The Spiritual and/or Religious beliefs of an Atheist

I find it amusing those committed to a theistic belief system, whether pro or con, have such monumental difficulty understanding and accepting that some folks have no such belief system, pro or con. I suspect Frank joins me in this.

Hey Frank.

His rationalization of his belief amounts to rationalization of belief - nothing more, nothing less, nothing other, having no more merit than any other belief-based, otherwise afoundational, essentially superstitional rationalization of any other belief set.

He finds, and almost so much as states he finds, his position comforting. Personally, I'm untroubled by the uncertainty, and feel no need to construct an artificial comfort zone in one camp or the other.

timberlandko wrote:

His rationalization of his belief amounts to rationalization of belief - nothing more, nothing less, nothing other, having no more merit than any other belief-based, otherwise afoundational, essentially superstitional rationalization of any other belief set.

In the strictest terms yes, but we do have the fact that the burden of proof is on the person who claims God exists and this has not been met in any fashion despite immense effort.

timberlandko wrote:

He finds, and almost so much as states he finds, his position comforting. Personally, I'm untroubled by the uncertainty, and feel no need to construct an artificial comfort zone in one camp or the other.

I wouldd not go as far as saying that the disbelief / denial of the existence of god or gods constructs "an artificial comfort zone" for me, nor do I construe that Asimov takes comfort in such. Show me where please.

... Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Go back into your rat hole and continue playing with yourself. Perhaps some day you will actually have a life.

I still don't see what you're getting at ... you say " ... In the strictest terms yes", then present by way of qualification or objection what appears to me simply an affirmation of the consequent; not an objection but an endorsement.

That sure strikes me as a comfort-zone position; he unambiguously says he feels any exploration of the question is a waste of time, an implicationally futile excersize in which he chooses not to participate.

My beliefs tend to be based upon experience, for example, believing that people will stop at a regulated intersection when facing a red light. Having nearly been involved in what surely would have been a fatal accident for someone (and probably not me) one night, though, i condition such beliefs with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Apart from that, i only deal in certainties, such as the sure and certain knowledge that a cold draft and a meatloaf sammich constitute the food of the gods.

In the strictest terms yes, but we do have the fact that the burden of proof is on the person who claims God exists and this has not been met in any fashion despite immense effort.

Hi Timberlandko,

I forgot to add Asimov does not say "any exploration of the question is a waste of time" he says "any exploration of the question is a waste of *my* time"

He does make direct assessments as to what others may pursue nor what might come of it for others.

Your assessment has him condemning it as an "implicationally futile exercise" for all, whereas the text reveals that he holds this only for himself.

Perhaps not overly relevant to the main point but a more accurate perspective of Asimov's views.

Chumly wrote:

Hi Timberlandko,

I forgot to add Asimov does not say "any exploration of the question is a waste of time" he says "any exploration of the question is a waste of *my* time"

He does make direct assessments as to what others may pursue nor what might come of it for others.

Your assessment has him condemning it as an "implicationally futile exercise" for all, whereas the text reveals that he holds this only for himself.

Perhaps not overly relevant to the main point but a more accurate perspective of Asimov's views.

Wholly irrelevant, in that you attribute both to Asimov's statement and to my own that which is not there. You are welcome, of course, to infer and/or to aver anything as may be congruent with your own belief set. Understand, however, that though you or anyone else may believe or disbelieve anything, no matter how passionately, has no bearing on whether the thing, state, entity, or condition of being to which said belief or disbelief pertains may or may not be valid. Absent unequivocal, empirical, supportive or contra-indicative evidence, you're just guessing, no matter in which camp you build the comfort zone from which you assay to guess.