Atheism, the discussion

[Mightysword]

I think there are multiple ways I can answer it. Because I see more than one question.

Nah it's just one question, I think you're just trying to inject your own statement into what I'm not asking.

Not that I mind.

Can one do it fully, following the same teachings, realizing that supernatural concepts don't exist? I see why not. With one downside, one would inadvertently become an atheist.

Not necessary. Again I said this many times, unless you go full stereotype, it's not like it's rare for you to find a religious scientists, or those you found are fake scientist. Here is an example: even astronaut can be religious.

- The three Astronauts on Apollo 8 read the book of Genesis as their craft orbit the moon.
- Buzz Aldrin performed a self-communion service on board Apolo 11.
- David Scott left a Bible on the Lunar rover on Apollo 15.
- In 2010-2011, Russian Cosmonauts celebrated Christmas on the international space station ... twice, one on Dec 25 and one on Jan 7 for the Orthodox Christmas.

And those are just a few example among many of such occurrences happened on earth orbit. If you go look for more detail, you may be surprise the length some astronauts go to keep a connection and practice their faith even in space. So, as the flat earth stereotype argument is often brought up as the beating stick ... I would ask who among us would be more qualified to use that stereotype to refute religion than astronauts/cosmonauts? Yet ... doesn't seem to be a problem for these folks. Hum, maybe they are not just scientific enough? Question, do you think you are 'more' scientific than these astronauts?

I think there was a lawsuit against the astronauts back then- predictably enough from some atheism organizations on the ground of inappropriate use of government facility (the space crafts) and violation of first amendment. Well, I somehow doubt that was the 'real' reason for the lawsuit. This goes back to the debate near the beginning of the thread about what is atheism, and some brought up the idea of "real atheism" and "fake atheism". Well, I won't claim to know the real answer to that, but I would so far based on the opinion expressed, Ketraa would fit the bill of my version of a real atheist (assuming he is an atheist, don't think it was ever expressed explicitly).

Again, I believe the key to 'harmony' is an open mind, that's why flexibility and adaptability is good, together with keeping a respectful distance between the two sphere of influence. I believe 'purity' is bad.

Atheists are not superiority built. The evidence and reasoning they hold is held by everyone else. The experiences and upbringing however differ wildly. But I get it.

I never said they are, I just said may be they are or at least I hope they were. Btw, "experiences and upbringing" are something I always find both meaningful and useless at the same time. It's great as a retrospective study: you see where a person ends up, trace back their life and satisfy yourself that "oh it makes sense this person turned out like this given what he/she went through". The problem is, if the person had the same life experience but with a completely different end point, than that same retrospective study would still make sense in most cases. Mathematically, it means that they make poor predictors, as you can not say "if a person go through this and this and that, their life would turn out like this" with any kind of certainty.

Human are creature who are capable of thinking and acting both rationally and irrationally (and that's not saying rational is always good or irrational is always bad). Science or math, being a tool that only capable of explain rational thought will never be sufficiently explain our relationship with the universe by itself. That's why we need another tool, or tools to cover the irrational aspects. The pitfall of (some) religion was that it tried to assert itself as the one ultimate tool for everything, and there is no saying that science would not fall into the same pitfall if it tries to make the same assertion.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

And, the question is this: for the good of myself as a person, and also for the good of the community around me, should I stop believe in Buddhism and its teaching, even if you have reason to believe it is false or unprovable?

If you can answer that question objectively, than I think you may understand why someone like me believe that religion is an important part of our life. I know one of the most favorite and common saying among Atheist is something like "I'm my own person, I can control and judge my own action without the guidance of some god!" Well, good for you, to those who say that I believe, or at least hope you are a 'good' nature person. But the sad fact of life is not all of us are. Rather, MOST of us are not. That's why I believe not because I think I can prove it, but I 'choose' to believe it because I hate the person I would become without the belief.

I'm atheist, I don't follow any belief and I consider some of them not just "moral guides", but more "means of control of the masses". And, as I said before, it's the fault of religious institutions, not of religion itself.

