Atheism doesn't exist?:)

[Heyo]

Obviously why? Can you address the actual points I cited? I'd like to hear your specific reasonings against what I said.

"I can pretty easily fathom why both believers and atheists believe how they do. Each is seeing things through their particular filters that colorizes the question of God into their respective belief structures. Both are looking at the God question, and coming out with a different take on the same question."

You insist on calling it a "question of God". You can't understand that it's not about god, it's about belief. The discussion would be the same if we'd talk about alien abduction.

How did you settle the question? Did you look at it? If you did, then you were having a question about God.

I realized that "god" is a word without meaning. So the question has no meaning.

What believers are you referring to? What do they believe about God? What view of God is it that you hold in your mind in your rejection of it? Do all believers see God that same way? Can you answer these questions?

I don't have an image of god. Believers may or may not have one. Most think they have one but buckle when questioned. And when they have one it is an individual one that has no resemblance to the next one's. Talking about god with believers is a game of "I think of a thing ...".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.

^ sophomoric at best

 

[dianaiad]

Which was in response to a silly theist thread, to make a point. As he explained to to you.



If you admit your beliefs can't be demonstrated to be correct, then I also couldn't care less. I care when people make silly threads about what I should label myself to bear around the bush of the point, which is whether any of us have a good reason to think a god exists.



I don't question that people believe in god. That's completely mundane and obvious. The relevant question is whether that belief comports with reality.

Reality as you define it? I do believe that God is real...and thus 'comports with reality.' I certainly do not have to prove my beliefs are true in order to continue to believe, but sir/ma'am, if you claim that my beliefs do not 'comport with reality,' then you have made exactly the sort of claim you don't like from theists, and now you have to prove....not present your position as your belief, but PROVE, that 'reality' is precisely what you claim it is, and that a belief in deity doesn't 'comport' with it.

Hint: your disbelief is not proof that reality is what you claim it is.

 

[epronovost]

When I read/listen to atheists who go into diatribes against the god of the OT, or demand to know why God permits evil (like volcanoes, tidal waves, tornadoes and mass murderers) I notice that they aren't mad at the believers, but at the deity they believe in. If they were angry at PEOPLE only, they would acknowledge that since religions are man made, that without religion men would find another reason to be nasty to one another.

Instead, and almost universally, the claim is that without religion the world would be a matter of people dancing around campfires singing "Imagine." That's not being mad at the people. That's being mad at the deity.

That's actually a reaction to many believer who claim their deity to be some sort of force for the good of humanity or even something that would be worthy of admiration and worship if it was real. The problem of evil is an argument against a popular definition of God using evidence of absence and it's an easy one to understand. We are mad that some human being who are stupid, cruel and blind enough to claim "God is love" all the while worshiping a deity that has the same morality has any other dictator and conquering king of Antiquity. It's the blatant stupidity of some believer and their immorality that offends, not your deity's morality which to atheist is akin to that of any fictionnal villain. We can talk about it just like we like to talk about any fictionnal being and universes.

 

[leov]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

it could be just a case if ignorance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Rabbi Daniel

How about we set your OP aside; are you actually interested in knowing what atheism is or what atheists believe?

 

[Left Coast]

Reality as you define it?

Reality as defined by objective facts.

I do believe that God is real...and thus 'comports with reality.' I certainly do not have to prove my beliefs are true in order to continue to believe, but sir/ma'am, if you claim that my beliefs do not 'comport with reality,' then you have made exactly the sort of claim you don't like from theists, and now you have to prove....not present your position as your belief, but PROVE, that 'reality' is precisely what you claim it is, and that a belief in deity doesn't 'comport' with it.

I didn't claim your god doesn't comport with reality. Shifting the burden of proof won't work with me. If you claim your belief does comport with reality, the burden is on you to demonstrate it. The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence for it.

Now, if you want to go on believing something that you know you can't demonstrate, that's perfectly fine, it's a free country. The minute you tell me I should believe in something, I'm gonna ask you to demonstrate it.

