Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?

[ynot]

I'm an atheist on the basis that I am not "sold" by anyone's particular "God" and/or Religion. It's not really a "fail" for them, because apparently it seems to work for them, and they're happy believing that. It's also not a "fail" for me, because I'm not asking anyone to justify their beliefs to me. I don't care why you believe what you believe. For all that matters, you could have no reason to justify why you believe in your God.

Typically theists "sell" their theistic beliefs. Very few are happy to keep their theism to themselves. That you have never been "sold" I would say is their failure to "sell" you their theism.

 

[ynot]

Theism is not independent of theists. You literally can't have theism without theists.

So What? You can’t have smoking without smokers either. So What?

Smokes are a product that smokers choose to smoke, theism is a belief that theists choose to believe. Smokers are not smokes and theists aren’t theism (unless you want to define theists as being beliefs). Theism is a god belief, theists are people that have that belief. That some people have measles doesn’t make those people measles.

ETA – It is possible to have a particular theism belief concept without having any theists that believe it. I’m sure nobody really believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster god, or some redundant ancient gods that were once believed to be real.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Typically theists "sell" their theistic beliefs. Very few are happy to keep their theism to themselves. That you have never been "sold" I would say is their failure to "sell" you their theism.

Maybe. But to their credit, it's probably not even a matter of whether they are bad at selling their belief. It's just that I'm immune to that, because it's just not my thing and I don't care at all for it. Like with most things people try to sell me. For example, I have 100% ZERO interest in obtaining cable. I have received thousands of phone calls inviting me to switch to this new Cable Plan that is a really great deal blablabla. But I just don't care. Not even the best Cable Salesman on the planet can sell it to me, because it's not about how good of a salesman you are. You're just not gonna convince me about buying something I have zero interest in having.

 

[Thor 2]

Maybe. But to their credit, it's probably not even a matter of whether they are bad at selling their belief. It's just that I'm immune to that, because it's just not my thing and I don't care at all for it. Like with most things people try to sell me. For example, I have 100% ZERO interest in obtaining cable. I have received thousands of phone calls inviting me to switch to this new Cable Plan that is a really great deal blablabla. But I just don't care. Not even the best Cable Salesman on the planet can sell it to me, because it's not about how good of a salesman you are. You're just not gonna convince me about buying something I have zero interest in having.

OK, so maybe you fall outside the group of guys ynot is asking the question of here. The question is directed at those who have dropped theism and asking them why. Pretty clear I think.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Typically theists "sell" their theistic beliefs. Very few are happy to keep their theism to themselves.

Are you from the US, by any chance? What you're describing is certainly not my experience of living in the UK, and I would expect not that of the majority of Europeans.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The question is directed at those who have dropped theism and asking them why. Pretty clear I think.

The OP explicitly says that ynot has never had a religious belief, talks about the role (or lack thereof) of science and others' religion in that, and then asks everybody else to share their experiences. Why would you take from that that he is uninterested in hearing from those of us who have never had theistic beliefs?

 

[Cheetah]

The OP explicitly says that ynot has never had a religious belief, talks about the role (or lack thereof) of science and others' religion in that, and then asks everybody else to share their experiences. Why would you take from that that he is uninterested in hearing from those of us who have never had theistic beliefs?

What?



You never believed in Santa?

 

[Aridas]

So theism is independent of theists, just like gravity is independent of humans. The joke is this: Theism is not independent of the humans, who do that. It is not theism, which is the cause of theists and theists is the effect of theism. Theism is a behavior in theists. Imagine that all humans were no more, we know have a reality in which we still have e.g. gravity. Would there still be theism?

For what it's worth, without going back and reading the preceding discussion, this sounds a bit like you're conflating things pointlessly.

Theism is not independent of theists. You literally can't have theism without theists.

To address this sentiment expressed by both of you more directly, believing something is generally considered to be more a state of being rather than a behavior. Theism is the state of being when some person believes in one or more gods. If there are no theists, the concept of theism would still exist as the state of being where a person believes in one or more gods, it would just be completely meaningless for practical uses, much like the state of being where a person believes in orcs, dwarves, and elves warring in secret is meaningless for practical uses.

Are you from the US, by any chance? What you're describing is certainly not my experience of living in the UK, and I would expect not that of the majority of Europeans.

It's also not even remotely universally applicable in the US, for that matter, even if running into examples of people who are trying to push their faith onto others is nigh unavoidable. People are generally fairly open to discussing what they believe, of course, if approached on the topic. It may be worth adding the caveat that some areas of the US are far more pushy than others, overall.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What?



