You have to believe in something!

[Peter]

If you're an atheist I'm sure you've gotten the question.

If I'm being snarky I'll say something like, "If I must believe in something irrational I choose Leprechauns". My non-snarky answer is "nature" but it doesn't feel as grand as believing in some all powerful being in charge of the universe. Maybe I have god envy.

What does a theist mean with that question?

What's a good answer for an atheist?

[Danmark]

To be a non-theist, one must first believe that there is some non-negligible probability that our universe (and our selves) could have come to be what it is as a result of strictly impersonal causation.

Of course there is no evidence for any such thing, nor can there ever be any evidence for such. This is why non-theism is not based on reason or evidence; it is instead an unevidenced axiom or presupposition.

But I think the main point of the argument is simply to say that everyone has some object of ultimate value--e.g., power, pleasure, popularity, or what have you. Often a quick look at a person's spending habits will reveal what his or her "god" is.

BJS wrote:

Technically, it would be you have to believe something, not, you have to believe in something. Christians believe in God. Non-theists dont have to believe in anything.

However, non-theists do have to believe something. This is commonly called a philosophy or worldview. It is the underlying understanding of reality which is the basis for your actions and which is revealed by your actions.

Everyone has a worldview. Not everyone thinks about or examines their worldview. Some people make actions without a clear understanding or explanation of the basis of those actions. But it is impossible not to have a worldview, even if that worldview is unstated.

I don't think I disagree with BJS, tho' I suppose I could quibble with whether there's much of a difference between 'believing something' and 'believing in something.' And I agree with EduChris's last paragraph at least.

To me non theism is simply a lack of belief in the traditional anthropomorphic God of orthodox Christianity or Islam, or similar Gods. Tillich's effort to define God in terms of the 'very ground of being' does not jar my senses, tho' I think he fails in his attempt to make this God personal. I would like to believe in the God Tillich is trying to define. This God who is not a mere being, who does not just 'exist' and is the ground of being itself who somehow in some mysterious way can also be personal is an attractive idea to me. I sometimes wonder if in fact I actually do believe in that indefinable 'god' somehow, just not in a conscious/academic/intellectual way.

I mean, it's an attractive comforting idea. But it's one for which I see no evidence.
So 'non theism' works for me. 'Ignostic' also works, but I don't like the term, possibly just for poetic reasons. It sounds to 'made up,' too contrived.

Anyway, I believe in being creative. I believe in seeking truth. In a way my god is science, knowledge, the pursuit of knowledge. I believe in being kind, tho' I like to reserve the right to puncture the balloons of the pompous, including my own. I believe in being irreverent and in thoughtful humor, tho' I don't want to try and define that. I believe in beauty, but I can't define that either. I believe in friendship and loyalty. I believe in love.

[EduChris]

...I would like to believe in the...God who is not a mere being, who does not just 'exist' and is the ground of being itself who somehow in some mysterious way can also be personal...it's an attractive comforting idea. But it's one for which I see no evidence...

What would count as evidence, for or against this "attractive comforting idea"?

...being creative...seeking truth...pursuit of knowledge...being kind...humor...beauty...friendship and loyalty...love.

The debate between theism and non-theism revolves around what is "most real." Does all reality boil down to the blind meanderings of physical particles, or is there something more?

Your list seems to indicate that you value the "something more" which, if followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to theism.

[Danmark]

...I would like to believe in the...God who is not a mere being, who does not just 'exist' and is the ground of being itself who somehow in some mysterious way can also be personal...it's an attractive comforting idea. But it's one for which I see no evidence...

What would count as evidence, for or against this "attractive comforting idea"?

...being creative...seeking truth...pursuit of knowledge...being kind...humor...beauty...friendship and loyalty...love.

The debate between theism and non-theism revolves around what is "most real." Does all reality boil down to the blind meanderings of physical particles, or is there something more?

Your list seems to indicate that you value the "something more" which, if followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to theism.

I understand why you would say that, but I simply don't believe it. I have to add two things. The first is the silence of God, the 2d is my sig line. All I can say is that I have a certain openness to this God that is far short of belief. And rather than see the particles as 'blind meanderings' they seem to have very definite qualities. I don't see the universe as chaotic. But I also don't see God.

