I have often been baffled when I hear theists state that atheists do not believe in anything. It always seemed to be such a nonsensical statement that I did not understand what they were trying to convey. Thanks to a Christian who commented on this site, I think I may finally understand what theists mean when they say that atheists don’t believe in anything.
If I understood him correctly, the reason he stated that atheists do not believe in anything is because when he researched atheism, all he could find was what atheists do not believe. He couldn’t find anything about what they do believe. Therefore, he assumed that atheists did not hold any beliefs. Before I go any further, I want to commend him for researching atheism to learn something about it.
It is true that atheism does not contain a set of beliefs. It is simply a rejection of the claim of gods. Therefore, I could see how someone who was expecting to see a list of tenets that atheists believe might think that atheists don’t believe in anything.
I think that it boils down to a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in gods. Atheists might not have anything more in common with one other than the fact that they don’t think that there is sufficient reason to accept the theistic claim of gods. Of course, this does not mean that atheists do not believe in anything. Of course, they have beliefs. Everyone holds beliefs. It’s just that their beliefs are not dictated by the fact that they lack a belief in any gods. Therefore, one cannot say exactly what a particular atheist will believe without knowing more about that atheist.
It might be easier to understand using a different example. Instead of a belief in gods, let’s consider a belief in the Loch Ness Monster. Some people believe in the Loch Ness Monster; others do not have a belief in the Loch Ness Monster. For purposes of this illustration, I will call those who believe in the Loch Ness Monster, nessists and those who do not have a belief in the Loch Ness Monster, anessists. Knowing that someone is an anessist would not tell you much about the person other than the fact they do not have a belief in the Loch Ness Monster. They are simply people who have rejected a claim that another group of people has put forward. Each individual person would hold many beliefs (just like every other person), but there would not be a set of beliefs that could be attributed to all anessists.
Many of the anessists may have similar beliefs. For example, the anessists may tend to be skeptics who are value scientific evidence and critical thinking. Most likely, that group of anessists became anessists because they have did not think that the nessists have presented compelling evidence to persuade them of the veracity of nessists’ claim. In this case, it would be the fact that those people were skeptics that led to them becoming anessists, not the fact that they were anessists that led to them becoming skeptics. (Of course, there could also be skeptics who, at least in theory, have become persuaded by the evidence that there is a giant creature in Loch Ness. And there could be some people who are skeptics in other areas of their lives but they simply feel that the Loch Ness Monster is real, therefore they believe it.)
Not all anessists will be skeptics. And not all anessists will have examined the evidence. Some anessists will not believe in the Loch Ness Monster simply because they have never thought much about it or no one in their circle of friends believes in Loch Ness Monster or to them it just doesn’t seem likely but they don’t know why. Regardless of the reasons why they do not have a belief in the Loch Ness Monster, they will all hold some kinds of beliefs; it just won’t be because they are anessists that they hold those beliefs.
Atheism is similar to anessism in the sense that neither label proscribes a set of beliefs that all (or most) people using the label adhere to. Just like anessists, many atheists will be skeptics, but not all. And, typically, it will be the person’s skepticism that led to them using the label atheist, not the other way around.
When you are trying to figure out what a particular atheist believes, it may be helpful to know what other labels they attribute to themselves. If they also consider themselves a skeptic, there is a strong likelihood that they value critical thinking and the scientific method. If they consider themselves humanists, there is a strong likelihood that they value human life and believe people should work together to improve conditions for everyone. Of course, when trying to decide what an individual atheist believes it will be most helpful to ask him or her specific questions about their beliefs.
I would love to have a discussion on this topic.
If you are a theist who thinks that atheists do not believe in anything, did I represent your understanding of atheists correctly? If not, can you clarify your thoughts on the matter? If so, did this article give you any insights into the beliefs of atheists? What other questions do you have?
If you are an atheist, have you ever been told by a theist that you do not believe in anything? Does this article seem to represent that theist’s understanding of atheism?
This article is a follow-up to the article titled Atheists Don’t Believe in Anything.
For more information about Skeptic Mom, see the About section at the top of the page.
Find Skeptic Mom on Facebook
Follow Skeptic Mom on Twitter
Skeptic Mom 
Pingback: Atheists Don’t Believe in Anything | Skeptic Mom
Skeptic Mom,
If I’m correct, you don’t know what truth is, if it exists, if it can be known, am I right?
