it looks like you're committing the same destructive error that religious groups throughout history have committed to bloody effect. In other words, you invite back into atheism the same exclusionary tactics that atheism claims it does not have.Again, atheism doesn't claim anything.
Atheists often make claims.
There's a subtle difference there that seems to elude you.
Atheism doesn't makes those claims, atheists do.
Similarly, religion doesn't make those claims, religious people do.
Yes, the more correct statement is "you invite back into atheism the same exclusionary tactics that atheists claim it does not have."
Nothing there has eluded me.
Your worldview is not my worldview
Yes they are.
I would imagine a large swath of agreement between any two modern english speaking westerners that would relegate religion to no more relevant than which sports team you follow. 99% of people have the following logic when it comes to religion.
My deity[s] are good
X is good.
Therefore my deity is for X.
X includes democracy, freedom, individual rights, charity, kindness, helping people..
and it is based on how we should view things--which shapes how we think the truth is.
Again, wrong.
In your daily life you operate exactly like the atheist: science works, you can prove a negative by looking and not finding, you don't accept "well you can't disprove it so its true" as a viable line of argument.
There is only one aspect of your life where the rules change, and thats for religion.
All I ask is that you don't consider my worldview as something that must be defeated.
Thats whats so frustrating. Its something that HAS been defeated. We're just waiting for you to admit it.
Take that position, and from where I stand, it looks like you're committing the same destructive error that religious groups throughout history have committed to bloody effect.
A slide show demonstrating why you're wrong isn't remotely the same as using a side arm on you if you don't agree.
In other words, you invite back into atheism the same exclusionary tactics that atheism claims it does not have.
Atheism has an exclusive CLAIM but not methods.
it looks like you're committing the same destructive error that religious groups throughout history have committed to bloody effect. In other words, you invite back into atheism the same exclusionary tactics that atheism claims it does not have.Again, atheism doesn't claim anything.
Atheists often make claims.
There's a subtle difference there that seems to elude you.
Atheism doesn't makes those claims, atheists do.
Similarly, religion doesn't make those claims, religious people do.
Yes, the more correct statement is "you invite back into atheism the same exclusionary tactics that atheists claim it does not have."
Nothing there has eluded me.
No, there are inherent claims to religion. The premise of religions is a large number of claims.
Atheism itself is a lack of claims.
You keep putting atheism forward as some sort of unifying and linking concept, except it's not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In your daily life you operate exactly like the atheist: science works, you can prove a negative by looking and not finding, you don't accept "well you can't disprove it so its true" as a viable line of argument.
There is only one aspect of your life where the rules change, and thats for religion.
Actually, no, you can't prove a negative by looking and not finding. You can use evidence of nonexistence to develop a model of operation in which the factor is nonexistent, but that's not the same thing as proof. At the same time, we both agree that new evidence that contradicts what we believed earlier can be used to change those models--like how evidence of relativity causes us to no longer believe in a perfectly Newtonian universe.
I don't expect to understand every facet of how the universe works. I can, however, come up with mental models of how it works and use them to predict what the best thing for me to do in a given situation. If I find that those models need to change based on new information, I will. I find it unnecessary to adopt atheism for my model to operate, even though we both agree that gods (or spirits) aren't changing the rules based on their feelings towards us. You're saying it's proof they don't exist, I'm saying I don't even see a reason to ask the question; the answer won't impact my mental model.
All I ask is that you don't consider my worldview as something that must be defeated.Thats whats so frustrating. Its something that HAS been defeated. We're just waiting for you to admit it.
So, the position that the question need not be asked, that the answer to the question does not change anything, has been defeated? Why is it so important to conclude gods' nonexistence?
Because if any other group thinking anything was true behaved and caused as much suffering in the name of their belief as organized religion has, that group would have made the nazis look downright popular. Yeah, I know, Godwin. I'll live with it. Fact remains, there is a gargantuan blind spot regarding the neverending human suffering and misery religion has caused. If we can close that hole, actually holding people responsible for their actions in the name of religion, that would be the greatest achievement in history.
Similarly, religion doesn't make those claims, religious people do.
The Bible makes no claims? I must have misread it then.
The Quran and the Hadiths make no claims? Evidently I misread them as well.In contrast, "Atheism" has no founder nor foundational scripture, because all it is is a bunch of people who don't, for whatever reason, buy into those things.
