Can atheists reconcile with theists?

[Windwalker]

I am trying to imagine how many times you have been explicitly told that this is not true, and why you still cannot grasp it. It is a true mystery.

It's not mystery at all. I don't believe the claim. It makes no rational sense. It doesn't match up with reality. Don't forget, I self-identified as an atheist for a decade or so, as an adult in my 40s, not as a teen. I understand a great deal about atheism.

Yes, theists are asserting a belief. But atheists are not. They are simply saying that they don't share that particular belief, and they do not then go on to replace it with some contrary belief.

"I don't believe God exists", is a statement of belief. It is a positive assertion. If it was just simply a "non-belief", then why all the interest in the claim of God? Why join discussion forums about it? Do you participate on forums that believe in Fairies? Do you claim the title, "Afairest? No? then what's the big deal about God then, if it's a simple "lack of belief"?

Why is this so very hard for you to understand?

Experience and a great deal of insight. It's obvious to me. I'm too smart to buy all the self-denial, minimizing it, and whatnot. It doesn't add up. It doesn't ring true.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a somewhat lighthearted attempt to try and find common ground around the fringes of beliefs of both -
Turn on the captions if you cannot understand his accent
Fair warning - he does not answer the question in a straightforward way - but that is typical of the way he interacts - his goal as stated is to encourage self realization rather than provide answers - belief versus knowledge

The Hindu astika schools of thought span duality and monotheism all the way to atheism - and really allow for personal customization of belief. I think some of what this gentleman is referring to, comes from Samkhya

Any and all thoughts welcomed

I voted <yes>.
I find common ground with many believers.
We only disagree about the number of gods.
And that difference is only 1.

 

[Windwalker]

Is not finding reason or evidence to turn an assertion into a belief, asserting a belief?

Yes. You believe the claim lacks support. That is a belief.

I cannot say that Bigfoot does not exist, and I see no reason to believe that Bigfoot does exist. Are you saying that I am asserting a belief in not-Bigfootism?

If you are claiming this, then you are agnostic. An atheist would say, "I do not believe God exists". They wouldn't say "I'm not convinced." "I do not believe," is a statement of belief. It's a belief of the opposite of what is claimed.

 

[Windwalker]

Actually atheists are asserting a LACK of belief. Not the same thing.

You claim this, yet what is being said is a disbelief in a claim. That is a belief to the contrary. A belief to the contrary, is still a belief. You may think it's a better belief, and that may or may not be the case. But it is a belief regardless.

Just like stating a lack of belief in Big Foot is NOT the same as asserting that Big Foot absolutely does not exist.

Are you saying you're unsure, or unconvinced about Bigfoot? Then you are an agnostic. If you say however, "I do not believe in Bigfoot", then you are an atheist, making a belief statement.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. You believe the claim lacks support. That is a belief.

What you are saying is different than not having a belief.

If you are claiming this, then you are agnostic. An atheist would say, "I do not believe God exists". They wouldn't say "I'm not convinced." "I do not believe," is a statement of belief. It's a belief of the opposite of what is claimed.

But most of the atheists I have talked with express this as I described.

They fit the 'not a stamp collector' model.

There is evidence used to support the existence of Bigfoot, but no compelling evidence that Bigfoot exists. Most supporters appear to just believe it exists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You claim this, yet what is being said is a disbelief in a claim. That is a belief to the contrary. A belief to the contrary, is still a belief. You may think it's a better belief, and that may or may not be the case. But it is a belief regardless.


Are you saying you're unsure, or unconvinced about Bigfoot? Then you are an agnostic. If you say however, "I do not believe in Bigfoot", then you are an atheist, making a belief statement.

They are not asserting that position as a belief.

 

[Windwalker]

What you are saying is different than not having a belief.

You asked the question, "Is not finding reason or evidence to turn an assertion into a belief, asserting a belief?" I'll correct myself here. What that is is agnosticism. The atheist however would say, "Therefore I do not believe in Bigfoot". That's not agnostic. It's a statement of belief.

