[moved from C&E] Religions call people Atheists.

[Wiccan_Child]

That's a wild assertion. Firstly, 'religion' and God are not mutually exclusive, but people have a hard time accepting one free of the other. Therefore, if there were no religions there could still be Atheists.

I don't think you understand what 'mutually exclusive' means, but you're right: there would still be atheists without religion.

Secondly, I disagree that 'Atheism' is the default state. Atheists have always been the minority and still are.

So? That doesn't mean atheism isn't the default, just that it isn't as common as theism - indeed, atheism is, on average, the second largest 'theological' group after Christianity (local discrepancies notwithstanding). The fact that a person will almost without fail adopt the religion of their parents supports the 'atheism by default' idea. Moreover, the fact that no one spontaneously converts to religions they've never heard of - Christians didn't go to North America or Asia to find Native Americans or Asians worshipping the cross; they had to be converted.

Generally, when we're walking along a street and see a building, we naturally assume someone had to put it there, yet we can see incredibly complex information code (DNA) and think that it built itself.

Correct, because we can see it building itself. It's a self-replicating molecule, and thus subject to evolution and increasing complexity - buildings, by contrast, do not self-replicate, and thus do not evolve, and thus cannot be explained by the 'complexity through evolution' idea.

With the advent of 21st century technology, people don't see a need for God anymore, so there's more atheists than ever.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Ostensibly, God does nothing for us - the suffering and tradegy in the world befalls people regardless on religion or belief or conviction. Why should we believe in him?

 

[ks777]

Please tell us which god a new born child has knowledge of? or even why a child should have knowledge of any god.

I see what you mean, obviously a child wouldn't know of a specific 'god' unless that child was handed literature to read or if he/she had someone indoctrinate them. As a child, their minds probably aren't asking questions like an adults. Say the child was excluded from all outside sources and grew into an adult, I do believe that he would most likely start to ask him/herself questions like what am I doing here, is there anything out there, etc. They might think it's something they couldn't see, or maybe something somewhere else, or perhaps like many pagans before him; the sun. Aboriginals have their own different creation stories too. Some vary from tribe to tribe. So even though they wouldn't assign themself to a religion, they wouldn't be quick to say that no higher being/deity's exist, which is what atheism is. That new born exluded child might likely grow into an agnostic. To me, saying he/she will definitely be an atheist is a stretch. You could argue whether it's the default or not all day.

there must be a god, what other explanation could there be?

I don't know, maybe there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically re-arranged itself for not reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

Sorry, I've always wanted to use that quote. I think the dinosaur part is funny. It sounds silly when it's put in lamen's terms. The moral is that in both accounts, something had to create everything we see, whether it was an explosion or an intelligent designer. It's not ridiculous to come to the conclusion there must be a God, even if we can now explain how a lot of things work, such as lightning and storms.

How about a cave? do you think, "who dug that out?" or do you think that nature did it?

Good example. If you're picky you could take it a step further and think, "has nature always been here?" or "who made nature?". Obviously now we know nature hasn't always been here, but we can't provide evidence to the who/what part.

 

[Naraoia]

I think wensdee is seriously mis-construing the meanings of Religion and Theism here. To be Religious is not synonymous with being Theist. One can be Religious without being Theist and vise-versa.

Religion is just a specific set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons. This is something developed over time and is taught and passed on through Generations.

I think that's way too broad a definition. It would essentially include all of human culture, which is quite useless. I'm not saying gods must be involved, but some restriction ought to be applied so the term doesn't become meaningless.

Also, is Wensdee another one of consol/Automan's Names? Cause, he gets under my skin the same way.

The style is certainly suspiciously similar...

I'd hate to agree with AV here but he's correct in one regard. There are a number people who call themselves Atheists whose personal belief is that there is no God.

However, AV wants to define all atheism like that. If you apply the less restrictive definition (i.e. "no belief in gods"), the more limited one becomes a subset of it (i.e. those who believe there is no god obviously lack belief in gods).

These Few are the one's who say "There is No God" while mainstream Atheists say "I don't Believe there is a God." It's Obvious that they do not share the same point of view as Other Atheists and they certainly do not speak for all of them. There is currently no other word to use to define these few beside distinguishing them by "Militant Atheists" and "Agnostic Atheists" though this also has other problems.

