Non-belief: So easy, a caveman could understand
This is actually very simple stuff. It only gets complicated when people try and justify their beliefs by adding a ton of extra nonsensical things into the equation.
Well, here it is in a nutshell:
When someone says something extraordinary, we don’t believe them unless there’s a compelling reason to do so. That’s it.
When I say ‘we’, I mean Christians included. No one can be perpetually naive and gullible as to believe everything anyone says. Humans naturally use discretion…some are just more consistent with their discretion than others.
That’s why people don’t believe in god. Not because they want to worship the devil, or smoke dope, or make fun of god. Someone has said something, and we don’t believe it. Period.
If I told you that bigfoot was real, you wouldn’t believe me and that would make you an abigfootist. It doesn’t matter how many times I told you that “bigfoot is love” or “if you don’t believe in bigfoot, you’ll suffer forever in bigfoot hell”, you would never believe me and you would probably think I was crazy.
When someone makes a claim, it’s up to them to give us a reason to believe it. The more outrageous the claim, the more evidence they’re going to have to come up with to convince a rationally thinking audience. Christians are no different. If someone told you about some other god, you would need a massive amount of evidence to believe that it was real, but the same doesn’t apply to your own belief. It’s terribly inconsistent and it would be hard to function in this world being that inconsistent with everything.
Atheism and non-belief is nothing more than someone saying “you need to come up with more evidence in order for me to believe what you just said”, and that is all. If you want to add on your own characteristics to what non-belief is, then that’s something you’ve come up with in your own mind. Non-belief is strictly not believing someone’s claim, and I can’t say that enough.
Please Christians, climb down from your horse and stop drawing these imaginary characteristics to non-belief. Just because your pastor tells you that non-believers are heathens that just want to blaspheme and say “screw you god”, that doesn’t make it so. Your pastor has everything to gain from keeping you under his control since that’s his source of income. On a side note, I sometimes wonder what church would be like if there was no tithing or “offering”.
Anyway, if you want to know about the lives of non-believers, talk with a non-believer and not a biased preacher. Everything I know about Christians and Christianity has come from Christians and their text. It only makes sense to me that if I want to know about someone, I’m not going to get it from someone that has a problem with that person. That’s called bias, and you’re going to get incorrect information.
This stuff seems so simple it shouldn’t even have to be mentioned, but apparently some people don’t have a firm grasp on how to keep life simple. The more and more I talk to Christians, the more I realize that it really is all based on fear. I’m more than open to hearing from others as to why it is they believe what they do, but when you continually hear contradiction after contradiction, it’s just very symptomatic of someone scared out of their mind. What other conclusion should I draw at this point?
No related posts.
Excellent, and I share your frustration. I’m not even sure what to do about it anymore. I explain it over and over again in the simplest terms possible and they simply do not get it.
I go through the whole thing, and then they just repeat what they said before. No progress.
I must admit it feels hopeless. I try and I try and 0 progress. Ever. In my whole life I’ve never seen someone who doesn’t get it come to understand it. Maybe others have been more lucky.
doubtisavirtue@gmail.com
Thanks for the comment Brad.
I’m realizing that it really comes down to education and critical thinking skills. People are either going to be interested in thinking for themselves or thinking based on what the leaders of their religion and/or their parents have told them. Unfortunately, the prevailing belief among Christians and other theists is that atheists believe in the devil or that they’re devoid of morals and actively seek sin or something.
The only thing you can do is continue to keep everything simple: You’ve said something, and I don’t believe it. The best way to demonstrate this to them is just to say that the spaghetti monster created the universe….when they don’t believe you, say that’s exactly how you feel. I have actually gotten people to understand me by doing this, but most of the time it’s as you’ve said where they continue to make you out to be some wretched unintelligent person for no other reason than you not believing in their god.
Another thing that helps is to simply not use the label “atheist” and just say “non-believer”. There’s so much negative baggage that comes with atheist that it actually does you a disservice in terms of discussing religion with theists since you have to overcome that hurdle of explaining what the word actually means. I prefer to just say what it is I believe (or rather DON’T believe) than sum it up in a label.
Take care, and thanks again.
Since I’m always devil’s advocate,
What education has elevated you to such a lofty position of weighing the merits of believers vs. non believers?
I consider myself an atheist, but never take offense at any of the characterizations of atheists. I know what I am, so the rest of it is none of my business as far as I’m concerned.
Comparing Christianity to big foot is a little far fetched. Big foot is in paul bunyan category – tall tale, whatever you want to call it, but it didn’t have an agenda, it was just a story.
