Trying To Understand Atheism

[Copernicus]

I don't understand. There is no gods/deities so the universe is godless. There isn't ignorance in knowing something does not exist and saying it does not. Many atheist want evidence and maybe its because some may still have a feeling god may exist they just have no reason to believe it does. Others, like myself, have no reason to ask for evidence because belief in deities and trying to believe one exist is, well to put it bluntly, a waste of time.

It helps many other, but I find solace in other ways than deities and needing prove of them. So, maybe this is generalization or am I not understanding the question?

The title is misleading, because it suggests that the OP author is trying to understand atheism. The OP itself frames the question in a completely different way--as a challenge to the type of atheist who denies the existence of gods but seems to contradict that by saying that gods may exist. So the discussion has sort of meandered around the old question of how to define atheism--as a belief that gods don't exist or merely the absence of belief that they do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The title is misleading, because it suggests that the OP author is trying to understand atheism. The OP itself frames the question in a completely different way--as a challenge to the type of atheist who denies the existence of gods but seems to contradict that by saying that gods may exist. So the discussion has sort of meandered around the old question of how to define atheism--as a belief that gods don't exist or merely the absence of belief that they do.

Beating a dead horse silly ;(

 

[paarsurrey]

The title is misleading, because it suggests that the OP author is trying to understand atheism. The OP itself frames the question in a completely different way--as a challenge to the type of atheist who denies the existence of gods but seems to contradict that by saying that gods may exist. So the discussion has sort of meandered around the old question of how to define atheism--as a belief that gods don't exist or merely the absence of belief that they do.

I agree with one.
Atheism is not a well-defined world view and hence its weaknesses.
It is neither based on Word of Revelation nor on any scientific footings. Hence to me, it is a faith based non-religion.
Regards

 

[Copernicus]

I agree with one.
Atheism is not a well-defined world view and hence its weaknesses.
It is neither based on Word of Revelation nor on any scientific footings. Hence to me, it is a faith based non-religion.
Regards

Only in the sense that everything one believes about reality is grounded in a kind of faith. However, we usually intend the word "faith" to entail some kind of religious doctrine, but atheism, like theism, implies no particular doctrine other than that gods likely do or do not exist. Religions invariably come with some kind of doctrine, but someone can believe in the existence of gods without subscribing to any particular religious doctrine. So it is misleading to call atheism "faith-based" in that sense. We just tend to think of theism as being associated with some kind of faith-based religious doctrine.

 

[Cephus]

Not "logically identical."

Withholding belief till supporting evidence appears is reasonable. Declaring something an impossibility till evidence appears is not.

Not only is it reasonable, it is the only rationally justifiable position one can take. No one should believe anything for which no objective evidence exists, period.

 

[Cephus]

This is apatheism.

Which is still atheism. If you don't believe in gods, you are an atheist, regardless of what other criteria you attach to it.

 

[Cephus]

So it seems to boil down to thinking there are no gods, but not having the courage/honesty/whatever to say as much.

You don't seem to be able to acknowledge the obvious. I will not believe in *ANYTHING*, gods, unicorns, leprechauns or anything else, without evidence that these things actually exist in reality. As there is no objective evidence for the existence of gods, I don't believe in them. Want me to believe? Present evidence! It's that simple.

 

[1137]

You don't seem to be able to acknowledge the obvious. I will not believe in *ANYTHING*, gods, unicorns, leprechauns or anything else, without evidence that these things actually exist in reality. As there is no objective evidence for the existence of gods, I don't believe in them. Want me to believe? Present evidence! It's that simple.

Yet another atheist entirely misses the point.

 

[Cephus]

Yet another atheist entirely misses the point.

Says the guy missing all of the points.

 

[gnostic]

Your mileage may vary, but rather often I find an atheist who openly admits they do not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist, but then refuses to accept the logically identical position that they believe there are no gods in the universe. I find this very strange. If an atheist sees no reason to believe in gods, why would they not believe the universe has no gods, or that this outcome is more likely? To me it always seemed like a burden of proof game, avoiding belief to avoid having to support your position. But am I missing a way where you can believe gods are unlikely but don't believe the universe is godless? I mean the only other option I can see besides neutrality or ignorance is that there is evidence for gods, so they likely exist.

Sorry, but are you aware of or know of other gods in other parts of the universe?

If you know of other worlds that have different religions or different gods to our world, then please shared?

Look, 1137. I am sure that there might be some possibilities and probabilities of life in other worlds, and there might be even humans living in those worlds, but why are you even concerns about why atheists are not believing in gods that may or may not exist in those worlds?

Your scenarios are pointlesss because you are asking impossible questions in impossible scenarios. What you are asking is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[gnostic]

The atheist simply chooses a dogma of skepticism, materialism, and other scientific tidbits to fashion the same assumptions.