Hint: your disbelief is not proof that reality is what you claim it is.

Hint: I never claimed it was. Are you done knocking down claims I never made? Can we get to the actual point, which is why anyone should believe there's a god?

 

[dianaiad]

That's actually a reaction to many believer who claim their deity to be some sort of force for the good of humanity or even something that would be worthy of admiration and worship if it was real. The problem of evil is an argument against a popular definition of God using evidence of absence and it's an easy one to understand. We are mad that some human being who are stupid, cruel and blind enough to claim "God is love" all the while worshiping a deity that has the same morality has any other dictator and conquering king of Antiquity. It's the blatant stupidity of some believer and their immorality that offends, not your deity's morality which to atheist is akin to that of any fictionnal villain. We can talk about it just like we like to talk about any fictionnal being and universes.

that would be fine....IF the atheist in question would acknowledge that without the deity, the men believing it it are still men who would be who they are without that belief.

Consider: We all know that Harry Potter is fictional. Those who are fans of Harry Potter, if J.K. Rowling hadn't invented him, would go be fans of something else; their basic personalities and wants wouldn't change. They'd just be aimed differently. Slightly differently. Mankind isn't going to change much if Harry Potter wasn't a 'thing.'

But somehow...Now I'm not talking about ALL atheists here, mind you, but I am talking about a bunch more than you think exist, and I AM talking about every single atheist who somehow thinks that the world would be a much better, more peaceful, more logical place without religion...

Somehow those folks seem to think that if this deity they claim not only does not, but never has, existed, were to be proven wrong to everybody so that nobody would believe in one, that mankind would suddenly be free of all nasty passions, evil and any excuses for it. These are the folks who claim that teaching religious beliefs to children is child abuse, who insist that it's not 'freedom of,' but 'freedom from,' who go on and on about the problem of evil AS IF evil would not exist if deity did not exist.

I'm sorry, but from my POV, these are the folks who think that "hey, it's all Your fault. I'm gonna show you. I'm not going to believe in You. So there."

And there are a great many more of these than atheists in general want to acknowledge.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

Your definition of an atheist is not correct. Having a lack of belief that something absolutely is, is NOT the same as claiming that something absolutely isn't.

For example: Person A and Person B both enter a room they've never been in before. In the middle of this room is a large jar filled to the brim with various sized marbles. After looking at the jar for several minutes Person A declares: "I believe that there are EXACTLY 442 marbles in that jar, no more and no less." They then turn to Person B and ask: "Do you also believe that there are EXACTLY 442 marbles in that jar, no more and no less?"

After studying the jar for a moment Person B responds: "I don't have enough evidence to conclude how many marbles are in the jar, so no, I do not share your belief that there are EXACTLY 442 marbles in that jar."

Now, when Person B stated NO, the do NOT believe the number is EXACTLY 442 marbles are they ALSO claiming that they believe that there definitely are NOT 442 marbles in the jar? The answer is NO. They haven't ruled out the POSSIBILITY that there MIGHT be 442 marbles. All they've done is determine that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that there are EXACTLY 442 marbles, no more and no less.

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting article but it still doesn't answer why many kids are easily phased by a religious upbringing and others seem to be immune to superstitious beliefs; or were those beliefs came from in the first place.

Where the beliefs came from is indoctrination and peer pressure. However where they came from is not the subject of the papers which was they didnt have the belief at birth

 

[Heyo]

Where the beliefs came from is indoctrination and peer pressure. However where they came from is not the subject of the papers which was they didnt have the belief at birth

It was more a historical question. Why did humans start to believe in gods (or spirits) in the first place. (And that seemed to have happened multiple times. Almost everywhere we find some kind of religion. Afaik there is only one exception, a tribe in the Amazon.)
It makes sense to assume some kind of propensity for superstition.

 

[dianaiad]

Reality as defined by objective facts.

Oh, that's wiggling. Define 'objective fact' for me. It wasn't all THAT long ago that it was an 'objective fact' that all disease was caused by ill humours of the body, and that washing one's hands between delivering babies had no effect whatsoever on the appearance of 'childbed fever' in women delivering in hospitals.

