The God Delusion

[youbet]

Also, dont forget the burden of proof lies on those who make fanciful claims (ie: powerful god(s) rule the earth), not on those subscribing to the default belief one is born with (aka atheism).

Azanon.....serious question for ya.......

I've always struggled understanding what atheists believe in as opposed to non-believers.  Do atheists have beliefs that can be expressed in terms other than stating what they do not believe?

In my own life, I've always had doubts and questions concerning the specific doctrine of the religion in which I was raised.  But, I haven't felt compelled to throw the whole thing out as its infrastructure has provided humanitarian, social, charitable and philosophical frameworks within which to live.

I'm a fan of singer-songwriter Iris Dement.  I like the way she says it in the words of her song "Let the Mystery Be."

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Some say once you're gone you're gone forever, and some say you're gonna come back.
Some say you rest in the arms of the Saviour if in sinful ways you lack.
Some say that they're comin' back in a garden, bunch of carrots and little sweet peas.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Instrumental break.

Some say they're goin' to a place called Glory and I ain't saying it ain't a fact.
But I've heard that I'm on the road to purgatory and I don't like the sound of that.
Well, I believe in love and I live my life accordingly.
But I choose to let the mystery be.

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

 

[Caroline]

There IS a middle ground...


Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

 

[burch64]

Or one could be a "Deist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

 

[Michael Moore]

I've always struggled understanding what atheists believe in as opposed to non-believers.  Do atheists have beliefs that can be expressed in terms other than stating what they do not believe?

hello youbet,

Atheists believe any number of things.  The only common trait is the lack of belief in a diety or dieties.  Some believe in supernatural creatures other than "gods/goddesses" like ghosts or djinn, others may reject the supernatural entirely.

There is no "atheist dogma".

Everyone starts off as an a-theist.  If a person has never had a "god concept" to consider, they can't decide to accept or reject it.

Most people with some sort of theistic religious belief are a-theists about any number of gods other than the one or more they happen to believe in.  I suppose that there is someone somewhere who believes in every god concept they've ever been exposed to.  The Hindu pantheon seems pretty welcoming to adding any newcomer deities that come along.

I've seen estimates that there are 1000+ different Christian Protestent faith groups/divisions just in the USA and  somewhere in the 25-30K range worldwide, and they all have one or more things that they disagree about with their co-religionists.  What do they all believe in?  Something different it seems - and they've actually got some sort of common dogma.

There are different types of atheism.  Some people are "non-cognitivists" - basically, they say "I hear you talking but I can't derive any sense from what you are saying so how can you expect me to agree to believe what you are proposing?"  Others may take the time to get someone to define their terms to the point where they can understand the proposition (and I think this is a big thing that many people fail to do, as there sure are a lot of different meanings of "god" out there, and you've got to nail down just what god concept someone may be referring to) and then they'll say "sorry, but for this particular proposition you've failed to make a sufficiently strong case for me to be able to accept it at this time", but they'll remain open for someone to make a case about some other concept.

Others get to the point where they say "I've not heard a believable case made for any diety concept so far, reality (as we know it) doesn't seem to require any of them, and for all practical purposes I'm just going to say that I don't believe in any god concepts".  They may remain open to evaluating new evidence (something that most religions I'm familiar with definitely aren't open to considering) but until that should happen the operating policy is "I don't believe in any gods as they are just too unlikely to bother worrying about".

To my way of looking at it, an agnostic is actually an atheist, as they lack a god belief.  There really is no middle ground.  "Do you believe in X?"  The answers are generally "yes, no, I don't know".  "I don't know" is not a "yes".   If you don't know, then you don't believe.  If you lack a belief in a particular diety, you are an atheist in reference to it.

Are there in your face jerk atheists?  You bet (pardon the pun).  Are there in your face jerk theists?  You bet.  Are there going to be humans who are jerks no matter what they do or don't believe?  No doubt.  

A thing I like about many (but not all) of my fellow atheists is that they are open to re-evaluating things in the light of new evidence.  Give them evidence of a god/goddess that meets their standards of proof and they are ready to be believers.  But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  One individual's personal revelation is just that - personal - and isn't proof to someone else.  

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.  If a person wants to claim there is a god, then they need to provide the support for that claim.  It isn't up to the non-believer to disprove every god claim that someone can come up with.  If it were, then all the believers need to get busy working up the case against every other deity but the one they believe in.  And when they get done they'd better get ready to disprove any new concepts too.   They are going to be so busy 24x7 disproving all the other claims they aren't going to find time to bother anyone else with claims about their own favorite diety.  Which actually doesn't sound like such a bad thing.

cheers,
Michael

 

[Leonidas]

Interesting. I don't have any issues with the basic beliefs of constructive deism:

constructive deism — the belief that rational consideration of features of the natural world leads us to some basic religious truths. The small set of basic deistic religious truths generally included:

* God exists and created the universe.
* God wants human beings to behave morally.
* Human beings have souls that survive death, i.e. there is an afterlife.
* In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior.

