Who else gets irritated at people who say atheists don't believe in anything??

Question

I don't believe in any gods but I believe in lots of stuff. I don't have to see something before I believe it . . . like I believe in the Big Bang though you can be sure I never saw that. And I believe in human kindness, and taking care of the environment.

Is it just that the christians think you either have to believe in something for which there is no proof, or else you believe in nothing?

This is getting to be one of my pet peeves I think . . .

Good point allilue.
There are a lot of other options out there.

I get your points Duck--the whole concept of 'belief' is a bit confusing. Hard to tell what it is that someone is really talking about when they talk about belief.
But then, my belief is something like human kindness is not knowledge that human kindness exists, but an affirmation that it is good an necessary. Same with protecting the environment.

Now on 'belief' in the Big Bang--you are absolutely right.

zhadowlord--
I don't get how that makes my point 'moot'. The definition of atheist is just someone who believes in no deity. The atheist may believe lot of other things, with or without rational evidence--even stuff like ghosts and reincarnation. Not that I believe in that stuff :)

Ironhand--
It just so happens that I don't believe the big bang is the first thing ever. Something came before, we just know not what.
And I don't believe it on the basis of 'faith'. It is the most rational explanation of the origin of our universe that I know. The fact that we don't know all the facts about it does not make it illogical.
And it could be replaced by a better theory--if I believed by dogmatic faith as Christians do I'd never concede that. Our current state of knowlege is not the last word.

superdaringhero--
Since when do you have to have complete understanding of a concept before you believe it?

Answer 1

Actually, they are right to say that... at least for 'rational' atheists'. There are some subtleties at work here that seem to escape the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight. However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode... for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down. And, ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies and misrepresentations that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... figuring out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded, intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a certainty that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are seeking VALIDATION... of their beliefs, and hence, of their self-description.

Answer 2

Your question is a bit condescending.
You accept things you can't see by faith. So do Christians and those of other faiths (hence the term "faith").
You accept the Big Bang THEORY.
Fine, but logic doesn't support it.
Where did all the matter come from, and where did the energy come from to ignite the bang?
Consider this explanation of the Big Bang:

Clear your mind.
Take few minutes to get to a place where you have no menta,l emotional, or other cerebral distractions.
Now, imagine a universe with absolutely nothing.
No Stars, no elements, chemicals, light, heat, ABSOLUTELY nothing. Absolute emptiness. Just a void (in the strictest sense)
When you get that picture (take your time)...

Imagine it blowing up!
There is the logic of the Big Bang.

Answer 3

Here is one problem I've ran into with this. You say you believe the in the Big Bang which is fine with me but if I ask you to explain it I would expect you to be very knowledgeable about it and have specific reasons on why you believe in the Big Bang. If your answer is ' because ' or if you are unable to explain the theory of the Big Bang then I would say you don't believe in anything. If you can explain to me how you think everything happened from the big bang to Man being on earth then I admire you. I respect anyone who questions where they came and wants to learn about the origins of human life, but if you can't fully explain why you believe in the Big Bang theory then I would say you don't believe in anything.

Answer 4

I don't use the word believe in relation to anything I accept as true simply because to me the word believe implies something you accept as true but don't have any valid evidence to back it up.

The big bang is a theory not a proven fact.

I don't believe in electricity but I have ample proof it is real. The same is true for everything I accept as being true.

Answer 5

I'm not usually irritated by people who believe that atheists don't believe in anything, but I think you're right: belief is basic, at a fundamental level we believe we are ourselves.

Answer 6

at last someone that thinks exactly the same as me, i don't even answer questions relating to religion anymore because of the way they think of you. my belief is my love of Nottingham forest fc some people think that's sad or wrong but that is me and I'm individual just like you and millions of others.

Answer 7

It doesn't bother me. Christians who don't know how to communicate effectively with non believers simply insult them. You're not responsible for what Christians think of you, so don't let it annoy you.

Answer 8

Your point is moot. since the meaning of atheist is, from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Answer 9

I believe in lots of real stuff ... so it's just more hate nonsense from the religious theist loonies I guess.

Answer 10

I get irritated at the large amount of Christians that assume that if you're non-Christian, you're automatically an atheist.