"If you are claiming this, then you are agnostic. An atheist would say, "I do not believe God exists". They wouldn't say "I'm not convinced." "I do not believe," is a statement of belief. It's a belief of the opposite of what is claimed.

But most of the atheists I have talked with express this as I described.

I know they do. Because it's too uncomfortable to claim it as a belief. It's sounds to "religious", or something.

They fit the 'not a stamp collector' model.

I'm not sure what the metaphor is saying here.

 

[Windwalker]

They are not asserting that position as a belief.

"I don't believe Bigfoot exists", is the same as saying "I believe Bigfoot does not exist". No difference.

 

[Windwalker]

They are not asserting that position as a belief.

I want to add an example I just thought of to this. UFOs. Personally, I'm not convinced. I don't believe, nor do I disbelieve. I'm "agnostic", or a better word, "neutral," or "interested" or "disinterested". Those are all neutral positions.

Enter here this statement. "I do not believe UFOs are real". That is an assertion of belief. It is saying "UFOs do not exist". That is what atheism is. It's not neutral. It's an assertion. Therefore it is a belief. "God does not exist", is not neutral.

 

[Dell]

This is a somewhat lighthearted attempt to try and find common ground around the fringes of beliefs of both -
Turn on the captions if you cannot understand his accent
Fair warning - he does not answer the question in a straightforward way - but that is typical of the way he interacts - his goal as stated is to encourage self realization rather than provide answers - belief versus knowledge

The Hindu astika schools of thought span duality and monotheism all the way to atheism - and really allow for personal customization of belief. I think some of what this gentleman is referring to, comes from Samkhya

Any and all thoughts welcomed

On religion, No. An atheist is someone who believes it is impossible for God (as defined by theist, i.e. omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc..) to exist. How can that be reconciled to theist who believes God does exist? Expecially if laws are made in association with thus saith the Lord...
As far as living peaceable on this earth goes, yes, there has to be some common ground or one will persecute the other.

 

[Windwalker]

Well you got the theist part right.

Atheism is the flipside of the Theism coin. It justs tagges an A onto Theism. And that's perfectly fine. I'm all for divergent beliefs. I'm not in for denialisms however. That's a bad faith. (In my well-informed opinion)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Atheism is the flipside of the Theism coin. It justs tagges an A onto Theism. (In my well-informed opinion) And that's perfectly fine. I'm all for divergent beliefs. I'm not in for denial however.

Well given that no God has announced him or herself or itself , one could hardly call atheism a belief when it is perfectly clear as a bell that no God is around.

The term atheism itself is just a response to theism, not the flip side of anything.

 

[ManSinha]

I perhaps errantly jumped to the conclusion that the OP was about the Abrahamic version exclusively.

Oh come on my dear sir - did you not see who wrote the OP?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Gee, don't tell that to me, or to @Aupmanyav , please.

Luis, I am, I think, a special kind of atheist, a 'religious atheist' and not a 'hoi polloi' type of atheist, something like Theravada/Hinayana* Buddhists. I stand by my religion and its denominations.
(I do not think Hinayna is derogatory term. Is being a minimalist a crime?)

 

[Aupmanyav]

"I don't believe God exists", is a statement of belief. It is a positive assertion. If it was just simply a "non-belief", then why all the interest in the claim of God? Why join discussion forums about it? Do you participate on forums that believe in Fairies? Do you claim the title, "Afairest? No? then what's the big deal about God then, if it's a simple "lack of belief"?

Experience and a great deal of insight. It's obvious to me. I'm too smart to buy all the self-denial, minimizing it, and whatnot. It doesn't add up. It doesn't ring true.