In this case, it's you who's confusing terminology, I'm afraid (not that it's not confused enough already...). The words you are looking for are "strong" and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the positive belief that there is no god. Militant atheism is an attitude associated with atheism, while agnostic atheism is subtly different from (or rather, a subset of) weak atheism. Weak atheism simply states "I don't believe in gods", whereas agnostic atheism elaborates that to "there's no sure way to know if there are gods, but I don't believe in them". One is just a belief about the existence of gods, the other is a belief about the knowability of gods as well as their existence.

That's my understanding, of course, which I gained while trying to define my own stance. FWIW, I'm mostly in the agnostic atheist camp.

 

[ks777]

I don't think you understand what 'mutually exclusive' means

Probably not, but you get the idea. It's possible to have one without the other.

So? That doesn't mean atheism isn't the default, just that it isn't as common as theism - indeed, atheism is, on average, the second largest 'theological' group after Christianity (local discrepancies notwithstanding).

Yes, the number of adherents plays no part in the likelihood of truth.

The fact that a person will almost without fail adopt the religion of their parents supports the 'atheism by default' idea.

Does it? If Atheism was default, and children almost without fail adopt the beliefs of their parents, wouldn't there be no religions? You're right, children usually do adopt the same traits and beliefs as their parents. It doesn't happen all the time, but it's sad if they grow up so stubborn of their beliefs that their minds aren't open to other possibilities. That's not truly seeking God, that's being scared to let go of what you know.

Correct, because we can see it building itself. It's a self-replicating molecule, and thus subject to evolution and increasing complexity - buildings, by contrast, do not self-replicate, and thus do not evolve, and thus cannot be explained by the 'complexity through evolution' idea.

Yes, it builds replicates of itself, and this might be the creationist coming out in me, but that's what it was programmed to do. Scripture speaks of living things replicating after their kind. I don't know a great deal about DNA, but I know how much of a miracle it is. I know about the evolution theory how mutations could occur and natural selection takes place over millions of years to form entirely different species, but I still get the idea that this 'self-replicating' molecule isn't really doing its job properly if one can eventually turn into a butterfly and another into a hippopotamus. Something went wrong there.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Ostensibly, God does nothing for us - the suffering and tradegy in the world befalls people regardless on religion or belief or conviction. Why should we believe in him?

I'm going to take the easy way out this... would anyone else like to answer this? lol

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Does it? If Atheism was default, and children almost without fail adopt the beliefs of their parents, wouldn't there be no religions?

Ah, now we're getting onto the origin of religion. I don't want to derail the thread too much, so I'll leave that for now.

You're right, children usually do adopt the same traits and beliefs as their parents. It doesn't happen all the time, but it's sad if they grow up so stubborn of their beliefs that their minds aren't open to other possibilities. That's not truly seeking God, that's being scared to let go of what you know.

As the Hindu said to the Christian. Why don't you open your mind and embrace Shiva?

Yes, it builds replicates of itself, and this might be the creationist coming out in me, but that's what it was programmed to do. Scripture speaks of living things replicating after their kind. I don't know a great deal about DNA, but I know how much of a miracle it is. I know about the evolution theory how mutations could occur and natural selection takes place over millions of years to form entirely different species, but I still get the idea that this 'self-replicating' molecule isn't really doing its job properly if one can eventually turn into a butterfly and another into a hippopotamus. Something went wrong there.

That's a good question: if the mechanism is the same, why did one lineage become butterflies and the other hippos? The answer is twofold.
First, mutations are incredibly varied, and the proteins they manipulate quite sensitive to change; evolution (and sheer statistics) predicts that no two separate populations would undergo exhibit the same series of mutations, so even under identical conditions, the outcome would still differ - which brings me to the second point:
The conditions aren't the same. More generally, natural selection is dictated by the environment in which the organism lives - so what might be beneficial from one population might be detrimental for another.

According to evolution, butterflies and hippos share a common ancestor. Insects emerged on land first, and then amphibians (and, thus, reptiles and mammals). The former lived in a much different world to the latter - there was, for instance, no other animal life to compete with, and only plant life to exploit. So natural selection favoured different things for insects (and butterflies) than it did for mammals (and hippos).

So, why are butterflies and hippos so different? Because they evolved in very different conditions, far removed from each other.

