Trying To Understand Atheism

[Augustus]

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.

Our most important beliefs tend to not be open to objective evidence though, by which I mean our worldview and value system.

We all make up or buy into fictions/myths to explain the world which are largely influenced by our cultural environment and upbringing.

Whether or not one believes in gods, karma, a collective entity called 'humanity', the emancipatory power of human reason or whatever else floats their boat, they are buying into things which aren't premised on objective evidence.

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.

I never said anything about being subject to the will, what I said was belief is automatic on exposure to information.

The Cartesian 'rational' view of belief is that on comprehension of new information one remains neutral and acceptance is a later and deliberate act.

The Spinozan view (which seems to be more accurate scientifically) is that on comprehension of new information belief is automatic, and it requires a deliberate act to disbelieve or revert to a position of neutrality.

The Cartesian view contends information has no effect unless you consciously allow it to, the Spinozan contends that all information has an effect of some kind. This leads to people holding some beliefs that they have never been convinced of just exposed to, especially on issues that you are not actively engaged in or that you don't hold strong opinions on.

An example would be if you watch breaking news about a terrorist attack in some far off country. Even though you know that most of breaking news speculation will later turn out to be incorrect, your later memories and judgments on this issue will be affected by exposure to what is said.

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.

Really you have to be convinced that it is not true or unproven to not believe it.

Apparently and actually are two different things.

Other than personal preference, what decides how 'mature adults' are supposed to behave though? It's just something that you make up.

 

[ArtieE]

I never said anything about being subject to the will, what I said was belief is automatic on exposure to information.

If a person screams "run from the sabre tooth tiger" I suppose starting to debate with myself whether to believe there was a tiger there or not wouldn't be a good survival tactic.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Could you believe it though? Could you choose to believe in Christianity right now? I don't think you could.

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.

I can't respect their arguments that is for sure. I try my hardest to respect people but that doesn't always last.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

i think = i believe

best wishes!!!

We can play the semantics game if you'd like. The term "belief" itself has many meanings. I believe that the belief of ect ect ect isn't always a void argument. A belief can be valid or based on evidence. Some beliefs are not. The colloquial usage of the term in English has everything from supersticion to expectations. I believe that 2 + 2 is 4. I have good evidence for that as well. I don't think anyone here is going to argue that 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Pantheism often comes with a strong concept of sentience or purpose to the universe. That is drastically different than atheism.

 

[Fool]

We can play the semantics game if you'd like. The term "belief" itself has many meanings. I believe that the belief of ect ect ect isn't always a void argument. A belief can be valid or based on evidence. Some beliefs are not. The colloquial usage of the term in English has everything from supersticion to expectations. I believe that 2 + 2 is 4. I have good evidence for that as well. I don't think anyone here is going to argue that 2 + 2 = 4.

there are 3 aspects of any belief system. I've given them before; they are: 1. Positive, 2. Negative, and 3. Indifference.


i'm basically indifferent to most other belief systems; so long as it doesn't negatively or positively affect me. i generally could care less; if someone thinks/believes that soda and junk food are positive food sources.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

there are 3 aspects of any belief system. I've given them before; they are: 1. Positive, 2. Negative, and 3. Indifference.


i'm basically indifferent to most other belief systems; so long as it doesn't negatively or positively affect me. i generally could care less; if someone thinks/believes that soda and junk food are positive food sources.

But what is yoru belief system based on?

 

[SkepticX]

Pantheism often comes with a strong concept of sentience or purpose to the universe. That is drastically different than atheism.

Right ... ?

I'm not sure how often that's included, but yeah, if anything I'd say the sentient cosmos version is an even more extreme opposite of atheism. It's the idea that everything is God that makes it the extreme opposite. Any additional particulars about it are probably just going to be trivial adjustments to how extremely opposed the ideas are, and they'll still end up being functionally the same because everything is God actually makes the term meaningless--in that context "God" just means "everything" or "the cosmos" for which we already have perfectly good, non-loaded terms.

