Bad Faith Atheists

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Are there bad faith atheists? Do you know any? What would be their motivation?

Are there any atheists that say they don't like this whole faith business, and reject religion on that basis, but then happily bite the hook for anything else that requires faith, just so long as it's secular? For example, atheists that say, "trust the science" while well knowing it's all behind a curtain, atheists who fall into self-help scams that are copy-paste versions of Christianity, and atheists who trust organisations without those organisations having legitimately earned that trust.

If so, what's their motivation? Do they just want to sound cool? Do they just want to shirk the obligation of the tithe or going to church, when many religious people don't even do that anymore? Frankly I think I have observed these bad faith atheists but I can't imagine what their underlying motivation could be. It seems to me that they just picked up atheism because it sounded cool or because they didn't want to feel responsible for Crusades or witch burnings. (But, if they are responsible for those things, I don't think discarding Christianity changes that.)

[TRANSPONDER]

Question for Debate: Are there bad faith atheists? Do you know any? What would be their motivation?

Are there any atheists that say they don't like this whole faith business, and reject religion on that basis, but then happily bite the hook for anything else that requires faith, just so long as it's secular? For example, atheists that say, "trust the science" while well knowing it's all behind a curtain, atheists who fall into self-help scams that are copy-paste versions of Christianity, and atheists who trust organisations without those organisations having legitimately earned that trust.

If so, what's their motivation? Do they just want to sound cool? Do they just want to shirk the obligation of the tithe or going to church, when many religious people don't even do that anymore? Frankly I think I have observed these bad faith atheists but I can't imagine what their underlying motivation could be. It seems to me that they just picked up atheism because it sounded cool or because they didn't want to feel responsible for Crusades or witch burnings. (But, if they are responsible for those things, I don't think discarding Christianity changes that.)

An old argument that keeps coming back. Ok, we'll do it again. after all, we do good old films because a lot of people have never seen them before.

So atheists is people, and people are not perfect nor logical. So you will get atheists that are not the perfect beings like Elves or Vulcans and may not know any of the atheist arguments. In fact I suspect that many of the "I used to be an atheist - like you - until..." polemics are just those who did not believe until subjected to the religious propaganda, and they did not know the rebuttals and did not bother to check.

But the Actual logical position is atheism as it is and not what this or that atheist might do, especially one who robs a candy store or kicks a puppy and we get "There - that's what all atheists are like!"

No, with Theism as with atheism, it is the case, not what individual believers or non - believers do that is the case. And the case is of course the materialist default. Something that believers seem to have so much trouble with, even though they know it exists, just as Creationists have trouble with Evolution, even though they accept it exists 'within species'.

Science as a basis is not a faithclaim of a groupthink consensus, but a method of investigation, checking and verification, and thus is the default (natural processes) rather than some supernatural process. And yet the Believers habitually think that the supernatural claim is at least as valid as the materialist. Even if it was (which it isn't) it would be not believable by default if there was no evidence either way. Which is why 'Who made everything, then?' fails, even though there is no real evidence for or against.

The motivation? Setting aside the well - poisoning jibe that we just want to sound cool ("It's just a phase they are going through") is as tatty and threadbare an apologetic as 'they just want to sin'.

The motivation is one I concluded and used as a sig. in the old days "The truth is important". I think we hate to be fooled, lied to and bamboozled, and we want to be able to believe that our beliefs are based valid evidence and reason. This is why faithclaims should not be given credence, never mind claimed as life -changing truths.

This is old stuff, but, as we see, no -one seems to know or remember it and we have to do these weary old apologetics over and over and over again.

However the original doubts and questions may not be logical but personal. "I stopped going to church because it was boring" is not a logical but a personal reason. But it can be the start of the questioning when Faith falls away and the mind is free to doubt and question. And that is when the evidence and reason can play its' part when before this was dismissed in favor of faith, and Faithbased dismissal of inconvenient evidence and reasoning is pretty much par for the theist apologetics course.

And there's another old Q. 'can an atheist believe in the supernatural/'.

Of course. We all know what 'supernatural' means, though it is hard to pin down. Is Bigfoot or UFOs (flying saucers) supernatural? They are not usually considered a magical thing like gods or ghosts, but they are outside what science accepts - until verified. Just as ball lightning and the giant squid was. Science does not rule out Anything, just requires better evidence than a Claim.

So atheism by definition refers only to the god - claim, and thus an atheist could believe in all sorts of stuff - just not gods. Of course the mindset of atheists tends to make the apply the same reasoning to Nessie, leprechauns and Atlantis as they do the gods, so atheists tend to have a skeptical mindset and often know how to use it logically, too.

[oldbadger]

Question for Debate: Are there bad faith atheists? Do you know any? What would be their motivation?

Are there any atheists that say they don't like this whole faith business, and reject religion on that basis, but then happily bite the hook for anything else that requires faith, just so long as it's secular? For example, atheists that say, "trust the science" while well knowing it's all behind a curtain, atheists who fall into self-help scams that are copy-paste versions of Christianity, and atheists who trust organisations without those organisations having legitimately earned that trust.

