Why I am not an atheist

kennethamy;171347 wrote:

I suppose it is to say that when you don't believe there is some standard of truth and morality (God, certainly, since Chesterton was a Roman Catholic, but not necessarily God, but in some standard, a least) then it becomes just anything goes, and a kind of belief free for all.

Jeeprs echoed this same sentiment, and it seems popular. Why do people assume that atheists do not have have standards or ethical values? This seems incredibly strange to me. What does a belief in a supernatural being have to do with believing things are right or wrong? And what about all the other ethical models that are non-religious, like Kant's, and the dozens of others?

Atheism is a "anything goes" system? I had no clue. Are you sure atheism wasn't confused with anarchy?

Quote:

It is akin to something attributed to Dostoyevsky (although that is much disputed) which is, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" on the grounds that God is the source and the standard of all morality, and that without that source or standard, it does not morally matter what you do.

Maybe it's because people like this are spreading poison like that.

Quote:

Anyway, that is the idea. I guess there is truth in it, since if you think about it, unless you have a standard measure for weights (say) anything can weigh anything. But, of course, much depends on what you have in mind by a standard.

But what is false is that atheists, because they do not believe in God, have no standard. Do these people really believe atheists are sociopaths simply because they don't believe in a supernatural being? That's a rhetorical question in a sense, since I know some people do believe that. And I know this because they have said that to me verbatim. It still infuriates me every time I hear it.

Quote:

I suppose it is to say that when you don't believe there is some standard of truth and reason (scientism, certainly, since C. was a believer, but not necessarily scientism, but in some standard, a least) then it becomes just anything goes, and a kind of belief free for all.

J. echoed this same sentiment, and it seems popular. Why do people assume that theists do not have have standards or intellectual values? This seems incredibly strange to me. What does a belief in scientific method as the sole guarantee of truth have to do with believing things are true or false? And what about all the other intellectual models that are theistic, like Aquinas's and Spinoza's, and the dozens of others?

Theism is a "anything goes" system? I had no clue. Are you sure theism wasn't confused with insanity?

Quote:

It is akin to something attributed to D. (although that is much disputed) which is, "If science does not rule, everything is permitted" on the grounds that science is the source and the standard of all intelligence and sanity, and that without that source or standard, it does not intellectually matter what you do.

Maybe it's because people like this are spreading poison like that.

Quote:

Anyway, that is the idea. I guess there is truth in it, since if you think about it, unless you have a standard measure for weights (say) anything can weigh anything. But, of course, much depends on what you have in mind by a standard.

But what is false is that theists, because they do not believe in scientism, have no standard. Do these people really believe theists are morons or lunatics simply because they don't believe in scientism? That's a rhetorical question in a sense, since I know some people do believe that. And I know this because they have said that to me verbatim. It still infuriates me every time I hear it.

The atheist has to represent in his own person the human values in which he believes. This inevitably results in one of four outcomes: (1) inflation, because of all the human values which he rightly feels called upon to contain;(2) explosion, under the pressure of all the human values which he cannot contain; (3) denial, and effectively destruction, of some or all vital human values; or (4) the only sane option, but an irrational one, which is the expulsion from his own person (and into the persons of others, whether they consent to the projection or not) of all those necessary human values which his own person cannot contain.

The theist, meanwhile, allows human values to permeate him, moving in and out, as and when they are needed.

His mental skin is permeable; he knows better than to try to contain the whole human spirit. To vary the metaphor: he bends, therefore he need not break.

The theist who sees God in anthropoid form, however, is no better than the atheist indeed, he is much worse. He takes all the defects of the atheist....

Existence versus trust.

My neighbor doesn't believe in his daughter anymore. By that, he just means that he doesn't place much trust in her anymore. He believes she exists of course.

"Believe in" is ambiguous:

Tina the theist and Todd the theist both believe that God exists (obviously, as they are theists), but Todd doesn't trust God, so although he believes that God exists, he doesn't believe in God like Tina does.

So, does Todd believe in God? Well, yes and no. Yes, Todd believes that God exists (thus, he believes in God), but Todd doesn't trust God (thus, he doesn't believe in God).

Andy the atheist doesn't believe that God exists, so he definitely doesn't trust God, but then again, he doesn't distrust God either, as he neither trusts nor distrusts God, as he doesn't even believe that God exists.