LikeLike
Hello CTC,
I’m a little confused as to what you are talking about. I can’t tell what you are responding to. Are you trying to make a point related one of the conversation threads or are you trying to change the subject?
LikeLike
If I’m not mistaken, CTC is inviting you to jump into the presuppositional Cartesian circle. It’s a crazy carousel – a little nauseating and finally not very interesting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Keithnoback,
Welcome to Skeptic Mom! I hope you enjoy reading the posts and continue to participate in discussions.
You might be right about what CTC is trying to do. It was a bit confusing.
LikeLike
I’m commenting on your overall philosophy and the general topical theme of this post. What can be known ? Else wise atheists believe in nothing.
LikeLike
Then I think you have misunderstood the point of the post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Care to summarize then ?
LikeLike
OK. In a nutshell: Just because a person doesn’t find one particular claim convincing, doesn’t mean that they don’t have any beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One piece of wisdom I’ve found that seems to hold true is that people judge others by their own example. If a person belongs to a group that professes a common creed like a Christian, they will expect others to also belong to groups that hold a common creed. The only room for variation is the size of the group and the content of the creed. To go beyond that really requires imagining things outside of one’s familiar universe, or to have direct experience that shows you something different. I believe this is why Christians make claims about atheists that seem so nonsensical to us.
-All atheists only state their non-belief, therefore they believe in nothing. (They’re just like us, they just believe the wrong thing.)
-Atheists worship Satan. (We worship something, they must worship the other thing.)
-Atheists secretly believe in God, that’s why they’re so mad at him. (We believe in God, therefore everyone must believe in a god.)
-Atheists have faith in science like Christians have faith in God. (Our stories have just as much evidence as anyone else’s stories.)
-Atheists aren’t Christian because they don’t know what’s in the Bible. (Our creed is better than their creed.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Stan,
Welcome to Skeptic Mom. I hope you continue to visit this site and to participate as often as you would like.
You made some really good points. I think you are probably correct that if a group of people doesn’t know much about another other group of people, they very well may assume that the other group of people is similar to themselves in many ways. This could let to the types of misunderstandings that you have pointed out. Hopefully, as more that theists get to know atheists and find information in the media and online about atheism the more they will learn, the better things will get.
LikeLike
Great post!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi there,
Thanks for an interesting post.
Something that I thought of while reading it is that, while ‘atheist’ simply means ‘someone who doesn’t believe in god/s’, it also has taken on an almost political connotations these days. For instance when I was an atheist I was a ‘HECK YEAH DAWKINS T-shirt wearing type’ of atheists. One that forcefully didn’t believe and wanted other to know that fact. My husband, on the other hand, doesn’t believe in god at all but also doesn’t call himself an atheist. He just…doesn’t believe in god. He feels no need to label himself as such.
Not sure where I’m going with this but, as you pointed out, it’s a spectrum, as is any other body of people who share (or don’t share) a belief system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Eva,
Welcome to Skeptic Mom! I am glad you liked my post. Thank you for taking the time to read it and comment on it.
I absolutely agree that there is a spectrum of non-belief (and belief). There are people who reject the label atheist but would agree with many other people who take on the label. There are people who don’t believe in any gods but use a religious label because they identify with the culture related to the label, and more.
I hope you will continue to follow Skeptic Mom and offer your opinion when you have a comment to add.
Thank you!
LikeLike
Excellent post.
“Belief” means different things to both camps. In my experience, when religious people use it, what they really mean is “faith.” That’s what I believe Christ Centered Teaching was getting at when he asked how we can ever be sure of something. A lot of religious people defend their faith on the grounds of scientific uncertainty–that since there is room for error in any experiment or new evidence could one day be discovered, you can’t ever arrive at any concrete conclusions using science. Therefore, all atheists use faith and belief just as much as religious folks.
When an atheist says “I believe in evolution” or “I believe in the Big Bang” we aren’t saying that we have faith in those theories, which is what I suspect a lot of religious people hear. We’re saying that there is sufficient evidence and data to lead to a specific conclusion. Atheist use of the word “believe” creates this false equivalency between religion and science in the mind of the religious. They think we have as much faith in science as they have faith in God.
That’s not the case, obviously. I don’t need faith or belief in something I can observe, measure, and test. Nobody would say that they have faith in gravity of that they “believe” that 2+2=4.