Who is making it a big deal? I have been a theist and atheist all my life. For the last some 20 years, I have been an atheist, but not a non-religionist. I remain a Hindu because I have found a niche in Hinduism which allows me to be an atheist ('advaita' - nonduality). I have studied books from all religions. I have time on my hands, I am a retired person, therefore I participate in forums. I do not think Religious Forums only for theists? I have declined membership for many forums which had this kind of restriction. I do not go where I am not welcome. Of course, I am a strong atheist, but it is the theists who make a big deal about their 'One God' and his prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis. Therefore, it is fun puncturing their balloons.

Yes. You believe the claim lacks support. That is a belief.

A belief should have at least kernel of truth. Like expanding universe is for Big Bang. You don't have no evidence (except Islam saying that 'do we not see the cleft moon?'), you are building wholesale on hearsay, a castle in the air. I do not even believe in the possibility of existence of God or Gods. Yes, many people are confused, and therefore 'agnostic'. What we started with is only bundle of 'physical energy'.

It is saying "UFOs do not exist".

Yes, UFOs do not exist. There is no scientific evidence available of their visits or interaction with humans. The distances in the universe are very large. Even if we can go to Moon or Mars (at any time in the future), I do not foresee establishment of colonies there. Of course, we have sent machines outside the Solar system for experimental purposes. If there are intelligent civilizations in any other planet in the universe (I am sure there are, the statistical possibility is all for it with billions of galaxies and billions of stars in them), they also will see the uselessness of such an enterprise and would desist from it. We are but tied to this blue speck.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is a somewhat lighthearted attempt to try and find common ground around the fringes of beliefs of both -
Turn on the captions if you cannot understand his accent
Fair warning - he does not answer the question in a straightforward way - but that is typical of the way he interacts - his goal as stated is to encourage self realization rather than provide answers - belief versus knowledge

The Hindu astika schools of thought span duality and monotheism all the way to atheism - and really allow for personal customization of belief. I think some of what this gentleman is referring to, comes from Samkhya

Any and all thoughts welcomed

I didn't watch the video. Primarily because I don't have sound here at the moment.

But I will share my opinion.

A priori, I don't have any issues with anyone "by default". I honestly can get along with anybody, no matter the culture they come from, their political preference, their ethnicity, their taste of music, their sexual orientation, what-have-you...
In fact, the more different they are from me, the more interested I'ld be in a conversation. When strolling around Antwerp, I love buying foreign tourists a beer and have a chat.

As long as there is mutual respect, I have no problem at all.

Where I draw the line, is when that respect is not mutual. When the person I talk to thinks I deserve to die or to be tortured for eternity because I don't believe as (s)he does, to take an extreme.

So the common ground between me and people from vastly different cultures, ideologies, etc... I guess that would be things like secularism and humanistic values. Such are the values that make it possible for 2 vastly different people to have mutual respect.

 

[Aupmanyav]

TegliatelliMonster, I am coming to Antwerp soon and hope you will buy the beer and have a chat with me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, I am, I think, a special kind of atheist, a 'religious atheist' and not a 'hoi polloi' type of atheist, something like Theravada/Hinayana* Buddhists. I stand by my religion and its denominations.
(I do not think Hinayna is derogatory term. Is being a minimalist a crime?)

That you are, Aup, but I do not expect that to be particularly rare.

Quite on the contrary.

Hinayana, however, is generally perceived as a derogatory term. At least when we use it in Buddhism.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Knowing is a subjective experience. Therefore it is true for everyone.

This is a somewhat frightening sentiment, if I am being honest. It pretty much states (albeit seating it in fuzzy, feel-good language) that it is fine for everyone to just go around pretending they know.

One person states the world is round, the other states the world is flat. And, because, as you said, "knowing is a subjective experience" - they both "know." Isn't that nice?

If you're right, then in the end, it doesn't matter what you "know." It matters what is true. If what you "know" can be absolute garbage data that has no tie to reality, then I don't care what you "know."

 

[syo]

Yup.

There are two things in life; God's stuff and human's stuff.
human's stuff don't need God.

so yup.