From what you say, you're the "average person", which as a role player I'd describe as "lawful neutral, with an inclination to good".

To answer your question: if you believe in something so deep, invisible and unprovable (and I'm not trying to give any negative accent to that, it's just probably my vocabulary having limits) like a god or a spirit or, to cut it short, you have faith, how can any word I say make you change your mind? Therefore, I don't think one should stop believing in the set of moral principles, civil rules and behaviour his faith gives him. From what I can tell, I might in theory be as buddhist as you (on the "moral principles" thing, not the "faith thing"), who knows?
And I tell you one more thing: I like your approach, the last word I quoted, even if I disagree in principle on the fact of "most of us are not". On the contrary, most of people is good people in nature, no matter their beliefs. Most of people follow the rules and respect others. The fact is the one you can see as "the strongest", or "the dominant" are there because they didn't follow some rules and didn't respect someone: you don't become filthy rich by following rules and being a literal good person, because a literal good person, much before reaching the "filthy rich" level realizes he doesn't need to be "filthy rich", because "rich" is more than enough and the "filthy" part can be used better to help unlucky people.

[pjknibbs]

And I tell you one more thing: I like your approach, the last word I quoted, even if I disagree in principle on the fact of "most of us are not". On the contrary, most of people is good people in nature, no matter their beliefs.

There are definitely people out there who believe otherwise. There was a member of a writing group I was part of, many years ago, who professed to be an atheist, yet also was convinced that the only reason people followed society's rules was because they secretly believed they'd go to Hell otherwise. His story ideas all revolved around the idea that some event had happened which finally, totally disproved the existence of God, and society had collapsed as a result. Needless to say, nobody really agreed with his viewpoint, and also pointed out how contradictory his own position was as an atheist who (as far as we were aware) didn't go around robbing and murdering people for the lulz, and his only counter-argument was that he must really, subconsciously, believe, even though he didn't have any conscious faith.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

There are definitely people out there who believe otherwise. There was a member of a writing group I was part of, many years ago, who professed to be an atheist, yet also was convinced that the only reason people followed society's rules was because they secretly believed they'd go to Hell otherwise. His story ideas all revolved around the idea that some event had happened which finally, totally disproved the existence of God, and society had collapsed as a result. Needless to say, nobody really agreed with his viewpoint, and also pointed out how contradictory his own position was as an atheist who (as far as we were aware) didn't go around robbing and murdering people for the lulz, and his only counter-argument was that he must really, subconsciously, believe, even though he didn't have any conscious faith.

Indeed they are, but I won't say they're the majority of people.

God was a good reason to follow rules in the past. Religion has been used this way to mantain order and avoid people robbing and murdering other people for the lulz.

From a theoretical point of view, in my opinion, disproving (or proving) the existence of God may in fact collapse society as we know it. It's a possibility. The same way, if an alien race would contact us and show themselves, even if benevolent, may collapse society. That's very human: if you break their deepest belief apart, they're going to lose their mind. It makes sense, in some way.
Imagine a man suddently discovering his wife cheats on him: he was sure about her love, yet the thing he was deeply, completely sure about was a lie. He's going to lose his mind.
If something like that happens not to a single man, but to humanity, the consequence would be the same.

[fiksal]

I think there are multiple ways I can answer it. Because I see more than one question.

Nah it's just one question, I think you're just trying to inject your own statement into what I'm not asking.

Not that I mind.

But do you think I answered your question?

Can one do it fully, following the same teachings, realizing that supernatural concepts don't exist? I see why not. With one downside, one would inadvertently become an atheist.

Not necessary. Again I said this many times, unless you go full stereotype, it's not like it's rare for you to find a religious scientists, or those you found are fake scientist. Here is an example: even astronaut can be religious.

- The three Astronauts on Apollo 8 read the book of Genesis as their craft orbit the moon.
- Buzz Aldrin performed a self-communion service on board Apolo 11.
- David Scott left a Bible on the Lunar rover on Apollo 15.
- In 2010-2011, Russian Cosmonauts celebrated Christmas on the international space station ... twice, one on Dec 25 and one on Jan 7 for the Orthodox Christmas.

