Religious Perspectives on Atheism

[Revoltingest]

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.

I know one gal who is a strong atheist, ie, she is absolutely certain there is no god.
(I want her to join this group too.) I'm a weak atheist since I cannot be certain there
is no god, but as you say, we're practically the same.

 

[fantome profane]

there are no planets made out of chocolate and beer.

And if this is true it is absolute proof that there is no “God”.

 

[Commoner]

And if this is true it is absolute proof that there is no “God”.

Exactly!

 

[Commoner]

I know one gal who is a strong atheist, ie, she is absolutely certain there is no god.
(I want her to join this group too.) I'm a weak atheist since I cannot be certain there
is no god, but as you say, we're practically the same.

I think she's about three posts away from giving up that position... it's completely indefensible imo - not just regarding god, but in general. You can't tell me there are/were no underpants gnomes anywhere, at any time, in any sense of the word. It's just not possible.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is quite sustainable, if one assumes that a God must be absolutely powerful and absolutely good.

 

[Commoner]

It is quite sustainable, if one assumes that a God must be absolutely powerful and absolutely good.

Sure, define god so that it's absurd and self-contradictory, and you can (relatively) safely say it does not exist. That's one down, 10.000 or so to go.

Unfortunately, that has not stopped millions of people from believing in the absurd concept of a christian god, the all-just, all-merciful deity. It almost seems contradictions and paradoxes are the way to go, if you're in the business of making people believe what you make up.

 

[dogsgod]

I know one gal who is a strong atheist, ie, she is absolutely certain there is no god.
(I want her to join this group too.) I'm a weak atheist since I cannot be certain there
is no god, but as you say, we're practically the same.

Out of curiosity, are you just as uncertain about leprechauns and the tooth fairy?

 

[crocusj]

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.

I think children might well believe in the supernatural, I know I did but I did not live in a bubble and I would dispute that such belief is an inherent draw toward the divine. Outside human belief system influences are continual from the day a child is born and when that is added to our inherent prey animal instincts then, because of our intelligence, we are able to conjure up almost anything. Lets face it, an unexpected loud bang, especially if it's dark, is enough for us to go all girly and it's not a quantum leap from girly to god. We, as humans, believe in a bizarre rainbow of supernatural isms and any unification of that trait becomes a religion and most -by far - children follow the religion of their parents or their culture (so it's not difficult to gauge where the primary influence on a child comes from)
I'm also a tad iffy on the equality part of the argument that atheism and theism have the same starting and finishing point. Surely an idea with the concept that we and the entire space-time cosmos were created by a supreme being existing outwith that space-time demands more scientifically and philosophically than the idea that such a concept should be dismissed out of hand. It's not just that I don't believe in god(s), it's that the whole concept is beyond me rationally. Count me as a strong atheist. Though it does have to be said that muichimotsu (impressively clever bloke)obsessed with labels as he is might have a better idea

 

[muichimotsu]

Wouldnt say obsessed with labels so much as desiring as much clarity as can be assessed with the knowledge I acquire over time. There are commonalities among even atheists and theists beyond the general concept of God, such as valuation of humanity (to a great extent, since there are exceptions on either side of a more anti humanist variety) and a desire to pursue truth, though theists tend to take it a step further in the direction of Truth, which would be described as ultimate truth as opposed to conventional truth that we can all agree on (mostly).

If the whole concept is incoherent to you, then I would classify you (not label, lol) more along the lines of ignosticism. That is, the concept and term God is ill defined and thus does not admit to being substantial, but negates itself more than it asserts itself as to possessing any qualities. This is similar to Antony Flew's argument of the invisible, intangible gardener being no different than there being no gardener at all, the death of a 1000 qualifications.

 

[LuisDantas]

One of these days I'll collect those classifications and see on how many of them I fit. I would guess about a half dozen, at a minimum.

Too bad that most people will just barely tell agnosticism from atheism, let alone understand what apatheism or ignosticism are.

 

[crocusj]

Wouldnt say obsessed with labels so much as desiring as much clarity as can be assessed with the knowledge I acquire over time. There are commonalities among even atheists and theists beyond the general concept of God, such as valuation of humanity (to a great extent, since there are exceptions on either side of a more anti humanist variety) and a desire to pursue truth, though theists tend to take it a step further in the direction of Truth, which would be described as ultimate truth as opposed to conventional truth that we can all agree on (mostly).

