can Atheists criticize Christians for believing in God out of blind faith?

To Atheists:

Is there some sort of moral obligation to hold to beliefs which are demonstrably true or properly basic?

See, the only way I could see Atheists having grounds to criticize Christians who hold to Theism out of blind faith is if we as humans had some sort of responsibility, a moral obligation if you will, to hold to beliefs which are demonstrably true or are properly basic.

To those of you who think that we have a responsibility to hold true beliefs, where does that responsibility come from?

The basis of atheism is a lack of belief entirely. If one is an agnostic atheist, they don't actually "believe" anything... and most atheists are agnostic.

Some atheists criticize fundamentalist Christians for trying to mix their beliefs with science and claiming that their beliefs are "true" in the sense of scientific proof and not just true based on faith.foxhound_fox

and from whence cometh the responsibility to not mix religious dogma with scientific processes?

that really does not answer my question, where does the responsibility to hold to true beliefs come from?

and from whence cometh the responsibility to not mix religious dogma with scientific processes?

NTWrightfan

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]The basis of atheism is a lack of belief entirely. If one is an agnostic atheist, they don't actually "believe" anything... and most atheists are agnostic.

Some atheists criticize fundamentalist Christians for trying to mix their beliefs with science and claiming that their beliefs are "true" in the sense of scientific proof and not just true based on faith.NTWrightfan

and from whence cometh the responsibility to not mix religious dogma with scientific processes?

NTWrightfan

Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there isDarth-Caedus

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there ishtekemerald

Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
EMOEVOLUTION

---edit---
spalling.

Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
EMOEVOLUTION

The way I see it atheists subscribe to the innocent till proven guilty ideal.  That is you need proof before making a claim

Where the Theists believe in the guilt to proven innocent ideal.  That is everything is real and need t be disproven.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
htekemerald

The way I see it atheists subscribe to the innocent till proven guilty ideal.  That is you need proof before making a claim

Where the Theists believe in the guilt to proven innocent ideal.  That is everything is real and need t be disproven.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
HardQuor

---edit---
spalling.

Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="HardQuor"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
EMOEVOLUTION

---edit---
spalling.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
foxhound_fox

Atheists, at least those with scientific minds (like I pretend to have), base their knowledge (not beliefs) off of what has been proven.

Since God has yet to be proven true, yet has not been proven false, I like to say that it is doubtful a higher power exists.

That is not to say I refuse to believe in it. Its just we havent seen any proof, so for all practical purposes a higher power does not exist.

The scond God comes down and is like "Yo, I am God" most atheists would problably be like "Well, ok, he exists, I was wrong".

Atheism is not ignorance, it is just "believing" in only what has been observed and proven. That is my take on it.

Well, the only reason you believe in science is because you read what somebody else wrote. You didn't actually do the science with them. It's really not that different than believing in the bible. Majority of what you read in books or see on T.V. you'll never take the time to test or replicate for yourself. So, there is a faith involved in science. And science takes many many years of retesting itself. What is believed now may not be 20-50-100+ years from now. The only problem most people have with religion is that it's static and slower to change. Anyways. I'm middle ground on the issue. I don't see either side as having a winning position on the matter. Both have their purpose and fulfill a need of the human species.

Many of us forget it's diversity that makes us stronger and better equipped to handle and adapt to different environments. If we all thought the same way we'd really be limiting ourselves. IT's good that we have two sides to something, compared to one.

EMOEVOLUTION

I have a major in bio so I do have a good deal of knowledge that I have seen in action about nature.  There's also a good deal difference between science and religion.  Science aims to expand human knowledge and is always open to debate on anything that has been proven by it's method.  Religion aims to restrict man's knowledge and is closed to any debate.  Science requires you to comprehend how things work.  Science never just says this is just how it is because, it actually has proof.  Religion on the other hand only requires obedience and faith in what it says to be true even though they have no proof.  As for limiting ourselves to thinking one way, science doesn't do that at all it's open to be questioned and disproven if you have evidence.  Religion on the other hand demands obedience and conformity to a narrow minded set of beliefs that are unquestionable.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="HardQuor"] You're wrong. The difference between religion and atheism is fundamental. Atheists fundamentally believe in only what can be proven possible. Religious zealots believe in only what they're told.

 

---edit---
spalling.