But it all becomes sort of muddled after that starting place. I'm not sure how one behaves morally without some guide that is unwavering.

One of the things on my RE to-do list is to read the great texts of the major religions. This year I started reading the Bible. It has been an elightening experience. While many claim the Old Testament is all about begetting, beheading and animal sacrifices, I found this interesting quote from God in Isiah:

"I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
...Stop bringing me meaningless offerings!
...Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!
Seek justice, encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow."

There's a lot in the OT that I'm stumped by, but this makes sense to me as part of a moral code.

 

[Lazarus]

Morality is seperate from religion. Morality is simply doing what is right without pressing your own agenda. Much like the "Golden Rule". The bible does not have it all wrong. Much of it was derived from human experience, not handed down from God on high.

 

[Leonidas]

Morality is simply doing what is right without pressing your own agenda. Much like the "Golden Rule".

Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you mean here. But what does the non-religious moral person do when he sees someone else doing something morally wrong? Cheating, stealing, raping, robbing, oppressing others, etc.? Isn't that applying one's own morality, or agenda, on another? I guess I'm asking, who decides what is moral in any situation and what gives one the right (absent some higher authority declaring what is good or bad) to interfere with another's application of what they think is moral?

 

[donheff]

constructive deism — the belief that rational consideration of features of the natural world leads us to some basic religious truths. The small set of basic deistic religious truths generally included:

* God exists and created the universe.
* God wants human beings to behave morally.
* Human beings have souls that survive death, i.e. there is an afterlife.
* In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior.

A lot of our founding fathers were professed Deists - it was the "religion" du jeur during the Enlightenment. But if you looked under the hood I bet most of em were really agnostics or atheists.

 

[Lazarus]

Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you mean here. But what does the non-religious moral person do when he sees someone else doing something morally wrong? Cheating, stealing, raping, robbing, oppressing others, etc.? Isn't that applying one's own morality, or agenda, on another? I guess I'm asking, who decides what is moral in any situation and what gives one the right (absent some higher authority declaring what is good or bad) to interfere with another's application of what they think is moral?

Well I certainly don’t have all the answers. Or probably any of them for that matter. Your post is a very hard question for me to answer or probably anyone. I just try to let others live their life the way they want as long as it doesn’t impact me. If it does I have to think about the relative value of what they want verses what I want. I don’t always optimize in favor of myself.

I think absolute rules are as much as a problem as trying to decide what to do in any given situation.

No easy answers here. I just try do my best based on my experience and trying to be fair to others. I guess we all just try to make the best decisions we can in the situation we find ourselves in. A rule book for every situation in our changing society would be difficult to get agreement on.

So am I moral or not. Probably depends on who your ask and what their interest in the situation is.

At least I think about it and don’t just do what I want at the time.

 

[Michael Moore]

Leonidas, you might want to do some reading about humanism, for example http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php which is the latest version of the Humanist Manifesto.

I like to draw a distinction between ethics and morality.  To me, morality is typically an enforced set of guidelines, and is typical of religions.  So most of the "my religious text says this is bad" stuff tends to be morality.  Why is it bad?  Because that religious text says so.  It may actually BE bad, but that often doesn't seem to be all that important.  Morality seems to change with whatever lines in the religious text a particular person wants to emphasize at the moment. 

Ethics, on the other hand, tends to be more study of a "let's look at what human behavior is and how it interacts with the world, and figure out what practices tend to enhance the happiness of people or work towards the betterment of people in general".

Lying is generally a poor ethical action, as it can promote distrust among people who need to cooperate to survive or otherwise improve their lot.  Many cultures have come to that realization, and you don't have to have a supernatural being allegedly telling you that there are problems with that practice.  Same with killing the person next to you - unless that person has proven to be a threat to the greater society and you can't come up with any better way to prevent him or her from harming others you probably shouldn't just off your neighbor on a whim.

There tend to be good (or at least reasonable) reasons why some things aren't ethical.  Morals often are commandments - "kill the unbeliever" gives a believer free rein to kill.  Why?  Because their diety says so, who needs any other reason?

I find it very perturbing when someone says "but if I didn't believe in <insert favorite supernatural being or beings here> what would stop me from raping, looting, and littering?" Boy, if you can't see any reason for not doing that without having someone say "NO" to you, please keep on believing!

cheers,
Michael

 

[Lazarus]

The Other Michael

Well said.