Does this mean we should avoid the use of "believe in" just because it can be interpreted differently? No. If its use is appropriate, then feel free to use it. If others become confused, then explain the confusion. If that doesn't help, then avoid further use for that single conversation.

Believe in implies believe, but believe does not imply believe in. Believe in is, therefore, logically stronger than believe.

I've read this through and I think most of my like-thinkers have represented any mutual points quite well. But since you appear to be genuinely interested in responses to your stated position, here's another: [...]

Bottom Line: You might want to clarify to yourself what you believe god is.

Twirlip;170877 wrote:

The theist, meanwhile, allows human values to permeate him, moving in and out, as and when they are needed.

This is generalization ala-extraordinaire! You realize that there are a thousand different varieties of theists out there, don't you? Many theistic systems perscribe their own value sets; in other words, by their very nature many don't allow any 'permeating' or 'moving' through the person. Did you not mean to speak for all theists?

Twirlip;170877 wrote:

His mental skin is permeable; he knows better than to try to contain the whole human spirit. To vary the metaphor: he bends, therefore he need not break.

Actually, as someone else already pointed out, the inverse is more often the case. Again, there are a litany of varieties of theistic thought.

Twirlip;170877 wrote:

The theist who sees God in anthropoid form, however, is no better than the atheist; indeed, he is much worse. He takes all the defects of the atheist [...]

So there is a "better" here? This is the point where I think your true "message" (if there be one) is probably leaking through. Do you feel or think that your particular flavor of theism is 'better'?

It sounds like you're treading into a superiority (i.e., "better") complex - not a good selling point for those you want to buy in to your ideas.

And for those theists who believe in an anthropoid-shaped god that you say are "no better" than atheists: Again, you might want to temper your judgment. They've likely got it right, as often, as you do. Besides, if you're going to have any charity (or understanding) for varied belief systems, you might not want to toss the 'better' or worse judgments around. Have you thought this through?

You spoke of ego. Ego is that part of ourselves that places unsupported or disproportionate import on the self. It seems to me that if you are indeed a person of some humility, that statements talking about deserving mud-slinging, are no better than, etc. are from an egotistical stand point.

So in sum: No, your position doesn't make much sense. But it could; Define what you believe to be god more clearly, justify how belief in a non-anthropoid god is superior and clarify your 1-4 assertions (so they at least make some communicative sense) and you'll be well on your way.

Since you've shared, I'll do the same.

Here are my concepts of self, being and theistic orientation:[INDENT]Those people who believe in a god or gods we can call theist as an abstraction (whether or not someone claims to know or not isn't immediately relevant to this particular categorization); they have their own particular beliefs which are neither right nor wrong (though may be 'good' or 'bad' depending on their effect on themselves or others) on an ethical level.

Those folks who don't have a belief in a god or gods can be called Atheists. Whether or not this is better or worse is ridiculous since each will act in accordance with their own mind. Some atheists deny the existence of any kind of god, which is illogical. Until such time as a person knows all things in all places for all time, they can't lay such a claim.

Theists and Atheists who banter what's better or worse are spinning their wheels; it's like arguing which flavor of ice cream is "better" - it depends on who's doing the tasting. Its a source of unnecessary friction about something that's not going to get resolved anyway. Even speeches, statements and posts that justify a position (or posit it as 'better') come across as self justifications on a point that is, by definition, dependent on each individual's belief.

I think its foolhearty to draw generalized conclusions on mental processes based on someone being theist or atheist. Find one example of the one and you'll find a thousand examples of the other. The instant we start saying one is better or worse, not only are we wantonly incorrect, we sew the seeds of malcontent and choler; I can't imagine how this is - in any way - is a good idea.
[/INDENT]As for your recently taking on a more theistic view of life: Bravo! I hope it gives you the peace of mind and contentment you seek. If I had one genuine, "From myself" question to ask you (aside from the clarifications above that'd be necessary to fully understand), it'd be this: What do you define god to be that differentiates him/it from anything else? This is just for my own lingering curiosity.

Thanks for reading - I hope this helps flesh out some of the various sides of your core question.

