T
tonyrey
Guest
Even though they are not convinced atheism is true?
- Status
R
rose_kelly
Guest
Influences.
Such as peer group influences, or some famous person they admire.
With some it is a passing phase, (a kind of of fluctuating stage is the only way I can describe it) which isn’t always such a bad thing, because questioning ones own faith can produce a positive outcome enabling us to grow in faith, rather than the opposite.
Having said that I am quite concerned about the growing trend of atheism pervading modern society.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
Some believe atheism to be the intellectually superior position, and they want to see themselves as superior.
meltzerboy
New member
Although individual atheists probably differ, as a whole, I think it is because they don’t perceive sufficient evidence to conclude there is a G-d. Thus, even if they cannot completely rule out the possibility of the existence of G-d, they don’t see any reason to believe in an entity that may or may not exist.
For others, they perceive the problem of evil as insurmountable and therefore, while G-d may exist, He cannot be a totally benevolent G-d if He allows pain and suffering to persist. Their reasoning might be that no amount of eternal reward in heaven can erase the pain and suffering experienced by so many in the present. Therefore, they refuse to believe in a G-d Who is either not benevolent or not powerful enough to remove the suffering of the moment.
For still others, perhaps they would like to believe in G-d, but which G-d? Since there are so many different religious versions of G-d, they might feel it is a futile endeavor to choose only one.
Finally, as others have mentioned, some atheists may be going through a phase in their spiritual development and are perhaps influenced by friends and secular society in general. They may be convinced that belief in G-d is both a sign of weakness, a crutch, as well as fraught with hypocrisy since religious people are not necessarily good people.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Perhaps he wants to be the captain of his own ship. Even if it means missing out on possibly the greatest thing we could ever know and experience. ie. God.
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
Are there atheists who are atheists despite not being convinced atheism is true?
Are you talking about atheists who aren’t convinced of any position on deities (either for or against), so default to an atheist position; or are you talking about atheists who see more evidence of a deity/deities than no deity, but still consider themselves atheists? I know of the former but have never encountered the latter.
Are you talking about atheists who aren’t convinced of any position on deities (either for or against), so default to an atheist position; or are you talking about atheists who see more evidence of a deity/deities than no deity, but still consider themselves atheists? I know of the former but have never encountered the latter.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I agree with you. I think it has a lot to do with the media attacking religion.
T
tonyrey
Guest
There’s no doubt about that. I remember when I was a teenager and a lapsed catholic I regarded religion as sentimental and old-fashioned.
T
tonyrey
Guest
A good analysis! The problem of evil often raises its ugly head whereas the problem of goodness rarely makes an impact because it is less striking.
T
tonyrey
Guest
That ties in with the deep-rooted desire for power which seems the best explanation of Hell. Atheists are not necessarily evil but the temptation to revolt and be absolutely free is very common especially among young people. It seems linked with idealism and disillusionment with the hypocrisy and injustice in society. Ironically reformers often become worse than the Establishment as in the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution and on a much greater scale with the Red Terror in Russia which led to the atheistic Marxist regime under Lenin and Stalin.
B
Bradski
Guest
Prefer?
Is that like ‘I prefer cream cheese bagels rather than plain’? As in one might have a preference!
It’s as nonsensical as me asking you why you prefer being a Catholic.
Is that like ‘I prefer cream cheese bagels rather than plain’? As in one might have a preference!
It’s as nonsensical as me asking you why you prefer being a Catholic.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I think there are plenty of both atheists and believers who are not entirely convinced they are right but instead of being agnostics we don’t sit on the fence because it is not only uncomfortable but impossible! As Sartre pointed out, in daily life we cannot remain uncommitted. He was probably influenced by Jesus who said “Whoever is not against us is for us” but who also said “He who is not with me is against me”!
This seems to be a contradiction but the statements were made in two different contexts. In the first case a man was driving out devils in the name of Jesus whereas in the second the Pharisees had accused Jesus of driving out devils with the power of the prince of devils - which is obviously nonsense! We might think it would have been more convincing to accuse Jesus of being the prince of devils but they knew Jesus had done nothing but good and had impressed everyone with his healing power whereas disease and infirmities were associated with sin and guilt. The crowds were not so gullible and the logic of Jesus is inexorable:
“How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself that kingdom cannot stand.”
