quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
If you're an atheist, why bother.

That’s a question that’s often asked, and there are probably three main answers.

One is that most adult atheists (in this country, anyway) became nonbelievers after having been exposed to religious indoctrination and because they had to make a conscious effort to reject what they were taught, they tended to learn and develop specific reasons for that rejection.

The second is closely related, but not exactly the same. A person can just drift away from whatever religious culture he was raised in or not become a strong believer in the first place because he wasn’t exposed to any traditions or indoctrination, but those people usually do not identify themselves as atheists—something that can be a disadvantage for social and other reasons.

Although it’s true that infants are the largest group of atheists because they have no belief in a God, and that’s what the word “a (without) theism” technically means, most adults who self-identify as atheists have moved beyond simple lack of belief in a God to a specific affirmative belief that there are no gods, i.e., philosophical naturalism. In a society that continues to expose them to religious ideas and even the need to justify their beliefs at least to themselves, they tend to continue to examine their beliefs. That process of self-examination often involves learning about religious doctrine to help answer the question, “Am I wrong, and if I’m right about the religion I was raised in, what about other religions?”

Last, if certain people, i.e., Muslims, believe for religious reasons that they must conquer the world and convert everyone to Islam and are justified in using any and all methods to accomplish that goal, then it’s important for everyone, even atheists, to understand what those people believe and why they believe it. The search for that understanding will result in anyone’s learning a lot of other things such as why Muslims try to make a pilgrimage at least once in their lives.

And although that’s an extreme example of what even atheists should know, it’s not the only one. If we’re trying to organize a local self-defense force for some reason, it’s useful to know why someone might be a conscientious objector who believes killing another person for any reason is wrong. According to the movie, Alvin York was one such believer and it was only after someone was able to address his beliefs that he changed his mind.

Interesting, sigfreund.

I know very few who fit your first reason. That would be a conscious effort to reject what they were taught.
In fact, I had an old Jesuit theology teacher when I was in high school who used to make the point: It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, to be absolutely certain that God does NOT EXIST! His point was that it is actually much more likely that a person is agnostic than atheist.

Your second reason: that a person can just drift away from whatever religious culture he was raised in or not become a strong believer in the first place, seems most common. I know many "fallen away" Catholics who still consider themselves to be Catholic, although they no longer attend church and belief is doubtful.

Your third reason is completely valid: Know your enemy.

I got 15, only because of the spoiler above on Buddhism.

I was disappointed, thought they would be asking Bible verse questions, questions about the Haddith, and maybe the Kamasutra. Also the 613 laws of the Torah.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, to be absolutely certain that God does NOT EXIST!

Thanks for that. It’s the sort of thing I appreciate in discussions like this because unlike many, probably most atheists, I enjoy how religious questions still engage me, and the reason why I started this thread.

That statement is a variation on one of the common criticisms of atheism like many others that I have given significant thought to. Because, though, I want my response to be as clear as possible—not to mention more succinct than many of my comments here ( )—I’ll take some time considering how I’ll do that.

14/15 but I went to Christian school from 6-9 and we studied different religions. Also had to take Rel101 in college. I missed the one about Buddhism four truths

13/15

Guessed on Yoga. I guessed Zoroastrianism over Hinduism

Which of these religious groups traditionally teaches that salvation comes through faith alone?

I answered both Prots and Caths.

according to the quiz I should have answered Protestant.

As a confirmed Catholic I was taught salvation by faith.

13/15.

In response to:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
In fact, I had an old Jesuit theology teacher when I was in high school who used to make the point: It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, to be absolutely certain that God does NOT EXIST!

In any discussion like this it’s often difficult to avoid, sooner or later, getting into issues and arguments that some people will find offensive. If anything I say comes across like that, my apologies in advance because it’s not my intent, and I respect many different beliefs.

Jesuitical is a word that can be descriptive of careful analytical thought, but it’s sometimes used pejoratively. As an AI definition puts it, “The term ‘Jesuitical’ can carry a negative connotation, often implying cunning, craftiness, or deceitfulness in reasoning or argumentation.”

I will assume, though, that your teacher was expressing his genuine belief about the issue. If so, it demonstrates at least a couple of erroneous assumptions about atheists.

The first is the common assertion that all atheists are “absolutely certain” about their beliefs—and whatever those beliefs may be. The term “philosophical naturalist” is defined as someone who believes that everything in the universe can be explained through natural laws and forces, without relying on supernatural or metaphysical explanations. That means they have no belief in any sort of gods, angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, or even The Force. It describes me, but does not describe all atheists.

Some who believe that God who is worshiped by Jews, Christians, and Muslims does not exist still accept the idea that there may be entities and forces that are not explained by what are usually considered to be “natural” phenomena. A self-described atheist friend told me that she once received a warning of an impending car crash by what she interpreted as a supernatural force and urged me to not close my thinking entirely.

