Trying To Understand Atheism

[Thumper]

I've never met one who doesn't. Most accept that there is at least a tiny possibility that they could be wrong though.

Yep. It's like I said - inductive reasoning.

For example, if all swans that we have observed so far are white, we may induce that the possibility that all swans are white is reasonable. We have good reason to believe the conclusion from the premise, but the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed.

That's generally the way I process the world.

 

[Augustus]

Yep. It's like I said - inductive reasoning.

For example, if all swans that we have observed so far are white, we may induce that the possibility that all swans are white is reasonable. We have good reason to believe the conclusion from the premise, but the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed.

That's generally the way I process the world.

Have you really never met an atheist who positively believes there is no god though? Unless you haven't met many atheists that would be a remarkable statistical anomaly.

Some of them even took out adverts...

 

[Thumper]

Have you really never met an atheist who positively believes there is no god though? Unless you haven't met many atheists that would be a remarkable statistical anomaly.

Some of them even took out adverts...

Apparently you missed the word "probably".

 

[ArtieE]

So is a Buddhist a strong or weak atheist? How about a Humanist?

Ask one.

Give me an example of a "strong atheist". Even Richard Dawkins allows for the possibility of gods yet undefined.

See post 480.

 

[Augustus]

Apparently you missed the word "probably".

Someone who believes god probably doesn't exist believes god doesn't exist. Are you arguing that unless you are 100% certain then it doesn't qualify as a belief? People who are 99.999% certain that there is no god can't be considered to believe god doesn't exist?

I very much believe OJ Simpson murdered his wife, but accept I might be wrong. Does that mean I don't believe OJ Simpson murdered his wife?

 

[Thumper]

Someone who believes god probably doesn't exist believes god doesn't exist. Are you arguing that unless you are 100% certain then it doesn't qualify as a belief? People who are 99.999% certain that there is no god can't be considered to believe god doesn't exist?

I very much believe OJ Simpson murdered his wife, but accept I might be wrong. Does that mean I don't believe OJ Simpson murdered his wife?

So, do you accept that you could be wrong about your belief in God?

 

[Thumper]

Ask one.See post 480.

Read it.

I thought the title of this thread was "Trying to Understand Atheism"? When are you going to listen to an actual atheist who is telling you that you are looking at it wrong?

Maybe the title of this thread should be "Telling Atheists What They Believe and Ignoring Whatever Atheists Say".

 

[Augustus]

So, do you accept that you could be wrong about your belief in God?

My disbelief you mean?

There's a small possibility.

 

[Thumper]

My disbelief you mean?

There's a small possibility.

Interesting.

So, you still refer to it as "belief". Doesn't that get interpreted to "belief on faith"? (Which invariable leads to attempts to shift burden of proof.)

That's where most conversations I have in this realm get to, and it's not the same thing. That's why I much prefer to talk about confidence. Based on the lack of evidence to support any god beliefs, I am confident gods don't exist, but I could always be convinced differently by evidence.

 

[Augustus]

Based on the lack of evidence to support any god beliefs, I am confident gods don't exist, but I could always be convinced differently by evidence.

Same with me, but the second part is pretty much a philosophical technicality. Functionally (as I imagine is true for the vast majority of atheists) it is totally irrelevant.

Interesting.

So, you still refer to it as "belief". Doesn't that get interpreted to "belief on faith"? (Which invariable leads to attempts to shift burden of proof.)

That's where most conversations I have in this realm get to, and it's not the same thing. That's why I much prefer to talk about confidence.

I have to see it as a belief as I don't see how adopting a particular stance on an issue could be considered as anything other than a belief. Some beliefs have a more solid foundation than others, but they are still beliefs.

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow with an enormous degree of certainty, it's still a belief as well as being as close to a scientific fact as possible.

I consider it cognitively impossible to not hold a belief on the existence of god(s) if you can comprehend the words god and exists.

That some people wish to use the ambiguity of the term belief rhetorically for purposes of advocacy doesn't change what I consider the nature of cognition to be.

Saying that, all worldviews/ideologies, whether they be theistic or atheistic in nature do rely on a significant degree of belief in the sense of 'subjective personal preference'.

 

[Thumper]

Same with me, but the second part is pretty much a philosophical technicality. Functionally (as I imagine is true for the vast majority of atheists) it is totally irrelevant.

I have to see it as a belief as I don't see how adopting a particular stance on an issue could be considered as anything other than a belief. Some beliefs have a more solid foundation than others, but they are still beliefs.

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow with an enormous degree of certainty, it's still a belief as well as being as close to a scientific fact as possible.

I consider it cognitively impossible to not hold a belief on the existence of god(s) if you can comprehend the words god and exists.

That some people wish to use the ambiguity of the term belief rhetorically for purposes of advocacy doesn't change what I consider the nature of cognition to be.

