Atheist parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or "you are mentally inferior for having a belief system"

If I ever thought that, I was wrong. Most people who believe have just not thought critically about it enough. Or they've buried their rationality under the pile of peer pressure that surrounds them.

And I would say something similar about atheists.

All it means to be an atheist is to not have faith. It's not a logic system. I don't feel a belief in god and I don't have faith that he exists. This isn't derived from a philosophical proof, it's an accurate statement about whether a voice inside me tells me there is a deity.

What is the similar thing you are saying with regard to atheists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or "you are mentally inferior for having a belief system"

If I ever thought that, I was wrong. Most people who believe have just not thought critically about it enough. Or they've buried their rationality under the pile of peer pressure that surrounds them.

And I would say something similar about atheists.

All it means to be an atheist is to not have faith. It's not a logic system. I don't feel a belief in god and I don't have faith that he exists. This isn't derived from a philosophical proof, it's an accurate statement about whether a voice inside me tells me there is a deity.

What is the similar thing you are saying with regard to atheists?

Speak for yourself. My atheism is based on a lot of hard thinking on philosophy and science. If all I had was a little voice in my head, I'd be ashamed of myself. You're no better than the religious. Your belief in a deity is based on emotion and superstition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A - unless you are one to look down their nose at people who believe (Muslim, Hindu, Christain, Jew, Wiccan, etc.), or try to push an agenda (aka whatever the atheistic equivalent of evangelizing is).

+1 I'm a Christian but my kids have several friends with Atheist parents. I have no problem with it.

Really, it doesn't come up at all other than when we're trying to coordinate summer camps since they don't want to send their kids to the one of the church-based camps my kids go to. I did notice once one of the dads shared a Christian-denigrating post on Facebook so I definitely feel some distance from him. He's a nice guy when we interact around kid things but I'd hesitate to invite him over to dinner because I don't need to be mocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or "you are mentally inferior for having a belief system"

If I ever thought that, I was wrong. Most people who believe have just not thought critically about it enough. Or they've buried their rationality under the pile of peer pressure that surrounds them.

And I would say something similar about atheists.

I don't see how you can make a rational argument for that. Religion is founded on faith, not critical thinking. You are supposed to believe on lack of evidence, or even contrary evidence. This is the opposite of critical thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, atheists can judge with the best of them!

Oh we all judge. I just think we should judge each other from a rational basis, rather than "my God said what you are doing is immoral".

How is judging someone for their pseronal belief rational?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or "you are mentally inferior for having a belief system"

If I ever thought that, I was wrong. Most people who believe have just not thought critically about it enough. Or they've buried their rationality under the pile of peer pressure that surrounds them.

And I would say something similar about atheists.

All it means to be an atheist is to not have faith. It's not a logic system. I don't feel a belief in god and I don't have faith that he exists. This isn't derived from a philosophical proof, it's an accurate statement about whether a voice inside me tells me there is a deity.

What is the similar thing you are saying with regard to atheists?

Speak for yourself. My atheism is based on a lot of hard thinking on philosophy and science. If all I had was a little voice in my head, I'd be ashamed of myself. You're no better than the religious. Your belief in a deity is based on emotion and superstition.

That's ridiculous. Science and logic can't disprove the existence of a diety. If we want to take an evidentiary approach, the default assumption is that there is no God and we would need evidence of his existence. We don't have that evidence so unless one has faith, one doesn't believe.

If you are sure there is no God because of some evidence you've gathered, that's your faith.

So, why do I consider myself an atheist and not agnostic? Because I'm pretty sure there is no God, just as I'm pretty sure the universe isn't ruled by Captain Crunch or Hello Kitty. But I can admit that logic and evidence doesn't DISPROVE that they rule the universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or "you are mentally inferior for having a belief system"

If I ever thought that, I was wrong. Most people who believe have just not thought critically about it enough. Or they've buried their rationality under the pile of peer pressure that surrounds them.

And I would say something similar about atheists.

All it means to be an atheist is to not have faith. It's not a logic system. I don't feel a belief in god and I don't have faith that he exists. This isn't derived from a philosophical proof, it's an accurate statement about whether a voice inside me tells me there is a deity.

What is the similar thing you are saying with regard to atheists?

Speak for yourself. My atheism is based on a lot of hard thinking on philosophy and science. If all I had was a little voice in my head, I'd be ashamed of myself. You're no better than the religious. Your belief in a deity is based on emotion and superstition.

That's ridiculous. Science and logic can't disprove the existence of a diety. If we want to take an evidentiary approach, the default assumption is that there is no God and we would need evidence of his existence. We don't have that evidence so unless one has faith, one doesn't believe.

If you are sure there is no God because of some evidence you've gathered, that's your faith.

So, why do I consider myself an atheist and not agnostic? Because I'm pretty sure there is no God, just as I'm pretty sure the universe isn't ruled by Captain Crunch or Hello Kitty. But I can admit that logic and evidence doesn't DISPROVE that they rule the universe.

People come to atheism different ways - just like people come to religion different ways (e.g., childhood indoctrination, revelation, a feeling inside that God exists).

Some people just never click with religious belief, even though they were taught it as children. It just seems like another fairy tale or greek myth to them. Some people give up religion easily as adolescents when they start questioning a lot of things. And some leave religion later in life after studying it for a long time and/or studying science and finding religious belief incompatible with it.

[Anonymous]

19:21, I'm sure you are accurately describing some of the paths but that doesn't change the fact that science can't repute the existence of a god. I'm an atheist, no question, just as untold numbers of scientists still believe in God.

I don't dispute what is in anyone's heart but to say that science or logic give proof that there is no God is an objective error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:19:21, I'm sure you are accurately describing some of the paths but that doesn't change the fact that science can't repute the existence of a god. I'm an atheist, no question, just as untold numbers of scientists still believe in God.

I don't dispute what is in anyone's heart but to say that science or logic give proof that there is no God is an objective error.

I don't see where anyone has said that science or logic gives proof that there is not God. I see someone saying they didn't feel there was a god and someone else (me) saying that there are several ways people become atheists.

[Anonymous]

"Most people who believe have just not thought critically about it enough. Or they've buried their rationality under the pile of peer pressure that surrounds them. "

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:21, I'm sure you are accurately describing some of the paths but that doesn't change the fact that science can't repute the existence of a god. I'm an atheist, no question, just as untold numbers of scientists still believe in God.

I don't dispute what is in anyone's heart but to say that science or logic give proof that there is no God is an objective error.

I don't see where anyone has said that science or logic gives proof that there is not God. I see someone saying they didn't feel there was a god and someone else (me) saying that there are several ways people become atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Most people who believe have just not thought critically about it enough. Or they've buried their rationality under the pile of peer pressure that surrounds them. "

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:21, I'm sure you are accurately describing some of the paths but that doesn't change the fact that science can't repute the existence of a god. I'm an atheist, no question, just as untold numbers of scientists still believe in God.

I don't dispute what is in anyone's heart but to say that science or logic give proof that there is no God is an objective error.

I don't see where anyone has said that science or logic gives proof that there is not God. I see someone saying they didn't feel there was a god and someone else (me) saying that there are several ways people become atheists.

It is quite a leap of logic to say that the above text in quotes is giving proof to anything. Many people come to atheism via critical thought and rationality -- and all without ultimate "proof" - in fact part of thinking about it rationally, is to realize that things outside the realm of nature (e.g., God, angels, goblins) cannot be proven.

[Anonymous]

If scientific knowledge and philosophical inquiry reveal to you that you don't believe in a diety, lovely.

But if I showed the same I information to a believer and they continued to have faith, we couldn't say they had made a mistake or failed to understand the arguments.

That's what I mean by "proof." Maybe we are in agreement if I restate it like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If scientific knowledge and philosophical inquiry reveal to you that you don't believe in a diety, lovely.

But if I showed the same I information to a believer and they continued to have faith, we couldn't say they had made a mistake or failed to understand the arguments.

That's what I mean by "proof." Maybe we are in agreement if I restate it like this?

I'll admit that I'm a bit lost in this conversation. In hopes of not confusing things more, I'll say that "information" doesn't necessarily have the same impact on people of faith (believing in some religion) and people without faith (atheists). Faith, from what I've seen, can happily co-exist with reason as well as outside of reason. Faith supersedes reason. I've seen very intelligent, well-educated people take great pride in the fact that their understanding of science, etc, does not interfere a bit with their ability to have faith in their religion. I've seen it here on DCUM and IRL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If scientific knowledge and philosophical inquiry reveal to you that you don't believe in a diety, lovely.

But if I showed the same I information to a believer and they continued to have faith, we couldn't say they had made a mistake or failed to understand the arguments.

That's what I mean by "proof." Maybe we are in agreement if I restate it like this?

I'll admit that I'm a bit lost in this conversation. In hopes of not confusing things more, I'll say that "information" doesn't necessarily have the same impact on people of faith (believing in some religion) and people without faith (atheists). Faith, from what I've seen, can happily co-exist with reason as well as outside of reason. Faith supersedes reason. I've seen very intelligent, well-educated people take great pride in the fact that their understanding of science, etc, does not interfere a bit with their ability to have faith in their religion. I've seen it here on DCUM and IRL

The definition of faith is belief without proof. You seem to not be keeping that in mind

Besides, what science harms faith? Unless you literally believe that God created the earth in 7 human days, there's no conflict. The conflicts between science and faith only come in the details, which a believer is often free to reject, or in reading the bible or other text literally, which many many don't.
(Still an atheist here)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If scientific knowledge and philosophical inquiry reveal to you that you don't believe in a diety, lovely.

But if I showed the same I information to a believer and they continued to have faith, we couldn't say they had made a mistake or failed to understand the arguments.

That's what I mean by "proof." Maybe we are in agreement if I restate it like this?

I'll admit that I'm a bit lost in this conversation. In hopes of not confusing things more, I'll say that "information" doesn't necessarily have the same impact on people of faith (believing in some religion) and people without faith (atheists). Faith, from what I've seen, can happily co-exist with reason as well as outside of reason. Faith supersedes reason. I've seen very intelligent, well-educated people take great pride in the fact that their understanding of science, etc, does not interfere a bit with their ability to have faith in their religion. I've seen it here on DCUM and IRL

The definition of faith is belief without proof. You seem to not be keeping that in mind

Besides, what science harms faith? Unless you literally believe that God created the earth in 7 human days, there's no conflict. The conflicts between science and faith only come in the details, which a believer is often free to reject, or in reading the bible or other text literally, which many many don't.
(Still an atheist here)

It can also be belief despite proof or belief without taking "proof" or evidence into consideration -- because faith is the natural default for some people. There is no "proof" of God but there is plenty of evidence against certain religious beliefs. None of that matters to a person of deep faith.