Christianity at least provides a story, an implausible one for sure, but it TRIES to make sense of what we’re all going through, and ultimately eventually fails. But at least it tried. Atheism more and more seems like an ideology that puts the burden of proving things upon other religions, while safely settling in the “only truths are the ones we have here on earth” policy.
If I were to make a scientific analogy, the “christians” or the deists as a whole are the ones who are bravely putting forth possibilities, however unfounded at first, of how things may really be, while atheists spend all their time discounting them while offering none of their own explanations, other than “hey, science is slow, give us some time.”
I always thought this fight was waged a little unfairly.
I’m still an atheist. But whatever.
I don’t think you need to be in a lofty position to weigh the merits of one position or another. And that’s exactly the thing, it doesn’t take some extensive education to be able to weigh these things, just an open mind. If you walk into a discussion about god with the assumption that god exists (or doesn’t exist) there’s no way you’re going to be able to objectively come to any conclusion about it. When I say “education”, I mean that people don’t surround themselves with all sides of this issue…just the ones that reinforce their initial belief. They’re unaware of any of the objections to their belief, nor do they care.
I don’t take offense to much other people do, but I don’t think clarifying the definition has anything to do with that. The definition may not directly impact you because we don’t wear scarlet A’s on our chests, but as a non-believer, it’s in my best interest to do what I can to correct it since it may very well affect my life at some point, if it already hasn’t.
But WHY is bigfoot in the Paul Bunyan category? Because we simply regard it as a myth. In all reality, there’s no difference between a mythical storybook character and a god that walks on water. They’re both stories, and I would actually say that it’s more possible that a large hairy sasquatch-like being exists than someone being able to walk in water. If someone told me they saw a huge bipedal cave creature, I’d believe them before someone telling me someone that died three days ago just walked out of their grave.
How does Christianity’s agenda play into it being less far-fetched than bigfoot? The claims in the book are more far-fetched than the existence of bigfoot, from a scientific standpoint anyway.
Christianity TRIED to explain things thousands of years ago and its followers have quit TRYING ever since. It was a one time effort to explain things that has, at times violently, refused to adapt and change their explanation.
Atheism is not an ideology. It’s simply the rejection of someone’s claim, as my article talks about. Anything else the individual says or believes at that point is an individual ideology. And yes, the burden of proof as to what they claim is on them. Are you suggesting that that’s fallacious or wrong? And the “the only truths we know…” stuff should be changed to “the only truths we CAN know are here in our universe”, which is at least what I believe and can’t say that all atheists think the same way. To suggest that we can know something that we cannot know is a logical contradiction, which is why I say that we can only know what we can know from things that are around us. What other way to knowledge is there? Gut feelings and hunches? Emotions?
“Bravely putting forth possibilities”? I don’t even know how to carefullly respond to that. Like I said above, AT BEST you can say that they put forth a possibility thousands of years ago. The best they came up with was a god that condones slavery and public rape. Looking back on that attempt, I canhardly call that brave.
As far as current attempts from Christians at explaining things, that’s not even an option since the Bible forbids it. All of the answers are in the book, so why would you need to look for more?
I don’t know where you get that atheists haven’t been trying to come up with their own explanations when the vast majority of scientists are atheists. (Source)
How is saying “give us some time” a bad thing? Just because someone has an instant answer, does it make it right? I’m confused how the length of time it takes to come to answers has anything to do with anything. Atheists are somehow wrong because we’re not capable of presenting timely truths? I don’t get what you’re really saying here, even if you are playing devil’s advocate.
Howso?
I always thought this fight was waged a little unfairly.
Howso?
It’s like the question is “Why is the ocean blue?”
Christians answer “Because God made it blue.”
But atheists respond with all their own arguments about how God’s impossible, etc., but still don’t explain why the ocean is blue.
If the essential question is “Why?” Christians try to offer an answer, atheists only respond with arguments why the answers offered by other religions are improbable, without offering their own answer.
If you want to say evolution is the atheists’ answer, I would admit that offers a plausible explanation of “How” we got here, but not at all “Why” we’re here. Why are we here? Christians say we’re here to love each other, Christ, and God. Why are atheists here? To tell the religious why their answer to this question is wrong? Surely we can do better, or if we can’t, we should stop criticizing.
I think what you’re missing here is that saying “God made it blue” is completely nonsensical. It doesn’t actually answer my question of how we got here. It just enters another variable into the equation that we now have to account for.
You might as well have answered the question by saying Santa made the sky blue. Or that Fracatrangarangarp did it. It’s an attempt at answering the question, but it’s a nonsensical one.
You’re acting as if just because it takes atheists longer to find their answers that they’re not trying to answer the questions. The speed at which you bring the answers to the table has nothing to do with their veracity. It just so happens that the question of our origin is a very complex one and is going to take a minute or two rather than just coming up with any old answer right now just because that’s what we demand, no matter how nonsensical it is.
