How I Feel About Atheists

[Polymath257]

At best, confused.

So you think that only someone who is confused can allow for the possibility of a deity and also not believe that possibility is realized?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

I am an atheist because theists have not convinced me a deity exists.

No one can prove any Deity exists. That is a matter of faith. But faith in the existence of a Deity can be real in the minds and influence in people's lives. And if it enhances their life and is a positive experience for them, then that's all that matters. It's no one else's life to try and dissuade them that their faith is not real because of lack of evidence. I'm not saying you are telling someone what that they shouldn't believe in a Deity, I'm just speaking in general about this whole topic of atheists and theists. I wouldn't expect a theist to tell an atheist that what they choose to believe is not provable or unreasonable or anything. And vice versa. Life is for each individual to experience in their own way and believe in what they want to make sense of a life that can be very perplexing to comprehend. So if people believe in elves and unicorns and it makes them happy without harming anyone else then why would anyone else even care ? You don't have to believe in it or you can view faith as an illogical device to understand something, but there are people who have better lives for themselves by their faith in a Deity. That's what matters because science and proof can only explain so much and account for so much in life. There are other aspects to life and existence that have just as much importance. Again, I'm just speaking to those who think that people who believe in a Deity or who live by faith are foolish or whatever. Some require materialistic means to validate their existence and only find meaning in scientific facts and tangible evidence of things while others find meaning and truth by faith and ideas and thoughts that don't require materialistic proof. Why does one view have to try and nullify the other ? It shouldn't be that way. There needs to be more acceptance and empathy in this world. These forums are always more about arguments and self righteousness than people trying to understand the other person and maybe accept that people see things in different lights and experience life in different ways. I'm not excluded from this behavior either. This is why I am posting this right now. Because I fell into this trap again and realized that everyone is just promoting their views and opinions and beliefs. Facts belong to the discussions on facts . Faith belongs to the discussions on faith. And there is a place where facts and science don't explain everything and a place where faith or the idea of a Deity doesn't explain everything. Ideas of faith won't make sense to a person who needs facts and facts won't always make sense to a person who lives by faith . And that is life. So make of it what you choose and believe in whatever you choose. NO ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

 

[LuisDantas]

Was that their duty?

It is, if they entitle themselves to find atheism objectionable.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

And there are plenty of brilliant scientists that don't believe some higher intelligence may exist, whose studies led them away from the possibility of a higher intelligence. So what?

Maybe this is why it should come down to evidence, rather than personal opinion.

Exactly. So maybe it should come down to personal opinion rather than evidence since there might not be a possibility of there being evidence.
You believe what you want and the next person will believe differently. It all becomes personal opinion.
So unless there's material evidence of something no one should have an opinion ?

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly. So maybe it should come down to personal opinion rather than evidence since there might not be a possibility of there being evidence.
You believe what you want and the next person will believe differently. It all becomes personal opinion.
So unless there's material evidence of something no one should have an opinion ?

OK, now we are getting somewhere. I agree, it is an *opinion*. What distinguishes an opinion from a truth is the objective nature of truth. If there is no possibility of there being evidence, that means it *cannot* be a truth, it can *only* be an opinion.

And, at that point, it become reasonable to withhold belief one way or the other. And that is the (weak) atheist position.

 

[Polymath257]

No one can prove any Deity exists.

OK, we can stop right there. That is quite sufficient reason to NOT believe in deities.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There is no "strong and weak" atheism. There are only strong and weak atheists. The strong theists being those that are honest and forthright about their assumed position that no gods or divine realms exist. And are willing to say so, and defend their position by whatever reasoning they follow. And the weak atheists being those who lie about what atheism is (calling it "Unbelief") so that they won't have to admit that they cannot defend it even as they are busy attacking theists and theism for the same inability. And I would be neither wise nor will I accept their deliberate mischaracterizations of the terms just so they can continue to snipe at theism and theists while hiding their own hypocrisy behind it. If they doubt their own atheism then they should not claim to be atheists, and admit that they are just undetermined skeptics. If they don't doubt their atheism then they should be willing be able to admit their atheism and defend it, without hiding behind "unbelief".

It's a shame that you view this issue only as a simple dichotomy.

No true Scotsman would lie about being Scottish so he could avoid having to defend Scotland. And no Scotsman would accept anyone who did that as one of his own. Sometimes the "no true Scotsman" meme is not a fallacy. It's the truth.

So you're admitting that you've set up your argument based on a logical fallacy?

You: "An Atheist thinks a certain way."
Others: "I'm an Atheist and I don't think that way..."
You: "Then you're not really an Atheist!"