I'm going to take the easy way out this... would anyone else like to answer this? lol

 

[AllOrNothing]

To be an atheist simply means not believing in the existence of gods. It doesn't mean rejecting those aspects of the human condition that could apply to both the religious and non-religious.

The writers of the Bible consistently speak of a knowledge of God.. not a belief that God exists…….. for example..

“Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because Love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and gains the KNOWLEDGE of God.”

“God is love, and he that remains in love remains in union with God and God remains in union with him.”

“…that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a Spirit of Wisdom and of revelation in the accurate KNOWLEDGE of him.”

“For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate KNOWLEDGE.”

1John4:12 + 7 + 16 + Ephesians1:17 + Romans10:2


Does this make Jesus and the prophets atheists.. ?

Since they "lack a belief" that God exists.

It is far too simplistic to try and divide the world up to theists and atheists.. when the scriptures teach… God is inside.

Other questions we might ask are..

Was Buddha an atheist.. or a theist ?

How about Carl Jung.. ?

--------------------------------------------------------------..

“A young female student accused Jung of being an atheist. Jung was confused and asked the student where she had gotten that idea. The student paraphrased a quote she had read in which Jung said he didn't believe God existed.

Jung smiled and said "Dear girl, rest easy, when we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor.

The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!"

 

[jcslao]

I totally agree with the op and other atheists.

We believe what we believe based on upon who influenced us as children. i'm a witness to this situation being as a child i didn't know who God was but was a Christian because of my parents. I just basically lived my life, enjoying every single component of it as any child will do. I never understood baptism or what it meant or even what my parents believed. I later found out in my teens what denomination my family was. And we were Pentecostal. I never knew what their doctrine was, but surely watched how the church service played out, people crying out, running around the church, falling on the ground, speaking in a tongues. It was so weird to me and even till this day.

Until recently i began to search for myself and realized that it was me following my parent's belief rather than me believing in what i want to believe in.

The same can be true if a person grew up in a family with no beliefs. He will walk this Earth thinking of there being no Creator or God. And when he or she encounters a person that believes in a Creator or God, it seems like a joke or false and not real or a fairytale.

I stepped back from Christianity a few months back because I finally realized what I was doing. Again, I was living my whole life believing in what my parents believe in. And I think now its personally time for me to believe in what I feel like believing in. I like Christianity. Love Jesus Christ and I know the history of the Church and how it has been used by certain people to carry on their own personal greeds i.e. popes, emperors...

No one should stop believing or should believe in God because someone else told you so. You should search for yourself and look around and judge for yourself. You won't find the answers from anyone until you find whats right for you.

All these threads are people's opinions of what they think is the correct way. The same can be said for religion.

Someone growing up in the Middle East will think Allah is the one true God and Jesus Christ being a merely a prophet and not God. Or a Westerner that thinks the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the one True God and Jesus Christ is the only way to God the Father.

But all in all I think the OP was trying to to look for a word called "indoctrination" which happens at a earlier age. A child can believe in so much before they burst and not believe in anything at all because they are not being who they want to be but a indoctrinating tool of what their parents want them to be. If anyone doesn't believe me check out the documentary called "Jesus Saves". If you have Netflix, you can watch it instantly.

I'm learning that and I'm currently leaving the whole Evangelical aspect of Christianity and moving into the Catholic way. The original aspect of Christianity. I'm learning a lot about it right now before I proceed with the change. I know this doesn't pertain to the topic but I have so many agreements with Catholicism than Evangelical.

I was always told Catholicism is false and anyone that was Catholic was going to Hell and even worse unbelievers were going to Hell. LOL LIKE WHAT? This is what MY PARENTS TOLD ME!!! Also stuff like I shouldn't socialize with those around unbelievers even if they are my friends. I personally could of had so many friends that were similar to me (liking sports, books, video games) but since believing in my parents view of what they thought of Bible scriptures that were correct that supported there view, it really made my life be something I did not want it to be.

I'm 23 years old and still have their indoctrination still lingering. I'm not saying my belief is correct or its wrong. NO ONE KNOWS, we only have revelations of what people think God is or if there is a God. The Bible like any other Holy Book is a just a book that was written and past down generations and generations preserving what they think God is. But I'm sure a fundamentalist would eat me alive (figuratively) because of what i'm saying.

