I think I am now an atheist

[TagliatelliMonster]

Before I started believing in God my atheism was a big part of who I was (and I think it is for others too) and I invested substantial energy into it

??

How does that work? How does one "invest substantial energy" into not believing something?

 

[Eddi]

??

How does that work? How does one "invest substantial energy" into not believing something?

By making one's disbelief as sophisticated as possible, by coming up with and using lots of reasons and clever arguments

And then putting the disbelief into practice by overcoming Theists in argument

Which is something that requires effort and preperation if you want to do it well

My school was 95% Moslem so in Religious Education classes it was me vs. Islam in class discussions and I put up a good fight

Happy days.....

I'd say that being an outspoken atheist requires some study

If you want to do it well

It did for me anyway first time I was Atheist

Hence Dawkin's God Delusion is next on my reading list

But yes, it is possible to be an Atheist without thought or study

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By making one's disbelief as sophisticated as possible, by coming up with and using lots of reasons and clever arguments

?

That doesn't make much sense to me.
My disbelief is motivated by not having any valid reasons to believe. That's about it.

You seem to be confusing "responding to arguments" with "coming up with arguments".
I think you'll find that the arguments being discussed, are actually arguments that the theists came up with to rationalize their belief.

I don't require arguments to not believe something. I only require pointing out that there aren't valid reasons to believe (no evidence, no sound arguments, etc).

In short:
I require reasons to believe something.
I don't require reasons to NOT believe something.

Not believing something, is what automatically occurs when I have no reason to do otherwise.
It's pretty much the default position.

Hence Dawkin's God Delusion is next on my reading list

Good book, although it didn't really say anything I didn't already know. But it offers a few interesting perspectives.

 

[Augustus]

I see this come from theists misrepresenting atheists more than atheists themselves. I have seen a few sloppy comments from atheists, but that is just sloppy language use. We don't believe that Santa or the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. We simply don't believe they are real...

Belief in the nonexistence of things not known to exist is absurd. It's quite Rube Goldberg thinking.

I certainly believe in the nonexistence of Santa, the Easter Bunny, Harry Potter etc. I'd say any rational person should do likewise.

If we are familiar with a concept, and there are no good reasons to believe something does exist and plenty or reasons to believe they don't exist, and we act as if they didn't exist, why shouldn't we say we believe this thing doesn't exist?

Why is it sloppy language use? A belief is just an epistemic position held that corresponds with some correspondent neurological process. A lack of belief is the absence of an epistemic position held and the absence of the corresponding neurological process.

My atheism isn't a "lack" of anything, it's an epistemic position I hold and, given sufficiently advanced fMRI technology, could be shown to relate to a neurological process.

Really? I haven't seen any evidence for any gods. There actually was a person the Santa legend was built on. And Santa is a mortal, after all, and we know mortals exist. Apart from a flying sleigh and a fat man getting down chimneys, it is all plausible for Santa to exist, unlike gods.

If you don't think the existence of gods is plausible, why are you averse to saying you believe they don't exist?

I accept there is a possibility of me being wrong, but I believe gods don't exist as nothing has persuaded me I should believe they do exist. Thus I live my life assuming they don't exist.

 

[F1fan]

I certainly believe in the nonexistence of Santa, the Easter Bunny, Harry Potter etc. I'd say any rational person should do likewise.

"Belief in nonexistence" is an absurdity.

If we are familiar with a concept, and there are no good reasons to believe something does exist and plenty or reasons to believe they don't exist, and we act as if they didn't exist, why shouldn't we say we believe this thing doesn't exist?

In logic and debate we discuss the property of things existing. The only circumstance that non-existence would be a conclusion is if some phenomenon is ASSUMED to exist, and this is not the common approach to enquiry.

Why is it sloppy language use? A belief is just an epistemic position held that corresponds with some correspondent neurological process. A lack of belief is the absence of an epistemic position held and the absence of the corresponding neurological process.

Beliefs are conclusions. Even if your belief is an assumption, like you assume the reason a rocking chair moves by itself is ghosts, it is still a conclusion. But you are assuming the conclusion, even though it turns out to be air from a heating vent that blows on the chair. Is a ghost the cause? Yes/no? No, it's air from a heating vent. Is there a reason to believe anything about ghosts? No. The idea is rejected as a cause.