Again: No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

It's very easy, all they have to do is explain, using logic and reason, why their definitions are not exactly what I claim they are: lies designed to allow them to hide them from their own hypocrisy. So far, in hundreds of posts, not ONE has been able to do so, or has really even tried. All they've managed to do is appeal to dictionary definitions (which merely record their abuse of the term because they abuse it so often), and claim that if lying about how atheistic they are makes them not atheists, then hardly anyone is an atheist. Which is exactly as absurd as it sounds.

I don't think you appreciate the damage that logical fallacies cause in logical arguments...

You've admittedly created an no-win scenario for anyone or anything that doesn't agree with you. And since I'm about to openly explain myself contrary to your claims, you're going to tell me that I must not really be an Atheist... or that I'm a liar.

I strongly disbelieve in all the gods that I've been told exist, to this point. Therefore, I'm an Atheist.
Does that mean I'm opposed to all god concepts ever?
It does not.
I'm not opposed to a fully substantiated God concept that more accurately meshes with reality as it's observed.

That last sentence alone makes everything you've said to this point obsolete... So now what?

Find me these logical, reasonable explanations of why atheism should include undetermined skepticism. Please. Because all I've seen so far is "The dictionary says so" and "All my weak friends say so". And these are neither logical nor reasonable arguments.

• Theism = Belief in a god or gods.
• (A)theism = Latin prefix "a" added to theism, meaning "without". Literally, the word means without Theism. Anyone without Theism is an Atheist.

Someone can be Political, for example.
Another person, who is not political, could be called Apolitical. I highly doubt that you would make the same argument about people who are apolitical that you are trying to make about people who are atheist. And yet here we are...

The ONLY requirement for someone to be an Atheist is that they not be a Theist. ANYTHING else is something that either you, or the person themselves, have added.

Done. Done. and Done.

I am not going to change the meaning of the term "atheism" just to accommodate a bunch of philosophical sissies.

Atheism - Wikipedia

But you will change it to meet your own agenda?

 

[Koldo]

At best, confused.

How come ?

 

[Polymath257]

At best, confused.

OK, let me put it this way. Suppose someone told you that they accept that it is *possible* Bigfoot exists, but they don't actually believe it to be true.

Would you call them confused? How is this any different if you replace Bigfoot by God in the question?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

OK, we can stop right there. That is quite sufficient reason to NOT believe in deities.

You can stop right there, I certainly don't stop right there. You took one sentence out of what I posted and fit it to your personal belief. I can still find sufficient reason to believe in deities. And I explained why I think so. Of course there are reasons not to believe in deities. But there are reasons to believe in deities. 1.) I have always said that there is a POSSIBILITY of a deity/ID. Because there is no current evidence doesn't negate the possibility. Didn't science believe in dark matter before they could prove it ? So why not believe in a cause of our existence even though it can't be proven yet ? It seems very reasonable since everything else we see has a cause behind it. And when you mention virtual particles not having a cause, we just haven't learned the cause yet. We may still find that cause, we're not done learning about everything, are we ? 2.) And this is what I find to be more important. If believing in a deity, regardless of proof, makes someone's life better for THEM, if it makes them more happy and helps them make more sense of our existence and gives positive meaning to their life, then that is sufficient reason TO believe in a deity. Because we can search for scientific answers until we are dead and that doesn't necessarily make us happier or give ones life more meaning. It may for some. But believing in a deity may and does make people very happy and gives positive meaning to their lives. And life is very short. Is that not sufficient ?

 

[Polymath257]

You can stop right there, I certainly don't stop right there. You took one sentence out of what I posted and fit it to your personal belief. I can still find sufficient reason to believe in deities. And I explained why I think so. Of course there are reasons not to believe in deities. But there are reasons to believe in deities. 1.) I have always said that there is a POSSIBILITY of a deity/ID. Because there is no current evidence doesn't negate the possibility. Didn't science believe in dark matter before they could prove it ?

No, that isn't how science works. Dark matter was considered as a hypothesis before it was proved. Perhaps some scientists would have *bet* favorably on the existence of dark matter before it was proved, but *belief* is something, at least in science, that comes *after* the evidence, not before.

So why not believe in a cause of our existence even though it can't be proven yet ? It seems very reasonable since everything else we see has a cause behind it.

Everything in the universe that has a cause has a cause in the universe. So it is reasonable to believe that all causes are in the universe. Hence, the universe itself cannot have a cause.

And when you mention virtual particles not having a cause, we just haven't learned the cause yet.

Well, now you are expressing a faith in the concept of causality as well as faith in the concept of a deity. To discuss causality, I would first ask you what you mean by the term.

The violation of Bell's inequalities shows that many types of 'cause' are inconsistent with how the universe actually is. In particular, no causal, realist description *can* be consistent with what we have observed.