 

[Fool]

But what is yoru belief system based on?

questioning my beliefs of reality based on experience and amending it; if needed, repeat.

 

[Cephus]

Our most important beliefs tend to not be open to objective evidence though, by which I mean our worldview and value system.

I don't know about you but I certainly do. I look at all of my views through the lens of logic and reason. I don't just have an emotional attachment to my positions, I rationally hash out why I have them and whether they are worth holding.

Don't you?

We all make up or buy into fictions/myths to explain the world which are largely influenced by our cultural environment and upbringing.

That's pretty sad if you actually do that.

Whether or not one believes in gods, karma, a collective entity called 'humanity', the emancipatory power of human reason or whatever else floats their boat, they are buying into things which aren't premised on objective evidence.

Those things for which objective evidence ought to be expected, meaning things that actually exist in the real world, those are things that we should require objective evidence in order to accept. Things for which objective evidence is meaningless, ideas, thoughts and the like, those are things that objective evidence really means nothing for. So which is it when we talk about gods? Are they real or are they just ideas?

I never said anything about being subject to the will, what I said was belief is automatic on exposure to information.

Exposure to convincing information. I would assume you are in possession of information on leprechauns. Do you therefore automatically believe in leprechauns?

 

[Cephus]

Could you believe it though? Could you choose to believe in Christianity right now? I don't think you could.

Not unless I was convinced that Christianity was factually true. Nobody could. Nobody chooses their beliefs out of the blue, they have to be convinced that they are worthwhile.

I can't respect their arguments that is for sure. I try my hardest to respect people but that doesn't always last.

Respect isn't a gift. It has to be earned. Nobody should be respected, beyond a modicum of very basic respect, for anything until they do something to earn it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Trying To Understand Atheism

G-d does exist.
There is nothing about Atheism that needs understanding. It is plain misunderstanding.

I don't find any positive argument to deny existence of G-d as per attributes mentioned in Quran.
However, there is no compulsion for one to believe in Him.

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]

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.

Cephus, one of the valid word senses of "agnostic" is something like a fence-sitter--someone who cannot decide one way or another. Yet another, very distinct, sense is someone who denies absolute knowledge or "gnosis". "Atheist" usually refers to a person who rejects belief in gods, especially the god or gods of their native community. No word in any language is completely unambiguous. The same is true of "atheist", but, like "agnostic", it has a popular usage that serves as the default sense that people associate with the word independently of context. It is possible to believe or disbelieve in gods with varying degrees of certainty. Pregnancy is not a scalar concept, but belief is.

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?

I think that you are oversimplifying the issue. Gods do not exist independently of other beliefs about the nature of reality. You cannot know for certain that Santa Claus does not exist, but you think that you know enough about reality to rule out that possibility with near absolute certainty. (At least, that is my initial assumption about you, assuming that you are a normal adult.) You do not reject belief in Santa Claus merely because you have yet to discover evidence that he exists. The fact is that, given what you know about reality, you do not expect to ever encounter such evidence. In my case, that is how I view the existence of God and, in fact, other entities that might potentially be gods. It has a lot to do with the fact that we have solid evidence that mental events are entirely dependent on physical brain activity and that awareness of surroundings and self-awareness makes utterly perfect sense for living entities that move around in chaotic environments. That is, brains would be necessary to make it possible for beings like us to survive.

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.

Rational positions depend on assumptions--the premises that drive us to conclusions. Different people can arrive at very different conclusions, if they model reality differently. I do not see believers as totally irrational. They usually think that they have very good reasons to believe in the existence of their deities. It is those reasons that I disagree with. You can't really mount a rational argument for or against belief in gods unless you can change the way people think about reality. If they believe in magic and a spiritual world that exists independently of the physical world, then belief in God or gods may be a rational conclusion to arrive at. It isn't for me, because that doesn't fit with my view of how nature works.

