In the many posts you've written since this one, you are displaying what I can only call a desperate need to insist on "belief" as opposed to "lack of belief" for the case of atheism.
It's not desperate need. It's the same need you would have in dealing with an evolution denier when what they are stating is not a fact. I see it as a desire for integrity and truth. And yes, that's a good need. I encourage understanding these things as something Atheism 1.0 needs to look at so it can move its love of rationality even beyond itself, turning the same light of scrutiny it does on theism upon itself. Atheism 2.0 is looking a lot more promising, IMO.
You see, I have absolutely nothing against atheism as a belief option. I think getting beyond the mythic-literal image of God holds a great deal of insights and promise for future understanding of the nature of reality. But it is a first step. Why do you think I was one for over a decade, being a champion of its flavor of rationality over the superstitious and unfounded claims of myth proposed and taught as though it was scientifically valid? It helped ground me in some semblance of a sensible reality.
I could write many flowery praises for atheism and its contribution to the larger picture. I could write that because atheism is part of who I am. I didn't divorce from it. I graduated from it, just as I graduated from theism. The God you don't believe in, I don't believe in either.
And not to put too fine a colour on it, you understand something about your own presumed atheism (which turns out not to be what you believed at all, by the way, but only presumed). You do not, however, have any particular insight into my atheism, or anyone else's.
First of all, that's offensive. It's like a Christian saying to an ExChristian, "You were never really a true Christian", or "It was presumed faith". Would you like me to send you my atheist baptismal record for your review?
But a couple interesting things here I'd like to point out. That you should phrase it, "which turns out not to be what you believed at all", is exactly to the point of this discussion. You are thinking in "belief vs belief" terms. An atheist says "the belief in God is not true". The Christian says the opposite. This says exactly to me that your perception of atheism is that it was something I "believed in", and lost faith in it as it was "not true."
It is not a matter of true versus false to me. It is to atheism. It is to theism. It is not to me. Theism and atheism are simply two ways of looking at the same thing. They are both true, and both false in that they have the impression their ways of perceiving ultimate reality (and that is what God represents), is either this, or that, true or false, black or white, on or off, etc. To me both are just paint brushes of differing colors painting the same thing from different perceptions.
As I said, both theism and atheism are part of me. They are not "wrong". They are
understandings.
And as far as speaking of atheism in general, I most certainly am qualified to speak to it. You think my saying I am a former self-identified atheist with all my group participations and memberships, somehow now disqualifies me to know anything about this? And BTW, you are presuming to speak for atheists too, since you are speaking for all them in denial of what I am saying here.
But let's talk about what makes "rational sense," for a moment, because this will help you understand my atheism. The only notions that I have of deities are those that are given to me by believers. So, of course, I grew up in a Christian world, and I received the usual indoctrination -- although to an hugely lesser degree than a lot of religious folks -- and what I was told about that religion made no "rational sense" to me. I was taught that "God sees the little sparrow fall," but I reasoned that if He's God, what does it matter if He doesn't hold out His mighty hand to break that fall? That just makes him a sadistic voyeur, unwilling to use what power he's supposed to have to prevent harm. I was taught about "original sin," but I refused to believe that I could be guilty for anything another human did, and therefore I refused to think of myself as a sinner.
Yes, and this is a view I think that atheism does a service to dispel to many to help us move beyond such a limiting perspective. What you just described is the mythic-literal view of God. When we live in such a modern world with education available to teach us about how to reason in order to understanding a more complex and nuanced society, and world we live in, such views cannot withstand the scalpel of critical thinking that way. They aren't designed for that purpose, and should not be treated as such either.
I think a better way is for atheism to recognize the nature of what mythologies are, and what functions they have for us a humans and humans in social and cultural contexts. Understanding they are not rational constructs (the inherent contradictions you cited), does not make them invalid on a different level. In a different context, these systems of belief make sense and provide a relatively cohesive whole to those within that system, such as those living before the Enlightenment in the 17th century.