My atheism isn't a "lack" of anything, it's an epistemic position I hold and, given sufficiently advanced fMRI technology, could be shown to relate to a neurological process.

Atheism is not being a theist. It's not accepting what theists claim.

If you don't think the existence of gods is plausible, why are you averse to saying you believe they don't exist?

There are many thousands of gods, and most have different properties as described in their concepts. There is no known supernatural phenomenon known to exist, not any way for gods to exist that is plausible. If you disagree feel free to offer an explanation. Use facts.

I accept there is a possibility of me being wrong, but I believe gods don't exist as nothing has persuaded me I should believe they do exist. Thus I live my life assuming they don't exist.

Very convoluted language use here.

 

[We Never Know]

"Belief in nonexistence" is an absurdity.


In logic and debate we discuss the property of things existing. The only circumstance that non-existence would be a conclusion is if some phenomenon is ASSUMED to exist, and this is not the common approach to enquiry.


Beliefs are conclusions. Even if your belief is an assumption, like you assume the reason a rocking chair moves by itself is ghosts, it is still a conclusion. But you are assuming the conclusion, even though it turns out to be air from a heating vent that blows on the chair. Is a ghost the cause? Yes/no? No, it's air from a heating vent. Is there a reason to believe anything about ghosts? No. The idea is rejected as a cause.


Atheism is not being a theist. It's not accepting what theists claim.



There are many thousands of gods, and most have different properties as described in their concepts. There is no known supernatural phenomenon known to exist, not any way for gods to exist that is plausible. If you disagree feel free to offer an explanation. Use facts.


Very convoluted language use here.

"There is no known supernatural phenomenon known to exist"

If anything supernatural did exist, how would it be studied? Could science even study it?

Anything supernatural is, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I think I do

But please, enlighten me

You understand there is a difference between;
1.) “I believe X is not true”
And
2.) “I don’t believe X is true”
Yes?

1.) “I believe X is not true” is a belief.
2.) “I don’t believe X is true” is not a belief; it is a lack of belief.

1.) Is a positive statement.
2.) Is a negative statement.

Since atheism is a lack of belief in a god, it would be considered a #2 type statement.
As result, can’t be a “belief system”.

It is possible to have a belief system that is atheistic, in that a belief system you subscribe to does not include a belief in a God.
An example would be some Buddhist religions.
But the belief system is based on the Buddhist beliefs and teachings.
The “atheistic” part is simply to clarify that it is a variety that does not consider the Buddha to be a god.

Your belief that a super-intelligent superintendent
that programs a simulation that you and the existence you experience exist within, is a belief system.
Whether it is atheistic, depends on whether you consider the superintendent to be a god.
Now we would depend on the definition of a god.

So, “atheism” in itself is not a belief system, but a belief system you hold could well be “atheistic”.

 

[F1fan]

"There is no known supernatural phenomenon known to exist"

If anything supernatural did exist, how would it be studied? Could science even study it?

Earthquakes, floods, thunder, lightening, infections, etc. all were unexplained and assumed to be supernatural phenomenon, until science examined the causes and found natural causes. If we actually observed mysterious phenomenon, like miracles, then that would suggest a possibility of some supernatural actions in our universe.

Anything supernatural is, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science.

Why? Supernatural doesn't mean it can't be seen, or a cause can't be seen. Gravity and magnetism are not seen, but there are natural effects. All supernatural means is a phenomenon that cannot be answered as being caused by a natural process. This is why theists are often trying to find cracks in science to squeeze in their ideas of god. God of the gaps, it's called. It doesn't work.

 

[F1fan]

1.) “I believe X is not true” is a belief.
2.) “I don’t believe X is true” is not a belief; it is a lack of belief.

1.) Is a positive statement.
2.) Is a negative statement.

Since atheism is a lack of belief in a god, it would be considered a #2 type statement.
As result, can’t be a “belief system”.

It is possible to have a belief system that is atheistic, in that a belief system you subscribe to does not include a belief in a God.
An example would be some Buddhist religions.
But the belief system is based on the Buddhist beliefs and teachings.
The “atheistic” part is simply to clarify that it is a variety that does not consider the Buddha to be a god.

