Religious Perspectives on Atheism

[LuisDantas]

I disbelieve in a transcendent will. I don't know if that would be considered anthropomorphic.

 

[raymkoak]

I think people are missing the point here. The problem that "theists" have with "atheists" is that they discount the very possibility of something other than earthly. Much like a christian cannot logically claim that there is a god, the atheist cannot claim that there isn't one. Forget faith here for a second. Just take my statement for what it is. Faith is just hope. But the acknowledgement of the "possibility" of forces other than what we can conceive of is indeed reasonable.

 

[Commoner]

I think people are missing the point here. The problem that "theists" have with "atheists" is that they discount the very possibility of something other than earthly. Much like a christian cannot logically claim that there is a god, the atheist cannot claim that there isn't one. Forget faith here for a second. Just take my statement for what it is. Faith is just hope. But the acknowledgement of the "possibility" of forces other than what we can conceive of is indeed reasonable.

The only thing atheists (well, not really atheists, but anyway) discount are baseless assertions of there being something other than "earthly". Never that there is a possibility there is - if you think that, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. Atheists do not claim there is no god (well, an atheist might also make such a claim, or any other claim, but that's not "being an atheist", even though it might be consistent with it).

 

[LuisDantas]

I think people are missing the point here. The problem that "theists" have with "atheists" is that they discount the very possibility of something other than earthly.

Do we? I don't think that is quite true.

 

[muichimotsu]

I disbelieve in a transcendent will. I don't know if that would be considered anthropomorphic.

If the transcendence you believe in lacks a will it would appear to be lacking the anthropomorphic quality, which is why Spinoza, a popularizer of pantheism, was considered essentially an atheist by religious Jews and Christians alike

 

[muichimotsu]

I think people are missing the point here. The problem that "theists" have with "atheists" is that they discount the very possibility of something other than earthly. Much like a christian cannot logically claim that there is a god, the atheist cannot claim that there isn't one. Forget faith here for a second. Just take my statement for what it is. Faith is just hope. But the acknowledgement of the "possibility" of forces other than what we can conceive of is indeed reasonable.

Well, that would be closer to what has been termed a contratheist, that which insists there is no possibility of supernatural reality. And logically it would be inconsistent to say that you can prove or even claim there is no God, similarly with claims of God's existence. Acknowledgement of possibility would be skepticism, not inconsistent with either atheism or theism in consideration.

Not to mention the issue with suggesting all atheists are materialists or physicalists. if we logically extend the term to Dharmic religions and monistic systems then the idea of transcendence in the earthly sense is not out of the ballpark and thus would require that you limit atheism to a definition that rejects any transcendent phenomena or any supernatural reality, which would then discount the classification of the Dharmic religions and many monistic systems as atheistic. But a strict classification would probably require proper etymological analysis, though historically it has evolved from impiety towards particular gods or God to a general disinterest/rejection/nonbelief in any god or Gods, which would still leave it open to being classified by metaphysics and not exact ontological or epistemological standards

 

[raymkoak]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding atheism, then. I thought agnostics were the ones who throw thier hands in the air and say "Hell, I don't know!". Atheists, I thought, denied the existence of any god or deity. True?

 

[Riverwolf]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding atheism, then. I thought agnostics were the ones who throw thier hands in the air and say "Hell, I don't know!". Atheists, I thought, denied the existence of any god or deity. True?

Atheists don't believe in God, for various reasons, but the most common one being a lack of any real evidence.

However, it is a well-known fact that absence of proof is not proof of absence, and most atheists recognize this.

 

[LuisDantas]

True for some atheists, often named "strong atheists". Some others simply don't believe that there are any deities ("weak atheists").

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atheists don't believe in God, for various reasons, but the most common one being a lack of any real evidence. However, it is a well-known fact that absence of proof is not proof of absence, ...

However, the absence of evidence may very well be evidence of absence, and to slide from a statement concerning evidence to a statement concerning proof is sloppy at best.

 

[Riverwolf]

However, the absence of evidence may very well be evidence of absence, and to slide from a statement concerning evidence to a statement concerning proof is sloppy at best.