At the end of the day, it’s part semantics, but it’s also part psychology. Uncertainty is welcome in science, but it can’t exist in religion. In all of my interactions with people who are deeply religious, they can’t seem to reconcile the certainty of their faith with the uncertainty of the physical universe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello ryan59497,
Welcome to Skeptic Mom! Thank you for taking the time to read my post and participate in the discussion. I also appreciate the compliment. 🙂
You made some really good points.
For me, I don’t want to just “know” something is true, I want it to really be true. And, if evidence surfaces that points another direction I want to keep my mind open enough to be able to judge whether I should change my beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve always said that if there was evidence of a supreme being, scientists would probably be the first ones interested. We’re a curious lot by nature. And since we go where the data take us, we don’t mind shifting our worldview as necessary (such things happen frequently in science).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Skeptic Mom, interesting article and we’ll written I might add.
I think that most of the comments theists make towards atheists is based on them simply not knowing that much about atheism (myself included) likewise comments made by atheists towards, let’s say, Christians are made due to the lack of knowledge on the subject. Like the comment made about “diddling kiddies” for example, one atheist makes a comment like that and suddenly all atheists are branded as ignorant because that is not what happens in most churches.
On the flip side you can read about how Hitler was an atheist and we Christians are threatened by that so we make negative comments and then all Christians are labeled ignorant.
So if there is war going on between atheists and theists, I suggest we all resort to our own moral compass and we can have a civilized debate on ethics and theology, religion and the lack thereof.
Also the comment about atheists not having a moral compass is one made by theists who would like to argue that one can only assume the moral compass of one’s God and if atheists have no God than they have no moral compass, for the record I am a Christian, I draw my morals from the New Testament, but that doesn’t mean that all people who claim to be Christian have a good compass the same way not all atheists have a good compass.
I would love to see both sides of this so called war come to a truce, stop using negative comments to convince each other that our morals are better.
If I equate all atheists to Hitler and one atheist equates all Christians to be kiddie fiddlers how are we going to move forward in a society that we are all a part of.
Not to turn this into a plea, but let’s stop saying things “use small words” Christians are not dumb.
I for one like to debate as much as the next guy, but the key to a good debate is to keep personal attacks out of it.
So let’s give respect to one another.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello John407640,
Welcome to Skeptic Mom! Thank you for your comments. I am glad you enjoyed the article and I appreciate the compliment!
I absolutely agree that misunderstandings between atheists and theists cause difficulties. I hope that this article gave you some insight into it. That is one of the reasons that I value the discussion. Unfortunately, having a discussion is not always easy.
I want to thank you for taking the time to try to gain a better understanding of atheism. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on this blog. Of course, I cannot answer for all atheists, but I can at least give you my opinion.
While I cannot speak for the commenter who wrote about the moral compass, but the way I understood the comment about “diddling kiddies” was not that anyone thinks that is happening in every church, but more that is having the “moral compass” of god (or the bible, or religion, etc.) is not preventing those types of things from happening. It is happening in a number of churches and some of those churches are covering up the crime. And it is not just the Catholic Church. There are news item upon news item of that sort of thing in various religions. And, that’s just the clergy. I am not saying that there are no good religious people. There are many. And I think most atheists would agree. I think the point the commenter was trying to make is that being religious doesn’t make it more likely that a person will behave morally.
I didn’t completely follow the point you were trying to make about Hitler but I think it had something to do with you don’t assume all atheists are evil. If that was your point, I appreciate that, but in the future you might want to choose a different example, such as Stalin. Hitler’s speeches and writing suggest he was a theist, not an atheist. There are many examples. Here are some from Mein Kampf, http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm
I also don’t really want there to be any type of “war” between atheists and theists. I think that sometimes each side does feel like there is a metaphorical war. I can best speak from my position – When I see things like religious teachers in public schools handing out Bibles in class or telling the little kids that they have saddened Jesus if they aren’t Christian or little boys being turned away from Boy Scouts because they have atheist parents or elected officials denying climate change because they believe their god gave us dominion over the earth and he would allow the earth to be destroyed, and many other examples, it does feel like there is a fight to be taken on. The term war is a hyperbole and I probably wouldn’t use to the term because I wouldn’t want anyone to think I am out to eliminate those with differing views. But I do feel that there are things we need to stand up for and I can understand why some refer to it as a war.
I am all for giving respect to others. I will try to give at least as much respect to someone as they give me. For example, you have been very respectful and I have tried to be respectful back. I hope that I have achieved that in your mind as well.
