work in progress
Well-Known Member
Actually the opening post was uncommitted on 'born atheist' but raised the question.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheist by birth?
- Thread starter KovertKitty
- Start date
Commoner
Headache
Exactly. I'm just as prone to seeing a pattern that's not there as the next guy, yet I'm more liklely to correctly dismiss it if I have more knowledge/a better understanding of the way things work. It's a bit like having the same scanner, but better letter recognition software.
I don't understand how that doesn't translate to: "I'm less superstitious". You're confusing the tendencies I have with the beliefs I hold and that makes no sense. In the same way that better software plus the same shoddy scanner equals better (more accurate) text recognition, my shoddy tendencies and my rational mindset result in less supertitious/supernatural beliefs.
So what? I mean, let's look at the numbers...
According to this, the percentage of "non-religious" people in the UK (16,8%) is roughly the same as in the USA and Canada (16,1% and 16,2%, respectively).
Secondly, to be able to gauge the level of superstition or the occurrence of supernatural belief on five arbitrary questions is pretty absurd - but in any case, the number still don't agree with you. Even if we do take the minute sample of questions and the even smaller sample of countries - the USA leads in 3 out of 5 questions... so what exactly was your point?
Thirdly, there is no evidence for what you claim - that the occurrence of other supernatural beliefs is proportionally higher in countries that are less religious. And frankly, there's simply no good reason why it should be so. Certainly what you're saying goes very much against my experience - which, I'm not proposing as evidence of any kind, but still...
Fourthly, it's not enough to show that in less religious countries, the prevalence of other supernatural beliefs is higher - that might very well be true. In order for your assertion to gain any ground whatsoever you would have to show that it's not only higher, but "higher enough". That is, that other supernatural beliefs rise proportionally to the decline of religiosity (or at least very close to it).
And finally, in order for your assertion to be true, there would have to exist a mechanism as strong as religious indoctrination at training young minds to believe in things without evidence. There's a lot of money, time and effort spent to keep god beliefs going. You are proposing that people are just as likely to accept things on faith if they are not systematically preached to them as truth (backed up by rewards and punishments) at an early age?
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, didn't. You misunderstood my assertion and turned into a semantic debate. This isn't complicated:
It is not 100% certain that God doesn't exist. It cannot be claimed that God's nonexistence is 100% sure.
It is 100% certain that you either believe or don't believe God exists. One can claim with absolute certainty that one believes God doesn't exist.
If I ask you whether or not God exists, "I don't know" is a valid answer. If I ask you whether or not you believe God exists, "I don't know" is no longer a valid answer.
Well, it could be if you're conflicted.
We don't always know ourselves (our thoughts or feelings) well enough to ascertain what it is we believe. I think truth is the best pointer (that a posit rings true... or sings, as the case may be).
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But if you "don't know" if you believe something then your answer is that you do not believe something; since you have yet to conclude that you believe it, your answer can only be that you do not believe it.
It's like being in a jury. Your job is not to determine the defendant's innocence, just to determine whether the arguments presented in the court were sufficient to prove their guilt (guilty) or insufficient to prove their guilt (not guilty). And if, at the end of the process, you cannot decide between one or the other, your decision is automatically defaulted to a vote of "not guilty" since the case presented was insufficient for you to decide upon a vote of guilty.
outhouse
Atheistically
yes it can.
it can be claimed all day long.
in my mind im 100% sure that man made god's.
the logic in your statements would imply existance first until proven different. Reality is the opposite in this case
Fact is, no one has ever shown proof or evidence of any kind such a deity has ever existed outside of imagination.
your statements imply nothing in ones imagination can be proven not to be reality, I say it can for the fact it only exist in imagination.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Trouble with that is that I wouldn't be honest if I said, "I don't believe," when I actually meant I "don't know" that I believe. The claim that I "don't believe (something)" makes a posit about that something that, if I'm conflicted, would amount to lying.
That conflates the belief (the 'something') with the state of the believer. You've conflated two subjects.
If I take it into this analogy, it would be the same as if I abstained from the final voting. Abstaining isn't a vote of "guilty" or "not guity." It's no vote.
To deny the abstained vote is false dichotomy.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, it wouldn't. As I explained, "I don't know if I believe" is still a position of disbelief, therefore it is not lying to say you hold a position of disbelief.
How so?
But you're not making no vote, you've already set up a position of "I don't know". You've not abstained, you've already reached a conclusion of not knowing. The only way you could "abstain" from the subject of whether or not you believe something is if you don't even have the capacity to make any kind of decision or thought.
It's already been denied by your position of "I don't know", which comes under the heading of "not guilty". You are therefore of the position of disbelief. I really don't understand why you're so afraid of being associated with a position.
God's nonexistence is 100% sure for certain atheists. The claim has been made. Your opinion / assertion that it cannot be claimed has just been demonstrated false.
And by this logic, I can claim the following:
- I claim with absolute certainty that I believe God doesn't exist.
- (1 second later) I now claim with absolute certainty that I believe God exists.
You believe it is a valid answer. That is how I interpret what you are saying. Yet, you can claim it without saying 'I believe it is a valid answer' because language is good like that.
According to your beliefs. To me, beliefs aren't 'mere' something, and are as I said before derived from knowledge as is faith, trust, etc.
Belief in a single word definition means 'acceptance.' So, if someone asks me if I accept God's existence, it is plausible that one may say, "I don't know." I thought God was a big pasta monster that visited us every cinco de mayo, coming along the eastern horizon at exactly 1 am. This is how I was raised. I swear I saw God at least 6 times when I was a kid. But in last 4 years, I'm not seeing God. Someone else said God is more than a big pasta monster and explained God as 'perfect love' whatever that means. So, right about now, I don't know whether or not I believe God exists.
outhouse
Atheistically
you have a point
I bed to differ.
its on the the person making the wild claim to prove it exist FIRST, before one is said to try and prove it doesnt.
according to your thinking a purple unicorn with pink poka dots in the shape of elvis and webbed feet, we cannot be 100% sure it doesnt exist because I just imagined it and its not proveable.
