Trying To Understand Atheism

[LuisDantas]

Fluid across society as a whole, but not within most individuals.

Imo most self-identified atheists have an idea of what they think a god is. What this is or whether it is logically consistent is unimportant.

In real life, I've never met a single person who has claimed not to understand what a god is, it is a minority view. As such it doesn't have a big effect when making a generalisation about most atheists.

We will have to agree to disagree.

For what it is worth, I do not understand what a god is.

Sure, I make a lot of wild guesses and I try real hard to build a working model of what all those people are talking about. I also have a very strong suspicion that it is a futile and pointless effort.

None of that changes the fact that I do not understand what a god is.

 

[LuisDantas]

And it is my view that this is what atheists actually believe but refuse to admit. I don't think the notion of implicit atheism is coherent, or even cognitively possible. If you can comment upon it, you have a position about it.

That is blowing the significance of the concept way out of proportion and will definitely lead you into wrong conclusions.

It's a word game to manipulate the argument. That's all this whole thing boils down to.

Case in point.

 

[1137]

Many atheists are also agnostic.
Me personally I don't believe in any gods and I don't believe any exist. I'm still open to being wrong but as it stands that's how I feel.

The positions aren't the same.
To "not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist"
isn't much of a claim....it's about the lack of evidence leading to not believing
But to claim "there are no gods in the universe" is an unverifiable statement
that there are no gods. Essentially, it's weak v strong atheism.

Not "logically identical."

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

There are lots of rumors (and photoshopped images) of melanistic "black" cougars and lions. So far, none have been documented to exist. While it's theoretically possible for black lions and black cougars to exist, because melanism exists in other felines, I'm not convinced any live in the wild or captivity. I'm not absolutely sure, but I do not believe it to be the case, and will only change my mind with some new evidence that heretofore hasn't been presented.

I am absolutely sure there are no true albino (adult) horses running around, because the gene which causes true albinism in horses is fatal, and any foals born with it will die in a couple days or less. I am convinced there are no wild or captive (adult) true albino horses.

See the difference?

You would all have a point if we were talking about knowledge and certainty, I.e. "I know there are no gods." We aren't, we're talking about belief, what's more likely. If you see no reason to believe in any gods, why in the world would you not believe/have faith in a godless universe? Sure you can be open to changing your belief based on evidence, but are you out there in the world thinking there are gods, or are no gods? There's really no middle answer.

 

[Willamena]

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?

I have no explanation to offer, but I've found that discussions with them usually descend into essential metaphysical disagreements. A few of them don't even believe in truth. More often, it's a misuse of language that has been allowed to inform the metaphysical image.

But that's neither here nor there.

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.

This is how I see these people:
It's all about that little word "not," the negation made real. Not-things are given to exist. Not-actions are given to be concepts. And so just not-believing is given to be sufficient to call yourself atheist. The buck stops there.

 

[Revoltingest]

You would all have a point if we were talking about knowledge and certainty, I.e. "I know there are no gods." We aren't, we're talking about belief, what's more likely. If you see no reason to believe in any gods, why in the world would you not believe/have faith in a godless universe? Sure you can be open to changing your belief based on evidence, but are you out there in the world thinking there are gods, or are no gods? There's really no middle answer.

You're over-complicating things.
Consider.....
There's no evidence for gods.
So I don't believe in any.
Simple, eh.

 

[1137]

You're over-complicating things.
Consider.....
There's no evidence for gods.
So I don't believe in any.
Simple, eh.

That's exactly the point! If you don't believe in gods, how exactly can you not believe the universe is without gods?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's exactly the point! If you don't believe in gods, how exactly can you not believe the universe is without gods?

I speculate that it's without gods.
But there's no evidence proving this.
So I don't "believe".

 

[1137]

I speculate that it's without gods.
But there's no evidence proving this.
So I don't "believe".

But you don't need proof for belief, only for knowledge.

 

[Revoltingest]

But you don't need proof for belief, only for knowledge.

Call it a personal preference.

 

[Valjean]

That's exactly the point! If you don't believe in gods, how exactly can you not believe the universe is without gods?

I don't see a problem here. I'm perfectly open to believing all sorts of things I don't currently believe in.
As I said before: Pending evidence.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is how I see these people:
It's all about that little word "not," the negation made real. Not-things are given to exist. Not-actions are given to be concepts. And so just not-believing is given to be sufficient to call yourself atheist. The buck stops there.

I see it rather the other way around. Absence is absence, yet you and others somehow see the need to give it substance before it can be real.

 

[YmirGF]

That's exactly the point! If you don't believe in gods, how exactly can you not believe the universe is without gods?

If one does not believe in gods, one is pretty much saying that they do not harbor any reasonable expectation that gods exist anywhere, outside the minds of those who believe otherwise, of course.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

Atheism is a lack of belief. It's like you just said..we see no "reason" to believe. I think the onus is on the one asserting the claim a deity or deities they believe in exist.

 

[Valjean]

If one does not believe in gods, one is pretty much saying that they do not harbor any reasonable expectation that gods exist anywhere, outside the minds of those who believe otherwise, of course.

I don't believe in space aliens, but I'm perfectly open to their being out there, somewhere.

 

[idav]

Call it a personal preference.

Often referred to as believing, or having opinion that there are no gods.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If you are aware of the concept of gods then you hold a belief about their existence or not. Either they exist, you believe their existence is unknowable, you consider the concept is meaningless or that they don't exist (even if you accept that you might be wrong about this).

Are there any other possibilities you can think of?

I don't think it is cognitively possible to not believe anything, so those who say 'don't believe' still must fall into another category that reflects the actual belief that they do hold.

So are you suggesting that (no belief) is belief in of itself?

I tend to view it as acceptance. For me I've been unable to accept the notion gods exist due to lack of evidence.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't believe in space aliens, but I'm perfectly open to they're being out there, somewhere.

And I agree. I just draw the line at god(s). I see that issue as being more of a limitation of human thought and not a valid assumption to hold about possible alien beings (IE. that they be gods or even godlike).

 

[LuisDantas]

Often referred to as believing, or having opinion that there are no gods.

The word belief is indeed often used to describe atheism.

A fine example of how the same word can have very contrasting meanings depending on context.

 

[Revoltingest]

Often referred to as believing, or having opinion that there are no gods.

"Believing" & "having an opinion" are different levels of commitment.

 

[Fool]

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.

indifference is still a belief, a view point.