HardQuor

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]

Well, the only reason you believe in science is because you read what somebody else wrote. You didn't actually do the science with them. It's really not that different than believing in the bible. Majority of what you read in books or see on T.V. you'll never take the time to test or replicate for yourself. So, there is a faith involved in science. And science takes many many years of retesting itself. What is believed now may not be 20-50-100+ years from now. The only problem most people have with religion is that it's static and slower to change. Anyways. I'm middle ground on the issue. I don't see either side as having a winning position on the matter. Both have their purpose and fulfill a need of the human species.

Many of us forget it's diversity that makes us stronger and better equipped to handle and adapt to different environments. If we all thought the same way we'd really be limiting ourselves. IT's good that we have two sides to something, compared to one.

htekemerald

I have a major in bio so I do have a good deal of knowledge that I have seen in action about nature.  There's also a good deal difference between science and religion.  Science aims to expand human knowledge and is always open to debate on anything that has been proven by it's method.  Religion aims to restrict man's knowledge and is closed to any debate.  Science requires you to comprehend how things work.  Science never just says this is just how it is because, it actually has proof.  Religion on the other hand only requires obedience and faith in what it says to be true even though they have no proof.  As for limiting ourselves to thinking one way, science doesn't do that at all it's open to be questioned and disproven if you have evidence.  Religion on the other hand demands obedience and conformity to a narrow minded set of beliefs that are unquestionable.

[QUOTE="HardQuor"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]So you believe science is absolute? IT is perfect and has no flaws? Science is only as good as the human genetics will allow it to be. Our perception is not capable of answering everything, and never will be. Those that believe it can, are going to be sorely disappointed. EMOEVOLUTION

Ha. And i thought i was obnoxious concerning the topic. I said "Read more carefully" because your 2 questions would have been answered if you had. I said that  "Atheists believe in only that which can be proven possible" and NOT "Atheists believe that science is absolute, perfect, and flawless."

So since you've proven yourself too dense to understand it the first two times, i'll dumb it down for you: "Atheists believe in only things that have a sufficient amount of supporting evidence, given their resources. These things are subject to change as their resources do."

belief - 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing do you have confidence in science? if so then you are practicing belief. 2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group do you agree on the standardization of science? 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence Are you really sure science has nothing to do with believing? Considering the following I must disagree with you.. accepting science as a way of describing the world is an act of belief, trust, and faith. IF you rejected science you would not believe in it, have confidence in it, or trust it. These definitions were taking from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beliefEMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]

Well, the only reason you believe in science is because you read what somebody else wrote. You didn't actually do the science with them. It's really not that different than believing in the bible. Majority of what you read in books or see on T.V. you'll never take the time to test or replicate for yourself. So, there is a faith involved in science. And science takes many many years of retesting itself. What is believed now may not be 20-50-100+ years from now. The only problem most people have with religion is that it's static and slower to change. Anyways. I'm middle ground on the issue. I don't see either side as having a winning position on the matter. Both have their purpose and fulfill a need of the human species.

Many of us forget it's diversity that makes us stronger and better equipped to handle and adapt to different environments. If we all thought the same way we'd really be limiting ourselves. IT's good that we have two sides to something, compared to one.

EMOEVOLUTION

I have a major in bio so I do have a good deal of knowledge that I have seen in action about nature.  There's also a good deal difference between science and religion.  Science aims to expand human knowledge and is always open to debate on anything that has been proven by it's method.  Religion aims to restrict man's knowledge and is closed to any debate.  Science requires you to comprehend how things work.  Science never just says this is just how it is because, it actually has proof.  Religion on the other hand only requires obedience and faith in what it says to be true even though they have no proof.  As for limiting ourselves to thinking one way, science doesn't do that at all it's open to be questioned and disproven if you have evidence.  Religion on the other hand demands obedience and conformity to a narrow minded set of beliefs that are unquestionable.

There's a difference between the faith of religion and faith of science.  With science you have the ability to go and look over the evidence yourself and you are free to present any evidence you want if you believe you have some that disproves it.  With religion you are free to go and burn in hell, or its equivalent, if you feel like questioning it.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="HardQuor"] Read more carefully before assuming my arguments.HardQuor

Ha. And i thought i was obnoxious concerning the topic. I said "Read more carefully" because your 2 questions would have been answered if you had. I said that  "Atheists believe in only that which can be proven possible" and NOT "Atheists believe that science is absolute, perfect, and flawless."

