Trying To Understand Atheism

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

I think with effort we can curb whatever beliefs we have and develop new ones. I think people who are racist or have some other discriminatory beliefs but don't want to have them can take actions to change their beliefs. But one who is actually racist cannot simply stop being racist at an instant. Same for any other belief. Some aspect of choice is there but there are also plenty of other factors.

A good exaple is I cannot believe that the earth is flat. The reason is because I know the evidence. No amount of self brain washing will convince me the earth is flat. I don't think that is a belief that I can "choose" to have.

 

[Cephus]

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.

Actually, they could. I did. I realized that the religious nonsense I believed simply could not stand up to critical scrutiny, and even though it took a couple of years, I rejected religion because it made no rational sense.

 

[Cephus]

I think with effort we can curb whatever beliefs we have and develop new ones. I think people who are racist or have some other discriminatory beliefs but don't want to have them can take actions to change their beliefs. But one who is actually racist cannot simply stop being racist at an instant. Same for any other belief. Some aspect of choice is there but there are also plenty of other factors.

A good exaple is I cannot believe that the earth is flat. The reason is because I know the evidence. No amount of self brain washing will convince me the earth is flat. I don't think that is a belief that I can "choose" to have.

Of course, you have to be convinced in order to have a belief. You can be convinced for good reasons, like caring about reality and the evidence, or for bad reasons, like just wishing something was true for emotional reasons. Like you, I could not be convinced that leprechauns exist without objective evidence that they actually do. I also could not be convinced gods exist without objective evidence that they actually do. And I cannot respect people who operate on emotion when the evidence simply does not support their claims.

 

[SkepticX]

... I cannot respect people who operate on emotion when the evidence simply does not support their claims.

Do you mean you can't respect their beliefs, or them personally?

 

[Fool]

I think with effort we can curb whatever beliefs we have and develop new ones. I think people who are racist or have some other discriminatory beliefs but don't want to have them can take actions to change their beliefs. But one who is actually racist cannot simply stop being racist at an instant. Same for any other belief. Some aspect of choice is there but there are also plenty of other factors.

A good exaple is I cannot believe that the earth is flat. The reason is because I know the evidence. No amount of self brain washing will convince me the earth is flat. I don't think that is a belief that I can "choose" to have.

i think = i believe

best wishes!!!

 

[SkepticX]

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.

I don't think there's a god that's both a viable concept and one that people would worship. Pantheism comes the closest, but to borrow from Carl Sagan, it's ultimately just attaching an "awe button" to the Cosmos, reality. It's the extreme opposite of atheism, but at the same time if God is everything then that basically means God is essentially meaningless--pretty much just means existent or that which exists, since all that exists is God so only that which doesn't exist isn't God. So while being it's absolute opposite, pantheism is functionally the same as atheism.

 

[Fool]

I don't think there's a god that's both a viable concept and one that people would worship. Pantheism comes the closest, but to borrow from Carl Sagan, it's ultimately just attaching an "awe button" to the Cosmos, reality. It's the extreme opposite of atheism, but at the same time if God is everything then that basically means God is essentially meaningless--pretty much just means existent or that which exists, since all that exists is God so only that which doesn't exist isn't God. So while being it's absolute opposite, pantheism is functionally the same as atheism.

how about panentheism?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For some reason, nobody has ever figured out that there are all sorts of things that we can imagine, but that present no particular reason to believe in. Is there, anywhere in the universe, a species that has evolved so that 36 individuals are required to reproduce the species? Who knows? But we can surmise (no matter how infinite the universe might be) that it's pretty unlikely. So, I don't disbelieve it. I simply don't believe it in a way that gives it any hope of credence.

For some other reason, among humans, "gods" occupy some other plane -- if you can't prove they don't exist, and there's a possibility they might exist (as in my example above), it seems the default position is to suppose that they do exist.

Why should this be so? Because of our history -- we've been believing in gods for so long, it seems counterintuitive to do otherwise for most people.