 

[Cephus]

Cephus, one of the valid word senses of "agnostic" is something like a fence-sitter--someone who cannot decide one way or another. Yet another, very distinct, sense is someone who denies absolute knowledge or "gnosis". "Atheist" usually refers to a person who rejects belief in gods, especially the god or gods of their native community. No word in any language is completely unambiguous. The same is true of "atheist", but, like "agnostic", it has a popular usage that serves as the default sense that people associate with the word independently of context. It is possible to believe or disbelieve in gods with varying degrees of certainty. Pregnancy is not a scalar concept, but belief is.

But that assumes the choices are belief or disbelief. They are not. It is belief or no belief. You cannot both believe and not believe. You do not need to disbelieve to not believe. I don't have to take your beliefs seriously, and I don't. I don't have to disbelieve them, I simply find them not worthy of consideration. That's why I'm an atheist, because I don't believe you.

I think that you are oversimplifying the issue. Gods do not exist independently of other beliefs about the nature of reality. You cannot know for certain that Santa Claus does not exist, but you think that you know enough about reality to rule out that possibility with near absolute certainty. (At least, that is my initial assumption about you, assuming that you are a normal adult.) You do not reject belief in Santa Claus merely because you have yet to discover evidence that he exists. The fact is that, given what you know about reality, you do not expect to ever encounter such evidence. In my case, that is how I view the existence of God and, in fact, other entities that might potentially be gods. It has a lot to do with the fact that we have solid evidence that mental events are entirely dependent on physical brain activity and that awareness of surroundings and self-awareness makes utterly perfect sense for living entities that move around in chaotic environments. That is, brains would be necessary to make it possible for beings like us to survive.

If gods actually exist in reality, then they do exist independently of anything else. Either they are real or they are not. Their existence is not contingent on anything that you believe. If it is, then they don't actually exist, they are something that you made up. And in fact, I do reject belief in Santa Claus as a real entity because, at least from every shred of evidence we have, there's no reason to think that Santa, or gods, actually exist. It is irrelevant what I think I know, it is only relevant what I actually know and based on what I actually know, I find no credible reason to believe in Santa Claus or gods or leprechauns or the Easter Bunny. If evidence comes along later, I'll re-evaluate my position, but not until.

Rational positions depend on assumptions--the premises that drive us to conclusions. Different people can arrive at very different conclusions, if they model reality differently. I do not see believers as totally irrational. They usually think that they have very good reasons to believe in the existence of their deities. It is those reasons that I disagree with. You can't really mount a rational argument for or against belief in gods unless you can change the way people think about reality. If they believe in magic and a spiritual world that exists independently of the physical world, then belief in God or gods may be a rational conclusion to arrive at. It isn't for me, because that doesn't fit with my view of how nature works.

They depend on rational assumptions. Regardless of how you model reality, there is an underlying reality there that exists independent of your model. Your model is only as useful as it accurately depicts what reality actually is. The closer you can get to actual reality, the more rational your model actually is. I don't care how people think about reality, I care what reality objectively is and those who don't care about what reality objectively is, outside of their biases, are irrational from the get go because they are not starting from a rational place. You cannot get to a rational conclusion from irrational premises. And that's what all theists are doing, by definition.

 

[Copernicus]

But that assumes the choices are belief or disbelief. They are not. It is belief or no belief. You cannot both believe and not believe. You do not need to disbelieve to not believe. I don't have to take your beliefs seriously, and I don't. I don't have to disbelieve them, I simply find them not worthy of consideration. That's why I'm an atheist, because I don't believe you.

I'm not sure that you got my point about scalar concepts. People do, in fact, believe contradictions, but there is a twist to how that works. A contradiction forms a pair of incompatible beliefs that we assign different confidence values to. So here are two beliefs that form a contradiction pair:
1) God exists.
2) God does not exist.
We assign confidence to both of those beliefs on the basis of other beliefs that we have confidence in. Some of us assign a higher level to belief #1; some of us to belief #2. The former are theists and the latter atheists. Agnostics are those who assign relatively similar levels of confidence to both beliefs. Notice that existence, like pregnancy, is not a scalar concept. If you have no concept of what "God" means, then that is a case where you truly "lack belief", because you can't evaluate a contradiction pair. So that is why I do not agree with those who try to define atheism as mere "lack of belief". Nor do I agree with those who define it as an absolutist position.

