Polite atheism. Is it possible?

[Drewski]

what's the point in being polite? why does it bother you that one chooses to believe in a God you do not believe in? why would it matter to me that you believe it is foolish for me to believe in my God? :o

I dont think "polite" is a good word here, it's like overlooking foolishness and it's almost sanctamonius on the part of the "polite Atheist"

I became a non believer as a young boy and then my search for God started because I felt as a youngster that without life after death there could be no reunion with loved ones or indeed the luxury of belief and related feelings of comfort during my life.

Anyway, after a 24 year search and reading much material from ALL perspectives without stubborn bias, I simply came to the conclusion that on the probability scale, for me, there is no God.

I will say thought that there is no payoff as I see it for being Atheist and frankly, I envy people who have belief in so far as death and the finality that it represents for me. I also do not see Atheism as a religion but there are those who are very outspoken and militant and I think this for some is born of dissapointment and anger towards belief, this is as I said not the case with the majority.

So back to that word, "polite", I have no need to be polite, I prefer to respect others and their views without prejudice as I would expect from them. I do not engage in furious debates with Christians because I respect people views, I simply prefer to enjoy ALL people equally regarless of their beliefs or backgrounds and when one of my devout Christian friends sends me an email that ends in "god Bless", I respond with Thank you and Be well!

I have also had nice chats with Mormons, Jehova's witnesses, and Christian folk who have knocked on my door to share their views, my house is open and such tea drinking sessions always end with me commending these people for their diligence since I for one couldn't match it.

I have many friends from many denominations and none are aware of my Atheistic standpoint and none will ever know unless I tell them, it seems safer that way since all atheists are painted with the evil brush and I am anything but.

 

[TheNihilodeterminist]

I'm sure you coould be a polite atheist, and I consider myself one, in terms of being careful what you say.

But, ultimately, I flat out deny the thing you hold most dear. I honestly feel like an adult talking to a kid who still believes in Santa.

There was some evangelical work going on along my city's main street and we had a bit of a discussion but I felt like I couldn't say anything without being rude, so I gave up on the concept and just said what I honestly felt. The last thing I said to him was (something like):

"My greatest despair is that such good people could believe such nonsense."

I don't want to, but I feel more enlightened than religious people. I feel like I'm in a superior position, and it's a bit embarrassing. It's like when I give beggars money, I hate the appearance of "I'm better than you because I'm being charitable towards you" when the truth is I'm probably just luckier.

I know that people who believe in God are deluded.This is what I've wanted to say for ages. But it sounds so insulting.

I feel that I have to explain why I said "know" rather than "believe". Technically I have to be agnostic, but in the same sense as being agnostic towards the tooth-fairy, so I can confidently assert knowledge.

I don't feel like me denying God is offensive, but just the other parts about how I feel given that I deny God and other people don't. You know, like the parts about Santa clause, you being deluded, etc...

So, I wonder, is it possible to be a polite atheist while still being wholly honest? Because I feel like I have to hide a part of myself.

P.S: I don't want any posts rebutting my denial of God, please (although I'd be happy to talk about it in another thread? But isn't that against the forum rules anyway? Not sure), because I won't change my mind. Even if anything I posted was offensive, because I wanted to show you how I honestly felt without regarding offensiveness like I so often do.

Sorry about the long-windedness.

Could it be that you are considering being honest the same as being obliged to inform?

If you want to have contact with Christians, your safest bet is to keep your mouth shut about Santa analogies.

If you are asked how you truly feel, you have all options of restraining information flow without being dishonest.

Feeling contempt, and simultaneously attempting to be polite, now that is a tricky one.

 

[TheNihilodeterminist]

why does it bother you that one chooses to believe in a God you do not believe in? :o

We are animals.
We are wired to fight wars.
We have limited control over our compulsions.
Some are less tolerant than others.
Some force their opinions down the throat of others over message boards.

Keep asking why, and you will enter philosophical territory of limits to establishing truths.

