Atheism isn't a belief?

Good luck! Prima facie, it is reasonable to say that one should always be open minded about the existence of God and I'd definitely agree. This leaves open the obvious charge that, by the same token, one should be open minded about the existence of the Easter Bunny. Now, personally I don't think this is fair, the existence or otherwise of God is a far more important and serious affair than the existence of the Easter Bunny, concerning matters of the reason for our existence, as opposed to simply whether or no you;re going to get any chocolate coated sugary eggs this year.Having said that, I don't see an argument (other than a fallacious appeal to popularity) for treating every creation story (I hesitate to call them "myths") that mankind has ever believed in with a similarly open mind - including the ones about the dung beetle creating the Universe etc I doubt you've gone the full nine yards in running with he dung beetle creation story, presumably because you've dismissed it a ridiculous (I'd hope so, anyway). By the same token, many athiests may have dismissed the idea of God for the same reason - not simply that there is no evidence for such a God, but in addition, there is evidence to believe that the God concept was made up by human beings. How would you get over this hurdle, where the God idea can be summarily dismissed as being ridiculous? That sounds commendable, but surely its correct answers that you're really after? Otherwise I could answer any question you put to me. How do you determine that the answers you receive are correct and also not merely internally generated?PE

Welcome to EvC.The question of why bad things happen is an important one and in fact, is part of a current discussion in another thread. You can check it out here

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks. Somehow I think I'll need it. Truth. It's a much-bandied-about word, but one to which we don't often get truly exposed. When one is a child one takes many things to be true. As you grow up, truths become grey if not outright falsehoods. There is no Santa, mammy and daddy aren't the happy loving couple like you see in the Waltons, everything doesn't end happily ever after. As you grow some more you come to learn that things which you are constantly being told are true are in fact not. Fancy houses, nice cars, successful careers don't lead to the kind of happiness that the world (and it's army of advertising execs) led you to believe. Happiness of the quality you feel should be available to you - (knowledge of which is used as a lure by said execs). You will be told too that Man came from Ape or Man came from God only to discover that Ape > Man is anything but as clearcut as National Geographic told you it was and that Father O'Reilly is up in court on child abuse charges. Your sports heros, whose achievement you cheered (and shared) turn out to have had their performance chemically enhanced or beat their wives. Truth gets grubby. It always seems to have a ..."but" attached. Truth is rarely truth. Truth is usually some or other shade of grey. The question of correct (or true) answers ultimately is not about whether a thing is true for others - no one will believe you for the same reasons that you don't believe them. What matters is what you believe is true. You are the only one who can decide this. No one can do it for you. Others truth cannot be made your own be they creation stories or talk of a causeless origin to the universe. Man is not absolute; he varies and changes his mind from day to day, year to year, country to country and era to era. For a truth to be truth it must be absolute and unchanging. It cannot not rely on man, not even oneself for it's generation.We know that man gets it wrong, man lies, man has agendas. We know this of ourself too. In short, if a truth comes from yourself or from another then it's safe enough to say that truth it is not. You can chose to lie to yourself, fool yourself, sell yourself short - but I would imagine that if one is genuinely seeking truth then one of the easiest things to do is to spot ones own deceit. Like it's not that we don't know ourselves very well is it?God is the only one who would (if he exists) be capable of telling pure undiluted truth. That's not to say he necessarily would (if he exists) - but he is the only one capable of it. A lifetime of both being deceived and deceiving others has equipped everyone on the planet in a fantastic way - even if the price was a high one to pay. It has made everyone an expert-in-waiting for being able to recognise the truth. The very exposure to lies/deceit/mistakes/agendas and all the rest, is such that you couldn't mistake truth even if you tried.The only question is, do you want to find out if it exists or not? If it ain't there you couldn't be fooled (unless you want to be). Fooled means falling for the same old stuff that you should be well able to discern by now. If it sniffs even in the least, then it cannot be truth. And boy, do some of my truths sniff (especially the stuff which might well be labelled "self-righteousness" )That's the measure I use anyway. I can't help it if that's not good enough for others. I don't wish it to be. Everyone must find out for themselves I reckon. It's is the only possible way (if any way is possible) to be sure. Sure for oneself.(edited to remove repetition/typo)This message has been edited by iano, 22-Aug-2005 07:17 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 22-Aug-2005 07:24 PM

