An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

ringo writes: It often seems to be a case of starting at a theistic belief and using one's confirmation bias to convince oneself that one got there progressively.

Rahvin writes: The question, then, if we want to resolve which of us has beliefs that accurately reflect reality, is how to test them.

Taq writes: Would you call yourself an Ahinduist? Or an Azeusist? Isn't it kind of strange to define yourself by deities you don't believe in?

Taq writes: Quite right. You define yourself by your positive beliefs, not by the things you don't believe in. So why are we called atheists?

Taq writes: On the positive side, hopefully you have a better understanding of what non-believers really think. Part of the reason for finding a new name for atheists is to break away from old stereotypes and preconceptions. I don't know if this is a good reason or not (hence the thread), but it is at least worth discussing.

dwise1 writes: Shadow71, Taq expressed the hope of greater understanding between the two sides. You rejected that. I would hope that you reconsider your ill-considered choice.

Granny Magda writes: Well no. You have said yourself that no evidence or argument could possibly sway you. In the face of such dogmatism, what end could there be? All I can suggest is that you stop asking difficult questions if you're going to act offended when you receive answers.

Taq writes: How do you view people who believe in a god that you don't believe in? What word would you use to describe them?

Theodoric writes: How is that different from "wrong"?

dwise1 writes: So, we also have the word of an ex-Christian that delusion was a very important part of his former life as a Christian, such that that delusion was what he had to use to protect his faith.Which is in keeping with my opinion: believing in God is not delusional, but maintaining false beliefs in spite of reality does require one to be delusional.

Anthony Flew writes: Now it often seems to people who are not atheists as if there is no conceivable piece of evidence that would be admitted by apparently scientific-minded dogmatic atheists to be a sufficent reason for conceding "There might be a God after all."I therefore put to my former fellow-atheists the simple central question. "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a reason to at least consider the existence of a superior Mind?"Moving on now from the parable, it's time for me to lay my cards on the table, to set out my own views and the reasons that suppport them.I NOW BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE BY AN INFINITE INTELLIGENCE. I BELIEVE THAT THIS UNIVERSE'S INTRICATE LAWS MANIFEST WHAT SCIENTISTS HAVE CALLED THE MIND OF GOD. I BELIEVE THAT LIFE AND REPRODUCTION ORIGINATED IN A DIVINE SOURCE.Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws.The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter.The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that has guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosphical arguments.My departure from atheism was not occasioned by any new phenomenon or argument. Over the last two decades, my whole framework of thought has been in a state of migration.This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature. When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his Republic scripted his Socrates to insist: WE MUST FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT WHEREVER IT LEADS."