Yes there are good examples of people who believe both. It's a bit unclear to me how much in supernatural they believe, as curiously none can be applied to their profession.

I would have to ask some detailed questions of them

Yet ... doesn't seem to be a problem for these folks. Hum, maybe they are not just scientific enough? Question, do you think you are 'more' scientific than these astronauts?

Really if one doesn't figure in force of friction against a god on the rocket, then I think the scientific approach is on the right level)

I am only trying to be as scientific as some people. There's still some work for my mind to do.

This goes back to the debate near the beginning of the thread about what is atheism, and some brought up the idea of "real atheism" and "fake atheism". Well, I won't claim to know the real answer to that, but I would so far based on the opinion expressed, Ketraa would fit the bill of my version of a real atheist (assuming he is an atheist, don't think it was ever expressed explicitly).

I could have brought it up once before, but that in relation to question of what's really agnosticism vs atheism.

Why Ketraar?

Again, I believe the key to 'harmony' is an open mind, that's why flexibility and adaptability is good, together with keeping a respectful distance between the two sphere of influence. I believe 'purity' is bad.

Agreed, but math is deterministic and exact.

Btw, "experiences and upbringing" are something I always find both meaningful and useless at the same time.

Of course it's not very scientific. Where and how we grew up determines what we believe in, in part. I was Christian Orthodox because I grew up in Russia. I turned atheist due to growing up in USSR, whose priorities eventually had impact on my parents and me.

This would have been different if I were in US then.

Human are creature who are capable of thinking and acting both rationally and irrationally (and that's not saying rational is always good or irrational is always bad). Science or math, being a tool that only capable of explain rational thought will never be sufficiently explain our relationship with the universe by itself. That's why we need another tool, or tools to cover the irrational aspects. The pitfall of (some) religion was that it tried to assert itself as the one ultimate tool for everything, and there is no saying that science would not fall into the same pitfall if it tries to make the same assertion.

I remember some articles on why humans have both irrational and rational thoughts.
One idea is the speed - irrational thoughts are faster, and they can be hardwired through generations, on an instinct. In that context rational way to think is harder to train.

Math indeed will never and should never try to explain our "relationship" with the universe.
Going back to my earlier posts, I never included that in "everything".

And I tell you one more thing: I like your approach, the last word I quoted, even if I disagree in principle on the fact of "most of us are not". On the contrary, most of people is good people in nature, no matter their beliefs.

There are definitely people out there who believe otherwise. There was a member of a writing group I was part of, many years ago, who professed to be an atheist, yet also was convinced that the only reason people followed society's rules was because they secretly believed they'd go to Hell otherwise. His story ideas all revolved around the idea that some event had happened which finally, totally disproved the existence of God, and society had collapsed as a result. Needless to say, nobody really agreed with his viewpoint, and also pointed out how contradictory his own position was as an atheist who (as far as we were aware) didn't go around robbing and murdering people for the lulz, and his only counter-argument was that he must really, subconsciously, believe, even though he didn't have any conscious faith.

This reminds me of this popular idea - that there are no atheists in trenches.

Or that if you press hard enough, everyone believes in god, just doesn't know it, as not believing is impossible.

From a theoretical point of view, in my opinion, disproving (or proving) the existence of God may in fact collapse society as we know it. It's a possibility.

Maybe, maybe to a deeply religious society.

But I can think of already two examples. USSR was making largely atheist society, and people were fine. One could argue maybe it didn't succeed in that, since the religion has returned since.

So then we have Iceland. Country with something like 90% of atheists. Their change was probably gradual, but nothing has collapsed

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

From a theoretical point of view, in my opinion, disproving (or proving) the existence of God may in fact collapse society as we know it. It's a possibility.

Maybe, maybe to a deeply religious society.

But I can think of already two examples. USSR was making largely atheist society, and people were fine. One could argue maybe it didn't succeed in that, since the religion has returned since.