If so, what's their motivation? Do they just want to sound cool? Do they just want to shirk the obligation of the tithe or going to church, when many religious people don't even do that anymore? Frankly I think I have observed these bad faith atheists but I can't imagine what their underlying motivation could be. It seems to me that they just picked up atheism because it sounded cool or because they didn't want to feel responsible for Crusades or witch burnings. (But, if they are responsible for those things, I don't think discarding Christianity changes that.)

I'm a Deist, but as am a non-theistic person I hope you won't mind me joining your debate.

Atheists who get scammed for the price of a holiday or a new roof are one thing, people who get scammed and thus give up their whole life and freedom in fear/service/devotion for some God or other is another thing altogether.

Anyway, they've heard about too many outrages caused by religion to get scammed further.

[TRANSPONDER]

Even if Christianity was as nice as pie and clamped down of religious scammers and charlatans and di nothing but Good, Atheists might applaud their social contribution, but could not believe it, and worse, really regard it as a big Con perpetrated for centuries, like most other religions.

And what is worse and makes religion - Christianity for example - Bad is that it has to fiddle logic and evidence rather than admit "Ok that has to be wrong, but I have Faith in it, anyway". That would be honest though not a good case, but right away, they are in trying to deny evidence and reason because it's inconvenient for them, and that isn't good, even if they buy their way into public approval with free soup.

[Difflugia]

Are there any atheists that say they don't like this whole faith business, and reject religion on that basis, but then happily bite the hook for anything else that requires faith, just so long as it's secular? For example, atheists that say, "trust the science" while well knowing it's all behind a curtain, atheists who fall into self-help scams that are copy-paste versions of Christianity, and atheists who trust organisations without those organisations having legitimately earned that trust.

"Atheist" and "skeptic" aren't the same thing. The inability to evaluate evidence doesn't automatically make someone a theist.

If so, what's their motivation? Do they just want to sound cool? Do they just want to shirk the obligation of the tithe or going to church, when many religious people don't even do that anymore? Frankly I think I have observed these bad faith atheists but I can't imagine what their underlying motivation could be. It seems to me that they just picked up atheism because it sounded cool or because they didn't want to feel responsible for Crusades or witch burnings. (But, if they are responsible for those things, I don't think discarding Christianity changes that.)

In the same vein, "ignorance" and "bad faith" aren't the same thing. If somebody one trusts is an atheist, it's not bad faith to accept their reasoning, even if one can't or won't apply similar logic to other beliefs.

Most people don't know why they believe most of the things they believe. That can be frustrating or baffling, but it's no different than someone that wears a seatbelt or maintains a low-fat diet without personally examining the statistics and crunching the numbers.

[Purple Knight]

So atheists is people, and people are not perfect nor logical. So you will get atheists that are not the perfect beings like Elves or Vulcans and may not know any of the atheist arguments.

I'm just confused as to how you could possibly get them. If it's not actual Reason motivating people to be atheists, then what is it? People need a logical reason to be illogical; they're not actually crazy. If they didn't get something out of it, they wouldn't do it. This wave of illogical atheists has me dumbfounded. If Reason is not their motive then they would have to have another motive, and I don't really see one. Like you, I don't believe people just want to sin and actually it's been the truth for a while that atheists are held to a higher moral standard because they are distrusted. For example, no atheist will ever be elected to political office. So if people want clout, or unearned respect, that's not going to happen through atheism.

It's very odd that people would reject religion out of a desire not to be bamboozled, then also reject doubt and questioning and just accept other things that bamboozle them.

"Atheist" and "skeptic" aren't the same thing. The inability to evaluate evidence doesn't automatically make someone a theist.

What I can't see is a motivation for being atheist other than having evaluated the evidence and genuinely being a skeptic. Someone who just hasn't thought about any of it at all, isn't going around calling himself an atheist, though he might be one.

Most people don't know why they believe most of the things they believe. That can be frustrating or baffling, but it's no different than someone that wears a seatbelt or maintains a low-fat diet without personally examining the statistics and crunching the numbers.

I can see how this might be true about things other than atheism, because someone might have been told that a low-fat diet is good, or a low-carb diet, or a diet free of mice. They might then accept that, because nothing about Atkins implicitly contains skepticism. I just don't see how you could get to be an atheist unless you were a skeptic first.

[Difflugia]

What I can't see is a motivation for being atheist other than having evaluated the evidence and genuinely being a skeptic. Someone who just hasn't thought about any of it at all, isn't going around calling himself an atheist, though he might be one.

[...]

I can see how this might be true about things other than atheism, because someone might have been told that a low-fat diet is good, or a low-carb diet, or a diet free of mice. They might then accept that, because nothing about Atkins implicitly contains skepticism. I just don't see how you could get to be an atheist unless you were a skeptic first.