 

[Poltionorch]

I don't think I'm impolite when discussing religion. But that's because I don't think that being religious means that you believe in stupid things. Only when you try to explain religion through science, you start with thinking in terms of illogical and ridiculous. But science and religion have nothing to do with eachother. You can't judge faith by scientifical standards and you cannot judge science on religious standards.

I'm an atheist, but I understand why people believe in god. I just can't do it myself. That doesn't mean that I feel myself better or smarter than deists. I'm just different.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm sure you coould be a polite atheist, and I consider myself one, in terms of being careful what you say.

But, ultimately, I flat out deny the thing you hold most dear. I honestly feel like an adult talking to a kid who still believes in Santa.

That is because you don't understand the difference in epistemology between Santa and God. Santa is falsified. God is not.

You have mistaken a faith for fact. That causes you to be impolite. When you realize that what you think is a faith, then you can start being polite.

 

[lucaspa]

We are animals.
We are wired to fight wars.
We have limited control over our compulsions.
Some are less tolerant than others.
Some force their opinions down the throat of others over message boards.

None of these are valid reasons why it should bother you that people believe in deity.

1. So what if we are animals? That has nothing to do with either the existence of deity or people believing in deity.
2. I'd like to see some citations for our being wired to fight wars. Since we evolved in small clan groups and wars are fought between much larger social groups, evolution would not have wired us to fight wars. But even if we are wired to fight wars, why would belief in deity bother you? It isn't as tho atheists don't find reasons to fight wars.
3. Many religions acknowledge we have limited control over our actions. Christianity in particular acknowledges this; that's why there is the emphasis on forgiveness. Why should that bother you?
4. You are saying intolerance bothers you. Not belief in God.
5. Trying to force views on others bothers you. But again, this is not belief in God. Many atheists do the same thing.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't want to, but I feel more enlightened than religious people. ... I feel like I'm in a superior position, and it's a bit embarrassing. ...
I know that people who believe in God are deluded. ... So, I wonder, is it possible to be a polite atheist while still being wholly honest?

To be honest requires first being honest with yourself. And from what you say it is clear that there is quite a bit of self-delusion going on.

You are talking as tho atheism is a fact. It's not. It's a faith. And, honestly, it has much less evidence than theism. Intellectually, atheism is much the weaker of the 2. That doesn't mean atheism is wrong, but that atheism is intellectually weaker.

When you say "deluded", that is one means of trying to dismiss evidence as valid. But see what you are doing? You are denying evidence. Any position based almost entirely on denying evidence is always weaker.

Once you realize that atheism is a faith and is epistemologically equivalent to theism, then your feelings of superiority and being "more enlightened" will go away. When you realize you have only an equal, or weaker, position than theists, then it will be a lot easier to be polite.

 

[razeontherock]

This is interesting:

I honestly feel like an adult talking to a kid who still believes in Santa.

I felt like I couldn't say anything without being rude, so I gave up on the concept and just said what I honestly felt. The last thing I said to him was (something like):

"My greatest despair is that such good people could believe such nonsense."

I don't want to, but I feel more enlightened than religious people. I feel like I'm in a superior position, and it's a bit embarrassing.

I know that people who believe in God are deluded.This is what I've wanted to say for ages. But it sounds so insulting.

So, I wonder, is it possible to be a polite atheist while still being wholly honest? Because I feel like I have to hide a part of myself.

I have no idea if the OP will ever see this, but I hope so. You make a correct distinction between honesty and politeness. I won't bore you with Scriptural precedent for this; however honest disagreement does not need to break down to incivility. I feel that's an important distinction, and my participation in this forum is in large part due to perceiving that distinction is preserved and respected here.

I would love a toe-to-toe with you to let you prove your superiority! Seriously.

I expect your use of the term "believe in God" has little to nothing to do with the way I (or any other true believer) uses it.

I expect you've never met a person with rational Faith, who had bothered to scrutinize it.