So then we have Iceland. Country with something like 90% of atheists. Their change was probably gradual, but nothing has collapsed

The key word is "gradual".
If change is gradual, like in Iceland or, in a less gradual way, the USSR (which is huge and underpopulated and was technically a dictatorship, so I don't know how "fine" people disliking atheism were), there is no "shock", which was in fact the cause of collapsing society in my hypotesis.
Society doesn't need to be so deeply religious or atheist to be shocked by a revelation of that kind.
What I mean is there are basically 4 situations:
1) Religious society, which discovers there is no god: that brings to panic.
2) Religious society, which discovers there is god: political establishment is going to be deprived of authority in a relevant way, because human laws are going to have less meaning. But that depends on how religious based laws are close to what actually god wanted in the first place.
3) Atheist society, which discovers there is no god: probably nothing changes.
4) Atheist society, which discovers there is god: this of course is impossible, if you know what I mean. But there's likely going to be some panic and riots. In some cases a war against god will be attempted.
5) I lied, there is a 5th scenario, involving all middle grounds: this will show some grade of mass panic. Perhaps some civil war, especially in case there is god.

[Mightysword]

But I can think of already two examples. USSR was making largely atheist society, and people were fine. One could argue maybe it didn't succeed in that, since the religion has returned since.

I don't claim to know the truth behind USSR, but what you described is pretty much the same routine in Vietnam once Communist toke over. And it was just a fart.

Yes, there were a real crack down on religions on the ground of them being superstition nonsense unproductive to the society ...etc... Religious leaders were jail and made disappeared, large gathering were prohibited and thing like that. Enough that there was a period Communist and Faithless were a synonym. But that's only on the surface. As mentioned before, my mother clan have some dabbling in spiritual works and I can tell you for a fact while the Communist leaders put on a atheism face, the kind of ceremony, ritual they request to be perform behind the door on their own behalf, these guys were HARDCORE believers. The irony sometime put us on the spot to back there too. Like, given what was happening on the surface, my clan was supposed to be in a pinch, but when someone come through the door the were taken back seeing some big shots (both from civil government and military) sitting at the table sipping tea with the elder, engage in conversation with a very respected tone ... people were like "are you guys snitch?"

Ultimately, the 'purge' of religions has nothing to do with belief, it's just one of the many routines done to consolidate power and simply political. Communism by itself is a dictatorship, and as such it always look out and afraid of what can challenge its rule. Once all creditable political and military opposition were suppress, the next biggest threat is religions, so they became the target. And they are right in that regard though. Do you know the Pope in the pasts had offered to visit Vietnam, but the government denied access because they didn't want Vietnam to become the next Poland?

I also challenge your notion that Russia managed to become atheism under the USSR. We know from history religion is perhaps one of the most endured element of human society, even when it's subjected to much bigger pressure than whatever the USSR did for thousands of year. Do you honestly think just a few decades of USSR rule was enough to make such a major change? You say religion came back. No, it just resurfaces after long period of going underground once the oppression ease up, it doesn't come back because it never went away.

[Mightysword]

I could have brought it up once before, but that in relation to question of what's really agnosticism vs atheism.

Why Ketraar?

It's because of his "I don't care attitude". If I remember correctly that's how some people differentiate between agnosticism and atheism. Atheist don't believe, but neither they care what other believes as long as it doesn't encroach on their comfort zone. Agnostics while also don't believe, but are also conscious about what OTHER believes, and often eager to prove that those are wrong while their own belief is right.

If I can be a a bit presumptuous, someone like him would probably make a good Buddhist.

This reminds me of this popular idea - that there are no atheists in trenches.

Or that if you press hard enough, everyone believes in god, just doesn't know it, as not believing is impossible.

I interprete that saying differently. Because if you push hard enough, then atheism itself can become a belief like any others. I think that's the line that Atheist need to watch out for. Without moderation to keep it in check, giving enough zeal atheism may become a religion all but in name. And as I demonstrate, not all religion needs a god (and FYI, Buddhism is not the only one without a god).

Yes there are good examples of people who believe both. It's a bit unclear to me how much in supernatural they believe, as curiously none can be applied to their profession.

