Atheism isn't a belief?

iano:

quote:

---

I said something like " I don't know if your there or not but if you are then I need and want to know you. Nothing else is going to make sense of this life. It must be you or I'll go nuts"

---

...

quote:

---

If you do say some prayer inviting him into your life and you know it was from the heart then that's it. He'll come.

---

Of course, there is the other explanation for your conversion experience, suggested at the end of your first quote above: a for my tone, but a serious explanation for my point...Yesterday, in my surgeon's waiting room, I read in Field & Stream about a fellow who was just off a week-long drunk and had been tossed out by his girlfriend and fired by his boss. As he floated on a bass lake, fishing, bereft of hope, he underwent a conversion experience and went dry on the spot. He also waited for God to tell him what to do with his life:God told him to make lures.That's what he does now fairly successfully, making a decent living from handcrafted lures.Belief in the supernatural is rooted in human beings in extremis: desperate, fearful, agonized...the shaman and the witch doctor differ from the pastor and the priest solely by millenia of elaboration: as our understanding of the natural world increases, so too must the subtlety by which the supernatural remains elusive. Even "major" relgions have been compelled to devise doctrinal reasons for why great miracles happened then, but not now.Every human culture devised gods to explain the unknown: Christianity is a Johnny-come-lately in that regard; it is, in fact, an amalgam of its predecessors.I have never witnessed ghosts, goblins, witches, spirits of the dead, things-that-go-bump-in-the-night, or any of the phlethora of supernatural entities once held universally to exist. So I don't believe in them or any other supernatural entity.I observe that supernatural explanations are developed by primitive cultures. I observe that these explanations are elaborated through millenia into "sophisticated" religions. I observe that naturalistic explanations continue to grow in scope and power. I observe that no supernatural claim has withstood credible testing, most, in recent centuries generally being debunked as fraud. I observe that a human personality in extreme circumstances will choose to believe whatever it takes to survive.So, I do not believe there is a god. It is not the case that I believe only naturalistic explanations are possible, merely that no evidence has been presented to suggest that supernatural explanations have merit. The history of our species suggests the origins of supernatural beliefs can be found in ignorance and fear.I do not know (or hold beliefs about) whether the Big Bang was the Big Beginning, though I suspect we will someday know, if our species survives long enough: I am skeptical for historical reasons of present-science claims about future-science limits to knowledge. I find the First Cause query no less (and no more) compelling when put to the supernatural creator than the super-singularity: both yield unproductive infinite regression.In my experience, most atheists are thoughtful people, and their atheism is not a faith but a conclusion.Edit: TypoThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 08-17-2005 09:26 PM

purpledawn:

quote:

---

I enjoyed your post.

---

Thank you. I enjoyed thinking it through.

Not sure if the lure-maker caught the connection or not, iano, though I certainly did, and my conclusions were a bit different from yours.1) The lure-maker had his moment of existentialist angst while doing what he loved to do--God told him to devote his life to a closely related endeavor: I think this happens a lot 2) The lure-maker was culturally preconditioned to his response: the metaphor of the "fisher of men" was already established in his mind, and the "when I finally hit bottom I was saved" scenario saturates our culture.He had violated cultural/religious mores and was paying dearly for it. Several criteria had to be met to make a solution acceptable:a) Get back inside the boundaries of those mores.b) Find a solution to his unemployment and his lack of a mate.c) Do the above in a manner pleasant and congenial to him.I think his solution was inspired. When I get ideas that so neatly address multiple requirements, that's exactly how I feel: Instantly convinced of rightness. Thrilled. Exhilirated. Inspired.The only Creator required in the lure-maker's scenario is the creative power of the human brain to solve problems of survival, a great reason to evolve one.

Right on target, iano--at least the latter part: it has made me exquisitely sensitive to the phenomenon.You know, cognitive psychologists have learned how to induce the sensation of deja vu--you may have heard that before.

Many of the "founding fathers" you cite lived in times when to assert outright dismissal of religion was to court death or exile.Descartes, for example, furnished a famous proof of God's existence which required constant mental repeitition to remain effective: once seen as an evidence of faith, some philosphers since have seen his "as long as the tape is looping" proof to be a cleverly subversive parody.Science cannot address questions of faith--beliefs held without evidence. Faith cannot address questions of natural causality--demonstrable and replicable phenomena. True.Still, science is not locked in the lab. It is a way of knowing that has transformed our daily lives.For example, science--or even just careful, unbiased observation--can have a great deal to say about supernatural claims. If the good madam medium claims that the spirits are shaking the table, and careful observation shows that the good madam's knees are doing the shaking, the claim is debunked.If the claim of supernatural causality is shown to be superfluous, then the claim is empty. Assertions of the supernatural are insupportable where natural explanations are demonstrable and sufficient. That is why science has pushed the question of God back to First Cause, abstract intangible existence, and subjective experience: no evidence exists for supernatural phenomena. That is why the market in communion wafers to be buried in wheat fields, booming in Descartes' day, has fallen on such hard times.One can certainly validly argue that believers impact the natural world, but there is no evidence that any divine being does so. No claims of phenomena that defy naturalistic explanation have withstood scrutiny; so predicable is their failure that they are now rarely made, but this is not because science trespasses where it does not belong.A co-worker once reported to the institute's director that I was an Evil Genius. Having at last to admit she had no evidence, she responded, "See? There's no evidence! If that doesn't prove he's an Evil Genius, I don't know what does!" She was perfectly serious, too.

CAUTION: UNAPOLOGETIC OFF TOPIC POST!Chiroptera:

quote:

---

And although I do believe that in the end all I will be is "worm food", I'm not bothered by it too much.

---

Approaching the mid-point of my sixth decade, I find that arranging to be good honest worm food is hard: embalming laws, internment regulations, etc.Having spent a long time in a burn ward long ago, I just don't fancy cremation.All I want is a nice pine box and no embalming--is that so much to ask?"When I die don't bury me
In a box in a cemetery.
Out in the garden would be much better--
I could be pushin' up home grown tomatoes."I would be quite content to return my dust to the ground.

That remains a mystery to me, jar. I can understand relgious faith, although I don't share it, because I am regularly awed by the majestic wonder of this world.But why anyone feels that someone else's beliefs threaten their own is an enigma I don't expect to ever understand.