It just upsets me because I NEVER THOUGHT FOR MYSELF. I would rather had been an atheist not believing in the beginning and then found the Judeo-Christian God that way. I'm happy I know who the Judeo-Christian God is. But I would of preferred the other way.

There are believers like me who do not need religion to be a good person. I like religion because it provides me hope of something greater than this life but I do not let it control my life. There are some that are extreme within a religion that tends to make it look EXTREMELY bad. And it makes those from other religions or are not in religions at all not want to be in that particular one or have any affiliation with people within that religion. But there is a kind Christian, a kind Muslim, a kind Jew, a kind Buddhist, a kind Hindu, etc.

It's those extreme religious people that I see on this forum and other forums or the internet or in general that tries to make there belief seem correct which really makes me sick to my stomach and now I can see why any atheist or non believer prefers science over religion. Because it provides no rituals or belief systems but the study of the Human surroundings and not any crazy fundamentalists running around.

sorry for my thought if it offends anyone. it's been in my mind for so long and this thread was perfect for me to express my thought. please do not hammer my opinion...

thanks...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The writers of the Bible consistently speak of a knowledge of God.. not a belief that God exists…….. for example..

“Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because Love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and gains the KNOWLEDGE of God.”

“God is love, and he that remains in love remains in union with God and God remains in union with him.”

“…that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a Spirit of Wisdom and of revelation in the accurate KNOWLEDGE of him.”

“For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate KNOWLEDGE.”

1John4:12 + 7 + 16 + Ephesians1:17 + Romans10:2


Does this make Jesus and the prophets atheists.. ?

Since they "lack a belief" that God exists.

No: asserting you 'know' God exists (regardless of whether you actually do know God exists) constitutes belief, since belief is the assertion of truth - if they assert 'God exists', then they believe the statement 'God exists' to be true.

It is far too simplistic to try and divide the world up to theists and atheists.. when the scriptures teach… God is inside.

Other questions we might ask are..

Was Buddha an atheist.. or a theist ?

Gautama Buddha was silent on the issue of deities - whether he believed or not is a matter of debate.

How about Carl Jung.. ?

--------------------------------------------------------------..

“A young female student accused Jung of being an atheist. Jung was confused and asked the student where she had gotten that idea. The student paraphrased a quote she had read in which Jung said he didn't believe God existed.

Jung smiled and said "Dear girl, rest easy, when we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor.

The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!"

I suspect this story to be apocryphal, but even so, Jung was making a semantic twist - when a person says he is an atheist, and when he defines atheism as 'the lack of belief in deities', he is not using Jung's personal vocabulary, but rather the standard philosophical one.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes, it builds replicates of itself, and this might be the creationist coming out in me, but that's what it was programmed to do. Scripture speaks of living things replicating after their kind. I don't know a great deal about DNA, but I know how much of a miracle it is. I know about the evolution theory how mutations could occur and natural selection takes place over millions of years to form entirely different species, but I still get the idea that this 'self-replicating' molecule isn't really doing its job properly if one can eventually turn into a butterfly and another into a hippopotamus. Something went wrong there.

Why? Overall, DNA is still replicated extremely faithfully. It's just that there is so much copying - so much DNA in every cell, and so many cell divisions - that nothing short of perfection could avoid errors.

And, if you look at it in a slightly different way, everything that's so breathtakingly awesome about life is the result of these errors. Maybe they're not such a bad thing after all!

It just upsets me because I NEVER THOUGHT FOR MYSELF. I would rather had been an atheist not believing in the beginning and then found the Judeo-Christian God that way. I'm happy I know who the Judeo-Christian God is. But I would of preferred the other way.

That was so beautifully said that I had to quote it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The writers of the Bible consistently speak of a knowledge of God..

So what?

Does this make Jesus and the prophets atheists.. ?

Quotes don't. Beliefs do. If they believe in divine beings, they are theists.

It is far too simplistic to try and divide the world up to theists and atheists..

True, we are all human.

However, some humans are theists, and some are atheists. There's nothing simplistic about this.

Was Buddha an atheist.. or a theist ?

Atheist, if devas don't count as gods. Theist, if they do.

How about Carl Jung.. ?

No, not to my knowledge.

I fail to see the point of these examples. They may believe whatever they believe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DrkSdBls]

I think that's way too broad a definition. It would essentially include all of human culture, which is quite useless. I'm not saying gods must be involved, but some restriction ought to be applied so the term doesn't become meaningless.