Thank you again for participating in this discussion. I hope that you will continue posting on this blog and that can help led to a better understanding for all of us.
LikeLike
Okay then.
Do you know anything for sure ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess it depends on what you mean by “for sure.” If you mean absolute certainty, I suspect that none of us know anything to that level, even if we think we do. I suppose we could all be living in the Matrix. However, I do think there are things that we can be reasonably certain are true based on evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am sure Jesus Christ loves mankind, created the universe, gave us the Bible, That He is what life is ultimately about, and I will see His face some day.
Origin, morality, meaning, and destiny. The four biggest questions we all have to confront have been answered for the Christian. Having the central questions answered gives great peace. Everything can fall apart and Christ keeps these firm, solid, and absolute.
LikeLike
And why are you sure of these things? What are you basing your certainty on?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Archeological and historical evidence for the Bible. Scientific evidence that correlates with Biblical accounts. Logical evidence and coherence of all those with transcendent claims both prophetic and in principle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello again,
So, are you saying that you also value scientific evidence? What type of scientific and archeological evidence persuaded you that the bible is correct?
Also, just we can understand where you are coming from – do you take the Bible literally? Do you believe it is perfect? (I’m only asking because I have met many types of Christians with many differing views of the claims in the Bible).
LikeLiked by 1 person
DNA is a language at our core. God spoke everything into existence.
The Dead sea scrolls and the Codex for the New Testament are the Archeological.
Historical evidence is in Joseph as and others
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Big Bang was in the Bible book of Genesis and proven in the 6th by a Catholic Preist/ Physicist. And the then scientific community resisted it because it also gave credence to Christ beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And, what evidence would make you decide that the Bible is not correct?
LikeLike
Is there anything about your beliefs that you would like to share with us?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know what I can share that you can appreciate to any degree, given the fact that we have no mutual base of agreement for foundational starting point.
Nothing to build upon.
LikeLike
OK. I just wanted to make sure that you felt that you had an opportunity to share your opinion. (And I see now that that you had shared some of your beliefs already. I didn’t see that comment when I invited you to share your beliefs.)
Thanks for participating in the discussion. Have a great day!
LikeLike
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So this version of Going Nuclear is, in truth, almost always a ploy. Those who use it don’t usually believe what they’re saying about reason. They say it only to raise enough dust and confusion to make quick their escape.”
Good read. Thanks.
But isn’t this self defeating if Truth is the goal?
LikeLike
Is winning a debate and saving face your real goal ? Or do you really want to know if God is real, we all have a Creator who loves us, and is the answer to all our questions concerning life and the hereafter?
LikeLike
If there were gods who clearly presented themselves and interacted with the world in some measurable way, there would be no need for any debates, right? There wouldn’t be any question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He does. The only question is are we receptive? We can see, feel, and hear God and our reasoning can grasp principles that all point in convergence to God.
LikeLike
Really? It sounds like a really bad excuse. BTW, when I said a measurable way, I meant an objectively measurable way — not “I just feel it” or “I just know” kind of a way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The first there seconds of the Big Bang aka fine tuning of the universe. Are you familiar with the fine tuning metrics?
LikeLike
I don’t find it very convincing.
LikeLike
How about DNA. A language at the core of our being. The Bible says that “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and all things were created by him.” (The Gospel of John chp. 1) Coincidence ?
LikeLike
Hello CTC,
Are you serious about this? I don’t mean to be rude but, honestly, this sounds like a joke. So, I am beginning to wonder if you have been “yanking my chain” this whole time. I mean, first, you do realize that DNA isn’t actually a language, right? And wasn’t the “Word” mentioned in John supposed to be referring to Jesus, not DNA?
Would you be equally willing to accept that the Bible isn’t Word of God if there is something in it, that is not in accordance with science?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Skeptic Mom. DNA can only be referred to as code, gnome, genetic sequence and such all refer to a four letter alphabet language. This is not news. And it’s not a joke. Information with order equals intelligence. Each strand of DNA contains 3.2 Billion bits of information. All the scientific community nows this. No joke.
LikeLike
Jesus is God incarnate. Yes, He is the Word made flesh that dwelt among us as I quoted from John’s Gospel, of whom all things were created. This coincides with Genesis in the Bible where God “said, let us create man in our image”. I’m saying that DNA is literally a detailed account of what God said when He created man.
In DNA we are witnessing through science the transcending of the natural realm into physical evidence for the miraculous.