If the whole concept is incoherent to you, then I would classify you (not label, lol) more along the lines of ignosticism. That is, the concept and term God is ill defined and thus does not admit to being substantial, but negates itself more than it asserts itself as to possessing any qualities. This is similar to Antony Flew's argument of the invisible, intangible gardener being no different than there being no gardener at all, the death of a 1000 qualifications.

See, there you go, way over my head again...if you are saying that he is not there then he is not there then ok. If you are saying that he does not appear to be there then he is not there then there would have to a reason for him to be there without him appearing to be so (or not there but is that a different label (I didn't look it up but I am sure label would have been fefined as clasification)?) would there not?

 

[muichimotsu]

One of these days I'll collect those classifications and see on how many of them I fit. I would guess about a half dozen, at a minimum.

Too bad that most people will just barely tell agnosticism from atheism, let alone understand what apatheism or ignosticism are.

Ignosticism is particularly difficult because of the prefix i/ig- being used in a particular sense of negation. With ignorance, there is a lack of knowledge because of the natural state of being constantly exposed to new knowledge, as opposed to just willfully accepting ignorance, which is closer to idiocy. Ignosticism suggests that our knowledge of God will never be adequate, it seems to me, so technically an ignostic could be atheist or theist, similar to agnosticism (which is described further down)

Apatheism is also admittedly underground, because so few people label themselves as such. Denis Diderot was the first to coin the term to my knowledge and he is only so well known in circles of philosophy scholarship, etc. But then many apologeticists would suggest apatheism could apply even to people who nominally label themselves Christian, since they behave as if God doesn't exist or doesn't matter even if it does exist, so the extent of apatheism is nearly as difficult as agnosticism or atheism. Antitheism and contratheism are at least more specific so as not to be as confused. Though maltheism occurs to me as I read it in another thread on atheism, so the extent of terms only expands further to cover even people who may actually believe in God, but are a minority that either hate it or disregard it as important to human affairs, ala apatheists or deists.

But agnosticism and atheism can be distinguished easier than one might think with the obvious four square model, where atheism and theism take up the top two squares and agnosticism and gnosticism the far left two squares. Then you just follow the pattern: agnostic atheists and theists exist, as well as the gnostic atheists (contratheists or antitheists moreso) and theists. I also believe Richard Dawkins posited a spectrum a 7 degrees of belief in God, ranging from absolute belief to absolute disbelief, though I am not sure of the degrees in between.

 

[muichimotsu]

See, there you go, way over my head again...if you are saying that he is not there then he is not there then ok. If you are saying that he does not appear to be there then he is not there then there would have to a reason for him to be there without him appearing to be so (or not there but is that a different label (I didn't look it up but I am sure label would have been fefined as clasification)?) would there not?

One can posit God's existence as a conceptual psychological thing, and still deny or insist that there is no reason to believe in it as a physical/material/immaterial part of the universe, like gravity or other forces, so to speak. If something does not appear to be there, then one is skeptical about its existence, not outright denying it as something that is worthless. Antitheists would be the immediately dismissive ones, along with contratheists to an extent, not so much many atheists that simply see God as overcomplicating an already complex universe.

 

[Commoner]

One of these days I'll collect those classifications and see on how many of them I fit. I would guess about a half dozen, at a minimum.

Too bad that most people will just barely tell agnosticism from atheism, let alone understand what apatheism or ignosticism are.

Meh, I think it's usually better to just explain your position in a few sentences. If I say I'm an atheist, most people will understand I don't believe in a god, and that has its uses. But there is no set of "labels" I could use to really define my position in any sort of meaningful detail - and that's the whole point of labels - they're a quick way to "ballpark" someone. Even if you knew all the different terms and nuances that come with them, that would still only be enough to get a general feel for someone's position.

 

[muichimotsu]

Well labels and categories are admittedly different in that labels are a bit more generalizing and only work if they are flexible. Categories are more specific, but also cover a large range in the area considered. Nontheists might be a good category for all people ranging from atheists and agnostics to pantheists and transtheists, but the labels of atheist and agnostic admit to confusion, so it stands to reason that there should be more precise terms in order to avoid the generalizations of labels. Of course, the terms are tentative, so one shouldn't become attached to them and should trust people in their experiences to try their best to use their minds to describe their positions in concise and clear words.

 

[Luminous]

It is quite sustainable, if one assumes that a God must be absolutely powerful and absolutely good.

Indeed, since by a sense of the words...that would be a paradox.