Sorry. Was trying for brevity since I have a tendacy to run-off on wild typing sprees.

In this case, it's you who's confusing terminology, I'm afraid (not that it's not confused enough already...). The words you are looking for are "strong" and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the positive belief that there is no god. Militant atheism is an attitude associated with atheism, while agnostic atheism is subtly different from (or rather, a subset of) weak atheism. Weak atheism simply states "I don't believe in gods", whereas agnostic atheism elaborates that to "there's no sure way to know if there are gods, but I don't believe in them". One is just a belief about the existence of gods, the other is a belief about the knowability of gods as well as their existence.

That's my understanding, of course, which I gained while trying to define my own stance. FWIW, I'm mostly in the agnostic atheist camp.

Maybe so though I never liked the sound of using "Strong" or "Weak" since they give it a certain "Faith" Sounding ring to it. At least, that's the way I've always heard it being used, anyhow. "Strong" Atheism simply show that Lack of belief is a short stone's throw from Belief in of itself which can easily become one's faith. It's a Quagmire. This is why I refuse to branded as either Theist or Atheist. It's like either Standing in Quicksand or a Fire Pit.

 

[Naraoia]

Sorry. Was trying for brevity since I have a tendacy to run-off on wild typing sprees.

I think I can sympathise with that

Maybe so though I never liked the sound of using "Strong" or "Weak" since they give it a certain "Faith" Sounding ring to it. At least, that's the way I've always heard it being used, anyhow. "Strong" Atheism simply show that Lack of belief is a short stone's throw from Belief in of itself which can easily become one's faith.

Well, there is an aspect of faith to it, especially on the "strong" end.

It's a Quagmire.

Haha, that it is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe so though I never liked the sound of using "Strong" or "Weak" since they give it a certain "Faith" Sounding ring to it. At least, that's the way I've always heard it being used, anyhow. "Strong" Atheism simply show that Lack of belief is a short stone's throw from Belief in of itself which can easily become one's faith. It's a Quagmire. This is why I refuse to branded as either Theist or Atheist. It's like either Standing in Quicksand or a Fire Pit.

So, while you do actually slot into the 'weak atheist' category, you just object to being labelled as such?

 

[DrkSdBls]

So, while you do actually slot into the 'weak atheist' category, you just object to being labelled as such?

Oh no. I'm neither Atheist nor Theist. We've been over this before.

To be a Theist, one must believe in a God.

To believe in a God, one must first have on understanding of God, who or What God is.

Someone can believe that the Voices in their head is God.
One can believe that the Whole Universe is God.
One can believe that their cat is God.

Defining God like that becomes meaningless and to be Labled a Theist is just as meaningless.

I've never been given a fully acceptable definition of what God is so I can't say whether or not I believe in it if I don't know what I'm believing in. I believe my cat exists. Is my cat God? If my cat is God, then I guess that means I'm a Theist. But I don't believe my cat's God. Does that make me a heretic?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh no. I'm neither Atheist nor Theist. We've been over this before.

I know, but it's such fun

To be a Theist, one must believe in a God.

To believe in a God, one must first have on understanding of God, who or What God is.

Agreed.

Someone can believe that the Voices in their head is God.
One can believe that the Whole Universe is God.
One can believe that their cat is God.

Well... I'd be happier saying that they define their cat as God, as thus belief in God. But I get what you're saying.

Defining God like that becomes meaningless

Why? Do you, perhaps, know how God should be defined?

and to be Labled a Theist is just as meaningless.

Why? A theist is someone who believes in God - or, more specifically, affirms the existence of God.

I've never been given a fully acceptable definition of what God is so I can't say whether or not I believe in it if I don't know what I'm believing in. I believe my cat exists. Is my cat God? If my cat is God, then I guess that means I'm a Theist. But I don't believe my cat's God. Does that make me a heretic?

A theist affirms that gods exist, an atheist does not. Therefore, you're an atheist.
A strong atheist affirms that gods do not exist, a weak atheist does not. Therefore, you're a weak atheist.

Ipso facto, qed, fyi, imo

One's theism/atheism is based on what one affirms or rejects, not why one affirms or rejects it. That your position is ignostic doesn't negate the logical necessity that you are, in fact, a weak atheist.
I am a weak atheist because although I understand the concept of deity, I still don't believe in it - I affirm neither ontological statements. You are a weak atheist because you don't understand or accept the concept of deity, thus can't affirm either ontological statement.