In practice we are not always consistent and no one is totally immune to doubt - even if it is only a fleeting thought like “What if I’m wrong?” The best test is not what we think and claim to believe but how we live. As Jesus said “By their fruits you shall know them.” We are all capable of self-deception but that is not necessarily our fault for the simple reason that we are not infallible. Absolute certainty is the prerogative of fanatics unless we are saints - and many of them had to endure the Dark Night of the Soul…
Z
zyzz
Guest
That is exactly what the communist rulers said for a while… until they realized that this concept is counterproductive. And then they quickly chose the first one.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Our emotions play a large part in our lives, Brad, for which we should be grateful. I once met a scientist who was very reasonable but seemed as cold as ice. I must admit I didn’t get to know him very well but he gave the impression of being analytic in his response to every situation and this was in Amboseli National Park, Kenya…
T
tonyrey
Guest
We agree that it pays to be positive!
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
That’s not what I was asking. I was asking if you were referring to those who were not swayed by any religious argument and called themselves atheists and those who were swayed by a religious argument yet still chose to consider themselves atheists.
By your response it seems you consider it odd how someone can leave open the possibility of there being a deity or multiple deities, yet still consider themselves atheists.
That means it’s time we discuss once again how atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. To say one is an atheist one has to say that he or she sees no convincing evidence of a deity or deities. To say one is an agnostic is to say one isn’t absolutely certain of their position on deitites (e.g. the concept of deities is such that it can not be proven or falsified, and that one is open to new evidence). Atheism and agnositicism are not mutually exclusive. There is no shame in saying “I don’t know” (Sartre be damned). Yet one can say “I don’t know, but surely all of these arguments for one or more deities are quite unconvincing. Still I’m not above holding out for the possibility that one will come along that makes sense.”
I think that’s part of the reason why atheism and agnosticism have really bloomed in the internet age. A person doesn’t have to do much to learn about other faiths. It’s easy to compare and contrast.
Z
zyzz
Guest
But we disagree that the communists were much smarter than Jesus (who was allegedly a deity). After all the communists were willing to discard the incorrect approach and choose the correct one. Too bad for them that they did it much too late.We agree that it pays to be positive!
But enough of this. People do not CHOOSE their world-view. They subconsciously evaluate the pro-s and con-s and come to a conclusion. That conclusion may change if enough evidence is accumulated to undermine the previous conviction, but it cannot be done on the volitional level.
I am aware of your favorite question about us being “biological machines”. Yes, we mostly are. And it is simply a result of information theory. Only a miniscule amount of the overall information processing happens in the conscious mind, and most of the decision making does NOT happen there. And there is more than overwhelming evidence for that.
meltzerboy
New member
Really? No conscious, volitional processing regarding a worldview governed by religion, only unconscious processing? I’m not so sure about that. Maybe holistic more than analytical processing for some people but I don’t believe the processing is exclusively unconscious or implicit for most. After all, it is a matter of rather large significance, wouldn’t you agree?
O
Obsidion
Guest
Because they don’t like the accountability that comes with religion. Believing in God means that we have to acknowledge that there is right and wrong, and a lot of people don’t like being told that they’re in the wrong. So many people ditch religion to avoid feelings of guilt and just live as they please.
Z
zyzz
Guest
I did not say “NO”. Only that the majority of our processing happens in the subconscious.
Even the decision making. Try to decide that Judaism is completely wrong and “switch” over to some to some animalistic religion. Not just “declare” that you changed, but deep down change your convictions. I predict that you cannot. Our innermost convictions are not subject to volitional control.
We are not even aware of the zillions of decisions we make. Not just the bodily functions, like breathing and metabolism, but also in our supposedly volitional activities, like driving a car. You decide where you wish to go, but your subconscious will regulate your speed, your head movements when you check the rear-view mirrors periodically… and a whole lot of other “decisions”. How many times do you “stop and think” about the pressing of the brake and the gas in heavy traffic? It is all automatic.
This should not be surprising for anyone who deals with information processing. Our conscious mind can deal with a small amount of variables, it can only process a few dozen bytes per second.
You can’t even decide which party you vote for. We all have internal biases and filter out the information we happen to disagree with - subconsciously, of course. Sure we make lots of volitional decisions, like what to order in a restaurant for dinner. But even that is not a big deal. We usually choose what we are familiar with, and what we like. Very few people would choose a new dish, especially if they find it disgusting.
I read a very interesting study about the decision making of the chess players. The experimenters observed and tracked the eye movements of the player. The eye movements followed a narrow pattern on the board as the player contemplated a certain move and its ramifications. Then the pattern extended when the player switched over to analyze another move. The, all of a sudden the eye movement became extremely fast (unbeknownst to the player), and the “eureka” moment occurred. The player became aware of the “best” move… But his subconscious mind already calculated it, and the result was merely “passed on” to the conscious.
The decision making all happened in the subconscious. Cool, huh? We like to think that our conscious mind is the “boss”. Far from it. I read another analogy. It compared the conscious mind to a ship on the ocean. The ship has certain control about its movements, but in reality the ocean is the “boss”.
- Status