So since you've proven yourself too dense to understand it the first two times, i'll dumb it down for you: "Atheists believe in only things that have a sufficient amount of supporting evidence, given their resources. These things are subject to change as their resources do."

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

I have a major in bio so I do have a good deal of knowledge that I have seen in action about nature.  There's also a good deal difference between science and religion.  Science aims to expand human knowledge and is always open to debate on anything that has been proven by it's method.  Religion aims to restrict man's knowledge and is closed to any debate.  Science requires you to comprehend how things work.  Science never just says this is just how it is because, it actually has proof.  Religion on the other hand only requires obedience and faith in what it says to be true even though they have no proof.  As for limiting ourselves to thinking one way, science doesn't do that at all it's open to be questioned and disproven if you have evidence.  Religion on the other hand demands obedience and conformity to a narrow minded set of beliefs that are unquestionable.

htekemerald

There's a difference between the faith of religion and faith of science.  With science you have the ability to go and look over the evidence yourself and you are free to present any evidence you want if you believe you have some that disproves it.  With religion you are free to go and burn in hell, or its equivalent, if you feel like questioning it.

[QUOTE="HardQuor"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] Oh, I guess next time I'll avoid putting you on the spot because you don't really have an answer. That's an assumption. The previous was a question followed by my reasoning, looking for you to explain why that form of thinking is wrong.EMOEVOLUTION

Ha. And i thought i was obnoxious concerning the topic. I said "Read more carefully" because your 2 questions would have been answered if you had. I said that  "Atheists believe in only that which can be proven possible" and NOT "Atheists believe that science is absolute, perfect, and flawless."

So since you've proven yourself too dense to understand it the first two times, i'll dumb it down for you: "Atheists believe in only things that have a sufficient amount of supporting evidence, given their resources. These things are subject to change as their resources do."

Religion evolves as well. Look at that many branches of Christianity we see today. And what was before Christianity? And before that? IF anything religion is more humane today than it was thousands of years ago. And why is that? Religion is very important to society it draws people closer together, gives them a sense of purpose. It has it's positives and negatives just like science.EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Religion evolves as well. Look at that many branches of Christianity we see today. And what was before Christianity? And before that? IF anything religion is more humane today than it was thousands of years ago. And why is that? Religion is very important to society it draws people closer together, gives them a sense of purpose. It has it's positives and negatives just like science.foxhound_fox

Forgive me. I must explain. I dont' approach negatives the way most people do. Most people apply negative with a sentiment of bad feeling. I don't see negatives as either good or bad. They are part of how things work. You take a whole concept, and it has two sides as defined by positive or negative. Look around you, what exists without an opposite? Even mater has an opposite. Science comes from humans. Show me another creature that practices it(that we know of). And tell me it doesn't draw humanity closer together? It's a commonly agreed on by many people. You have to consider that science is not separate from humanity because we're the only beings that knowingly uses it. Until this happens how can we say science just exists without us?EMOEVOLUTION

EMOEVOLUTION

Yep must be why the middle east is such a nice place  The middle east is a prime example of what happens when people listen to religion over science

HTML errors make me want to punch GS in the face.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Forgive me. I must explain. I dont' approach negatives the way most people do. Most people apply negative with a sentiment of bad feeling. I don't see negatives as either good or bad. They are part of how things work. You take a whole concept, and it has two sides as defined by positive or negative. Look around you, what exists without an opposite? Even mater has an opposite. Science comes from humans. Show me another creature that practices it(that we know of). And tell me it doesn't draw humanity closer together? It's a commonly agreed on by many people. You have to consider that science is not separate from humanity because we're the only beings that knowingly uses it. Until this happens how can we say science just exists without us?foxhound_fox

In that case I will apply science. I know that science is an act of belief. Whether you know it or not.EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]htekemerald

Yep must be why the middle east is such a nice place  The middle east is a prime example of what happens when people listen to religion over science

HTML errors make me want to punch GS in the face.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]In that case I will apply science. I know that science is an act of belief. Whether you know it or not.foxhound_fox

You may say well science is the pursuit of what I just described, but it's far from that. IT will never go beyond the limitations of humans. Because we are human, and our perceptions cannot be trusted in the light of science... how can we say knowing and believing aren't the same thing? And since this just comes down to "believing" vs "knowing". It's impossible to separate human thinking on terminology alone. They are both connected. I understand what you're saying. If don't know something now, it doesn't change what it is. Whether I can see it or not. But that in itself is a human way of thinking. And nothing changes it in the end.