I expect much of what you consider preposterous re: Christianity I would agree with you about.

I expect my own personal experiences that convince me of spiritual things would do you no good, and it will be difficult for you to consider those facts and easy for you to label me a loon. You will need to discipline yourself to respect others anyway, this is a good starting point.

To get anywhere, the first thing we'd need to do is define "God," and then discuss origins.

 

[Mela Monkey]

"So, I wonder, is it possible to be a polite atheist while still being wholly honest?"

Yep, easily.
You can be polite and want to truely learn why christians do what they do, and believe what they believe, even when it seems to go against all rationality.

or

You can attack christians and their beliefs, and mock them + the bible on purpose.


The same thing goes for christians.. they can easily be rude or polite when talking to athiests/people of other religious beliefs

 

[razeontherock]

Dictionary.com says:

Atheism definition:
1) The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2) Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Disbelief definition:
1) Inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.'
2) Amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.

So atheism includes the refusal to believe in the existence of a supreme being. Some people who don't believe in god but do accept its possible would be included in this accepted definition of atheism.

Since their claims go along with this definition, they don't need to change their icons do they?

Not only is atheism weak, but your logic is unbearably weak. FAIL!
No, if you do accept that some God (or supreme being) is possible, you're not an atheist by your own definitions. And if anybody's interested in truth or anything like that, yes they should change their icons.

How is this not blindingly obvious?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Hi Nicknack28, so there is a difference between a lack of belief in the existence of God and the belief that God does not exist? Atheist means against theist, or against belief in God. It opposes the belief in God. Therefore this word means to deny that God exists. Pretty simple really. Please use dictionary definitions in discussions. Now an agnostic lacks a belief in God, God may exist or not according to their view. I submit you are redefining the meaning of atheist to mean agnostic. A lack of belief in God says nothing about the possibility that God exists, only that the person rejects whatever evidence for the possibility of God that may exist. This view does not deny the existence of God, so God may have created everything, the idea being that the person does not believe there is sufficient evidence to support that conclusion. Agnostics then accept the logical consequences of their beliefs, whereas Atheists do not. Instead they quibble over the meaning of words and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Someone may already have corrected you, but I'll try to be as concise as possible. Atheist doesn't mean against God, the prefix is a, not anti or contra which communicate a meaning of against. Atheist means without God in the sense of not possessing a belief in God.

Dictionary definitions do not necessarily work well in defining terms that are philosophically complex. No more than you could use the dictionary definition of theism to define theism can you use the dict. definition of atheism to define atheism, since the term God is the crux of confusion for definition of either term.

Agnostics can vary in at least two ways, either regarding the knowledge of God as impossible, primarily epistemologically centered agnostics and agnostics in the methodological sense, which I would prefer to call skeptics, who regard final and absolute knowledge as impossible and thus suspend as many judgments as possible in regards to absolute statements on things we cannot absolutely know.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Of course it's possible to be a polite atheist. I do it every day. I respect others although I don't agree with them.

And to clear up a misconception from earlier in the thread, atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god or gods. It's not a specific belief itself. Bald isn't a hair color in the same way atheism isn't a religion or belief system.

If you were talking about positive or strong atheism, that would be someone who actively denies there is a god, and that qualifies as a belief system. But not all atheists are strong atheists.

And yet, these same Atheists, like Sam Harris still hold conferences that describe their position....erm I mean nonposition.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Isn't polite an objective moral standard? This infers an objective moral standard maker. Is it ever polite to deny the being who created you? Thus, if an Atheist attempts to hold to this standard, I don't believe he is truly trying to uphold his consistency of being an Atheist. He must hold to a moral relativistic standard to be intellectually honest. But again, is there anything in the worldview of an Atheist stating they must be true to intellectual honesty?