 

[astromeria]

If The Michael is as thoughtful and articulate as The Other Michael, I hope he'll come around, too.

 

[youbet]

The Other Michael.....

Thanks for your thoughtful and extensive response.  Very interesting indeed......

Let me ask you this.......  In your opinion, if a person was raised in the culture of religion x but over time develops doubt as to the true existence of the god of religion x yet still maintains membership because he/she enjoys the culture, friendships and opportunities to participate in charitable causes with like minded people, is that person really an atheist?  He/she calls him/herself a member of religion x, participates in the pagentry and culture, but knows inwardly that he/she doesn't truly believe in the god of religion x with unquestioning faith.  Where do you categorize that person?

 

[Michael Moore]

Hi youbet,

"Social infrastructure" seems to be a big part of many religions.  Having a support group is not a bad thing!

I would not be surprised to find that many people who respond to polls with "you bet, I'm right with <insert diety> and I'm a believer!" are actually what are called "apatheists".  You know, the ones who respond "oh sure, I believe" but you seldom/never see them in church/mosque/temple/synagogue/Kingdom Hall and religion never really seems to have an impact on their life.  It is like the people who are atheist but are "culturally Jewish".  You grow up with a particular religion permeating your life, but  even if you go through all the comforting rituals you don't necessarily believe.  Cue Zero Mostel singing "tradition . . . TRADITION!"

Being human seems to be, to a large extent, all about being "tribal".  Most everyone wants to belong, and belonging often ends up being a matter of "us good, them bad".  Look at sports, political parties, religions, etc etc etc ad infinitum.  It reminds me of  the old Firesign Theatre joke: "Mudhead, what are you going to do after we graduate?" "Well, I thought I'd go out and find a bunch of guys and dress up like them and follow them around!"


There are atheist/non-believer groups that are trying to offer an alternative to the social infrastructure of religions, such as the North Texas Church of Freethought (http://www.churchoffreethought.org/).

But as I've often seen mentioned, organizing atheists or other freethinker/non-believers/burn them now! folks can be very similar to herding cats.  As I pointed out earlier, atheists really don't have anything in common except not believing in dieties.  Shucks, if you want to pick out a particular diety (say the Christian god, though it is pretty hard to distinguish it from the Moslem god, since they both claim to be "the god of Abraham") atheists have lots in common with all the other religions that also don't believe in that diety.

You'd think that being able to say "hey, we don't believe in all those other gods too!" would make us universally loved, but that doesn't seem to be the case.     There often seems to be this unstated sentiment of "sorry Jack, even though the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I feel a lot more in common with my enemy who believes in a different supernatural being (and will suffer for eternity for that) than I do with you who doesn't believe in any dieities".

But belief or lack thereof seems to me to be the deciding factor.  I'd not be surprised if there isn't a larger than zero number of people in the heirarchy of any religion you want to name who don't actually believe in that particular religion.  A person may go through the motions (and that may be necessary to keep their job/family/head) but if they don't really believe in that religion it seems difficult to classify them as a "believer".

Is it easy to be an open non-believer in the USA?  I could refer you to a lot of people who'd probably reply "are you kidding me?".
The vast majority of the elected officials and populace seem to not only believe, but revel in pointing out how much they believe, along with wanting to make everyone else believe too.  The House just passed a bill that would make people who bring (and win) an Establishment Clause First Amendment case against the Federal government unable to recover their attorney fees.  (HR 2679, passed largely upon party lines   http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll480.xml )  Luckily it looks like the Senate is unlikely to take up that bill, so it is largely a bit of election year politicking. 

But when you are a non-believer and you see a significant majority of the elected representatives in the Federal government basically pass a law that acts in the same way as a SLAPP suit does against people who want to try and enforce the Constitutional neutrality for or against religion, how do you think you end up feeling?

It is interesting that there seems to be a higher percentage of atheists or similar non-believers in many European countries than in the USA.  Even though some of those countries have official State religions, they also have the memory of the experience of decades of religious warfare that decimated whole countries.  Oddly enough, many of those countries with a much larger percentage of 'non-religious' among the population seem to have a much higher quality of life - longer lifespan, higher educational levels, higher reported levels of satisfaction etc. 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

A Christian research group (Barna) reports that in the USA divorce rates among Christians was significantly higher than other faith groups, as well as for atheists and agnostics. 

George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:

"While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

Is it any wonder that non-believers aren't hot to jump on the religious belief bandwagon?  All we seem to hear is "if you'll just believe, things will be so much better for you".  Umm, doesn't necessarily look that way.