If gods actually exist in reality, then they do exist independently of anything else. Either they are real or they are not. Their existence is not contingent on anything that you believe. If it is, then they don't actually exist, they are something that you made up. And in fact, I do reject belief in Santa Claus as a real entity because, at least from every shred of evidence we have, there's no reason to think that Santa, or gods, actually exist. It is irrelevant what I think I know, it is only relevant what I actually know and based on what I actually know, I find no credible reason to believe in Santa Claus or gods or leprechauns or the Easter Bunny. If evidence comes along later, I'll re-evaluate my position, but not until.

I think that you are confusing the act of believing something with what is believed. It is relatively easy for adults to assign an asymptotic (approaching 0%) level of confidence to the belief that Santa exists and another (approaching 100%) that Santa does exist. There are very few fence-sitting agnostics among adults. The same is not true for deities, because the web of beliefs that supports belief in gods is much stronger. As adults, we understand perfectly well why rich kids get more presents than poor kids, and it isn't because they are less naughty. But confidence in god-belief rests on a much broader base of other beliefs.

They depend on rational assumptions. Regardless of how you model reality, there is an underlying reality there that exists independent of your model. Your model is only as useful as it accurately depicts what reality actually is. The closer you can get to actual reality, the more rational your model actually is. I don't care how people think about reality, I care what reality objectively is and those who don't care about what reality objectively is, outside of their biases, are irrational from the get go because they are not starting from a rational place. You cannot get to a rational conclusion from irrational premises. And that's what all theists are doing, by definition.

But my whole position here is that human beings are not fully rational in their thought processes. Indeed, our brains form massively complex chains of associations, and analogical (associative) reasoning is the basis of all animal cognition. Analogy is not, strictly speaking, a logical thought process, but it is the basis of our cognition. Deductive logic (forward and backward chaining) is a fascinating process, because it provides us with a method for resolving the contradictions that we need to handle in order to survive in a chaotic environment. We need to create elaborate predictive models in order to predict future events in that chaotic environment--hypotheses and theories that can be tested through observation and experimentation. All logic does is check consistency between a set of premises and a conclusion. It allows us to choose the member of a contradiction pair that best fits our dominant belief system. The premises themselves could be false, and logic is no good at proving everything to be true. It can only guarantee consistency across a set of beliefs. Neither theists nor atheists are rational thinkers. Both use logic to "rationalize" their conclusions, but they just have confidence in a different set of premises.

 

[gnostic]

there are 3 aspects of any belief system. I've given them before; they are: 1. Positive, 2. Negative, and 3. Indifference.


i'm basically indifferent to most other belief systems; so long as it doesn't negatively or positively affect me. i generally could care less; if someone thinks/believes that soda and junk food are positive food sources.

The problem is not "belief", fool.

The real problem is "faith".

Faith is a acceptance of or conviction to belief, and when "faith" has to do with the superstitious belief in spirit, god, miracles, afterlife, or religion/cult, which defy law of nature (reality), or defy logic (proof) or cannot be verified empirically (evidences), then this "faith" become blind faith.

Faith in all-powerful god or in resurrection defy reality, is called supernatural.

 

[Augustus]

I don't know about you but I certainly do. I look at all of my views through the lens of logic and reason. I don't just have an emotional attachment to my positions, I rationally hash out why I have them and whether they are worth holding.

Don't you?

No one is more credulous or more naively buys into a myth than a 'rationalist' as regards the myth of their own rationality.

You try to look into your views, as much as possible, using logic and reason, but you are still affected by emotions, culture, experience, cognitive ability, etc. You are still a product of your environment and genetics though, just like everybody else.

That is the only position that is supported by evidence, logic and reason.

That's pretty sad if you actually do that.

Remember when you were talking about how 'mature adults' are supposed to behave? That was reliant on a narrative/fiction to justify. You just lack the self awareness to realise it.

