Tell Me About Your Theism Or Atheism.

I am interested in learning about other people's beliefs. I myself am deeply religious, but am very open-minded. I want to know what you believe, why you believe it and how it has become a part of you.I am also very interested in learning about the atheist standpoint. I know that there is no set reason why atheists don't believe in deities, which is why I want to know more about them.I am not here to preach, convert or be converted. I am here to learn. I am more than happy to describe my religion if asked.Even if you see some of your beliefs explained, I'd like you to post your views. No two people's views are the same.Thank you for your time. ^^

Well, I'm an atheist, so I guess I can answer for at least one.Why do I not believe in Deities? That question would require far more space and time than is available here. I'll try to summarise:a) Human beings are extremely fallible and very susceptible to peer-pressure. This means that anecdotal evidence should always be treated with suspicion.b ) In order to investigate the universe we have developed two main systems - religion and science.Religion presupposes the existence of a 'creator' (or at least most religions do). Science also makes one supposition - that there is a real universe to examine.c) The proposition of a creator-God is not one that can be disproved by science, but most religions go much further than the simple deist position and make testable statements about such a God and the needs/wishes of such a God. Where such statements have been made they have either been shown to be wrong, or at best are phrased in such a way that they cannot be tested,.d) The reasons for the development of religion are now beginning to be understood and we see that religious belief can be explained in purely evolutionary terms.e) Most religion involves contradiction of known and tested laws of physics - miracles as we generally call them. As David Hume once pointed out - the probability of a genuine miracle is always lower than the alternative explanation - no matter how improbable that is.f) Whenever science and religion clash (whether it be the age of the earth, the position of the earth in the universe, the age of the human species, the development of the human species....etc) then religion has been shown wrong every single time.g) Science can now offer workable models for everything we perceive around us, without recourse to supernatural methods or events. There is simply no need for a supernatural God to explain the universe.h) Religion requires faith - which I define as belief despite (or even in spite of) evidence to the contrary. I believe that such 'faith' is always a bad thing and that we should decide based on evidence.i) Since there is no persuasive evidence for the existence of any God, I find no grounds for believing that any such God actually exists.

A slightly more formal way of stating the above would be:axiom : the material universe exists in an objecive sense (I shall label this 'reality').axiom : I exist within reality and my perception of the universe has some correspondence to realityI add to those 2 axioms the axiom/deduction that other people also exist in an objective sense (ie they are not just conjurations of my perceptions).Give those 3 starting conditions it seems to me that there are three ways to set about investigating the universe:a) Introspection/personal revelationb ) Received wisdomc) Empirical evidenceReligion is a formalised system, including elements of the first two types. Science is a formalised system of the third type.Given my starting axioms, knowledge gained by the third type must always be preferred over knowledge gained by the second and first type, for the following reasons:a) Knowledge of the first type is subject to the accuracy of my perceptions, and cannot be externally verified.b ) Knowledge of the second type is dependant on the accuracy of the source. To the extent that such knowledge can be empirically verified it really belongs in type 3.All religion involves appeal to types 1 and 2. Given that we know human perception is fallible, and we further know that humans are pretty terrible witnesses, it seems to me to be very dangerous to rely on type 1 and type 2 for any 'model' of reality that I want to construct.

Bikerman: You have some very good and very interesting points. To be honest, I've never seen the atheistic argument so well laid out and easily understood. Thank you. ^^

You are welcome.There is much debate amongst atheists about whether we should even bother using the word, since it defines a group of people by a negative - by what they do not believe. This is an odd way to proceed - we don't, for example, normally talk about people as 'non-footballers' or 'non-marxists'.Also, for some reasons best known to themselves, many theists are uncomfortable with the definition of atheist (one who doesn't believe in God(s)) and insist that it is changed to 'one who asserts that God does not exist'. The distinction may not be obvious at first but is hopefully made so by an example.I do not believe that there is water on Io. That is NOT to say that 'I assert that there is no water on Io' - I just simply have no current reason to believe there is. My mind could easily change, should evidence emerge.I suspect that theists deliberately try to fudge this so that they can then claim that atheism is 'just another belief' - since the atheist cannot PROVE that God doex not exist. Well, if an atheist DOES assert that God does not exist (a position most people call 'strong atheism') then I would agree that this is a belief - a faith position. The fact is, though, that most of us don't. I assert that it is, given the evidence available, highly unlikely....but I cannot say that it is impossible.