We may still find that cause, we're not done learning about everything, are we ?

No, but what we have found isn't just a lack of causality. It is actually a demonstration that causality cannot be the case. those are two very different things.

2.) And this is what I find to be more important. If believing in a deity, regardless of proof, makes someone's life better for THEM, if it makes them more happy and helps them make more sense of our existence and gives positive meaning to their life, then that is sufficient reason TO believe in a deity. Because we can search for scientific answers until we are dead and that doesn't necessarily make us happier or give ones life more meaning. It may for some. But believing in a deity may and does make people very happy and gives positive meaning to their lives. And life is very short. Is that not sufficient ?

And those on drugs claim to be happier because they are on drugs. That doens't mean it is a good thing. Self-delusion is often more satisfying and leads to more happiness than being honest with ones-self.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

OK, now we are getting somewhere. I agree, it is an *opinion*. What distinguishes an opinion from a truth is the objective nature of truth. If there is no possibility of there being evidence, that means it *cannot* be a truth, it can *only* be an opinion.

And, at that point, it become reasonable to withhold belief one way or the other. And that is the (weak) atheist position.

Why are we always getting somewhere when it fits your framework ? Yes, it is reasonable to withhold belief, but it is also reasonable for someone to have belief. I tried explaining my view. So you find people's belief in a deity unreasonable if it makes them happy and makes sense to them ? You think everyone who believes in a deity should withhold their belief and erase their opinion even though they their very opinion of a deity lends them to do wonderful humanitarian work or simply makes the world a better experience for themselves ? Doesn't that matter more than you or I making a point if it is a truth or an opinion ? If you can admit that that is what really matters, then we would be getting somewhere.

 

[Polymath257]

Why are we always getting somewhere when it fits your framework ? Yes, it is reasonable to withhold belief, but it is also reasonable for someone to have belief. I tried explaining my view. So you find people's belief in a deity unreasonable if it makes them happy and makes sense to them ?

I see it as *non-reasonable*, not *unreasonable*. The conclusion doesn't come from reason because reason isn't able to decide between alternatives.

Again, this happens in a subject as definite as mathematics: there are statements that can never be proved nor disproved. In such cases, reason does not answer the question, so something non-reasonable needs to be used. Such as aesthetics, or intuition, etc. Those are NOT 'reasonable', but they are ways to choose when a statement cannot be proved nor disproved.

And, if you go that route, you have extended the axiom system. Fair enough. I may doubt the utility of that extension, but for such statements, it is a matter of choice.

You think everyone who believes in a deity should withhold their belief and erase their opinion even though they their very opinion of a deity lends them to do wonderful humanitarian work or simply makes the world a better experience for themselves ? Doesn't that matter more than you or I making a point if it is a truth or an opinion ? If you can admit that that is what really matters, then we would be getting somewhere.

They only need to do so if they want to claim to be making the decision based upon reason. As long as they admit it is a non-reasonable choice, I am happy. Such choices are often required.

 

[PureX]

So you think that only someone who is confused can allow for the possibility of a deity and also not believe that possibility is realized?

How have you allowed for the possibility of a deity existing if you believe that possibility to be unfulfilled? Are you allowing that a deity might pop into existence at some later time? Or, if you are trying to say that you believe no deities exist even though you acknowledge that you can't know your belief to be so, then aren't you talking about an act of faith? After all, that's what theists do when engaged in faith: they believe there is a god even though they can't know it to be so.

 

[Polymath257]

How have you allowed for the possibility of a deity existing if you believe that possibility to be unfulfilled? Are you allowing that a deity might pop into existence at some later time? Or, if you are trying to say that you believe no deities exist even though you acknowledge that you can't know your belief to be so, then aren't you talking about an act of faith?

No, precisely the opposite. I am saying that the evidence has not been conclusive, but the strength of the evidence is to non-existence.

After all, that's what theists do when engaged in faith: they believe there is a god even though they can't know it to be so.

Ah, so you are requiring 100% knowledge before it is counted as knowledge. Well *nothing* in the real world rises to that standard.

But, for example, I consider the likelihood of a deity existing to be much lower than the likelihood that Bigfoot exists. Neither are absolutely excluded, but I also don't consider either very seriously.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Most self-proclaimed atheists I find are atheists, in that they believe the proposition that no gods or divine realms exist.

Not on this thread, unless you want to assert that we are all lying for some nefarious purpose.

But many of them don't want to be exposed as having no logical or evidential reason for holding this position, especially when they are so quick to denigrate theists for that very same reason. So they feign "unbelief" and claim they are "undecided"

So you do assert that we are lying.

The whole reason you and others here are fighting so hard to label skepticism as atheism is so you can maintain this "unbelief" nonsense ...

