• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The difference between aetheists and religious

wastepanel

Muse
W
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
572
I've been involved in a few discussions lately that have me wondering what the differences between aetheists (meaning those that believe there was or is no God/creator) and the religious (those that believe there was/is) are.

No matter your position on the subject, what do you think?

I can only think that "faith" differentiates the two groups. Religious have faith in an unproven commodity, while aetheists do not. However, both groups tend to have "faith" that their position is the correct position.
 
wastepanel said:
I've been involved in a few discussions lately that have me wondering what the differences between aetheists (meaning those that believe there was or is no God/creator) and the religious (those that believe there was/is) are.

No matter your position on the subject, what do you think?

I can only think that "faith" differentiates the two groups. Religious have faith in an unproven commodity, while aetheists do not. However, both groups tend to have "faith" that their position is the correct position.
Click to expand...
Not all atheists go as far as to say there is no God. That's a universal negative, which cannot be really proven. Atheists lack belief. There's no faith necessary to lack belief in unicorns, it just means you've never seen evidence pointing to them. There's no faith necessary to be a non-theist, either, because it's not a claim. It's a lack thereof.
 
I think Penn summed it up best in his "This I believe":

Penn said:
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.
Click to expand...
 
I couldn't top that if I tried; nor could I add anything to it either way. Thanks for posting that, Thorn.
 
I've often wondered about the difference between people who collect stamps, and those that don't. I've concluded that it comes down to "hobby". Those who do collect have the "hobby" of collecting stamps, and those who don't collect have the "hobby" of not collecting stamps.

Wait, that's not right.
 
Evidence is the key issue IMHO.

Religion does not require it and actively attempts to suppress/destroy/corrupt/mask/distort any evidence that contradicts dogma. Always has and probably always will. It is a successful system.

Atheists require convincing evidence to change opinion. After n years there is none that I've seen.

Religion is a large organisation, well funded, powerful and satisfies a built in human need.

Atheists are none of the above.

Atheists will largely disappear if presented with convincing evidence that they are wrong.

Religion has not and is not likely to whatever the evidence. A 3,000ft Zeus rampaging for weeks smiting with lightning bolts would still not change many fundies ("It's Satan in disguise here to decieve....Jesus will save us!!!")


.
 
I hope there is a god. That bastard's got a lot to answer for when I meet up with him. :mad:
 
Everybody is skeptical about something. Almost everybody is skeptical that telemarketers tell the truth. Most people a skeptical that used-car dealers tell the truth. Lots of people are skeptical that lawyers tell the truth. Parents may be skeptical that their children are telling the truth.

Atheists are skeptical that religion is telling the truth.
 
Last edited:
Very many atheists can tell you what it would take for them to change their position to one that includes a belief in God. For instance, if God stopped the Earth's rotation for an hour or so (using His mighty, mighty power to absorb all the angular momentum so that no one fell over or spilled anything), made an appearance, described Himself, and started the world back up, then I'd believe. It sounds like a pretty big miracle when it is spelled out like that, but given that His followers claim that He has done it before, it should not be that hard.

I cannot recall meeting any religious folk that could describe specific events that would lead them to become atheists.

- - - - - - -

You could also point out that both atheists and the believers you are arguing with do not believe that Thor or Quetzalcoatl or Ra is real. There are hundreds of major and minor deities that neither group considers real. The atheists' list is just one item longer than the list of Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
 
Last edited:
wastepanel said:
However, both groups tend to have "faith" that their position is the correct position.
Click to expand...
The difference is that religion is not willing to change their opinion since it is based on faith but skeptics are willing to change their opinion if provided more information. So the faith of a religious person is immutable and the faith of a skeptic is only so far as the logic and data go.
 
Unlike Penn, I do not believe there is no god. I simply don't believe there is a god. Or an Easter Bunny. Or an Invisible Pink Hamster orbiting Neptune. Nor do I collect stamps. All these nonbeliefs are subject to change.

~~ Paul
 
What about people who are both atheists and religious? Not every religion has gods :p
 
wastepanel said:
I've been involved in a few discussions lately that have me wondering what the differences between aetheists (meaning those that believe there was or is no God/creator) and the religious (those that believe there was/is) are. No matter your position on the subject, what do you think? I can only think that "faith" differentiates the two groups. Religious have faith in an unproven commodity, while aetheists do not. However, both groups tend to have "faith" that their position is the correct position.
Click to expand...
Well, I was an atheist for most of my life, and went through two transitions, one was a less mature pro-active period which I was intolerant of any spiritualism, thinking it was deep-seated denial, and religion I thought of as silly to insane. It wasn't until later that It dawned on me that faith, or a set destiny, or what have you, is an integral part of a healthy human psyche. Whatever it should be based on, of course, is anyone's guess. Many naturalists exhibit good character, but ethics and morality are the exception, not the rule when people accept dog-eat-dog mentality as an ultimate truth. Most humans are socialized, and a valid and ultimate reason for living is as natural as hunger or sex. Realizing and accepting this, I tried to choose the most humanistic balance between belief and naturalism. I think the underlying truth behind God though, is what humans will eventually become. "Do you believe in God", essentially you are asking someone if they believe in their own destiny, a logical conclusion to conditional and seemingly inequal existence.
 
Last edited:
Dogdoctor said:
The difference is that religion is not willing to change their opinion since it is based on faith but skeptics are willing to change their opinion if provided more information. So the faith of a religious person is immutable and the faith of a skeptic is only so far as the logic and data go.
Click to expand...
Well, that is not surprising. Any belief in destiny is by nature, fixed.
 
I would say there is no God.

Many gods have dotted our history and no proof of their existence has ever surfaced. In fact the vast majority of the world would laugh at you if you said you worshipped Zeus or Ra today, but there was a time and a place that denying there existence would get you killed. Today the fad is the one true God. Will our descendants look at our world religions of today and laugh? Given enough time, I think so.

So why can't I come to a conclusion that there is no God. I have had others demanding some proof there is no God. Why? Burden of proof falls on his existence.

Imagine if we were members of a jury sitting in on the God case for last couple thousand years waiting for the believers to supply any concrete evidence. The believer’s lawyer comes up with anecdotal evidence, but nothing concrete. He tries psuedo-science to sway the jury. He tries awe us with the complexity of the universe. Of course this is better then the early part of the trial when he simply threatened the jury and demanded they rule in his favor. When something doesn’t work he moves on to another tactic which is usually an old idea with a new twist and name. I, as a juror, am ready to cast my vote as the opposition simply states, “No evidence = No God.”

So, like a tired juror, I am convinced there is no God. Enough time has passed to convince me otherwise, but no evidence has surfaced.

To answer the original question, atheist have thought about the existence of God and concluded it can not be. Believers follow blindly and never step out of their faith to examine what they believe in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom