Concerned About Atheisim

[heathendegenerate]

As a former atheist I confidently say that I came to faith primarily by rational reflection. The fact that you think this impossible means that you are not thinking freely but are a slave to your antireligious bigotry.

rational reflection? Explain what that means exactly.. please.

[Alex K]

As a former atheist I confidently say that I came to faith primarily by rational reflection. The fact that you think this impossible means that you are not thinking freely but are a slave to your antireligious bigotry.

I second that, it would interest me what rationale led you to faith. I'll try not to yell at you and stuff.

[Ryantology]

As a former atheist I confidently say that I came to faith primarily by rational reflection. The fact that you think this impossible means that you are not thinking freely but are a slave to your antireligious bigotry.

The fact that your 'rational reflection' resulted in belief in a fictional deity indicates that your definition of 'rational' is 'whatever confirms my biases'.

[Alex K]

As a former atheist I confidently say that I came to faith primarily by rational reflection. The fact that you think this impossible means that you are not thinking freely but are a slave to your antireligious bigotry.

The fact that your 'rational reflection' resulted in belief in a fictional deity indicates that your definition of 'rational' is 'whatever confirms my biases'.

Come on, if you scold him from the get go, he's not gonna tell!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Why should explain to "free thinkers" like you? Think for yourselves. ;-)

[psychoslice]

I don't think there is an atheist 'dogma'. Even the 'militant' among us (and do I ever hate that term; it is the religious who spread the virus of faith through fear, persecution and death, not us) have a message which pretty much boils down to "drop these childish and pointless fantasies. Live in the real world. Have faith in things only when the evidence suggests that they are likely to be true, and keep your standards of evidence high. Enjoy your life. Don't fear the fictional omniscient tyrant, and try to do right by yourself and others not to mollify that fictional tyrant but because of the benefits of doing good."

But don't you see, that way of thinking is just going to end up like the religious way of thinking, people are intitule to have their fantasies and to live in their fantasises, of course as long as their fantasies don't hurt anyone else's fantasy, and this is my concern.

---

I don't think there is an atheist 'dogma'. Even the 'militant' among us (and do I ever hate that term; it is the religious who spread the virus of faith through fear, persecution and death, not us) have a message which pretty much boils down to "drop these childish and pointless fantasies. Live in the real world. Have faith in things only when the evidence suggests that they are likely to be true, and keep your standards of evidence high. Enjoy your life. Don't fear the fictional omniscient tyrant, and try to do right by yourself and others not to mollify that fictional tyrant but because of the benefits of doing good."

---

I see what you are saying, and I will try not to confuse this with arrogance and dogma

That's an important insight, but... you are justified to remain a bit wary. Whenever big egos and dynasty-like schools of thought are involved, scientific ideals can be compromised. Usually though there is so much competition in the field that someone who publishes biased or controversial stuff gets taken down pretty quickly and mercilessly. What we ideally have to do is make the scientific method our own, such that in light of what you perceive as dogmatism, you don't have to say "science is dogmatic", but instead can be more nuanced and say "I thing ur doing science rong, and here's why". It's hard if you're not an expert, right? But I believe you can get an idea by listening to the different sides of a scientific debate (scientific, not science vs. bollocks) and try to weigh their arguments and counter-arguments. I have to rely on this for pretty much everything but my own field, and I believe it can be done.

The typical example where the difficulty of this becomes obvious is when a biologist proclaims she doesn't believe in evolution and gets denied a position, and we all know it's because of this. Is this dogmatism at work? Are opposing views silenced dogmatically in this case?

Yes this is what I normally do, listening to science arguments, even though I am not a science, I do have a gut feeling who is right and who is wrong, if I am wrong in that gut feeling, then at least its my own decision and not just believe everything I am told to believe.

---

Nothing can turn either atheism or theism into religions. They are differing opinions on a single topic. They can be a feature of a religion, but not a religion in themselves or even the primary basis for one. There's no atheist world view for the same reason that there is no theist world view: everyone has a world view, but their atheism or theism isn't it.

I like that, and hopeful that is how it will stay.

---

free thinking sounds a lot like, "The devil buried dem' bones der' to test our faith in LORD JEBUS, HE'YUCK!".. you aren't secretly a christian with some hidden agenda, are you?

Now way, been there done that, and glad to be out of that, oh yea.

---

As a former atheist I confidently say that I came to faith primarily by rational reflection. The fact that you think this impossible means that you are not thinking freely but are a slave to your antireligious bigotry.

I agree with this, of course it works both ways, you could be a science and also be a slave to your own theory, and never see past it, as with religious thought also.

[Alex K]

Why should explain to "free thinkers" like you? Think for yourselves. ;-)

Copout!
You don't believe sharing arguments and ideas is useful? If there's a good one I want to hear it.

[Bob Kelso]

Will atheism one day in the future become like a religion, with its dogma, and fundamentalism belief system ?. Myself I simply don't have a belief in any god, or god's, but I don't call myself an atheist

*bolded by me*
I certainly hope not, I like that atheists out there are attempting to form groups, I miss having such a community sometimes, but I think the ones who are calling it 'atheist church' and holding it on Sundays are going about it in a counter-productive way. Atheism itself holds no dogma, it's the moniker that describes one who has no belief in gods, nothing more. If you wish to judge each atheist by his words (and more importantly his actions) then please feel free.

I don't blindly believe everything that science says, I am a free thinker.

That's kind of the point of science.

I do agree that its great that so called atheist do keep a balance with religion, after all who is going to keep them honest, but like all belief systems they eventually try to take over, or put themselves above all else.

If you mean 'try to take over' as in the dissolution of religion through peaceful discourse or a possible scientific disproof in the future then yes, but that is more on the side of anti-theism, not atheism. As far as 'put themselves above all else', there are people who do that but I'm not one of them.

I might be wrong, but I do feel that atheist are becoming arrogant in their beliefs, it could be that their beliefs in science makes them feel as if they can never be wrong.

Some are arrogant, for example; I can let my anger at some aspects of religion (or myself for ever having believed it in the past for that matter) get the better of me at times and be an arrogant prick but I'm working on it.

Science's very nature inspires confidence, but it is best not to be over-confident. There is always room for human error and a lack of current understanding, that being said; science requires no beliefs.

I just hope this is not the case, I do like the atheist way of thinking more than the religious way of thinking, but I just hope we are not getting rid of one monster to be replaced with another.

On my part this is not a debate but a simple question, thank you.

You and I share the same appreciation for the rational line of thought and the hope in avoiding yet another monster to battle, figuratively speaking of course.

As a former atheist I confidently say that I came to faith primarily by rational reflection. The fact that you think this impossible means that you are not thinking freely but are a slave to your antireligious bigotry.

Translation: "Nu-uh, you."

[psychoslice]

Hi Aral Gamelon , I like the way you explained all that, and I do agree with what you have said.

[Rampant.A.I.]

As a former atheist I confidently say that I came to faith primarily by rational reflection. The fact that you think this impossible means that you are not thinking freely but are a slave to your antireligious bigotry.

It's less anti-religious, as it is anti pretentious assholes who can't back up their statements with anything but woo and gibbering about their faith, yet claim to be "rational."

Why should explain to "free thinkers" like you? Think for yourselves. ;-)

If you came to it by "rational reflection" but can't reproduce the rationale, you're lying to make a point.

Google the definition of "free thinking" the next time you're looking for apologetics to present.