And to the “why” question, I’m not even sure that’s a question that can objectively be answered. “Why” is something that we try and answer because we feel better if there’s a reason for our existence. I personally don’t care about the whys, just the hows, and saying that god created us doesn’t say anything about HOW he did it and I’m still left without an answer to my original question.
I think this underestimates what Christians are actually offering. You make it seem like they walk around saying, “Ok, nobody really knows how the human race came to be. There are several theories out there but I tend to agree with the theory of intelligent design, more specifically that the God of the Bible created the human race.” If this were the case, I doubt atheists would appear to only seem to be here as you stated, “to tell the religious why their answer to this question is wrong.”
However, this is not the case and the issue that so many atheists have with Christians is that Christians claim to KNOW without any doubt how the human race came to be. Of course they get out of divulging the exact details of how this occurred because God did and no one can know the mind of God. Not even scientists, who vehemently defend whatever theory they tend to agree with and argue with other scientists about it, will claim to KNOW without any doubt how the human race came to be. In fact, they are only defending why their theory is the best possible or closest explanation to what we are capable of knowing at this time. If some new evidence came along that gave more merit to another theory, then they would have no problem adopting that theory. In fact, it seems that Christians missed the memo that their belief is in fact, only a theory.
First, how have we not done better? We don’t ask why animals or insects exist in this world. But because as humans we believe we are so much more special and superior than other creatures that we share this world with, we assume there must be a special reason WHY we are here. Second, we should applaud people for offering up any old answer to a question, which at this point has no answer, without any evidence to support that claim? This seems to be a plea to support mediocrity…or maybe just insanity. Lets say I got the answer to a long division problem wrong on my math test but I was able to show the teacher my work and where I made the mistake. Now let’s say little Billy also got the answer wrong and where his work should have been he simply writes God told me this is the right answer. Do we both deserve to get partial credit??
I think it’s important to remember that this isn’t a competition between deists, christians, and atheists. We’re all looking for a satisfying answer to “Why are we here?”
Christians give us an answer, albeit a flawed one. No more than an hour or two, or possbily a 1500 word essay should be spent on outlining its shortcomings.
So what are we left with? This is an embarrassingly ignorant representation of Buddhism, but I think they say we’re here for some reason like karma, and getting reincarnated.
You can reduce most ideologies to similarly unsatisfying answers to the question of “Why are we here?”
What’s atheism’s answer? Why are we here? We’re just here? We got lucky? I’m personally an extreme atheists, and I believe that we’re here for no reason, just good luck that it came together, and I don’t feel like I owe anything to anyone. I’ll still abide by the Hippocratic “First do no harm,” but in general if I live and die with a slight net positive effect on the world, I’m happy.
To me, non-belief strikes me as a copout, or just avoiding the problem. Sure, gung-ho christianity is equally as flawed, but both are also equally useless when all is said and done. Religion is what it is, and it’s always going to be what it is. Maybe we should shift our focus to how better to educate the youth of america so that they can make relatively objective choices of their own. It’s a tall older, asking them to spring from their family fold, but if it’s ever to be done, it’s at the college age.
I haven’t acted in a way or suggested that it is some sort of competition. It’s actually very simple. If we’re all trying to find out how we got here, coming up with nonsensical answer and sticking by it doesn’t help us reach our goal. In fact, that delays our progress toward the answer since a good number of us have now given up the discovery in favor of the proposed nonsensical answer.
I kind of agree with you that there is no overall planned out “reason” why we’re here, but when people hear that, they automatically throw away an possibility of living a happy life, and that’s unfortunate. Just because someone or something didn’t assign a reason or purpose to us doesn’t change things if we give ourselves that exact same reason or purpose. Say I believed that god’s purpose for me was to be nice to people and then I found out god didn’t exist…would the purpose actually change since I could easily assign my own purpose to life (being nice to everyone)? Our motivation to carry out the purpose is the only thing that changes. Instead of doing it for a god that may or may not exist, we’re now doing it for humanity and the world around us. Different motivation, not a different purpose.
Anyway, I’d have to disagree with the last part about you leaving the world with a net positive result, only because that’s hypocritical. As much as you enjoy people doing nice things for you, you can’t stand it when people steal from you or harm you in any other way. If you accumulated wealth enough to live out your wildest fantasies, but then someone kills your family, rapes you, steals everything you own and puts you on your death bed….but in the end its an overall net positive life experience, I doubt you’d welcome that kind of life. I would think you would rather just have the wealth part without all the BS. If you wish this for yourself, I would think it only proper to wish it for others and act in accordance with that….otherwise, it’s just being hypocritical.
