How do you answer the atheist?

How do you answer the statements of the atheist who may state that your belief is "a delusion", . . . . or DO you even address them?

DeavonReye wrote:How do you answer the statements of the atheist who may state that your belief is "a delusion", . . . . or DO you even address them?

That I can see where they are coming from, and if I were presented with the same information I would (and have) make the same decision..

all

Our world is largely about perception, is it not? We can only understand things with our own.

Exactly.

I'd tell him that what I believe is none of his damn business and if he can't respect ME and my right to believe as I see fit he can kiss my a$$.
Then I call him a disrespectful little turd and order him away from me.

It's rude to ridicule people for their beliefs and I won't tolerate it. I don't do it, and I won't have it done to me.

Can you elaborate a bit, SG? I can see where you are coming from, on the perceptions. Where the atheist SEEMS to have an up is that spirituality is usually non-provable. But I have to wonder IF that is just because our level of technology has yet reached the ability TO "test" for what is considered "the spiritual". Just thinking out loud.

There is a philosophical challenge out there, and someone is going to have to help me with specifics, but anyway, the challenge asks someone to prove the existence, as it stands without using any of the five senses. The winner gets something along 5 million pounds. This challenge was made in the mid 1800s and so far no one has managed to collect it.

The world, as I said is largely about perception, whether we are talking about the gods, or we are talking about what happens in a car accident. Everyone sees something different. And everyone is equally convinced that what they saw in reality.

tmarie64 wrote:I'd tell him that what I believe is none of his damn business and if he can't respect ME and my right to believe as I see fit he can kiss my a$$.
Then I call him a disrespectful little turd and order him away from me.

It's rude to ridicule people for their beliefs and I won't tolerate it. I don't do it, and I won't have it done to me.

Pretty much this.

More and more atheistic scientists are leaning toward a "God part of the brain".

http://godpart.com/index.html

Essentially, what I'm suggesting is that humans are innately "hard-wired" to perceive a spiritual reality. We are "hard-wired" to believe in forces that transcend the limitations of this, our physical reality. Most controversial of all, if what I'm suggesting is true, it would imply that God is not necessarily something that exists "out there," beyond and independent of us, but rather as the product of an inherited perception, the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation that exists within the human brain. And why would our species have evolved such a seemingly abstract trait? -In order to enable us to deal with our species' unique and otherwise debilitating awareness of death.

And then there's things like this: http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20060829/brains-god-spot-hard-to-pin-down

DeavonReye wrote:How do you answer the statements of the atheist who may state that your belief is "a delusion", . . . . or DO you even address them?

It would depend upon the context of the discussion how I'd address that remark.

If it's an exploratory discussion wherein the atheist is gracious about listening to what I say about my beliefs but says that s/he feels that such things are a delusion, I'd respond as All suggested.

Now, if on the other hand, the person is a "fundie atheist" akin to Christopher Hitchens, I'd be tempted to answer as Tina suggests but probably would just say we'd do better to "agree to disagree."

As SG remarked, this sort of thing is a matter of perception, and we all know how very much that can vary even for a given individual from one moment to the next.

I don't think I've ever had the conversation with an atheist that was not in an intellectual debate setting. To be honest, I'm kind of scary. Not much of anyone bothers me.

all

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:I don't think I've ever had the conversation with an atheist that was not in an intellectual debate setting. To be honest, I'm kind of scary. Not much of anyone bothers me.

all

You are a big old teddy bear!

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:More and more atheistic scientists are leaning toward a "God part of the brain".

http://godpart.com/index.html

Essentially, what I'm suggesting is that humans are innately "hard-wired" to perceive a spiritual reality. We are "hard-wired" to believe in forces that transcend the limitations of this, our physical reality. Most controversial of all, if what I'm suggesting is true, it would imply that God is not necessarily something that exists "out there," beyond and independent of us, but rather as the product of an inherited perception, the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation that exists within the human brain. And why would our species have evolved such a seemingly abstract trait? -In order to enable us to deal with our species' unique and otherwise debilitating awareness of death.

And then there's things like this: http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20060829/brains-god-spot-hard-to-pin-down

While that's indeed the case, I think it's important to add that this research is focusing upon an aspect of the brain that appears somehow to engage in belief in deities just as people everywhere seem to need a certain amount of fantasy and imagination in their lives.