An easy way to that is just trusting someone else that is a skeptic, at least as far as theism is concerned. That certainly doesn't account for all of them, but there are certainly enough theists that are Christian because their parents or friends are. Being an atheist because your friends are doesn't seem like a big stretch to me.

[Clownboat]

So atheists is people, and people are not perfect nor logical. So you will get atheists that are not the perfect beings like Elves or Vulcans and may not know any of the atheist arguments.

I'm just confused as to how you could possibly get them. If it's not actual Reason motivating people to be atheists, then what is it? People need a logical reason to be illogical; they're not actually crazy. If they didn't get something out of it, they wouldn't do it. This wave of illogical atheists has me dumbfounded. If Reason is not their motive then they would have to have another motive, and I don't really see one. Like you, I don't believe people just want to sin and actually it's been the truth for a while that atheists are held to a higher moral standard because they are distrusted. For example, no atheist will ever be elected to political office. So if people want clout, or unearned respect, that's not going to happen through atheism.

It's very odd that people would reject religion out of a desire not to be bamboozled, then also reject doubt and questioning and just accept other things that bamboozle them.

"Atheist" and "skeptic" aren't the same thing. The inability to evaluate evidence doesn't automatically make someone a theist.

What I can't see is a motivation for being atheist other than having evaluated the evidence and genuinely being a skeptic. Someone who just hasn't thought about any of it at all, isn't going around calling himself an atheist, though he might be one.

Most people don't know why they believe most of the things they believe. That can be frustrating or baffling, but it's no different than someone that wears a seatbelt or maintains a low-fat diet without personally examining the statistics and crunching the numbers.

I can see how this might be true about things other than atheism, because someone might have been told that a low-fat diet is good, or a low-carb diet, or a diet free of mice. They might then accept that, because nothing about Atkins implicitly contains skepticism. I just don't see how you could get to be an atheist unless you were a skeptic first.

Consider this...
Every human ever born was born an atheists (not believing in a god concept), which required no skepticism. Therefore there is not necessarily a 'getting to be an atheist'. It's just the default starting position. Every human is or was an atheist, until they get to being a theist.

[Purple Knight]

An easy way to that is just trusting someone else that is a skeptic, at least as far as theism is concerned. That certainly doesn't account for all of them, but there are certainly enough theists that are Christian because their parents or friends are. Being an atheist because your friends are doesn't seem like a big stretch to me.

It seems like a stretch to me because if the person asked their friends and parents why they were atheists, they would probably respond with an appeal to skepticism. Though maybe it really is that we just have abundant third- or fourth-generation atheists now who don't have direct contact from someone who broke away from religion.

Consider this...
Every human ever born was born an atheists (not believing in a god concept), which required no skepticism. Therefore there is not necessarily a 'getting to be an atheist'. It's just the default starting position. Every human is or was an atheist, until they get to being a theist.

But, at that default starting position, they would not have a concept of their position being a-anything. By the time someone has a concept of atheism, they have already learned about theism.

[TRANSPONDER]

So atheists is people, and people are not perfect nor logical. So you will get atheists that are not the perfect beings like Elves or Vulcans and may not know any of the atheist arguments.

I'm just confused as to how you could possibly get them. If it's not actual Reason motivating people to be atheists, then what is it? People need a logical reason to be illogical; they're not actually crazy. If they didn't get something out of it, they wouldn't do it. This wave of illogical atheists has me dumbfounded. If Reason is not their motive then they would have to have another motive, and I don't really see one. Like you, I don't believe people just want to sin and actually it's been the truth for a while that atheists are held to a higher moral standard because they are distrusted. For example, no atheist will ever be elected to political office. So if people want clout, or unearned respect, that's not going to happen through atheism.

It's very odd that people would reject religion out of a desire not to be bamboozled, then also reject doubt and questioning and just accept other things that bamboozle them.

"Atheist" and "skeptic" aren't the same thing. The inability to evaluate evidence doesn't automatically make someone a theist.

What I can't see is a motivation for being atheist other than having evaluated the evidence and genuinely being a skeptic. Someone who just hasn't thought about any of it at all, isn't going around calling himself an atheist, though he might be one.

Most people don't know why they believe most of the things they believe. That can be frustrating or baffling, but it's no different than someone that wears a seatbelt or maintains a low-fat diet without personally examining the statistics and crunching the numbers.

I can see how this might be true about things other than atheism, because someone might have been told that a low-fat diet is good, or a low-carb diet, or a diet free of mice. They might then accept that, because nothing about Atkins implicitly contains skepticism. I just don't see how you could get to be an atheist unless you were a skeptic first.

Consider this...
Every human ever born was born an atheists (not believing in a god concept), which required no skepticism. Therefore there is not necessarily a 'getting to be an atheist'. It's just the default starting position. Every human is or was an atheist, until they get to being a theist.

Yes. It is an atheist claim or rationale that we are all born atheist. That is, without a god - belief. That nobody has until the faith - claim is dinned into them. If it isn't, or they don't believe it....they remain atheist.

Basic misconception atheism is the natural default, not god - belief.