I find it unnecessary to adopt atheism for my model to operate
This statement is remotely coherent if and only if your "model" consists of "Goddidit."
In any other case, "adopting atheism" is functionally meaningless.
Similarly, religion doesn't make those claims, religious people do.The Bible makes no claims? I must have misread it then.
The Quran and the Hadiths make no claims? Evidently I misread them as well.
In contrast, "Atheism" has no founder nor foundational scripture, because all it is is a bunch of people who don't, for whatever reason, buy into those things.
If religious people wrote the Bible, the Quran, and the Hadiths, then religious people are the ones making claims, not religion.
If religious people wrote the Bible, the Quran, and the Hadiths, then religious people are the ones making claims, not religion.
So, your definition of "Muslim" is "someone who disbelieves the word of Muhammed?" How does that work out for you?
If we can close that hole, actually holding people responsible for their actions in the name of religion, that would be the greatest achievement in history.
This, I totally believe and support. We are responsible for our actions, we and we alone, regardless of belief.
If religious people wrote the Bible, the Quran, and the Hadiths, then religious people are the ones making claims, not religion.So, your definition of "Muslim" is "someone who disbelieves the word of Muhammed?" How does that work out for you?
You're confusing my position (the books are written by people) with Muslims' position (the Quran is written by God). I am not Muslim, so there is no conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're confusing my position (the books are written by people) with Muslims' position (the Quran is written by God). I am not Muslim, so there is no conflict.
That's the thing -- when discussing the beliefs of Islam, it doesn't matter what you believe. It matters what Muslims believe. You don't get to tell them what Islam says -- they tell you.
You're confusing my position (the books are written by people) with Muslims' position (the Quran is written by God). I am not Muslim, so there is no conflict.That's the thing -- when discussing the beliefs of Islam, it doesn't matter what you believe. It matters what Muslims believe. You don't get to tell them what Islam says -- they tell you.
But I wasn't discussing the beliefs of Islam, I was discussing my own beliefs.
But I wasn't discussing the beliefs of Islam, I was discussing my own beliefs.
Again, it doesn't matter what you believe, when it comes to Islam. My own belief might be that Christianity is all about worshipping Ronald McDonald and throwing pies in people's faces. That's equally irrelevant to any actual discussion of Christianity or its claims, however.
Our personal beliefs about other people's religions does not in any way define the tenets of those religions.
Let me try again. I believe that people wrote the books. My reason for the belief is, in all likelihood, the same as yours.
Therefore, your challenge that I must conclude that Muslims do not believe the word of Muhammad, given that we believe the source of the books comes from the same thing, implies that you also conclude that Muslims do not believe the word of Muhammad.
Are you seriously making that claim? Because you then suggest that it's spurious. So you're really saying that you don't believe yourself. Furthermore, the specifics of what Muslims believe is immaterial. You could replace that with "Muslims believe water is wet" or some other true statement, or "Muslims believe fire is wet" or some other false statement, and nothing changes.
You just said that the conclusion from my belief, OUR belief, is false.
I think you confused yourself there, or else are mistaking a fine point of semantics as something worth debating.
Your claim is that "religions make no claims, only religious people do."
Religions, regardless of their veracity, are belief systems perpetuated by believers.
Without a belief system, you have no religion.
With a belief system, you have claims being made based on those beliefs -- again, regardless of their veracity.
Our personal beliefs about other people's religions does not in any way define the tenets of those religions.
No, my beliefs do not define the tenets. I agree. But that means that you can't turn around and say that I'm concluding that my beliefs define the tenets, because that's not true, and that's not what I said.
Religions, regardless of their veracity, are belief systems perpetuated by believers.
Without a belief system, you have no religion.
With a belief system, you have claims being made based on those beliefs -- again, regardless of their veracity.
And this is where I have trouble seeing atheism as not a belief system. A very small one, mind you, consisting of "gods don't exist" and ending there, but a belief system just the same. I also don't think that atheism is necessarily worse if it is a belief system, nor do I think it raises the status of other belief systems at odds with atheism.
And heck, we can probably run around a whole bunch by debating the meanings of "god" and "exist"...
Maybe I should just stop defending myself here, because we're running around in circles.
Actually, no, you can't prove a negative by looking and not finding.
Horsefeathers.