Do you not understand the meaning of the word 'irrelevant'?Anyway, have fun:
Human Endogenous Retroviral Insertions and Hominid Evolution | Christian Forums And the invisible, intangible faeries that are flying around your head might also exist. The question doesn't even have to be considered, though; since their existence is irrelevant. No, the reason they're questioned is because they're contradictory. That's logic. Nope.
You may wish that what I say is limited to a specific realm, but it is not.

What you believe is irrelevant, as reality doesn't change to conform to your beliefs.
If you were to believe that your gasoline engine would run on diesel fuel, and you put it in your car, your belief ain't gonna stop all sorts of nasty things from happening.Making sure your beliefs are correct is rather important.Now to start from the top: What a mess.
When one is a child, one believes many things. Later on, it is realized that some of these beliefs are inaccurate, and others downright wrong.
The truth doesn't change; beliefs do. Many people are in a "life's a destination" mindset. They're always trying to reach a goal. When they reach one, they quickly make another, so they're never satisfied with where they're at. Therefore, it would be safe to say that that is not true. But wait, it would also be safe to say that what I just said would also not be true. And same goes for the previous sentence. And now the one prior to this one.
Ain't violations of the law of noncontradiction grand? No, a lifetime of being exposed to proven deception (assertions checked against reality, and found not to match), simply turns one into a skeptic. Unsupported assertions are no longer accepted, as they've been proven to be untrustworthy. It doesn't turn one into an expert at recognizing truth; it's the very fact that we recognize that we're not experts -- that we can mistake falsehoods for truth -- that causes the requirement for supporting evidence as a check. (And then there's the problem of bias when checking for evidence, which must be recognized and mitigated.)Your reasoning is completely insane. A lifetime of being deceived -- of not being able to differentiate truth from falsehood -- does not make one an expert at being able to differentiate truth from falsehood.
You're not an expert if you suck at it.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-23-2005 02:12 AM

quote:

---

My advice (for what it's worth): start with the destination, then go on the journey.

---

How does that help Christians who have become atheists?They started with the destination and the journey led them away from belief.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

How does that help Christians who have become atheists?

​

They started with the destination and the journey led them away from belief.

---

Yup.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Iano,I don't agree with most of the statements in your post here, but I do agree with some of your conclusions.Science cannot answer questions like "Who am I" and "What is the meaning of my life". Science has its limitations. These are not the questions science can answer -- they are not within the scope of science. But when science sticks to its legitimate domain, it is very useful and, I would opine, very powerful.But I don't see this as a weakness of science. I just don't expect science to answer these sorts of questions, and so I am not disappointed. My answers to these questions will have to come from elsewhere.So what is the problem here? Science doesn't claim to answer these questions, nor should any of us expect it to. I don't have a problem with this.

What you say seems to be levelled at anyone who hasn't previously considered the idea of God, or been sufficiently open-minded. It doesn't really address any athiests / agnostics who have considered the idea and found it wanting (or downright false) or former theists who used to genuinely believe in God but are now athiest. Is that fair?When I asked about how an open minded person might develop criteria as to which ideas to remain open minded about, you responded by saying that the truth is a difficult, grey area. Is the same as saying that one should be open minded about the things that their personal experience and intuition allows them to be? Doesn't that put us back at square one with those who find the idea of a God ridiculous? And does that not suggest that the reason that you believe in God might be due to your particular experience and intuitions, and not because God actually exists? Absolutely. Though this to me suggests that the truth(TM):- is independent of how many people believe or have believed it
- is not subject to fashionsBut personal experience and intuition is subject to the vagaries of the age in which we live - so how can we arrive at truth without trying to be objective?Also, our conditions for ascertaining truth means again that together with being open minded about God, one ought to be open minded about every creation story there has ever been. Let's take the Norse creation story for example: (Taken from here).Now should everyone read this with an open mind and come to a conclusion on its truth, forgetting the fact that nobody believes this sort of stuff nowadays? If not, which timeless criteria can we adopt for judging its truth?PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 08-23-2005 03:09 AM

