Religion and atheists

[Tulonsae]

I am curious.

Atheists, by definition, don't believe in God. I assume that means, usually, that they don't believe in religion since most religions have a god (or more).

If this is true - and my basic assumptions may not be - why would atheists bother to post in a thread on some aspect of religion?

I can understand if the topic is discussing whether god exists or something similar. But I don't understand when the topic is about your feelings about god (within the context that god exists). Since atheists don't believe he exists, then posting about their feelings about him would be out of context and off-topic.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

[Wildwill002]

Are you sure that it's just that atheist's don't believe in God(s) or is it actually deity's? Because I believe in Gaia whom is a titan and not a god so does that technically make me Gaian and an atheist?

[MrWhales]

Are you sure that it's just that atheist's don't believe in God(s) or is it actually deity's? Because I believe in Gaia whom is a titan and not a god so does that technically make me Gaian and an atheist?

On this note, I believe Gaia created others to set up the universe and now only interfere when absolutely needed.

So polytheism?

[Lord_Mountbatten]

Because certain people like to prove themselves super smart to all and sundry. It is not so much about the perception of other things as wrong but the need to prove everything they think right. It will be done with all aspects of life, not just religion.

[697134002]

I posted in that other thread when I saw that asi had a misconception about the big bang.

[Lord_Mountbatten]

Thank you for providing a corroborating example to my assertion 697.

[697134002]

Thank you for providing a corroborating example to my assertion 697.

Let's say you're reading something and have some interest in discussing the topic. You then see that something which is likely contributing to someone's opinions, which you disagree with, is a common misconception. I also had little else to post which would not be considered inflammatory to some degree there. (Responding to the actual title)

If you think that the only reason I participated in that was to prove myself super smart, then I will have to ask you... Are 3720 posts on a forum meant for debating things all for the purpose of boosting my own ego? I enjoy debating things. I don't debate things to make myself look intelligent.

[Tulonsae]

Are you sure that it's just that atheist's don't believe in God(s) or is it actually deity's? Because I believe in Gaia whom is a titan and not a god so does that technically make me Gaian and an atheist?

My understanding is that makes you a Pagan and not an atheist.

[Tulonsae]

I posted in that other thread when I saw that asi had a misconception about the big bang.

But why were you reading it in the first place? Or, are you religious and I just missed that?

[697134002]

I posted in that other thread when I saw that asi had a misconception about the big bang.

But why were you reading it in the first place? Or, are you religious and I just missed that?

I read every single thread that I am able to see.

[Tomenaki]

I, personally, look at religious threads to see if the person is capable of debating well. As for misconceptions, I think it's good to point those out. Say that someone thinks salt is actually sodium, I'm going to point out that it's sodium-chloride. I don't see the issue in giving the scientific explanation of the Big Bang.

[duhriddler]

But why were you reading it in the first place? Or, are you religious and I just missed that?

I find that an odd question to ask, but my viewpoint may be skewed. It sounds (to me) like asking "Why would you read Harry Potter if you don't believe in magic?" I like reading about all kinds of religions, and I always have. Although I am more interested in general with the older religions (Greek/Roman, Egyptian, Norse), the modern/surviving ones all have their own unique bits of flavor. I'm not claiming to be a religious scholar, indeed the religion I am most familiar with/the one I was brought up in is likely one you've never heard of, but people's beliefs interest me. Perhaps you can see why a thread like "Who is God to you?" would attract me. Just think of the potential, a diverse group of people talking about the center of their belief like that.

Of course, the question posed by the topic also opens itself to the obvious atheist answer, and that's exactly what happened. It doesn't hurt that the last serious thread on religion is pretty much necro territory at this point.

[Tulonsae]

Ok, but the question "Who is God to you?" is (by the way it's phrased) asked in the context of God already exists. So, being an atheist, even though you are interested in religions and people's thought processes, why would you (assuming you would) enter the discussion to say that God doesn't exist?

Isn't that sort of like...

Some one asking what kind of German car you like, and you responding with "well, I like Fords".

Context of this post: I am not arguing with you or trying to convince anyone of anything. I am trying to understand so I'm asking for more clarity, by giving examples.

[Tulonsae]

Well, I understand the attraction of pointing out facts when someone has got them wrong.

But there is a big difference between the "fact" that salt is composed of sodium-cloride and the "theory" of the big bang. I tend to think that when explaining a theory, it's better to phrase it as a commonly accepted theory - and not as a fact. (Not implying you would say it was a fact. But I have seen the big bang explained as a fact.)