Have you ever pulled out into traffic? You look, don't see anything, conclude there is no car about to hit me and then pull out. You in fact risk your life on a daily basis on the logic that you can prove a negative.
]You can use evidence of nonexistence to develop a model of operation in which the factor is nonexistent, but that's not the same thing as proof.
Proof in that context is for math.
You're saying it's proof they don't exist, I'm saying I don't even see a reason to ask the question; the answer won't impact my mental model.
And if someone says that their prayers will heal their child we don't need any antibiotics, do you say 'oh well thats not my model of the universe' or "Yeah I'm going to need a security guard and a shot of penicilin in room 4..."
So, the position that the question need not be asked, that the answer to the question does not change anything, has been defeated? Why is it so important to conclude gods' nonexistence?
Because religion is at best a useless resource drain and more likely in the way of progress. Think how much more research would have gone into prolonging life/curing aging if people thought this was it.
Actually, no, you can't prove a negative by looking and not finding.
Horsefeathers.
Have you ever pulled out into traffic? You look, don't see anything, conclude there is no car about to hit me and then pull out. You in fact risk your life on a daily basis on the logic that you can prove a negative.
Have you ever been hit by a car that you thought wasn't there, but was demonstrated wrong after the fact? It happens. You look, you don't see anything, you act under the mental model that there is no car there... and then discover you're wrong. It's possible.
You can use evidence of nonexistence to develop a model of operation in which the factor is nonexistent, but that's not the same thing as proof.Proof in that context is for math.
Absolutely. Proof is for mathematics and logic. If evidence can't change one's mind about the state of the world, then--to borrow the terminology in another thread--that's wackadoo.
You're saying it's proof they don't exist, I'm saying I don't even see a reason to ask the question; the answer won't impact my mental model.And if someone says that their prayers will heal their child we don't need any antibiotics, do you say 'oh well thats not my model of the universe' or "Yeah I'm going to need a security guard and a shot of penicilin in room 4..."
I'm saying both. There's no conflict there.
So, the position that the question need not be asked, that the answer to the question does not change anything, has been defeated? Why is it so important to conclude gods' nonexistence?Because religion is at best a useless resource drain and more likely in the way of progress. Think how much more research would have gone into prolonging life/curing aging if people thought this was it.
I have no evidence that there would be more. Certainly, the development of penicillin didn't require a lack of belief in the afterlife. But I'm also not saying that one's beliefs are an excuse to allow for increased suffering on the planet. In fact, that's what my position is all about--it doesn't matter if there's a god or not, we should be looking to reduce suffering here and now. Is there a god? Is there not? I don't care, just give the kid the penicillin already!
I've got a question towards the questions of the thread.
Why convert to an established belief system?
Why copy paste the beliefs of others and other cultures into your mind? Is it because of a need to belong? A desire to immerse oneself in foreign mysteries? A want to be a part of a hip community or a strong group at this time?
Why not be value creating and fashion your own beliefs, do your own thinking and create your own body of thought. Nietzsche spoke of the merits of being value creating, of escaping what you have been raised to believe and what is out there trying to draw you into various allegiances. Be your own religion, your own prophet, your own god. This point is crucial - by doing so you escape being a slave to others.
Escape the tangled mess that is the current religions. That is a faith worth following, and it is a truly heretical path for brave individualists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you ever been hit by a car that you thought wasn't there, but was demonstrated wrong after the fact? It happens. You look, you don't see anything, you act under the mental model that there is no car there... and then discover you're wrong. It's possible.
And yet you do it anyway. You believe in your senses enough to risk your life on it... why? How?
Absolutely. Proof is for mathematics and logic. If evidence can't change one's mind about the state of the world, then--to borrow the terminology in another thread--that's wackadoo.
And the evidence is that they don't exist, and yes, you can reach that conclussion about a negative the same way you do every time you pull into traffic.
In fact, that's what my position is all about--it doesn't matter if there's a god or not, we should be looking to reduce suffering here and now. Is there a god? Is there not? I don't care, just give the kid the penicillin already!
If you accept the position that there might be a god then the Amish/christiansci parents have a legitimate belief. You've effectively taken god (or at least there version of it) as disproved in order to negate their objections.
And yet you do it anyway. You believe in your senses enough to risk your life on it... why? How?