Must I prove that God exists in response to this? It is equally the job of the Atheist to prove that God does not exist. Only problem, there's no evidence for the nonexistence of God, and no way to actually prove a negative. I suspect this is why you resort to the Buddhistic method of claiming a "lack" of something. In a way, your view of Atheism could not be consistent if you label it the lack of something. It would cease to be. So in essence what Atheists describe to be Atheism is not even Atheism or anything at all half the time. Atheism to them is everything, and it not being a position would be nothing. Everything is nothing. Thats Buddhism. Problem? Its ad hoc and violates the 2nd law of noncontradiction.

Beyond this, it is often forgotten what God is. God is a label like Adonai or Elohim. YHWH is every 4th letter of the name of the Creator.

Personally from the side of Atheists or Christians, I see no better definition and write up of Atheism than here - http://creation.com/atheism. Ravi Zecharias also has some very good books describing what it is. Many people point to the fact that he was a Hindu. Yes, he was, but he was also an Atheist. He does a very effective write up against Sam Harris.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Isn't polite an objective moral standard? This infers an objective moral standard maker. Is it ever polite to deny the being who created you? Thus, if an Atheist attempts to hold to this standard, I don't believe he is truly trying to uphold his consistency of being an Atheist. He must hold to a moral relativistic standard to be intellectually honest. But again, is there anything in the worldview of an Atheist stating they must be true to intellectual honesty?

Must I prove that God exists in response to this? It is equally the job of the Atheist to prove that God does not exist. Only problem, there's no evidence for the nonexistence of God, and no way to actually prove a negative. I suspect this is why you resort to the Buddhistic method of claiming a "lack" of something. In a way, your view of Atheism could not be consistent if you label it the lack of something. It would cease to be. So in essence what Atheists describe to be Atheism is not even Atheism or anything at all half the time. Atheism to them is everything, and it not being a position would be nothing. Everything is nothing. Thats Buddhism. Problem? Its ad hoc and violates the 2nd law of noncontradiction.

Beyond this, it is often forgotten what God is. God is a label like Adonai or Elohim. YHWH is every 4th letter of the name of the Creator.

Ravi Zecharias also has some very good books describing what it is. Many people point to the fact that he was a Hindu. Yes, he was, but he was also an Atheist. He does a very effective write up against Sam Harris.

There is no universal atheistic worldview, which is why even if atheism is a belief concerning god in some way, it doesn't lead necessarily to a rejection of objectivity, absolute truth or other terms affirmed by Christians in some form or fashion.

Atheism as a term is not misdefined or an empty term just because it is defined as the lack of something. Defining someone as unemployed, apathetic or other related terms with the prefix un or a suggests a lack that is still relevant because of the importance people place on such things as employment or belief in God. If belief in God is a common thing, then defining oneself as lacking a belief in a personal anthropomorphic God is relevant in clarifying one's position in a discussion on various beliefs about the world.

Edit: And atheism does not make the claim that God does not exist in the way a theist makes the claim God exists. Not to mention in any logical progression, the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim and an atheist in the basic sense of initial presumption is not making a positive claim, but is only stating they lack the belief for whatever varied reason

You misunderstand Buddhism as well it seems in suggesting that it believes "everything is nothing", particularly when you use primarily Western understandings of the ideas of everything in contrast to emptiness and nothingness, which are different within the Eastern context that Buddhism arose from. I would inquire where you get the idea that Buddhism is nihilistic, but I would persist in a skepticism of even educated people like Ravi Zacharias, since they have an especially biased and stubborn position that refuses to think ultimate or absolute meaning can be found in immanence over transcendence.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

And yet, these same Atheists, like Sam Harris still hold conferences that describe their position....erm I mean nonposition.

Technically the atheism is incidental. Sam Harris in particular values what I would term Freethought moreso than atheism, though he does seem to agree with Antony Flew's argument that atheism is the initial position, since it is impossible to prove a negative (which would be contratheism or antitheism, strong/hard atheism) and thus theism is something believed in after atheism, not beforehand. But atheism to him is a necessary result of Freethought, and not something that is part of a larger system he calls "atheism", it is a single descriptive term that is part of a larger worldview which varies by individual

 

[lucaspa]

Someone may already have corrected you, but I'll try to be as concise as possible. Atheist doesn't mean against God, the prefix is a, not anti or contra which communicate a meaning of against. Atheist means without God in the sense of not possessing a belief in God.