Saying that, all worldviews/ideologies, whether they be theistic or atheistic in nature do rely on a significant degree of belief in the sense of 'subjective personal preference'.

I understand. I would still note that the term "belief" has far too much baggage to be a good tool for effective communications.

Now, to be a "strong atheist" one would have to have the same but opposite belief as a "strong theist". Which is to say that you know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung, which is to say "I do not believe, I know?"

So, again, one should be careful with communications when the worldviews are so diverse. The very terminology of confidence levels and inductive reasoning are often lost in ineffective communications.

 

[ArtieE]

Now, to be a "strong atheist" one would have to have the same but opposite belief as a "strong theist". Which is to say that you know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung, which is to say "I do not believe, I know?

You are so confused it's easier just to start over.

Gnostic theist: Knows gods exist.
Gnostic atheist: Knows gods don't exist.
Theist: Believes gods exist.
Weak atheist: Doesn't believe gods exist. Doesn't believe gods don't exist.
Strong atheist: Doesn't believe gods exist. Believes gods don't exist.

Surely that should be clear enough?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Have you really never met an atheist who positively believes there is no god though? Unless you haven't met many atheists that would be a remarkable statistical anomaly.

Some of them even took out adverts...

I'll be your huckleberry. I wholeheartedly believe the idea of deities is absolutely ridiculous and primitive, and that none exist, anywhere.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

If in the last 10,000 years no one has been able to provide any tangible evidence for the existence of God, then it is reasonable to presume that there is none.

 

[Nakosis]

If you don't believe gods exist and you don't believe gods don't exist you are automatically sitting on the fence and haven't jumped down to any of the two sides.

So some alien life-form that exists in the Andromeda galaxy is sitting on the fence about whether Russians hacked the US election or not...

Me, I'd suspect they don't care. Probably having no reason to give it any thought.

That's my view. I don't care whether something for which there is no tangible evidence exists or not. It's not important enough to give any thought to. That's not to say that in the past I've haven't been on one side or the other. Just I've come to realize it doesn't matter. No point on being on the fence about something that no longer matters to you.

You see me as being on the fence about whether the Dodgers will win the pennant this year when I don't even watch baseball.

 

[Thumper]

You are so confused it's easier just to start over.

Gnostic theist: Knows gods exist.
Gnostic atheist: Knows gods don't exist.
Theist: Believes gods exist.
Weak atheist: Doesn't believe gods exist. Doesn't believe gods don't exist.
Strong atheist: Doesn't believe gods exist. Believes gods don't exist.

Surely that should be clear enough?

Does a theist just believe that gods exist, or do they claim to know and just call it "belief?"

Define weak theism vs. strong theism?

Your breakdown is just silly. Wouldn't a "weak atheist" in your view be an "agnostic".

There is a continuum of "grey" and you are trying to create distinct categories to pigeonhole thought. Just stop this nonsense.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

You are unreasonably assuming that holding a position is required. It seems that the most prudent position is to admit that there isn't enough evidence either way. In other words, there isn't enough verifiable evidence to persuade me that God exists. But, there also isn't enough verifiable evidence to persuade me that God cannot exist. So, I merely "lack belief in the existence of God", withholding belief due to lack of evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

If in the last 10,000 years no one has been able to provide any tangible evidence for the existence of God, then it is reasonable to presume that there is none.

I agree.
It just isn't provable.

 

[ArtieE]

So some alien life-form that exists in the Andromeda galaxy is sitting on the fence about whether Russians hacked the US election or not...

Me, I'd suspect they don't care. Probably having no reason to give it any thought.

That's my view. I don't care whether something for which there is no tangible evidence exists or not. It's not important enough to give any thought to. That's not to say that in the past I've haven't been on one side or the other. Just I've come to realize it doesn't matter. No point on being on the fence about something that no longer matters to you.

You see me as being on the fence about whether the Dodgers will win the pennant this year when I don't even watch baseball.

Explicit weak atheists sit on the fence and know they are. Implicit atheists may be unaware that there's a fence or that there are different sides. If you don't care enough about whether there are gods or not to have any beliefs about them you are an apatheist.

 

[ArtieE]

Does a theist just believe that gods exist, or do they claim to know and just call it "belief?"

Those who say they believe gods exist are called theists. Those who claim to know gods exist are called gnostic theists. Of course they may be as confused as you and don't know the proper terms. That's what I'm trying to alleviate.

Define weak theism vs. strong theism?

There is no such official terms.

Your breakdown is just silly. Wouldn't a "weak atheist" in your view be an "agnostic"?

The breakdown is the official breakdown. You'll find it many places online. An agnostic doesn't know. A weak atheist doesn't believe. Not knowing and not believing is different.

There is a continuum of "grey" and you are trying to create distinct categories to pigeonhole thought. Just stop this nonsense.

And you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The simple categories are there so that people like you can at least have a chance to learn the basics.