Nah, it's just me, once again, not paying attention to my word-choice. ^_^ (Seriously, you should try debating with me in real life; you'd probably be hard-pressed to get me to say anything because I'm constantly looking for the right words, and otherwise mucking my word choices up far worse than just now.)

Therefore, allow me to rephrase:

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

EDIT: Oh, wait a minute. I just said I wasn't being sloppy; I just wasn't paying attention, i.e., being sloppy. lol

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atheists don't believe in God, for various reasons, but the most common one being a lack of any real evidence. However, it is a well-known fact that absence of proof is not proof of absence, and most atheists recognize this.

However, the absence of evidence may very well be evidence of absence, and to slide from a statement concerning evidence to a statement concerning proof is sloppy at best.

Nah, it's just me, once again, not paying attention to my word-choice.

As I said, sloppy at best.

Therefore, allow me to rephrase: Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Of course. Therefore?

 

[Riverwolf]

Of course. Therefore?

Therefore, from what I've seen, most atheists are willing to accept a real possibility for the existence of God if good, solid evidence were to present itself, because they're aware of this.

BTW, I edited my post.

 

[muichimotsu]

The difficulty lies primarily with the standard of evidence, though even that ranges among atheists anyway. And with regards to agnostics saying they don't know either way, that could be a form of apatheism or more likely a form of skepticism where they withhold judgment until more evidence is presented, in a Huxleyan form of agnosticism as it was originally presented

 

[Commoner]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding atheism, then. I thought agnostics were the ones who throw thier hands in the air and say "Hell, I don't know!". Atheists, I thought, denied the existence of any god or deity. True?

Atheists don't believe in a god - we are the ones who have not (yet) been convinced by any theistic claim. Atheists do not claim there is no god.

Agnostics (theistic or atheistic) are really in a different ballpark. While the expression is misused many times to represent some sort of middle ground between theists and atheists, agnosticism realy deals with knowledge and certainty - not only concearning the existence of a deity but also knowedge in general. To give you a quote from Huxley, who coined the term:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

I am an agnostic atheist, for example. I do not believe in a god, but I am also a skeptic - I do not claim there is no god, but after thousands of years of theists searching for evidence for one, it seems more and more unlikely that one exists, and any claims about god's existence are more an more likely to be bs. I am also an agnostic when it comes to other topics - I do not believe we know anything with absolute certainty - some things we know to a higher degree of certainty, some to a lower degree of certainty - but absolute certainty - it does not exist.

 

[Smoke]

But the acknowledgement of the "possibility" of forces other than what we can conceive of is indeed reasonable.

Certainly it is. But it's not reasonable to suppose that theists have anything relevant or accurate to say about forces humans can't conceive of.

 

[Luminous]

I don't think children are atheists at all. Think about it, they believe in higher powers, but they channel them through facets like the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. I think humans are born with an inherent draw toward the divine. On a TV show like kid nation the first thing kids start doing when they're allowed to built their own society is making gods for things.

As i recall, i did not believe in santa claus, i was unsure of it. I was always Agnostic. it is clear to me that all people are born agnostic and are then currupted into false thought.

 

[LuisDantas]

The difficulty lies primarily with the standard of evidence, though even that ranges among atheists anyway. And with regards to agnostics saying they don't know either way, that could be a form of apatheism or more likely a form of skepticism where they withhold judgment until more evidence is presented, in a Huxleyan form of agnosticism as it was originally presented

It is definitely apatheism in my case. I've long concluded that God's existence is one of the most minor matters I can think of.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists don't believe in a god - we are the ones who have not (yet) been convinced by any theistic claim. Atheists do not claim there is no god.

Some do. That's called strong atheism.

 

[Commoner]

Some do. That's called strong atheism.

And some atheists are republicans - and they're called atheistic republicans.

My point was, it's not something that is implied by the "atheist" label, it's not a characteristic atheists share.

EDIT: also, "strong atheism" is really more of a practical position. It is useful in the same sense as it is useful to assert that there are no planets made out of chocolate and beer. I don't think I've come across a "strong atheist" who claimed that his position was more than a matter of practicality.