Sorry, but you are trying to use the Greek root to make the current definition. The current definition of "atheism", by atheists, is that atheism means "do not believe". It's active.

"Atheism -- the belief that there are no gods." Douglas A. Krueger, What Is Atheism? A Short Introductory Course, pg 19.

If you want something neutral, the "I don't know if God exists or not", then that is agnosticism.

Dictionary definitions do not necessarily work well in defining terms that are philosophically complex.

In this case the dictionary definition is the philosophical one. IMO, the reason many atheists try to change the definition is that they simply do not wish to admit they have a faith. They are trying to gain epistemological value that atheism does not have.

the term God is the crux of confusion for definition of either term.

That's not a problem. While there are differences in doctrine among theists, there is enough commonality in the concept of deity that we all know what we are talking about.

Agnostics can vary in at least two ways, either regarding the knowledge of God as impossible, primarily epistemologically centered agnostics and agnostics in the methodological sense, which I would prefer to call skeptics, who regard final and absolute knowledge as impossible and thus suspend as many judgments as possible in regards to absolute statements on things we cannot absolutely know.

Originally, when coined by Huxley, agnostic meant someone who didn't know whether deity existed or not. IOW, there simply was not enough information to decide now. Huxley did not address the future. Since then, some people have tried to add "impossible to know" to the definition. That turns agnosticism into a faith because it makes a faith statement about what will be possible thru all space and time.

Atheists have long tried to jigger the definition of atheism. Mostly, they try to make atheism as close to the original definition of agnosticism as possible. Again, the motivation seems to be to try to disguise the faith nature of atheism. Perhaps it's self-deception, but it is at least an attempt to deceive the rest of us. We aren't deceived.

 

[lucaspa]

since it is impossible to prove a negative

Harris at least should know better. "proving a negative" is what science does all the time. That's what deductive logic is all about: true statements cannot have false consequences. So we falsify theories. The absolute statments in science are the negative ones:
The earth is not flat.
The earth is not the center of the solar system.
The earth is not less than 20,000 years old.
Proteins are not the hereditary material (a theory popular around 1900).
Etc.

thus theism is something believed in after atheism, not beforehand.

Neither Flew nor Harris can state this as anything but speculation, and poor speculation at that. No one knows what the initial beliefs of babies are, because they cannot communicate such complex ideas.

Now, if they want to argue that atheism is the weak position of no evidence, while theism is the position of positive evidence, then they might be able to argue atheism is the initial position. Prior to any positive evidence, atheism would be the default position. But once evidence is obtained, then the position is theism.

But even there the prior position should be agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism would come after agnosticism, when the atheist denies evidence.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Sorry, but you are trying to use the Greek root to make the current definition. The current definition of "atheism", by atheists, is that atheism means "do not believe". It's active.

"Atheism -- the belief that there are no gods." Douglas A. Krueger, What Is Atheism? A Short Introductory Course, pg 19.

If you want something neutral, the "I don't know if God exists or not", then that is agnosticism.



In this case the dictionary definition is the philosophical one. IMO, the reason many atheists try to change the definition is that they simply do not wish to admit they have a faith. They are trying to gain epistemological value that atheism does not have.



That's not a problem. While there are differences in doctrine among theists, there is enough commonality in the concept of deity that we all know what we are talking about.



Originally, when coined by Huxley, agnostic meant someone who didn't know whether deity existed or not. IOW, there simply was not enough information to decide now. Huxley did not address the future. Since then, some people have tried to add "impossible to know" to the definition. That turns agnosticism into a faith because it makes a faith statement about what will be possible thru all space and time.