And I tell you, it's not that big of a deal. It's similar to the question Kestraa asked ealier how can religions hold merit when it's so flexible. Ironically, I think the two groups that concern themselves and antagonize over that kind of question are the super devout/fanatic and some atheist. To us general practitioners, it's not hard to reconcile even in the face of contradiction. I have a feeling that you - as an atheist - are imagining it to be a much bigger deal that it actually is for us

I don't know what the astronaut think, but I would ask why would you think there gotta be a relationship about applying their faith to their profession? My guess would be ... may be they don't even think about it at all? You know, keep things separate and all that.

I'm actually a dual faith, in fact most Asian Buddhists are. Buddhism's adaptability is still a bit different from that of other religions, it's not much that it changes itself to appease the local, it just doesn't care if you hold several faiths at the same time. In Vietnam, that means most Buddhist also have a 2nd, our traditional folks religion. Just like if you look at Japan, most Buddhist there are also a followers of Shinto. And the things is, Buddhist and these local religions have a lot of contradictions in their belief system. And I don't mean just on small, irrelevant stuffs. Like for example, Vietnam Folk's religion belief on the afterlife is pretty much on a direct collision course of the Buddhist belief of the circle of life. And guess what ... I practice both belief, daily, no problem at all.


In another word, you don't have to think too hard about it. The astronaut example wasn't meant as a vindication for religion in the sense "hey even if these people can believe, that means it must be real!". The point is, out of the 7.8b people on this planet, few would stand above or can claim to be as close to science as cosmonauts. They are not simply pilots who take a craft into space, but remember they are also scientists who perform experiments in vacuum that no other scientists can do on Earth. Plus, they are the few who actually see the "Earth is round" - which some of them had described as a religious experience. (Reminder, while most of us know the Earth is round, it's still via theoretical proof and secondary images, we don't have the privilege of physically see the proof directly with our eyes). Yet, these people can still have faith. It's just to refute the notion you implied with your previous post. I can be scientific and religious at the same time, being atheist is not a pre-requiste to believe in science, neither becoming an atheist is a natural outcome/progression of being scientific.

[fiksal]

In some cases a war against god will be attempted.

I like that

I also challenge your notion that Russia managed to become atheism under the USSR. We know from history religion is perhaps one of the most endured element of human society, even when it's subjected to much bigger pressure than whatever the USSR did for thousands of year. Do you honestly think just a few decades of USSR rule was enough to make such a major change? You say religion came back. No, it just resurfaces after long period of going underground once the oppression ease up, it doesn't come back because it never went away.

Interesting, I wasnt sure if other countries that attempted "communism" went the same route with atheism.

In Russia it's a bit of both. Yes, it's valid to say the religion never went away and just resurfaced. In the daily life of a USSR citizen, the religion was gone almost entirely. For those that were born during USSR however, this became more than just on the surface, that was a reality. So if their parents didn't intervene in this, at least two generations under USSR had large % of atheists. Such is the case with my family, where grandparents while religious, didnt really make sure their children were. Still hard to count how many really.

Now I've no idea how to count either, there's an idea that the current resurgence of religious is also on the surface and for show.

And I dont really want to keep on guessing as it's not good info.

I could have brought it up once before, but that in relation to question of what's really agnosticism vs atheism.

Why Ketraar?

It's because of his "I don't care attitude". If I remember correctly that's how some people differentiate between agnosticism and atheism. Atheist don't believe, but neither they care what other believes as long as it doesn't encroach on their comfort zone. Agnostics while also don't believe, but are also conscious about what OTHER believes, and often eager to prove that those are wrong while their own belief is right.

If I can be a a bit presumptuous, someone like him would probably make a good Buddhist.

While maybe a friendlier attitude, but "I dont care" is not really relevant to atheism or agnosticism. It's a personal choice / philosophy / approach, and it's not part of either.


Did you make a typo / swap meanings between Atheist and Agnostics ?
If not, I can give a (my) simplified definition / correction.