LikeLike
DNA is a language. Today’s news. “Chinese Scientists “Edit” Embryonic Genetic Code”. Information with order and meaning is the language of living things. Thought this was timely.
LikeLike
Hello CTC,
First, saying that DNA is a language, doesn’t make it so. It is a complex molecule, not a set of words. The easiest analogy that scientists can use to explain the role DNA plays in genetics is code. Therefore, it is often used. But, it’s still a molecule. If you truly want to understand DNA, you should really be having your discussions with organic chemists and evolutionary biologists. But, until then, you can start at learning more at Talk Origins. Here is their response to your claim http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html.
Regardless, it seems like you already believed the Christian Bible first and then whenever you find a tenuous link between a passage and a modern scientific discovery, you grab onto it with both hands and decide it that those few dubious links prove the veracity of the entire Bible. I have seen similar claims made my Muslims trying to prove the veracity of the Koran.
Would you be willing to except the flip side of your claim? If you were to discover something in the Bible that was incongruent with modern scientific discoveries, would you be consistent and accept that the Bible is not accurate?
LikeLike
If DNA is code as you say, and I do agree it is, then it is information with order and that always equals intelligence as in Intelligent design.
I do wonder how you can believe we may all exist in some kind of pre-programmed Matrix existence and such as plausible, yet not see that the Matrix would need a Programmer.
As I am positing, God programmed our Coded DNA.
Perhaps you don’t really want God to exist?
LikeLike
Either you have misunderstood everything I have said or you are just blatantly misrepresented what I said. I did not say any of those things that you have attributed to me.
LikeLike
Okay. The Matrix comments were all just for fun? I’ll buy that then. But I am trying to have a serious conversation, really. I’m also trying to establish that some things can be known with various degrees of certainty, and therefore established as truth that a reasonable person can believe in.
LikeLike
You claim that you are trying to have a serious conversation, but that seems doubtful considering the fact that you keep twisting my words. I wasn’t having fun; I was making a point. So, either it went over your head or you are deliberately twisting what I am saying. I suspect the latter, especially since you had just misrepresented what I said about DNA.
LikeLike
I did quote cut and paste, Francis Collins from his own book in his own words and Bill Clinton’s. It’s pretty straight forward, clear, and to the point. They agree that DNA is language.
LikeLike
That’s’ fine, but then don’t say you “reached out” to a researcher because that implies you attempted to have a conversation with him. I see you have changed it to “went to” which implies you met with him. Also, it is deceptive to say that you “took my advice” because that wasn’t what I had just advised you to do.
LikeLike
Hmm. What about the centralized subject I brought up? Can you or will you think critically about the leading genetic researcher’s statements that DNA is a language?
BTW- I also referenced Genesis in the Bible and how it records God spoke using language to create all things. I also reference John and “The Word” obviously because they coincide with DNA language.
LikeLike
I took your advice and went to the leader of the human genome project, Francis Collins, to see if he thinks DNA is a language. See below. It’s long sorry. (Plus source.)
“As the leader of the international Human Genome Project, which had labored mightily over more than a decade to reveal this DNA sequence, I stood beside President Bill Clinton in the East Room of the White House…
Clinton’s speech began by comparing this human sequence map to the map that Meriwether Lewis had unfolded in front of President Thomas Jefferson in that very room nearly two hundred years earlier.
Clinton said, “Without a doubt, this is the most important, most wondrous map ever produced by humankind.” But the part of his speech that most attracted public attention jumped from the scientific perspective to the spiritual. “Today,” he said, “we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.”
Was I, a rigorously trained scientist, taken aback at such a blatantly religious reference by the leader of the free world at a moment such as this? Was I tempted to scowl or look at the floor in embarrassment? No, not at all. In fact I had worked closely with the president’s speechwriter in the frantic days just prior to this announcement, and had strongly endorsed the inclusion of this paragraph.
When it came time for me to add a few words of my own, I echoed this sentiment: “It’s a happy day for the world. It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.”
What was going on here? Why would a president and a scientist, charged with announcing a milestone in biology and medicine, feel compelled to invoke a connection with God? Aren’t the scientific and spiritual worldviews antithetical, or shouldn’t they at least avoid appearing in the East Room together? What were the reasons for invoking God in these two speeches? Was this poetry? Hypocrisy? A cynical attempt to curry favor from believers, or to disarm those who might criticize this study of the human genome as reducing humankind to machinery? No. Not for me. Quite the contrary, for me the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.”
Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
LikeLike
It sounds like you quoted from a book, not had a conversation with an organic chemist or an evolutionary biologist as I suggested. I already stated that many scientists use those types of terms metaphorically when trying to explain DNA to laymen. I ‘m sure even Collins realizes that DNA is a molecule.
If you really are interested in learning about DNA, your time would be better spent having these conversations with those types of individuals than discussing DNA with me. You might try connecting with one at a university in your area or interacting with a chemist or biologist writing his or her science blog.
Let’s say for arguments sake that DNA was a real language and even proved there was were gods or a god (which it doesn’t). It wouldn’t do one thing to prove it was your god who created DNA.
LikeLike
Granted. All I have is the convergence of ancient Biblical writ that just happens to coincide with modern science to an incredible degree. DNA has recently been used as a computer hard drive storage and retrieval system for information and performed far better with more capacity than anything purely man made. If our intelligence and our code, language, information with order, can be stored on DNA then why can you not concede this is startling evidence for God?
Honestly, most skeptics and atheists, if they were totally honest, would probably admit they just don’t want God to exist.
LikeLike
It’s really hard to take someone seriously who not only views the discover of DNA as a connect to usage of the term “word” in the Christian Bible (which contains 783,137 words in the KJ version) referring to something else completely as a coincidence to an “incredible degree.”
LikeLike
You defer me to consult experts then you denounce out of hand the quotes I post in your comments from the leader in that field of scientific research?
LikeLike
Once again, you have completely misrepresented what I have said. Either you are unable to or unwilling to have an intellectual discussion on this issue. I’m done.
LikeLike
Your subject. Your blog.
LikeLike
Have a good day, CTC. It was fun, mostly. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. Although it seems we never really wrestled with the ideas, only each other’s positioning in a debate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you also believe that science is empirical enough to believe what it proves? Is scientific evidence all we have to go on to be sure of anything?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Christ Centered Teaching,
Welcome to Skeptic Mom! Thank you for taking the time to read this post and to respond!
First, I should let you know that I am not sure what you mean by “…science is empirical enough to believe what it proves.” However, I will try to answer what you are asking based on your second sentence. If I have misunderstood your question, please let me know.
I should clarify that I don’t know if absolute certainty exists. That being said, we do often form beliefs and opinions without being able to have all of the information. For me, personally, I would say that the type of evidence required would depend on the claim. If it is a mundane claim, such as you telling me that you have a mouse in your house, I would probably believe you without any requiring anything further. However, if you told me that you had a ghost in your house, I am not likely to be as easily convinced. I would need some pretty compelling evidence before I believed that claim. Scientific evidence that ghosts exist would be a great start.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m told all the time that I have no moral compass – but then again I’m not diddling kiddies in the back of the church so what do I know.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hello Myatheistlife,
Welcome to Skeptic Mom! Thank you for taking the time to read this post and comment on it!
No moral compass – Yep, I’ve heard that one, too. I think that reveals a lack of understanding about morality in general and, in most cases, where they derive their own morals from.
How do you respond to theists when you are told that you have no moral compass?
LikeLike
Sometimes I take the time to explain to them what the law of reciprocity is and how it can work. Sometimes I explain to them that picking and choosing what parts of their holy book they follow is using a set of morals that is not advocated by their book. It’s easy to show people how morality works. What is difficult is getting them to understand what they’ve been shown. It’s like showing them magic tricks based on chemistry – you can show them over and over again but they can’t get their heads around chemistry… it’s all just magic. Given that they will choose their own favorite brand of magic. It’s a Sisyphean task.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It can be pretty frustrating, can’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, indeed. I try to use small words and explain their jesus speak in my terms for them… sigh
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even if they don’t understand what you are saying right then and even if they never agree with you, I think it is a great conversation to have and it could make an impact on them in the future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I run with that idea all the time. You don’t have to win every battle to win the war and I’m not confused about what the war is all about. I deserve the same respect as they claim to deserve. When non-theist opinion is valued as highly as theist opinion we will again be equal. At that point everyone has to evaluate all the ideas the same way. In that light, religion cannot win.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that the more voices we have out there, the better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is absolutely the case. When we are seen as neighbors and business owners and the people they know and like, it becomes terribly difficult to demonize atheists and keep them compartmentalized as outsiders. Then the discussion will get real
LikeLiked by 1 person