You never believed in Santa?

I don't remember ever believing, I have to say. I do remember setting up a trap for my parents when I was about 6 to prove that he didn't, and then angrily confronting them for lying to me. How much of that was down to my powers of deduction, and how much of that was down to having lived in more than one country when I was young, and therefore seeing different Santa traditions, I can't say.

I'm not sure how much any of that counts, but it is a fair point - even if it was only made in jest.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

OK, so maybe you fall outside the group of guys ynot is asking the question of here. The question is directed at those who have dropped theism and asking them why. Pretty clear I think.

But I did drop theism, because I used to believe in God when I was much younger.

 

[Cheetah]

I don't remember ever believing, I have to say. I do remember setting up a trap for my parents when I was about 6 to prove that he didn't, and then angrily confronting them for lying to me. How much of that was down to my powers of deduction, and how much of that was down to having lived in more than one country when I was young, and therefore seeing different Santa traditions, I can't say.

I just had a flashback, I must have been around the same age.
We always had these big family gatherings on Christmas and Santa brought us all presents. I suddenly noticed that Santa was not Santa, but one of my uncles, in a costume, with a fake beard!
I confronted my parents and they confessed, Santa was never real, he had been my uncle all along. I was the oldest of all the kids and the first to notice this.
At first I did not believe them, not the bit about Santa not being real, but that he had always been my uncle. I could not believe that I did not recognized him the previous Christmases.

 

[Thor 2]

The OP explicitly says that ynot has never had a religious belief, talks about the role (or lack thereof) of science and others' religion in that, and then asks everybody else to share their experiences. Why would you take from that that he is uninterested in hearing from those of us who have never had theistic beliefs?

I suspect that those who never had any kind of theistic belief of any kind would be very thin on the ground.

Non the less the question of theism fail or science success is valid, because one or the other may have been responsible for you not picking up the bug.

 

[Thor 2]

But I did drop theism, because I used to believe in God when I was much younger.

That is not the impression I got from your previous post where you claimed some immunity.

So what caused you to drop theism then?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suspect that those who never had any kind of theistic belief of any kind would be very thin on the ground.

Perhaps in the US. In Europe, some parts of East Asia, and perhaps former Soviet countries, I'd have thought it'd be pretty common.

Non the less the question of theism fail or science success is valid, because one or the other may have been responsible for you not picking up the bug.

Yes, this is why I answered the question.

However, you made the statement that you thought it was "pretty clear" that "The question is directed at those who have dropped theism and asking them why". The question is why did you think that was pretty clear, given that the OP explicitly identified himself as someone who had never had a religious belief? Is it purely because meeting people who have never had religious beliefs is outside your personal experience?

 

[ynot]

Perhaps in the US. In Europe, some parts of East Asia, and perhaps former Soviet countries, I'd have thought it'd be pretty common.

Yes, this is why I answered the question.

However, you made the statement that you thought it was "pretty clear" that "The question is directed at those who have dropped theism and asking them why". The question is why did you think that was pretty clear, given that the OP explicitly identified himself as someone who had never had a religious belief? Is it purely because meeting people who have never had religious beliefs is outside your personal experience?

My main question (the title) is directed to all atheists (never theists and ex-theists).

My sub question (an afterthought) is more directed to ex-theists . . .

As I’ve never had a god belief (or any paranormal belief) I’m wondering if others are atheists predominately because of the success of science or the failure of theism.

Instead of “others” I should’ve said “ex-theists” (sorry about that).

ETA . . .
I’ve never been a theist nor smoker simply because both are stupid. Seems smoking is easier to never start than give up, and I assume it’s the same with theism. I was wondering therefore if “it’s stupid” is sufficient to give up theism, or whether the knowledge of science is also required. Some ex-theist posts suggest “it’s stupid” is enough. The point is theists attacking science doesn’t help their cause (IMO).

 

[Aridas]

I was wondering therefore if “it’s stupid” is sufficient to give up theism, or whether the knowledge of science is also required.

"It's stupid" is generally effective in preventing theism. It's far less effective in ending theism, but people become and stop being theists for all kinds of reasons, rational and irrational. As for knowledge of science, it's only conditionally relevant, generally speaking. Science will not make a theist into an atheist, as a general rule. It can, however, counter falsehoods being promoted by certain forms of theism and that can lead to a more generalized disenchantment with the idea. Rather than science itself, it's the underlying philosophy and concepts like parsimony that end up being somewhat hostile to theism generally.