Atheists have long tried to jigger the definition of atheism. Mostly, they try to make atheism as close to the original definition of agnosticism as possible. Again, the motivation seems to be to try to disguise the faith nature of atheism. Perhaps it's self-deception, but it is at least an attempt to deceive the rest of us. We aren't deceived.

The greek root suggested impiety, not the idea that is a common interpretation of the term based on Greek prefixes.

Agnosticism is not identical with skepticism necessarily, especially when considering the Greek gnosis invoked in agnosticism, which I would agree in principle is making a faith statement of sorts since it states something regarding knowledge of "God"

Dictionary definitions rarely express the philosophical complexity inherent in many words that speak on such things as our beliefs about the world. To take a dictionary definition determined by common usage outside of particular analsysis is to take the easy way out and use it as an excuse not to think.

Clearly there is not agreement among theists as to the definition of God, otherwise pantheists wouldn't be considered basically atheists, and then there's the issue of transtheism and panentheism to consider as well

No attempt to deceive is innate. Atheism is not by nature a faith statement about God's existence, that would be contratheism by any general etymology, however recent the term has been coined.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Harris at least should know better. "proving a negative" is what science does all the time. That's what deductive logic is all about: true statements cannot have false consequences. So we falsify theories. The absolute statments in science are the negative ones:
The earth is not flat.
The earth is not the center of the solar system.
The earth is not less than 20,000 years old.
Proteins are not the hereditary material (a theory popular around 1900).
Etc.



Neither Flew nor Harris can state this as anything but speculation, and poor speculation at that. No one knows what the initial beliefs of babies are, because they cannot communicate such complex ideas.

Now, if they want to argue that atheism is the weak position of no evidence, while theism is the position of positive evidence, then they might be able to argue atheism is the initial position. Prior to any positive evidence, atheism would be the default position. But once evidence is obtained, then the position is theism.

But even there the prior position should be agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism would come after agnosticism, when the atheist denies evidence.

Should've clarified that since you want to be very nitpicky about the type of negative one cannot prove. Proving there is not an elephant in my closet is a negative one can prove, but to prove the statement "There is no God" would be logically impossible, since it is making a statement covering absolute and transcendent boundaries.

If evidence is obtained, the default position remains atheism until an accurate definition of theism can be presented, which it hasn't, primarily because of the existence of pantheism and panentheism contradicting the alleged commonalities that would otherwise have existed between monotheists and polytheists. To say that you see evidence and must conclude theism is absurd, since atheism doesn't by necessity deny impersonal/nonpersonal transcendence as an explanation. It is more common to suggest all atheists are pure metaphysical naturalists, which isn't necessarily true

 

[lucaspa]

And to clear up a misconception from earlier in the thread, atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god or gods. It's not a specific belief itself.

The semantic game doesn't work. Let's take this out of the atheism and theism discussion and show you what I mean.

Are you a fan of any sports team? Pick your favorite team. Call it team A. Now, I tell you "I lack belief that team A will win the championship this year." You are going to hear that as the belief that team A will not win the championship, which it is.

Or try politics. Say "I lack belief that we should be fighting in Afghanistan." That means "I do not believe we should be fighting in Afghanistan."

Bald isn't a hair color in the same way atheism isn't a religion or belief system.

You can't seriously mean this. Since "bald" is the lack of hair, of course it can't mean a hair color. You need to compare bald to hair, not a color. So yes, bald is a positive statement: that person has no hair on his head.

Also, you haven't thought much about atheism. Atheism, to be atheism, must make some positive belief statements about ultimate reality.

Take this statement:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

So, to be an atheist, you must disagree with this. But in doing so, you also must make the positive belief statement that natural processes happen on their own. There is no scientific data to back that statement; it's faith.

But not all atheists are strong atheists.

So-called "weak" atheism is either agnosticism or someone trying to avoid admitting that they have a belief system. The "lack of belief" is either the truly neutral position of agnosticism or, like I have shown, it is semantically improper or lack of thought about the position. Weak atheism must reduce to either agnosticism or strong atheism.