Good luck

I can't see myself as ever having been cut out for the religious life; in an ideal society, I would just be one of those ordinary Joes who is perhaps a scientist or mathematician in the "outer world", but only a layman in the "inner world". (Mathematics sort of crosses the boundary, but for most purposes it can be classed as a science.) But in the world as it is, even to declare a serious belief in the existence of the "inner world" is to be classed as a religious fanatic and scientific ignoramus, or at best a New Age airhead or fraud.

Well, I think what you're actually experiencing is a calling. As in, something is a'callin'. What you are describing as 'the world as it is' actually is your ego, saying 'this can't be happening'. But, these things do happen, and, as one of my favourite jazz standards says, it could happen to you.

Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.

This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love; and this would still be the case even if the universe had no beginning. To say that he brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause and effect. Like a Modernist work of art, there is no necessity about it at all, and God might well have come to regret his handiwork some aeons ago. The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.

I've wrestled the octopus
I came out with extra arms
To carry your baggage

While I broadly agree with the quote from Eagleton, there is a bit of sophistry involved.

Well of course there is sophistry

If everyone had simply said - as everyone except you (and in a different way Reconstructo) did say - "No, I'm sorry, I just don't see what you're getting at. It looks like nonsense to me, or else it's just wrong. Are you quite sure you're feeling all right?", I'd have replied, "Oh dear, that's a real pity! For a few moments there, I thought I'd managed to put a few of my vague intuitions together, just about well enough to try to have a conversation about them, at last - but apparently not yet. But don't worry, I'm feeling fine." And that would have been the end of that.
.

Twirlip;171099 wrote:

If everyone had simply said - as everyone except you (and in a different way Reconstructo) did say - "No, I'm sorry, I just don't see what you're getting at. It looks like nonsense to me, or else it's just wrong. Are you quite sure you're feeling all right?", I'd have replied, "Oh dear, that's a real pity! For a few moments there, I thought I'd managed to put a few of my vague intuitions together, just about well enough to try to have a conversation about them, at last - but apparently not yet. But don't worry, I'm feeling fine." And that would have been the end of that.

I didn't intend to say that. That disco for mice was not a parody. I was just trying to lighten the tone. In my view, we pretty much live in the land of metaphor, whether we want to or not.

Well, I think that people who claim that are not saying that atheists have no standards, or at least not that atheists do not believe they do, but that atheists "really" I(and that is always a term you have to be suspicious of)* have no standard which is any good and does allow them to make clear and settled judgments as to true or false, or right or wrong. No, it is certainly not confused with anarchy, since anarchists is a governmental philosophy, not one about truth and falsity, or right and wrong. And anyway, anarchists know they are anarchists and believe that no government is the best government. If atheist have no standards (or unreliable standards) as it is being argued they certainly don't realize it. In fact, they insist that they do have standards.

*G.E.Moore remarked that people who say that X is not really Y are really saying that X is really Y, but they do not want to admit it.

Supposing God exists and God is requisite for a moral standard, as the party line goes, then his existence would give a moral standard regardless of my belief in him. Either we both have a moral standard or we don't. A theist certainly can't claim consistency and convergence of views with respect to the moral law as evidence that they have a superior standard of morality, so regardless of God's existence it seems that we are operating on equally uncertain ground.

I've heard this before, and I find it strange, personally.

Supposing God exists and God is requisite for a moral standard, as the party line goes, then his existence would give a moral standard regardless of my belief in him. Either we both have a moral standard or we don't. A theist certainly can't claim consistency and convergence of views with respect to the moral law as evidence that they have a superior standard of morality, so regardless of God's existence it seems that we are operating on equally uncertain ground.

I think there is a fact of the matter as to whether there is a god or there are gods. But before we can know what the fact of the matter is, we have to be clear as to what we mean by what we are saying. I totally accept that very little of what I have written in this thread has been clear. But it is an awfully big subject. Who can hope to be clear about it at the very outset? Who can hope to have a reliable map of the territory in their hands before they have even journeyed through it?

Cultures around the planet are saturated Deism and/or religiosity and I don't think this is a coincidence; creatures this self-aware and intelligent will have that question mark staring them in the face. There's a secret pain that resides in most of us that can only be filled by personally resolving the question of metaphysical belief & existence (ours and "others") - even if the answer ends up being "I don't believe anything".