Have you ever been hit by a car that you thought wasn't there, but was demonstrated wrong after the fact? It happens. You look, you don't see anything, you act under the mental model that there is no car there... and then discover you're wrong. It's possible.
Because of my mental model. My mental model is not proof. It is my interpretation of the way the world is, based on my experiences and perception. I know I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I'm not, and decide to act as if I'm right. Really, insisting that this constitutes proof means that when the car you don't see comes around the corner, you must discount it.
I accept that there is a potential difference between what is true and what I think is true. I accept that I just might be wrong. It doesn't stop me from making decisions based on what I perceive, based on what seems to be true to me.
In fact, that's what my position is all about--it doesn't matter if there's a god or not, we should be looking to reduce suffering here and now. Is there a god? Is there not? I don't care, just give the kid the penicillin already!If you accept the position that there might be a god then the Amish/christiansci parents have a legitimate belief. You've effectively taken god (or at least there version of it) as disproved in order to negate their objections.
Yes, they have a legitimate belief. They came to that belief from what they experienced, from what they learned. I'm not going to look at them and say, no, they're crazy. I'm going to look at them and say they are reasonable people who came to a reasonable decision based on some skewed experiences that they had that I didn't. I am going to look them in the eye and recognize that we are equals. And then I am going to give the kid the penicillin anyway. I am going to call them legitimate, and I am going to fight them.
I will not demonize them. I will not think they are stupid. I will not think they are crazy. But I will still take a stand against them. It's easy to go against someone because you think they are somehow less of a person. It justifies your anger. It means that you can fight them and still feel like a good person. It is as if they are just goblins, it's okay to slay them. But they aren't. I believe that each of them has just as much right to live and thrive that I do. Furthermore, I believe that without my efforts, they might shift the standard worldview in their direction, and it will work and will be supported by smart, powerful people, and it's not just a bunch of dumb hicks, it's not a bunch of THEM, some group other than US.
Demonization is the gateway to hate. And if you insist on demonizing them, I'll fight you, too. And I'll still give the child the penicillin.
Basically, I accept that I may be wrong in my beliefs, but I am going to believe them anyway. I have no evidence to suggest I'm wrong, but I recognize I am a finite creature, I cannot know everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a question towards the questions of the thread.
Why convert to an established belief system?
Why copy paste the beliefs of others and other cultures into your mind? Is it because of a need to belong? A desire to immerse oneself in foreign mysteries? A want to be a part of a hip community or a strong group at this time?
Why not be value creating and fashion your own beliefs, do your own thinking and create your own body of thought. Nietzsche spoke of the merits of being value creating, of escaping what you have been raised to believe and what is out there trying to draw you into various allegiances. Be your own religion, your own prophet, your own god. This point is crucial - by doing so you escape being a slave to others.
Escape the tangled mess that is the current religions. That is a faith worth following, and it is a truly heretical path for brave individualists.
That's what it seems like I'm doing, apparently. I certainly feel alone.
I've got a question towards the questions of the thread.
Why convert to an established belief system?
Why re-invent the wheel?
Most of the established belief systems have had a lot of work put into them to trace out the consequences of the core beliefs. If you roll-your-own, you're likely to come up with something inconsistent and incoherent, even by the undemanding standards of Christianity.....
I've got a question towards the questions of the thread.
Why convert to an established belief system?
Why copy paste the beliefs of others and other cultures into your mind? Is it because of a need to belong? A desire to immerse oneself in foreign mysteries? A want to be a part of a hip community or a strong group at this time?
Why not be value creating and fashion your own beliefs, do your own thinking and create your own body of thought. Nietzsche spoke of the merits of being value creating, of escaping what you have been raised to believe and what is out there trying to draw you into various allegiances. Be your own religion, your own prophet, your own god. This point is crucial - by doing so you escape being a slave to others.
Escape the tangled mess that is the current religions. That is a faith worth following, and it is a truly heretical path for brave individualists.
So, I'll give a personal viewpoint on this, versus a debate style. For me the problem with this viewpoint is that it still rests on the old religious style of thinking. Explaining the unexplained through supernatural concepts with no bearing on reality. Superstition really.
Now, I engage in acts of superstition from time to time, but they're minor and relatively inconsequential to my life. Many of them I've largely outgrown as well. Even then, I tend to attribute them to the ephemeral concept of luck, than to some sort of cohesive concept or being.