[697134002]

Well, I understand the attraction of pointing out facts when someone has got them wrong.

But there is a big difference between the "fact" that salt is composed of sodium-cloride and the "theory" of the big bang. I tend to think that when explaining a theory, it's better to phrase it as a commonly accepted theory - and not as a fact. (Not implying you would say it was a fact. But I have seen the big bang explained as a fact.)

It is a fact that all matter in the universe is expanding out from one central area. The big bang is simply the name for the time when all of the matter was at that central area and began expanding. Bang is the wrong word, though. Expansion is more accurate. The big bang is as much a fact as native americans reaching the americas by the crossing the Bering land bridge.

[duhriddler]

Ok, but the question "Who is God to you?" is (by the way it's phrased) asked in the context of God already exists. So, being an atheist, even though you are interested in religions and people's thought processes, why would you (assuming you would) enter the discussion to say that God doesn't exist?

I originally entered the thread for exactly that reason. The contents of the thread shifted to something different long before I responded. In fact, my first response to the thread was basically a meta response about the thread going a different way, followed by my (rather uninteresting) answer to the topic's question.

As for why I would answer at all, I guess I felt my answer was as valid an answer to the question as anybody else's. It's like a poll, I just filled in the "None of the above" response.

Isn't that sort of like...

Some one asking what kind of German car you like, and you responding with "well, I like Fords".

I think the equivalent response to that is more like "I don't like (German) cars." To put this into a more religious context, your question becomes "What Egyptian god do you like" and your answer becomes "Well, I like Thor." Ford is not the appropriate "None of the above" response in your analogy.

Hopefully that made sense.

[Tulonsae]

Well, I understand the attraction of pointing out facts when someone has got them wrong.

But there is a big difference between the "fact" that salt is composed of sodium-cloride and the "theory" of the big bang. I tend to think that when explaining a theory, it's better to phrase it as a commonly accepted theory - and not as a fact. (Not implying you would say it was a fact. But I have seen the big bang explained as a fact.)

It is a fact that all matter in the universe is expanding out from one central area. The big bang is simply the name for the time when all of the matter was at that central area and began expanding. Bang is the wrong word, though. Expansion is more accurate. The big bang is as much a fact as native americans reaching the americas by the crossing the Bering land bridge.

Yes, expansion of the universe is indeed a fact. Theories behind the "big bang" are theories.

[Tulonsae]

Ok, but the question "Who is God to you?" is (by the way it's phrased) asked in the context of God already exists. So, being an atheist, even though you are interested in religions and people's thought processes, why would you (assuming you would) enter the discussion to say that God doesn't exist?

I originally entered the thread for exactly that reason. The contents of the thread shifted to something different long before I responded. In fact, my first response to the thread was basically a meta response about the thread going a different way, followed by my (rather uninteresting) answer to the topic's question.

As for why I would answer at all, I guess I felt my answer was as valid an answer to the question as anybody else's. It's like a poll, I just filled in the "None of the above" response.

Isn't that sort of like...

Some one asking what kind of German car you like, and you responding with "well, I like Fords".

I think the equivalent response to that is more like "I don't like (German) cars." To put this into a more religious context, your question becomes "What Egyptian god do you like" and your answer becomes "Well, I like Thor." Ford is not the appropriate "None of the above" response in your analogy.

Hopefully that made sense.

Yes, it does make sense. Although it does imply that you believe in religion as a concept, but have rejected it or god. Because your example is putting "no god" as a choice of god. Whereas other people I've known who are atheists, would say the discussion was meaningless to them - unless, of course, it threatened to curtail their rights or something.

I have a similar experience, being Jewish, when door to door people ask me about Jesus. I forget the exact question that was asked the last time. But there was simply no way for me to answer it - because any answer assumed that Jesus existed and was the son of God. And for me, that's just not in my world context. I thought for a minute about how to answer - and the only answer I could come up with was (I'd already said I was Jewish) "We just don't look at things that way."

[697134002]

Well, I understand the attraction of pointing out facts when someone has got them wrong.

But there is a big difference between the "fact" that salt is composed of sodium-cloride and the "theory" of the big bang. I tend to think that when explaining a theory, it's better to phrase it as a commonly accepted theory - and not as a fact. (Not implying you would say it was a fact. But I have seen the big bang explained as a fact.)

