I think I am now an atheist

[Augustus]

Now that I know you have an aversion to the phrase “lack of belief”, allow me a reset.

You believe X (god) does not exist, because you do not believe there is reason to believe in X (god)
Therefore your entire statement is due to a disbelief in god/s.
Would you agree with this?

I have absolutely no problem with that.

I see "disbelief in the existence of gods" to be the same as "belief gods don't exist".

Putting semantics and grammar aside though, the crux of the issue is that an atheist is adopting a cognitive stance regarding the position "gods exist".

From the abstract.
However, even the portion you cite;
“Several psychological studies9 –11 appear to support Spinoza’s conjecture12 that the mere comprehension of a statement entails the tacit acceptance of its being true, whereas disbelief requires a subsequent process of rejection.”
Along with:
“Our behavioral data support this hypothesis, in so far as subjects judged statements to be “true” more quickly than they judged them to be “false” or “undecidable”.”
Indicates that cognition (visible with fMRI) occurs in the case of rejection as well, and with uncertainty as well.
This dispels the notion that it is synonymous with
“unaware” (unknowing of, ignorant of).
The possibility/probability that this cognition may lag behind by milliseconds, is in my opinion being pedantic.
It has no bearing on the conclusion of the completed thought which is what the final outcome of a belief or lack there of entails.

I certainly don't think disbelief is synonymous with unaware, so I agree. The way only way I would classify a lack of belief would be unawareness, although I accept that is not how other people may use it.

Out of interest, if you read that abstract again and substitute "disbelief" with "lack of belief", do you not agree that disbelief is a much better term to use in that context?

How might whether we favored one idea or another, for a matter of perhaps milliseconds or for that matter years and for whatever reason, have any bearing on our present conclusion that informs our current statements of belief or lack there of?

The only thing that really matters in context of this discussion is that we cannot remain unaffected by information we comprehend. Thus "Once presented with the proposition "gods exist" we are forced to adopt a belief regarding this."

You interpreted that as me saying we had to believe it true (rather than we could adopt any belief regarding its truth status). This made me think that I actually do think that in the Spinozan manner, so I mentioned it as I find it interesting (with hindsight I could have emphasised this better). It's not really important though.

This is the crux of why I personally dislike the "lack of belief" usage though as we are clearly taking a stance, while some people insist their atheism is the lack of a stance and is thus inconsequential, or perhaps that babies are atheists (in which case atheism is both a stance and unawareness).

“because there is no reason to believe they do exist. I live my life assuming they do not exist.”
Is an example of what is considered the statement of “strong or positive atheism”,
i.e. The belief that god/s don’t exist.
Your explanation of; “because there is no reason to believe they do exist”.
Is an example of “weak or negative atheism”,
i.e. Disbelief or the lack of belief in the existence of god/s.

To save you time if it is ever relevant in future, you don't need to explain to me any of these kind of things. In my youth I was very much a "New Atheist" and have read this stuff many times and made the same arguments myself many times.

If you think I don't understand it is probably a miscommunication and would be easier to ask me to clarify my point.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No they don't.

Really?
..so the Abrahamic scriptures are not "invented fairy tales" ?
If not, then why do atheists talk about Harry Potter and spaghetti monsters?
[ rhetorical questions ]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?
..so the Abrahamic scriptures are not "invented fairy tales" ?
If not, then why do atheists talk about Harry Potter and spaghetti monsters?
[ rhetorical questions ]

That question appears to have little to do with his answer. A conspiracy implies an intent to deceive and there was almost certainly no such intent when various religious stories formed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That question appears to have little to do with his answer. A conspiracy implies an intent to deceive and there was almost certainly no such intent when various religious stories formed.

Well I'm sure that a lot of atheists would disagree with you.

However, it is no coincidence that Christianity evolved from its roots in Judaism.
..and it is no coincidence that the Qur'an confirms the Judaic laws.
How could it just be "copy/paste", without an intent to deceive?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I'm sure that a lot of atheists would disagree with you.

However, it is no coincidence that Christianity evolved from its roots in Judaism.
..and it is no coincidence that the Qur'an confirms the Judaic laws.
How could it just be "copy/paste", without an intent to deceive?

Islam does not "confirm" the Judaic laws, they merely follow them. That does not make them right or wrong. And I doubt if many atheists think that the nonsense in various holy books is a conspiracy. Most know how myths and legends start.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I have absolutely no problem with that.

I see "disbelief in the existence of gods" to be the same as "belief gods don't exist".

Putting semantics and grammar aside though, the crux of the issue is that an atheist is adopting a cognitive stance regarding the position "gods exist".



I certainly don't think disbelief is synonymous with unaware, so I agree. The way only way I would classify a lack of belief would be unawareness, although I accept that is not how other people may use it.

Out of interest, if you read that abstract again and substitute "disbelief" with "lack of belief", do you not agree that disbelief is a much better term to use in that context?



