Four Kinds of Atheists.

Or towards God. Reason is just a tool.

[peritonlogon]

reason is a tool that can neither affirm nor deny god. "God" in its very nature is irrational.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Those who deep down want there to be a God because they feel the need to answer to someone.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
nor do I think that any type of reasoning whatsoever can lead one towards or away from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cute.
Seriously, #1 covers all believers if you just cut it off after "...feel the need." without qualifying it. All others are subtypes. You don't 'reason' yourself into faith, it's faith first, reasons to follow.

Comments by theists on their specific 'reasons to believe' usually coincide with the need being filled.

5: people who are atheists because they were raised that way, not because they came to it based on psychological need or philosophy.

Should their position be taken seriously?

[UATrewqaz]

Heck if you really want it break it down almost everything everybody believes is based on something other than a well though out rational position.

They believe it cause they were taught it growing up, or because they really WANT it to be true, or believe it to be mainstream or believe it to be anti-mainstream, etc.

"Heck if you really want it break it down almost everything everybody believes is based on something other than a well though out rational position."

Most people yes, and I'd agree that they should not be taken seriously. However, I hold out the hope that there are some who's ideas should be taken seriously, or I wouldn't read philosophy or browse this forum.

[RJT]

In the movie <u>Absence of Malice</u>, Paul Newman plays a liquor distributor with a shady past. Sally Field portrays a newspaper reporter covering a murder investigation. In her investigation she comes upon “evidence” that suggests that Newman’s character was involved in the crime. (He was not involved.)

At one point Newman asks Field, “What do you think you know?”

I can’t help but think of this line when I read things like:

[ QUOTE ]
4. Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. Things that previously seemed so astonishing that a God, as farfetched as the idea is, was a more likely explanation than anything else. And upon looking at those recent explanations come to the conclusion that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not suggesting the #4 atheist feels that he knows anything. I am wondering, though, why this atheist feels he knows more than he would have known had he lived x number of years ago?

It seems to me that we know only more intricate details of how things work than we did years ago. I do not see ruling out God (or making Him more viable) as more logical today than it was yesteryear. (Certainly, some of the nuances of some beliefs have to be reviewed and either re- interpreted or ruled out.)

The last part of #4 is where I see men of science making their “error”:

[ QUOTE ]
…that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, things will be “explained by science”. But, I find nothing to justify “rather than …God” should be assumed. The scenario can just as well be explained by science yet still include God. The probability of God is the same today as it was years ago.

So I ask the (can be rhetorical) question: What do you (the #4 atheist) think you know?

RJT

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, things will be “explained by science”. But, I find nothing to justify “rather than …God” should be assumed. The scenario can just as well be explained by science yet still include God. The probability of God is the same today as it was years ago.

So I ask the (can be rhetorical) question: What do you (the #4 atheist) think you know?



[/ QUOTE ]

Man used to believe in many gods. Science and knowledge killed them off. The last remaining god is used to answer the question 'where did we come from'? The answers to that question have become much clearer in the last century. The discovery of DNA and its implications has probably done more to show where we came from than any other discovery. Once, I was convinced of evolution there was no need for the 'LAST' god.

[Piers]

You seem to assume that religion is the default, and someone needs a reason to be an atheist (whatever that is). For instance how about:

5 The person who was brought up to believe that religion was all aloud of nonsense, and can’t see what all the fuss is about.

6. Someone who just thinks it’s obvious that religion is a silly fantasy. No $hit, just gut instinct.

Maybe you could argue that they have not thought enough about the subject to be take seriously. Although they might argue the subject is not important enough to be worth the effort.

7. Also what about someone who asks the question why does religion exist?

Comes to the conclusion that the reason is entirely due to our inbuilt desire to create religious belief. Hence religion exists independent of the truth of the matter. (If God exists believers would believe in God in just the same way if he did not exist, If God does not exist believers would believe in God in just the same way if he did exist.)

Such a person might well conclude that a typical religious belief should therefore be treated at the same level as any other human fantasy. “I reckon it’s as least as likely I can get to Narnia through my bedroom wardrobe than a biblical God exists”.

[ QUOTE ]
Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. Things that previously seemed so astonishing that a God, as farfetched as the idea is, was a more likely explanation than anything else. And upon looking at those recent explanations come to the conclusion that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible


[/ QUOTE ]

I always consider the argument “I can not understand this, hence God, as farfetched as the idea must exist” to be horrible, but typical human arrogance.

Compare it to the argument of the poker player who reasons, “I have had a significant loosing steak. I know I am a winning player, hence as farfetched as it might seem the loosing steak must be due to the site/casino being rigged against me.”

Why do people not accept their limitations rather than invent fictional structures to get around them?

I believe that even in the pre technological age, there were still people who could accept that not being able to understand an unexplained phenomenon just meant they could not understand it. And did not use this as an excuse to fantasise explanations just to satisfy their ego. Although I admit modern science makes this position more natural.