe.  It is one of the scientific arguments for the existence of God.  There are a lot of books and vids, etc. on the subject.  But the article is short and easy to read.  More and more science is pointing to the existence of a supreme intellect or something which created and orders the Universe.  Have fun.

[fish'nmagician]

21 hours ago, Santiago II said:

Here's the "Catch 22" of some of the arguments presented by enlightened SOL members. Most of us have some idea why we believe what we do. They speculate why some of us believe what we do. Their speculations are often so grievously at odds with what we know to be true, that they call in to question their ability to discern reality. So why would any one trust their opinion about larger issues, like the force behind the creation of the universe?

HUH???

to many we, they, their, our in there to be clear.

but you must admit that you have been doing a LOT of speculating, and claiming to know why the non believers have come to their opinion.....