The only thing that really matters in context of this discussion is that we cannot remain unaffected by information we comprehend. Thus "Once presented with the proposition "gods exist" we are forced to adopt a belief regarding this."

You interpreted that as me saying we had to believe it true (rather than we could adopt any belief regarding its truth status). This made me think that I actually do think that in the Spinozan manner, so I mentioned it as I find it interesting (with hindsight I could have emphasised this better). It's not really important though.

This is the crux of why I personally dislike the "lack of belief" usage though as we are clearly taking a stance, while some people insist their atheism is the lack of a stance and is thus inconsequential, or perhaps that babies are atheists (in which case atheism is both a stance and unawareness).



To save you time if it is ever relevant in future, you don't need to explain to me any of these kind of things. In my youth I was very much a "New Atheist" and have read this stuff many times and made the same arguments myself many times.

If you think I don't understand it is probably a miscommunication and would be easier to ask me to clarify my point.

In the end it is about the meaning not the specific word or phrase.
I am happy to use the word “disbelief” or any other synonymous word (there are many) and will avoid the phrase “lack of belief” since you don’t find it to be synonymous (even though I disagree), in order to avoid the sticking point and hopefully not veer of down a side road.
Out of curiosity and in an attempt to prevent future misunderstanding or sidetracks; what words do you accept as synonymous with “disbelief” that might be used in the statement in question?
i.e. “atheism is the disbelief in god/s”
Nonbelief, unbelief, incredulity of,….?

To save you time if it is ever relevant in future, you don't need to explain to me any of these kind of things. In my youth I was very much a "New Atheist" and have read this stuff many times and made the same arguments myself many times.

Since you are aware of the difference between “strong” and “weak” atheism.
Yet then state:

I see "disbelief in the existence of gods" to be the same as "belief gods don't exist".

Am I to take it that you don’t consider the positions of “strong” or “weak” atheists to be different?

Indecently, what would your definition of “New Atheist” be?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think most animals are aware that other animals exist.

Many undoubtedly do, such as elephants near lions. But then little cockroaches may have a problem knowing that a lion or elephant exists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Islam does not "confirm" the Judaic laws, they merely follow them...

..but why?
Are you saying that Muhammad made it all up in his subconcious mind, and that the revelations were some kind of concoction of his own mind?

11. God chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. And to his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid). Your parents or your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an injunction from God. Lo! God is Knower, Wise.
-Quran Women-

Just one verse that shows the intricacy of God's book.
I have no doubt that it is from God, and not the product of a man in the desert, with no formal education, relatively socially isolated.

Most know how myths and legends start.

..and how would that be, exactly?

 

[KWED]

Really?
..so the Abrahamic scriptures are not "invented fairy tales" ?

You claimed that atheists often cite "a conspiracy of men" as a reason for disbelief.
That is not true.
Atheists generally reject the existence of gods because there is no evidence or rational argument for them, not because men have made up stories about gods. We reject those stories because there is no evidence to support them. We do not know if they are made up until the examination of the evidence is complete. The assumption that they are made up/delusion comes after the rejection of the claims.
Also, there is a good chance that some people involved in the origination and promotion of religions genuinely believed their delusions. It happens.

If not, then why do atheists talk about Harry Potter and spaghetti monsters?
[ rhetorical questions ]

I will treat this as a question because calling it rhetorical makes no sense.
The two cover different issues.
Harry Potter is used to show that just because something magical is written in a book does not mean it is therefore true (in response to apologists citing the Bible or Quran as evidence for god).
FSM is used as an example of an unfalsifiable claim (in response to apologists' "prove god doesn't exist" argument).
Neither claim that gods doesn't exist simply because men have written about them.

 

[KWED]

That question appears to have little to do with his answer. A conspiracy implies an intent to deceive and there was almost certainly no such intent when various religious stories formed.

Not so sure about that. Maybe not so much with Christianity, but with Islam, either Muhammad was delusional or he was dishonest, but still no conspiracy as such if his followers were convinced (as they seem to have been). Same with Joseph Smith, Bahaullah and Mirza Ahmad - either delusional or dishonest.

But my point was that atheists don't reject the existence of gods because people made up stories about gods. It's because of a lack of evidence to support those claims - even if the claims were made by people who genuinely believed their delusions.

 

[KWED]

Well I'm sure that a lot of atheists would disagree with you.

However, it is no coincidence that Christianity evolved from its roots in Judaism.
..and it is no coincidence that the Qur'an confirms the Judaic laws.
How could it just be "copy/paste", without an intent to deceive?