Do you see non-belief in Santa as a copout too? How about the flying spaghetti monster? Is non-belief in scientology a copout too? Unicorns? Tooth Fairy? Zeus? Thor? And the list goes on…
Not believing in something without evidence is never a copout…it’s the reasonable position until you have a rational reason to believe it.
Again, you’re getting confused that just because someone doesn’t believe and doesn’t have the answers, that they’re sitting back in their easy chairs all day watching soaps. Non-believers are leading the charge of finding the real rational answers. I just don’t get your beef here with atheists…especially since you consider yourself one as well.
I do agree that a shift should definitely take place to allow children to grow to an age where they can choose what to believe about religion rather than be indoctrinated with it from day one. As much as I think the god of the bible isn’t real, I know the best way for any child of mine to find this out themselves is to come to it through rational means. I’m not going to tell them that it’s not real, but if they ask me about it, I’ll ask them what they think and go from there. I’m confident enough that anyone with an open mind (and no mind is more open than a child’s) will be able to see for themselves that the bible is fiction. Same should apply for Christians. Why are they not secure enough in their own product that they can’t wait until the child is at least a teenager to introduce god to them? Does god become any more real when you’re 2 than when you’re 13? Go ahead and baptize them early just to make sure they’re ’saved’, but as far as the church and god speak, at least let the brain develop so they can process the information rather than forming their brain AROUND this belief.
It seems to me that everyone is looking for some kind of answer. I was a minister for several years and when I could not get a response from the bible as I desired I left the church and started ‘looking’ for answers. What I found was that most of the ‘christian’ people I spoke with could only offer what they were taught by their pastor and could not give answers other than the one based on ‘I beleive’. There was no ability to think and digest. I was not blessed with the ability to have blind faith. I cant beleive something just because someone says its true. God, Santa, Satan, the Easter bunny, these are all things I was taught about as a child, but now they are all myths.
)
What we are taught my not be true but, if we are taught it as a child we seem to live it. Is god real? No one knows, but, some people beliveit. People should step out of the covering of the church and look at things for themselves. If they did this without fear, there would be alot more ‘christians’ becoming un-converted.
Is there no supreme being, I dont know. To me the biggist problem is people trying to convince others that there is or is not a god. You can’t prove it or disprove it. If there was a god would you live your life any different? There might be some smaller things I would change, but for the most part I feel that I’m a better person than alot of the ‘fish’ people. The ones that claim christ but do not live what the claim. Just my 2 cents worth. (if I could even get that.
Outstanding comment Ken, and I am very grateful to share this planet with people like yourself that will come out and talk about things the way you have.
“I was not blessed with the ability to have blind faith. I cant beleive something just because someone says its true.”
I couldn’t have said that any better myself. Christians don’t even have this ability outside of their belief in god. No one goes around believing everything people tell them. The consistent person simply demands evidence for everything.
I’m still just amazed how you so succinctly summed up my entire position on religion and god in that post. You covered all bases, from mentioning the element of fear, blind faith, looking at things for yourself and most importantly the fact that non-belief doesn’t mean you think there is no god. We simply don’t know, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I hope you stick around here and join in on any past or future discussions because you sound like my kind of person.
Thanks Ken
I do not want some singular, commanding force to dictate my life. Eternal living has never appealed to me. I simply want to leave a legacy in this vast universe that will be remembered for generations, much like we discuss the explorers of the old times. We don’t discuss their spirituality. We discuss their human endeavors.
I won’t conform just because Christians claim that their concept of a deity loves me. Love is reciprocal; it is also earned. It’s also a bit hypocritical that they say the Greek deities and Santa are “false”, but then they say that they are correct because their Bible is inerrant. They use the supposed “greatness” of God to justify every flaw or reasonable unknown.
Thanks a lot for the comment Matt.
That’s exactly where my head is. I think being aware of my mortality almost drives me to do something meaningful with my life rather than sit on the sidelines waiting to meet god.
Amen! I never understood the automatic first step that Christians are supposed to take in professing their love for a god that hasn’t even shown itself to be real. You have to first take that “leap” of faith and show your love to something that has shown you no evidence whatsoever that it’s real.
I have no problem showing my appreciation for a person or entity that created me and gave me the possibility for everlasting life…but I have to know that being exists first.
It’s very hypocritical. They use logic to determine how false Santa is…but completely suspend that logic when it comes to their own concept of god.
Inconsistency is one surefire way to figure out if someone is telling the truth or not. If they say Santa is false because he’s never been seen before or because humans made him up, and then disregard that same approach when determining if their god is real, then there’s something going on there. That tells me that they started with the conclusion that god is real rather determining that he’s real based on evidence presented.