In modern times now however, if we get far enough beyond a "this is right and that is wrong" style of thinking, we can understand that we ourselves, in our atheism, construct systems of belief upon which we hang the fabric of reality that we see ourselves and reality through. We do the same thing as the mythic believers do.
Once we recognize, and
come to terms with that, that atheism is a much a belief in ultimate reality as theism is, then we can say "hey we're both doing it, so why can't I recognize none of it is really about "facts" or "logic" when it comes to talking about something so enormously abstract as the nature of Existence itself?
So that's where I go with this, and where it comes from, in part. Hopefully some of this makes sense.
The idea of God, however, has no real meaning for me, and therefore it has no impact on my behaviours and my choices.
I think I may be clearing something up for myself in trying to talk about this. When you are saying the "idea of God", what I am hearing is that when you think, or thought of the "ultimate reality", and that is what people are pointing at when they introduce God as a concept, it was the image of that with its depiction to you from them that you found wouldn't fit that. In other words, consciously or not, you had to have a screen upon which to place that image, which either fit well enough as it does for some, or not well enough as it did for you.
Cleary, you were too rational to accept the depiction they offered you. It didn't fit into how your mind works when imagining ultimate reality. It didn't me either. I am like you this way. To assume I believe the way about Ultimate Reality today as they depict it, would be a mistake.
Bottom line on this part of my response: our beliefs inform our actions. And nothing about my atheism informs my actions.
Your beliefs about ultimate reality do. You just don't have a deity figure in it. I don't either. I see "God" or "ultimate reality" as infinitely beyond the depiction of our mythologies.
I do not act in a specific way because of any lack of belief in gods. I act based on the things that I actually do believe. Lack of belief is, in a word, lack of motivation.
No, you are still motivated by how you view ultimate truth of existence, on some level or another. Everyone is, even if it isn't a burning question in the forefront of their minds. You live life as if the material world is all there is, and that has meaning and shapes everything you do. None of which is without merit.
As I have tried to point out (obviously with no success, as you appear not to be listening) you are simply incorrect
I am listening quite well and attentively. I just do not accept that to state "I do not believe God exists" to be something different than saying "I believe God does not exist". They are identical. It is a belief that ultimate reality is not the depiction of God you learned, or that any God exists. I hear said otherwise, but I don't believe it. It's a really hot-button issue for a lot of atheists (not all have a problem calling it a belief), therefore, it's a "sensitive" thing. I surmise that is because it sounds too much like saying "faith", which, God forbid, is beneath reason.
Nothing that starts with "I do not," just for starters, can be called a "positive assertion."
Try this: "I do not believe God exists." vs. "I believe God does not exist". Both are saying the same thing. Both are a positive assertion. And that's fine, if that's how you choose to believe. Either way is fine.
In the same way, someone might say "I believe that Donald Trump will go down in history as the worst president ever." The person who responds, "I don't believe that," are not saying anything at all about Donald Trump, or about his presidency.
But they have made a positive assertion that the believe he won't be. They are asserting they believe it won't be him.
Because I have lived 71 years in a world in which religious belief has had an absolutely immense impact, and I've studied history enough to see that religious belief is a huge driver of human behaviours. I myself, a gay man, have been the target of religion. Fairies (no, not my kind), or their believers, have never tried to make laws to have me imprisoned, or stoned to death. Read history. There has never been a war about belief in Santa Claus, fairies, leprechauns, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. But millions have died, and continue to die up to this very moment, for variations in belief about this thing called "God." Believe that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden, if you will, and I won't care. But if you begin killing your neighbours for disagreeing, then I will become an "Afairiest" right away.
Do you think religion and theism are the same thing?
Really? I'm not smart enough to appreciate all your insight. But I'm honest enough to hold to my own truth.
I did not say that. I am talking to you in the belief you actually are. I spent more time on this post than most. What I am saying is don't assume I'm not intelligent or insightful in what I am saying. Hopefully, you can see I am not just some hack.