Personally, I don't give a rat's behind what someone else believes if they don't try to impose their beliefs on me.  But "believers" often seem to be (may I use the term?) "Hell-bent" on imposing their beliefs on other people.  How many states still have "blue laws"?  How religiously neutral is that?

I may have wandered a bit astray here, but that's not uncommon when I get "the bit in my teeth". 

For full disclosure I'll mention that I'm an Administrator at the largest freethought/non-believer/atheist forum on the Internet (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php) as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the 501(c)3 organization that sponsors that forum.  I get to see a lot of "testamonials" from people deconverting from a religion. 

But we've got theists on our Moderator staff, and don't exclude believers as users.  As long as people are civil, they can espouse a pretty wide range of belief/non-belief - makes no difference to us.  There's a certain number of theists who find us a lot more "christian" (so to speak) than some of the fora that are devoted to a specific diety.  But I think that gets back to the difference between ethics and morality.  We try to ethically treat people as people.  If they get nasty, they get sanctioned.  But if someone wants to believe in X, Y or Z - go for it.  Just be prepared to offer a cogent defense for any propositions you put forth, as those propositions will have to stand or fall on their own merits.

cheers,
Michael

 

[Mr._johngalt]

The Other Michael.....

Thanks for your thoughtful and extensive response.  Very interesting indeed......

Let me ask you this.......  In your opinion, if a person was raised in the culture of religion x but over time develops doubt as to the true existence of the god of religion x yet still maintains membership because he/she enjoys the culture, friendships and opportunities to participate in charitable causes with like minded people, is that person really an atheist?  He/she calls him/herself a member of religion x, participates in the pagentry and culture, but knows inwardly that he/she doesn't  truly believe in the god of religion x with unquestioning faith.  Where do you categorize that person?

Hypocrite? I apologize. Couldn't resist.

JG

 

[samclem]

A Christian research group (Barna) reports that in the USA divorce rates among Christians was significantly higher than other faith groups, as well as for atheists and agnostics.

Atheists make up approximately 10% ofthe US population, but just 0.2% of the US prison population (source: Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997). I wonder if the % of atheists in prison is really higher, but prisoners report that they are religious as a means of increasing their chances of parole. Which brings s back to the topic of US bias against nonbelievers.

OtherMichael,
Thanks for the post.

 

[youbet]

Hypocrite?  I apologize.  Couldn't resist.

JG

Mr. Galt......  not to offend you by not being offended, but that word crossed my mind as well.  But, I think an inward struggle with religious faith might qualify as a special sort of hypocracy.  I think most everyone at one time or another ponders the meaning of life, why we're here and where we're going and all that.  From the Iris Dement song I quoted earlier:  

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.

To be involved with a religious group that gives you some peace of mind regarding understanding/accepting all these unknowns yet having inner doubts as to whether that religious group's diety exists exactly as described is probably, technically, hypocracy.  But, hey, who has ever been a member of any group who hasn't at some point questioned?  It's a flavor of hypocracy I'd endorse.

Michael, again thanks for your response.  My past experience with so-called "atheists" has been a few acquaintances who are always "itching for a fight' in discussions.  I tend to be much more of a live and let live type and therefore avoid interaction with them if the subject of religion comes up.  I have enjoyed, however, listening to you.

The issue of classifying "doubters" still intriques me and I'm sure I'll be giving that further thought.  At the moment, I really can't get comfortable with classifying religious sect members who have anything less than 100% faith as "atheists."  

Regarding atheist organizations......  neither you, nor the web sites you referred me to,  have mentioned much they do beyond denying the existance of dieties.  Certainly there must be social cause activity too?  You know, fighting for civil rights, supporting charities, providing avenues to give one's time and resources to help others and that sort of thing.  When DW and I were church members, those kinds of things were key to us and our church was known for taking activist positions and fighting for positive change on many issues.    



 

 

[Leonidas]

Lots of information to look at - thanks to the posters.

Atheists make up approximately 10% ofthe US population, but just 0.2% of the US prison population (source: Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997). I wonder if the % of atheists in prison is really higher, but prisoners report that they are religious as a means of increasing their chances of parole. Which brings s back to the topic of US bias against nonbelievers.

A couple of observations. From many years of dealing with criminals, I would say it has been my experience that most people who wind up in prison are about as religious as my dog, before they go to prison. Upon arrival they find some practical reasons to become religious: Some actually do so in an attempt to recenter their lives - prison gives one a lot of time to think, if so inclined. But they are a minority. Many others declare religious interests because going to church services/activities gets them out of their cells and into a better environment for a few hours here and there. Lastly, some find God because they think it will make the parole authorities find them more desireable. Most prisoners religious faith is dubious at best. Although, some may feel it is genuine while they are locked up and fall back to their old manner of living when they get out. Sort of the "there are no atheists in foxholes" concept.