"objective fact' it was, way back when, that the earth had four corners...and someone who claimed differently ended up in a lot of trouble.

More recently, it was considered an 'objective fact' that there was no such thing as 'continental drift,' and until 1967, those who claimed such a thing generally had ruined careers.

So the 'objective fact' of today may turn out to be utterly WRONG tomorrow...or a century from now.

In fact, what is considered to be 'objective fact' is really a consensus of opinion regarding the factual nature of some thing. That consensus is, a great deal of the time, correct---but not always, and when it's not, it's not 'real,' is it?

I have one: would you say that it is an 'objective fact' that the sun is shining outside your window right now? ONE Of these days, many years from now, some critter is going to think...'objective fact' when it sees the sun shine---but it will have exploded four minutes previously. Oops.

I didn't claim your god doesn't comport with reality. Shifting the burden of proof won't work with me. If you claim your belief does comport with reality, the burden is on you to demonstrate it. The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence for it.

OK, I'm going to get picky...but it's picky with a purpose.

Do you understand that the claim 'I believe..." and "God IS and you MUST agree" are two entirely different 'claims?'

So are "I don't think that a belief in a deity comports with reality' and "Your belief does not comport with reality."

In both cases, the first 'claims' are proven when the speaker simply says 'I believe," or "I think." He can, if he wishes, go on to give the REASONS why s/he believes/thinks this way, but there is no requirement for proof that his beliefs/thoughts are TRUE, by golly. However, in the second statements, there absolutely is a requirement that the claimant provide proof, logically.

You do not get to declare how much, or what sort, of evidence is required for someone ELSE to believe anything. All you have the right to do is figure out how much, and what sort, of evidence is required for YOU to believe. I cannot demand that you agree with me....and I don't. What's more pertinent to this discussion is; you have no right, logically or philosophically, to demand that I prove my position to you in order for ME to believe, and when my claim is simply "I believe" this or that. Nor do you have the right to define reality to me or anybody else. I might agree with your definition; I might not, but if I do it's not because you declared it.

Now, if you want to go on believing something that you know you can't demonstrate, that's perfectly fine, it's a free country. The minute you tell me I should believe in something, I'm gonna ask you to demonstrate it.

no problem, and you should. But I have done no such thing.

Yet you have told me that I have to prove that my beliefs 'comport with reality,' and have accused me of reversing the burden of proof.

Hint: I never claimed it was. Are you done knocking down claims I never made? Can we get to the actual point, which is why anyone should believe there's a god?

Because we do. Why is it impossible for there to be one?

 

[dianaiad]

Your definition of an atheist is not correct. Having a lack of belief that something absolutely is, is NOT the same as claiming that something absolutely isn't.

For example: Person A and Person B both enter a room they've never been in before. In the middle of this room is a large jar filled to the brim with various sized marbles. After looking at the jar for several minutes Person A declares: "I believe that there are EXACTLY 442 marbles in that jar, no more and no less." They then turn to Person B and ask: "Do you also believe that there are EXACTLY 442 marbles in that jar, no more and no less?"

After studying the jar for a moment Person B responds: "I don't have enough evidence to conclude how many marbles are in the jar, so no, I do not share your belief that there are EXACTLY 442 marbles in that jar."

Now, when Person B stated NO, the do NOT believe the number is EXACTLY 442 marbles are they ALSO claiming that they believe that there definitely are NOT 442 marbles in the jar? The answer is NO. They haven't ruled out the POSSIBILITY that there MIGHT be 442 marbles. All they've done is determine that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that there are EXACTLY 442 marbles, no more and no less.

Indeed, you are describing a subset of atheism that I, in fact, think is a reasonable attitude.

However, there IS a subset...a rather large one, called 'strong' atheists, I believe...

That would, if they saw the jar, would declare that they not only didn't have enough evidence to prove that there were exactly 442 marbles in the jar, that they KNEW, by golly, that however many marbles in the jar there are, it won't be 442.