But really, there are only 2 possibilities, when it comes to gods that do exist: either they are transcendent (beyond anything we can know), and therefore nothing we might say about them can have any real meaning, or they affect the world in some way, in which case they are detectable. So far -- in spite of the colourful stories written in scriptures everywhere, there is no actual, verifiable evidence of non-natural effects in the world -- such as could only have been caused by a god -- and therefore no particular reason to suppose (like those 36 partners having a baby) that they exist.

 

[icehorse]

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.

Back to the OP (acknowledging I haven't read the entire thread):

Can we define "gods"? For example we might see an incredibly advanced alien race as "gods". They might be - for example - nearly immortal. They might have FTL speed, unlimited energy...

 

[Cephus]

Do you mean you can't respect their beliefs, or them personally?

Both. They choose how to react to things and they choose to discard intelligence and choose hyper-emotionalism. In fact, a lot of these people are outright anti-intellectual in their views. They'd rather feel good than be factually correct. So no, I can't respect those people at all, or their views.

 

[Copernicus]

Beliefs are scalar, not binary, in nature. A binary property would be "pregnant". A woman cannot be more or less pregnant. Either she is or she isn't. OTOH, a surface may be more or less cool to the touch. Existence is a binary concept. Something either exists or it doesn't. Atheists are people who reject belief in gods, but the word does not usually describe people who have no concept of what a god is or who is truly conflicted over whether they exist. Most people see fence-sitters as agnostics and distinguish agnostics from atheists in that sense.

I have a high level of confidence that gods do not exist at all, and that makes me a strong atheist. I understand the frustration of theists when they come across this very common hair-splitting over whether atheists actually hold a belief that gods do not exist, but the word game is less interesting than the fact that those very same word mincers will behave as if they believed that gods did not exist. That is, they will give detailed reasons not to accent any arguments they come across in favor of god-belief and will usually also go to great lengths to explain why it is doubtful in their minds that gods do exist. One problem is that any admission of the possible of existence is almost immediately taken as confirmation by theists that the atheist has no good reason to doubt the existence of gods. Ultimately, the default position about claims of existence is that they are false unless reasonable evidence can be provided to support such claims.

 

[Cephus]

Beliefs are scalar, not binary, in nature. A binary property would be "pregnant". A woman cannot be more or less pregnant. Either she is or she isn't. OTOH, a surface may be more or less cool to the touch. Existence is a binary concept. Something either exists or it doesn't. Atheists are people who reject belief in gods, but the word does not usually describe people who have no concept of what a god is or who is truly conflicted over whether they exist. Most people see fence-sitters as agnostics and distinguish agnostics from atheists in that sense.

Except that's not how those words work. Agnosticism is not some mid-point between theism and atheism. It answers an entirely different question. Atheism and theism refer to belief. Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge, or at least the availability of knowledge. Everyone is either an atheist or a theist. You can't be both, you can't be neither and it doesn't matter how you feel about it. If you believe in any gods, you are a theist. Period. If you do not, you are an atheist. Period. It doesn't matter how you come to your lack of belief, you are still an atheist. It is simply not possible to both have a belief and no belief, or to have neither a belief nor no belief. The position is binary. Just as you cannot both be pregnant and not pregnant, you cannot both believe in gods and not believe in gods. And the position isn't about rejecting belief, it's about not holding belief. Even if you have no concept of gods, you are an atheist because you do not believe.

I have a high level of confidence that gods do not exist at all, and that makes me a strong atheist. I understand the frustration of theists when they come across this very common hair-splitting over whether atheists actually hold a belief that gods do not exist, but the word game is less interesting than the fact that those very same word mincers will behave as if they believed that gods did not exist. That is, they will give detailed reasons not to accent any arguments they come across in favor of god-belief and will usually also go to great lengths to explain why it is doubtful in their minds that gods do exist. One problem is that any admission of the possible of existence is almost immediately taken as confirmation by theists that the atheist has no good reason to doubt the existence of gods. Ultimately, the default position about claims of existence is that they are false unless reasonable evidence can be provided to support such claims.