Quesion: What is a Christian? Do you think that any of the following constitutes what it is that makes a Christian?- somebody who was born and raised in a Christian country
- somebody who goes to a Christian church
- somebody who hears the Gospel preached
- somebody who says the believe in God of the Bible
- somebody who for whatever reason calls themselves a Christian
- somebody whose parents are ChristiansThe discussion so far has revolved around what is an athiest. But for someone to be a Christian and then become an athiest, it would be handy to know what a Christian is. I would suggest that none of the above constitutes a Christian thus if the above were base from which someone moved to athiesm (or anything else) then they moved alright, but not from ChristianityThe question would remain irrespective of the apparent start position: did they ever go seeking for themselves or were they there by default due to country/parents/indoctrination etc? The action proposed involves making a decision with respect to God...and then walking a path. It implies action of some sort on the part of the seeker. The question arise as to what action this would be. Me, I don't think attending church and taking communion etc constitute seek-like action. These are things that I did as a kid but there is nothing in and of themselves which imply seeking is being done.

You say there is no reason to believe in God because there is no empirical evidence as to his existance. You accept that Science (whose basis is (or should more often be) the evaluation of empirical evidence) is not equipped to deal with the question. You seem to require empirical evidence yet feel empirical evidence isn't to be expected. Contradictory?When it comes time to take the plunge and ask a girl we fancy would she like to go out, we quite often (or at least the less handsome of us do) don't have any empirical evidence. We go on gut feeling, mind over matter, bravery and sheer want - often in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.If not the empirical route (which I don't feel will work myself) then the question is what route?. I suggest there is one. Or at least intital steps will easily spring to mind once one has made the decision to actively look. Like, it's reasonable to suppose (if he exists) that one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to get to God. Otherwise only clever people would do so. Which is not what history tells us.Furthermore, given that arrival at correct answers one way or the other is, you say, important, on what basis can athiesm assist a person in doing so. Is not a tentitive, life-long, destinationless bus ride in essence kicking the ball into perpetual touch?

---

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

quote:

---

What is a Christian?

---

Unfortunately that is a question even Christians can't agree on. See thread What is a True Christian.Our "Christian" for this discussion grew up in the church and went through Bible Study before being baptised and accepting Christ as Savior. Our Christian was a very avid person of prayer. Praying to God to me states our Christian believed in God. After 30 years of Church life our Christian engaged in intense Bible Study and prayer searching for more about God, seeking to know God better.So I would say that this Christian was seeking to get closer to a God in whom they already believed. This journey led our Christian away from belief.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