These are the folks who declare, not that they see no evidence for deity, but who are absolutely certain that there can be no evidence for deity because deity simply does not exist. They have, in fact, as much faith that there ISN"T a deity as some theists have that there is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

Here to give you add to your data.....
I was born not believing in gods.
I was introduced to the idea.
I rejected it, & continued to not believe in them.
Thus, I've never been other than an atheist.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

Define what you mean by "god", and I'll let you know if I'm a 7 on the Dawkin's scale of non-belief.

Because I'm quite certain that Impossible Things Do Not Exist: you cannot have a married bachelor.

You cannot have a god who is all good, but also created and is responsible for evil.

Thus, the bible's god-- as described-- cannot exist-- it's impossible. So I'm a 7-- quite certain that particular god is entirely myth as described.

So. Clearly the bible god is Fairy Tale, what else do you have? Without some Ancient Holey Book to go by? Who gets to say?

I would put the onus on describing "god" is entirely on god itself--but it's #1 characteristic seems to be one of Hiding From Inquiry. .

... which is synonymous with not there at all.

Hmmmmmm..... it seems you are absolutely incorrect, here. I exist, and I'm an atheist.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is not true studies show kids have belief in unseen, souls, assume design to the universe, and this is ironically used to dismiss God to say we believe due to evolutionary inclinations that can be found in children thinking still.

What studies, where. I'd love to see those... as I'm quite skeptical of how these were set up in the first place.... how did they determine these kids were *born* with these beliefs, without first letting the kids get language-- which automatically comes with **baggage** such as **theism**...

No, upon further thought? You are wrong, here.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

When I read/listen to atheists who go into diatribes against the god of the OT, or demand to know why God permits evil (like volcanoes, tidal waves, tornadoes and mass murderers) I notice that they aren't mad at the believers, but at the deity they believe in. If they were angry at PEOPLE only, they would acknowledge that since religions are man made, that without religion men would find another reason to be nasty to one another.

Instead, and almost universally, the claim is that without religion the world would be a matter of people dancing around campfires singing "Imagine." That's not being mad at the people. That's being mad at the deity.

You fail, to 100%, to comprehend why atheists rail against the "holey" books that theists use to "justify" their constant and never-ending persecution of any and all who fail to follow said book(s).

We use those examples, not because we are mad at a god we clearly understand is myth-- we are (vainly, it seems) attempting to show theists why their god cannot exist as described-- it's an Impossible Thing: It's supposedly all good, yet does Great Evil.

A nonsense thing. And that point flies right over your head, time and time again... as in the above example...

 

[EtuMalku]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

IS GOD AN ATHEIST?
If we use atheistic definitions, specifically, that faith is a state of belief without evidence and atheism is a lack of belief in God then we are left with a very interesting situation where God could be classified as an atheist.

It would be accurate to say he lacks a belief that he exists since his knowledge is absolute and he knows he exists. So by atheistic standards, God is an atheist. Therefore Atheism exists because God is one.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is not true studies show kids have belief in unseen, souls, assume design to the universe, and this is ironically used to dismiss God to say we believe due to evolutionary inclinations that can be found in children thinking still.

You should add some punctuation.
Then I'll know what you mean, & be able to respond.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Indeed, you are describing a subset of atheism that I, in fact, think is a reasonable attitude.

However, there IS a subset...a rather large one, called 'strong' atheists, I believe...

That would, if they saw the jar, would declare that they not only didn't have enough evidence to prove that there were exactly 442 marbles in the jar, that they KNEW, by golly, that however many marbles in the jar there are, it won't be 442.

These are the folks who declare, not that they see no evidence for deity, but who are absolutely certain that there can be no evidence for deity because deity simply does not exist. They have, in fact, as much faith that there ISN"T a deity as some theists have that there is.

Atheism is not a belief... it's a LACK of belief. It's true that there are some atheists who lack a belief in god who take it one step further and declare a belief that there is no god, but that declaration of belief has nothing to do with atheism... which is simple a LACK of belief.