It is a fact that all matter in the universe is expanding out from one central area. The big bang is simply the name for the time when all of the matter was at that central area and began expanding. Bang is the wrong word, though. Expansion is more accurate. The big bang is as much a fact as native americans reaching the americas by the crossing the Bering land bridge.

Yes, expansion of the universe is indeed a fact. Theories behind the "big bang" are theories.

Yes. Scientific theories. No more nonfactual than the Bering land bridge or asians crossing it.

[Tulonsae]

@697

Wait. What?

You mean you think all scientific theories have equal likelihood of being correct?

Or do you mean it's a fact that those are scientific theories? Which, of course, is true - they are scientific theories.

Edit: Or are you saying a theory is the same as a fact? And that if something is a scientific theory, that makes it a scientific fact?

[697134002]

@697

Wait. What?

You mean you think all scientific theories have equal likelihood of being correct?

Or do you mean it's a fact that those are scientific theories? Which, of course, is true - they are scientific theories.

Edit: Or are you saying a theory is the same as a fact? And that if something is a scientific theory, that makes it a scientific fact?

1: No. However, they are all supported by all available evidence.
2: No, a scientific theory is not the same as a fact, as a fact is just an observation. However, it can be treated as a fact because it is the best possible conclusion to draw from all of the evidence. The Bering land bridge bit was just to show you that things commonly accepted as fact are, in fact, theories.

[Tulonsae]

@697

Wait. What?

You mean you think all scientific theories have equal likelihood of being correct?

Or do you mean it's a fact that those are scientific theories? Which, of course, is true - they are scientific theories.

Edit: Or are you saying a theory is the same as a fact? And that if something is a scientific theory, that makes it a scientific fact?

1: No. However, they are all supported by all available evidence.
2: No, a scientific theory is not the same as a fact, as a fact is just an observation. However, it can be treated as a fact because it is the best possible conclusion to draw from all of the evidence. The Bering land bridge bit was just to show you that things commonly accepted as fact are, in fact, theories.

Ok, I agree with 1.

I disagree with the part of 2. that says they can be treated as a fact. Although I do agree that within the context of a discussion (which isn't one trying to validate/invalidate the theory), you can dispense with referring to it as a theory for convenience.

And I don't accept the Bering land bridge as a fact. I accept it as a theory (with a rather high probability, but still a theory). So, perhaps that's why the comparison confused me. But then again, maybe that's because of my age.

I do find that many of you younger folks accept a lot more than I do - possibly because you've heard it all your lives. While I remember when some of these theories were formed, new, or changed.

[697134002]

@697

Wait. What?

You mean you think all scientific theories have equal likelihood of being correct?

Or do you mean it's a fact that those are scientific theories? Which, of course, is true - they are scientific theories.

Edit: Or are you saying a theory is the same as a fact? And that if something is a scientific theory, that makes it a scientific fact?

1: No. However, they are all supported by all available evidence.
2: No, a scientific theory is not the same as a fact, as a fact is just an observation. However, it can be treated as a fact because it is the best possible conclusion to draw from all of the evidence. The Bering land bridge bit was just to show you that things commonly accepted as fact are, in fact, theories.

Ok, I agree with 1.

I disagree with the part of 2. that says they can be treated as a fact. Although I do agree that within the context of a discussion (which isn't one trying to validate/invalidate the theory), you can dispense with referring to it as a theory for convenience.

And I don't accept the Bering land bridge as a fact. I accept it as a theory (with a rather high probability, but still a theory). So, perhaps that's why the comparison confused me. But then again, maybe that's because of my age.

I do find that many of you younger folks accept a lot more than I do - possibly because you've heard it all your lives. While I remember when some of these theories were formed, new, or changed.

It's GOOD for scientific theories to be formed or changed. It means that there is new evidence and it betters our understanding of the universe.

And if a conclusion is drawn using all of the evidence, it is only not a fact because there is the possibility for new evidence to contradict it, like, as I said earlier, evolution being caused by the whims of a leprechaun.

[duhriddler]

Yes, it does make sense. Although it does imply that you believe in religion as a concept, but have rejected it or god. Because your example is putting "no god" as a choice of god. Whereas other people I've known who are atheists, would say the discussion was meaningless to them - unless, of course, it threatened to curtail their rights or something.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but when I saw "Who is God to you?" the first thought in my head was roughly "He is nobody to me" not "This question is meaningless to me." The whole thing seems to boil down to a difference in thought processes. That's the thing about atheists, the only thing you can say about them as a group is that they don't believe in a God. One might be able to generalize that they as a group tend to more logical, rational, and scientific thinking, but with even that you'll find there are outliers. You've met atheists that would think one way, and at least in this instance you've met one who didn't.

