True atheists?

[3sigma]

1. Atheism - believing God does not exist based on how the evidence is interpreted.
2. Theism - believing God does exist based on how the evidence is interpreted.

The problem here is what religious believers tend to call “evidence”. What they call evidence is usually nothing more than fallacies, misapprehensions, personal experiences, feelings, anecdotes, single instances, stories, myths and other nonsense. Atheists, and sceptics in general, look at that so-called evidence and find it unconvincing. Religious believers, on the other hand, appear willing to accept almost anything as evidence that their God is real. Your belief that your God is real is not based on sound evidence or sound reasoning. If you disagree then show us the sound evidence and sound reasoning you used to reach your conclusion that your God is real.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

I already told you. To "lack a belief" implies ignorance to such a belief. Once you have knowledge of its existence, you internalize beliefs about it based on your foundational philosophical worldview.

You are not ignorant to the Christian belief. You have formed a belief about whether or not it is correct. You choose to believe it is false. This is not a lack of anything.

Now, if you were on an island all your life and never heard about Jesus, only then would you "lack a belief" in Him.

I do not agree.
"Lack of belief" in this context means a lack of commitment to the idea. Or a "don't know" or a "doubt it" position. You may be confounding "belief" with "judgement".
Belief, in this context, means commitment to the idea. A lack of commitment to an idea is not a belief.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I already told you. To "lack a belief" implies ignorance to such a belief. Once you have knowledge of its existence, you internalize beliefs about it based on your foundational philosophical worldview.

You are not ignorant to the Christian belief. You have formed a belief about whether or not it is correct. You choose to believe it is false. This is not a lack of anything.

Now, if you were on an island all your life and never heard about Jesus, only then would you "lack a belief" in Him.

To lack a belief literally just means to not hold a certain belief. Even if you hold an opposing belief, you lack the belief it is opposed to. In my case, while I hold a mutually exclusive belief (that there is not enough evidence to believe in a God), it is not the antithesis of Christianity. I still lack the belief in theism.

Also, I want to point out that I don't know of anyone who chooses their beliefs. You believe something or you don't - without serious effort (such as therapy and perhaps drugs, although I'm not sure if they work either), you can't decide what you want to think. Optical illusions are a good example of this, as even when you know what the illusion is, you're still fooled by it, because you can't force your brain to view it any other way. I didn't choose to be an atheist, I just chose to admit to it and voice that opinion.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

The belief that 86%-atheists do have is a commitment to the idea that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge that should be committed to.

This is a belief in the theistic sense.

So now it comes down to a debate about whether strict empirical belief is better or worse than theistic belief (theistic belief is a mix of the two, and sometimes a violation of empirical belief).

Now, which is better depends on the consequences for individuals and societies and one's prejudices.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

The problem here is what religious believers tend to call “evidence”. What they call evidence is usually nothing more than fallacies, misapprehensions, personal experiences, feelings, anecdotes, single instances, stories, myths and other nonsense. Atheists, and sceptics in general, look at that so-called evidence and find it unconvincing. Religious believers, on the other hand, appear willing to accept almost anything as evidence that their God is real. Your belief that your God is real is not based on sound evidence or sound reasoning. If you disagree then show us the sound evidence and sound reasoning you used to reach your conclusion that your God is real.

Yes. In this forum I tend to use the term science-grade evidence to make a distinction.
The other factor is that faith does not require evidence in the way that science does. So to demand science-grade evidence of a theist may be missing the point.
What is sound reasoning? If it is better for a person to have faith than not have faith then is it not reasonable for them to have faith? The human mind is not a carefully designed computer but is an evolved, emotional and cognitive organ which seeks to optimise a variety of parameters. What do you expect?

 

[3sigma]

What is sound reasoning?

Reasoning that is logically valid and based on true premises.

If it is better for a person to have faith than not have faith then is it not reasonable for them to have faith?

Is it better for society for people to believe childish nonsense without sound evidence or sound reasoning, to train their children and others to think in the same irrational manner and then allow those unsubstantiated beliefs to influence their decisions and behaviour?

The human mind is not a carefully designed computer but is an evolved, emotional and cognitive organ which seeks to optimise a variety of parameters. What do you expect?

Is it too much to expect people to behave reasonably and not allow their desire for emotional comfort to override their reason? I don’t think so, but apparently most people are unwilling to do that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd put it this why:

1. Atheism - believing God does not exist based on how the evidence is interpreted.
2. Theism - believing God does exist based on how the evidence is interpreted.

Both are philosophical conclusions.

I'd put it this way:

1. Atheism -- lacking belief in the existence of God for any reason whatsoever.
2. Theism -- believing in the existence of God for any reason whatsoever.

Either may be a philosophical conclusion, but neither has to be one. Belief is the key issue, not the process of judgment involved.

Really, it is that simple. No more need be added, except merely as some commentary of cultural or intellectual trends, but not as anything essential to what an atheist or theist is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are not ignorant to the Christian belief. You have formed a belief about whether or not it is correct.

Of course I have formed a judgment about whether or not Christians can justify their case, but that is a judgment about a judgment.