Your belief that a super-intelligent superintendent
that programs a simulation that you and the existence you experience exist within, is a belief system.
Whether it is atheistic, depends on whether you consider the superintendent to be a god.
Now we would depend on the definition of a god.

So, “atheism” in itself is not a belief system, but a belief system you hold could well be “atheistic”.

And let's note that atheists tend to be responding to the claims made by theists. There were no atheists until there were theists. The whole debate about gods is one started by theists with their claims that some sort of god exists, and it is atheists who dared reject these claims and refused to believe it.

It's only once the debate has been going on that theists have tried to switch the burden of proof. This tactic is understood as a desperation move.

 

[Augustus]

"Belief in nonexistence" is an absurdity.

I know Harry Potter was created as a fictional character by JK Rowling, why would it be an absurdity to believe Harry Potter does not exist?

It would be the only rational thing to believe.

In logic and debate we discuss the property of things existing. The only circumstance that non-existence would be a conclusion is if some phenomenon is ASSUMED to exist, and this is not the common approach to enquiry.

Non-existence is the conclusion for things we are aware of and that we don't believe exist.

Beliefs are conclusions. Even if your belief is an assumption, like you assume the reason a rocking chair moves by itself is ghosts, it is still a conclusion. But you are assuming the conclusion, even though it turns out to be air from a heating vent that blows on the chair. Is a ghost the cause? Yes/no? No, it's air from a heating vent. Is there a reason to believe anything about ghosts? No. The idea is rejected as a cause.

Beliefs are epistemic positions held in regard to something.

You don't lack the belief a ghost moved the chair, you believe a ghost did not move the chair.

Atheism is not being a theist. It's not accepting what theists claim.

That's one of the definitions, sure.

The etymology reflects it being an -ism though: (athe)ism and thus an epistemic position taken, not a(theism), the state of not being a theist, but people can use the newer meaning if they prefer.

I prefer to see it as an epistemic position taken on the existence of gods as this better reflects the reality of what is happening.

Each to their own though.

There are many thousands of gods, and most have different properties as described in their concepts. There is no known supernatural phenomenon known to exist, not any way for gods to exist that is plausible. If you disagree feel free to offer an explanation. Use facts.

I said I believe gods don't exist.

I was wondering why you are happy to say the existence of gods is not plausible, but find it absurd to say you believe they don't exist (even if you accept that, philosophically, you cannot be certain. of this).

Very convoluted language use here.

It's really not.

Although I may be wrong, I believe gods don't exist because there is no reason to believe they do exist. I live my life assuming they do not exist.

What do you disagree with in that statement?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Although I may be wrong, I believe gods don't exist because there is no reason to believe they do exist.

In other words:
“You believe X does not exist because you
do not believe there is reason to believe in X, therefore your entire statement is due to a lack of belief.

Once you have determined that you lack belief in X, you then assert you believe X does not exist based on your lack of belief in X.
Now you have adopted a burden of proof to positively prove your lack of belief.

If you stop at “I do not believe X” (the logical position unless you have determined a method of proving a negative), you state that you hold that position until such time as evidence is provided to prove that X does in fact objectively exist.

 

[Augustus]

In other words:
“You believe X does not exist because you
do not believe there is reason to believe in X, therefore your entire statement is due to a lack of belief.

Once you have determined that you lack belief in X, you then assert you believe X does not exist based on your lack of belief in X.
Now you have adopted a burden of proof to positively prove your lack of belief.

If you stop at “I do not believe X” (the logical position unless you have determined a method of proving a negative), you state that you hold that position until such time as evidence is provided to prove that X does in fact objectively exist.

Your beliefs never carry a burden of proof.

You only have a burden of proof if you care to persuade others to adopt your beliefs.

That I believe no gods exist is completely independent of whether I care to or am able to justify that belief to others.

Also believing gods don't exist has nothing to do with being able to "prove a negative", it's just what you think is most reasonable given the evidence or lack thereof.

I don't agree with the idea it represents a "lack of belief" either. For me, a belief ultimately exists as some form of neural activity, and a lack of belief is therefore the absence of some corresponding neural activity (i.e. unawareness). We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general).