Sorry, but atheists don't have proprietary ownership to skepticism.

Any group of people, regardless whether they believe or not, are skeptical about other people's ideas or belief. Skepticism can go both ways.

For instance, Christians can be skeptical of just atheists' non-belief, but also the beliefs of Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism, etc. And one sect can be skeptical of other Christian sects.

 

[1137]

Sorry, but are you aware of or know of other gods in other parts of the universe?

If you know of other worlds that have different religions or different gods to our world, then please shared?

Look, 1137. I am sure that there might be some possibilities and probabilities of life in other worlds, and there might be even humans living in those worlds, but why are you even concerns about why atheists are not believing in gods that may or may not exist in those worlds?

Your scenarios are pointlesss because you are asking impossible questions in impossible scenarios. What you are asking is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Ummmm, what? I'm simply asking why those who believe there are no gods can't admit they believe that.

 

[Cephus]

For instance, Christians can be skeptical of just atheists' non-belief, but also the beliefs of Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism, etc. And one sect can be skeptical of other Christian sects.

That's not skepticism. Christians, for instance, do not go research Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism, etc. to find out if those beliefs are true. They don't even do that with Christianity. They simply reject all other beliefs out of hand because they disagree with what they already believe.

 

[Cephus]

Ummmm, what? I'm simply asking why those who believe there are no gods can't admit they believe that.

No, you're insisting that people who do not believe in gods actually believe there are no gods, and no matter how many people tell you that that's not true, you just keep repeating it ad nauseum.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ummmm, what? I'm simply asking why those who believe there are no gods can't admit they believe that.

Mostly because it isn't true.

You are used to the belief vs counter belief arguments. You don't believe in Islam because you already believe in christianity so that is a no go. Atheism isn't a counter belief in the same sense. It is simply the rejection of the belief itself without setting a counter belief in tis place.

I think functionally you can say that I believe there is no god. But that isn't the source of the belief. I don't lack the belief because of a positive belief.

 

[1137]

No, you're insisting that people who do not believe in gods actually believe there are no gods, and no matter how many people tell you that that's not true, you just keep repeating it ad nauseum.

Mostly because it isn't true.

You are used to the belief vs counter belief arguments. You don't believe in Islam because you already believe in christianity so that is a no go. Atheism isn't a counter belief in the same sense. It is simply the rejection of the belief itself without setting a counter belief in tis place.

I think functionally you can say that I believe there is no god. But that isn't the source of the belief. I don't lack the belief because of a positive belief.

Yes! Just like that! Thanks for the examples.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes! Just like that! Thanks for the examples.

But you do understand that I don't have a positive belief that there is no god? A passive disbelief more accuratly describes it. Its not a creed I follow and it isn't something I adhere to. I simply live my life as if there is no god because that is my assumption based on my disbelief.

Are we understanding each other at this point yes? Just to be sure.

 

[Fool]

But you do understand that I don't have a positive belief that there is no god? A passive disbelief more accuratly describes it. Its not a creed I follow and it isn't something I adhere to. I simply live my life as if there is no god because that is my assumption based on my disbelief.

Are we understanding each other at this point yes? Just to be sure.

you're basically indifferent. it's still a choice, or an opinion. anyone, or everyone, can ignore the elephant in the room.

Opinion

opinion (n.)
c. 1300, from Old French opinion "opinion, view, judgements founded upon probabilities" (12c.), from Latin opinionem (nominative opinio) "opinion, conjecture, fancy, belief, what one thinks; appreciation, esteem," from stem of opinari "think, judge, suppose, opine," from PIE *op- (2) "to choose" (see option).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

you're basically indifferent. it's still a choice, or an opinion. anyone, or everyone, can ignore the elephant in the room.

Opinion

opinion (n.)
c. 1300, from Old French opinion "opinion, view, judgements founded upon probabilities" (12c.), from Latin opinionem (nominative opinio) "opinion, conjecture, fancy, belief, what one thinks; appreciation, esteem," from stem of opinari "think, judge, suppose, opine," from PIE *op- (2) "to choose" (see option).

I don't think we choose our beliefs and lack thereof so easily. I don't think someone who believes in god can simply "choose" to be an atheist at any given point in time. Typically atheists find themselves one day as atheists. Its a realization that they didn't choose.

 

[Fool]

I don't think we choose our beliefs and lack thereof so easily. I don't think someone who believes in god can simply "choose" to be an atheist at any given point in time. Typically atheists find themselves one day as atheists. Its a realization that they didn't choose.

easily being the key word.

the realization is every action; whether positive, negative, or indifferent has a discursive attachment to it.

there are innate things, like automatic reflexes, that don't require a discursive thought, or logical consideration.