I don't quite see why some of us (theists) are uncomfortable with the current definition of atheist. To change it to the other is to assume we know anything about atheism and that all athesists think the same, in my opinion. Obviously all atheists don't think the same and theists don't know squat about athesim.I agree that "strong atheism" may be a belief, but definately not "gentle atheism".Quote: "I assert that it is, given the evidence available, highly unlikely....but I cannot say that it is impossible."As far as all of the atheists that I have met, I think I respect your opinion on it all the most. You seem to be the most reasonable and level headed that I have met.

Many theists are threatened by atheism. The US is an exception to the general rule, in that it is FAR more religious than other developed countries. In Europe theism has been in steady and fairly constant decline for at least 3 generations. Although a majority (70%) of people in the UK might put 'Christian' on census forms, the truth is that most of them aren't really practicing Christians and they certainly don't believe core items of christian dogma,Even in the US, the fastest growing faith position is atheism. Church leaders think they must fight-back against this trend, so here in the UK we get Church leaders whining about 'militant atheism' and 'strident secularism' which is both ridiculous and ironic. (The irony comes from the fact that many atheists, including me, can tell you stories of suffering real abuse and discrimination at the hands of theists, and the notion that theists are being treated badly is a rather sick joke to us).In some parts of the US being an atheist is likely to get you driven-out of the community, or worse.

Well, I suppose I can understand why some theists are threatened by atheism. Personally I'm not. I see no reason to be threatened or afraid of atheism, it's not like atheists are threatening people with guns. Hell, I know of more theists than atheists who do that.

Exactly. Even the most 'militant' atheist (and I am no shrinking violet ) isn't calling for a ban on religion. Even the hate-figures with many theists - Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris and (now sadly missed) Christopher Hitchens - never suggested that theists should be treated differently.This all comes back to whether you perceive atheism as a belief. If you do then it is easy to see how people could do things, in the name of that belief, that most people would judge immoral. We have plenty of examples over history. To slightly paraphrase Steve Weinberg:"With or without balief (religion) you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes belief (religion).(He used the word religion, but I think you can substitute any non-rational belief system - by which I mean any belief which is either unsupported, or is actually condtradicted by evidence.)The fact is that atheism isn't a belief. To quote, again, "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby'. Atheists do not have a defining belief, characteristic, world-view, or anything else in common. Their only common link is that they don't believe in God(s). This is something you will see continually ignored, even by moderate theists. Atheists are always taken to be scientific materialists. Whilst many are, many are not. I know several atheists who have beliefs I find ridiculous and naive - in fact there are many atheists I would not wish to be associated with, but that should be no surprise - no more surprising than saying that some people who say they believe in God do nasty things.The real threat that atheists like Dawkins pose is not violence or discrimination - it is that they present a coherent, well argued criticism of religion, based on evidence which no theist can deny. Churches are like any organisation - a great deal of energy is expended in maintaining the organisation and for many this becomes the main function. Atheism is an existential threat to religion in the west - not because atheists are forcing anyone to do anything, but because when confronted with the real truth of what their religion asserts, and the real evidence for those assertions, many people just cannot go along with it. The reason that theists in particular find this threatening is that it is new to them. Anyone's choice of politics, football team, clothes, car etc is subject to criticism. We have all been the subject of some mickey-taking for choices we have made at some point. Religion was always different. People had to 'show respect' for religious belief. What the 'new atheists' have done is say 'why should we?'.If you think about it, the notion of 'respect for beliefs' is wrong-headed and confused. Does one have to respect the views of a maniac? Does one owe respect to the view that it is OK to exploit young children for sex? Most people would say 'of course not, don't be offensive'. Yet this is what they apparently believe when they talk about 'respecting belief'.'Ahh, but..' (they will no doubt say) ',,,some beliefs are beyond the pale and cannot be seriously considered'.So who decides? Do we respect the beliefs of Christians, but not the beliefs of alien abductees? Why?In fact, when you think about it, the whole notion is daft, and only arises because of a mis-statement of the imperative.We should not 'respect belief' - nor should we pretend to. We should, absolutely, respect the RIGHT to believe.I do not 'respect' most of Christian dogma - I find it unbelievable and, in some cases, downright offensive. If, however, anyone was threatened or victimised because of such belief then I will stand with them. Free speech is much harder than most people think. It means defending the right of people to say things you personally disagree with, find offensive or stupid, or even think are dangerous. It doesn't mean that you have to pretend to like them, or even that you have to refrain from criticising or condemning them.This is the 'crime' of Dawkins et al - they have insisited on the right to apply the same standards of criticism and debate to religion that we routinely do to other choices and institutitions - and by golly the leaders of the churches do not like it one little bit."