No matter how we try we can never escape the fact we are human and everything we express is human.

I generally don't care what kinds of dumbass things people believe. Lord knows that I probably believe in some dumbass things myself, only that I don't realize how dumbass those things are because I happen to believe in them.

But I have a problem when people try to hate on gays because god hates gays.

Or when people try to suppress scientific knowledge because god hates evolution.

Or when children get killed by their parents because god says that blood transfusions are the work of the devil.

Believe whatever you want to believe. But the second that your beliefs start affecting me or others, then we have a problem. 

[QUOTE="HardQuor"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
EMOEVOLUTION

---edit---
spalling.

The nice thing about science though, is that it gets results. The scientific method relies on an innate understanding that science is subject to flaws, and has a self-correcting method to eliminating false truths.

I've never been able to fathom HOW people cite the malleability of science as a flaw. That'd be like saying that humans suck because an 80 year old man has changed his perspective from when he was five years old. The scientific method works largely BECAUSE it readily discards old truths in favor of new truths. That's not a flaw in science, that's one of science's greatest strengths. Science has the balls to admit when it's wrong, and then go with what's right.

I generally don't care what kinds of dumbass things people believe. Lord knows that I probably believe in some dumbass things myself, only that I don't realize how dumbass those things are because I happen to believe in them.

 

But I have a problem when people try to hate on gays because god hates gays.

 

Or when people try to suppress scientific knowledge because god hates evolution.

 

Or when children get killed by their parents because god says that blood transfusions are the work of the devil.

 

Believe whatever you want to believe. But the second that your beliefs start affecting me or others, then we have a problem. 

MrGeezer

Yup, there is this atheist guy at my work that criticize religion so much, it's disturbing and annoying.It's like a passion for him to hate.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]

Well, the only reason you believe in science is because you read what somebody else wrote. You didn't actually do the science with them. It's really not that different than believing in the bible. Majority of what you read in books or see on T.V. you'll never take the time to test or replicate for yourself. So, there is a faith involved in science. And science takes many many years of retesting itself. What is believed now may not be 20-50-100+ years from now. The only problem most people have with religion is that it's static and slower to change. Anyways. I'm middle ground on the issue. I don't see either side as having a winning position on the matter. Both have their purpose and fulfill a need of the human species.

Many of us forget it's diversity that makes us stronger and better equipped to handle and adapt to different environments. If we all thought the same way we'd really be limiting ourselves. IT's good that we have two sides to something, compared to one.

EMOEVOLUTION

I have a major in bio so I do have a good deal of knowledge that I have seen in action about nature.  There's also a good deal difference between science and religion.  Science aims to expand human knowledge and is always open to debate on anything that has been proven by it's method.  Religion aims to restrict man's knowledge and is closed to any debate.  Science requires you to comprehend how things work.  Science never just says this is just how it is because, it actually has proof.  Religion on the other hand only requires obedience and faith in what it says to be true even though they have no proof.  As for limiting ourselves to thinking one way, science doesn't do that at all it's open to be questioned and disproven if you have evidence.  Religion on the other hand demands obedience and conformity to a narrow minded set of beliefs that are unquestionable.

Your argument is intriguing, but all in all rather pointless. Indeed, you can reduce EVERYTHING in human society to belief, since human's are viewing the world from a point of view. It's like always looking through a fish-eye lens. You have no proof that all things in the universe do not look strangely distorted, so you make the educated guess that everything is indeed distorted looking. 

But your argument doesn't really poke a hole in Atheism, since atheism is a human construct and the only people who care about it are humans who view everything through the lens of human perspective. Does it matter to them that if you boil down their argument of "not believing" enough, they can be considered believers? No, it doesn't. Free-will can be considered an illusion, since if one was to take a snapshot of the position and velocity of all the atoms in the universe for one instant and put the data into an incredibly powerful computer, every single decision made out of "free-will" for eternity would be completely predictable. 

Does this inescapable fact somehow invalidate all arguments involving free-will? No, it doesn't. Because through a normal humans perspective, this changes nothing. 

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
HardQuor

---edit---
spalling.

Aren't you a little worried that in the defence of Christianity you are arguing that being wrong isn't so bad after all? :?Funky_Llama