If the person doing the copying believed that the earlier beliefs were founded on earlier divine revelation (which is the case with both Christianity and Islam), then there is no intent to deceive if the author genuinely believes what they are saying. It is entirely possible that Muhammad was suffering from delusions that seemed entirely real to him. And as it is an explanation that has supporting evidence (we know this actually happens to people, we have many scientific papers covering the subject) it is already a better explanation than the supernatural one - for which there is zero evidence.
It would also explain why the Quran sounds exactly like it was written by a 7th century Arab for 7th century Arabs rather than by an omni-everything god presenting their final, perfect guide for all humanity.

 

[KWED]

Many undoubtedly do, such as elephants near lions. But then little cockroaches may have a problem knowing that a lion or elephant exists.

The point was in response to @muhammad_isa's claim that animals don't believe in anything but themselves. Even a cockroach is aware of the existence of other cockroaches.

 

[KWED]

..but why?
Are you saying that Muhammad made it all up in his subconcious mind, and that the revelations were some kind of concoction of his own mind?

That is what the evidence and rational argument suggests.
You even support that argument yourself when it comes to many other religions, so it is simply cognitive dissonance that conveniently leads you to assume that it doesn't apply to your own beliefs.

Just one verse that shows the intricacy of God's book.

Hardly "intricate". But are you claiming that any ancient book that contains "intricate detail" must therefore be from god?

I have no doubt that it is from God,

Why? There is nothing about that passage that suggests a 7th century Arab could not have written it.

[quote[and not the product of a man in the desert, [/quote] He wasn't "a man from the desert". He lived in an established society of several thousand inhabitants.

with no formal education, relatively socially isolated.

Hardly anyone was "formally educated" (although one of his companions was, having studies at the famous "university" at Gundeshapur), but given his privileged upbringing, his travels throughout the Arabian peninsula and his job as agent for Mecca's largest trading empire, the claims of an illiterate recluse are obvious nonsense.

quote]..and how would that be, exactly?[/QUOTE]A combination of a need to explain the unexplained, people's tendency to embellish stories, the desire for figureheads and heroes, unreliability of oral transmission, entertainment, etc.
How did you think they started? Did you think all myths are accurate accounts of real events?

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is entirely possible that Muhammad was suffering from delusions that seemed entirely real to him. And as it is an explanation that has supporting evidence (we know this actually happens to people, we have many scientific papers covering the subject) it is already a better explanation than the supernatural one - for which there is zero evidence..
.

Keep telling yourself that .. you will really believe it..

i.e. that Muhammad's mind, peace be with him, concocted it all up in the middle of the desert single-handed, despite the fact that he could not read and had no formal education.

 

[muhammad_isa]

He lived in an established society of several thousand inhabitants..

Evidence that Macca had several thousand inhabitants 1500 years ago?

How did you think they started? Did you think all myths are accurate accounts of real events?

Obviously not.

Flying spaghetti monster springs to mind. How childish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..but why?
Are you saying that Muhammad made it all up in his subconcious mind, and that the revelations were some kind of concoction of his own mind?

11. God chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. And to his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid). Your parents or your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an injunction from God. Lo! God is Knower, Wise.
-Quran Women-

Just one verse that shows the intricacy of God's book.
I have no doubt that it is from God, and not the product of a man in the desert, with no formal education, relatively socially isolated.

Two huge errors here. First you refuted your own previous claim of "confirming" Judaic laws. Those laws of heredity are quite different from those of the Old Testament. Second you do not get to assume that your holy book is "God's word". Neither do the Christians nor the Jews.

..and how would that be, exactly?

Really? You don't know? Someone asks someone" why" for a question that he did not know the answer to and some respected person made up a story. And like most stories it grew with the telling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence that Macca had several thousand inhabitants 1500 years ago?


Obviously not.r

Flying spaghetti monster springs to mind. How childish.

His established society extended far beyond one town. That was a poor question.

And there is no real difference between your beliefs and those of Pastafarians. A serious belief by either is in your own words childish. One group has an advantage since they know that their ideas are childish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not so sure about that. Maybe not so much with Christianity, but with Islam, either Muhammad was delusional or he was dishonest, but still no conspiracy as such if his followers were convinced (as they seem to have been). Same with Joseph Smith, Bahaullah and Mirza Ahmad - either delusional or dishonest.

But my point was that atheists don't reject the existence of gods because people made up stories about gods. It's because of a lack of evidence to support those claims - even if the claims were made by people who genuinely believed their delusions.

I was not thinking of Mormonism when I made my post. That religion was clearly started by a fraud. But even he may have eventually believed his lies. We have personal experience of a person that was widely respected that made up lis and not only does he appear to believe his own lies, but so do his followers.

There is evidence of that for Islam too when one thinks about it.

And I did not see your post but I do understand the need of theists to use strawman arguments.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Someone asks someone" why" for a question that he did not know the answer to and some respected person made up a story..

That's fraud and deception !

 

[muhammad_isa]

And there is no real difference between your beliefs and those of Pastafarians..

..except one is clearly satire, and the other a well-respected belief.
Not by you, clearly.