Religious Faith as Evidence, is an Intellectual Reasoning Error
To offer faith as evidence, is to offer an intellectual reasoning error as evidence, as having a large amount of faith or no faith is only a change in feelings not some amount of evidence. Faith is the thing you do when you don’t really want to know. Science is the thing you do when you realize faith is not evidence of any kind it’s biased believing regardless of the evidence. And atheism is the thing you do when one trusts the facts of science and the logical limits of reality because of rationalistic and/or skeptic philosophy is of greater value over the wishful thinking faith without facts most claimed gods and religions seem to demand. Therefore, it must be understood that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is simply not worth believing in. And if you feel it must take faith to see a thing as real you have already admitted such a thing is not part of reality. Literally having faith is strong belief in that which by is very nature, involving a lack of supporting evidence should require strong doubt.
Faith is not Reason
I don’t doubt faith, as I am saying it’s a non-answer, as it is not proof of any evidence of reality but is generally motivated from some unjustified emotionalism and feelings, it does not help know what is true. Any god is a magical non-natural cause thing (or it’s not then god like) and thus no god is rational.
I don’t reject faith because I am skeptical of its attachment to truth, instead I reject faith because I am rational and have the understanding that faith offers no warrant or justification for truth. So, to better define this I am a rationalist always seeking reason not skeptic looking to doubt. Yes, I am not antiseptic, it is just not my preference to know things nor is doubtfulness why I am an atheist but rather that Belief is god’s is not rationally justified but is justified to be regarded as completely irrational and not even worthy of rational doubt. Therefore, I seek what and only a way is persuaded by valid and reliable justification of reason and evidence as my main thinking guides and only secondary to o that doubt if needed.
Therefore, I do not consider myself as a skeptic in my way of processing the reality or truth in the world and although I must see the rational of doubt. However, I do consider myself a rationalist who will use methodological skepticism when it is responsible to do so, but then I do so because of its reasonableness rather than do to being compelled by skepticism.
I was asked what is a good book on how I use rationalism?
Well, I don’t really think the way I do because of an “atheist” book. However, I would say that these books really furthered my thinking. Here are a few books:
1.”Emotional Intelligence” by Daniel Goleman,
that helped me conceptualize irrational thinking responses as an emotional hijacking.
2.”Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict” By Donna Hicks,
helped me see how to better manage my prosocial interactions with greater ethical humanitarian empathy.
3.“The Soul of Liberty: The Universal Ethic of Freedom and Human Rights” by Fred E. Foldvary,
that helped pushed me to be a universal ethicist, not in a part of my life but as a driving goal of my life as well as a demanding rational mindset to master thinking,
4.“Becoming Naturally Therapeutic: A Return to the True Essence of Helping” by Jacquelyn Small,
seeing that we often have trained out of our self the ability to be naturally humanistic thus therapeutic and it assisted me in wanting to increase my and others ability to be more benevolent, as I am always striving for more humanity and human flushing.
5.“The New Science of Axiological Psychology” by Leon Pomeroy,
which helped turned me into an into an “axiological” atheist, though it is not an atheist book, stated in its beginning pages that morality was too important to leave in the hands of religion; thus, is what helped turn me from calling myself a spiritual atheist (mysticism atheist) into an “axiological” atheist (value theorist atheist or value science atheist). I used this unreasonable term as I was an ex-christian and could at that point not completely think beyond the anti-rationalism vale I had been raised with; the even though I had dropped all god beliefs the other nonsense thinking still blended in at all the edges of my thinking and perceptions, thinking one had to have something mystical to be ethical or humanistic as a life persuasion, I was calling myself a spiritual atheist thinking one had to think mystical to yes, I was once so misinformed).