And that's fine, you, and I for that matter, have a high level of confidence that at least some gods don't exist. Of course, there are plenty of gods about which you and I have never heard as they are invented every day. We can't really say anything about those gods because we have had no time to evaluate them. But for most gods that I have heard of and studied, they are logically contradictory and simply unsupported, hence I have no reason to take them seriously. And that all comes down to falsifiability. A rational person, when faced with an unsupported claim, will take the position best able to be falsified. If I do not believe in gods, all I have to be presented with is a single example of an actual, demonstrable god and my belief is falsified. But if I believe in gods, what can possibly be presented that will prove my belief wrong? Especially given that most modern gods are designed in such a way as to be totally beyond the ability to prove or disprove?

Hence the no-god atheist position is the only rational position one can have, at least until someone manages to prove their gods are real.

 

[Milton Platt]

I consider my self an atheist, previously a catholic for 45 years.
There is no God. There are no gods. Period. In my humble opinion of course.
Reason - we are constantly being told how wonderful god is and how he loves us, then I turn on the news!
The god or gods people refer too are more likely advanced races of beings who have visited and are possibly still visiting earth.
They would appear as god/s.

Why would you assume they exist at all without evidence to support that assumption?

 

[Cephus]

Why would you assume they exist at all without evidence to support that assumption?

Because the people who assume they exist are operating on emotion, not logic. The idea makes them feel good, hence they really couldn't care less if their beliefs are factually correct or not.

 

[Augustus]

No one should believe anything for which no objective evidence exists, period.

That's not the way our brains evolved to work though.

It is literally impossible to achieve, and even if it wasn't it would be a terrible way to live your life as it is incredibly impractical.

you have to be convinced in order to have a belief.

You just have to be aware of something to have a belief, unconvincing yourself is a later action and if this doesn't happen then you retain the belief.

Every single person in the world holds beliefs of some form that they have not been 'rationally' convinced of. More than this, they also hold beliefs that they have never been convinced of in any form, that is they hold beliefs that they have never actively chosen to hold.

They'd rather feel good than be factually correct.

This is how human cognition works. Once we are emotionally invested in something a whole raft of cognitive functions operate to protect our belief against anything that might threaten it. The recent US election was a good case study for this (both sides)

Some people are better than others at attempting to override these biases, but it is impossible to override them completely.

Anyone who believes that they are not affected by the same cognitive processes that affect all of us is favouring an emotional investment in their own rationality over being factually correct.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not the way our brains evolved to work though.

Kind of irrelevant. Our brains evolved to crave salt, too, but cutting back on salt is still a good idea.

It is literally impossible to achieve, and even if it wasn't it would be a terrible way to live your life as it is incredibly impractical.

A more practical way to put it would be to say that's we should be conscious of the fact that we tend to "know" things through heuristics that - at their best - only work pretty well most of the time, and are generally completely useless for things beyond our normal experience (e.g. purported gods).

We can't be perfectly thoughtful all the time, but almost all of us can do a better job of reflecting on why we believe what we believe and questioning whether our beliefs are as reliable as we think they are.

 

[Augustus]

Kind of irrelevant. Our brains evolved to crave salt, too, but cutting back on salt is still a good idea.

But it makes little sense to say 'no one should crave salt'

A more practical way to put it would be to say that's we should be conscious of the fact that we tend to "know" things through heuristics that - at their best - only work pretty well most of the time, and are generally completely useless for things beyond our normal experience (e.g. purported gods).

We can't be perfectly thoughtful all the time, but almost all of us can do a better job of reflecting on why we believe what we believe and questioning whether our beliefs are as reliable as we think they are.

That's fair enough.

Whether they be religious or 'rationalists' it good that people are aware that their beliefs, views and guiding principles are not as objectively true as they may believe them to be.

It's also worth considering whether or not something being 'objectively' true really matters. Sometimes it does, mostly not so much.

 

[Cephus]

That's not the way our brains evolved to work though.

It is literally impossible to achieve, and even if it wasn't it would be a terrible way to live your life as it is incredibly impractical.