Well that's going to be a challenging little standard to keep in check in a world that relies on external existence.
I believe it is huge dishonesty to say physical world exists objectively. I've asked numerous times for this objective evidence. Thus far humanity is batting .000, and so dishonesty still strikes me as what is occurring. But don't let that stop all the wonderful things scientific materialism is telling us. No siree Bob.
Contextually speaking, for a certain subset, it is 100% sure. That certain subset believes (as outhouse does) that the others who think God exists are being dishonest.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Well two does come from one.
I know you specifically didn't imagine the words you just used, but somebody did, and somebody imagined the logic your using as well.
"Disbelief" is an inability or refusal to believe: it requires the possibility to believe. "Not knowing" doesn't require the possiblity to believe.
Because the conclusion that I believe is not the belief --they are two different subjects.
If I said, "I'm sorry, I don't believe you when you say you're green," the statement contains a posit: that you're green. That's the subject we're talking about. That's the thing I might possibly invest belief in, and it's the thing I'm not believing in.
If I said, "I'm sorry, I don't know if I believe or not that you're green," it says nothing at all about the posit that you're green, because the subject has changed --the subject now is my knowledge, what I know. The claims says a lot about that, mainly that I don't know (am conflicted).
I begin the jury exercise not knowing if he's guilty, but that's a far cry from concluding that he's "guilty" or "not guilty."
I'm not following you. People actually do get conflicted when they can see truth on both sides of a situation.
As I said, this represents a false dichotomy (that 'I believe' and 'I don't believe' are the only options).
Do you believe is a yes or no question with no room for maybe. If you can't say you do believe then it is a default no. "I don't know if I believe" is another way of saying "I don't believe right now but my mind might change to a yes at a later date". Still yes or no though. No is the default negation because yes requires an affirmation.
Commoner
Headache
Not really, "I believe" or "I do not believe" is not a false dichotomy, just as guilty and not guilty aren't. The problem arises only when you assume that "I don't believe" necessarily means "I believe it isn't true" or that "not guilty" necessarily means "innocent". It does not - that would be a false dichotomy (i.e. guilty or innocent).
If you do not think the person is guilty, then he is "not guilty". If you do not think the person is innocent, then he is "not innocent". There is no contradiction here. Neither does "not guilty" mean "innocent" nor does "not innocent" mean "guilty".
Last edited:
work in progress
Well-Known Member
I have to agree with this point. I think there is a distinction between what people declare as their beliefs, and they way they act on those beliefs. To elaborate - for a long time the only other atheists I knew were my older brother and a former girlfriend; I wasn't even aware of atheist or secular humanist organizations....which hardly existed anyway. So I would characterize atheism then as lacking a belief.
But, when I discovered online atheists and joined a local secular humanist meetup group, I realized that people who organize around atheism (even online) are VERY sure about their atheism, and are far more likely to view atheism as a value in itself. So many who lay claim to a weak atheist position, and think that's what they are, act like strong atheists when confronted or challenging people who have supernatural beliefs.
If someone believes new atheist attitudes like "Religion Poisons Everything," the implications are that supernatural beliefs have to be false because they are harmful to the believer. That may motivate the non-believer to organize with other non-believers to fight the evils of religion and supernatural belief systems. How much room for doubt can a new atheist evangelist leave that he/she might be wrong, and there might be an intelligent force behind our Universe?
The whole non-belief system of a new atheist movement depends on gods NOT existing, and attempts to discover these gods - religion, has to be a harmful and destructive force in the world and for the individual adherent. If you challenge new atheists on these presuppositions, you don't find openminded willingness to study the proposition. The resistance is similar to any religious group having a central, core tenet of their faith challenged by an outsider. Whether they are aware of it or not, a lot of atheists who are motivated to join others and organize around non-belief certainly act like they belong to a movement that has core beliefs. If it was just about not believing, I don't think there would be any way to keep the group together and on message.
I can't go along with this one though! I believe the universal manifestations of teleological thinking - that every action has a purpose, and vitalism - that people and animals have essential properties beyond their obvious natural attributes, are examples of built-in beliefs that develop into the religious and mystical beliefs which every human culture has been based upon. I would see "faith" as a belief that just exists unchallenged, based on intuitive understanding or just the way it feels, as many people describe their faith.
Even though a lot of religions say their faith incorporates or is based on reason, the two just don't work together. Kierkegaard probably did the best analysis of how the search for evidence shows a lack of faith. Total faith means taking a "leap of faith" as Kierkegaard put it - even taking an action that higher reasoning says is wrong. Of course that's where acting on faith alone can be extremely dangerous.
I disagree with this. We can (and certainly do) have beliefs we don't know about. Sometimes we call them assumptions. Oftentimes we don't even know what those assumptions are. And sometimes we get into semantic debates to convince ourselves that a belief we have really isn't a belief.
But yes, the point is, we can believe something and not know we have that belief.
No. It doesn't need a default.
"Yes" is an affirmation --it can't require itself. And I have no idea what you're talking about.
No, the false dichotomy is there in being given only two options where more exist, regardless of what those options mean.
Commoner
Headache
What they mean determines whether or nor there are more options. "Believe" and "not believe" is a true dichotomy exactly because they cover the full spectrum of options.
A false dichotomy would be "I believe it is true" and "I believe it isn't true".