Have you heard of the implicit/explicit distinction in atheism?

 

[DrkSdBls]

I know, but it's such fun

Yeah. It's been a while.

Well... I'd be happier saying that they define their cat as God, as thus belief in God. But I get what you're saying.

Aye but my main point is that the definition of "God" must be agreed upon by all parties involved who are discussing God. Otherwise, we all can be Labled Theist and Atheist in each of our ways rights.

Why? Do you, perhaps, know how God should be defined?

If I did, this wouldn't be such a difficult conversion.

Why? A theist is someone who believes in God - or, more specifically, affirms the existence of God.

A theist affirms that gods exist, an atheist does not. Therefore, you're an atheist.
A strong atheist affirms that gods do not exist, a weak atheist does not. Therefore, you're a weak atheist.

Then a question: If there is a such thing as "weak" Atheism and "strong" Atheism, then Is there a such thing as "Weak/Strong" Theism? Or is "Theist" a Coverall term.

One's theism/atheism is based on what one affirms or rejects, not why one affirms or rejects it. That your position is ignostic doesn't negate the logical necessity that you are, in fact, a weak atheist.

I disagree. Why one believes what they believe is more important then what they believe. Otherwise, it's not true belief but rather hearsay, rumors, or Gossip. Children who grow up in Religious backgrounds who are simply told what to believe don't really believe in the context of their own understanding. Without firsthand experience, we are are all Atheist in that regard and ever will be. Thus, distinguishing between Theist and Atheist becomes meaningless.

Assuming, of course, on ONE definition of God.

I am a weak atheist because although I understand the concept of deity, I still don't believe in it - I affirm neither ontological statements. You are a weak atheist because you don't understand or accept the concept of deity, thus can't affirm either ontological statement.

Have you heard of the implicit/explicit distinction in atheism?

So you understand the concept of a Deity. Then, what if God doesn't fall under the definition of a Deity?

 

[razeontherock]

I've never been given a fully acceptable definition of what God is so I can't say whether or not I believe in it

Well then here ya go:

the ground beneath our feet took power to get there. That Power is the God of the Bible, and obviously still exists.

 

[Tinker Grey]

When 2/3 or more of the world disagrees with your position, saying the God of the Bible is obvious is ... um ... wishful? hopeful? naive?

 

[wensdee]

the ground beneath our feet took power to get there. That Power is the God of the Bible, and obviously still exists.

Sadly only in your mind.

Why don't you try answering his question? or don't you know what god is either?

 

[AllOrNothing]

I suspect this story to be apocryphal, but even so, Jung was making a semantic twist - when a person says he is an atheist, and when he defines atheism as 'the lack of belief in deities', he is not using Jung's personal vocabulary, .

That is true.. I have never met an atheist who claims to - know..
There always seems to be an air of uncertainty around the word belief.. as if one is not completely convinced.

Like.. I believe it is gonna rain tomorrow.. but I can’t be certain.

The word "belief" is a difficult thing for me. I don't believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and then I know it - I don't need to believe it.” - Carl Jung

but rather the standard philosophical one.

In Jung’s language.. deities and other supernatural tales are understood to be symbolic representations of man’s inner psyche.. so belief doesn’t come into it.. it is a science of psychology.. based on knowledge.. theory and evidence.

Philosophy naturally asks questions..

Belief seems to be a failure to ask the right questions… so it goes nowhere.

It seems better to know what you know and know what you don’t know than to believe.. even if we are all prone to it.

Both theism and atheism are born from literalism..

God is inside…… say the poets..

"Myth is the natural and indispensable intermediate stage between unconscious and conscious cognition. True, the unconscious knows more than the conscious does; but it is knowledge of a special sort, knowledge in eternity, usually without reference to the here and now, not couched in the language of the intellect. Only when we let its statements amplify themselves does it come within the range of our understanding; only then does a new aspect become perceptible to us.”

"The unconscious is the only available source of religious experience. This in certainly not to say that what we call the unconscious is identical with God or is set up in his place. It is simply the medium from which religious experience seems to flow. As to what the further cause of such experience might be, the answer to this lies beyond the range of human knowledge. Knowledge of God is a transcendental problem."

The Undiscovered Self - C Jung