Agnostics leave the possibility that god / supernatural being discovered to exist. An even stronger position of an Agnostic is that - the answer to the question of whether a god exists can never be known.

Atheist supposed to reject all supernatural explanations, forever. That in itself doesn't mean a God cant be discovered ever, it just means he/she/it will not be supernatural. Atheists generally reject the idea that whether or not a god exists is impossible to know. Maybe unlikely, but not impossible. I'd personally also add - that this all depends on what god we are talking about. Some people choose to separate each statement above into a different flavor of Atheism, I find it needlessly complex and not necessary.


Since we are making distinction between "care" and "not care", maybe I am not necessarily clear on what I mean with these discussions. Can talk more on this later.

I interprete that saying differently. Because if you push hard enough, then atheism itself can become a belief like any others.

Well the point is that when people are afraid or under stress, they'll pray to a god, including atheists.

I think that's the line that Atheist need to watch out for. Without moderation to keep it in check, giving enough zeal atheism may become a religion all but in name. And as I demonstrate, not all religion needs a god (and FYI, Buddhism is not the only one without a god).

I think the trick with atheism is to understand why one is atheist, if one is truly one, and not mimic what others are doing without understanding. I can see how mimicking can lead to a pseudo religion.

To us general practitioners, it's not hard to reconcile even in the face of contradiction. I have a feeling that you - as an atheist - are imagining it to be a much bigger deal that it actually is for us

As an atheist I take every scientist to be one for the purpose of their work.

I practice both belief, daily, no problem at all.

Seems complicated

I can be scientific and religious at the same time, being atheist is not a pre-requiste to believe in science, neither becoming an atheist is a natural outcome/progression of being scientific.

I agree with that. The mind has the ability to go with both ideas, even if they contradict.

[Mightysword]

Did you make a typo / swap meanings between Atheist and Agnostics ?

Nope, I don't know about accuracy, seeing it was still a matter of debate, I did say it fits 'my' image of atheism, but regardless I meant what I typed.

As an atheist I take every scientist to be one for the purpose of their work.

Kinda like how people tend to think special force soldiers are all macho-no-nonsense-stoic figures?
While there are some truth to your perception, holding a singular image for 'every' members of a group is hardly a good thing, no matter how typical you think the image is.

Seems complicated

Not at all, at least more simple than a physic equation for sure.

And you'll be surprise how an open mind help simplify things. You are only burden with finding the solution if you make it a problem in the first place.

[fiksal]

Did you make a typo / swap meanings between Atheist and Agnostics ?

Nope, I don't know about accuracy, seeing it was still a matter of debate, I did say it fits 'my' image of atheism, but regardless I meant what I typed.

Gotcha, well hopefully my brief summary is understandable.

As an atheist I take every scientist to be one for the purpose of their work.

Kinda like how people tend to think special force soldiers are all macho-no-nonsense-stoic figures?
While there are some truth to your perception, holding a singular image for 'every' members of a group is hardly a good thing, no matter how typical you think the image is.

That's just what's relevant to me when I read about other people's work. Specifically about their scientific work.

Seems complicated

Not at all, at least more simple than a physic equation for sure.

And you'll be surprise how an open mind help simplify things. You are only burden with finding the solution if you make it a problem in the first place.

But physics is easy!

Still - open mind is a goal, isn't it? To learn, to understand, to apply.

[fiksal]

a little on topic update,

so it seems we run into religious Russians more often than not.
what's interesting is how dismissive they are of Atheism, as in they don't think a Russian can be one. Maybe they had forgotten 80 some years after the Revolution.

still, I often don't have a good answer to something like (paraphrasing) "you are only atheist till the right time"
my only answer is a smile and a light laugh, as I can't even begin to start explain what it means.

is it a good idea to get into these arguments with friends of friends or am I right to let that one go? After all, they aren't looking for a debate, and I can always wear Thor's hammer to throw things off (Perun"s axe is harder to come by)

but there's some sadness to it. The"typical" Russian immigrant seems to be religious, "patriotic", anti vaccines, and close minded

[Vertigo 7]

it's rather pointless. There's a wealth of evidence to back your side, and none to back theirs, yet they believe anyway cause that's what they were told to do. You aren't going to be the one that changes their mind.