[EduChris]

...the silence of God...

As they say in Europe, "It is often dark at the foot of the lighthouse."

...my sig line...

Is your sig line a proven truism, like 2 + 2 = 4, or is it a faith-based sentiment?

[Danmark]

...the silence of God...

As they say in Europe, "It is often dark at the foot of the lighthouse."

...my sig line...

Is your sig line a proven truism, like 2 + 2 = 4, or is it a faith-based sentiment?

It's a distillation of my experience.

----------------
Anything I add to that will most likely be rubbish, but I suppose the rubbish can be thrown away. I think that when people pray or meditate or listen for God's voice they are trying to get in touch with themselves, with that greatness that is the unconscious. On the other hand, maybe that's why the god of so many is so small.
[I could not resist saying that. It just 'sounded' right]. Just a joke. But on reflection, perhaps not a joke at all. That small 'god' most of us discover is probably the result of not searching well those hidden depths of the mind.

[Peter]

[Replying to Peter]

To be a non-theist, one must first believe that there is some non-negligible probability that our universe (and our selves) could have come to be what it is as a result of strictly impersonal causation.

Yes

Of course there is no evidence for any such thing, nor can there ever be any evidence for such.

Currently we don't know what caused the universe but it's probably a stretch to assert that we'll never know.

This is why non-theism is not based on reason or evidence; it is instead an unevidenced axiom or presupposition.

I presuppose nothing about the beginning of the universe. The current lack of evidence forces me to admit that I don't know if the universe was created naturally or by a god. Even though I must admit that a god could have created the universe I will point out that the god solution is particularly unsatisfying because then we must ask if the creator god was created naturally or by another creator god.

But I think the main point of the argument is simply to say that everyone has some object of ultimate value--e.g., power, pleasure, popularity, or what have you. Often a quick look at a person's spending habits will reveal what his or her "god" is.

I value truth. Can you tell me how my spending habits would reveal that?

[Clownboat]

...the silence of God...

As they say in Europe, "It is often dark at the foot of the lighthouse."

...my sig line...

Is your sig line a proven truism, like 2 + 2 = 4, or is it a faith-based sentiment?

To the bold:
I would assume that it is a truism for you for all the gods out there except for your chosen god (not like a math truism though).
For much of society, they take it one god further and thus would consider it a proven truism (not like math) that all religions stem from the mind of man.

Not proven like math is though, that would not be an accurate comparison and the "like 2 + 2 = 4" should be removed from your statement above for sake of accuracy.

It takes as much faith to not believe in god concepts as it does to not believe in unicorns. This seems to be a hard concept for the religious to grasp with as many times as I have heard "It takes faith to not believe".

[EduChris]

...It's a distillation of my experience...

I agree. That's what we're all doing--simply offering a distillation of our own personal experience.

But of course this is a debate site, and it seems as though at least some people think that there should be a way to hold up our personal distillations in the light of cold objective reason, in the hope of better approximating "what really is the case."

In the end, we all believe what we want to believe. Only after we've arrived at our conclusion do we start looking around for ways to rationalize it.

[EduChris]

...the god solution is particularly unsatisfying because then we must ask if the creator god was created naturally or by another creator god...

If you are thinking about a "god" whose "existence" or "being" requires any sort of external causation, then you have not yet arrived at the sort of God which is conceived of by any contemporary world theism; instead, you are stuck on the notion of a contingent god--the sort of god which hasn't been taken seriously by any major world theism for the past 1,500 years.

[Danmark]

...It's a distillation of my experience...

I agree. That's what we're all doing--simply offering a distillation of our own personal experience.

But of course this is a debate site, and it seems as though at least some people think that there should be a way to hold up our personal distillations in the light of cold objective reason, in the hope of better approximating "what really is the case."

In the end, we all believe what we want to believe. Only after we've arrived at our conclusion do we start looking around for ways to rationalize it.

There's too much truth in that. Like the free will vs determinism debate, we will never really know which came first; the choice or the steps that led to it. Whether those steps preceded the decision or followed as a rationalization may be difficult to determine. I have my own answer in the fact that I know I would like the comfort of belief however indefinable that belief is. But I cannot summon the will to believe simply because I think it a comfort.