Once presented with the proposition "gods exist" we are forced to adopt a belief regarding this.

Most other atheists disagree with this, but, to me at least, describing a belief as a a lack of belief is misleading.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Belief in God is justified if the person sees evidence for that belief, evidence that he/she cannot contradict.

Disagree. Justified has a technical meaning here, one which doesn't include satisfies a faith-based thinker. Justified means that the conclusion is sound, which means that falcy free reasoning has been correctly applied to evidence according to the rules of critical thought and the evaluation of evidence. I frequently read theists telling us that their evidence for a god is the universe, scripture, or something from a messenger. None of those things supports a god belief over naturalistic alternatives, therefore none of them justify that god belief in the sense that empiricists mean. That they're good enough for faith-based thinkers who call their beliefs justified doesn't change that for others with different standards for belief.

I would say that everything we have so far in science is neutral about whether god/s are needed.

Disagree. Science has revealed that gods are not needed to run the universe. The sun rises and sets without Apollo dragging it through the sky, and electricity flows through wires without angels pushing the electrons through the wire. That's the clockwork universe of the first wave of scientists through the eighteenth century. Then came the nineteenth and twentieth century scientists who revealed that gods are not needed to assemble the universe or to generate the tree of life. What's left for a god of the gaps to do?

So you seem to be saying that Occam's Razor shows that God/s are not needed. But Occam's Razor does not show anything.

No. Occam's Razor says that the simples explanation that accounts for all relevant observations is preferred. In the case of the universe, we have naturalistic and supernaturalistic hypotheses, none of which can be ruled in or out, but which can be ordered by likelihood according to their complexity using Occam' principle of parsimony. Supernaturalisitc explanations are not known to be needed. Asserting that they are correct when much simpler naturalisitc explanations are tenable is not just a violation of Occam's Razor, it's a logical fallacy called a non sequitur. Like I said, one cannot rule out such explanations, especially since they are probably correct. If you do, you do so by faith, which means you have gone off the reason reservation.

Faith based belief is not the opposite to a justified belief. Many people believe things that have not been proven. They probably have not left their reasoning behind in doing that, they just go beyond what has been proven to an opinion either way on a subject.

Faith-based and justified belief are antithetical. All beliefs are one or the other, none being neither or both. A belief is either justified according to the rules of reason applied to evidence, or it is unjustified. If it is believed anyway, it is believed by faith.

That's pretty ugly, in my opinion. Atheism is ugly.

You, a theist, have just written the ugliest comment in this thread. You don't see comments like that coming from humanists. And, of course, since atheism is nothing but unbelief in gods, it's atheists that you are actually demeaning for their unbelief. There is nothing about atheism to agree or disagree with. An atheist telling you that he had not been persuaded to believe in gods cannot be incorrect (or ugly) unless he is a stealth, lying theist.

But thanks for stepping up, as I was just getting ready to move on to anthitheism, how I define the word, and its justification. The world doesn't need atheophobes, or the religions that create them.

Feel free to rebut that if you can. And remember, mere dissent isn't rebuttal. I assume you disagree, but am only interested in what part of my comment you find flawed and the specific fallacy or error of fact that you have identified. I'm pretty certain you can't. Prove me wrong if you can.

I don't think I'd call myself an anti-theist. I dismiss the notion and have walked away from it. I do not outright hate God. I simply dismiss him

You must be using a different definition of antitheist than I do. Antitheists are not the enemies of gods or theists, just intrusive religions, and the interest of antitheists in those religions is limited to that intrusion. Remove the theocracy, and remove the systemic homophobia, atheophobia, and homophobia from the consciousness of the culture, and antitheists will never think about religion again. The evidence for that is how such people interact with religions like Druidry and Sikhism. They don't.

For me, antitheism is about comments like the one immediately above yours. His church teaches him to think like that, which for this atheist is sufficient grounds to oppose and denounce it. It's his religion that is the target, not him or his god. Sure, he's willing to believe the worst, which is on him, but it's his religion that is teaching him to think like that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I may wish for unicorns to exist in Australia, I do not think my mere wish can make me convince myself they do.

Then you understand why strict empiricists are atheists. Theism isn't an option for such a person, since it lacks empirical justification.