I do believe there are concepts within religion that are useful. I've had long debates on the need to discover all of them and understand them fully before we discard religion entirely on these boards before. People felt I was pro-indoctrination quite regularly when that wasn't what I was advocating at all.
At best, Western religion is a collection of children's stories that adults carry with them for their entire lives. The human brain grasps concepts much stronger when it is attached to a story, even if the story makes no sense at all. In fact, that's a technique used by people who compete in memory competitions. The brain wants to remember stories. We can learn the truth of what is useful without the trappings or belief in the supernatural.
Lastly, the world is pretty amazing as it is. I feel no need to add something even more amazing on top of it. I would agree with your sentiment if you didn't use the language equivalent of religious trappings.
I've got a question towards the questions of the thread.
Why convert to an established belief system?
Why re-invent the wheel?
None of the ones in the store have enough eagle.
I will not demonize them.
I will not think they are stupid.
I will not think they are crazy.
And I'll still give the child the penicillin.
Do you not see the contradiction here? You are so sure of your beliefs and so dismissive of theirs that you're willing to use force for your beliefs. Of course you think they're crazy or stupid or else you would actually respect their beliefs. Even the hypothetical action demonstrates what you think better than a completely hollow professed respect.
I've got a question towards the questions of the thread.
Why convert to an established belief system?
Why copy paste the beliefs of others and other cultures into your mind? Is it because of a need to belong? A desire to immerse oneself in foreign mysteries? A want to be a part of a hip community or a strong group at this time?
Any or all of the above. Most of us are, after all, herd animals at heart.
There are people who create their own beliefs -- my mother did, for example -- but those folks tend not to get as much press as the many followers of organized religions, for obvious reasons.
Of course you think they're crazy or stupid or else you would actually respect their beliefs.
That does not follow.
I can believe that someone came by their beliefs honestly, that they are not mentally deficient, while still refusing to go along with those beliefs.
I don't even have to prove them wrong. It sounds like you might, that you can't accept a position unless you can prove to yourself it is the correct one.
But I don't, and you're just going to have to live with the fact that that's how I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what it seems like I'm doing, apparently. I certainly feel alone.
I admit I lost interest in the whole "Let's prove Wrong John Silver wrong" back-and-forth almost as soon as it began, so you may have mentioned a personal belief that puts you way out in left field, but I don't think you're alone at all. Lots of people abstain from personal belief in the supernatural, while admitting the possibility that any given religion might be true.
As I mentioned a few dozen posts ago, this is called agnosticism, and it's about as [un]common as strict atheism.
I've got a question towards the questions of the thread.
Why convert to an established belief system?
Why re-invent the wheel?
Most of the established belief systems have had a lot of work put into them to trace out the consequences of the core beliefs. If you roll-your-own, you're likely to come up with something inconsistent and incoherent, even by the undemanding standards of Christianity.....
Wow, I hadn't considered this because it seems to me it'd be relatively easy to come up with a consistent and coherent faith. I mean the reason that established religions are so schizophrenic is because each one is a compilation of stories from hundreds of years and thousands of people, right? I suppose there may be exceptions like Islam, but I think this calls for a thought experiment!
I declare myself an initiate of Azha, the God of the First World, which is perfect and exists upon a different plane of existence from our own. The world we live in is the Second World, which is a fundamentally flawed echo of the First World due to the lax care of Rex Mundi, the Corruptor. Though Azha is powerless in the Second World, Azha's power is absolute in the First World -- which, fortunately for us, is where our souls are bound after death.
I could go further, but I'm starting simple.
Sounds like you cribbed some notes off of the gnostic kid.
Okay... Azha also wants us to serve him, and make things better. Rex Mundi wants to rule us, and make things worse.
I've got a question towards the questions of the thread.
Why convert to an established belief system?
Why copy paste the beliefs of others and other cultures into your mind? Is it because of a need to belong? A desire to immerse oneself in foreign mysteries? A want to be a part of a hip community or a strong group at this time?
Why not be value creating and fashion your own beliefs, do your own thinking and create your own body of thought. Nietzsche spoke of the merits of being value creating, of escaping what you have been raised to believe and what is out there trying to draw you into various allegiances. Be your own religion, your own prophet, your own god. This point is crucial - by doing so you escape being a slave to others.