It is interesting to note that here in Texas there is a program funded by an outside group that administers a faith-based program inside one of the prison units. It's only a few years old, but comparing eligible inmates to elegible inmates who "graduate" from the program, the recidivism rates are different - 22% for non-participants vs 8% for those who completed the program and have entered parole.

 

[azanon]

Azanon.....serious question for ya.......

I've always struggled understanding what atheists believe in as opposed to non-believers.  Do atheists have beliefs that can be expressed in terms other than stating what they do not believe?

I neither believe or disbelieve in any religion.   Why am i obiligated to even bother forming a position on them just because a man or a group of men can fabricate any number of religions?  The whole realm of "belief" to me is illogical, because it involves declaring some kind of truth without sufficient proof to stamp it simply "knowing" instead of "belief".   As a scientist, i can tell you what we know in terms of theories, and laws, but it is all based on empirical and tested evidence, most of will will be published in scientific journals.  "Belief" is a tool of the common man.   Scientists just dont go there.    

Humility is not a human's strong point; and it never will be.  I doubt we will ever see the day that the majority of us say that we're not going to live forever; regardless of how much evidence science is able to dig up showing a completely biological and empirical origin.  We're way too proud, as a people and a species, to say that our existence is finite regardless of whether that is actually the case.   "We" simply must live forever and, by God, even if it isnt true, you can bet most of us will form religions that say that.  

A christain that claims to know (instead of believe) is making a boast they simply cannot backup fully with proof; unless God himself appeared before them like he did Elijah.   He would also be ignoring that his own bible says that it takes faith anyway, so he would be making an improper argument.  Regardless, one's mind can play serious tricks on you.    So many want to believe so badly, that they make it seem like its very much a reality.  But wanting it to be true; wanting to not just be flesh and blood that will pass away someday, won't make it so.

 

[brewer12345]

Humility is not a human's strong point; and it never will be.  

This out to be in your sig line, Az.

 

[youbet]

Atheists make up approximately 10% ofthe US population, but just 0.2% of the US prison population (source:  Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997).   

These statistics really cause me to question the definition of "atheist."  From what I'm getting from the interesting discussion going on here, this statistic would mean that 99.8% of the US prison population are true, non-doubting, religious diety believers.  Somehow that doesn't pass my common sense test.

Is it possible that lots of people are not either hard core diety believers or non-believers but somewhere in the middle doing their own thing?

 

[azanon]

This out to be in your sig line, Az.

haha, well i said pretty recently i'm not humble.  Humility is one of those social graces where people basically downplay their true value.  I think that's inherently silly and unnecessary.  Humility rarely impresses me because it always comes across to me as contrived unless the person doing it actually convinces me that they're truly unaware of their actual worth. Sure, on rare occasions you can have a person ignorant of their true value, but its clearly the exception, not the rule.

But i was using it there in a sarcastic sense, meaning that we're so "not humble" that we're going to effectively make ourselves Gods (live forever) whether we actually will or not.   Truth is not the issue there.  The majority WILL believe they'll live forever, first and foremost, because they're human, not because they're religious.

 

[azanon]

These statistics really cause me to question the definition of "atheist."  From what I'm getting from the interesting discussion going on here, this statistic would mean that 99.8% of the US prison population are true, non-doubting, religious diety believers.  Somehow that doesn't pass my common sense test.

Is it possible that lots of people are not either hard core diety believers or non-believers but somewhere in the middle doing their own thing?

People in prison usually have some sort of mental issue that got them there, and one has to be a bit irrational to accept any religion, so it makes a good deal of sense to me. * shrug *

 

[samclem]

haha, well i said pretty recently i'm not humble. Humility is one of those social graces where people basically downplay their true value. I think that's inherently silly and unnecessary. Humility rarely impresses me because it always comes across to me as contrived unless the person doing it actually convinces me that they're truly unaware of their actual worth. Sure, on rare occasions you can have a person ignorant of their true value, but its clearly the exception, not the rule.

"Good breeding consists in concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person."

Mark Twain
(Samuel Clemens)
samclem

 

[dusk_to_dawn]

<<My past experience with so-called "atheists" has been a few acquaintances who are always "itching for a fight' in discussions.>>


I'll bet you know a lot more atheists than you realize, and most are seeking to avoid confrontations conversations about religion rather than "itching for a fight." The "itching" type are annoying regardless of their views.