Some ex-theist posts suggest “it’s stupid” is enough.

It can be, even if you are directly talking about someone saying "It's stupid." Generally, that involves someone impressionable idolizing another a bit, though.

The point is theists attacking science doesn’t help their cause (IMO).

Ehh... it certainly can. As I touched on earlier in the post, as the value of the underlying philosophy that leads to science shows itself, it erodes the support that theism relies upon. Attacking science is a means to denigrate the value of the underlying philosophy, as well as the inconvenient results that show various religious claims to be bogus.

 

[ynot]

Ehh... it certainly can. As I touched on earlier in the post, as the value of the underlying philosophy that leads to science shows itself, it erodes the support that theism relies upon. Attacking science is a means to denigrate the value of the underlying philosophy, as well as the inconvenient results that show various religious claims to be bogus.

Perhaps I meant to put IMC(ase)

 

[Thor 2]

"It's stupid" is generally effective in preventing theism. It's far less effective in ending theism, but people become and stop being theists for all kinds of reasons, rational and irrational. As for knowledge of science, it's only conditionally relevant, generally speaking. Science will not make a theist into an atheist, as a general rule. It can, however, counter falsehoods being promoted by certain forms of theism and that can lead to a more generalized disenchantment with the idea. Rather than science itself, it's the underlying philosophy and concepts like parsimony that end up being somewhat hostile to theism generally.

Richard Dawkins claimed it did just that to him. Also the statistics about the very low religiosity of scientists, even in the USA, seems to contradict this claim.

Ehh... it certainly can. As I touched on earlier in the post, as the value of the underlying philosophy that leads to science shows itself, it erodes the support that theism relies upon. Attacking science is a means to denigrate the value of the underlying philosophy, as well as the inconvenient results that show various religious claims to be bogus.

It may be that the religious feel attacking science is an effective strategy but I am with ynot in thinking it is not. A very blunt weapon wielded by theologians who often show a very poor knowledge of the science they try to discredit. Look at the efforts of Ray Comfort and the pathetic display of Cardinal Pell when debating Richard Dawkins.

 

[The Norseman]

Richard Dawkins claimed it did just that to him. Also the statistics about the very low religiosity of scientists, even in the USA, seems to contradict this claim.

It looks like you're ascribing some sort of causative relationship there when it simply could be correlative.

 

[Aridas]

Richard Dawkins claimed it did just that to him.

I remain skeptical.

Also the statistics about the very low religiosity of scientists, even in the USA, seems to contradict this claim.

Pay attention to the rest of the paragraph? No, the statistics about the very low religiosity of scientists don't counter the claim, as actually made. Science, itself, can and does co-exist with religion peacefully and has been doing so for as long as science has existed. Science's relevance to theists becoming atheists is indirect, at best. Again, if a religion makes demonstrably false claims that science shows to be false and a person loses their trust in their faith and, given the feelings of betrayal that they feel, react emotionally, rather than logically, that's really not science making the theist into an atheist. If someone sees that science has produced incredible and useful information and sees that religions, generally speaking, have not produced much trustworthy or useful information to the questions at hand then decides to rely on the philosophy that has shown itself to be overwhelmingly more useful between the two, again, science has effectively provided information relevant to the decision, but the reactions are completely dependent on the person in question and what values they're choosing to prioritize. More could be said, but science's role, as a general rule, is something of a background role of providing information in a fairly reliable fashion.

It may be that the religious feel attacking science is an effective strategy but I am with ynot in thinking it is not. A very blunt weapon wielded by theologians who often show a very poor knowledge of the science they try to discredit. Look at the efforts of Ray Comfort and the pathetic display of Cardinal Pell when debating Richard Dawkins.

Not an effective strategy? It's about the only option they have available, though, when science is directly showing that many of the claims that their particular form of religion makes are false and their claimed supports for it are little more than folly, from an outside objective perspective. Even the mere facts than they can say that there's ongoing debate, however truthful or dishonest any side is being, and that there are lots of other people who believe something is enough to leave wiggle room to let those who want to believe do so, either way.

I strongly disapprove of the strategy, myself, of course, given that effectively blind loyalty to the fundamentally untrustworthy is a terrible method to try to make or reach a better future. Also, of course, I value the quality of arguments employed to be far more important than the conclusions made.