In trying to assemble some reasonable attributes of a considered search for God, it is reasonable to suppose that if God exists and if it is possible to find him, then the search will need to fulfill certain criteria in order for it to be successful. This, given that all searches for anything must fulfill criteria. This is not to say that the fact that a person hasn't found God means they chose the wrong track. But it does say that any old way should not be expected to result in success (the "all paths lead to the summit" idea - for which I can see no rational basis).When athiests say they have considered the idea and rejected it, the most frequent basis for saying this is that "there is no objective/empirical evidence". What they have said in essence, is that God is not to be found on terms that they themselves decide are the terms by which God must be found. And if his existance isn't established on those man-defined terms then he doesn't (or likely doesn't) exist.
But on what basis do they think that God must meet their terms? One would imagine that if there are terms, then God has every right to have a hand in setting them. Man meeting Gods terms - not the other way around perhaps. Hence, one of the first steps I suggested in my hypothesis about finding God is to assume the mantle of humility. This, on the basis that if one was to consider for moment what one is attempting to find, then humbled they most certainly could expect to be when they got there. Packing your bags with some garments you feel will suit the destination your travelling to is no unreasonable thing to do. Humility however, is not evidenced in the language of athiests who say they have looked at the issue an decided 'No God'. Whilst there will be other garments which one might reasonably pack, arrogance is not one of them (no offence). There is nothing I've read in anything any athiest has said here, which indicates they have given so much as a moments consideration to checking whether the clothes they are wearing are suitable as travel clothes.As far as a theist goes. In a response to Purpledawn, I posed the question "What is a Christian". The same here. What is a theist? If someone believes in God on grounds of upbringing, rational thinking, gut feeling, intellectual assent, etc., then this is of the person themselves. They have not found God. Finding God is a different thing than believing he exists. I believe lung cancer exists. But the difference between believing it and finding it personally are quite a ways apart (although my search in this area is quite a well designed one). I would suggest that anybody (including theists) can become an athiest. Anyone that is except the one who has found God. I think the idea that I was trying to convey is that there is no absolute truth to be had which derives from man. If you think about it, the truths we can be sure are absolutely absolute are all things that are not of man. Take the speed of light for instance. It is a precise unchanging thing. Time, space, light all existed without mans input (although he came up with terminology to describe it). The speed of light would exist as it is without a sinner in the world. The speed of light in a vacuum is absolutely true. As is Absolute Zero. As is the fact that everyone will die. As is the fact that death is the only truly impartial democracy we know - 1 death per person irrespective of age, religious belief, sexual orientation - except of course when God decides otherwise. Absolute truth(GM) is always something that exists outside of mans influence. Thus if one experiences previously unknown, personal-to-them absolute truths (and the onus is on themselves not to manipulate grey-truth so that it becomes white (but they'd be only fooling themselves if they did) then the person can be sure that it had to come from something which is outside man. This might cause them to think God.The question of whether these 'absolute truths' can be demonstrated to others is irrelevant. The only person that can know this kind of absolute truth is the person themselves. This may sound like a dodge. But if you think about it, you would see that if absolute truths about God could be proven, then there are no more personal searches to embark on. Everybody HAS to believe a surefire proof -without meeting any of Gods criteria (should he have some). Absolute truth is not subject to the vagaries of the age. Absolute truth (one apple + one apple = two apples) will always be true. Absolute truth is totally intolerant of any error or attempt to modify it. It is the nature of absolute, that it cannot change. I was suggesting that because of it's very rarity, when someone experiences an absolute truth, it will cut through upbringing, culture, predisposition like a hot knife through butter. No fashion, culture or belief can change the speed of light from what it is. Neither would such things have any no effect on absolute truth.A person shouldn't avoid a search on the basis of worrying about what influence they might open themselves up to. Whilst basic precautions should be taken, absolute truth is sure to assuage any concern they might have that such a thing is occurring. Should absolute truth come knocking. I think evaluation of Creaton stories is biting off a little bit more than one can chew. I mentioned humility earlier as a reasonable attitude to assume. If one is a baby in a search for God and struggles to even begin to figure out what would be appropriate stepping stones to take in a search for God, then tucking into sirloin steak hardly seems conducive to the digestive system. Some warm milk would seem a better option. Humilty means what it says. It means we may have to get down off the throne in deciding what the evidence should be and how the evidence should be evaluated. Like, if God is to be found, it is not unreasonable to expect he might partake in the exercise. Maybe he has some ideas on what evidence is appropriate and how and when it will be presented. We shouldn't exclude the possiblity of his input from our search.

Okay. The person did all this stuff, but was the person a Christian? You seem to know the bible. There is ample which indicates that a Christian (bible-defined) is one who is 'in Christ' and that the old man is dead and gone - he can't be resurrected. Once in Christ and man cannot go back it would appear. Backsliding into athiesm might appear to mean the person isn't a Christian anymore but the trouble is, it is not up to the Christian (once he is one) to decide whether he will become not-a-Christian. God is the one who puts someone in Christ and it's a "once in never out" deal. Or so the bible would appear to indicatep.s. "Believing in God" is something even the demons did - and they weren't Christians!This message has been edited by iano, 23-Aug-2005 01:20 PM

Well, I know some people who were brought up very strongly religious Christians, and claimed to have been STRONGLY religious, and very devote.That is the process they claimed to have gone through. You might claim they mustn't have been 'true christians' to begin with, they thought otherwise. You may rationalise their drifting away from the beliefs anyway you want.Oh, and demons are just myth.