What's sad is that you are so blindly and emotionally attached to the myth of your own rationality that you would ignore all of the scientific evidence that shows we are not rational creatures.

'Rationalists' are generally amongst the least introspective and least willing to change their opinions of any group when it comes to their core beliefs.

If you actually believe that you alone have transcended the genetic and biological limitations of the human mind, then you are not really open to reason.

Those things for which objective evidence ought to be expected, meaning things that actually exist in the real world, those are things that we should require objective evidence in order to accept. Things for which objective evidence is meaningless, ideas, thoughts and the like, those are things that objective evidence really means nothing for. So which is it when we talk about gods? Are they real or are they just ideas?

They fulfill a foundational role in narratives, just like 'reason' does in your narrative.

Exposure to convincing information. I would assume you are in possession of information on leprechauns. Do you therefore automatically believe in leprechauns?

Why quote out of context to deliberately miss the point?

The Spinozan view (which seems to be more accurate scientifically) is that on comprehension of new information belief is automatic, and it requires a deliberate act to disbelieve or revert to a position of neutrality.

When you were little and first heard of leprechauns you probably believed they existed, same with dragons, unicorns, giraffes and monkeys.

Later on you corrected some of theses beliefs. A child accepts what they comprehend as true, and this doesn't magically change when they hit a certain age.

What happens is our critical reasoning develops and allows us to better classify information we are exposed to as false or unproven. While we become much better at this, we are still far from perfect hence false beliefs exist in us all.

 

[McBell]

G-d does exist.

Bold empty claim

There is nothing about Atheism that needs understanding.

Thus the beginning of your error.

It is plain misunderstanding.

For you, yes.
For The atheists I know, no.

I don't find any positive argument to deny existence of G-d as per attributes mentioned in Quran.

Of course you don't.
That is what happens when you place the Koran as the basis by which you compare.

However, there is no compulsion for one to believe in Him.

Yet there are so many Muslims who try to convert others to Islam.
Not to mention the Muslims trying to convert other Muslims to their favourite version of Islam.

Atheism is not a well-defined world view

Incorrect.
Atheism is not a world view.

and hence its weaknesses.

Since atheism is not a world view, the only "weakness" is in those who think and or claim it is.

It is neither based on Word of Revelation nor on any scientific footings. Hence to me, it is a faith based non-religion.

Sadly it is not the false dichotomy you present it as.

 

[Fool]

The problem is not "belief", fool.

The real problem is "faith".

Faith is a acceptance of or conviction to belief, and when "faith" has to do with the superstitious belief in spirit, god, miracles, afterlife, or religion/cult, which defy law of nature (reality), or defy logic (proof) or cannot be verified empirically (evidences), then this "faith" become blind faith.

Faith in all-powerful god or in resurrection defy reality, is called supernatural.

a belief(hypothesis) is required in any system in order to test against reality. unfortunately faith in scientism is still a belief system. the only absolute is that there are no absolutes in science

faith

faith isn't limited to all powerful otherness and not all things work from logic. Love isn't a logical aspect and science can't rationalize it.

 

[Marsh]

Strong atheists actively believe gods don't exist.

I have issues with this phraseology. Atheist is not a verb, it is a noun. I am without question a strong atheist. A long time friend once introduced me to his Latter Day Saint wife as a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, but I would never describe myself as actively believing gods don't exit. I can't say I really even understand what 'actively believing' means. I am just as convinced Santa Claus does not exist. Would you describe me as actively believing Santa is not real?

The majority of atheists are weak atheists. People who are simply not theists.

Again, I have issues. When I first began the journey toward atheism I was in the position of not knowing whether God existed, though I was inclined to doubt the probability. That is possibly being a weak atheist, but I was never "simply not an theist." I was on a search for truth and simply had not yet decided what to think. I have talked with many atheists, but I can't say I have chatted with any who were simply not theists.

A few thinkers have come up with terms to pigeon-hole atheists, but most of us don't fit comfortably into these slots.