When it comes to God (and elves, leprechauns, etc), I lack belief in the existence of such alleged entities.

You choose to believe it is false.

Sorry, this is simply wrong, at least for me and based on my experience. I had no choice in the matter whatsoever.

My deconversion from Christianity had more of the character of an epiphany. I had realized that my belief in God no longer was as persuasive as it once was, and I had also realized, in hindsight, that my belief had vanished. There was no act of choice at all.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

To believe in true dogmatic atheism one must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist. This is quite foolish.

I´m not sure I agree that you are the authority to decide what "true dogmatic atheism" is, and even if there were such a "true dogmatic atheism" (of the kind you are thinking of) this wouldn´t mean that all atheists must be "true dogmatic atheists".

I bet the vast majority (if not all) of these supposed atheists are actually masked agnostics.

You make it sound like being an atheist and being an agnostic were mutually exclusive.
I am agnostic, I am an atheist.

Why are they afraid to call themselves agnostics?

What makes you presume that those who don´t call themselves agnostics are afraid to do so?

 

[variant]

To believe in true dogmatic atheism one must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist. This is quite foolish.

Yet, I see this CF faith(less) icon floating around the forums.

I bet the vast majority (if not all) of these supposed atheists are actually masked agnostics. Why are they afraid to call themselves agnostics?

In my opinion threads telling people what they believe or ought to believe and then attacking that misconception are unproductive.

 

[Gishin]

Source?

That's a good question. I just thought I'd play your game.

 

[Tinker Grey]

My deconversion from Christianity had more of the character of an epiphany. I had realized that my belief in God no longer was as persuasive as it once was, and I had also realized, in hindsight, that my belief had vanished. There was no act of choice at all.

This was my experience as well.

 

[quatona]

Unless you know something for certain, you must rely on faith.

FRP: Fundamentalist redefinition project.

There´s hardly anything that I know for certain. Unless you want to redefine "faith" in a way that it covers 99,9% of all ideas, positions and statements (including stuff like "the sun will rise tomorrow") this makes no sense.

Do you know for certain there is no God? Or are you relying on faith?

False dichotomy. I don´t know whether a god exists or not.
And I don´t have to rely on the existence or non-existence of a god for any given practical purpose.

 

[Tinker Grey]

quatona's response reminds me that once again we have a theist arguing for the idea that having faith is a bad thing. A tu quoque, if you will. "Yeah we have faith but so do you!!!!!" I thought faith was virtue. So is the OP arguing that "you're as good as we are since you have faith" or "as bad as we are since you have faith"?

 

[variant]

quatona's response reminds me that once again we have a theist arguing for the idea that having faith is a bad thing. A tu quoque, if you will. "Yeah we have faith but so do you!!!!!" I thought faith was virtue. So is the OP arguing that "you're as good as we are since you have faith" or "as bad as we are since you have faith"?

They are hurling the word faith at you because you consider it an insult.

They are trying to make a false equivalence between the validity of your beliefs and theirs.

The reality is that you are a skeptical and critical mind and they depend on faith without objective evidence.

That they try to say you do too indicates that they realize that their position is inherently weaker.

A christian arguing that atheism requires faith is an indication that the christian feels their position is weak.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I changed my icon from agnostic to atheist just because of this thread. I would never make a claim that there is absolutely no god. I simply don't believe in gods. The chupacabra might exist too but until I have a reason to believe that there are chupacabras, I don't believe in them. It is a default, neutral position. Do I have a positive belief that there is no god? No. I simply lack a belief in a god the same way you lack belief in unicorns. You're not out to prove that unicorns do not exist and you don't believe that there are absolutely no such things as unicorns anywhere in the universe. You simply lack belief in unicorns until you have reason to change your mind. That is atheism.

There is a difference between "I don't believe that a god exists" and "I believe that no god exists."

 

[Greg1234]

They are hurling the word faith at you because you consider it an insult.

Actually no. Before we reject your beliefs, we are just making sure that you are aware it is your belief. Then send you on your way.

There are many factions pulling the earth in all directions. We just want to be clear that we choose not to follow your doctrines.

 

[variant]

Actually no. Before we reject your beliefs, we are just making sure that you are aware it is your belief. Then send you on your way.

There are many factions pulling the earth in all directions. We just want to be clear that we choose not to follow your doctrines.

A retort worthy of a post modernist like yourself.

All beliefs or lacks of belief do not rely on faith, to say otherwise is to redefine the word.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Actually no. Before we reject your beliefs, we are just making sure that you are aware it is your belief. Then send you on your way.

There are many factions pulling the earth in all directions. We just want to be clear that we choose not to follow your doctrines.

What is your belief regarding superman?

 

[Greg1234]

that there are chupacabras,
You're not out to prove that unicorns

Ah but thats the thing. Even though you attempt to replace the man with a unicorn, we reaffirm Romans 1:20, show you the man, and tell you that you have beliefs regarding the man.

Similarly, you cannot lack the belief in radio waves as you have a belief regarding the voice on the radio. Replacing the voice on the radio with a chupacabra is merely ignored.

As Jig said, both sides use the evidence presented and interpret. You cannot "lack beliefs".