[Tulonsae]

@697,

I must have missed your comment about the leprechans. Or perhaps that was in the other thread? If so, I didn't read all your posts. Some of them were just too long, so I skimmed those. If it was in this thread, I apologize.

@everyone,

I appreciate those of you who have taken the time to explain your thoughts, attitudes, etc. I find them intriguing and helpful in my continuing study of.... well, life is probably the best single word.

If anyone else wants to respond, please do.

[Furdabip]

Since this thread seems to be related to the other...

The very first question was "When you think of God, what automatically comes to your mind?" - Not "When you think of YOUR god" just "god," so of course atheists are going to respond to what they think of when they think of a god.

The first few responses were normal, then IMMEDIATELY the OP questioned a belief that was stated when someone thinks of god - Jake's to be exact;

Me, I'm an atheist. I can't disprove the notion of some kind of intelligence shaping the creation of the universe,

So can you tell me from where you believe this intelligence came and was incorporated into the creation of the universe?

If anything, I'd say ultimately it was asi baiting people to start a flame war, and not an actual discussion of god and what he was to religious people. In that regard, it was a success.

[Tulonsae]

...snipping stuff... see above for full post...

The very first question was "When you think of God, what automatically comes to your mind?" - Not "When you think of YOUR god" just "god," so of course atheists are going to respond to what they think of when they think of a god.

Well, this goes along with my thoughts on the subject (as they have developed from the responses in this thread. The context for asi is that there is a god and that's God, not a god or someone else's god.

So, if an atheist immediately jumps in - the first 2 responses were by atheists - then it would seem that they accept his context of God and reject god rather than disbelieve in god. Now, I accept that some atheists view it differently and will disagree with my thoughts here.

For me, the question of what do you think of Jesus as the son of God - or something similar put to me by the door to door religious person after I'd said I was Jewish - was a complete stumper. I have no context for it. Of course, I'm aware that Christians believe this way. But I neither reject nor accept Jesus as the son of God. He's simply not a part of my personal world view. The same as I simply don't consider the Hindu gods as part of my own belief system. For example, I did not feel the need to post in Zin's thread where he talks about Jesus. (And yes, I read that post last year.) Because, it simply doesn't mean anything to me. I did, however, notice that atheists immediately jumped in.

As for baiting people, I don't think that asi was. I've known many Christians like him. And they don't bait people. Their world view is just so totally steeped in what they believe in, that it's simply incomprehensible to them that anyone doesn't share it. Yes, it can be annoying to other people who don't share their view. But they're not doing it to upset people.

And one more thing, that wasn't a very successful flame war. Now, talk.creation and talk.abortion in the old newsgroups of the late 80s - those had FLAME WARS.

[Furdabip]

Well, this goes along with my thoughts on the subject (as they have developed from the responses in this thread. The context for asi is that there is a god and that's God, not a god or someone else's god.

So, if an atheist immediately jumps in - the first 2 responses were by atheists - then it would seem that they accept his context of God and reject god rather than disbelieve in god. Now, I accept that some atheists view it differently and will disagree with my thoughts here.

So you're saying that asi has never encountered an atheist in conversation ever before, and simply didn't know that ones may reply to his include-all question? I find that far-fetched. :-p

Either way, I was giving a reason as to why atheists would reply, as the question was indeed phrased in such a way to include everyone to comment on what god meant to them. It turned into a debate the moment asi questioned a belief that an atheist held, as I suggested was meant to happen.

[Godavari]

Well all atheists don't feel like jumping in to those sorts of conversations. I certainly didn't (though I generally don't touch religious discussion here with a 10-foot pole anyway). However, I understand the desire. On the forum, a thread OP is basically an open question to a room full of people. It's hard to ask a question on a forum in a way that only one group will think "oh, he's asking me." Everyone will think it's addressed to them, even if the framework of the question is incompatible with the answer they're likely to give.

[Jake55778]

So, if an atheist immediately jumps in - the first 2 responses were by atheists - then it would seem that they accept his context of God and reject god rather than disbelieve in god.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction, if someone doesn't believe in God doesn't that already imply rejection?