Escape the tangled mess that is the current religions. That is a faith worth following, and it is a truly heretical path for brave individualists.
I can't speak for every religious person, but for me at least, it's not about copy-pasting; it's about sharing a common faith that I came to realise was what I truly believe in. The religious aspect is the cultural expression of that shared belief.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... Azha also wants us to serve him, and make things better. Rex Mundi wants to rule us, and make things worse.
This reminds me of something.
Sounds like you cribbed some notes off of the gnostic kid.
Nothing is original. :p
Even when you think of something totally independently of others, someone somewhere is sure to have thought of it first!
I do see how you made the comparison with Gnosticism though. ;)
Okay... Azha also wants us to serve him, and make things better. Rex Mundi wants to rule us, and make things worse.
As the founder and first High Priest of Azhaism, I must correct you. Doing good deeds and making this world a better place pleases Azha, but Azha has no need of worship, so ritualistic 'service' to Azha is secondary to service to earthly life. (And to extraterrestrial life, when we encounter those!)
It's tempting to think that Rex Mundi is some kind of intentionally malicious demon-god, plotting to dominate the world. But the truth is that Rex Mundi's evil, like most evil in his flawed World, is incidental. Rex Mundi is simply careless of His creation, the Second World; he allowed natural evils like disease, madness, and natural disasters to exist from the start. Rex Mundi left us flawed on the genetic level, and placed us in a world often lacking in the very basic necessities of life. At worst, all the world's evils are a sort of perverse drama which amuses Rex Mundi, the way that a tragic tale amuses the bard and his audience.
This is important to remember because few evils are of the overtly RAWR I'M EVIL sort. No evil exists without cause, and fighting it requires wisdom and restraint more often than a torch and pitchfork.
Now that I have corrected your heresy, go forth and make this world a little more like the First World, as Azha wishes.
... ;)
Now that I have corrected your heresy, go forth and make this world a little more like the First World, as Azha wishes.
... ;)
If I am a heretic, then I pronounce you doubly so! I, the First Speaker of the True Faith of Azhaism, denounce you and your lies in the name of Great Azha! Repent, before Azha tosses you into the Pit of Eternal Mold!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I am a heretic, then I pronounce you doubly so! I, the First Speaker of the True Faith of Azhaism, denounce you and your lies in the name of Great Azha! Repent, before Azha tosses you into the Pit of Eternal Mold!Now that I have corrected your heresy, go forth and make this world a little more like the First World, as Azha wishes.
... ;)
Every breath you take is a sin!
So saith Azha, who demands holy war to cleanse the Second World of you and your heretical ilk!
...So that's how sectarian violence begins. Hm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I am a heretic, then I pronounce you doubly so! I, the First Speaker of the True Faith of Azhaism, denounce you and your lies in the name of Great Azha! Repent, before Azha tosses you into the Pit of Eternal Mold!Now that I have corrected your heresy, go forth and make this world a little more like the First World, as Azha wishes.
... ;)
Every breath you take is a sin!
So saith Azha, who demands holy war to cleanse the Second World of you and your heretical ilk!
...So that's how sectarian violence begins. Hm.
Hello. I'm from the Gozerian Jihad. I've been sent to purge all infidels. Are you one who accepts the marshmellowy goodness of Gozer the Gozerian?
And this is how holy wars begin :P
Of course you think they're crazy or stupid or else you would actually respect their beliefs.That does not follow.
Yes it does.
Your tolerance of their beliefs is nothing but lip service.
How would you treat a crazy person who thinks that the needle has a CIA mind control device? Strap em down and inject them
How do you treat a religious person that thinks medical intervention is a sin? Same way.
I can believe that someone came by their beliefs honestly, that they are not mentally deficient, while still refusing to go along with those beliefs.
You're doing more than that. You're not just disagreeing with them, you're dismissing their concerns as frivolous.
I don't even have to prove them wrong. It sounds like you might, that you can't accept a position unless you can prove to yourself it is the correct one.
Yup. 8th grade geometry teacher told me all the angles in a triangle had to add up to 180 degrees. I spent the rest of the class trying to draw the exception.
But I don't, and you're just going to have to live with the fact that that's how I think.
I think you're going to have to accept the fact that you're a lot closer to the mean dismissive atheists you're trying to separate from than you think.