There is a balance in reasoning. I have come to the conclusion that life did not "just appear," as if by a binding of chemicals that just happened to happen. But that God put it all together, creating the heavens and the earth. I don't want to get too wordy, so I'll leave it there.

Your reasoning is flawed. You just committed a credulity and a special pleading fallacy. Life seems too complex to you to have arisen undesigned and uncreated, so you rule out. That belief is unjustified. Also, you suggest that because life is too complex to exist without help, something even more complex that is also undesigned and uncreated must exist to explain life. Your beliefs are your beliefs, but they're not justified.

"May the good Lord be with ya down every road you roam
And may sunshine and happiness surround you when you're far from home
And may you grow to be proud, dignified, and true
And do unto others as you would have done to you
Be courageous and be brave
And in my heart you'll always stay
Forever young, forever young
Forever young, forever young
May good fortune be with you, may your guiding light be strong
Build a stairway to heaven with a prince or a vagabond
And may you never love in vain
And in my heart you will remain
Forever young, forever young
Forever young, forever young
For-ever young
For-ever young
Yeah!
And when you finally fly away I'll be hopin' that I served you well
For all the wisdom of a lifetime no one can ever tell
But whatever road you choose
I'm right behind you, win or lose."
- Rod Stewart, Forever Young, (1988 A.D.)

This shocked me to see. I know Dylan's Forever Young, but somehow missed this. I assumed that Stewart's version was a cover after glossing over the lyrics, which you can see look very much like Dylan's. So I listened to your link. Completely different song musically, and though the lyrics are strikingly similar, they are different. I'm amazed that this didn't result in a legal brouhaha. Dylan's version has three verses that are all similar to this one:

May God bless and keep you always
May your wishes all come true
May you always do for others
And let others do for you
May you build a ladder to the stars
And climb on every rung
May you stay forever young
Forever young, forever young
May you stay forever young.

 

[syo]

what religion do you say in your description you belong to? Christian orthodox? and more?

Pagan. Umbrella term.

 

[syo]

You, a theist, have just written the ugliest comment in this thread.

Yup. I was refering to atheism. Ugly.

 

[F1fan]

Same way baldness can be seen as a hairstyle.

Only if it’s a choice. If it falls out due to natures whims there’s not a choice and not a style it’s just nature doing its thing.

 

[F1fan]

By making one's disbelief as sophisticated as possible, by coming up with and using lots of reasons and clever arguments

And then putting the disbelief into practice by overcoming Theists in argument

Which is something that requires effort and preperation if you want to do it well

My school was 95% Moslem so in Religious Education classes it was me vs. Islam in class discussions and I put up a good fight

Happy days.....

I'd say that being an outspoken atheist requires some study

If you want to do it well

It did for me anyway first time I was Atheist

Hence Dawkin's God Delusion is next on my reading list

But yes, it is possible to be an Atheist without thought or study

The “not believing” is quite effortless. Its the debates, the rebuttals, the constant correcting of errors by theists, that requires effort.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Then you understand why strict empiricists are atheists. Theism isn't an option for such a person, since it lacks empirical justification.



Your reasoning is flawed. You just committed a credulity and a special pleading fallacy. Life seems too complex to you to have arisen undesigned and uncreated, so you rule out. That belief is unjustified. Also, you suggest that because life is too complex to exist without help, something even more complex that is also undesigned and uncreated must exist to explain life. Your beliefs are your beliefs, but they're not justified.



This shocked me to see. I know Dylan's Forever Young, but somehow missed this. I assumed that Stewart's version was a cover after glossing over the lyrics, which you can see look very much like Dylan's. So I listened to your link. Completely different song musically, and though the lyrics are strikingly similar, they are different. I'm amazed that this didn't result in a legal brouhaha. Dylan's version has three verses that are all similar to this one:

May God bless and keep you always
May your wishes all come true
May you always do for others
And let others do for you
May you build a ladder to the stars
And climb on every rung
May you stay forever young
Forever young, forever young
May you stay forever young.

Here's Pete Seeger covering it:

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you spoken to others species to confirm that ""No other creature on earth contemplates life and death, morality and spirituality"

I guess you have.