It isn't impossible, lots of people do it every day. And it doesn't matter how we evolved, we also evolved these big mammalian brains that allow us to override our base genetic programming.

You just have to be aware of something to have a belief, unconvincing yourself is a later action and if this doesn't happen then you retain the belief.

I'm aware of lots of beliefs that I don't hold. Belief is not subject to the will. You cannot will yourself into believing something. You actually have to be convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the belief is true.

Every single person in the world holds beliefs of some form that they have not been 'rationally' convinced of. More than this, they also hold beliefs that they have never been convinced of in any form, that is they hold beliefs that they have never actively chosen to hold.

I never said rationally, I said convinced. You can't just decide, out of the blue, to believe that, say, leprechauns live in your shoes. You don't think it's true, therefore you cannot believe it.

This is how human cognition works. Once we are emotionally invested in something a whole raft of cognitive functions operate to protect our belief against anything that might threaten it. The recent US election was a good case study for this (both sides)

It was a good demonstration that one side is hyper-emotional and reactionary at least. Mature adults don't act that way.

Some people are better than others at attempting to override these biases, but it is impossible to override them completely.

And that may be true, but there are lots of people who don't try at all. They aren't interested. They just want to feel good. They are failing to use the advanced brain that they supposedly have.

And that's pathetic.

 

[Augustus]

It isn't impossible, lots of people do it every day. And it doesn't matter how we evolved, we also evolved these big mammalian brains that allow us to override our base genetic programming.

Everybody believes some things for which no objective evidence exists. From trusting someone about what they say to aspects of their entire worldview.

I'm aware of lots of beliefs that I don't hold. Belief is not subject to the will. You cannot will yourself into believing something. You actually have to be convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the belief is true.

The Cartesian view of cognition that you are proposing is not necessarily supported by the science of cognition. For example (2)

I never said rationally, I said convinced. You can't just decide, out of the blue, to believe that, say, leprechauns live in your shoes. You don't think it's true, therefore you cannot believe it.

Who said anything about deciding out of the blue? If we are exposed to information, some of it 'sticks' regardless of its veracity.

It was a good demonstration that one side is hyper-emotional and reactionary at least. Mature adults don't act that way.

Apparently mature adults do indeed react like that. Tens of millions of them.

Too see only one side (I've no idea which you are referring to) as being 'hyper-emotional' seems like a very emotional bias on your behalf.

Which side do you mean btw?

And that may be true, but there are lots of people who don't try at all. They aren't interested. They just want to feel good. They are failing to use the advanced brain that they supposedly have.

And that's pathetic.

I'd say your excessive attachment to your own rationality and consequent faith in your ability to discern between 'truth' and 'not truth' is because you 'just want to feel good'.

It's pretty irrational to have a strong faith in your own rationality considering the scientific evidence that goes against it.

 

[Cephus]

Everybody believes some things for which no objective evidence exists. From trusting someone about what they say to aspects of their entire worldview.

It depends on what kind of things you're talking about. There are things that simply are not open to objective evidence, but anything that exists in or interacts with the real universe certainly ought to. And that means all gods.

The Cartesian view of cognition that you are proposing is not necessarily supported by the science of cognition. For example (2)

http://www.danielgilbert.com/Gillbert (How Mental Systems Believe).PDF

By all means, demonstrate anything that you can believe that is subject to the will. I don't mean claiming to believe, I mean actually believe.

Who said anything about deciding out of the blue? If we are exposed to information, some of it 'sticks' regardless of its veracity.

I never said the information had to be true, I said that you have to be convinced that it is true. You can be convinced of things that aren't actually objectively true, but you cannot hold a belief as true that you are convinced is otherwise.

Apparently mature adults do indeed react like that. Tens of millions of them.

Apparently and actually are two different things.

Too see only one side (I've no idea which you are referring to) as being 'hyper-emotional' seems like a very emotional bias on your behalf.

Not at all. And I was referring to a very specific instance, where people can't accept that, in a fair fight, they lost, so they instead riot and whine and cry and go hide in safe spaces because they can't deal with reality. I never said the other side doesn't act just as immaturely in other situations.