Just as not all atheists believe the same about the supernatural, they certainly do not all hold those beliefs to the same degree. And why should they? As we know from the history of the Church, even Christians sometimes admit to questioning what they believe. If that were not true, once someone was converted, or “saved,” he would never change his beliefs. The claim that “atheists,” i.e., all atheists are absolutely convinced of their unbelief is simply an example of the straw man logical fallacy: making an erroneous or exaggerated claim about someone in order to make it easier to discredit them or their thinking.

But my more serious criticism of your teacher’s statement is its apparent fundamental misunderstanding of how people think in general, and especially about how they form and hold their beliefs. My specific objection to his idea is that people must continually think about a particular belief and make the effort to continually affirm that they either accept it or reject it. He seems to have had the idea that atheists continually think and tell themselves, “There is no God; there is no God; there …,” and nothing could be further from the truth—at least not for all atheists.

The first reason is that a huge number of atheists, human infants, have no conception of the God of Abraham and therefore have nothing to think about in regards to the idea. That’s also true of all the other people who have never been exposed to the concept. In this day and age that’s not as many people as, for example 500 years ago, but it’s still true of some. But what about the people who were more than just exposed to the concept, and often accepted it when it was first taught to them?

Let’s consider another concept. In a discussion of who has the burden of proof in an argument, Bertrand Russell asked what if he claimed that there was a China teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. I won’t get into the point he was making, but now that I’ve mentioned the idea, what does everyone who has read this paragraph believe about it? Most people of course don’t believe anything about the idea because it’s not a claim they had ever heard or so much as imagined. But for the few who were already familiar with Russell’s arguments or are unfortunate enough to read about the idea here, what do they believe?

I first read the idea about a teapot orbiting in interplanetary space years ago, and like today I sometimes think about it again. But do I think about it all the time or even regularly and frequently and then tell myself, “Don’t believe in the teapot; don’t believe in the teapot; …”? Of course not. I don’t have to go through that process even when I think about the idea because I gave the idea the consideration it deserved when I first read about it, and that was enough so that I don’t have to continually beat down secret doubts that it could possibly be true, and why.

I understand and accept that someone like a Jesuit may be absolutely convinced that the God of Abraham exists and exists just as he conceives his existence. It’s also understandable why someone like that would find a contrary disbelief to be incomprehensible and therefore would assume that an incomprehensible belief or disbelief could only be maintained by constant effort: “I reject the idea; I reject the idea; I REJECT the idea!!!” But that is not true of how most people disbelieve things, and (I believe) it’s not how most atheists think about God. Atheists (some, at least) have considered the idea of God’s existence to the degree that they believe it warrants, and then put it into the cabinet with other things they’ve considered and don’t believe.

If someone pulls the idea out of the cabinet and asks what someone thinks about it, then the person asked may feel compelled to offer their thoughts and justifications for their unbelief, but most atheists don’t continually think about and consciously reject the idea of God any more than anyone here will continually think about orbiting teapots after reading this post.

My last thoughts are about the question of “faith” which was also mentioned in the original statement above. That’s another subject that I could discuss at length, but I’ll try leaving it at this. Faith can be defined in several ways, but for this comment I’ll use the one told to me by a very devout Hindu friend years ago: “Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.” If we accept that definition for this discussion, then most atheists’ disbelief in God is based on demonstrable evidence and therefore is not faith. I know that many people will challenge that statement, but it’s what I believe (on faith? ).

Additional comments in an attempt to explain further.

In a previous post I mentioned that many adult atheists would have had to make a conscious effort to reject the religious teachings they had been exposed to in their lives. I realize that that may seem at odds with my saying here that atheists in general don’t obsess over religious questions and certainly don’t have to keep reaffirming their unbelief to themselves.

Trying to keep this short, I’ll just say that for me as an example, there was a time when I thought a lot about religious questions, and that period lasted for several years. I didn’t think about them all the time, but I read many articles and books on both sides of the question and when I did I obviously thought about what they were saying. That period, however, is over. As I recently told a friend, I’ve heard all the arguments, given them the thought and analysis they deserve, and now I don’t have to continue doing that. When I encounter questions, such as in this thread, I’ll start thinking about them again, but that passes quickly and I continue my life as before and that includes thinking and worrying about other issues.

I stress, though, that I’m speaking only for myself and how I believe that others may agree with me. In a 1980 article in Scientific American Irving Klotz wrote, “Science has no vicar on the earth to reveal doctrine and no central committee to proclaim dogma.” The same is true of atheism.

Missed 3 with one of the three a no answer but I missed the question I guess. The other two I was thinking the correct answer and chose poorly. Body and blood was a hmmm.