And this would be your imagined nefarious purpose.

As you are seeing, we maintain our unbelief and self-identification as atheists with or without the approval of theists. We welcome their understanding and any discussion based on a mutual desire to understand one another, but you seem uninterested. No problem.

Incidentally, why would we lie to you? How would that be more valuable than lying to a cat? We don't need your understanding or assent, and you are powerless in our lives.

... and void the obvious hypocrisy of accusing theists of the same lack of logic or evidence that accompanies your own position.

Now now we're hypocrites based on your straw man depiction of who we are?

And yes, faith is illogical and by definition, lacking sufficient evidence. You also have no control over others who define the word that way. As I've said repeatedly, you can choose to understand what people mean when they use a word, or fight pointless, impotent semantic wars. You'vechosen the latter and isolated yourself from virtually every atheist posting here.

Because these terms are not defined by what or how intently we "believe". They are defined by the acceptance or rejection of the proposed possibility.

Theism and atheism are based exactly on the presence or absence of a particular belief. Nobody seems to be waiting for you to agree to keep asserting that.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, that isn't how science works. Dark matter was considered as a hypothesis before it was proved. Perhaps some scientists would have *bet* favorably on the existence of dark matter before it was proved, but *belief* is something, at least in science, that comes *after* the evidence, not before.


Everything in the universe that has a cause has a cause in the universe. So it is reasonable to believe that all causes are in the universe. Hence, the universe itself cannot have a cause.


Well, now you are expressing a faith in the concept of causality as well as faith in the concept of a deity. To discuss causality, I would first ask you what you mean by the term.

The violation of Bell's inequalities shows that many types of 'cause' are inconsistent with how the universe actually is. In particular, no causal, realist description *can* be consistent with what we have observed.


No, but what we have found isn't just a lack of causality. It is actually a demonstration that causality cannot be the case. those are two very different things.



And those on drugs claim to be happier because they are on drugs. That doens't mean it is a good thing. Self-delusion is often more satisfying and leads to more happiness than being honest with ones-self.

Who decides what is good or not for someone else ? That isn't for you to decide. You can only decide what is good for you. And how would you decide if one is being honest with one-self ? You are not that person. You don't possess their mind and feelings. It still seems that you expect or want everyone to think and believe in everything just as you do or else they are delusional or not living the right way. I find this completely egotistical and solipsistic. You used the word ' solipsistic ' on someone else on this forum I believe. Ironically , that is exactly how you come across to me. If math and science is all that makes sense to you or makes you happy , that's fine. But why do you expect everyone to think as you ? Maybe you're not being honest with yourself. That can be said about you , too. Would you appreciate someone saying you are self-delusional and not honest with yourself ? Because it can be just as easily applied to you and you couldn't refute it. It would be that person's view of you and you couldn't change it. Just like you believe others are self-delusional if they are not in compliance with your personal views. THE WORD ACCORDING TO POLYMATH.

 

[PureX]

No, precisely the opposite. I am saying that the evidence has not been conclusive, but the strength of the evidence is to non-existence.

But you're reaching a conclusion based on inconclusive evidence. That's either an act of faith, or of blind bias. And since it denies the possibility, rather than exploring it, I'd say it's bias.

Ah, so you are requiring 100% knowledge before it is counted as knowledge. Well *nothing* in the real world rises to that standard.

I know, that's where faith comes in. Faith moves us forward when our knowledge runs out.

 

[Polymath257]

Who decides what is good or not for someone else ? That isn't for you to decide. You can only decide what is good for you. And how would you decide if one is being honest with one-self ? You are not that person. You don't possess their mind and feelings. It still seems that you expect or want everyone to think and believe in everything just as you do or else they are delusional or not living the right way. I find this completely egotistical and solipsistic. You used the word ' solipsistic ' on someone else on this forum I believe. Ironically , that is exactly how you come across to me. If math and science is all that makes sense to you or makes you happy , that's fine. But why do you expect everyone to think as you ? Maybe you're not being honest with yourself. That can be said about you , too. Would you appreciate someone saying you are self-delusional and not honest with yourself ? Because it can be just as easily applied to you and you couldn't refute it. It would be that person's view of you and you couldn't change it. Just like you believe others are self-delusional according to your personal views. THE WORD ACCORDING TO POLYMATH.

if someone honestly thinks I am self-delusional, I would actually appreciate it if they told me and showed me how. I can then decide if I think they are correct and change my behavior if they are. ALL of us are subject to a certain amount of self-delusion. I just prefer to minimize it if possible.

 

[Mister Silver]

I know, that's where faith comes in. Faith moves us forward when our knowledge runs out.

Incorrect. Religious faith is used completely in place of knowledge, for the very definition of faith is a belief not based on proof.