Kind of like it's always god smiting liberals when there's a wildfire in California but any of the SE states gets hit by a hurricane, it's just the weather. Some people are just lost causes.

[fiksal]

you are right, there's nothing to gain other than awkward conversation.

[Ketraar]

you are right, there's nothing to gain other than awkward conversation.

There is always a slight chance to have an effect. Not debating it, will for sure not have one. Doesnt mean you have to try and convince them, not all debates are there for one side to give in, its the sharing of ideas and perspectives and both sides will grow with the experience.

MFG

Ketraar

[fiksal]

you are right, there's nothing to gain other than awkward conversation.

There is always a slight chance to have an effect. Not debating it, will for sure not have one. Doesnt mean you have to try and convince them, not all debates are there for one side to give in, its the sharing of ideas and perspectives and both sides will grow with the experience.

MFG

Ketraar

where do I even start, if they don't think it's possible to be an atheist? as in I am somehow lying

[Alan Phipps]

I don't think they are necessarily disbelieving that somebody may lack belief within their normal day-to-day lives.

I suspect that what they might mean is that it is funny how some people can suddenly develop a perhaps transient 'emergency' belief when something totally unexpected, terrifying or life-threatening has just happened to them. Perhaps a situation of 'I don't really believe but I'm desperate, so just in case ...'.

Maybe develop or challenge something along that theme in your discussions with them?

[BaronVerde]

Being an Atheist, i. e. someone who does not believe in the existence of any supernatural powers, deities, force, ... and I count my self into that categroy, isn't allways easy. Specifically when there's no data to support or disprove a view or notion and the brain starts to fill in the unknowns with experience or expectations, one is easily put into danger of forming a belief without actually consciuously noticing it.

It is allways simpler to accept a ready-made view, something heard or read, than to question it or simply ignore it if there's no data to support it, whatever it may be.

[pjknibbs]

I used to know someone online who was of the genuinely-held opinion that only a secret fear of eternal punishment prevented everyone becoming sociopaths who would just do anything they wanted so long as it benefited them, regardless of what anyone else thought or did. So, according to him, even if you were an avowed atheist you were basically lying to yourself if you were a normal law-abiding citizen. There's absolutely no way to argue with logic like that!

[fiksal]

Being an Atheist, i. e. someone who does not believe in the existence of any supernatural powers, deities, force, ... and I count my self into that categroy, isn't allways easy. Specifically when there's no data to support or disprove a view or notion and the brain starts to fill in the unknowns with experience or expectations, one is easily put into danger of forming a belief without actually consciuously noticing it.

It is allways simpler to accept a ready-made view, something heard or read, than to question it or simply ignore it if there's no data to support it, whatever it may be.

I agree it's not easy. I also think I've maybe understood what it means to be an atheist really well into my 20s-30s. I probably claimed to be one when I was 16 yr old, but did I really understand it - perhaps not.

I don't think they are necessarily disbelieving that somebody may lack belief within their normal day-to-day lives.

I suspect that what they might mean is that it is funny how some people can suddenly develop a perhaps transient 'emergency' belief when something totally unexpected, terrifying or life-threatening has just happened to them. Perhaps a situation of 'I don't really believe but I'm desperate, so just in case ...'.

Maybe develop or challenge something along that theme in your discussions with them?

Interesting, but that sees like one needs a traumatic experience as an example when one specifically didnt call for any gods' help.

I used to know someone online who was of the genuinely-held opinion that only a secret fear of eternal punishment prevented everyone becoming sociopaths who would just do anything they wanted so long as it benefited them, regardless of what anyone else thought or did. So, according to him, even if you were an avowed atheist you were basically lying to yourself if you were a normal law-abiding citizen. There's absolutely no way to argue with logic like that!

I've heard of those people; never met them. Maybe gladly. Because from the description it seems such thinking would apply to themselves as well, making them possibly sociopaths, or one step away from.