In short, what I've read of this sort of thing, mostly Daniel Dennett's excellent works on the function of spirituality within human personality, doesn't do anything at all toward proving that there is anything "out there." In fact, what I've read of this type of stuff does more to support atheism than belief thus far.

So, saying that atheist scientists are leaning toward a "God part" of the brain doesn't mean anything in terms of validating spiritual experiences or religious belief. They're simply intrigued by the idea that spirituality and religion might have evolved out of human awareness that life is insecure and often fragile, and eventually we will die.

As our friend SG might say, "It's still UPG, y'all."

I know that, and you know that, but if they are approaching me on the street, they don't know that.

If they approach you on the street they may GET a UPG.

If they are approaching us on the street, and in fact don't know us, then they are no better than the bible thumpers.

Yes, that's how I see it. Anyone who just can't stand it that other people don't believe what they do, falls into a certain category, you know?

Very true SG and Gilly, who has the right to tell someone else, who is not hurting anyone, that they are delusional?
No one has, that's who.

We all believe what we believe, for our own reasons, that should be good enough. Some one else doesn't like what I believe in......
tough Sh _ _
I am not changing for anyone.

I don't know how unverifiable it might be.....

That kind of raises the question, what kind of differing circumstances might we be talking about? Depending on how persistent they are, atheist or various flavor of theist, we might have a case of natural selection at work on our hands..... Teddy bear or not, if I feel threatened, I might react in a manner they are not expecting.

One thing I've got to say for the militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens is that these guys have pretty solid reasoning behind their insistence that religiious belief is imaginative hooey/delusional.

I have less of a problem accepting people who can do far more than quote some centuries-old, multiply-translated book to back up what they're saying, insulting though they can seem.

Dawkins' The God Delusion is simply brilliant reasoning and writing whether you agree with his premise or not. And Sam Harris's The End of Faith and Letter To a Christian Nation are masterfully done even though Harris cuts no slack whatsoever for believers.

If you read nothing else by these guys, read Harris's Letter. It's a slim little book that gleefully demolishes virtually every fundie-Christian argument about the foundation of this country and the "validity" of Christianity.

So, do people think that the so-called "fundamentalist atheists" like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris go too far in their open derision for religion?

Now I have not read the people you mentioned Dot and until Bnet I had never even heard of them. So I will stay rational and not say anything about them.

But it seems to me that some Atheists are so bent on uncovering the delusion of the religion that they grew up in, that healthy religions and spiritualities get trampled in the process.

And oddly many of this type of atheist seem to spend time trying to tear down the main organized religions, whose adherent have never had a UPG in the first place. So what exactly is the delusional?.......that they hope there is a god?

I'm not one who believes tearing down the beliefs of others is at all ethical, whether it is Christians doing it to replace the person's religion with Christianity, or the atheists doing to get rid of religion entirely.

I guess it doesn't bother me because I'll read what just about anybody has to say on religion.

I also don't mind trying to argue belief or non-belief with people as long as they have more than "God says so in the Bible, so that settles the argument" to back up their beliefs. Those who can't go beyond that level usually don't have much more than that to say anyway.

Geez, I've even read Lee Strobel [The Case For Christ], Hal Lindsey [Late Great Planet Earth] and some of Tim LaHaye. (No, in case you're wondering, I've NOT read any of that execrable Left Behind series. I tried when the first one proved to be such a runaway bestseller, but I simply could not get past the pedantic, really bad writing. Too bad in a way, as a well-written series on the concept might actually have been interesting.)

I'm a librarian, I'm all for people writing and publishing whatever they want and I think a mix of things (if they meet a library's criteria) should be placed on the shelves. If someone writes a book you don't want to read, don't read it!

I haven't read either of the books mentioned and the reason why is that I'm am massively uninterested in someone who is bent on switching my religion to anything, be it to nothing or to other gods. What I have works for me, so STFU. My beliefs and my UPGs are mine alone, I don't have to defend them or prove them. The day they don't make sense to me, I'll find something else that does - and have done that before without anyone's help, thank you.